If you've been following the discussion in a couple of the previous posts then the question has been asked.
When did the Marine Corps go off the rails procurement wise and start wanting/developing/breaking the bank buying boutique equipment? The question is important because it brings us to where we're at today. The F-35, even if it becomes the war winner that the fanboys tell us it will be, is still damaging our budget and the budget of the entire DoD beyond recognition.
USMC 0802 points to the Harrier.
I was stunned. The Harrier was a logical extension of the Heli-borne Assault Concept and the evolution of it. The first Iwo Jima Class LPHs weren't budget busters so how could this be.
_1979.jpg)
After chewing on this a bit it became obvious. Several issues popped up that conspired to lead to the current imbalance in the Marine Corps.
1. The US was facing the threat of an extremely aggressive Soviet Union. Remember we're talking the time period of the 70's and 80's. The CIA at the time produced a threat assessment and things looked grim. The Soviets showed signs of having superiority on land, sea and air. New models of Soviet fighters literally scared the shit out of leadership.
2. The need to fully utilize Marine Air to help with the sea battle. The idea of Sea Control Ships...really just using LPH's in a mini-aircraft carrier role by leaving the Infantry and the Helicopters on the beach and filling the decks with Harriers. They wouldn't be front-line warships but could handle backwater assignments while the big deck carriers and their battle groups fought the Soviet Bear.
3. Airpower was credited (incorrectly) with winning the first Gulf War. Marine Air was relegated to supporting Army and Marine forces on the run across the border into Kuwait. Yeah you had A-6 and F/A-18's flying interdiction missions but my feeling is that many in Marine Air wanted to be part of the deep battle that the USAF and USN was fighting.
4. Before that we had the failed rescue mission in Iraq. From this debacle SOCOM was born, Marine Air was found wanting (I dispute that but its the general consensus). Three RH-53Ds participated in the action and an accident caused the mission to be scrubbed before it could begin in earnest. From this moment on Marine Air would insist on a helicopter that could travel almost double the distance of the already leggy (for a helicopter) CH-53. This mission set was totally outside the Marine Corps wheel house but tribal knowledge is long...especially when "glory and honor" aren't brought to the Marine Corps. If called upon again, the tools would be there no matter the price.
5. The US Army/Marine Counter Insurgency Field Manual is the final piece of the puzzle. General Patreus gets most of the attention because of his leadership in Afghanistan. General Amos was the other piece of the puzzle. He would rise to the position of Commandant and that would lead to unforeseen circumstances. I watched with a bit of alarm Senate testimony in which Amos stated that "generational war" was the future of the nation. When it came to A2-AD, I was shocked to learn that instead of being joined at the hip, the USMC and USN had differing views on how that threat would be dealt with. The HQMC indicated that launching amphibious assaults from 65 plus miles from the beach would be necessary. The Navy CNO was stating that the threat would be "rolled" back. We have proceeded with Amos' view of the future. The Marine Corps has become biased toward counter insurgency, humanitarian assistance and is faltering when it comes to developing a coherent strategy to deal with a modern battlefield against a peer opponent.
All of the above has led us to a imbalanced force that is biased toward aviation, is shedding ground combat power at an alarming rate and is busting the budget. It started with the Harrier. If it stopped there and more modest goals pushed for then we would be in a much better position than we are today.
But we didn't.
So how do we fix this?
It won't be easy, will take a tremendous amount of moral courage and will raise the ire of many.
The answer is simple. Doctrine before procurement. Fix doctrine (which is screwed up) and you fix procurement.
The problem started at Guadalcanal. The Navy couldn't protect the grunts from Japanese ground attack, so the USMC decided it needed its own planes to provide top cover. The Harrier was supposed to operate on "lilly pads" near the front. But that has never happened in an actual wartime deployment. It was also the USMC insistance that the Joint Strike Fighter have vertical take off that made the F-35 so horrible in a lot of ways (that lift fan sucks the performance out of models without it because the air frame commonalities).
ReplyDeleteThe USMC should abandon vertical take off fast movers, and instead invest in ADA assets and more helicopters for ground support. Having a jet that can't take on other jets doesn't fix the problems of Guadalcanal.
now on that i disagree. Guadalcanal reinforced the air-ground combat element. Marines were flying fast movers before WW2. so Guadalcanal isn't an issue. neither is giving up fast air. the issue isn't putting in to place more ADA assets either. that will further bulk up a force that is suppose to be fast, agile and expeditionary. what you're pointing to is another doctrine problem. we do as you suggest and we're well and truly on the way to being the US Army.
Deletethat will not do.
the problem is the distance between the Navy and Marine Corps on doctrine. once its acknowledged that movements will be covered by the Navy with carrier air if necessary then everything will be back in line. small wars that require a MEU will still have harriers or whatever the next plane is to provide cover. that shouldn't change.
The only aircraft we have been able to use for CAS that has operated close to the front has been the H-1 series. Everything else requires too much maintenance to operate at the front and has too large of a logistics tail. The Navy and Marine Corps must absolutely agree on how to conduct an amphibious assault, and that means we need a full size carrier flying Navy and Marine fixed wing aircraft. For small wars and sea base type campaign something along the lines of a OV-10X can fly off of the big decks and is better for small wars anyway.
DeleteAccording to Title X the Marine Corps is in charge of advanced naval base seizure for the prosecution of a naval campaign. So if the Navy does not want some island we do not take. If the Navy wants it bad enough they will make sure that carrier is within the combat radius of the air wing. I find it impossible to believe that any President would authorize a MEB of Marines conducting an amphibious assault without sending in a carrier. We have a carrier supporting the Iraqi Army and Kurdish fighters right now.
Of course all of this destroys the dream of a MAGTF that requires no external forces to conduct a full scale forcible entry operation.
and that's a huge problem. the push to make the MEB the unit of operation at the expense of MEUs is just wrong on so many levels. but its still being pushed.
Deletei really wish Dunford would stick his head up and fix all this stuff before it gains momentum and is accepted by the little ones coming up in the Corps.
Sure you wouldn't want to take Harrier in to a high-end threat environment, but there are only a few countries capable of putting up a first-rate defense against Western aircraft. Tier One potential adversaries have large amounts of modern systems and extensive training on how to use said systems properly. Of the top of my head that's pretty much just Russia and China - with Venezuela and Algeria also being capable non-Western countries. Tier Two countries have large amounts of older, mostly obsolete systems with only a handful of modern systems - but still have good training on the systems in country. Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Syria come to mind here. Tier 3 countries have no modern systems and very limited training on how to use their legacy equipment. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and the vast majority of African countries fall into this category. Harrier is still viable against Tier 2 and 3 threat countries - it would need substantial support in a Tier 1 conflict scenario, but then again so would ALL of our assets.
DeletePrior to the Harrier, the Marines flew aircraft already in service with other branches - primarily the Navy. The Harrier set the precedent for USMC unique aircraft procurement. That trend has continued; the Marines will be the sole or primary operator of nearly all the type/model/series in the future Marine Air Wing. Lack of economies of scale in procurement and maintenance drive costs up. CH-53K and MV-22 both cost twice as much as CH-47, more than a Super Hornet, UH-1Y costs more than MH-60S.
DeleteThe STOVL capability has rarely been used operationally. Consider that Al Asad and Bastion were both 10,000+ foot runways. I understand the need for STOL capabilities, but you already have it - expeditionary airfields with cats and arresting gear that can launch and recover fully loaded carrier aircraft in very short distances.
Without Harrier, you don't have organic fixed wing support from the amphibs, but despite what some in the Corps preach, a major opposed amphibious assault will be a Joint sequential operation with all services providing capabilities.
The first Marines were part of the Continental Army.
ReplyDeleteDon't think that the USMC needs to be different just to be different. Right now the vertical take off jets the USMC has available aren't helping it do that expeditionary thing. What is the point of having vertical take off jets that can't fight in the air and can't haul ordnance like a helicopter? How is that making the USMC more expeditionary? By all means keep Marines in the cockpits of Hornets and Super Hornets, but give up on vertical jets, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
http://warontherocks.com/2014/04/our-debating-military-here-if-youre-looking/#_
DeleteRead Peter Munson's response at the bottom.
this issue would be moot if it wasn't for the F-35 destroying budgets of all the services. but to deal with the issues you raised. the first Marines were part of the Continental Army? don't quite get that. the USAF was part of the US Army. does that mean that you want the Marine Corps absorbed into the Army? services and war fighting evolve. you know that so i'm truly missing your point with that.
Deleteyour next point about vertical landing jets. again, it wasn't an issue until the tremendous cost of the F-35 came into play. repeating myself but i've heard Army guys talk about two things. how the USMC should give up fast jets and then without batting an eye, wishing that the Army could get A-10s.
being different just to be different isn't the root cause of this, its all about an ill conceived and super expensive jet that is wrecking the budget.
Solomon, you seem to think that if the Marines have similar capabilities to the US Army that somehow they will get rolled up into the Army? That didn't happen before when the Army looked like the USMC, and that didn't happen despite the first Marines being on the rolls of the Continental Army. The two largest Amphibious Assaults in US history were conducted by the US Army. My point is that the USMC won't stop being the USMC just because it gives up on vertical launch fighters. Uniqueness for the sake of uniqueness is stupid. Marines are more than just VSTOL jets, and getting rid of that waste of budget won't make the USMC less expeditionary in the slightest.
DeleteBy all means keep the Marines flying Hornets and Super Hornets and Prowlers and Growlers. That makes strategic and tactical sense. Giving up Harriers and F-35B's makes strategic and tactical sense. VSTOL jets don't dogfight with a damn compared to concurrent generational counterparts and don't carry the punch of even helicopters for supporting ground forces. It doesn't make sense to separate the USMC from Carrier support for amphib ops, and the abysmal performance of the Harrier supporting land combat made the USMC arm C-130s with missiles to help bridge the gap.
The issue would always be moot if we had an unlimited budget to waste. But the facts are that we don't. Whether or not the Army should fly the A-10 doesn't factor into it unless you are trying to call me a hypocrite or some other ad hominem. I think we can all agree that someone should be flying the A-10, and I don't care if it is the USANG or USMC that does it as long as we preserve that capability in the inventory to support boots on the ground.
The Army did ground attack before we can do it again. The USMC did just fine without vertical jets before, and can do it again. The Army didn't stop being the Army because Thunderbolts strafed Nazis, and the USMC won't get turned into seaborne dogface grunts because their air wing flys off carriers.
Ask yourself this, how would the Harrier fare against modern ADA? How would the Harrier fare against a 4th or 4.5 gen enemy fighter? If you answered, "poorly" to those two questions, then it becomes clear that the Harrier is truly only useful in a permissive environment. How in the world is that "expeditionary"? How would the F-35B fare in those situations?
you're mixing so many issues its going to take a minute to unpack it all. first the Harrier is a close support airplane. not a fighter. the USMC insisted on it being turned into a bomb truck when it was upgraded to the AV-8B. the Royal Navy cried foul but it happened anyway. the result? the Harrier 2 has poorer performance than the first model when it comes to air combat. but that brings me to the second issue. the Harrier isn't a fighter. its designed and utilized as an attack airplane. in a pinch it can fire AMRAAMs but something has gone very wrong if it does that. the same applies to the A-10. does that mean that the A-10 is not useful as an attack plane? no? then we need to make sure that the discussion about the Harrier revolves around its role as being support to ground forces.
Deleteas far as helos carrying more ordnance, well i have an issue with that. additionally the idea that the KC-130 was armed with missiles because the Harrier was a poor performer is also stretching the truth. still unpacking but let me address the Harvest Hawk issue. the USMC wanted a Spectre Gunship for the longest. you put an aviator in charge of the Marines and all the wishes that the wing wanted finally get fulfilled...even if they're half thought clusterfucks like the Harvest Hawk. why you would want to give a cargo plane an attack mission is stupidity beyond description, but it has nothing to do with the Harrier being a poor performer.
last lets talk vertical jets. forward deployment of fast movers is a solid concept. the idea of basing flexibility in the Pacific that would allow jets to operate from "unusual" areas is essential to surviving the first strike conventional ballistic missile threat that Rand has estimated would destroy half the airbases and aircraft we have in the region.
and finally how would the Harrier fare in a modern ADA environment? that isn't the point. you know better than most that isn't how we fight. ask me how a Marine Squadron would fare in a modern ADA environment would be a better question.
STOVL is solid. the F-35 is just a poor execution of it. this is going to be a future post. how the F-35 is causing the STOVL baby to be thrown out the window because its mother is a bitch.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe planning factor for a Harrier supporting ground troops in RC-SW was "one plane=one bomb per one hour" which was literally abysmal performance compared to F/A-18s and F-16s.
DeleteIf you want ground attack, there are platforms that are cheaper to fly, safer to operate, and carry more punch. Unless you can make a case based on the decades of Harrier use that vertical launch is so critical to USMC success that it is die in the ditch necessary, you'll have a hard sell if you keep clinging emotionally to the "uniqueness, we don't want to be the Army" argument.
The problem wasn't the Harrier (which busted no budget then or now), or boutique aircraft by anybody.
ReplyDeleteIt was trying to build a replacement for the Harrier that was ALSO a replacement for the A-6 (and earlier A-7s) for the Navy AND the unwanted but ass-kicking A-10 for the Air Farce, while shoving the Spad XIII, the A-1 Skyraider, the F-117, Airwolf, and the entire chorus line of the Rockettes, all inside one airframe.
Yeah, and I want a convertible-roof diesel cargo van that sleeps 6, goes 150MPH and gets 70MPG, and is a total p*ssy magnet, while we're dreaming.
The plane that became the F-35 might have been able to replace the A-6 & A-7, and done a lot (but certainly nowhere near all) the work of the A-10. Trying to shoehorn all that AND the Harrier's VSTOL performance into one airframe screwed all three pooches with Godzilla's weiner.
Period. Full stop.
The problem wasn't replacing the Harrier. (It still isn't.)
The problem is trying to shove 50# of $#!^ into a 5-pound dumpling, and telling people it's a chocolate éclair, because some jacktard at procurement dictated it thus.
Lockheed whoring anything with wings as being able to meet all those concepts in one airframe merely provided a pimp to get Godzilla his pooch, and book them a room.
And the F-35 is the love child of that tryst.
If we'd bought the Navy the F-35 in standard config to replace the A-6, they'd be happy.
If we took any components out of that that were useable and also procured them for a VSTOL-capable Harrier replacement, they Marines would be happy too.
If we told the Air Farce to quit their bitching, suck it up, fly the A-10, and request proposals for it's successor, on the same low slow devastating ugly and indestructible terms, rather than trying to get them another goddamned Mach 2+ space sled tits machine, and they did it, they'd be grown-ups. For once.
And if someone told Pentagon yahoos who wouldn't know a plane from their putz to stop finger-banging separate service's requests for proposals, and told them to just supervise and sign the damned checks, it'd be a miracle.
This is why whatever misbegotten SOB in the Pentagon who foisted (or fisted?) this thing on three services should have his name and McNamara's placed on a plaque over the stinkiest potty in the Pentagon basement, and the room named after them both in perpetuity, as a tribute to their unmitigated stench in the nostrils of humanity and particularly DoD. Which, considering the history of prizewinners there, is saying something.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBetween a chocolate eclair, godzilla's weiner, and fisting, you described the problem with multi-purpose, do-it-all, universal weapons systems far more elaborately than I did.
DeleteWhat clearly happens is you get a jack of all trades and master of none. Not all jobs have the luxury or "wiggle room" for a jack to do a master's job (like CAS, where there is a thin line between pink misting/carbonizing taliban or friendly ground pounders). The same applies to jacks vs masters in terms of the damned aviators that fly these contraptions.
I can forsee us being stranded up shit creek, in a leaky canoe, without a bucket by the 2020s.
Speaking of Lockheed Martin destroying defense budget of a nation, it is not just the US that they are doing it to.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.zacks.com/stock/news/157296/lockheed-martin-to-supply-40-jassms-for-250m-to-poland
Lockheed Martin to Supply 40 JASSMs for $250M to Poland
Yup, 40 missiles for $250 million, or $6.25 million per unit. The suerior Taurus missile would sell for $1.5 million a unit but could not be carried by an F-16, so Poland was stuck with paying a king's ransom for only 40 missiles that would hardly dent Russian forces.
what in the world would poland need 40 jassm for ? as deterrent ? why not just let the american put icbm on poland , that will surely deter anyone ..
DeleteJeebus.
DeleteWhy people dont understand that the more high tech you go, the less availability you have due to the costs, i will never know...
In a war with Russia, those would probably last 5 minutes.
Ehhh... boys, you need to dig deeper. Missiles cost only an $167M, so about $3.8M for a missile. $83M go for modernization of ours F-16 to the M6.5 version. We have that all in one pack as both missiles and planes are from one company. $250 are cost of full deal.
DeleteSo it's not that bad deal, it's not good either.
Fins bought 70 JASSM for $255M... better deal? Not really, now they need to modernize those rather old (as Finland is serious thinking already to replace them) planes for use of that missile and this is going to be a job of Boeing. Now the price of that will probably very high and I don't know if they should even do that as soon they will start to replace those F-18.
@n0truescotsman
Lad, with that type of mentality everyone in vicinity of Russia or any other nuke strike capable nation should disband all military forces... as they would not "last 5 minutes". So who need them? You understand how stupid this is? JASSM's are for tactical strikes against important targets, we don't have nukes so they will hunt the forward command centers and AA radar sites. Because not to mention the NSM we did not had to this moment any type of stand off missile in our arsenal.
And Russians already notice them and move outside it's range that new air-space force base they want to build in Belarus.
Shas
DeleteFinland made a mistake, because their jets are Hornets which could carry Taurus missiles instead.
Spain bought 43 Taurus missiles for its Hornets at a program cost of only 60 million Euros. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KEPD_350#Operators
SlowMan, c'mon such mistake from you lad, I'm surprised! Spain use F/A-18 and Fins F-18, they don't have the ground strike ability and that's why they need to put a shit tons of cash to modernize them. No mater what missile they will have, and buying them from US and also taking Boeing to modernize those jet is probably only logical deal... buy one get second... for a less money.
Delete"Lad, with that type of mentality everyone in vicinity of Russia or any other nuke strike capable nation should disband all military forces... as they would not "last 5 minutes". So who need them? You understand how stupid this is?
DeleteThats a complete bastardization of what I said.
My point was about availability. Its the same argument I have used against only fielding the most expensive bombs and missiles and putting all of your eggs in one basket.
The reason the Harrier was affordable was because we bought an off the shelf British aircraft with proven performance and did not pay for unworkable prototypes.
ReplyDeleteSince there are no off-the-shelf replacements now, we have two choices:
1) Keep the Harrier in service by limiting it to MEU use which is only 36 aircraft and turning the other 50 or so into parts
Or
2) Buy something off the shelf that can fulfill the mission. This may require thinking outside the box and looking at other platforms that can carry one bomb per plane for one hour such as maybe a turboprop or a UAV
The idea of developing a new platform is expensive and will probably not fly on this environment. What existing platforms can take off from an amphib and match or exceed its bomb carrying without exceeding its cost or maintenance needs (Harrier maintenance is extensive)?
we bought 100 brit harriers that had just been upgraded. we're using them for parts. NAVAIR has said that we have enough spares to keep the Harrier viable until past 2030. next American Mercenary is talking about one bomb per hour. i don't know about that but i will be looking into it. regardless afghanistan is hot and high. all aircraft suffered a performance penalty. i'll be interested to see how other airplanes were affected while doing the CAS mission....helicopters too.
Deletelast. off the shelf? not quite. read the official history of the harrier. it was developed and in service but it still had to be "americanized" for USMC operations. additionally the push for better performance in the attack role caused much modification. folklore has it that someone said to tell Congress that the plane was perfect and that we'd fix it once we had it. that same theory is played out with the V-22 and they're trying it with the F-35.
as far as the UAV or turboprop is concerned. really? seriously? if the harrier isn't capable then how will a UAV or turboprop be any better!
The X-47B seems to have a range and loiter advantage over the Harrier, even if the total payload is less. As far as a turboprop goes, no, that's a COIN only option when fighting guerillas, insurgents, or crime syndicates. Of course the Harvest Hawk is a turboprop, so that might be part of the "right mix" for the USMC in the future.
DeleteAs far as the high and hot conditions, you are correct that it affected all aircraft, but the Harrier had a speed penalty of not being able to go supersonic the way F-16s could to get to the fight. They were faster than A-10s, but still a subsonic option better for preplanned missions than rapid reaction.
If you need a plane that can get close to the fight, and fight austere, a Saab Grippen seems like the perfect solution to that. Even though the Sea Grippen is vaporware, it could launch from the carrier, land on a strip of road, and be rearmed and refueled at a makeshif FARP, same as the X-47B.
Remember it is never about having some "silver bullet" system, it is about having the right mix of systems to accomplish the mission. And based on the operational history of the Harrier, I can not say that the juice is worth the squeeze in terms of logistics (550 man hours to replace an engine for example verses 10 man hours to replace the engine on an F-16), firepower (an F/A-18 hauls more boom) and safety (more Harrier pilots have died in peacetime accidents than all American Pilot combat losses since Vietnam unless I miscounted).
What counts as hot and high? Leatherneck/Bastion was 2600 feet
DeleteSolomon, at my take Air power accent is obviously correct to the current USA world domination strategy based first on undeniable USA's supreme in financial and media matters.
ReplyDeleteManaging land mission is a very costly joy even for the richest country in the world – Afghanistan-deal shows it very well. Land war means supply routs and relative expenditures. Long supply routs through several countries means rising political influence of the countries against USA (including direct blackmail – “give to us money we wish or we will cut the lines”) and material damages because of sabotage.
Well armored fast respond Russian forces (VDV and Marines) are needed for us only as a instrument of further land war – to hold a bridgehead or to cut supply and communication lines until main armored hordes appear.
USA should increase military manpower of NATO by several millions infantry and other land-going men. And what will be then? Inevitable it be land deal with Russia, China or Iran – because each existing instrument must be used. I'm sure that direct large-scale war has no sense for USA – because you can support your Worlds leadership using mostly financial, media and political instruments and distance “dotted” strikes with drones, airplanes, cruise missiles or high mobility spec ops land groups.
If we have the parts to keep them flying, sounds very much like we don't need to be in such a hurry for a replacement...
ReplyDeleteAs for the turboprop or UAV, that was just in case we get desperate so we don't gap the bomb carrying capability... But with 100 planes for spares, we are not desperate
Actually I think USMC is somewhat close to correct. I don't think he's saying the equipment is bad, but that it was the start of a "special equipment for the job" mindset. The equipment might have did the job, but from then on, "special equipment needed" became a mindset and instead of making do and seeing what can be done to fit existing equipment into doctrine, it became such that as soon as a problem surfaced, it's off to R&D for a new item.
ReplyDeleteThe insistence that it must be "built in the US" doesn't help.
Just a cool vid ot the Viggen STOL capabilities :
ReplyDeletem.youtube.com/watch?v=QIErhm2y7wY
What Harrier brings to the table is the ability to fly fast jets off of smaller ships than super-carriers. When the LHD's and LHA's are counted in America's carrier total, that gives us 20 total carriers - more than the rest of the world's navies combined. This allows an LHD or LHA to fill in the role of a larger carrier in a lower-scale campaign when a supercarrier may be unavailable due to higher-priority contingencies occurring elsewhere. A perfect example of this was USS Kearsarge's deployment off the coast of Libya in 2011 in support of OP ODYSSEY DAWN/UNIFIED PROTECTOR. As far as cost goes, proponents of vertical lift argue that a more expensive VTOL aircraft's cost is offset by buying the smaller (and therefore cheaper) ships required to operate them.
ReplyDeleteInteresting argument, one that might have some merit.
DeletePatrick, the argument doesn't make sense, the Harrier was a cheaper procurement item than a Hornet, but it also lacks range and supersonic speed. The argument that we can make shift LHD or LHA into makeshift air wings is only valid against a target with no ADA or Air Force threat, essentially a permissive environment. If we are talking a permissive environment, why not lay some steel on the top of a cargo ship and launch prop aircraft and really save some money?
DeleteVTOL capabilities in jets have not allowed the USMC to be more expeditionary against anything but the least technologically savy opposition. The point of looking at mission requirements, then aligning systems with mission requirements, is still the most sound way to plan equipment procurement. Saying "we need VTOL" from the get go without explaining why it is an actual requirement instead of a USMC vestigial knee jerk reaction is something I've not seen yet. In decades of use the Harrier VTOL capability was never used as docrinally planned, dispersed on "lilly pads" supporting forward combat operations.
If you just need a plane that can take off of a small carrier, and project power, there are other options.
no fast movers don't make the Marine Corps more expeditionary but they do make the force more capable! the plane has been used according to doctrine during both Gulf Wars. additionally if you take that stance then we need to start taking a serious look at rotary winged aviation in the US Army too. when was the last time you saw Army Air operating in an expeditionary environment. a TRULY expeditionary environment! you don't because of the need for logistics and maintenance.
Deleteif we're going to have this discussion then lets be honest. part of that honesty needs to address what the Harrier is suppose to do. provide air support at sea level for Marines conducting missions. using it in a hot and high environment was done but by that phase of the war (if we were following joint doctrine) then the whole thing would have been a USAF and US Army war.
last. your argument against the Harrier is also an argument FOR the F-35! you're pointing out what you see as shortcomings in the Harrier and stating that it isn't meeting doctrinal requirements. fanboys would say "right on!" that's why we need the F-35B!
I think the problem is inter-service rivalry. A concept that has messed up so many things.
ReplyDeleteIn times of infinite budgets it was not a big problem, but nowadays ..
What is the use of overlapping capabilities between Army, Navy, Air force and Marines?
I can understand you don't want to have air force fly of of carriers, since there is a specialized skill there, so that kinda justifies 2 'air forces', not the third.
In an ideal world the military is its own brotherhood and Air force or navy pilots will go to the extreme to protect Marine and Army boots on the ground. But seemingly there is no trust that this will happen, maybe it won['t even happen because every service is to much engrained in their own silly doctrine, instead of having one unified version.
I can see how there is some merit to having CAS in the same chain of command , so Harriers , Cobras, Bronco's etc. But fighters? Come on...
In my mind they should have tried to make a common multirole aircraft for the Navy and the Air Force with a strong A2A capability. Wile the Marines focused on an improved or redesigned Harrier that does not need to go supersonic or have top level stealth.
I know I am rambling, but still.. : please let every service do what it does best instead of everyone trying to do it all themselves.
people always talk about a third airforce of the USMC but you do realize that if you count helicopters as being a part of the air force thats always talked about then the US Army has the biggest "air force" in the DoD. additionally remember we're talking about the real mission of Marine Air. close air support. this fighter mission and other bullshit is just a flight of fancy. but to the point. fast movers are an essential part of maneuver warfare. speaking frankly the US Army needs to have dedicated fast moving close air support aircraft. the problem is that the USAF frequently welshes on the deal set out by Key Stone. that is the problem, not the fact that the USMC has dedicated air to support its ground forces.
DeleteThe real question should be whether the Harrier is the right part of the tactical mix for the USMC, or whether it makes more sense to have more FA-18s and AH-1s instead (or a maritime version of the Apache to get some cross platform support from the Army).
DeleteIf you have Cobras and Hornets, what does the Harrier bring to that fight? What justifies the Harriers existence in that mix? The ability to forward operate has never been realized by the USMC as the maintenance requirements are too extreme, 25 man hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time, to truly let the Harrier be expeditionary.
Solomon , I see your point on the army, which basically means there are 4 air-forces, but not 4 with actual fighter jets.
DeleteI can simply not imagine there being a major operation in which ONLY the Marines are going to participate if things like air-superiority and/or bombing missions are needed. What I can imagine is some big operation in which all services do their thing, where the marine corp has to compete for air-suport with others, or where they do not want to have to argue with air-force or navy over tactics. The latter justifies CAS aircraft, be it helicopters or fixed wing ones. The first reasoning means marines, nor army need air superiority or bomber aircraft.
AM:
Those FA18's will only do if a carrier is actually near. If it is the Navy can also do the work.
However, a VSTOL aircraft can work from amphibious assault ships, so if the Marines NEED their own aircraft, because the Navy does not actually do its job... they need ones that can operate from ships dedicated to them.
Meint Veldman, that is the Guadalcanal argument. That incident was the driving factor for the Harrier, but the Harrier isn't the right answer to an enemy air force. It wasn't the Japanese ground forces that the Marines were having a difficult time dealing with, it was the strafing runs by Zeros. If the USMC is going to fight without Navy top cover, it needs an air superiority fighter, and the Harrier is most definitely NOT an air superiority fighter. The F35 might be, but only for a few years before detection technology makes the F-35B look like the fat slow underpowered aircraft that it is.
Deletethe Guadalcanal argument is hogwash. the USMC can station any type of fastmovers along the way at friendly bases for F-18's. we're already doing that with the KC-130's that support MEUs. additionally at Guadalcanal, you had F4 Wildcats operating from a landing strip on the island.
Deletei don't know why everyone wants to play armchair psychologist to Marine Corps thinking on this subject but it needs to stop. you're heading completely away from the real issues at hand.
"If the USMC is going to fight without Navy top cover, it needs an air superiority fighter"
DeleteThe thing is... it shouldn't.
Besides that, If I understand Solomon well, this would indeed not be an issue if the F35 was a solid performer for a decent price. I do agree with that.
Sol, appreciate the post, well laid out argument. I feel like our current batch of officers either want to be Col. Boyington (sp) or Captain America (SOCOM). They forget that the black sheep's primary mission was close air support and anti surface to disrupts supplies and prevent reinforcement of the enemy troops. I would rather have have 12 Super Tucano's navalized flying and one with ecm/eccm package off the deck for the price of one f35b.
ReplyDeletetotally agree with the thought process you laid out for our general officer class. as far as the super tucano is concerned, if that's the choice then i'm on board, but i don't get how the concept of STOVL is being destroyed just because the F-35 applied it badly. i think we were on to something with the harrier but let it get out of control.
DeleteSolomon, the Harrier is a great jet option for a country that can't afford a real carrier and needs something that can cross deck with other nations flat tops. Hence why the USMC was the only major customer outside of Europe to use it. A STOVL jet can be part of the "right mix" of aircraft as long as you realize that it isn't going to be a great bomber, or deep strike, or air superiority fighter and it will cost more to maintain and operate than a concurrent generation traditional fighter.
DeleteThere are a bunch of misconceptions here. Let me try and throw a little
ReplyDeletelight into the murk with a too-lengthy post split into multiple parts (because of the character limit)
Guadalcanal: What happened here was that the Navy fleet was low on fuel
and ammo. The Marines said they needed cover for ships unloading
supplies as part of the invasion, and they said they could absolutely do
it in three days. Navy agreed to provide cover. However, it became
painfully apparent on the first day of offloading that there was o way
this could be accomplished in the promised time. One of the big
problems was that the ships were improperly loaded. Instead of loading
the weapons and ammo last, which would mean they'd be offloaded first,
they were the first things loaded at the supply centers, which meant
that everything else had to be removed before they could get to the ammo
which would be vitally needed. Regardless, it was going to take far
longer than three days.
Meanwhile, no one knew where the very powerful Japanese fleet was. Part
of the US task force were the only two operational US carriers in the
Pacific. One more was back in the US undergoing repairs, and the first
of the Essex ships were a year away. The loss either one would reduce
our fleet to one carrier in the Pacific (in fact this did happen later
on). This would have a dramatic effect on our operations and strategy
(and with historical hindsight we now know that if it had been
Enterprise, the results would have been catastrophic and probably would
have prolonged the War) and we couldn't afford to lose them. Given
this, the decision was made to detach the two carriers for refueling,
repairs and rearming along with part of the fleet. And yes, the
Japanese did come in and attack a few days later. What is often
forgotten was that the fleet returned some days later and engaged the
Japanese. The fighting was so fierce that we had more sailors die in
battle than troops ashore.
Part 2
Delete“Marine Air was relegated to supporting Army and Marine forces on the run across the border into Kuwait.”:
Actually, Marine Air Harriers were doing exactly what they were supposed to do, support troops on the ground. They were able to be positioned so close to the front that they were the only tactical fixed wing that never required tankers to operate. They were also given more flexibility by GEN Schwarzkopf precisely because of their effectiveness in their design role. In the After Action studies after the war, three aircraft were credited as war winners and crucial: The F-117, the AH-64 and ...(wait for it) the AV-8B.
Part 3
Delete“Before that we had the failed rescue mission in Iraq… Three RH-53Ds participated in the action and an accident caused the mission to be scrubbed before it could begin in earnest”.
The mission was scrubbed before the accident. It was repositioning during ground refueling for the return after mission abort that caused the accident. RH-53Ds were minesweeping helicopter that were not equipped for this kind of mission and the crews that flew them, while skilled had little experience in extended night missions in the desert.
“CH-53K and MV-22 both cost twice as much as CH-47…”. CH-53K is a totally new helicopter, the ”-53K” designation is just a bureaucratic nicety used to maintain the public fiction that it is simply a modification of the existing H-53 design. A similar thing was done with the Hornet. The F/A-18E/F is a totally new plane, but to sell the concept it was advertised as a simply a modification of the existing Hornet. (e.g. you could rebuild an F-14A/B into an F-14D. You cannot rebuild a Hornet into a Super Hornet). H-47 is an excellent transport helicopter. -53K is a heavy lift, flying crane/assault helicopter, something the Army has tried unsuccessfully to build since 1971, while the Marines have developed two generations of such a craft. The MV-22 is also a totally new, revolutionary design. Its biggest problem is that DoD took the Marines’ basic need for a high speed long rage VTOL and decided to try and make it into something that could be all things for all services, much like the F-111 and F-35. What it does, it does very well, but the orignal specs were unrealistic. To compare their costs with a 50 year old design whose basic costs were amortized decades ago is unrealistic.
“The STOVL capability has rarely been used operationally”. Hmm, lessee here. It was used in The Falklands War (afloat and ashore) Gulf War 1 (ditto, where it also operated from damaged airfields and was planned to operate from roads and the desert floor itself). Gulf War II 9where it did operate from damaged airfields, roads and hardpacked earth). Belize, Libya (afloat), etc.
“Al Asad and Bastion were both 10,000+ foot runways.” Yes, but not at first. You can’t always count on there being an operational 10,000 ft. runway near to where you need it. If there is, great; you use it, but when there isn’t you can’t call “time out” while you build one. In fact, in the opening phase of the Afghan War, the first tactical fixed wings that went in were harriers because they were the only thing that could operate from what was available. Also, or windy icy days, they can operate from the runways when others can’t.
“- expeditionary airfields with cats and arresting gear that can launch and recover fully loaded carrier aircraft in very short distances”. You’re probably talking about SATS. It worked when there was no alternative but it’s complex, requires a large support crew, much prep. Work, a reinforced landing area, slower than optimum cycle times, takes time to bring on line and is limited in how you can operate it. The experience at Chu Lai is instructive. Even with SATS, a 4,000 ft. runway (three+ times what a loaded Harrier needs for takeoff) was needed. This was partly to handle bolters, wire snaps or cold cat shots. After they got the arresting gear in place it took another 14 months to bring the catapults on line (they had to use JATO, which we don’t have anymore to launch), and they were shut down 6 months later when the 10,000 ft. runway they’d been building was finished. In fact, experience with SATS was one of the things that got the Marines interested in the much more practical STOVL.
Part 4
Delete“VSTOL jets don't dogfight with a damn compared to concurrent generational counterparts and don't carry the punch of even helicopters for supporting ground forces.” Dogfighting is a last ditch effort. Much more effective is to build the performance into the missile and blast away without getting into a roundy-round fight where the usual thing is the unseen foe comes in and blasts someone else out of the sky. Erich Von Hartmann, the most successful ace in history (352 kills that We acknowledge!) said his best tactic was to come in at high speed, blast away and keep going out of range. As to how will the F-35B do in air combat, well, how well with the F-35A do with a required sustained turn rate of only 4.6g? Come to think of it, how would a 3000 knot slower A-10 do in a dogfight, or an F-16 unless he jettisoned his weapons, at which case the other guy has “won”.
“… the USMC insisted on it being turned into a bomb truck when it was upgraded to the AV-8B. the Royal Navy cried foul but it happened anyway. the result? the Harrier 2 has poorer performance than the first model when it comes to air combat. but that brings me to the second issue. the Harrier isn't a fighter. its designed and utilized as an attack airplane. in a pinch it can fire AMRAAM”.
The Harrier was always a ground attack aircraft. The fighter P.1154 never flew. The Sea Harrier was a fighter, but it evolved from the ground attack GR1.1/3/AV-8A. The AV-8B is slower (but still 250knots faster than an A-10 and can operate at night or in clouds), but has longer range, than the AV-8A, but it turns better. AMRAAM capability was added because we agreed to do that in return for foreign funding to help develop the AV-8B+. AV-8 is not intended to be a fighter, but if there are enemy birds in an area, AIM-120 can be useful. Otherwise I agree with everything Solomon said.
Part 5, the last (Finally!)
Delete“The planning factor for a Harrier supporting ground troops in RC-SW was "one plane=one bomb per one hour" which was literally abysmal performance compared to F/A-18s and F-16s…
If you want ground attack, there are platforms that are cheaper to fly, safer to operate, and carry more punch. Unless you can make a case based on the decades of Harrier use that vertical launch is so critical to USMC success that it is die in the ditch necessary…”
You’re mixing AV-8A with AV-8B. Vertical launch is a straw man; it’s STOVL, which gives you a nice range/payload. Even if it didn’t , something that can be overhead in 10-15 minutes after the call beats the heck out of something that’s 90 minutes and requires a couple of tankers , if they’re available at all.
“Patrick, the argument doesn't make sense, the Harrier was a cheaper procurement item than a Hornet, but it also lacks range and supersonic speed”. Actually, the AV-8B carrying the same load has payload/range at least as good as that of the Classic Hornet, but since the whole idea is to base it closer to where it’ll be needed than you can with a CTOL, this doesn’t matter. That also contributes to why it often has more loiter tie than other “long-legged” birds, because it doesn’t have to fly 500 miles to get there. As far a supersonic speed goes, who cares? It’s a CAS/ground attack bird! Besides, how supersonic do you think a Hornet or Falcon is carrying an A/G load? I might also note that Sea harriers were solidly subsonic but acquitted themselves quite well against the brave Argentineans flying supersonic Mirages.
“VTOL capabilities in jets have not allowed the USMC to be more expeditionary against anything but the least technologically savy opposition….In decades of use the Harrier VTOL capability was never used as docrinally planned, dispersed on "lilly pads" supporting forward combat operations.”
Citing VTOL is a bit of sleight of hand, or a straw man. Except for extremely rare circumstances (one of which occurred in the Falklands War) VTOL is for air shows, Gee-Whiz Popular Science articles and PR releases. The USMC concept always was STOVL.
“The problem wasn't the Harrier (which busted no budget then or now), or boutique aircraft by anybody.
It was trying to build a replacement for the Harrier that was ALSO a replacement for the A-6 (and earlier A-7s) for the Navy AND the unwanted but ass-kicking A-10 for the Air Farce, while shoving the Spad XIII, the A-1 Skyraider, the F-117, Airwolf, and the entire chorus line of the Rockettes, all inside one airframe.
The problem wasn't replacing the Harrier. (It still isn't.)
The problem is trying to shove 50# of $#!^ into a 5-pound dumpling, and telling people it's a chocolate éclair, because some jacktard at procurement dictated it thus.”
At last! Someone who gets it!
Here’s another scary thought: A number of recent studies, including one by GAO I believe, have concluded what many of us predicted at the beginning. It would have been cheaper to let the services build their own planes than to combine them all into one. AF would have gotten its lighter weight and agility, Navy would have gotten the range/payload it needs but still hasn’t got, and USMC would have gotten the simpler, lighter STOVL they were working on (and how important is ultra- stealth in a CAS bird that is down low and you can look up and see?).
Oh, kind of a P.S.
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing Harrier, remember everything about it (payload, range, etc.) is based on a 300m ground roll. it can lift more and go farther if you operate it conventionally, but that kind of defeats the whole reason you accept some the admitted compromises *which you do with any aircraft). Taken another way, how much can a Hornet lift and how far can it carry it with a 300m ground roll, especially if there's no tanker orbiting off the end of the runway?
great rebuttal. i'm hanging on the fence with this one. i'm gonna digest this and probably post it as a type of "contrary opinion" either tomorrow or Thursday.
Delete