From: gawne@stsci.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:59:27 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute


From gawne@stsci.edu



In article <Buq4py.ILG@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:

> Anybody knwo how much the A-6 re-winging will cost?  I was just
> wondering if we couldn't *not* pay for it, and instead use F-18's.  We
> could start by moving the 72 F-18's that the Marines have aboard ship,
> to replace the 72 worst A-6's.  These could of course be stripped for
> parts.  Then we replace the rest of the with F-18E/F's as they are
> produced.  Remember that some of the A-6's have the new metal wings,
> and will last quite a while.  So there is some time.

Ahhh...  those Marine VMFA's do deploy already.  I really think the CinC's have
plans for the USMC naval aviators already in their OffAir and AD roles.  The
short ToT of F/A-18's and relatively short legs would do nothing to replace the
all-weather/night/long-range capabilities of the A-6. 
 
> Here are the good points:
> - Saves money to enable to the production of more F-18 E/F's.
> - Reduces the types of planes aboard ship, and in inventory,
> simplifing logistics and training.
> - Increases the flexibility of the air wing, by replacing a single
> purpose plane (A-6) with a dual purpose plane (F-18).

Maybe you should review some of the missions flown by Intruders before
you conclude that they're single purpose planes.

[various "practical questions" deleted]

> - I already know that this pulls planes form the Marine Corps.
> However, in this era of downsizing, that seems an advantage to me.

I see.  Last year we gave up our SP Artillery because we have air assets
that can provide the same type of bombardment.  Now you want us to give
up our air assets?  

> They will still have the Harriers, which fits Marine doctorine better
> that the F-18's do.  

Sez you.  Maybe you'd like to get the opinion of the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Air at HQMC?  Here's my own: The Harrier is a great weapons platform that can
be on target quickly.  It also has NO protective armor and is very vulnerable
to IR SAM's because of its midship exhaust.  An F/A-18 hit by a SAM-7 gets some
tailfeathers blown off and comes home, an A/V-8B hit by a SAM-7 becomes a
two-piece airplane and the pilot MAY have time to eject.  Last time I looked we
were planning to have to go up against bozos armed with SAM's.  Do you suppose
that this might be the reason our Fighter/Attack Squadrons kept Phantoms until
the F-18 became available?  Only the Attack Squadrons have Harriers, and they
need F/A-18D's to act as Fast FAC's for them for night ops. 

> Further, the Marines have not gone ashore with
> AirForce help in my lifetime (or the lifetime of these planes).

What !?!???  Have you heard of Graneda? Panama? Kuwait???  In all cases
there was an Air Force Air Component Commander who was issuing an Air
Tasking Order that included USMC assets.

> However, isn't there a *law* setting the minimum size of the Marine
> Corps.  Does it cover the air component?

Yep.  The law stipulates the number and type of squadrons we are to maintain. 
Of course it can be changed (has been several times). It may be of interest to
many out there that the squadron is the highest level air command in the USMC
with a real TO.  All higher commands such as group and wing are task organized
(some would say ad hoc). 

The Navy needs a medium range attack bomber like the A-6.  The F/A-18 is not
the plane for this job.  Yes, the USMC has converted one all-weather squadron
from A-6E's to F/A-18D's.  The pilots will tell you that while they gained
speed and possible weapons load-out with the Hornet, they lost a lot of good
radar capability and range.  The Navy also needs a follow on fighter to replace
the F-14, and the Hornet really isn't the plane for this role either -- though
it comes closer to being a Tomcat replacement than an Intruder replacement. 

Simply stated, the Intruder will be with the fleet until a new A-?? comes
along.  Cobbling together some sort of goofy bomber from the F/A-18 to put
aboard multi-billion $$$$ aircraft carriers would make about as much sense as
buying a custom .357 and only shooting .38 special ammo.  The Hornet is a great
war-bird, and I hope it's with the FMF for a long time.  It is not a medium
range bomber, and the A-6 is. 

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR


--------------------cut here---------------------------------------

-- 
Steve Bridges, Programmer/Analyst| NCR - Law Department, WHQ-5
steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM ___| Phone:(513)-445-4486 622-4486 (VOICEplus)
Reserve sci.military moderator| "The airplane does not recognize attitude,
providing a maneuver is conducted at one G" -- A.M. "Tex" Johnston
Newsgroups: sci.military