No fancy images on this one.
Just cold hard reality.
First, I'm the biggest fan of the airplane. My belief that it will be a war winner hasn't changed. My belief that its a tremendous step forward hasn't changed.
Financial reality is a bitch though.
The Marine Corps is about to fall ANOTHER generation behind in ground combat vehicles because the F-35 in particular is sucking all the procurement dollars out of the room.
That is unacceptable.
The Amphibious Combat Vehicle is falling further behind. It will NOT be completed, designed or even in testing before this Commandant leaves office. I'm not calling him a liar but if you believe the talking point that the request for proposals was delayed AGAIN because "we only get one time to get this right" then I've got some beautiful ocean front swamp land to sell you that's guaranteed to thrill the ladies.
Aviation has done good, hard work in Afghanistan. I'm not going to riddle this with inter-Marine Corps squabbling but consider...while the AAV labors on...the M1 Abrams gets older in the tooth while allies are upgrading their MBT's...while our HUMVEEs are old and beat up, we have decided to spend precious resources to update our AH-1Z's, UH-1Y's, bought like new British Harriers, MV-22's and are in the process of buying F-35's.
Surprisingly enough the one air vehicle that could be a boon to the ground sides real vulnerability (logistics) has been delayed (CH-53K).
I support the F-35. But for the sake of the Marine Corps we must delay it.
Update: Sauce for the goose. An update on the ACV program. Click here.
Update 1: I don't know if blame should be laid at the feet of the Marine Corps or at manufacturers but I do know this. The Marine Corps not only badly planned the purchase of new vehicles and aircraft---the plan they came up with caused block obsolescence---but failed when it came to implementing those plans. Our two big programs, the EFV and the F-35 both were in develop for over a decade. Say that out loud. A freaking decade. What do we have to show for it? Nothing. Not only did we continue with an aborted plan to purchase the Marine Personnel Carrier (which was intended as a stopgap and now might end up being the next generation AAV) that should have been re-evaluated after the cancellation of the EFV but no lessons were learned about having a sense of urgency when it comes to procurement. In essence we wasted the heady days of Bush spending whatever amount on whatever vehicles the military wanted, but we've gotten to the place that everyone predicted we'd be. We're at a place where the military will be forced to pay for social programs of dubious worth. I would weep for my Marine Corps but leadership brought us to this point. Integrity and honor would demand resignations. LCpl's and even Lt's have been courtmartialled for less.
Just cold hard reality.
First, I'm the biggest fan of the airplane. My belief that it will be a war winner hasn't changed. My belief that its a tremendous step forward hasn't changed.
Financial reality is a bitch though.
The Marine Corps is about to fall ANOTHER generation behind in ground combat vehicles because the F-35 in particular is sucking all the procurement dollars out of the room.
That is unacceptable.
The Amphibious Combat Vehicle is falling further behind. It will NOT be completed, designed or even in testing before this Commandant leaves office. I'm not calling him a liar but if you believe the talking point that the request for proposals was delayed AGAIN because "we only get one time to get this right" then I've got some beautiful ocean front swamp land to sell you that's guaranteed to thrill the ladies.
Aviation has done good, hard work in Afghanistan. I'm not going to riddle this with inter-Marine Corps squabbling but consider...while the AAV labors on...the M1 Abrams gets older in the tooth while allies are upgrading their MBT's...while our HUMVEEs are old and beat up, we have decided to spend precious resources to update our AH-1Z's, UH-1Y's, bought like new British Harriers, MV-22's and are in the process of buying F-35's.
Surprisingly enough the one air vehicle that could be a boon to the ground sides real vulnerability (logistics) has been delayed (CH-53K).
I support the F-35. But for the sake of the Marine Corps we must delay it.
Update: Sauce for the goose. An update on the ACV program. Click here.
Update 1: I don't know if blame should be laid at the feet of the Marine Corps or at manufacturers but I do know this. The Marine Corps not only badly planned the purchase of new vehicles and aircraft---the plan they came up with caused block obsolescence---but failed when it came to implementing those plans. Our two big programs, the EFV and the F-35 both were in develop for over a decade. Say that out loud. A freaking decade. What do we have to show for it? Nothing. Not only did we continue with an aborted plan to purchase the Marine Personnel Carrier (which was intended as a stopgap and now might end up being the next generation AAV) that should have been re-evaluated after the cancellation of the EFV but no lessons were learned about having a sense of urgency when it comes to procurement. In essence we wasted the heady days of Bush spending whatever amount on whatever vehicles the military wanted, but we've gotten to the place that everyone predicted we'd be. We're at a place where the military will be forced to pay for social programs of dubious worth. I would weep for my Marine Corps but leadership brought us to this point. Integrity and honor would demand resignations. LCpl's and even Lt's have been courtmartialled for less.
Is it possible to accept risk and merge heavy/medium VL requirement, forgo the development of CH-53K, and replace older CH-53 birds with more MV-22B? You lose some performance in terms of payload and range, save R&D cost to pay off other urgent needs such as ground vehicle recap.
ReplyDeletei'm not sure. i'm just not sold that the MV-22 is a better perform than the CH-53K will be. think about this...and i'll have to check to verify it, but the CH-53K can lift double, maybe 3 times the amount that the MV-22 can. additionally the CH-53K can accept standard pallets..its range is comparable and although its not as fast, its faster than the CH-53E and that once was the fastest helicopter in Marine Corps service.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not the F-35. Its the size of the Marines that takes up the budget. I don't why the Marines need F-18s? They don't need them, let the navy preform air supremecy. The only fighters they need are harriers, then to be replaced by F-35. Don't need prowlers, that's the navy's job to jam. They have too many helicopters. Keep ch-53 for heavy transport or mv-22, they don't need both. Light transport, they have the uh-1y and attack keep the viper/cobra. They have to many personal, we don't need 200,000 marines aka a second Army. 30,000 to 60,000 is good. If you look at other countries marines they are smaller and better trained than our marines. British Royal marines are probably the best.
DeleteWe certainly don’t need (or could afford) two ground forces. But what about having three separate tac air plus a large fleet of army choppers?
DeleteYour right, we can't afford or need two ground forces. So why so many Marines? Marines are a small group of Elite (Men) who specialize in amphibious warfare. They should mostly be used for naval landing operations to clear the way for the Army. We have all these Marine ships that sit out at sea and do nothing. Royal Marines are only 8000 size personnel. Its time to shrink our beloved corp. and up the training. We are the only country that has female Marines. That's not elite like they say. Big waste of money are Marines. Air Force and Navy should be the only branches flying tactical air support missions. Navy is supposed to support Marines AKA NAVAL. infantry. I know this will piss off many Marines but it will save us money. A giant fleet of Army choppers isn't needed. The Marines should have their own helicopters since they're specially designed for carrier operations.
DeleteThe best AFV/GCV in the world is fairly ineffective without air superiority; the Harriers are far too vulnerable in even a medium threat environment. Are the Marines part of the Abrams ECP program? AFAIK, the Marines don't operate the SEP V1/V2 Abrams upgrades.
ReplyDeletewithout decent AFV's the Marine Corps will lag when performing its role of shock troops. the US Army left us in its dust in the push to Baghdad. the problem will expand unless its corrected or the start to correct it begins now.
DeleteAir superiority is not the Marines' job. Let the USAF and USN do that. Harriers and F-35Bs are supposed to support Marines on the ground.
DeleteSorry. My use of the term "air superiority" was a bit unclear; the new truck-mounted SAMs (using medium-range air-to-air missiles or something similar like Tor or Buk) would pose a huge threat to Harriers and rotary CAS assets.
DeleteThe F-35 always had the neutralization of such threats in mind and moreover is still highly survivable even if such threats are not fully neutralized.
Sure, but SEAD and DEAD are not primary Harrier missions either. They are missions for carrier air and the USAF, just like OCA (air superiority).
DeleteThe F35B can do them, but other air assets can as well.
@Marauder: not having air superiority is not the same as the enemy having air superiority. If neither side dominates the air, armor rules the battlefield: think Eastern Front in WWII or the '73 Arab-Israeli war when the Arabs were operating under their SAM umbrella.
DeleteAlso you're assuming the F-35 can do CAS against a strong SAM envelope and it cannot. Buk/Tor can guide optically in daytime, negating both stealth and countermeasures, even putting aside that both of these SAMs were designed with the Serbians experience with the F-117 in mind and thus were built with engaging stealth targets as a design goal. CAS against a peer enemy, without an extensive and successful SEAD/DEAD campaign in advance, is questionable with any platform including the F-35, whose survivability advantages will be more than offset by us not being able to afford any losses.
Helicopter gunships were used to great effect 1973; the TOW missile in Israeli hands blunted the major Arab armored thrusts and inflicted such losses that Israeli counteroffensives were highly successful. I think you are misrepresenting the Eastern Front in WW2; the Axis had overwhelming air superiority until mid-1943 after which the Red Air Force dominated which in turn enabled all of the subsequent Soviet offensives to succeed.
DeleteYou are claiming that the F-35 can't do what it was designed to do? SDB II alone comfortably out ranges the slant range and detection range of Buk and Tor. Optical guidance relies on data links which the F-35 can readily jam. Were the Russians the only ones to learn lessons from the USAF experience over Serbia? I think not.
Israelis didn't start working with AH-1s till 1975 and didn't use attack helicopters in anger till '82. The Israelis defeated the Syrians almost exclusively with tanks and, while unsupported or poorly coordinated tank attacks failed for both sides in the Sinai against ATGM and/or tanks, the final Israeli operation against the Egyptians was a classic combined arms armored thrust.
DeleteThe F-35 was never designed to do CAS as we have traditionally used the term. It is designed to do stand off precision attacks. Also if SBDII out ranges Buk/Tor and that solves the problem then Harriers could do the same thing. Finally, missile guidance links are usually very hard to jam and the F-35 can only jam within the arc of its frontal radar coverage, i.e. while it is flying toward the SAM battery so your assertion that guidance links can be 'readily jammed' seems questionable at best.
As it stands now, Abrams ECP only addresses power and space requirement intended for Army's network on the move, it has little value for Marine's tank fleet. What we need is a more comprehensive upgrade: a replacement diesel engine, armor enhancement, new tank rounds (AKE, AMP, MRM) so Abrams can re-gain its overmatch superiority.
ReplyDeleteIIRC, General Dynamics just this year at AUSA described a diesel powered Abrams variant (they've had a working prototype for years).
DeleteMy impression is that ECP is designed in part to reduce weight and increase power availability in order to accommodate new upgrades like an APS and the new XM360 cannon originally developed for the FCS (and subsequently redesigned for Abrams). The XM360 has higher muzzle velocity than the current M256 but lower recoil and is slightly longer which should provide the desired overmatch.
AFAIK, all of the above programs are funded by the Army which I'm sure would be grateful for a contribution from the USMC.
XM360 cannon does not generate higher muzzle velocity. Its barrel length is measured at 44 cal, pretty much the same as M256. It does offer lower recoil and overall weight is greatly reduced. It would be desirable to replace M256/turret combo with XM360E1/FCS MCS turret. Any weight reduction effort is a big plus for Abrams. A new beyond line of sight guided projectile (i.e. MRM) will be even more impressive. Too bad I haven’t heard any progress on that program lately, deferred?
DeleteXm1111 is supposed to enter full rate production by end of Q1 of 2013. Has range of 7.5 miles. The Army is working on a new lighter armor which is included with ECP1. Maybe a longer barreled version of the XM360 will be put on M1A3.
DeleteGD laid off 139 workers at Anniston due to declining military order. Yet, the same company received new LAV-A2 orders from Marine Corps days ago and these jobs will be performed at locations in Canada.
ReplyDeleteForm a joint program with the Army to build an enhanced-capability, navalized CH-47. Boeing outlined various growth proposals already. One adds new engines for a lift boost to 29.5 tonnes. Another widens the fuselage and increases lift to 34 tonnes.
ReplyDeleteA common air frame would allow consolidation of spares and support across both services.
Also, the CH-47 is smaller than the -53, so more could be carried, or shipboard stability margins improved.
i have yet to see a truly marinized variant of the CH-47. additionally although smaller it doesn't carry as much in its current form and will not in the future...remember the CH-47 extra large still has to be developed..last i'm not sure it could fit in ships hangars without massive tear down and it doesn't have the benefit of folding tail boom to shrink it further.
Deletequite honestly the Army SHOULD standardize on the '53K...but its all probably moot. Obama is about to gut the defense budget and Hagel is gonna enjoy being the surgeon.
It doesn't carry as much, no, but this is Plan B. It carries more than the -22, and is, IMHO, more valuable for the types of things we normally use rotary lift for than the -22.
DeleteIIRC, there is a manual rotor fold option that other navies use (e.g. the Royal Navy). An automatic rotor fold would be required. It doesn't need (and can't have) a folding tail. But the CH-47 only 2m longer than a CH-46 and should fit in a more compact spot than any CH-53 or MV-22 (especially when factoring in the need to unfold the MV-22 for certain maintenance).
The CH-53K is way too big and expensive for the Army, IMHO. The current CH-47F is a fraction of the price.
I don't really think the Marines will consider this, but IMHO they should've gone this route from the beginning, rather than building EITHER the MV-22 or the CH-53K. They would have a modern, mature rotary-wing fleet now, at a fraction of the cost, and without all the development difficulties. Hindsight is 20/20, I guess.
If the marines delay the F-35 ,you could expect the UK to back of the JSF...
ReplyDeleteA USMC delay in buying the B version would mean it would only be introduced in (+ or -)2025/2030...By the the RAF and the RN would already have a alternative plane...
The brits have been offered naval versions of land planes like the Sea Tempest(naval typhoon) and the Sea Gripen.Plus (accordingto WIKIPEDIA)the Super Hornet CAN BE SKI-JUMP.
If you read the DEW Line ,it was revealed that the F-35 cant meet its required turning performance...the project is on the ropes...
Expect Boeing to start offering new versions of its aircraft this year:a MegaHornet or a Super Eagle...and a STOVL aircraft and a light weight fighter derived from their clean sheet plane for the T-X competition...
I am affraid that LM as played to much it fire and now the F-35 will be burned...
you might be right but at this point i don't know if i care. Marine Ground is suffering and all the goodies are being fed to aviation and it will hurt the force unless we can modernize the ground side.
Deletethink about it. we're about to have a ground force that has old tanks...M1A1's are old in the tooth and again the US isn't keeping up with advances being seen in other parts of the world. look at the Leopard 2 Evo. Check out what the Chinese are doing...and they're the real threat. when they turn their attention to armor we're gonna be in trouble.
if the RAF wants to go with a navalized Typhoon or Rafale or Super Hornet then so be it, but the fact remains. the chinese are coming out with two 5th generation (maybe 5.5 gen if they've stolen as much tech as i believe) fighters.
the fact of the matter is this. stealth is where the future lies...at least for now. we need a fighter that works. lets give lockheed 7 years to iron out the issues. do an extremely...extremely low roll out....i'm talking maybe 10 planes a year bought on the Navy's dime since they're forcing the F-35C on us and lets get our armor into shape.
The Brits are screwed if the F-35B is delayed or canceled. Converting the CVFs CATOBAR is an expensive proposition at this point, even if it's what they should've done from the beginning. STOBAR would be a very poor substitute.
DeleteI have been an F-35 critic for years, but we may be beyond the point of no return.
Thats another point you bring out:the Navy wants the F-35 but does not whant to pay for it...so they force THEIR version down the throat of the USMC...Why do they want 11 CVNs if they dont have the means to use it against a peer opponent?The USN should really give the B version and the America class a secound look.
ReplyDeleteAs for the armored force of the USMC...forget the ACV.No new clean sheet designs will pass the budget cuts.Stick with the MPC and field it as fast as you can.Bae has a golden opportunity here:the SUPERAV and the upgraded(new builds)AAV-7...
Has for the Abrams the USMC should cross forces with the US Army for a new gen version of the M-1(diesel engine should be a top concern).
As for the JSF i dont like what i read in this month Combat aircraft magazine:the USAF is upgrading the F-15C the F-15E and the Vipers and REBUILDING them for at least another 20 years of service...it just looks like they are about to ditch the F-35 or something...
How about going a different direction? The Americas make bad carriers. So how about designing and building a real carrier that has secondary LPH roles? Say something in the PA2/CVF size range. The Marines could then completely dump the F-35B and either fly Super Hornets or F-35Cs.
DeleteBeing a true carrier, it could operate EA-18Gs and E-2Ds too.
In the future, it could operate UCAV/UCLASS aircraft, as well as NGAD.
While the programs are related they shouldn't be. The main issue is the Corps spending around $55 billion unit flyaway (2013 budget dollars) for F-35 vs around $5.7 billion for ACV (assuming they cost $10 million each). The F-35 simply eats everything else in the budget. There are ways out of this, including a delay, but these also have related costs.
ReplyDeleteThe USN is not the service pushing for F-35 and frankly is the one service that could most easily and painlessly do without it's F-35's. The USAF has entirely bet the tactical aviation farm on F-35A and has to SLEP some existing fighters due to existing delays. The Corps also entirely bet the farm and has planned on early IOC to avoid an F/A-18 SLEP. The USN is still buying the F/A-18E/F and is planning for F/A-XX (NGAD), along with the fighter sized X-47B follow on, and could cancel the F-35C at any time and be quite content.
It is in fact the USAF that drives the program. It's also worth noting the program is so large it drives itself. Cancelling the F-35C, frex, isn't going to hurt the USN but rather all the other F-35 customers (including the USAF and all foreign partners) so it's in the program's interest the C is kept in order to keep overall costs down.
well we could still neck down to one fighter type. it would be the AV-8b initially and later the F-35B. right now all i can think of is those almost new British Harriers sitting waiting to be used. i'm also thinking that the Navy is about to put the EA-6B out to pasture so that requirement will fall off the Marine Corps shoulders...so with what you said and my desire to see the ground side recapitalized i think waiting till 2020 to put the F-35B into service isn't a bad thing. the design gets perfected, money gets saved until the economy heels (hopefully) and more money is available.
ReplyDeleteas it is though i don't put it past Hagel to kill programs once he's confirmed just to show the Pentagon who's boss.
If the USMC delays the F-35B it'll be cancelled. End of Story.
ReplyDeleteThat's actually the plan to go to one fighter type in the F-35. I don't have a problem with a delay to the B but frankly the Corps hasn't purchased new aircraft in quite a few years and the crunch of having to purchase major ground systems is a function of screwing up EFV so bad it had to be killed. That aside in my view the only real way the Corps can really save money in terms of tactical aviation is to reduce force structure and/or figure out an all F-35 force isn't exactly going to be affordable.
ReplyDeleteThe F-35B is twice the weight of an AV-8B. It's cost per flight hour is listed between $33K and $50K and last years budget docs indicated the average cost for all of them was $144 million. I'd suggest the Corps can't afford an all F-35 force and hasn't figured that one out yet. Right now there are 20 attack, fighter, and all weather attack squadrons. I'd suggest cutting that to 12. That's a requirement for about 220 jets (144 in 12 squadrons of 12 each). That's probably affordable and Corps can tell the Navy to stick it with them operating extra C's for them.