2015 Marine Aviation Plan

[Flash]

The 2015 USMC Aviation Plan came out a little while ago and I finally dug into it, the biggest change I can see is that the plan now is to retire the Harrier in 2025 and keep the Hornet around until 2030. Notably F/A-18D's stick around until at least until FY25 and maybe until 2029, I guess Marine NFO's might not have such a short lifespan after all.

P.S. I really wish the Navy would put something like this out!

 

[81montedriver]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from talking w/ all my Hornet buddies, it seems like the Hornet is in way worse shape compared to the AV-8's. Something about a squadron coming home from deployment and turning over most of its good jets to the next deploying squadron doesn't sound like it will work until 2029. And we decided not to follow the Aussie's lead and by Superhornets in the interim why?

 

[jarhead]

Because nearly half of the assigned Marine Corps F/A-18s are sitting at depot waiting to be fixed. Some have been there for over five years. If and when they get fixed, the F/A-18 will be able to last another decade+.

The Marine Corps will never, ever buy Super Hornets, even if Boeing gave them to the Marine Corps and paid the Marine Corps to fly them. We're just stubborn like that! F-35 will be here soon enough, VMA-211 is transitioning shortly making it the second fleet F-35B squadron in the MC. While its capability is severely limited right now, eventually, by throwing lots and lots of money at it and at the expense of past, current and future Harrier & Hornet squadrons, it will succeed!!

Semper Fidelis

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from talking w/ all my Hornet buddies, it seems like the Hornet is in way worse shape compared to the AV-8's. Something about a squadron coming home from deployment and turning over most of its good jets to the next deploying squadron doesn't sound like it will work until 2029. And we decided not to follow the Aussie's lead and by Superhornets in the interim why?

 

[Uncle Fester]

I'm curious as to whether their song WRT Rhinos might change once the F-35 is safely operational. Okay, they may or may not need them as strike-fighters, but as the Prowler goes away I'm betting they'll miss organic EA, and the G is the only game in town for that. I don't buy this "eventually we'll somehow make an EF-35" hand-waving.

 

[wink]

...

P.S. I really wish the Navy would put something like this out!

Not exactly the same, but I think it qualifies as "something like" the USMC document. While there is plenty of marketing type rhetoric, it gives a pretty good idea where we are going.

http://www.navy.mil/strategic/Naval_Aviation_Vision.pdf

 

[Flash]

Not exactly the same, but I think it qualifies as "something like" the USMC document. While there is plenty of marketing type rhetoric, it gives a pretty good idea where we are going.

http://www.navy.mil/strategic/Naval_Aviation_Vision.pdf

The numbers are what I really like about the USMC one, they can change from year to year but at least it is a coherent and publicly available plan with some actual numbers instead of just PR fluff and lines drawn from one picture of a plane to another.

 

[pourts]

I'm curious as to whether their song WRT Rhinos might change once the F-35 is safely operational. Okay, they may or may not need them as strike-fighters, but as the Prowler goes away I'm betting they'll miss organic EA, and the G is the only game in town for that. I don't buy this "eventually we'll somehow make an EF-35" hand-waving.

Yes, technically Electronic Warfare is one of the 6 functions of Marine Aviation, but was the Prowler ever really organic to any MAGTF? From what I hear it is always a theater asset. Who covered EW before the Prowler existed?

That being said, I think the plan is to cover EW with a combination of F-35 and UAVs. I for one think EW from a UAV platform sounds like a good idea.

 

[Flash]

Yes, technically Electronic Warfare is one of the 6 functions of Marine Aviation, but was the Prowler ever really organic to any MAGTF? From what I hear it is always a theater asset.

In practice it largely has been for a long time, at least 20 years or so.

Who covered EW before the Prowler existed?

You have to go way back but the EF-10B Skyknight (nicknamed 'Drut') and the EA-6A 'Electric' Intruder were the Prowler's predecessors in the USMC.

 

[Uncle Fester]

That being said, I think the plan is to cover EW with a combination of F-35 and UAVs. I for one think EW from a UAV platform sounds like a good idea.

Neither of which have been proven to be able to do EA/EW. I think it's less of a 'plan' than a 'hope a miracle happens before the wings fall off the last Prowlers'.

 

[Swanee]

Neither of which have been proven to be able to do EA/EW. I think it's less of a 'plan' than a 'hope a miracle happens before the wings fall off the last Prowlers'.

...A DET of ours (VMU-2) that just got back from Afghanistan would argue with you. We aren't in the big stages yet, and we can't do much of what the Prowler can- but we were absolutely flying EW/EA type missions with the EOC Integrator ("prototype" MQ-21A). We learned a lot and are going to plug that into further development with MQ-21A's abilities with its plug and play payload.

 

[pourts]

Neither of which have been proven to be able to do EA/EW. I think it's less of a 'plan' than a 'hope a miracle happens before the wings fall off the last Prowlers'.

Yeah, but that's the nature of planning for the future. How long before retiring the old platform do we usually get to confirm the capability of the new platform in combat? I think that's probably a luxury that we shouldn't expect with all weapons systems. Call me gullible, but I don't think the science is too difficult for us to figure out how to get trons downrange from a UAV or F-35.

Also, we've got the Intrepid Tiger 2 pod carried by Harriers and soon to be Hornets with reprogramable software inside. Not the same thing as the Prowler, but I like the new strategy outlined in the Aviation Plan Flash linked above.

 

[lowflier03]

...A DET of ours (VMU-2) that just got back from Afghanistan would argue with you. We aren't in the big stages yet, and we can't do much of what the Prowler can- but we were absolutely flying EW/EA type missions with the EOC Integrator ("prototype" MQ-21A). We learned a lot and are going to plug that into further development with MQ-21A's abilities with its plug and play payload.

Certain capabilities sound great for being crammed into UAVs. That is until you run up against an enemy with GPS jamming, spoofing, or disabling capability. (And by extension satcom and datalink nullifying capability) Suddenly you have a platform that you can't use. Or in order to fit the right amount of gear in it you make it so big that its no longer a local, easily integrated asset.

 

[nittany03]

Yeah, but that's the nature of planning for the future. How long before retiring the old platform do we usually get to confirm the capability of the new platform in combat? I think that's probably a luxury that we shouldn't expect with all weapons systems. Call me gullible, but I don't think the science is too difficult for us to figure out how to get trons downrange from a UAV or F-35.

Also, we've got the Intrepid Tiger 2 pod carried by Harriers and soon to be Hornets with reprogramable software inside. Not the same thing as the Prowler, but I like the new strategy outlined in the Aviation Plan Flash linked above.

Again, this is where a SIPR AW could come in handy. There's a bit more than just "trons downrange" involved in the VAQ mission set, or in replicating the capes of the ICAP III EA-6B and/or EA-18G. But the rant that's in my head right now is classified so it's staying there.. You really can't have an intelligent discussion about the pros/cons of EW assets on AW.

 

[Flash]

Certain capabilities sound great for being crammed into UAVs. That is until you run up against an enemy with GPS jamming, spoofing, or disabling capability. (And by extension satcom and datalink nullifying capability) Suddenly you have a platform that you can't use. Or in order to fit the right amount of gear in it you make it so big that its no longer a local, easily integrated asset.

A lot of advocates of UAV's tend to forget or dismiss how hard it would be for the vast majority of them to effectively work in a contested area with credible enemy air defenses.

 

[Swanee]

Certain capabilities sound great for being crammed into UAVs. That is until you run up against an enemy with GPS jamming, spoofing, or disabling capability. (And by extension satcom and datalink nullifying capability) Suddenly you have a platform that you can't use. Or in order to fit the right amount of gear in it you make it so big that its no longer a local, easily integrated asset.

There are plans for locally organic asssets to exist in group 4/5 size airplanes. When you have 40+ hours on station you can launch from anywhere regionally and run hub and spoke ops from the UMOS in the boat or ashore.

We can't really talk the other stuff here. Link denial is a credible threat- but so is an SA-XX. We are developing ways around both. It's always going to be a game of cat and mouse- or trace buster-buster-buster-buster-busters (name that movie)... (You don't always need a link and we had the ability to navigate IFR before GPS)