This thing is reaching critical mass so let me take a comment from one of my readers to make myself clearer.
Anonymous said.
Whether someone is a an avid fan of the F-35, or a rabid hater, everyone would agree that it can't afford to be rescheduled or put off any longer. it can't be delayed without killing it.
Long story short, the Marines have to stick to their plan, they can't abandon decades of support for a massive international program that is the biggest defense program in history because you want swimming APCs now, when they are still in the development phase anyway.
I say.
You're telling me that delaying the purchase of 18 F-35's would kill the program? I say you're being reactionary. I make no apologies. The AV-8B can hold the line for supporting Marine forces. It performed admirably in Libya and will continue to do so for the near term. If the F-35 program is so shaky that a 3 or 4 year delay of Marine purchases (which I'm led to believe will equal 18 to 24 aircraft) will kill it, then perhaps it needs to be sent to the grave. The fact that the program has been in development for a long time tells you why its so important to get a vehicle to the fleet. When the F-35 was threatened with cancellation, Amos stated that he would get monthly reports on it. He also said that he was basically moving his office down to the Joint Program Office to make sure it stayed on track. He hasn't made any statement approaching that type of dedication to a Marine Corps specific program that will benefit the Ground Combat Element. Don't you wonder why?
Anonymous said.
take a good look at the entire fiasco of replacing the AAV-7, and try honestly telling me, that this time would work because there is no F-35 in the picture, even though its been a failure that predates the JSF. What happens if the marines delayed the F-35, and it still took 10 years to procure an aav-7 replacement? who does that help? And don't give me some bull crap about how the "MPC is ready now!"
No its not. the MPC is about as "ready now" after its trials as the X-35 was after its contest. 2015 seems to be the number I am reading. so no you can't pay 10 million dollars now and get X many for the price of Y.
No its not. the MPC is about as "ready now" after its trials as the X-35 was after its contest. 2015 seems to be the number I am reading. so no you can't pay 10 million dollars now and get X many for the price of Y.
I say.
Lets give the two vehicles that I have my eye on a chance (the Lockheed Martin/Patria Havoc and the BAE/Iveco SuperAv). If we make a selection and the manufacturers can't get production up and running then we continue with the F-35. My bets are that both companies would jump through hoops and fight Satan himself to make sure they could meet that requirement. So no, the issue isn't the manufacturers, the issue is a vacillating, indecisive, seemingly confused HQMC.
Why would we risk killing the JSF now to save money for an APC that won't be available for another 3 years? For as much as you bash Amos he has put "everything but readiness and the ACV" on the table for cuts. cuts for the F-35, V-22 and the H-1.
I say.
The MPC could be ready before then, but what needs to be addressed is your comment that I bash Amos. Guilty as charged. I have never seen such a weak Commandant in my life. You talk about him putting everything on the table but its quite obvious that the only thing he's put on the table so far is the ACV (by constant delays...from his office sending the number for the vehicle back to the program office not once, not twice but three times), the MPC (by coming up with the fiction that he's simply delaying it for 10 years while he gets everyone of his precious aviation programs across the finish line), and by a DEEP cut in Marine Corps spear by slashing Infantry Battalions in general and Marine Infantrymen in particular. I have it on good authority that cuts to 174,000 is also a fiction...the real number is closer to 150,000. So no. I've lost every ounce of my once considerable respect for Marine Leadership. The lies have been flowing like water. The lack of moral courage (on a variety of issues) has been stunning. The lack of decisiveness shows me that he is not fit for command. So yeah. I have a hard on for current Marine Corps leadership. In particular, this failed Commandant.
Which is more likely.
A Marine Infantry Unit will deploy Marines either in peacekeeping, disaster relief etc...and those forces will face the continued threat of IEDs....or...the USMC will be facing an opponent with high tech aircraft that requires the F-35 to defend our forces.
If you believe that we might face an advanced fighter threat then I'm wrong and we need to continue the procurement plan as is. If you believe that the possibility of an MEU landing on a foreign shore and facing an IED threat is more likely then you have to agree with me. Switch up the procurement plan and buy MPCs now.
The problem is everything is dead in 5 years. By 2020 federal payments on US debt are going from $220 billion to almost $1 trillion per year. (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/11/19/how-the-nations-interest-spending-stacks-up)
ReplyDeleteThere is no way the US economy can grow to cover that so defense budget and everything else (NASA, education, science, national parks) is going to be destroyed. (That is ignoring pensions, etc.)
So, you have to buy the big ticket items now. A fighter takes 20 years to get out. It is now or never. If you push the F-35 out 3 years, the US will not be able to afford it.
30 years from now - if the US economy recovers and if we are still a world power, you should be able to knock a MPC out in a few years. It would be half a century for a fighter.
And then there is the "F-16 Standard". Not too many years from now a US president is going to have to make a hard choice.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/11/aegis-standard-towards-strategic.html
"So, you have to buy the big ticket items now. A fighter takes 20 years to get out. It is now or never. If you push the F-35 out 3 years, the US will not be able to afford it."
ReplyDeleteI agree.
Sol you don't like Amos because he is an airwinger and you perceive him as biased toward aviation programs.
If Amos is bad what does that say for the CMCs (from the GCE) that also never delivered a AAV-7 replacement, or pushed hard for air programs like the Osprey? Or signed onto the JSF in the first place when the EFV was still in its infancy? A lot of this stuff is happening on Amos' watch but sure as shit the seeds were planted 15+ years ago, and its all coming to a head as the USMC winds down from a 12 year fight. The next commandant is probably not going to change a thing regarding procurement GCE or ACE, especially as the JSF continues to progress.
I know nobody will be Mattis, or Gray. but you are trying to take a bunch of elements and lay them all at the foot of one guy to paint a conspiracy theory. If you need someone to direct all your ire at, Amos is probably your guy. Just don't be upset when the next guy is "just as bad" I bet you see pretty similiar policy with the next CMC. They are going to get the JSF on track and then look at AMTRACs while getting the 53K out there.
Our numbers are going down no matter who is in charge. I'm sorry I have to be the one to tell you that. Pre war on terror it was 187,000 active. A return to that is not going to be abnormal, but I know you will try and paint it as the beginning of the end, as the Marine Corps shrinks after having expanded for the long running wars that are coming to an end.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteYou post so frequently I often don't catch a post before it disappears into the older posts. Going back a little ways, it looks like 'somebody' in the Corps said the Marines weren't buying new AAVs because they had to choose between the F-35 and an AAV. If so, who said it when, and is there a link?
i'll find it for you but the issue is that the MPC is delayed for 10 years which means that its canceled because the design teams are already breaking up. Amos sent back completed work on a RFP for the ACV three different times with the excuse that we have one time to get this right. my issue is that he practically wet nursed the F-35 along when it was under threat and barely says a word about Marine armor going into shit state. these aviation centric guys commenting here don't give a DAMN about Marines riding into combat in 50 year old vehicles as long as the airwing gets its shiny new jet, its sparkling tilt rotor and its gleaming new heavy lift helo.
Deletemeanwhile in the near future we're going to hear about Marines drowning in an AAV while swiming on shore in an exercise on the other side of the world in the near future.
Sol, you are telling me what you want, I am telling you what you can get.
DeleteIf impaling the JSF meant MPCs then it would be worth more discussion. We have to connect the JSF funding being freed up translating to the number of MPCs you think it will get. The Navy will help pay for the JSF, but not MPCs.
I do give a damn about the people riding on the AAVs and If I thought hurting the JSF would help that, I might get behind it. But I don't. Headlines that show the cost of the JSF juxtaposed with MPCs being canceled naturally lead to a "look at all that money we could be using!!" response. Now, trying to explain that delaying the JSF creates more problems than it solves, due to the nature of procurement and funding, means I don't care.
the don't care remark was in response to a statement made SFERRIN on a different post. i disagree with you but i'm not laying that at your feet.
DeleteYour 'parity force' posts have had me thinking, in conjunction with this post, that ultimately your last paragraph should answer your rhetorical question to the contrary. When have the world powers been under such tremendous financial strain, political rift (amidst allies and enemies alike) and internal issues ripe for a dose of nationalism? (Ww1,2)
ReplyDeleteI'm a dumb civilian, but I just can't comprehend the AAV being as large a role in a conflict with first world actors. Seems like if an Israeli conflict went nuclear with multiple players, or if a Chinese territorial spiff went large, it would escalate so much quicker than a traditional buildup would take. Is this just naive of me? Things like the b2, our nuke fleet, and owning the skies and seas DOES seem to take precedence. If your point is just that marine air shouldn't exist, then THAT should ONLY be your point. If marine air is going to play a role, then wouldn't you want to have the top line strike airframe on our side? Maybe I don't get it, just my take though.
AG
its funny that you made that connection with past conflicts. let me follow through with that comparison to a different stopping point though.
Deletei see us as being between the first and second world wars tech wise. we're making mostly incremental improvements but a new conflict will see a rush of new tech that we can hardly recognize. continuing on, the deep cuts that i forecast for the US military will also mirror our pre-WW2 stance.
if that is correct and we are in the 'interwar' years then we're doing as i suggested in a previous post. building the wrong force for the wrong war with the wrong strategy.
the AAV replacement will have a role to play as long as Marines are forward deployed. if you're saying that the F-35 is the future war winner then i'll tell you you're wrong. ground and territory isn't held unless a Marine or Soldier is standing on it. no matter how high tech the Air Force, Navy or Marine Air becomes in the end they're supporting arms. if we can't transport our infantry safely from point a to b then we can repeat Vietnam. we can control the air but the war can still be lost.
i'm going get in my workout.
taking a break from this subject for tomorrow, might touch on it again Saturday or Sunday, but i'm posting titillating Friday soon. so talk to you later.
When's the last time somebody was able to keep land taken without having air cover? Go watch all those videos from Predators, Apaches, fighters, etc. of enemy troops getting blown to shit. Now imagine they're all Marines on the receiving end. That's what you're advocating. Brilliant plan.
DeleteIf one takes LCU-F seriously (check the LCU-F/21.-Century Landing Craft Thread) to deliver under STOM and OMFTS from way OTH (100 - 200 nautical miles) wheeled and tracked GCE-assets plus light AH/UH helos to the beach, deep into the estuary, well up the river, then the old AAV-7 'as is'-amphibious capabilities would remain useful to cross rivers, lakes etc., assuming its defenses are adequate.
DeleteThere is little merit in continuing the 'happy' (?) illusion that one-by-one short-distance delivery of slow or fast floating/planing APCs would ever be doable without explicitly asking USN assets to be put at near certain mortal risk 10-15-20nm inshore, with current USN/USMC-policy being apparently 12nm, i.e. in full view and within reach of older-model 'dumb' barrel-artillery.
EFV in particular was an odd 'technophilia'-driven vision which without friendly gas-stations along shore to refuel after the 2700Hp 'wild ride' fuel-burn would never have been useful even at lower cost and better durability. Go-fast 'escort-tanker' ?
Shore-defenses have steadily outpaced incoming aggressors-capability - unless you think you can indeed bring in any given USN Fleet and USAF-'fleets' to 'shape' the theater over many days and weeks. Dicey politics, zero surprise, no stealth, very expensive, dicey politics... Hostile Diesel-subs anyone - whether national or mercenary-owned ?
You see one amphibious ship hurt or sunk, 'amphibious' anything would indeed be at risk of being political and fiscal 'toast'...under the polemic that "we just can't do this anymore in the 21st century..." Then, quo vadis USMC ?
And in the Age of Fiscal Austerity, questions would likely arise about the meaning of 'amphibious' in terms of USMC-specialized hardware and doctrine, versus US Army Landing Craft, fording capability and respective doctrine.
Fiscal austerity suggests - if need be - another redo of the AAV-7 concept - modify or mildly redesign as necessary, and don't plan on getting too much saltwater on its flanks...
Then put your weight behind LCU-F to protect GCE and ARG/ESG and thus the USMC core-mission of Navy-supported amphibious assault. The Politics of Austerity have all sorts of predictable and unexpected consequences.
As a footnote, the 3 billion EFV-Dollars spent would have bought the USN over 100 LCU-F, plus a fair bit of a new generation of AAV for USMC.
And, yes, F-35B is a must-do.
" So, how would you 'Bingo' one of these on the scant afterdeck of LCU-F to refuel ??? She could carry the weight. But the jet-blast might drown the jet-engine with white water ". Tests hanging off a crane seem called-for eventually...
there is so much fail in this comment that i'll just take the time to address two of them. first you're assuming that the ACV/MPC .... whatever won't piggyback off the army's buy of a Trophy like defense system. second, you're assuming that tactics won't be adjusted to ensure the safety of the amphibs. you seem to think that we're going to ask our LPD and LSD to just hang off shore and drop off vehicles. i envision a dash to the launch point, vehicles splashing and then a dash away by the assault ships. in an assault it makes more sense to have the armored protection, firepower and speed of an assault vehicle instead of having to rely on an unarmed or lightly armed landing craft to close the last 400 yards. 2 miles out to sea doesn't worry. ship defenses (either aboard the amphib or other ships) will kick in. counter battery fire will make anti-landing force artillery sporadic until about the last 400 yards to shore. thats when it gets dicey and thats when you need armor.
DeleteThere are Amphibious Warfare Officers in USN that might argue with you on their willingness to risk exposure to shore-defenses de facto dictated by both inadequate connector-concepts and individual amphibious APCs doing 6kts.
DeleteThere has across decades now been no way to adapt tactics "to ensure safety of the amphibs" if by 2013 hardware still won't allow anything but the current dangerous 12nm distance-policy.
You seem to suggest to bring not just the ARG within immediate view and reach of the shore but a whole lot more USN assets - all to be put at risk because ...??
As to "dashing":
- 20kts approach by high-signature 16,000 - 40,000lbs vessels takes a while to get there while their visibility grows dramatically,
- then flooding down to allow well-deck action,
- then well-deck action,
- then drying out,
- then leaving
all in all resulting in too many hours of large signature presence in blatant challenge to shore-defenders, who will get a 'leaker' through at that range.
And all for what ?
'Shoot-&-scoot' can be a lively affair. A French 6x6-mounted 155mm seems quite agile, as is Panzer Haubitze 2000 and a whide range of other low-cost land-based systems. Few DDG-captains would want to tangle with a bunch of very mobile 6" barrel-artillery systems that could 'reach out' at will on such short <20nm distances.
Working to the CNO's 'payload-centric' philosophy suggests amphibs bringing capability into the theater but out of obvious range of defenses.
And that suggests LCU-Fs and other low-signature lower-value targets that might actually stand a chance to insert and support the GCE.
The Corps is an expeditionary force that gets used for all manner of things almost none of which require the world's best strike fighter to accomplish. Trading almost every ground program for the F-35 is to bet it all on a long shot conflict with China while ignoring the reality of everything the Corps actually is called upon to do.
ReplyDeleteThe Corps does combined arms well and having it's own tactical aviation is useful on a number of levels; however, the Corps doesn't exactly require any aviation assets that do not directly support Marines on the ground. Any capability above that only duplicates what the USAF and USN does.
Today the Corp has around 20 fighter squadrons. How about cutting that to 12? Has anyone done a serious study as to how much tactical aviation is required to support a worst case contingency? I'd suggest cutting force structure on the aviation in favor of ground forces and let the USAF and Navy perform the full spectrum of aerial warfare.
Not for nothing but the Corps is already doing this. They've gotten out of the medium attack role and will lose all the EW squadrons as well. The force was already being pared down in order to afford an all F-35 force. Here's a thought: The Corps is planning on 19 F-35 squadrons but exactly how many do they really require? What does one fewer F-35 sqdn mean in dollars and personnel for the rest of the Corps?
On your first paragraph:
DeleteIf we want to talk about "what the Marine Corps is called to do" You will have to point out to me the last time we hit a contested beach under fire and fought to shore. Did we need an AMTRAK to drive to baghdad again in 03? or liberate kuwait in 91? Kosovo 99? Are we looking for a "happy middle" where we get to hit a contested beach, but not too contested with enemy fighters or SAMs? And not so light and (god forbid landlocked!) that an amphibious personnel carrier is completely unneeded?
2nd paragraph: All Marine aviation supports infantry on the ground. If you think the F-35 is an air superiority aircraft that can't support Marines (from LHDs at that) you need to read up on it more.
3rd and 4th paragraph: The Airwing is going to get lighter and better, they are paring down squadrons as we speak, and the F-35 is making every squadron a fighter/attack squadron with much improved capability. pound for pound the F-35 will be the best fighter the USMC has ever operated. the air wing hopes to save 6,000 Marines, and vastly more streamlined logistics thanks to using a single type.
The Airwing is becoming more important with the loss of Naval Gunfire support. There are no more battleships and cruisers with naval rifles to support Marines. Aircraft fill that gap. An Integrated SAM/Fighter belt over the beach means no support for the forces landing on the beach.
"The AV-8B can hold the line for supporting Marine forces. It performed admirably in Libya and will continue to do so for the near term."
ReplyDeleteAfter rumours of SA-18s in Libya, the A-10, AC-130, and Harrier were restricted from areas that were suspected of having them. Thats a problem. One of the themes of your blog is other services encroaching on Marine Turf, what do you think happens when the Corps has to "tap out"? and not is not able to participate in coalition air strikes? What happens when the Marines have to call on the Navy or Air Force to support Marines? How does that work out for the future of MEUs?
Lets take your Libya scenario and pretend Libya is has an extensive IADs network to the point where the MEU floats in circles with harriers that can't fly out of fear? Good or bad for the MEU concept?
"Which is more likely.
A Marine Infantry Unit will deploy Marines either in peacekeeping, disaster relief etc...and those forces will face the continued threat of IEDs....or...the USMC will be facing an opponent with high tech aircraft that requires the F-35 to defend our forces."
If you believe that we might face an advanced fighter threat then I'm wrong and we need to continue the procurement plan as is. If you believe that the possibility of an MEU landing on a foreign shore and facing an IED threat is more likely then you have to agree with me.
I don't like "either or" arguments. There are hundreds of scenarios That could require air, hundreds that could require Amtracks and hundreds that require both. There are also scenarios that require neither. Last I checked MRAPs were the best against IEDs for example and countries-- like say Afghanistan-- are landlocked.
"Switch up the procurement plan and buy MPCs now."
We aren't going to agree on this and thats fine, we can "agree to disagree" there is one thing I must emphasize though:
Procurement is not just flipping a switch and buying amtraks instead of airplanes. The situation is vastly more complex and complicated. Even trying to decipher the projected cost of an F-35 is a highly complicated affair.
And we still don't know other than you postulating, just how many MPCs the USMC would actually get by delaying F-35s. You can guess 22 I can guess 2. or even 0 if civilian authorities gladly embrace the delayed F-35s, but then don't allow the funds for MPCS, or if the funding just goes to other aircraft programs, and/or back to the Navy.
Even if Amos prostrates himself before congress it might not make a damn bit of difference. In which case he gave up something to get nothing.