The USN is dragging its feet on 5th gen fighters.

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 555
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post23 Aug 2016, 05:44

quicksilver wrote:
35_aoa wrote:...USN and USMC aren't at war with one another, nor are they engaged in some political turf battle...


Never worked in the beltway, eh?


No (gratefully so)………...have you? What "turf" are we supposedly fighting over, other than the DoN trying to bring more Marine Air assets into the joint fold than they would like? I'm sure from the Marine perspective, there is a little hemming and hawing, but to be honest, they made their bed. I'll happily never fly another one of their poorly maintained jets ever again.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7537
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Aug 2016, 09:11

The title is very misleading as the "USN is not dragging it's feet on 5th Generation Fighters". :doh:
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3287
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post23 Aug 2016, 10:25

35_aoa wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
35_aoa wrote:...USN and USMC aren't at war with one another, nor are they engaged in some political turf battle...


Never worked in the beltway, eh?


No (gratefully so)………...have you? What "turf" are we supposedly fighting over, other than the DoN trying to bring more Marine Air assets into the joint fold than they would like?


Yes. Long ago and far away.

Turf? $$$.

As a child once asked his father, "Papa, do you know what makes airplanes fly?" "Yes, son...money."

No bucks...no Buck Rodgers.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3287
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post23 Aug 2016, 10:46

35_aoa wrote: Don't see why the USMC can't IOC their jet first...


Well, grasshopper, you need a beltway tour to continue your education about how the world really works.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7070
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post23 Aug 2016, 17:11

35_aoa wrote: I'll happily never fly another one of their poorly maintained jets ever again.



Keep in mind a lot of Marine aircraft are older, and many are navy castoffs, same goes for spare parts.
Choose Crews
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 555
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post23 Aug 2016, 17:47

quicksilver wrote:Yes. Long ago and far away.

Turf? $$$.

As a child once asked his father, "Papa, do you know what makes airplanes fly?" "Yes, son...money."

No bucks...no Buck Rodgers.


I'm sure you can elaborate more, having worked in the beltway and all, but all you are giving us right now is movie quotes and what should be common sense to anyone who has spent some time in this business. I'm all ears though if you have some insights from your experience to bring to the discussion. (That's not sarcasm, I am interested to hear about it)
Last edited by 35_aoa on 23 Aug 2016, 17:57, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 555
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post23 Aug 2016, 17:56

XanderCrews wrote:

Keep in mind a lot of Marine aircraft are older, and many are navy castoffs, same goes for spare parts.


Yeah, and as an unqualified statement, I probably wasn't being fair to their situation, as there are a number of things going on to create that scenario. Part 1 is just as you describe, which I think was a calculated decision they made for the short term to enable a fleet of F-35B (instead of buying rhinos). I'll leave it at that, their decision, their consequences. Part 2 is what happens when you force a service to do more with less for too long. No parts? The Marines are still going to get the job done, even if they need to get creative with what is called an "up" jet. The guys down in mx have been dealt a bad hand and continue to do good work, but it pains me that they are in this scenario to begin with. Back to quicksilver's pentagon talk about priorities
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7070
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post23 Aug 2016, 18:24

35_aoa wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:

Keep in mind a lot of Marine aircraft are older, and many are navy castoffs, same goes for spare parts.


Yeah, and as an unqualified statement, I probably wasn't being fair to their situation, as there are a number of things going on to create that scenario. Part 1 is just as you describe, which I think was a calculated decision they made for the short term to enable a fleet of F-35B (instead of buying rhinos). I'll leave it at that, their decision, their consequences. Part 2 is what happens when you force a service to do more with less for too long. No parts? The Marines are still going to get the job done, even if they need to get creative with what is called an "up" jet. The guys down in mx have been dealt a bad hand and continue to do good work, but it pains me that they are in this scenario to begin with. Back to quicksilver's pentagon talk about priorities


I asked a guy at Edward's AFB about marine test pilots, and what he thought and he was thrilled "they fly no matter what, they don't care if theverything jet isn't perfect. They just go"

Pretty cool.

The super hornet question is kind of complicated
Choose Crews
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3287
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post24 Aug 2016, 04:29

35_aoa wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Yes. Long ago and far away.

Turf? $$$.

As a child once asked his father, "Papa, do you know what makes airplanes fly?" "Yes, son...money."

No bucks...no Buck Rodgers.


I'm sure you can elaborate more, having worked in the beltway and all, but all you are giving us right now is movie quotes and what should be common sense to anyone who has spent some time in this business. I'm all ears though if you have some insights from your experience to bring to the discussion. (That's not sarcasm, I am interested to hear about it)


Ok..greatly simplified...

Ever heard of BISOG (ph -- BYE-SAHG -- Blue in Support of Green)? BISOG (funding) comes out of Navy TOA (total obligation authority, or more commonly the service top line) after the DoN determines the blue-green split within the department. There are various kinds of BISOG, but most relevant to this discussion are the APN (Aircraft Procurement, Navy) and O&MN (Operations and Maintenance, Navy) accounts. Green dollars are not used to procure aircraft (APN-1), aircraft mods (APN-5), aircraft spares (APN-6) or SE etc (APN-7); blue dollars (in the form of BISOG) are. And probably most importantly, each service's aviation priorities have to compete with those of the other. BISOG is a perpetual friction point between the services; two brothers and one has to use some of his allowance to pay for the other brother's stuff; tough in the best of times, and these are not the best of times budget-wise.

Guess what else gets funded out of BISOG? Certain ships...Amphibs.

The process is almost perpetual because you're typically working three different budgets simultaneously; execution of the current year, wrestling with the submission for the upcoming year, and working on the POM submission for the following year and the next five years beyond.

It's all about money, service identities, and institutional futures, and its been that way since long before someone coined the phrases surrounding the reality. On occasion, friends who have known each other since plebe summer at the academy have seen those friendships irrepairably fractured over some of this stuff. Ya gettin the picture there bro?
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 555
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post24 Aug 2016, 06:19

Thanks for the expanded info quicksilver. I'll say that is generally how I had assumed things worked, but I did NOT know that USMC air assets were purchased with Navy (or "Blue" as you say) money. To be clear, we are effectively talking about the man/train/equip pot of money held at the service chief level correct? I know OCO and MCO funding can be used in weird ways, but I assume that does not ever cover maintenance expenditures ISO COCOM/JFACC directed support, and rather is kicked back to the service level man/train/equip side……..ie the "BISOG" you mentioned? Am I tracking what you are saying?
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 555
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post24 Aug 2016, 06:30

XanderCrews wrote:I asked a guy at Edward's AFB about marine test pilots, and what he thought and he was thrilled "they fly no matter what, they don't care if theverything jet isn't perfect. They just go"

Pretty cool.


Good and bad I'd say. In combat, yes, you get the job done. I think you will find examples in all services of this, so I wouldn't call the Corps particularly unique in this sense, though I think they are uniquely innovative when it comes to doing more with less in general (not just aviation). The bad side is when you apply that mindset to training/peacetime ops.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3287
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post24 Aug 2016, 12:30

35_aoa wrote:Thanks for the expanded info quicksilver. I'll say that is generally how I had assumed things worked, but I did NOT know that USMC air assets were purchased with Navy (or "Blue" as you say) money. To be clear, we are effectively talking about the man/train/equip pot of money held at the service chief level correct? I know OCO and MCO funding can be used in weird ways, but I assume that does not ever cover maintenance expenditures ISO COCOM/JFACC directed support, and rather is kicked back to the service level man/train/equip side……..ie the "BISOG" you mentioned? Am I tracking what you are saying?


OCO is separate from the DOD base budget. However, in effect, it increases each of the services' top lines but there are criteria (somewhat loosely defined) for what OCO can be used for.

From the DOD top line, each department is allocated a top line number (also called TOA). Once the DON knows its top line number, SECNAV determines a 'BLUE/GREEN split.' BISOG determination/allocation follows that. Man/train/equip does not break down cleanly along blue/green lines. USMC 'man' is all green dollars; 'train' depends on what kind of training we're talking about. Squadron X has to go to the rifle range for a week? Green dollars. Gotta go to AMO school? Green TAD, blue school cost (iirc).

Maintenance is funded out of OM&N, but there is also a cut at each of the tycoms and it varies year-to-year. Marines who happen to fly an aircraft that is also the primary strike aircraft of the Navy typically live higher on the OM&N hog than their other aircraft-type (take your pick) siblings -- until that aircraft is no longer the primary strike aircraft of the Navy. Additionally, aircraft are moved around (service to service and unit to unit) depending on depot schedules, aircraft FLE (fatigue life expenditure), cats, and traps. Thus, there is a far better than even chance that those "poorly maintained" jets that you casually made an "unqualified statement" about (a punk move that would get your O2 mask 'swabbed', or get you clocked by some Gunny in the next liberty port) has spent some time haze gray and underway.

On budget battles, think 'zero-sum game' all the time, every day, all year, every year.
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 555
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post25 Aug 2016, 04:08

Thanks for the info. I'll look out for the gunny getting near my mask. Having spent some time in a USMC squadron previously, I'll stand by my statement, though not intended as a snipe at him, or any of the troops working the flight line if it came off that way. If that still makes me a "punk", so be it :) For the record, I'm well aware of the inter-service jet swapping, but the problems I mention/have experienced first hand, are cultural and began well after acceptance forms were signed.
Offline

nick11

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2016, 06:17

Unread post14 Oct 2016, 06:19

les_paul59 wrote:I'm not sure when the U.S. Navy became such an easy target for criticism, but how the h*ll is the largest navy in the world with 9 or 10 full on aircraft carriers, not a day 1 force.....am I missing something here?

If the US navy isn't a day 1 conflict force than no country has one.

F-35's flying off of carriers is pretty intimidating.


You are talking about the Navy that has botched

CGX, DDG21, Virginia Replacement, Ohio Replacement, LCS and on and on and on. Are you really surprised F-35 & UCAV aren't going anywhere!?
Offline

jessmo111

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49

Unread post14 Oct 2016, 07:23

35_aoa wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:I asked a guy at Edward's AFB about marine test pilots, and what he thought and he was thrilled "they fly no matter what, they don't care if theverything jet isn't perfect. They just go"

Pretty cool.


Good and bad I'd say. In combat, yes, you get the job done. I think you will find examples in all services of this, so I wouldn't call the Corps particularly unique in this sense, though I think they are uniquely innovative when it comes to doing more with less in general (not just aviation). The bad side is when you apply that mindset to training/peacetime ops.


Exactly, there is a difference between CAN DO HOORAH, and bone headed!

http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... 1/19/1804/

Grampaw Pettibone says:

Only two good things can come from this kind of knuckleheadery. The first one is we got that fine Marine out of the briny not too worse for the wear. The second is that you kids will hopefully learn something that may keep you from making the same mistake. Heck, that’s what we do here in Gramp’s house, right?

Back when Gramps was an instructor, we had an adage: “Live to fly, die for the ‘X.’” We said it jokingly—but only half jokingly—’cause after all, what kind of Naval Aviators would we be if we didn’t get the job done for the old man? But there’s a line kids, and these gents were so far beyond it they didn’t even know where it was! Gramps loves me some hard charging Marines (is there any other kind?) but gee-whiz, there weren’t bad guys coming over the horizon, this was C-darned-Q. It was nothing but a training mission and three smart, disciplined, and highly trained aviators all thought it was ok to launch that jump jet on a demanding night evolution, even though it wasn’t really airworthy—and that just don’t make sense.

So come here kids and let’s talk about what’s important here. We get paid to take risks, sometimes extreme risks, but a training sortie ain’t the time to do it. Training’s important, but it ain’t so important that you should unduly risk your air machine, much less your hide.

Now you kids run along, Gramps is gonna wander down to the barn and muck some stalls
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 28 guests