When you look at the roster of Marine Corps equipment assigned to each MEU, one piece is missing. One major piece of Marine Corps equipment.
The F/A-18.
It really could be argued that not having EA-6B's assigned is also a severe oversight but I'll ignore that for now. Its stunning that the F/A-18's aren't part of the unit. If KC-130's are able to make use of land bases to keep in "touch" with a MEU at sea then we should be able to do the same with the F/A-18's. I can't wait to find out the reasoning behind this.
I would imagine the Navy simply wouldn't be willing to let any of the Marine Hornets go in a situation where Marines would require such closely based air support - from what I've read, VMFAs make up at least a quarter, and sometimes a full half, of the embarked strike complement.
ReplyDeleteEvening letting 4 or 6 go is a tenth of the available offensive power gone, and I doubt any carrier admiral is going to be comfortable with that if the scenario is such that it requires an MEU heading for the beach.
A strong indication against the (implausible) 'hope' to do any such assault from inshore/nearby/on-the-horizon with no fast OTH-capable heavy-lift Connector on hand.
ReplyDeleteThen you add the designed-in inadequacy of Total Well-Deck Length available - LPD-17 is a <190-foot 'shorty' - you stand even less of chance to execute one primary amphibious/self-defining maneuver of USMC.
And that suggests a problematic future, just as such capabilities are being drawn upon more and more - fortunately, so far, against inferior or zero adversaries.
Now you know why they want the F-35B as they are organic to the MEU. F-18s would require tanker support to get to the AO or a carrier.
ReplyDeleteThey are not saying that F-18 will never operate with an MEU, just that the MEU is designed to operate without outside support.
KC-130 operate with the MEU in the tanker role. that explains why they want the MV-22 to pick up the tanking role but it doesn't explain why the F/A-18 isn't part of the package. to include Marine F/A-18's isn't bringing in outside support just like having KC-130's isn't.
DeleteMarine F-18s flying off navy CVNs are under Navy control first, which is one reason why the USMC favors STOVL organic fixed wing support. Harriers embarked on MEUs take on the HMM- or VMM- unit designation as well.
ReplyDeletehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_070508-M-9389C-047_An_AV-8B_Harrier_II,_assigned_to_Marine_Medium_Helicopter_Squadron_(HMM)_264_(Reinforced),_26th_Marine_Expeditionary_Unit,_prepares_to_take_off_during_flight_operations_aboard_amphibious_assault_ship_.jpg
KC-130s, don't operate off Navy CVNs nor do they belong to CVWs, thus they are easier to control by the MEU commander.
Its two different chains of command basically. The MEU and the CVW/CVN. Hornets assigned to CVWs fall under CVWs. KC-130s are not assigned to CVWs.
Isn't the answer obvious? This is another cut to feed more money to the F-35 program.
ReplyDeleteGuess how I know you don't know anything about MEUs or federal budgets?
DeleteThe MEU already has a detachment of attack aircraft(AV-8B) in the ACE. The purpose of the ACE is to support the GCE. Assigning an additional detachment of fighters (F/A-18's) to the MEU is to assume the MEU should be tasked with air superiority and other missions that it shouldn't. There are echelons of command above the MEU that worry about a broader spectrum of warfare.
ReplyDeleteThe MEU has enough going on already and doesn't need to have enough additional assets assigned to perform every last mission. If air cover is required then another echelon of command can deal with that and we can do without making units as small as the MEU a joint HQ.
Correct, and well said.
DeleteHas a Hornet detachment or unit ever even been assigned to an MEU in Marine Corps History? How can a piece "be missing" if it was never there?
DeleteLANE IS NOT CORRECT. but i find the willful ignorance stunning and laughable.
Deletewhat makes you think that a F/A-18 can't provide ground support? it does. so to come up with all these little flippant ass answers does nothing but test my patience.
No one said an F-18 can't provide ground support, they fall under CVW command when chopped into the CVW. Its that simple. MEU assets fall under MEU command.
DeleteYou said:
I can't wait to find out the reasoning behind this.
We told you.
The hornets can't "belong" to both the MEU and CVN. I can't find any history where Hornets belonged to an embarked MEU.
This is another reason why the F-35B is such a big deal to the USMC. We can have F-18-like, and EA-6 like performance in an ARG without the help of a CVN.
I also wouldn't laugh at "willful ignorance" when you posed a question you clearly had no clue about, then you declared someone wrong and got upset when people tried to explain it.
NO YOU DID NOT. the amount of arrogance that is being spouted is beyond my understanding. no one said that the F-18s assigned to carriers should be under consideration. those flows continue as normal. what i was talking about was why the F-18s that ARE NOT assigned to a carrier air wing are not falling under the MEUs!~
Deletewillful ignorance! damn son. is it that hard to wrap your brain around an honest question? i'm constantly surprised by the number of arm chair generals that i constantly run into.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deletesferrin. you're done on my blog. you can eat shit and die for all i care. the only way you're saying anything here is anonymously and i'm about to crack down on that too.
DeleteSol if the MEU requires more direct, organic, aerial ground support why exactly is assigning the MEU F/A-18's the answer? Why not more helicopters or Harriers?
ReplyDeleteExactly why should strike fighters, which while capable of ground support can also be tasked for many other missions, be assigned to directly support an infantry battalion?
KC-130s operate on a "tether," being based at airfields in friendly and friendly-ish nations along the path of an ARG. While I am not totally informed on which nations permit this basing and what their terms for doing so are, I'd imagine some may have restrictions on combat-tasked aircraft being based on their soil. So that's something to consider.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there haven't been many instances of modern MEUs going into fights they knew they couldn't handle. When I was hardcore against the F-35B, my primary argument was that if a MEU ever faced a threat in which stealth was ever needed (modern IADS, credible fighter force, etc), a CVN would be the proper tool for the job anyway. That said, Harrier pilots train extensively for the air-to-air mission, especially while working up for a cruise or a UDP. And while AMRAAM integration has stalled due to lack of funding, the capability is there, and I'd imagine the strategic shift to the Pacific will provide ample justification to fund it moving forward, giving the ACE a greater organic self-defense capability.
While you'll get no argument from me that making F/A-18s available to support MEUs would give them much greater capability and flexibility, the most important question to ask here is "Why aren't the GCE commanders asking for tethered Hornet support?"