F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
A1bill, it doesn't matter how many times Dunford's announcement gets quoted, it doesn't change the fact that the political pressure from the USMC was such that his decision was unlikely to be other than "approved". I think Turbine just explained that very well and the statistics and flight summaries in Gilmore's memorandum show the declaration for what it is - a political necessity and an evaluation against a low benchmark. In other words, an "early" IOC.
Unless the definition has changed, IOC is supposed to declare a system and its operators (in the broadest sense of the term) is ready to conduct operations at its current level of capability (2B as it stands now). In this case that includes operations from the deck not simply being able to talk to a controller, land and take off from the deck, etc. If the engineering and sustainment requirements requirements have been met then the required sortie rate for operations set in July 2014 but have been very liberal.
Let's see how soon it gets deployed on its first operations (as in (IOC). If, as you imply, we're waiting for 3F before it can really go, it's not much of an IOC.
Unless the definition has changed, IOC is supposed to declare a system and its operators (in the broadest sense of the term) is ready to conduct operations at its current level of capability (2B as it stands now). In this case that includes operations from the deck not simply being able to talk to a controller, land and take off from the deck, etc. If the engineering and sustainment requirements requirements have been met then the required sortie rate for operations set in July 2014 but have been very liberal.
Let's see how soon it gets deployed on its first operations (as in (IOC). If, as you imply, we're waiting for 3F before it can really go, it's not much of an IOC.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IOC, what with it being Initial, can be whatever you require it to be. The Marines had in mind what they wanted and achieved it, all be it clearly short of what Gilmore had in mind. Presumably the USMC F-35 OT team were working to HQ USMC requirements, not DoD OT&E requirements. Pentagon politics being what they are I am not in the slightest bit surprised by this.
Deployment on Ops early on is not necessarily a good way of doing things (F-111 example in Vietnam is a good example). Typhoon IOC was a long way short of what Typhoon was initially touted to be (Jag replacement etc) but it acheived a measure of operational success in Libya in 2011. F-22 was IOC long before it deployed on Ops in Syria (as far as I know), but then the nature of warfare recently has not called for high end A-A assets engaging in BVR missile shots and ACM.
The UK has taken the step of splitting IOC into 2, IOC from land bases is slated about a year before IOC from the Carriers for a very good reason. Walk, crawl, run etc. for the RN and RAF after the 'holiday' of Carrier Strike, and the need to work up a brand new ship as well as brand new aircraft. The USMC used a different approach, with well understood ship procedures (despite a majority of ship's company being changed between DT-1, DT-2 and OT-1) and just the challenges of integrating a single new aircraft type. These challenges should not be underestimated but you don't need a full ACE on board to test whether 6 F-35s are more of a burden than 6 AV-8Bs.
Deployment on Ops early on is not necessarily a good way of doing things (F-111 example in Vietnam is a good example). Typhoon IOC was a long way short of what Typhoon was initially touted to be (Jag replacement etc) but it acheived a measure of operational success in Libya in 2011. F-22 was IOC long before it deployed on Ops in Syria (as far as I know), but then the nature of warfare recently has not called for high end A-A assets engaging in BVR missile shots and ACM.
The UK has taken the step of splitting IOC into 2, IOC from land bases is slated about a year before IOC from the Carriers for a very good reason. Walk, crawl, run etc. for the RN and RAF after the 'holiday' of Carrier Strike, and the need to work up a brand new ship as well as brand new aircraft. The USMC used a different approach, with well understood ship procedures (despite a majority of ship's company being changed between DT-1, DT-2 and OT-1) and just the challenges of integrating a single new aircraft type. These challenges should not be underestimated but you don't need a full ACE on board to test whether 6 F-35s are more of a burden than 6 AV-8Bs.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IOC
What did surprise me about the USMC's declaration of IOC was the time it took for it to be declared, after great fanfares were made that the recommendation had gone up the chain of command, only for the IOC to be declared at just about the last possible moment, if the timetable was to be kept to.
Possibly there was some discussion, that the USMC eventually won...
Possibly there was some discussion, that the USMC eventually won...
White Ovies,
Citing what was wrong with the Typhoon IOC1 declaration - also politically motivated and operationally meaningless - doesn't make this one any better. The one good thing about it, though, is that is highlights what needs to be done to achieve a real operational capability (albeit initial) for the UK squadrons when it's time.
Citing what was wrong with the Typhoon IOC1 declaration - also politically motivated and operationally meaningless - doesn't make this one any better. The one good thing about it, though, is that is highlights what needs to be done to achieve a real operational capability (albeit initial) for the UK squadrons when it's time.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney, that wasn't my intention. The main thrust was to point out that this isn't a new thing unique to F-35. I'm not saying it's ok.
I'm not sure if, off the top of my head, I could name a recent FJ programme that actually came in with a high level of capability, on time, on budget, in any country? This probably says a lot about the state of defence procurement globally to be honest!
I agree though that it will help the UK significantly, as we learn lessons from working next to the USMC at Edwards, Beaufort and Pax River.
I'm not sure if, off the top of my head, I could name a recent FJ programme that actually came in with a high level of capability, on time, on budget, in any country? This probably says a lot about the state of defence procurement globally to be honest!
I agree though that it will help the UK significantly, as we learn lessons from working next to the USMC at Edwards, Beaufort and Pax River.
Last edited by WhiteOvies; 18th Sep 2015 at 12:23. Reason: More thinking.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM,
You are exactly right in your analysis of the F-35B being an "early IOC".
PhillipG,
I am sure the USMC had made an early decision to go IOC in support of their promise to do so, but I doubt the IOC discussion remained contained to only the USMC high level Pentagon contingent. There are much broader implications and there were probably indecisions as to how to move forward among the three participating services.
Keep in mind this is the most expensive defense program currently going in the US and it doesn't have very stellar PR among officials outside the Pentagon in the know that carry weight. Much has been given up or postponed by other services because of bulging costs to keep the F-35 rolling forward. It was probably a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" discussion. However, the new General appointed Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff isn't an Army, USN or USAF General. I am not surprised how it worked out in the end. Just my thoughts on this, no clear evidence, yet…
TD
You are exactly right in your analysis of the F-35B being an "early IOC".
PhillipG,
I am sure the USMC had made an early decision to go IOC in support of their promise to do so, but I doubt the IOC discussion remained contained to only the USMC high level Pentagon contingent. There are much broader implications and there were probably indecisions as to how to move forward among the three participating services.
Keep in mind this is the most expensive defense program currently going in the US and it doesn't have very stellar PR among officials outside the Pentagon in the know that carry weight. Much has been given up or postponed by other services because of bulging costs to keep the F-35 rolling forward. It was probably a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" discussion. However, the new General appointed Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff isn't an Army, USN or USAF General. I am not surprised how it worked out in the end. Just my thoughts on this, no clear evidence, yet…
TD
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glad rag,
A place to start would be here:
http://www.public.navy.mil/surflant/...partments.aspx
Prior to the very first F-35B flight tests aboard the Wasp, training was accomplished ashore to familiarize the appropriate Wasp's crew members with the F-35B aircraft as I recall.
If the crew changed composition between the then and the May IOC, I would assume the Navy had most of the responsibility to train any newcomers, but I am really guessing.
TD
A place to start would be here:
http://www.public.navy.mil/surflant/...partments.aspx
Prior to the very first F-35B flight tests aboard the Wasp, training was accomplished ashore to familiarize the appropriate Wasp's crew members with the F-35B aircraft as I recall.
If the crew changed composition between the then and the May IOC, I would assume the Navy had most of the responsibility to train any newcomers, but I am really guessing.
TD
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM said "Let's see how soon it gets deployed on its first operations (as in (IOC). If, as you imply, we're waiting for 3F before it can really go, it's not much of an IOC."
It's being sent to Japan, but I don't know what the plan is from there. It's the block the marines always said they were going to have, nothing has changed, I really don't know what the hoopla is about.
For australia, I'm waiting for the maritime block 4 before it can really go for us and I would suggest for the Marines too.
It's being sent to Japan, but I don't know what the plan is from there. It's the block the marines always said they were going to have, nothing has changed, I really don't know what the hoopla is about.
For australia, I'm waiting for the maritime block 4 before it can really go for us and I would suggest for the Marines too.
What? A1bill, I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. VMFA 121 (declared operational at IOC) will be moving to Japan in 2017 or thereabouts, not now. That's where they're supposed to be based. That's hardly a measure of operational readiness.
I see no "hoopla". I am questioning the readiness of the F-35B to be declared at IOC for all the reasons already discussed. Do you think questioning processes is "hoopla"?
I have a feeling you and I have had similar conversations some time ago.
I see no "hoopla". I am questioning the readiness of the F-35B to be declared at IOC for all the reasons already discussed. Do you think questioning processes is "hoopla"?
I have a feeling you and I have had similar conversations some time ago.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question: If a USMC squadron gets based in Japan where they then operate for some months, would that not be a deployment and at least some measure of an operational capability? Or am I missing something here?
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cm, you said "Let's see how soon it gets deployed on its first operations"
I answered it, telling you it's going to Japan as a first deployment, (edit added rest of sentence). but I don't know what the plan is from there
Marines always said they were going IOC at 2B, It's hoopla to suggest it wasn't what was planned and what they required. It's the start, not the finish.
I answered it, telling you it's going to Japan as a first deployment, (edit added rest of sentence). but I don't know what the plan is from there
Marines always said they were going IOC at 2B, It's hoopla to suggest it wasn't what was planned and what they required. It's the start, not the finish.
Last edited by a1bill; 18th Sep 2015 at 22:23.
...on operations, a1bill. It's not a question of what the USMC require, it's a question of capability against political expediency.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 18th Sep 2015 at 22:21.
Ken, sorry I missed your post there. Yes, I see the point you're making and yes it will technically be deployed. My point is that deploying a F-35 squadron to its main operating base is no more a measure of its combat readiness than was having Tornado F-2 based at Coningsby or the first Typhoons for that matter. I don't think deployment to your new home base is a measure of combat readiness in this modern age.
I do think a true degree of capability is a requirement before describing any degree of "operational capability". The use of the term for political ends is disingenuous and designed to keep politicians and the public placated. It has little meaning when it comes to using the system (whatever it may be ) in an environment where it may be in harm's way.
Or maybe I should not confuse the use of the term IOC with combat readiness.
I do think a true degree of capability is a requirement before describing any degree of "operational capability". The use of the term for political ends is disingenuous and designed to keep politicians and the public placated. It has little meaning when it comes to using the system (whatever it may be ) in an environment where it may be in harm's way.
Or maybe I should not confuse the use of the term IOC with combat readiness.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM, " it's a question of capability against political expediency."
I think you would need to measure the Harrier against the block 2b to see if it adds to the overall capability. They are talking about combined ops. I think even at 2B, the f-35b will have some sensor advantages to add.
What the politics of it has been, is the same for as long as I can remember.
cm "Or maybe I should not confuse the use of the term IOC with combat readiness."
as I said, I think Block 4 is when it can do what I would want. it's not really cooked til block 5, as I see it.
I think you would need to measure the Harrier against the block 2b to see if it adds to the overall capability. They are talking about combined ops. I think even at 2B, the f-35b will have some sensor advantages to add.
What the politics of it has been, is the same for as long as I can remember.
cm "Or maybe I should not confuse the use of the term IOC with combat readiness."
as I said, I think Block 4 is when it can do what I would want. it's not really cooked til block 5, as I see it.
A1bill, I'm afraid I haven't seen any comparison of F-35B at 2B against Harrier. The declaration of F-35B IOC does not state that it's OK to go as long as it's doing combined ops with a Harrier.
If you're saying that later configurations of F-35 are going to have meaningful combat capabilities, then I think (and hope) you're right. But IOC has been declared at 2B and it looks very much like that was too early. It also looks like it's too early for the system to be properly supported to sustain rate of effort.
I think your insistence to refer to future configurations' capabilities rather adds weight to the "folly" of early IOC.
Now I know you and I have had similar discussions before. Do try to keep the fanaticism down to a dull roar this time.
If you're saying that later configurations of F-35 are going to have meaningful combat capabilities, then I think (and hope) you're right. But IOC has been declared at 2B and it looks very much like that was too early. It also looks like it's too early for the system to be properly supported to sustain rate of effort.
I think your insistence to refer to future configurations' capabilities rather adds weight to the "folly" of early IOC.
Now I know you and I have had similar discussions before. Do try to keep the fanaticism down to a dull roar this time.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by a1bill
I think Block 4 is when it can do what I would want
What does 2B not do that you want it to do?
Does it do enough to be declared operational as it is or does it fall short of want you want?
In what capacity do you want these things?
I cannot (or rather will not presume to) speak for the RAF in any official capacity, but I can tell you that we are sitting here hoping that our first squadron won't be declared at this, effectively, development level. But then, we have time.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CN, from the IOC quote at the top of the page., I thought escort and reconnaissance would assist the Harrier.
MACH, Like USN, Australia is looking at 3F to go IOC, but we will accept 3i if it is delayed. Block 4 adds the maritime antiship mission set, ISAR, missiles and would be the capability I would say gives us real capability.
MACH, Like USN, Australia is looking at 3F to go IOC, but we will accept 3i if it is delayed. Block 4 adds the maritime antiship mission set, ISAR, missiles and would be the capability I would say gives us real capability.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
but we will accept 3i if it is delayed.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure we've all considered this, but is there a chance that Dr Gilmore's memo is a stout defence (or defense) of his own empire.
The JSF program isn't world renowned for speed and economy; the time between first aircraft flight, delivery of jets and actually using them in war time seems long; multiple millions of dollars worth of hardware and personnel are gathered at locations to conduct OT&E which, by the memo's own admission has been 're-planned' (which appears to be the root cause of USMC expediency).
And amongst all this a bunch of motivated professionals went to a ship with a machine they're obviously content with and declared IOC.
I see this memo as a notch and chaff manoeuvre from the man over seeing what some might be challenging as significant profligacy. The bit he considers irreplaceable and the bit the USMC have just replaced.
'So tell me Gilmore, why are all those assets taking all this time to achieve whatever it is needs doing, if whatever it is needs doing has changed, whereas other dates don't seem to? Do we really need your vast empire and long timelines or could we possibly cut a gilt edged, diamond encrusted, corner here?'
'Well, Mr speaker (insert US term here), I consider my part of this pantomime to be very important and let me tell you a thing or two about the USMC and their time on the boat. Is it alright if you keep paying me?'
The JSF program isn't world renowned for speed and economy; the time between first aircraft flight, delivery of jets and actually using them in war time seems long; multiple millions of dollars worth of hardware and personnel are gathered at locations to conduct OT&E which, by the memo's own admission has been 're-planned' (which appears to be the root cause of USMC expediency).
And amongst all this a bunch of motivated professionals went to a ship with a machine they're obviously content with and declared IOC.
I see this memo as a notch and chaff manoeuvre from the man over seeing what some might be challenging as significant profligacy. The bit he considers irreplaceable and the bit the USMC have just replaced.
'So tell me Gilmore, why are all those assets taking all this time to achieve whatever it is needs doing, if whatever it is needs doing has changed, whereas other dates don't seem to? Do we really need your vast empire and long timelines or could we possibly cut a gilt edged, diamond encrusted, corner here?'
'Well, Mr speaker (insert US term here), I consider my part of this pantomime to be very important and let me tell you a thing or two about the USMC and their time on the boat. Is it alright if you keep paying me?'
