Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/17/2002 9:10:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/17/2002 9:32:00 AM EST by jobux]
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:11:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/17/2002 9:14:17 AM EST by Jarhead_22]
[url]defence-data.com/current/page13300.htm[/url] The same article is also posted on the official Marine Corps website at: [url]http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/main5/AB0DD7F5B0776C8585256B4200426474?opendocument­[/url]
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:15:02 AM EST
Thx Jarhead! I always forget to make the URL linkable, and then cower in fear of the board code Nazis who rip into me for forgetting.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:16:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/17/2002 9:38:22 AM EST by jobux]
Actually, this brings up a question. Where are they getting the old M14 barrels, etc. Are there M14's still stockpiled in Marine armories?
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:17:11 AM EST
No problem, brother! Just think of me as the board code teddy bear since I don't get along with Nazis of any stripe.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:18:47 AM EST
Originally Posted By jobux: Actually, this brings up a question. Where are they getting the old M14 barrels, etc. Are there M14's still stockpiled in MArine armories?
View Quote
Yes. Almost everything involved is coming from existing USMC stocks. That's why it's so cheap to field to the Fleet. More bang for the buck. FYI: The Marine Corps gets [b]6%[/b] of the DOD budget.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:18:55 AM EST
Top link quotes "28-30 THOUSAND dollars each". Am I missing something here (and I think so)? Anyway, it's a good, non-super techy way to achieve an end.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:20:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: FYI: The Marine Corps gets [b]6%[/b] of the DOD budget.
View Quote
And yet, they still waste big $$ with their own air wings, when they've got the Navy right there. Hmmmmmmm.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:30:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/17/2002 9:38:07 AM EST by jobux]
Well, I wouldn't call the Marine air wing a waste. I don't see any other branch flying S/VTOL aircraft like the Harrier, & soon-to-fly JSF & Osprey. Afghanistan illustrated why such aircraft are a necessity. The Navy is already having to fly incredibly long distances & refuel over semi-hostile territory JUST TO GET to the arena. What would have happened if we hadn't been able to get overflight rights & bases in adjoining countries? The Marines remain the only service capable of fielding such jet-close air support. It still boggles my mind as to why all 3 branches taking the JSF couldn't have insisted on fielding a S/VTOL version WITH the payload capacity of the runway/carrier version. As it stands now, the AF gets the reg. version, Marines the S/VTOL, & the Navy the reg. version but w/ larger wings, etc. to handle carrier ops. Talk about a waste... If the runway gets damaged, or something goes wrong w/ the carrier deck/catapults, your airpower = 0. The Marines, on the other hand, don't have that constraint.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:33:10 AM EST
"A commercial equivalent would cost somewhere between twenty-eight and thirty-two thousand dollars a piece," Mine cost about $1,300.00 to build...
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:34:00 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:41:40 AM EST
The V/STOL version removes a good portion of the internal payload to put in place the driven fan. They replace internal fuel stores (decreasing range). It's a good tradeoff for V/STOL, if you need it. As far as payload goes, the Harrier (albiet VERY cool), doesn't carry much bang for the buck. Compare it to a fully loaded F-16 or an A-10, and you'll see that the (VERY cool) Harrier is a big compromise fighter/attack aircraft that gives up a lot for V/STOL. As far as the Osprey goes, that's been beaten to death many times here. Sufficed to say, there is still a lot of disagreement about it's potential. Personally, I hope it works out, but without frying a bunch of Marines in the process. In the gulf war, the workload was handily carried by A10, F18 and F16 pilots. Nothing against the Corps, but again, it was an issue of speed and payload. If the Marines want to keep their air wing, let them. But when they have to justify their budget, EVERYBODY uses it against them. Every dollar spent on new jet aircraft is one less spent on ammunition, new armor, and new assault craft.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:42:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE: And yet, they still waste big $$ with their own air wings, when they've got the Navy right there. Hmmmmmmm.
View Quote
Every Marine aviator is first trained at Quantico as an infantry officer. This gives them a unique understanding of the needs of the grunts on the ground whom they are supporting. Ask any Marine who he'd rather have flying CAS for him and the first choice is always going to start out "VMA": Marine Attack Squadron.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:47:12 AM EST
What would I expect? I perfectly well expect a Marine to select a Marine for his support. That doesn't make it the most effective choice.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:52:02 AM EST
But see, you're missing my point. Why can't they create an S/VTOL aircraft w/ the payload, performance, etc. of a "regular" jet? Is it just an impossible feat of engineering? Also, what happens if an F-16's or an A-10's runway gets bombed? Better yet, what if there isn't a runway/base near enough to the theater to be of any use? Again, the only branch currently fielding, or planning on future use, of S/VTOL aircraft (regardless of payload) is the Marine Corps. I'd rather have some CAS, in the form of a Harrier, than nothing, and one day we may find ourselves w/out and friendly bases nearby or overflight rights...
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:52:05 AM EST
Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE: What would I expect? I perfectly well expect a Marine to select a Marine for his support. That doesn't make it the most effective choice.
View Quote
Marines, when they get the chance, deploy as part of a MAGTF, a Marine Air/Ground Task Force. In other words, the Air Combat Element and the Ground Combat Element are under the same local command and there are no calls to CENTCOM or the White House Situation Room for CAS or a dustoff. Being a simple comm pogue, I'm not the best man to make this argument, but what is your gripe with the Marine Corps having its own air assets, and being deployable and supportable, rather than the method used by the 101st Airborne, who have to have Air Force mobility assets tasked to them to make them a sustainable force?
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:53:55 AM EST
Oh, and I'm not a Marine, nor have I ever served in the military for that matter, but I can see the justification for the Marine's air power. Well, lemme say most of it. Their F-18 force might be redundant...
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 10:05:02 AM EST
Marine = Naval Infantry. That said, I have no problem with forward deployed forces (Marines) being self-sustaining. However, the farther Marines are moved inland, the more difficult they are to support. This is why the Osprey is such a big target/prize for the Marines. Land-based forces (like the aforementioned 101st airborne) have greater long-term sustainability because they receive their LOGISTICS support from the Air Force. In the LONG term, even the Marines come to depend upon the Air Force for logistical and CAS support, because their missions have been moved farther and farther inland. I have no problem with a healthy setup of rotary-wing attack/assault assets. However, I think the Navy is equally capable of providing high-speed (which excludes the Harrier), high-payload (again, excludes the Harrier) CAS. Marine pride may prevent many from agreeing with this, but the Navy has some incredible pilots. Use of the Navy would free up financial assets (which the Marines are constantly complaining about). This means more ammo and toys for the infantry (Marines), including Ospreys and Cobra-upgrades (when are you guys gonna get Apaches? [;)]).
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 10:13:06 AM EST
There are some who will always argue for stripping assets away from the Marine Corps, or for doing away with it entirely and folding the Marine Corps ground forces into the Army and air assets into the Navy or Air Force. This debate has gone on, in one form or another, since the 1800's and we're not going to change any minds here today. I don't suppose you're a big fan of the failed Marine officer who now runs his personal Marine Corps hate site over on Geocities.com, are you?
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 10:23:59 AM EST
Hey, hey, hey! This ain't no Marine Corps hate mail. As an Army officer, I have nothing but respect for the Corps. However, if any force has ever become the victim of mission creep (through its own doing), it's the Corps. Now, I've never advocated folding any part of the Marine Corps into the Army, Air Force or Navy (except for fighter wings). I don't expect the Army to do without rotary wing support, so I won't force that on the Marines. Personally, I don't want to watch my years roll away on the high seas, so I'll leave it to the Marines. I'm more concerned that a forward-deployed force of Naval Infantry is beginning to accept missions that aren't really its charter. Sort of like the Army having a Space Command (laughably, it really exists). Every time I hear of Marines deployed 500-1000 miles INLAND, I begin to wonder if the charter hasn't been watered down a bit, in order to keep funding for certain budget items (fighter jets) and to retain footing at the Pentagon. Think of it this way: Right before the Gulf War (around 1988 or so), the Air Force was again trying to force it's A-10 aircraft on the Army, in order to lose the CAS role. Wisely, the Army realized that their future was in rotary-wing aircraft, and vehemently refused. If they hadn't, the would be no Apaches, no Comanches (well, there still might not be).
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 10:37:27 AM EST
Does it appear that the Marine Corps is having trouble accomplishing its mission in Afghanistan, a thousand miles from the sea? If not, how is the Marine Corps "the victim" of anything?
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 10:42:17 AM EST
What exactly is the mission, and why is it a distinctly "Marine" mission? More succinctly, where are the VMA's?
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:03:26 AM EST
Do you always answer a question with a question? Their mission is to destroy whatever the President wants destroyed, in this case the ability of al-Quaida and Taliban assets to wage a terrorist war on America. Why it's a particularly Marine mission is a few pay grades above my head. The more important question to America is the one you avoided from my last post: Are they accomplishing that mission? As for the VMAs, I'm very far from being well-informed on day to day operations in Afghanistan, but there are apparently a few AV-8Bs supporting the boys: From the website of the 26th MEU: [url]http://www.26meu.usmc.mil/Organization.htm[/url] The 26th MEU MSEs are Battalion Landing Team 3/6 (a reinforced infantry battalion with light armored vehicles, artillery and amphibious assault vehicles), which forms the ground combat element; HMM-365, a composite helicopter squadron (with air traffic control, crash, fire and rescue units, and [b]AV-8B Harriers[/b]) that forms the aviation combat element; MEU Service Support Group-26, a combat service support element that provides logistical support; and the Command Element.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:16:45 AM EST
Let's try to keep it friendly. I'll say it again, this ain't a Marine-bashing session. 1. That last post was the only time I even asked a question. So, to answer your question: No, I don't alwasy answer a question with a questions. 2. I think the Marines (along with the Air Force, the Navy, and the Army) are doing a hell of a job. Cudo's all around. So, yes, they are accomplishing the mission (which is to establish a forward base of operations, from which enemy POWs/"Battlefield Detainees"/"Unlawful Combatants" can be extracted). If the Marines want to keep their air wings, that's fine with me. It's their $. But, someday, it's gonna come down to $ and the Corps will be given a tough decision when it presents its next wish list. Personally, puttin duplication of air power over improvements in deployability and land forces doesn't seem to add up. Those JSFs are gonna come in at what, $40 million? As an experienced grunt, I bet you could come up with better uses for that.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:30:27 AM EST
Well, we agree on one or two things, then. As I've said before: I am the furthest thing from an experienced grunt. I am a comm pogue who spent his active duty time in the rear with the gear.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:31:24 AM EST
That's fair. I knew I would never change ANY Marine's mind about this, I just thought it would stir up some good conversation. Wait, that's trolling, isn't it. My bad. [;)] Anyway, while we're at it, any ideas how to clean up last round failures to feed with my SA 1911A1 Loaded? I think it's the extractor, but I'm not sure. Now, even my good Wilson mags are doing this. EVERY last round is FTF.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:38:49 AM EST
A buddy of mine with a brand new SA Loaded is having the exact same problem with his Wilson mags. Is your mag spring in the right way? If not, the first buncha rounds will feed fine from straight spring pressure, but the if the spring is in backwards, it won't provide enough pressure to lift the nose of the last round up into the barrel throat. That's a free SWAG for you. I've had good luck with Chip McCormick 8 rd magazines, myself.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:40:48 AM EST
I'll take the Wilson apart tonight. I've also got a bunch of factory SAs, but they do the exact same thing. Someone once mentioned smoothing the underside of the extractor. ?
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:49:20 AM EST
Huh, if you can't isolate the failure to any particular magazine or magazines, I'd say you could be right. Why would only the last round in a magazine fail to feed if it's a constant problem like a rough extractor?
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:52:10 AM EST
My Wilson mag seemed to work fine (no FTFs) while all my GI and SA mags FTF on the last round. Went out last weekend the Wilson started acting up. Maybe it's the way the follower pushes up on the head of the last round, forcing it into the extractor. Anyway, I'm gonna take em apart tonight to see whats up. Thanks.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 12:03:47 PM EST
SJSAMPLE: You don't want to make this a Corps bashing thread eh ? Your backhanded compliments aren't exactly encouraging. Marine=Naval Infantry ? How about army = slugs ( I am freakin SICK of ignorant Army types taking their pathetic, insecure frustrations out on the Marines with specious arguments! Are you and that crying pansy sparks butt buddies ? Mission Creep ? What about the fricking army, having lost their job defending those euro-commies you are now crying that you can do the expeditionary role. Justification of budgets ? Marines are forwarded deployed all over the world, defending and fighting for this country. The Army is deployed in europe defending against soviet ghosts, or in korea where 10,000 dogfaces bravely pretend to be protecting 1,000,000 excellently trained and equipped S. Korean soldiers. Whose budget is more justified. Marine Air Wings ? Lets cut the bullshit, you Army types are just pissed you have to call on the Air Force. "Not the most effective choice"...please tell me oh omnipotent one which service is better at CAS that the USMC. Please cite examples. Afghanistan is not a specific Marine mission, but Pentagon planners realized that Marine Units were the only ones capable of supporting immediately in sustained operations. Don't take out your frustration of the Armys 10+ years of self inflicted disasters on the USMC. Instead concentrate on wearing that beret correctly.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 12:10:04 PM EST
steel_weasel, You're a little late for the game, but I'll take your comments under advisement. [;)]
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 12:14:01 PM EST
28-32k? Well, this is the land of the $600 hammer
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 12:44:15 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 12:52:36 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 2:59:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/17/2002 3:00:08 PM EST by Jarhead_22]
Wow. A lot of Army aggression towards the Marine Corps today. This wouldn't have anything to do with the smashing success of the Marine Corps doing a job the Army considers its own? Naah, couldn't be that. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 3:22:31 PM EST
Seems to me all branches of our Armed Forces are doing a fine job. I know this isn't a real interesting observation as no group is trashed. Still true though.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 3:50:27 PM EST
Forest: You're not too bright if you think I need a lesson on the food chain at the Pentagon. I know the Marine Corps place in the overall defense establishment. I am mere commenting on a trend by prissy army types to throw out tenuous arguments to attack the Marines. As a Marine I consider being called a Naval Infantryman an insult...I don't see any boats at Camp Rhino do you ? Again, I know the Marine Corps place, but I wonder if alot of soldiers know the army's place. The Marine Corps is not designed or equipped to fight sustained ground campaigns against large numbers of combatant, they way the Army is headed they won't be able to either. As for CAS I constantly hear complaints from soldiers that the USAF doesn't have it's heart in CAS. The A-10 is a great plane, but it's the MEN who make the difference. I have bitter memories of Marine deaths in DS caused by a suposedly malfunctioning missile from an A-10. In my heart I know that pilot had no clue what he was firing at. Please cite some loss statistics by the 1st and 2d Al Qaeda Armored divisions by A-10's. A-10's may be marginally better platforms for general CAS, much better for AT, but they aren't as responsive. Odobo: While we're at it lets bring the Marine Corps down to Army standards of fitness, discipline and training.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 3:57:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/17/2002 3:57:51 PM EST by raf]
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 3:59:01 PM EST
Steel_Weasel, Maybe I missed something but why do you have to jump to insulting people? Yes the USAF doesn't like to do things other than it wants to do. THat is why it is so ready to get new fighters, but much less willing to get transport, close support, or other "non-fighter" aircraft. That is also why the USMC want "it's own" aircraft. So that they are able to structure their force to the threats they expect to face. Calling the USMC Naval Infantry is an accurate descritpion, it is what they are. It may also cause you to consider the mission and limitations of the USMC.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 4:06:51 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 4:09:01 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 4:11:04 PM EST
This is as bad as it's gonna get from me. Marine grunts with their asses in a crack strongly prefer air support from the first units that can get there. (A scientific fact.) Their second choice 'IS' Marine Air. Their third choice is Navy. Even to a dumb-ass like me the 'why' is pretty self evident. ------------------------------------------------ Over-all, Army units are "not" trained to the standards of the Marines. Someone smarter than me said "We've kept the 'tip' of the spear sharp but as for the rest....." After years of under-funding, under-staffing, under-training and generally phucking-over the troops it's a damn miracle we even have an Army. Schitttttttt - BullllllSchitttttttt [smoke]
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 4:25:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/17/2002 4:27:15 PM EST by steel_weasel]
Originally Posted By raf: I'm so glad that this has degenerated into an Army vs. USMC pissing contest. Had to happen, only question was how long. We're there.
View Quote
Wrong! I, and a few others, are simply defending the Marine Corps from thinly veiled attacks. Most of my best friends are soldiers and they'd jump in this thread in the Corps defense as well.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 4:41:40 PM EST
[b]What about the M14 topic? why aren't we discussing that? [sniper] Just wondering.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 5:22:22 PM EST
Originally Posted By jobux: But see, you're missing my point. Why can't they create an S/VTOL aircraft w/ the payload, performance, etc. of a "regular" jet? Is it just an impossible feat of engineering?
View Quote
Physics, basically - more weight, in the form of aircraft and payload, requires more lift to get off the ground. The amount of lift generated by an airfoil is basically dependent upon the speed of the air moving over that airfoil. higher airspeed over the upper section of the airfoil = lower pressure (Bernoulli's Principle) and thus more lift is generated. The profile of the airfoil plays a big role in how much lift is generated, which is why flaps and slats are used, but in general the higher the airspeed is, the more lift is generated.
Also, what happens if an F-16's or an A-10's runway gets bombed?
View Quote
Refuel in the air and divert to an alternate field. You're probably not going to find an air force airfield close to the ground theater, anyway, and right now in-flight refuelling seems to be the way they plan to do it all the time.
Better yet, what if there isn't a runway/base near enough to the theater to be of any use?
View Quote
In-flight refuelling, again. Or, you build one (or capture one.)
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 6:46:40 PM EST
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Calling the USMC Naval Infantry is an accurate descritpion, it is what they are. It may also cause you to consider the mission and limitations of the USMC.
View Quote
Calling the Marine Corps "naval infantry" is also ignoring about the last 50 years of its history and accomplishments.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 6:48:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By odobo: umm... you mean like reflagging the marine divisions like this? : 1st Marine Division --> 5th Infantry Division (Amphibious) 2nd Marine Division --> 6th Infantry Division (Amphibious) 3rd Marine Division --> 8th Infantry Division (Amphibious) Then rename Camp Pendelton into "Fort Pendelton" and make it the US Army School of Amphibious Warfare ?
View Quote
Why would anyone want to do anything stupid like that?
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 7:41:49 PM EST
OK, here's a question: One line of argument says the Harrier/Osprey type aircraft is more suited in Afghanistan operations because is can be forward-based and avoid the problem of having to have long flights to get to their missions. Also that not needing a an airbase per se (or a carrier group), they get around the problem of taking/making an airfield. My question is, do the STOL/VTOL craft present much of a problem defending them when they're on the ground? I'm guessing the answer would be "no more than helicopters", but what do the experts say? Personally, I would not want to have one in a small clearing, but what are your ideas on this, and what would the ideal STOL/VTOL base be like?
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 7:47:43 PM EST
So anyway, back to the original topic. I can't see the right side of the gun but it just appears to be a M14 barreled receiver with a trigger job, a barrel retrofitted to accept a silencer & a new stock. Has anyone actually seen one up close & personal??? ColtShorty GOA KABA COA JPFO SAF NRA "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:38:50 PM EST
just to set a few things straight, the Army WANTED the A-10s but are prohibited by law from operating fixed wing tactical aircraft, and funding for Marine Air does not come from the much vaunted "6% f the defnese budget" Marine Air is paid for by the Navy. Marine corps funding has whats called "green dollars and blue dollars" essentialy marine money and navy money. Marine Air is a way to have more air assets at sea without Marine leadership having to play mother-may-i with the navy to get air support. this means all aspects of a given mission can be planned by one command staff who has absolute control over land sea and air elements. it is this kind of ability to plan and execute a mission quickly that finds the Marines being tasked with everything under the sun these days. it is also the reason why the other services are trying to reinvent themselves in the image of the Corps. the army wants to go light and mobile because they were designed to battle the evil empire in a protracted euopean conflict with heavy armor and long supply chains. the Air Force has a big hard one for their AEF concept (air expeditionary forces) which they think is some radical new concept invented by the AF. the Marine Corps is an expeditionary force in readiness. as much as they may try the other services can emulate this role overnight. they know they have to trim the fat to survive but the Corps has been doing the impossible with nothing for years. we have a lot of practice at stretching dollars and selling ourselves to Mr. and Mrs America. (a good PR machine doesnt hurt either)
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top