"Absolutely, die in a ditch, we need this airplane." — Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James Amos
'Fight to the death to protect the F-35'
Do you remember the above quote? I do. But what has me scratching my head both then and now is why has the talk from the leadership of the Marine Corps become so strident over this weapon system?
The EFV was cast aside without even a fight. The ACV has been delayed into the distant future without even a backwards glance.
But for some reason, the Commandant of the Marine Corps would die in a ditch to get the F-35. If that wasn't bad enough then we get this language from the head of Air Combat Command....
Gen. Michael Hostage, Air Combat Command
Are we perhaps missing something?
Is there a movement inside the DoD that is seriously looking at killing this program?
There has to be. The language is too strident. The fear to evident. The leaks too obvious for there not to be a movement...a strong consensus building to kill the F-35.
I admit this is reading tea leaves, but its the only thing that makes sense.
Unfortunate last-names department.
ReplyDeletethe ACC chief is "held hostage" or Hostage is hostage to the airplane? pretty clever.
DeleteMy take: It's simply the military "can-do" attitude. No excuses, no retreat, get it done. Click your heels, yes sir, three bags full, I'll get 'er done come hell or high water. Die in a ditch, fight to the death, I'll make it happen.
ReplyDeleteTo say it differently, there will never be a uniform who will stand up on his hind legs and say: This is a mistake. We shouldn't be doing this. And I'm including Admiral Greenert, whom I respect more than the others, in this.
So there are only two options, and the uniforms will always pick the go-along option especially in a full-on acquisition program.
That's why we exist -- to get to the truth of the matter and take a more realistic position.
PS: As to Hostage, I read that interview. He's an ass. (also) Everything was -- I want this, I do that -- I'd hate to work for such a self-centered anti-teamwork SOB.
“If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22,” says Hostage to Air Force Times.
ReplyDeletehttp://theaviationist.com/2014/02/04/f-35-needs-f-22-acc-says/
Sol, you've already been talking about the reason for quite some time now: We can't compete with the volumes of "near-peer" assets that will be lined up against our own equivalents if we allow the situation to remain the same. We don't have the manufacturing base, the relaxed operating procedures, low salary expectations, or the ability to prevent our training methods to be analysed, so it would be stupid for us to carry on in the same vein without adapting our strategy, tactics and operational drill.
ReplyDeleteTo maintain our superiority we needed to devise a new doctrine to achieve overwhelming local superiority, eliminate concealment and bypass/penetrate cover, while at the same time remaining resilient to counter. We have to self-disrupt our own technology and practices so that we control the process of obsolesence instead of allowing the opposition to dictate it for us.
This is the true core development that's going on behind the F-35 Program. The end deliverable package is not the F-35 airframe per se but instead the Program is delivering the start of the R&D required to support this doctrine. It's taking place with an aircraft initially as it's possibly the easiest arena to start in for a variety of reasons. The beginning that will be built on.
Sensor Fusion sounds highfalutin but it's a single critical link in the chain. Imagine the power of a Marine and his Rifle with the same facilities claimed of the F-35: Targets highlighted in his Crossbow glasses no matter what the intervening cover or weather conditions complete with a threat analysis simply because his buddy, or a satelite or nano-drone or that F-35 at 30k can see the target instead.
Take the raw powerhouse of a Marine and his Rifle and give them complete Situational Awareness to back up their decision making. The mantra is augmentation of this Decision Maker whether that be pilot, Captain, Admiral, Marine or whatever. Who's best placed to take the shot? What should the shot be taken with? The information is already presented and the best action completed in the shortest amount of time.
It's this doctrine change, an end-point ideal, which is why there is no (misquoted) "Plan B" for F-35. This is why we need to "Die in a Ditch". This is the reason we have to "Fight to the Death to protect the F-35 [Program]" (paranthesis mine). The way to beat a "near-peer" or even a "peer" who has superior numbers is to use what you've got way smarter than the other guy.
If we carry on doing things the same way and don't self-disrupt our own way of fighting, then someone will either do it for us or overwhelm us and we'll lose either way. We have to push ourselves, adapt new techniques, evolve, force our opponent to keep up with the pace we've set on our terms.
Sure, the airframe that's a part of the F-35 Program itself could be canned but what then? The PAVE PACE deliverables and associated developments would still be required under another guise or we'll still lose. I'll nip thought of putting them into a legacy aircraft in the bud at this point as there's not enough weight saving, power generation, cooling or volume available for what's needed in the likes of a Super Hornet. They're increasingly obsolete and not significantly superior to a peer force.
This is *not* saying development of the current F-35 platform is smooth sailing, that all the right decisions have been made, that there are no risks in doing this and that there is no political shenanigans going on, but the question that was asked is why is the language so forceful behind the scenes? What's going on?
To quote Jefferson: "If you want something you’ve never had, you must be willing to do something you’ve never done."
I have to disagree with you completely.
DeleteI don't want Marines or soldiers relying on some stupid computer in combat. I want them using their brains. The kind of tech you're talking about has been a pipe dream for years; I mean I can't tell you how many times I've seen some sort of "Future Solider" show on the History channel or the Discovery Channel showing me the Sensor Fusion you describe. And frankly, wasting my government's money to try and invent it isn't worth it. It wasn't a decade or more ago, and it isn't now. When that tech actually comes into existence; I'll be 100% behind integrating it into our combat personnel. Until then, leave that shit to DARPA.
In my book we've had seemless integration with the air and ground for decades. It's called a radio. The F-35 program is not building up any kind of future R&D work. It's milking money from the US taxpayer. You want the US to maintain superiority, push math, science, and engineering in schools.
I admire your idealist outlook of what's going on here, I too find myself getting lost in idealistic fantasies sometimes. At the same time, though, I feel compelled to pull you back down to reality.