I don't think NAVAIR, nor the USMC, have any interest in increasing the number of TMS under management, nor any interest in adding to their costs and problems with the management of another configuration of the Harrier.

The "birds as parts bins" is the most likely outcome, based on both management and economic perspectives. Glad to see the airworthiness issue, and cost, raised up there. Another reason NOT to do other than use them as parts bins.

How worn out the F-18D is compared to the AV-8B is a red herring.

Interesting how life for some people is a list of problems and reasons not to do things while for others it is a whole world of opportunities.

John

You were always so chilled out!!

Welcome to the fraternity of grumpy old men!!

But, of course, as always, you are right!!

I was thinking just the same. Too many people find it too easy to say no these days - those trying to actually deliver something are seemingly in a depressing minority.

Hmmm... I would remind everyone that while the Marines may be pighea... obstrefe... fanat.... I mean, dedicated and single-minded when it comes to what the Commandant of the day defines as True Religion, they can be quite flexible and innovative when it comes to execution.

Add to this the fact that the Marines would rather go to war in Fairey Battles than Super Hornets, which He Who Abides At Eighth & Eye has deemed anathema.

Then if someone could come up with a way that the GR9 could be used in CAS/FAC-A and become a bridge between the clapped-out Classics and the WondaJet, people might be interested.

There is no mention of it here. Rather, it looks as if the Navy will transfer some more F/A-18Cs to the Marines. But then, that was before the three-year slip to IOC.

Several decades ago, I was on exchange with the USN involved with the AV-8A, AV-8C and AV-8B programs - note the spelling of programmes!!

Many of the USMC folk at NAVAIR were focussed (blinkered??) by financial considerations, and were not receptive to suggestions of the right way to bring modern - as it was then - technology to the cockpit. By then, I had also flown the Jaguar and the A-7 which were very different from our old GR1/3, and I was astonished at their resistance.

But as with most Marines, their heart - and soul - was with the Corps, and although subordinate in many ways to the USN, they wanted and needed their own air arm, and would do nothing to jeopardise that essential operational need.

So it was a real game of politics, even then. Inter-service politics. We all know how that plays. And probably little has changed.

The F-18 is clearly a great machine. But if they can engineer a way to use our regrettably unwanted GR9/9As to supplement their AV-8B fleet, then I am sure they will do so - as long as they meet the need to support the marines on the ground.

Politics will be at play here - as will financial considerations.

But with delays to the F-35, the need to provide effective organic air support for the grunts on the ground will be the driving force.

I hope they do stand up a couple of squadrons of AV-9As - or whatever they call them.

As to supporting them - we are still allies - aren't we??

Whenever you sell a car to someone, do you take this much interest in what they do with it?

One wonders if there was anything written into the sales contract preventing further use... Knowing UK plc though, it probably says we would fund it.

Thanks chaps.

All I asked was whether anybody had any reliable information on the topic.

The answer seems to be a simple no.

JF

Bomber, the designation would more likely be AV-8D, if that option were chosen.

Note: In the next 3 years, you won't see an increase in the number of pilots, nor aircraft, in the USMC inventory. Why adding two squadrons to current authorized force levels is envisioned by any of you puzzles me.

America may not be gutting our forces at the rate the UK has been of late, but the next five years of retraction in size will proceed apace, because the political will to maintain the current size of the force quite simply isn't there. The Marines will be winners if they are able to maintain force levels at current size, since the other three services are programmed to shrink a bit. The question is: how much?

If there are a number of worn out F-18 aircraft then why not move them all into one squadron, scrap them and then replace the scrapped aircraft with the Harrier? No new squadron, no additional aircraft numbers, just replacing worn out aircraft, with low mileage, refurbished fighters.

I am certainly NOT suggesting this will happen, but is it a possibility?

Lonewolf_50
 

Not sure anybody is suggesting adding aircraft or pilots only replacing existing aircraft with younger ones that have more modern kit.

Here is a recent link suggesting that with the GR9s broken into spares, that the Corps' Harriers can serve until 2030. Oh, the obselesence of the Harrier.

http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/us...ly-until-2030/

Yep... F-35B (and a handful of F-35C) will replace all the USMC Hornets first, and then replace the AV-8B/B+.

It would be nice if the USN would buy enough F/A-18E/F/G and F-35C to be able to fully stock its carriers without borrowing USMC squadrons (and thus preventing those aircraft, bought, maintained, and flown by Marines from filling USMC tasking needs).

Bought by the Marines?

They will be bought (designed, manufactured, upgraded, depot-maintained and supplied with spares and crew training through-life) by the US taxpayer, via the same Department of the Navy budget as every other DoN aviation asset, including the AV-8 and MV-22.

The DoN and the command chain above it therefore has the duty and right to decide where the aircraft go, and what they do. If that involves putting Marine-crewed/badged CV aircraft on CV decks, so be it.

The USN and USMC have separate sub-budgets within NavAir, and the issue of training, support, and maintenance means that the USMC having a 2-type fleet burns more of that taxpayer money than if those F-35C squadrons were on Navy bases using Navy personnel, maintenance facilities, etc.

This is because the USN and USMC for the most part don't "live" on the same bases, so you are having to duplicate any F-35C-specific support, maintenance, and training on a USMC base... instead of just parking those squadrons on a couple of Navy F-35C bases.

You also have to have extra intermediate-level Marine maintainers trained for any F-35C-specific things, as USMC and USN maintenance are separate at both the squadron and intermediate levels.

Marine aircraft maintainers all go through USMC basic & primary infantry training before going to their MOS-specific schools... this adds more cost to their training compared to USN maintainers who don't get that combat training.

Therefore, keeping a few USMC squadrons permanently assigned to USN taskings and uses does spend more money (all from the allocated USMC share) than if those squadrons were moved to the USN in fact.

Also, those F-35C-tasked Marines count towards the manpower cap numbers Congress places on the USMC.

John:

More modern kit.

I appreciate that fatigue life on "younger aircraft" is an attractive feature. No question.

The remainder of the kit, be it "more modern" or not, if it isn't in current configuration represents a cost (of non trivial scope) to ingest into the system.

We shall see.

I'd need to do a side by side, system by system analysis to see what "kit" (considering the usual Airframes and Avionics changes/upgrades that the Harrier fleet undergoes during its service life) represents an upgrade, or simply a change.

USMC :ok:

RAF:mad:

Uncle Sam knows a deal when he sees one, poor old John Bull got lost in the fog it seems....

I know that it must be a library photo...but the one in thsi article did make my eyes pop initially.

Yuma hosts first flight for new aerial electronic warfare system | StratRisks

Already used, albeit briefly, as the designation for the Night Attack AV-8B