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

"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.

WDAllen- The Navy did operate a C-130 from a Midway class carrier, including
arrested
landings. BRBR

Flatley did it but not arrested landings. max reverse pitch at landing..no
'traps'.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

From: (Pechs1)
Date: 4/19/2004 06:24 Pacific Daylight Time

WDAllen- The Navy did operate a C-130 from a Midway class carrier,
including
arrested
landings.

Flatley did it but not arrested landings. max reverse pitch at
landing..no'traps'.

Plus on a slightly larger boat -- the Forrestal.

MW

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.

Sorry but you are wrong HJD,

The navy did land a herk on a carrier and take off,,,29 times.
But it was on the "Forrestal" (CV-59), a Forrestal Class carrier, not
a Midway class, which there was only 3 built- Midway ( CV-41) ,
F.D.R. (CV-42) and the Coral Sea (CV-43)..

They performed this in a number of configurations, including
JATO and no JATO. The most amazing one was one of the the landing
(slam the deck, then immediate full beta on the props). then takeoff
from the same spot without repositioning the A/C!

Where did you get the info about no payload due to gross
weight??? Just like to see a reference on that one. My experience in
A/C weight and balance using the NA 01-1B-40, (chart A, C and Form F)
and the current version of the AWBS software shows me how to adjust
fuel loads and payloads for max weight and fwd/aft cg limits for
takeoffs and landings. Just like see to see you reference your claim:
"Trouble was the a/c gross weight was such that no payload could be
brought aboard or flown off the ship".

I was a Navy C130 plane captain and technician in my first
squadron back in the early 80's and a fellow squadron flight engineer
gave me the book, "HERK: Hero of the skies", (Joseph Earl Dabney,
1984). I still have it. Read it for confirmation and lots more on the
Forrestal tests, amazing stuff!


On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:29:19 -0700, "W. D. Allen Sr."
wrote:

The Navy did operate a C-130 from a Midway class carrier, including arrested
landings. Trouble was the a/c gross weight was such that no payload could be
brought aboard or flown off the ship.

WDA

end

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
Just how would the Marines operate A-10s from carriers or LHDs?

They'll do that when the Navy builds a carrier big enough to operate
their C-130s. ;-)

If that C-130 sized tiltrotor is ever built will it have folding or
rotating wings or do they not intend to operate it from ships?

-HJC

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

Mike- Plus on a slightly larger boat -- the Forrestal. BRBR

Right you are but the total area of the Midway-maru's flight deck is indeed
larger than the FID...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs,

Right you are but the total area of the Midway-maru's flight deck is indeed
larger than the FID...

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

--
Mike Kanze

Q. (Peter Marshall) "Which of your five senses tends to diminish as you get
older?"
A. (Charley Weaver) "My sense of decency."

- Hollywood Squares



"Pechs1" wrote in message
...
Mike- Plus on a slightly larger boat -- the Forrestal. BRBR

Right you are but the total area of the Midway-maru's flight deck is
indeed
larger than the FID...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 07:01:06 GMT, fudog50 wrote:

They performed this in a number of configurations, including
JATO and no JATO. The most amazing one was one of the the landing

And you're wrong too - there was no JATO/RATO or anything of the sort.

--
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/