From: chf0@harvey.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:39:39 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories


From chf0@harvey.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)


>From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
>
>Actually, I *knew* that.  However, my understanding is that the Air
>Force/Naval Air has always had the planes needed to support the
>Marines.  It seems that sometimes these services do not support the
>Marines to the satisfaction of the Marines, being distracted by other
>things.  You allude to this in part of the article I have edited out.
>
>My problem is this.  There seems needless duplication of forces.  It
>would be better if those same planes that helped the carriers fight
>their way to the beach could support the Marines on the beach.
>Further, it seems that there is *no way* the Marines are going ashore
>until the navy has the surrounding sea firmly in control.  This
>implies that those naval planes are free to support the Marines.
>Finally, once a beach head is secured, the Air Force should be able to
>fly in land-based fighters to continue to support the Marines.

There are several problems with your assumptions that have not been
addressed by other posters:

1. The Navy may be able to take control of the sea temporarily to
force a landing, but might be unwilling or unable to maintain a
carrier in the area.  With modern stand-off weapons technology,
aircraft can launch from thousands of miles away, fly to the area that
the carrier is stationed and launch anti-ship missiles.  Some modern
anti-ship missiles have ranges in excess of 250 miles.  

2. The Air Force requires a fair amount of base support to use their
aircraft.  Even the A-10 requires some kind of runway and support to
operate.  This takes time to build, especially in a combat environment
and would be the first target of enemy air strikes.  Harriers and
helicopters are much more easily hidden and can operate from any open
area.

>I argue that the Marine Air Force should be cut simply because
>something needs to be cut (for bugetary and political reasons) and
>that the Marine Air Force performs a function that can be carried by
>the other forces.

There is something else that you are apparently unaware of - all
Marine air assets are technically part of Naval aviation and are used
to support the Navy when required.  In other words, Marine air
squadrons are considered part of available assets for the fleet - that
is the reason all appropriate Marine fixed wing squadrons must remain
carrier qualified.  

Frequently, Marine squadrons will embark aboard carriers as part of
the carrier air wing when Navy squadrons aren't available.   This is
particularly true of F-18 and EA-6 squadrons and to a lesser extent,
A-6 squadrons.

So, politically, the Navy counts on those Marine squadrons as part of
it's force structure.  That means that if you cut them, the Navy would
also be losing part of it's available assets.

And, financially, the Marines, with their traditional austerity,
provide more aircraft at less cost that either the Navy or the Air
Force.  

>Like I said, what would *you* cut????

If it were up to me, every service would lose some, but the Air Force
would lose the most.

--
Curt Fennell			* chf0@gte.com
Unix System Administrator	* (617) 466-2142
GTE Labs, 40 Sylvan Road	* "Get down off that cross!
Waltham, MA, 02254		*  Somebody needs the wood"
Newsgroups: sci.military