Open Comment Post. 7 Nov 2019

Amphibious Combat Vehicles on the move (Pic Of The Day)

40 Commando Battle Group @ The Combat Center (29 Palms)

40 Commando...#USMC #CombatCenter #Training #Allies @USMC @RoyalMarines@40commando pic.twitter.com/h8JN3eWErA

— The Combat Center (@CombatCenterPAO) November 6, 2019

Does the "Lightning Carrier" make sense?

via 3rd Marine Air Wing.

“The ‘Lightning Carrier’ is an LHA/LHD with a jet-heavy ACE embarked,” said Dirk. “Which means the MAGTF aviation element has more of a strike mindset with 12 or more jets that give the fleet or MAGTF commander the ability to better influence the enemy at range. Tying the sensors and weapons of the F-35B together with those of the fleet is a lethal combination.”
Integrating 3rd MAW’s combat power and capabilities while conducting realistic training is essential to generate readiness and lethality in 3rd MAW units and for naval integration.
“Our relationship with the Navy is important because if we go to war, we won’t be going as just a squadron. We will be going as a joint amphibious force” said Maj. Christopher Kelly, executive officer of VMFA-122. “Being able to deploy 12 or more F-35B’s on a naval vessel is realistic; it’s something that we can’t get every day at Marine Corps Air Stations Yuma, Camp Pendleton or Miramar.”
Training alongside each other enables the Navy and Marine Corps to improve tactical and technical procedures in terms of mutually supporting one another in the battlespace.
Employing 12 or more F-35B’s aboard an LHA aligns with the Commandant’s Planning Guidance. Partnership with an LHA is the right and relevant warfighting capability for many of the challenges confronting the joint force and provides substantial joint operational flexibility, lethality and survivability.
“The ‘Lightning Carrier’ concept is what we are exercising during this at-sea training,” said Dirk. “I think we will continue to see the Marine Corps exercise these capabilities in the future.”
3rd MAW paved the way for the first F-35B squadron in 2012 and will stand up the first F-35C squadron specifically designed for traditional aircraft carriers in 2020.

Article here.

Simple question.

Does the "Lightning Carrier" make sense?

In one swift move, we've tossed aside the Marine Air-Ground Task Force and utilized a big amphibious ship to use it as a light carrier instead of the hub of our assault operations.

Not my intention to expand this into a debate on "getting back to our sea roots" or the looming fight with China (although I have a hard time understanding how this move will enhance our ability in either arena).

I would like a tightly focused discussion.

Will this work?

Is this ship capable of flexing into real deal light carrier missions?  As we've seen it configured is it capable of leading a "light carrier battle group"?

What missions do they see this ship conducting?

Is it part of the sea battle?

Will it make amphibious operations more robust?

Does this concept justify busting up the MAGTF?

How do we make up for the lack of helos that comes with displacing so many of them in favor of F-35s?

I haven't read any professional discussion of this so it's up to my readers to fill in the blanks.  Hope you're up to the challenge!

1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment and Combat Assault Company, conduct live-fire range @ Exercise Bougainville II

German Air Force Typhoon Multi-Role Fighters @ Blue Flag in UVDA IAF Base, Israel...pics by © Bundeswehr / Jane Schmidt

Nurol Makina Yörük 4x4 armored vehicle during testing in Qatar desert

Open Comment Post. 6 Nov 2019

 

COMPTUEX....video by USS Bataan (LHD 5) Public Affairs Office

7th Marines, "Prepare To March", 1st Marine Division @ MAGTF Warfighting Exercise (MWX) 1-20 (Adversary Force)... pics by Pfc. Patrick King

U.S. Marines with 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division conduct a hike on Camp Wilson, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California, Nov. 2, 2019. The regiment is participating as the adversary force in the execution of the MAGTF Warfighting Exercise (MWX) 1-20. MWX is the largest unscripted, force-on-force, exercise conducted by the 2nd Marine Division in several decades.

Where did the title come from?  Check out the unit emblem below...always found it ironic cause for some reason "rucking" is a thing @ 29 Palms...

Is the F-35 concept of concept of operations in air to air combat hopelessly flawed?

via National Interest.

Oriented as a multirole platform, the F-35 is slower and less maneuverable than preceding fourth-generation fighters it will eventually replace, or the air-superiority oriented F-22 Raptor stealth fighter. While more focused as an air-to-ground platform, the Lightning is intended to defeat more agile opposing fighters by detecting and engaging them beyond visual range (BVR) with air-to-air missiles, while hopefully avoiding a within-visual range (WVR) dogfight where it may be detected and out-maneuvered.

However, to some critics this sounds worrisomely similar to how the U.S. military envisioned its F-4 Phantom performing in the Vietnam War.

----------

 The F-4 Phantom (profiled in greater detail in this article) was a huge beast of a plane with two powerful J79 turbojet engines that could propel it up to two times the speed of sound, and a then-powerful radar housed in its nose. The Phantom was armed with new medium-range AIM-7D and E Sparrow medium-range missiles, as well as short-range AIM-9 Sidewinders AIM-4D Falcon heat-seekers.
The Air Force expected the Phantom would detect aerial adversaries from dozens of miles away, swoop down towards them at supersonic speeds and take out its foes with Sparrow missiles from up to twenty-eight miles away. Short-range dogfights were simply not intended or trained for, as the Phantom was not a particularly maneuverable bird.

Needless to say, this was not how things played out when U.S. fighters encountered North Vietnamese MiG-17 and MiG-21 jets over Vietnam. Though the much lighter MiG-21 had only a weak radar, its pilots were guided to intercept American raids by ground controllers, per Soviet doctrine. Also, American rules of engagement forbade opening fire until enemy aircraft had been positively identified—usually within visual range.

When the U.S. fighters finally did get a chance to open fire, the faulty Falcon and Sparrow missiles achieved kill probabilities below 10 percent. The shorter-range Sidewinders were somewhat more effective with 15 percent kill rates, but getting into an advantageous position to launch the heat-seekers often involved getting into knife-fighting range with the nimble MiGs. The kill-loss ratio of the more expensive U.S. jet fighters in general fell as low as 2:1 in certain phases of the Vietnam War.

Over time, the U.S. Air Force and Navy adjusted by fielding improved Sparrows and Sidewinder missiles, and retiring the older AIM-4 Falcon. Later, cannon-armed F-4E Phantoms were deployed, giving pilots a backup weapon in close range fights. Meanwhile, the Navy responded by forming the Top Gun school to teach naval aviators short-range dogfighting skills—lessons which resulted in the Navy Phantom pilots scoring a superior kill-ratio.

Ultimately, designers of the new generation of F-15 and F-16 fighters made sure to incorporate cannon armament and excellent maneuverability, as well as high speed and advanced avionics in the Phantom’s successors.

While today’s F-35 is intended to operate using long-range missiles and powerful radar, it trades the Phantom’s speed (the Lightning is considerably slower, with a maximum speed of Mach 1.6 to 1.8) for a reduced radar cross section that will make it very difficult to detect and engage with long range sensors and weapons. Thus, while the Air Force concedes the F-35 is at a disadvantage in a close encounter with say an Su-35, in theory it should detect that Su-35 from further away, launch missiles at it from dozens of miles away, and then hi-tail it.

Story here and well worth the read. 

I was thinking two things when I read this article.  Spudman (a reader here that I appreciate) often talks about how the F-35 will operate as designed. He goes on to talk about how testing at Red Flag shows how powerful the plane is and how its concept is being validated.

Then I thought about the US Navy F-18 that tied it up with a Syrian SU-22.  I remember how the pilot got into a text book perfect firing position, how he toggled the switch to lock on with his Sidewinder and how it would lock (or something like that...can't recall exactly).  That Super Hornet driver then backed off and setup for a AIM-120 shot and put the enemy into the ground.

Do you remember that story?

That story along with this article has me wondering.  What happens when we tangle with a well trained air force, operating high tech aircraft and the sky is filled with trons?

What happens when there is no choice but to get in close.

Will the F-35 be good enough?

2d AABn participates in the Regimental Assault Course @ 29 Palms...pics by Sgt. Sylvia Tapia