Prowler Future

[FlyinSpy]

The problem is that the Corps would have to fund the parts and engineering tail that the Navy now funds, which is a lot of money that the Corps does not have.

The parts issue is certainly a challenge, but there may be a considerable supply. Take the ~120 PAA we have today, and subtract the Marines's 20. That leaves essentially 100 complete parts lockers, available for raping at will. It would be an interesting study for the logistics guys to look at consumption rates of the range of Prowler-unique parts, and see how long a cannibalization effort of the 100 would sustain 20 jets - without any intermediate or depot maintenance support. I don't have a good enough feel for that aspect of the business to tell whether it would be single digits of months or many years, but my SWAG would be that it would carry you for at least a few years.

Of course, if the Marines grab the ICAP-IIIs, like they probably would, there would be a very finite supply of ICAP-III unique parts; they'd have to pay out of pocket for those.

As a final solution, there are a whole bunch of impounded bicycles at Iwakuni that could be auctioned off to buy spare parts... :icon_tong

 

[Brett327]

The parts issue is certainly a challenge, but there may be a considerable supply. Take the ~120 PAA we have today, and subtract the Marines's 20. That leaves essentially 100 complete parts lockers, available for raping at will. It would be an interesting study for the logistics guys to look at consumption rates of the range of Prowler-unique parts, and see how long a cannibalization effort of the 100 would sustain 20 jets - without any intermediate or depot maintenance support. I don't have a good enough feel for that aspect of the business to tell whether it would be single digits of months or many years, but my SWAG would be that it would carry you for at least a few years.

Of course, if the Marines grab the ICAP-IIIs, like they probably would, there would be a very finite supply of ICAP-III unique parts; they'd have to pay out of pocket for those.

As a final solution, there are a whole bunch of impounded bicycles at Iwakuni that could be auctioned off to buy spare parts... :icon_tong

I would think that, unless you had a separate entity to systematically strip down the parts birds and infuse them into the supply system, you're going to have a very inefficient process. Need an engine (or whatever)? Instead of it showing up at the O-level unit RFI, now you (or someone) must to go and spend the time to pull it out of another aircraft, doubling your man-hours per maintenance action. Just one more pesky detail which I believe will prevent the Marines from utilizing the Prowler once the Navy bails. Are we then going to have to recreate the Exped squadrons (and another generation of misfit toys?) to support Marine ops like we did with the demise of the EF-111? Are we going to have a Marine G model crew in every G model squadron, in the interests of jointness? The possibilities are endless.

Brett

 

[ProwlerPilot]

If they fit on LHAs and LHDs, how would they not fit on a carrier?

The Osprey does fit on a carrier, it is much bigger than the sh-60, which folds up nicely and tucks under the island. I don't know how the osprey folds up, but with their size, I just don't think it would be practical to give up that much hangar and deck space for an aircraft that will be primarily used for plane guard and vert rep.

 

[Lawman]

Are we going to have a Marine G model crew in every G model squadron, in the interests of jointness? The possibilities are endless.

Brett

Id be up for that, you'd be flying the youngest Pointy nosed jet of any Marine Crew in the Corps till the JSF stands up. Also somebody brought up paying for ICAP III equipment. I thought the 18G was going to be utilizing a lot of that same equipment so wouldnt there be an element of commonality there to help absorb some of the cost if the Corps decides to extend its time in the Prowler for a bit after the Navy phases it out.


Also Prowler Pilot the Osprey dimensions when stowed are listed as 63' L x 18.4' W. But here's something interesting that the Osprey can do that no current Helo can.

 

[raptor10]

Id be up for that, you'd be flying the youngest Pointy nosed jet of any Marine Crew in the Corps till the JSF stands up. Also somebody brought up paying for ICAP III equipment. I thought the 18G was going to be utilizing a lot of that same equipment so wouldnt there be an element of commonality there to help absorb some of the cost if the Corps decides to extend its time in the Prowler for a bit after the Navy phases it out.


Also Prowler Pilot the Osprey dimensions when stowed are listed as 63' L x 18.4' W. But here's something interesting that the Osprey can do that no current Helo can.

Not even the MH-53???

 

[Lawman]

Not even the MH-53???

You'll notice the Osprey isnt flying behind something with propellors. Somebody gets a 53 Echo up to that altitude and speed you be sure to call me. I wanna shake that mans hand.

 

[Brett327]

Not even the MH-53???

Not at 250 Kts.

Brett

 

[BigIron]

^^ No sir.

 

[fudog50]

VMAQ makes no sense now with Prowlers. It will die with the Prowler.

Along with all the other good points put out, in todays services there is very slim to no justification for having 2 forces doing the same job.

 

[HeyJoe]

The problem is that the Corps would have to fund the parts and engineering tail that the Navy now funds, which is a lot of money that the Corps does not have. Not only that, does the Corps want to make that big of an investment that they have basically lost control of for the past decade? I don't think so, my guess is that the Prwoler will be the last in the line of Marine EA aircraft.......

Well, that isn't exactly a problem as ALL USMC aviation (except C2 and Air Defense aspects) is paid for by so-called Blue Dollars from N88 (OPNAV) where there are Naval and Marine officers working side by side to work the funding with DC Air coordinating closely. Therefore, Naval Aviation includes everything the Marine Corps operates and standing down Navy Prowlers does not leave the Marines in the lurch at all.

I don't necessarily agree that the Marines have "basically lost control [of the investment] of for the past decade". The Marines are consistently more successfully in realizing their Campaign Plan than any other service whether through funding directly by N88 in the POM/FYDP or by Congressional patronage. What you may be seeing is the impact of paying "war bills" and its effect on the "investment" plans. Each service is feeling that pain as the bill to conduct worldwide GWOT is significant (as if you didn't know) and procurement and R&D accounts have been tapped as bill payers on a routine basis.

All in all, if the Marines elect to continue operating their Prowlers, it will happen and they will reap the benefit of all the logistics tail already in place for the entire Prowler community.

 

[Flash]

Well, that isn't exactly a problem as ALL USMC aviation (except C2 and Air Defense aspects) is paid for by so-called Blue Dollars from N88 (OPNAV) where there are Naval and Marine officers working side by side to work the funding with DC Air coordinating closely. Therefore, Naval Aviation includes everything the Marine Corps operates and standing down Navy Prowlers does not leave the Marines in the lurch at all.

I know they come from the same general pot but it was my understanding that the Marines had a chunk of that pot that they used, like for the Harrier and Osprey. I am not too familiar with the budget details, thank god, so I will defer to you......

I don't necessarily agree that the Marines have "basically lost control [of the investment] of for the past decade". The Marines are consistently more successfully in realizing their Campaign Plan than any other service whether through funding directly by N88 in the POM/FYDP or by Congressional patronage. What you may be seeing is the impact of paying "war bills" and its effect on the "investment" plans. Each service is feeling that pain as the bill to conduct worldwide GWOT is significant (as if you didn't know) and procurement and R&D accounts have been tapped as bill payers on a routine basis.

What I meant by the Marines losing control of thier investment was that they were not exactly in charge fo where their Prowlers were deployed, it was mainly decided at a higher level. They were basically used as expeditionary squadrons jsut like the Navy ones, with little difference between the two. And you are just as likely to see a Navy Prowler squadron in Iwakuni as a Marine one. Instead of being part of MAG's, they were part of AEF's for a long time. Many of the Marine Prowler types lamented this fact, constantly......

All in all, if the Marines elect to continue operating their Prowlers, it will happen and they will reap the benefit of all the logistics tail already in place for the entire Prowler community.

I just don't see them doing it for an asset they will nto have complete control over, and that are 40 years old by that time.......

 

[HeyJoe]

I know they come from the same general pot but it was my understanding that the Marines had a chunk of that pot that they used, like for the Harrier and Osprey. I am not too familiar with the budget details, thank god, so I will defer to you......

LOL, it's one thing that is hard to learn and once mastered, you want to run away because it's a frustrating process to have to follow.

What I meant by the Marines losing control of thier investment was that they were not exactly in charge fo where their Prowlers were deployed, it was mainly decided at a higher level. They were basically used as expeditionary squadrons jsut like the Navy ones, with little difference between the two. And you are just as likely to see a Navy Prowler squadron in Iwakuni as a Marine one. Instead of being part of MAG's, they were part of AEF's for a long time. Many of the Marine Prowler types lamented this fact, constantly......

Actually, since Goldwater-Nichols in 1986, the (regional) Combatant Commanders known as COCOMs and formerly known as CinCs (CENTCOM in particular but also EUCOM, PACOM, SOUTHCOM and now AFRICOM), they drive where all service components deploy especially Carrier Strike Group (CSG) and Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) deployments. What you may perceive as USMC being in charge of where the USMC Prowlers deploy is response to steady state requests from the COCOMs. GWOT has caused increased demand in suport of CENTCOM and now HOA as well.

Bottom Line, a new shift in deployment (USN Prowlers that are not expeditionary are also being used in same role) isn't a bad thing as it reaffirms need for a certain platfrom assuring longevity.

I just don't see them doing it for an asset they will nto have complete control over, and that are 40 years old by that time.......

See prior comment...USMC still has control and is merely responding to RFF (Request for Forces) from a theatre. True, the Prowlers will get old. I don't see a JSF EA variant as purposed by DC Air a few years ago nor do I see the EA-18G with Marines (not yet)

 

[Flash]

LOL, it's one thing that is hard to learn and once mastered, you want to run away because it's a frustrating process to have to follow.

Actually, since Goldwater-Nichols in 1986, the (regional) Combatant Commanders known as COCOMs and formerly known as CinCs (CENTCOM in particular but also EUCOM, PACOM, SOUTHCOM and now AFRICOM), they drive where all service components deploy especially Carrier Strike Group (CSG) and Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) deployments. What you may perceive as USMC being in charge of where the USMC Prowlers deploy is response to steady state requests from the COCOMs. GWOT has caused increased demand in suport of CENTCOM and now HOA as well.

Bottom Line, a new shift in deployment (USN Prowlers that are not expeditionary are also being used in same role) isn't a bad thing as it reaffirms need for a certain platfrom assuring longevity.

See prior comment...USMC still has control and is merely responding to RFF (Request for Forces) from a theatre. True, the Prowlers will get old. I don't see a JSF EA variant as purposed by DC Air a few years ago nor do I see the EA-18G with Marines (not yet)

Unfortunately I am very familiar with the DEPORD process, especially the ISR portion of it.

What I meant by the Marines not liking 'losing' 'their assets', at least at the squadron level, not having control is that instead of being part of the MAG they were part of non-Marine deployments. Not necessarily a bad thing, actually I thought good, but it was a common complaint of the VMAQ guys I know.

We are all one part of a big happy family now, aren't we?

 

[Recidivist]

So, would anybody care to speculate on whether or not the total number of Navy shockers or growlers, or whatever they are finally known as, will be increased if the USMC doesn't keep their prowlers?

Is it plausible to think that Navy would provide more aircraft to fill the gap, or will the EA availability be spread thinner?

 

[HeyJoe]

Unfortunately I am very familiar with the DEPORD process, especially the ISR portion of it.

What I meant by the Marines not liking 'losing' 'their assets', at least at the squadron level, not having control is that instead of being part of the MAG they were part of non-Marine deployments. Not necessarily a bad thing, actually I thought good, but it was a common complaint of the VMAQ guys I know.

We are all one part of a big happy family now, aren't we?

It's all about adapting with the times and needs of the Combatant Commanders in the GWOT environment. Special Ops types get lashed together all the time to suit the mission at hand. Same thing has happened to CAGs and MAGs and will continue to happen. Shore-based CAGs will being sending their Prowlers into the rotation when their ship is in the yards. One is about to go and take the DCAG with them.

Some units that resist the notion of deploying in an unconventional fashion (some Navy reservists as a matter of fact) have almost talked themselves out of a job. Although CONUS based organizations like to keep their integrity and unity of command, it is indeed up to the regional command as to how they want to emply the units once they in chop. All the Navy work to create Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESG) has ended up deploying assets that have been (on occasion) split up between HOA and the Persian Gulf in disparate tasking. Just have to be flexible and ready to perform.