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

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/

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

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

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

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

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/

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

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

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/

"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

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