The Issue.
The Marine Air Wing is drifting away from its primary mission and evolving toward a separate force inside the Marines. If this is allowed then we will see fast jets ripped from the Marines and the loss of that type of airpower 'ala the US Army. My proposal for a future air wing is pure fantasy but it would stop that from happening.
The Mission.
The mission will remain unchanged but will be strictly followed. My air wing WILL support Marine Ground (and when called upon others) Forces and if necessary and upon direction support fleet functions.
Conduct air operations in support of the Marine forces to include Offensive air support, anti air warfare, assault support, aerial reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and control of aircraft and missiles. As a collateral function, the MAW may participate as an integral component of naval aviation in the execution of such other Navy functions as the Fleet Commander may direct.The Makeup.
Helos.
I would keep the AH-1Z. I would keep a portion of the UH-1Ys and give the balance to either the USAF or the USMC reserve. We would also give a portion of our MV-22s to the USAF for their rescue mission, a portion would remain with the reserve (for use when a big war arrives and for use in the states for REAL national emergencies) and we would piggy back on Navy buys of the MH-60 to fill the balance of our lift requirements. As things now stand we have an uber expensive MV-22 that is overkill for most missions and a light UH-1Y that doesn't give enough lift to support the remainder. Additionally I would purchase the BattleHawk kits to provide us with additional firepower when necessary. Couple a half dozen BattleHawks on board a MEU with the assigned AH-1Z and you have lift for your infantry battalion AND additional aerial firepower. Out the box, add nothing, just take advantage of off the shelf capabilities. We would cancel contracts for remaining MV-22s. Advantage. The USMC.
Fast Jets.
Contracts on the F-35 would be immediately canceled. The AV-8B would be kept in service until 2030 (NAVAIR says that it could be viable after that date) and the Marines would immediately buy Super Hornets for the carrier mission. Fusion with the US Navy Air Wing would be complete in every way. Additionally we would buy E-18's for the electronic attack mission. Upgrades to the Super Hornet would mirror Navy efforts and we would be aligned again with ir wing. Lastly we would regain the ground support mission by trading those UH-1Ys and MV-22s that we gave to the Air Force for A-10C's. All of them. To include spare parts and support systems. USAF techs would rough it on Marine Bases to get our personnel up to speed on the aircraft.
What does this get us?
It might seem like a few modest changes but in essence it gets us alot. First it gets the Air Wing back on its original mission. Supporting Marine Ground Forces. Everything else becomes secondary as it should be.
Fleet Air Defense? Important and the Super Hornet will mesh well in that role but its not our primary focus.
USAF Air Tasking Order? Important but since when has USMC air had the responsibility of deep strike? When has deep interdiction been a Marine mission set?
It gets us out of the dream of being the air wing of SOCOM, being part of the USAF air battle etc....it also makes the Wing affordable and part of the team.
Current leadership is making their Marine Corps membership questionable. Are they Marines or are they Airmen that happen to wear Marine Green? My plan would end the wonder and enshrine them in their proper role.
IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE The current and projected future Marine Air Wing is built on the premise of conducting beyond the horizon amphibious assaults without the aid of large deck carriers. With the proliferation of anti-ship missiles with long range those plans along with the safety of the sea base (established 200nm off shore) are now in question. The Air/Sea Battle takes into account the reality of the situation. Marine Corps procurement should follow suit. We've accepted the reality in the death of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and we should follow suit with the purchase of aircraft.
The new LPHD assault ships are too small, I would prefer that they cancel all CVs not yet laid down (given their size, dimensions, crew requierments and capacities are very close to the existing carriers) in favour of retrofitting existing carriers and using some of the savings to make the LPHDs slightly larger and more capable(more vehicles, more planes, bigger LCACs?). I would use the savings from not buying the F35s to fit catobars and maybe skijumps to these LPHDs. And I would make them nuclear powered to reduce total cost of ownership. As the marine requirements are not as demanding as the CVs the existing hornets could later be moved to the Marine Corps to replace the harriers if no suitible alternative shows up? I would also build proper Mobile_Landing_Platforms from commercial specs at commercial prices. Buy some troop transporting ships liks HS2? which can be combined with T-akr to improve amphibious assault ships.
ReplyDeleteThis in my opinion is a better way to spend money than replacing perfectly good carriers with lots of life left in them with overpriced carriers that are bassically the same and/or buying F35s. There are better places for the USN to put their money. They should also cancel all but the lead zumwalt ships building Arsenal ships instead (and conduct a life extension program on tomahawks to provide the armaments), by shifting more of the Land-attack-missiles to arsenal ships the USN can help close the projected gap of large missile carrying ships for ABM. And by building something like a stretched hull Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate with at least 48MK41VLS for coastal defense they could further close this gap and free up larger destroyers.
i'm gonna get into shipbuilding and the types of ships that we need to be getting but i think we should standardize on the San Antonio hull. its fast, its big and its as big as we need to go. as a matter of fact for the current MEU we have excess capacity now. we have an LHD that carry almost a full battalion and an LPD that can do the same. quite honestly if we get a bare bones LSD based on the San Antonio hull then we can actually float with some Stryker Brigade units attached....or extra Tanks...or artillery.
Deletebut the LHD needs to revert back to the size of the legacy models and get an airwing that works. the aircraft are unbalancing the force. no need for anything new.
I think the US should downsize the army and focus on the USMC, if it wasnt for all these middle eastern wars the US wouldnt 'need' such a large army to carry out MOOTW (occupation/policing duties). I think the USMC needs a combination of flat decked assault ships and the cheaper transport ships. I get where you are going with the antonio LPDs being alot cheaper than the bigger flatdecks but a combination of both is needed. Actually that is where I was going with building commercial Mobile-landing-platforms and some form of troop transport to go along with the existing T-akr. The US doesn't need such a large army (with equally large pensions etc..etc..), it needs to focus on air/sea supremacy and force projection via the USMC.
DeleteAn aquisition of ships like the absalon classed support ships would also allow smaller more flexible force projection (using amphibious vehicles) and Minewarfare capabilities. Cant afford everything, one must prioritize.
Once you shrink the Army, it will never again be that large, so I'd think twice before decreasing the size. It needs more tooth to tail, so get rid of old units like Army, Corps and Division and replace them with a Corps-size equivalent. There is plenty to cut from the Army, but there is no need to cut any more BCTs.
DeleteAlot of the soldiers are only 'needed' for MOOTW, they don't provide genuine offensive military capabilities (especially when they are not attatched to the navy). When the US went into Quwait they didn't go in with infantry (that would be suicide), they went in with tanks and other land vehicles. And even then most of the enemy was destroyed by the air campaign. What about libya, syria, just destroying militaries from the air. And the army still needs to get across the ocean.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete- How close inshore would you need to bring your arsenal ship ?
Delete- Will it be #4 of the 3-vessel ARG ?
- Why would they not be the first to be taken out by say a lowly 206 - type ancient sub ?
Woah buddy, do you have ANY idea just how long and drawn out ship procurement is?
DeleteThe USA only has 3 shipyards left capable of creating ships LPD or carrier sized.
You can't just go out and cancel a carrier or LDP class like that.
It would take YEARS to redesign the ultra-LPD, and the Ford class carrier have major improvements over the Nimitz-class.
who talked about an ultra LPD? if anything i was talking about the opposite...a stripped down San Antonio class.
DeleteAs I have said before, the USMC already has a really good variety of precision fires capability. And, not all of it collects flight pay. And may we also not forget, that wonderful, low-collateral precision weapon (as well as a great intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability) the Marine sniper team.
ReplyDeleteI think the USMC should aquire something like the 120mm SRAMs on the LSV for fire support due to its great weight/firepower(important for deployability) It is air-transportable as well.
Delete>http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3210.html
Eric you just touched on the biggest future swing in military affairs.
Deleteground forces are going to move away from aerial fires when it comes to support. its gonna be eithe tube artillery or ground fired missiles.
Marine Air by going with the F-35 is about to put itself out of business. add in the fact that naval guns is about to get MUCH better and close air support is going to be a thing of the past. its amazing. the Commandant. a pilot. the first wing Commandant is about to oversee the eventual end of fast jets in the Marine Corps.
i couldn't write this story any better if i was paid by hollywood.
A ships gun can reach, at best 25 miles or so inshore.
DeleteAdd to the fact that all of our non-cruisers only have 1 gun, and you have a 1.5 billion dollars M109 that becomes useless once an expeditionary force heads inland.
In addition, most ships will never get very close to shore, as ASMs get better and cheaper.
The IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE is about as upside-down as it gets:
ReplyDelete- unable/unwilling to address the vaunted 200nm+ ASCM challenge...
- and yet still dreams to planting the ARG close inshore enough to use floating APCs?
- If 200nm is of ASCM concern, should the 'half-that' loaded combat-radius of AH-1Z not be even more worrisome ?
- How many additional ARG-ship are necessary to try this scheme, such as FFG/DDG, CV somewhere to fly air-cover, a few subs perhaps ...??
- LPD-17 is an oversized well-deck 'shorty', thus of little use for any USMC ship-to-shore ventures where Connector capacity and thus Connector-numbers are imperative.
- No 'Plan' here...