The question has been asked. What happens to the MEU if the F-35 gets delayed? In my estimation. Not much. You have to remember the missions that the MEU is tasked to undertake. Then you take a look at the highest threat missions...setting the stage for more follow on forces, and amphibious raids, you get a big meh when you consider that F-35's are left behind and AV-8B's are used instead.
But lets do a shits and giggles and take it to an extreme. Lets say that the F-35B is delayed (as I'm pushing for in preference for getting Marine Armor in shape) and suddenly the AV-8B's suffer some kind of catastrophic issue grounding the entire fleet. What then?
Up Step The Cobra.
When the Marine Corps first developed the LHA it was a pure Helicopter Carrier. No fast jets, no well deck, nothing but transport helicopters and attack helicopters. It got the job done and while we've integrated STOVL aircraft onto their larger descendants we could temporarily flex back into the old skool method. Drop the Hellfires, use laser guided 2.75 rockets add extra fuel (I'm not sure if you can use rockets with fuel tanks but someone does) and you can still get Raids done. If properly executed you can even do an amphibious landing for follow on forces. You would have to accept greater risk and depend on a Burke Destroyer for your Anti-Air efforts but it should be doable. Additionally this tailored MEU (meaning without STOVL fast movers) would allow for the carry of many, MANY more Cobras. But you don't like the Cobra reinforce MEU? How about this....
Bronco Comes Back.
During the Vietnam War both the Navy and Air Force made use of World War II warhorses. Whats actually surprising about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is that we didn't do the same. It would have been perfectly understandable (especially in Afghanistan) to utilize some of our old propeller driven aircraft to perform either Fast FAC or even air support missions. Many like to point to the UAV as successfully replacing those airplanes but in a fluid situation with moving targets and the need too quickly and precisely apply weaponry to bad guy behind you need a set of eye balls in the cockpit, not in Nevada. Having said that SOCOM is working on a program to bring the Bronco back so it would make nothing but sense for the USMC to participate. If for no other reason than to provide a proper escort to the MV-22. If we do decide to delay the F-35B then we could augment our Cobras with Broncos if the worst case happens.
Long story short. We survive.
The answer is simple. We survive. We make do, we adjust and we get it done. The craziest part of all of this is that we bought practically new (they're were rebuilt by the Brits) AV-8 Harriers that are sitting around waiting to be put into service. I truly believe that those airplanes were bought with the idea that the F-35B would be delayed. We chose a different course and now they're being rushed into service. I still believe that's the wrong course of action. If you're heading down a trail and your stomach is telling you its an ambush. Your troops are telling you they feel something wrong....and the birds have stopped chirping then you might be walking into an ambush. Well Commandant. I'm telling you that something is wrong. The birds have stopped chirping and we might be walking into an ambush.
Why doesn't the corps invest on the A-10?
ReplyDeleteAnd if you face a hi-tech threat.. the navy or airforce will help you. More Cobras and AA assets, thats the way to go if the Harrier fails.
ReplyDeleteThe F-35 is to expensive and there is no more money. No need of a stealthy strike fighter if your armor sinks in the turf...
thank you! you get it! MEU's are only sent after low tech threats and aren't designed or equipped to fight high end forces. if its a high end threat then you need more than an MEU, which means that carrier support will be available!
DeleteTHANK YOU! SOMEONE FINALLY UNDERSTANDS!
Brilliant plan. "The USMC doesn't need it 'cuz somebody else will do the job". That's as assinine as saying we don't need a USMC because the Army can do it's job.
DeleteMuch of what folks 'know' what a MEU can do is pretty much based on what it actually can't do with any degree of plausibility. 12 nm current ARG-to-shore policy sure ain't 'Over The Horizon' OTH-anything - even against a so-called Low Tech Threat.
DeleteVery dangerous condition forced upon the ARG-Commander because of
- insufficient heavy-lift Connector numbers,
- insufficient heavy-lift carrying capacity,
- no capability to deliver the GCE in one shot,
- no capability to even dream of any OTH-correct simulations, never mind actual assault execution.
But working your way into (for once !) serious definitions of ARG/MEU location at more plausible OTH such as 100nm+, then
- stealth of intent,
- stealth of approach,
- virtual attrition of the defenders ashore and
- a lot of offensive use of SAMs against defenders' aircraft will make the option of (effective) expeditionary assault much more plausible.
Showing up in full(/reach) view 'with everything' seems to abandon a whole range of war-fighting principles, not-to-mention reflect any sense of hard fiscal realities.
You'd only get going if one of the two/three CSGs are within reach ? You might lose a lot of tactical advantage waiting for days and weeks for everything to 'come together'. MLP is good for 16kts ?!
However, with a solid ARG-based fleet of First GCE-Wave enabled Connectors, one might begin to view the (lowly ?) MEU's wherewithal with a bit more respect.
Open the door suddenly with such a MEU (or two in parallel) and once your intention have been stated unambiguously, then bring in high-profile whatever else seems necessary.
MEU's have insufficient SSCs????? how can you say that? the AAVs can swim ashore, the tanks can arrive in the follow on echelon (if needed) and the supporting vehicles can be ferried ashore as rapidly as the LCACs and LCUs can get them there. additionally the build up of Marines ashore can be done both via helicopter, AAV and those same LCACs, LCUs, and even other boats carried. the MEU is magnificently outfitted...its just not getting the necessary attention or the focus of those in the doctrine community to make it even more potent. for some reason the MEB is where the action is for HQMC, but that brings so many resources with it that it should be a no brainer.
DeleteWell, in fact, there are no SSCs available yet at all.
DeleteThe current plan for MEU deployment is based on a whole lot of (laboredly) 'happy' assumptions, such as no shore-defense, or ARG-commanders eager to engage in the absurd risk of losing one or all ships within full view of shore.
What you are describing is a fairly romantic view of doing MEU assault work that has not matched hard tactical realities in how many decades ? There are a whole lot of MEU-trained Marines (and their USN counterparts in the Amphib community) that have known that they'd rather not really try this...
Your idea of close-inshore MEU-placement before disembarkation facing an 'awake' enemy has not been plausible for decades, no matter how often repeated as 'Handbook'-wisdom. And purse-string-pulling civilians are getting more and more aware of this.
There are neither enough LCACs nor LCUs per current ARG/MEU to do this work in circumstances other than CCN awaiting you on the beach with Hot-Dogs, and signage to the 3-star resort. Or perhaps during disaster-relief engagements.
This view of MEU-work forcing fatal inshore-locations upon ARG/ESG Commanders is the same idea of taking a soft-top HMMWV into Fallujah.
As you know, Solomon, the PROCEEDINGS of the Naval Institute July 2013 issue pp. 60-64 (www.usni.org) offers a much more plausible approach, so far in fact apparently the only approach to doing aggressive MEU-work against an enemy.
you twisted my words to such an extent that they're no longer recognizable. a ship to shore connector is called an LCAC, a LCU, a AAV hell it can even be a row boat. why you're trying to make it something super scientific and in need of invention is beyond me.
Deleteadditionally you keep talking about an amphibious assault into the teeth of enemy defenses. that hasn't been the mode of operations since WW2. we have all these ships and AAVs and helicopters so we can bypass enemy defenses.
i don't know what you're trying to play at. i don't what agenda you have and really don't care. if its about getting your boat in front of the Marine Corps then there are much better sites to do that. but my position is clear. i want the MPC. i want it today. i'll sacrifice the F-35B, the LCAC R and the LCU R to get it.
Well, then drop the 'amphibious' bit - since no USN folks will plant their hardware this close inshore - and be done with... what ?
DeleteOnce you do not take the amphibious realities seriously, USMC is on borrowed time in this increasingly tightening reality of fiscal austerity. Other posters here, elsewhere and long-ago have raised this obvious specter.
In the age of cell-phones, enduros, SUVs etc. your hopes at by-passing defenses is good for about 17.3 minutes after you arrived in full splendor to cast your large shadow upon the beach of your choice.
Coming in fast (19-20kts) from way offshore (OTH 100-200+), without any prior 'advertising', without 'plumes' of any kind, carrying a full-tilt GCE-First Wave Capability (after Zero-Wave SOC folks have quietly prep'd the ground enough for the go-ahead), in carefully timed arrival-choreography with rotary and fixed wing MEU-assets (incl. F-35B) you stand a chance of executing a landing in up to 15 concurrent surface-borne insertion-points.
And that takes fast 200-tons-capable heavy-lift Connectors. They'd haul M1A2s, LAV-25s, and AAV-7s as the First Wave. None of that implausible trundling about in the surf-zone one APC at a time...
I should have mentioned LCU-F's minimal and thus 'stealthy' 22'beam x 9'airdraft, while hauling heavy GCE elements into someone's front-yard.
DeleteThe Cobra, Bronco, or Harrier is going to control the air in a modern conflict? Good luck with that.
ReplyDeleteare you deficient? i stated that we would need to rely on an attached Burke for anti-air work. do you read or just toss bombs.
DeleteA Burk can't control the air.
DeleteThe job of air superiority is for the Naval Air and Airforce, USMC has other jobs.
Deletewhy not? with the proper missile load out it can control air space at least over the zone of an amphibious raid or the setting for follow on forces to arrive. thats the situation we're talking about here. the threat higher end? then we establish a couple of burkes to cover all avenues of approach and get the GATO/R radar ashore as soon as possible. its not perfect but its doable.
Delete"The job of air superiority is for the Naval Air and Airforce, USMC has other jobs."
DeleteWhen they're around. Where were they during Libya when the only fixed wing air the US had in the area were Harriers?
Burkes can shoot stuff down. That's it. Control of the air is far more than that.
"When they're around. Where were they during Libya when the only fixed wing air the US had in the area were Harriers?"
DeleteI'm pretty sure the USAF commited the B-2, F-15E, and F-16s.
The USN was also able to send in EA-18G Growlers to jam SAMs.
DeleteEventually. For a time it was Harriers only. And flying aircraft all the way from the US is hardly the most efficient way of doing things. Not to mention you aren't going to be flying CAP when you had to tank four or five times just to get to the theater of operations.
DeleteThe Growlers came from an air base in the Middle East. I think the flew in from Kuwait or the UAE, I'm not really sure. The USN has a few expeditionary Growler squadrons that don't get a lot of publicity. These squadrons are becoming even more important now that the USAF has abandoned the Electronic Attack role and the USMC has no plans for Electronic Attack outside of the F-35.
DeleteThe thing some don't seem to understand is that if you aren't controlling the air it won't matter what the hell you're rolling around in because you're still going to get a bomb on the melon. IEDs will be the LEAST of your problems. But hey, at least you'll have a shiney new ride - well, until it's a flaming hulk anyway.
ReplyDeleteIf you are worried about an air threat, you will bring one or more carriers or USAF squadrons.
DeleteFight joint. Everyone else does.
Carriers can only be in one place at a time. I'd have thought this was obvious but perhaps not.
Deleteno one is saying that carriers have to be everywhere but what we are saying is that for the short term (5 to 10 years) the harrier can get the job done.
DeleteWe won't commit ARGs to any campaign where control of the air isn't assured, regardless of whether the Marines get the F-35B.
Delete6-7 F-35Bs per MEU just isn't enough to move the needle. They will be busy providing ground support.
If China is the threat everyone is making them out to be we are going to need every swinging dick on line and in the fight. That won't be happening with Broncos and Cobras. Its that simple. We want the ARG to be able to punch above its weight, and if an enemy is too much, to be able to combine with other forces and continue punching. Not making up some trash about how "Marines don't do this kind of thing" and sitting it out.
Deletethe Marine Air Wing has been vital in Air Strikes all over the globe the last 30 years, by itself and when combined with other forces. You don't get that with Cobras and Broncos, which means the Marine Corps removes itself from another mission set, further devaluing itself.
Finally how long the Harriers last, be it 1 year or 100, the replacement of not just the Harriers, but the F-18s, and Prowlers is here NOW with the F-35. The window to procure the F-35 is right now. in 10 years we want to have as many F-35s in the fold as possible, not just starting to get piecemeal squadrons in service because "harriers have time"
It is absolutely stupid, in an age of budget shrinking, that the Marine Corps would get aircraft that only serve an MEU and wouldn't vitally contribute to a larger war plan as well. Its much easier to sell the Marine Corps with "small wars, big wars, you name it, we do it" rather than "We can beat up Somalia."
If we are going to send the Marines into a situation where we need F-35B’s wouldn’t the USN also send in at least one CVN along with its battlegroup? That way the MEU concentrates on the land element and the Navy provides aircover
ReplyDeleteSure if the MEU is going somewhere that has no offensive threat such as Somalia then it does not need a CVN but then again it does not need F-35’s either. The idea that you are going to go against any significant enemy without at least one CVN seems crazy.
all of which brings us back to the longevity of the Marine Corps. not only does the nation want a Marine Corps, not only does the Marine Corps win battles but its also cost effective.
DeleteHmm. It used to be cost effective. But the F-35B, EFV, ITV, V-22, CH-53K, ACV, and so on have changed my mind about that.
DeleteAnd that doesn't count the billions the Navy spends on amphibs to get them there.
if you view the Marine Corps in isolation you have a point but compare and contrast individual weapon systems to that of the Army FCS, GCS, Stryker, Stryker DVH and it still looks good. pop on top of all of that the leanest ratio of tooth to tail (still) and its still a bargain. the thing thats actually killing the Marine Corps is all the joint billets. our leadership ranks are swollen and far larger than it should be.
DeleteSolomon, what do you think of the idea of the USMC buying a few F/A-18E Super Hornets for the MEU in light of the F-35B delays?
ReplyDeleteslowly warming up to the idea...especially if the F-35B continues to cost over 200 million each. if thats the case and they can't get the costs down then i would recommend abandoning the F-35C (which will cost about the same) and simply buying Super Hornets.
DeleteIf you can figure out a way to get them to fly off gators then great. Good luck with that. Or is this just more, "oh the CVNs don't have anything to do so we'll put our planes on those" idiocy?
Deleteyou're not paying attention again. i said replace the F-35C's with Super Hornets. are you just being impulsive or is there actually a thought to your replies here?
DeleteSferrin ,the SuperHornet can use the «Ski-jump».
DeleteBouth the legacy Hornet and the SuperHornet can use it...most people dont know that...
Nuno Gomes,
ReplyDeleteIf the LHA/LHD were fitted with a ski jump, then a light loaded F-18 should be able to take off. It might even be able to take off without a ski jump. Either way, I'm not sure it would be able to take off while carrying much fuel or weapons.
However it isn't going to be landing again on that same ship. Unless they are fitted with arrestor gear.
the QE is 88 feet longer than the America class LHD. arrestor cables should be all thats needed. an angled deck to allow easier landings and aborts should be worked in too. not that crazy an idea. WW2 carriers were modified from straight decks to have angled once the Brits worked in that improvement.
DeleteGreat idea! No whining about the cost and how it could be used for armor. We are talking billions of dollars here afterall
Deletewell actually its just a tangent of thought that got tossed in. my original idea stands. delay the F-35B, buy armor and if Lockheed Martin can't get the price down on the jet then buy F-18's to fulfill the carrier requirement instead of F-35C's.
DeleteLM can't get the price down if the F-35B is delayed, so its a pointless thought.
DeleteF-18s don't go on Gators, which means they end up with the CVW. The purpose of an MEU is a one-stop-shop for what it is needed. I am simply amazed in a blog where you freak out everytime a army guy jumps out the back of a C-130 they are "stealing the marines mission" Yet you don't see the MEUs unique ability to bring AIR and Ground assets to a fight. A Marine Corps without an Air Wing is just another Army. An Airwing without the ground side is just another Air Force. no one else has both the way the USMC does. What is good for the Wing is good for the Corps, no matter how much you may try to portray it otherwise
Solomon,
DeleteThey actually considered Short take-off but arrested recovery (STOBAR) for the QE class, but it would have been worse that STOVL in terms of the fuel/range and weapon loads that the aircraft would have been able to carry.
So if they had went with F-35C but used them in a short take off method via the ski-jump, then the fuel and weapons load they would have been able to carry, would have been worse than that of the F-35B. I would imagine that the same would apply with the F-18 vs the F-35B.
However, if the F-35 is delayed or even worse, then maybe they will have to rethink.
not trying to be argumentative but that makes no sense. how can short takeoff and arrested landing use more fuel than STOVL? first you don't have to worry about touting around a second engine that is only used for landing, second one is landing with the aid of wires while the other is using that engine. that doesn't make sense.
DeleteI didn't mean that STOBAR uses more fuel, but that a F-35C that took off without the use of a catapult, and instead did a short take off, wouldn't be able to carry as much load as a F-35B doing the same short take off.
DeleteI take it is because on the F-35B, the thrust vectoring is used to help during take off. If you look at the videos of the F-35B taking off (non vertically), then the lift fan doors are open and the main engine nozzle is pointing down. So I take it that with the same distance to take off in, that a F-35B with this help from thrust vectoring can take off with a heavier load than a F-35C could do.
So to take off in that distance the F-35C has to have a lighter load. During the course of a sortie, then the F-35C might be using less fuel than a F-35B, but it's range and weapons load would still be less due to the difference in weight that could be carried at take-off.
However with a STOBAR, the carry home load should be higher than it is with the STOVL. With the QE class, I believe they are still planning to use the Shipborne rolling vertical landing rather than a pure vertical landing, because of the limit of the weapon load that a F-35B could vertically land with. So really it's as with everything, a matter of trade offs.
I don't know what the difference in range or weapon load was between STOBAR and STOVL, but that is one of the reasons that was reported for why it was rejected for the QE class. Another reason was to do with sortie rate.
Using a ski-jump method for takeoff forces compromise. Launching aircraft using the ski-jump method cannot launch with the amounts of fuel and munitions that a catapult launched aircraft can. As fuel is the single heaviest thing carrier aircraft carry, a compromise between greatly reduced range, or munitions much be reached. This is the ugly truth China faces with their current carrier and the J-15.
DeleteThe problem can be mitigated to an extent, but that requires further compromise. Using a buddy pod style of tanking, the range deficiency issue can be dealt with. That introduces the problem of less aircraft for the given mission, as several are tied up acting as the tanker. As in all things, its a matter of give and take.
You also need more fuel so you have four attempts to trap, for wave offs or bolters. STOVL aircraft don't tend to "have go rounds" They see, they land, first time.
Delete"first you don't have to worry about touting around a second engine"
The Lift Fan is not a separate engine. Much like a helicopters tail rotor it is connected to the engine via a drive shaft.
Upset that Marines use 50 year old AAVs soloman proposes using 60 year old OV-10. Lol can't make this up. How much does it cost to get them fully operational? Where are qualified pilots? How are the logistics and sustainment costs for an airplane we retired 20 years ago? Spec ops refurbed 2 of them. TWO.
ReplyDeleteWhy are we getting yet another aviation procurement that won't be ready before the f-35b and taking more money away from the GCE?
one canceled F-35B should pay for it. i'm game are you?
DeleteAnonymous,the proposed OV-10 would very different from the original...
DeleteThe land battlefield has changed ...the AAV-7 as not...
The proposed OV-10 would be awesome in COIN,escort and CAS...far more survivable than helo gunships...and cheaper...
The MPC was here and ready to go...the USMC as made a bad call
Solomon
DeleteTuesday, October 25, 2011 9:52:00 PM
yeah i got ya SMSgt Mac. and thats why i love your blog. i don't know a thing about aviation except for riding helicopters and guarding a flight line.
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2011/10/f-35b-completes-at-sea-testing.html
one canceled F-35B should pay for it. i'm game are you?
Sure! show me how. things like government charts, costs, budgets, numbers, which squadrons will be converted the estimated time it will take to field full squadrons, cost to train new pilots or retrain current fleet pilots, O&M costs, fleet sustainment, safety considerations, upgrade programs and costs, fleet size, det. size, and all those other "boring details" would be just fantastic to see. Also, if I am delaying an F-35 purchase to buy OV-10s, how is that money "saved" for new armor??
Or is this just a fun way to spend money on the ACE in different and exotic ways?
"survivable than helo gunships...and cheaper..."
Far More survivable than helicopters!? Wow!! Thats totally the same as a VLO super sonic VSTOL Fighter bomber! I bet you have all kinds of details of how OV-10s are "more survivable" can't wait to see em!
OV-10s are extremely vulnerable to even basic MANPADs. One of the reasons we cashed them out years ago.
Ok...they are more fast and can pull more than 2g...helicopters are far more vulnerable than turboprop aircraft...
DeleteThe OV-10 got is ass handed to them in GW1 because they didnt have contermeasures...
Everyody who uses the SuperTucano praises the aircraft...
And nobody said to buy the Bronco in place of the JSF...
"The OV-10 got is ass handed to them in GW1 because they didnt have contermeasures..."
DeleteThis counts as "more survivable" to you?
"Everyody who uses the SuperTucano praises the aircraft..."
So? I thought we were talking Broncos? And would they still praise it if they had to support Marines on the ground against a country that can actually fight back?
Now you are just being silly...
DeleteYes it counts as being more survivable...soviet helicopters were destroyed in A-stan by the hundreds without CM...
Several shoots of MANPADS were made at ISAF helicopters and no helicopter was shoot down...countermesures and all that...
putting CM in a bronco is easy and fast...
I use the SuperTucano to illustrate how survivable turboprops are...
And just for fun...how many Broncos were shoot down by RPGs?
And to your information the Harrier as proven to be even more vulnerable to MANPADS than turboprop aircfraf...(bigger heat signature,engine exaust in the middle and all that)
Smart ass...
The two OV-10s lost in Desert Storm were OV-10As, neither of which had the IR-suppressing exhaust stacks of the OV-10Ds or the "disco ball" IR countermeasure units. No OV-10Ds were lost, and that's a VERY important point to make. But saying "The OV-10s go their asses handed to them" was good for F/A-18D and further AH-1W procurement, which is what the Marine Corps wanted. The OV-10s being evaluated by the Navy right now under the Combat Dragon II program are upgraded OV-10Ds. I'm curious to know what their opinions are on the OV-10 versus the Super Tucanos they evaluated a few years back, but they're really not talking to anyone right now.
DeleteI think the Bronco would have been a phenomenal tool to use in Iraq and Afghanistan, being able to perform ISR, CAS, FAC, Command and Control, and convoy escort better than most higher-cost platforms did. If using "60-year-old" Broncos (50, actually) is ludicrous, then consider the solid work done by AirScan with older, less capable O-2s for convoy-route ISR in Iraq. Conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan REALLY drove home the need for a cheaper, multirole turboprop for everyday use in permissive air defense environments. This "the next war is going to be a massive, conventional, REAL war" thinking is fine for readiness, but since we've found ourselves committed in far more lower-intensity conflicts, having the right tools for that job is just as important.
The Marines current Aviation Plan has Harriers in active service until almost 2030. VMFA-121 is building up steadily, with a steady stream of pilots, maintainers, and new -35Bs bringing them closer to full-strength. I was an F-35B naysayer until I started talking to F-35 pilots, especially those who transitioned from the Harrier. I still think the Marines could have gotten everything they need from a less-complex aircraft (my preference was always a modernized "Super Harrier," marketed to the Air Force as well as a credible A-10 replacement), but it's actually kind of awesome that they're getting something as capable as the JSF. The F-35 isn't without its problems, but its future is looking more and more solid each day.
Another thing to consider - parts from the ex-RAF GR.9s are already making their way into the AV-8B supply system, and VMA-513 just stood down, freeing up an entire squadron-worth of airframes. Any prospect of some catastrophic, fleet-grounding catastrophe seems pretty remote.
Lastly, while I totally support the Marines integrating a new, improved OV-10 into its Air Wings, it's not going to support MEUs. OV-10s could always take off from LHDs (though not with a meaningful combat load), but they could never land on them. Just not a very realistic proposal. Plus, F-35Bs are coming off the production line right now. New build OV-10s don't exist, and would have to go through the same acquisition process and test and evaluation phases any other aircraft would have to go through. Even if such a program proceeded according to plan, both VMFA-121 and VMFA-211 would be at full-strength and cleared for deployment by the time any new OV-10s were available.
Would a delay in purchasing F-35B mean an increase in unit cost? It costs way too much as it is. As an aside, these aircraft are for CAS, not air control. The maries don't have enough aircraft per LHD or, crucially, airbourne early warning. In any situation where there are threats from the air, the navy is needed.
ReplyDelete"When the Marine Corps first developed the LHA it was a pure Helicopter Carrier. No fast jets, no well deck, nothing but transport helicopters and attack helicopters."
ReplyDeleteSounds great, when do we scrap the AAVs, and go full Air wing!?
" would have to accept greater risk and depend on a Burke Destroyer for your Anti-Air efforts but it should be doable."
Because you say so? Or do you a source for that?
"The answer is simple. We survive. We make do, we adjust and we get it done."
That funny, thats how I feel about the AAVs.
"The craziest part of all of this is that we bought practically new (they're were rebuilt by the Brits) AV-8 Harriers that are sitting around waiting to be put into service."
Bullshit. Those aircraft have already been parted out and are being used to keep the harrier fleet going. they aren't "sitting around waiting to go into service" Are you speaking out of ignorance, or just plain lying? Even If we wanted to put them into service Brit Avionics are different, which is why they are being used as spare parts.
Please don't assume crap like that. It would be like me saying that an Armored Humvee is just waiting to be converted to an AAV replacement.
"I truly believe that those airplanes were bought with the idea that the F-35B would be delayed."
Those aircraft were bought after the JSF was delayed, and they are being used to sustain the fleet, not add to it.
"thank you! you get it! MEU's are only sent after low tech threats and aren't designed or equipped to fight high end forces. if its a high end threat then you need more than an MEU, which means that carrier support will be available!
ReplyDeleteTHANK YOU! SOMEONE FINALLY UNDERSTANDS!"
Why do you need a Marine Corps then? Why don't I just send Rangers? or the 82nd? And when the poo hits they can call the Air Force or Navy and their Air assets? Why do you need a whole separate service that can't defend itself other than in missions other forces do already? Oh you need helicopters too? send the 101st. Are Marines just "america's middle men" or are they "America's 911"?
Is your inter-service rivalry really so bad that you cant leave fast air to the USN ?
ReplyDeleteIsn't a bit of a hold over from WWII that you have "Marine"fast air squadrons on CVN ? Do we really think your ever undertaking an amphibious assault with even two MEU's with a total of what, less than 20 AV8B Harrier II+ or F35C ?
Why not just concentrate on Helo capability ? Super Cobra and a CH53K "gunship kit" ? S97 Raider for range and speed ??
Having said that, I think your in cloud cuckoo land if you think EFV could fight it's way ashore against anyone other than a blind man with his hands tied behind his back, but more "fast connectors " and a shed load of MPC and helo's paid for out of the fast air budget seems like a good way to keep the Corp's true to it's core purpose.