Read the whole thing here, but this is the paragraph that stood out to me...
The F-35B, if it ever arrives, would be a real help, serving as part of that indispensable inter-operable glue that holds America’s complex Pacific coalition together. The airframe would help tie strategically important countries to the US for years and open avenues for future regional collaboration–in say, a more formal arrangement, or a Pacific NATO. I mean, if you believe that melding together some sort of collaborative security coalition in Asia is important given the slowly-descending Bamboo Curtain, then standardizing aircraft is a big part of that picture.As I said, read the rest. I disagree with Hooper on just about every point. He is in my opinion another big city liberal that happens to focus on military affairs. In particular his excusing San Francisco for its vehement anti-military leanings while still pushing for military participation in civic events there is especially annoying.
So, if the F-35B does go away, America’s major Pacific allies will be left with, well, a brace of aircraft-less aircraft carriers. And that, on the part of those who spent their treasure to buy F-35B-friendly platforms, is going to sting a bit. Nobody likes to be left holding a few multi-billion dollar platforms that fail to provide the expected operational benefits.
And as usual, he reverts to the same tired F-35 bashing at the end of this article.
But he is waking up to the idea that the F-35 is important, not only to the Marine Corps, but to Naval Forces world wide.
Maybe its too early to abandon hope.
Hope that others will see the light like Mr. Hooper is beginning to.
It's all too often overlooked how important interoperability is, especially joint/combined training. The French for years were part of the political part of NATO, but not the military part, which made them create their own military training and doctrines.
ReplyDeleteAt one point during the Kosovo conflict, it forced the French to swallow their pride and ask the Russians (!) about NATO's airpower doctrine.
Ahhhh,yes--Hooper. The name was familiar so I followed the link and immediately recognized the source. I had an interesting exchange with Hooper at DT about six months ago on V-22 MC Rates.
ReplyDeleteOn this one, I think he has some good points about the possibility and benefits of proliferating the F-35 in the Western Pacific. Why he had to also lift his leg in the same piece on the LPD-17 class of ships, is anyone's guess. Interesting how he dumps on USMC recpitalization as buying MAGTF 'toys'. Easy enough to make it look like the Marines are just buying toys if you're careful in avoiding reference to the doctrine (OMFTS) that is the basis of all requirements that yields those 'toys'. this may be the first time I've ever seen a military service criticized for having an overarching plan and executing to that plan.
yeah you're so right with that.
ReplyDeletebut to be honest i fell into that trap.
how smart does the Air Force look right now for wanting to go to an all stealth force?
like fucking brilliant mad men! i thought it was a bridge too far but it seems like they were spot on.
time for me (and quite a few others) to take a deep breath, realize we're in the fight together and start rowing in the same direction.
what does that mean? first i need to take another look at this Air - Sea Battle Concept.
it seems like those guys in the puzzle palace might be putting the right pieces together after all.
happy new year SMSgt Mac.