When Was the Decision Made

KJ_Lesnick · October 31, 2015, 02:13:11 AM

For the USN and USMC to use the same planes? Early on they didn't always...

Teddz · October 31, 2015, 03:55:55 AM

It's been going on for a long time, however, due to the current economic situation and subsequent budget cuts, the use of the same aircraft in both USN & USMC is more prevalent.

Ed S · October 31, 2015, 07:07:31 AM

They still have some that aren't used by both. The Marines have been using the Harrier which the Navy doesn't. Also, IIRC, the AH-1 is also only used by the Marines.

Ed

Captain Canada · October 31, 2015, 07:10:23 AM

That's why kids think the Marine Corps are cooler....the Harrier and the Cobra !

kerick · October 31, 2015, 10:17:58 AM

In the later years of their usage the Navy used the A-7 Corsair while the Marines stuck with the A-4 Skyhawk. The Marines never used the Corsair, opting for the Harrier to replace Skyhawks.

Teddz has a good point. It makes good economic sense for Navy and Marines to use the same aircraft as long as the missions are nearly the same. As for when it was decided, that would take some searching through history books.

sandiego89 · October 31, 2015, 03:43:04 PM

And since the US Marines are part of the Department of the Navy, and Navy procured, it makes sense that most airframes are common. Some notable later exceptions, that were mostly only used by the Marines:

Harrier, OV-10 Bronco, SeaCobra, UH1-Z, MV-22 (but coming to the Navy for COD)

Many earlier examples. A good list in this paper: http://www.mcu.usmc.mil%2Fhistorydivision%2FPages%2FPublications%2FPublication%2520PDFs%2FMarine%2520Corps%2520Aircraft%25201913-2000%2520PCN%252019000411600.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGeZmVXBwfiysndHY8JiFpqelUERw

KJ_Lesnick · October 31, 2015, 05:55:59 PM

Okay, let me reframe this: When was the decision first made that the USN's carrier based fighters, dive-bombers would be used by the USMC?

Rick Lowe · October 31, 2015, 08:03:46 PM

Quote from: Captain Canada on October 31, 2015, 07:10:23 AM
That's why kids think the Marine Corps are cooler....the Harrier and the Cobra !

Concur!

wuzak · October 31, 2015, 10:22:05 PM

Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on October 31, 2015, 05:55:59 PM
Okay, let me reframe this: When was the decision first made that the USN's carrier based fighters, dive-bombers would be used by the USMC?

Probably from the first time the USMC and USN got aircraft.

Logan Hartke · October 31, 2015, 11:15:24 PM

In a way, you could say that the decision for the two to operate the same aircraft types was made in 1834, when Congress passed the Act for the Better Organization of the Marine Corps, stipulating that the Corps was part of the Department of the Navy as a sister service to the Navy. Since then, they have worked closely with naval forces for training, transportation, and logistics. Naturally, this means that they share many equipment types and aircraft are just one component of that logistical tail. Once the US Navy managed to get enough aircraft to have a useful surplus, the USMC started operating those. As they say, "beggars can't be choosers".

Things have actually gotten better since the Korean War when the future of the USMC has gotten a bit more stable and the funding a bit more steady. The USMC could afford to operate unique types like the AV-8 Harrier and CH-46 Sea Knight. In fact, after the Cold War ended and the existence of the USMC was once again called into question, the USMC began to see these unique equipment types as a method to validate their existence. It's tough to claim that the USMC is "just another army" or "just another branch of naval aviation" when they possess a lot of capabilities that the other two services lack. Examples of this are the VTOL F-35B JSF and VTOL V-22 Osprey. Does the USMC really need all that specialized capability? Probably not. Is that the best use of their funding? Certainly not. Is it the best decision for the future of the USMC? Absolutely.

Previously, the USMC's equipment was an economic expedience. Now, their equipment is a political necessity.

Cheers,

Logan

KJ_Lesnick · November 02, 2015, 11:32:22 AM

Logan Hartke,

I'm not sure if it was in the 1920's or 1930's but I remember something happening then

sandiego89 · November 02, 2015, 02:02:51 PM

Good post Logan- the very last thing the USMC wants to be touted as is "another Army" or "2 more Army Divisions" or they run the risk of being declared redundant. Being unique, largely self supporting (with organic air support), able to come from the sea and highly maneuverable sets them apart.

-Dave

jcf · November 03, 2015, 09:45:00 AM

Go to these links and read this book:

http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/Marine%20Corps%20Aviation%20The%20Early%20Years%201912-1940%20PCN%2019000316800_1.pdf

http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/Marine%20Corps%20Aviation%20The%20Early%20Years%201912-1940%20PCN%2019000316800_2.pdf

KJ_Lesnick · November 03, 2015, 09:44:07 PM

Thank you

AS.12 · November 05, 2015, 12:48:22 PM

There have been some rare instances when USMC aircraft decisions flowed back to the Navy; VAL-4 used OV-10s for riverine support in Vietnam, for example. The first few were borrowed from the Marines but subsequent were purchased from NAA.

The other complication for the Marines was that whilst part of the Department of the Navy their small-arms procurement was through the Army Ordnance Department. It was the latter which pulled strings to deny their request for 300,000 Stoner 63 rifles and foisted more M16s upon the Marines in the name of commonality.

Though after the Ordnance Department was abolished by McNamara the Army still kindly procured all sorts of equipment for the Marines such as ammo pouches ! Strange world...