If the Navy manages to kill the JSF then the Marines will be forced into
Super Hornets which can then be sucked into carrier ops.

Though I respect your opinions, Mr Cobb, I cannot agree with you in
one point:

When the venerable A-6 Intruder was retired, Carrier Air Wings were
left with 36 Navy strike fighter squadrons (equipped either with F-14A/
B/D or with F/A-18A/C). Four squadrons were missing to form 10 full
CVWs with 4 squadrons each, so four Marine squadrons were transferred
to fill the gap.

The original plan to buy 548, or even more, Super Hornets called for
re-establishing 4 squadrons (as far as I know at least VA-75 Sunday
Punchers were considered to transition to F/A-18), to make those
Marine squadrons redundant in CVWs and free for land-based deployment
again. So, that's quite opposite to what you said...

Buying more F/A-18E/Fs at the moment seems the only reasonable idea.
Boeing is wise enough to suggest that, but decision-makers might be
not wise enough to accept...


2015: Somewhere in the Dasht-e Kavir one Marine asks another, "Where's
my CAS?" and the response is "They're doing CAP sir."

As far as I understand, recent years all strikefighter aircraft
available - doesn't matter if F-14, or Navy F/A-18, or Marine F/A-18s
flew missions like CAS or FAC(A) in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Introducing F/A-18E/F makes the open way to combine tanker, CAP and
ASuW missions in a single plane, thus increasing availability of
aircraft for littoral warfare.

So I cannot understand really what is the problem...

The only answer coming to my mind is a difference between training to
carrier-based and land-based deployments.

Best regards,
Jacek