Page 6 – Key Publishing

Riaino

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 105 total)

← 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 →

Author

Posts
April 10, 2013 at 1:36 pm in reply to: USMC sqns on USN strike carriers. #2003102

Riaino
Participant

Anyway, back to Marines on Carriers. While it was pointed out that since 2002 the USN/USMC have been undertaking a complete and strategic TacAir integration plan, from which both force derive benefits what about previously?

Without a formal and strategic TacAir integration plan how did the USN get the USMC A6 squadrons and RF4B detachments onto carriers in the 80s? Does the USN request up the chain to the Dept and the Dept directs the USMC to make it happen, or does the CNO go to the Commandant and tell him about the capability gap he’s facing and the Commandant offers USMC aircraft, or what?

Did it happen much/at all in the Vietnam era?

April 9, 2013 at 8:53 pm in reply to: USMC sqns on USN strike carriers. #2003232

Riaino
Participant

Why would you think the USCG is superior to the USMC?

I wouldn’t.

The point was raised that the USMC wasn’t the equal to the other branches of the US Armed forces because it didn’t have an academy, and even the Coast Guard has an academy which by some sort of extension makes the Marines not the equal of the Coast Guard. Well, that’s how I read it anyway.

BTW, I’m not a Marine, or even an American, although I did get blind drunk with a bunch of Marines in Phuket last year which was good fun.

April 9, 2013 at 11:59 am in reply to: USMC sqns on USN strike carriers. #2003282

Riaino
Participant

I have a sneaking suspicion that the tightar$e Marines attend Annapolis because that way they don’t have to pay for an academy of their own. They do like to milk their dollars right out.

April 9, 2013 at 9:48 am in reply to: USMC sqns on USN strike carriers. #2003301

Riaino
Participant

One way to look at it would be to see that there is the USMA at West Point, the USNA at Annapolis, and the Air Force Acadamy at Colorado Springs. There is even a Coast Guard Acadamy and a Merchant Marine Acad. So it really cant be said that the Marines are a “co-equal” branch of the armed forces.

I wouldn’t think having an academy makes the USCG superior to the UMSC.

April 9, 2013 at 9:44 am in reply to: ARE the US Navy's super carriers a relic of wars past? #2003305

Riaino
Participant

The USN/USMC are really a close team. So, I would say it would be far easier than the RN/RAF combo of the Falkland War.

I’m inclined to agree, and while the decks are big the capability exists to boost the power of the CVW at short notice. ‘Sizing’ carriers around 4 fighter sqns removes that capability, and weakens the USN.

April 8, 2013 at 9:59 am in reply to: ARE the US Navy's super carriers a relic of wars past? #2003414

Riaino
Participant

In 1982 the RN put the 10 aircraft of their HQ/training sqn into the operational sqns to beef up their CAGs for the Falklands war, and later added another 8 Sea Harrier so 800 peaked at 15 Sea Harrier and 801 at 10, in addition 1sqn RAF had 6 GR3s assigned to the Hermes CAG.

What is the USN/USMC capacity for doing something like this. In the event of a crisis could the US find a spare carrier sqn or some reinforcement aircraft to beef up the assigned CVW to a deployed carrier, in lieu of sending another carrier to a hotspot?

April 8, 2013 at 9:07 am in reply to: USMC sqns on USN strike carriers. #2003494

Riaino
Participant

As I understand it the USMC is a co-equal force under the Dept of the Navy, rather than the USMC ‘belonging’ to the USN. From what I can tell USMC officers hold high command positions within the CAG, rather than the USN holding all the cards and calling all the shots.

April 7, 2013 at 2:12 am in reply to: ARE the US Navy's super carriers a relic of wars past? #2003628

Riaino
Participant

An Exocet?! Please!

I agree. If a 500lb LGB wasn’t enough to sink a 1500 ton Iranian frigate and her sister took 3 harpoons, a pair of 1000lb LGBs and a pair of cluster bombs an exocet isn’t going to mission kill a 110,000 ton carrier without an extreme amount of luck.

April 7, 2013 at 2:04 am in reply to: ARE the US Navy's super carriers a relic of wars past? #2003632

Riaino
Participant

I’m sure DJ will be itching to say ‘a Zuni rocket’ in response to that comment…following on from the tragedy aboard Forrestal back in ’67.

Yes, I had a look at what happened with the 3 carrier fires in Vietnam, they all went off the line. However I wonder if in a WW2 or Falklands situation any of these 3 carriers would have stayed on the line and operated at a lower efficiency.

April 6, 2013 at 11:24 pm in reply to: ARE the US Navy's super carriers a relic of wars past? #2003693

Riaino
Participant

What conventional weapons are out there that a single hit makes a mission kill for a super-carrier?

April 6, 2013 at 10:07 pm in reply to: ARE the US Navy's super carriers a relic of wars past? #2003699

Riaino
Participant

If I may be permitted to labour a point; in WW1 Germany occupied the best part of France the region with something like 1/3 of France’s industrial power. Occupying this put Germany on the strategic offensive, however tactically they were dug into very strong positions and merely had to hold onto these in defensive fighting to push the French to the verge of mutiny in 1917.

I would suggest that a CSG can do the same thing today; strategically occupy a battle-space and then fight defensively a lot of the time. The adversary can’t leave the CSG alone since it can conduct considerable offensive action, but to remove it will require the adversary to lose at least the equivalent strength in aircraft and ships and if post WW2 history is any guide probably double the strength. Few countries can lightly shrug off half a dozen major surface combatants and 100 combat aircraft, most countries destroying a CSG would probably consider it a pyrrhic victory.

As such the CSG has an important place in todays world.

April 5, 2013 at 10:27 pm in reply to: USMC sqns on USN strike carriers. #2003792

Riaino
Participant

Thanks, I just read a 2004 report on “TacAir Integration” plan, it had a lot of interesting stuff. The thing that really struck me was the following quote;

“The ability to integrate Navy and Marine Corps squadrons into CVWs is admirable but what it really shows is a shortfall within the Navy to equip its own CVWs.”

From what I can gather this appears to be about the size of it. The current integration is a result of a procurement lull in the 90s, the Marine A6 sqns in the 80s because the carriers needed to be modified for Hornets and the RF4Bs in the 80s because of the retirement of the RA5C and RF8G. When all is going well for the Navy they don’t bother with the Marines.

The report spelled out some dangers and opportunities for the Marines themselves. Integrating 6 Hornet sqns in CVWs makes it easy to justify their existence during the budgeting process, but integration makes these aircraft operationally unavailable to the Marines; if their own resources of Harriers and non-integrated Hornets are insufficient for whatever reason the Marines have to request up the chain for support from their embarked Hornets and taking their chances with the answer, despite owning them.

Interesting!

April 5, 2013 at 12:38 pm in reply to: USMC sqns on USN strike carriers. #2003806

Riaino
Participant

So in the 80s and 90s USMC A 6E and F/A 18 line pilots did carrier qualification landings, including night carrier landings, as a standard part of their training?

March 10, 2013 at 3:20 am in reply to: Ford gets an island #2004676

Riaino
Participant

Does anyone know what the island on HMAS Canberra weighs? Because BAe up the road in Williamstown Melbourne built it and craned it onto the hull (built in Spain and bought out here on the Blue Marlin) a few months ago. I’ve seen photos but can’t find them on the interweb, it’s a hefty unit.

March 8, 2013 at 11:58 am in reply to: CVW 3 on JFK in 1983. #2004715

Riaino
Participant

I just guessed the Hornet thing 5 minutes before posting, I can’t believe it’s correct, even if not for the reasons I suspected. I would have thought that with F/A18A-A7E transition a couple of light attack sqns would have been offline for a while, meaning something had to be done to replace these few sqns for a short period. I never guessed it would be to modify the cat.

As much as the A6 was a serviceability pain would having 2 sqns means that the carrier could conduct operations that it normally couldn’t because of the range, payload and avionics of the A6 compared to the A7? Perhaps loiter 100 miles further away from threats than usual, or something like that?

These interim 24 F14 and 24 A6E CVWs doesn’t make the 16 or so F4K and Buccaneer the FAA would have been able to squeeze onto ther Ark Royal in a war situation in the late 70s look quite so feeble.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 105 total)

← 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 →