No graphics on this one guys. Just plain rear view mirror gazing.
The F-35, EFV and the V-22 were too big a price to pay for the dream of over the horizon amphibious assault.
I was wrong when I said (and argued) that they were just what we needed.
We could easily have made due with say the S-92 in place of the V-22 and F/A-18E/F, instead of F-35s. Our air power wouldn't be state of the art but it wouldn't be breaking the bank, it would be sufficient to carry out Marine Corps taskings and it wouldn't have put even "traditional" amphibious assault in jeopardy like we're facing now.
The Marine Corps was wrong when they continue to stick to the yardstick of over the horizon attack. They're also wrong for attempting to design amphibious ships and vehicles to act in that arena.
It was a bridge too far then and now. The troubled development process that was painfully illustrated by the EFV was an early warning sign that we all missed.
I missed it. HQMC missed it. Marine Corps leadership missed it.
Marine Corps institutional fear about being rendered irrelevant has served it well in the past but this time it worked against us. We guard amphibious assault so vigorously that we missed the obvious.
So what if it becomes a combined service effort that involves elements of the Air Force and Army. So what if its not a pure Marine Corps and Navy effort?
The other two forms of forcible entry are as difficult to perform now as any...maybe more and the threat to those forces performing those missions is perhaps even greater, yet the Airborne and Air Assault Forces never seem to express the "fear" that the Marine Corps does.
The Marine Corps as an institution needs to have a serious come to Jesus moment and get its shit straight.
70 million (down from 100 million) for a CH-46 replacement is a sign of mental illness. A replacement for the Harrier that is coming in at 150 million dollars each when we can get F/A-18's that can perform the MARINE CORPS mission of providing close air support for our infantry is insane. Delaying the replacement for a Amphibious Assault Vehicle that is almost 50 years old while we prioritize the buying of the above aircraft AND a CH-53K which I haven't mentioned yet is a sign of illegal drug usage.
I just acknowledged the false assumptions that I made regarding Marine Corps procurement. Hopefully, someone in HQMC has the balls to tell the Commandant that we're on the wrong road and need to turn around. If a blogger can see this so can those in charge of the Marines.
The F-35, EFV and the V-22 were too big a price to pay for the dream of over the horizon amphibious assault.
I was wrong when I said (and argued) that they were just what we needed.
We could easily have made due with say the S-92 in place of the V-22 and F/A-18E/F, instead of F-35s. Our air power wouldn't be state of the art but it wouldn't be breaking the bank, it would be sufficient to carry out Marine Corps taskings and it wouldn't have put even "traditional" amphibious assault in jeopardy like we're facing now.
The Marine Corps was wrong when they continue to stick to the yardstick of over the horizon attack. They're also wrong for attempting to design amphibious ships and vehicles to act in that arena.
It was a bridge too far then and now. The troubled development process that was painfully illustrated by the EFV was an early warning sign that we all missed.
I missed it. HQMC missed it. Marine Corps leadership missed it.
Marine Corps institutional fear about being rendered irrelevant has served it well in the past but this time it worked against us. We guard amphibious assault so vigorously that we missed the obvious.
So what if it becomes a combined service effort that involves elements of the Air Force and Army. So what if its not a pure Marine Corps and Navy effort?
The other two forms of forcible entry are as difficult to perform now as any...maybe more and the threat to those forces performing those missions is perhaps even greater, yet the Airborne and Air Assault Forces never seem to express the "fear" that the Marine Corps does.
The Marine Corps as an institution needs to have a serious come to Jesus moment and get its shit straight.
70 million (down from 100 million) for a CH-46 replacement is a sign of mental illness. A replacement for the Harrier that is coming in at 150 million dollars each when we can get F/A-18's that can perform the MARINE CORPS mission of providing close air support for our infantry is insane. Delaying the replacement for a Amphibious Assault Vehicle that is almost 50 years old while we prioritize the buying of the above aircraft AND a CH-53K which I haven't mentioned yet is a sign of illegal drug usage.
I just acknowledged the false assumptions that I made regarding Marine Corps procurement. Hopefully, someone in HQMC has the balls to tell the Commandant that we're on the wrong road and need to turn around. If a blogger can see this so can those in charge of the Marines.
The last time the USMC did.a traditional amphibious assault.was.in the Korean war. That was 60 years ago.
ReplyDeleteyou're missing the point.
Deleteby all thats right in the world you're missing the point. the Marine Corps does amphibious assaults like the 82nd does airborne assaults. its a mission set but its not the defining mission set.
what makes the 82nd elite? its because they're an airborne light infantry division that can move anywhere on short notice and conduct combat operations with its excellent light infantry.
what makes the Marine Corps elite. its because it has excellent light infantry that is forward deployed on Navy amphibs with organic air assets and logistics. in the form of the MEU, the Marine Corps is often first on the scene able to engage in anything from amphibious raids to humanitarian assistance. additionally with its armor and artillery, with supporting helos, its an extremely capable medium weight force that can often be decisive on its own or can hold the tide until supporting forces arrive.
thats the point. don't be a smart ass.
The way things are looking in the Pacific, you never know.
Deletei had to erase David's post because he went off on a tangent and didn't read my post. amphibious assault will remain a mission set but it is not the defining feature of the Marine Corps.
DeleteThe Hornet can't operate off Gators. You just gave up 11 USMC flight decks for fixed wing. Not good. (CVNs already have a mission.) Sounds like you've been hanging with ELP. Double not good.
ReplyDeleteThere are no "11" USMC flight decks. Look at the money available to replace decks and the current retirement of decks.
ReplyDeleteSure there are. There are 8 Wasps, 1 Tarawa, and will be 5 LHA-6s. The Tarawa will be retired leaving the 8 Wasps and 5 LHA-6s. So you're right, there aren't 11 but there WILL be 13. So 13 flight decks they'd be giving up. Not smart at all.
Deletefirst those flight decks would have Harriers flying off of them and with the numbers we bought from the Brits we can keep that airplane in service until at least 2030. second, those same LHDs were designed from the start to be MAINLY helicopter carriers, not surrogate aircraft carriers. third, if you think we actually need more fast movers at sea then the better thing to do would be to add aircraft to the big deck carrier and get the numbers of fighter and attack airplanes carried back up to over 100 instead of the 60 currently carried. last, the Marine Corps is not defined as a mini-air force that can deploy mini-carriers in order to carry out what the nation needs. no, the Marine Corps is defined as excellent naval infantry that brings a combined arms task force to any locale on the globe. the force that we're building today is too heavily biased toward the air wing. we're going to have Marines riding into combat in 50 year old vehicles and yet we're buying F-35's at 150 mill each and V-22s at 70 mill but can't afford to buy a replacement/associate vehicle for the AAV?
Deleteif i have to choose then i choose to buy the armor now. aviation can wait...and if it means that later we buy less capability for aviation then so be it. we can AND have made do with less.
Except that CVN numbers are coming down and each one can only be in one place at a time. So it wouldn't matter if they had full wings if you don't have enough (deployable) to cover all the areas you need to. And Harriers are getting long in tooth. If you did manage to stretch them to 2030 then what? There's no way in hell a STOVL will be affordable if the USMC is the only service buying it. That was the whole reason for commonality between the three variants of F-35. I'd prefer to keep fixed wing air for the USMC beyond 2030. Furthermore the Harrier is hardly competitive with modern air defense fighters even now, let alone in 2030.
Deleteharriers are long in the tooth compared to what? they're newer than some of the F-18's we're flying and can be more easily upgraded. most especially the wing which is optimized for attack but can be re-worked to make it better for the fighter mission.
Deleteadditionally the US Navy surges carriers and can if needed again. you're not going to send a ship with 6 to 8 F-35s to support a carrier...that makes no sense and thats how many are carried on a MEU. it makes more sense to simply add fighters to the deck of the big carriers and who came up with this mini-aircraft carrier idea anyway. in hindsight its the dumbest thing i've ever heard of.
don't point to Libya either. that mission was performed with Harriers and the CH-53E could have done the actual rescue instead of V-22s. so long story short...which needs to be done first. Marine Armor or aircraft?
Marine armor is the answer.
How many LHA-6's? :) With what money? Note also one doesn't have a well-deck = useless for USMC ops.
DeleteThe latest plan I've seen is 5 LHA-6s (Up to LHA-10.) And hate to break it to you but welldeck or not the USMC will be using them to carry USMC air. CH-53s, V-22s, F-35s.
Delete"additionally the US Navy surges carriers and can if needed again. you're not going to send a ship with 6 to 8 F-35s to support a carrier...that makes no sense and thats how many are carried on a MEU."
DeleteThe US Navy can't surge carriers it doesn't have. The number of CVNs is coming down and will continue to do so. And nobody suggest supporting a carrier with a gator. I'm saying in some applications you'd use a gator *instead of* a carrier. And yes, I will point to Libya. If we hadn't had gators with Harriers there would have been NO fixed wing as there was no CVN in the area. Same with Syria right now.
yu keep saying the number of carriers is coming down. how far down are they going. give me a number.
DeleteI agree with what Solomon says....
ReplyDeleteDoes the USA need more carriers or more precisely "light" carriers? What for? Is that really the best use and mission of the Marine Corps? If we need more carriers, I like to see where is that requirement???? If yes, then why isn't that the job of USN to come up with a new design, some kind of commercial off the shelf design or modified LHD/LHA purely for jet operations? Maybe we should buy the British carrier they are building that they will never use, that would almost be better...or just bring back the number to 100 fighters on the big decks.
I think it is better to downsize the Marine Corp but keep the primary mission which is hitting the beach and properly fund the ground side of that mission. That's the Marine Corps "raison d'etre"!
USMC isn't and shouldn't be some kind of USAF "lite"....my 2 cents.
downsize the Marine Corps? you hit on the next major issue ....
Deletethat's already in the works. its partly driven by sequestration and partly driven by the F-35 and the V-22 costing so much.
so whats going to happen? you're about to have a bunch of highly skilled young men that are going to get a notice in their record jacket that despite their great performance in combat, never being in trouble, taking whatever assignment the Marine Corps gives and smiles, that despite all that thier services are no longer needed.
they talk in public of 182,000 boatspaces....i have it on good authority that 150,000 is more likely. that is going to be trouble and people will finally wake up then. the only difference is that i'm an early adopter of the reality facing the Marine Corps. and while i might be the first in Marine Land to put all this together, others will soon enough and you're going to have a firestorm break out.
Amos will limp to the end of his tenure as Commandant but it will be a terrible last year for him next year.
Best-case estimates from the man state that there will be no more than 11 flat-top amphibs in service during some years. Some years less. Being $17T in debt, I would expect that best-case to be less. Power-plant on the new ship design is great. And hats off to that, but at $3B each, it better have a well deck for value. I suspect that a joint operational commander will want any other ship that has a well deck.
ReplyDeletehttp://projects.militarytimes.com/pdfs/shipbuilding_slides.pdf