Marines F-35 reset

[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.

[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)"

[quicksilver]

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...

[XanderCrews]

“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.

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

[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

[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.

[sferrin]

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.

[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.”..."

[quicksilver]

How many smaller CVs can he get for $13B?

[steve2267]

How many smaller CVs can he get for $13B?

2 or 3 QE's?

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

~4 LHAs (same total crew and # of jets too)

[marsavian]

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

[quicksilver]

Related CSBA offering from a while ago. Still germane to the discussion...

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

[sferrin]

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:

(The report discussing it all is out there.)

[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?