Dave over at the Dew Line is parroting talking points and misses the bigger issue surrounding the attack at Camp Leatherneck. Read the whole thing but check this out...
Second, Dave is trying to do a quick jab at the STOVL concept. Honestly I'm a little disappointed. I didn't think that he bowed at the alter of Sweetman and Aviation Week but apparently he's either a true believer or is drinking the Kool-aid. The concept is valid, that is not at question. The question is whether or not the US government will fund it or not. But again, the concept is valid and is being employed by the USMC, Royal Navy, Italian Navy and Spanish Navy. Additionally the Indian Navy and Thailand are (or were) using Harriers and the Japanese and S. Koreans (and even possibly Singapore) are all interested in the F-35B.
I won't give up on Dave yet but that was a surprising attack from an unlikely direction at Marine Corps doctrine and the F-35B.
NOTE:
I'm impressed by how fast the Marine Corps was able to reconstitute VMA-211. Very impressed.
"Within 36 hours we had eight jets on the line ready to go," says Maj Gen Glenn Walters, commander of the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing. The only issue that slowed down the USMC response was gaining diplomatic clearance to fly the aircraft over to Afghanistan, he says.First Dave is missing the point that the attack could easily have occurred at Kandahar Airport. Destroy a couple of C-17's and one 747 on the tarmac and you have a much larger loss in money terms. The failure wasn't in where the aircraft was based, the failure was in the force protection plan for these high value, low density assets in theater. There are no front lines so basing (yes I'm repeating myself) isn't the issue. NOT AT ALL!A total of 14 aircraft were deployed in two groups. The first group consisted of eight jets while the second included a total of six Harriers.The Marines deployed the aircraft quickly, "because we can't let the enemy dictate that tempo," Walters says.Nonetheless, while Marine air operations quickly recovered from the Taliban attack, it does call into question the wisdom of basing such expensive assets in areas where they could be left vulnerable to enemy attack. Say these weren't Harriers, but F-35Bs--that would have cost a ton of money.
Second, Dave is trying to do a quick jab at the STOVL concept. Honestly I'm a little disappointed. I didn't think that he bowed at the alter of Sweetman and Aviation Week but apparently he's either a true believer or is drinking the Kool-aid. The concept is valid, that is not at question. The question is whether or not the US government will fund it or not. But again, the concept is valid and is being employed by the USMC, Royal Navy, Italian Navy and Spanish Navy. Additionally the Indian Navy and Thailand are (or were) using Harriers and the Japanese and S. Koreans (and even possibly Singapore) are all interested in the F-35B.
I won't give up on Dave yet but that was a surprising attack from an unlikely direction at Marine Corps doctrine and the F-35B.
NOTE:
I'm impressed by how fast the Marine Corps was able to reconstitute VMA-211. Very impressed.