Monday, December 15, 2014

Does the USMC need fast jets or can attack helicopters do the job?


The discussion continues.

The question.  Does the USMC need fast jets?

I truly believe that the only reason why fast jets are seriously being questioned when it comes to the Marine Corps is because of the F-35.

Before the F-35 came along the world was happy to have the Marine Corps with fast jets.  Again that had to do with cost.  We flew airplanes long after the US Navy had retired similar models (the A-4 Sky Hawk and the A-6/EA-6) are the best modern day examples of this.

In the past, Marine Air was entirely affordable.  But again, because of the F-35 we see critics taking a disturbing, yet logical look at Marine Air.  Trons Away (a reader of my blog) makes the case....
Prior 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.
The 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.
I'm a bit befuddled by the whole thing.

There was a time when I would have shot it down out of reflex.  Damn your talking points, we're right---we need them---you're wrong.  Times have changed and I find my defense of the F-35 non-existent and I'm beginning to waiver on STOVL.

Why?  Because I did a short review of Marine History.

Do you know how many independent operations that MEU's have taken part in where the only option was the airplanes on deck to provide air support for Marine ground?

Zero.  

If I missed one then please let me know.  Either US Navy carriers, USAF fighters and bomber, allied aircraft....take your pick, but we had friends in goofy blue uniforms providing support.

So to my Marine brothers I ask a simple question.  Do we need fast jets or should we have Marine Air that is dedicated to providing ground support in the form of AH-1Zs now and a future tilt-rotor gunship later?

41 comments :

  1. Agreed. A STOL subsonic close air support aircraft would do just fine. I've always wondered why the Marines went from an expeditionary unit to flying supersonic stealth aircraft. Just doesn't seem necessary. Without F-35 Marine armor would be replenished with brand new armor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the discussion is beyond whether a subsonic CAS jet is good enough. the question is whether we need jets at all.

      Delete
    2. I know I'm not a Marine, so my opinion doesn't count very much, but to answer your specific question as to whether rotary wing can do it alone? The answer is yes. How many other nations have Marine Corps with jets? If the Royal Marines, or JSDF Marines, or ROK Marines, can perform their jobs without jets then it comes down to, "why does the USMC have jets?" and the answer is that we weren't using the USMC as an actual Marine Corps, but as a miniature version of the DOD in entirety where the budgeting squabbles between the Air Force and the rest of the DOD are played out in a microcosm.

      The answer to not getting good joint support from the Navy and Air Force isn't to arm the USMC with expensive, slow, hard to maneuver, hard to maintain aircraft. The answer is fixing the Joint fight. Goldwater-Nichols came out to address these problems after the USMC had procured the Harrier, and I think the campaigns in Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and Iraq have shown that the reforms worked quite well. Not perfectly, but to the point where the issues in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam with not fighting joint have been addressed to satisfaction.

      Delete
    3. Which would be fine if it were true.

      The USAF is tied to CAS not at all; the first plane they look to shed, for 30 years running, is the A-10. Followed oin about a minute by the AC-130.
      ("Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?")

      Marines have aircraft, incl. fixed wing, because as events have shown over and over again, no one else gives a literal flying fuck about the ground pounders, least of all the service(s) with none of their own.

      Which is why actual surveys from SWAsia put the exact airframes cut at the top of everyone's wish list, fllowed by Apaches, and then Marine Air ahead of either USAF or Navy wing wipers, if the incident was in fact "danger close".

      The only reason those services were even to be found in SWAsia was because enemy air was nil, enemy anti-air was minimal, and if they didn't come to the CAS party, they virtually couldn't play in the sandbox at all.

      Those conditions will pertain in all likelihood never again, and just like at Guadalcanal, Marines, or both marines and Army ground troops will be seating somewhere, hung out to dry, as the navy sails away into the sunset, and the USAF coughs, mumbles something about "higher priorities", and the grunts there are left to shift for themselves.

      Given the dearth of artillery and armor support compared to Army formations, the marines in particular will be thus hung out to dry.

      Exactly as th RM Marines would have been without the British Harriers, which the RAF and RN had, and which our own Air Farce laughed at (until USMC deployed them), and which they would be merrily cutting now along with Warthogs and Spectres if it was in their power.

      The Marine Corps without the Air Wing component would be as useful in the long run as the naval landing parties of the 19th centuries, a tactic that was pretty thoroughly demonstrated as unviable at Gallipoli. The phrase 'tits on a bull" comes to mind.

      The Navy has largely removed Marines from capitol sips, the AF is destroying our CAS ability, and the Army is looking to poach the amphibious mission wholesale, and entirely in broad daylight. And all three will happily see the USMC hamstrung, superfluous, and obsolescent, while leaving us high and dry on some delightful limb they're happily sawing off behind us, while they sagely proclaim "See, we told you the Marines weren't viable any more."
      Tell me another fairytale about how "jointness" has undone 100 years of observed behavior of the sister services. And then the one about the three bears and the little blond girl.

      The Marines absolutely need organic fixed wing CAS.
      That was what they asked for, not supersonic stealth which morphed into the demand that they and everyone else accept the thoroughly bastardized and foisted-from-on-high F-35 Thunderjug, appropriate nomenclature for the type, and notable as a crock of a well-known substance suitable only for depositing one's night soil in days of yore.

      Next question.

      Delete
    4. Aesop, you don't understand the argument, or you are being deliberately obtuse. You spend a lot of words setting up a straw man to slay by pulling out your crystal ball and telling the future like it is set in stone.

      It isn't that the USMC needs the USAF to do CAS, not when they have Cobras to provide that. What the USMC needs is the USAF and Navy to provide top cover and shoot down the enemies jets, and provide the deep strike capability against targets well beyond the FLOT. The USAF and Navy have shown repeatedly that it can provide top cover and conduct deep strike.

      And by all means, transfer those A-10s to the USMC. They are a better CAS platform than the Harrier and cheaper than new Cobra or Apache purchases since they are already paid for, and much more capable than the Harrier.

      Of course every argument you made about grunts being hung out to dry means the Army, which has more grunts than the USMC, should need fighter jets even more so than the USMC. Is that the argument you wanted to make?

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've always thought Marine Air fast jets make sense because the Harriers and Marines are co-located on the LHD's and LHA's. So it makes sense to me that you'd want pilots steeped in Marine culture when living in close quarters with hundreds of other Marines aboard a ship. Marines flying aircraft from big carriers is a bit more confusing but I imagine a big part behind the rationale there is to ensure being a Marine fighter pilot doesn't mean you'll be chained to the Harrier for your whole carrier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that was my thinking too. the problem? we've embraced a concept (STOVL) that appears to be an outgrowth of a flawed concept. a Marine Corps only invasion of another country. others point to Guadalcanal as the source of the pain but i kinda dispute that.

      Delete
    2. The Army is rapidly on the way to where "two wars" cum "one and a half wars" is rapidly becoming "not even half a war" of fighting ability.

      Contingencies will arise where there aren't any Army units convenient, nor any USAF assets to support them or anyone else, and a BLT or two will be "what there is".

      The fact of the matter is that "jointness" is still horseapples.
      As events demonstrated, Grenada could have and should have been an entirely USMC mission, and would have been ably executed as such, but a decade out from a real war, with everyone itching for fruit salad and combat time, there was no shortage of cooks willing to finger-bang the pie.
      We saw how that worked out in reallity: a mission too tiny to fail was still clustered multiple ways in a four-service epic monkey vs. football display of "jointness" on parade.
      (cf. Dominican Republic, 1965, and with the Army and USAF happily busied by events in SEAsia, no one crying to come along on that little romp).

      Panama wasn't a helluvalot better either. Navy SEALs trying to seize airfields (a doctrinal Ranger mission): disaster. Worse, a needless disaster.
      And again, virtually in our back yard, with troop formation in-country, and total command of the air and sea.

      In any future event where control of the skies or sea are in any sort of doubt, "jointness" is an added opportunity for clusterfuckation that the nation, not to mention the guys filling those boots on the ground, cannot afford to risk.

      We ignore a future, where we won't have Army formations available at all (because they simply won't exist), let alone any USAF CAS a/c, to kick in the doors in a future Guadalcanal (which is precisely the "source of the pain", or another Tarawa, at our national peril.

      So when we only have the Marines, and we've gutted their abililty to undertake unsupported independent operations like that, we either skip the mission, or write off the men to suicide missions.

      No thanks.

      And in a joint operation, the USAF, Navy, and even the Corps are supposed to risk a how many million$ of dollar$ per copy a/c for pulling CAS?
      Sh'yeah, when monkeys fly outta my butt.
      How's that theory worked with deploying scarce gold-plated F-22s outside CONUS anywhere bullets fly or mortars and rockets might hit the base?

      Yeah, thought so.

      So let's buy one F-35, give it to the Air Farce, and they can park it at Langley AFB, and assign the USAF CoS's dog robbers to shine it up.

      Then buy another ass-kicking butt ugly plane to do the CAS mission.
      If you put the A-10s slated for the scrap heap (and the AC-130s) up for grabs as an interim solution across the board, the Army and the USMC would have a throw-down over how to split them between them that would be epic, and the guys who fly them would swap services in a heartbeat.

      Problem solved for the next 20 years, kicking the can down the road, and giving us a breather to develop the A-10s and Harrier's actual successors, rather than fund the F-35 abortion-with-wings until it eats the entire Pentagon budget.

      Delete
  4. When facing a China, just like facing the Soviet union, you will need each and every platform avaivlable to you to be launched out of each and every deck that you can. The Chinese are going to go Deck Hunting like crazy. They know your expeditionary right now starts and finishes at the Aircraft Carrier with every other asset revolving around it especially in the Pacific. They will target all in-range decks and land based runways with equal relish. Which creates the need for any force facing them to have all platform open and have plenty of those platforms- Aircraft, Aircraft types,decks and Deck types.

    One can answer this dicsussion from an either/or perspective provided you are fighting weak foes but with China, just like the old Soviet Union...you shall have to bring them all.

    The harrier may not be a perfect plane but in a armegeddon scenario....its good. Not only is it good...its the only workable plane that can do what it does. Your enemy does not possess this ability and doesnt look like will possess even in the future. Its a wierd rock-paper-scissors advantage you have with the harrier over your foes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When Solomon looks at the Russian Airborne forces and the varied Mech. Platforms they have as opposed to the lack of them in the US inventory.........thats your Harrier and LHD combo ability which they do not have. And more importantly.....will not have in the forceable future.



      Buntlalanlucu........no you cannot replace Harriers with bicycles.

      Delete
    2. Just build bigger LPHDs from the start capable of carrying heavier IFVs & mount CATOBAR and landing wires so it can carry fully loaded F18s.

      Delete
    3. Sarabvir, yes you can!

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/ET_Moon.jpg

      :)

      Jacob, then does your carrier amphib stay far away (carrier doctrine) or close in to shore (LPD doctrine)?

      Delete
    4. Hahah, you are just providing Bunt here with more ideas.

      Delete
    5. No its not a carrier, just a larger LPHD & LPD to carry larger numbers of much heavier Fighting Vehicles and extra supporting equipment. The size is probably about right now anyway as it is, it just might need to be built a bit tougher to carry those heavier vehicles, that might mean increasing the size of the ship to maintain sea-fearing characteristics with all that extra weight. And if you do that you will have more room to stick things like CAMM and other defensive weaponry to increase survivability and allow you to pull right upto beach.

      IMHO USMC and ARMY should supply 100% own CAS requirement (helicopter and fixed-wing), this means operating something similar to Harrier or A10/Frogfoot. And I would still fill the hanger mostly with Helos (not tilt-rotors), something like AVX JMR which looks quiet nice and was supposed to be much cheaper than the MV22s. And drive the ships right to the beach after the Naval-Air has secured the area and sanitized the beachead.

      But the chances of that happening are like 0. Sticking Catobar on and fielding an all F18 Navy-air is far better than those stupid F35s.

      Delete
  5. shoudlnt you compare russian marines with US marines instead of comparing russian airborne with US marines ? LHD and harrier to replace APC / IFV supporting airborne operation , they are not even the same category that can be compared with.. and btw , bicycle infantry is way faster than foot mobile infantry especially on level ground..

    helicopter gunships are perfect weapon type for Marine ground support. marine air are never tasked for air supremacy or capable to do it, they are primarily ground attack. in my opinion ot would be better for USMC to invest in future Helicopter gunship instead of continuing on fixed wing path..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You dingbat.....I would pay to see you cycle across a battlefield while everyone is taking cover or moving in a concealed manner across fields rather than using a road which you would have to use on a bicycle. I would pay even more money to the next grunt that sees such a perfect target on wheels and then takes a shot while you tring tring the bell.

      I am not directly comparing the Marines to VDV, just saying that since you have a capability that the others dont possess.......use it. The others will. And the next time you need lessons in English, do let me know.

      Delete
    2. Historically, the IJA took massive losses when bicycle advances stumbled into ambushes. They bound their rifles to the handlebars and that took time to undo, which gave the Australians usually free shots at them. Problem was that there were always more of them to pile on any ambushes. You get the first few guys, the guys behind them get off and pressure you. It was actually mass tactics.

      Delete
    3. thanks for the insight , owl.. yes the point element of anything always get bloodied no matter what vehicle you are in lol...

      Delete
  6. I don't have enough knowledge to offer an informed opinion about fixed wing versus rotary force mix. However, before jumping on the helo bandwagon I would point out the short combat radius of the -1z and the historical high loss rate of helos in a Stinger-ish or ZSU environment (consider the Soviets in Afg or the US in Viet Nam).

    The -1z is credited with a combat radius of 130 miles or so, according to Wiki. The Navy plans to operate its big deck gators 50 nm - 75 nm offshore. That alone consumes a lot of the combat radius just transiting. Will it have enough combat endurance to be effective when operating with that kind of standoff?

    The F-35 is its own special disaster but that doesn't necessarily mean that fixed wing is a bad option. A-10s, Tucanos, or simply more Hornets might be viable alternatives depending on the circumstances.

    As I said, I can see the challenges but I don't have the force mix answer.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Both, they are complimentary not mutually exclusive or a doubling up of capabilities. The planes are much faster, more responsive, have a greater engagement radius and have some LIMITED anti-air and SEAD capabilities. As well as sea-patrol capabilities that are still valid today.

    Any argument used against USMC Fighter Aviation could be made against Fixed Wing CAS, as in why do we need A10s when we have helicopters that can carry missiles? Yet few here would deny the difference in the type of tactical utility a A10 provides and a AH64 Apache, and their complementary nature.

    My argument against the Harriers or the F35 would be that the Army and USMC should operate the same STOL/STOVL fixed wing CAS, and that the Airforce and navy should operate the same types (family/high-commonality) of planes. And that plane should not be the Harrier because the qualities required from a low-speed CAS plane and a state of the art Bomber or Fighter are different enough to justify being different planes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Geez Sol, the Marines want planes that take off like helicopters, helicopters that fly like planes and armored vehicles that cruise like speed boats. Then you complain about your equipment budget...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. really dude? seriously? come back when you have something to add, until then just watch the conversation.

      Delete
    2. I think he means that dual role-ing your equipment cost lots. :) Which we have already known for a long, long, long time. The point I think he was trying to get across obliquely was would the budget be stretched further if you had single focus equipment instead. (i.e F-35A instead of B, LCACs landing tanks instead of LCUs being the tank itself etc.)

      Delete
    3. Its kind of funny when you read that statement again and let the humor sink in. I am sure that a late night comedian would describe it just like that.

      Delete
    4. What I meant Sol - and sorry if I wasn't precise enough - is that when you stretch the laws of physics, you end up spending a lot of money. Admit it, wouldn't the Marines like to have back all the money they wasted on the EFV? Now they're trying to turn APCs with river-crossing capabilities into amphibious assault vehicles. Good luck with that.

      Delete
  9. It is hard to be objective, because unlike the F35 the UH-1Y and a possible tilt rotor gunship make me drool.

    In the end it is questionable what a Cobra adds over an Apache, wile the speed of a tilt rotor does ad capability. The question is how much this will cost.. However, that might not be a problem, since the army is also looking into tilt rotors.

    As a side note, without much chance of ever being produced: The university of Maryland thought up a very interesting concept with rotor blades that change size to suit hover and horizontal flight. Like the Xv3 it also has the engines in the fuselage instead of at the end of the wings, which makes sense to me.

    http://aviationweek.com/blog/tiltrotors-take-ahs-design-prizes-x-vtol-next

    ReplyDelete
  10. Fixed wing does add range and weapon variety over rotor (how many Helos carry bombs?), but VSTOL is not the only way to support the MEU.
    The MEU already has a fly in element (FIE) that includes C-130 and could eventually include HIMARS for additional fire support. How much would it limit Marine operations if the fixed wing were part of the FIE instead if on the amphib?
    Another option for expeditionary CAS is a STOL platform that can operate from expeditionary airfields. Marines operated the Bronco in Vietnam from expeditionary airfields and even the air force had Skyrsiders used out of expeditionary airfields. Is there a lower cost modern equivalent to these aircraft that can take off from an amphib to provide a workable platform?

    ReplyDelete
  11. A Harrier with the electronics of the F-16, Aesa radar, IRST, HMD Aim-9X and Meteors would be more lethal than the F-35 with just few Amrams inside. For day one escorting Ospreys with decoys Malds and Advanced Jammers and Stand off bombs could make the job cheaper ans better than the F-35
    Once air defenses are destroyed the Ospreys could make close air support for hours.

    http://youtu.be/jYdY3YFM8zo

    http://youtu.be/X_O1lxoujlQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think a larger point is that the USMC has never had the assets to completely do "forced entry" on its own, even with VSTOL jets, against any sort of parity opponent. Operating in a permissive environment is fine for any aircraft, but there is a reason we put so much time and effort into taking down Iraq's IADS network in Desert Storm. A flight of Harriers and Prowlers could in theory do it, but only if the enemy didn't have any fighters to fly intercept missions. And the enemies that have IADS without having intercept fighters is a damn short list.

      Delete
    2. We weren't so worried about any enemy fighters.
      We come with our own F-18s too, all part of the same package. ;)

      Delete
    3. Just build a Harrier III, I absolutely agree it is the right sort of plane for Army and Marine Corps CAS, as well as all the various allied LPHs that are out there and small militaries and I am sure that a large number of improvements could be made to the design.

      I would have a new power-pack built for starters, and build the new Harrier from there on. If you give it one or two good large calibre auto-cannons it could also take out vehicles as well as aircrafts and infantry with it's onboard cannons.

      Delete
    4. Aesop, hard to launch those F/A-18's off those carriers that are steaming off into the sunset, as you predicted will happen in the future, leaving all those poor grunts with no top cover while you were poo-pooing the joint fight doctrine.

      Delete
    5. An Harrier III would not only likely work, although without some of the toys the F35 has, but also sell.
      More and more navies are adding amphibious assault capabilities and with a price tag , both to buy and operate much lower then the JSF I foresee many customers, specially also since quite a few nations won't be allowed America's next top model ( overweight division).

      Of course this won't happen, because it would be the death nail for the most discussed aircraft on this blog. Although.. maybe after an early demise?

      Imagine this: Upgraded Harriers for the marines and simplified sleeker twin engined F35 for the rest. Buy of the upset Brits by basing said engine on the Eurojet of the Typhoon.

      I got the flue.. so i got time to 'dream' or maybe I am delirious...

      Delete
  12. Better have fully capable multirole fighter, than to get caught with pants down(choppers only). F-35 not only can intercept enemy planes and choppers but can also detect and defeat low flying incoming cruise missiles with much better efficiency than ground based SAM's or CIWS's.

    Also choppers can operate only in air superiority environment, like german Ju-87 during WWII -- very effective with compelte air superiority, and sitting ducks when enemy have the upper hand in the air.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So far, the F-35 can do everything.
      Just ask Lockheed, they'll tell you so.
      Oh, except for fly.
      Maybe in another decade or so...

      Delete
    2. Thats what carriers are purpose built for and they do the job much better than Amphibs. Harrier is for CAS and Sea-patrol, it has limited AA capabilities too which is nice for defensive purposes. The current load-out of air-frames is pretty good, there is definitely room for improvement but it is pretty good.

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To bad we can't launch the A-10 of our big deck Amphibs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't be so sure about that, but you're on the right track:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider

      Delete
  15. Ok I have an interesting idea. Replace the Harriers, Cobras, and Hueys that the marines are currently using with the new forward firing MV-22 Ospreys. Imagine being able to execute a drop of troops and then be able to loiter in the DZ and give CAS as needed. It would be similar to the MI-24 which is in my opinion one of the most terrifying gunships in the world because it could carry a squad of troops and packed a hell of a lot of fire power. Now imagine being able to drop 2 squads and pack a similar amount of firepower. In my mind gunships that can also carry infantry is the future of air assault.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.