From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:35:49 GMT


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

***moderator: this is very long, and is a borderline flame.  if you decide not
to go with it, i'll understand.  :)  -James

In article <BvnELx.IDn@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
> 
> From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
> 
> jumper@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham) writes:
> 
> 
>>One of the most striking reasons could be found if you asked the guys on the
>>ground.  I have read stories, testimonials, and seen citations of
>>reports(though I could not begin to name them) where the infantry folks, FA
> 
> I don't doubt that the Marine air force isn't wonderful.  I too have
> heard this.  Still, somethubg needs to be cut.  I'm quite sure of
> that.  Even if you disagree with me, it seems clear that political
> realities will *require* substancial cuts in defence budgets.

Mr Appleton:

``Political realities'' don't really intrude on military science, but as they
do affect budgetary considerations, and therefore the equipment purchased, it
might do to take a look at them.

If you look at the threats faced by the U.S. currently, barring any radical
change in situation such as 1989-90, you will see mainly regional conflicts
with `smaller' nations such as Iraq.  You will see a variety of possible
threats in a variety of possible places, none of them predictable.

The Army and Air Force have been structured and trained for 40 years to fight
the big fight, and i think correctly.  If you look at the mission statements of
the respective armed services, it basically boils down to:  Army- fighting
protracted land campaigns.  They've added a strike capability with the airborne
also.  Air Force- fighting protracted air wars in support of the Army.  AF
equipment is designed and built to fly from bases protected by the Army ground
units.  Their SP's are good at catching infiltrators and guerrilla
units, but could not stop a regular infantry unit of any size for long.  The
Army and Air Force are set up to fight the Russians in Europe, or the Koreans,
etc.  That mission is reduced now, and that is where most of the cuts are being
made.  The Navy has a lot of fleet assets for open ocean control that were also
designed for the `big fight' that are of questionable value now.

With Iraq, we got lucky.  The Army Corps of Engineers has been working with the
Saudi government for years designing and building huge military bases in the
middle of the desert, capable of fielding whole Air Force wings from modern
airfields with modern radar and modern defences.  King Kahlid Military City
(spelling?) is a combination air/ground base south of the Iraqi border that
could house the entire military establishment of Saudi Arabia (including
reserves, excluding the Navy for obvious reasons).  When Desert Shield arrived,
it was nice to be able to land troops in Saudi Arabia at or near preconstructed
bases that could support them.  Just because you saw a lot of CNN feed about
troops in the desert, don't assume they were all there.  And *all* of the feed
you saw with the F-15's and F-16's taking off to do battle was from these
pre-constructed bases.  Desert Storm was the ideal best-case scenario for the
Air Force, less so fro the Army because we did not have heavy equipment
pre-positioned there.  So they had to make do with their airborne/airmobile
troops until something better got there, and if Iraq had sent armor across the
border in August, the airborne would have had a nice fight on their hands
(hopefully the A-10's would be enough- again, from their prepositioned bases).

Most of our recent actions have been along similar lines:  we had a fully
operational ground and air base in Panama, and didn't have to move much at all. 
Grenada was within range for direct flights from ConUS for most support that
the carrier didn't do (mainly because the AF did not want to be cut out of the
picture).  Although if you look closely at what was accomplished by whom,
you'll see the benefits of coming ashore from sea vs. coming ashore from an
aircraft. (IMHO)
 
Now let's look at an unlucky war, in which we need to get troops ashore quickly
with the ability to stay there for thirty days or longer.  The opponent is
reasonably competent, has an air force, and even a small navy.  Ground forces
are organized, and they have some armor and artillery.  That should cover most
of the world.  Now lets say that said country is more than 2000nm from the US. 
That's also most of the world.  The people that will be there first are the
people aboard the nearest MEU floating about.  You'll have a Marine Battalion
(roughly) with integral air support, and the supporting naval vessels, and
(hopefully) a carrier battle group.  You won't see a single F-15 unless the
other guys are flying it.  With air-to-air refueling, you could have Air Force
assets for CAS if you really needed it, but it would be similar to the Tripoli
bombing raid- planned well in advance, with all the preparations (waiting
tankers) in the air hours beforehand.  The infantry commander on the ground
can't always call in a close air support mission twelve or more hours
beforehand.  That cuts the Air Force out of the CAS role, although i'm sure
they would play an important part in other ways.  So, political realities would
imply that you want to maintain a Marine Corps and Navy that would be able to
project military force where you need it when you need it.

Now, why does Marine Air exist? Given our unlucky war, assuming a carrier is
present, CAS would be taken up by the Marine pilots that are probably on the
carrier already (if it was travelling with a MEU, it's likely).  Why not Navy
pilots?  Because the Marine pilots are trained to do CAS, and they practice CAS
*all the time*.  They're good at it.  They can do, and also train for air to
air missions, or anti-shipping missions, but for the most part a Marine pilot
exists to help out the rifleman on the ground.  The Navy pilots will be the
ones who concentrate on the other guy's planes and ships- because that's what
they practice *all the time*.  They're good at it.  They can do, and also train
for, CAS missions, but for the most part a Navy pilot exists to protect his
fleet and sink the other one.

Instead of looking at the service name painted on the side of the aircraft,
look at the pilots.  A modern weapons system doesn't exist in a vacuum.  A
Harrier or F-18 isn't a good CAS aircraft by itself- it is the pilot flying it. 
Marine Air exists because Marine pilots more or less invented CAS in the 30's. 
If you look at Marine Air, it is tailored for supporting the Marines on the
ground, and takes up other missions only secondary -- keeping enemy
fighter/attack aircraft away from the beachhead is to protect those Marines. 
By taking Marine Air away, you would force the Marine Corps to rely on pilots
from other services who don't share the same traditions and loyalties as the
pilots we've got now.  And there's no guarantee that these pilots even know
what a LAV looks like.  (now, if you really think the Marine Corps is spending
too much money, why don't you paint Navy over all of our aircraft, but leave us
the pilots.  That way the Navy can do all of the recordkeeping, maintenence,
supply... Of course, they may not want us to play with their toys though...)
 
So if you want to base cutting Marine Air on political realities, why don't you
cut the B-2 program?  Do we really need a strategic nuclear bomber?  Do we need
Seawolf submarines, or will the average Los Angeles boat do the trick?  There
are a lot of programs with big ticket items that can be cut with an eye to the
strategic position we find ourselves in now.  By messing with the Navy/Marine
Corps, you're messing with the most flexible, best power projection tool we've
got.

[stuff about ASW capabilities and carriers deleted:  i'll let some Navy man
explain how effective a good diesel electric sub can be on a big fat carrier]


James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu  (flames to me please, not the net)

Newsgroups: sci.military