Swanee

Link to another press release. https://usmclife.com/2014/03/usmc-pilot-named-died-nevada-fa-18-accident/ Eeyore was an all around good dude. I know the Rats/AWCF are also setting something up but there is a link on that page to another memorial fund that supports his family. Fair winds and following seas brother.

This year has been rough so far in the Hornet community.

This happens more than you think. Less than 50% of Infantry types even given the option to stay in after their first tour, and for every 4 or 5 Lts in a rifle company only one will become a Company Commander. After their first tour they go do such grunty jobs like recruiting, they are in charge of platoons of Marines at OCS, or TBS or they are series commanders at boot camp. Have 3 combat tours, one as a line platoon commander, second as a weapons platoon commander and third as a Company XO? Sounds great 1st Lt, why don't you go into officer recruiting, or teach at an ROTC unit, or go work in an H&S company. If you get your ducks in a row and complete Expeditionary Warfighting School first as a correspondence student, then do it again in residence you might go back to command a MARSOC platoon or perhaps a line rifle or weapons company. Oh, you did that anyway? Sorry, we don't have a company for you, instead we have this great MAGTF staff job for you. I hope you enjoy living on a small deck carrier/LHD/LHA/LPD for 6-9 months at a time, just like if you were in the Navy. Then as soon as you become a senior Captain or Major you're back in a B billet, then off to work on more staffs. Oh, and as a Marine hope and pray you stay with the Marine Corps. If you get a joint tour and you aren't the #1 performer and don't have FITREPs that say you are a water walker you're going to be treated like you did something wrong. Why? Because Marines are supposed to be better than EVERYONE else at EVERYTHING. Period dot. Yut yut, ooh rah, devil dog, semper fi.... The infantry world chews guys up and spits them out worse than the aviation world does.

Shut up, stay in position and don't hit lead.

You guys carry a shit ton more flares than we do?

Probably the same way it has been addressed in any CV based airplane since we've been landing on boats- with LSOs. Those dudes can get you aboard when you can't see anything - including the entire boat. This is a pass to a waveoff but you get the idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNup2SLicHU

I hear you WRT the JHMCS. Thinking about it now all we brief is "Body position on the way up, IROC on the way down." How do we fix that? With a neck/helmet strap that retracts your head into a good, stable position? Though we don't really have that many issues with our MB NACES seats- like I said 11 dudes used them and all of them hit the ground only in pretty damn good shape. The leg garters can be a pain to put on (especially in the dark while wearing a dry suit) but they work pretty well to protect our legs from not only flail injuries but also making sure we clear the instrument panel.

Perhaps the Senators should educate themselves on current egress technology. The seats we have now are pretty damn safe. In my short career I've known of 5 guys who have ejected out of a Goshawk, 4 that have ejected out of Hornets or Super Hornets, and 2 that have ejected out of Harriers. All of them were okay and returned to flight status. Neck safety = limiting the ability for you to move your neck/head. That's not going to work in a fighter cockpit. Everyone who flies with NVGs and/or JHMCS knows the risk and how to mitigate it.

This argument is taking on some cool facets. While the Internets does lend itself to some "WTF is this (insert service here) douchebag even thinking?!" Truth be told, if we're ever at the same Oclub at the same time, I'd buy the first round. The question/argument being posed is that the Marines don't need 5th (or even 4.5 or 4?) gen fighters completely organic to the MEU. I'll argue that for the Marine Corps to stay viable as the 911 service of the DoD, we have to. We have to be the most ready when the rest of the Nation and military is the least ready. We have to be able to kick in doors anywhere in the world whether the AF can get the F-22s, the Navy can get the Growlers, the Army can get the armor there or not. If you guys can get your assets there and go kinetic with us- awesome- your system worked flawlessly. But we are the insurance policy for when the system breaks down and someone can't get there in time. We may be a small force, but we're just buying you guys some time. It's an expensive policy, but I don't think it's one that the nation can live without. Part of that expense can come from reducing the amount of forward deployed units. How many flight hours, gas, etc... do we spend constantly flying our jets across oceans? A lot. VMFA(AW)-### just used almost 2 months worth of flight hours flying home from their UDP in Iwakuni to Beaufort. It's a lot cheaper, and a much more quality X if you spend that X training instead of transiting. I like the idea of the F-22 Expeditionary program. Especially when the ACE on the MEU says, " Holy shit, we're gonna need some more help quick." But we're not going to stop and wait. We're going to press, knowing that in 24 hours we're going to have some more help from big brother bringing even more ass kicking power. That makes us more lethal. It improves our ability to not have to stop and wait. The more time we wait, the more time the bad guys have to either dig in and prepare or move forward. We want to be able to take that away.

Indeed, there is some good stuff there. The OV-10G is a cool airplane with a lot of capabilities in the air to surface realm. I still think that someone has to provide alert DCA for the ESG. Deploying 6 ships and a sub without air cover is... well, there is a huge hole in the defense there. Leaving an entire MEU susceptible to a something so widely proliferated as a Bison carrying archer and exocet missiles is scary. The Navy won't deploy the ESG with the CSG on "routine" patrols. It's just way to expensive and limits power projection. Libya still had SA nodes that limited the Harrier's ability to conduct ops without Prowler support. The AF has left the tactical EA business. "Where I can see the Marines actually using the MEU capability is in the litany of situations where the lower cost, lower tech options will more than suffice in escorting V-22s, conducting ISR and overwatch, and providing supporting air-to-ground fires. Perfect fit with the TRAP concept, embassy evac, contingency response (Benghazi-esq attacks), disaster relief, etc. That's where the MEU provides the bang for the buck...if we're kicking the door into Syria or Iran or N. Korea and really need 5th gen fighters you've got two other services that pretty much do that shit for a living." This is a legit argument. I agree with you 95%. The way the Marine Corps is being used now is wrong. We are not a land army. However, TRAP still needs OCA and EA in many places in the world. If shit goes south in a country and we need to evac an embassy- it may not be a permissive environment that we have to fly into. Are there still shit hot pilots and aircrew who would risk everything to go into contested airspace to bring Americans home? You bet your ass. But shouldn't we be able to give them the best chance to bring them home? Perhaps this argument could go hand in hand with why the AF needs bases around the world with as much tanker support as possible. But even then- when you're on the ground running, minutes is what matters, and getting a section of F-22s from England to North Africa is in the hours timeframe. Launching a C model from the CSG would reduce that time, but again, what if the CSG isn't with the ESG? You are 100% correct that a MEU isn't going to kick in the door to Syria, Iran or NK, but it can be expected that the MEU will be there. At that point will the ground forces give up control of their air support? I don't know. I do know that there will be a Marine Col who will make one hell of a stink when the air support he needs doesn't exist because it is off supporting someone else. We played that game in WW2- it's an old argument, but one that isn't forgotten easily. Many Marines lost their lives on an island in the Pacific because the Navy and the Air Force went off to fight their own battles. We vowed that it wouldn't happen again. There is a lot of emotion there, and a lot of bad blood. It has driven us to where we are today. Don't take me for an F-35 tried and true kool aide drinking guy. We've worn our Hornets out (literally, worn the hell out of them, we have serious readiness issues at home) flying ISR and light attack missions where that OV-10 or Super T would have been not only an equal, but a better asset wrt time on station and ordnance carry. You don't need an F/A to fight the war in Afghanistan. Hornets flying combat missions over AFG is a complete waste of money.

Now we are talking, and I understand what you're saying. So, the question is: how do we do it? How do we give the ESG (and by extension the MAGTF) the air that it needs? What do we replace the Harrier and the Hornet with? How do we give the ground component the air they need while keeping the capabilities that we need to support them? How do we ensure that the forward deployed guys will ALWAYS have the OCA, DCA, EA and Strike capability needed? BTW- interesting aside, most people thing the Harrier will be replaced first. This is not true, as our A and C model Hornets are falling apart. Some of our Ds are newer than the oldest lot Super Hornets, but we are flying the wings off of our older stuff.

You're right. They weren't shot down, in my haste it was the easiest way to get the point across. Crashed is shorter, but... it doesn't sound right. Either way, the point was the last part of your post.

UGH yourself bro. Read MCDP-1. It's not long, and you may learn something from it. You're taking that out of context to be argumentative. Afg has been a purple fight. The Marine Corps isn't designed to work in a coalition, that is a fault of ours yes. That doesn't mean that we won't fight by ourselves. It just makes working with other services more difficult. However, because we focus on only having other Marine assets to work with it doesn't bog us down. We have 3 MEUs constantly deployed in different AORs than the CSG, for different reasons. They are never far away, and most times (unless we are dealing with Korea, Eastern Europe or Afghanistan) they are the closest asset. The 31st MEU is always deployed, the 11th, 13th, and 15th on the west coast are always rotating with one deployed, one just back and one working up for their next deployment (similar to how a CSG cycle works). The guys who are in works up are also the "On call" MEU in case we need another MEU there. The same is with the 22nd, 24th and 26th MEUs. Each MEU is flexible. Yes, a standard MEU has a battalion, a few skids, a bunch of Ospreys and 4-6 Harriers and some arty and some armor. However that is flexible. They've had MEUs with 18 airplanes and less helos or Ospreys or arty. You can have a MEU (SOC) or a MEU (+), and holy crap you can mobilize a MEB, or a MEF really quickly. Like time frame of hours quickly. Not days. The other think you don't understand is that Marine Air is owned by the ground commander. It's how we work. It's all about combined arms. So what is the most effective use of taxpayers money? What capability do we have now that replaces the MEU that will save us money? How does deploying the MEU with the CSG save us any money? It doesn't- it only adds to the cost. Now, instead of a large fleet and a medium fleet that can go in two separate places and operate with or without each other, you are creating one huge fleet. Libya happened fairly quickly and is a great example of how a MEU is still valid- and guess who saved your Mudhen buddy after he got shot down? A TRAP team from the 26th MEU sitting off of the coast in an LHD. Harriers were flying constantly off of the boat to conduct strike missions. Even Marine Prowlers were getting their Magnum on. Why? Because the CSGs were in another part of the world conducting ops into Afghanistan.

Yes. This is something that the Marine Corps does very poorly. We declare interoperability yet our systems only work with other Marine units. We forget that it's not even a joint war anymore, it's a combined war. To be honest, most of the time went ashore there were carriers in support. However, It IS reasonable to think that the MEU would be the first one's through the door, the AF can't be everywhere, and with the Navy's current financial issues, we're going to start seeing our ESG and CSG patrols a few days apart from each other. It's a way to project power on a lesser scale. A MEU usually has 4-6 Harriers. Much less than a CSGs 4 squadrons of 12. That's a cheaper option. But we need a replacement for the Harrier. One that can do the CAS thing as well as run an intercept on a Bison and expect to win every time.