F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
UK Relies on USMC re F-35B
U.K. Counts on Marines to Keep Fighter Plane on Track 02 May 2013 By Julian E. Barnes
U.K. Counts on Marines to Keep Fighter Plane on Track - Washington Wire - WSJ
"One of the Marine Corps favorite saying is “Every Marine, a rifleman.” A new twist, heard with increasing frequency in Washington, is “Every Marine, a lobbyist.”
It’s those qualities of the Corps that U.K. Defense Secretary Philip Hammond said he is counting on to keep a key fighter plane on track.
Mr. Hammond is visiting Washington, in part to talk about progress on the Joint Strike Fighter. Both the British and the U.S. Marines have pinned the future of their air power on the F-35B, the version of the Joint Strike Fighter that can land vertically and take off short runways....
...Mr. Hammond said the fierceness of that support is what gives him confidence the program will continue.
“Given the Marines need for it and given the level of support the Marine Corps has on the Hill, I think the F-35B is the probably the safest part of the program. And that is very reassuring to us,” Mr. Hammond told a small gathering of reporters at the British Embassy Thursday...."
U.K. Counts on Marines to Keep Fighter Plane on Track - Washington Wire - WSJ
"One of the Marine Corps favorite saying is “Every Marine, a rifleman.” A new twist, heard with increasing frequency in Washington, is “Every Marine, a lobbyist.”
It’s those qualities of the Corps that U.K. Defense Secretary Philip Hammond said he is counting on to keep a key fighter plane on track.
Mr. Hammond is visiting Washington, in part to talk about progress on the Joint Strike Fighter. Both the British and the U.S. Marines have pinned the future of their air power on the F-35B, the version of the Joint Strike Fighter that can land vertically and take off short runways....
...Mr. Hammond said the fierceness of that support is what gives him confidence the program will continue.
“Given the Marines need for it and given the level of support the Marine Corps has on the Hill, I think the F-35B is the probably the safest part of the program. And that is very reassuring to us,” Mr. Hammond told a small gathering of reporters at the British Embassy Thursday...."
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Given the Marines need for it and given the level of support the Marine Corps has on the Hill, I think the F-35B is the probably the safest part of the program. And that is very reassuring to us,”
Hammond's comments are what we call a "Kinsley gaffe".
Very true, but it is not very good to realize that Britain's largest non-nuclear defense program depends on the Marines' powerful (but widely and deeply loathed) lobbying machine.
The problem with that machine is that while the Marines earn respect as an elite infantry force, the lobbying has been in support of high-tech toys that cost too much for what they deliver relative to national strategic goals (V-22, EFV, F-35B) and that are spec'd for an amphibious forced-entry doctrine that has not been used in 60 years, and is probably as relevant today as cavalry tactics in 1914.
Very true, but it is not very good to realize that Britain's largest non-nuclear defense program depends on the Marines' powerful (but widely and deeply loathed) lobbying machine.
The problem with that machine is that while the Marines earn respect as an elite infantry force, the lobbying has been in support of high-tech toys that cost too much for what they deliver relative to national strategic goals (V-22, EFV, F-35B) and that are spec'd for an amphibious forced-entry doctrine that has not been used in 60 years, and is probably as relevant today as cavalry tactics in 1914.
high-tech toys that cost too much for what they deliver relative to national strategic goals (V-22, EFV, F-35B) and that are spec'd for an amphibious forced-entry doctrine that has not been used in 60 years
Given that USMC offer the ONLY ability to sustainably insert ground forces without being invited in, it's not a capability you throw away lightly. Particularly in a Pacific theatre where the contentious bits all appear to be continguous to the sea.
"but to increase the chance of evading detection."
In an era of cheap UAVs, thermal imagers smaller than a family size packet of teabags, and briefcase-sized SAR/ISAR, the chance of a task force centered on a 50000 ton ship evading detection by standing off 30 nm or so is indeed increased, according to the following formula:
square root of
-all > cube root of -all
In an era of cheap UAVs, thermal imagers smaller than a family size packet of teabags, and briefcase-sized SAR/ISAR, the chance of a task force centered on a 50000 ton ship evading detection by standing off 30 nm or so is indeed increased, according to the following formula:
square root of
-all > cube root of -all
Last edited by LowObservable; 3rd May 2013 at 13:28.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hammond's comments are what we call a "Kinsley gaffe".
Very true, but it is not very good to realize that Britain's largest non-nuclear defense program depends on the Marines' powerful (but widely and deeply loathed) lobbying machine.
The problem with that machine is that while the Marines earn respect as an elite infantry force, the lobbying has been in support of high-tech toys that cost too much for what they deliver relative to national strategic goals (V-22, EFV, F-35B) and that are spec'd for an amphibious forced-entry doctrine that has not been used in 60 years, and is probably as relevant today as cavalry tactics in 1914.
Very true, but it is not very good to realize that Britain's largest non-nuclear defense program depends on the Marines' powerful (but widely and deeply loathed) lobbying machine.
The problem with that machine is that while the Marines earn respect as an elite infantry force, the lobbying has been in support of high-tech toys that cost too much for what they deliver relative to national strategic goals (V-22, EFV, F-35B) and that are spec'd for an amphibious forced-entry doctrine that has not been used in 60 years, and is probably as relevant today as cavalry tactics in 1914.
Obama is pivoting his forces to face China in a huge area dominated by the ocean and very distributed geography, the Marine corp is his amphibious expeditionary arm. Seems to me that the entire USMC strategy that you are dismissing is mightily appropo in contradiction to the 'second land army' that they have become in the preceding decades. A usage that will only drop as Obama attempts to disengage from the 'War on Terror'.
They are spending an inordinate amount of time practising 'speedy' long distance transits and manoeuver from the air and sea based approach exercises.
Originally Posted by LowObservable
In an era of cheap UAVs, thermal imagers smaller than a family size packet of teabags, and briefcase-sized SAR/ISAR...
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's all true, but still doesn't really clarify why the marines require an aircraft that is supposedly able to do everything instead of a cheap close air support aircraft, when they are going to have top cover from the world's second biggest air force, and quite probably the world's biggest.
EM - I tend to go with Andrew Krepinevich's opinion that an Army/Marine landing on the coast of China would rate a paragraph on page D17 of the China Daily.
N-a-B - True as it applies to Reaper/Predator types, over land. Even for such aircraft it is not quite as applicable over water, because the airborne sensor can out-range any defense except an AEW + fighter combo. And as sensors and electronics get smaller, I can find big metal things at sea, if not at oceanic range, with swarms of very small UAVs (think ScanEagles or Integrators) that are hard to detect and hit.
FodPlod - Pass that tip on to the Cubs' talent scouts, will you? Or if you're talking about missile defenses, they are capable but (see above) the adversary could run you out of rounds pretty fast.
Bastardeux - The Marines want to marmelize Colin Powell, or whoever it was that came up with the "so why does the Navy's army have its own air force?" line.
Of course there's no good answer to that question: there is a justification for a CAS asset on the amphibs (which won't be the F-35 until Block n, where n>4) but not for a supersonic stealth aircraft, because there is no conceivable scenario where you do need a supersonic stealth aircraft but don't need AEW, EA and (most likely) deeper magazine and fuel storage than an LHA/LHD gives you.
And I say that because I have never seen such a scenario outlined, not even when I asked the question directly to Jim Amos.
N-a-B - True as it applies to Reaper/Predator types, over land. Even for such aircraft it is not quite as applicable over water, because the airborne sensor can out-range any defense except an AEW + fighter combo. And as sensors and electronics get smaller, I can find big metal things at sea, if not at oceanic range, with swarms of very small UAVs (think ScanEagles or Integrators) that are hard to detect and hit.
FodPlod - Pass that tip on to the Cubs' talent scouts, will you? Or if you're talking about missile defenses, they are capable but (see above) the adversary could run you out of rounds pretty fast.
Bastardeux - The Marines want to marmelize Colin Powell, or whoever it was that came up with the "so why does the Navy's army have its own air force?" line.
Of course there's no good answer to that question: there is a justification for a CAS asset on the amphibs (which won't be the F-35 until Block n, where n>4) but not for a supersonic stealth aircraft, because there is no conceivable scenario where you do need a supersonic stealth aircraft but don't need AEW, EA and (most likely) deeper magazine and fuel storage than an LHA/LHD gives you.
And I say that because I have never seen such a scenario outlined, not even when I asked the question directly to Jim Amos.
Last edited by LowObservable; 3rd May 2013 at 15:02.
N-a-B - True as it applies to Reaper/Predator types, over land. Even for such aircraft it is not quite as applicable over water, because the airborne sensor can out-range any defense except an AEW + fighter combo. And as sensors and electronics get smaller, I can find big metal things at sea, if not at oceanic range, with swarms of very small UAVs (think ScanEagles or Integrators) that are hard to detect and hit.
The problem with that machine is that while the Marines earn respect as an elite infantry force, the lobbying has been in support of high-tech toys that cost too much for what they deliver relative to national strategic goals (V-22, EFV, F-35B) and that are spec'd for an amphibious forced-entry doctrine that has not been used in 60 years, and is probably as relevant today as cavalry tactics in 1914.
Tarawa isn't happening again any time soon.
When I was first in the Navy, LSTs were still around, as were lots of LSD's and LPDs.
The LPD has evolved, and the LST'a and LSD's are no longer in the OOB.
No question on cost growth, but your understanding of the USMC's roles and missions niche has not kept up to date.
Cheers.
On the subject of the USMC, it will be interesting to see whether ownership of a shiny fleet of F35B forces them to contribute more to the ATO outside the Marine AO in any future operation. During several months' operations both over Iraq and Afghanistan, I cannot think of a single occasion when I saw a USMC AV-8B or F-18 supporting anything outside their area [yes, they do support non-USMC troops, but I've only ever seen them inside the USMC AO. I know that the Prowlers are shared a bit more freely].
Zealous guardianship of the F35B task lines will be a very hard position for them to maintain if the LO capabilities are needed in another part of a theatre of operations, especially if their own battle area could be supported by non-LO platforms (perhaps the USN?). The turf wars won't stop even when the thing is in service.
Zealous guardianship of the F35B task lines will be a very hard position for them to maintain if the LO capabilities are needed in another part of a theatre of operations, especially if their own battle area could be supported by non-LO platforms (perhaps the USN?). The turf wars won't stop even when the thing is in service.
Last edited by Easy Street; 3rd May 2013 at 19:49.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly. But then again, UAV cheap or not have never operated in an environment where a capable opponent is actively trying to counter them either.....
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
1st 48 OK But Any Extra 90 F-35Bs Split with Unmanned
Philip Hammond Unsure About F-35 Order 3rd May 2013 Sky News
Philip Hammond Unsure About F-35 Order | LBC
"...Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has given the clearest indication yet that the UK may not now buy all the jets it had planned.
Speaking exclusively to Sky News, Mr Hammond pledged that the first 48 aircraft on order at a cost of around £100m each would be bought to service the new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers from 2020.
But he would not commit to a further 90 planes, which had originally been proposed.
He said: "It's dependent on politics, money and the state of the world, but it's also dependent on what is not yet clearly known, what the mix between manned fighter jets and unmanned aircraft is going to be."
Mr Hammond said there were two trains of thought, one suggesting an 80/20 split of manned to unmanned aircraft in future, the other suggesting the exact opposite.
He said the final decision would determine how many manned F-35s the UK could buy....
...it will be another five years before the first squadron, based at RAF Marham, is set up on UK soil.
In the meantime 17 squadron will be the first UK unit to fly the F-35B out of Edwards Air Force base in California from next year...."
Philip Hammond Unsure About F-35 Order | LBC
"...Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has given the clearest indication yet that the UK may not now buy all the jets it had planned.
Speaking exclusively to Sky News, Mr Hammond pledged that the first 48 aircraft on order at a cost of around £100m each would be bought to service the new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers from 2020.
But he would not commit to a further 90 planes, which had originally been proposed.
He said: "It's dependent on politics, money and the state of the world, but it's also dependent on what is not yet clearly known, what the mix between manned fighter jets and unmanned aircraft is going to be."
Mr Hammond said there were two trains of thought, one suggesting an 80/20 split of manned to unmanned aircraft in future, the other suggesting the exact opposite.
He said the final decision would determine how many manned F-35s the UK could buy....
...it will be another five years before the first squadron, based at RAF Marham, is set up on UK soil.
In the meantime 17 squadron will be the first UK unit to fly the F-35B out of Edwards Air Force base in California from next year...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 4th May 2013 at 06:00. Reason: Uma to Unma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice Sky News clip on their website of the boys doing their stuff at Eglin although I am not sure that "it's better than working for a living..." was one of the MOD approved lines to take.
Philip Hammond Unsure About F-35 Order
Back to your media training CD Frankie.
And our SofS stating that the first 48 are for operations on and from the carrier Which of course isn't what he actually said. It was sound distortion. He actually said: "the first 48 will be bought to replace the Tornado and operate from land bases, not the carriers".
Ho ho ho.
Philip Hammond Unsure About F-35 Order
Back to your media training CD Frankie.
And our SofS stating that the first 48 are for operations on and from the carrier Which of course isn't what he actually said. It was sound distortion. He actually said: "the first 48 will be bought to replace the Tornado and operate from land bases, not the carriers".
Ho ho ho.
Last edited by FB11; 4th May 2013 at 10:54.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
VIDEO: Sqdn Ldr Buchler Talks about F-35B
VIDEO: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: the jet 'that almost flies itself' 04 May 2013
Video: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: the jet 'that almost flies itself' - Telegraph
"Squadron Leader Frankie Buchler, currently testing Britain's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in the US, speaks to the Telegraph about the jet "that looks out for its pilot"...."
"...At the American military’s Patuxent River naval air base in Maryland, the Telegraph spoke to Squadron Leader Frankie Buchler, who will one day train British pilots on how to fly the aircraft, about his experiences of flying the new jet."
Video: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: the jet 'that almost flies itself' - Telegraph
"Squadron Leader Frankie Buchler, currently testing Britain's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in the US, speaks to the Telegraph about the jet "that looks out for its pilot"...."
"...At the American military’s Patuxent River naval air base in Maryland, the Telegraph spoke to Squadron Leader Frankie Buchler, who will one day train British pilots on how to fly the aircraft, about his experiences of flying the new jet."