USN Showdown between Super Hornet and F-35

[Randy Daytona]

A cabal of graybeards clearly has an issue. Whether that represents anything within the senior ranks of the Corps is an outstanding question.

Mattis and Van Riper are certainly not lightweights.

Although I think Berger is correct in regards to preparing for China, I was surprised he didn’t hedge his bets and leave some armor and extra tube artillery with the East Coast Marines and the reserves to cover contingencies in the third world.

 

[Griz882]

Mattis and Van Riper are certainly not lightweights.

Although I think Berger is correct in regards to preparing for China, I was surprised he didn’t hedge his bets and leave some armor and extra tube artillery with the East Coast Marines and the reserves to cover contingencies in the third world.

Or move his heavy stuff to the reserves.

 

[Brett327]

Mattis and Van Riper are certainly not lightweights.

Mattis in on the GD board. Shocking that he would oppose divestiture of tanks by the Marines!

 

[Flash]

Although I think Berger is correct in regards to preparing for China, I was surprised he didn’t hedge his bets and leave some armor and extra tube artillery with the East Coast Marines and the reserves to cover contingencies in the third world.

Do they need those to cover third-world contingencies though? In the cases that the Marines would be involved in, probably not.

Folks tend to forget that there are outsized savings when you get rid of an entire class of weapon system or even a particular type of aircraft/ship. It is a big part of the reason the USAF is getting rid the KC-10 before KC-135's and why they have persistently wanted to get rid of the A-10. I remember the USAF publicly claimed a few years ago that retiring the entire A-10 fleet would equal the savings of cutting 3 times the number of F-16's because all the attendant infrastructure and logistics tail would not have to be funded any more either. That is the kind of big picture stuff service chiefs have to look at when they try and budget for their forces.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Do they need those to cover third-world contingencies though? In the cases that the Marines would be involved in, probably not.

Folks tend to forget that there are outsized savings when you get rid of an entire class of weapon system or even a particular type of aircraft/ship. It is a big part of the reason the USAF is getting rid the KC-10 before KC-135's and why they have persistently wanted to get rid of the A-10. I remember the USAF publicly claimed a few years ago that retiring the entire A-10 fleet would equal the savings of cutting 3 times the number of F-16's because all the attendant infrastructure and logistics tail would not have to be funded any more either. That is the kind of big picture stuff service chiefs have to look at when they try and budget for their forces.

That seems to be the crux of the disagreement between Commandant Berger and some of the other generals.

In regards to the mention of the USAF retiring KC-10’s but still flying KC-135’s, I would argue that you are not giving up the entire capability. The Air Force still has tankers and is getting new ones, in the case of the Marines, the Corps is giving up the capability of organic heavy armor.

On a related subject, good discussion of the argument over amphibious ship building program and the differences between what the Navy and the Marines want:

Navy and Marines Divided Over the Amphibious Fleet’s Future as Delays and Cancellations Mount in FY 2023 Budget Request - USNI News

If the Marines could spend any more money as part of the Pentagon’s Fiscal Year 2023 budget, they’d ask to buy another amphibious warship. Ranked higher than new F-35B and C Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters or Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, the number one item on the Corps’ FY 2023 unfunded...

news.usni.org

Navy and Marines Divided Over the Amphibious Fleet’s Future as Delays and Cancellations Mount in FY 2023 Budget Request​

Following the rollout of the Navy’s FY 2023 budget, the state of the amphibious force structure is murky. The service’s budget proposal truncates the San Antonio-class LPD-17 Flight II production line and delays the Marine Corps’ new Light Amphibious Warship purchase.

The proposal – already receiving criticism in Congress – is exposing fissures between the two sea services over their visions for amphibious platforms.

 

[phrogdriver]

Mattis and Van Riper are certainly not lightweights.

Although I think Berger is correct in regards to preparing for China, I was surprised he didn’t hedge his bets and leave some armor and extra tube artillery with the East Coast Marines and the reserves to cover contingencies in the third world.

People are getting way too stuck on those two things.

The USMC generally deploys armor by the platoon. It was completely small ball and not worth the fixed cost overhead in people, depot maintenance, and money.

Tube artillery for what? Being at a FOB and doing fire missions within 25km?

The real question is whether to go all in on this EABO idea. Is it worth staking an entire service on what could be a suicide mission? People will say "you haven't seen the classified material," but that really doesn't go that far, and it hasn't changed THAT much since Dunford and Mattis last saw it.

What about the usual NEO, HADR, and embassy reinforcement gigs that pay the bills for the USMC when the world isn't on fire? If you have a crisis in Europe, it's a hell of a haul in a LAW.

 

[Hotdogs]

The Navy underfunding amphibious shipping? In other news - water is wet.

 

[Hotdogs]

The real question is whether to go all in on this EABO idea. Is it worth staking an entire service on what could b a suicide mission? People will say "you haven't seen the classified material," but that really doesn't go that far, and it hasn't changed THAT much since Dunford and Mattis last saw it.

It’s only a fraction of the entire service. We could just keep doing what we’ve always been doing and become giant floating targets like CVNs….The real question is if the divest to invest strategy is actually going to work.

Nobody cares about maintaining a crisis response capability until something happens. (Libya, Kabul, Syria, etc.) Then people will stop caring 6 months later and keep chugging along and forget.

 

[Flash]

That seems to be the crux of the disagreement between Commandant Berger and some of the other generals.

In regards to the mention of the USAF retiring KC-10’s but still flying KC-135’s, I would argue that you are not giving up the entire capability. The Air Force still has tankers and is getting new ones, in the case of the Marines, the Corps is giving up the capability of organic heavy armor.

I said exactly that:

Folks tend to forget that there are outsized savings when you get rid of an entire class of weapon system or even a particular type of aircraft/ship.

While the Corps was utilizing Army training resources they now no longer have to purchase, maintain or train for any tanks and the savings from that will be much bigger than if they just reduced the number of tanks or replaced them. Sort of like retiring an entire aircraft type.

As @phrogdriver points out large armored formations aren't really a Marine Corps thing, and they still retain the ability to operate in a more 'conventional' war even without them.

 

[phrogdriver]

It’s only a fraction of the entire service. We could just keep doing what we’ve always been doing and become giant floating targets like CVNs….The real question is if the divest to invest strategy is actually going to work.

Nobody cares about maintaining a crisis response capability until something happens. (Libya, Kabul, Syria, etc.) Then people will stop caring 6 months later and keep chugging along and forget.

The divest to invest strategy is the weakest part of the whole thing.

Congress is going to say “thank you very much” and spend that savings on something else.

By “small part of the Corps” we’re talking at least a third of the force. And the effects aren’t constrained to just that. The cuts in aviation and infantry affect the whole organization.

I’m a fan of the maritime focus, but I think there’s room to hedge bets here. Side of the changes are too extreme.

 

[Hotdogs]

The divest to invest strategy is the weakest part of the whole thing.

Congress is going to say “thank you very much” and spend that savings on something else.

By “small part of the Corps” we’re talking at least a third of the force. And the effects aren’t constrained to just that. The cuts in aviation and infantry affect the whole organization.

I’m a fan of the maritime focus, but I think there’s room to hedge bets here. Side of the changes are too extreme.

The Navy already scooped up any potential savings due to the ship building budget. As the entirety of the force - The Infantry needed reforms. They haven’t had a major structural reform in multiple decades. They’re still using charts and darts for fire support coordination and it’s 2022. Most MEU BLTs are too big as it stands right now.

As far as aviation - an increase in VMU and VMGR was just a matter of time. The scale of reduction in HMH, HMLA, and VMM will probably have the biggest unforeseen impacts. Especially for organic mobility if the LAW and additional VMGRs don’t get funded. This is a joint logistics problem because it’ll effect everyone when it comes to moving people and things around any theater.

We’re going to see a slow down of the MLR roll outs if FD2030 doesn’t get funded and then we’re all going to be in a hurt locker. I’m a fan of most force design initiatives, but I agreed a lot of it was cart before the horse. Divest to invest will probably come with mixed results.

 

[ChuckMK23]

"The Marines broke a record on Sunday when they loaded 16 F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters aboard a big-deck amphibious warship. Under cloudy skies on Sunday afternoon, deck sailors directed Marine pilots onto launching spots and maneuvered others into parking spots on the flight deck USS Tripoli (LHA-7), the Navy’s newest big deck amphibious warship, with even more F-35's coming later this week..."

 

[Randy Daytona]

"The Marines broke a record on Sunday when they loaded 16 F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters aboard a big-deck amphibious warship. Under cloudy skies on Sunday afternoon, deck sailors directed Marine pilots onto launching spots and maneuvered others into parking spots on the flight deck USS Tripoli (LHA-7), the Navy’s newest big deck amphibious warship, with even more F-35's coming later this week..."

Article and photos on the Lightning Carrier experiment.

For the last several years, the Marine Corps has been experimenting with the idea of loading up US Navy LHA/LHDs with a large number of F-35Bs, much like they did with their AV-8B Harrier jump jets back in 2003 for the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Marine Corps Aviation Plan of 2017 first disclosed the concept, saying, “While the amphibious assault ship will never replace the aircraft carrier, it can be complementary, if employed in imaginative ways. The CVN-L concept has previously been employed (five times) utilizing AV-8B Harriers in a “Harrier Carrier” concept. The ARG/MEU’s mission, and 13 mission essential tasks (METs), will not change; however, a Lightning Carrier, taking full advantage of the amphibious assault ship as a sea base, can provide the naval and joint force with significant access, collection and strike capabilities.”

Aboard The Marine's First F-35B-Packed 'Lightning Carrier' (Updated)

The Marines turned USS Tripoli into a 'Lightning Carrier' packed with over 20 F-35Bs. We were there.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Brett327]

Please... make it stop.

 

[Hotdogs]

Please... make it stop.