Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Marines Were Out To Get & Kill The F22 Raptor  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6407 times:

Yes folks it´s true. Time to get open minded for some major changes. Think free, leave the past behind, eliminate redundancies.


Pentagon officials say that the notion called for taking virtually all fighter aviation from the Air Force and giving it to a consolidated Navy-Marine Corps air arm, leaving USAF with responsibility for all the “heavies”—bombers, airlifters, tankers, intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance aircraft—and space systems. The idea was called, by some, “the big-airplane Air Force.”
.
.
The Marine Corps thought the idea had merit, though. Throughout the QDR, the Marine Corps has had its eye on funds intended for the F/A-22 program, said defense officials.

“They want that money right now—preferably yesterday—to expand the Corps in the near term,” a Pentagon official said in early November. Once in possession of the fighter account, the Marine Corps could kill the F/A-22, shift all fighters to close air support, and use the savings for other purposes. However, “they have been frustrated in that effort so far,” he added.

Nevertheless, the concept was still considered active as late as mid-November, on the eve of final deliberations on the defense budgetary actions driven by QDR results.


http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2006/0106watch.asp

Some other stuff in the article. Not looking good for C-17 & Osprey.

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4467 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6397 times:

I think the article deals more with the possibilities floated around during the QDR than what the final verdict was. I find it hard to believe that the USAF would loose its fighter aircraft to the Marine Corp although I'm sure the Corp would love it!


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6327 times:

Quoting CX747 (Reply 1):
I think the article deals more with the possibilities floated around during the QDR than what the final verdict was. I find it hard to believe that the USAF would loose its fighter aircraft to the Marine Corp although I'm sure the Corp would love it!

Seriously, someone in the Marine Corp is smoking some fine dope if they thought they could pull that one off. And I don't think the Army would stand for that anyway. They would probably want the Air Force folded back into the Army than let the Navy Department get it all.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6292 times:

Quote:
The idea was justified as one of many �what-if� scenarios, intended to stimulate thinking on ways to eliminate service redundancies. It was seen by its proponents as a natural follow-up to England�s earlier consolidation of Navy and Marine Corps fighter forces.

Sounds like the QDR process working as intended. It's supposed to ruffle feathers.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6291 times:

As a former Marine who used to work on the CH-46's that the Osprey is/was suppossed to replace many years ago, I am deeply dissapointed in my beloved Corps' stubborn if not ignorant reluctance to let go of the Osprey. WTF if you can get to the LZ before your Cobra gunship escort - no points for being the first shot out of the sky because your V-22 lacked even the two .50 cals the JFK-era'd Sea Knight had.

The V-22 is a gimmick and quite frankly will have little use on the actual battlefield - and to think the Corps could have 3 brand new US-101's sitting right there on their ramp right now for all of the money and time they have wasted on up until this very point in the Osprey program - but now they have to spend billions more to actually buy the piece's of junk. All I can say is that we need a better system because we would never have won WWII if it took us 20 years to field a weapon.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6253 times:

It sounds like someone is taking a "what if" scenario intended to stimulate outside-the-box thinking and treating it like it's the only goal for some.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 4):
As a former Marine

I thought there was no such thing as a former Marine?



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6220 times:

AirRyan,

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 4):
As a former Marine who used to work on the CH-46's that the Osprey is/was supposed to replace many years ago

I don't think you are giving the V-22 a fair shake. The only new complex weapons systems since Reagan that have not taken 20 years to field (F-22, V-22 and almost Comanche) have been shielded by secrecy (B-2 and 117A).

And although you are correct that (currently) the V-22 does not have ammament to provide LZ cover without the Cobra, why can't the Cobras depart ahead of the V-22s and return later? Faster, less time in the combat zone, lower IR signature and RCS still improve survivability.

Happy New Year,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6204 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Some other stuff in the article. Not looking good for C-17 & Osprey.



Quote:
Vertical or short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft also will become more important in the future, the panel found. In an apparent nod to aircraft such as the V-22 tilt-rotor, it wants the Pentagon to aggressively develop new helicopters or STOVL aircraft “to increase unrefueled range, payload, and reliability.”

You were saying about the V-22 .....?



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3494 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6142 times:

Nothing "new" in the article. The DOD reviews itself and its programs constantly and service rivalries remain.... consistently. IMHO, one of the more "open minded" options has simply been made public (unauthorized?)without the benefit of proper perspective.


*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently onlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4065 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6111 times:

If they really want to eliminate redundancies why not let the navy operate the Marine Corps ships and aircrafts? That would make more sense. As it stands now the USMC is more like its own Armed Forces, all they are missing is some nuclear capability...


Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6079 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 9):
why not let the navy operate the Marine Corps ships

They do. All the amphib fleet is under the command of the USN. Like Kiefer Sutherland's character jokes in "A Few Good Men," "No, I like all you Navy boys. Every time we gotta go some place to fight, you fellas always give us a ride." Take a look at just at the home page of just about any amphibious assault vessel and you'll see that the ship itself is commanded by and operated by USN personnel.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently onlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4065 posts, RR: 30
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6073 times:

Quoting Garnetpalmetto (Reply 10):
They do.

But what about the aircraft and helicopters? They have separate entities for that, don't they?

Quoting Garnetpalmetto (Reply 10):
"A Few Good Men,"

I might be wrong, but wasn't that in "The thin red line"? I tried to watch that movie but after 45 minutes without a single shot fired I just assumed it would be the most boring war movie ever and changed the channel



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5964 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 11):
I might be wrong, but wasn't that in "The thin red line"? I tried to watch that movie but after 45 minutes without a single shot fired I just assumed it would be the most boring war movie ever and changed the channel

No, it was in "A Few Good Men." Lt. Kendrick (Sutherland's character) said that to Cruise's Navy JAG character.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5885 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 5):
I thought there was no such thing as a former Marine?

Those are ex-Marines - there are no such thing, only "former" Marines.

Quoting CTR (Reply 6):
And although you are correct that (currently) the V-22 does not have ammament to provide LZ cover without the Cobra, why can't the Cobras depart ahead of the V-22s and return later?

Sure it can do as you say but than WTF good did that exrta speed get you?!  Smile

Let's be honest, the Corps made the wrong decision with this entire concept of tilt-rotor "combat" aircraft (as if rotary-winged aircraft didn't already have an inheriently tought time with all of their moving parts as it is.) I've seen the Harrier in battle and I was not impressed - it's nothing more than a fast moving attack helo and I'd rather have a squadron of Apaches than Harriers.

If the Corps just had to have these Osprey's than why did they choose to invest the funds to once again re-build what is essentially a dead-horse in the Zulu Cobra's (and WTF is the UH-1Y good for?) if they are already confessing that they now need/want armed tilt-rotors to escort the Osprey's because the V-22 will be about as hapless as a one-legged man in an @ss-kicking contest when it comes to operating behind enemy lines in a hot LZ?! (How's that for a long sentence?!)

Tilt-rotors have a far greater future in the commerical community if any than they do in the military. The US Marines work best when they operate on the philosophy of tried and true combat equipment - the Harrier and Osprey deviate from this fundamental philosophy and I regret to concede that it is to their own dismay.


User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5487 times:

An excellent example of "you shouldn't beleive everything you read".

-check


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4923 times:

Sounds terrible. The F-22 is a great aircraft, it would be so wrong to kill such a wonderful plane, not to mention a work of art.

Andrea


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4892 times:

As much as I like the USMC, this is far from "thinking outside the box" for them. This is about the dumbest idea I have ever heard. So, what would the USMC and USN do with the F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s, after the F-22 program was scrapped? None of these can operate from a CV/CVN, and the Marines and Navy don't have enough bases to park them. Even if we recommission the Connie, and a few other decommissioned CVs, and modified these fighters to operate from them, you still don't have enough space to park them.

It is funny, the USMC doesn't even mention the AC-130, probibly the most useful USAF aircraft to the grunt Marines. So, I guess those stay in the "Big Air Force"?

What about the tankers? current USAF fighters are dependent on tankers, and use a different refueling method than USMC or USN fighters do (is the F/A-18 really a fighter, anyway?).

Who is now going to provide fighter/A-10 coverage for the US Army?

This idea makes about as much sense as putting the SSBN force into SAC.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4830 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 15):
Sounds terrible. The F-22 is a great aircraft, it would be so wrong to kill such a wonderful plane, not to mention a work of art.

Yes, but it's not an EADS product so Keesje can't stand it...
He's well known for posting all kinds of weird (and usually fake) "reports" about how bad things are for US companies and products competing with EADS.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4546 times:

As an x Air Force avionics tech, I would be happy to turn the CAS mission back to the Army, it's where it belongs.

At the begining of Gulf I, the USAF was planning on retiriung the Warthogs for F-16s. CAS to a USAF jock is a red headed bastard stepchild, they only wanted the funds, not the mission.

I think that makes a lot of sense for Army Aviation, and teh ground pounder role.

IIRC, the Armed Services had tried to kill the Osprey many times, then the gov brought out pics of it serving PAX from rooftops in NYC, the politicos saying how great the investment was for the civilian community.

We'll kill the Osprey when we abondon the ISS, both programs are a waste.



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4483 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2):
Seriously, someone in the Marine Corp is smoking some fine dope if they thought they could pull that one off. And I don't think the Army would stand for that anyway. They would probably want the Air Force folded back into the Army than let the Navy Department get it all.

Very true. I have a hard time believing the Navy would have let the Marines kill off air superiority fighters, and the Army would have never stood for it.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic US Marines Were Out To Get & Kill The F22 Raptor
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why So Long For A KC-135R To Get Into The Air? posted Sun Sep 10 2006 02:01:28 by 747400sp
What Is The Loudest Jet To Get Lunch Off A Carrier posted Wed Jul 26 2006 20:58:56 by 747400sp
"The Simplest Way To Get A Satellite Into Space" posted Tue Mar 22 2005 14:47:15 by Squirrel83
The Best Way To Get Into A Military Bird... posted Thu May 10 2001 21:13:45 by WEAPON
Swedish Air Force To Get 2 C-17 Globemaster posted Wed Oct 4 2006 23:33:12 by Solnabo
Lybia To Get Eurocopter Tiger? posted Tue Aug 1 2006 16:27:34 by Flying-Tiger
Should We Kill The Osprey? posted Sat Jul 1 2006 02:09:28 by AirSpare
Next AFB To Get C-17s? posted Wed Jun 14 2006 04:23:14 by Dacman
USAF Spec Ops To Get Pilatus PC-12 posted Thu May 25 2006 13:26:58 by Svenskpilot
Germany To Get F-15K To Replace There F-4. posted Sat Mar 25 2006 18:23:58 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format