I knew some type of bullshit was coming.
I just didn't expect it to be from the pages of Proceedings. What's worse is that CDR Salamander appears to endorse the idea.
A quick synopsis.
*Carriers are understrength. They deploy with approx 60 aircraft when they have historically had upwards of 100 airplanes on deck.
*This situation is going to get worse with the new Ford class carriers coming up.
*The MV-22 is faster than the AH-1Z.
Therefore the author believes that to make up for shortfalls on the carriers and to make the carriers relevant, we should embark a Rifle Company or two of Marines along with MV-22's aboard a big deck carrier and conduct raids from those ships using the carrier fighters as escorts.
Bullshit.
What's left unsaid is that the F-35B is slated to be the escort for the MV-22. The AH-1Z has already be recognized as being unable to fulfill that role, so the numbers have been reduced in favor of the multi-role UH-1Y.
Additionally the problem will only cascade to the Marine Corps MEU's. MV-22's and Rifle Companies are finite items. To add them to the deployment roster of big deck carriers will lead to losses in manpower elsewhere.
This is an idea whose time has not come. But if you want to know why I consider this a power grab by the author for the carrier navy, then read the following. Its a list of Marine Corps MEU missions (via Wikipedia)...
Deployment: Following the work-up, the MEU deploys for six months in support of geographic combatant commanders. During this time, the MEU is a forward-deployed, self-sustaining force that combatant commanders can direct to accomplish a variety of special operations and conventional missions.Looks like the resource and viability war has started. I hope HQMC is paying attention.
The missions may include:
- Conventional operations (Amphibious assaults and raids)
- Tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel (TRAP)
- Humanitarian assistance operations (HAO)
- Noncombatant evacuation operations (NEO)
- Security operations.
Putting Marines on carriers is a win-win for the USMC AND the "carrier navy". It expands the missions a CVBG can perform, and it expands the reach of the Marines.
ReplyDeletei disagree
ReplyDeleteNegative. The meu is what makes the marines strong in that it provides complete combine armes. Putting marine rifle companys on board ships limits their capabilities and is a waste of potential.
ReplyDeleteIf they want to find a use for the carriers attach them to be used by the gator fleet.
The USN will not risk a CVN to support a raid in an era of AA/AD weapons systems!
ReplyDeleteTo better support a raid, the USMC/USN should consider utilizing a USMC COLT/ECO transported by a Absalon'esque modern APD equipped with Helos and CB-90/LCVP's...and NO that would NOT be a LPD, LHD or LSD's! $1B USN ships fall into the same category of CVN's when it comes USN risk aversion in the face of AA/AD.
uh how is a CVN at risk during a raid conducted by MV-22's and supported by F-35's? they will be far outside the effective range of most AA/AD....as a matter of fact they would be launching far beyond the horizon...radar (even advanced radar) wouldn't pick them up.
ReplyDeleteso your thoughts on the risk that is assumed by a carrier or LPD, LHD, LHA or LSD is irrelevant.
i like the Absalon but i don't see it as the end all be all that some obviously do. to be quite honest i quite fancy the Austal version of the LCS as an amphibious fast assault ship.
In an era of declining budgets and potentially (however unlikely) reduced #'s of CVN's, the remaining CVN's are going to find themselves concentrated in fewer critical areas (i.e. Persian Gulf and Taiwan Strait/South China Sea/Pacific Ocean). This is an unfortunate reality. Both of these critical regions are home to countries actively pursuing AA/AD strategies.
DeleteAs a result, CVN's and their Air Wings will not be able to relinquish deck space to support forces dedicated to raids. In addition, those countries pursuing AA/AD strategies will devote an inordinate amount resources to monitoring the movement of the CSG's - hence movement closer to (mindful the V-22 has great range) a given coastline (combined with increased Air Wing activity) could reveal the initiation of a raid. In addition, if the target nation operates SA-10/11/20 SAM's - would the USN be willing to risk V-22's in such an enviroment?
Finally - and this is perhaps a bigger question, would a CVN actually be available in a time & place where a benign, permissible environment exist to permit a raid to be conducted, i.e. Somolia, Philippines, Indonesia? Keep in mind the USN has been operating against Somali pirates for quite some time with limited to no support from CSG's passing on their way to the Persian Gulf.
BTW - I agree with you on some of the Austal products. The LCS and the MRV offer some interesting possibilities.
ReplyDeletePlus, I agree the Absalon does have limitations. But again the concept has merit and is a starting point.
if you read my post you'd realize that i'm against the idea of placing Marines onboard carriers.
ReplyDeletebut my point was that in certain situations the MEU could perform the mission that is one of its hallmarks...the amphibious raid.
we're going in circles but the real point is this. the carrier navy is looking to preserve its numbers. in order to do that they're going to have to take on more missions.
we aren't the only ones that have noticed that the old USS Enterprise carried 90 plus aircraft and now they're going to sea with maybe two thirds that number...at best!
the pirate issue is a totally different kettle of fish...i believe its more political than military. the EU has set up a task force to fight the pirates and they're failing big time.
oooh! MRV!
ReplyDeletenow you're cooking with gas. i love that concept. the only thing that bothers me about the Absalon is that it would get gobbled up into so many other missions that it wouldn't be used by anyone wearing Marine green.
No Circles! We are in the same area - concerned the USN will put its' interest ahead of the greater need to fulfill legitimate missions.
ReplyDeleteI agree MEU's can fulfill the raid mission but I wonder if there is a place for a COLT/ECO and if so what is the appropriate platform(s).
I like the MRV but I worry about the aviation component of the ship being a little weak - needs a bigger hangar.
I would keep in mind the MRV would run the same risks as the Absalon - being either gobbled up by the big Grey machine (supporting USN-centric missions) or being parsed out to too many missions and ultimately being sent to Key West to die of neglect (like the PHM's).
I appreciate all your efforts and enjoy your blog! Keep up the great work! We are all striving for the same goal - a stronger, more secure nation able to confront all challenges!
the thing that worries me about the COLT concept is if you're talking about a unit that small there are so many ways for it to get in trouble. i can see many blackhawk down episodes if our leaders get silly.
ReplyDeletei appreciate the kind words and hope you stick around...
by the way great point about the PHMs...we could use them now against the pirates...we could use the Riverines against the pirates...hell we could use frigates against the pirates but no one is serious about solving that problem.
Agree on the risks to a COLT which got itself into a Mogadishu-type situation but the concept bears further study - in particular combining the US Marines in the COLT with HIMARS, SH-60R &S, FireScouts, AMOS on LAV's & CB-90.
ReplyDeleteSadly the PHM's would probably be a bit of overkill against pirates.
Agree the OHP FFG's w/RIBs (or Riverine Force CB-90s) & Helos are a far better tool against pirates than DDG-51s!
Unfortunately, the long-term solution to the pirates off Somolia lies on-shore - in the form of stable government, economic growth (aka jobs) and general stability.
Thanks, again! Will continue to check the site daily! Best Regards!
The idea is probably a total waste of resources as the carriers normally have far better things to do. That said occasionally they are used for raids and they'll be used in the future.
ReplyDeleteIf someone wants to do it all the time then they need to explain where the money is coming from for the extra MV/CV-22's? In any case why bother the Corp? Have SOCOM fill the mission with CV-22's and they're troops. Hell if they task MARSOC that's a back door way to them back.
In any case the real problem with the idea is that while the carriers are operating fewer aircraft than they can this state of affairs doesn't have to last forever. In fact the UCAS-D (X-47B follow on) will be taking up additional slots later this decade. It's very possible if this aircraft performs well the projected detachment becomes a squadron eventually.
Pirates are never defeated until you go ashore and burn their boats. This has been true since biblical times. Certainly low cost platforms are the way to go for anti piracy operations but it's almost surreal the way the international community reacts piracy. A hundred ships are less effective than the political will to sink on sight and go ashore and burn their boats. It's not just Somalia that's the problem though it's a large part.