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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The Corps - no to the Super Hornet
"Flashnews" wrote in message
. net... We are all talking around the wheel and not realizing that the world is now "JOINT" - so there can be labor management but the mechanisms today allow the Army to own a lot of ships and a lot of flying vehicles. But you are right in the pinning down of "ownership" - and I think what we are suggesting is that an aviation assault ship, even a full deck carrier refurbished to be one, will still have a Naval Officer as Captain but the mission commander will be an officer reporting to the Amphibious Expeditionary Force Commander and this guy could be an Air Force three star but probably would not - it would be a Marine. What would happen is that the physical ship itself would take a drastic make-over as it switched from a naval aviation ship to a command assault aviation ship. The mixture of aircraft. MV-22's, and helicopters would all form a Marine Corps Air Group not a Naval Air Wing but they may still call it a CAG - stuff like that I buy that idea - that's pretty much what I meant. After all, all of the amphibs already have Marine-only air, and they are designated as Marine air - composite squadrons and MAWs. My point was, I don't really see why Marines need to fly F/A-18's off supercarriers, if it's not dedicated to supporting Marines? Let the Navy worry about CAP and deep strike and all that good stuff; it's just not something the Marines need to be doing. AHS |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The Corps - no to the Super Hornet
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
I buy that idea - that's pretty much what I meant. After all, all of the amphibs already have Marine-only air, and they are designated as Marine air - composite squadrons and MAWs. My point was, I don't really see why Marines need to fly F/A-18's off supercarriers, if it's not dedicated to supporting Marines? Let the Navy worry about CAP and deep strike and all that good stuff; it's just not something the Marines need to be doing. The reason is that the price tag on the F-35 keeps exploding and so the Department of the Navy is shuffling the deck chairs around like mad while their budget sinks. Just look at it as the Navy delivering mostly empty carriers for whatever aircraft the Marines happen to have left. http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...details_of.htm “As the Navy continues to buy the F/A-18E/F and as the Navy and Marine Corps start buying the JSF ... it seems that the Navy will not have the money to continue to round out carrier battle groups with the right number of squadrons and airplanes,” said Marine Corps Capt. Sean B. Garick, the assistant operations officer for VFMA-224 at Marine Corps Air Station in Beaufort, S.C. -HJC |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The Corps - no to the Super Hornet
I remember reading an article a few years back that stated the
military didn't have the budget for the F/A-18E/F, the F-22 *and* the JSF, and that one of the 3 should be cut. The hard choice wasn't made back then, and we're seeing the results of that (in)decision now. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The Corps - no to the Super Hornet
By saying that "The Marine Corps is slated to replace all F-4, RF-4, F/
A-18, A-6E, OA-4, A-4M and AV-8B aircraft with the F-35 in 2008" the Author appears to be not very up-to-date - as we know some of the birds mentined here in 2003 had been replaced for a decade or more. Those procurement numbers and schedules were also changed several times... I understand the general idea: There would be no real need (apart from putting them on the right shore if a need arises) to embark Marine Hornet or Prowler squadrons on a carrier. Also, I believe Navy F/A-18C or EA-6B units are not essential for Marine Air Groups. All this is a result of both shortage of Navy squadrons and shortage of Marine squadrons, resulting from overzealous budget cuts, ill-aimed economizing, transitions pending, and tense deployment cycles. However, there has always been a gap where a squadron of one of the services was needed in the other, no matter if that was West Coast Marine VMFA-314 and VMFA-323's presence in Navy's East Coast CVW-13, or VA-15, VA-192 and VFA-132 deployments to Iwakuni in 1980s. Looks like not a G.W. Bush era invention, it was quite widespread already in the flamboyant Reagan administration times... Best regards, Jacek On 24 Cze, 10:08, Henry J Cobb wrote: The reason is that the price tag on the F-35 keeps exploding and so the Department of the Navy is shuffling the deck chairs around like mad while their budget sinks. Just look at it as the Navy delivering mostly empty carriers for whatever aircraft the Marines happen to have left. http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...details_of.htm "As the Navy continues to buy the F/A-18E/F and as the Navy and Marine Corps start buying the JSF ... it seems that the Navy will not have the money to continue to round out carrier battle groups with the right number of squadrons and airplanes," said Marine Corps Capt. Sean B. Garick, the assistant operations officer for VFMA-224 at Marine Corps Air Station in Beaufort, S.C. -HJC |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The Corps - no to the Super Hornet
You have to realize how important the "shipbuilding" issues are and how they in fact run romped over the ability to plan for and procure the aviation assets - and then also there is the politics. The Pentagon lies when it wants to hold steady on a point - unfortunately there is not any real better way to put that. They Pentagon speaks in "selected truths" and it is in fact an art-form, so how can the Congress really know what is going on (over-sight mind you) before it actually becomes too late and things are a mess. I stumbled on the Military Liaison office (in the Congress) practicing how to provide a power point briefing so selective points could be made and no real "trail" could be made to the "who said" or "source" that would enable further or more detailed questions. The idea was if the question is not asked nothing is volunteered and no clarifications are made if you can at all get away with it. So with this Admiral Mike Mullen could simply mandate that the JFK was not a good choice to be refurbished. Well that is fine but he did not look at a refurbishment that would not compete with the nuclear CVN-21 but one that would actually compete with the LHA(R) to provide a bigger-better assault aviation ship for the Marine Corps Expeditionary Force. He was so determined to get rid of a conventional carrier trying to focus on his vision of a nuclear CVN Navy he totally lost track of the rest of the naval force defense needs. The first lie was to inflate and exaggerate the refurbishment costs of the JFK - it became around $600 million - oh my God was the call, and of course to make it a 30 knot deck that could keep up with the new CVN's was next to impossible - and in that nobody really gave a hoot - but for the budget they would be on the same shipbuilding line - to do it right was way too hard. Then as most things with defense the contractors saw the golden cow in the CVN's and every cost possible was hammered into the new CVN-21 concept so the already amazing $3 billion carrier slipped to $5 bill and now out to $7.5. Holy **** was the new cry and all of a sudden the $600 million for the JFKL started to look like a real bargain and yikes - it was inflated to boot anyway. Now we will get nuclear carriers and the fleet will convert - but what are the real naval issues now: (1) how do we build up the Marines Expeditionary Force of independent Battle Groups lead by a capable aviation assault command ship to fight COIN and Littoral war (2) Determine that in the full strategic sense - do we even need surface ships as the lead nuclear and counter-nuclear combatants - has the time come to start really stretching out the surface navy and building up the submarine navy to transform where there is still proven stealth (under the sea) and stop fooling around with trying to re-invent mother nature. It does not take much to understand that an internetted Wolf - Pack of 4 x Virginia Class nuke-boats operating autononomously will do more to keep the Chinese up at night then all the carriers we could send to the Pacific. The carrier strength is so determined by the strength of its air wing even these CVN's are limited by the F/A-18E/F which is a step-back from the A-16 / F-14 wings and sadly the JSF will still remain inferior to both configurations. So the carriers are just big vulnerable target sets that in a full nuclear war will have marginal value and the CVN Battle Groups are many times in-efficient to deal with littoral operations to counter insurgency situations. It is interesting to note that refurbishing the JFK abd the Kitty Hawk for the Marine Expeditionary Battle Groups builds upon the Navy's credibility to deal with COIN littoral war and it continues to free the CVN's to focus on broad area open ocean concepts as the transition to strategic sub-surface gains strength. The CVN BG's can come in and support the Marine BG's to lend help but then move on and remain high speed, open ocean, secure and ready. (3) Take a hard look at what is needed in naval aviation - that is - surge produce the F/A-18E/F/G to fill all Marine, Allied, FMS and Navy units in such a way as to keep the force young and capable for the next 15 years. Fill the CVN's and fill the CVA for the Marines - in this we actually return over 200 new F/A-18's to the front line ready units. Marine Air Wings move afloat and the two Battle Groups are forward deployed joining with allied Battle Groups who are building in the same fashion, primary to that would be the UK Navy that should be offered a third retired US conventional carrier for them to refurbish and in turn buy a wing of F/A-18's and the French may jump in with a mix of Rafale's in the fray. The Rafale may be the best Naval Fighter in inventory in the west today - but that is another story. (4) Since the world is joint and since the Marine BG's will pick up the world wide war on terror, the Expeditionary BG's will have to move in that direction so the BG will need to be filled with more assault ships - many times more aviation ships for helicopters, COIN aircraft and MV-22's - and in this we should see SOF, Naval Riverine, USAF and Allied SOF as well as US Agency and NATO special units all becoming amphibious and moving under the ability to deal out of one headquarters afloat - with CENTCOM and PACOM married to the whole effort. The key to these Naval BG's is that they bring with themselves their own suborbital IT network so things will be agile and work - dirigibles, high alt UAV's and whatever. (5) You pay for it by canceling the JSF and moving one variant (the CTOL) into a decade long development merging it with the laser-canon, vectored thrust engine, manned/unmanned variant, UCAV/UCAS and all other programs that will evolve it into something more advanced then just a better F-16 or F-18 - it will become the penetrating platform of choice for war against advanced states such as North Korea, the PRC, Iran etc.... and that decade of development will bring in the international community that joined the JSF and togeher they move on with all prior investment credited to buys of legacy platforms (F-16, F-15, F-18, etc) .... This frees up over 40 billion over that decade and re-invests 10 of it in legacy aircraft and pays for the conventional carrier conversions and additional (50% more) MV-22's. The cancel of the JSF kills the LHA(R) and in this two more LHA's can be obtained as well as more helicopters. Killing the failed DD(X) will also free up wasted billions and enable DDG's to be retrofitted with features that were developed with the DD(X) - like armored weapons magazines. And - each BG will get a refurbished Battle Ship for the specific reason to provide fire support - the refurbishment will not rebuild a battleship, it will bring afloat a fire support resource for forward deployment to the Gulf and South Pacific. The thinking goes on and on because you kill the flood of expensive useless stuff and bring back the necessary and better build what you need down the road.... "Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message news:Gfnfi.9242$xk5.1743@edtnps82... "Flashnews" wrote in message . net... We are all talking around the wheel and not realizing that the world is now "JOINT" - so there can be labor management but the mechanisms today allow the Army to own a lot of ships and a lot of flying vehicles. But you are right in the pinning down of "ownership" - and I think what we are suggesting is that an aviation assault ship, even a full deck carrier refurbished to be one, will still have a Naval Officer as Captain but the mission commander will be an officer reporting to the Amphibious Expeditionary Force Commander and this guy could be an Air Force three star but probably would not - it would be a Marine. What would happen is that the physical ship itself would take a drastic make-over as it switched from a naval aviation ship to a command assault aviation ship. The mixture of aircraft. MV-22's, and helicopters would all form a Marine Corps Air Group not a Naval Air Wing but they may still call it a CAG - stuff like that I buy that idea - that's pretty much what I meant. After all, all of the amphibs already have Marine-only air, and they are designated as Marine air - composite squadrons and MAWs. My point was, I don't really see why Marines need to fly F/A-18's off supercarriers, if it's not dedicated to supporting Marines? Let the Navy worry about CAP and deep strike and all that good stuff; it's just not something the Marines need to be doing. AHS |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The Corps - no to the Super Hornet
On 22 Jun 2007, said the following in news:1182548129.916430.91700
@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com. At least the Corps policy is clear;-) They rather suck all redundant Navy F/A-18A+/C than let themselves to be sucked into F/A-18E/F&EA-18G programme. However, at some point that could mean the whole All- Weather Fighter Attack (F/A-18D) community going single-seaters, and vanishing of their recce/FAC(A) function. Proper recce/FAC was abandoned when the Corp jettisoned the OV-10D. Regards, Dann |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The Corps - no to the Super Hornet
For me the Marine attack aircraft carrier has one fault... Where they
are going to take the squadrons from? Now it is too few of them to equip full 10 CVWs and 2 land-based rotations... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The Corps - no to the Super Hornet
Oh yes, a plane like Bronco is certainly what is missing today...
For me the Marine attack aircraft carrier concept described here has one basic fault... Where they are going to take the aircraft/squadrons from? Now it is not enough of them to equip full 10 CVWs (one of them, CVW-17, existing mostly on paper) and 2 land-based rotations, taking 4 more squadrons at a time... Best regards, Jacek On 24 Cze, 18:12, Dann wrote: On 22 Jun 2007, said the following in news:1182548129.916430.91700 @x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com. At least the Corps policy is clear;-) They rather suck all redundant Navy F/A-18A+/C than let themselves to be sucked into F/A-18E/F&EA-18G programme. However, at some point that could mean the whole All- Weather Fighter Attack (F/A-18D) community going single-seaters, and vanishing of their recce/FAC(A) function. Proper recce/FAC was abandoned when the Corp jettisoned the OV-10D. Regards, Dann |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The Corps - no to the Super Hornet
On Jun 24, 9:12 am, Dann wrote:
On 22 Jun 2007, said the following in news:1182548129.916430.91700 @x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com. At least the Corps policy is clear;-) They rather suck all redundant Navy F/A-18A+/C than let themselves to be sucked into F/A-18E/F&EA-18G programme. However, at some point that could mean the whole All- Weather Fighter Attack (F/A-18D) community going single-seaters, and vanishing of their recce/FAC(A) function. Proper recce/FAC was abandoned when the Corp jettisoned the OV-10D. Regards, Dann There's actually been some talk in the USMC about reviving the OV-10 Bronco. See: http://www.popasmoke.com/notam2/showthread.php?p=18129 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |