Rawley gets it wrong. Marines on aircraft carriers is about self preservation.

Chris Rawley pinned an article for Information Dissemination in which he lauds the idea of putting detachments of Marines aboard aircraft carriers.

He is missing the real issue here.  It isn't about making the carrier more effective.  Its about preserving the aircraft carrier. 

Take a look at the pic above.  It shows in great detail the standard compliment of a deployed US aircraft carrier today.  A ship designed to carry approximately 100 aircraft is lucky to leave the dock with 60.  Additionally a squadron or two of those airplanes are Marine Air.

Carrier aviation is in trouble and if a bean counter ever takes a good look at the number of carriers that we have and the way that we're utilizing them then you'll see an axe come out quick.  But this is what Rawley has to say....

LCDR Benjamin Armstrong, one of the up and coming naval officers who truly gets irregular warfare, has written a fine article on maritime raids for this month's Proceedings. His recommendation to expand the utility of carriers by adding small Marine landing teams and MV-22s makes a lot of sense. CVNs can easily augment our amphibious capacity and provide significant flexibility to conduct raids and other ground-centric missions when gators are not around. This move could be compared to the addition of F-35Bs to large deck amphibious ships to augment our CSGs striking power. In other words, our CSGs should become more ARG-like and our ESGs/ARGs can become more CSG-like. If our gator fleet shrinks further, we’ll need to get creative in how we employ all ships in support of objectives ashore, and implementation of BJ’s suggestions would be a smart step in that direction.

Read the whole thing but a few things are telling.

1.  Notice that he talks about putting F-35B's aboard carriers...a nice fig leaf but that was dismissed out of hand by carrier Navy.  They stated that it would disrupt flight operations when HQMC offered that as a possibility to make up for the loss of carrier squadrons that was complained about.

2.  Notice the attempt to make the carrier into a more ARG type vessel.  A bigger fig leaf.  If the carriers can perform ARG type missions then it should be asked why do we need the ARG?  It is a power play that is so obvious its pitiful.

3.  Lastly, notice that no one is talking about embarking SOCOM aboard carriers.  Wonder why?  I make the guess that it would cause a loss of autonomy.  Yeah you could put SEALs or Rangers or Special Forces aboard carriers and rotate them but you would have an new master in Tampa to answer to.  Its nice supporting SOCOM but having to work for them can be a bitch if you're not part of the clubhouse.

This whole thing is a farce.  Its all about making the carriers more relevant especially in light of the rise of the Amphibians (Libya most recently when no one asked where are the carriers, before that Japan and Haiti...Carriers are faster but have no manpower to do the soft missions...Marines on board would open up that possibility as well).  This is a bad idea.  Everyone knows it, no one will admit it.