WEST PAC 11-2

A Marine with Company L, Battalion Landing Team 3/1, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, fires at a target while wearing a gas mask during in a live-fire exercise aboard USS New Orleans here Dec. 1. The unit embarked USS New Orleans, USS Makin Island and USS Pearl Harbor in San Diego Nov. 14, beginning a seven-month deployment to the Western Pacific and Middle East regions.  Photo by Cpl. Chad Pulliam

A Marine with Company L, Battalion Landing Team 3/1, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, wears a gas mask during a live-fire exercise aboard USS New Orleans here Dec. 1. The unit embarked USS New Orleans, USS Makin Island and USS Pearl Harbor in San Diego Nov. 14, beginning a seven-month deployment to the Western Pacific and Middle East regions.  Photo by Cpl. Chad Pulliam

A Marine with Company L, Battalion Landing Team 3/1, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, participates in a live-fire exercise aboard USS New Orleans here Dec. 1. The unit embarked USS New Orleans, USS Makin Island and USS Pearl Harbor in San Diego Nov. 14, beginning a seven-month deployment to the Western Pacific and Middle East regions.  Photo by Cpl. Chad Pulliam

Marines bullish on F-35.

via WNEP.com from Reuters.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Marine Corps version of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet could soon be taken off a "probation" imposed by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a U.S. Marine Corps official said on Wednesday.

General Joseph Dunford, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, told an investment conference that he was "pretty bullish" on the F-35B, the short takeoff, vertical landing variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

He cited progress in fixing technical problems and said the fighter jet met 98 percent of its test points this year.
Gates put the F-35B on a two-year probation last January and threatened to cancel further work on it unless technical issues were resolved. But Dunford said he was optimistic about the plane's future after a year of solid progress.

"It's no longer ... in the cross hairs," Dunford told the conference hosted by Credit Suisse and Aviation Week, noting that an engineering solution had been identified for every challenge that had arisen.
Given the progress, the plane already was slowly coming off probation and could see that label removed wholly at the start of 2012, he said.

The F-35 program is the biggest U.S. weapons program, which has prompted speculation that the program may face big cuts as Pentagon budget officials struggle to cut over $450 billion from their plans for the next decade.

The F-35B, designed to take off from shorter runways and land vertically, like a helicopter, is seen as particularly vulnerable given a variety of technical issues.

But Dunford said the new fighter remained a top priority of the Marine Corps, and that its ability to land on shorter runways and twice as many U.S. warships was a critical capability that the military could not do without.
Dunford said the Marines would not accept a "hollow force", and would rather downsize the overall size of their force than send Marines into battle without the right equipment.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa)

Every time we get a "strange" bit of news that many of the military blogs pick up on the F-35 (mostly non-stories that are put forward as breaking news) I start looking around the web because I realize that it must be in reaction to something positive that's been said.

Which had me search out the above news story.  But why, you ask do I suspect a good news story about the F-35 occurred whenever I see a quasi bad news one?

Exhibit number one.

Dunford made these statements to a conference hosted by Credit Suisse and Aviation Week!  Yet we didn't read any of this on their blog!

Exhibit number two.

We have this story posted by a couple of Aviation Week journalist.  Read it here.

It might not be a conspiracy but it is definitely an effort by some to shape opinion about the F-35.

US Marines and US Air Force to begin pilot training in the F-35 in 2012.

via Defense News...

"Looks like training for STOVL students may go around August of this coming year," the official said. "Once student training starts, it will include all modes including STOVL."
Originally, the STOVL training was projected to start around April 2012. Air Force pilots will likely start training in the F-35A conventional-takeoff version months before the Marines, as previously planned.

Pics of the day. Nov 30, 2011.

The latest production F-35B (Navy Bureau Number 168059, called BF-8) was flown from NAS Fort Worth JRB on 29 November 2011.  Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti was the pilot for aircraft's first flight.

As the crew of Fat Albert, the support aircraft for the Blue Angels, the US Navy's Air Demonstration Squadron, brings their twenty-year-old C-130T in for a landing at NAS JRB Fort Worth, Texas, on 22 November 2011, the latest production F-35B Lightning II (Bureau Number 168059) can be seen in a flight line hangar at the adjoining Lockheed Martin facility. Fat Albert’s crew stopped in Fort Worth to pick up two pallets of toys for the Marine Corps Toys For Tots program

I don't know who "Farmer" is but he's one heck of a artist!

Spike’s Tactical Rally Fighter

Massive hat tip to Soldier Systems...

Spike's version...

Standard version (if you can call this vehicle standard)

Go to Soldier Systems website for more info....I can't wait to read how SOCOM writes the requirement to get about 500 of these.  Of course it'll be airdrop capable and have mounts for a 50 cal on the roof and a passenger side 7.62 machine gun, with an additional passenger facing rearward with another 50 cal.

Damn it, I hope they write the requirement!

Naval guns...we took a step back by taking them off amphibs.

Back in the old days...when the Marine Corps still remembered the lessons of the past, Amphibs had 5 inch guns.  In the case of the old school Tarawa --- two 5in guns.

Why do I bring this up?  Because of an article by the G-man today.  Check it out here but this part caught my attention.

But hindsight being what it is, I do have serious questions if the US Navy leverages the flexibility of the amphibious ships well in modern irregular warfare situations like offshore of Somalia. Does anyone honestly think it is a good idea to put a $2 billion ship like USS Chafee (DDG 90) in green water for fire support? Our destroyer force is being primarily resourced to fight sophisticated air targets, not shoot guns to shore in littorals which are always the most risky.

What a false choice current US force structure forces on warfighters for gunfire support - either send in $3 billion DDG-1000s with advanced gun systems or send in the less expensive, terribly armed 57mm hauling LCS. Honestly, where are Reapers on LHDs, because right now the only other option is to task the RW community for their capabilities.

I encourage folks to read the whole Military Times article and give it some serious thought. When I read that article, I ask myself why the US Navy and US Marine Corps spends so much money building and maintaining amphibious ships to deploy structured air-sea-land battalions if the MEUs are unable to accomplish the sustained irregular warfare missions by sea as described in that article. That situation in 2007-2009 off Somalia appears to have been crying for a Sea Base, and yet none existed. Why

I'm a little disappointed with this article for a number of reasons...

1.  This was a Special Ops party.  Having a floating sea base (even if it was just one LHA) would probably have been a show stopper for the snake eaters.  Quiet professionals and all that.
2.  ID posted an article just a few days ago that complained about the lack of amphibs and even talked about a deployment that is reaching record breaking lengths.  Read it here and here.
3.  He forgets the 'time' that the Navy and Marine Corps was living in.  Iraq was going gang busters.  IED attacks were at all time highs, the war was in doubt and things had yet to turn our way.  Additionally you had missions going in Afghanistan and other parts of the world (I forget where but do remember it was a crazy busy time).  If I recall correctly all the naval forces had available was probably a destroyer.

But having said all that, the G-man has a point, but not for the reason that he thinks.

Where is the sea base.  I've attempted to capture some of the documents before the USMC placed them behind a firewall but even with the latest MEB exercise we didn't see even the tinkle of a sea base being utilized.

The issues with Pakistan would certainly be less stressful if we had one available too.