WT Forums

The A-10 would be the perfect aircraft for Marines on the ground close air support. Don't understand why the powers the be in the Corps think they need the prima donna F-18 or the unstable harriers. The A-10 with it's ordnance, flight capabilities and ability to sustain damage is the plane the Marines need. Marines have never had good close air support, not in WW11, Korea, Nam or any other conflict. Hell, with the difference in price of the A-10 to the F-18 and Harriers and the Osprey, they could afford a couple of small carriers just for the A-10s.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Marines have never had good close air support, not in WW11, Korea,
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

*<i>cough</i>* F4U Corsair *<i>cough</i>*

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

Edited by - Stinger on Sep 09 2003 7:19 PM

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

Air support is the LEAST of the Marines problems.

What they need is NGFS, lots and lots of NGFS.

What they have is next to no NGFS.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

Just Sling Loaded 102's from CH53E's

Their really is no CAS support other than the Carrier Strike Force.

Would be nice seeing thee BB's come out of the pen to play.

I'm privledged to say ive tore up some Phillipine and puerto Rican real etate with them <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Ok now i really feel OLD!

I agree entirely with NGFS...

However Pete, you forget that the USMC has always had aircraft such as the F-4U, A-1 Skyraider and A-7 at its disposal for CAS. They may not have had USMC painted on the side of them (asside from the F-4U), but were always an avaliable NAVAIR asset. I think the AV-8B provides excellent capabilities for the USMC and the VTOL version of the F-35 will take that to the next level.

Thats of topic but what the f*** is NGFS ???

Kill the innocents ! Kill them now !<img src="http://www.purekaos.com/board/images/smilies/rocket.gif" border=0>
lol

[quote]
I agree entirely with NGFS...

However Pete, you forget that the USMC has always had aircraft such as the F-4U, A-1 Skyraider and A-7 at its disposal for CAS. -------

Negative on A-7s in the Corps. They ran A-4s into the 80s if not further.

Harrier basically has been a disaster for the Marines, sucks up bucks and TLC. It's an Osprey on a smaller scale.

Marines need to pick up Z model Snakes and dump the Osprey.

Jack

Yeah Jack your correct about the A-7's not being in the corps...But what my reply meant was that such aircraft were availiable from the boat as a NAVAIR asset, you left that part out when quoting me. USMC is still part of the Navy and still falls under the NAVAIR umbrella in most amphibious situations.

I have also heard differently regarding the AV-8B...Hell the plane has been in service since what the mid 80's?

NGFS! Yes!

If Artillery is Queen of the Battlefield, then the 16/50 must be the God of the Battlefield...



Jesus said: "If you do not have a sword, go and buy one."

What is NGFS?

What are you saying snipe, bring back the Iowa Class? They made a great ruse for sandbox 1.

Get a bigger hammer

"Thats off topic but what the f*** is NGFS ???"

Naval Gun Fire Support.

The Iowa's were extremely effective assets in Desert Storm, just as they were in Vietnam, Korea, and WWII.

I would LOVE to see them back in modern trim.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

BTW, in the US military Artillery is nicknamed 'King of the battlefield'.

Infantry is 'Queen of the battlefield.'




"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

[quote]
Yeah Jack your correct about the A-7's not being in the corps...But what my reply meant was that such aircraft were availiable from the boat as a NAVAIR asset, you left that part out when quoting me. USMC is still part of the Navy and still falls under the NAVAIR umbrella in most amphibious situations.

I have also heard differently regarding the AV-8B...Hell the plane has been in service since what the mid 80's?


----------

Jarheads are stubborn and would rather call in their CAS first, even if something better is available.

Harriers have been with the Corps since the 70s. It's a POS. All around Cherry Point they had to build fuel farms and small strips for Harriers to refuel.

The Corps has bet big on VTOL and it's killing the rest of their aircraft.

Snipe, I thought morphine was the Queen of the Battlefield?

Jack

Yeah...USMC like to know their own are flying CAS. Although USN aircraft have been doing well at it since F-6F's in the PTO.

I don't know alot about the AV-8B in the USMC, heard alot of raves and the capability is impressive...but I am not very familliar with the pros and cons...

Hopefully the F-35B resolves many of the vices you mentioned...STOL and VTOL capability is a good thing for the USMC.

For what it's worth...Of the 8 Harriers here, 4 are in the process of being crated to be shipped home in C-17's; 2 are on the flightline leaking like sieves; and 2 are combat ready and flying missions. There are 8 Hawgs with 4 more on the way. Draw your own conclusions.<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Hajji, you can run, but why die tired?

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

I had a nephew in the Marines, he said they dont use anything unless it's leaking oil at both ends LOL

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

[quote]
For what it's worth...Of the 8 Harriers here, 4 are in the process of being crated to be shipped home in C-17's; 2 are on the flightline leaking like sieves; and 2 are combat ready and flying missions. There are 8 Hawgs with 4 more on the way. Draw your own conclusions-----------------

It probably took the other 6 Harriers to keep the 2 flying. Hogs were built to be robust and easy to fix. Harriers need far too much TLC. One of the few birds I know of, you have to yank the wings to replace the engine. It takes 4 days or so to replace a Harrier engine. Good mechs on Phantoms could do it in 45 minutes.

Chad, you might wanna check on CAS. Corsairs were far more awesome than Hellcats. Hellcats were almost pure fighters. The Long Eagle set the record in the PTO at the time for lifting 5,000lbs of ordnance in a Corsair. He also showed the AAC, how to extend range in P-38s. Max MAP over RPM. Most jocks at the time ran full rich and far too much Rs. Lindbergh, knew how to extend range and it was in the books. Gotta lean those recips out, keep your Rs down and accept some snapping now and then.

Jack

Stinger, the F4U would have been and should hav been an excellent close air support for Marines. It was never given the opportunity to exercise it's full capability. Marine Pilots preferred to engage the Japanese in Air to Air combat instead of the unglorious job of close support, plus the Navy was reluctant to turn over it's carriers to Marines andthe Marines didn't make much of an effort to get on the carriers.
Same thing in Korea. The 1st Marine Air Wing flew 127,496 sorties, but only 39,500 were flown in close support. When MAW was under operational control of the Fifth Air Force, Marines lost control of air operations. The AF gave low priority to close support and delays up to four hours occured after CAS was requested.
Sadly, the A-10 will never be incorporated into Marine aviation due to all of the retrofitting required to make it carrier ready. Hopefully , Lockeed-Martin's joint strike fighter (F35B configured for Marines) will incorporate some of the rugged features of the A-10. It won't be ready until 2008. Wonder if the Marines could talk the AF out of their A-10s for ground based operations? We are famous for for taking hand-me downs from the Army and Navy.
Semper Fi

Screw that.

If the USAF gives away the mighty Hog, i want them for the Army!

LOL.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

Yeppers Jack...In fact I thnk the F-4U resembles the Hawg alot in flight...The F-4U was a kick ass CAS platform, and it really set the standard. I like the Hellcat though...Its a Grumman product. A-10 should be an Army asset...Why not, it would be the most sought after aircraft in the Army's inventory...A good billet for awarrant officers...

Good Day Gentlemen,
I am new to this forum and although I tend to lurk and avoid posting on these types of military boards because of lack of experience I would like to waste some of your time.
The need for Naval GunFire Support is currently being addressed as a new surface warfare mixed force package of ships was stood up recently with the first deployment of the Expeditionary Strike Group, consisting of an amphibious assault ship, dock landing ship, landing platform dockship, cruiser, destroyer, frigate and attack submarine.
Although the cruiser, destroyer, nor frigate represent the firepower of the 16-inch platform, the Navy is currently testing a new gun system, which they plan to deploy very soon; this will be based on the 5-inch/62-caliber Mk45 Mod 4 gun firing the ERGM (Extended-Range Guided Munitions). The ERGM is a satellite-guided, rocket-assisted, boost/glide trajectory projectile with an estimated range of 15 to 50 nautical miles.
Forgive me for intruding but this is just my .0002 cents.
Reefwalker

ERGM is a useful munition, but not at all suited to providing responsive high volume fires for tactical engagements.

Why?

1) It has a flight speed of only 500 knots.('conventional' artillery is normally 2 to 1/2 times that speed). This makes it unresponsive to targets of opportunity(now called emerging battlefield targets), engagements against moving columns, or for use in direct support in potential overrun situations.

2) It is extremely expensive- $60,000 dollars per round, making it unsuitable for volume fire against area targets, or for providing suppressive fires.

3) It has a quite small warhead that will not penetrate heavy bunkers, break up trench works, or defoliate positions of enemy cover.

ERGM does have it's uses....but direct fire support isn't one of them.

Welcome aboard, we're always glad to welcome a new face.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

Again, sorry to respond so late to this topic (I just discovered this site), but I need to correct some misinformation about the Harrier.

Previously stated:

"Jarheads are stubborn and would rather call in their CAS first, even if something better is available."
~ True, but I think it has more to do with the pilot than the plane. Marine aviators are riflemen first and have a bond with Marine grunts not found in any other service. This counts more to successful CAS than one might initially think.

"All around Cherry Point they had to build fuel farms and small strips for Harriers to refuel."
~Having been based at Cherry Point for several years flying the Harrier I'm curious where all those fuel farms are? Other than Bouge field, a 4000' aluminum matting expiditionary airfield I know of not other "fuel farm" anywhere near Cherry Point.

"Harriers have been with the Corps since the 70s. It's a POS."
~One person's opinion. Having flown it I would disagree.

"One of the few birds I know of, you have to yank the wings to replace the engine. It takes 4 days or so to replace a Harrier engine."
~True, you do need to pull the wing to replace the engine, and it is not as easy and an F-4 engine change. But to say it take 4 days is ridiculous! I submit you've never watched one being changed. I have and I sure wasn't there for 4 days. 4 hours maybe, but not 4 days.

I'd be curious where the information is to support these original statements.

[quote]

~True, you do need to pull the wing to replace the engine, and it is not as easy and an F-4 engine change. But to say it take 4 days is ridiculous! I submit you've never watched one being changed. I have and I sure wasn't there for 4 days. 4 hours maybe, but not 4 days.

---------------
For what it's worth...Of the 8 Harriers here, 4 are in the process of being crated to be shipped home in C-17's; 2 are on the flightline leaking like sieves; and 2 are combat ready and flying missions. There are 8 Hawgs with 4 more on the way. Draw your own conclusions----

Moi has talked to MX types on Harriers and the above statement supports the serious TLC a Harrier requires.

I got a request to my retired Marine Chopper driver and my form buddy on the amount of fuel pits around Cheerless. Knowing the SOB well, he probably used them for his choppers and charged the Harrier Sqds. He flew choppers in Nam and has been around the block.

I feel for all MX types in the service, they all want to keep their birds flying and the damn parts aren't there to support them. Tis reason, you had 2 Harriers flying out of Afghan and 6 down birds.

Marines have always had the short end of the budget. Part of the problem was pushing for VTOL and the billions invested. So they end up flying Nam relics into combat.

There was a Naval Aviation piece in 1980 or so that always stuck with me. It was from a Harrier pilot, gave a nice breakdown on flight hours, leading you to believe it was for one pilot. Turns out it was for the entire Squadron and they had about 32 odd hours per month. Just check the crash rate for the Harrier it damn near always leads the Military.

I still think it's FM watching a damn Harrier hover and then depart. In the real world it takes far too much TLC and fuel.

If I had my way, any new aircraft that DOD is pushing. Moi would let the Marines be the beta testers.

My buddy is still wired into the DOD and USMC. He knew some of the Osprey test pilots and they were never happy.

Jack






-