From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:32:14 GMT


From megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <BvnELL.IBy@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
>Megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes ...
>>The reason the Marines have their own air power is because the Navy and
>>Air Force AREN'T always available to support them.
>Force/Naval Air has always had the planes needed to support the
>Marines.  It seems that sometimes these services do not support the
>Marines to the satisfaction of the Marines, being distracted by other
>things.  You allude to this in part of the article I have edited out.

The problem is training. The AF and Navy don't train with the Marines enough.
While they have good records at the bombing competitions, the major obstacle 
is fighting with the Marines on the ground/ Good coordiantion is needed to be
effective. And I don't see haw the AF and Navy have enough planes. They're
complaining they need more, and they were all busy during Desert Storm. If you
take the Marine's planes away they'd end up being replaced by more Naval
aircraft. (I don't the AF would do it...)

And the Marines have their own needs. Why would the navy need Super Stallions?
The Marines are leading the fight for the Osprey, and reconditioning the Sea
Knights. Who else would operate the Harrier?

If you are going to grant them their helicopters and CAS aircraft, why take 
away just the air cover which is so vital ot the survival of the rest of the
forces. You won't save much money. Administrative cost would go up as offices
were established for joint control of the aircraft. The Navy certainly wouldn't
want to cut back on it's fleet. (My opinion that the F/A-18 is a jack of all
trades master of none notwithstanding.) The F/A-18 is just one small aspect 
of the Marine airwing and cutting it wouldn't really make all that much 
difference cost wise, while creating more beaurocratic headaches.

>My problem is this.  There seems needless duplication of forces.  It
>would be better if those same planes that helped the carriers fight
>their way to the beach could support the Marines on the beach.

And who is going to provide aircover? The worst thing to assume is that since
you fought your way in the enemy won't try and take it back. Remember, the
Navy also said they will be shrinking their forces and using the F/A-18 as a
fleet air defense aircraft to replace the F-14. (IMHO, damn stupid.)
Are you going to pull aircraft off the carriers and put them on the ground 
the Marines. If not they'll be no good. So once they are on the ground you 
will basically have to turn them over to the Marines to command. More damn
headaches. So, wouldn't it make sense to simply leace them in the Marines 
hands to help fight the way in and then once a beachhead is established move
them to the shore? It's been done that way for a long time now.

>Further, it seems that there is *no way* the Marines are going ashore
>until the navy has the surrounding sea firmly in control.  This

Buzz. Many times you can be faced with an dash landing in a hostile zone. The
Marines train for it. Sometimes you can't get control of an area and a fast
landing to divert forces is the option chosen. It is a dangerous mission, and
one the Marines may have to use. 

>Finally, once a beach head is secured, the Air Force should be able to
>fly in land-based fighters to continue to support the Marines.

Again, command and contol. Why cause more headaches and lengthen the chain of
command?

>call for a whole Marine air force to make up the deficiancy, but
>instead that the Air Force / Naval Air should be fixed.

And defeat your cost argument by increaing command staffs and training needed
to work together. Not to mention increasing the complexity of the command
structure, which Doesn't bode well for thsoe in the field.

>Like I said, what would *you* cut????

Me, despite my love of tech:
The B-2, the F/A-18E/F, the Midgetman, SDI, cut back on the M1A2/M1A3 program
(The M1A1 seems to have proven to be years ahead of anything else.), retire
carriers early, or slow down SLEP, 

I'd push programs like the Osprey, the heavy-light helicopter, the ATF, the
Naval ATF, C-17, the new airdroppable tank, air cushion landing craft, the
ALRAAM; and retire old high maintenance items like the Sea Knight, C-141, 
Sky Cranes, Jolly Greens, Old F-15s and F-14s as these programs came on line.

The current command staff streamlining is a good idea too.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################

Newsgroups: sci.military