Marines F-35 reset

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post29 Mar 2020, 18:00

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.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6414
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post29 Mar 2020, 22:49

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
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6414
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post29 Mar 2020, 22:55

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...
Choose Crews
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6721
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 01:37

Sounds more like a political attempt to get additional funding. Like the USAF and USN having been using over the past year....
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 01:50

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...
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6721
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 05:22

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:
Online

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4013
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 12:56

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?
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3058
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 14:10

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.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 15:04

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.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2696
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 16:59

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.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 17:19

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)
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post31 Mar 2020, 02:04

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...
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post31 Mar 2020, 03:34

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.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3058
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post31 Mar 2020, 03:59

So, what’s the goal? Cost or capability? Everything is ultimately a just in case capability.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6721
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post31 Mar 2020, 04:02

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........
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests