F-35 Lightning info

[Fuzz]

Swanee, I know you want to be this all contained unit, but can you name me the last time a MAGTAF operated completely by itself and do you honestly believe that Marines would ever go ashore without the support of a carrier strike group or other support entities (I.e. A place that requires a 5th generation fighter not Greneda or similar)? I'm not talking what the vision is or what you want, I'm talking realistically.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Fuzz

[Clark Griswold]

It's more expensive to build a whole new class of ship. I'm not sure why the Navy designed their amphibs the way they did- probably had to do with the well deck and how much space that takes up. (Though the new LPD doesn't have a well deck...)

As far as sticking with VSTOL, it goes back to the organic fixed wing issue. We used to have a lot more squadron deploy with the CVW on carriers. We now only have 3 squadrons that do that. We're getting smaller, and want all of our air support as part of the MAGTF. We're given the issue that the MEU will always be on amphibs. Until a better idea about to how to get that capability comes along I guess we throw money at the problem to fix it. It worked with the Osprey.

Copy all.

Just considering the idea, it would seem that a jet like the proposed Sea Gripen would work well for what the Marines have traditionally looked for. Granted Sea Gripen is just a proposal right now with little or no work done towards it but seems like a good fit for USMC fixed wing tactical needs. But getting the new boats to fly them off is some between unlikely in the extreme to never ever going happen and converting an LHA / LHD to STOBAR flight ops would be pricey to put it mildly.

[Swanee]

Because the Commandant of the USMC has accepted the risk of placing them in operational squadrons before DT is even complete. That's also why that variant can fly in some WX despite lacking instrument certification.

There is precedent for this-

The E-2C (and D) isn't certified to fly to fly IFR either.

[Swanee]

Swanee, I know you want to be this all contained unit, but can you name me the last time a MAGTAF operated completely by itself and do you honestly believe that Marines would ever go ashore without the support of a carrier strike group or other support entities (I.e. A place that requires a 5th generation fighter not Greneda or similar)? I'm not talking what the vision is or what you want, I'm talking realistically.

Yes. This is something that the Marine Corps does very poorly. We declare interoperability yet our systems only work with other Marine units. We forget that it's not even a joint war anymore, it's a combined war.

To be honest, most of the time went ashore there were carriers in support.

However, It IS reasonable to think that the MEU would be the first one's through the door, the AF can't be everywhere, and with the Navy's current financial issues, we're going to start seeing our ESG and CSG patrols a few days apart from each other. It's a way to project power on a lesser scale. A MEU usually has 4-6 Harriers. Much less than a CSGs 4 squadrons of 12. That's a cheaper option.

But we need a replacement for the Harrier. One that can do the CAS thing as well as run an intercept on a Bison and expect to win every time.

[Cap-10]

Marine Air: the Air Force of the Army of the Navy.

Cap-10

[Lawman]

We've had the MAGTF argument before. I'll summarize it for you: The United States military does not need a MAGTF.

How long does it take to get there again? And what exactly is the Air Force doing as they prepare to "mobilize" while the MEU is getting ready for 14-30 days of unsupported teeth kicking by themselves? Did you know that the other services have "doctrine" and capabilities? Gasp, the Air Force is actually designed to do things Rapidly and Globally. We do it very well, on a daily basis, and in less than 24 hours, not 14-30 days.

Ok we've used this capability before. The Marines despite protest to the opposite are critical because they provide a rapid deployment of real firepower. We used it before in the build up in desert storm. Airborne jumped in, Marines reinforced until the heavy division assets could be moved. It's why we maintain propositioned supplies and fast sea lift and it worked exactly how it was supposed to. With Pacific pivot it's even more critical. Less airfields, easier for an enemy to deny the air element freedom to land and offload heavy equipment, now it has to come by ship ala LPDs etc. and it has to last longer because of that 45 day doctrinal requirement of putting an Army Corps on the ground ready to fight.

We maintain the airborne element of the 18th brigade for the first 3 days. IE short enough time that an actual assembly of enemy troops is required, they can't just roll down immediately. Those airborne troops have shit for organic firepower. Their heavy weapons consist of mortars and javelins with stingers to counter enemy air. And now that we have eliminated the light CAB they have no air. So they are fixed in place if they deploy until relieved. The Marines are the element that comes in behind that and SOF. Exactly what happened in DS, if Iraq had been able to pivot and move it's mechanized forces it would have rolled over the 82nd in days. The Marine brigade that reinforced did so with all their organic assets and provided a real stop.

You can't fight armor without air or artillery. The Marines don't carry much artillery to be fast and mobile so they take air. And they operate in the chaos of the first 30 days when nobody can guarantee a ground combatant commander any kind of Air Coordination and tasking that supports his mission. So yeah they need their own air and I don't blame them. More importantly they need air to counter a peer threat. Something that can live and support with standoff outside the WEZ. OV-10 or Super Tacano or whatever else are great fighting dudes in man dresses. He second an enemy with SA-18s opposes you your air just left let alone the scary stuff like Gauntlet or Greyhound.

[di1630]

You can't fight armor without air or artillery. The Marines don't carry much artillery to be fast and mobile so they take air.

I'd like tot see how the F-35B does vs armor with no AGM-65s and <200 rnds of 25MM.

[Jaded]

It could hover over the top of the armor with its deck melting engine.

[Lawman]

I'd like tot see how the F-35B does vs armor with no AGM-65s and <200 rnds of 25MM.

SDB, Brimstone, CBU-97 etc etc .... There are more options than just the GAU-8 and Maverick. Point still stands. We the Army and you he Air Force operate on the doctrine to have 2 divisions of ground forces in place ready to fight and the air to cover them in 45 days. The Marines have to hold the beach head, port, TAA, whatever during that time. You can either give them what they want by putting Air Force fixed wing opcon to the ground commander today where he owns your aircraft and doesn't just request assets and get told what he can have, or you can let the Marines use their own organic air. Edited November 11, 2013 by Lawman

[SurelySerious]

You can either give them what they want by putting Air Force fixed wing opcon to the ground commander today where he owns your aircraft and doesn't just request assets and get told what he can have, or you can let the Marines use their own organic air.

Or you can have Afghanistan where the ground commander owns Air Force aircraft and there are Marines.

Slight derail

[Lawman]

Or you can have Afghanistan where the ground commander owns Air Force aircraft and there are Marines.

Slight derail

I think we can all agree that Afghanistan... Especially currant Afghanistan is nothing if not a complete abortion of Doctrine.

What's terrible is he entire generation of people who have ignored Doctrine because it doesn't build OER bullets and constantly answer any challenge to train by doctrine with "that's not how we do it in Afghanistan."

[Lawman]

Didn't you guys just celebrate the "exbiditionary Raptor plan" in that propaganda magazine the AF Times? What the hell are 4 Raptors and a C17 worth of parts gonna do in theatre? And before you come back with a lot as the answer, that's exactly what your asking the Marines to do only your argument is those Raptors and other elements will cover them. That's not a real comfort now to them, much less when they are actively putting their force on he ground into a heater and the Air Plane has the Raptors of limited numbers and sustainability based god awful far from the ESG because that's as close to the front as you could get the AF to base them. "Don't worry General you've got Raptors in Guam and even shorted legged Hornets out of Wake... By the way your supporting the trap mission." And don't even get me started on the complicated 1 point failure that would be having your DCA/OCA not collocated and dependent on a chain of tankers to get to you much less take you across the FLOT. The we don't need that capability argument sounds logical till you find yourself somewhere you never expected to be doing what you didn't expect to to. The Army has rethought its Rotory wing requirements based off a decade of war in hot environments and high altitudes. Because 30 years ago had you told somebody we were gonna employ Army Aviation at 7k-14k feet they would have called you high. People have argued for decades that Navel Gunfire is useless because we weren't gonna use it in Germany/Fulda and now it's being revisited as a major requirement of the coming METL. The Marines have been exercised in the rapid deployment role. They have gone in immediately without waiting for anybody else and relieving the airborne while the heavy legacy divisions and the mobility element figured out exactly how much time we had till they needed to be relieved. How fast is an exercise in how big and heavy of a unit you want to move. Airborne can go right now, but they do it with the Stryker MGS as he heaviest piece of of their chessboard and that comes in last. The ESG has it's own Armor, it's own assault aviation, it's own high speed float that is designed to get it all in behind the 72 hour window Airborne buys you. Now with the Marines being told hey we are gonna concentrate on a theater with fewer units assembly areas spread further between than normal.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Lawman

[Swanee]

Ugh...

"Just because" the United States has used a capability in the past does not mean it is the smartest, most capable, and effective use of the tax payer's money. It also does not give the warfighter the best capability.

There's that "rapid deployment" word again. I'm still waiting for an answer for how long it takes the MEU to get to the "kick the door down" location. And how "rapid" was Desert Storm, OIF, and OEF? Here is a hint, none of them started overnight or even in under a month. In fact, OIF had about 20 years of build up behind it.

Doctrine and "because we've always done it that way" is not a reason to be foolish and inefficient with limited funds. Even with unlimited funds its still a poor way to run the military and acquisitions. People made the same arguments about knights and bow and arrows, tanks replacing horses, and airplanes sinking battle ships.

The MEU is not going anywhere by themselves. You aren't going to send an MEU into a location with SA-15s, SA-18s, and SA-22s without support. And I hate to break it to you, but 4-6 F-35Bs aren't going to do anything against those threats. So why spend billions of dollars on a miniature carrier to carry 4-6 F-35Bs when you're just going to send an entire aircraft carrier with it?

Let me get this straight, you agree that the MEU does not deploy by itself, it usually has a CSG in support of it. So if a CSG has by your count, 48 F-35Bs to an MEU's 4-6 and they usually deploy together, what again is the purpose of having F-35Bs in an MEU? So that the MEU can run an intercept on a MIG-21? But the CSG is there with it?

Do the Marines want a capability or do they want an airplane? I think they want both, because without a new airplane the MEU is outdated, and even with a new airplane the MEU and MAGTF are at best duplicative and excessive.

Don't kid yourselves. This is not about capability, it's about maintaing fixed wing aviation in the Marine Corps.

No one is shitting on the Marine Corps, and most on here don't want them to go away, but its this kind of "head in the sand" thinking that it going to strip the warfighter of the real combat capabilities that are needed, and eventually bankrupt our nation.

Cancel the F-35B, and focus on improving the F-35A/C? And don't use the "too big to fail" argument, or the "get over it, this is happening bro" argument.

UGH yourself bro.

Read MCDP-1. It's not long, and you may learn something from it.

You're taking that out of context to be argumentative. Afg has been a purple fight. The Marine Corps isn't designed to work in a coalition, that is a fault of ours yes. That doesn't mean that we won't fight by ourselves. It just makes working with other services more difficult. However, because we focus on only having other Marine assets to work with it doesn't bog us down.

We have 3 MEUs constantly deployed in different AORs than the CSG, for different reasons. They are never far away, and most times (unless we are dealing with Korea, Eastern Europe or Afghanistan) they are the closest asset. The 31st MEU is always deployed, the 11th, 13th, and 15th on the west coast are always rotating with one deployed, one just back and one working up for their next deployment (similar to how a CSG cycle works). The guys who are in works up are also the "On call" MEU in case we need another MEU there. The same is with the 22nd, 24th and 26th MEUs.

Each MEU is flexible. Yes, a standard MEU has a battalion, a few skids, a bunch of Ospreys and 4-6 Harriers and some arty and some armor. However that is flexible. They've had MEUs with 18 airplanes and less helos or Ospreys or arty. You can have a MEU (SOC) or a MEU (+), and holy crap you can mobilize a MEB, or a MEF really quickly. Like time frame of hours quickly. Not days.

The other think you don't understand is that Marine Air is owned by the ground commander. It's how we work. It's all about combined arms.

So what is the most effective use of taxpayers money?

What capability do we have now that replaces the MEU that will save us money? How does deploying the MEU with the CSG save us any money? It doesn't- it only adds to the cost. Now, instead of a large fleet and a medium fleet that can go in two separate places and operate with or without each other, you are creating one huge fleet.

Libya happened fairly quickly and is a great example of how a MEU is still valid- and guess who saved your Mudhen buddy after he got shot down? A TRAP team from the 26th MEU sitting off of the coast in an LHD. Harriers were flying constantly off of the boat to conduct strike missions. Even Marine Prowlers were getting their Magnum on. Why? Because the CSGs were in another part of the world conducting ops into Afghanistan.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Swanee

[schokie]

Libya happened fairly quickly and is a great example of how a MEU is still valid- and guess who saved your Mudhen buddy after he got shot down? A TRAP team from the 26th MEU sitting off of the coast in an LHD. Harriers were flying constantly off of the boat to conduct strike missions. Even Marine Prowlers were getting their Magnum on. Why? Because the CSGs were in another part of the world conducting ops into Afghanistan.

Well, there were two guys on the ground and they weren't shot down. But much thanks to your TRAP brothers. Awesome work from the Marines and great to have them nearby.

[Swanee]

Well, there were two guys on the ground and they weren't shot down. But much thanks to your TRAP brothers. Awesome work from the Marines and great to have them nearby.

You're right. They weren't shot down, in my haste it was the easiest way to get the point across. Crashed is shorter, but... it doesn't sound right. Either way, the point was the last part of your post.

[Swanee]

This is not personal. I like the Marine Corps. They do some really great shit, have a historic past, and are great Americans. But you appear to be so wrapped up in "doctrine" that you're missing the entire point. The F-35B hurts the combat capability of America. All MEF and MAGTF arguments aside we are giving the warfighter an inferior product. And not only are we giving the guys who are going to fly the B model an inferior product, we are adding literal and figurative weight around the neck of the A and C model because of it.

Now we are talking, and I understand what you're saying.

So, the question is: how do we do it? How do we give the ESG (and by extension the MAGTF) the air that it needs? What do we replace the Harrier and the Hornet with? How do we give the ground component the air they need while keeping the capabilities that we need to support them? How do we ensure that the forward deployed guys will ALWAYS have the OCA, DCA, EA and Strike capability needed?

BTW- interesting aside, most people thing the Harrier will be replaced first. This is not true, as our A and C model Hornets are falling apart. Some of our Ds are newer than the oldest lot Super Hornets, but we are flying the wings off of our older stuff.

[Danny Noonin]

How do we ensure that the forward deployed guys will ALWAYS have the OCA, DCA, EA and Strike capability needed?

That's the heart of the problem. A mere handful of any platform, let alone the F-35B, cannot provide those capabilities sufficiently and therefore would need augmentation. Edited November 12, 2013 by Danny Noonin

[HU&W]

Now we are talking, and I understand what you're saying.

So, the question is: how do we do it? How do we give the ESG (and by extension the MAGTF) the air that it needs? What do we replace the Harrier and the Hornet with? How do we give the ground component the air they need while keeping the capabilities that we need to support them? How do we ensure that the forward deployed guys will ALWAYS have the OCA, DCA, EA and Strike capability needed?

We start by defining the question exactly the way you did here. Define requirements first and then let the engineers turn them into a product. Don't define the desired product by specific capabilities (stealth and VSTOL). From what I understand, we need emergent threat survivable OCA, DCA, EA, Strike and CAS that can be launched and recovered from a <900' mobile platform. I'm pretty sure we could get a balanced product that may not do them all perfectly, but would be suitable for the lower intensity requirements of a MAGTF. I'm beginning to seriously doubt that the albatross the F-35 has become will be the answer we're hoping for.

[nsplayr]

So, the question is: how do we do it? How do we give the ESG (and by extension the MAGTF) the air that it needs? What do we replace the Harrier and the Hornet with?

How do we give the warfighter and the nation a better product: cancel the B model F-35 ASAP. Recap that money to bolster the A and C models and use the rest to do #2 below.

How do we give the Marines air: buy an armada of lower tech airplanes that can provide a great deal of capability and an insanely low cost compared to the F-35B.

What to replacing the harrier with: Light attack/strike i.e. OV-10 or Super T type aircraft. Not only can we afford a ton of them compared to a jet, they can fly on your short boats and they don't suck in every way imaginable. Had to take another dig at the Harrier, sorry, it's pretty easy.

Not sure what replacing the hornet has to do with this conversation...replace the hornet with the C model F-35 as fragged.

How do we give the ground component the air they need while keeping the capabilities that we need to support them? How do we ensure that the forward deployed guys will ALWAYS have the OCA, DCA, EA and Strike capability needed?

This is the enduring sticking point...you believe that we "need" OCA, DCA, EA, LO, 5th gen, etc. I do not believe that Marine Air needs any of those things.

Any environment where you would need those things, we'll have the big blue Navy and/or the Air Force and/or coalition partners in the fight as well. You openly say the Marines don't play well with others, I think your mindset doesn't play well with others; the Marines can go it alone doctrinally, but IMHO they likely never will because we can project enough power to make every fight a joint and combined fight.

Where I can see the Marines actually using the MEU capability is in the litany of situations where the lower cost, lower tech options will more than suffice in escorting V-22s, conducting ISR and overwatch, and providing supporting air-to-ground fires. Perfect fit with the TRAP concept, embassy evac, contingency response (Benghazi-esq attacks), disaster relief, etc. That's where the MEU provides the bang for the buck...if we're kicking the door into Syria or Iran or N. Korea and really need 5th gen fighters you've got two other services that pretty much do that shit for a living.

Like I and others have argued before, the B model is a nice to have, not a need to have. It's incredibly expensive, you'll have them in very small quantities anyways, and the capabilities it provides aren't essential to the concept of the MEU.

Good debate and thanks for providing a Marine perspective.

Edited November 12, 2013 by nsplayr

[matmacwc]

Hmmm, you are making sense.

I don't agree on the OV-10 thing though. Talk about a lightweight sitting duck a .22 could take down.

[Swanee]

Indeed, there is some good stuff there. The OV-10G is a cool airplane with a lot of capabilities in the air to surface realm.

I still think that someone has to provide alert DCA for the ESG. Deploying 6 ships and a sub without air cover is... well, there is a huge hole in the defense there. Leaving an entire MEU susceptible to a something so widely proliferated as a Bison carrying archer and exocet missiles is scary.

The Navy won't deploy the ESG with the CSG on "routine" patrols. It's just way to expensive and limits power projection.

Libya still had SA nodes that limited the Harrier's ability to conduct ops without Prowler support. The AF has left the tactical EA business.

"Where I can see the Marines actually using the MEU capability is in the litany of situations where the lower cost, lower tech options will more than suffice in escorting V-22s, conducting ISR and overwatch, and providing supporting air-to-ground fires. Perfect fit with the TRAP concept, embassy evac, contingency response (Benghazi-esq attacks), disaster relief, etc. That's where the MEU provides the bang for the buck...if we're kicking the door into Syria or Iran or N. Korea and really need 5th gen fighters you've got two other services that pretty much do that shit for a living."

This is a legit argument. I agree with you 95%. The way the Marine Corps is being used now is wrong. We are not a land army. However, TRAP still needs OCA and EA in many places in the world. If shit goes south in a country and we need to evac an embassy- it may not be a permissive environment that we have to fly into. Are there still shit hot pilots and aircrew who would risk everything to go into contested airspace to bring Americans home? You bet your ass. But shouldn't we be able to give them the best chance to bring them home? Perhaps this argument could go hand in hand with why the AF needs bases around the world with as much tanker support as possible. But even then- when you're on the ground running, minutes is what matters, and getting a section of F-22s from England to North Africa is in the hours timeframe. Launching a C model from the CSG would reduce that time, but again, what if the CSG isn't with the ESG?

You are 100% correct that a MEU isn't going to kick in the door to Syria, Iran or NK, but it can be expected that the MEU will be there. At that point will the ground forces give up control of their air support? I don't know. I do know that there will be a Marine Col who will make one hell of a stink when the air support he needs doesn't exist because it is off supporting someone else. We played that game in WW2- it's an old argument, but one that isn't forgotten easily. Many Marines lost their lives on an island in the Pacific because the Navy and the Air Force went off to fight their own battles. We vowed that it wouldn't happen again. There is a lot of emotion there, and a lot of bad blood. It has driven us to where we are today.

Don't take me for an F-35 tried and true kool aide drinking guy. We've worn our Hornets out (literally, worn the hell out of them, we have serious readiness issues at home) flying ISR and light attack missions where that OV-10 or Super T would have been not only an equal, but a better asset wrt time on station and ordnance carry. You don't need an F/A to fight the war in Afghanistan. Hornets flying combat missions over AFG is a complete waste of money.

[FallingOsh]

Well, there were two guys on the ground and they weren't shot down. But much thanks to your TRAP brothers. Awesome work from the Marines and great to have them nearby.

and their rescue was a fucking abortion, but at least they got home

this entire argument is invalid because it assumes the F-35 will ever be viable

Edited November 12, 2013 by FallingOsh

[Lawman]

Knock it off with the emotional arguments. Dude we fight joint wars for a reason. We all have capabilities. Did you know that the Air Force deploys on AEFs (Aerospace Expeditionary Force) and sits on a GRF (Global Response Force) in order to meet the needs of the unified combatant commands? Do you know anything other than Marine Corp doctrine? Do you know about the Goldwater-Nichols Act, how combatant commanders request forces, or have you observed how we have fought conflicts for the last 30 years? (Desert Storm and beyond)

Be realistic about the requirements for an ESG. It sounds like you want organic CAS. Ok, come up with a solution that gives you organic CAS, not a miniature DoD on a boat with a Globe and Anchor on it.

They might get emotional because there is historic precedent for the Air Force to demand complete control of a mission and then fuck it away because they have other things to do.

Just look at the C-27 program. Argue that you will better support he Army mission with he Army's plane... Then CX the Army's plane... If you don't think that left bad blood between services your crazy. Now the Marines are being told "you don't need this capability, let us spend the money and we will just make sure to take care of you." Meanwhile the chief of staff of the Air Force is talking about cutting tankers and limiting its ability to meet that promise. The same "it will always be a joint war we don't need the boat launched planes they take away from our money for ____" argument has been going on since the 40s. It doesn't work with trying to scale back Carrier Air why would it make any more sense here. The Marines are just better than other services for recognizing this is the same music that always gets played right before they get fucked.

And to the guys suggesting that the Marines get by just upping their Zulu model complement and relying on destroyers/cruisers for OCA/DCA. Zulu can't do enough on its own. It's simply too small an airframe to carry enough firepower or enough gas. Not to mention trying to do it in a higher threat environment.

[BB Stacker]

I do know that there will be a Marine Col who will make one hell of a stink when the air support he needs doesn't exist because it is off supporting someone else. We played that game in WW2- it's an old argument, but one that isn't forgotten easily. Many Marines lost their lives on an island in the Pacific because the Navy and the Air Force went off to fight their own battles. We vowed that it wouldn't happen again. There is a lot of emotion there, and a lot of bad blood. It has driven us to where we are today.

If you're going to make emotional historical arguments at least get them accurate...the Navy lost way more men in the waters around Guadalcanal attempting to protect those Marines than the Marines lost on the island. Hell, the Navy suffered more KIA in ONE NIGHT of fighting (First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal) than the Marines lost in the entire campaign. Implying that the Navy was "off fighting its own battles" while leaving Marines to die is inaccurate and an insult to the men who lost their lives in Ironbottom Sound.

[brabus]

However, TRAP still needs OCA and EA in many places in the world. If shit goes south in a country and we need to evac an embassy- it may not be a permissive environment that we have to fly into.

If that's going down in a location that REALLY requires F-35 capes, we a) don't have an embassy there, or b) on the .69% chance we do the other services will bring those assets to the fight for a joint venture.

I'm a big fan of the marines and am not shitting on the general concept of MEU, but VSTOL F-35s are way more than what's needed. As nsplayr said, it's a nice to have, but very far from a need to have. It's a political play to keep L class ships and "viable" organic fixed wing. You guys certainly need new jets, but something like new super hornets would be great for what the MAGTF really needs. If no shit we get to "storm the beach" and EVERYBODY is days out and "this" needs to happen right fucking now, sounds like something helos can do until the CSG and the AF get there, which really isn't as far away as some Marines may think. If you say the helos will get slaughtered, SA-15s etc....we'll then it's wait a bit or were at ALR Ludicrous.