The debate over the F-35 is starting to spiral out of control. Want proof? Read the entire article but check out this blurb from National Defense....
Tactical aviation is the Marine Corps’ top modernization priority, Dunford said Dec. 7. “We haven’t bought new airplanes in a decade,” he said.I get the advocacy for the F-35. But the thought that the Marine Corps is nothing without it is beyond annoying.
The unprecedented involvement of the highest ranked Marine in a weapons acquisition program is proof that the stakes in F-35B — a fighter/bomber aircraft that takes off and lands vertically like a helicopter — have become too high to leave anything to chance.
“Losing the F-35B would really collapse the entire structure of the Marine Corps,” said Thomas Donnelly, a defense and security analyst at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute.
The bottom line is that without F-35B, Marine aviation operations would be reduced to just helicopters. “They would become a consumer of other people’s firepower rather than a producer of firepower,” Donnelly said Dec. 7 at a Center for Strategic and International Studies forum, in Washington, D.C.
Donnelly defended the Marines’ all-in strategy to ensure the aircraft survives both technical and budgetary challenges. A Pentagon budget crunch currently threatens the entire Joint Strike Fighter program — which also includes Air Force and Navy variants.
Marines should go even further in their advocacy of F-35B and make a case that Marine aviation can at times be more valuable than Navy carrier-based aviation, said Donnelly. “A large-deck amphibious ship with 30 stealthy jump jets may be more productive and capable in some cases than a large-deck Navy aircraft carrier with 60 F/A-18s,” he said. “That’s something that we should think about.”
Its obscene.
I want the airplane. I believe we need the airplane. But if we don't get it then we'll figure out another way.
That's what the Marine Corps is all about. I said in an earlier post that the Program Manager said in Grunt talk that the F-35 was fucked up beyond belief and that it needed to be sorted out and get its bearings before marching on.
Seems like HQMC needs to do the same. The only weapon system that identifies the Marine Corps is the Rifleman. Everything else is just a tool to achieve the mission.
NOTE:
Marine Air...God love ya, but to say they haven't bought a new airplane in a decade is a bit of a farce. We still have Marines getting the job done in AAV's that were first designed in the 70's. How about a little love for the ground side?
My personal hog is from 72. To say the corps can't survive without the 35b is straight bull. We are going to do just fine. Look at Korea marine air was flying F-4ub corsairs and making damn good on close air support, we will do just fine now.
ReplyDeletewow..72'! that's old as dirt! but you're right. if we don't get the plane the Marine Corps will survive.
ReplyDeleteWe need to go back to the MEU-SOC mentality. Setting up the corps in interwoven elements that support each other and the mission. But with the commandant being an Airwinger I can see why the F-35B infatuation.
ReplyDeleteThat's just my humble opinion.
It's really rather ridiculous. The Corp has always been about it's Marines not a piece of kit. Having an all STOL force on one airframe is a very good construct on myriad levels but at the end of the day it's still a luxury. The Corp will exist just fine without this notion even if one still hopes it pans out.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like the USMC hasn't created problematic doctrine in the recent past. Consider the high water speed requirement of the EFV to support the gators being 20 miles off shore. Interesting that nobody observed that if it's too dangerous for the gators to close within 20 miles than perhaps the battlefield hasn't been properly prepared for a beach assault? In any case the requirement drove up the cost high enough to make the EFV non affordable.
When people start making extreme arguments such as this quite often it's an indication of a political argument best ignored.
in hindsight it was a terrible mistake. besides modern water jets would give the current AAV a water speed of about 10-15 knots.
ReplyDeleteadd to it, an AMTRAC guy that worked with the program tells me that the interior was a mess and the gun was jacked up (the MK-44 works fine, the installation was a mess)...
its about the Marine...not the toys.
Over the horizon is a great goal, the concept being that we could raid before the enemy had a chance to meet us at the beach (less beach prep to too our hand) something i still fell is a great future goal. Image a Meu deploying out of the arab sea. The efv tried just had way to many people messing with it and no good over sight
ReplyDeleteThe corps really needs to look at who's running our vehicle procurement and find someone whos going to really get it done. I suggest taking some newer marines to help with the program. Just a thought. They are not bound by the old ways of thinking
Sol, late to this but I ask this in all honesty:
ReplyDeleteWhy does the USMC need it's own fast air ?
Wouldn't helo's like the Ah1Z or a version of the S97 Raider, be just as good at the "really" close support mission ? As your part of the same service as the Navy, why not leave fast jets to them ? (as in from carriers)
Do you have the logistics in reality to setup forward operating locations for the F35B, which appears if it will be a much more complicated maintenance requirement than the Harrier ??
Just wondering, how much more "utility" you would get if Marine air was Helo only ???
i've thought long and hard about this because its been stated so many times...why does the USMC need its own fast air?
ReplyDeletequite simply because (and if the US Army was being honest they'd agree) the supporting services (Navy and Air Force) always have higher priorities than the drudery of close air support.
the US Army has gotten around this issue by buying a ton of UAVs, luckily the USMC had its fast air codified by Congress.
think back to even GW1 and 2. close air support was always an after thought and the problem with using helicopters...no matter how capable is the fact that they're vulnerable on the modern battlefield.
that's just a sad fact, not even up for debate. and why is the F-35 needed? many say its because they believe that on a modern battlefield, stealth will be needed just to survive.
that's just my two cents. i could be wrong.