|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Jun 22, 2015 16:45:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Jun 23, 2015 18:29:18 GMT -8
How's this for a kick in the teeth? Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign shipsFaced with a shortage of U.S. Navy ships, the Marine Corps is exploring a plan to deploy its forces aboard foreign vessels to ensure they can respond quickly to global crises around Europe and western Africa. The initiative is a stopgap way to deploy Marines aboard ships overseas until more American vessels are available, said Brig. Gen. Norman Cooling, deputy commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa. The Marines will be able to respond quickly to evacuate embassies or protect U.S. property and citizens, a need highlighted by the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. "There's no substitute for U.S. amphibious" vessels, Cooling said. "We're looking at other options" in the meantime, he added. www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/06/21/marines-amphibious/28935549/The Navy is still retiring ships faster than new ones can be built and with few exceptions the retired ships either go to the scrapper or get sunk as targets. There are currently 2 LHA class ships (BIG amphibs) laid up, Nassau (LHA 4) and Peleliu (LHA 5). However, Peleliu is currently berthed in the West Loch at Pearl Harbor. They send ships there to be stripped of pollutants and to be prepared to be sunk as targets. Nassau is berthed in Beaumont Texas which is only an overnight's tow away from the breakers at Brownsville. Both ships are over 30 years old but for now are still in good enough shape they can be put back in service. Both can transport a full battalion of Jarheads, plus all their vehicles and other equipment plus aircraft and helos. AND both could be pressed into service as "Harrier Carriers" or F-35 carriers if that plane ever becomes operational. We did the "Harrier Carrier" thing off Kuwait during Desert Storm, 20 planes and 20 attack helos. We lost one plane to ground fire but supported USMC and Saudi / Kuwaiti units during their push into Kuwait City. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Jun 24, 2015 4:32:40 GMT -8
Oooooo, Boy... So, the Navy can no longer transport the Marines? A whole LOT of BOTH services are going to be pissed about THAT.
And then, there's this:
Boeing Vice President Chris Raymond confirmed that since the Air Force wants to rid itself of the A-10, Boeing is looking to sell the aircraft to U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates at the Paris Air Show Tuesday. The entire fleet is composed of 300 A-10 Warthogs, and despite recent use, the Air Force is desperately trying to shed itself of the aircraft. Congress has thwarted nearly every attempt, DOD Buzz reports. The Air Force still relies on the A-10 to carry out strikes against Islamic State militants and to conduct training exercises in Europe. U.S. allies are more than happy to have A-10s in the region to counter possible threats from Russia. thelibertarianrepublic.com/boeing-execs-to-air-force-if-youre-going-to-retire-the-a-10-can-we-sell-it-to-saudi-arabia/See, the Air Force wants to RETIRE the A-10, because it's specifically designed for close air support, and they want to replace it with the F-35, which is the classic "jack of all trades, and master of none".  Other countries are trying to BUY the A-10, because it's specifically designed for close air support, and the best airplane ever made for the job.  Go figure.  That 17 TRILLION national debt...you know? |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Jun 25, 2015 14:50:39 GMT -8
"Jack of all trades" is just another way of saying "can fuck-up in a truly spectactular manner" or "outstandingly mediocre." (Sorry ... but not much.)  I'd rather see a trusted ally get the A-10 than see it go to the scrapper but would much, MUCH rather WE keep it in service even if it means periodic rebuilds to keep it airworthy, combat worthy and avionics / electronics up to date. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Jun 26, 2015 3:24:48 GMT -8
Very true, Old Sailor. There have been numerous upgrades and modifications to the A-10 over the years as well. My opinion is that currently, we seem to feel obigated to fight the "low-intensity" conflict. The A-10 was orginally designed to fight the Warsaw Pact in the legendary all-out battles of World War III. The A-10 design was specifically tailor-made for a different war, but came up a perfect match for the new one. My specific peeve is the Air Force brass that insist on developing the F-35, which is already overbudget and behind schedule, at the expense of sending a battle-tested, combat-proven, (and, I daresay, much-loved by the foot soldier) aircraft to the scrap heap, (or to our allies, where THEY'LL decide when and where to fly it) when we already HAVE that aircraft. The Air Force has never much cared for the close air support mission, and they would prefer the flashy Lightning II over the ugly old Warthog. But, that's OUR Warthog.
And my support for the A-10 ian't sentimentality. It's simply that the flashy new F-35 can't DO what the A-10 does, I.E., carry tons of ordinance and a brute of a gun to a target and, not just supply close air support, but LOITER in the target area for HOURS in case the bad guys come back. You've already GOT the best aircraft in the world for the mission.
And you're going to give it up for what? The F-35 ? Give me a break. |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Jun 26, 2015 11:17:03 GMT -8
*Chuckles* I really hate to say this to someone who bleeds Air Force Blue and hate to say it myself as a warship sailor (former, thank God) but when it comes to cases, wars are won by placing that mud covered and tired infantry in the middle of the enemy's land and keeping him there. You can't do that with planes or ships (yes 101, I know. A former classmate of my daughter is at Bragg, jumping out of airplanes for a living) but you can support the HELL out of those infantry guys from the air and sea.
IMO if the tool can't do that job better than the tools you already have at hand you don't need the damned thing.
F-35 can't seem to be able to do anything better than the aircraft already in service, except perhaps the F-35B replacing the AV-8B (longer range and heavier payload.) Perhaps not even as well as F-16 or the other aircraft it is supposed to replace. I think the ghosts of McNamara and his TFX are screwing with the program.
Gotta run.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Jun 27, 2015 8:07:28 GMT -8
Oh, man, NOW you did it....
DR. MCNAMARA RISES AGAIN!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Jun 27, 2015 8:33:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Jul 5, 2015 19:35:53 GMT -8
How's this for a kick in the teeth? Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign shipsFaced with a shortage of U.S. Navy ships, the Marine Corps is exploring a plan to deploy its forces aboard foreign vessels to ensure they can respond quickly to global crises around Europe and western Africa. The initiative is a stopgap way to deploy Marines aboard ships overseas until more American vessels are available, said Brig. Gen. Norman Cooling, deputy commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa. The Marines will be able to respond quickly to evacuate embassies or protect U.S. property and citizens, a need highlighted by the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. "There's no substitute for U.S. amphibious" vessels, Cooling said. "We're looking at other options" in the meantime, he added. www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/06/21/marines-amphibious/28935549/The Navy is still retiring ships faster than new ones can be built and with few exceptions the retired ships either go to the scrapper or get sunk as targets. There are currently 2 LHA class ships (BIG amphibs) laid up, Nassau (LHA 4) and Peleliu (LHA 5). However, Peleliu is currently berthed in the West Loch at Pearl Harbor. They send ships there to be stripped of pollutants and to be prepared to be sunk as targets. Nassau is berthed in Beaumont Texas which is only an overnight's tow away from the breakers at Brownsville. Both ships are over 30 years old but for now are still in good enough shape they can be put back in service. Both can transport a full battalion of Jarheads, plus all their vehicles and other equipment plus aircraft and helos. AND both could be pressed into service as "Harrier Carriers" or F-35 carriers if that plane ever becomes operational. We did the "Harrier Carrier" thing off Kuwait during Desert Storm, 20 planes and 20 attack helos. We lost one plane to ground fire but supported USMC and Saudi / Kuwaiti units during their push into Kuwait City. Huh, now who could have seen this coming... besides Mitt Romney during the 2012 Presidential debates. While Monday night’s presidential debate was largely uneventful, there were still some noteworthy moments. Among them was when the president took a condescending tone and mocked Mitt Romney for critiquing Obama on military cuts.
According to Obama, Romney just doesn’t understand that America has advanced so far technologically that we now have less “horses and bayonets” just like we have less Navy ships, too.
“We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them,” Obama said smugly. “We have these ships that go under water — nuclear submarines.”www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/22/horses-and-bayonets-obama-mocks-romney-on-military-budget-cuts-with-condescending-tone/-DD |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jul 5, 2015 20:42:59 GMT -8
Barack Obama: Full of shit then, full of shit now.
|
|
? 
