Do you get the feeling that HQMC and Lockheed are getting the idea that the rest of the Marine Corps is waking up to the fact that the F-35 is costing us much more than we ever thought? I do. It appears to me that complaints about the sorry state of Marine armor is finally getting a hearing. I can't wait to see how this all plays out. Which is more important...armored protection for our ground forces or a new toy to participate in Air - Sea battle far away from supporting Marine Infantry in the advance or defense. The answer will be telling.
Explain to me how armor will land when the Navy and Marines don't dominate the skies? China is testing right now stealthy air supremacy fighters. What will they be testing in another 5 years? Something probably good enough to clear the skies of F-18's. So how you going to land that armor?
ReplyDeletea couple of issues. first the US Navy is saying that the F-18 will be competitive until the 2030's. i can only imagine that they know something we don't and that something is in the classified realm. next we have the F-35 having basically been stolen from underneath our noses (plan wise) so any advantage that we were going to get from it are probably lessened. next we have the fact that the USAF is still depending on the F-15, and F-16 for a large bulk of its fighter force. if the issue was as dire as you say then i would expect a follow on fighter project to already be started. next USMC air is suppose to support Marine Air Ground Task Forces. that means an airplane that is suppose to hang around the forward edge of the battle area and doing the dirty work of protecting Marines and destroying stuff that threatens Marines. i don't want Marine Air going off to play with the Navy and Air Force in the deep strike category.
Deletenow as far as the F-35 is concerned you haven't heard me call for cancellation. you have heard me call for the Marine buy of the airplane to be delayed so that other more important projects can be bought. as things stand now though i'm inches away from declaring the F-35 a clear and present danger to the future of the Marine Corps AND CALLING FOR IT TO BE SCRAPPED FOR THE GOOD OF THE CORPS.
but i haven't made that call yet.
you and sferrin are making inch closer and closer though.
The USMC is never going to be setting foot on the Chinese mainland because that is not what it is designed to do, but on some island chain at the periphery of Chinese influence or some 3rd World country in Africa, it's going to need decent protection as well as firepower.
DeleteAir superiority, although necessary, is incidental to the ground mission. If the ground mission doesn't succeed, the air mission is moot.
What good does it do to have F-35s flying cover over burning hulks of outmoded AAVs that should have been replaced?
THANK YOU PARALUS!!!!
Deleteyou get it! air power is a supporting force. nothing more or less. you can wind the air game but if your ground forces are annihilated then it does you no good!
Yes, a much better plan to get on the beach and be annihilated by enemy air. And Hornets can't operate of gators. And delaying F-35 production is a surefire way to drive up costs. I'll say it again - armored vehicles are a piece of cake to develope compared to a STOVL aircraft.
DeleteActually, scratch that. Without control of the air you won't make it to the beach so no need for armored vehicles.
DeleteAllow me to retort.
ReplyDeleteI didn't claim we'd be storming rhe Chinese mainland in fact I claimed that armor can't be landed if the US Navy and Marines don't own the skies. Think World War Two and what Nimitz was doing with each island he invaded. He invaded an island for the airbase it gave him! Had we not superior pilots and planes we would have lost Guadalcanel. We would never have cleared New Guinea nor gotten near to the Philippines.
Look at the air power being acquired in the pacific region. We can't go to war with 1970's airframes when everybody else is getting stuff from the 1990's or in china's case stealth with modern avionics.
Your point about the Navy knowing something I don't cuts the other way too. Maybe the Navy is downgrading armor because they know something you don't? But let's face it, maybe they don't know much. I remember Def Sec Robert Gates saying China wouldn't have a steath fighter til 2020. He didn't know how wrong he was.
ok. let me try a different set of reasons. which is more likely...that we'll be facing a technologically capable opponent that will engage us using stealth aircraft or a peace keeping mission where we will be facing ieds, rpgs and heavy machine guns? if your answer is stealth airplanes then i'd say we need to pile onto the F-35 at the expense of everything else for the Air Force and Navy. if your answer is peace keeping then i'd say we need the ACV and MPC. either way a discussion needs to be had about what Marine Air is actually for. is it part of the USMC and actually supports the ground component or is it a part of the bigger tactical aviation plan and serves at the behest of Air Force planners. if Marine Air can be given away to Air Force planners then i have to wonder if we have the right type of air power.
DeleteMore than that, if all the USMC become is a shell for Marine Aviation, is there even a need for a USMC?
DeleteNaval aviation would swallow it up whole and all that would be left is a kind of Royal Marine commando-raiding force with MARSOC filling in as the sea-going Ranger battalion for SEALs. [shudder]
@change: I didn't mean to imply you were saying that the USMC would be hitting the beaches of Guangdong. My point is if we even see Chinese-built 5th Generation airplanes, a.) it won't be China we're fighting and b.) USN and USAF will get first crack at them long before Marine avaition needs to worry about them. While flying prototypes of what some assume to be Low Observable is impressive, these potential fighters still won't comprise the vast majority of Chinese aviation which will still be J11 and J10 fighters in a hi-lo mix of aircraft just like we do with Raptors, F-35s and our Legacy fighters.
I think Sol is saying that the F-35, at least for the USMC, might be a bridge too far in terms of cost/capability for the mission they perform. In the words of SecDef Gates, sometimes it is better to have the 80% solution now and in sufficient numbers as opposed to a 100% solution later and in numbers too few to make a difference.
Marine E/F Hornets are the 80% solution and will be adequate for the job of supporting Marine ground elements for decades. Harriers could be updated as well.
@change
DeleteYou seem to be assuming that air power can only be countered by air power. Well, some people have been putting some thought to ground and naval based anti air weapons. Does S-300 ring any bells perhaps ? Or AEGIS ?
Not being able to fly your planes does not equal letting the enemy fly theirs.
It is quite possible to have a ground/coastal conflict zone were both sides can deny the use of airspace to the other. At which point, the fight is decided on the surface.
I don't even consider peace keeping or humanitarian missions as vectors to Marine acquisition programs. A battle ready force can do these far less demanding missions right? To be battle ready, the Marines can't be using aircraft that is inferior to top level opponents. We have fought the best airframes Moscow has produced and won every time due to better pilots, training, airframes and avionics. During that time we have had no amphibious landings. With the Asian Pivot underway, what is the target of this new strategy? China! While the US dominates the seas close to China today as well as the second and third island chains away from China there is reason to believe that domination won't last. Chinese cash and rising power will influence her neighbors while America is facing drastic funding shortfalls in defense and economic investments. Over decades we stand to be pushed back from the Asian mainland due to polices implemented over the last few years. I see disaster if we build Marine air to be inferior to the USN as well as top line Chinese jets. China is a manufacturing powerhouse much like the US was in the 1940's and I don't underestimate their ability to produce stealth in large quantities while improving them at the same time.
ReplyDeleteStealth is hard, takes decades to master and decades to create the doctrine to use it effectively. Armor landing craft is much less costly and much less complicated to design and produce in volume. Get the air right then see what is needed for armor.
China has been working on stealth since the 70s.So they will field a capable aircraft.The fighter they are working on is in fact a light attack bomber whose role is clearly designed to be used against american shipping.We nned the F35B. My issue is we also need marine air primarily for close air support and I don't see the F-35 being used in that role. They won't put it in a situation where they have to worry about it being downed by a manpad.I doubt they'll bring it below 10,000 feet.we need a plane that will be used to support the air on the ground.
ReplyDeleteWe need new armor, period. If things stay as they are then I'm inclined to agree with the poster who said Marine air will become a shell for marine aviation, and that will endager the very existence of the corps, particularly if it has no forcible entry capability.