World Wide Marine Corps & Amphibious Ops Discussion

There could perhaps be more justification to simply build additional Wasps and Gerald Fords, the Fords would provide the fixed wing airpower with the fixed wing marine sqns providing a surge capacity from them as required and to form marine heavy wings when CAS is the primary purpose of a deplyment.

The Wasps would operate helos and tilt rotors with an increased number of Yankees and Zulus. In any case I can't imagin a large amphib being sent into harms way without a carrier near by just in case.
 
t68 said:
The redesign for America class from the Wasp class is for enhanced aviation capacity, no well docks. USMC does not have to go to 65000t ship, if the F35B gets dumped and replace’s them with more Super Hornets or F35C to replace the aging harrier and legacy hornets.

With Sec Def Robert Gates desire to roll in the defence budget, redesigning once again the America class to accept the Super Hornet might be cost prohibitive, hence my thoughts on a licence build Queen Elizabeth with less hulls but will have a larger capacity to operate all of the USMC aircraft in inventory without having to rely on USN Nimitz/Ford class carriers which might be cost and waste of resource taking the larger carrier away from other duties/requirements.
Click to expand...

Enhanced aviation capability for the helo's, the abaility to launch and recover any fixed wing asset is still a secondary capability. If the F-35B is cancelled then the Marines will just have to loose that capability not spend money they don't have either redesigning the America class (so far limted to 2 ships then the USN is going back to a design with a well deck) or buying a foriegn design.
 
AegisFC said:
Enhanced aviation capability for the helo's, the abaility to launch and recover any fixed wing asset is still a secondary capability. If the F-35B is cancelled then the Marines will just have to loose that capability not spend money they don't have either redesigning the America class (so far limted to 2 ships then the USN is going back to a design with a well deck) or buying a foriegn design.
Click to expand...

A general question, will there ever be a time again where Air Power (however it is employed or defined) will not be the most critical deciding factor in the outcome between major combatants’ land or sea? If it the single most determining factor shouldn’t we put whatever we can on any platform we can?
 
EFV Future

Just been reading on what is looking like the imminent demise of the EFV program and Gate's intention to budget the current fleet for replacement engines, electronics/comms and upgraded armour
Gates Recommends Cancelling the Procurement of USMC’s Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle - Defense-Update

Was just wondering if it would be feasable or possible during these mods to also improve their speed through water ? I have been trying without much luck to get some good technical detail on how the current AAV's system works, if anyone has any good links would be appreciated.

As AG has pointed out the body of the AAV can last for a significant amount of time so would looking at this type of mod to extend it life and usability be worthwhile or do you think they will do what is needed until a replacement comes up ?

Do you think it likely that General Dynamic's will continue to try and save the program or go back to the drawing board to offer a more realistic option
 
I dont think the EFV is finished we still need it because the AAV-7 is getting old and can't keep up with M1 tank(which is vital in combined arms operations wether its Army or Marines)I think it's good that there's a "LEATHERNECK" such as Duncan Hunter chairing the House Armed Servicesw Committee fighting to keep this program going and hopefully "sticks it " to SecDef Gates before he leaves office by keeping the Efv goinjg.
 
AegisFC said:
Enhanced aviation capability for the helo's, the abaility to launch and recover any fixed wing asset is still a secondary capability. If the F-35B is cancelled then the Marines will just have to loose that capability not spend money they don't have either redesigning the America class (so far limted to 2 ships then the USN is going back to a design with a well deck) or buying a foriegn design.
Click to expand...

Volkodav said:
There could perhaps be more justification to simply build additional Wasps and Gerald Fords, the Fords would provide the fixed wing airpower with the fixed wing marine sqns providing a surge capacity from them as required and to form marine heavy wings when CAS is the primary purpose of a deplyment.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the USMC would be happy to lose their fast jet capability to support the Marine’s onshore; I think they could mount a case for 3 or 4 licence build Queen Elizabeth in place of Amercia class

What would the difference in price roughly be between a America class and a Queen Elizabeth class, compared to the idea of building an additional Ford class carrier to support the Marines?
 
t68 said:
I don’t think the USMC would be happy to lose their fast jet capability to support the Marine’s onshore; I think they could mount a case for 3 or 4 licence build Queen Elizabeth in place of Amercia class

What would the difference in price roughly be between a America class and a Queen Elizabeth class, compared to the idea of building an additional Ford class carrier to support the Marines?
Click to expand...

From Wiki: An America is US $2.4 billion each....
From Wiki: Both Queen Elizabeths is 3.9 billion pounds...

Considering monetary conversions they are very close in price...

I found your answer quickly with two google searches of Wiki... You could have done the same...
 
Sea Toby said:
From Wiki: An America is US $2.4 billion each....
From Wiki: Both Queen Elizabeths is 3.9 billion pounds...

Considering monetary conversions they are very close in price...

I found your answer quickly with two google searches of Wiki... You could have done the same...
Click to expand...

I found the currency conversion at xe.com and as of 2/16/2011 it was

3.90 GBP = 6.33138 USD

Not really very close. Almost 3 Americas for 1 Queen Elizabeth.
 
iugim said:
I found the currency conversion at xe.com and as of 2/16/2011 it was

3.90 GBP = 6.33138 USD

Not really very close. Almost 3 Americas for 1 Queen Elizabeth.
Click to expand...

If the Americans built the QE under licence at a US ship yard costs would be reduced. Plus the automated weapons handling system on the QE reduces manpower from 160 to 48 (with 12 needed at any one time). This along with other crew reduction technology inserts should reduce running costs over an America Class. The US could combine such initiatives with increased levels or armour, sensors and defensive firepower. RR have just won the contract to supply the USN with propulsion systems similar I suspect to the ones installed in the QE.
 
iugim said:
I found the currency conversion at xe.com and as of 2/16/2011 it was

3.90 GBP = 6.33138 USD

Not really very close. Almost 3 Americas for 1 Queen Elizabeth.
Click to expand...


You will notice the cost for BOTH Carriers of the QE class will cost 3.90 Billion Pounds.
Originally Posted by Sea Toby View Post
From Wiki: An America is US $2.4 billion each....
From Wiki: Both Queen Elizabeths is 3.9 billion pounds...

Considering monetary conversions they are very close in price...

I found your answer quickly with two google searches of Wiki... You could have done the same...
Click to expand...
 
swerve said:
Absolutely right.

The RM & USMC both started out as soldiers on ships for fighting in naval battles, which were then conducted at ranges, & in a manner, in which men with muskets & bayonets could be useful. Both also had secondary roles as on-board security, & for raiding ashore. When the nature of naval warfare changed, marines in many countries ended up being divided into base guards (little more than police) & raiders, & greatly reduced in numbers. Some managed to find new roles, e.g. the USMC became a colonial army, delivered by the navy to whatever small country the USA wanted to occupy.

Amphibious assault was never exclusively or even primarily a marine task. If you're in a war which necessitates sea-borne invasions, you need to use your army, not just the marines, as WW2 proved. The USMC reinvented itself as the amphibious assault force of the USA post-WW2 to keep its manpower & budget. It's not an ancient tradition.

The RM, USMC, & every other 'marine' force larger than a small raiding unit consists of ground troops, & whenever their nations are in a war they fight on land. How many US marines are there in (landlocked, not even a navigable river) Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

I think there are ~20,000-25,000 US Marines currently deployed to Afghanistan.

I think the USMC is headed for something of an existential crisis. With the cancellation of the EFV, the F-35B on the rocks, an increasingly broke US government looking to cut costs, and the fact that the US has not launched a major opposed amphibious assault since Inchon 1950, I suspect the USMC is going to start looking like a redundancy to some folks in Washington.

I think it's questionable if an opposed amphibious assaults against a reasonably serious opponent is even possible today given the advances in SAM, ASM, ATGM, sea mine, and submarine technology. Unless of course the USN and USAF bomb the opponent into oblivion, and then its not really an opposed landing at that point anymore, is it?

I don't think the USMC is going to disappear, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it ends up a lot smaller.

I think the niche the USMC will ultimately fill will be something akin to a seaborne version of the US Army's Ranger Battalions - a highly trained, highly mobile, spec ops capable light infantry force, configured for small unit (battalion sized and under) operations, as well as providing security teams and boarding parties for the USN.
Which isn't all that different than what they do now - just on a smaller scale.

Adrian
 
I agree with you.
IMO opinion, and USMC fans are going to give me fire for this, the USMC is not that much different to the rapid reaction forces of the US Army. They are just seaborn whereas the army forces are going to come in by air.

Getting deployed by helicopter or sometimes by an amphibious vehicle is not that special as it couldn't be done by other light infantry forces.
Airborn/Air Assault/Light Army infantry units use helicopters all the time and apart from the short time in the surf a Marines bn on the ground is essentially a mot/mech infantry bn with some organic armor and recce support.

Nothing prevents the Army from having some specialised battalions of naval infantry just like there are airborn, air assault or mountain troops (ok, these are not in the US) in the US or all over the world.
The USMC became so big as a legacy of WWII. They just didn't shrink to their historical size after it. But one could argue that the majority of troops which performed amphibious assaults onto enemy soil were army troops and not USMC ones.

Supporters of the Marines often talk about the advantage of having another force which looks at problems from a different angle and so gives the whole Armed Forces more flexibility on how to approach a problem.
But is this really worth the costs related to having a fully seperate command structure, procurement process etc.?

I have my doubts...
 
I got a question that hopefully some US military enthusiasts can answer and that is, why do the marines have fast jet capability? Couldn't these jets be operated by the navy, as they operate on navy ships after all. It would also save a lot of money, from unnecessary pilots, aircraft and equipment.

For example something that is bugging the USN currently is the fact that the USMC plans to operate F35B off USN carriers, much like they do with the hornets now.. it just doesn't make sense. Not to mention how easy it would be logistically to work around two different air arms.
 
Futurre Amphib

Here is a link to a youtube clip of the Black Ops Brothers Riptide Amphibious Prototype, has a way to go to improve through water speed and if you watch the clip someone back at the factory will get a butt kicking for the top hatch seal :)
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtPeAac8EYk"]YouTube - Riptide Demo for the US Army[/nomedia]

Intersesting concept though, not just for potential ship/shore ops, but in the varied environs she is a pretty good piece of kit, certainly not an EFV, but it could have its place
 
Kirkzzy said:
I got a question that hopefully some US military enthusiasts can answer and that is, why do the marines have fast jet capability? Couldn't these jets be operated by the navy, as they operate on navy ships after all. It would also save a lot of money, from unnecessary pilots, aircraft and equipment.

For example something that is bugging the USN currently is the fact that the USMC plans to operate F35B off USN carriers, much like they do with the hornets now.. it just doesn't make sense. Not to mention how easy it would be logistically to work around two different air arms.
Click to expand...

From what I read, Marine pilots are trained more in ground attack roles to support the Marines on the ground. Navy pilots are trained more in anti-shipping and anti-aircraft roles. How this started, I do not know.
 
aussienscale said:
Here is a link to a youtube clip of the Black Ops Brothers Riptide Amphibious Prototype, has a way to go to improve through water speed and if you watch the clip someone back at the factory will get a butt kicking for the top hatch seal :)
YouTube - Riptide Demo for the US Army

Intersesting concept though, not just for potential ship/shore ops, but in the varied environs she is a pretty good piece of kit, certainly not an EFV, but it could have its place
Click to expand...

That Raymarine 2kw radar dome looks a bit silly thought :laugh , I don´t think it would have any use 50 cm above water but it woud look good on Pimp MY Ride :hehe
 
Kirkzzy said:
I got a question that hopefully some US military enthusiasts can answer and that is, why do the marines have fast jet capability? Couldn't these jets be operated by the navy, as they operate on navy ships after all. It would also save a lot of money, from unnecessary pilots, aircraft and equipment.

For example something that is bugging the USN currently is the fact that the USMC plans to operate F35B off USN carriers, much like they do with the hornets now.. it just doesn't make sense. Not to mention how easy it would be logistically to work around two different air arms.
Click to expand...

Tradition, history and ground support. The USMC had a very small aviation component in WW1, and fought hard to keep it afterwords - mostly for observation purposes. During the late 20's the USMC in Nicaragua found that observation planes could provide decent ground support. During the 30's after the establishment of the Fleet Marine Force, USMC squadrons became carrier qualified and began flying the same kind of fighter and scout/bomber aircraft the USN did - with the sole purpose of supporting any amphibious operations conducted by the FMF. Marine avaiation expanded hugely (along with the rest of the USMC) during WW2. USMC pilots developed a unique expertise in supporting USMC ground operations - which they maintain to this day. Having your own fixed wing aviation component means you get your CAS and air cover where and when you want it, your way - with out having the USAF running off to more glamorous things like dogfight or bomb cities. Admittedly the USAF is a lot better these days in their focus on CAS - probably because it's the only game in town now...
 
sgtgunn said:
Tradition, history and ground support. The USMC had a very small aviation component in WW1, and fought hard to keep it afterwords - mostly for observation purposes. During the late 20's the USMC in Nicaragua found that observation planes could provide decent ground support. During the 30's after the establishment of the Fleet Marine Force, USMC squadrons became carrier qualified and began flying the same kind of fighter and scout/bomber aircraft the USN did - with the sole purpose of supporting any amphibious operations conducted by the FMF. Marine avaiation expanded hugely (along with the rest of the USMC) during WW2. USMC pilots developed a unique expertise in supporting USMC ground operations - which they maintain to this day. Having your own fixed wing aviation component means you get your CAS and air cover where and when you want it, your way - with out having the USAF running off to more glamorous things like dogfight or bomb cities. Admittedly the USAF is a lot better these days in their focus on CAS - probably because it's the only game in town now...
Click to expand...

With the large number of US Carrier Battle Groups with plenty of indigenous fast air, does the USMC really need a fixed wing arm? I can fully understand the need to maintain rotary lift and rotary CAS to support expeditionary warfare, but fixed wing is an expensive luxury considering the power of USN carriers.? A US amphibious ready group will never go into action without a carrier in support, so push comes to shove they could lose fixed wing without damaging the combined arms ability to dominate airspace over a hostile beachhead. If (which I doubt) F35B is cancelled for budgetary reasons, the USN should still be able to fill the gap with F35C supported by future UCAV's in development and hopefully a new enhanced attack/support helo replacing the Cobra's. I fully accept the ability to operate from austere shore based landing strips will be reduced, but that can be offset by a bit of creative thinking and forward planning.
 
I can understand them having a rotary ring like the army, but I just can't get my head around why they would need a separate air force (naval and land based).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top