Explain the Navy-Marine Corps Tactical Air Integration Plan to me.

Mike Weeks napisal(a):

Well, since the "merger" has already taken place, then it's possible a
"breakup" could be the next step; but only if it's agreed to by the
major partner, the USN ...

I am glad you said that - I have noticed exactly the same. Look how the
story goes round: First both Navy and Marine used F-4 Phantoms, what
certainly increased the commonality between the both services. Then
Marine did not received F-14s, but some years later both services came
into possession of the same single-seat F/A-18 models. Then again USMC
refused to upgrade to F/A-18E/F&EA-18G. And now comes the time for
F-35B and F-35C, what can make USN and USMC "divided by the JOINT
aircraft type".

No, the USMC F/A-18s will serve both aboard the big decks, and ashore
-- as currently is being done.

As far as I know the Marines now are even reducing, as far as they can,
their contribution to carrier ops - so different than planned single
VMFA for each of ten CVWs in a few years...

Down the road, a good number of years from now, you might wish to
wonder what will happen to USMC fix-wing air (non-VSTOL) and how that
will impact the TAIP -- but given that just about everything now days
is written in jello, I might suggest waiting to see how the intro of
the F-35 series goes; it might then become more obvious.

I think what you suggest is a very good idea. Nobody knows until it
happens!

Anyhow, F-35 might be braking the boundaries between CV-TOL and STOVL
fighter aircraft, like the Russians might have found with their Yak-141
several years ago.

Best regards,
Jacek Zemlo

wrote:
Mike Weeks napisal(a):

No, the USMC F/A-18s will serve both aboard the big decks, and ashore
-- as currently is being done.

As far as I know the Marines now are even reducing, as far as they can,
their contribution to carrier ops - so different than planned single
VMFA for each of ten CVWs in a few years...

This might be "splitting hairs", but from what I can determine, even
when the TAIP was announced & introduced, the Marines didn't actually
have the assets available.

And it's gone downhill from there ... g

The Marines got a real break with the withdraw of JFK (and thusly one
CVW) from active deployment rotation.

Mike Weeks wrote:

This might be "splitting hairs", but from what I can determine, even
when the TAIP was announced & introduced, the Marines didn't actually
have the assets available.

And it's gone downhill from there ... g

Even less assets now, when two VMFA(AW) squadrons are expected to be
practically gone soon...

The Marines got a real break with the withdraw of JFK (and thusly one
CVW) from active deployment rotation.

For me the status of CVW-17 now seems to be unclear. Maybe it will
become a kind of "warehouse of spare Hornet squadrons" for other air
wings - with reference to gossips about additional Super Hornet
squadrons to compensate the growing shortage of F/A-18C/A+ airframes...

Best regards,
Jacek

wrote:
Mike Weeks wrote:

This might be "splitting hairs", but from what I can determine, even
when the TAIP was announced & introduced, the Marines didn't actually
have the assets available.

And it's gone downhill from there ... g

Even less assets now, when two VMFA(AW) squadrons are expected to be
practically gone soon...

Actual VMFA(AW) outfits -- flying the D Hornet that is, were not part
of TAIP. Of course if that means standard VMFAs will have to fill the
resulting gap ... g

The Marines got a real break with the withdraw of JFK (and thusly one
CVW) from active deployment rotation.

For me the status of CVW-17 now seems to be unclear. Maybe it will
become a kind of "warehouse of spare Hornet squadrons" for other air
wings - with reference to gossips about additional Super Hornet
squadrons to compensate the growing shortage of F/A-18C/A+ airframes...

Officially, CVW-17 (short squadrons and all) is attached to George
Washington. Watch to see how it changes when GW starts to workup
seriously for deployment -- then the picture will be clearer. As of
now, as I understand it, there's to be no axing of a CVW even when JFK
goes away.

Actually, some things particularly draw my attention:

1) One thing especially nice in the TACAIR Integration Plan is the fact
it generates a lot of interesting moves (VFA-81 to CVW-11, VFA-94 to
UDP, F/A-18C's seen in VMFA(AW)-332) - with the third Navy squadron to
be deactivated still not revealed.

2) I wonder if F/A-18s from squadrons like VMFA-122 or VMFA-212 ever
touch the deck of a carrier (the former may gonna deploy with CVW-3
soon, the latter has a chance to merge with CVW-5 assets when they meet
at Iwakuni someday).

3) A separate question is which squadrons finally go to Cherry Point,
and if another F/A-18C squadron takes place of deactivated VFA-82 at
Beaufort.

Of course, all that for the moment is a matter of horse-race-like
speculations;-)

Best regards,
Jacek
(superhornet at go 2 dot pl)


Mike Weeks wrote:
wrote:
Mike Weeks wrote:

This might be "splitting hairs", but from what I can determine, even
when the TAIP was announced & introduced, the Marines didn't actually
have the assets available.

And it's gone downhill from there ... g

Even less assets now, when two VMFA(AW) squadrons are expected to be
practically gone soon...

Actual VMFA(AW) outfits -- flying the D Hornet that is, were not part
of TAIP. Of course if that means standard VMFAs will have to fill the
resulting gap ... g

The Marines got a real break with the withdraw of JFK (and thusly one
CVW) from active deployment rotation.

For me the status of CVW-17 now seems to be unclear. Maybe it will
become a kind of "warehouse of spare Hornet squadrons" for other air
wings - with reference to gossips about additional Super Hornet
squadrons to compensate the growing shortage of F/A-18C/A+ airframes...

Officially, CVW-17 (short squadrons and all) is attached to George
Washington. Watch to see how it changes when GW starts to workup
seriously for deployment -- then the picture will be clearer. As of
now, as I understand it, there's to be no axing of a CVW even when JFK
goes away.

There's no doubt about if; if one is interested in the subject, it's
not boring!! g

Mike

wrote:
Actually, some things particularly draw my attention:

1) One thing especially nice in the TACAIR Integration Plan is the fact
it generates a lot of interesting moves (VFA-81 to CVW-11, VFA-94 to
UDP, F/A-18C's seen in VMFA(AW)-332) - with the third Navy squadron to
be deactivated still not revealed.

2) I wonder if F/A-18s from squadrons like VMFA-122 or VMFA-212 ever
touch the deck of a carrier (the former may gonna deploy with CVW-3
soon, the latter has a chance to merge with CVW-5 assets when they meet
at Iwakuni someday).

3) A separate question is which squadrons finally go to Cherry Point,
and if another F/A-18C squadron takes place of deactivated VFA-82 at
Beaufort.

Of course, all that for the moment is a matter of horse-race-like
speculations;-)

Best regards,
Jacek
(superhornet at go 2 dot pl)


Mike Weeks wrote:
wrote:
Mike Weeks wrote:

This might be "splitting hairs", but from what I can determine, even
when the TAIP was announced & introduced, the Marines didn't actually
have the assets available.

And it's gone downhill from there ... g

Even less assets now, when two VMFA(AW) squadrons are expected to be
practically gone soon...

Actual VMFA(AW) outfits -- flying the D Hornet that is, were not part
of TAIP. Of course if that means standard VMFAs will have to fill the
resulting gap ... g

The Marines got a real break with the withdraw of JFK (and thusly one
CVW) from active deployment rotation.

For me the status of CVW-17 now seems to be unclear. Maybe it will
become a kind of "warehouse of spare Hornet squadrons" for other air
wings - with reference to gossips about additional Super Hornet
squadrons to compensate the growing shortage of F/A-18C/A+ airframes...

Officially, CVW-17 (short squadrons and all) is attached to George
Washington. Watch to see how it changes when GW starts to workup
seriously for deployment -- then the picture will be clearer. As of
now, as I understand it, there's to be no axing of a CVW even when JFK
goes away.