USMC Aviation and the Corps in general is at a dangerous intersection in its history.
Its canceled the Marine Personnel Carrier, delayed for about the 50th time a decision on the Amphibious Combat Vehicle and is slow walking an upgrade to the Amphibious Assault Vehicle.
Its doing all this while it has three aircraft programs that are topping out at over 100 million dollars for each model.
Quite honestly one squadron less of each plane (CH-53K, MV-22 and F-35B) would fully pay for modernization of Marine Corps ground transport.
USMC air is developing into a full fledged naval air force that competes with carrier aviation in mission AND budget. This new Marine Corps Aviation Force appears to be casting aside its primary mission of focusing on supporting Marines and turning into a force that is tailored for SOCOM support and deep interdiction.
Its not a force that we need.
Is it time to swallow hard, understand that the Wing as designed will not be around to support Marine ground and plan on conducting operations without them? This will mean increased artillery, more tanks on float, more robust (if fewer) infantry battalions and a greater reliance on Army aviation for aerial support....but it seems the only way.
What is bad is that in a real war, the small number of combat-coded aircraft, won't last long in a sustained air campaign.
ReplyDeleteSays who?
DeleteYour Chinese propaganda friends. Or is that the Russian propaganda these days?
Ever heard of an AT-14, HJ-8, RPG-29, ect?
In a real war, a lightly armored troop transport would get 18 men killed at once, instead of maybe 1-2 if a jet or helicopter is shot down.
Consider the condition of normal attrition. The real mission capability rates of the Osprey mean there aren't that many of them; and that is for the number that are considered and/or funded as deployable. Cost per flying hour of the Osprey is high too. As for the Just-So-Failed, similar rules apply, but at least the Osprey made it to a war or two.
DeleteRemember, the MC is slated to buy 80 F-35 carrier variant as well as 340 short take off vertical land for a total of 420 @ $___ -- nobody knows. Current unit cost based on budget information is $236m. After the recent "high level review" there was news that production would be jacked up, probably an attempt to get the price down, even though development test results have been disappointing. None of Navy's CV have been on a carrier yet. Nobody knows when the CV will see a carrier, because of the tailhook problem. (Tailhook Scandal 2.0) Reportedly the hook is too close to the wheels.
ReplyDeletethat $236 million number is a load of crap and you know it.
DeleteGo factor in development costs for the Hornet and Super Hornet and tell me how much one of those REALLY costs.
Don't forget to factor in the ASH costs as well :)
Oh, and the new CV tailhook has been working just fine http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1108
That's only procurement, David.
DeleteLook it up yourself--
FY2014 Procurement Program Budget Request
F-35A $176m
F-35B $237m
F-35C $236m
Navy on p. N-3, AF p. F-4
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2014/amendment/fy2014_p1a.pdf
WARNING: It will require dividing one number by another.
The CV tailhook has NOT "been working just fine ."
DeleteNatDefMag: "The tail hook has been completely redesigned and officials are confident it will work when tested later this year."
That's program office BS. Nothing "works just fine" just based only upon officials' confidence. That's why machines must be tested, and those tests evaluated. That's why the Pentagon has Dr. J. Michael Gilmore, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, a Presidential appointee confirmed by the United States Senate. Gilmore serves as the senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense on operational and live fire test and evaluation of Department of Defense weapon systems.
If it works fine then why isn't there a CV on a carrier, catapulting and trapping? huh David?
he can't and won't answer that. the reason is simple. he knows that you're spelling out cold, hard facts. when all you have is faith that leadership isn't lying and then look at the gang in HQMC you have to ask yourself ... how could i believe a single word?
Deletehe knows better. he just can't accept that the last institution of American strength has been brought low.
The new tail hook design was supposed to be tested this past summer, but I haven't seen any press about the trials. You would think the LM / JSFPO would be all over that... The CV tests are scheduled for 2014.
DeleteThey were (or are) testing it at Lakehurst, was the last report I've seen.
DeleteEverything you need to know about tailhooks -->
A brief history of tailhook design
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16571.html
Lockheed's O'Bryan: The F-35C "will go to the boat in 2014, as scheduled." Last year it was "The F-35C will go to the boat in 2013."
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete