Posted on Sep 6, 2017
USMC should drop the F-35 and V-22 — and perhaps the F-18 while it’s at it
2.11K
50
18
6
6
0
"Lt. Col. John Arsenault’s larger argument is that it is time for the Corps to return to its roots of being a naval raiding force. So, he says, cut force strength to 100,000 or less, get out of most aviation, shift support jobs back to the Navy, and train the remaining force to be “Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command-level ‘Raiders'"."
USMC should drop the F-35 and V-22 — and perhaps the F-18 while it’s at it
Posted from foreignpolicy.com
Marines
F-35
Aviator
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
7
7
0
Interesting. His opinion is worthy of debate and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Every system should pass the cost/benefit ratio test. I think that the Marines should have their own close air support pilots and let Naval Aviators focus on their own missions. However, is the Super Hornet the best choice for close air support? How about A10's. The Air Force is always trying to unload theirs and might give the Marines a real good deal. I imagine that A10's could be carrier based with some modifications.
(7)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
We should change the 1947 Florida agreement since The Army can't have Aviation since the Air Force wants the F-35 jack of all trades master of running out of ammo Phat fighter bomber. Yes, that would be a great idea to make the warthog carrier-based as well. It's too bad the Air Force generals of the past don't see the value of the warthog.
(4)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
We fly/flew the Bronco for ages. I thought that was an A-10. I like a force of F/A-18 fast movers. The Ospreys look awesome but have to many bugs still in them. Our naval aviators, Marine officers are the best in the world of putting ordinance 10 feet in front of us. A-10 is our muscle. F/A-18 is a fast responder. Hello to move troops. Done.
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
I don't know that it's that easy to modify an Air Force plane to land on a carrier without completely redesigning the aircraft. You can't just stick beefier landing gear and a tail hook on it. The airframe must be able to withstand the stresses of a catapult launch and arrested landing.
(1)
(0)
MSgt John Taylor
A carrier capable aircraft is a less capable aircraft. A lot of "stuff" on a naval aircraft is there just because it operates off a carrier, that "stuff" adds weight, lessens speed, range, payload and maneuverability. If the Marines share CAS with their naval service counterparts, then there is a valid argument to deleting Marine Air. A good example of this is , Marines don't have their own medics in the field with them. The navy can also provide their air support needs.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
When has Marine Corps' roots been about Naval Raids. It is about power projection, and strategic mobility. Inchon is probably the best classical use of the Marine Corps. The reality of maintaining Marine Expeditionary Units afloat, Maintaining Support structure, and force retention has been strained ever since the USMC reduction in force of the Clinton Administration.
(4)
(0)
SSgt Gary Andrews
USMC has always been the tip of the spear.......a self supported force that can strike quickly and forcefully, while the Army, Navy, and Air force are still ramping up for major movements. Periodically, there is discussion about reducing their numbers, or changing their mission.......then they are called on once again, and all the talk disappears. Bottom line is......when the Marines "land"........it's on!
(4)
(0)
CDR (Join to see)
Just remember you can't get to the "land" part without us still ramping up Navy or Air Force assets. :)
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Restructuring Marine Air and the USMC mission in total are two separate conversations. Most of the issues stem from funding and manpower. With 1/2 of our birds grounded it should highlight the funding side. F-35 was fraud, waste, and abuse from the start. They tried to do too much with one aircraft and we now have a mixed bag of variants stuffed into one package that could be obsolete by the time all the bugs are worked out. It was to be expected that once USMC got into SOCOM this conversation would begin, and that's likely why it was opposed by leadership. We need to maintain our current MAGTF structure of MEUs and MEFs. The MEB's are just a skeleton crew with a standing HQ element. The structure and mission are not the issue. It's a matter of trying to maintain the status quo after the manpower cuts post-Desert Storm and a gap in aviation due to lifecycles. It's surprising to hear this from a retired USMCR LtCol, because what it really leans toward is abolishing the USMC in phases. SOCOM is eyeballing the USMC budget.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google