Marine to command ship air wing in '05
Otis Willie
(EXCERPT) By JACK DORSEY, The Virginian-Pilot
NORFOLK -- Within a year or two, a veteran F/A-18 Hornet pilot will
peer from the bridge of a carrier, survey the 4 1/2 -acre flight deck
and claim ownership of all the aircraft aboard.
He'll be the CAG, the ship's air wing commander. But he'll be a Marine
-- the first ever chosen to lead a Navy air wing.
``We've already picked him,'' said Rear Adm. James M. Zortman,
commander of the Atlantic Fleet Naval Air Force.
The ground-breaking CAG will be Col. Douglas P. Yurovich, a former
test pilot and squadron commander who is completing a joint service
job in the Pentagon. Yurovich, 45, will command Air Wing Nine out of
Lemoore Naval Air Station, south of Fresno, Calif.
Yurovich will command the 2,500 Navy and Marine pilots, weapons
systems officers and maintenance crew responsible for flying and
servicing the 80 aircraft assigned to one of the Pacific Fleet's six
carriers beginning in August 2005.
This move is part of an unprecedented merging of Navy and Marine Corps
air forces. The integration is part of a cost-saving initiative that
will affect the size and daily operations of both services.
In addition t...
U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully reproducing
copyrighted material. In abidance with our laws this report
cannot be provided in its entirety. However, you can read it
in full today, 13 Feb 2003, at the following URL. (COMBINE
the following lines into your web browser.) The
subject/content of this report is not necessarily the
viewpoint of the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.
http://www.pilotonline.com/military/ml0212mer.html
---------------------------
Otis Willie
Associate Librarian
The American War Library
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com
Thomas Schoene
"Otis Willie" <militar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rgno4v82emr90hctd...@4ax.com...
> Marine to command ship air wing in '05
>
> (EXCERPT) By JACK DORSEY, The Virginian-Pilot
> This move is part of an unprecedented merging of Navy and Marine Corps
> air forces. The integration is part of a cost-saving initiative that
> will affect the size and daily operations of both services.
>
The kicker is in the next paragraph, of course:
"In addition to having a Marine CAG, a Navy captain will command a Marine
Air Group. That commander, who Zortman says has not been identified, will
work out of Iwakuni, Japan, near Hiroshima. Other Navy aviators could end up
commanding from a tent, forward deployed with Navy and Marine aviators,
providing air protection to Marines on the ground. "
Clearly this was the quid pro quo for having a Marine CAG, but it's a
remarkably dumb idea, IMO. One reason Marine Air is so valuable is that it
has a better understanding, from top to bottom, of the situations Marine
ground forces have to deal with. Putting a Navy pilot in charge of a Marine
air wing undermines this whole ethos.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
sid
> Clearly this was the quid pro quo for having a Marine CAG, but it's a
> remarkably dumb idea, IMO. One reason Marine Air is so valuable is that it
> has a better understanding, from top to bottom, of the situations Marine
> ground forces have to deal with. Putting a Navy pilot in charge of a Marine
> air wing undermines this whole ethos.
Now, now Tom...Don't let whats best for the warfighter get in the way
of P.C. touchy-feely.
Thomas Schoene
"sid" <sidi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e22254a1.03021...@posting.google.com...
It's not PC, it's standard service politics. But it's still stupid.
Mike Weeks
>Date: 2/16/2003 14:04 Pacific Standard Time
>"sid" <sidi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Now, now Tom...Don't let whats best for the warfighter get in the way
>> of P.C. touchy-feely.
>
>It's not PC, it's standard service politics. But it's still stupid.
Which is why the comments from the article by Polmar are so interesting ...<g>
<start>
"I think it is utterly ridiculous," said Norman Polmar, an author, analyst and
historian of naval affairs in Washington. "If you are going to combine them,
why not transfer all the planes to the Navy and give the Marines blue uniforms,
or transfer them all to the Marine Corps and give the Navy green uniforms?
"We have two different air arms because they are supposed to do different
things. The Navy air arm is designed for fighter and strike operations, defense
of the fleet and to project power ashore."
Polmar believes the Marine troops on the ground eventually will lose combat air
support because of increasing budget pressures to keep aircraft on carriers,
not at the front lines.
<end>
MW
-------------------------------------
"As soon as movement begins, so does the fog of war" - Edward N. Luttwak
Christopher Biow
>Clearly this was the quid pro quo for having a Marine CAG, but it's a
>remarkably dumb idea, IMO. One reason Marine Air is so valuable is that it
>has a better understanding, from top to bottom, of the situations Marine
>ground forces have to deal with. Putting a Navy pilot in charge of a Marine
>air wing undermines this whole ethos.
Naw, we now have everything in balance (unless these duties have been moved
around further in the last ten years).
The Air Warfare commander is on J Random Cruiser, the watch being stood by
a blackshoe or non-tactical aviator on disassociated tour. He makes a total
hash of the air war, having only a cookie-cutter knowledge of tac air.
The Surface Warfare commander is the super-CAG. Of course, CAG never
actually has much to do with it but has his squadron CO's send him their
less-favored aviators to stand the watch as Tactical Watch Action Team.
They haven't the first clue about surface warfare, other than a weeks'
briefing at the boat, consisting of a parade of blackshoes spewing shoe
acronyms without explanation (BTDT). They are at least given a few OS2's to
keep them pointed in the right direction.
Better yet, the CAG is a jarhead with a bit of exchange duty, and the
Marine airwing commander is a Naviator who is supposed to understand
something of ground combat.
--
Oh, I'm feeling really FOTC this evening--must be something I ate.
Rob Sluys
>
> The kicker is in the next paragraph, of course:
>
> "In addition to having a Marine CAG, a Navy captain will command a
> Marine Air Group. That commander, who Zortman says has not been
> identified, will work out of Iwakuni, Japan, near Hiroshima. Other
> Navy aviators could end up commanding from a tent, forward deployed
> with Navy and Marine aviators, providing air protection to Marines on
> the ground. "
>
> Clearly this was the quid pro quo for having a Marine CAG, but it's a
> remarkably dumb idea, IMO. One reason Marine Air is so valuable is
> that it has a better understanding, from top to bottom, of the
> situations Marine ground forces have to deal with. Putting a Navy
> pilot in charge of a Marine air wing undermines this whole ethos.
>
I have to agree with you. I can only imagine the backlash when this
becomes apparent to the higher ups that decide the proper response is to
start sending us swabbies to TBS. Or just as bad, when a Marine has to
undergo the intricacies (sp?) of ASW prosecution.
It comes down to a basic contradiction in recent years in the U.S.
military. The whole idea of having different rates, and in fact,
different services, is because the basis of our success is that each
person knows his job's finer points exceedingly well. Recently, in the
name of economy and doing more with less (thank you, bill), there's a
focus on knowing a decent amount about a lot of jobs. IMHO, let the
Marines concentrate on the best way to blow stuff up on on the beaches
and the Navy can concentrate on the best way to blow up stuff on the
seas. Let them each be nauseatingly good at their respective task, to
the point where in combat their mission is executed with precision and
efficiency.
~Rob
Rob Sluys
news:19l05v4kefq9j8671...@4ax.com:
>
> The Surface Warfare commander is the super-CAG. Of course, CAG never
> actually has much to do with it but has his squadron CO's send him
> their less-favored aviators to stand the watch as Tactical Watch
> Action Team.
The T.W.A.T. ?
sorry, couldn't help it....
~Rob
Tom Schoene
news:Xns9327D6ADD...@63.240.76.16
> I have to agree with you. I can only imagine the backlash when this
> becomes apparent to the higher ups that decide the proper response is
> to start sending us swabbies to TBS.
You know, that's not a bad idea, actually. Pilots who want to command
carriers have to live through a deepdraft command first. How about we make
any pilot who wants to command a Marine Air Wing survive TBS?
> Or just as bad, when a Marine
> has to undergo the intricacies (sp?) of ASW prosecution.
I was going to say a Marine CAG should be doing this, but then I remembered
that the carriers are almost out of the ASW business :-(
Ogden Johnson III
>"Rob Sluys" <RobS...@nospam.attbi.com> wrote
>> I have to agree with you. I can only imagine the backlash when this
>> becomes apparent to the higher ups that decide the proper response is
>> to start sending us swabbies to TBS.
>You know, that's not a bad idea, actually. Pilots who want to command
>carriers have to live through a deepdraft command first. How about we make
>any pilot who wants to command a Marine Air Wing survive TBS?
The Marine unit corresponding to a Carrier Air Wing [nee Carrier Air
Group, viz "CAG"] is a Marine Aircraft Group, not a Marine Air Wing.
A Marine Air*craft* Wing is commanded by a Major General.
>> Or just as bad, when a Marine
>> has to undergo the intricacies (sp?) of ASW prosecution.
>I was going to say a Marine CAG should be doing this, but then I remembered
>that the carriers are almost out of the ASW business :-(
Going back to Tom's original post, presumably with their integration
into the Carrier Air Wing, fixed wing Marine squadrons, their pilots,
and their COs are picking up all of the elements unique to carrier
aviation, above and beyond their missions for the Marine Corps, which
include CAS, CAP, and Strike, among other things. Thus, with the
added integration contemplated, those COs have a similar foundation to
their Navy counterparts in striking for CAG.
Conversely, the carrier aviation mission has always, at least
nominally, included CAS in support of Marines on the ground, however
skeptical we Jarheads have been about how serious it was taken in
practice by our Navy counterparts. However, with the increasing
integration of Marine squadrons into CVWs, the average Navy squadron
CO should be able pick up the USMC CAS ethos and fine points from his
Marine counterparts. [I have been assured that Navy tries to select
smart pilots to be squadron COs.] While I would not expect to see a
Navy Captain selected as CO of a Marine helo or Harrier MAG [would a
Navy fighter jock Commander/Captain even volunteer for transition into
CH-46s or AV-8Bs?], I would not be surprised to see one in an F-18 MAG
in the near future, and do very well at it. He'll have the support of
his Marine squadron COs, just as the Marine CAG on the carrier can
count on his Navy squadron COs.
OJ III
Tom Schoene
news:8gpa5v4ghl3namn8o...@4ax.com
> "Tom Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Rob Sluys" <RobS...@nospam.attbi.com> wrote
>
> > > I have to agree with you. I can only imagine the backlash when
> > > this becomes apparent to the higher ups that decide the proper
> > > response is
> > > to start sending us swabbies to TBS.
>
> > You know, that's not a bad idea, actually. Pilots who want to
> > command carriers have to live through a deepdraft command first.
> > How about we make any pilot who wants to command a Marine Air Wing
> > survive TBS?
>
> The Marine unit corresponding to a Carrier Air Wing [nee Carrier Air
> Group, viz "CAG"] is a Marine Aircraft Group, not a Marine Air Wing.
> A Marine Air*craft* Wing is commanded by a Major General.
Doh. Sorry, OJ. Got a tad bit careless there.
Ogden Johnson III
>"Ogden Johnson III" <o...@cpcug.org> wrote
>> "Tom Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>> > You know, that's not a bad idea, actually. Pilots who want to
>> > command carriers have to live through a deepdraft command first.
>> > How about we make any pilot who wants to command a Marine Air Wing
>> > survive TBS?
>> The Marine unit corresponding to a Carrier Air Wing [nee Carrier Air
>> Group, viz "CAG"] is a Marine Aircraft Group, not a Marine Air Wing.
>> A Marine Air*craft* Wing is commanded by a Major General.
>Doh. Sorry, OJ. Got a tad bit careless there.
No comments on the rest of my comments, on your original comments?
Bummer. :-(
OJ III
sid
> military. The whole idea of having different rates, and in fact,
> different services, is because the basis of our success is that each
> person knows his job's finer points exceedingly well. Recently, in the
> name of economy and doing more with less (thank you, bill), there's a
> focus on knowing a decent amount about a lot of jobs. IMHO, let the
> Marines concentrate on the best way to blow stuff up on on the beaches
> and the Navy can concentrate on the best way to blow up stuff on the
> seas. Let them each be nauseatingly good at their respective task, to
> the point where in combat their mission is executed with precision and
> efficiency.
> ~Rob
I remember the Harrier drivers Nassua when she came out to the eastern
Med to support the amphibs off the coast of Lebanon in '81 were
definitely not interested in supporting any Wars at Sea. These were
the days before Littoral Warfare had a name.
When an AV-8, tasked on a SSSC mission, was asked to ID any markings
on a surface contact he sardonically replied:
"PT...PT109"
I hope similar attitudes aren't out there today.
Ogden Johnson III
Just exactly *when* in 1981? I was on the NASSAU's deployment with
MAG-32(FWD) during Apr - Jun 81. During Apr 81, 55 of 333 sorties
[16.5%]/55.0 of 325.2 [16.9%] hours were SSSC; in May it was 37 of 522
[7%] sorties/38.0 of 458.2 [8.3%] hours. No SSSC sorties were flown
in Jun - most of which involved the NASSAU's release from retention in
the Med for the Lebanon crisis, transit to the western Med to prepare
for departure from the Med during a four day stop at Rota, and an
Atlantic transit interrupted by diversion for a medical emergency
aboard a Fleet Tug in mid-Atlantic.
Apparently one of our pilots made a joke during one of those 92 SSSC
sorties. If it still bothers you to this day, let me know his
tactical call sign and I'll see if I can locate him for you. I'm sure
he'll want to apologize.
OJ III
sid
> MAG-32(FWD) during Apr - Jun 81.
I do remember it was the first time an AV-8 was tasked to us so it was
within days of your arrival.
> Apparently one of our pilots made a joke during one of those 92 SSSC
> sorties.
You got the joke part right. We had some concern about an unlocated
SAAR IV and this guy was wasting our time. I'd say it was the most
unprofessional thing I ever witnessed from any aviator military or
civilian in my quarter century plus of working with both...I will
admit it provided some idle entertainment though.
Hopefully the aversion to play in the other's sandbox won't afflict
the soon to be much more integrated Navy/Marine (Marine/Navy for any
who have first billing issues) Aviation Team.
You guys should've stuck around. Things got a lot more fun that
summer. In August the ship I was on was one of the 3 that got to spend
some time south of 32"30' north in the Gulf Of Sidra. We were so
close to the falling Libyan wreckage that no less than CINCUSNAVEUR
told us to move.
You know we all wanted to be up close and personal to a major
international incident just 2 days prior to outchop.
The postscript was fun too. Joining up with the Eisenhower BG in the
middle of a hurricane turning extratropical and staying in the middle
of the tempest to keep the Rooskies guessing until we could get north
of the Orkneys and carry the fight to the north of the Kola peninsuala
for the first time.
And then coming home in the middle of two more dying hurricanes...
Fun was had by all.
Rob Sluys
news:8gpa5v4ghl3namn8o...@4ax.com:
[would a
> Navy fighter jock Commander/Captain even volunteer for transition into
> CH-46s or AV-8Bs?],
Ya never know.. I've seen some pretty faithful phrog phlyers out there
that might jump at the chance to stay in their beloved airframe.. or maybe
I just misread them.
~Rob