Explain the Navy-Marine Corps Tactical Air Integration Plan to me.

[Henry J Cobb]

A: The Navy intends to reduce it's purchase of F-35Cs by deploying more
Marine Corps strike fighter squadrons on board big deck carriers.

B: The USMC plans to buy zero F-35Cs.

Does A + B mean that the next USN big deck carrier will have a ski ramp?
;-)

-HJC

[Diamond Jim]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> A: The Navy intends to reduce it's purchase of F-35Cs by deploying more
> Marine Corps strike fighter squadrons on board big deck carriers.
>
> B: The USMC plans to buy zero F-35Cs.
>
> Does A + B mean that the next USN big deck carrier will have a ski ramp?
> ;-)
>
> -HJC

No why should they have ramps. They Navy doesn't have ramps on the Amphibs
when the Marines deploy the Harriers on them. The F-35B's deployed on the
carrier would most likely be used as air to ground attack aircraft with the
Navy F-35C's doing the air to air/ fleet protection mission. Besides they
may still put some kind of catapult launch system on the F-35B (bridle ?).

[Henry J Cobb]

Diamond Jim wrote:
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>A: The Navy intends to reduce it's purchase of F-35Cs by deploying more
>>Marine Corps strike fighter squadrons on board big deck carriers.
>>
>>B: The USMC plans to buy zero F-35Cs.
>>
>>Does A + B mean that the next USN big deck carrier will have a ski ramp?
>
> No why should they have ramps. They Navy doesn't have ramps on the Amphibs
> when the Marines deploy the Harriers on them. The F-35B's deployed on the
> carrier would most likely be used as air to ground attack aircraft with the
> Navy F-35C's doing the air to air/ fleet protection mission. Besides they
> may still put some kind of catapult launch system on the F-35B (bridle ?).

The Gators are mainly helicopter carriers with a reduced (i.e.
TAIP-sized, around 10 planes) Harrier squadron. They need flightdeck
space more than range.

Wouldn't a ramp cause problems for V-22 takeoffs?

-HJC

[Guy Alcala]

Henry J Cobb wrote:

> Diamond Jim wrote:
> > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>A: The Navy intends to reduce it's purchase of F-35Cs by deploying more
> >>Marine Corps strike fighter squadrons on board big deck carriers.
> >>
> >>B: The USMC plans to buy zero F-35Cs.
> >>
> >>Does A + B mean that the next USN big deck carrier will have a ski ramp?
> >
> > No why should they have ramps. They Navy doesn't have ramps on the Amphibs
> > when the Marines deploy the Harriers on them. The F-35B's deployed on the
> > carrier would most likely be used as air to ground attack aircraft with the
> > Navy F-35C's doing the air to air/ fleet protection mission. Besides they
> > may still put some kind of catapult launch system on the F-35B (bridle ?).
>
> The Gators are mainly helicopter carriers with a reduced (i.e.
> TAIP-sized, around 10 planes) Harrier squadron. They need flightdeck
> space more than range.
>
> Wouldn't a ramp cause problems for V-22 takeoffs?

Assuming a V-22 STO instead of a VTO it might, depending on where the V-22 began
its t/o run, the length of same,the ramp height/angle and the V-22's climb slope.
Of course, it's possible that the V-22 has enough proprotor clearance at 60 or 70
degrees that it could use a ski jump with no problem -- E-2s were successfully
tested off low-angle (2.1deg. IIRR) ski jumps. Whether the proprotors are
designed to take the rapidly changing vertical acceleration as they transit the
ramp, I couldn't say.

Guy

[[email protected]]

Diamond Jim wrote:
>
> No why should they have ramps. They Navy doesn't have ramps on the Amphibs
> when the Marines deploy the Harriers on them. The F-35B's deployed on the
> carrier would most likely be used as air to ground attack aircraft with the
> Navy F-35C's doing the air to air/ fleet protection mission. Besides they
> may still put some kind of catapult launch system on the F-35B (bridle ?).

I cannot agree with the opinion that F-35C is going to be the
air-to-air aircraft, and F-35B air-to-ground aircraft. Right, Marine
squadrons are better specialized in CAS for their troops on the ground,
but this is also the the mission usually performed by Navy aircraft
nowadays (though sometimes called in a bit different way).

After the Cold War ended, and considering the fact most attack aircraft
of nowadays are strikefighters, the need for air-to-air seems to be
decreasing. Also such a division like you told about would deny current
TACAIR integration concept of mission-commonality.

Kind regards,
Jacek

[Diamond Jim]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Diamond Jim wrote:
> >
> > No why should they have ramps. They Navy doesn't have ramps on the
Amphibs
> > when the Marines deploy the Harriers on them. The F-35B's deployed on
the
> > carrier would most likely be used as air to ground attack aircraft with
the
> > Navy F-35C's doing the air to air/ fleet protection mission. Besides
they
> > may still put some kind of catapult launch system on the F-35B (bridle
?).
>
> I cannot agree with the opinion that F-35C is going to be the
> air-to-air aircraft, and F-35B air-to-ground aircraft. Right, Marine
> squadrons are better specialized in CAS for their troops on the ground,
> but this is also the the mission usually performed by Navy aircraft
> nowadays (though sometimes called in a bit different way).
>
> After the Cold War ended, and considering the fact most attack aircraft
> of nowadays are strikefighters, the need for air-to-air seems to be
> decreasing. Also such a division like you told about would deny current
> TACAIR integration concept of mission-commonality.
>
> Kind regards,
> Jacek
>

Oh really! When did the need for a CAP over the fleet disappear? Don't you
still need a BARCAP to protect the attack aircraft, no matter how unlikely
opposition from air to air is? Just because an aircraft such as the F-35 can
perform both missions, doesn't mean that it can do both at the same time,
with 100% effectiveness. If the aggressor can make you jettison all or part
of your bomb load, why that defeats the attack doesn't it?

Remember such pearls of wisdom from the past as these and many others;

Lord Cardigan the Russian battery at the end of the valley is the object of
attack. The reply of Lord Cardigan was, "Very good, sir." To the Light
Brigade he then gave the word of command, "The Brigade will advance."

General Custer said "Leave the gatlin guns with the supply wagons; they are
just slowing us down".

OK lads. Over the top and lets go get them Turks! (Gallipoli)

Well if the radios are out because of static, send the warning to Pearl
Harbor by Western Union.

We don't need guns on fighters; missiles will do the job now.

"The foam coming off the tanks isn't a problem for the shuttle".

[[email protected]]

OK, you've got a point here! The air threat for the fleet is not very
significant now (practically no threat from Iraq and Afghanistan's air
forces), but that could change instantly with every encounter with
North Korea, Iran or China.

But still I think that saying F-35C is going to be a pure fighter and
F-35B only a striker sounds like a big exaggeration to me.

Best regards,
Jacek


Diamond Jim wrote:
>
> Oh really! When did the need for a CAP over the fleet disappear? Don't you
> still need a BARCAP to protect the attack aircraft, no matter how unlikely
> opposition from air to air is? Just because an aircraft such as the F-35 can
> perform both missions, doesn't mean that it can do both at the same time,
> with 100% effectiveness. If the aggressor can make you jettison all or part
> of your bomb load, why that defeats the attack doesn't it?
>
> Remember such pearls of wisdom from the past as these and many others;
>
> Lord Cardigan the Russian battery at the end of the valley is the object of
> attack. The reply of Lord Cardigan was, "Very good, sir." To the Light
> Brigade he then gave the word of command, "The Brigade will advance."
>
> General Custer said "Leave the gatlin guns with the supply wagons; they are
> just slowing us down".
>
> OK lads. Over the top and lets go get them Turks! (Gallipoli)
>
> Well if the radios are out because of static, send the warning to Pearl
> Harbor by Western Union.
>
> We don't need guns on fighters; missiles will do the job now.
>
> "The foam coming off the tanks isn't a problem for the shuttle".

[Mike Weeks]

Henry J Cobb wrote:
> A: The Navy intends to reduce it's purchase of F-35Cs by deploying more
> Marine Corps strike fighter squadrons on board big deck carriers.

IIRC, the TAIP came about prior to any firm numbers of F-35 purchases.
In fact, for better or worse, the TAIP is currently be executed -- long
before the first production F-35 enters either the USN or USMC.

Second, the USMC F-35s are to replace AV-8Bs; and those VSTOL birds
haven't deployed aboard Navy big decks since the A mondel did, once,
back in 1976-77 aboard FDR ...

> B: The USMC plans to buy zero F-35Cs.

So? That means, what? That the USMC is going to keep their F/A-18s is
what it means ...

> Does A + B mean that the next USN big deck carrier will have a ski ramp?
> ;-)

Nope.

[Henry J Cobb]

Mike Weeks wrote:
> Henry J Cobb wrote:
>>B: The USMC plans to buy zero F-35Cs.
>
> So? That means, what? That the USMC is going to keep their F/A-18s is
> what it means ...

Forever?

This looks like a plan for a breakup, not a merger to me.

The USMC F/A-18s will serve their last few years on the big decks and
then not be replaced there by another Marine aircraft, ever.

-HJC

[Mike Weeks]

Henry J Cobb wrote:
> Mike Weeks wrote:
> > Henry J Cobb wrote:
> >>B: The USMC plans to buy zero F-35Cs.
> >
> > So? That means, what? That the USMC is going to keep their F/A-18s is
> > what it means ...
>
> Forever?

Who stated anything about "forever"? Nothing is "forever".

> This looks like a plan for a breakup, not a merger to me.

Well, since the "merger" has already taken place, then it's possible a
"breakup" could be the next step; but only if it's agreed to by the
major partner, the USN ...

> The USMC F/A-18s will serve their last few years on the big decks and
> then not be replaced there by another Marine aircraft, ever.

No, the USMC F/A-18s will serve both aboard the big decks, and ashore
-- as currently is being done.

Down the road, a good number of years from now, you might wish to
wonder what will happen to USMC fix-wing air (non-VSTOL) and how that
will impact the TAIP -- but given that just about everything now days
is written in jello, I might suggest waiting to see how the intro of
the F-35 series goes; it might then become more obvious.

[[email protected]]

Mike Weeks napisal(a):
>
> Well, since the "merger" has already taken place, then it's possible a
> "breakup" could be the next step; but only if it's agreed to by the
> major partner, the USN ...

I am glad you said that - I have noticed exactly the same. Look how the
story goes round: First both Navy and Marine used F-4 Phantoms, what
certainly increased the commonality between the both services. Then
Marine did not received F-14s, but some years later both services came
into possession of the same single-seat F/A-18 models. Then again USMC
refused to upgrade to F/A-18E/F&EA-18G. And now comes the time for
F-35B and F-35C, what can make USN and USMC "divided by the JOINT
aircraft type".

> No, the USMC F/A-18s will serve both aboard the big decks, and ashore
> -- as currently is being done.

As far as I know the Marines now are even reducing, as far as they can,
their contribution to carrier ops - so different than planned single
VMFA for each of ten CVWs in a few years...

> Down the road, a good number of years from now, you might wish to
> wonder what will happen to USMC fix-wing air (non-VSTOL) and how that
> will impact the TAIP -- but given that just about everything now days
> is written in jello, I might suggest waiting to see how the intro of
> the F-35 series goes; it might then become more obvious.

I think what you suggest is a very good idea. Nobody knows until it
happens!

Anyhow, F-35 might be braking the boundaries between CV-TOL and STOVL
fighter aircraft, like the Russians might have found with their Yak-141
several years ago.

Best regards,
Jacek Zemlo

[Mike Weeks]

wrote:
> Mike Weeks napisal(a):

> > No, the USMC F/A-18s will serve both aboard the big decks, and ashore
> > -- as currently is being done.
>
> As far as I know the Marines now are even reducing, as far as they can,
> their contribution to carrier ops - so different than planned single
> VMFA for each of ten CVWs in a few years...

This might be "splitting hairs", but from what I can determine, even
when the TAIP was announced & introduced, the Marines didn't actually
have the assets available.

And it's gone downhill from there ... <g>

The Marines got a real break with the withdraw of JFK (and thusly one
CVW) from active deployment rotation.

[[email protected]]

Mike Weeks wrote:
>
> This might be "splitting hairs", but from what I can determine, even
> when the TAIP was announced & introduced, the Marines didn't actually
> have the assets available.
>
> And it's gone downhill from there ... <g>

Even less assets now, when two VMFA(AW) squadrons are expected to be
practically gone soon...

> The Marines got a real break with the withdraw of JFK (and thusly one
> CVW) from active deployment rotation.

For me the status of CVW-17 now seems to be unclear. Maybe it will
become a kind of "warehouse of spare Hornet squadrons" for other air
wings - with reference to gossips about additional Super Hornet
squadrons to compensate the growing shortage of F/A-18C/A+ airframes...

Best regards,
Jacek

[Mike Weeks]

wrote:
> Mike Weeks wrote:
> >
> > This might be "splitting hairs", but from what I can determine, even
> > when the TAIP was announced & introduced, the Marines didn't actually
> > have the assets available.
> >
> > And it's gone downhill from there ... <g>
>
> Even less assets now, when two VMFA(AW) squadrons are expected to be
> practically gone soon...

Actual VMFA(AW) outfits -- flying the D Hornet that is, were not part
of TAIP. Of course if that means standard VMFAs will have to fill the
resulting gap ... <g>

> > The Marines got a real break with the withdraw of JFK (and thusly one
> > CVW) from active deployment rotation.
>
> For me the status of CVW-17 now seems to be unclear. Maybe it will
> become a kind of "warehouse of spare Hornet squadrons" for other air
> wings - with reference to gossips about additional Super Hornet
> squadrons to compensate the growing shortage of F/A-18C/A+ airframes...

Officially, CVW-17 (short squadrons and all) is attached to George
Washington. Watch to see how it changes when GW starts to workup
seriously for deployment -- then the picture will be clearer. As of
now, as I understand it, there's to be no axing of a CVW even when JFK
goes away.

[[email protected]]

Actually, some things particularly draw my attention:

1) One thing especially nice in the TACAIR Integration Plan is the fact
it generates a lot of interesting moves (VFA-81 to CVW-11, VFA-94 to
UDP, F/A-18C's seen in VMFA(AW)-332) - with the third Navy squadron to
be deactivated still not revealed.

2) I wonder if F/A-18s from squadrons like VMFA-122 or VMFA-212 ever
touch the deck of a carrier (the former may gonna deploy with CVW-3
soon, the latter has a chance to merge with CVW-5 assets when they meet
at Iwakuni someday).

3) A separate question is which squadrons finally go to Cherry Point,
and if another F/A-18C squadron takes place of deactivated VFA-82 at
Beaufort.

Of course, all that for the moment is a matter of horse-race-like
speculations;-)

Best regards,
Jacek
(superhornet at go 2 dot pl)


Mike Weeks wrote:
> wrote:
> > Mike Weeks wrote:
> > >
> > > This might be "splitting hairs", but from what I can determine, even
> > > when the TAIP was announced & introduced, the Marines didn't actually
> > > have the assets available.
> > >
> > > And it's gone downhill from there ... <g>
> >
> > Even less assets now, when two VMFA(AW) squadrons are expected to be
> > practically gone soon...
>
> Actual VMFA(AW) outfits -- flying the D Hornet that is, were not part
> of TAIP. Of course if that means standard VMFAs will have to fill the
> resulting gap ... <g>
>
> > > The Marines got a real break with the withdraw of JFK (and thusly one
> > > CVW) from active deployment rotation.
> >
> > For me the status of CVW-17 now seems to be unclear. Maybe it will
> > become a kind of "warehouse of spare Hornet squadrons" for other air
> > wings - with reference to gossips about additional Super Hornet
> > squadrons to compensate the growing shortage of F/A-18C/A+ airframes...
>
> Officially, CVW-17 (short squadrons and all) is attached to George
> Washington. Watch to see how it changes when GW starts to workup
> seriously for deployment -- then the picture will be clearer. As of
> now, as I understand it, there's to be no axing of a CVW even when JFK
> goes away.

[Mike Weeks]

There's no doubt about if; if one is interested in the subject, it's
not boring!! <g>

Mike

wrote:
> Actually, some things particularly draw my attention:
>
> 1) One thing especially nice in the TACAIR Integration Plan is the fact
> it generates a lot of interesting moves (VFA-81 to CVW-11, VFA-94 to
> UDP, F/A-18C's seen in VMFA(AW)-332) - with the third Navy squadron to
> be deactivated still not revealed.
>
> 2) I wonder if F/A-18s from squadrons like VMFA-122 or VMFA-212 ever
> touch the deck of a carrier (the former may gonna deploy with CVW-3
> soon, the latter has a chance to merge with CVW-5 assets when they meet
> at Iwakuni someday).
>
> 3) A separate question is which squadrons finally go to Cherry Point,
> and if another F/A-18C squadron takes place of deactivated VFA-82 at
> Beaufort.
>
> Of course, all that for the moment is a matter of horse-race-like
> speculations;-)
>
> Best regards,
> Jacek
> (superhornet at go 2 dot pl)
>
>
> Mike Weeks wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Mike Weeks wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This might be "splitting hairs", but from what I can determine, even
> > > > when the TAIP was announced & introduced, the Marines didn't actually
> > > > have the assets available.
> > > >
> > > > And it's gone downhill from there ... <g>
> > >
> > > Even less assets now, when two VMFA(AW) squadrons are expected to be
> > > practically gone soon...
> >
> > Actual VMFA(AW) outfits -- flying the D Hornet that is, were not part
> > of TAIP. Of course if that means standard VMFAs will have to fill the
> > resulting gap ... <g>
> >
> > > > The Marines got a real break with the withdraw of JFK (and thusly one
> > > > CVW) from active deployment rotation.
> > >
> > > For me the status of CVW-17 now seems to be unclear. Maybe it will
> > > become a kind of "warehouse of spare Hornet squadrons" for other air
> > > wings - with reference to gossips about additional Super Hornet
> > > squadrons to compensate the growing shortage of F/A-18C/A+ airframes...
> >
> > Officially, CVW-17 (short squadrons and all) is attached to George
> > Washington. Watch to see how it changes when GW starts to workup
> > seriously for deployment -- then the picture will be clearer. As of
> > now, as I understand it, there's to be no axing of a CVW even when JFK
> > goes away.