"British Naval Commander Wants US Marine Aviation ..." Topic

DELETED BECAUSE OF THE BUG……..

…on Aircraft Carrier.

"The commander of HMS Queen Elizabeth, Britain's new aircraft carrier, would like to see US Marine Corps F-35Bs and V-22s embark for up to nine months at a time once the warship becomes operational.

"We'll certainly see some footprint aboard the ship. The big question is do they deploy with us much longer term in the future, maybe for six, seven, eight, nine months from when we deploy. That's what I would love to see," Capt. Jerry Kyd said.

Confirmation that the Royal Navy's 70,000-ton aircraft carrier force would embark US Marine Corps (USMC) F-35Bs came during a meeting between UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon and his US counterpart, Ash Carter, in London at the start of September…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

That would be very interesting command relationships.

USMC and UK have fought alongside one another (I believe with mutual respect) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If it were me, I'd contact Russia about buying some of this nice, big, beautiful Sukhois…….

Hmmmm, very interesting indeed. Gives us a far more capable flattop than the LHA-6 America, gives the Brit carriers an opportunity to build up their aviation operations experience without yet procuring F-35s, and keeps the QE-class from looking like a total waste of money.

Does the Royal Navy still allow alcohol on board these days?

The Marines are going to enjoy that…

Based on some of the reports about all the USMC aircraft that are deadlined awaiting parts, etc. That it appears there is little money to purchase parts, etc. ? I'd think US Naval Commanders would like some USMC aviation assets ?

The Chinese will have a F-35 up and flying before the Brits do. No putting the Brits down, just saying they ( Chinese ) possibly stole the blue prints years ago.

Based on some of the reports about all the USMC aircraft that are deadlined awaiting parts, etc.

Yup.

USMC is mainly grounded with anywhere up to 70% of aircraft fleets being unserviceable.

military.com/daily-news/2016/04/15/budget-cuts-leaving-marine-corps-aircraft-grounded.html

Whilst the article points out to cutbacks, I did read somewhere that the USMC maintenance processes were not efficient and resulted in equipment being run down without proper overhaul. Same article claimed US Army aviation had far better processes for maintenance despite cutbacks.

It's impacted massively on capability and makes life riskier for the troops – a collision between two CH-53s was basically result of lack of airtime for crews due to lack of flight hours assigned and serviceable aircraft.

A lot of NATO partners are in the same boat, especially the Germans, the Canadians and most Eastern Europeans.

Yes, it seems with a worldwide weak economy, military expenditures are very much limited. Which may be fine for a short while. But what happens if the hits the fan … somewhere … again ? Regardless, as we see high tech is expensive. And troops training to use high tech, etc., costs as well …

The problem is once a capability is lost, it's very hard to reintroduce it.

Even worse is the effect on military (organisational) culture.

Low budgets equates to low morale which leads to other bad behaviours which in the long run reduces effectiveness. And that becomes part of the culture.

Revamping a culture is very difficult. It's why dictators tend to create armies loyal to themselves ala Republican Guards or SS or whatever. It effectively bypasses having to change military cultures.

The reality is that when the Sequestration budget cuts hit, the only things that the military was ALLOWED to cut, by law, were operations and maintenance. And we were in the middle of an active shooting war when the ops budgets were basically cut to zero.

Those big, bloated, overbudget and behind schedule projects? Could not be touched.

Those big, bloated, overbudget and behind schedule projects? Could not be touched.

Neither were they allowed to initiate another BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) process lest it affect local economies.

Hence they keep all these small bases around (especially the National Guard) with all the duplication of infrastructure they entail.

All the defence guys including Secretary of Defence were pro-BRAC and warned that military forces will be hollowed out due to sequestration and not allowing BRAC.

The Chinese or Russians won't ever get the military capability the USA has now. Instead daft US policy will eventually degrade the quality of US military capability to Chinese and Russian levels.

This isn't really news. It's been confirmed over a year ago: link

Well as I have said before … You have to train and train and retrain to get and keep a force at combat readiness. Cutting back training for lack of funds plus not inserting updated/new tech … You can imagine the end results … or in some cases see it currently.

I suspect true impact of sequestration will be felt in the future.

Currently there's lots of troops from the previous periods where training and funding were adequate.

But the future officers and NCOs coming up now probably won't be as good as these current guys due to lack of training and funding.

And then they're going to provide poorer quality training and leadership to new guys thus creating a potential vicious cycle.

America had proven to be unable to afford a military large enough to meet all of her global commitments while maintaining the necessary qualitative edge in training and hardware/equipment. It all boils down to opportunity costs and priorities.

As a result, a sizeable portion of Americans have seen fit to elect a populist who's willing to end a status quo that's been around since 1945 and scale back America's commitments to NATO and Asian allies such as Japan and S. Korea.

It seems we can have either quantity or quality, but not both.

It seems we can have either quantity or quality, but not both.

Capable procurement processes and effective non-politicised decision making would allow you to have both.

As would prudent foreign policy decision making.

Capable procurement processes and effective non-politicised decision making would allow you to have both.

Not when it's losing to butter in the "guns versus butter" debate and other programs take priority over defense in the the allocation of budgets.

Not to mention it is also hard to be efficient when the monopolized defense industry is driven by greed and the need to maximize their profit margins.

And raising taxes for the "common defense" hasn't been popular for the past 50 years.

The problem is, that America's global commitments require a Navy that's pushing 600 ships (as that's the size of the 1914 USN and RN combined, and today's USN is expected to do the job that both 1914 USN and RN were doing).

That is simply not affordable between the current cost of warships and the other demands on the federal budget.

Doesn't help that the USN has to count shipbuilding as part of it's regular budget, and not as a 50-year capital investment.

But when you consider you just dumped $23 USD billion into 3 Zumwalts and who knows how much on LCS, then you wonder how many ships they could've afforded to buy if they brought a more conventional design (which they are actually doing with Arleigh Burke after Zumwalt procurement was slashed by over 90%).

Oh and then $10 USD billion per unit for the Gerald Fords – which is more expensive than a Nimitz (last one was $6 USD billion) cause of all the revolutionary tech they were ordered to throw into it.

Again a more evolutionary design would've been more prudent.

And it's not like EMALS or railguns or AAGs or whatever is necessary now or into the near future as the Russians or Chinese aren't even capable or willing of developing a Forrestal class carrier let alone a Nimitz or Gerald Ford.

The Navy became obsessed with everything being revolutionary and in the process near killed itself with failures of Sea Wolf and Zummwalts to deliver any number of hulls, failure of LCS to provide any real capability and problems with Gerald Ford advanced features.

The Navy should've been more conservative – instead of Zummwalts and LCS, there should've been a medium size frigate to maintain numbers and combat capability.

With regards to recurring costs to operate larger numbers of frigates, BRAC offered the savings.

And there's other massive savings to be made – right now the USMC is the 2nd army and 2nd airforce. The USMC was used in conventional land fighting ala Fallujah (bizarrely most of the landing craft for amphib ops are under Army control). They've been flying interdiction sorties over Serbia, Kosovo and elsewhere (traditional realm of USAF).

Do the Marines need heavy armour and their own tactical air?

Or does the USAF need so many short range tactical jets? Ruskis and Chinese are going long range big beasties.

Should the US have done the same instead of short range F-35 – long range jets mean less need for A2A refuellers.

The USN air fleets have shrunk massively in range thanks to replacement of A-6 and F-14 by shortlegged F/A-18. The range of carrier aircraft has shrunk from 800 nm in 1996 to 500 nm in 2016.

Again this incurs cost penalties – more need for USAF tankers as well as some of the embarked F/A-18s being dedicated to buddy refuelling.

Oh and greater need for escorts as the carriers are now closer to enemy land bases.

Etc etc.

'The problem is, that America's global commitments require a Navy that's pushing 600 ships (as that's the size of the 1914 USN and RN combined, and today's USN is expected to do the job that both 1914 USN and RN were doing).'

Except that's a very poor analogy.

In 1914 there weren't lots of things flying around in the sky. Now, force projection by aircraft takes over a lot of jobs previously carried out by navies. Likewise, Satellite systems cover the seas reducing the needs for ships to act as scouts. Also, long ranbge missiles mean that a given fleet has weapons systems that cover a greater area.

Without personally knowing how many ships we do need, I'm quite confident in saying it isn't as many as were needed in 1014.

In 1914 there weren't lots of things flying around in the sky. Now, force projection by aircraft takes over a lot of jobs previously carried out by navies. Likewise, Satellite systems cover the seas reducing the needs for ships to act as scouts. Also, long ranbge missiles mean that a given fleet has weapons systems that cover a greater area.

I do think 600 is excess if that only emphasises surface combatants and not all the fleet auxiliaries, patrol boats, minesweepers etc.

Bare in mind that whilst number of ships has declined so has the number of maritime patrol aircraft and long range maritime strikers (aka B-52G).

And thanks to NATO partners gutting their ship, MPA fleets and some getting rid of maritime strike altogether, USN is even more heavily tasked.

Also neither aircraft nor drones nor satelites can perform all those numerous other tasks ships perform:

1. Anti piracy operations (including that all critical visible threat)
2. Large scale humanitarian ops.
3. Convoy protection (in case we ever go to war with China or Russia).
4. Extended long range patrol
5. Anti submarine warfare
6. Flying the flag/show of force missions
7. Minesweeping ops
8. Carrier escort
9. Long range air defence (especially with shrinking range of carrier based fighters).
10. Access denial

Not all these missions require a Ticonderoga or Arleigh Burke or a Nimitz.

But there's certainly a need for a surface combatant fleet bigger than 22 Ticonderoga , 76 Arleigh Burke's and 3 Zummwalts (LCS aren't really a warship IMO).

Especially as the US is committed to maintaining 11 fleet carriers, and 19 LHA/LHDs all of which ramps up escort requirements especially in a real shooting war.

A carrier strike group usually requires 5 escorts and an amphib strike group about 3.

Take 98 destroyers/cruisers* and divide by 30 carrier/amphibs and you get a measly 3.27 escorts per flattop.

*Excludes Zumwalts because they are to operate independently and LCS which provide no capability whatsoever to a carrier/amphib battle group.

There's also the issue of redundancy. 3 Zummwalts may sound scary but as navies usually work in rule of 3 – 1 operational, 1 training, 1 overhaul), it means only 1 ship generally available..

So you get one mechanical failure (or even worse a lucky strike) and you actually have no ships available.

+1 everything Deadles said…!

And there's other massive savings to be made – right now the USMC is the 2nd army and 2nd airforce. The USMC was used in conventional land fighting ala Fallujah (bizarrely most of the landing craft for amphib ops are under Army control). They've been flying interdiction sorties over Serbia, Kosovo and elsewhere (traditional realm of USAF).

Do the Marines need heavy armour and their own tactical air?

If it ain't broke … don't fit it … The USMC working with the US ARMY is an effective relation. I say leave it well enough alone. And they certainly need their own heavy armor and tac air. They only have about 4 Bns of MBTs. That is not excessive, IMO.

When you say Landing Craft you mean LCMs, LCACs, etc. ? Those mostly are Naval assets. Amphtracks are the USMC's APC. Now in a large joint operation. Usually, like we saw in GWI, GWII and A'stan. A Joint Command structure is in effect. Most of the time under the larger ground force component – the US ARMY.

The US Army has all the large Runnymede class landing craft (LCU) and General Frank S. Besson-class Logistics Support Vessels (LSV). The latter are LSTs of the modern era.

All the Navy/Marine Corps ones are much smaller.

Property of US Army!

US Army also operates LCM-8 smaller landing craft.

Didn't know that and I was in the ARMY ! Maybe it has changed somewhat since '90 ? When I left active duty. I did ride in both US ARMY and Navy LCM-8s before though.

legion, the army has always had more boats than the Navy. You dont hear about it much, but it is all in some sort of transportation commands. I had a soldier reclass to me, he had been a cargo specialist, assigned to an army ship.

we also have more things that fly than the Airforce. Or did until drones got expanded, now I am not sure.

They other services get what they think is in their area, anything left that nobody wants belongs to the Army.

Ah, Logistics/Transport Command! The unsung heroes of militaries everywhere, and masters of extra sock procurement. :D

I wanted to fly RAF transport planes but got P8'd as medically unfit. Ah well.

Yes, I knew the US ARMY has more boats than the NAVY. But I thought most were small, like LCMs.

Does the NAVY Know the ARMY has more a boats then they do ?!?!?

The ARMY having more Aircraft than the USAF … well … the USAF was part of the ARMY until '48. IIRC, the 101 had like 450 aircraft, mostly helicopters in the early '80s. And many other units have a lot of helos too.

Do the Marines need heavy armour and their own tactical air?

Yes. It really takes another tank to kill a tank. A single MEU (roughly a battalion of grunts) takes a total of FOUR tanks with it. Typical US Army deployment would be a company of 14 tanks for a battalion of infantry.

Quite frankly, the Army needs it's own Tactical Air, too, the USAF is completely unwilling to fly the CAS mission in a way that will best support the troops on the ground.

Really, it would make more sense to combine all three arms of service – army, air force and navy – into one, and enable proper co-operation without the triplication of higher command echelons, wouldn't it?

That type of dramatic reorganization might cause more trouble and affect combat readiness more than "fixing" anything.

Quite frankly, the Army needs it's own Tactical Air, too, the USAF is completely unwilling to fly the CAS mission in a way that will best support the troops on the ground.

Arguably most of the air force should belong to the ground pounders:

1. Tac air – for ground support and interdiction. Can also do long range strike.
2. Transport – for logistics.
3. CSAR – give to Army/Marines as supports tac air
4. Special forces support – give to Army who already operate their own.

Leaves the USAF with a number of roles that can arguably be farmed out:

– Nuclear deterrent (ageing Minuteman ICBMs and B-52s/B-2s) – replace with more SLBMs which are far less vulnerable.

- Strategic reconnaissance – let the USN take care of that.

- Training of allies – farm out to contractors.

Really, it would make more sense to combine all three arms of service – army, air force and navy – into one, and enable proper co-operation without the triplication of higher command echelons, wouldn't it?

Possibly. But it'd require a Constitutional amendment to pull off.

Also, it's very different operating aircraft off of a carrier than it is operating that same aircraft off of a land base.

Amphibious operations are different from airdrops are different from basic foot or mechanized deployments.

Naval operations are the realm of specialists.

Certainly those things require specialists and specialist training, but they don't necessarily require a whole new command structure?

I agree … The US military may require a little tweaking, modifying, etc. But as I said dramatic reorganization might cause more trouble and affect combat readiness more than "fixing" anything.