Forum: Program and politics

'arkadyrenko' asked: "...if the Marines don't intend to use the F-35B from rough field strips, one has to ask why the went through all of the trouble of making them STOVL...." What exactly is a 'rough field strip'? AM-2 Matting will take care of roughness and 'What About The Sea Base'? Operational Maneuver From The Sea (OMFTS)? How about dem apples for STOVLs from existing LHAs and LHDs?

F-16.net Sponsor

arkadyrenko wrote:

We were merely responding to the article's statement that the F-35B represents a massive strategic capability, "strategic deterrence" as the title states. Previous discussions ignored the logistical weaknesses of the F-35B's dispersed basing operations. The flip side of preparing for highway operations is that those bases themselves become targets for enemy cruise / ballistic missiles. And there are many more missiles than interceptors. (Israel is not about to adopt a launch on warning posture for its nuclear forces, especially when faced with many conventional tactical ballistic missiles).

The Marines are focused on here because they'll be the biggest operator of the F-35B. Any discussion about the F-35B's capabilities will naturally involve the Marines. And, if the Marines don't intend to use the F-35B from rough field strips, one has to ask why the went through all of the trouble of making them STOVL. Why not just short field capable?

We'll assume that you can read as well as you write, and thus you have more than ample references for how the Marines intend to use the F-35B -- including expeditionary ops. The principal strategic pieces are the additional ships now capable of employing 5th Gen assets. Of course, the platform-centric 'go big or go home' advocates will arise to argue the big carrier/little carrier case once again -- ad nauseum. However, the reality is that numbers matter; for no more investment than the nation has already made in ships, the US doubles the number of 5th Gen assets available to the NCA for employment worldwide.

The Marines don't HAVE to deploy the F-35 from forward operating bases.,if the situation allows,they would prefer operating them from the Gators, OTOH, if it makes tactical sense to operate them ashore, STOVL capability affords them that flexibility.

A good example of that would be Afghanistan.

It is 200 miles from the nearest water and Kabul is 400 miles away.

SWP, this is why the USMC do not want to be the 'second land army'. They want to get back to being MARINES!

That is a matter of policy while I am speaking of doing ones job AFTER the policy has been made.

Probably history shows that the last decade in Afghanistan and Iraq was not foreseen. Now that US forces have left or are leaving soon the USMC wants to get back to their usual assigned role. Why is that a problem?

spazsinbad wrote:

Probably history shows that the last decade in Afghanistan and Iraq was not foreseen. Now that US forces have left or are leaving soon the USMC wants to get back to their usual assigned role. Why is that a problem?

It shouldn't be if they are,able to avoid getting mired in future "nation building" scenarios that stretch the Army's capabilities and the Marines once,again called upon to be an occupying force.

Forum: Program and politics

Strategic Deterrence...: The Coming Impact of the F-35B