Has Marine Air ever Considered picking up A10's??

[Tiger]

Since The Air Force detests the thing so much, why not give to some CAS
pros in Marine air. It seems like their kinda hardware.

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 07:47:54 GMT, Tiger >
wrote:

>Since The Air Force detests the thing so much, why not give to some CAS
>pros in Marine air. It seems like their kinda hardware.

Just how would the Marines operate A-10s from carriers or LHDs?

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Henry J Cobb]

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> Just how would the Marines operate A-10s from carriers or LHDs?

They'll do that when the Navy builds a carrier big enough to operate
their C-130s. ;-)

If that C-130 sized tiltrotor is ever built will it have folding or
rotating wings or do they not intend to operate it from ships?

-HJC

[Tiger]

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 07:47:54 GMT, Tiger >
>wrote:
>
>>Since The Air Force detests the thing so much, why not give to some CAS
>>pros in Marine air. It seems like their kinda hardware.
>>
>
>Just how would the Marines operate A-10s from carriers or LHDs?
>
>--
>Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
>"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
>Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
>
Well I know the thing is a Land based bird. .. But the Marines are
operating far in shore as of late. I don't see many ops being flown from
off shore in Afgainstian or Iraq. They would operate from forward land
bases ala Korea & Vietnam ops. The lack of sea legs is a minus I'll
grant you. But on the plus side whats better for CAS a Hornet or a
A10???? ( harriers are a different kettle of fish)


MIssed r.a.m.n for the last few months. Glad to see things are thought
provoking as usual. ;-)

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:19:02 GMT, Tiger >
wrote:

>Well I know the thing is a Land based bird. .. But the Marines are
>operating far in shore as of late. I don't see many ops being flown from
>off shore in Afgainstian or Iraq.

Ummm....how about the Marine air based on the carriers in support of
both theaters? Navy and Marine air are integrated, and headed towards
greater integration, not greater separation.

>They would operate from forward land
>bases ala Korea & Vietnam ops. The lack of sea legs is a minus I'll
>grant you. But on the plus side whats better for CAS a Hornet or a
>A10???? ( harriers are a different kettle of fish)

That's what the Air Force exists for.

USMC is interested in moving forward with new aircraft (F/A-18E/F,
JSF), not moving backwards to old USAF castoffs.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Henry J Cobb]

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> USMC is interested in moving forward with new aircraft (F/A-18E/F,
> JSF), not moving backwards to old USAF castoffs.

Wait a second, didn't somebody correct me by pointing out that the USMC
didn't want ANY F/A-18E/F?

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ff3540d92jd4s9ttsjm6crvtvk0vck21qf%404 ax.com&output=gplain

-HJC

[Ogden Johnson III]

Tiger > wrote:

>Andrew C. Toppan wrote:

>>Tiger > wrote:

>>>Since The Air Force detests the thing so much, why not give to some CAS
>>>pros in Marine air. It seems like their kinda hardware.

>>Just how would the Marines operate A-10s from carriers or LHDs?

>Well I know the thing is a Land based bird. .. But the Marines are
>operating far in shore as of late. I don't see many ops being flown from
>off shore in Afgainstian or Iraq. They would operate from forward land
>bases ala Korea & Vietnam ops. The lack of sea legs is a minus I'll
>grant you. But on the plus side whats better for CAS a Hornet or a
>A10???? ( harriers are a different kettle of fish)

So you want them to tie up how much of their combat aircraft
assets in aircraft that cannot deploy aboard carriers? The USMC
has had two shots at the A-10 and declined both, the first time
in favor of the AV-8A flavor of that "different kettle of fish",
the second for the AV-8B flavor of that "different kettle of
fish", and are now looking forward to another form of that
"different kettle of fish". All of which can operate as both
land-based and carrier-based.

>MIssed r.a.m.n for the last few months. Glad to see things are thought
>provoking as usual. ;-)

Indeed, as you have proven here, by telling us that the
Commandant, the DC/Air, CG MarForLant and Pac, and a s[tuff]-pot
full of other Marine Generals are boobs for not realizing that
the USMC needs the A-10.

--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo address is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

The Navy did operate a C-130 from a Midway class carrier, including arrested
landings. Trouble was the a/c gross weight was such that no payload could be
brought aboard or flown off the ship.

WDA

end

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> > Just how would the Marines operate A-10s from carriers or LHDs?
>
> They'll do that when the Navy builds a carrier big enough to operate
> their C-130s. ;-)
>
> If that C-130 sized tiltrotor is ever built will it have folding or
> rotating wings or do they not intend to operate it from ships?
>
> -HJC

[Diamond Jim]

"Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
...
> Tiger > wrote:
>
> >Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
>
> >>Tiger > wrote:
>
> >>>Since The Air Force detests the thing so much, why not give to some CAS
> >>>pros in Marine air. It seems like their kinda hardware.
>
> >>Just how would the Marines operate A-10s from carriers or LHDs?
>
> >Well I know the thing is a Land based bird. .. But the Marines are
> >operating far in shore as of late. I don't see many ops being flown from
> >off shore in Afgainstian or Iraq. They would operate from forward land
> >bases ala Korea & Vietnam ops. The lack of sea legs is a minus I'll
> >grant you. But on the plus side whats better for CAS a Hornet or a
> >A10???? ( harriers are a different kettle of fish)
>
> So you want them to tie up how much of their combat aircraft
> assets in aircraft that cannot deploy aboard carriers? The USMC
> has had two shots at the A-10 and declined both, the first time
> in favor of the AV-8A flavor of that "different kettle of fish",
> the second for the AV-8B flavor of that "different kettle of
> fish", and are now looking forward to another form of that
> "different kettle of fish". All of which can operate as both
> land-based and carrier-based.
>
> >MIssed r.a.m.n for the last few months. Glad to see things are thought
> >provoking as usual. ;-)
>
> Indeed, as you have proven here, by telling us that the
> Commandant, the DC/Air, CG MarForLant and Pac, and a s[tuff]-pot
> full of other Marine Generals are boobs for not realizing that
> the USMC needs the A-10.
>
> --
> OJ III
> [Email sent to Yahoo address is burned before reading.
> Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

To take this a little farther. The Marines decided way back in the
early/mid-sixties that the future Marine Corps needs would best be met by
V/STOL aircraft. They have worked toward a pure V/STOL since then, while at
the same time maintaining other capabilities. When the next generation or
two of aircraft make it into the field they should have achieved this.

One of the most publicized Marine secrets of all time was the fact that
several (IIRC 3) Marines unofficially flew V/STOL prototype aircraft in
England while on "leave". The Harrier is a good close air support aircraft,
and has some air to air capability (good for self defense). In addition it
has a speed advantage, is usually based farther forward, while it doesn't
have the big 30mm, it can still take on armored vehicles, etc.

Also the Marine VF squadrons haven't operated in a pure fighter mode
probably since the end WWII. They have operated more as Fighter/Attack
aircraft, and with very few exceptions in the air to air mode. Some of these
exceptions were F-4's from DaNang flying BARCAP for the Fleet when typhoon
conditions shut down carrier ops, and the rare escort missions from RVN into
NVN. Fighter sweeps just aren't normally done by the Marines, even though
they are very capable or it.

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:29:19 -0700, "W. D. Allen Sr."
> wrote:

>The Navy did operate a C-130 from a Midway class carrier, including arrested

Ummm, no.

The KC-130 trials were aboard FORRESTAL, not a MIDWAY class ship.

The landings were NOT arrested. (how could they be? The C-130 has no
tailhook)

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Yofuri]

"Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tiger > wrote:
> >
> > >Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> >
> > >>Tiger > wrote:
> >
> > >>>Since The Air Force detests the thing so much, why not give to some
CAS
> > >>>pros in Marine air. It seems like their kinda hardware.
> >
> > >>Just how would the Marines operate A-10s from carriers or LHDs?
> >
> > >Well I know the thing is a Land based bird. .. But the Marines are
> > >operating far in shore as of late. I don't see many ops being flown
from
> > >off shore in Afgainstian or Iraq. They would operate from forward land
> > >bases ala Korea & Vietnam ops. The lack of sea legs is a minus I'll
> > >grant you. But on the plus side whats better for CAS a Hornet or a
> > >A10???? ( harriers are a different kettle of fish)
> >
> > So you want them to tie up how much of their combat aircraft
> > assets in aircraft that cannot deploy aboard carriers? The USMC
> > has had two shots at the A-10 and declined both, the first time
> > in favor of the AV-8A flavor of that "different kettle of fish",
> > the second for the AV-8B flavor of that "different kettle of
> > fish", and are now looking forward to another form of that
> > "different kettle of fish". All of which can operate as both
> > land-based and carrier-based.
> >
> > >MIssed r.a.m.n for the last few months. Glad to see things are thought
> > >provoking as usual. ;-)
> >
> > Indeed, as you have proven here, by telling us that the
> > Commandant, the DC/Air, CG MarForLant and Pac, and a s[tuff]-pot
> > full of other Marine Generals are boobs for not realizing that
> > the USMC needs the A-10.
> >
> > --
> > OJ III
> > [Email sent to Yahoo address is burned before reading.
> > Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]
>
> To take this a little farther. The Marines decided way back in the
> early/mid-sixties that the future Marine Corps needs would best be met by
> V/STOL aircraft. They have worked toward a pure V/STOL since then, while
at
> the same time maintaining other capabilities. When the next generation or
> two of aircraft make it into the field they should have achieved this.
>
> One of the most publicized Marine secrets of all time was the fact that
> several (IIRC 3) Marines unofficially flew V/STOL prototype aircraft in
> England while on "leave". The Harrier is a good close air support
aircraft,
> and has some air to air capability (good for self defense). In addition it
> has a speed advantage, is usually based farther forward, while it doesn't
> have the big 30mm, it can still take on armored vehicles, etc.
>
> Also the Marine VF squadrons haven't operated in a pure fighter mode
> probably since the end WWII. They have operated more as Fighter/Attack
> aircraft, and with very few exceptions in the air to air mode. Some of
these
> exceptions were F-4's from DaNang flying BARCAP for the Fleet when typhoon
> conditions shut down carrier ops, and the rare escort missions from RVN
into
> NVN. Fighter sweeps just aren't normally done by the Marines, even though
> they are very capable or it.
>

Heh, heh, heh. I recall the VF-124 hangar stuffed wall-to-wall with Marine
F-14 studs '72-'75. IIRC, the first Marine to take off from VF-124 had an
inlet guide vane slam shut just off the end of the runway, which sucked the
rivets and inlet lining into the engine. He did a nice job of bringing it
back safely, shucking pieces all the way.

I checked in to Miramar in '72 the day Shop#1 landed, and checked out on the
day #108 landed. After VF-124, -1, -2, -14 and -32 had stood up and
outfitted, I checked out in July '75.

I was headed up I-5 in my RV when I heard on the radio that CMC had stated
that the Marine Corps would not be taking the F-14. Then they reported that
CNO stated that CMC had "erred in his statement".

Heh, heh, heh.

Rick

[Diamond Jim]

"Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tiger > wrote:
> >
> > >Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> >
> > >>Tiger > wrote:
> >
> > >>>Since The Air Force detests the thing so much, why not give to some
CAS
> > >>>pros in Marine air. It seems like their kinda hardware.
> >
> > >>Just how would the Marines operate A-10s from carriers or LHDs?
> >
> > >Well I know the thing is a Land based bird. .. But the Marines are
> > >operating far in shore as of late. I don't see many ops being flown
from
> > >off shore in Afgainstian or Iraq. They would operate from forward land
> > >bases ala Korea & Vietnam ops. The lack of sea legs is a minus I'll
> > >grant you. But on the plus side whats better for CAS a Hornet or a
> > >A10???? ( harriers are a different kettle of fish)
> >
> > So you want them to tie up how much of their combat aircraft
> > assets in aircraft that cannot deploy aboard carriers? The USMC
> > has had two shots at the A-10 and declined both, the first time
> > in favor of the AV-8A flavor of that "different kettle of fish",
> > the second for the AV-8B flavor of that "different kettle of
> > fish", and are now looking forward to another form of that
> > "different kettle of fish". All of which can operate as both
> > land-based and carrier-based.
> >
> > >MIssed r.a.m.n for the last few months. Glad to see things are thought
> > >provoking as usual. ;-)
> >
> > Indeed, as you have proven here, by telling us that the
> > Commandant, the DC/Air, CG MarForLant and Pac, and a s[tuff]-pot
> > full of other Marine Generals are boobs for not realizing that
> > the USMC needs the A-10.
> >
> > --
> > OJ III
> > [Email sent to Yahoo address is burned before reading.
> > Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]
>
> To take this a little farther. The Marines decided way back in the
> early/mid-sixties that the future Marine Corps needs would best be met by
> V/STOL aircraft. They have worked toward a pure V/STOL since then, while
at
> the same time maintaining other capabilities. When the next generation or
> two of aircraft make it into the field they should have achieved this.
>
> One of the most publicized Marine secrets of all time was the fact that
> several (IIRC 3) Marines unofficially flew V/STOL prototype aircraft in
> England while on "leave". The Harrier is a good close air support
aircraft,
> and has some air to air capability (good for self defense). In addition it
> has a speed advantage, is usually based farther forward, while it doesn't
> have the big 30mm, it can still take on armored vehicles, etc.
>
> Also the Marine VF squadrons haven't operated in a pure fighter mode
> probably since the end WWII. They have operated more as Fighter/Attack
> aircraft, and with very few exceptions in the air to air mode. Some of
these
> exceptions were F-4's from DaNang flying BARCAP for the Fleet when typhoon
> conditions shut down carrier ops, and the rare escort missions from RVN
into
> NVN. Fighter sweeps just aren't normally done by the Marines, even though
> they are very capable or it.
>
>
I thought I would add this. No one should think that I don't think the
Marines are not capable in ACM. They are after Naval Aviators which says it
all. It is that the primary mission of Marine Aviation is to support the
Marines on the ground.

[Pechs1]

WDAllen-<< The Navy did operate a C-130 from a Midway class carrier, including
arrested
landings. >><BR><BR>

Flatley did it but not arrested landings. max reverse pitch at landing..no
'traps'.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Mike Weeks]

>From: (Pechs1)
>Date: 4/19/2004 06:24 Pacific Daylight Time

>WDAllen-<< The Navy did operate a C-130 from a Midway class carrier,
>including
>arrested
>landings. >>
>
>Flatley did it but not arrested landings. max reverse pitch at
>landing..no'traps'.

Plus on a slightly larger boat -- the Forrestal.

MW

[Joe Delphi]

Sorry that everyone is talking about C-130s and not answering your question.

Short answer: Yes, the idea has come up before now, but the real issue is
who gets the MISSION and the associated FUNDING not necessarily who get the
AIRCRAFT. I am sure that the USAF would give up the CAS mission in a minute
if they got to keep all of the funding that goes with it. Kind of hard to
part with money.

Longer answer: Politics.


JD

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Since The Air Force detests the thing so much, why not give to some CAS
> pros in Marine air. It seems like their kinda hardware.
>

[fudog50]

Sorry but you are wrong HJD,

The navy did land a herk on a carrier and take off,,,29 times.
But it was on the "Forrestal" (CV-59), a Forrestal Class carrier, not
a Midway class, which there was only 3 built- Midway ( CV-41) ,
F.D.R. (CV-42) and the Coral Sea (CV-43)..

They performed this in a number of configurations, including
JATO and no JATO. The most amazing one was one of the the landing
(slam the deck, then immediate full beta on the props). then takeoff
from the same spot without repositioning the A/C!

Where did you get the info about no payload due to gross
weight??? Just like to see a reference on that one. My experience in
A/C weight and balance using the NA 01-1B-40, (chart A, C and Form F)
and the current version of the AWBS software shows me how to adjust
fuel loads and payloads for max weight and fwd/aft cg limits for
takeoffs and landings. Just like see to see you reference your claim:
"Trouble was the a/c gross weight was such that no payload could be
brought aboard or flown off the ship".

I was a Navy C130 plane captain and technician in my first
squadron back in the early 80's and a fellow squadron flight engineer
gave me the book, "HERK: Hero of the skies", (Joseph Earl Dabney,
1984). I still have it. Read it for confirmation and lots more on the
Forrestal tests, amazing stuff!


On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:29:19 -0700, "W. D. Allen Sr."
> wrote:

>The Navy did operate a C-130 from a Midway class carrier, including arrested
>landings. Trouble was the a/c gross weight was such that no payload could be
>brought aboard or flown off the ship.
>
>WDA
>
>end
>
>"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
>> Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
>> > Just how would the Marines operate A-10s from carriers or LHDs?
>>
>> They'll do that when the Navy builds a carrier big enough to operate
>> their C-130s. ;-)
>>
>> If that C-130 sized tiltrotor is ever built will it have folding or
>> rotating wings or do they not intend to operate it from ships?
>>
>> -HJC
>

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/19/04 9:27 PM, in article
t, "Joe Delphi"
> wrote:

> Sorry that everyone is talking about C-130s and not answering your question.
>
> Short answer: Yes, the idea has come up before now, but the real issue is
> who gets the MISSION and the associated FUNDING not necessarily who get the
> AIRCRAFT. I am sure that the USAF would give up the CAS mission in a minute
> if they got to keep all of the funding that goes with it. Kind of hard to
> part with money.
>
> Longer answer: Politics.
>
>
> JD

JD,

I don't doubt that your answer is true, but how is the CAS mission area tied
to funding outside of just that specific aircraft. (Keep in mind, I'm
talking about the CAS mission not its associated TACP and/or FAC functions.)

After all, Navy and USMC aircraft fly CAS missions all the time. I'm not
aware of any funding being tied to that mission area specifically.

Educate me.

--Woody

[Pechs1]

Mike-<< Plus on a slightly larger boat -- the Forrestal. >><BR><BR>

Right you are but the total area of the Midway-maru's flight deck is indeed
larger than the FID...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Mike Kanze]

Pechs,

>Right you are but the total area of the Midway-maru's flight deck is indeed
larger than the FID...

Before or after her conversion? Midway's conversion happened after
Flatley's C-130 trials, IIRC.

--
Mike Kanze

Q. (Peter Marshall) "Which of your five senses tends to diminish as you get
older?"
A. (Charley Weaver) "My sense of decency."

- Hollywood Squares



"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Mike-<< Plus on a slightly larger boat -- the Forrestal. >><BR><BR>
>
> Right you are but the total area of the Midway-maru's flight deck is
indeed
> larger than the FID...
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 07:01:06 GMT, fudog50 > wrote:

> They performed this in a number of configurations, including
>JATO and no JATO. The most amazing one was one of the the landing

And you're wrong too - there was no JATO/RATO or anything of the sort.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 02:27:54 GMT, "Joe Delphi"
> wrote:

>Sorry that everyone is talking about C-130s and not answering your question.

The question was answered long ago - the Marine Corps wants Harriers,
Hornets, and JSF, not ex-USAF A-10s.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Mike Weeks]

>From: (Pechs1)
>Date: 4/20/2004 06:11 Pacific Daylight Time

>Mike-<< Plus on a slightly larger boat -- the Forrestal. >>
>
>Right you are but the total area of the Midway-maru's flight deck is
>indeedlarger than the FID...

Interesting. Would that have been the case back in '63 when the tests were
conducted?

MW

[Pechs1]

Mike-<< Before or after her conversion? Midway's conversion happened after
Flatley's C-130 trials, IIRC. >><BR><BR>

When I was onboard rfrom 1980-1983...acerage was larger than the FID class
boats...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Jim Morris]

And the C130 made 1 landing and 1 takeoff. Period.

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 01:18:08 GMT, "Jim Morris" >
wrote:

>And the C130 made 1 landing and 1 takeoff. Period.

No, it made several takeoffs and landings.

(and it was a KC-130)

Period.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Dave in San Diego]

Andrew C. Toppan > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 01:18:08 GMT, "Jim Morris" >
> wrote:
>
>>And the C130 made 1 landing and 1 takeoff. Period.
>
> No, it made several takeoffs and landings.
>
> (and it was a KC-130)
>
> Period.

From this work:

United States
Naval Aviation
1910–1995
Roy A. Grossnick
with contributions from
William J. Armstrong
W. Todd Baker
John M. Elliott
Gwendolyn J. Rich
Judith A. Walters

Naval Historical Center
Department of the Navy
Washington, D.C.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Grossnick, Roy A.
United States Naval Aviation, 1910–1995 / Roy A. Grossnick ; with
contributions from William J. Armstrong . . . [et al.]. — [4th ed.]
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN 0–945274–34–3 (case bound : alk. paper)
1. United States. Navy—Aviation—Chronology. I. Armstrong,
William J. II. Title.
VG93.G7627 1997
359.94’0973—dc21 96–37481
CIP

I quote in part:

1963

8 November During 8, 21 and 22 November,
Lieutenant James H. Flatley III, and his crew members,
Lieutenant Commander Smokey Stovall and ADJ1 Ed
Brennan, made 21 full-stop landings and takeoffs in a
C-130F Hercules on board Forrestal. From this test the
Navy concluded that the C-130 could carry 25,000
pounds of cargo and personnel 2,500 miles and land
on a carrier. However, the C-130 was considered too
risky for use in routine COD operations.
*****

Thus clarifying both cargo capacity, number of takeoffs and landings, and
the a/c model. The above work is available in .pdf format on the Navy
Historical Center web site.

Dave in San Diego

[WaltBJ]

Dave in San Diego > wrote in message >...
> Andrew C. Toppan > wrote in: SNIP:
> > Quote: From this test the Navy concluded that the C-130 could carry 25,000
> pounds of cargo and personnel 2,500 miles and land
> on a carrier. However, the C-130 was considered too
> risky for use in routine COD operations. UNQUOTE

Looks to me as if the Navy brass have been remiss in not keeping the
130's capability as a hip-pocket emergency resupply method. I do not
believe navy logistics is so smart that they never run short of
critical items. It would be a warm fuzzy feeling to know that 25,000
pounds of mission-critical goodies was available if needed now not
tomorrow not next week but right now.
Walt BJ
>

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On 24 Apr 2004 13:58:15 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote:

>Looks to me as if the Navy brass have been remiss in not keeping the
>130's capability as a hip-pocket emergency resupply method. I do not
>believe navy logistics is so smart that they never run short of
>critical items. It would be a warm fuzzy feeling to know that 25,000

But the C-2 can do it in a couple trips without suspending flight
operations, without clearing EVERYTHING off the deck, without
disrupting the ship's operations, and in any weather.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Guy Alcala]

"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote:

> On 24 Apr 2004 13:58:15 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote:
>
> >Looks to me as if the Navy brass have been remiss in not keeping the
> >130's capability as a hip-pocket emergency resupply method. I do not
> >believe navy logistics is so smart that they never run short of
> >critical items. It would be a warm fuzzy feeling to know that 25,000
>
> But the C-2 can do it in a couple trips without suspending flight
> operations, without clearing EVERYTHING off the deck, without
> disrupting the ship's operations, and in any weather.

Of course, the marines would like the next generation C-130 replacement to
be V/STOL, which really would allow it to operate to/from large air
capable ships, although not be hangared/maintained by them. Sure would
make going deep inland with LAVs or similar equipment/supplies easier
after the assault wave lands. There would be no need (as there was in
OAF) of having a friendly beach with a nearby airfield (Pasni, Pakistan)
for the MEU to unload its heavy equipment over the shore and then
transship it into KC-130s/C-17s, to move it into Afghanistan.

Guy

[Thomas Schoene]

WaltBJ wrote:
> Dave in San Diego > wrote in message
> >...
>> Andrew C. Toppan > wrote in: SNIP:
>>> Quote: From this test the Navy concluded that the C-130 could carry
>>> 25,000
>> pounds of cargo and personnel 2,500 miles and land
>> on a carrier. However, the C-130 was considered too
>> risky for use in routine COD operations. UNQUOTE
>
> Looks to me as if the Navy brass have been remiss in not keeping the
> 130's capability as a hip-pocket emergency resupply method.

Who says they haven't? But on the other hand, when has it ever actually
been needed?

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Bill Wesley]

Maybe if it could land on a carrier.
Bill Wesley
USMC Ret

Tiger wrote:

> Since The Air Force detests the thing so much, why not give to some
> CAS pros in Marine air. It seems like their kinda hardware.