Thanks to ELP Blog for catching this!
Check this out....
Marine Air is going to evolve from its focus on providing close air support to Marine units?
When I first heard this I went high and to the right. The very essence of the Marine Corps is to have the worlds finest combined arms team in the truest sense of the word. Fully integrating all aspects of combat power with one singular goal. To take control of a piece of land, destroy enemy forces and win the battle.
But it seems that some want to take various pieces of a fine organization and use it for other purposes.
McGrath obviously has the ear of the Congressman. They wrote this abomination as a joint piece. He obviously huddles with the Commandant...this sounds like an air wingers wet dream.
The problem? If this becomes reality then we will see a fundamental change in the way the Marine Corps operates. What happens when 7th Marines is making a push to the objective and they call for Air Support and Marine Air is off fighting the deep battle? Lets hope AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys aren't rescuing pilots and that NavAir still wants to play the Close Air Support game.
Its becoming obvious that Marine Air doesn't anymore.
Note: More fuel to the fire. Check out this article...F-35 Costs $182 Million to $299 Million Per Plane
Check this out....
Command and control stovepipes within the task organizations of the Navy and Marine Corps must be dismantled, with a common command structure implemented that sees the land power of the Marine Corps as one of its several primary tools. With the fielding of the VSTOL variant of the F-35B, Marine tactical aviation must necessarily evolve from its singular focus on ground support to a broader mission in support of the Seapower Task Force.Evolve from its singular focus on ground support?
Marine Air is going to evolve from its focus on providing close air support to Marine units?
When I first heard this I went high and to the right. The very essence of the Marine Corps is to have the worlds finest combined arms team in the truest sense of the word. Fully integrating all aspects of combat power with one singular goal. To take control of a piece of land, destroy enemy forces and win the battle.
But it seems that some want to take various pieces of a fine organization and use it for other purposes.
McGrath obviously has the ear of the Congressman. They wrote this abomination as a joint piece. He obviously huddles with the Commandant...this sounds like an air wingers wet dream.
The problem? If this becomes reality then we will see a fundamental change in the way the Marine Corps operates. What happens when 7th Marines is making a push to the objective and they call for Air Support and Marine Air is off fighting the deep battle? Lets hope AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys aren't rescuing pilots and that NavAir still wants to play the Close Air Support game.
Its becoming obvious that Marine Air doesn't anymore.
Note: More fuel to the fire. Check out this article...F-35 Costs $182 Million to $299 Million Per Plane
Déjà vu
ReplyDeleteThey create some kind of monster, Marines Aviation that will not work for Marines but for Navy. Then they will be still Marines ? or rather they will be integrated in to Navy air component with full paint job ?
I think Marines now are in the same position as Army when they start to lose Army Aviation wings for the new Air Force back in 47'
yep. i wonder. do the people that are pushing this agenda realize that when Marine Air starts looking like the AF and Navy that there will no longer be a need for Marine Air?
DeleteAye, maybe those "people" are some supporters of Air Force, it's no mystery that from the beginning it was very jealous about other arms Air components. Everything what fly should be part of Air Force, then let's divide old united Marines in to land forces and independent Air wing. After that make the deal with Navy that we will split planes and join them to our own Ordre de Bataille. Because there is no need to have two "land" based air force when we can have only one, you know budgets cuts and all savings...
DeleteEnough crazy theory ?
i'd buy that theory if it originated with the USAF or boosters of that service but it isn't. this stuff is coming from the highest reaches of the USMC and from supporters of the Marine Corps.
DeleteCongressman Randy Forbes is hardly an enemy, not a budget hawk and is really a HUGE supporter of the Marines. McGrath is too. why they're buying off on this is a mystery. its almost like they can't see where this will inevitably lead.
If someone is starting to do unusual things, then maybe there is someone behind him. Some adviser, "friend" that will show you a wonderful idea without any flaws with, as Bene Gesserit from Dune universe say "plans within plans within plans". And that hidden agenda would be elimination of Marine wing with support of man that have no idea about it. But that just a crazy theory of my.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, Lockheed have a vital interest that Marine wing or rather close support ( F-35 close support, good joke by the way ) VTOL plane, that was design exclusive for Marines need to stay alive. Marines need to buy them, what if Air Force say that they don't need B version ? Company will step in and save the Marine wing just to have a buyer of that toy ? Doom and Savior in one person, that would be an irony.
Nothing about this makes sense. To me the navy and air should be able to provide ground support for marines and the army. Unfortunately we have seen that this does not work/happen. It is patently disgusting. In Afghanistan and Iraq we have seen where coalition CAS has failed with increased friendly fire incidents and where air support has bailed due to the situation being to hot. If you look at the continuum from WW2 to now we have been getting worse at CAS instead of better. How is this possible? I wonder if it haves anything to do with trying to do CAS from ever higher altitudes.
ReplyDeleteWow, that is a most incredibly incorrect statement. My grandfather was a B-24 pilot in WWII and he was a part of the bombing of ball bearing factories and other strategic bombing silliness. The maximum payload on a B-24 bomber was only about 4,500 pounds, and ball bearing factories where the target, go figure.
DeleteIn contrast, my dad is a retired Apache pilot. Im pretty sure they got better at CAS then they were in WWII.
Incorrect? Possibly? You have better info? I will look for the data again. Unfortunately I did not bookmark the info although some was derived from ELP posts. I'm not sure what your points about your relatives means. I have lost relatives in war, that has no bearing on anything. The numbers I saw related primarily to friendly fire incidents. To complete a proper analysis would of course require knowing the number of sorties, the amount of ordnance, personnel involved, mission risk both in terms of the personnel on the ground and to the aircraft, just off the top of my head, I'm sure we could think of more for the meta-analysis. Does this data exist? Is it available? Has analysis been done?
DeleteOne could say that it must have which is why the A-10 is being pushed out in favour of the F-35 etc... I have however not seen that analysis anywhere, has anyone else ? I would love to see it. All I have read is that the cost of maintaining multiple single purpose platforms is too high. And that the F35 can do the job. And do it better(?). I have not seen the evidence. Presumably the Air force etc.. can show that they have gotten better at CAS by flying higher and faster etc.. Has anyone seen the numbers behind that justification? Everyone I talk to on the ground says different. Is there perception accurate? Perceptions are as wrong as often as they are right. That's why it would be nice to see the justification. I think there is something to be said for seeing, feeling the hurt coming whether from an A-10, C-130, Apache not only for the enemy but friendlies as well.
Interesting the numbers I have seen show that helicopters have an attrition rate 15x that of fixed wing aircraft over the Iraq/Afghanistan time period (again some of this I have seen on ELP). Without a doubt this info is subject to the same caveats as above.
Also the Marine Corps is being attacked on another front. The Army, seeing itself bereft of land combat missions, is now a MC wannabe restyling itself as a Pacific expeditionary force.
ReplyDeletei don't see that Don. i've been watching Army moves carefully with that very thought in mind but quite honestly they've been making moves that i've suggested. in my opinion if a real war breaks out we're going to need an Army capable of deploying to the region and fighting well. what have they done so far? moved a THAAD battery to Guam and talked about integrating with Navy Aegis and air force command and control. that is a welcome addition. they sent a small (i believe company sized) unit to participate in an airborne event in conjunction with an amphibious assault in Australia. i wish it was brigade sized but i'll take what i can get. what i'd like to see is a couple of Stryker Brigades moved to Australia to work with the Aussies and the Marines there on a continuous basis but baby steps. long story short. the Army doesn't worry me when it comes to taking over Marine missions.
Deletethe way i see it, they're going to be over stretched in a bad way rather quickly due to events in the Middle East and Africa
Ivan Eland:
Delete"...But the Army is not going down in the budgetary wars without a fight. Trying to forget its recent recurrent nightmare with large counterinsurgencies, which it never liked to fight anyway, it is turning away from this mission again, this time toward making its forces more expeditionary and maritime capable (for example, operating Army helicopters off ships) -- like the Marine Corps. The Army wants to so transform its forces to fight small conflicts and respond to natural disasters. . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-eland/army-budget_b_4525319.html
In Africa, with AFRICOM headed by Army:
--The Army has developed the East Africa Response Force, which operates under the Combined Joint Task Force — Horn of Africa. Its headquarters are at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti. The company-size unit is equipped with aircraft to conduct evacuations and rescue missions in the region.
--45 soldiers of the East Africa Response Force (EARF) based in Djibouti have been deployed with the primary mission is to guard the Embassy in Juba.
--The soldiers in Juba are from the 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division based at Fort Riley, Kansas assigned to the EARF on a rotational basis.
Thus the joke the US has 2 armies and 3 air forces.
ReplyDeleteexplain. if you're trying to be witty its failing badly. to say that the Army is trying to be the Marine Corps and vice versa is sheer nonsense. are you the type of person that complains that the services don't work together and then when they do express displeasure that they're doing what you wanted? the Marine Corps doesn't have theater air defense missiles. the only ground force that does is the US Army. the Marine Corps doesn't have paratroopers (except for small units) the US Army is the only American force that can put a Brigade of paratroopers in the back of a C-130 and get them to a hotspot quickly.
Deleteso tell me again why the joke that the US has 2 armies and 3 air forces applicable to what is being talked about.
Merely that the size(and equipment plus training) of the US forces so greatly exceeds that of everyone else. Most militaries pale in comparison.
DeleteWhat is the size of Marine fast jet ops compared to most world's air forces? In Canada we have approx. 70 F-18 (pathetic yes but reality)
What is the size of Naval fast jet compared to most world's air forces?
What is the size of the Marine infantry forces compared to most world's armies? In Canada we have 25,000 regular and 25,000 reserves (again pathetic but again reality)
In Canada the situation is about to get worse as rumours swirl of cuts of 10,000 personnel coming down the pipe (from all the services but probably not from HQ).
So it was a joke but also a statement of fact; that needed clarity I guess. The US has been carrying the mail for a long time now. I don't know what the solution is to interoperability, financial efficiencies. All other countries in the world have drastically cut their militaries since the end of WW2,Korea,Cold War and this latest rd of Iraq/Afghanistan. Can the US continue to afford/maintain the size of these forces? How best to do so? Is that not the real question? In Canada we have sacrificed personnel and equipment as the stars keep accumulating. I wish it was otherwise.
If you look at the Europe, Canada, AUS, they are all pretty much running mini versions of the US forces, just enough to maintain that the US is not in it alone. But not enough to actually accomplish anything. Most if they have the equipment do not have the stores witness Libya. This will happen in Canada with the F35 I'm afraid as the government, DND has already decided to reduce it's ammunition stores in order to afford the F35
DeleteLOL, if an average Canadian controlled the structuring of the US military, the global economy would crumble and WW3 would begin. We have this large military to counterbalance the lack of power in our allies efforts.Canada much like Mexico spent next to nothing on their military, Canada spends 1.15% of their GDP and Mexico spends .5% of theirs. An average healthy run of the mill military should spend about 2.5% of the GDP.
DeleteIf you really look at the territorial defense of the Americas The US is the primary source of resistance. The other countries just kind of help a bit.
They do this because they know we have the power near them and will protect them more fiercely than we would protect NATO.
If the US military didn't exist both Canada would have to spend triple, and Mexico would have to spend 8 times more for the 1st 10 years then 4x more. LOL, if you want a good army in mexico they tell you to learn English and join the US one.
So comparing the US military to the current power of the Canadian forces would be incorrect. Because Canadian forces bless them, are not a self sufficient territorial defense force.
I mis posted a long winded comment that apparently is lost in cyberspace. But suffice it too say that I do not agree with your first paragraph. The rest of your post really says the exact same as mine.
DeleteI think in short that other countries have come up with a different threat assessment than the US has. And this has driven their military cutbacks. Is the US right and everyone else wrong? Has the rest of the Western World taken advantage of American good will in this? I think to some degree the answer to both questions is yes. The only way to tell would be if the US pursued massive military cutbacks, or even refused to grow the Defence budget with inflation.
Right now the greatest threat to world stability in my opinion is radical islam. How to fight it successfully is unclear to me.
The other threat which seems to be glossed over in most part is the Chinese(not here obviously). To me the Chinese seem eerily similar to pre WW2 Germany with people not seeming to recognize how conciliation did not work than and I can not see it working now.
The Army is not going to try to be the USMC. We are simply task organized on the conventional FORSCOM side of the house at the Brigade level, which is a bit unwieldy to toss about the globe willy nilly. However the secret here isn't that we are task organized at the Brigade level as the element of action, it is that we can't deploy a Brigade without a theater sustainment framework. The USMC does not have that problem as it has the US Navy sustainment framework to rely on wherever it goes.
ReplyDeleteThis is why the Army is required by law to take over the logistical support for the USMC once the USMC deploys on land for 6 months (and one of the reasons why a few of my Devil Dog friends have told me that the US Army is the best supply system the USMC has ever had, no joke). If you are going to have a fighting war on Land, then the Army will be in charge of Theater Level Sustainment. You can't deploy a Brigade without a sustainment plan in place, and no matter how good the US Navy is, there is no way they could handle the logistic load of a few Army brigades acting in the traditional USMC role. Reality doesn't work that way. The Army runs port operations, not the Navy or USMC. The Army runs contract air (which the Air Force has always wanted to take away from us). The Army runs railheads, tugs, and cargo ships.
For a sustained land fight you need the Army. For dedicated Expeditionary combat power you need the USMC. The two shall meet once logistic support transfers to the Army.
extremely well said. i totally agree (also didn't know that the Army ran port operations...interesting).
DeleteSo we need an army only to run ports and transport supplies? Civilians can do those tasks.
DeleteDon Bacon, you don't have a lot of experience with port operations do you? Here is an equally stupid question "Why does the USMC need an aviation branch to begin with when the Navy and Air Force can both provide ground support?" There are some things you just don't contract out, and your biggest point of failure is for logistic support is one of them.
DeleteSorry for the long winded comment above, but it is the framework to understand why the Army is not trying to be the USMC.
ReplyDeleteAs to Marine Aviation "abandoning" ground support as its sole mission. That is either an argument by Marine Air to save aviation slots in the era of diminishing budgets by gaining some of the "Seapower Mission" slots, or it is an argument by the Navy to get Marine Aviators to backfill some of the aviation slots they are going to lose.
In the realm of diminishing budgets, those who are the most "mission essential" get cut last. But they still get cut.
this is more institutional to the Marine Corps than simply a budget battle. a bigger role in other areas means a diminished role in close air support. if fast jets in the Marine Corps primary mission is no longer to provide that support then it should be asked why they even exist. its a serious question. the Army had its air force stripped away and was left with only rotary winged support. the same could happen to the Marine Corps if they stay on this track. besides. what does Marine Air do that can't be done better by the navy or air force...the only thing is close air support. that goes away then so do fast jets in the Corps.
DeleteThe way things are going I think it would make sense to dump the F35 from a Marine prospective (outside observer). Too costly to buy and maintenance? Plus why have 2 types? If the Marines truly need jump jets than focus on the F35B, leave the F35C to the Navy. If the Marines can not count on the Navy for CAS than obviously they need to do it themselves. Is the F35B the answer? Some combination of Super Tucano, A-10, OV-10 seems like it should be investigated. The same should be said for the army. If the Air force doesn't want to do CAS for the Army anymore than turn over the A-10 to them as well.
DeleteI think we all know that the F35 is being forced down everyone's throats whether they like it or not. Look at the Netherlands. I can only hope that somehow the cost come down and the performance proves out. Otherwise the entirety of the Western World's military has been ripped apart on a lie.
i'd like to see the F-35B get dumped. i'd like to see the F-35C get dumped too. the dirty secret is that the Navy is already working on the F/A-XX. already. with the F-18 to be viable until 2030 that means that the F-35 isn't really needed...especially when you consider a UAV is coming down the line. this is about politics, money and jobs programs. it stopped being about the defense of the nation about five years ago.
DeleteSome good news -- the Senate wants to cut F-35 long-lead items in the FY2015 budget.
Deletefrom a CRS report:
"While both bills thus would fund acquisition of 29 F-35s in FY2014, as requested, the Senate bill also would cut $80.0 million from the $564.8 million requested for long lead-time components with the intention of slowing the planned increase in production for FY2015.
"By reducing funding for long lead-time components, the Senate bill is intended to reduce the number of F-35s funded in the FY2015 budget request to 36, which would be an increase of about 25% over the number requested in FY2014."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R43323.pdf
If approved in conference this would neuter the desired large Kendall/Lockheed production "ramp-up" which makes sense since test results haven't been good and the F-35 program is still more than five years away from a scheduled production decision (plus the C can't go to sea).
I have to jump out on a limb here and say something big. While I support the advanced super hornet for the Navy, and USMC fixed wing CAS, I really disagree with the USMC assumption that it is perfectly OK to water down the US Navy's air superiority Kung Fu. The USMC aviation belongs on LHA and LPD platforms not our limited super carriers. In the best possible outcome the USMC F-18 s neglect the CAS role and fall in with the Navy's air superiority efforts until air supremacy is acheived. Then they can play ground pounder in their airplane.
ReplyDeletePutting USMC F-18 s on carriers was a stop gap to deal with how much a AV-8 sucked in air superiority.
Its not a long term natural way of doing things. Dedicated CAS that is connected to the ground force is at its heart is a VTOL/STVOL role and dumping the F-35B leaves you with AH1Zs not advanced super hornets. Take the F-35B and call it awesome.