Swanee
-
Posts
107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Swanee
-
-
He was a good friend of one of my bros. Family was notified that remains were found. He left behind 4 kids, I think.
This year has been rough so far in the Hornet community.
-
What Infantry officer joins the USMC and after three years gets told to be in charge of the chow hall?
This happens more than you think. Less than 50% of Infantry types even given the option to stay in after their first tour, and for every 4 or 5 Lts in a rifle company only one will become a Company Commander. After their first tour they go do such grunty jobs like recruiting, they are in charge of platoons of Marines at OCS, or TBS or they are series commanders at boot camp. Have 3 combat tours, one as a line platoon commander, second as a weapons platoon commander and third as a Company XO? Sounds great 1st Lt, why don't you go into officer recruiting, or teach at an ROTC unit, or go work in an H&S company. If you get your ducks in a row and complete Expeditionary Warfighting School first as a correspondence student, then do it again in residence you might go back to command a MARSOC platoon or perhaps a line rifle or weapons company. Oh, you did that anyway? Sorry, we don't have a company for you, instead we have this great MAGTF staff job for you. I hope you enjoy living on a small deck carrier/LHD/LHA/LPD for 6-9 months at a time, just like if you were in the Navy. Then as soon as you become a senior Captain or Major you're back in a B billet, then off to work on more staffs. Oh, and as a Marine hope and pray you stay with the Marine Corps. If you get a joint tour and you aren't the #1 performer and don't have FITREPs that say you are a water walker you're going to be treated like you did something wrong. Why? Because Marines are supposed to be better than EVERYONE else at EVERYTHING. Period dot. Yut yut, ooh rah, devil dog, semper fi....
The infantry world chews guys up and spits them out worse than the aviation world does.
-
2
-
-
Shut up, stay in position and don't hit lead.
-
How is it that multiple fighter MWS' have this issue but it's not an issue in heavies (specifically 130's)? We def never experience this issue...
You guys carry a shit ton more flares than we do?
-
1
-
-
From what I understand, you don't really have a direct view of the ground below you when landing, and have to rely on various cues or help from below. How was this addressed with carrier landings?
Probably the same way it has been addressed in any CV based airplane since we've been landing on boats- with LSOs. Those dudes can get you aboard when you can't see anything - including the entire boat.
This is a pass to a waveoff but you get the idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNup2SLicHU
-
Now if only it could take off from a short deck boat.... F-35B problem solved.
-
1
-
-
I question how a helmet mounted cueing system that kills you if you eject too fast passed into active service. We don't mitigate that risk at all - we just accept it because we have no other choice. I can't knock off my JHMCS like I do my NVGs.
To say that ACES II is so safe that we shouldn't be developing or investigating new technologies is unsat in my opinion. I love that my seat is 0/0, but it'd be great if it wouldn't dislocate my knees and potentially break my back in an ejection.
I hear you WRT the JHMCS. Thinking about it now all we brief is "Body position on the way up, IROC on the way down." How do we fix that? With a neck/helmet strap that retracts your head into a good, stable position?
Though we don't really have that many issues with our MB NACES seats- like I said 11 dudes used them and all of them hit the ground only in pretty damn good shape. The leg garters can be a pain to put on (especially in the dark while wearing a dry suit) but they work pretty well to protect our legs from not only flail injuries but also making sure we clear the instrument panel.
-
NVG's? Ejection Seat Safety: Senators Push for Review.
Perhaps the Senators should educate themselves on current egress technology. The seats we have now are pretty damn safe. In my short career I've known of 5 guys who have ejected out of a Goshawk, 4 that have ejected out of Hornets or Super Hornets, and 2 that have ejected out of Harriers. All of them were okay and returned to flight status.
Neck safety = limiting the ability for you to move your neck/head. That's not going to work in a fighter cockpit. Everyone who flies with NVGs and/or JHMCS knows the risk and how to mitigate it.
-
3
-
-
This argument is taking on some cool facets. While the Internets does lend itself to some "WTF is this (insert service here) douchebag even thinking?!" Truth be told, if we're ever at the same Oclub at the same time, I'd buy the first round.
The question/argument being posed is that the Marines don't need 5th (or even 4.5 or 4?) gen fighters completely organic to the MEU. I'll argue that for the Marine Corps to stay viable as the 911 service of the DoD, we have to. We have to be the most ready when the rest of the Nation and military is the least ready. We have to be able to kick in doors anywhere in the world whether the AF can get the F-22s, the Navy can get the Growlers, the Army can get the armor there or not. If you guys can get your assets there and go kinetic with us- awesome- your system worked flawlessly. But we are the insurance policy for when the system breaks down and someone can't get there in time. We may be a small force, but we're just buying you guys some time. It's an expensive policy, but I don't think it's one that the nation can live without.
Part of that expense can come from reducing the amount of forward deployed units. How many flight hours, gas, etc... do we spend constantly flying our jets across oceans? A lot. VMFA(AW)-### just used almost 2 months worth of flight hours flying home from their UDP in Iwakuni to Beaufort. It's a lot cheaper, and a much more quality X if you spend that X training instead of transiting.
I like the idea of the F-22 Expeditionary program. Especially when the ACE on the MEU says, " Holy shit, we're gonna need some more help quick." But we're not going to stop and wait. We're going to press, knowing that in 24 hours we're going to have some more help from big brother bringing even more ass kicking power. That makes us more lethal. It improves our ability to not have to stop and wait. The more time we wait, the more time the bad guys have to either dig in and prepare or move forward. We want to be able to take that away.
-
Indeed, there is some good stuff there. The OV-10G is a cool airplane with a lot of capabilities in the air to surface realm.
I still think that someone has to provide alert DCA for the ESG. Deploying 6 ships and a sub without air cover is... well, there is a huge hole in the defense there. Leaving an entire MEU susceptible to a something so widely proliferated as a Bison carrying archer and exocet missiles is scary.
The Navy won't deploy the ESG with the CSG on "routine" patrols. It's just way to expensive and limits power projection.
Libya still had SA nodes that limited the Harrier's ability to conduct ops without Prowler support. The AF has left the tactical EA business.
"Where I can see the Marines actually using the MEU capability is in the litany of situations where the lower cost, lower tech options will more than suffice in escorting V-22s, conducting ISR and overwatch, and providing supporting air-to-ground fires. Perfect fit with the TRAP concept, embassy evac, contingency response (Benghazi-esq attacks), disaster relief, etc. That's where the MEU provides the bang for the buck...if we're kicking the door into Syria or Iran or N. Korea and really need 5th gen fighters you've got two other services that pretty much do that shit for a living."
This is a legit argument. I agree with you 95%. The way the Marine Corps is being used now is wrong. We are not a land army. However, TRAP still needs OCA and EA in many places in the world. If shit goes south in a country and we need to evac an embassy- it may not be a permissive environment that we have to fly into. Are there still shit hot pilots and aircrew who would risk everything to go into contested airspace to bring Americans home? You bet your ass. But shouldn't we be able to give them the best chance to bring them home? Perhaps this argument could go hand in hand with why the AF needs bases around the world with as much tanker support as possible. But even then- when you're on the ground running, minutes is what matters, and getting a section of F-22s from England to North Africa is in the hours timeframe. Launching a C model from the CSG would reduce that time, but again, what if the CSG isn't with the ESG?
You are 100% correct that a MEU isn't going to kick in the door to Syria, Iran or NK, but it can be expected that the MEU will be there. At that point will the ground forces give up control of their air support? I don't know. I do know that there will be a Marine Col who will make one hell of a stink when the air support he needs doesn't exist because it is off supporting someone else. We played that game in WW2- it's an old argument, but one that isn't forgotten easily. Many Marines lost their lives on an island in the Pacific because the Navy and the Air Force went off to fight their own battles. We vowed that it wouldn't happen again. There is a lot of emotion there, and a lot of bad blood. It has driven us to where we are today.
Don't take me for an F-35 tried and true kool aide drinking guy. We've worn our Hornets out (literally, worn the hell out of them, we have serious readiness issues at home) flying ISR and light attack missions where that OV-10 or Super T would have been not only an equal, but a better asset wrt time on station and ordnance carry. You don't need an F/A to fight the war in Afghanistan. Hornets flying combat missions over AFG is a complete waste of money.
-
1
-
-
This is not personal. I like the Marine Corps. They do some really great shit, have a historic past, and are great Americans. But you appear to be so wrapped up in "doctrine" that you're missing the entire point. The F-35B hurts the combat capability of America. All MEF and MAGTF arguments aside we are giving the warfighter an inferior product. And not only are we giving the guys who are going to fly the B model an inferior product, we are adding literal and figurative weight around the neck of the A and C model because of it.
Now we are talking, and I understand what you're saying.
So, the question is: how do we do it? How do we give the ESG (and by extension the MAGTF) the air that it needs? What do we replace the Harrier and the Hornet with? How do we give the ground component the air they need while keeping the capabilities that we need to support them? How do we ensure that the forward deployed guys will ALWAYS have the OCA, DCA, EA and Strike capability needed?
BTW- interesting aside, most people thing the Harrier will be replaced first. This is not true, as our A and C model Hornets are falling apart. Some of our Ds are newer than the oldest lot Super Hornets, but we are flying the wings off of our older stuff.
-
Well, there were two guys on the ground and they weren't shot down. But much thanks to your TRAP brothers. Awesome work from the Marines and great to have them nearby.
You're right. They weren't shot down, in my haste it was the easiest way to get the point across. Crashed is shorter, but... it doesn't sound right. Either way, the point was the last part of your post.
-
Ugh...
"Just because" the United States has used a capability in the past does not mean it is the smartest, most capable, and effective use of the tax payer's money. It also does not give the warfighter the best capability.
There's that "rapid deployment" word again. I'm still waiting for an answer for how long it takes the MEU to get to the "kick the door down" location. And how "rapid" was Desert Storm, OIF, and OEF? Here is a hint, none of them started overnight or even in under a month. In fact, OIF had about 20 years of build up behind it.
Doctrine and "because we've always done it that way" is not a reason to be foolish and inefficient with limited funds. Even with unlimited funds its still a poor way to run the military and acquisitions. People made the same arguments about knights and bow and arrows, tanks replacing horses, and airplanes sinking battle ships.
The MEU is not going anywhere by themselves. You aren't going to send an MEU into a location with SA-15s, SA-18s, and SA-22s without support. And I hate to break it to you, but 4-6 F-35Bs aren't going to do anything against those threats. So why spend billions of dollars on a miniature carrier to carry 4-6 F-35Bs when you're just going to send an entire aircraft carrier with it?
Let me get this straight, you agree that the MEU does not deploy by itself, it usually has a CSG in support of it. So if a CSG has by your count, 48 F-35Bs to an MEU's 4-6 and they usually deploy together, what again is the purpose of having F-35Bs in an MEU? So that the MEU can run an intercept on a MIG-21? But the CSG is there with it?
Do the Marines want a capability or do they want an airplane? I think they want both, because without a new airplane the MEU is outdated, and even with a new airplane the MEU and MAGTF are at best duplicative and excessive.
Don't kid yourselves. This is not about capability, it's about maintaing fixed wing aviation in the Marine Corps.
No one is shitting on the Marine Corps, and most on here don't want them to go away, but its this kind of "head in the sand" thinking that it going to strip the warfighter of the real combat capabilities that are needed, and eventually bankrupt our nation.
Cancel the F-35B, and focus on improving the F-35A/C? And don't use the "too big to fail" argument, or the "get over it, this is happening bro" argument.
UGH yourself bro.
Read MCDP-1. It's not long, and you may learn something from it.
You're taking that out of context to be argumentative. Afg has been a purple fight. The Marine Corps isn't designed to work in a coalition, that is a fault of ours yes. That doesn't mean that we won't fight by ourselves. It just makes working with other services more difficult. However, because we focus on only having other Marine assets to work with it doesn't bog us down.
We have 3 MEUs constantly deployed in different AORs than the CSG, for different reasons. They are never far away, and most times (unless we are dealing with Korea, Eastern Europe or Afghanistan) they are the closest asset. The 31st MEU is always deployed, the 11th, 13th, and 15th on the west coast are always rotating with one deployed, one just back and one working up for their next deployment (similar to how a CSG cycle works). The guys who are in works up are also the "On call" MEU in case we need another MEU there. The same is with the 22nd, 24th and 26th MEUs.
Each MEU is flexible. Yes, a standard MEU has a battalion, a few skids, a bunch of Ospreys and 4-6 Harriers and some arty and some armor. However that is flexible. They've had MEUs with 18 airplanes and less helos or Ospreys or arty. You can have a MEU (SOC) or a MEU (+), and holy crap you can mobilize a MEB, or a MEF really quickly. Like time frame of hours quickly. Not days.
The other think you don't understand is that Marine Air is owned by the ground commander. It's how we work. It's all about combined arms.
So what is the most effective use of taxpayers money?
What capability do we have now that replaces the MEU that will save us money? How does deploying the MEU with the CSG save us any money? It doesn't- it only adds to the cost. Now, instead of a large fleet and a medium fleet that can go in two separate places and operate with or without each other, you are creating one huge fleet.
Libya happened fairly quickly and is a great example of how a MEU is still valid- and guess who saved your Mudhen buddy after he got shot down? A TRAP team from the 26th MEU sitting off of the coast in an LHD. Harriers were flying constantly off of the boat to conduct strike missions. Even Marine Prowlers were getting their Magnum on. Why? Because the CSGs were in another part of the world conducting ops into Afghanistan.
-
Swanee, I know you want to be this all contained unit, but can you name me the last time a MAGTAF operated completely by itself and do you honestly believe that Marines would ever go ashore without the support of a carrier strike group or other support entities (I.e. A place that requires a 5th generation fighter not Greneda or similar)? I'm not talking what the vision is or what you want, I'm talking realistically.
Yes. This is something that the Marine Corps does very poorly. We declare interoperability yet our systems only work with other Marine units. We forget that it's not even a joint war anymore, it's a combined war.
To be honest, most of the time went ashore there were carriers in support.
However, It IS reasonable to think that the MEU would be the first one's through the door, the AF can't be everywhere, and with the Navy's current financial issues, we're going to start seeing our ESG and CSG patrols a few days apart from each other. It's a way to project power on a lesser scale. A MEU usually has 4-6 Harriers. Much less than a CSGs 4 squadrons of 12. That's a cheaper option.
But we need a replacement for the Harrier. One that can do the CAS thing as well as run an intercept on a Bison and expect to win every time.
-
Because the Commandant of the USMC has accepted the risk of placing them in operational squadrons before DT is even complete. That's also why that variant can fly in some WX despite lacking instrument certification.
There is precedent for this-
The E-2C (and D) isn't certified to fly to fly IFR either.
-
So we cut the F-22 production because it was too expensive, in favor of the "cheaper" F-35; which is now more expensive. This is why we are broke.
Yep. And we act surprised when the new advanced weapons system is more expensive than what we've got now.
Price check on the value of an 18inch color TV from Sears in 1980 vs a current LG 55inch flat panel LED with wireless internet connectivity, multiple audio and video decoders, and fully customizable picture qualities.
It is true that you can watch the superbowl on either one, but which one do you really want in your house?
-
Question for Swanee:
Just looking at the dimensions of an LHD, using the USS Bataan as an example, which is about 850 feet x 105, pretty close to the size of some smaller carriers operated by the French or Brazilians, why didn't the USMC build straight deck pocket carriers and look for a light strike fighter that could do STOBAR operations to keep it simple? Serious question as it would seem a lot less technically difficult and still be Marine owned and operated?
Agreed - the dye is cast for better or worse but why did USMC Aviation keep going with the idea of VSTOL fighters after the known performance limitations of the AV-8 and the lift-fan limitations/problems with the B model?
It's more expensive to build a whole new class of ship. I'm not sure why the Navy designed their amphibs the way they did- probably had to do with the well deck and how much space that takes up. (Though the new LPD doesn't have a well deck...)
As far as sticking with VSTOL, it goes back to the organic fixed wing issue. We used to have a lot more squadron deploy with the CVW on carriers. We now only have 3 squadrons that do that. We're getting smaller, and want all of our air support as part of the MAGTF. We're given the issue that the MEU will always be on amphibs. Until a better idea about to how to get that capability comes along I guess we throw money at the problem to fix it. It worked with the Osprey.
NSPlayer- what do you think the role of Marine Air is?
This paraphrase pretty much nails it: Sorry bro, this airplane is happening, and it's better than what we've got now.
-
False.
As Champ kindly points out, I am a nav (the horror!) but check out what this guys has to say.
BL: Although it sounds great in a world where $$ is no object and we can overcome any technical problem, I just don't see the fundamental need for launching 5th gen fighters off of the Corps' small carriers. Not at the price we're paying for that capability. I get that the Marines want organic air and they can have organic air, in a lower-tech package that we can actually afford produce successfully. The author proposes OV-10s or Super Ts, airplanes I think would fit a lot of bills in both the Marine Corps and the Air Force. Unfortunately for the "bigger is better" U.S. military mindset there seems to be a ton of reluctance toward using anything less than the most high-tech solution.
Cool, you linked a Gazette article from more than 2 (almost 3) years ago. So your argument is someone else's argument from 3 years ago? Thumbs up.
You're not going to run an intercept in an OV-10X (really OV-10G is what they are calling it now, which I've seen fly and talked to the guys flying it) or a Super T. Those are strictly CAS and ISR platforms. We started putting APG-65 radars in Harriers and spooling them up on basic intercepts because (and please imagine me speaking a bit slower so that you can understand this) we need that capability. If you don't think that threat nations out there have the ability to F up an ESG with a couple of 1960s era airplanes...
Just as the AF can't afford to keep the A-10 or KC-10 around anymore we can't afford single role airplanes anymore either.
Have you sat through a TOPGUN or MAWTS (or whatever you guys call it, Fighter Weapons School?) threat brief? There is some scary shit out there that is being proliferated. We can't keep fighting yesterday's war.
-
I don't think a lot of people are doubting the value of the Marines or what they bring to the fight.
The point is to me that while the theory of a VSTOL fighter is great, the execution still sucks. The harrier sucks balls in real-life execution from my narrow view of having worked with them and the F-35B appears to be another train wreck of execution.
The fact that the B model is so derided inside of an entire program that is totally F-ed six ways from Sunday is notable.
How many AD A and C model squadrons are there? 0. However there is 1 B model gun squadron in Yuma. I don't see how your argument has any validity. The B model will have more capabilities than the Harrier, both in the obvious tech as well as fuel and ordnance bring back. Yes, the harrier is laughable with a division checks in with a total of 3 gbu-12s while the flight lead has the pod. The F-35b will be better than that. In order for a fixed wing jet to operate off of an LHA/LHD(insert L platform here) it has to be VSTOL. does not having a lift fan give you more internal space for gas and such? Sure. The Navy has dealt with the same issue since day one of modern carrier ops. Bigger beefier gear take up space for gas and add weight, but that's the price you pay to be able to fly off of a CVN.
So, if the B model F-35 is so ed up, why is it the only model we are taking delivery of into AD squadrons? Also - what jet do we use that can be organic to the MEU and take off of an LHD? The F-22 is great, but guess what it can't do?
-
USMC Bubbas "ROAR, F you guys, we're the Marine Corps and the basis of the MEU is to be able to do everything by ourselves, we don't need your stinking help. We are the Marine Corps. ROAR"
You still can't tell me why you need it. Your service came up with a requirement that it can't justify. It isn't 1944, we aren't island hopping around the Pacific with my short boats and POS harriers.
We've used the Harriers STOVL ability in Afghanistan early on in the war. There were some airfields that were completely bombed out, only helos and Harriers could use them until the runways were fixed.
We also used the capability during the march up to Baghdad. Harriers landing next to helos along the highway at FARPs. Oh, and that whole feint thing in Gulf War 1, where we had the entire 1MarDiv sitting off of the coast of Kuwait in amphibs, giving the Iraqis the idea that the Marines were coming across the beach dividing the Iraqi military and forcing them to deploy on two fronts- giving Gen Schwarzkopf's swinging door strategy even more leverage.
However, we regularly use it off of the small deck carriers. Why do we need it? Because the whole purpose of a MEU is to have a completely organic combine arms fighting unit (A Marine Air/Ground Task Force- MAGTF), complete with it's own Ground, Logistics and Air combat elements (Hence the GCE, ACE, and LCE) MEUs (and their expeditionairy strike group) deploy separately from a CSG.
The same reason that we Marines need the F-35b is the same reason the Navy and the Air Force need their model. The game is changing, if we have to escort a flight of MV-22s feet dry we need to ensure the way is clear for them so they make it to their destination. With emerging SA threats, and the places we may go I sure as shit don't want to do that in a Hornet, much less a Harrier. With the current fiscal climate in the military we can't afford the luxury of purpose built airplanes anymore. Therefore the F-35 has to be able to do everything that we need a tactical fixed wing airplane in support of the MEU to do. That means OCA to support a TRAP mission, DCA to protect the ESG, deep/stealth strike to take out those new and robust SA nodes, EA to send trons down range so those helos/Ospreys/and other F-35s flying through that SAM WEZ don't get shot down. We fly ISR regularly (ATARS) And of course, what is near and dear to the Marine Aviators heart- CAS. And we have to be able to do it from where the MEU is- onboard a ship that doesn't have catapults or arresting gear.
The bottom line is that we do a lot more than what most people think, we bring a lot of capabilities to the fight so that battalion can be there ready to kick the teeth in to anyone to who needs it anywhere in the world. We are self sufficient for as little as 14 days to as many as 30- that gives the AF, Army, and Navy enough time to mobilize and get their shit together to bring in the serious heat. We aren't designed to be a second land Army (though we were/are used as one in Afghanistan). We are the step between the SOF guys and the big Army.
If you don't think we need that, or you think that the AF could do better, or think that we don't need the Marine Corps all together, then join the club of naysayers. There are a lot of them - even in congress. The Marine Corps has survived worse times, and has had to defend itself and it's existence many times. Yet we always come out on top? Why? Because while America may not need a Marine Corps, America wants a Marine Corps.
Today (November 10th, 2013) marks 238 years of the United States Marine Corps. We celebrated our 101st year of Marine Aviation on August 20th. We aren't going anywhere, we aren't going to give up any capabilities, and we aren't going to relinquish the ACE over to the Air Force.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Name me one conflict in which the USMC has had to use the VSTOL concept in their MAGTF? Other than building shorter bo-ats we don't need it. The AV-8B is a piece of shit. Here is a brilliant idea, let's share a BOMB between us. I haven't looked at the actual design plans, but if it is true and the VSTOL is the reason for a majority of the ineptitude in the design,then we are buying a flawed product. Just curious, but does anyone know why we continue to feed this USMC VSTOL canard?
We've been down this road before on this board. The Marine Corps wants fixed wing air support off of small deck (LHA/LHD) carriers to support the MEU. That's why we have the Harrier, and why we have the B model F-35. (Which is the only one with a full squadron btw)
Where the road gets rocky is when you discuss why the MEU needs the F-35B.
Let me paraphrase the next few pages of arguments:
AF Bubbas: "ROAR, we are AF, we rule the skies with our professionalism, we can do all 6 function of Marine Air for the USMC. They ruined our perfect airplane with their requirements, shit on Marine Tacair, we can do it for them, and we can do it much better than they can. ROAR"
USMC Bubbas "ROAR, F you guys, we're the Marine Corps and the basis of the MEU is to be able to do everything by ourselves, we don't need your stinking help. We are the Marine Corps. ROAR"
We always seem to forget that each service had it's own (vastly different) requirements, and that it was congress who said that we had to have 1 airplane for them all.
-
1
-
-
Yes, the F-15 generates considerable lift from the fuselage.
The critique in the article was directed at the fuselage shape and its affect on transonic drag.
Long, but good article.
F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was meant to improve the U.S. air arsenal but has made it more vulnerable insteadHmmm, I wonder how much the author of that article knows about the tactics involved in running an intercept. Much less how to run an intercept when you know the dudes you're intercepting can't freaking see you.
Sorry bro, this airplane is happening, and it's better than what we've got now.
-
But for the kind of money that sequestration is going to force us to save, it is very likely to be retired along with some others unfortunately (A-10 & F-15C).
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130923/NEWS/309230019/
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004/
25k is only 5% of the AF? Holy crap you guys have a lot of people in your service.
-
What do Princess Diana and Pink Floyd have in common?
Both of their biggest hits were The Wall.
F-18C down near NAS Fallon
in General Discussion
Posted
Link to another press release.
http://usmclife.com/2014/03/usmc-pilot-named-died-nevada-fa-18-accident/
Eeyore was an all around good dude. I know the Rats/AWCF are also setting something up but there is a link on that page to another memorial fund that supports his family.
Fair winds and following seas brother.