wrote in message
ups.com...
The "big deck" assault ship idea is all right, but it seems you forget
about one of the most important things: DEPLOYMENT CYCLES...

Having only one such a ship would not make much sense, because that
would be usauble through only 6-to-9-month period within every 27
months (plus extensive overhauls required for such a weary vessel).

Sure, that would be a great tool for showing off (I can see the
headlines: "The situation in Bla-Bla Gulf is so tense, that the
President decided to send there a special assault ship, USS Kitty
Hawk, with over 50 Marine strike aircraft on board..." But it could
mean much more deterrence if the carrier was stationed at Guam, or
Japan...

P.S. To correct the squadron info: this fiscal year Marine Corps is
deactivating not one, but two deployable F/A-18 units, namely
VMFA(AW)-332 and VMFA-212.

For decades we have had a mismatch in who owns what. To be honest, and this
is just my humble opinion, the Marine Corps should own the ships that they
need to use their primary aircraft. In fact, they should own every gator,
and it wouldn't hurt if the NGF situation got a little more resolved either
by having truly dedicated USMC gunships.

As it is, right now the USN "loans" out assets to support their amphibious
force. It's always been a struggle to get the Navy to provide that support -
gators aren't as sexy as the other ships are. The hell of it is, a deployed
Marine unit is probably one of the best and most flexible assets that NCA
has.

As far as ships go, that can support F/A-18's, my point remains. If flown by
Marines, they will *try* to support Marines. But as long as their floating
airfield is Navy, the planes will frequently be tasked for things that do
not support Marines. I myself totally support short-deck planes, because
they tend to be available for moving mud. So as much as I think the Hornet
is a nice plane, it's not what the Corps needs all that badly.

AHS