That is the question.
Proving that not everyone is asleep at the switch, a brief is making the rounds inside Navy channels wondering how we’re going to integrate the Short Take-off, Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the Joint Strike Fighter aboard our aircraft carriers. The Navy is committed to the F-35C, a conventional tailhook and launch bar aircraft variant of the USAF baseline, the F-35A.
But the F-35B STOVL version is critical both the the Marine Corps and the United Kingdom, each for different reasons. Marine Corps leadership acceded to the Tactical Aircraft Integration plan in 2003 even as they committed to an all-STOVL vision once their FA-18A/C fleet stands down. So far as I can tell (and I’m swimming a bit out of my lane here) the decision to go all STOVL was as much cultural as anything else – if you’re not grunt infantry, you’re support in the Corps, and an airframe that can’t deploy alongside the trigger-pullers is viewed with deep suspicion. An even better reason might have been that it’s more expensive to both purchase and maintain differing airframes for your stable, even when they share a common heritage.
TAI saw the USMC deploy and integrate a line FA-18C squadron into each of the Navy’s carrier air wings and was designed (depending upon who you ask) to either 1) Foster enhanced Blue/Green integration and warfighting effectiveness from the sea, or 2) save money. And probably a bit of both. The UK on the other hand, is building a new generation aircraft carrier design, but has no intent of putting either catapults or arresting gear on them, which does rather form a constraint for non-STOVL aircraft. Without both UK and USMC commitment to the program, unit costs grow higher, even as political risks mushroom.
Problem is that no one’s entirely sure that carrier integration of the B-model, with it’s STOVL lift fan, reduced fuel capacity and diminished bomb load, is going to, you know: Work.
From this week’s Navy Times:
JTG, I walk around with those thoughts rattling around my brain bucket all day everyday. But, as B2 has pointed out, assets are short. Sometimes you have to haul coal in a Cadillac. Besides, it IS the only game in town.
Tim, you’re all apples and oranges. That’s the kind of thinking that keeps you from joining the grownups’ table at Thanksgiving. I can’t speak for my wingnut brethren, but from my point of view, I don’t want them on a carrier either. I want them at a FARP site, just outside the enemy artillery fan.
Yeah, Casca, I always thought that the Marine Way was maximum ultraviolence for a short time, so that the absolute number of casualties is small, though the casualty rate per minute be horrendous.
Attrition warfare is icky creepy and nasty and no good for anybody.
P.s. I mean number of casualties among the Marines. Our country’s enemies should suffer lots and lots of casualties.
I am drinking the Decatur Toast, at this very moment.
Sorry about that, folks. I got way the hell off-topic.
To get back on topic; I think Marines are Kewel&Wonderful, just like everybody else does, but don’t think that they should get to dictate what kinds of airplanes the taxpayers buy, just because of being so wonderful and manly.
The needs of the Republic do, and should, come first.
(Yah, I know that some of you folks think I’m silly for insisting that we still have a functioning Republic, but I’m going to act as if that is true.)
Casca,
I don’t thinbk it’s a mixed fruit comparison at all….
Lookit, did the US Army suffer terribly when the fixed-wing combat squadrons were stripped from it to form the US Air Force?
I’m noty dissing Marines here. I am dissing the “Legion” concept that says we have to have a little bit of everything all the time. That leaves you with lots of little bits and not a lot of any one thing.
I also agree with JTG that the Marines ought not to be being used for occupation duty. Yes, they can and have done it, and are extremely succesful at it, but that’s not their best use.
As to the F-35 stovl variant, I again ask why? The Marines, at present, do not have the available flight deck to operate both this platform, the V-22 series, the Sea Cobras, and other rotoary-wing assets. If they want to emply the F-35 stovl, they will either have to replace current aviation units onboard their assault ships, or stage the F-35 units to a nearby area through long missions and multiple tankings, or hvae them assigned to CVBG’s. None of those are a good choice.
If you replace the current lift and helo units, what are you going to use to transport Marines ashore and inland? Long overwater, multiple tanking missions means extended airframe use without seeing combat, and added pilot fatigue. Operating from a CV/CVN means the Navy will have to change it’s operating procedures to accomodate the new platform. Who picks up the training tab? If you are going to operate from a CV anyway, then the Navy’s own air assets are available, so again I ask why does the Marine Corps need this F-35 variant in particular, and fixed wing assets in general?
Casca, I guarentee you I have a place at the table. Apparently the real problem is finding enough adults to fill all the seats.
respects,
Casca, you have displayed EXACTLTY what I anticipated with mucho BRAVADO ala head down.
My retort. If I was the Navy Department I would divest the expensive 175,000 specialized force and let it stand alone. Don’t want to play on the team- fend for yourselves. And you know what that means…Army footsteps..Hear ‘em?
I could say: Start paying for your own dam infrastructure, create your own medical dental corps, start acquiring and developing your own aircraft and systems (NAVAIR), grow your own test pilots (USN TPS) and start training your own pilots (CNATRA)… I could go on. Maybe it’s about time y’all got off the 230 year gravy train (or should I call it Navy Train?).
Only a marine (notice the little “M” casca?)like yourself, who is hopefully, just funnin with ol’B2 by flaming, would go out of the way to literally bite the hand that feeds ‘em.
These comments have gotten much bigger than the relatively simple issue of F-35B’s onboard CVNs, but I’m not surprised this debate isn’t public more often. Navy leadership, as timid as they be, won’t touch it mano-mano or in public but I ain’t no such “rustpicker”…
What I would suggest everyone here take away from this is a clear demonstration of the “circle the wagons”, “we are being besieged” mentality, the USMC bring to the table in the joust for relevance. This gunfight brought to you courtesy of Casca who represents that unilateral and boxed mindset. Team Marine, not Team America…
Never once, mind you, have I ever called for a smaller Marine Corps in any of my commenting here and elsewhere. Rather I want an even more successful and robust Corps..Personally, I think end strength should be around 240,000. All I ever challenged was that unique mix of aircraft the Corps thinks it needs based on the days of wine & roses when it fought for relevance during the Reagan years, was funded and got a fixation on exotic, expensive and questionable operationally suitable aircraft known as the VSTOL family- AV-8, V-22 and F-35B..
Their lobby is strong and they will probably win..but it is the US Navy who bleeds the most. Yes, IMO our defense will be compromised somewhat… I truly wish a stronger group of Navy leaders would fight a little harder…
b2
Casca,
The question here is whether the Marines have a valid need for fixed-wing assets of their own, and, if so, is the F-35B the best platform for that mission?
Should the Navy have to redesign it’s procedures, training, and some of it’s physical plant in order to accomodate the Marine’s choice of aircraft?
Consider that when the F-30 Stovl deploys on a CV, it’s not just the aircraft but all the spare parts. The F-35 was supposed to be a common platform for inter-service use. Now, the Marines want it, but differently, and the CV will have to allocate extra space(s) for the new supply chain to accompany it. Rather than draw from a common parts store, there will have to be a USMC-Only section. That cuts into already limited space, plus funds and adds another layer to the supply officer’s department.
Added to all this is changes in the CV’s airops department to handle a fighter which DOESN’T land normally, which DOESN’T use a catapult. Now, the Navy will have to add extra training to the deck hands to handle this aircraft, as well as there will be new safety issues involved. Who picks up those costs?
This is no different from my live-at-home son who buys a new truck, then tells me I need to expand the garage so he can park it in there. Rather than buy something that fits into the current system, he buys what he wants and then figures that I ought to adapt to his needs.
You will find no greater fan of the Marines than me. For more than 30 years I have been in or around Naval Aviation, and known many fine Marines. But I reserve the right to point out what I feel to be wasteful and/or counter-productive ideas. I’ve earned that, not because I’m a veteran, but because I am a taxpayer and a citizen. It is my obligation as both.
Respects,
This ground is pretty well plowed. Marines lose their fixed wing? Perhaps the services of a good mental health professional are in order until one achieves a better grasp of reality? He’ll give you some pills. You’ll feel better.
Running the plow again (dang that mule hates me) I animadvert to some of Jerry Pournelle’s writing. He has said, that historically and traditionally, the Congress owned the Army, and the President owned the Marines.
That is, if we’re about to get into a fight for national existence, why, Congress declares Warre, we recruit huge armies, and destroy and lay waste. For just putting out fires, so to speak, the Prez sends in the Marines and they solve the problem quickly without bothering the home folks too much