US naval aviation operating from land bases?

Hello,

i'm wondering, if it would be possible for USN squadrons to do combat operations not from the carrier, but from land bases. Be it naval bases, USAF bases or airbases/airports of allied countries.

Has there been situations in the past, where this did happen? If so, for what reasons?

I'm asking because of the new and upcoming carrier-based aircrafts in dcs and the problem of maybe wanting them to be land based for specific mission design reasons...

thanks. any infos appreciated!

Some training is clearly going to be done from land bases. For combat history, no idea.

Probably worth googling if navy planes were given land bases during either gulf war.

When USN squadrons are not deployed to carriers, they fly from their home bases in the US.

One example of doing land base ops would be if there was something wrong with the carrier. Just like Russians did with units from Kuznetsov that flew missions over Syria from land bases.

Take a look at this article...

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/revealed-secret-f-14-tomcats-covered-commandos-iraq-2003-25411

Hello,

i'm wondering, if it would be possible for USN squadrons to do combat operations not from the carrier, but from land bases. Be it naval bases, USAF bases or airbases/airports of allied countries.

Has there been situations in the past, where this did happen? If so, for what reasons?

Ones I'm aware of without doing further research:

• Al Asad airbase, Iraq

FA-18 lands on a runway using the M-31 expeditionary arresting gear at Al Asad air base, Iraq.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/lakehurst/about.cfm?ContentID=EAFPhoto&NavlID=About&NavgID=Standard&NavgID2=About

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Asad_Airbase

• Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan

The Marine Corps released an interesting update this morning: An AV-8B Harrier squadron out of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz., will soon replace a Hornet squadron out of MCAS Beaufort, S.C. in Afghanistan.

 

Yuma’s Marine Attack Squadron 513 has arrived at Kandahar Airfield, and will replace Beaufort’s Fighter Attack Squadron 122 beginning today, according to this news release.

 

Like the Hornet squadron, VMA-513 will operation from KAF to provide close air support to Marine and Afghan forces in southwestern Afghanistan. They’re scrambled in for help when there are “troops in contact” with the enemy on the ground, typically known as a TIC.

http://battlerattle.marinecorpstimes.com/2011/05/24/marine-harriers-to-replace-hornet-jets-in-afghanistan/

Navy and USMC regularly operate from land bases. There are plenty of stateside NAS's, to a civilian they'd be almost indistinguishable from AF bases, and they operate from in-theater operational bases as well.

My first experience with the Navy was in Afghanistan. There was a squadron of E/A-6B's based right next to us. I was AF but got to know some of those guys pretty well. I remember a lot of them were happy to not be aboard ship. The base also regularly had extended operational visits from Harriers, and the occasional F-18 as well.

thanks for all the infos and links. much appreciated!

@quinncidence: very interesting. i see why the usmc are happy to utilize land bases, since they don't have their own carriers, but what do you reckon was the navys motivation to base assets on land bases? i would guess just to take some pressure off the carriers and maybe to just spread assets for shorter flight times?

AFAIK, there could be a several reason:

- Time on targets; how long would it take for aircraft to be there. This was a factor when USN units flew over Afghanistan.

- Loiter time

- Tanker availability

- Training. Sounds crazy, but they still have to do some training missions while forward deploy. At least we did in the USAF.

- Logistics

- Cost

- Maintenance

All the reasons mvsgas listed are good ones. Kabul is damn far from any bodies of water. The E/A-6B also has a unique and very specialized mission, it's likely they were there just because they were needed.

thanks again. great information here.

So a navy squadron's deployment could look like that

- sqdr. being stationed/training at home base in the u.s.

- fly-in on the carrier together with other sqdrs

- sailing to deployment area on ship

- in combat theatre flying sorties from the carrier

- should the need arise, parts of the sqdr including support setting up shop on a land base, due to possible reasons mentioned in this thread

- potentially sqsdr. flying sorties from both carrier and land base

- on end of deployment, all back on board, sailing back to u.s. on ship

- when back in u.s. sqdr. flys back to it's home base

is this more or less, how this would work? if you start thinking about it, you realize that naval aviation is quite complicated logistically...

thanks again. great information here.

 

So a navy squadron's deployment could look like that

 

- sqdr. being stationed/training at home base in the u.s.

- fly-in on the carrier together with other sqdrs

- sailing to deployment area on ship

- in combat theatre flying sorties from the carrier

- should the need arise, parts of the sqdr including support setting up shop on a land base, due to possible reasons mentioned in this thread

- potentially sqsdr. flying sorties from both carrier and land base

- on end of deployment, all back on board, sailing back to u.s. on ship

- when back in u.s. sqdr. flys back to it's home base

 

is this more or less, how this would work? if you start thinking about it, you realize that naval aviation is quite complicated logistically...

All military things are complicated logistically speaking. Think about it, for every aircraft station somewhere, you need mechanics, you need the people for the fuel, someone to order parts, there's security, someone has to get food, a doc, etc, etc.

Units may not use the carrier at all, they may fly straight from home base to the deploy location, depending on the missions requirements. They may use a tanker or fly airport to airport. They may take all their aircraft or just 2 or 4. They may take their own support group or use another. I taken care of other units assets before. It all depends. You may have aircraft from one unit, pilots from another, maintenance from a 3rd units. What ever meets the need for the mission.

You may have aircraft from one unit, pilots from another, maintenance from a 3rd units.

I never witnessed that much interchangeability. My experience is that aircraft/pilots/flightline maintenance in a squadron stuck together like glue. I don't think I ever saw a front line pilot jump in a jet that didn't have his name on the side. There's a little more fluidity on the maintenance side during deployment transitions, but that was just a consequence of having two squadrons occupying the same space for a short period. Backshop (if available at all) and Support personnel could be different from your home base during a deployment though.

That's not to say one doesn't get around in-theater. There were plenty of "need a hand?" and "can you spare a warm body?" instances. I helped out with F-15's, 747's, C-130's. Even Army Chinooks and Black Hawks. And most interestingly, an Mi-8 flown by some serious looking civilian-clothed Americans.

naval deployments are often less logistically complicated. they are designed to be a fleet in being, and so bring most of the stuff they will need with them.

you don't need to fly in supplies (that often, anyway) or personnel. they will sail from wherever they are, whether that's a forward base or the states.

"where will the carrier get avgas/weapons/defenses/food/personnel/maintenance etc."

"ah, the carrier is ****ing enormous and has a surface group with it. so it will bring all the stuff with it."

granted it's escorts will still need fuel (from a refueling ship) and you have to replenish occasionally via dock or picking it up somewhere. but you don't need huge, unwieldy air / land bridges unless you need tankers to get your tactical air somewhere, as that's not a capability USN has anymore. (save buddy store i guess)

to answer your question, yes though. nothing prevents hornets operating from whatever airfield they want, except maybe the air force getting upset with them and wanting to be the ones to handle it instead.

Grew up around Miramar, great experience

And most interestingly, an Mi-8 flown by some serious looking civilian-clothed Americans.

Interesting indeed, care to elaborate?

Haha, no.

Even if I could I probably wouldn't, but the truth is that those guys weren't the conversational types. ;)

The Navy and Marine Corps build their squadrons around the concept of being independent deployable units, so one squadron can be sent independently to a location or to the boat as part of a carrier air wing (CVW). When a USN/USMC squadron deploys, it leaves its shore based air wing (which is an administrative air wing) to join an operational air wing (like a CVW) or as an independent deployer (we often deployed to CTF-72 in Japan and became CTF-72.4). Often, the stateside (administrative) air wing would provide additional support in this regard as required, as well as tending to the needs of a stateside family during emergencies. Similarly, a squadron deploying as part of a CVW is still responsible for its own operations budget and maintenance, though with the Super Hornet airframe making the CVW more homogeneous this may allow for some more cross-over assistance within a CVW.

The big takeaway here is that our logistics are our own. We were responsible for maintaining our own aircraft, we had our own operations budget, and we could detach to other sites and use the existing infrastructure while independently tending to our own needs.

I don't think I ever saw a front line pilot jump in a jet that didn't have his name on the side.

That sounds very strange to me. Did you guys have to change names that often?

So, if pilot "A" is assigned to aircraft #1 and pilot "B" is assigned to aircraft #2. Then Pilot A goes on vacation, and aircraft #2 breaks, pilot B can't fly plane #1? So aircraft #1 will sit and pilot B will lose training because he is not assigned to that aircraft? What happens if aircraft # 1 is the only one ready but pilot "A" is on crew rest, They won't fly the mission?

Strange.

When I was deployed to Al Udeid AB in Qatar, I was with the 31FW, 31AMXS, 510AMU. We had to work on Two ANG units aircraft. One left the aircraft there for a while before it send pilots back to take them. We inspected the aircraft and launch them. We also had to refuel and inspect another guard units while pilots rested for the night. We left our aircraft there and the 555th AMU took over for the next 3 months. I think they were mix aircraft from both our AMU. I remember being in Kunsan, 8FW, 8 AMXS, 80AMU, when recover and inspected jets form a unit coming TDY...I think they where from Misawa. Or when in Osan, helping ROKAF with their F-16.

Anyway, everybody got their different experience I guess.

That sounds very strange to me. Did you guys have to change names that often?

So, if pilot "A" is assigned to aircraft #1 and pilot "B" is assigned to aircraft #2. Then Pilot A goes on vacation, and aircraft #2 breaks, pilot B can't fly plane #1? So aircraft #1 will sit and pilot B will lose training because he is not assigned to that aircraft? What happens if aircraft # 1 is the only one ready but pilot "A" is on crew rest, They won't fly the mission?

Ah yeah, didn't think about it that way. For every launch we had one or two spares ready to go as backup. So I did see pilots step into planes without their name on it. Quite frequently. Stateside the spares were often unassigned aircraft (not always though), and launching 12-15 aircraft for a training sortie there was ~50% chance someone was stepping into a spare. But if the spare was uncooperative too, or already spoken for, yeah, the pilot sat that one out.

Your deployment experience sounds like what I described. Fluidity during transition and a lot of helping out. We had a one or two left-behind jets for a couple weeks when we first showed up but we didn't fly them.

We left our aircraft there and the 555th AMU took over for the next 3 months. I think they were mix aircraft from both our AMU.

Now I think that's extremely strange. We always came and left with our aircraft. If a plane was grounded it got left behind with its pilot, a crew chief, and one or two maintainers, depending on the problem. Sometimes that meant a week or more standing around with your thumb up your butt waiting on parts, but we always stayed with our planes. What the heck did you do for three months without jets?!

What the heck did you do for three months without jets?!

We had their jets. So triple nickle stayed at Aviano AB while we first deploy to Al Udeid AB From Nov 03 to Feb 04. We took a mix of 555FS jets and ours (510th) to Al Udeid IIRC. In Feb04, they send their maintenance guys and move into our tents ( that was fun since we did not leave for two days so basically homeless until our ride showed up) and they took over the jets at AL Udeid and we the jets that where left at Aviano.

Ohhhhhh! Your squadron had a twin under the same fighter wing at the same home base! :doh:

Now it makes a lot more sense, no wonder you shared a lot.