Leaderboard

This. The reality is that these professions take a certain type of personality. I'm sure we all have friends from past generations and from foreign militaries that we've met over the years. There's a reason a Vietnam vet can sit and bullshit with a vet from Desert Storm, who can sing songs with an OEF vet, who can booze with an RAF pilot, who can chase skirts with a Eurofighter pilot. We're all cut from the same cloth. It takes a certain kind of personality to do any type of job and ours is no exception. The problem is that our profession attracts a certain personality type while our leadership demands another. Yeah, got it. Porn, dirty songs, booze, etc do not have their place in the professional environment. Got it. They're gone. But you will never cut the wild-hair-on-your-ass attitude out from the type of person who is attracted to our profession. I'm not making excuses or tooting my horn as a fighter pilot. The same applies to the dudes in Ranger Battalion or the Marine sniper or the Navy SEAL or the C-130 pilot landing on a short dirt strip. Our jobs must have a person, male or female, who is willing to work for minimum wage, spend many months per year away from home, and take the lives of other human beings. If you can find some liberal punk from UC Berkley who's in touch with his feelings to do these jobs then please, hire him. But reality says you cannot have both. You cannot have a dedicated professional killer and a soft-skinned politically correct poet in the same person. If you want the PC type in our military then go find some to replace us. I dare you. If you want professionals to continue to carry out the mission, then get the fuck off our backs.

The Super T or a similar platform can carry everything needed for the mission I've talked about, has much greater persistence to actually cover the ground forces rather than do a fly by, dump it's bomb, and return to the boat, and as you mentioned, can do "all the crap we could have used in the last decade." News flash, we're still gonna be doing much of "all that crap" and the MEU is actually a really good instrument for doing that type of lower intensity stuff. Have you been to Africa? South America? Philippines? The stuff we're doing there or could do there should be the bread and butter of a post-Iraq and Afghanistan Marine Corps. Plus FW (even the much derided prop-driven variety) can keep up with the V-22s and has the legs to escort them in and remain overhead, traditional helicopters can't as you've pointed out in justifying why you need a jet. The Marines aren't buying shit, the American tax payer is buying everything. We can afford a lower cost platform, hell, we can afford way more of them, and you get about 69% of the capes you want and 100% of the capes I think you actually need. The F-35B is hurting the entire F-35 program at large, just for the pipe dream of "needing" 4x 5th gen fighters to launch off of a short boat to do OCA. Want vs need. You do need a CAS platform to escort V-22s and provide armed overwatch for Marine boots on the ground. The country needs a ready, forward-deployed combined arms force to respond to contingencies, the vast majority of which are low-intensity (disaster relief, embassy evac, downed aircrew, FID, COIN, support for SOF, etc.). You don't need a stealth super-plane to land vertically and launch AMRAAMS at soviet fighters. That's not what the Marine Corps was designed to do and that's not what the nation needs the Marines Corps to do.

The people we want out won't leave. The people we desperately need to stay want to bolt... The AF should work much harder to figure out why that's the case.

I'm old, but not that old!! No, I was a generation later. I did meet him several times in the early 70s when he attended pilot reunions at D-M. Very nice guy; quiet, but easy to talk to, except if you asked about his visit to the Soviet Union, then he was just quiet! When I got there in 1973, some of our supervision knew him, and some even flew with him in F-84s before they joined the U-2 program.

Its been done before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO1B5yaoJyU

1. You don't even need that incentive; just take away the threat that if you don't spend it this year you won't get it next year. "So your X budget was $100K this year and you have $30K left? Cool, here is $70K... you did a great job saving the taxpayer $30K!" 2. The flying hour program "zero out" policy is the epitome of inefficiency, but the fact that Liquid seemed surprised that this is even happening leads me to believe this won't be changing anytime soon. 3. Bite your tongue... for every TCN working at the Deid we obviously need 3 TCN escorts!!! Next thing you'll be saying we should create an organization that can control worldwide Tanker and Airlift assets from a centralized CONUS location at... I don't know, maybe Air Mobility Command headquarters!!! That would save hundreds of people from deploying to the CAOC every year, but is obviously pipe dream crazy talk to think we could ever have an organization like that!!!

Let's just agree to disagree. From my point of view, if you have unlimited money then yes, let's give Marine Air (the air force of the navy's army, right?) 5th gen fighters that can launch off of short boats so when that one crazy scenario where you're doing a TRAP into a sophisticated IADS that's unified against us and the CVN or nearest AF base is just too damn far away and there's no way to delay for 6-9 hours...great, do it. I'm arguing that A) that scenario is relatively unlikely, and especially B) we can no longer afford to plan for every exotic scenario that has multi-billion dollar solutions courtesy of Lockheed. What I'm proposing isn't a risk-free solution but the risk can be mitigated. At this point canceling the F-35B would only affect the Marines, and I've argued that we could give Marine Air airplanes that could accomplish the vast majority of it's intended mission for a fraction of the cost. I'd give my left nut to fly the Super T on those kinds missions. Use the savings to both buy that fleet as well as bolster the A and C models so if the above scenario does happen, you guys have your 5th gen air cover. Hell, that air can even be "organic" so your Marine O-6 can blow his load because Marines will be flying C models off the big boat. Win-win-win. The Marines are great, I grew up 5 mins from Quantico and I know lots of great Americans serving in the Corps. That being said, I'm still unconvinced that your (the Marines) want is my (the nation's) need.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363699/truth-about-navigators-john-fund F&*king navs.

Taken another way, it sounds like you're making an argument for the Super-T. Limited but viable A/A, great A/G (including armor), great ISR, good CAS, and can deal with every SA threat you mentioned earlier.

If that's going down in a location that REALLY requires F-35 capes, we a) don't have an embassy there, or b) on the .69% chance we do the other services will bring those assets to the fight for a joint venture. I'm a big fan of the marines and am not shitting on the general concept of MEU, but VSTOL F-35s are way more than what's needed. As nsplayr said, it's a nice to have, but very far from a need to have. It's a political play to keep L class ships and "viable" organic fixed wing. You guys certainly need new jets, but something like new super hornets would be great for what the MAGTF really needs. If no shit we get to "storm the beach" and EVERYBODY is days out and "this" needs to happen right fucking now, sounds like something helos can do until the CSG and the AF get there, which really isn't as far away as some Marines may think. If you say the helos will get slaughtered, SA-15s etc....we'll then it's wait a bit or were at ALR Ludicrous.

Can't speak for IDEs but second that on DLI. I did Japanese there. Any of the Cat IV languages will beat you silly, but the Korean department has a special reputation... It takes a lot of self-motivation, but luckily Korean has a lot of practical use so you're gaining a life skill which is very cool. You'll be envied by many of the students learning less useful languages. Here's a video made by the Korean students that will give you an idea (made during the Psy Gangnam style craze last year): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyvqQU0o4Hk And Monterey (and that whole area - PG, Carmel, Pebble Beach, Santa Cruz, Capitola...) is absolutely beautiful with tons to see and do. Study hard during the week, enjoy the area on the weekends. I had a great tour there even with the intense study schedule. PM if you want more info - I just left there a couple months ago so my info is fairly current. zb edited because I remembered the video those kids made while I was there

The DoD doesn't even know where to start. Even something as simple as flat-lining pay increases for a year gets stomped by Congress. Restructuring TRICARE or our antiquated retirement system is needed, yet will be very difficult to achieve. I found this to be a good summary: http://news.usni.org/2013/07/10/opinion-military-pay-and-benefits-unsustainable

Indeed, there is some good stuff there. The OV-10G is a cool airplane with a lot of capabilities in the air to surface realm. I still think that someone has to provide alert DCA for the ESG. Deploying 6 ships and a sub without air cover is... well, there is a huge hole in the defense there. Leaving an entire MEU susceptible to a something so widely proliferated as a Bison carrying archer and exocet missiles is scary. The Navy won't deploy the ESG with the CSG on "routine" patrols. It's just way to expensive and limits power projection. Libya still had SA nodes that limited the Harrier's ability to conduct ops without Prowler support. The AF has left the tactical EA business. "Where I can see the Marines actually using the MEU capability is in the litany of situations where the lower cost, lower tech options will more than suffice in escorting V-22s, conducting ISR and overwatch, and providing supporting air-to-ground fires. Perfect fit with the TRAP concept, embassy evac, contingency response (Benghazi-esq attacks), disaster relief, etc. That's where the MEU provides the bang for the buck...if we're kicking the door into Syria or Iran or N. Korea and really need 5th gen fighters you've got two other services that pretty much do that shit for a living." This is a legit argument. I agree with you 95%. The way the Marine Corps is being used now is wrong. We are not a land army. However, TRAP still needs OCA and EA in many places in the world. If shit goes south in a country and we need to evac an embassy- it may not be a permissive environment that we have to fly into. Are there still shit hot pilots and aircrew who would risk everything to go into contested airspace to bring Americans home? You bet your ass. But shouldn't we be able to give them the best chance to bring them home? Perhaps this argument could go hand in hand with why the AF needs bases around the world with as much tanker support as possible. But even then- when you're on the ground running, minutes is what matters, and getting a section of F-22s from England to North Africa is in the hours timeframe. Launching a C model from the CSG would reduce that time, but again, what if the CSG isn't with the ESG? You are 100% correct that a MEU isn't going to kick in the door to Syria, Iran or NK, but it can be expected that the MEU will be there. At that point will the ground forces give up control of their air support? I don't know. I do know that there will be a Marine Col who will make one hell of a stink when the air support he needs doesn't exist because it is off supporting someone else. We played that game in WW2- it's an old argument, but one that isn't forgotten easily. Many Marines lost their lives on an island in the Pacific because the Navy and the Air Force went off to fight their own battles. We vowed that it wouldn't happen again. There is a lot of emotion there, and a lot of bad blood. It has driven us to where we are today. Don't take me for an F-35 tried and true kool aide drinking guy. We've worn our Hornets out (literally, worn the hell out of them, we have serious readiness issues at home) flying ISR and light attack missions where that OV-10 or Super T would have been not only an equal, but a better asset wrt time on station and ordnance carry. You don't need an F/A to fight the war in Afghanistan. Hornets flying combat missions over AFG is a complete waste of money.

Sorry, I've been doing a bit of Veteran's Day-Drinking...

How do we give the warfighter and the nation a better product: cancel the B model F-35 ASAP. Recap that money to bolster the A and C models and use the rest to do #2 below. How do we give the Marines air: buy an armada of lower tech airplanes that can provide a great deal of capability and an insanely low cost compared to the F-35B. What to replacing the harrier with: Light attack/strike i.e. OV-10 or Super T type aircraft. Not only can we afford a ton of them compared to a jet, they can fly on your short boats and they don't suck in every way imaginable. Had to take another dig at the Harrier, sorry, it's pretty easy. Not sure what replacing the hornet has to do with this conversation...replace the hornet with the C model F-35 as fragged. This is the enduring sticking point...you believe that we "need" OCA, DCA, EA, LO, 5th gen, etc. I do not believe that Marine Air needs any of those things. Any environment where you would need those things, we'll have the big blue Navy and/or the Air Force and/or coalition partners in the fight as well. You openly say the Marines don't play well with others, I think your mindset doesn't play well with others; the Marines can go it alone doctrinally, but IMHO they likely never will because we can project enough power to make every fight a joint and combined fight. Where I can see the Marines actually using the MEU capability is in the litany of situations where the lower cost, lower tech options will more than suffice in escorting V-22s, conducting ISR and overwatch, and providing supporting air-to-ground fires. Perfect fit with the TRAP concept, embassy evac, contingency response (Benghazi-esq attacks), disaster relief, etc. That's where the MEU provides the bang for the buck...if we're kicking the door into Syria or Iran or N. Korea and really need 5th gen fighters you've got two other services that pretty much do that shit for a living. Like I and others have argued before, the B model is a nice to have, not a need to have. It's incredibly expensive, you'll have them in very small quantities anyways, and the capabilities it provides aren't essential to the concept of the MEU. Good debate and thanks for providing a Marine perspective.

We start by defining the question exactly the way you did here. Define requirements first and then let the engineers turn them into a product. Don't define the desired product by specific capabilities (stealth and VSTOL). From what I understand, we need emergent threat survivable OCA, DCA, EA, Strike and CAS that can be launched and recovered from a <900' mobile platform. I'm pretty sure we could get a balanced product that may not do them all perfectly, but would be suitable for the lower intensity requirements of a MAGTF. I'm beginning to seriously doubt that the albatross the F-35 has become will be the answer we're hoping for.

Joke is on you. There's no real Southern BBQ in Montgomery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT50W0kKDfs

I assume you meant "pinging." If it was as easy as simple stall recognition, I guess we could just erase this whole thread - nothing more to see here and nothing to learn from. Well, I will try and briefly summarize why we are "pinging," based on what I read in those two open source articles from Time and the AF Times: 1. MC-12 dudes are trained on a plane that is physically and aerodynamically different than the MC-12, and stall training is sub-par, to say the least. 2. Most MC-12 dudes, like these MC-12 dudes, are usually very low time guys in the MC-12 due to the quick turnover in the community thanks to the assignment system, or whatever. 3. A lot of the MC-12 guys have tons of jet time, and little or no turboprop time - kind of like these guys. Stalls in a jet are different from stalls in a prop. 4. The mission of this plane is to essentially be in a constant turn for hours at a time. Sometimes they even have to climb while in such a turn. Some times the pilots even have to add max power, without proper training or experience as to the effects that P-factor can have in the direction that the plane is already turning; usually this is the first time guys are experiencing this type of situation - especially former turbojet guys. 5. There is a trend of several MC-12 incidents related to this deadly mix of factors - including non-fatal ones like where they pulled the plane out of like a 10G dive only a few hundred feet above the deck, causing significant damage to the airframe. 6. Dudes have left for MC-12 deployments and competed their tours without ever having seen any safety reports, or having any discussions on these trends or incidents . No matter whose is at fault for the lack of information dissemination - the individual pilots, the local safety weenies, the Chief of Safety, the USAF Safety Center, nsplayr, Vertigo, or Obama or whoever - it is a major fucking FAIL that this information is not being disseminated efficiently when these incidents should be pretty easily preventable. 7. People are dying and millions of dollars worth of aircraft are being destroyed. So, that's why I am pinging.

Let's see.....fighter assignments were plentiful, not a UAV in sight, I was flying my ass off, the bar was a free for all, and everyone was focused on the potential Communist hoards coming through the Fulda Gap or the NODAKS. Yeah, it is now history but it was a hell of a good time to be wearing nomex and strapping a jet to your back.

You're right. He should have compared himself to a KC-10 pilot.

Definitely a red cunt...wait, I've said too much, guess MEO will be at my door momentarily.

A buddy of mine has a picture on his desk of him and his college buddies on a deep sea fishing trip. They're cheering as they hold up a marlin they just caught. They're completely naked, aside from board shorts. You can clearly make out their naked chests. How dare he take pride in such a moment and present said image at work! The horror! You can even see his nipples! It's sexual! Porn even! We're all equal... can you imagine if a FEMALE posed in swimwear?!?! Some A1C of any gender could be (gasp!) offended! Won't SOMEONE think of the children?!?! Ladies and gents, I give you AF Management. Sure, you'll say "why does he need a picture of him in his free time at his workplace?" Ok, you're right. Which is exactly why you and your peers have made this organization, which demands so much more sacrifice and surrender of personal freedoms than our civilian counterparts, and involves a gargantuan amount of bullshit getting in the way of doing our duties, into just another job. Meanwhile, the shit that actually matters goes ignored. Fine. We'll treat it as just another job, decide we don't like where said job is going, and take our services elsewhere. At least you have the balls to come around here and plead your side, as ridiculous as it is. Seriously, thanks...that's more than most of your peers will do. Still waiting on that vector we were promised in January 2013...

They might get emotional because there is historic precedent for the Air Force to demand complete control of a mission and then fuck it away because they have other things to do. Just look at the C-27 program. Argue that you will better support he Army mission with he Army's plane... Then CX the Army's plane... If you don't think that left bad blood between services your crazy. Now the Marines are being told "you don't need this capability, let us spend the money and we will just make sure to take care of you." Meanwhile the chief of staff of the Air Force is talking about cutting tankers and limiting its ability to meet that promise. The same "it will always be a joint war we don't need the boat launched planes they take away from our money for ____" argument has been going on since the 40s. It doesn't work with trying to scale back Carrier Air why would it make any more sense here. The Marines are just better than other services for recognizing this is the same music that always gets played right before they get fucked. And to the guys suggesting that the Marines get by just upping their Zulu model complement and relying on destroyers/cruisers for OCA/DCA. Zulu can't do enough on its own. It's simply too small an airframe to carry enough firepower or enough gas. Not to mention trying to do it in a higher threat environment.

Why should I or anyone else be subjected to a picture of your wife in a bikini? Why do you want other people to look at this picture? What message are you trying to send those you work with? You shouldn't wear a bikini to work, display calendars of models wearing bikinis or put up a picture of your wife in a bikini. It is clearly sexual in nature and not appropriate for the workplace. However, the picture of the wife in the bikini is not that big of a deal. It is probably on the lowest end of the sexually offensive material scale. That is probably why the sq commander used a picture of a model in a bikini. It is not so offensive that it crosses the line of performing sexual harassment exercises by actually sexually harassing people. It is an example of a commander being creative and aggressive in the effort to prevent sexual harassment and assault. Nobody is arguing for paperwork or NJP for inappropriate material at work. Most are encouraging self policing, awareness and a better understanding of what is inappropriate at work. No clear line, but a clear objective: clean up the workplace by removing sexually offensive and inappropriate material. Like Tony Carr points out, putting the fake picture on a Lts desk in a predominately enlisted workplace was not smart.

Didn't you guys just celebrate the "exbiditionary Raptor plan" in that propaganda magazine the AF Times? What the hell are 4 Raptors and a C17 worth of parts gonna do in theatre? And before you come back with a lot as the answer, that's exactly what your asking the Marines to do only your argument is those Raptors and other elements will cover them. That's not a real comfort now to them, much less when they are actively putting their force on he ground into a heater and the Air Plane has the Raptors of limited numbers and sustainability based god awful far from the ESG because that's as close to the front as you could get the AF to base them. "Don't worry General you've got Raptors in Guam and even shorted legged Hornets out of Wake... By the way your supporting the trap mission." And don't even get me started on the complicated 1 point failure that would be having your DCA/OCA not collocated and dependent on a chain of tankers to get to you much less take you across the FLOT. The we don't need that capability argument sounds logical till you find yourself somewhere you never expected to be doing what you didn't expect to to. The Army has rethought its Rotory wing requirements based off a decade of war in hot environments and high altitudes. Because 30 years ago had you told somebody we were gonna employ Army Aviation at 7k-14k feet they would have called you high. People have argued for decades that Navel Gunfire is useless because we weren't gonna use it in Germany/Fulda and now it's being revisited as a major requirement of the coming METL. The Marines have been exercised in the rapid deployment role. They have gone in immediately without waiting for anybody else and relieving the airborne while the heavy legacy divisions and the mobility element figured out exactly how much time we had till they needed to be relieved. How fast is an exercise in how big and heavy of a unit you want to move. Airborne can go right now, but they do it with the Stryker MGS as he heaviest piece of of their chessboard and that comes in last. The ESG has it's own Armor, it's own assault aviation, it's own high speed float that is designed to get it all in behind the 72 hour window Airborne buys you. Now with the Marines being told hey we are gonna concentrate on a theater with fewer units assembly areas spread further between than normal.