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

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.

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/

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

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. ;-)

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/

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...&output=gplain

-HJC

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.]

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

"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.

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/