AV-8/Harrier discussion.

[Bernard Woolley]

Since it came up in the Production discussion. Here is a dedicated thread.

We did establish a while back that the AV-8B line went to Canada, where it was used to build what were in effect Canadian GR.5s. McDD did also send materials to the U.K. to allow BAe to make all of the components of the GR.5 in country.

That we did. Though we never did fully resolve the Harrier issue for the USMC (The RAG and two VMA Squadrons had reequipped with the B, and a third was working though the transition in Sep '85).

Harrier to Harrier transition was one thing. The Cherry Point VMAT (203) was the Harrier RAG, Yuma (VMAT-102) still flew the Skyhawk. 513 and 542 at Yuma went from A to B in triple time because of the A having a horrible attrition rate.

Skyhawk to Harrier transition came to a crashing halt because the United States was exactly the wrong theater for any flavor of Harrier.

Skyhawk to Harrier transition came to a crashing halt because the United States was exactly the wrong theater for any flavor of Harrier.

I dunno if I'd go THAT far. The hot and high regions, Okay you have a point there, but I seem to remember seeing them in East Texas a few times and they did just fine there. They never flew without top cover mind you, but the Harrier wasn't that bad of a ship for CAS. No worse than a Skyhawk I'd imagine.

@ AV-8A/C Stuff

Some information I had filed away from previous times we've had this conversation . . .

102 AV-8A Built
- 38 AV-8A Lost through September 1985
- 47 Conversions to AV-8C
= 17 AV-8A in September 1985

8 TAV-8A Built
- 2 TAV-8A Lost through September 1985

47 AV-8C Built (CLIOP)
- 11 Lost through September 1985
= 36 AV-8C in September 1985

53 AV-8A/C were theoretically available in September 1985. They were divided among a single training squadron and two or three operational squadrons.
As far as I can tell, no AV-8A/C were deployed to Okinawa or with an MAU in September 1985. So all should have been in CONUS.

VMAT-203:
VMA-231: AV-8B from September 1985. That date in no way implies IOC, let along FOC.
VMA-542: AV-8A/C until April 1986
VMA-513: AV-8A/C until October 1987

Going off of memory, Poobah has feelings on the matter of their survivability in the field given the nature of the ground war. Hopefully he'll refresh our memories. I do recall he had grave doubts about AV-8Bs being combat capable early in the war.

Others had memories of the Harries going to see on LPH/LHA as part of those ships operating in the Sea Control role.
Two issues there:
1) When everything including the kitchen sink is being thrown in to try to slow down the Red Horde, how many of those 53 AV-8A/C even made it to D+10? If the fleet is largely wiped out and most Marines never see an AV-8, but they do see plenty of Marine A-4s and later A-7s, just who the hell is really clamoring for the AV-8B?
2) If they are off playing Sea Control with the Navy, they aren't supporting marines on the ground. That's not likely to leave a good taste with most of the Corps.

Related to #1 above, the Kola Raid is in May 1987. Any survivors are likely to go on that raid because if they don't, what the hell are we doing spending resources supporting the things if they aren't used to support Marines during an amphibious assault?

Oh, the TAV-8B first flight was 21 October 1986 @.

The Navy's still going to want to have Harriers for the SCS mission (i.e. Killing Bear-Ds while out of range of land-based fighter cover). Either reform VSF squadrons or get Marines to go to sea in Bs.

It’s most likely going to be the former. Both the Marines and the Air Force are going to want Marine aviation supporting Marine divisions.

That would be VSF-1 and VSF-3, disbanded when the ASW carriers went to mothballs.

Uncase the colors and stand them up.

Pretty sure that was what we decided back on the old board. The two squadrons would sends detachments to phibs doing SCS duty and any MAC/CVE type vessels. Think that the USMC would still want to keep some AV-8s around to support potential amphibious operations.

Once the new CMC realised how bad things were with the Harrier (which was extremely quick), he pitched the Navy taking over the Bs at VMAT-203 and coming off of the Mickey D factory line, while the Marines would shove their pilots through VMAT-102 in the short term (using AMARC Skyhawks, CILOPing A-4Fs to A-4M standard, etc) and in the longer term through VA-122 and VA-174 (the A-7 RAG squadrons) while (a) The Marines pulled A-7A/B/C airframes and had them CILOP'd to what they called the "E-minus" version (they got the TF41 and that was it), (b) Navy STRIKFITRONs stood up with F/A-18s, passing their A-7s to the Marine Corps, and (c) LTV's production engineering team got the A-7E line restarted.

The Navy, who had been desperately wondering how they were going to get the Marines to give up their Harriers for the VSF mission, decided to say yes.

LTV ended up using GM's Willow Run plant as their A-7 production facility. First new production A-7E rolled out in August 1987, delivered to VMA-311. By war's end, most of USMC light attack was A-7s between Navy hand-me-downs, partial CILOPs from the boneyard, and new builds.

[James1978]

Pretty sure that was what we decided back on the old board. The two squadrons would sends detachments to phibs doing SCS duty and any MAC/CVE type vessels. Think that the USMC would still want to keep some AV-8s around to support potential amphibious operations.

My two cents . . .

Has it ever been established if a 6th Marine Air Wing was formed during the war? Because I've been assuming that most of 2nd MAW's helicopters went with 6th MarDiv for the Kola Raid.

So other than the Kola Raid and retaking Iceland, weren't all the Corps' amphibious ops jumping along the Gulf coast? Ops which could be well supported with land-based air?

As I've said before, I'm skeptical enough AV-8A/Cs made it to D+10 to even be worth the resources to maintain the survivors. At that point the timeline to field the AV-8B in meaningful numbers is such that I wonder if they are seen as an unaffordable luxury for the Corps when the required resources can be plowed into A-4s and A-7s. Any surviving AV-8A/C pilots plus their associated maintainers then get told they are joining the "B" program en masse and will be detached to the Navy for the duration.
Post-war, well, who knows.

[Wolfman]

I think, given the POD, that the AV-8B program might just have been sped up enough that the first squadron might be doing transition when the war starts.

[Matt Wiser]

That, I agree.

There would also be a need to have at least one USMC AV-8B squadron available to support amphibious operations from the LHAs. VSF-1 and -3 would be busy with the Sea Control mission and not available for that tasking.

Wikipedia says VMA-331 received its first 12 aircraft by Jan '85, six months prior to Invasion Day.

[Poohbah]

That, I agree.

There would also be a need to have at least one USMC AV-8B squadron available to support amphibious operations from the LHAs. VSF-1 and -3 would be busy with the Sea Control mission and not available for that tasking.

Wikipedia says VMA-331 received its first 12 aircraft by Jan '85, six months prior to Invasion Day.

From my memory, 331 had an OPEVAL det at Yuma in Spring '85, and they did okay, didn't realize that they had all assigned aircraft.

[Poohbah]

Pretty sure that was what we decided back on the old board. The two squadrons would sends detachments to phibs doing SCS duty and any MAC/CVE type vessels. Think that the USMC would still want to keep some AV-8s around to support potential amphibious operations.

My two cents . . .

Has it ever been established if a 6th Marine Air Wing was formed during the war? Because I've been assuming that most of 2nd MAW's helicopters went with 6th MarDiv for the Kola Raid.

So other than the Kola Raid and retaking Iceland, weren't all the Corps' amphibious ops jumping along the Gulf coast? Ops which could be well supported with land-based air?

As I've said before, I'm skeptical enough AV-8A/Cs made it to D+10 to even be worth the resources to maintain the survivors. At that point the timeline to field the AV-8B in meaningful numbers is such that I wonder if they are seen as an unaffordable luxury for the Corps when the required resources can be plowed into A-4s and A-7s. Any surviving AV-8A/C pilots plus their associated maintainers then get told they are joining the "B" program en masse and will be detached to the Navy for the duration.
Post-war, well, who knows.

Fifth and Sixth Marine Air Wings would be needed to handle the new Marine Air Groups needed to handle the additional squadrons. Wing HQ is mostly staff and C2 equipment, so it's not especially hard to set up, and you'd eventually need them due to span of control issues.

You'd need two squadrons for overseas amphibious ops from LHAs. Beyond that, the A-4, A-7, or even the A-10 would be a far better bird for the immediate mission. (I could easily see Hog squadrons getting USMC exchange pilots, who would come back saying "Praise BRRRT!"

[Matt Wiser]

Two B Squadrons, one on each coast for the LHA mission, plus a training squadron, sounds like.

[Poohbah]

Two B Squadrons, one on each coast for the LHA mission, plus a training squadron, sounds like.

VMAT-203 would be the joint USN/USMC RAG at Cherry Point, and both expeditionary squadrons and the VSFs would likely be home based at either Cherry Point as well because that simplifies logistics. They'd send dets to the LPH/LHA decks.

The Harrier would become an absolute backwater with no prospects for career-minded people. The Navy people would know the VSF squadrons would go away once the war was over; the Marines would understand that the Harrier had proven itself insufficiently capable. "MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN" would be the epitaph for the program in the DCMC spaces at HQMC. The Marines might not even get the V/STOL F-24 beyond a straight 1-for-1 Harrier replacement, and the rest of the VMA community would become CATOBAR VMFA squadrons.

[Matt Wiser]

The VSF and USMC AV-8B squadrons would still be busy for a while postwar. As in anti-piracy operations in Indonesian Waters, the China Coast, and both Somalia and Yemen. Once the VSF units are disestablished, their aircraft that are still capable go to the Marines, and you might have a Harrier community that's about as big as it was prewar (three squadrons and a training unit).

[clancyphile]

Fifth and Sixth Marine Air Wings would be needed to handle the new Marine Air Groups needed to handle the additional squadrons. Wing HQ is mostly staff and C2 equipment, so it's not especially hard to set up, and you'd eventually need them due to span of control issues.

You'd need two squadrons for overseas amphibious ops from LHAs. Beyond that, the A-4, A-7, or even the A-10 would be a far better bird for the immediate mission. (I could easily see Hog squadrons getting USMC exchange pilots, who would come back saying "Praise BRRRT!"

Wonder if carrier-capable or STOL A-10s got designed and pushed as a result.

[Poohbah]

Fifth and Sixth Marine Air Wings would be needed to handle the new Marine Air Groups needed to handle the additional squadrons. Wing HQ is mostly staff and C2 equipment, so it's not especially hard to set up, and you'd eventually need them due to span of control issues.

You'd need two squadrons for overseas amphibious ops from LHAs. Beyond that, the A-4, A-7, or even the A-10 would be a far better bird for the immediate mission. (I could easily see Hog squadrons getting USMC exchange pilots, who would come back saying "Praise BRRRT!"

Wonder if carrier-capable or STOL A-10s got designed and pushed as a result.

Probably a design study, but it would lose in the cost/benefits analysis phase, especially considering survivability and its overall mission space.

[Wolfman]

Okay, so do you think the Corps might pick some land-based Warthogs up as a wartime expedient?

[Poohbah]

Okay, so do you think the Corps might pick some land-based Warthogs up as a wartime expedient?

Maybe. By the latter third of the war (LONG RIFLE onward), attrition is going to be fairly high going up against a Category A division; low altitude isn't going to be a particularly good place to be by then, but that's probably right about when the Corps would actually get Hogs... unless the Air Force just does a straight handoff earlier to allow for flying more F-16s (figure that any F-16s slated for export in FY86 get seized immediately at the start of the war). And the Corps has never been completely doctrinaire about carrier capability.

Come to think of it, the only thing that might scare a Soviet unit than the Devil's Cross is seeing the Devil's Cross with a USMC tail code...

[Johnnie Lyle]

Okay, so do you think the Corps might pick some land-based Warthogs up as a wartime expedient?

Maybe. By the latter third of the war (LONG RIFLE onward), attrition is going to be fairly high going up against a Category A division; low altitude isn't going to be a particularly good place to be by then, but that's probably right about when the Corps would actually get Hogs... unless the Air Force just does a straight handoff earlier to allow for flying more F-16s (figure that any F-16s slated for export in FY86 get seized immediately at the start of the war). And the Corps has never been completely doctrinaire about carrier capability.

Come to think of it, the only thing that might scare a Soviet unit than the Devil's Cross is seeing the Devil's Cross with a USMC tail code...

Would they last that long doing gun runs? Or would the predicted attrition of half dead in 48hrs for war in Germany happen?

If the A-10 is restricted to bomb and missile duty, will any more be produced or will resources shift to teenage fighterbombers?

[Poohbah]

Okay, so do you think the Corps might pick some land-based Warthogs up as a wartime expedient?

Maybe. By the latter third of the war (LONG RIFLE onward), attrition is going to be fairly high going up against a Category A division; low altitude isn't going to be a particularly good place to be by then, but that's probably right about when the Corps would actually get Hogs... unless the Air Force just does a straight handoff earlier to allow for flying more F-16s (figure that any F-16s slated for export in FY86 get seized immediately at the start of the war). And the Corps has never been completely doctrinaire about carrier capability.

Come to think of it, the only thing that might scare a Soviet unit than the Devil's Cross is seeing the Devil's Cross with a USMC tail code...

Would they last that long doing gun runs? Or would the predicted attrition of half dead in 48hrs for war in Germany happen?

If the A-10 is restricted to bomb and missile duty, will any more be produced or will resources shift to teenage fighterbombers?

Depends on who you're shooting at and when. Going in low against Category A units was always pretty spicy, but Cat B were easier during the first half of the War. Cat C and below were always hideously vulnerable to air attack.

[Johnnie Lyle]

Maybe. By the latter third of the war (LONG RIFLE onward), attrition is going to be fairly high going up against a Category A division; low altitude isn't going to be a particularly good place to be by then, but that's probably right about when the Corps would actually get Hogs... unless the Air Force just does a straight handoff earlier to allow for flying more F-16s (figure that any F-16s slated for export in FY86 get seized immediately at the start of the war). And the Corps has never been completely doctrinaire about carrier capability.

Come to think of it, the only thing that might scare a Soviet unit than the Devil's Cross is seeing the Devil's Cross with a USMC tail code...

Would they last that long doing gun runs? Or would the predicted attrition of half dead in 48hrs for war in Germany happen?

If the A-10 is restricted to bomb and missile duty, will any more be produced or will resources shift to teenage fighterbombers?

Depends on who you're shooting at and when. Going in low against Category A units was always pretty spicy, but Cat B were easier during the first half of the War. Cat C and below were always hideously vulnerable to air attack.

Varsity draws varsity, though.

[Poohbah]

Would they last that long doing gun runs? Or would the predicted attrition of half dead in 48hrs for war in Germany happen?

If the A-10 is restricted to bomb and missile duty, will any more be produced or will resources shift to teenage fighterbombers?

Depends on who you're shooting at and when. Going in low against Category A units was always pretty spicy, but Cat B were easier during the first half of the War. Cat C and below were always hideously vulnerable to air attack.

Varsity draws varsity, though.

And we were the Pros from Dover, always looking for the Pop Warner teams...

[Matt Wiser]

Cat 1 air defenses were usually the SA-6/8 at Division, with SA-9/13 and ZSU-23-4 at Regiment. Later, select prewar Cat 2 got SA-11 at divisional level and ZSU-30-2 at Regiment. As things went on, though, most A and B stuck with what they had prewar or when they deployed. Cat 3 was a mix: some had a SAM regiment, others did not-still having a regiment of 57-mm S-60 guns. Some had ZSU-23-4 and SA-9, others had ZSU-57 and no missiles at regiment. And Mobilization-Only? Try having that AAA regiment with 57-mm-or worse, WW II era 37-mm, and making do at regimental level with either ZU-23 or ZPU-2 mounted on the backs of trucks or BTR-152 APCs. They did try MANPADS in quantity to make up for the lack of heavy SAMs, though.

Needless to say, you always assumed the bad guys were at the top of their game and ready to react when you came calling via TacAir.

[Bernard Woolley]

The Soviets and their allies also used the old North Vietnamese trick of putting cables across valleys. Was very bad news for any low flying fast jet. Did for a lot of Hawg pilots carrying out gun runs.