USN Showdown between Super Hornet and F-35

[nittany03]

It wouldn’t compare to an E-2, but it is vastly superior to what is currently on amphibious ships—nothing.

Here’s a thought . . . fund TACC, and formalize their training syllabus instead of letting it be a community where active duty careers go to die. It’s arguably the closest thing to an E-2 that currently exists, even if it is a bastardization of about three different functions of a CV/CVW team.

 

[Pags]

Here’s a thought . . . fund TACC, and formalize their training syllabus instead of letting it be a community where active duty careers go to die. It’s arguably the closest thing to an E-2 that currently exists, even if it is a bastardization of about three different functions of a CV/CVW team.

No, just no. ICEPACK ≠ E-2. Kind of hard to be AEW when you're stuck shipboard.

 

[Pags]

I am not so sure it would be better due to the myriad complications of integrating a suitable radar on a reliable enough UAV to be able to do the job. Having observed how reliable current UAV's are I am not optimistic that all the required systems integration, from getting a suitable radar to making a new UAV work well enough, to make this workable enough to have a viable platform in the near future. Especially one with the necessary persistence for AEW support for a 'CVL' in a higher-threat area.



While even Marines can be taught new tricks I think the learning curve for something like this would be pretty steep and more importanly, getting this off the ground, literally in this case, would be A LOT more expensive than most folks seem to assume. Add to the fact it isn't a core USMC mission and the Marines have been shedding, and try to continue to do so, non-core missions I still see this as more sales brochure artwork than a realistic alternative.

So less 'the Marines are a bunch of morons who can't do more than eat crayons' and more a dose a realism with a dash of cynicism.

I'm kind of surprised at the general dichotomy of the notion around a UAV AEW platform. There seems to be 2 camps:

1. Excited! Facts and spectrum be damned! The BD have a pretty PowerPoint so it must be true!
2. Boo. This will never ever work because it will be hard and different.

There needs to be a third camp of realistic but visionary folks who understand how to make these ideas in to reality.

Lots of things we take for granted today; heavier than air airplanes, jet engines, nuclear power, and radar to name a few, were all at one point science fiction and the realm of Camp 1. They got a lot of push back from Camp 2 but the inherent value of the idea and the feasibility of the science eventually couldn't be denied and proper funding was applied. The issues that are mentioned are real hurdles but they can all be jumped or avoided if there's enough funding and a good technical strategy to develop methods to address the challenges.

What seems to be the obvious push here by USMC is to figure out how to turn the LHD in to a CVL and to get the USMC F-35s in to the next war in a meaningful way. To do that they know that they'll need to replicate some of the capabilities of the CVW organically on the LHD.

 

[Hotdogs]

While even Marines can be taught new tricks I think the learning curve for something like this would be pretty steep and more importanly, getting this off the ground, literally in this case, would be A LOT more expensive than most folks seem to assume. Add to the fact it isn't a core USMC mission and the Marines have been shedding, and try to continue to do so, non-core missions I still see this as more sales brochure artwork than a realistic alternative.

So less 'the Marines are a bunch of morons who can't do more than eat crayons' and more a dose a realism with a dash of cynicism.

Control of Aircraft and Missiles is one of the functions of Marine Aviation. It is a core mission of Marine Air. In order to do that, you need a common operating picture, and traditionally since we have operated close to shore we have always relied on ship based or joint service control until established ashore. They are already starting to flirt with the idea of consolidating MACCS agencies in order to build that picture. Our platforms are increasingly operating from over the horizon and it is not unreasonable to need a platform that is capable of extending to do that. Got it - there is a learning curve, but it was no different than learning carrier operations, amphibious assault, vertical envelopment, STOVL, and tiltrotor technology.

Concur on the funding though. There are a lot of fairy tales and space dust from the engineering and spectrum standpoint. It’s not impossible and is going take time. It may not be MUX but it wouldn’t surprise me to see some sort of land or sea based high endurance AEW platform for the Marines in the future. Maybe we’ll even get the Navy to buy in on it the future ? You know like we did with the Osprey.

 

[nittany03]

No, just no. ICEPACK ≠ E-2. Kind of hard to be AEW when you're stuck shipboard.

The comparison I was making wasn't ICEPACK == the E-2. It's most certainly not. It's ICEPACK vs "the ESG has nothing." TACC is a watchstation with SCAC and AIC controllers, and that's not nothing. I mean, I'm arguing from a bit of an academic perspective here. I've done some sims and taken some coursework, but I've generally been stuck in the CAOC and not underway. But it seems to me that if you want to start from what we have now and build out, it seems the only place to start is ICEPACK, until there's a better alternative. What else is there? Ship's TAO and OSes?

I mean, if you can wave a magic wand and replicate an E-2's capability organic to the ESG, great. But that's vaporware right now.

 

[Flash]

Control of Aircraft and Missiles is one of the functions of Marine Aviation. It is a core mission of Marine Air. In order to do that, you need a common operating picture, and traditionally since we have operated close to shore we have always relied on ship based or joint service control until established ashore. They are already starting to flirt with the idea of consolidating MACCS agencies in order to build that picture. Our platforms are increasingly operating from over the horizon and it is not unreasonable to need a platform that is capable of extending to do that. Got it - there is a learning curve, but it was no different than learning carrier operations, amphibious assault, vertical envelopment, STOVL, and tiltrotor technology.

The USMC is, as we speak, trying to divest themselves of some of their assets to do that job of controlling Marine Air which makes me even more wary of the idea that the MUX AEW idea will come to fruition. My additional concern about the Marines and AEW is that they will not dedicate the resources to make it a viable capability. It is certainly not beyond the capability of the Marines to do this, but I think it is beyond the desire of the current Marine leadership to do what is needed for this to come to fruition and it would not be resourced to make it a viable capability.

I am also coming at it from more a 'AEW' perspective than a 'controller' one, and I have serious doubts that an MUX-equipped AEW aircraft would be able to provide the capability needed to make an LHA/D into a viable 'CVL' capable of operating in a higher-threat environment.

I'm kind of surprised at the general dichotomy of the notion around a UAV AEW platform....There needs to be a third camp of realistic but visionary folks who understand how to make these ideas in to reality.

What seems to be the obvious push here by USMC is to figure out how to turn the LHD in to a CVL and to get the USMC F-35s in to the next war in a meaningful way. To do that they know that they'll need to replicate some of the capabilities of the CVW organically on the LHD.

This gets us back to what started this debate, using the LHA/D's as CVL's to supplement, or even replace in some cases, CVN's. Trying to optimize an LHA/D to do what a CSG is already primed to do with a full F-35B air wing with MUX refuelers and AEW in support would only get you part way to what a CSG can do today.

A big problem with that is in a 'near-peer' fight a CVN is already going to be stretched dealing with current enemy capabilities, even with newer assets like the E-2D and F-35C. That does not take into account the very rapidly expanding enemy capabilities that an AEW MUX will face if it ever did come online, threats that will be a huge challenge for a full CSG even with its own newer toys. And it isn't just Russia and China I'm talking about unfortunately.

Bottom line...long story short...an MUX AEW might be a 'solution' to the problem of AEW for a LHD/A but would be a poor one in a world of rapidly expanding enemy capabilities. I would rather invest in improving CSG capabilities than putting money into a 'bright idea' of making LHA/D's into CVL's.

 

[Hotdogs]

The USMC is, as we speak, trying to divest themselves of some of their assets to do that job of controlling Marine Air which makes me even more wary of the idea that the MUX AEW idea will come to fruition. My additional concern about the Marines and AEW is that they will not dedicate the resources to make it a viable capability. It is certainly not beyond the capability of the Marines to do this, but I think it is beyond the desire of the current Marine leadership to do what is needed for this to come to fruition and it would not be resourced to make it a viable capability.

I am also coming at it from more a 'AEW' perspective than a 'controller' one, and I have serious doubts that an MUX-equipped AEW aircraft would be able to provide the capability needed to make an LHA/D into a viable 'CVL' capable of operating in a higher-threat environment.

This gets us back to what started this debate, using the LHA/D's as CVL's to supplement, or even replace in some cases, CVN's. Trying to optimize an LHA/D to do what a CSG is already primed to do with a full F-35B air wing with MUX refuelers and AEW in support would only get you part way to what a CSG can do today.

A big problem with that is in a 'near-peer' fight a CVN is already going to be stretched dealing with current enemy capabilities, even with newer assets like the E-2D and F-35C. That does not take into account the very rapidly expanding enemy capabilities that an AEW MUX will face if it ever did come online, threats that will be a huge challenge for a full CSG even with its own newer toys. And it isn't just Russia and China I'm talking about unfortunately.

Bottom line...long story short...an MUX AEW might be a 'solution' to the problem of AEW for a LHD/A but would be a poor one in a world of rapidly expanding enemy capabilities. I would rather invest in improving CSG capabilities than putting money into a 'bright idea' of making LHA/D's into CVL's.

I'm genuinely curious as to what assets we are divesting in order to reduce our C2 capability, because everything I am reading and experiencing is the opposite. If the removal of a EW aircraft is your justification, than I would submit you're probably off on that remark. Multiple MACCS agencies are being upgraded with new equipment and software to make that more compatible with the joint force and new acquisitions - to include Navy ships.

Flash, I get it, you don't have to repeat the same points agin. You're afraid it'll take away from the giant sacred floating target/cow of the CVN. The LHA/D It is not a CVL, because if that was what we needed, we would ask for it. Not a single Marine aviator has used the term "CVL" in general lexicon while speaking about shipboard ops. We still don't consider the standalone MEU as an offensive force, and requires significant augmentation to get to that point organically. The ACE currently is only about 35-40% of the total manpower of a MEU. There are many many other missions our current L-class ships do that have little to do with Marine Aviation. You can simply point to sortie generation and the purpose of a MEU/MEB, and it is directly related to supporting a landing force ashore. It can fill small and similar roles, but will never in any sense be able to do what a CVW does and is not designed to do that. In the case of where we are going writ large with the F-35B, MV-22B, and the expected replacement aircraft in the next 20-30 years - the vast majority of our aircraft will have significantly increased range and beyond the control of our current C2 capability. I doubt the Navy or Air Force would be willing (nor should they) be expected to fulfill those roles. This is not even taking into account how the current CMC wants to disperse the MAGTF across the fleet. The MUX looks like a gimmicky machine, and has the potential to end up being something different, but the requirement still stands. I wouldn't be concerned about taking away from large Navy funding, but more so other Marine Aviation programs. Compared to what is needed for a $10B carrier and billions more for a CVW, I'm pretty sure this will be a drop in the bucket. The problem with your argument is that the joint force looks at the F-35B and MV-22B as a sought after commodity, and as long as that stands, then the funding will be appropriated to support that.

 

[Flash]

I'm genuinely curious as to what assets we are divesting in order to reduce our C2 capability, because everything I am reading and experiencing is the opposite. If the removal of a EW aircraft is your justification, than I would submit you're probably off on that remark. Multiple MACCS agencies are being upgraded with new equipment and software to make that more compatible with the joint force and new acquisitions - to include Navy ships.

Nope, not EW. I don't want to say much more since as far as I know it is not set in stone, but a warning flag was run up at work which means it isn't just a bright idea. PM me if you want.

Flash, I get it, you don't have to repeat the same points agin. You're afraid it'll take away from the giant sacred floating target/cow of the CVN. The LHA/D It is not a CVL, because if that was what we needed, we would ask for it. Not a single Marine aviator has used the term "CVL" in general lexicon while speaking about shipboard ops....We still don't consider the standalone MEU as an offensive force, and requires significant augmentation to get to that point organically.

I am far less concerned about the 'sacred cow' of the CVN or taking away Navy than I am about wasting taxpayer's money. I fear MUX could end up like another A-12, not the Mach 3 one, or Common Support Aircraft given the multitude of missions and the immaturity of the technology. Necessary missions that were left unfulfilled because those programs went tits up after a lot of money was sunk into them, at least in the A-12's case.

While you and most of your fellow Marines might not see the LHD/A's as possible CVL's (I use that mainly for a lack of a better term), many folks seem to think otherwise. Like the Sea Control Ship of the 70's it would give us less capability for not a whole lot less than a CVN in the long run.

A lot less service parochialism and more concern about overall capabilities and DoD funding in general.

 

[Hotdogs]

Nope, not EW. I don't want to say much more since as far as I know it is not set in stone, but a warning flag was run up at work which means it isn't just a bright idea. PM me if you want.
I am far less concerned about the 'sacred cow' of the CVN or taking away Navy than I am about wasting taxpayer's money. I fear MUX could end up like another A-12, not the Mach 3 one, or Common Support Aircraft given the multitude of missions and the immaturity of the technology. Necessary missions that were left unfulfilled because those programs went tits up after a lot of money was sunk into them, at least in the A-12's case.

While you and most of your fellow Marines might not see the LHD/A's as possible CVL's (I use that mainly for a lack of a better term), many folks seem to think otherwise. Like the Sea Control Ship of the 70's it would give us less capability for not a whole lot less than a CVN in the long run.

A lot less service parochialism and more concern about overall capabilities and DoD funding in general.

Fair points, but you could say that about a lot of acquisition programs.

 

[Flash]

Fair points, but you could say that about a lot of acquisition programs.

Definitely, almost a given.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Some more from the Commandant.

Berger: Marine 2030 Force Design Is Nearly Complete; Concepts Now Being Modeled, Tested

He also noted expeditionary ships, commercial ships and other alternative platforms would have a place in future operations to supplement traditional amphibious warships. “What I know will not work is a few dozen gray-hull L-class ships by themselves. They will be targets. We need them, but we need much more than just that,” he said.... And we need to really think creatively about how we embark forces and systems on platforms that are not necessarily an LPD-17 or a Flight II or an LHA/LHD. If they’re floating, we need to figure out how to use it.”

https://news.usni.org/2019/10/03/be...ly-complete-concepts-now-being-modeled-tested


Berger: Marines Focused on China in Developing New Way to Fight in the Pacific

https://news.usni.org/2019/10/02/be...in-developing-new-way-to-fight-in-the-pacific

Some details breaking from the WSJ. Unmanned vehicles, airlift and rocket systems up, rotary and ground forces down.

Marines Plan to Retool to Meet China Threat
Most sweeping transformation in decades will shift focus from fighting insurgents in Middle East to preparing for conflict in western Pacific

WSJ News Exclusive | Marines Plan to Retool to Meet China Threat

The most sweeping transformation in decades will shift the focus from fighting insurgents in the Middle East to preparing for conflict in western Pacific. “If we did nothing, we would be passed,” said Marine Corps Commandant David Berger.

www.wsj.com

Current vs 2030 projections

Unmanned aerial vehicle squadrons*
3 up to 6

Missile/rocket batteries
7 up to 21

C-130 aircraft squadrons
3 up to 4

Fighter/attack aircraft squadrons†
18 no change 18

Cannon batteries
21 down to 5

Tank companies
7 down to 0

Bridging companies
3 down to 0

Infantry battalions‡ (size also reduced by 15%)
24 down to 21

Tilt-Rotor aircraft squadrons
17 down to 14

Helicopter attack squadrons
7 down to 5

Helicopter heavy lift squadrons
8 down to 5

Note: Numbers are for active military and does not include reserves. *Current squadrons are unarmed, and future squadrons will be armed and unarmed. †The number of F-35B warplanes in a Marine aircraft squadron is being reduced from 16 to 10. ‡The size of Marine battalions, which currently number about 850 personnel, is being shrunk by 15%.


Source: U.S. Marine Corps

 

[Hotdogs]

Yeah, because fighting a major theater war with less people makes total sense...

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I don’t understand the change to ten aircraft per squadron. The point of 16 was that you’d have a det on a boat and a squadron minus remaining. Now where would the flag go?

 

[Randy Daytona]

I don’t understand the change to ten aircraft per squadron. The point of 16 was that you’d have a det on a boat and a squadron minus remaining. Now where would the flag go?

Perhaps the loadout on MEU will change from 6 aircraft to a full squadron of 10? That would necessitate leaving something behind, perhaps a few Ospreys or the shorter range skids. Likewise, if the gators go into Lightning Carrier configuration, that would be an easy 2 complete F-35B squadrons instead of having to break them apart.

Will be curious to see how the MEU's change without tanks and less tube artillery. Replace the M1A1's with LAV's? Replace the M-777's with either rockets to go further or bring back the 105's so they can be carried internal with the 53's providing a much longer range. Interesting times.

 

[STOVLer]

Perhaps the loadout on MEU will change from 6 aircraft to a full squadron of 10?

7th fleet has other ideas