A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Corps - no to the Super Hornet



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 23rd 07, 04:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval
Arved Sandstrom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default The Corps - no to the Super Hornet

wrote in message
oups.com...
Two more ideas for the "no F/A-18s supporting Marine riflemen on the
beach" discussion:

First: In Stephen Coonts book "The Intruders" the fictional Marine
A-6E/KA-6D squadron embarked on a carrier was described almost as "a
bunch of clowns incapable to safely fly and fight from the Boat, if no
experienced Navy officers were assigned". I think that is a Blue Ops
days view, very harmful and unjust for the Marine Corps aviation!

Second: No massive assault on the beach was seen recently (there is no
beach in Afghanistan at all;-))), but I cannot resist the impression
that new gizmos like ROVER, low-collateral-damage and small-diameter
bombs, land-based detachments of carrier-based units (so-called
"Cactus Air Force", once involving VFA-15 and VFA-87's F/A-18s) are
just for improving CAS capablities...

No matter if that were carrier-based F-14 and F/A-18s flying over
Iraq, or Navy's VFA-94 and VFA-97 rotating at Iwakuni, now CAS looks
to be too important to be forgotten. Through the definition now
switched from "assault on the beach CAS" to "urban CAS".

Just some of my observations, no first-hand experience with CAS, or no-
CAS...

Best regards,
Jacek


The Navy has noticed - so has the Marine Corps - that if you want very short
response times for CAS, going into places like Iraq and Afghanistan, you
aren't going to ship-base anyway. When we handled AV-8's in Camp Lejeune,
they routinely touched down on a main road aboard base, after they got there
from Cherry Point...little bit of training doing that, then back up in the
air to attack G-10 impact.

During GW1 Harriers and Cobras did most of the CAS and CIFS for Marines.
Close to 70 Harriers actually operated from airbases on land, and they were
closer to Iraq than any carrier air. Only 20 Harriers were at sea. The
average turnaround for the land-based planes was about 25 minutes.

Considering that I was in one of the first planned assault waves for more
than one Kuwait landing, I got a warm fuzzy from seeing a mean AH-1 perched
on the deck. We usually had a few on USS RALEIGH.

The problem with an area like the Gulf and the North Arabian Sea is shallow
water and Iran. You just are not going to want to get that close. As fast as
planes fly, CAS is no good if it takes an hour to get there. You need it in
10 minutes.

AHS


  #2  
Old June 24th 07, 12:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default The Corps - no to the Super Hornet

If so, I would not be much astonished to see the Corps saying goodbye
to their F/A-18s earlier than doing the same with Harriers they're in
a better control of...

Sad to hear that... Now planes from the carrier flying five-plus-hours
XCAS missions, with not fewer than three refuelings and some (I
believe not much) loiter time "in the box", and it is all for
nothing?...

On the other hand, an aircraft carrier is a nice tool to deliver some
Marine TACAIR to a base ashore (if available) when something happens
in the region given, especially when Marine units are better suited/
trained to fulfill the task. I have heard such a practice (of having
several birds rotating at not-fully-equipped land airfield and fully
maintained on the Boat) was positively tested recent years.

Best regards,
Jacek


On 23 Cze, 17:08, "Arved Sandstrom" wrote:
The Navy has noticed - so has the Marine Corps - that if you want very short
response times for CAS, going into places like Iraq and Afghanistan, you
aren't going to ship-base anyway. When we handled AV-8's in Camp Lejeune,
they routinely touched down on a main road aboard base, after they got there
from Cherry Point...little bit of training doing that, then back up in the
air to attack G-10 impact.

During GW1 Harriers and Cobras did most of the CAS and CIFS for Marines.
Close to 70 Harriers actually operated from airbases on land, and they were
closer to Iraq than any carrier air. Only 20 Harriers were at sea. The
average turnaround for the land-based planes was about 25 minutes.

Considering that I was in one of the first planned assault waves for more
than one Kuwait landing, I got a warm fuzzy from seeing a mean AH-1 perched
on the deck. We usually had a few on USS RALEIGH.

The problem with an area like the Gulf and the North Arabian Sea is shallow
water and Iran. You just are not going to want to get that close. As fast as
planes fly, CAS is no good if it takes an hour to get there. You need it in
10 minutes.

AHS


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USMC F/A-18F Super Hornet (not 'E') P50[_2_] Aviation Photos 2 May 21st 07 02:58 AM
Two more Super Hornet squadrons [email protected] Naval Aviation 1 May 20th 05 03:53 PM
Why doesn't the Super Hornet have canards? Henry J Cobb Naval Aviation 5 June 30th 04 09:01 AM
ID question: hornet or super-hornet? Jim Battista Military Aviation 12 April 20th 04 10:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.