Check out this scenario that the USMC is pushing as a future operating concept (via SLD Info)
March 2014: Exercise TALON REACH II whereby a CLT from the training base in Twenty-nine Palms assaulted into an A2/AD environment against enemy positions located on San Clemente Island.Read the entire article here.
The latest experiment, TALON II, was built around a raid from 29 Palms to San Clemente Island.
According to the tasking:
Among the experiment’s primary objectives were the following:
To assess integrated airborne C5I between a CLT located across multiple aviation platforms;
To assess integrated ground-air C5I between a CLT post-insert and multiple supporting aviation platforms;
To assess the utilization of CLT fires approval processes and control in all phases.
At the heart of the exercise was to secure an airfield to support the concept of distributed STOVL operations as well.
This airfield was 23 kilometers from the enemy’s ASCM sites and required the CLT to conduct an all-night, dismounted movement to contact operation to secure it. In the experiment, the F-35 surrogate, the Cat Bird” was used to provide DAS and other data to the CLT in flight and post-insertion.
And the F-35 working with an Osprey-enabled insertion force could well re-define the meaning of Close Air Support (CAS). The F-35 could enter the objective area prior to the arrival of the CLT, push data back to the incoming force, and then provide fire support, “kinetic” and “non-kinetic,” C2 and ISR support during the insertion and operation.
My question is simple. Are they serious? They are testing the validity of sending a Company Landing Team against enemy anti-ship missile sites, in a non-permissive environment using MV-22's as the insertion platform?
Supposedly the F-35 will change the meaning of Close Air Support because it will act as a UAV providing information to the grunts on the ground?
Seriously?
I still believe the idea that you're going to be going after anti-ship missiles and not face a formidable anti-air complex is fanciful at best but lets say it happens that way. How is F-35's orbiting the area sending back images and other information any different than what we have now with Predator drones?
I am really trying to warm to this Company Landing Team Concept but it has the whiff of bullshit all over it. What am I missing?
Predator is non-stealthy. Zero chance of surviving long in a contested air environment. My issue with this ideal is the location. If it's an isolated ASM site sits somewhere in a desolate island, the concept might work. But most likely the missile base is located along the coast line of enemy mainland backed by large number of garrison forces. Sending in a company sized raiding party is suicidal.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feeling regarding CLT concept. It’s more suitable for conducting recon mission behind enemy line or against an inferior foe of comparable size, but it’s utterly useless in a conventional fashion when facing a larger force of near-peer opponent.
The F-35 is non-stealthy until proven otherwise.
DeleteI couldn't find anything authoritative (i.e. non-SLD) on Talon Reach II, but we do have a report on Exercise Talon Reach, 2013
ReplyDeletefrom Marine Corps Lessons Learned , p. 15
"...To clear and employ fires, the CLT maneuver elements were supported by a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) who, along with the AF commander, fast roped onto an elevated position where he could observe the primary objective area and maintain communications. Even so, the JTAC was hard-pressed to visualize and clear fires across all of the objectives. Similar to the observations from IOC’s Camp Blanding experiment, TALON REACH indicated that each maneuver element on a distributed battlefield required the ability to clear its own fires."
The MC has gone from ropes to the F-35! What a leap. I'm looking forward to the F-35 TR-II coverage on MCLL.
The F-35 is being sold to the MC not for any CAS capability it might have but rather for its contributions to situational awareness. That invisible eye-in-the-sky is going to make the situation safe for sloppy MV-22 ground insertions, the story goes. I'm from Missouri -- show me.
my anger lies in the fact that the X-47 can be equipped to do the job that is being proposed for the F-35 safer, more securely and without risking a pilot and for cheaper money than the F-35.
DeleteMarine Air is wandering off its mark. if it can't provide supporting fires then its fucking useless.
this distributed battlefield flies in the face of what we experienced in Afghanistan. small units are too easily isolated, and destroyed. rotary winged insertion platforms are vulnerable to enemies that are on the ball.
the whole thing is setting future Marines up for failure. hoping for something doesn't make it so. all i see is a bunch of hope. no critical thinking involved. HQMC needs an enema.
"The F-35 could enter the objective area [and yadda yadda] ...."
DeleteSure, I could leap tall buildings in a single bound if I had a red cape. It's all hype pending meaningful operational tests and their evaluation. All of it -- the stealth, the carrier landing, the sensors -- all hype. The one B feature that really works well is the computer-controlled STOVL lift system, until the computer goes on the blink and there's no manual alternative.
The F-35 is only halfway through engineering development test. F-35 IOT&E operational test is scheduled for completion in 2019 according to the most recent F-35 Selected Acquisition Report(SAR). The Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) is conducted on production, or production representative articles, to determine whether systems are operationally effective and suitable for intended use by representative users to support the decision to proceed beyond Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP).
The F-35 IOT&E is scheduled for completion in 2019 according to the most recent F-35 Selected Acquisition Report(SAR). This is four years after the MC F-35B Initial Operational Capability (IOC).
The whole F-35 program is ass-backwards.
When I say the STOVL lift system works I mean from an engineering point of view, in a clean non-contested environment. Like every other F-35 feature it needs to be operationally tested.
DeleteHere's a short, entertaining read on the F-35 from TheCoffeeRoute.
ReplyDeleteI hope you liked it. I am working on a new article about stealth drones, could you suggest me some place where to find info about them?
DeleteRe:MV-22s facing heavy air defenses, I think they'd be coming in well below the minimum engagement altitude for most air defense systems at about 150-200ft, that should keep them safe in most potential trouble spots since most SAM systems can't shoot down anything below 500m. They'd still be vulnerable to MANPADS and guns but they should be countered by the attack helicopter escorts. Some might still get shot down but unfortunately conducting air landings over enemy territory is inherently dangerous.
ReplyDeleteSome systems can shoot down aircraft at altitudes as little as 25m from the ground (or treetops?), but since the minimum engagement altitude is dependent on the topography it's likely that flying as low as is safely possible should keep them safe.
you're flying in from the sea. even if you fly at low level you're still going to be visible from about 5 miles out and the curvature of the earth will extend out to about 25 miles? what does that mean? it means that except for the most primitive air defense systems you're going to show up. you jam them and they know you're coming and if the commander has any sense he's alerting his MANPADs and sending them to every possible landing zone. then he's waking up his quick reaction force.
Deletethe Marine Corps should actually test this Company Landing Team concept. send the bubbas to JRTC and let them play with the Army. have them model the forces of the land of idiotville, give them a set of capabilities that are moderate, not exquisite and see how they do.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBeing spotted while approaching a beach is unavoidable really. You might spot a helicopter or an MV-22 from further away than you'd spot a landing craft but you'd still have less time to react to an air landing than to landing craft coming from a ship 70 miles out. Unless someone can perfect some sort of shiny submarine landing craft being spotted is unfortunately unavoidable.
ReplyDeleteMANPADS are a problem but having air support sweep the landing site before the MV-22s land should clear most of them out. Landings are always going to be risky but given the proliferation of long range anti ship missiles making conventional landings risky I think this is the best way to spearhead an invasion.
at the speed these things come in at if your enemy only spots it at 5 miles out then they'll only have about 10 minutes to prepare so I doubt that you'd loose the element of surprise,
AMAZING!
Deletelook at what you said. the proliferation of anti-ship missiles? what about anti-air missiles!!!! additionally how many of those anti-air sites will the F-35's be able to take out? remember we're talking about a Company Landing Team so we're talking about a SPMAGTF. no other assets except aerial refuelers.
this entry force will be dog meat.
Well, as I said they should be able to stay low enough to avoid most long range anti-air missiles. Air support will probably miss a couple of MANPADS but getting shot at is an inherent risk of landing on a hostile shore.
DeleteBut if they are sending them in without a fairly substantial escort then you're correct, it would be a bloody stupid idea.
The need for escort gunships negates the superior speed of the Osprey, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteIn fact it negates the Osprey entirely, doesn't it?
(This is not my field, so I'm asking.)
and you're anticipating a future post.
Deletemy question is simple. why do we have AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys if the helicopter gunship mission is no longer applicable because we're operating at more than 300 miles from the ship?
they just don't have the legs. additionally while they're talking about conducting these ultra long range missions everyone is forgetting that an important part of this "aerial" package is the KC-130s which will provide fuel to the F-35 and the V-22.
if we're using a land based tanker with a USMC stencil on the side then why can't we use a land based fighter 'ala WW2?
they don't even know that the more you look at these scenarios the more they're undermining articles of faith...like the necessity of STOVL fast jets for Marine operations.
The Pentagon has published a new Joint Concept for Entry Operations.
ReplyDeleteOn p. 16 --
Offensive phases include: Initial Entry Forces, and then Reinforcing Entry Forces and Follow-on Forces
Perhaps the Osprey is more appropriate for the latter two.
i read that nonsense. more useless babble that attempts to wow with Pentagon speak but fails to answer any of the real issues concerning forcible entry against a high tech foe.
Deleteas far as the Osprey is concerned, you're probably right but then that makes it the wrong airplane for the USMC.
Army? :-)
Delete