Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Which is why self contained CAS is important, because the U.S. military is not going to deploy an entire CSG or a squadron of A-10s to provide support for a MEU conducting NEO in a country like, say, Liberia, but having some fixed wing CAS in the on site commander's pocket is a nice safety net in case things start going sideways for the forces on the ground. They don't need to deploy a squadron of A-10s. Much can be done with less than a squadron of anything. The "on site commander" doesn't need some fixed wing CAS in his hip pocket. It is also extremely unlikely anyone is going to allow the "on site commander" to start hammering the shit out of people with fixed wing CAS in a NEO scenario on a whim. If the threat is high enough for fixed wing assets in a NEO event there will be a plan for CAS. Without the MAGTF concept, you might as well disband the entire Marine Corps because without it they would become just a smaller second land army with different uniforms that ride around on boats sometimes. Um, well... You been studying at Quantico too long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swanee Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 The Army, Navy, and Marines love to sing this "Jointness" song but when it comes time to divide the money no one wants to give up their organic assets even when the capability exists elsewhere. How about we turn this around a bit. Why does the Air Force need fixed wing CAS airplanes? You don't have boots on the ground who need it. Why should we call the AF if the Army and we Marines can supply our own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Without the MAGTF concept, you might as well disband the entire Marine Corps because without it they would become just a smaller second land army with different uniforms that ride around on boats sometimes. Why is fixed wing CAS required for the MAGTF concept to work? What is the key capability that the F-35B would provide that the Zulu Cobra can not provide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalMother Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 This is probably a good example of political/personal agendas being sold to the public as "tactical" requirements. I can't tell you for certain if the Marines will actually benefit from this one, but I sure as sh*t can find a bunch of people who will...it's just that none of them wear a uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swanee Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Why is fixed wing CAS required for the MAGTF concept to work? What is the key capability that the F-35B would provide that the Zulu Cobra can not provide? Legs (Boat has to be closer to the beach), speed (can't escort/keep up with an Osprey), loiter time, carries different weapons, can't fly high, exposed to threats (small arms, shoulder fired SAMs, etc...) that don't exist when doing a level lay down from higher. No radar in a Zulu, giving it limited all weather capability. And as far as the concept to work? It's scaleable, if we don't need it, we don't use it. Seriously though, I ask why the AF needs fixed wing CAS? I get the F-22 and A/A stuff (we Marines don't need that) and I get the transport, tankers, bombers and AWACs type airplanes- but you guys don't have boots on the ground to support, that's Army and Marine territory- How is that not a self licking ice cream cone on the AF side? The argument could be made to let the Army fly fixed wing airplanes in combat again... Edited November 24, 2012 by Swanee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 And almost all of those limitations also apply to the other aircraft that whatever platform will be supporting. I'm not saying an F-35B wouldn't be useful, what I am saying is that the idea that the Marines need to have a purely organic answer for everything is BS. Could the AF/USN provide sufficient CAS support to make the F-35B not required? The obvious answer is yes. The real question is, are we as a nation better off paying more for a Marine Corps that doesn't require external support? Other than self licking ice cream cone doctrinal logic, so far I can't see how a fully self sustained MAGTF is anything more than a nice to have. \ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnetfreezer Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Seriously though, I ask why the AF needs fixed wing CAS? I get the F-22 and A/A stuff (we Marines don't need that) and I get the transport, tankers, bombers and AWACs type airplanes- but you guys don't have boots on the ground to support, that's Army and Marine territory- How is that not a self licking ice cream cone on the AF side? The argument could be made to let the Army fly fixed wing airplanes in combat again... The Army tends to misapply what's delegated to them in the FW air realm hence the need for ALOs/JTACs to be AF people. The split with the CCA/helos going to the ground commander and everything else moving to JFACC control makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Edited November 24, 2012 by Clark Griswold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackKnight Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Since when did Spang have VTOL A-10's?!?! And where are they going now that they're closing?!?! I had only heard about them in spec ops fighter pilot magazine. I didn't know they made it to an operational unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Legs (Boat has to be closer to the beach), speed (can't escort/keep up with an Osprey), loiter time, carries different weapons, can't fly high, exposed to threats (small arms, shoulder fired SAMs, etc...) that don't exist when doing a level lay down from higher. No radar in a Zulu, giving it limited all weather capability. And as far as the concept to work? Outside of Legs none of these are accurate. I support Osprey with an Apache and we're slower than the Cobra... all he needs support on is the actual Infil/Exfil we arent escorting anything flying around above the coordinating altitude in a low threat environment and thats the only time a MAGTF would be on its own. All your doing in between the boat and the RP is flying in formation with a Tiltrotor. We have a radar, it doesnt do shit for your weather capability. If you cant see you cant see be it with FLIR or NVG. They arent going to shoot if they cant see so putting them in the air to make rotor noise is what idiot ground commanders do because "Its my asset and I want it" type attitude. Cant Fly high... show me any time you've had troops above 14000 feet. Thats pretty much the limit for altitude on where rotor guns can support. Loiter time. Rotory is typically longer than Fixed wing. Ill go 2 hour in the stack while Vipers and A-10s are yo-yo'ing after 20 minutes. If you want constant coverage during FARP turn arounds thats as easy as tasking teams to do battle handovers. Threat. CMWS works, extremely well by the way. And Hellfire gives you more than enough standoff for any kind of light AAA. The helicopters that get shot at the most and take the most fire are down at 300-500 AGL because they have to be not because its tactically superior as a tactic. There are plenty of ways to mitigate risk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 How about we turn this around a bit. Why does the Air Force need fixed wing CAS airplanes? You don't have boots on the ground who need it. Why should we call the AF if the Army and we Marines can supply our own? That is an excellent question and it is asked repeatedly. And answered. Repeatedly. Do you really not know why the USAF does CAS or any other mission requiring airplanes or why it makes sense to have a separate service to focus on those things instead of each service doing all those missions themselves? Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullet Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Seriously though, I ask why the AF needs fixed wing CAS? I get the F-22 and A/A stuff (we Marines don't need that) and I get the transport, tankers, bombers and AWACs type airplanes- but you guys don't have boots on the ground to support, that's Army and Marine territory- How is that not a self licking ice cream cone on the AF side? The argument could be made to let the Army fly fixed wing airplanes in combat again... Ok, stop. With this one paragraph, you've completely lost your argument. Seriously, do you think we would put a MAGTF in a location where air superiority hasn't been assured? Really? Having the ability to establish air superiority in their AOR was one of the main justifications for the Marines to want a new fast air platform to replace their older Hornets and Harriers. Also, the AF is their to provide the required JOINT support necessary to win the JOINT fight. Almost ALL of our capabilities ARE geared to supporting the guy on the ground (and the debate remains as to whether this is 100% of our mission, or just "mostly"). But we found out very early in the discovery of air power that ground commanders have a very poor understanding and support of these capabilities, something that was corrected when the civilian leadership concurred this was an issue and agreed to make us a separate service. But don't worry, the USMC has PME as well, so you'll eventually get a better understanding of this (through hours of pretty boring reading). Ultimately, the debate on the utility of the MAGTF is moot. It's a capability our civilian leadership likes to have an the Marines can justify, whether we think it remains useful in today's joint environment or not. And having that civilian support (especially in Congress) ensures the money continues to flow towards the DoN (which ultimately pays for that ability), who would simply find somewhere else to spend on if it was removed. No, the debate should be on whether the USMC really needed a LO platform to accomplish their MAGTF TACAIR mission sets. Or needs the other capabilities the F-35 brings to the warfighter. Back in the early 90s, the USMC said rather emphatically to this: "YES", it was the OSD civilian types who directed their program merge with the AF's F-16 replacement concept, which gave us JAST. I can argue either way for or against, but I also realize that the biggest delay to this program so far, and the biggest area that has caused compromise in capabilities, has been the need for a STOVL variant. Their inclusion of STOVL capabilities HAS hurt the program's performance so far. But it is too late to really do anything about it, honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kchsload Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 New article today in the NYT on the F-35 behemoth. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/in-federal-budget-cutting-f-35-fighter-jet-is-at-risk.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stract Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Good night, Chesty. Wherever you are. Aside: I wonder how many people know the AF birthday without going to Google. Executive order 9877. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contraildash Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Executive order 9877. Sacred Cow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now