Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2019, 23:47
by blain
"The U.S. Marine Corps is poised to reshuffle planned fleets of Lockheed Martin F-35Bs and F-35Cs for the third time in a decade, in response to a fundamental shift in the service’s operational philosophy that could affect acquisition priorities across the aviation branch."

https://aviationweek.com/defense/marine ... and-f-35cs

There you go. More Cs, less Bs. The Cs have more range and more payload. A much better fit for slugging it out at range against a near peer threat. No numbers yet, but replacing the Harriers one for one with Bs would be a little overkill, but a good start.

Berger is slaying his service's sacred cows and challenging Marine dogma.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2019, 01:26
by spazsinbad
Anyone have the full text for the article 'blain' cites above please? This is only what is available for NONsubscribers: :(
"The U.S. Marine Corps is poised to reshuffle planned fleets of Lockheed Martin F-35Bs and F-35Cs for the third time in a decade, in response to a fundamental shift in the service’s operational philosophy that could affect acquisition priorities across the aviation branch. Marine and Navy officials are renegotiating the terms of a tactical aircraft (TacAir) integration (TAI) agreement, with a clear mandate from newly appointed Marines Commandant Gen. David Berger, which favors less …" https://aviationweek.com/defense/marine ... and-f-35cs

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2019, 03:39
by blindpilot
spazsinbad wrote:Anyone have the full text for the article 'blain' cites above please? This is only what is available for NONsubscribers: :(
...


Ditto that request. Does it specify change in total numbers or ...

Is this just rehash of the decision earlier this year to move C's left and B's right to support TAI carrier commitments?

BP

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2019, 03:55
by spazsinbad
Recent usefulness of the BEEs demonstrated:
How to Seize Islands, Set Up a Forward Refueling Point: Marine Corps Recipes for Expeditionary Operations
13 Sep 2019 Megan Eckstein

"... • With Golf Company and Fox Company ashore, a HIMARS with Battery Q, 3rd Battalion, 12th Marines, 3rd Marine Division went ashore on a Landing Craft Utility (LCU) and simulating firing the HIMARS using data from an F-35B flying overhead, “demonstrating the capability for long-range precision fire support during expeditionary operations,” according to the news release...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/09/13/how-to ... operations

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2019, 13:16
by quicksilver
blain wrote:"The U.S. Marine Corps is poised to reshuffle planned fleets of Lockheed Martin F-35Bs and F-35Cs for the third time in a decade, in response to a fundamental shift in the service’s operational philosophy that could affect acquisition priorities across the aviation branch."

https://aviationweek.com/defense/marine ... and-f-35cs

There you go. More Cs, less Bs. The Cs have more range and more payload. A much better fit for slugging it out at range against a near peer threat. No numbers yet, but replacing the Harriers one for one with Bs would be a little overkill, but a good start.

Berger is slaying his service's sacred cows and challenging Marine dogma.


From one of your earlier posts on CVW mix —

“I am wondering whether the gaps in transitioning squadrons is due to a lack of airframes. From the chart OPNAV showed it appears that each CVW will have a squadron of F-35s by 2030. They will the start adding a second F-35 squadron thereafter, which is weird because a buy of 260/270 does not support two F-35 squadrons per CVW.” (my emphasis added)

But an earlier buy of F-35Cs by the USMC would...ref the new TAI agreement (which would be entirely consistent with Navy’s long-apparent aversion to all things F-35, dating from the days of JAST).

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2019, 13:48
by spazsinbad
For above TOTAL USN/USMC 340 F-35C buy reference: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=56074&p=426395&hilit=Tailhook#p426395

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2019, 14:24
by marsavian
Stepping back a minute isn't it fundamentally strange that the USMC has to augment USN planes on their carriers ?? How much real control does the USMC have over their planes in this situation ? Can they be offloaded at all at any time to augment their F-35B ? On the surface it appears to me that the USN is getting extra planes for free but eager to be suitably educated on this matter.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2019, 14:58
by wolfpak
Emphasis is mine. Some excerpts from the article:

"The Marines’ overall program of record of 420 aircraft is expected to remain unchanged, but the fleet split between the current plan to buy 353 short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (STOVL) F-35Bs and 67 carrier-based F-35Cs could change dramatically.
Both of Berger’s policy preferences, outlined in a three-month-old strategic plan, lean toward a new TAI agreement that results in a larger number of F-35Cs in the Marine Corps’ future aviation fleet, along with fewer F-35Bs.
The 2011 version of the TAI requirement called for the Marines to split the fleet between 340 F-35Bs and 80 F-35Cs, allowing the service to provide five squadrons of F-35Cs for the carrier air wing. By 2015, the Marines had diluted that commitment, updating the TAI agreement to provide four squadrons of F-35Cs totaling 67 aircraft, with the balance of 353 aircraft under the program of record devoted to filling its 22 squadrons of F-35Bs.
The TAI agreement is being revised again, but this time for a different reason. Only two weeks after becoming the 38th commandant on July 11, Berger released a 26-page “planning guidance” document that called for the most sweeping reorganization of the Marines’ force structure in the modern era. Most importantly, the planning document dropped the previously sacrosanct Marine requirement for a 38-ship fleet of amphibious ships.
“The commandant, Gen. Berger, has said that the number of amphibious ships—and I’m talking about big decks, LH’s—may change in the future,” Rowell says. “His druthers is that they change in the future. He has also emphasized naval integration. For us, that means TacAir integration within the carrier air wings.”
The Marine Corps is now in the process of standing up the first F-35C squadron at NAS Lemoore in California. VFA-314, nicknamed the Black Knights, is scheduled to be integrated into Carrier Air Wing 17 by next March and deploy for the first time in fiscal 2022. But the schedule is subject to delays as the Marines cope with shortages of pilots, maintainers and aircraft.
Even the F-35B squadrons have struggled to muster enough pilots and maintainers to support roughly 75 aircraft delivered so far to three squadrons, but it has been even harder to support the single F-35C unit.
“We’re challenged right now with F-35Cs not only with personnel, but with [the number of] platforms,” Rowell says. Lockheed Martin has delivered eight F-35Cs to the Marines so far, with two more aircraft scheduled for delivery by the end of this year. Each Marine Corps F-35 squadron is required to be equipped with
10 aircraft."

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2019, 15:01
by spazsinbad
USN / USMC have agreed to co-operate. Nine page PDF attached helps explain why; oops I see 'wolfpak' has posted text....

Thanks for the text 'wolfpak' - can the entire article be posted please. Thanks. It will be for my records. You can see from the attached PDF that this stuff interests me going back to that 2011 agreement (because Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs'). :mrgreen:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2019, 17:20
by bjr1028
marsavian wrote:Stepping back a minute isn't it fundamentally strange that the USMC has to augment USN planes on their carriers ?? How much real control does the USMC have over their planes in this situation ? Can they be offloaded at all at any time to augment their F-35B ? On the surface it appears to me that the USN is getting extra planes for free but eager to be suitably educated on this matter.


The Marine Corps are not organized at the service level, they're organized at the Department of the Navy level with operational Fleet Marine Force units then allocated to Commander, Pacific Fleet and Commander, Fleet Forces (Atlantic) and further dispersed from there.

From the the Navy and Marine Air side, three things can happen to a strikefighter squadron.
1) A detachment is sent is sent to reinforce a Marine Medium tilt rotor squadron as part of a MEU. They are then under the operational control of the VMM squadron commander.
2) They are assigned to a Carrier Air Wing. They are then under the direct command of the CAG.
3) They are sent on a ground deployment under the Unit Deployment Program. This can be to either a combat zone or forward deployed to a place like Japan or Guam.

Number 1 isn't at all likely for anything but a Marine squadron since there are no Navy F-35Bs, but the door swings both ways nice they are department, no service assets. Navy squadrons have been been deployed UDP if required for additional tempo and their CVW is not able to deploy. In addition, CVW assets can and have been deployed to a FOB if required for mission tempo. Navy usually doesn't publicize when its done for OPSEC.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2019, 00:04
by quicksilver
marsavian wrote:Stepping back a minute isn't it fundamentally strange that the USMC has to augment USN planes on their carriers ??...On the surface it appears to me that the USN is getting extra planes for free but eager to be suitably educated on this matter.


Strange? Not really. Free jets? Kinda, but it’s not about the jets; it’s the bodies...people (units of people) because institutionally people are really expensive.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2019, 00:28
by Corsair1963
While, the number of F-35C's for the USN/USMC. Will naturally fluctuate somewhat over the next few years.



I expect the overall numbers will grow with time. As the USN will start retiring older Super Hornets post 2030. So, I expect to see additional F-35C orders long term. Until the New NGAD (6th Generation Fighter) comes online....

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2019, 00:16
by blain
The key issue to consider is where is the short fall?

Has there ever been a STOVL shortfall? If anything, they are over allocated.

After the end of the Cold War, one fighter/attack squadron was eliminated from the CVW. They were replaced with a squadron of MH-60S during the GWOT, but the mix of squadron has not been refocused to the new threat. The Knighthawk has value as a CSAR asset but that role could be filled by MH-60Rs. Reducing the number of helicopters and increasing the number of fighters would seem reasonable.

During the latter days of the Cold War the Navy experimented with different tac air mixes on CVWs. They added a second A-6E squadron to CVW-5, CVW-13, and CVW-8. CVW-2 went to sea with an all Grumman tac air wing with Tomcats and Intruders.

It would seem that the Navy needs to begin a similar effort, focusing on reforming the CVW with an emphasis on preparing to fight at long range. Adding CFTs to Super Hornets and Growlers and developing the MQ-25 is a good start. But the Navy has been too slow to introduce the F-35C. Reallocating the Marines' F-35 buy will bring the Cs quicker to the fleet and enable to Navy to fill decks to counter the A2/AD challenge. They could add a fifth fighter squadron to the CVW or they could do it on a selective basis, experimenting/training with different CVW mixes.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2019, 00:28
by spazsinbad
All that may well be however the CVNs have to be modified for operational use of the F-35C - is this a constraint on that?

Others have pointed out issues affecting the USN changeover to the F-35C - these are on another thread - I'll look for it...

'USNVO' is but one good example from thread below: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52254&p=393541&hilit=enlisted#p393541

This is the thread with one example from 'usnvo' whilst there are other good contributors:
Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s: 06 Apr 2018 viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52254
"Actually the first F-35C squadron demonstrates the dilemma that the Navy is in and why they keep buying Super Hornets. The first squadron stood down in early 2018 to begin the transition to the F-35C but won't be a deployable asset until 2021. So for three years, there is a one squadron shortfall of strike fighters (more as additional squadrons transition). Buying more F-35Cs than planned only makes this problem worse as it takes that many more squadrons out of the rotation.

Simple problem you say, just add new squadrons, get more maintainers and pilots to cover the shortfall, and handle the transition that way. However, the well is pretty empty at this point...."

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2019, 00:15
by spazsinbad
spazsinbad wrote:Recent usefulness of the BEEs demonstrated:
How to Seize Islands, Set Up a Forward Refueling Point: Marine Corps Recipes for Expeditionary Operations
13 Sep 2019 Megan Eckstein

"... • With Golf Company and Fox Company ashore, a HIMARS with Battery Q, 3rd Battalion, 12th Marines, 3rd Marine Division went ashore on a Landing Craft Utility (LCU) and simulating firing the HIMARS using data from an F-35B flying overhead, “demonstrating the capability for long-range precision fire support during expeditionary operations,” according to the news release...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/09/13/how-to ... operations

31st MEU USMC Island Hopping Ex. 12 Aug 2019 - F-35B at end https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYcW5pJPGT0


Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2019, 22:05
by blain
spazsinbad wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Recent usefulness of the BEEs demonstrated:
How to Seize Islands, Set Up a Forward Refueling Point: Marine Corps Recipes for Expeditionary Operations
13 Sep 2019 Megan Eckstein

"... • With Golf Company and Fox Company ashore, a HIMARS with Battery Q, 3rd Battalion, 12th Marines, 3rd Marine Division went ashore on a Landing Craft Utility (LCU) and simulating firing the HIMARS using data from an F-35B flying overhead, “demonstrating the capability for long-range precision fire support during expeditionary operations,” according to the news release...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/09/13/how-to ... operations

31st MEU USMC Island Hopping Ex. 12 Aug 2019 - F-35B at end https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYcW5pJPGT0



If the Marines intend to play a big role in the sea control/sea denial mission they will need to greatly increase the number of HIMARS. The current reality is that they only have a handful of launchers. How does that happen? Will they get additional funding or will they need to trade a capability?

It would seem that the Army is set up better for this mission. They have a large HIMARS and M-270 inventory. The Army is also set up better for the air defense role.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2019, 22:16
by spazsinbad
Not having been nor being nor will be an US Marine NOR knowing anyone currently involved with the USMC I can only guess and of course I have a high regard for the capability and smarts of US Marines in all domains (except Space I presume). Here are some current URLs for what they are thinking, seems to me they do this regularly having recently demanded to operate from the sea and not be a 'second land army' operating ashore - because goldarnit theys MARINES - as they put it.

https://news.usni.org/2019/09/18/marine ... -the-corps
&
https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... ships.html
&
https://seapowermagazine.org/speakers-a ... irectives/
&
https://seapowermagazine.org/marine-cor ... eaper-uav/

I'll look for more USMC HIMARS material - already there is some info in this forum.... Search just the F-35 subsection using HIMARS for 94 hits and seven pages with references to that word. You will get probably more searching F-16.net

CURRENT HIMARS USMC Status: https://www.candp.marines.mil/Programs/ ... rt/HIMARS/
"Program Status
The HIMARS program is in the operations and support phase. HIMARS achieved Initial Operational Capability in the fourth quarter of FY 2008. In early 2012, HIMARS was fielded to two additional battalions (one active and one Reserve) in the Marine Corps. In early 2012, HIMARS was fielded to two Marine battalions (one active and one Reserve), and in 2017 the Marine Corps decided to field a second active battalion, procurement for which is scheduled to begin in 2019."

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/y ... y-systems/
&
Plenty of googled HIMARS hits - even Oz gets a mention: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/lesso ... -guidance/

NOT HIMARS but about the USMC RESET: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/09/mar ... new-force/

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2019, 06:19
by XanderCrews
blain wrote:If the Marines intend to play a big role in the sea control/sea denial mission they will need to greatly increase the number of HIMARS. The current reality is that they only have a handful of launchers. How does that happen? Will they get additional funding or will they need to trade a capability?

It would seem that the Army is set up better for this mission. They have a large HIMARS and M-270 inventory. The Army is also set up better for the air defense role.


:mrgreen:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2019, 22:10
by spazsinbad
I always like the 'HI MA NO HOOK' Herk meme so meanwhile back to the F-35B we all know and luv so well for USMC use.
Navy Considering Marine CAC2S System for Amphibs to Exploit Strike Fighter’s Capabilities
19 Sep 2019 Richard R. Burgess

"QUANTICO, Va. — Navy officials said the service is considering installing a modern Marine Corps command and control system on large-deck amphibious assault ships.

“The Navy is looking to purchase CAC2S [Common Aviation Command and Control System] and put those on L-class ships so that they can do some of the same things we do on L-class ships the CAC2S can pull down off an F-35. It will help build situational awareness for the SWOs [surface warfare officers] on the ship,” said Col. Kurt Schiller, director, Air Combat Element/Maritime Expeditionary Warfare Division in the Capabilities Development Directorate, speaking at a panel discussion sponsored by the Amphibious Warfare Industrial Base Coalition at the Modern Day Marine expo at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia.

CAC2S, built by General Dynamics Mission Systems, provides a complete and coordinated modernization of Marine Air Command and Control System (MACCS) equipment.

CAC2S provides the MAGTF Aviation Combat Element with the hardware, software and facilities to effectively command, control and coordinate air operations integrated with naval, joint and/or combined C2 units.

CAC2S is made up of standardized modular and scalable tactical facilities, hardware and software to significantly increase battlefield mobility and reduce the physical size and logistical footprint of the MACCS.

“The F-35B brings extraordinary situational awareness capability,” Frank DiGiovanni, deputy director, Expeditionary Warfare, said during the panel discussion. “The CAC2S that the colonel was talking about brings the ground common operational picture to the ship and to the rest of the Navy.”"

Photo: "F-35Bs conduct flight operations aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp. Navy officials say the service is considering installing a modern Marine Corps command and control system on amphibs to take advantage of the F-35’s capabilities. U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Daniel Barker" https://seapowermagazine.org/wp-content ... 24x745.jpg


Source: https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-consi ... abilities/

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 01:21
by Corsair1963
One thing is for sure. The future battle space is going to become extremely lethal.... :shock:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 01:54
by southernphantom
blain wrote:
If the Marines intend to play a big role in the sea control/sea denial mission they will need to greatly increase the number of HIMARS. The current reality is that they only have a handful of launchers. How does that happen? Will they get additional funding or will they need to trade a capability?

It would seem that the Army is set up better for this mission. They have a large HIMARS and M-270 inventory. The Army is also set up better for the air defense role.


Well, you just peed in someone's Cheerios with that comment.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 16:08
by XanderCrews
southernphantom wrote:
blain wrote:
If the Marines intend to play a big role in the sea control/sea denial mission they will need to greatly increase the number of HIMARS. The current reality is that they only have a handful of launchers. How does that happen? Will they get additional funding or will they need to trade a capability?

It would seem that the Army is set up better for this mission. They have a large HIMARS and M-270 inventory. The Army is also set up better for the air defense role.


Well, you just peed in someone's Cheerios with that comment.



Not at all. I feel quite comfy.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2019, 23:35
by spazsinbad
Berger: Marines Focused on China in Developing New Way to Fight in the Pacific [best read all at source]
02 Oct 2019 Megan Eckstein

"THE PENTAGON – The Marine Corps continues its drive to become a more agile and maritime-focused force that can respond to tensions quickly and buy decision space for military leaders and diplomats, the commandant said.

The service sees China as the pacing threat to prepare for, but the service does not want a war; rather, the Marine Corps sees itself as a first-responder to any fight that bubbles up, quickly getting to the scene to “freeze” the conflict and allow diplomats to de-escalate, ideally, or for the military to send in follow-on forces if called upon, Gen. David Berger told a small group of reporters today in his office.

Though planning for this kind of force has been taking place at Marine Corps Base Quantico and at the Pentagon for several years now, talk of pacing threats, peer adversaries and freezing and containing conflicts hasn’t been part of the public lexicon. But Berger, who took command of the service in July after heading up future force planning efforts in his last assignment, said he’s ready for the public to see a more modern take on what the Marine Corps brings to the joint force.

After so many years of operating as a second land army in Iraq and Afghanistan, Berger said he wanted to make clear that the Marine Corps of today and tomorrow is “a fleet marine force that could go ashore, instead of a land force that could go on a ship,” he said. Of those lengthy ground wars, he said “we had to do that, but actually that’s not why we have a Marine Corps.”...

...While acknowledging that Russia did also present challenges to the service, he said China was “clearly the long-term existential threat to the U.S.” Berger likened China to the New England Patriots: if another football team wanted to best prepare to win the Super Bowl, it should get the right people and do the right training with the Patriots in mind, even if a game against the Patriots isn’t on that team’s near-term schedule.

Berger said the joint force has this view of China as a pacing threat, and even as Chinese military capabilities evolve, so too must American capabilities to stay ahead of that pacing threat. To that end, Berger said the Marine Corps has a vision of what it wants to be, but it’s not there just yet. “We are too heavy, too cumbersome. We’re built for another Desert Storm. … We have to go on a diet,” he said....

...Asked about the threat China and its increasing anti-access/area-denial weapons pose, Berger said he is “absolutely comfortable” operating inside these weapons envelops as long as the Marines don’t mass their people and expensive gear in a single location to create a vulnerability. If Marines are dispersed and on the move, he said, they can accomplish their missions.

Training will have to become more amphibious-focused, with inland ground training ranges like 29 Palms in California being used to simulate insertions from the sea and coastal locations like Catalina Island being used more for LOCE and EABO training.

While it may take some years to shift the entire Marine Corps to this new way of fighting – some Marine occupational specialties will become less relevant, and those Marines will have to be trained for new jobs as their MOSs are phased out gently, without leaving anyone without a job – there can be a “hard shift” in what Marines are learning in schoolhouses and on-the-job training to prepare them for the information warfare environment and new technologies that will shape their maritime- and peer threat-focused operations."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/10/02/berger ... he-pacific

The New Marine Corps Vision https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QnmCEXBF_8


Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 02:49
by spazsinbad
Another 'best read at source' screed:
Berger: Marine 2030 Force Design Is Nearly Complete; Concepts Now Being Modeled, Tested
03 Oct 2019 Megan Eckstein

"...Though Berger couldn’t describe the future force in full detail, he said “force design is my top priority. I think that is my principle vehicle for redesigning, realigning the Marine Corps as part of a naval expeditionary force, which is part of the joint force.” To that end, he described three driving principles of the future force: it will be an integrated naval force, it will be a stand-in force and it will be a distributed force.

Though the Marine Corps has been wrapped up in ground wars for the past two decades, Berger said an ongoing consideration must now be, “what can Marines do to help the fleet commander fight his fleet? How does that contribute towards a joint fight? That could mean Marines ashore or afloat with longer-range anti-ship missiles; you could visualize them as an extension of the fleet’s magazine, basically, augmenting in other words air and ship-based fires.”

He said Marines could also strap their weapons to ship decks, much like when a Marine Corps electronic warfare system helped shoot down an Iranian drone in the Persian Gulf earlier this year from the deck of USS Boxer (LHD-4). And, he said, the expeditionary advance bases and forward arming and refueling points the Marines are working to regain proficiency in setting up and operating from would not just be used to support Marine Corps operations, but could provide refueling or intelligence-gathering services to the joint fight and could also leverage specific Army or Air Force niche capabilities as needed for a mission....

...Asked by event host Dakota Wood of the Heritage Foundation why this effort would succeed even though many of the ideas have been pitched in the Marine Corps before, Berger said China as an existential threat and a pacing threat will force the change. Since the end of the Cold War, he explained, the military pursued new capabilities simply to push forward technology, and the pace was dictated by resources and willpower. Now, he said, China’s rapid military advancement in recent years means the Defense Department needs to act differently.... Having such a “threat-based force design” is new to this generation of the Marine Corps....

,,,Ultimately, though it will mean developing new systems and refocusing the force on a new way to fight, Berger said he’s all-in in setting the Marine Corps down a new path. “The game plan is all about imposing cost” on an adversary, such that they decide a fight with the U.S. isn’t worth it today."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/10/03/berger ... led-tested

USMC Commandant General David H. Berger at The Heritage Foundation [03 Oct 2019]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgQskenFR8Y


Commandant Stresses Marine Corps Must Change to Meet Peer Threats
03 Oct 2019 Otto Kreisher

"...Based on his observation and that of others, Berger said the current Marine Corps “is not optimized for great power competition. It is not optimized to support a naval campaign. It is not optimized to support the fleet through missions like sea denial. And it is not optimized to deter a pacing threat.”

Because the fiscal 2021 defense budget has been submitted to the White House, any major changes will not show up until the following year or later, he said. And his assumption is that those future budgets “will be flat or declining, not rising.”

In his sweepingly provocative planning guidance released shortly after he took over as commandant, Berger said he was willing, if needed, to cut the size of the Corps to have money for the modernization of equipment that will be needed to counter a peer threat. [Then follows why there may be a change to the mix of USMC F-35Bs and USMC F-35Cs]

In his speech and answers to questions, he repeated his focus on shifting from reliance on the few, large, relatively expensive amphibious warships, which he said would be vulnerable to interdiction by Chinese long-range precision weapons, to a large number of smaller, less expensive manned ships and a wide range of unmanned surface, subsurface and aerial systems. “Mass will have a quality all its own. … And low cost doesn’t mean cheap,” Berger said."

Source: https://seapowermagazine.org/commandant ... r-threats/

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2019, 01:53
by blain
General Berger is one of the most insightful military leaders out there. James Holmes, who teaches at the Naval War College and wrote the book Red Star over the Pacific with Toshi Yoshihara, characterizes Berger as a counter revolutionary.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... airs-86361

spazsinbad wrote:USMC Commandant General David H. Berger at The Heritage Foundation [03 Oct 2019]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgQskenFR8Y





I watched the video of Berger at the Heritage Foundation and was struck by how open minded he is. He does not believe in sacred cows in designing the force for 2030. At the end of the Q and A an audience member asked about reevaluating the need for a Marine organic fixed wing Tac Air capability, a question which would send a few on this forum and other to the deep end. Berger didn't belittle or dismiss the question outright. He responded by saying that everything is on the table as the reality is that they will need to trade some existing capabilities for future capabilities which is more suited to the threat. They need to go through the process to determine what stays and what goes.

He reiterated the importance of what the planning guidance calls the stand-in force, which will operate in a distributed manner within the enemy's engagement envelope. It will serve to deter and defend against peer threats, reassure allies, and provide certain capabilities which cannot be provided at stand off ranges.

"The Stand-in Forces concept is designed to restore the strategic initiative to naval forces and empower our allies and partners to successfully confront regional hegemons that infringe on their territorial boundaries and interests. Stand-in Forces are designed to generate technically disruptive, tactical stand- in engagements that confront aggressor naval forces with an array of low signature, affordable, and risk-worthy platforms and payloads. Stand-in forces take advantage of the relative strength of the contemporary defense and rapidly-emerging new technologies to create an integrated maritime defense that is optimized to operate in close and confined seas in defiance of adversary long-range precision “stand-off capabilities.”"

The survivability of the stand in force will depend on the ability to disperse, but the effectiveness of dispersal as an concept will greatly depend on the range of combat weapon systems. If an anti ship cruise missile only has a range of 100 nm, its utility will be limited. These systems need to be able to disperse, hide, and have the range to mass fires. This is something they will need to address in designing the new force.

Operating the F-35B from EABOs seems to go against the criteria for the stand-in force. Is it affordable and a risk-worthy planform? It might be, depending on its role and impact. Berger has endorsed EABOs and using LHD/LHAs as light carrier in his planning guidance. It will be interesting see what B/C mix they decide on. He specifically raised the issue if more is needed from the Marines to support carrier air wings. The number of tac air squadrons assigned to each carrier wing was reduced by 1 after the end of the Cold War. If the Marines went with a 50/50 mix of Bs and Cs they would end up with ten F-35C squadrons. This would be enough for the Navy to increase the number of fighter squadron in each CVW to 5.

The Navy needs to decide and explain how CSGs will fight in a peer conflict. The defense of Japan and U.S. bases in the region figures prominently. But what what will be their role once the U.S. begins offensive operations? Will they main be there to support AF bombers, or is there a different role they could perform? Does the CVW need to be redesigned for the new roles it will need to perform?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2019, 03:07
by quicksilver
"I watched the video of Berger at the Heritage Foundation and was struck by how open minded he is."

You should get out of the house a little more...

"If the Marines went with a 50/50 mix of Bs and Cs they would end up with ten F-35C squadrons."

IIRC, at some point in the last decade or so, USMC tacair (fleet) force structure was something like 21 squadrons -- 11/3 Active/Reserve Hornet sqdns, and 7 Harrier active sqdns. I wouldn't be surprised to see the procurement numbers change to support a somewhat similar force structure going forward, with C squadron PAA being 10-12 and B squadron PAA on the order of 14-16. Back to the future...

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2019, 03:37
by weasel1962
The current plan already envisages 22 sqn comprising 9x16B, 5x10B, 2x10B reserve, 4x10C and 2 FRS (not counting OTE). That would have taken into account LHD and EABO basing. Can't see USMC leadership compromising the 16B sqn to downgrade to 10C sqns. There could be some flexibility on the 10B sqn to shift to 10Cs since those are the last to convert but what's the operational advantage?

The B still offers the most flexibility where it comes to land basing without the need for long runways. The Navy's already got their CVN sqns mapped out and unless CVN numbers increase or number of sqns per CVN increase, that's moot.

The sacred cow that can't be slaughtered is getting the USAF to convert to Bs.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2019, 04:03
by quicksilver
“Can't see USMC leadership compromising the 16B sqn to downgrade to 10C sqns. There could be some flexibility on the 10B sqn to shift to 10Cs since those are the last to convert but what's the operational advantage?”

You make the 10B units 10Cs, and you’re one unit different than my speculation. The operational advantage is range/tos and later lot capabilities upon delivery. I would also point out that distributed basing options are not unique to stovl jets.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2019, 08:42
by blain
quicksilver wrote:"I watched the video of Berger at the Heritage Foundation and was struck by how open minded he is."
You should get out of the house a little more...
.


I love the insults. Have you never heard of a general officer who played politics or focused more on protecting his/her turf? Maybe I not the one who needs to get out of the house?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2019, 14:48
by quicksilver
“Have you never heard of a general officer who played politics or focused more on protecting his/her turf?”

I’m not sure how ‘playing politics’ or ‘protecting...turf’ has anything to do with whether or not one’s mind is ‘open’ or ‘closed’. But, for the record, my up close and personal first-hand observation of FO/GOs is that they are no more or less open or closed-minded than many other officers. They just happen to hold positions of broader and/or more complex responsibilities. And, as a going-in position, I tend to expect of them the best until their actions suggest that that judgment is misplaced.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2019, 04:50
by steve2267
As I read Blain's tome above, it struck me that everything the good General was saying would seem to support more B's, rather than more C's. While the C has more range and payload capacity, the B would seem to be tailor made for dispersed operations, rapid movement from one FOB (EABO?), and operating "inside" the opponent's domain or reach. If Gen Berger opts to keep the B's at the same force level, or even increase B numbers... would the good Mr. Blain still consider the good General to be of an open mind?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2019, 17:31
by XanderCrews
blain wrote:
quicksilver wrote:"I watched the video of Berger at the Heritage Foundation and was struck by how open minded he is."
You should get out of the house a little more...
.


I love the insults. Have you never heard of a general officer who played politics or focused more on protecting his/her turf? Maybe I not the one who needs to get out of the house?



blain, you've said yourself you don't understand why the Marines do what they do, so you literally comment on things you don't understand because as in your own words you think the new CMC is "agreeing" with you (payload! range! Because you don't like that the USMC does STOVL). This whole thread is your vanity project because you think it makes you right about STOVL and USMC air wing TO&E. Hence your first posts about "Sacred cows" and "dogma" which might mean something if you understood what the Dogma and Sacred Cows were in the first place.

quicksilver is right, you have actual Marines in here commenting with not only more experience than you, but this isn't our first new CMC either, and we aren't hobbyists. I'm glad you fell in love with your "first" CMC (he's just so dreamy! OMG counter cultural! the most brilliant!), but for a lot of us this isn't our first rodeo in fact as others have said he seems to be getting us back to the sacred cows and Dogmas-- how new are you to think that the emphasis of the USMC operating from a maritime environment to attack ashore is some kind of "revolutionary" concept?

The USMC working closely with the US Navy in the Pacific is about as Dogmatic and Sacred Cow as it gets.

This is the only the 3rd time in 10 years they are going to rearrange the composition of the F-35 fleet, so I'm waiting to hear more information until we hear more. And frankly again even the move to more F-35C's doesn't have as much to do with range and payload as you say it does anyway.

Again, I'm trying not to comment in this thread until I know more details what we have now is more big picture overview, but yes quicksilver is absolutely right. you do need to get out more. If this is your first Marine CMC, let along first General you may have a lot of studying to do. one of the reasons I enjoy F-16.net as much as I do, is because we seem to keep the braying sheep away and get people with some 1st hand knowledge talking based on facts, and not fanboying "i told you so" but here we are. I guess nothing last forever. in the meantime we do actually have people in this thread with real world 1st hand experience with the very complex USMC force structure and CONOPs things blain is obviously very new to.

"insult"? no he told you in a nice way actually that you're ignorant. if you want insults we have plenty. he's taking it easy on you. again, you have no background or notion of what was or what is or what might be, and thus you have no perspective of how "radically different" or as quicksilver pointed out actually Radically traditional General Berger is. He's actually getting the USMC back to the old days and you have him pegged as a 21st century revolutionary. That happens when you have no idea how things were, and thus no basis of seeing whats changed or what hasn't. again this might be new to you, but for a lot of us we seen the pendulum swing a few times now.

I know he will play dumb and innocent but this whole thread started with an "i told you so" based on the 2 factors he considered most important on a single aircraft variant, and then went on to shoot one across about the bow about Marine "Dogma" -- he is very much beyond his depth. Its like listening to a child to you the sun is hot "because its yellow" yes its yellow, but that's not why its hot.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2019, 17:50
by XanderCrews
steve2267 wrote:As I read Blain's tome above, it struck me that everything the good General was saying would seem to support more B's, rather than more C's. While the C has more range and payload capacity, the B would seem to be tailor made for dispersed operations, rapid movement from one FOB (EABO?), and operating "inside" the opponent's domain or reach. If Gen Berger opts to keep the B's at the same force level, or even increase B numbers... would the good Mr. Blain still consider the good General to be of an open mind?



Right. In other words the USMC is still for the same distributed operations (even more so, the CMC's directives) and part of that distribution is distributing more F-35Cs to more CVNs. so not "narrowing dispersion" to just L-class ships, a more even (distributed) spread.

muh dogmas, muh cows

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2019, 20:11
by steve2267
As I've Sir Blain's comments and diatribes, my overall take is that he thinks the F-35B is stooopid and the USMC should not have ANY Killer Bees. It would seem clear that such a viewpoint is not shared by the new CMC, and that the F-35B is here to stay to deploy on and fly from LHA's as well as from dispersed forward bases, constantly shifting around when the flag goes up. While the precise split between B's and C's may yet vary, getting rid of all B's is a fool's argument.

On a note related to dispersal of forces and making it hard for the enema to target USN ships / task forces, upgunning LHA / LSD task force groups with mo' bettuh anti-ship weapons may be in order. On the one hand, that takes some potential firepower away from supporting boots on the ground, but on the other hand, a credible anti-surface warfare capability would seem to compound the PLA Navy problems. This could take shape in the form of Harpoon / NSM / LRASM (if ever fit for Mk-41 VLS use), or maybe just JSMs for F-35B's even if they have to be carried externally.

To take the dispersal idea further... since plans tend not to hold together once first contact with the enemy has been enjoined... are there any plans to test / certify F-35B operational use from CVN's? Super Dupers and Sea Killers cannot operate from LHA's, but certainly F-35B's could operate from CVN's if they find themselves short of aircraft?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2019, 20:38
by spazsinbad
'stevieTheWondering' said above: "...are there any plans to test / certify F-35B operational use from CVN's? Super Dupers and Sea Killers cannot operate from LHA's, but certainly F-35B's could operate from CVN's if they find themselves short of aircraft?" Now that would be something. However... not that I know with some suggestion yonks ago that NO! That is one reason why the original plan by USMC for ALL F-35Bs went out that window - USN did not like BEEs buzzing about CVNs.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2019, 20:49
by XanderCrews
blain wrote:At the end of the Q and A an audience member asked about reevaluating the need for a Marine organic fixed wing Tac Air capability, a question which would send a few on this forum and other to the deep end.


blain buddy, what sent people off the "deep end" with you was your lies, invention, ignorance, falsehoods, and non sequiturs and outright denials and goal post moving in threads like this:

blain wrote:The only thing I like about the USMC air modernization plan is that they will at some point have C models. I don't understand the value of STOVL. Cost vs utility. Are we really expecting another Guadalcanal? Wherever the Marines deploy they will either have carrier air or land based Marine/USAF CAS.

Cost, small fuel capacity, and smaller weapons capacity is not worth minuscule chance you will need STOVL/VSTOL capability.



blain wrote:First, the British used Harriers in the Falklands because they had to due to their failure to retain conventional carriers and their air wing. Defense budgets are limited. This is a perfect illustration of the cost of not prioritizing funding on critical capabilities. The loss of life and shipping would have been much less if the RN had a Nimitz or even a Midway Class carrier. They are lucky they didn't lose the Hermes and Invisible. A conventional carrier with fighters and support aircraft would have enabled the British to push their fleet out further and fight more effectively. Do you think an E-2C would have enabled the RN to more effectively counter the Argentine Exocet attacks? Well if the Marines are going it alone then they are not going to have that support.

So what are those cases when the Marines will conduct operations without USAF tacair or carrier air?

If the United States needs to rely on LHDs with F-35B to fight a future high intensity conflict we are in trouble. That scenario is on the extreme part of the spectrum of future contingencies. How many MEUs and CH-53s/MV-22s are you going to displace in order to carry two squadrons of F-35s? Or are you going to rely 6 F-35Bs per big deck amphib? And what type of firepower/capability will that give to the joint forces commander? Without AWACS, tanking, EA, and ISR support? During the Gulf War the Navy reconfigured the air wing on the Nassau with 20 Harriers. It got the Harriers a little closer to the fight. They used it. Maybe they thought they needed it. I'd like to see someone argue that it would have been missed or that it was a must have capability. I think its key value was clearing more ramp space for other fixed wing fighters.

So we are left with low intensity operations - situations where the U.S. does not have the time or means to bring in air support and the MEU just happens to be in the area with 6 F-35s. Would any president commit a MEU to combat operations with just 6 F-35s to combat against a nation with more than a handful of fighters without preparing the battlespace first with counter air strikes? Probably not. The most likely scenarios where such a small contingent of fighters would be valuable would be the evacuation of non combatants in a relatively benign environment or an amphibious raid. It might be nice to have F-35s flying cover with AH-1Zs. But is it really needed.

Just because the Marines uses the Harrier and F-35B everyday is not an argument for the capability. Its not worth the cost and the trade off in range and payload. Money that is spent on a capability that is not critical to the operation of the Marines means less money for a capabilities which are more important. It is water under the bridge. But the Marine brass have made other poor decisions in pursuit of maintaining their amphibious capability - the EFV program and to some extent the V-22.

The fighter shortfall: And if the Marines standardized on a common airframe with the Navy how many more F-35s could they have purchased? Do you want more fighters or VSTOL?


from this thread 2 and a half years ago:

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=52942&p=365970&hilit=+stovl#p365970


multiple people in that very thread corrected you on some basic stuff, the result was rather than you realizing you were wrong and growing and listening to those who were there, you ouright disappeared only to return with the same bulls**t in many other threads including this one. how much should we even bother with you?

honestly I should just start linking back to that thread there anytime you even mention the USMC at all, but please spare us-- ignorant liars who refuse to listen will always send me off the "deep end."


Berger didn't belittle or dismiss the question outright.


ah geewhiz, what a doll! I guess I know why I never made got to be CMC then. :inlove:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2019, 23:40
by quicksilver
Gentlemen, blain utters the oft-repeated catechisms of big deck carrier praetorians, who predictably re-emerge with the same talkings points every time the most holy of sacred cows — the 90K+ ton CVN — are perceived to be threatened with talk of CVLs or similar additive force capabilities. The principle enabler of such concept capabilities most recently, of course, are VLO, supersonic, stovl, strike fighters commonly known as F-35Bs. Me thinks they dost protesteth too much.

I had to chuckle about the potential for stovl jets on CVNs. Yeah right...when Superman wears kryptonite skivvies.

Apart from blain, the only person — Marine or otherwise — that I’ve heard make mention of Guadalcanal in recent years is...

...Bill Sweetman. :wink:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2019, 00:30
by spazsinbad
When will 'blain' break out into DOG LATIN - a billybobboysweetiepie specialty - who knows naught about naval aviation.
Meanwhile does my quote look big in this - oh I meant deja vu relevant maybe. First joint USN/USMC memo was 2002.
"...[2011] was a revision to a 2002 memorandum of understanding which set the now-unchanged goal of buying 680 F-35s. That memo did not set out how many STOVL or carrier versions the Navy and Marines would buy...." 14 Mar 2011 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/03/14/navy-marines-commit-to-stovl-jsf/

US Marine Corps to become 2nd F-35C customer
09 Mar 2011 Stephen Trimble [original post: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15247&p=192517&hilit=Trimble#p192517 ]

Lieberman: I noted in the statement you made in your prepared testimony that the F-35C of the Joint Strike Fighter will be procured for both the navy and the marine corps. I think it's been the general understanding that the Marine Corps would want to see produced and would procure a pure F-35B STOVL fleet variant of the F-35 and that in fact is the plan that is reflected in the current future years defense program. Did I read this correctly in your prepared statement and could you speak therefore to the future mix if that is the correct interpretation of the F-35B and F-35C in the Marine Corps inventory?

Mabus: Yes, sir. It has always been true that the F-35B was solely a Marine aircraft. It's also been true the C version the carrier version the naval version was going to have marines flying those as well. Today we have three marine squadrons aboard carriers. And we are currently undergoing a TacAir [tactical aircraft] integration look across the navy and Marine Corps to see what the proper mix is of C's for the navy and Marine Corps to make sure that we continue that integration and make sure marines continue to fly off carriers in strike fighters as well as in vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.

Lieberman: General, can you give me your reaction to this? Is that mix at this point acceptable to the marine corps? Am I wrong that you had originally hoped for a pure STOVL variant fleet?

Amos: Senator, you are correct that was the initial plan. Let me back up just a little bit. We've always been fans of TacAir integration. As the secretary said, we have had marine squadrons on the navy carriers -- on the Enterprise right now, we have Marine F/A-18s. We do that. We like that. It's good for both our services and the naval force. But when we set the requirement in for STOVL aircraft our hope was we would be able to some day fly some of those aircraft off CVN aircraft carriers. That's yet to be seen whether that would be possible. So in the meantime it would seem prudent that we should buy some number of C variants even early on so we can begin to transition our force there. But it will be a proportional number to our overall buy of STOVL.”

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... e-2nd.html
[http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/03%20March/Mabus%2003-08-11.pdf]

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2019, 02:07
by blain
steve2267 wrote:As I read Blain's tome above, it struck me that everything the good General was saying would seem to support more B's, rather than more C's. While the C has more range and payload capacity, the B would seem to be tailor made for dispersed operations, rapid movement from one FOB (EABO?), and operating "inside" the opponent's domain or reach. If Gen Berger opts to keep the B's at the same force level, or even increase B numbers... would the good Mr. Blain still consider the good General to be of an open mind?


Just wondering, does having an open mind mean you can't have an opinion? Berger himself said he doesn't see the Marines divesting themselves of fixed wing tac air (opinion), but it is on the table with everything else (open mind). He expressed bold ideas in his planning guidance (opinion), yet is willing to consider other ideas and concepts (open mind).

The B may theoretically sound like its tailor made for dispersed operations in a vacuum. But it needs to be tested against reality - requirements, the ability to support, the threat, concept of operations, geography, and politics.

The Planning Guidance says:

Rather than heavily investing in expensive and exquisite capabilities that regional aggressors have optimized their forces to target, naval forces will persist forward with many smaller, low signature, affordable platforms that can economically host a dense array of lethal and non- lethal payloads.

By exploiting the technical revolution in autonomy, advanced manufacturing, and artificial intelligence, the naval forces can create many new risk-worthy unmanned and minimally-manned platforms that can be employed in stand-in engagements to create tactical dilemmas that adversaries will confront when attacking our allies and forces forward. Stand-in Forces will be supported from expeditionary advanced bases (EABs) and will complement the low signature of the EABs with an equally low signature force structure comprised largely of unmanned platforms that operate ashore, afloat, submerged, and aloft in close concert to overwhelm enemy platforms.

Stand-in Forces take advantage of the strategic offensive and tactical defense to create disproportionate result at affordable cost. Because they are inherently resilient, risk worthy, inexpensive and lethal they restore combat credibility to forward deployed naval forces and serve to deter aggression.


Regarding EABO:

Success will be defined in terms of finding the smallest, lowest signature options that yield the maximum operational utility. We must always be mindful of the ratio of operational contribution to employment cost. We will test various forms of EABO against specific threats and ask ourselves whether EABO contributions to the joint force are worth its logistics and security burden. This ratio should always be more favorable than other joint force options contributing a similar capability.

Wargaming and analysis will largely determine how well the F-35B fits the criteria and whether more Cs are needed to supported naval integration. Is the F-35B "affordable, risk worthy, low signature, worth the security and logistic burden"? Can Bs operating from an austere FARP or a temporary facility create a disproportionate result at an affordable cost? If there is role for the F-35B then how many do you realistically need?

Geopolitics will limit the number of EABOs the Marines can operate from in the East China Sea or the South China Sea. The biggest challenge is access. Depending on the scenario, the Philippines, Vietnam, and South Korea likely would prefer to stay out of a conflict with China. Japan is probably the only nation which can be counted on. If the U.S.has to go it alone you are left fighting with attack submarines from within, and bombers and carrier air at long range. You can forget about the Bs operating from EABs or fixed base in an offensive manner, unless you intend on being an uninvited guest.

There are a finite number of location available for use in the Ryukyus and Japan's outlying island, whether they be military or civilian air fields, or even austere locations. In order for dispersal to work you need a lot of options. The options grow infinitely better on Kyushu. There are approximately 21 civilian and military air fields which can support conventional fighters, approximately 800 nm from the Taiwan Strait. Options are even better if you include Honshu and Shikoku - assuming the Japanese do not limit operations on the home islands to defensive purposes only. Once you start operating out of Japan's home islands you will need tanker support. It is also much easier to defend the Japanese home islands than the Ryukyus. Is operating out of the Japanese home islands even an option for the Marines and the F-35B? If you need tankers you will need to defend your air fields. If you can defend your air fields then maybe you don't need that much STOVL as you thought?

The Marines will also need to determine how many F-35Bs they can support at EABs. One KC-130J holds enough fuel for 5 F-35Bs. It will be much easier to support EABs on islands with a more robust infrastructure like Kyushu. The Planning Guidance explicitly recommends to consider the employment cost and whether the solution is worth the logistics burden. What's the requirement for big deck amphibs, especially if there will be less of a reliance on traditional transports? Does that free up LHA/LHDs to be used as small carriers? Or does it restrict the use of those ships for tac air?

It maybe your opinion that the new Planning Guidance call for more F-35Bs, but Berger seem to be signaling it does not. It specifically identifies a criteria for the stand-force - affordable, risk worthy, and disproportionate results as compared to the cost. There is a clear bias toward unmanned vehicles in the Planning Guidance and the solution they may arrive at maybe the F-35B paired with a loyal wingman which maybe less expensive, attritable, and easier to support. Or it maybe something else. Some wargaming and analysis has already been done. That probably explains why the Marines have signal an adjustment in the B/C mix.

People can characterize or mischaracterize what I say, or belittle me. I really don't care. I don't play that game.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2019, 04:17
by steve2267
It's not as if many really smart Marines haven't already been thinking about this entire problem, crafting requirements for equipment such as for the JSF cum F-35B, modeling & simulating the F-35B. But you sure do seem to have an anti-STOVL stick shoved up your hind quarters.

It is good that the Corps is questioning itself, asking the hard questions, re-evaluating plans. But I hardly see the Corps or CMC Berger hinting that the F-35B is going anywhere, any time soon.

I've read a lot of opinion from you, but few hard facts or even logical analysis. Rather you would seem to be on a Pierre Sprey-esque anti-STOVL diatribe or campaign. Whatever.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2019, 05:57
by XanderCrews
Just wondering, does having an open mind mean you can't have an opinion? Berger himself said he doesn't see the Marines divesting themselves of fixed wing tac air (opinion), but it is on the table with everything else (open mind).



do you actually think the CMC is considering getting rid of mandated air wings?


The B may theoretically sound like its tailor made for dispersed operations in a vacuum. But it needs to be tested against reality - requirements, the ability to support, the threat, concept of operations, geography, and politics.


they know what it requires its only been in service for years now, the question is if that's the direction they want to go in the numbers previously planned. ironically the version we know the least about with deployment is the C. B has dropped ordnance in combat. from a ship.

The Planning Guidance says:...



...It maybe your opinion that the new Planning Guidance call for more F-35Bs, but Berger seem to be signaling it does not. It specifically identifies a criteria for the stand-force - affordable, risk worthy, and disproportionate results as compared to the cost. There is a clear bias toward unmanned vehicles in the Planning Guidance and the solution they may arrive at maybe the F-35B paired with a loyal wingman which maybe less expensive, attritable, and easier to support. Or it maybe something else. Some wargaming and analysis has already been done. That probably explains why the Marines have signal an adjustment in the B/C mix.


They're going to shuffle the numbers, for reasons that don't line up with your claims but you're going to be happy to try and use as "told you so's" when from the get go and every thread since you've never understood any of it from the beginning and often get your facts wrong from the start, further exacerbating the problem.

People can characterize or mischaracterize what I say, or belittle me. I really don't care. I don't play that game.


maybe you should care, if theres no desire to contribute accurate informationto this site it might be a good idea to stop, like you do when confronted with facts and people with knowledge in all the other threads.

watching you fumble around with things you don't even comprehend really doesn't add anything to the conversation. it would be different if you were interested in learning, but over the years you've proven your not, and instead double down on the things you didn't know. Quicksilver and myself have already given some hints as to what might actually be happening, and its the opposite of what you claimed is happening. This isn't slaughter Dogmas and sacred cows-- its reinforcing them. for a guy who bellyached about the USMC being forever stuck in world war II, the Marines cosigning themselves to the big carriers for a giant pacific brawl would seem to be about as world war II as it gets. but then again this is blain the guy who used an example of a time the Marines were abandoned by the navy and had to rely on their own small air force to keep them alive and turn the pacific, while trying to make the case the Marines would never be on their own. So there's that. quicksilver put it accurately your trotting the same old dogs and ponies we've seen over and over.


I want to wait and see what the 3rd reshuffle gets us so exciting watching numbers on paper change and change and change (one could also get into just how smart it is tie the USMC to exclusively fighting China to the exclusion of all else for a force that prides itself on staying relevant in any conflict and being adaptable, but this is no place for conversations like that). I can't wait see how things shift again in 4 years and the next guy comes in and throws this plan out too-- which could indeed happen. I've seen it plenty of times already. One could argue that when you put all the parts and pieces together and look at CMCs guidance its still easier, cheaper and less risky to distribute dets of F-35Bs all over the pacific because its cheaper and less risky than sending expensive ships with thousands of men to crew them into harms way, but I digress. the most expensive way to send a fighter into battle is via CVN, and thats always been true which is one of the many reasons STOVL is popular.

Like i said we will see what happens but watching the USMC maintain the same style force structure it has for decades already in terms of CVN/land/STOVL would seem fairly dogmatic and a clear sacred cow, but this isn't a time for facts or history or logic or looking at things like that. With the Marines desperately trying to not be a "2nd land army" they've decided to be as maritime, amphibious, and fleet driven as possible-- that's hardly unconventional.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2019, 11:49
by quicksilver
Rather than heavily investing in expensive and exquisite capabilities that regional aggressors have optimized their forces to target, naval forces will persist forward with many smaller, low signature, affordable platforms that can economically host a dense array of lethal and non- lethal payloads.

By exploiting the technical revolution in autonomy, advanced manufacturing, and artificial intelligence, the naval forces can create many new risk-worthy unmanned and minimally-manned platforms that can be employed in stand-in engagements to create tactical dilemmas that adversaries will confront when attacking our allies and forces forward. Stand-in Forces will be supported from expeditionary advanced bases (EABs) and will complement the low signature of the EABs with an equally low signature force structure comprised largely of unmanned platforms that operate ashore, afloat, submerged, and aloft in close concert to overwhelm enemy platforms.

Stand-in Forces take advantage of the strategic offensive and tactical defense to create disproportionate result at affordable cost. Because they are inherently resilient, risk worthy, inexpensive and lethal they restore combat credibility to forward deployed naval forces and serve to deter aggression. eavily investing in expensive and exquisite capabilities that regional aggressors have optimized their forces to target, naval forces will persist forward with many smaller, low signature, affordable platforms that can economically host a dense array of lethal and non- lethal payloads.

By exploiting the technical revolution in autonomy, advanced manufacturing, and artificial intelligence, the naval forces can create many new risk-worthy unmanned and minimally-manned platforms that can be employed in stand-in engagements to create tactical dilemmas that adversaries will confront when attacking our allies and forces forward. Stand-in Forces will be supported from expeditionary advanced bases (EABs) and will complement the low signature of the EABs with an equally low signature force structure comprised largely of unmanned platforms that operate ashore, afloat, submerged, and aloft in close concert to overwhelm enemy platforms.

Stand-in Forces take advantage of the strategic offensive and tactical defense to create disproportionate result at affordable cost. Because they are inherently resilient, risk worthy, inexpensive and lethal they restore combat credibility to forward deployed naval forces and serve to deter aggression.”


You’d a thunk this might have come from a “CNOs Planning Guidance” — speshly the ‘expensive and exquisite‘ part. Word is he has an ‘open mind‘ also.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2019, 16:12
by blindpilot
blain wrote: ..

Just wondering, does having an open mind mean you can't have an opinion? ... People can characterize or mischaracterize what I say, or belittle me. I really don't care. I don't play that game.


Generally on this forum we look for informed opinions. I might have an opinion on brain surgery. I doubt anyone cares to hear it. I'm not stupid, and if I pontificate how lasers might make brain surgery more effective ... heck I could be right! But rightly no one really cares.

I usually ask folks with assertions being presented as whimsical opinion, "Why should I care what you think?" That's not an insult but a genuine inquiry. The good General has "informed" opinions. I know why I care what he thinks. I'm a little at a loss right now as to why I care what your opinion is. Help me out and give a little background as to why your opinion matters.

Meanwhile as if I were on a brain surgery forum, instead of asserting opinions, I might content myself with asking questions of the brain surgeons who might be on the brain surgery forum.

Just Sayin' ,
BP

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2019, 17:10
by spazsinbad
Twitter does not make for easy URL reference but anyways: USS America 08 Oct 2019 - 13 VMFA-122 F-35Bs working up.

https://twitter.com/CavasShips

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2019, 20:26
by old_rn
Those 12 F35Bs make the America the most potent strike carrier in the world?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2019, 22:44
by weasel1962
12 F-35Bs could be what keeps 2000 marines alive, freeing $10 billion CVNs to do other things than being a nurse maid, and providing critical fixed wing air cover when nothing else is available. No need to be most potent, just potent enough.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2019, 23:18
by spazsinbad
There are thirteen F-35Bs on deck in the composite photos on previous page with capacity for 20-22 according to reports.

All '13 F-35B USS America' images from DVIDS: https://www.dvidshub.net/image/5827335/ ... h-13-f-35s
"Thirteen U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 122, Marine Aircraft Group 13, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW), are secured aboard amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6). America is at sea conducting routine operations in the eastern Pacific. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Chad Swysgood)"

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2019, 11:45
by quicksilver
weasel1962 wrote:12 F-35Bs could be what keeps 2000 marines alive, freeing $10 billion CVNs to do other things than being a nurse maid, and providing critical fixed wing air cover when nothing else is available. No need to be most potent, just potent enough.


Amen. 90K+ tons of CVN can only be in one place at a time, and not every nail requires a sledgehammer. And, $13B for the new one contributes to discussions of CVNs in the context of the Stability-Instability Paradox. The more expensive it is, the less likely you are to risk it because you can’t afford to lose it. Eventually, the extension of that is that you’re defending the Ryukyus from east of Guam...

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2019, 17:31
by XanderCrews
quicksilver wrote:Rather than heavily investing in expensive and exquisite capabilities that regional aggressors have optimized their forces to target, naval forces will persist forward with many smaller, low signature, affordable platforms that can economically host a dense array of lethal and non- lethal payloads.

By exploiting the technical revolution in autonomy, advanced manufacturing, and artificial intelligence, the naval forces can create many new risk-worthy unmanned and minimally-manned platforms that can be employed in stand-in engagements to create tactical dilemmas that adversaries will confront when attacking our allies and forces forward. Stand-in Forces will be supported from expeditionary advanced bases (EABs) and will complement the low signature of the EABs with an equally low signature force structure comprised largely of unmanned platforms that operate ashore, afloat, submerged, and aloft in close concert to overwhelm enemy platforms.

Stand-in Forces take advantage of the strategic offensive and tactical defense to create disproportionate result at affordable cost. Because they are inherently resilient, risk worthy, inexpensive and lethal they restore combat credibility to forward deployed naval forces and serve to deter aggression. eavily investing in expensive and exquisite capabilities that regional aggressors have optimized their forces to target, naval forces will persist forward with many smaller, low signature, affordable platforms that can economically host a dense array of lethal and non- lethal payloads.

By exploiting the technical revolution in autonomy, advanced manufacturing, and artificial intelligence, the naval forces can create many new risk-worthy unmanned and minimally-manned platforms that can be employed in stand-in engagements to create tactical dilemmas that adversaries will confront when attacking our allies and forces forward. Stand-in Forces will be supported from expeditionary advanced bases (EABs) and will complement the low signature of the EABs with an equally low signature force structure comprised largely of unmanned platforms that operate ashore, afloat, submerged, and aloft in close concert to overwhelm enemy platforms.

Stand-in Forces take advantage of the strategic offensive and tactical defense to create disproportionate result at affordable cost. Because they are inherently resilient, risk worthy, inexpensive and lethal they restore combat credibility to forward deployed naval forces and serve to deter aggression.”


You’d a thunk this might have come from a “CNOs Planning Guidance” — speshly the ‘expensive and exquisite‘ part. Word is he has an ‘open mind‘ also.



Image

What I'm most thankful for so far with Admiral Berger is the impressive technobabble, as a 5th generation warfighting stakeholder I hope we leverage our capabilities investments into our 21st century low risk combat options portfolio synergisytically modeled expeditionary payload exchange events

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 17:56
by spazsinbad
I'm reluctant to make a comment about 'F-35Bs for USN' (just get the USMC to buy more F-35Bs if there is a requirement).
Marines Test ‘Lightning Carrier’ Concept, Control 13 F-35Bs from Multiple Amphibs
23 Oct 2019 Megan Eckstein

"The Navy and Marine Corps recently tested out the “Lightning Carrier” concept of packing an amphibious assault ship with F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter jets, and they will likely continue to expand and exercise this capability. On Oct. 8, USS America (LHA-8) was photographed with 13 F-35Bs from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 122 on its deck. America is one of two aviation-centric amphibious assault ships in the fleet, eliminating a well deck from its design and instead using that vast space for aviation maintenance areas, greater jet fuel storage and more.

Knowing that America and sister ship Tripoli (LHA-7) would have the capability to support so many F-35Bs, the services have long talked about the Lightning Carrier concept as a capability that would be useful in a high-end fight. The jets’ stealth, ability to collect and distribute vast data and strike targets would make them ideal for the opening of a fight: they could come off a ship at sea and take out enemy defenses with jamming and missiles, collect information and share it with the rest of the fleet at sea and Marines on the ground or heading ashore.

Still, though the jets routinely operate on the forward-deployed big-deck in Japan and have conducted a deployment from the U.S.-based Essex Amphibious Ready Group, operating so many at once is much different than previous operations with about six jets onboard and supplemented by tiltrotors and helicopters.

“The training went exceedingly well. We were able to sustain a high sortie rate, with a high condition of readiness, while interoperating with multiple ships and aircraft across a range of mission sets,” Lt. Col. John Dirk, the commanding officer of VMFA-122, told USNI News in a statement.

The Lightning Carrier test comes after VMFA-122 conducted carrier qualifications on America with 12 jets last month, though this month’s experiment was more sustained and grueling to test the limits of the Navy-Marine team rather than to simply certify pilots to land on and take off from a ship at sea.

...As the Marines have stretched their legs operating the F-35B at sea, a recurring concern that Navy and Marine leadership have expressed is that the planes are much more capable than the LHAs and LHDs they launch from, especially when it comes to command and control, communications and data-sharing capabilities. Former director of expeditionary warfare (OPNAV N95) Maj. Gen. David Coffman said last year that “I don’t want to bring Marine Aviation down to third- and fourth-gen; I want to bring the rest of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force up to fifth-gen and exploit that technical expertise and have a fifth-gen MAGTF. The problem is, we’re having to embark a fifth-gen MAGTF on a third-gen ship, and we have to fix that.”

The San Antonio-class LPDs have a much more sophisticated command and control system than do the Wasp-class LHDs and America-class LHAs, meaning that LPDs controlling F-35Bs in flight could help the Navy better tap into the capabilities of the jet, in addition to providing more options during an operation distributed across a vast operating space.

Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer today expressed his excitement about the Lightning Carrier concept and said that more exercises could come. “About nine months ago I was looking at … USS America, a terrific amphib ship, and said, you know what, why don’t we load this thing up with F-35 Bravos, put 20 F-35 Bravos on this, and make it quote/unquote a lightning carrier,” he said today at a Brookings Institution event....

...Spencer talked about the carrier force at Brookings and said the Navy is considering what would come next after the two carriers the Navy committed to buying in a two-ship deal this year. Asking rhetorically what would come next, he said, “I will tell you, we are augmenting the aircraft carrier with our ideas, such as this Lightning Carrier. 20 F-35 Bravos on a large-deck amphib. My cost performance there is tremendous. Does it have the same punch? No, it doesn’t, but it does have a very interesting sting to it.”

"The Drive [ https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... ked-aboard ] previously reported on the Lightning Carrier test earlier this month and noted that a ship satellite dome near the flight deck had been damaged. The article suggested that the heat from the F-35Bs had caused the damage, but the Navy told USNI News that was not the case.

“The apparent damage to the radome aboard USS America (LHA 6) occurred as a result of a previously-known materiel issue exacerbated during routine training operations. There is no indication the increased wear was a direct result of shipboard or flight operations, and it did not result in a degradation of shipboard systems or capabilities,” U.S. 3rd Fleet spokesman Cmdr. John Fage told USNI News." https://news.usni.org/wp-content/upload ... merica.jpg


Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/10/23/marine ... le-amphibs

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 18:43
by steve2267
I should start an interweb thread musing about the flexibility of hosting four F-35 Bravos on a San Antonio class LPD... to be immediately IFR'd by MV-22's launched a few minutes earlier from the same LPD.

:drool:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 20:52
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote:I'm reluctant to make a comment about 'F-35Bs for USN' (just get the USMC to buy more F-35Bs if there is a requirement).


No kidding. Every time somebody shows F-35B on an LHA the same numpties start raving about replacing CVNs with them. :bang: :bang: :bang:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 22:02
by spazsinbad
I'm wondering who the 'numpties' are considering this SecNav 'qualified' quote from the article above: [23 Oct 2019]
"...Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer today expressed his excitement about the Lightning Carrier concept and said that more exercises could come. “About nine months ago I was looking at … USS America, a terrific amphib ship, and said, you know what, why don’t we load this thing up with F-35 Bravos, put 20 F-35 Bravos on this, and make it quote/unquote a lightning carrier,” he said today at a Brookings Institution event....

...Spencer talked about the carrier force at Brookings and said the Navy is considering what would come next after the two carriers the Navy committed to buying in a two-ship deal this year. Asking rhetorically what would come next, he said, “I will tell you, we are augmenting the aircraft carrier with our ideas, such as this Lightning Carrier. 20 F-35 Bravos on a large-deck amphib. My cost performance there is tremendous. Does it have the same punch? No, it doesn’t, but it does have a very interesting sting to it.”..."

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 22:12
by quicksilver
How many smaller CVs can he get for $13B?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 22:20
by steve2267
quicksilver wrote:How many smaller CVs can he get for $13B?


2 or 3 QE's?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 22:32
by sprstdlyscottsmn
~4 LHAs (same total crew and # of jets too)

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 23:10
by marsavian
steve2267 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:How many smaller CVs can he get for $13B?


2 or 3 QE's?


Although the initial QE class contract was £4bn for both in 2008 this had morphed into £6.2bn for both in 2014 which inflation adjusted for today is £7bn which is $9bn so three QE carriers is about right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7486683.stm

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 0656000003

Although nominally they carry 36 F-35B Commodore Jerry Kyd, who commanded QE2, claimed that more than 70 could be carried.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/navy-qu ... th-warship

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 23:20
by quicksilver
Related CSBA offering from a while ago. Still germane to the discussion...

https://csbaonline.org/research/publica ... lication/1

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 23:26
by sferrin
quicksilver wrote:How many smaller CVs can he get for $13B?


They've run those numbers time after time. We still have CVNs because they win that calculation all things considered. What they looked at on the way to the Ford:

cvnx-Image10_zpsad8778b6.gif


(The report discussing it all is out there.)

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 23:55
by quicksilver
I wonder who the target audience was for SECNAV’s public comments, particularly on the backside of the ‘won’t deploy til ‘24’ news re: FORD. John McCain used to launch a flaming arrow into the public domain on ‘smaller carriers’ every time he got frustrated w Ford progress.

What are they going to do w it for another 5 years?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 00:51
by spazsinbad
Link for the 'ready deploy 2024' FORD story: Carrier Ford May Not Deploy Until 2024, 3rd Weapons Elevator Certified
https://news.usni.org/2019/10/22/carrie ... -certified

Some recent USN/USMC warfighting concepts wargaming info: https://news.usni.org/2019/10/23/navy-m ... e-concepts

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 00:53
by sferrin
quicksilver wrote:What are they going to do w it for another 5 years?


No kidding. They should be able to build brand new elevators from the ore up in 5 friggin' years.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 01:06
by spazsinbad
sferrin wrote:
quicksilver wrote:What are they going to do w it for another 5 years?

No kidding. They should be able to build brand new elevators from the ore up in 5 friggin' years.

IF ONLY it was just about weapon elevators but it ain't:
"...Ford’s originally planned deployment date was 2018, but that timeline has continued to slip due largely to developmental delays in the new technologies that were included aboard the first-in-class nuclear aircraft carrier. The delays are also in part due to the Department of Defense’s decision for Ford to undergo full-ship shock trials before its first deployment.

The news of the later deployment date came during a Tuesday House Armed Services readiness subcommittee hearing in an exchange between Naval Sea Systems Command head Vice Adm. Tom Moore and Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.). “The original deployment was 2018 and best estimates we’re looking at 2024?” Luria asked Moore during the hearing.

“I think we’ll beat that,” Moore said. “We’re going to pull back as far to the left as we can, but I think we’re going to beat that.”..." https://news.usni.org/2019/10/22/carrie ... -certified

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 02:06
by quicksilver
“IF ONLY it was just about weapon elevators but it ain't:“

I’m w/ya spaz but they were off the target deploy date by 6 years. Ouch.

Ya gotta appreciate the gent they sent to testify. When questioned about the 2024 date, he tells ‘em, ‘I think we’re going to beat that...’. Reminded me of the Monty Python sketch where the grievously wounded Knight declares, “...its only a flesh wound.”

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 02:33
by spazsinbad

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2019, 07:55
by spazsinbad
Secretary: Navy Discussing Next-Gen Carrier Concepts, Including ‘Lightning Carrier’
24 Oct 2019 Richard R. Burgess

"WASHINGTON — The secretary of the U.S. Navy said the sea service is looking ahead to determine what the follow-on aircraft carrier design will look like, even as work continues to get the new USS Gerald R. Ford out to regular operations at sea. “With the [recent] two-carrier buy, what will the next carrier look like? We’re having discussions on that as we speak, and we will see what happens,” Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer said, speaking Oct. 23 at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. “I think we actually whiteboard this thing. What will it look like in 10 to 15 years? Is it a floating platform for electrically charged unmanned aircraft? I don’t know.”

Spencer said the Navy is looking at the “lightning carrier” concept, deploying 20 F-35B Lightning II strike fighters on an amphibious assault ship. Recently the USS America operated in the eastern Pacific Ocean with 13 F-35Bs of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 122, the Corps’ most recently equipped F-35B squadron. Earlier this year, USS Wasp operated for a short period with 10 F-35Bs of VMFA-121 on board. “My cost performance there is tremendous,” Spencer said. “Does it have the same punch? No, it doesn’t. But it has a very interesting sting to it.”

...During the opening phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan operated as a “Harrier carrier,” equipped with two full squadrons of AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft, which the F-35B is replacing, rather than the usual six aircraft.

The concept might get a serious workout in a couple of years. “In 2021, you will see a Marine Corps F-35B squadron on the Queen Elizabeth, which we are very excited about,” Spencer said, speaking of the plan to operate a Marine Corps F-35B squadron alongside a British F-35B squadron on the new Royal Navy aircraft carrier."

Source: https://seapowermagazine.org/secretary- ... g-carrier/

The Navy in an era of great power competition [23 Oct 2019 84 min] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxXrz0ZSMQ


Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2019, 14:48
by steve2267
It is interesting to note that the USMC seems to be headed towards increased dispersion, whilst the USN seems to be staying with (stuck with, mired in?) concentrated forces centered around the large CVN carrier battle group. I do not doubt that the USN's studies to date have shown cost savings of a 100k CV (Nimitz/Ford class) over a 60-65k CV (Midway class), I just have to hope that no institutional bias set in and that they correctly accounted for the opportunity costs in a war if a CVN were to be sunk. The flipside of that cost coin is that it may very well be easier (and cheaper) to defend a single platform vs two, three, maybe even four platforms.

With the advent of the F-35, it would seem that huge Alpha strikes with 20-30-40 planes may not be required to hit a target. The tactical flexibility, then, of approaching an enemy from two, three, or even four different directions would seem to create enormous defensive problems for your opponent.

It's fine, I guess, to save $B by putting all your eggs in one basket (CVN)... best not let that basket sink, though.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2019, 15:53
by quicksilver
How might this alter your outlook about concentration of forces?

https://news.usni.org/2018/12/19/navy-p ... -end-fight

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2019, 15:58
by spazsinbad

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2019, 16:34
by quicksilver

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2019, 20:39
by spazsinbad
All 6 East Coast Carriers In Dock, Not Deployed: Hill Asks Why
28 Oct 2019 Paul McLeary

"...While the US might be in a carrier crunch, it won’t last forever. The Ford will deploy in a few years, followed closely by the second in the Ford-class, the USS John F. Kennedy. To help patch any holes there might be in future carrier coverage and provide more ships that carry aircraft, the Navy and Marine Corps are rapidly warming to the concept of a “lightning carrier” concept, designed to pack amphibious ships with Marine Corps’ F-35Bs and sail them to the hotspots to cover places the big decks aren’t.

For example, the USS America (not a carrier to the Navy) was recently photographed sailing in the Pacific with 13 F-35s on its deck, something that the services want to do more of as the so-called Gator Navy reinforces more decks to handle the fifth generation fighter. The Marines and Navy are working on a new strategy to more closely align operations, which would allow both to provide more punch, and give the Marines the ability to launch from both ships, and small, ad-hoc bases on land to support the fleet.

In addition, the British Royal Navy will soon boast two new F-35-capable aircraft carriers, allowing the UK to take some of the load off the US Navy in keeping carriers sailing in as many places as possible. For the moment, however, the Navy’s 10 big deck carriers are carrying the load, and the price of two decades of long, punishing deployments, along with a holiday from carrier construction, has caught up with it."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/10/all ... oversight/

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2019, 20:45
by sferrin
As long as it didn't come at the expense of CVN numbers but you just KNOW some democrat is going to pitch, "a carrier is a carrier" and we'll be left trying to make LHAs perform like CVNs.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2019, 21:39
by spazsinbad
"...we'll be left trying to make LHAs perform like CVNs." Does that mean park half the LHAs on the coast - under repair?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2019, 01:54
by spazsinbad
Oh dear - what can the matter be - they're there - stuck somewhere.... [BEST READ ALL of this ARsTICKLE at the JUMP!]
Marines Could Deploy More 'Lightning Carriers' amid High Demand for Flattops
31 Oct 2019 Gina Harkins

"When Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer pitched sending an aircraft carrier into early retirement, he had an idea for how to answer the call for flattops around the world: an amphibious assault ship loaded up with F-35B Joint Strike Fighter jets.

Spencer said he had big plans for what he could do with the $3.8 billion the Navy could save by retiring the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman decades before planned. But the idea to forgo refueling the carrier's nuclear reactor core was unpopular on Capitol Hill and eventually reversed by President Donald Trump [NavAv KnowItAll for Steam Catapults]....

..Spencer said he wants to see 20 F-35Bs, which are designed to operate from amphibious assault ships, on the America's flight deck. "You might see us do that in the near future," he said. "We might just launch it out once -- try it out, put it in a couple of exercises and know that we have it up our sleeve."

The Marine Corps called the test on the America "the birth of the most lethal, aviation-capable amphibious assault ship to date." Lt. Col. John Dirk, VMFA-122's commanding officer, said in a news release about the exercise that adding the F-35Bs' sensors and weapons to the amphib fleet is a "lethal combination."...

..."People came up to me and said, 'Are you out of your mind, secretary? Not refueling the Truman ... that's just insane,'" Spencer said.

But if the sea services are going to be ready for the next fight, he said they must be allowed to ditch inefficient equipment. The Ford-class carriers will be able to fly 30% more sorties and operate with 25% fewer people on board than the Nimitz-class ships, he added.

"It's an efficiency game changer," Spencer said. "So let me abandon an older vessel and move to the newer fleet.""

Source: https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... ttops.html

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2019, 02:23
by quicksilver
sferrin wrote:...you just KNOW some democrat is going to pitch, "a carrier is a carrier" and we'll be left trying to make LHAs perform like CVNs.


We’ll spot you the Republican in place of the Dem, but great call..

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2019, 05:08
by weasel1962
A former Marine captain-aviator (who happens to be a republican) extolling the virtues of a Marine LH.. *ahem* CVL. Once a marine, always a marine.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2019, 19:33
by spazsinbad
Lightning Warning: U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs and USS America shape the future of amphibious operations
25 Oct 2019 Sgt. Charles Plouffe| 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing

"USS AMERICA (LHA 6) -- When more than a dozen F-35B Lightning IIs thundered across the skies of the Eastern Pacific and touched down on the USS America on Oct. 8, 2019, it signaled the birth of the most lethal, aviation-capable amphibious assault ship to date. For the first time, Marines, sailors and airmen from across I Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) embarked more than a dozen fully operational F-35B Lightning IIs aboard the amphibious assault ship USS America.

“We are a force of about 400 based on both ships and ashore - the command element, aviation combat element (ACE) and the ground combat element,” said Lt. Col. John D. Dirk, commanding officer of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 122, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW). “We augmented key enablers from I MEF to create a Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF).”

In his planning guidance, the 38th Commandant of the Marine Corps, General David H. Berger, highlighted the value of partnering Marine forces with surface combatants. Particular emphasis was placed on combining Landing Helicopter Assault and Dock (LHA/LHD) ships with superior aviation capabilities unique to the F-35B. “The ‘Lightning Carrier’ is an LHA/LHD with a jet-heavy ACE embarked,” said Dirk. “Which means the MAGTF aviation element has more of a strike mindset with 12 or more jets that give the fleet or MAGTF commander the ability to better influence the enemy at range. Tying the sensors and weapons of the F-35B together with those of the fleet is a lethal combination.”

Integrating 3rd MAW’s combat power and capabilities while conducting realistic training is essential to generate readiness and lethality in 3rd MAW units and for naval integration. “Our relationship with the Navy is important because if we go to war, we won’t be going as just a squadron. We will be going as a joint amphibious force” said Maj. Christopher Kelly, executive officer of VMFA-122. “Being able to deploy 12 or more F-35B’s on a naval vessel is realistic; it’s something that we can’t get every day at Marine Corps Air Stations Yuma, Camp Pendleton or Miramar.”

Training alongside each other enables the Navy and Marine Corps to improve tactical and technical procedures in terms of mutually supporting one another in the battlespace. Employing 12 or more F-35B’s aboard an LHA aligns with the Commandant’s Planning Guidance. Partnership with an LHA is the right and relevant warfighting capability for many of the challenges confronting the joint force and provides substantial joint operational flexibility, lethality and survivability.

“The ‘Lightning Carrier’ concept is what we are exercising during this at-sea training,” said Dirk. “I think we will continue to see the Marine Corps exercise these capabilities in the future.” 3rd MAW paved the way for the first F-35B squadron in 2012 and will stand up the first F-35C squadron specifically designed for traditional aircraft carriers in 2020."

Photo: "Generating Lethality: 13 F-35B, Two MV-22B aboard USS America U.S. Marine Corps Col. Benjamin Hutchins, commanding officer of Marine Aircraft Group (MAG) 13, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW), departs the amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6) in an F-35B Lightning II from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 122, MAG-13, 3rd MAW, during routine training in the eastern Pacific, Oct. 7, 2019. The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps continue to combine efforts to refine and strengthen the fundamental amphibious capabilities and reinforce the Navy and Marine Corps team. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Juan Anaya) https://media.defense.gov/2019/Oct/25/2 ... 6-1014.JPG


Source:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 18:34
by spazsinbad
How will US Marines adjust for the future fight? | Reagan Defense Forum 2019 VIDEO 16 Dec 2019
"U.S. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Berger explains what he wants to cut from the service to make it leaner and more prepared for the next war." https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters ... ure-fight/

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 23:18
by spazsinbad
Naval Integration Drive Shaping Acquisition of Marine Unmanned MUX Drone
16 Dec 2019 Megan Eckstein

"As the Navy and Marines continue to highlight close naval integration, the interconnectedness of the two services has moved beyond concepts and doctrine and is spilling into acquisition decisions being made, a top Marine Corps general told USNI News.

The Navy and Marine Corps both recognize that their futures are intertwined, with the Marine Corps expecting to use the sea as maneuver space and require greater intra-theater lift from the Navy. With adversaries growing more lethal, the Navy has recognized it will need the Marine Corps to help neutralize enemy radars and weapons ashore to give U.S. ships continued freedom of navigation.

Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David Berger and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday have made clear they’re in lockstep going forward, and their services’ Distributed Maritime Operations and Expeditionary Advance Base Operations concepts go hand-in-hand. Even the top requirements officers for both services, Vice Adm. Jim Kilby and Lt. Gen. Eric Smith, recently joked that they only speak at conferences as a pair and don’t go on lunch breaks without checking in with each other

Smith, the deputy commandant for combat development and integration, told USNI News that now tight naval integration is shaping how program managers conduct their business, too.

The Marines since 2016 have been working on a large Group 5 unmanned aerial system (UAS) called Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) UAS Expeditionary, or MUX. The Marine Corps wanted this capability to help fill a specific gap in its sea-based aviation capability: it would have helicopters and tiltrotors for lift and would have the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter for strike and data collection, but it needed an advanced early warning and electronic warfare (EW) platform to round out a carrier air wing-like capability. Though the Navy didn’t have plans for a Group 5 UAS, the Marine Corps from the start ensured that future integration would be possible by requiring that MUX fit into the hangar on a destroyer.

Smith said the naval integration has gone much deeper recently, though, as the two services tighten their bonds...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/12/16/naval- ... -mux-drone

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 01:15
by steve2267
The Bell Aerospace V-247 appears tailor made for the MUX "program" or "requirements." The articles I have read about the V-247 left me wondering if the MUX requirements were written for the V-247, --OR-- if Bell is simply so in tune with their (potential) customer, that they tailored the V-247 around what the saw the Marines saying they needed / wanted.

The V-247 is touted as being able to fill in the ISR, E/W, and AEW roles, with anti-submarine and strike roles also being potentially met. While the V-247 has been discussed somewheres around here before, I didn't realize it was so large. The 247, leveraging off of Bell's investment in the V-280 which has been flying for over a year, reportedly will have an internal load capacity for ordnance / electronics etc of 2000lb, and an external sling load capacity of 9000lb. It is unclear to me if it can carry 2000lb internally AND still sling 9000lb. IF it can... it raises the possibility of also making it an airborne tanker, although I never saw that specifically called out. But it has to beg that question, it seems to me.

Multiple articles all reported the V-247 is sized to fit in a DDG's hangar, so they appear intent on being able to deploy this thing from destroyers in addition, possibly, to LPD's and LHD/LHA's.

If the V-247 *was* able to give around 10K of gas, that would really seem to change the calculus for deploying F-35's off of LHD's / LHA's. In addition, if you had picket DDG's several hundred NM away, equipped with gas-giving V-247s... that woudl also seem to potentially change the way F-35's could be employed.

The V-247 also seems to be a vehicle that would answer all the questions that British naval officer was raising that I "took exception" too. (Shame on me.)

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 01:46
by weasel1962
The remaining bit of the USNI article posted above has some crucial bits

Smith said the naval integration has gone much deeper recently, though, as the two services tighten their bonds.

“We have to do this together. … We’re talking about, while the Navy is working the Future Vertical Lift and that is kind of foremost in their priority group right now, is we start moving toward MUX – what it is, what it’s not, what it has to do – and mostly it’s [electronic warfare]. It’s not a cargo-hauler. One of the requirements is, it has to fit on a hangar on a destroyer, so before we make big decisions, we have to confer with the Navy to make sure we don’t go down a dead end where the Navy says, look, two years ago you took this right turn, I can’t go with you anymore, if only you had asked. So we’re asking on every decision that we’re making that’s a significant decision. Is this still working for you, even though you’re not ready to go yet?” Smith said, noting that he and Deputy Commandant for Aviation Lt. Gen. Stephen Rudder are in regular contact with Naval Air Systems Command as well as Kilby and his air warfare directorate (OPNAV N98).


The corp wants the UAV to fly off a destroyer. Can't see a group 5 UAV doing that without tiltrotors. The V-247 brochure states "Guided Missile Destroyer Shipboard Compatible". Agree V247 seems to fit the bill.

https://www.bellflight.com/products/bell-v-247

It won't be an airborne tanker though. Cargo-hauling is not priority number one. Looks like the corp would want to make V-22 tanking capability work first. Also the MUX is only planned to be operational in 2026. The main hurdle seems to be they need to convince the navy to accept it.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 01:59
by spazsinbad
What has happened to the USMC V-22 tanker? Most current models are getting 'streamlined' into about five distinct groups versus the myriad examples - difficult to maintain/support - now. USN just received their first example and they train on.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 02:39
by steve2267
weasel1962 wrote:It won't be an airborne tanker though. Cargo-hauling is not priority number one. Looks like the corp would want to make V-22 tanking capability work first. Also the MUX is only planned to be operational in 2026. The main hurdle seems to be they need to convince the navy to accept it.


I agree with you -- as stated.

However, thinking like a Bell businessman... [think think... think think...] "Who can I sell this to?" And I read that the Royal Navy is pining for a 3-in-1 outer mold line UAV that can
  • be airborne early warning
  • provide anti-sub help
  • provide tanking

And I've got this V-247 design which is fairly mature... and it's got a Rolls Royce (bonus to sell to the Brits!) turboshaft with enough power to lift 11,000lb of the deck... and I'm thinking... can I make this an aerial gas giver (even if no one is yet saying so?)

Bell is about to demo an unmanned capability for their V-280. I'm thinking a large part of their avionics work is already done in the V-280. H*ll, a large part of everything is already done in the V-280. The nasal radiators are getting excited for their nascent MQ-25 Stingray, so the seed for unmanned tanking has already germinated...

If memory serves, top speed was 350kts. Their talking a range of 450nm with gas to burn on station... V-247 seems tailor made, IMO, for delivering gas on demand to remote places. Another idea... the Marines have already run exercises where a CH-53K lands and creates a quick FOB for re-arming / re-fueling F-35's. Would it make sense to have V-247's (or a follow-on?) carry extra gas and maybe ordnance for the F-35's.

Perhaps the V-247 is too small for all ideas storming through me head, but that platform scaled up may be just the ticket, and Bell seems well on its way to perfecting that tiltrotor.

V-247 & V-280 bonus: won't melt the deck 'cuz the motors don't exhaust downwards when on the ground.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 04:06
by steve2267
Further consideration suggests an autonomous V-280 platform may make more sense as an IFR gas passer than the V-247. I was thinking that with only one motor, and possibly able to lift 10-11000 lb of gas, the V-247 could make an economical tanker. But it just may not be big enough. I suppose one could look into scaling the V-247... but it may be at the limit of single engine turboshaft power output... so if ya gotsta go to two blowers... why not an autonomous V-280? Bell is already exploring / flight demonstrating autonomous V-280 flight ops.... so they seem to be right there. Bell states the V-280 can haul 12000lb of cargo. If they make an autonomous version, perhaps that number could grow since all the human creature comforts could be removed? Dunno. Might fall into that "hey, just beef up the landing gear a bit, make the wing a bit bigger, and the stabs and fins too, add a tailhook, and Voila! naval tactical air from an Air Farce jalopy..." trap.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 10:12
by spazsinbad
General gives a great speech with discussion of "LIGHTNING CARRIERS" starting at minute 21 in the video below article.
‘Great Power Competition’ Drives Navy, Marines to Integrate Beyond Joint Operations, Berger Tells SNA
16 Jan 2020 John M. Doyle

"ARLINGTON, Va. — The strategy behind the integration of the Navy and Marine Corps is being driven by China’s emergence as a sea power, according to the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.

“The thing that has driven us to where we are right now is the paradigm shift by China moving to sea,” after years of building up its defensive forces and weaponry, Gen. David H. Berger said Jan. 15 at the Surface Navy Association’s annual symposium here.

“We can no longer afford for the Navy and Marine Corps not to be integrated,” he said, adding “It’s a must-do. Our naval force is unbalanced.”

In an era of global terrorism and asymmetric warfare, both services had different tasks to do that strayed from traditional fleet operations. However, for the next 20 to 40 years, with a rising China and a resurgent Russia creating a new ‘great power competition,’ the tasks and the challenges have changed.

A Sept. 6, 2019, memo signed by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday and Berger stated the services will work on a “comprehensive naval force architecture” and an integrated force-structure assessment.

The Navy has largely been a big ship, standoff force with long-range precision weapons. The Marines have handled a number of tasks such as counter-insurgency, infantry patrolling and urban and mountain warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s been years since most Marines have logged sea duty aboard ship.

Berger said he and Gilday are developing a force structure that provides depth “all the way forward and all the way back.” A standoff force won’t provide the deterrence needed in the future, he maintained. “The farther you back away from China, they will move toward you,” Berger said, adding that any forward projecting force must be able to switch to offense if deterrence fails. “We will not be given the chance to swap out that [deterrent] force for another force. A great power competitor will not allow us to do that,” he noted.

Deterrence is the underpinning of the National Defense Strategy, Berger told Seapower when asked how units like the 700 Marines rotating through training tours in Norway since 2017 fit into the new strategy.

“The forces that we have in Europe, and specifically in Norway, are part of U.S. deterrence against Russia or anyone else doing bad behavior. If that doesn’t work out on some future date, the forces that are in Norway and Europe have to be ready to fight immediately. They have to have the equipment; they have to have the training. They have to be ready.”

Asked about the focus on China, Berger said, “I think the read of the National Defense Strategy is pretty straightforward. What the primary focus is, in the primary theater is not exclusive, of course, but it does prioritize. That’s where we take our lead from.”"

Source: https://seapowermagazine.org/great-powe ... rger-says/

SNA Syposium USMC Update https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIyzZhQ8X9g [45 minutes]


Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 19:57
by spazsinbad
More on the Gen. Berger speech video above....
Marine Commandant: ‘The Farther You Back Away From China, They Will Move Toward You’
16 Jan 2020 Paul McLeary

"...In May, Raytheon was awarded $48 million to integrate the NSM into the Marine Corps’ force structure, following a year-long study the Corps conducted, where it also considered Lockheed Martin’s new Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile and Boeing’s Harpoon.

The plan, which was spelled out in Marine Commandant Gen. David Berger’s explosive guidance paper released in July, is to give Marines the ability to protect the fleet at sea from the ground. Berger wants his Marines to hold enemy ships at bay, buying American ships time and space to maneuver.

The Marines, the thinking goes, could deploy with these ship-killer missiles to small, austere bases for short periods of time to keep a potential foe off balance. Part of the plan would also put Marine-owned F-35Bs on widely dispersed and small ad hoc airfields, making US forces less predictable, and giving them more punch.

The Marines have been testing unmanned platforms to quickly refuel and rearm those forward-deployed F-35s
, as war planners recognize that large American bases in the Pacific like Guam and Okinawa are likely to take heavy losses in the first wave of any war in the Pacific against a Chinese foe armed with precise long- and medium-range missiles....

...Berger said he wants his Marines to be able to live and fight within Chinese missile ranges, and to do that, they need to be mobile and fast. Those forces have to be ready to go and not wait around for resupply or help. “We will not be given the chance to swap out that force for another force. A great power competitor will not allow us to do that,” he said.

Berger and Navy chief Adm. Mike Gilday are working on a new force structure plan to begin to provide that kind of depth “all the way forward and all the way back.” If American warships are unable to move across thousands of miles of Pacific waterway due to the Chinese threat, they won’t be able to fight, he said, and that space will immediately be ceded to Beijing. “The farther you back away from China, they will move toward you,” the commandant observed."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/01/mar ... oward-you/

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2020, 21:03
by steve2267
Sounds like a job for Bell's V-280.

Previously, the USMC had utilitized two Kaman K-MAX unmanned helos to fly cargo in Afghanistan, and those two K-MAX are (have been?) re-activated by the Corps for additional testing. K-MAX can sling 6000lb, whereas the V-280 should be able to sling 10,000lb. The V-280 reportedly will have the capability to be based on DDG's -- anywhere that can currently house a Seahawk. (I guess that would include Freedom & Independence LCS's too.)

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopter ... 58.article
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... elicopters

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2020, 04:29
by XanderCrews
muh dogmas muh cows.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2020, 15:40
by XanderCrews
End of the month.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2020, 16:45
by spazsinbad
Massive Fleet Changes Loom As Navy Briefs SecDef Esper
11 Feb 2020 Paul McLeary

"...In addition to the Navy and Marine Corps shipbuilding plan, there’s an eagerly anticipated Marine force structure assessment underway which Berger has said will re-envision how the Marine Corps equips, deploys, and fights. He has said he wants smaller amphibious ships to move small groups of Marines around the Pacific, and is looking at ways to fly F-35Bs from ad hoc landing strips while equipping units with standoff precision weapons so they can protect the fleet from shore.

That plan should be released later this month, around the time he heads to Congress to sell an already unpopular budget — as well as his vision of the future — to Congress."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/mas ... def-esper/

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2020, 22:43
by XanderCrews
blankota wrote:There you go. More Cs, less Bs. The Cs have more range and more payload. A much better fit for slugging it out at range against a near peer threat. No numbers yet, but replacing the Harriers one for one with Bs would be a little overkill, but a good start.


"I dont really have any details, but I was right"
-- blain, under a new user name.

Great post dude. It's not easy to spam the same things over and over while trying to sound like you know what's going on, but here you are.

Once upon a time it was going to be all B's. Then there was a deal cut with the navy to do a split buy. 80 Bs became C's. Then that was dropped to 67 and 13 C's became B's again. This will be our 4th rearrangement of numbers in 10 years. I have no idea how many C's will be added maybe we go back to 80 or maybe 80 + 20 or possibly even more.

This is nothing new under the sun, in fact with decades of delivery ahead I doubt this is the last rearrangement we see. and it really needs to be remembered that the Marine Air wing exists to support the Marines on the ground first and foremost. I doubt (though I could be wrong) we are going to get the force structure blain the 2nd is hoping. Its really not the Marines job to be a 2nd and redundant us air force.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2020, 01:18
by weasel1962
USMC F-35 acquisition should complete by FY32. Doesn't leave many more years to tweak unless they drag out acquisitions again. Will wait for 2020 marine aviation plan to be released (probably sometime in April).

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2020, 16:45
by mixelflick
Smaller, more mobile air components featuring the F-35B/V-22 and like unmanned platforms is a great idea. In fact, they might be the only US conventional assets punching back during the outset of hostilities. But how much punch do they really have? Or will they be used moreso in a defensive posture??

I don't see the B having enough bang to go on the offensive. It's limited to two, 1,000lb JDAM's and short about 5,000-6,000lbs of fuel vs. the A/C. But it could be quite useful in DCA, especially after it gets more AAM's fitted. If I'm not mistaken though, 4 AMRAAM's were going to be the max on USMC B's?

In any case, dispersed B's, V-22's etc. are a step up from where things stand today. I understand it's a process. What's really needed IMO is a similar option for USAF heavy bombers, of which I'm sure the B-21 will figure prominently. If Guam/Diego Garcia are put out of action, it's hard to see where these heavy hitters will be flying from. I'm aware they could fly from the continental US, but that too is dependent upon tanking assets being able to operate freely.

Somewhere, somehow the Pentagon has to come up with a counter to J-20's, J-11's etc. lobbing volley after volley of PL-15's, 21's and whatever else they have up their sleeves. A self defense capability for the B-21 would also make sense, the first of its kind since B-52's carried a tail gunner!

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2020, 10:13
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:Smaller, more mobile air components featuring the F-35B/V-22 and like unmanned platforms is a great idea. In fact, they might be the only US conventional assets punching back during the outset of hostilities. But how much punch do they really have? Or will they be used moreso in a defensive posture??

I don't see the B having enough bang to go on the offensive. It's limited to two, 1,000lb JDAM's and short about 5,000-6,000lbs of fuel vs. the A/C. But it could be quite useful in DCA, especially after it gets more AAM's fitted. If I'm not mistaken though, 4 AMRAAM's were going to be the max on USMC B's?

In any case, dispersed B's, V-22's etc. are a step up from where things stand today. I understand it's a process. What's really needed IMO is a similar option for USAF heavy bombers, of which I'm sure the B-21 will figure prominently. If Guam/Diego Garcia are put out of action, it's hard to see where these heavy hitters will be flying from. I'm aware they could fly from the continental US, but that too is dependent upon tanking assets being able to operate freely.

Somewhere, somehow the Pentagon has to come up with a counter to J-20's, J-11's etc. lobbing volley after volley of PL-15's, 21's and whatever else they have up their sleeves. A self defense capability for the B-21 would also make sense, the first of its kind since B-52's carried a tail gunner!


Honestly, 1,000 lbs PGM's are more than capable for most missions. Plus, the fact the F-35B can carry heavier weapons externally! Also, what do you mean the Pentagon needs to come up with a counter to the J-11, J-20, etc. :? As the existing F-22 and F-35 are more than a match....

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2020, 15:46
by blindpilot
Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:... If Guam/Diego Garcia are put out of action, it's hard to see where these heavy hitters will be flying from. I'm aware they could fly from the continental US, but that too is dependent upon tanking assets being able to operate freely.

Honestly, ... Also, what do you mean the Pentagon needs to come up with a counter to the J-11, J-20, etc. :? As the existing F-22 and F-35 are more than a match....


I really do think folks are clueless on this stuff. They look at training exercises, and IG reports, and multiply the adversary capabilities times 10 inventing boogie men that aren't there. Do you plan for the really worse situations? Sure, but chill a bit.

None of this happens without intel and event warning. When those events happen, stuff occurs very fast.

When Mayaguez went down, I was part of the largest nuclear expedition task force ever assembled. They took us out of the O Club bar, poured us into airplanes, and in less than 24 hours we nearly "sank the islands of Guam and Diego Garcia"(phrase courtesy of a clueless congress-lady, and DG only had donkeys and Navy at the time)

We had over 2 wings of F-4's flying Air cover. wild weasels, several batteries of AA missiles, and row after row of B-52's, some with nukes. Attacking adversary aircraft and missiles would have been taken down with just plain old midair collisions with the traffic in the sky. Less than 24 hours!

Desert Shield pulled off a similar deployment. The US has a LOT OF FIREPOWER! that moves very fast.

So let's see China has ... a couple dozen almost stealthy J-20's, mostly at training and testing airfields, and a bunch of IRB/CM's many of which have CEPs that land in the ocean shooting at fixed land targets. They would have to launch swarms of ballistic missiles in order to get a few through to take out "some" targets.

Now final reality check. I also worked at Cheyenne Mountain with the Missile Warning systems. Do you know what happens at Strategic command if Russia or China light up the boards with "swarms" of missiles launches? Beijing disappears before the first missiles hit Guam. China will NEVER launch "swarms" of missiles, and their dozen J-20's will get eaten by 200 plus F-22/35's assuming the J-20's don't go down in a midair collision with cargo planes on the way to the targets. That's say for example, 4 F-22's and 6 F-35's against each individual J-20, while the Navy sits outside with a flight of SH's per J-20, in case the Air Force can't handle that wicked J-20 with those odds. US "No Fly zones" work.

Chill, and get a reality grip guys.

MHO,
BP

PS Sneaky little 1000 fishing boat flotillas, and Coast Guard water cannons only work as long as the sky doesn't reveal "swarms" of Attack and ASuW helicopters coming from over the horizon. That little game can be shut down in the Persian Gulf or the South China Sea in a few hours. Poking the Bear only works while the bear is sleeping, and basement experts dream in their sleep.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2020, 16:33
by quicksilver
:lmao: Too many good (BP) quotes to snip.

:thumb:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2020, 19:04
by spazsinbad
Thanks as always 'BP' for your insights. A current example of US firepower may be gleaned from this recent article.

Two Carriers & Marine Amphib Converge On Mid East; Patriots Too 13 Mar 2020 Paul McLeary

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/two ... riots-too/

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2020, 19:43
by ricnunes
blindpilot wrote:So let's see China has ... a couple dozen almost stealthy J-20's, mostly at training and testing airfields, and a bunch of IRB/CM's many of which have CEPs that land in the ocean shooting at fixed land targets. They would have to launch swarms of ballistic missiles in order to get a few through to take out "some" targets.

Now final reality check. I also worked at Cheyenne Mountain with the Missile Warning systems. Do you know what happens at Strategic command if Russia or China light up the boards with "swarms" of missiles launches? Beijing disappears before the first missiles hit Guam. China will NEVER launch "swarms" of missiles, and their dozen J-20's will get eaten by 200 plus F-22/35's assuming the J-20's don't go down in a midair collision with cargo planes on the way to the targets. That's say for example, 4 F-22's and 6 F-35's against each individual J-20, while the Navy sits outside with a flight of SH's per J-20, in case the Air Force can't handle that wicked J-20 with those odds. US "No Fly zones" work.

Chill, and get a reality grip guys.

MHO,
BP


THIS! Absolutely THIS :thumb:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2020, 23:53
by madrat
While I'll not under-estimate the accuracy of SSMs, much of what blindpilot says is impossible to debunk.

In the 80s the Battleship regained a place at the strategic arms talks. The ironic thing was, it really was purely symbolic of American power whereas the real deal lay in our air power. And time has only seen the air power become more lethal over adversaries. A single F-15E can drop a salvo worth of battleship gunfire on a target one precise location at a time. And do it at 50 times the range. The SDB is conventionally equivalent to 205mm shells, only deliverable at far greater numbers, and again on a target one precise location at a time. A hand full of F-15E's can successfully deliver the same raw tonnage on target as a WW2 cruiser, but a hundred times the range. There is a reason air power replaced the big guns.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2020, 00:27
by spazsinbad
Someone will not be happy to eat these either - coming from the bounding main. [best read at source or 'open ocean']
Document Likely Shows SM-6 Hypersonic Speed, Anti-Surface Role
12 Mar 2020 Steve Trimble

"A U.S. Navy document that cryptically describes a versatile and powerful new missile likely offers the first confirmation of the hypersonic speed and newly acquired, antisurface-warfare role for the Raytheon SM-6 Block 1B....

...Guerts’ testimony on March 10 is not the first to link the SM-6 Block 1B to the antisurface-warfare role. A presentation by the Navy at the Surface Warfare Association’s annual conference in January 2019 listed the SM-6 Block 1B on a chart as one of several antisurface-warfare weapons. But Guerts’ testimony adds a potentially important detail. He referenced a new “warhead design” for the new hypersonic weapon, addressing a flaw of the baseline version of the SM-6 for an anti-surface application. The warhead on the baseline SM-6 weighs only 140 lb., a mass the Congressional Budget Office cited as inadequate against a modern combat ship."

Source: https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... rface-role

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2020, 00:36
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Someone will not be happy to eat these either - coming from the bounding main. [best read at source or 'open ocean']
Document Likely Shows SM-6 Hypersonic Speed, Anti-Surface Role
12 Mar 2020 Steve Trimble

"A U.S. Navy document that cryptically describes a versatile and powerful new missile likely offers the first confirmation of the hypersonic speed and newly acquired, antisurface-warfare role for the Raytheon SM-6 Block 1B....

...Guerts’ testimony on March 10 is not the first to link the SM-6 Block 1B to the antisurface-warfare role. A presentation by the Navy at the Surface Warfare Association’s annual conference in January 2019 listed the SM-6 Block 1B on a chart as one of several antisurface-warfare weapons. But Guerts’ testimony adds a potentially important detail. He referenced a new “warhead design” for the new hypersonic weapon, addressing a flaw of the baseline version of the SM-6 for an anti-surface application. The warhead on the baseline SM-6 weighs only 140 lb., a mass the Congressional Budget Office cited as inadequate against a modern combat ship."

Source: https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... rface-role


Could a US Bomber carry SM2/3/6 internally. Which, could be guided by F-35's against a number of Air and/or Surface Targets??? We know this is already possible with Surface Warships. Yet, could bombers offer even greater scope??? :|

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2020, 04:47
by blindpilot
madrat wrote:While I'll not under-estimate the accuracy of SSMs,..


While I used "CEP" accuracy, in today's world it is actually more of a "Kill Chain" issue. Break the kill chain and the AA missile, Ballistic missile, Anti Ship missile etc. will simply "splash in the empty ocean."Break the Command and Control before the first shot and the chain is missing it's first link. Jam or confuse the terminal mechanism, (GPS spoof, decoys etc.) and the weapon will miss exactly to the inch, ever how many miles away it was confused.

These issues are strictly driven by robustness of the network centric system, and the personnel maturity of tactical evolution (developing new 5th Gen tactics). The US has been practicing these since F-117 days at the latest. My brother was commanding group level missions of "combat stealth technology," way back before the Y2K bug was even recognized as a problem (that's way back in the 19xx years for you millennials, check history books for Y2K), retired and flew an airline career before retiring there, and doing a third career before retiring again ... and then the Chinese started doing stealth after he was bouncing grandkids on his knee.

Individual US Pilots may have more hours training against VLO adversaries/systems, than the entire J-20 fleet has operational flying mission hours. The Chinese etc. have to get more than 30 fighters flying before they can even begin to really practice once against such things as Lt Col Berke was regularly doing many many years ago. Then they have to evolve tactics and then actually develop trained systems to implement those for more than two dozen pilots. They are only about a half century behind the curve in that regard. Regular Joe Marines are now practicing things daily decades ahead of the current J-20 state of the arts.

Still .. Can golden BB's kill hundred thousand lb bombers? Can asymetrical fishing boat tactics complicate blue water navies?

Sure they can ...

... so you take the BB gun and a broken down fishing boat. I'll take a B-1 and an Arleigh Burke Destroyer. You can have the first shot... say when. :D :D

MHO,
BP

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2020, 04:51
by rheonomic
blindpilot wrote:Chill, and get a reality grip guys.

This doesn't sell airplanes. :wink:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2020, 13:52
by optimist
Since when does the SM-6 replace the current harpoon 1500lb warhead missiles? I think someone at avwk has the wrong end of the stick.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2020, 16:53
by blindpilot
optimist wrote:Since when does the SM-6 replace the current harpoon 1500lb warhead missiles? I think someone at avwk has the wrong end of the stick.


This is the old .45 vs .357 Mag, 5.56 vs 7.62, etc. argument. There are 6mm magnum rounds that out penetrate Glock 9mm ammo. Force = mass(and explosive power) times speed. At some point in the hypersonic realm you theoretically don't need explosives, or really much mass, at all. Ask the ISS Space Station guys if they want to test a 1 gram piece of metal at 17,000 mph against the hull. A simple baseball bat sized tungsten rod sent fast enough from space (with reentry heat shielding) will dig a very deep hole in a reinforced concrete bunker deep under ground. No explosive warhead needed.

Well engineered hypersonics can replace torpedo sized warheads. That's a fact. Now a school bus full of IED's at 25,000+ mph ... well now you are getting into dinosaur nite nite time.

FWIW,
BP

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2020, 20:41
by XanderCrews
F=MA

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2020, 23:03
by ricnunes
a.k.a. Newton's second law of motion

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2020, 02:43
by weasel1962
Easy to forget the SM is also 1500+ lbs.

While I used "CEP" accuracy, in today's world it is actually more of a "Kill Chain" issue. Break the kill chain and the AA missile, Ballistic missile, Anti Ship missile etc. will simply "splash in the empty ocean."Break the Command and Control before the first shot and the chain is missing it's first link. Jam or confuse the terminal mechanism, (GPS spoof, decoys etc.) and the weapon will miss exactly to the inch, ever how many miles away it was confused.


Difficulty is that the newer missiles are smarter. They don't depend on 3rd party sensors and its smart enough not to be spoofed (AGR, SAASM etc). Today, hardkill is probably the only solution. However, not going to be easy to hardkill an hypersonic and it can be too far to take out the launcher.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2020, 06:05
by blindpilot
XanderCrews wrote:F=MA


Absolutely true, but understand the force the impacting projectile is "de-accelerating" nearly instantly which is a measured function of the starting (at impact) "velocity." The acceleration from Mach 10 to zero in a fraction of a second is a big number, no matter how big the mass is. The acceleration from 20 knots(or even 400 kts) to zero, not so much, hence the need for an "explosive" aid.

As to hypersonic defense problems, using hypersonics has its own problems not yet fully worked out by anyone (Russian, Chinese claims to the contrary). High speeds typically wrap the airframe in a plasma that messes with radiation (IR, Radar, GPS Radio etc.) targeting, offboard or onboard. Passive systems like INS don't like getting jerked at super High G's either. Targeting is a non trivial problem.
And from my SR-71 days, I am made mindful, that even at extreme G's, the turn radius of a hypersonic craft is like Geographical not a circle of a few hundred yards, ... as in a circle the size of west Australia etc. The track may not be ballistic, but it can't move far from a straight line. It took the SR a couple western states to make a 180 turn at Mach 3. These missiles are not "juking" like bumble bees. They change heading "a few degrees over many miles"

Just Sayin,
BP

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2020, 17:34
by ricnunes
Hi BP,

what you said about the hypersonic weapon/missile problems kinda reminds me of the Shkval supercavitating torpedo despite being using a different 'medium' (water instead of air).
While the Shkval is much, much faster than the other underwater weapons - Torpedoes - this gives it several disadvantages such as being largely or almost unguided and much easier to be detected by the enemy (due to supercavitation) and as a result basically no-one uses such weapons (even the Russians seem to hardly and rarely use it), this despite its principles being generally well known.

Perhaps it's quite possible that due to known limitations that hypersonic weapons will only be used in niche roles similarly to what happens with the Shkval torpedo, no?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 01:13
by weasel1962
If one looks at the DF-17 which the Chinese declared operational last year, tests were conducted between 2014 to 2017 which suggests it works. Tests of the delivery system (then identified as WU-14) was tested at 9 times between 2016 to 2017 and concluded by US to be successful.

This is basically utilising ICBM/MRBM launch vehicles to achieve the same speeds with similar ingress (mach 10 at reentry). Add GPS targeting to achieve low CEPs. The difficulty of targeting moving targets appears to have been resolved, taking into account ships don't go that fast either (up to 30 knots). How they do that appears to be by depressing the glide path after reentry thereby slowing down the delivery close to terminal stage allowing the delivery to employ its sensors. This makes the missile relatively more vulnerable at this time (still fast) but taking into account that this is close to terminal stage which means lower detection/reaction times. The glide also enables more maneuver capability.

Whilst there may still be some doubt as to whether the DF-17 or DF-21D can actually successfully target a moving target, a static target capability should be minimally assumed. That includes CVNs/ships at port, air bases and SAM sites.

As CVNs will be at port some of the time, I'd recommend moving the Japan-based CVBG back to Pearl or Guam to avoid tempting a first strike on static targets.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 02:12
by blindpilot
weasel1962 wrote:.... I'd recommend moving the Japan-based CVBG back to Pearl or Guam to avoid tempting a first strike on static targets.


You recommend? What makes you think (or more importantly Chinese leadership would not dare think) that a surprise missile attack on Japan would not be met by a couple hundred SLBM nuclear missile warheads annihilating 1 billion Chinese? There would be no one in Beijing to take the damage reports.

If your asymetrical response leads to oblivion, it's not a strategy. It's a bluff. And escalation can get very ugly very fast. I recommend you go play a video game in the basement .... the CVBG and 1 or two of it's friends are going to be in Japan, and East/South China Sea for as long as this discussion matters. Learn to live with it. Recommend BS.

MHO,
BP

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 02:25
by weasel1962
There goes 300 million Americans as well. Escalating to a nuclear war is mutually assured destruction.

I seriously doubt if US leadership will regard an attack on a static CVBG, a military target, as something that would trigger a nuclear response. Thousands of tac-toms maybe but that's already something that is factored into for any Taiwan conflagration. It will go both ways. If there is 1 situation where a China military strike could happen, that's over Taiwan. Consider that attacking a CVN at port side may also attract less casualties...

Even at the height of hysteria during the cold war, I doubt if US would have triggered a nuclear response from potential Russki conventional attacks on a CVBG.

A redeployment is not as crazy as it sounds. In the past few years, US has been pushing back other assets from potential front-lines in places like Korea and Japan precisely to increase survivability. Sinking a CVBG is probably the one that can trigger the biggest hit to morale...

I think this discussion should be confined to hypersonics, rather than nuclear. As to it being a bluff, I don't think one can bluff multiple detectable tests.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 03:07
by ricnunes
weasel1962 wrote:There goes 300 million Americans as well. Escalating to a nuclear war is mutually assured destruction.

I seriously doubt if US leadership will regard an attack on a static CVBG, a military target, as something that would trigger a nuclear response. Thousands of tac-toms maybe but that's already something that is factored into for any Taiwan conflagration. It will go both ways. If there is 1 situation where a China military strike could happen, that's over Taiwan. Consider that attacking a CVN at port side may also attract less casualties...


If I read BP post correctly, even during Cold War Ballistic Missiles (such as ICBMs or IRBMs) would be detected during the very early launch stages.
This means that dozens of such Chinese Ballistic Missiles being launched and thus detected during the early launch stage would or could be interpreted by the Americans as a Nuclear Strike which would immediately result in a (Nuclear) counter-strike by the US, this instead of interpreting as being an attack on a CVBG.
The US would probably never wait until such 'conventional' Ballistic Missiles hit (or miss) the target in order to see/check/confirm that they indeed carry conventional warheads instead of nukes.

Besides, I would say that during the very early stages of such Ballistic missiles flight path (i.e. during launch) it will be very hard to figure (if possible at all) if their target is a CVBG near Japan or targets on actual Japan (such as cities or military bases) or even cities or targets on continental USA (or Hawaii).

Well, my 2 cents anyway...

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 06:01
by blindpilot
weasel1962 wrote:...
Even at the height of hysteria during the cold war, I doubt if US would have triggered a nuclear response from potential Russki conventional attacks on a CVBG.
....


That's your opinion. I was there during the 'Hysteria during the Cold War." "There" being in the missile warning center in Cheyenne Mountain. I know first hand how close things came more often than folks would like. I designed systems that provided the algorithms projecting orbital elements, and predicted impact points and variation of those over the flight path. I sat in the pentagon discussing the accuracy or lack there-of for various sensor systems and such. actually calculating the PI CEP etc. for informing command decisions. I actually participated in the "NCA elements of decision" designs for system reports. I was on the phone conferences discussing actual ICBM launch reports as they happened, and what they meant for those decisions real time.

But hey, it's just my opinion (I signed it MHO :) ). And shucks - You doubt it so ...

The calculation of such provocations as multiple missile launches at real targets gets into very bad places very fast.
The Chinese know this, ... and actually their attitude is one of the long road with constant pressure. They don't do "surprise mass launches," strategically. They poke tactically to test status. They think in terms of decades and centuries of evolving advantages. They like "fait accompli" results following decades of maneuver without starting WW III. They have no desire to use a handful of DF-17s/DF-ZF HGVs against a single Carrier.

FWIW MHO,
Chey Mtn Rock.jpg
Rock Piece from Cheyenne Mtn Complex

I'm gonna go play with my Great Grandson ...
BP

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 08:07
by zhangmdev
The anti-ship-ballistic-missile has been hyped since ... there was internet. Now it has evolved into the undetectable and invincible boost-glider. It is pointless to talk about technological side of the issue, which is basically impossible to prove or disprove until the chips are down.

I'd like to say what happened in this January is the indication of what is the shape of things to come. Just like Iran, China is not seeking nuclear annihilation, which it definitely cannot win. It will simply declare "we will conduct a limited non-nuclear strike against your assets within a certain area tomorrow, and you can do nothing about it". That is specifically designed to prevent any nuclear response and exchange. So it can keep doing whatever it is doing. If the strike results in the destruction of some important asset on the other side, that will be a big propaganda coup. Any loss on its own side can be easily glossed over. I am pretty sure nobody can win a propaganda war against China.

It is a far more sinister opponent. It is pursuing empire building through commerce. Its military might is backed by Western money, technology, and consumerism. The Soviets never got this kind of treatment. The problem is how to deal with this threat. Improved technology? Economic standoff? Retreat and regroup? Accept defeat? I don't know.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 11:19
by weasel1962
BP, due respect given. Younger folks question everything but would do well to heed lessons learnt from real experience. Points well taken :)

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 17:55
by blindpilot
weasel1962 wrote:BP, due respect given. Younger folks question everything but would do well to heed lessons learnt from real experience. Points well taken :)


Okay one war story.

In 1979 we were testing new systems. One evening (ie 0 dark thirty AM) a test was running and went hay wire. I literally jumped over the row of consoles, to punch an old manual cutoff to the outside world before they could see the pretty lights and bells. I advised senior leadership we needed to move testing off site, and in November I left the assignment. Early in 1980, my replacement didn't make it to the cutoff switch and things got exciting. ( https://books.google.com/books?id=AIBRd ... &q&f=false ) For years we relied on a small trusted Univac back up system, that I set up in the chaos before leaving. They moved testing off site, cleaned up the mess and life went on. BUT in 1980 we almost accidentally went to nuclear war because a guy couldn't jump over the consoles. And you think it couldn't happen when there is a real launch of many ballistic missiles? Something to ponder. Thankfully tensions are less today, and the Chinese take the long view, but whether it's 1980 or the Cuban missile crisis, sometimes it's just a sub commander's instincts away(see Cuban Missile Crisis), from really bad stuff.

Relying on long range ballistic missiles for conventional tactical strikes is a really bad plan, and a Halloween haunted house I wouldn't want to go into. Nor is the US going to "stand down" tactical presence during peace time chess games, nor surrender ground when it heats up. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know. With the Chinese you just have to do a lot of chest bumping. They understand that. And both countries prosper along the way.

Just saying,
BP

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 18:42
by ricnunes
Interesting example indeed BP and thanks for sharing your experiences!

There were indeed plenty of situations that brought the world to the brink of (nuclear) war.
Just to complement, another and well known example/situation of this happened after the end of the Cold War (in 1995) due to a scientific rocket launch in Norway.
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident

So and echoing BP's words, if a single scientific rocket launch almost resulted in a nuclear war then imagine launching several long range Ballistic Missiles (even if they don't carry nukes).

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2020, 21:48
by XanderCrews
weasel1962 wrote: Escalating to a nuclear war is mutually assured destruction.


No its not.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2020, 04:49
by wrightwing
optimist wrote:Since when does the SM-6 replace the current harpoon 1500lb warhead missiles? I think someone at avwk has the wrong end of the stick.

Harpoons don't have a 1,500lb warhead. That's how much the entire missile + booster weighs.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2020, 19:17
by spazsinbad
The Corps is axing all of its tank battalions and cutting grunt units
23 Mar 2020 Shawn Snow

"...As part of Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David Berger’s plan to redesign the force to confront China and other peer adversaries by 2030, the Marines are axing all three of its tank battalions, and chucking out all law enforcement battalions and bridging companies, according to a news release from Marine Corps Combat Development Command.

The Corps is also cutting the number of grunt battalions from 24 to 21, artillery cannon batteries from 21 to five and amphibious vehicle companies from six to four, according to the release. Aviation is taking a hit too, the Marines plan to cut back on MV-22 Osprey, attack and heavy lift squadrons.

The Marines also plan to reduce the number of primary authorized F-35B and F-35C fifth generation stealth fighters per squadron from 16 to 10, according to MCCDC.

The Corps says overall, it expects a reduction of 12,000 personnel across the force over the next 10 years...."

Source: https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/y ... unt-units/

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2020, 22:50
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:
The Corps is axing all of its tank battalions and cutting grunt units
23 Mar 2020 Shawn Snow

"...As part of Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David Berger’s plan to redesign the force to confront China and other peer adversaries by 2030, the Marines are axing all three of its tank battalions, and chucking out all law enforcement battalions and bridging companies, according to a news release from Marine Corps Combat Development Command.

The Corps is also cutting the number of grunt battalions from 24 to 21, artillery cannon batteries from 21 to five and amphibious vehicle companies from six to four, according to the release. Aviation is taking a hit too, the Marines plan to cut back on MV-22 Osprey, attack and heavy lift squadrons.

The Marines also plan to reduce the number of primary authorized F-35B and F-35C fifth generation stealth fighters per squadron from 16 to 10, according to MCCDC.

The Corps says overall, it expects a reduction of 12,000 personnel across the force over the next 10 years...."

Source: https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/y ... unt-units/


A month ago I would consider this unlikely. Yet, now with the worldwide coronavirus crisis. Anything is possible.... :?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 01:32
by weasel1962
In the FY 2021 budget, the F-35B program total was cut to 324 (cut by 29) whilst the F-35C program total was boosted to 369 (added 29). That suggests maybe 4 sqns (all B sqns from FY 22) will be at 10 B instead of 16 B whilst keeping the same number of B sqns. That could mean adding ~2 more C sqns (likely could be USMC). Could be thinking Japan deployment, instead of carrier.

P.s. There are no 16C sqn in previous USMC aviation plans so can't cut those.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 04:40
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:In the FY 2021 budget, the F-35B program total was cut to 324 (cut by 29) whilst the F-35C program total was boosted to 369 (added 29). That suggests maybe 4 sqns (all B sqns from FY 22) will be at 10 B instead of 16 B whilst keeping the same number of B sqns. That could mean adding ~2 more C sqns (likely could be USMC). Could be thinking Japan deployment, instead of carrier.

P.s. There are no 16C sqn in previous USMC aviation plans so can't cut those.



Sure sounds like they're taking the extra aircraft from the larger F-35B Squadrons (16 vs 10) and buying F-35C's instead....Which, sounds like a good plan to me. Yet, I would prefer to see 12 aircraft squadrons for both types instead of "10". :(

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 06:58
by XanderCrews
Corsair1963 wrote:
A month ago I would consider this unlikely. Yet, now with the worldwide coronavirus crisis. Anything is possible.... :?


This has been in the works for months. Some would even say years the Marine Corps quit buying tube artillery a while ago and started making sure HIMARS could mate with F-35s

the big problem, and one should actually be thanking Trump for this (and I don't normally get political like this, but the obama administration utterly failed to extract us from "forever war" as was promised) , is the US Military actually gets to stop getting deeper and deeper into "forever war" and may actually even leave a few. The USMC for all its machinations and grand ideas, has been basically stuck because everytime we try to tell Tommy Taliban we are done with this and are ready for the big 21st century high tech war we get pulled right back into iraqistan. The Marine Corps has been telling us for nearly 10 years we are "the peacetime corps" but darned if the enemy never reads that memo. Shedding 12,000 people brings us below pre-GWOT levels. I think losing the tanks is premature for just that reason. What happens when you throw a war and china never comes, but theres still plenty of mid level people or even nobodies that can make your life miserable to the point you wouldn't mind a tank or two? Trump has done admirably at not getting sucked in deeper, and believe me he is under tremendous pressure to do so. I don't give him credit unnecessarily or lightly. But Droney McPeaceprize blew this in ways people still don't comprehend. To the point where Trump literally doing nothing to make it worse is a MASSIVE improvement. its very much the "in a hole? stop digging" concept that so many "Seasoned" and "smart" politicians are failing to grasp.

Its all about China and thats great, but we in the same way we have managed to fight so many nations other than Russia since 1945, the corps should not be too target fixated.

In the FY 2021 budget, the F-35B program total was cut to 324 (cut by 29) whilst the F-35C program total was boosted to 369 (added 29). That suggests maybe 4 sqns (all B sqns from FY 22) will be at 10 B instead of 16 B whilst keeping the same number of B sqns. That could mean adding ~2 more C sqns (likely could be USMC). Could be thinking Japan deployment, instead of carrier.



so 29 aircraft shift??


"The proposed reductions are meant to make the Corps lighter and more nimble to fight China in a 21st century version of the Pacific island hopping campaign during World War II," Berger said in an interview with Gordon.


LOL Good thing those wacky Marines aren't stuck in those past dogmas and unable to kill that sacred cow amiright? there you go, He wants to re-fight World War II :mrgreen:


The biggest sacred cows that Berger has murdered is insisting the Marines have to go along with putting women in combat roles, expanding maternity leave for same s3x couples and banning confederate flags.

Other than that, Bill Sweetman and company who have mocked the Marines for decades about "being stuck on Guadalcanal" have found a guy who makes the last few commandants look downright modern and 21st century. :mrgreen:


Image

oh just bless your heart

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 07:17
by Corsair1963
So, maybe they plan on deploying with 10 F-35B's when aboard ship??? (i.e. LHA/LHD)

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 09:13
by quicksilver
This unilateral donation of budget share, end strength and capability is premature and this CMC will learn the hard way that he will get no credit for these actions when the next budget drill happens in the wake of fiscal stimulus.

“But I gave up 20% of my TOA back in 2020.” (‘TOA’ is ‘total obligation authority’)

“Thank you, but it is now 2022 (...or whenever). Give us 40% and we’ll call it done.”

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 09:18
by quicksilver
“The proposed reductions are meant to make the Corps lighter and more nimble to fight China in a 21st century version of the Pacific island hopping campaign during World War II," Berger said in an interview with Gordon.“

Someone has confused a theater-specific task organization for a service force structure.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 12:03
by mixelflick
quicksilver wrote:“The proposed reductions are meant to make the Corps lighter and more nimble to fight China in a 21st century version of the Pacific island hopping campaign during World War II," Berger said in an interview with Gordon.“

Someone has confused a theater-specific task organization for a service force structure.


Don't know enough about warfare to say if what the Marines are doing is best. I trust they do, given the many sacrifices they've made for the nation. I do wonder why they're angling for more F-35C's vs. B's. It would seem if being nimble for island hopping is their goal, more B's would be the ticket. I love the C though, and think with an improved motor it'll be the most capable variant.

A C with 6 internal AMRAAM's and perhaps 2 on the wingtips, plus 19,000lbs of fuel with a more powerful/less thirsty engine is a dream come true. Make that configuration 12 Perigrine and I think it'd be unstoppable. The only downer is no gun, but I understand that was a tradeoff made for more fuel. I'd love to be flying any one of them, but the C so configured would be the one I'd prefer to take into combat...

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 12:11
by madrat
Haven't all MEU's up to this point been fairly unique due to their flexible structure? That was the point when the concept originated.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 12:39
by quicksilver
madrat wrote:Haven't all MEU's up to this point been fairly unique due to their flexible structure? That was the point when the concept originated.


There have been some exceptions, and in many cases there is some adjustment around the edges, but for the most part they have been cookie cutter entities.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 12:46
by quicksilver
From the WSJ article on the same topic —

“I think it is a mistake to organize yourself in a way to go after a specific region,” said Anthony Zinni, a retired four-star Marine general who led the Central Command. “Something could happen tomorrow with the Iranians. The answer is to be ready, expeditionary and balanced.”

I agree.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 12:57
by quicksilver
weasel1962 wrote:In the FY 2021 budget, the F-35B program total was cut to 324 (cut by 29) whilst the F-35C program total was boosted to 369 (added 29). That suggests maybe 4 sqns (all B sqns from FY 22) will be at 10 B instead of 16 B whilst keeping the same number of B sqns. That could mean adding ~2 more C sqns (likely could be USMC). Could be thinking Japan deployment, instead of carrier.

P.s. There are no 16C sqn in previous USMC aviation plans so can't cut those.


Apart from making some adjustments to meet budget numbers, the USMC has played around with B/C numbers periodically for the last decade.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 03:44
by weasel1962
I pored thru the budget docs to revalidate the post. Apparently the FY2021 program total is not a change of numbers but instead reflects that pre-FY 2011 STOVL and CV numbers were conflated and thus 29 Bs (lots 2-4) were added to the C total. Budget docs still reflect 340 Cs and 353 Bs.

Pls ignore my earlier post. Thanks.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 04:27
by XanderCrews
quicksilver wrote:“The proposed reductions are meant to make the Corps lighter and more nimble to fight China in a 21st century version of the Pacific island hopping campaign during World War II," Berger said in an interview with Gordon.“

Someone has confused a theater-specific task organization for a service force structure.


This was far better than I put it.

The USMC is the United states force in readiness. Its not "china or bust" and more to the point, the US has since World War II (praise be upon it) maintained the strategic notion of always fighting a 2 front war simultaneously. If theres anything the last 20 years has taught us its that we don't get to pick where we play, and we don't always have enough pieces to play how we want already. we had the Surge in Afghanistan at the same time the Libya games started and that required serious juggling with a larger force and the Japan disaster relief.

You don't get to be "America's 911 force", but only pick up when the caller ID says "China"

I've actually never seen such single mindedness in my lifetime regarding the USMC, not even during the cold war.

Right down to "tanks?" useless! because in a war against China you'll never need those!

Image

even world war 2 had tanks.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 04:45
by quicksilver
“The USMC is the United states force in readiness. Its not "china or bust" and more to the point, the US has since World War II (praise be upon it) maintained the strategic notion of always fighting a 2 front war simultaneously. If theres anything the last 20 years has taught us its that we don't get to pick where we play, and we don't always have enough pieces to play how we want already. we had the Surge in Afghanistan at the same time the Libya games started and that required serious juggling with a larger force and the Japan disaster relief.

You don't get to be "America's 911 force", but only pick up when the caller ID says "China" “

Agree.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 05:27
by marauder2048
quicksilver wrote:This unilateral donation of budget share, end strength and capability is premature and this CMC will learn the hard way that he will get no credit for these actions when the next budget drill happens in the wake of fiscal stimulus.

“But I gave up 20% of my TOA back in 2020.” (‘TOA’ is ‘total obligation authority’)

“Thank you, but it is now 2022 (...or whenever). Give us 40% and we’ll call it done.”


The Navy has recently been complaining about the 1/3rd division of the DoD budget being inadequate.
Since the Navy isn't likely to get relief there, Green is going to be the bill payer for Blue.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 06:11
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:This unilateral donation of budget share, end strength and capability is premature and this CMC will learn the hard way that he will get no credit for these actions when the next budget drill happens in the wake of fiscal stimulus.

“But I gave up 20% of my TOA back in 2020.” (‘TOA’ is ‘total obligation authority’)

“Thank you, but it is now 2022 (...or whenever). Give us 40% and we’ll call it done.”


The Navy has recently been complaining about the 1/3rd division of the DoD budget being inadequate.
Since the Navy isn't likely to get relief there, Green is going to be the bill payer for Blue.



Same bill......(i.e. United States Department of the Navy)

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 06:31
by spazsinbad
IIRC 'QS' has said there is a tranche for the USN and one for the USMC in this DoN pot of money. Apologies if NOT 'QS'. :roll:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 08:08
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:IIRC 'QS' has said there is a tranche for the USN and one for the USMC in this DoN pot of money. Apologies if NOT 'QS'. :roll:


There used to be BISOG — ‘blue in support of green’ — most prominently for aviation. IOW, money for USMC funding priorities had to be negotiated annually with the Navy, resulting in perpetual fun and games the character of which was known to occasionally destroy decades-long personal/professional relationships that dated from plebe summer at USNA. That changed a few years ago. Now the supplication is to SecNav.

There isn’t much money in the USMC apart from aviation and manpower.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 08:48
by marauder2048
quicksilver wrote:There isn’t much money in the USMC apart from aviation and manpower.


And shipbuilding. And all are being cut.

In exchange for...uhm..wait until the FY2022 budget.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 08:49
by quicksilver
marauder2048 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:There isn’t much money in the USMC apart from aviation and manpower.


And shipbuilding. And all are being cut.

In exchange for...uhm..wait until the FY2022 budget.


Ships are blue dollars but I take your point.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 15:53
by ricnunes
XanderCrews wrote:Right down to "tanks?" useless! because in a war against China you'll never need those!


even world war 2 had tanks.



That's downright stupid if you ask me!

Getting rid of tanks is a wrong decision and everytime that anyone said that Tanks aren't useful for future warfare those same people were proven to be wrong.
The Canadians learned this the hard war in Afghanistan. Everyone at the time was saying that Tanks were useless in future warfare specially in asymmetrical counter-insurgency wars such as Afghanistan, mainly because of the failure of Soviet tanks in that same scenario during the 1980's but guess what? As opposed to those Soviet tanks, modern tanks have advanced optics (which gives modern tanks in many cases an even better all around detection capabilities and range compared to infantry soldiers), more precise and longer ranged weapons (namely the main gun) and much better protections/armor.
In Afghanistan and at the time the Canadians which were about to replace their Tanks with more mobile and lightly armored vehicles soon learned that Tanks were one of the best assets that they could have in Afghanistan because of their much better protection (for example they could withstand with the most powerful IEDs, this not to mentioned other weapons such as RPGs), better off-road mobility, much more powerful and precise weapon in the form of the main gun (which has a longer range and is just a precise as the most powerful sniper rifles) bundled with great optics/sensors.
Anyway, the end result was that Canada abandoned the "replacing Tanks with more mobile and lightly armored vehicles" plan and as opposed, one of the most advanced Tanks available at the time (Leopard 2) was procured to replace the existing tanks (updated Leopard 1's). But then again, this "wise decision" wasn't made because someone in the upper hierarchy was smart to realize this but instead this decision was made based on spilled blood or more precisely based on Canadian soldier's lives lost which and otherwise and with tanks could have been saved.

I'm afraid that the same will happen with the USMC is such decision is to go ahead.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 01:45
by weasel1962
That's why its a hard choice. Getting rid of MBT means going the airborne route. First responders. Lighter=easier to control/manage the logistical trail where potential aggressors are targeting. Tanks require fuel besides ammo. MBT fuel usage is probably higher than the other vehicles.

Why this is a logistics driven strategy can also be seen from how it applies to tube arty. Tube arty requires the most logistics because of the arty shells. Going precision only with himars means a significant drop in the logistics tail requirements. Can even do shoot and scoot with C-130s.

I suspect there will be some movement to integrate NLOS ATGMs as well, which are way above the hit reach of MBTs to offset the firepower impact.

Logistics, logistics, logistics.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 05:45
by spazsinbad
I was reluctant to 'read between the lines' earlier because often I don't understand USspeak as she is spaken in me ears.
OR...
Garrett Reim COULD BE TODALLY RONG and a DANCING FOOL.
Why the US Marine Corps plans big downsizing, including some F-35s, MV-22s and all tanks
25 Mar 2020 Garrett Reim

"...The Lockheed Martin F-35B/C would suffer its first programme of record reduction in its history. “The Marine Corps will reduce the Primary Aircraft Authorized per squadron of F-35B and C aircraft from 16 to 10,” says the USMC.

The Marine Corps had planned to buy a total of 420 F-35s (353 F-35Bs and 67 F35Cs) by 2031. The service did not respond to request for details on how much its programme of record would be cut, but Cancian [Mark Cancian, a retired US Marine and senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies International Security Program] says the reduction numbers can be inferred"….

...Regarding possible programme cuts, Lockheed Martin... declined to comment and referred questions to the USMC...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/wh ... 13.article

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 07:58
by Corsair1963
Honestly, the spin never ends......... :shock:


This isn't a cut per se...The USMC is just going to buy more F-35C's short-term to catch up! So, they shift orders from F-35B's to F-35C's. They do this in part by cutting the larger 16 aircraft squadrons to 10. As many already operate with that number....(as do Carrier based F-35C Squadrons)

The USMC operate F-35B Squadrons of 10 and 16 aircraft. With the latter deploying on LHA/LHD with usually just a flight of 6 aircraft. While, the other 10 stay at home....


USMCT.png



This from last year....


QUOTE:

Marines Accelerating F-35C Procurement to Support Carrier Deployments; F-35B Buys Would Slow

"With the Marine Corps on the hook for some of the planned F-35C carrier strike group deployments, “we rebalanced this year with more Cs – just really more to catch up."

"The Marine Corps hasn’t changed how many of each variant it plans to buy, but the new emphasis on F-35Cs and a slowing of F-35Bs will allow the small service to keep up with the latest squadron transition and deployment plans."

"Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Christopher Harrison told USNI News that, as part of the rebalance in the FY 2020 budget request, “the Marine Corps increased its procurement of F-35Cs over the FYDP from 19 to 28 F-35Cs to ensure the service would be able to transition its F-35C squadrons on schedule. Specifically, the Marine Corps increased its F-35C procurement in 2020 to ensure TACAIR Integration (TAI) F-35C Squadrons make their planned transition and timeline for deployment. The Corps’ approved Program of Record remains 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs.”

"To support accelerating F-35C acquisition, the Marines will decelerate F-35B procurement, “deferring several F-35B aircraft into future [low-rate initial production] contracts in order to balance concurrency management while taking advantage of emerging future technologies and capabilities,” Harrison said."

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/04/marine ... -buys-slow

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 11:02
by quicksilver
POR procurement numbers are based, in part, on force structure. That means that when you alter the force structure — which formally assumes a specific PAA — you consequently alter the total procurement objective.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 13:59
by quicksilver
https://www.csis.org/analysis/marine-co ... ward-china

“...The lack of hedging means that the Marine Corps will not field the broad set of capabilities it has in the past. It will be poorly structured to fight the kind of campaigns that it had to fight in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. The history of the last 70 years has been that the United States deters great power conflict and fights regional and stability conflicts. Although forces can adapt, as seen during the long counterinsurgency campaigns in the Middle East, there is a delay and an initial lack of expertise. The Marine Corps might plan to defer these conflicts to the Army, but that has not worked in the past. Army forces have been too small to keep the Marine Corps out of sustained ground combat.

Marine Corps officials have argued privately that other kinds of conflicts would be lesser included capabilities of this focus on high-end conflict in the Western Pacific. This is misplaced. History is littered with examples of militaries that prepared for one kind of conflict and then had to fight a very different kind of conflict. In the best circumstances, militaries adapt at the cost of time and blood. In the worst circumstances, the result is catastrophic failure.“. (my emphasis added)

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 17:56
by ricnunes
weasel1962 wrote:Getting rid of MBT means going the airborne route.


But the Marines (USMC) are not an airborne force, they are an amphibious force whose mobility is based on ships like this:
Image

which can carry lots of this, including all the necessary fuel and ammo:
Image

and also carry this:
Image

which are able to deploy MBTs on many of the world's shorelines such as this:
Image

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 17:58
by ricnunes
quicksilver wrote:Marine Corps officials have argued privately that other kinds of conflicts would be lesser included capabilities of this focus on high-end conflict in the Western Pacific. This is misplaced. History is littered with examples of militaries that prepared for one kind of conflict and then had to fight a very different kind of conflict. In the best circumstances, militaries adapt at the cost of time and blood. In the worst circumstances, the result is catastrophic failure.“. (my emphasis added)


This, absolutely this!

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 18:29
by spazsinbad
Overpage missing WEBp image: "and also carry this:" https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f ... dc32e.webp I don't think this forum does WEBP in IE 11 - other browsers WEBp LIVES!

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 23:13
by aussiebloke
Corsair1963 wrote:

This isn't a cut per se...


I am struggling to see how this recent announcement of reducing all Marine F-35B squadrons to ten aircraft can be anything other than a significant cut in numbers.

There will be just 18 active component fighter attack (VFMA) squadrons

There is no plan for additional Marine F-35C squadrons: just 14 F-35B squadrons and 4 F-35C squadrons.
Nine of those fourteen F-35B squadrons were intended to have 16 aircraft each and will now have ten.

This is surely a total reduction of 54 F-35Bs in the active component.

If this isn’t a cut what am I missing?

This reduction may in part be driven by pilot shortages. General Berger in his Force Design 2030 document on page 8 states:

I am not convinced that we have a clear understanding yet of F-35 capacity requirements for the future force. As a result, the Service will seek at least one external assessment of our Aviation Plan relative to NDS objectives and evolving naval and joint warfighting concepts.
As described in Congressional testimony, our continued pilot shortfalls are a factor we must consider and either scale programs of record accordingly or implement a sustainable, affordable solution. Other Services face similar shortfalls. This issue has recruiting, training, and retention factors – as well as fiscal and industrial base factors – that we must consider in reconciling the growing disparity between numbers of platforms and numbers of aircrew.


https://news.usni.org/2020/03/26/docume ... more-74799

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 23:22
by spazsinbad
USMC Force Design 2030 PDF Attached below: [I wonder now about virus affected airlines DOWNsizing affecting retention]
[USMC] Force Design 2030
March 2020 USMC

"BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT
This report describes the progress of the Marine Corps on my watch in preparing for the sweeping changes needed to meet the principal challenges facing the institution: effectively playing our role as the nation’s naval expeditionary force-in-readiness, while simultaneously modernizing the force in accordance with the National Defense Strategy (NDS) – and doing both within the fiscal resources we are provided. A certain degree of institutional change is inevitable when confronting modernization on this scale, and that type of change is hard. As such, I want to be clear up front: our force design effort is a work in progress. Thanks to the dedication and effort of a great many Marines, Sailors, and civilians over the last six months, we have come to a clearer understanding of some force design changes we can confidently make today, while identifying other areas that require additional analysis. This reports explains, at length and in some detail, my argument for change, our force design methodology and organization, my personal assessment of the work to date, and the steps we are taking to move the force design effort into the next phase."...

Air Combat Element
• 18 active component fighter attack (VMFA) squadrons, with a reduction in the number of aircraft per squadron to 10...

Retention of 18 VMFA squadrons
Employment of the F-35 in support of future naval expeditionary TACAIR requirements requires additional study, as I noted previously. We will continue to learn more about the various roles that platform will fulfill, and we must be willing to assess and adjust our VMFA force structure and program of record accordingly. In addition, as noted earlier, our continued inability to build and sustain an adequate inventory of F-35 pilots leads me to conclude that we must be pragmatic regarding our ability to support the existing program-of-record. We must conduct a more thorough review of our VMFA capacity requirements and ability to satisfy those requirements. This will require an external review of the issue that will inform our subsequent decisions.

Source: https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... and-II.pdf (346Kb)

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 23:32
by ricnunes
spazsinbad wrote:Overpage missing WEBp image: "and also carry this:" https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f ... dc32e.webp I don't think this forum does WEBP in IE 11 - other browsers WEBp LIVES!


That's strange because on my end there's no problem (I can see the image while opening that page). :?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 23:35
by spazsinbad
ricnunes wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Overpage missing WEBp image: "and also carry this:" https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f ... dc32e.webp I don't think this forum does WEBP in IE 11 - other browsers WEBp LIVES!

That's strange because on my end there's no problem (I can see the image while opening that page). :?

What web browser are you using? ASLO (I KNOW) remember that HOT freekin'Linkin' does not work a lot of times these days so images must be saved to your computer then uploaded here as attachments. Extra work? (I KNOW ASLO).

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 23:37
by quicksilver
Force structure is not something one turns on and off with a spigot. Can’t meet the ends of the new security strategy? Ask for more resources...first. Pilot shortfalls are cyclic and a thin gruel to use as justification for cutting force structure.

I’m still wrestling with the question of how they think they can ’shrink themselves to greatness.’ ‘We have a big challenge...let’s reduce the size, capability and capacity of the service to meet that challenge, and announce to its principal focus our plans and operational concepts for doing so.‘ Huh?

What exactly is the role of ‘naval infantry’ in this new scheme and how does reducing infantry battalions support it? What capacity is resident in the resulting force and how does it meet rotational demand?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 23:51
by ricnunes
spazsinbad wrote:What web browser are you using?


Google Chrome.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 00:28
by spazsinbad
As I have explained for three other browsers that IE 11 has a problem with WEBf.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 03:06
by weasel1962
Thanks Spaz for the report. Per 2019 aviation plan, the active F-35 USMC sqn comprised 9 x 16B, 5 x 16B and 4 x 16C sqn or 18 active sqn. That means 194 F-35Bs in the active sqn inventory which will drop to 140. A cut of 54 or 28% drop. This is ironically this is the same amount as the Japan (42) and Singapore (4+8) buys so this may not affect LM projected build rates if limited to just this.

If proportionately the number of BAI, training and attrition reserves are consequently reduced by 28%, that means a further cut of 38, meaning as many as 92 F-35Bs may be potentially be cut. This implies a program total of as low as 261 B. This will have an impact to build rates if the cuts include these.

171 B would have been funded by FY 21. If confirmed, that means ~90 remaining or a remaining buy rate of roughly 10 a year until FY30 i.e. same as FY 21 buy rate.

Biggest impact may be on those 4-5 B sqn that have already transitioned or transitioning. Applying a proportion of 10/16 x estab of 311 (for 16B sqn) means a cut of more than 100 personnel per 16B sqn (accounting for 400-500 of the 12000). This can alternatively accelerate 2-3 B sqn formation earlier as excess Bs are transferred to the other sqns due for conversion.

Will also wait for upcoming USMC aviation plans. If confirmed, this should reflect in the FY 22 budget also.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 09:12
by quicksilver
Duplicate

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 09:19
by weasel1962
It should actually read 9 x 16B, 5 x 10B and 4 x 10C. Thanks for spotting.

9*16 + 5*10 = 194.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 09:37
by quicksilver
“...the active F-35 USMC sqn comprised 9 x 16B, 5 x 16B and 4 x 16C...”

Huh? Do you mean 9x16B, 5x10B and 4x10C, right?

“This will have an impact to build rates if the cuts include these.”

Not necessarily; it may just truncate the number of years the USMC buys jets in the long run.

“Biggest impact may be on those 4-5 B sqn that have already transitioned or transitioning. Applying a proportion of 10/16 x estab of 311 (for 16B sqn) means a cut of more than 100 personnel per 16B sqn (accounting for 400-500 of the 12000). This can alternatively accelerate 2-3 B sqn formation earlier as excess Bs are transferred to the other sqns due for conversion.“

Do we know how many jets those squadrons already have on-hand today? Squadrons in transition do not have to receive their full complement of jets before another starts receiving its jets. WRT personnel, T/Os and Staffing Goals are wildly different and it is rare to have a full T/O on hand during anything but wartime or a deployment.

One of biggest flaws of the whole ‘Force Design’ seems to be the assumption that his charity in one color of money gains him more funds in another color of money. It just doesn’t work that way. Giving up jets doesn’t get him more rifles and pistols or vehicles, or whatever green dollar thing he wants to buy. Additionally, it is ‘terminally curious‘ how anyone who thinks they have a recruiting and retention problem in a given aircraft community would leave open to question the future of that community for that very reason. It becomes self-fulfilling.

:wtf:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 15:33
by mixelflick
Everything I'm reading sure sounds like a cut to Marine Corps capabilities. Hard to see a force geared to island hopping going into Iran, or even worse - N. Korea. I think the Corps was already on the right track (more numerous, smaller carriers) and other ships that are F-35B capable. It will add a magnificent air defense/air superiority capability the Marines formerly lacked. Sorry, but Harriers with AMRAAM's and legacy Hornets didn't inspire visions of Marines on the ground, safe and sound.
With the F-35B/C, all of that changes.

But having that "steel umbrella" over you is only good if.... there's something to cover. I'm not sure divesting yourself of all MBT's and artillery makes sense? Aren't the Marines the first in, because they're so tough??

I thought that's how it worked, but now I'm not sure. If they get the nod tomorrow to roll into Iran and capture XYZ city/military base/target - what are they planning on doing it with? They can't fly all of them in with helicopters and V-22's..

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 17:03
by ricnunes
spazsinbad wrote:As I have explained for three other browsers that IE 11 has a problem with WEBf.


Ok I get it, IE11 doesn't support .webp images, correct?

I'll try not forget that next time! :oops:

Anyway, I found the same image over the web (in another site) in .jpg format. However and unfortunately it has a lower resolution/size than the previous .webp image:
Image

I could also convert the .webp image that I previous posted to .jpg for example and host and post it here but considering the image at hands I don't think that's necessary, do you?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 17:25
by spazsinbad
We can go on and on about this - a JPG made from WEBf by me has been posted at the top of the previous page already.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 21:12
by milosh
Hm dumping M1A1 will make those guys very happy:
https://youtu.be/fhF5YALpaFA?t=56
(lower your sound)

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 22:09
by marauder2048
quicksilver wrote:One of biggest flaws of the whole ‘Force Design’ seems to be the assumption that his charity in one color of money gains him more funds in another color of money. It just doesn’t work that way. Giving up jets doesn’t get him more rifles and pistols or vehicles, or whatever green dollar thing he wants to buy. Additionally, it is ‘terminally curious‘ how anyone who thinks they have a recruiting and retention problem in a given aircraft community would leave open to question the future of that community for that very reason. It becomes self-fulfilling.

:wtf:


It's completely incoherent; that force design document also reads unlike just about any other
USMC doctrinal/force structure document that's been promulgated.

Almost like they didn't write it or formulate the arguments. Did you get that sense?

The fighter capacity discussions sound like they are right out of OSD/CAPE talking points.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 22:52
by quicksilver
Sounds like the product of think tank, studies and analysis crowd at Quantico. A substantive effort, ”process-derived“...

...and divorced from some of the realities of programming, budgets, and the politics of the building. Conspicuously gives up actual forces and capabilities for conceptual vaporware. Provides no hedging against uncertainty and is unclear about forces to meet rotational demands of GNFPP.

Tough time to be in uniform.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 23:02
by quicksilver
“The fighter capacity discussions sound like they are right out of OSD/CAPE talking points.“

Shack. Betcha the external entity referred to wrt the capacity question will in-fact, be CAPE, thereby ceding the future of his FW force structure to yet another tribe of analysts (which have periodically made clear their views wrt F-35 in general, and F-35B specifically). I am reminded of an instance back in the day when David Chu essentially offered the USMC H-60s for all but free if they would only drop pursuit of V-22.

Wanna guess what it will be this time?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 23:15
by ricnunes
spazsinbad wrote:We can go on and on about this - a JPG made from WEBf by me has been posted at the top of the previous page already.


Ok, for some some reason, I didn't think that the image that you re-posted was already converted to .jpg! I really feel stupid! :oops: :doh:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 23:22
by ricnunes
milosh wrote:Hm dumping M1A1 will make those guys very happy:
https://youtu.be/fhF5YALpaFA?t=56
(lower your sound)


Humm, I definitely wouldn't like to face M1A1's (this not to mention more modern and improved versions such as the M1A2 SEP) on those Chinese things, that's for sure!
i.e. the 105 main gun of those ZTD-05 vehicles will most likely tickle the M1A1's armour :roll:
So it's probably the opposite: those ZTD-05's would make the M1A1 guys very happy :wink:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 01:22
by weasel1962
That's why it's easiest just to sell the Taiwanese more m1s. No need to amphib land. No need to spend moolah to maintain and crew. Same impact to the ZTDs.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 03:33
by commisar
quicksilver wrote:Force structure is not something one turns on and off with a spigot. Can’t meet the ends of the new security strategy? Ask for more resources...first. Pilot shortfalls are cyclic and a thin gruel to use as justification for cutting force structure.

I’m still wrestling with the question of how they think they can ’shrink themselves to greatness.’ ‘We have a big challenge...let’s reduce the size, capability and capacity of the service to meet that challenge, and announce to its principal focus our plans and operational concepts for doing so.‘ Huh?

What exactly is the role of ‘naval infantry’ in this new scheme and how does reducing infantry battalions support it? What capacity is resident in the resulting force and how does it meet rotational demand?


The USMC seems to be trying to morph into Naval light mechanized infantry with no AFV with a gun bigger than 30mm, almost no howitzers, fewer aircraft and lots of paper airplane UCAVs that don't exist....

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 03:40
by commisar
weasel1962 wrote:That's why its a hard choice. Getting rid of MBT means going the airborne route. First responders. Lighter=easier to control/manage the logistical trail where potential aggressors are targeting. Tanks require fuel besides ammo. MBT fuel usage is probably higher than the other vehicles.

Why this is a logistics driven strategy can also be seen from how it applies to tube arty. Tube arty requires the most logistics because of the arty shells. Going precision only with himars means a significant drop in the logistics tail requirements. Can even do shoot and scoot with C-130s.

I suspect there will be some movement to integrate NLOS ATGMs as well, which are way above the hit reach of MBTs to offset the firepower impact.

Logistics, logistics, logistics.



Gucci super ATGMs won't exactly be common. Are those C-130s going to be launching off of the LHDs? A C-130 is hilariously vulnerable to AAA and MANPADS, let one hostile jets and big SAMs. It also means the C-130 needs a friendly airstrip relatively close to the battlespace.

Each HIMARS has 6 or fewer shots before it has to reload. It's rockets Carey massive warheads that have a pretty big CEP and large blast radius.

This leaves the USMC vehicle fleet with nothing bigger than 30mm.....

Better pray the other guy doesn't have armor your ATGM can't get through or APS...

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 07:21
by weasel1962
C-130s won't land in places where there are manpads. Agreed. Longer range means the further back the himars can be.

As to cep, they don't dub the himars as the 70km sniper for nothing. Only 70 being inaccurate cos it's way more today and even more tomorrow.

Fight under air cover. No enemy tank will survive a 500lb-er or stormbreaker, aps or not.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 08:28
by milosh
ricnunes wrote:Humm, I definitely wouldn't like to face M1A1's (this not to mention more modern and improved versions such as the M1A2 SEP) on those Chinese things, that's for sure!
i.e. the 105 main gun of those ZTD-05 vehicles will most likely tickle the M1A1's armour :roll:
So it's probably the opposite: those ZTD-05's would make the M1A1 guys very happy :wink:


Marines are erasing M1 so they will not have them, that is why I wrote those Chicom marines would be quite happy. Relying on air power to do everything is nonsense.

Also marines would need armor in smaller conflicts (like Iraq) and they will not have it.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 15:27
by ricnunes
milosh wrote:Marines are erasing M1 so they will not have them, that is why I wrote those Chicom marines would be quite happy. Relying on air power to do everything is nonsense.

Also marines would need armor in smaller conflicts (like Iraq) and they will not have it.


Oops, I misunderstood your last post, so please accept my appologies. :oops:

Yes, I fully agree with what you wrote above.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 15:39
by XanderCrews
blain wrote:
There you go. More Cs, less Bs. The Cs have more range and more payload. A much better fit for slugging it out at range against a near peer threat.




Central to Berger’s vision is the ability to operate within an adversary’s (read China’s) bubble of air, missile, and naval power (which the Marine Corps calls the weapons engagement zone, or WEZ). The concept is that the Marine Corps will be a “stand-in force” that will operate within this WEZ, not a stand-off force that must start outside and fight its way in. As the guidance states: “Stand-in forces [are] optimized to operate in close and confined seas in defiance of adversary long-range precision ‘stand-off capabilities.’”

Wow you called it alright. :mrgreen:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 15:43
by ricnunes
weasel1962 wrote:That's why it's easiest just to sell the Taiwanese more m1s. No need to amphib land. No need to spend moolah to maintain and crew. Same impact to the ZTDs.


And then again, you're talking about a defensive point-of-view.

What about when or if the Marines need to take the offensive (for example to take an island occupied by Chinese forces equipped with MBTs or vehicles with large caliber guns)?
Remember that the Marines are a first response force so the probability of having to take up a well entrenched and armed enemy is very high (we just need to look at history in order to notice this).

And one also have to remember that MBTs are BY FAR the best weapon if you need to assault a well entrenched and armed enemy position. Reasons for this is that a modern MBT is almost or basically impervious to the vast majority of weapons available on the ground.
Even against the most powerful weapons available on the ground which are modern ATGMs and big caliber tank guns, a modern MBT has a reasonably good probability of surviving a hit from these weapons specially if hit on its frontal arc/aspect and even if any of such weapons (modern ATGMs or big caliber tank guns) manages to knock out or destroy an opposing modern MBT then the chances that the tank crew will survive is very or quite high. This is nothing that a lighter armored vehicle such as an IFV can do or withstand!

Anyway, everytime that someone decides to get rid of MBTs this has proven to be a wrong and stupid decision.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 19:17
by milosh
weasel1962 wrote:That's why it's easiest just to sell the Taiwanese more m1s. No need to amphib land. No need to spend moolah to maintain and crew. Same impact to the ZTDs.


Taiwan is more less fu*k if China decide to invade, Chinese newest smart MLRS already cover whole island:

https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas- ... an-2019-12

Marines need some kind of heavy armor because of job they do, they go first in fire so relying on wheeled ifv is nonsense.

Also there is big problem in this island war doctrine, Chinese marines have light tanks which don't need hovercrafts, and to make things worse they can fire while in water. So if USMC succeed in taking some island, counter attack could be devastated if marines don't have air support.

They don't need M1 to counter ZTD, more then enough would be:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... wo-designs

But I don't see it USMC future plans.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 22:01
by weasel1962
ricnunes wrote:What about when or if the Marines need to take the offensive (for example to take an island occupied by Chinese forces equipped with MBTs or vehicles with large caliber guns)?
Remember that the Marines are a first response force so the probability of having to take up a well entrenched and armed enemy is very high (we just need to look at history in order to notice this).


Why waste men attacking the strongpoints? Chop off their logistical tail whilst pounding this from the air. That's the essence of the island hopping strategy in ww2.

Take out the air defences, then the b-52 carpet rolls in. 30-60 days later, the marines mop up what's left. Exception being Taiwan where civvies come into play.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 22:19
by XanderCrews
quicksilver wrote:Sounds like the product of think tank, studies and analysis crowd at Quantico. A substantive effort, ”process-derived“...

...and divorced from some of the realities of programming, budgets, and the politics of the building. Conspicuously gives up actual forces and capabilities for conceptual vaporware. Provides no hedging against uncertainty and is unclear about forces to meet rotational demands of GNFPP.

Tough time to be in uniform.


To the first part yes.

To the second part yes

To the third part yes.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 23:07
by ricnunes
weasel1962 wrote:Why waste men attacking the strongpoints? Chop off their logistical tail whilst pounding this from the air. That's the essence of the island hopping strategy in ww2.


And if we look at the "essence of the island hopping strategy in ww2" then we can realize that the Sherman tanks were crucial for the success of the vast majority of those scenarios.

weasel1962 wrote:Take out the air defences, then the b-52 carpet rolls in. 30-60 days later, the marines mop up what's left. Exception being Taiwan where civvies come into play.


Another thing that history of warfare tells us: You cannot take a well entrenched enemy (ground) position based solely on heavy airstrikes and artillery strikes. The same history of warfare tells us that a well trained, well entrenched and well equipped enemy force can and will withstand brutal Air and Artillery strikes and still remain an effective fighting force.
As such the best way to assault a well entrenched and equipped enemy force if by having MBTs spearheading the assault against those same enemy forces.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 23:17
by ricnunes
milosh wrote:They don't need M1 to counter ZTD, more then enough would be:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... wo-designs

But I don't see it USMC future plans.


Here I have to completely disagree with you.

Light tanks after WWII have shown to be a "failed concept". And a US example of this is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan

There are reasons why Light Tanks haven't got much of a 'traction' after WWII such as:
- Light Tanks aren't much more mobile compared to MBTs.
- But as opposed Light Tanks are much weaker (have a much weaker armor) compared to MBTs.

So and basically, MBTs have the same/similar mobility as Light Tanks but have much better armor and usually better weapons (better main gun).

IMO, a well armed IFV is a much better alternative to the Light Tank since it has basically the same/similar armor but being much more versatile (more "multi-role", if you will).

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 03:30
by sunstersun
weasel1962 wrote:
Another thing that history of warfare tells us: You cannot take a well entrenched enemy (ground) position based solely on heavy airstrikes and artillery strikes. The same history of warfare tells us that a well trained, well entrenched and well equipped enemy force can and will withstand brutal Air and Artillery strikes and still remain an effective fighting force.
As such the best way to assault a well entrenched and equipped enemy force if by having MBTs spearheading the assault against those same enemy forces.


History doesn't teach us everything. AI for example has no point of reference in history in modern warfare. Anyways, modern firepower is more than enough to knock out any entrenched enemy force on the ground that is out of supply/cut off.

The Japanese learned the firepower lesson and they stopped defending the landing zones because the naval fire was too great. Nowadays literally any cut off force will just get blasted and surrender in two seconds. The art of war has changed due to how much more deadly munitions and firepower is.

I'm not saying tanks are useless, but one reason they are useful now is the asymmetric aspects. If we're in a war against China, you blast anything that is military value even if there's civilians. It's like the whole reason it's hard to fight insurgents is because they blend with civs. In a pacific war it's blast anything that moves and that means tanks are too heavy to be useful. Gotta be light and maneuverable.

I think the marines got to invest in island defence capabilities. Just imagine if the marines at the start of the war could set up ship and air blockaids on uninhabited islands impromptu akin to Nimitz's Operation Starvation. It could win the Pacific War alone.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 10:52
by milosh
ricnunes wrote:
Here I have to completely disagree with you.

Light tanks after WWII have shown to be a "failed concept". And a US example of this is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan

There are reasons why Light Tanks haven't got much of a 'traction' after WWII such as:
- Light Tanks aren't much more mobile compared to MBTs.
- But as opposed Light Tanks are much weaker (have a much weaker armor) compared to MBTs.

So and basically, MBTs have the same/similar mobility as Light Tanks but have much better armor and usually better weapons (better main gun).


MBT need hovercraft to reach shore that is big problem.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 14:52
by doge
:roll: :shrug:
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/sho ... -35-fleet/
Short On Pilots, Marines Debate Size Of F-35 Fleet
“Our continued inability to build and sustain an adequate inventory of F-35 pilots leads me to conclude that we must be pragmatic regarding our ability to support" the program," Gen. David Berger says in a blunt new 10-year force design plan.
By PAUL MCLEARY on March 27, 2020 at 1:50 PM
WASHINGTON: The Marine Corps’ inability to recruit enough pilots has led the commandant to question the F-35’s place in the already budget-constrained Corps’ future plans, a potentially huge shift for the service that first fielded the Joint Strike Fighter and fought harder than any other service to build it and buy it.

“Our continued inability to build and sustain an adequate inventory of F-35 pilots leads me to conclude that we must be pragmatic regarding our ability to support” the program,” Gen. David Berger says in a blunt new 10-year force design plan. He calls for an external assessment of the aircraft’s place within the service relative to what he’s being asked to do in the National Defense Strategy and the forthcoming Joint Warfighting Concept, a document the Joint Staff is expected to wrap up later this year.

Berger not only singles out pilot shortfalls, but also notes high costs of maintaining and flying the F-35B as factors he’s weighing “in reconciling the growing disparity between numbers of platforms and numbers of aircrew.”
The general has been very clear he does not expect his annual budgets to grow at any point in the near future, suggesting the best case scenario is that they remain flat as he wrestles with fleets of aging planes, helicopters and vehicles which grow increasingly costly to maintain.

The new document also makes it clear Berger has had enough of the service’s Abrams tanks, which were so effective in Iraq’s Anbar province, but offer little utility on small islands in the Pacific. A series of wargames conducted between 2018 and 2019 led the Corps to the conclusion that the tanks are “operationally unsuitable for our highest-priority challenges in the future,” the document states.

While questioning time-tested and iconic weapons like Abrams tanks, and the massive capabilities that the F-35 can bring, “they’re looking at the totality of the force” said Dakota Wood, senior research fellow for defense programs at The Heritage Foundation. “Berger has been very bold in saying we just can’t afford to have small batches of everything,” so he has set out on a path to bear down on what is most critical to fighting a war in the Pacific against a modern Chinese military.
The new force design is slated to phase in over the next decade, but the changes will be seen as early as the fiscal year 2022 budget, slated to drop next February.

That gives the Marines months to build their case for reimagining the force, which includes buying new capabilities like mobile rocket artillery and long-range fires while scrapping legacy platforms like heavy- and medium-helicopter squadrons and towed artillery. The plan also calls for eliminating law enforcement units, bridging companies, three infantry battalions, and anti-aircraft units.

General Dynamics, which makes the Abrams, and Lockheed Martin, which produces the F-35, will certainly have opinions on these moves, as will the other major prime contractors who build the helicopters and ground vehicles and artillery systems to be tossed over the side and the lawmakers who have plants in their states and districts.
“Resistance to change is likely to be strongest for programs that already exist and have stakeholders that support them,” RAND analyst Jonathan Wong wrote in a short essay, but the jury is out on how Congress and Defense Secretary Mark Esper will eventually weigh in on these issues.
It’s not just industry who will want in on these discussions, but policymakers in the Pentagon and lawmakers on the Hill, as well.
“There’s going to be a lot of pushback by people who aren’t up to speed on these current issues who are reaching back to their own previous references of 10, 20, 30, years ago,” Wood said. “Tanks are awesome in urban warfare environments, but if you haven’t thought about the operating environment the Marine Corps will encounter in the near future, these ideas might be difficult to understand.”
Berger appears to be keenly aware he needs to bring the rest of Washington along with him: “A certain degree of institutional change is inevitable when confronting modernization on this scale, and that type of change is hard.”
How hard will become clearer as Berger and his deputies get out there to evangelize for their vision of the future.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 15:37
by quicksilver
The virus just fixed his pilot retention problem.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 16:36
by ricnunes
I corrected it for you:
sunstersun wrote:Anyways, modern firepower is more than enough to knock out most entrenched enemy force on the ground that is out of supply/cut off.


Or resuming, "modern firepower" will always miss one of another entrenched enemy force on the ground (for several reasons but the most common would be because there will always be well hidden positions which won't be destroyed by "initial firepower" because they were not or could not be previously detected).
And it's against these remains/pockets of entrenched enemy forces on the ground that MBTs are the best/most usefull weapons system:
- MBTs can detect well hidden forces and/or sustain heavy enemy fire while staying relatively safe and as such save friendly lives.


sunstersun wrote:I'm not saying tanks are useless, but one reason they are useful now is the asymmetric aspects. If we're in a war against China, you blast anything that is military value even if there's civilians. It's like the whole reason it's hard to fight insurgents is because they blend with civs. In a pacific war it's blast anything that moves and that means tanks are too heavy to be useful. Gotta be light and maneuverable.


The problem with what you're saying above is that a conventional force can also fight as an unconventional/assymetrical force as well but with the diference that such force would be better armed/equipped and trained compared to a 'typical' unconventional/assymetrical force.

The Japanese did this against allies forces in the Pacific with considerable success.

sunstersun wrote:I think the marines got to invest in island defence capabilities. Just imagine if the marines at the start of the war could set up ship and air blockaids on uninhabited islands impromptu akin to Nimitz's Operation Starvation. It could win the Pacific War alone.


The problem with the above is that 'offence' will always have the initiative over 'defense'. This being said, a well equipped and motivated "offensive force" will always find a win to avoid or neutralize defensive capabilities (no matter how impressive they might be).

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 16:43
by ricnunes
milosh wrote:
MBT need hovercraft to reach shore that is big problem.


Sure but MBTs will be much more needed when the amphibious force is moving inland, this compared to the initial landing stage on the beach which can be well covered by aircraft like the F-35B or attack helicopters like the AH-1Z or better yet, just land on a beach which isn't protected by enemy forces.

Moreover, those hovercrafts are very fast and so they can land the MBTs on the beach quite fast/quickly.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 17:15
by XanderCrews
weasel1962 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:What about when or if the Marines need to take the offensive (for example to take an island occupied by Chinese forces equipped with MBTs or vehicles with large caliber guns)?
Remember that the Marines are a first response force so the probability of having to take up a well entrenched and armed enemy is very high (we just need to look at history in order to notice this).


Why waste men attacking the strongpoints? Chop off their logistical tail whilst pounding this from the air. That's the essence of the island hopping strategy in ww2.

Take out the air defences, then the b-52 carpet rolls in. 30-60 days later, the marines mop up what's left. Exception being Taiwan where civvies come into play.



Marine doctrine is maneuver warfare. The issue is any battle against near peer is going to be an exercise in combined arms. HIMARS like everything has its limits and as the USMC is going to this bizarro land where we are actually giving up different and varied capabilites to get fewer capabilities under the guise it makes us more lethal and flexible and somehow creates more capabilities I somehow must wake from this orwellian nightmare.

You actually need more and varied capabilities, not fewer. And this was actually emphasized at a few Marine symposiums.

It wouldn't be the first light infantry force to get smoked by something as small and pathetic as a lone or pair of enemy APCs-- thats happened. In the world of the blind the one eyed man is king, and it doesn't matter how high speed low drag your grunts are, Armor trumps flesh. Even the SEALs, and all those tier 1 wonders have been killed when something as simple as a truck mounted HMG shows up to the party. Its happened time and time again because the light and exposed rifle totters have to rely exclusively on air and arty to save them and it doesn't show its over. Its lead to many an unhappy ending and with forces far less readily equipped and educated as the Chinese.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 17:18
by XanderCrews
sunstersun wrote:History doesn't teach us everything. AI for example has no point of reference in history in modern warfare. Anyways, modern firepower is more than enough to knock out any entrenched enemy force on the ground that is out of supply/cut off.


no its not.

I'm not saying tanks are useless, but one reason they are useful now is the asymmetric aspects. If we're in a war against China, you blast anything that is military value even if there's civilians. It's like the whole reason it's hard to fight insurgents is because they blend with civs. In a pacific war it's blast anything that moves and that means tanks are too heavy to be useful. Gotta be light and maneuverable.


nope.

I think the marines got to invest in island defence capabilities. Just imagine if the marines at the start of the war could set up ship and air blockaids on uninhabited islands impromptu akin to Nimitz's Operation Starvation. It could win the Pacific War alone.


The United States Marines are now a defensive island garrison force?

milosh wrote:MBT need hovercraft to reach shore that is big problem.


not really no

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 17:28
by quicksilver
“The United States Marines are now a defensive island garrison force?“

Hmmm. How’d that work out for Japan back in the day?

:wink:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 17:59
by spazsinbad
Jeepers what does FightGlobular have agin the F-35B - a lot of nonsense it seems - classic negative sentences below &....
US Marine Corps backs away from tailor-made aircraft - and their expense
27 Mar 2020 UNK OPINION [is billybobboysweetiepie their ghostwriter?]

"After spending billions of dollars over decades to develop custom-made aircraft, the US Marine Corps (USMC) intends get rid of a large portion of its bespoke fleet.... It is, to paraphrase one of the Marine Corps’ most famous leaders, General O P Smith, not a retreat, they are simply attacking in a different direction....

...The F-35 became a jack of all trades, but master of none, and compromises to merge the three variants still plague the aircraft...." [then] …Of course, the capabilities offered by all the aircraft are second to none. But as in all walks of life, bespoke solutions are more costly than those available off the shelf...." [WTF?]

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-int ... 39.article

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 18:00
by milosh
XanderCrews wrote:
milosh wrote:MBT need hovercraft to reach shore that is big problem.


not really no


Can you explain how will you deploy MBT on island which is under enemy control without hovercraft?

Last time I check USMC retired this type of ships long ago:
Image

One reason why Russians didn't like Mistral is can't directly land armor on bench. Replacement for Mistral, Priboy is LST and LHD combo.

So what marines need is stealthy LST&LHD with not even developed active defensive systems or lighter then MBT ifv which pack enough firepower to deal with enemy light tanks. If almost 40tons apc could swim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv9Eq1vopbc

and it swim quite fast I don't see something smaller with similar weight (more armor) and better gun can't be developed for USMC, and when you don't need swim capability you can add NERA&ERA blocks so you get similar M1 protection to crew.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 22:49
by XanderCrews
milosh wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
milosh wrote:MBT need hovercraft to reach shore that is big problem.


not really no


Can you explain how will you deploy MBT on island which is under enemy control without hovercraft?

Last time I check USMC retired this type of ships long ago:
Image

One reason why Russians didn't like Mistral is can't directly land armor on bench. Replacement for Mistral, Priboy is LST and LHD combo.

So what marines need is stealthy LST&LHD with not even developed active defensive systems or lighter then MBT ifv which pack enough firepower to deal with enemy light tanks. If almost 40tons apc could swim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv9Eq1vopbc

and it swim quite fast I don't see something smaller with similar weight (more armor) and better gun can't be developed for USMC, and when you don't need swim capability you can add NERA&ERA blocks so you get similar M1 protection to crew.


just about everything needs a hovercraft to reach the shore

Image


Humvees are about as light as it gets. so no its not a problem regardless of whats carried

quicksilver wrote:“The United States Marines are now a defensive island garrison force?“

Hmmm. How’d that work out for Japan back in the day?

:wink:


indeed

Also no need for any kind of invasion force like this that would never happen again thanks to breakthrough technology:

Image

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 22:55
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Jeepers what does FightGlobular have agin the F-35B - a lot of nonsense it seems - classic negative sentences below &....
US Marine Corps backs away from tailor-made aircraft - and their expense
27 Mar 2020 UNK OPINION [is billybobboysweetiepie their ghostwriter?]

"After spending billions of dollars over decades to develop custom-made aircraft, the US Marine Corps (USMC) intends get rid of a large portion of its bespoke fleet.... It is, to paraphrase one of the Marine Corps’ most famous leaders, General O P Smith, not a retreat, they are simply attacking in a different direction....

...The F-35 became a jack of all trades, but master of none, and compromises to merge the three variants still plague the aircraft...." [then] …Of course, the capabilities offered by all the aircraft are second to none. But as in all walks of life, bespoke solutions are more costly than those available off the shelf...." [WTF?]

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-int ... 39.article



This is part where everyone pretends only the USMC was ever going to bother with STOVL...

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 01:37
by Corsair1963
Sounds more like a political attempt to get additional funding. Like the USAF and USN having been using over the past year....

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 01:50
by weasel1962
ATGMs can be fired from hovercraft whilst the MBTs may have to wait until shore?

In WW2, it may be suicide to defend from the beaches. But today, with longer ranged missiles, its a more dangerous ballgame.

Not saying that MBT doesn't have its uses. From my perspective, I'd rather have those than not. However, just to rationalise how a 4 star driving USMC strategy is thinking, rather than poking holes in the concept. I'm thinking they are moving towards more armored, defended ship to shore connectors.

P.s. Bs already have 4 export sales, making it even better than the world beating gripen...

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 05:22
by Corsair1963
Clearly, the USMC/Pacific Strategy has far less use for heavy MBT's. Yet, the Pacific is hardly the only part of the world. As the Marine Corp has global responsibilities.


Of course they could attach US Army heavy units to MEU on a case by case basis. Yet, my guess is the Corp wouldn't be to happy about that....

:wink:

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 12:56
by mixelflick
Even if removing all MBT's is the correct decision today, why wouldn't you just maintain a small inventory in the event they're needed tomorrow? We've all seen how fast warfare can change, and the Chinese are undoubtedly watching.

So what's stopping them from seeing this, then re-equipping their units and/or changing their tactics to take advantage of what USMC is proposing?

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 14:10
by quicksilver
mixelflick wrote:Even if removing all MBT's is the correct decision today, why wouldn't you just maintain a small inventory in the event they're needed tomorrow? We've all seen how fast warfare can change, and the Chinese are undoubtedly watching.

So what's stopping them from seeing this, then re-equipping their units and/or changing their tactics to take advantage of what USMC is proposing?


Reserves a good place to place tanks as a hedge.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 15:04
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:Clearly, the USMC/Pacific Strategy has far less use for heavy MBT's. Yet, the Pacific is hardly the only part of the world. As the Marine Corp has global responsibilities.


Of course they could attach US Army heavy units to MEU on a case by case basis. Yet, my guess is the Corp wouldn't be to happy about that....

:wink:


If strategy is to fight over islands they need something which swim and pack punch. You can make light tank with remote turret which is stealthy, something like this:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BmKLBbg4LS8/ ... /ztd05.png

but with T-14 like turret. For non landing missions (aka like Iraq) you can replace tank gun remote turret with 30mm crew turret with reactive armor on turret and sides.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 16:59
by madrat
I'd rather stand down regular army units and increase the Corps strength. The army is a wartime necessity, but the Marines have roles with about everything involving military contact in peacetime across 85% of the globe. We can always raise an army. You can't send in Marines in an emergency that do not already exist.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 17:19
by ricnunes
madrat wrote:I'd rather stand down regular army units and increase the Corps strength. The army is a wartime necessity, but the Marines have roles with about everything involving military contact in peacetime across 85% of the globe. We can always raise an army. You can't send in Marines in an emergency that do not already exist.


Yes, I agree with you. (IMO, it makes sense)

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2020, 02:04
by weasel1962
I suspect the USMC is also looking at MBT age. These older M1A1 were bought from 1989 to 1993, undergone rebuild and will need a further rebuild to carry on. They will be up to 40 years by 2030. Not sure why they can't recapitalize with M1A2 but clearly no new MBT is being developed and it doesn't justify to develop a new tank just to replace 400+ USMC MBTs.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a608067.pdf

Logistics, logistics, logistics...

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2020, 03:34
by usnvo
quicksilver wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Even if removing all MBT's is the correct decision today, why wouldn't you just maintain a small inventory in the event they're needed tomorrow? We've all seen how fast warfare can change, and the Chinese are undoubtedly watching.

So what's stopping them from seeing this, then re-equipping their units and/or changing their tactics to take advantage of what USMC is proposing?


Reserves a good place to place tanks as a hedge.


Moving MBTs to the reserves would just make it worse.

First, it is not like the US is giving up on MBTs, it is that the USMC is getting out of the Tank business. So there will still be a plethora of armored behemoths if you really need them. Keeping tanks in the reserves requires that you continue to support them and tanks are expensive, and not just in cash. They require manning, training, updating the equipment, doctrine, keeping parts, depot level support, etc. No real benefit unless you totally get out of the business and outsource it to the Army.

Second, how many battalions do you want to keep? Currently there are at least 5 battalions of armor (3BNs plus a complete equipment set on each MPS Squadron). Do you leave them on MPS Ships (where they displace a huge amount of space that could be used for something else)? Unless your tanks are ready forward, Reserves are no more useful than Army tanks. If you don't completely get out of the business, you still have a huge cost to maintain for a just in case capability.

Third, without active duty units providing a steady stream of personnel for the reserve units, how do you continue to maintain them as trained, functional units.

Finally, if they decide it was a mistake to get rid of the M-1A1s in a decade and want to reconstitute the capability, it is as easy to do that from Army stocks as it is to from a token reserve force probably with obsolete equipment.

Bottom line, if the USMC decides to get out of the armor business (which I am neither advocating nor bemoaning), it is easier and cheaper to just go all in. Doing anything else prevents you from maximizing any advantage you get from the move.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2020, 03:59
by quicksilver
So, what’s the goal? Cost or capability? Everything is ultimately a just in case capability.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2020, 04:02
by Corsair1963
usnvo wrote:


First, it is not like the US is giving up on MBTs, it is that the USMC is getting out of the Tank business.



The USMC has made no official plans to get out of the Tank Business.....


Just because you read something online doesn't make it fact. Last year it was reported the USN said it was going to retire the USS Harry S. Truman early. How did that turn out........

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2020, 04:27
by weasel1962
I think the 3 star (not 4) general's explanation in CMC38 should be quite clear.

Divestment of tanks
We have sufficient evidence to conclude that this capability, despite its long and honorable history in the wars of the past, is operationally unsuitable for our highest-priority challenges in the future. Heavy ground armor capability will continue to be provided by the U.S. Army.


I believe the official links would be here:
https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/cmc
https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/14 ... 121328-460

I would suggest downloading from the link Spaz provided if you have security concerns, which I validated to be the same.

Its not exactly new since his planning guidance started mid-2019.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2020, 05:22
by usnvo
Corsair1963 wrote:
usnvo wrote:


First, it is not like the US is giving up on MBTs, it is that the USMC is getting out of the Tank business.



The USMC has made no official plans to get out of the Tank Business.....


Just because you read something online doesn't make it fact. Last year it was reported the USN said it was going to retire the USS Harry S. Truman early. How did that turn out........


True, the Marine Corps Force Design 2030 is just a vision document. Until actual budget documents are approved and force structures rationalized, it doesn't mean much other than the intent of the Commandant given the constraints he was provided. However, it is unlikely the document was released without strong buy-in from the SECNAV staff at the least, especially given the specific nature of the document.

But it will be interesting to see what happens in Congress.

Re: Marines F-35 reset

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2020, 05:53
by Corsair1963
usnvo wrote:
True, the Marine Corps Force Design 2030 is just a vision document. Until actual budget documents are approved and force structures rationalized, it doesn't mean much other than the intent of the Commandant given the constraints he was provided. However, it is unlikely the document was released without strong buy-in from the SECNAV staff at the least, especially given the specific nature of the document.

But it will be interesting to see what happens in Congress.



The FY2021 Defense Budget was going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight from the start. Which, I have been saying for sometime now. Plus, this was before the current Coronavirus Crisis.


So, things like the USN retiring the USS Harry S. Truman early and cutting out USMC Tanks. Are just bargaining chips in the first salvo in the impending budget battle....

Hold on because it's not going to be pretty! :shock: