V-22 escort??

[Flash]

Happens all the time. However we probably want to define where along spectrum of warfare we're talking about.

More towards the combat end of things is to what I was referring. Even the recent examples of 'independent' MEU ops along the spectrum of warfare have been supported by external forces.

 

[zippy]

That's how I used to look at the problem too. Seen another way, though, it's not that they need VTOL capabilities in combat, but since they deploy from an Amphib deck, they do need that capability to get to the fight in the first place.

The Marine Corps is able to deploy Herks, Hornets And Prowlers just fine and they don't operate from amphibs.

It's not the 1980s anymore and we're not the Royal Navy. I understand the "self sustaining/ reliance" Mantra but that's not how the Marine Corps operates in todays joint environment. What irreplaceable capabilities will the F35 bring that make amphibs and the rest of the MEU not able to operate without them flying from the big deck after they've developed a UAV that can do the same thing?

I admire the Marine Corps tenacity in getting what they want out of procurement programs regardless of the delays and cost overruns but VTOL F35s provide only a limited organic capability that isn't a duplicate of something that other assets do better.

Pretty much the only scenario where a VTOL jet would be currently irreplaceable is a limited strike / ISR coverage / CAS capscitu in a low threat environment for a NEO/MARSOC etc. operations in a country near the coast that isn't of great enough national security interest to warrant the fielding of more capable assets at the same time. This is where the need for the Harrier and F35 exist, and yet here the Marine Corps is announcing that it is planning to field a VTOL robot that will be able to do those jobs better, and eliminate the need for F35 all together before it's even made it's maiden deployment. The only saving grace is that like the Osprey and F35 before it, this drone is so revolutionary that it will take 20+ Years to take it from pipe dream status through developmental delays and costs overruns to something this is actually fielded.

Yea, but we're the Marine Corps. The entire essence to our mantra is "we bring everything we need." The Corps isn't going to want to rely on Air Force or Navy Air assets when deploying an expeditionary unit. Especially considering the Commandants desire to get us back to being the amphibious expeditionary force we once were.

Rah Rah, motivation soundbites aside the reality is that without Navy and Air Force support, the Marine Corps would be about as deployable as FDNY. There are capabilities that both other services maintain as core competencies that the Marine Corps benefits from that would be cost prohibitive to duplicate and take focus away from the Marine Corps core competencies.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

The Marine Corps is able to deploy Herks, Hornets And Prowlers just fine and they don't operate from amphibs.

It's not the 1980s anymore and we're not the Royal Navy. I understand the "self sustaining/ reliance" Mantra but that's not how the Marine Corps operates in todays joint environment. What irreplaceable capabilities will the F35 bring that make amphibs and the rest of the MEU not able to operate without them flying from the big deck after they've developed a UAV that can do the same thing?

I admire the Marine Corps tenacity in getting what they want out of procurement programs regardless of the delays and cost overruns but VTOL F35s provide only a limited organic capability that isn't a duplicate of something that other assets do better.

Pretty much the only scenario where a VTOL jet would be currently irreplaceable is a limited strike / ISR coverage / CAS capscitu in a low threat environment for a NEO/MARSOC etc. operations in a country near the coast that isn't of great enough national security interest to warrant the fielding of more capable assets at the same time. This is where the need for the Harrier and F35 exist, and yet here the Marine Corps is announcing that it is planning to field a VTOL robot that will be able to do those jobs better, and eliminate the need for F35 all together before it's even made it's maiden deployment. The only saving grace is that like the Osprey and F35 before it, this drone is so revolutionary that it will take 20+ Years to take it from pipe dream status through developmental delays and costs overruns to something this is actually fielded.



Rah Rah, motivation soundbites aside the reality is that without Navy and Air Force support, the Marine Corps would be about as deployable as FDNY. There are capabilities that both other services maintain as core competencies that the Marine Corps benefits from that would be cost prohibitive to duplicate and take focus away from the Marine Corps core competencies.

For one thing, there is a lot more they plan on doing with the F-35 than what you just described. The article was very light on details, but other than endurance, what exactly do you think this thing will do "better" than an F-35? That seems like a bold claim considering almost no actual capabilities were even discussed.

As for escorting Ospreys, I doubt it. Jets and skids already can escort Ospreys. The problem is gaps in coverage for the guys on the ground. An amphib launched UAV would help with that, but that's not exactly escort. Having an armed UAV arrive early and stay late would certainly be nice though.

 

[Swanee]

For one thing, there is a lot more they plan on doing with the F-35 than what you just described.

Very true. But how much of that will we be able to do at the same time with 4 or 6 F-35s? I don't necessarily think that a UAV will do everything better, but there are some things that are better suited to the mission. Plus. it's a case of boat space. We're seeing it now as we try to bring more capabilities to the MEU. The boats are full, and for everything you add you have to take something off. Where do UAVs fit in that? We're figuring that out via trial and error as we speak.

The bigger issue is also gas. Jets without tankers are really limited. If you're in contested airspace where you need a constant CAP/DCA Vul- that's at least 2 sections rotating out with each other, which leaves you with one section of for strike/CAS, in addition to your skids. Not exactly something that we can sustain for very long. Having that arrive early/stay late armed UAV for both ISR and CAS/SCAR work would free up the F-35 guys to do the air to air stuff, or the stealth strike (why aren't we using tomahawks?) or EA/SEAD stuff.

I still think we're trying to do too much with our limited resources.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Very true. But how much of that will we be able to do at the same time with 4 or 6 F-35s? I don't necessarily think that a UAV will do everything better, but there are some things that are better suited to the mission. Plus. it's a case of boat space. We're seeing it now as we try to bring more capabilities to the MEU. The boats are full, and for everything you add you have to take something off. Where do UAVs fit in that? We're figuring that out via trial and error as we speak.

The bigger issue is also gas. Jets without tankers are really limited. If you're in contested airspace where you need a constant CAP/DCA Vul- that's at least 2 sections rotating out with each other, which leaves you with one section of for strike/CAS, in addition to your skids. Not exactly something that we can sustain for very long. Having that arrive early/stay late armed UAV for both ISR and CAS/SCAR work would free up the F-35 guys to do the air to air stuff, or the stealth strike (why aren't we using tomahawks?) or EA/SEAD stuff.

I still think we're trying to do too much with our limited resources.

If it's contested airspace, this UAV would find itself pretty limited as well, I imagine.

If they could work a way to launch this thing from something other than the LHD it would help.

 

[zippy]

For one thing, there is a lot more they plan on doing with the F-35 than what you just described. The article was very light on details, but other than endurance, what exactly do you think this thing will do "better" than an F-35? That seems like a bold claim considering almost no actual capabilities were even discussed.

As for escorting Ospreys, I doubt it. Jets and skids already can escort Ospreys. The problem is gaps in coverage for the guys on the ground. An amphib launched UAV would help with that, but that's not exactly escort. Having an armed UAV arrive early and stay late would certainly be nice though.

That's the point-outside of taking off and landing on the big deck what unique capabilities does the VTOL F35 bring to the table in the joint combat environment that aren't already done better by another asset, or doesn't require support from Other services to successfully execute?

AAW: How effective are 4-6 F35s going to be in defending the amphibs in a high threat Anti access/ area denial ASCM environment? Not very on their own. Its going to take an AGEIS shooter and permissive ROE to provide any legitimate AAW defense of the MEU outside of a non-contested environment. A high threat environment is going to require a CVN airwant and Air Force assets to counter.

ASW: N/A

ASUW: MEU helos are better suited for the FAC/FIAC mission and provide non leathal escalation options in ATFP scenarios.

Strike: The Risk adverse culture of the Navy isn't going to allowed an Amphib to be parked on the horizon of a target nation during a first day of the war type scenario. Only after the theater is mature would that be allowed. Overland missions require dedicated tanking and EW/EA capabilities which the F35 doesn't have, and without would be forced to operate close to the big deck.

Stealth: Flying around the big deck do you really need to have a stealth aircraft? The RCS of the big deck not small, so no. Self escort/Strike mission require other supporting assets.

Consistent ISR presence/CAS support- requires dedicated tanker assets to give long onstation times and extended ranges. Robots have become a lot more capable in these areas and can provide the same support (outside of show of force). Those capabilities have evolved so much that the currently GFCs prioritize robots onstation over fixed wing jet cas assets due to yo yo tanking affecting onstation coverage.

Like I said, it's not the 1980s anymore and we're not the Brits. Warfare has changed in the last 25 years and there are very few scenarios where a threat environment is going to allow the MEU to operate alone and unsupported from the amphibs. In the supported environment the VTOL fixed wing assets don't bring much to the table thst isn't a duplicated product on a micro scale, outside of takeoff and landing capabilities.

 

[Austin-Powers]

I do not want a V-22 Escort...

 

[Treetop Flyer]

That's the point-outside of taking off and landing on the big deck what unique capabilities does the VTOL F35 bring to the table in the joint combat environment that aren't already done better by another asset, or doesn't require support from Other services to successfully execute?

AAW: How effective are 4-6 F35s going to be in defending the amphibs in a high threat Anti access/ area denial ASCM environment? Not very on their own. Its going to take an AGEIS shooter and permissive ROE to provide any legitimate AAW defense of the MEU outside of a non-contested environment. A high threat environment is going to require a CVN airwant and Air Force assets to counter.

ASW: N/A

ASUW: MEU helos are better suited for the FAC/FIAC mission and provide non leathal escalation options in ATFP scenarios.

Strike: The Risk adverse culture of the Navy isn't going to allowed an Amphib to be parked on the horizon of a target nation during a first day of the war type scenario. Only after the theater is mature would that be allowed. Overland missions require dedicated tanking and EW/EA capabilities which the F35 doesn't have, and without would be forced to operate close to the big deck.

Stealth: Flying around the big deck do you really need to have a stealth aircraft? The RCS of the big deck not small, so no. Self escort/Strike mission require other supporting assets.

Consistent ISR presence/CAS support- requires dedicated tanker assets to give long onstation times and extended ranges. Robots have become a lot more capable in these areas and can provide the same support (outside of show of force). Those capabilities have evolved so much that the currently GFCs prioritize robots onstation over fixed wing jet cas assets due to yo yo tanking affecting onstation coverage.

Like I said, it's not the 1980s anymore and we're not the Brits. Warfare has changed in the last 25 years and there are very few scenarios where a threat environment is going to allow the MEU to operate alone and unsupported from the amphibs. In the supported environment the VTOL fixed wing assets don't bring much to the table thst isn't a duplicated product on a micro scale, outside of takeoff and landing capabilities.

They are working/planning ESG stuff involving F-35's and AEGIS. That's perfect for a limited number of F-35's.

First day of the war, who says an LHD or especially the new LHA's won't be over the horizon? Having Ospreys with the ability to give fuel will be very nice.

There are literally tons of scenarios where F-35's can and will be used from amphibs. Your two points that:

a.) this notional UAV that hasn't received its first dollar of funding is an F-35 replacement

b.) this notional UAV will do the F-35's job "better"

...are more than just a stretch. It's not based in reality at all.

 

[Randy Daytona]

There is also the political factor of the Marine Corps having its own organic fixed wing support which helps distinguish it from the Army.

 

[Swanee]

They are working/planning ESG stuff involving F-35's and AEGIS. That's perfect for a limited number of F-35's.

First day of the war, who says an LHD or especially the new LHA's won't be over the horizon? Having Ospreys with the ability to give fuel will be very nice.

There are literally tons of scenarios where F-35's can and will be used from amphibs. Your two points that:

a.) this notional UAV that hasn't received its first dollar of funding is an F-35 replacement

b.) this notional UAV will do the F-35's job "better"

...are more than just a stretch. It's not based in reality at all.

Sometimes cheaper = "better".

If you're looking for TOS for CAS/SCAR, then yes the UAV would be better. It's why the MQ-9 guys are running the SCAR show in parts of the world now- you don't need to do a hand off every 20-30 minutes, and it frees up the manned assets to check in, clean their wings and check out. If they have a target that needs killing and no strikers to do it, they can do it themselves.

The F-35 has/will have some pretty sweet capabilities, but so do/will UAVs. FWIW, in the Air Force, UAVs/RPAs are dropping more ordnance than all of the manned assets put together. That's a shit ton. The Syracuse ANG unit is busier than most any regular manned fleet unit. They have been deployed for over 6 years now, and are executing missions daily around the world. Meanwhile the manned units are rotating in and out, and doing UDP style stuff. IF the manned guys are better, why are UAVs doing so much more than the manned squadrons?

We're not saying that UAV's will do air to air stuff (yet), or that the F-35 is useless. But when you can buy 2-3 squadrons of MQ-9 for what one F-35 costs- why the F would you do MQ-9 stuff with an F-35?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Sometimes cheaper = "better".

If you're looking for TOS for CAS/SCAR, then yes the UAV would be better. It's why the MQ-9 guys are running the SCAR show in parts of the world now- you don't need to do a hand off every 20-30 minutes, and it frees up the manned assets to check in, clean their wings and check out. If they have a target that needs killing and no strikers to do it, they can do it themselves.

The F-35 has/will have some pretty sweet capabilities, but so do/will UAVs. FWIW, in the Air Force, UAVs/RPAs are dropping more ordnance than all of the manned assets put together. That's a shit ton. The Syracuse ANG unit is busier than most any regular manned fleet unit. They have been deployed for over 6 years now, and are executing missions daily around the world. Meanwhile the manned units are rotating in and out, and doing UDP style stuff. IF the manned guys are better, why are UAVs doing so much more than the manned squadrons?

We're not saying that UAV's will do air to air stuff (yet), or than the F-35 is useless. But when you can buy 2-3 squadrons of MQ-9 for what one F-35 costs- why the F would we being doing MQ-9 stuff with an F-35?

We have gone round and round on this a few times.

I said "other than endurance how is it better". This notional unnamed, unfunded UAV will likely have longer endurance than F-35's. Beyond that, there's probably not much else.

As for the Syracuse guard unit, you could have left it at: they're busy. I know you're not a dumb guy, so why would you ask me to explain why a UAV unit is busy when we are fighting dipshits in uncontested airspace, while manned platforms continue to counter more complex threats? Should we start putting manned squadrons on continuous deployments and use predators as a deterrent to peer threats?

 

[Uncle Fester]

I said "other than endurance how is it better". This notional unnamed, unfunded UAV will likely have longer endurance than F-35's. Beyond that, there's probably not much else.

With how/where/who we're actually fighting right now, long endurance is everything. The "unblinking eye" opens up a lot of possibilities to stay within ROE and still get the bad guys, stuff you can't do with a manned platform. Or at least, not easily and not without a whole lot of targeting and JAG problems.

There's no such thing as one tool that can do it all. For a lot - I would argue, most - missions, as technology is right now, manned is probably better. For a small but critical mission set, UAS is much, much better. There's a Venn-diagram overlap between the two where it's debatable, and that overlap will probably expand and contract in coming years depending on the strategic scene.

 

[Swanee]

We have gone round and round on this a few times.

I said "other than endurance how is it better". This notional unnamed, unfunded UAV will likely have longer endurance than F-35's. Beyond that, there's probably not much else.

As for the Syracuse guard unit, you could have left it at: they're busy. I know you're not a dumb guy, so why would you ask me to explain why a UAV unit is busy when we are fighting dipshits in uncontested airspace, while manned platforms continue to counter more complex threats? Should we start putting manned squadrons on continuous deployments and use predators as a deterrent to peer threats?

We really can't talk about future (and currently funded) UAS payloads here- but there are a lot more than just cameras, radio antennas and laser designators out there. I think you're a smart guy and have to realize that we aren't just stopping with what we have now...

But that's what I'm trying to say dude. Why waste an F-35 on doing what we're going to do now? There are credible threats that it counters/deters- but CAS/SCAR in the fight we're fighting now doesn't do it. And if we're doing CAS in contested environments we're going to want the F-22s and F-35s running CAP/SEAD/EA from a standoff while the UAVs go in and strike targets. The notion that you're going to go in low level and conduct pop attacks is sexy and fun, but not realistic with today's threats.

I think we're both smart, we just obviously have different opinions on this stuff. Honestly, I think the Marine Corps is completely lost and way out of our lane with the F-35 in today's combined world. It's bankrupted our Hornet fleet (and is a root factor as to why 3 of my friends- and a few other Hornet pilots- are dead when you get down to it) when all we really needed was a light attack turboprop. Let the Air Force light grey F-15 and F-22 guys (who are REALLY good at their jobs, because all they do is air to air) and the AF/Navy strike guys do their jobs so we can ultimately do ours. We keep thinking we deserve a spot in the starting line up for every sport, yet we struggle to even get out of bed and show up some days.

 

[zippy]

Sometimes cheaper = "better".
If you're looking for TOS for CAS/SCAR, then yes the UAV would be better. It's why the MQ-9 guys are running the SCAR show in parts of the world now- you don't need to do a hand off every 20-30 minutes, and it frees up the manned assets to check in, clean their wings and check out. If they have a target that needs killing and no strikers to do it, they can do it themselves.

In certain circles robots are prioritized higher on the CAS support wish list for ground support and there have even been occasions where movements have been delayed until robot got on station even though a section of fixed wing tacair is already on station?

Why? Because some JTACs have confidence that Robowarrior will be on station through the end of the evolution once they dismount and want constant coverage available from a shooter so they didn't have to worry about the jets being off tanking or RTB when they need help.

 

[magnetfreezer]

In certain circles robots are prioritized higher on the CAS support wish list for ground support and there have even been occasions where movements have been delayed until robot got on station even though a section of fixed wing tacair is already on station?

Why? Because some JTACs have confidence that Robowarrior will be on station through the end of the evolution once they dismount and want constant coverage available from a shooter so they didn't have to worry about the jets being off tanking or RTB when they need help.

Another major reason is because the robot has a direct FMV link to the TOC (so the O-6+ can watch their AOR and approve strikes) and a direct line to the guys shooting the weapons (so the generals can 100% control execution at the tactical level).