Wednesday, March 09, 2011

Aviation Neck Down Strategy tossed without an after thought.

Proper planning prevents piss poor performance.

The USMC had such a plan.

Aviation was to be an all STOVL force.

The Navy didn't like it but oh well ... eat fish heads and rice and suck it up big boys....

That's what a GRUNT Commandant would have told the big Navy...Congress...and anyone else involved/concerned about Marine Corps procurement.

That's not whats happening now.

Read this ...from Defense Tech.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos confirmed today that the Marines are looking to operate some F-35C carrier variant Joint Strike Fighters. This is a big deal. If the Corps buys C, it will solidify the future of fixed wing tactical jets in the Corps if the troubled B-model gets axed. It also shows that Marine Corps aviators will keep flying long-legged (I mean long-range) strike jets off big deck aircraft carriers.
This sucks on too many levels.

It gives the vociferous critics of the B model new ammo.

It ignores the work of previous commandants that set a roadmap for future Marine Corps procurement.

Its done without explanation.  This makes no sense at all.  If we're not moving to an all STOVL force then why not procure F/A-18EF's now?  It would lower costs, receive Congressional support and serve as a bridge to the JSF.  Is this going to increase the costs of the B model?  It will...so why do it at all?  This is idiotic! 

B's only!


9 comments :

  1. Part 1 of boiling the frog. "Super" Hornets will be coming next. The weakest arguement is "they can be used to fill out the USN airwings". Hello, why can't USN aircraft be used to fill out USN airwings? As long as they buy enough B's to fill out ALL the airwings on the amphibious assault ships in addition to all needed for training, attrition, forward basing, etc. then I guess it's not a total disaster. However, it's still a stupid move as it will just reenergize the opposition and make it that much more difficult for the USMC to get the number of B's it needs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Marines Corps is never gonna get over what the Navy did to them at Guadalcanal, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's called hedging your bets.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Go to Trimble's DEWLINE blog. There's nothing new to the Marines or Navy here, just a little Dept of the Navy dirty laundery (or 'inside baseball' - pick your metaphor) getting aired. the real story is Amos wants the B's 'probation' shortened.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have a different take on this. First, the Navy has always told the Marine Corps that it will have F-35s assigned to Carrier Air Wings as part of Tac Air Integration. The Navy also says the Marines are not bringing F-35Bs to the big decks. The Navy actually buys and owns Marine Aviation assets. I loved when the Navy would take our good Hornets and gave us old beat up ones that were out of traps. In the end the Navy has a big say in what the Marine Corps buys. But this not be all bad news. If for reason the B fails (I highly doubt this since it id doing quite well in testing and reports of failure have been overhyped) Marine tacair survives with a fifth gen fighter, the F-35C instead of F/A-18E/Fs. Additionally, it is possible in the long run that the Marine Corps might end up with more F-35s than the current projected number. The secret is Marine Air can not fulfill all of its requirements with only 371, or 390, 420, or whatever the number is today. 420 F-35Bs and 50 or 60 F-35Cs seem a good mix. This might work out in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Lou: The USAF has said repeatedly it cannot fulfill all of its requriements with only 187 F-22s. That hasn't seemed to matter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The USAF probably can't fulfill its requirements. As long as the production line for the F-35 stays open way down the road, there is a possibility in the long run for getting more jets than originally asked for. Look at the F/A-18E/F. The Navy has received more jets than they originally asked for. The Marine Corps received more F/A-18Ds then they originally asked for. This of course is a long term thing. In today's fiscal climate it is unlikely. I am thinking in the 2020 timeframe.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Lou: True. Others like the F-15 and F-16 were purchased in higher numbers than initially required as well. (729 and 1388 were the initial numbers respectively for those two.)

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.