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

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.]

"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.

"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" 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.

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.

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

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/

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