USN Showdown between Super Hornet and F-35

[Hotdogs]

I have the same concerns that people (cough, USAF) will say exactly that - thus the reason to list the CVL's as the centerpiece of the ARG, they just happen to have catapults.... But yes, same concerns...

I didn't think about this earlier but numerically more, but less capable ships = more problems for amphibious operations. You can tetris the hell out of a amphib, but making it shipboard compatible is only one part of the equation. You have to get it off and in the proper order to put ashore. While easy to do when every ship has a well deck, shit gets complicated when you can only move things by air and/or need to reposition stuff at sea. An LHD w/ a well deck and LCACs provides flexibility. If you start spread loading things across multiple ships, you run into serious issues executing large scale operations due to efficiency/logistical issues. Even more so if you start doing more split ARG operations like we have recently. You need all of your 777 tubes to make an effective battery, all of your CLB dets to supply Class 1/3/5 DoS and breaching capabilities for the battalion. Throw in a peer adversary with the ability to interfere with C3 and you have a receipt for a shitshow. The Falklands War is great excerpt on why it is important to have a dedicated forcible entry fleet. It's not as easy as plug and play.

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit having flashbacks about EWS.

 

[pourts]

I actually find this interesting hearing points of view from F-18 dudes and their arguements for shipboard Marine FW assets.

Not sure if you are talking about Swanee or me, but I spent 18 months with the infantry, 7 of them afloat on the MEU, so I have a bit of an idea what the LHD is for. Not to chuck spears, but I bet a $dollar every BLT CO and MEU CO in the last 5 years would trade in their 6 Harriers for a DEDICATED C-130 det like in the old days.

I agree that angled decks on an LHD is stupid. I agree with you about considering the issue from a "first principles" standpoint and avoiding the parochial lens. It is exactly for that reason I think the Marines/ US as a whole should have bought a light counter-insurgency turboprop about 10 years ago. Maybe it wouldn't be a good fit for the MEU, but we would have gotten a shit ton of use out of it in the last decade as we wait for RPA technology to blossom. And it is very different than HMLA in terms of speed, range and payload. A Super Tucano can carry a targeting pod, 2x GBU-54, .50 cal gun, and 2x fuel tanks-- remove the gun and that's a typical AV-8B loadout when launching and recovering from the LHD. Again, I don't know if a counter insurgency platform could launch and recover from the boat, or if Marines should be flying them, but it would be great to have in theater and it wouldn't steal from the HMLA rice bowl.

Aegis in the ARG? Uh... no. Aegis attached once in a while maybe.

And you Bastion story... not sure what the point of it was? The runway there is 11,000 feet. That Harrier in your story could have been an F-15E, F-16, F-18 or Super Tucano.

Bottom Line: The MEU doesn't need the JSF, and creating a VSTOL version of the JSF was a major contributing factor into design compromises and delays.

 

[Hotdogs]

I agree that angled decks on an LHD is stupid. I agree with you about considering the issue from a "first principles" standpoint and avoiding the parochial lens. It is exactly for that reason I think the Marines/ US as a whole should have bought a light counter-insurgency turboprop about 10 years ago. Maybe it wouldn't be a good fit for the MEU, but we would have gotten a shit ton of use out of it in the last decade as we wait for RPA technology to blossom. And it is very different than HMLA in terms of speed, range and payload. A Super Tucano can carry a targeting pod, 2x GBU-54, .50 cal gun, and 2x fuel tanks-- remove the gun and that's a typical AV-8B loadout when launching and recovering from the LHD. Again, I don't know if a counter insurgency platform could launch and recover from the boat, or if Marines should be flying them, but it would be great to have in theater and it wouldn't steal from the HMLA rice bowl.

Aegis in the ARG? Uh... no. Aegis attached once in a while maybe.

And you Bastion story... not sure what the point of it was? The runway there is 11,000 feet. That Harrier in your story could have been an F-15E, F-16, F-18 or Super Tucano.

Bottom Line: The MEU doesn't need the JSF, and creating a VSTOL version of the JSF was a major contributing factor into design compromises and delays.

.50 cal is a fucking joke for a mission like that. I would love to see that fixed weapon system try to shoot a moving target on a moped. You need something north of 20mm with HEI and preferably airburst, but that's another debate. At any rate the COIN aircraft is 15 years too late and now all we have is a bunch of assholes running around nostalgic about strafing at dudes a la Vietnam or Korea. It would've been nice to have, and I would expound on what would be good loadout from a light attack COIN standpoint, but not when it's already a done deal and not going to happen.

Aegis in the ARG? Fighting a peer adversary? Uh.... I think absolutely. I think you're looking at this from one end of the spectrum and not it's entirety. The MEU does need the JSF if we're going to be able to provide the same capability at the high end of the spectrum. Apparently some one at HQMC agrees and wants to keep F-35Bs in the MEU. We can debate the likely hood of it ever going that route, but we're already down a rabbit hole. As far as production delays, it's easy to point fingers at the Marines for not getting what they ordered and causing significant issues (much of which I am not familiar) but in reality it is on the company and management for over promising and under delivering. We can also debate (which I think we can agree on) as far as the decisions that put Marine F/A-18s in their current readiness situation, and that we should have bought E/Fs while waiting on the F-35B, especially if the Corps was going to remain committed to providing TAI boat squadrons for the Navy. Apparently rumor on the street is that I would be castrated for bringing up such heresy to the people who make these important decisions.

The point of the Bastion story was that F/A-18s weren't there, and that runway could've been a lot shorter or non-existent (which it was at one point). It is also similar of the advantages for VMA/HMLA sitting off of the coast on an LHD/LPD waiting to get launched on an alert. A MEU and ACE CO may want dedicated C-130s vice Harriers for the ACE, but I assure you that the COCOM at whatever theater they are operating in probably would disagree. The Libyan operation last summer killing shit heads would've been a non-starter.

 

[pilot_man]

Aegis in the ARG? Fighting a peer adversary? Uh.... I think absolutely. I think you're looking at this from one end of the spectrum and not it's entirety. The MEU does need the JSF if we're going to be able to provide the same capability at the high end of the spectrum. Apparently some one at HQMC agrees and wants to keep F-35Bs in the MEU. We can debate the likely hood of it ever going that route, but we're already down a rabbit hole. As far as production delays, it's easy to point fingers at the Marines for not getting what they ordered and causing significant issues (much of which I am not familiar) but in reality it is on the company and management for over promising and under delivering. We can also debate (which I think we can agree on) as far as the decisions that put Marine F/A-18s in their current readiness situation, and that we should have bought E/Fs while waiting on the F-35B, especially if the Corps was going to remain committed to providing TAI boat squadrons for the Navy. Apparently rumor on the street is that I would be castrated for bringing up such heresy to the people who make these important decisions.

Dude, for the sake of all that is holy, please put the pipe down.

What are your plans for the ARG with a peer adversary? You going to park that ARG close enough to indian country that you can execute CAS while there is still an air or sea picture? The ARG is not the tip of the spear. It doesn't need to be equipped as such.

I am less concerned about production delays as I am about lost capabilities. So much was given up for the B and at what cost? Is the B a good addition to the ARG? Sure. Not to the point where we gave up what we did for B plumbing.

Since we are talking about what we should have done. The Marine Corp should have bought E/Fs. They should have also worked a super Harrier the same way the Navy worked the Rhino. They should have also gone down the road of Super Ts or OV-10s. But they didn't. Because they were stubborn.

 

[Hotdogs]

Dude, for the sake of all that is holy, please put the pipe down.

What are your plans for the ARG with a peer adversary? You going to park that ARG close enough to indian country that you can execute CAS while there is still an air or sea picture? The ARG is not the tip of the spear. It doesn't need to be equipped as such.

I know you're one of those guys that likes sounding cool vice having a solid discussion, so whatever, the points have been made. You just regurgitated shit that Pourts and I had already discussed.

The bold portion of your comment is the most ass backward comment I have heard and explains the mindset of your rationale. Apparently all those future MEB concepts and doctrinal publications put out by the DoN are just a figament of my fucking imagination. Obviously others see it differently.

 

[Pags]

I think there are two different discussions happening with regards to fighting a peer adversary:
1. How do we use what we have? The ARG/ESG isn't ideal for fighting the Battle of the East China Sea
2. What would be better at fighting the Battle of the East China Sea.
3. Will the Battle of the East China Sea happen and is it worth changing current force structures over?

Both are important discussions to have. 1 covers the next decade, 2 and 3 cover the next two decades.

I think an important parallel to draw is with the Pacific War. USN had both a blue water and a gator navy that did two different things. The fast carrier task forces, composed of CVs and CVLs (with USMC air onboard), conducted War at Sea against the IJN and strike warfare against islands and Japan. The CVEs and L-classes were the landing force. CVEs provided CAS and L-class put troops ashore but not until naval air air supremacy had been gained by the fast carrier task forces. CV, CVL, CVE, and L-class were all needed to win the war; the war couldn't have been won without both the fast carrier forces and the amphibious forces.

For the Battle of the East China Sea how many amphibious ships will be necessary and how do you balance that requirement against the the standing requirement for the traditional amphibs?

 

[Uncle Fester]

3. Will the Battle of the East China Sea happen and is it worth changing current force structures over?

This is the crux of the debate. There's a school of thought that it's easier to adapt high-end platforms to fight low-end adversaries than any other approach. Obviously the converse doesn't work, and we're never going to have the budget to buy the military optimized for everything. Of course, then you're using DDGs to chase pirates in skiffs.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Just two cents:
1. Carriers did not replaced BBs as a capital ships. Carriers duel 1v1 did not occur. Rather a carrier TFs replaced "battle fleets" as a measure to warrant the sea control, but not compulsory to provide it. Now sea control is mostly SSNs job;

2. STOVLs can have angled deck. Not saying that our Kievs were angled (though they were literally), since operationally they were equal to a straight-deck ships, but one of those noted Brits off Falklands, HMS Hermes, had actually angle deck, even double angled - as the running line for Harriers from spots to a ramp was 1,0 degree right from axis. Not to mention that she have been then formally commando carrier, an amphib. Brits have tried to include in TF317 third carrier, HMS Bulwark, also a commando (helicopter) carrier then, even if it could have to take a towing her to South Atlantic due to poor machinery condition, but found that all needed hangar equipment was in even worse state.

 

[Swanee]

This is the crux of the debate. There's a school of thought that it's easier to adapt high-end platforms to fight low-end adversaries than any other approach. Obviously the converse doesn't work, and we're never going to have the budget to buy the military optimized for everything. Of course, then you're using DDGs to chase pirates in skiffs.

This is true. The American way is to buy a Ferrari at Bentley prices, drive it like a stock car (accelerate and turn left) while delivering pizzas, and maintain it like a Kia Rondo. But hey, the capability to hit 308 coming out of the hair pin at the Circuit of Americas is what it's all about. Because we say we scale down, we really just turn those smaller, low-end adversaries into economic peers when we consider the capital we spend fighting them.

I realize that this shit sandwich is 30 years into the making, but at what point do we stop telling ourselves that this meal is going to be tasty? Wasn't the whole point of a single airplane (or really, the high/low mix that was supposed to be the JSF/ATF) to be more economical?

 

[Pags]

This is the crux of the debate. There's a school of thought that it's easier to adapt high-end platforms to fight low-end adversaries than any other approach. Obviously the converse doesn't work, and we're never going to have the budget to buy the military optimized for everything. Of course, then you're using DDGs to chase pirates in skiffs.

Sure you can bomb mud huts with JSOWs from an F-35, but it doesn't seem like you're getting your ROI. Of course if a peer adversary doesn't step up to the plate then you might as well put those F-35s to use as opposed to leaving them on the bench.

There does seem to some value in a low end piece of the military based on the last 10yrs, but what do you do with your 100 A-29s when you're no longer bombing mud huts and now you've got to go against an IADS or fight the Battle of the East China Sea?

These are the troubles that keep ROs busy.

 

[pilot_man]

I know you're one of those guys that likes sounding cool vice having a solid discussion, so whatever, the points have been made. You just regurgitated shit that Pourts and I had already discussed.

The bold portion of your comment is the most ass backward comment I have heard and explains the mindset of your rationale. Apparently all those future MEB concepts and doctrinal publications put out by the DoN are just a figament of my fucking imagination. Obviously others see it differently.

I am not going to have a solid discussion with you because this isn't SECRET Airwarriors. I'm regurgitating because you keep arguing the same shit, and it's dumb.

It's hard enough to defend the existence of a CSG, with all of it's striking power, and defensive capabilities. The ARG may be the tip of the ground spear, but it is not the tip of the big picture spear. Period. At the point you come into play the AF and big decks have already done their job and now you have the freedom to do CAS. Unless you have stealth ships. And stealth helos. And stealth Ospreys for refueling.

Just because a bunch of Marines write down a bunch of concepts doesn't mean they are smart. Unless you all believe "Leeroy Jenkins" is actually a smart way of doing things. Then good luck to you and your ARG. I'm glad I'll never be a part of that mess.

 

[Swanee]

The ARG may be the tip of the ground spear,

Even then, when was the last time the BLT were the first and only ground forces engaged in combat?

We keep holding onto these ideals that are antiquated. Two weeks ago someone reminded me that "it was the Marine Corps who invented CAS. We are innovators!" News Flash: That was a century ago, and a century before that Presley O'Bannon did his whole North African thing. I feel like the Marine Corps is systemically losing touch with reality. We are trying to be a force that can do everything- and (in my not so humble opinion) we are going down a road in which we become a force that can't do a damn thing on our own. We can't be an all in one crisis response force for a peer adversary. We need more ass and more capability than what an ARG parked off the coast can bring. There is more combat power in the AF F-22/B-2/AWACS Exped rapid deployment program than any MEU could dream of. Those guys are the tip of the spear. Those are the guys you're going to call for the Battle of the South China Sea, with the Navy on their heels. Marine Corps? Maybe we'll join the fight a few days later...

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Even then, when was the last time the BLT were the first and only ground forces engaged in combat?

We keep holding onto these ideals that are antiquated. Two weeks ago someone reminded me that "it was the Marine Corps who invented CAS. We are innovators!" News Flash: That was a century ago, and a century before that Presley O'Bannon did his whole North African thing. I feel like the Marine Corps is systemically losing touch with reality. We are trying to be a force that can do everything- and (in my not so humble opinion) we are going down a road in which we become a force that can't do a damn thing on our own. We can't be an all in one crisis response force for a peer adversary. We need more ass and more capability than what an ARG parked off the coast can bring. There is more combat power in the AF F-22/B-2/AWACS Exped rapid deployment program than any MEU could dream of. Those guys are the tip of the spear. Those are the guys you're going to call for the Battle of the South China Sea, with the Navy on their heels. Marine Corps? Maybe we'll join the fight a few days later...

This thread keeps talking about the South China Sea. Is that the only place that the "tip of the spear" goes? In what on Earth kind of scenario are we comparing an ARG to F-22's with B-52's? The MEU can't go toe to toe with an armored division, either. I guess the Army is the tip of the spear.

MEU's have dropped bombs in a lot of places with harriers. Libya is a decent example where some threat existed, no CVN was around (or needed), and the MEU was there to do some MEU stuff. With F-35's that threat can be a little higher. Is the 31st MEU going to sail into the South China Sea alone and unafraid to take on China with six jets? Fuck no. That's a stupid ass scenario. Having another deck full of F-35's to complement one or more CVN's in that scenario would be a plus though. Do we "need" F-35's on every MEU? No. However that same question can be asked of every individual element of the ACE and GCE and the answer is still no. They all could come in handy though.

Also, I'm fining you for saying "we need more ass" like a yut. Wtf does that even mean?

 

[pilot_man]

MEU's have dropped bombs in a lot of places with harriers. Libya is a decent example where some threat existed, no CVN was around (or needed), and the MEU was there to do some MEU stuff.

This is incorrect. Big brother was right around the corner drilling holes in the sea, waiting on the call. We only used the MEU to prove we need the MEU.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

More. Enterprise's Growlers have prowled the Colonel's shoreline, just like the Sigonella's ones did.