Should The United States Marine Corps Retain Tactical Aviation Assets?
CSC 1995
SUBJECT AREA - Aviation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title: Should the USMC Retain Tactical Aviation Assets?
Author: Major C.F.Mitchell, United States Marine Corps
Thesis: Marine Corps TACAIR assets are struggling to
survive in light of the declining defense budget, but this
is precisely the reason why the USMC should retain TACAIR
assets. No other service can provide the war fighting
capability per dollar spent.
Background: Whenever defense budgets are cut Marine Corps
TACAIR is usually one of the first areas up for review.
There are individuals in the USAF and USN who believe that
either service can provide TACAIR support to the Marine
Corps ground combat element if required. The history of
Marine Corps TACAIR employment up to current operations
today show that Marine Corps TACAIR assets are required.
The USAF and USN are both augmented today by Marine Corps
TACAIR just to fill their peacetime commitments. The cost
of Marine Corps TACAIR is significantly less expensive to
operate, maintain and deploy in comparison to the USAF or
USN.
Recommendation: The USMC must remain proactive in defending
its TACAIR assets by stressing the operational requirements,
fighting capability and effectiveness it provides per dollar
spent.
Should The United States Marine Corps Retain Tactical
Aviation Assets?
OUTLINE
Thesis: Marine Corps TACAIR assets are struggling to
survive in light of the declining defense budget, but this
is precisely the reason why the USMC should retain TACAIR
assets. No other service can provide the war fighting
capability per dollar spent.
I. Introduction
II. Historical Employment of Marine TACAIR
A. Korea
B. Vietnam
C. Persian Gulf
III. Service Doctrine
A. United States Air Force
B. United States Navy
C. United States Marine Corps
IV. USMC TACAIR Employment
A. Cost Comparison with USAF/USN
V. Conclusion
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
RETAIN TACTICAL AVIATION ASSETS?
The United States Marine Corps should retain tactical
aviation (TACAIR) assets. No other service can compete with
the USMC in providing a war fighting capability and
effectiveness, per dollar spent. Marine Corps TACAIR assets
are struggling to survive in light of the declining defense
budget; the target primarily being the F/A-18 Hornet. This
is not a new controversy but one that has surfaced time and
again long before the F/A-18 program went into development.
The issue always raised is that the United States Air Force
(USAF) or United States Navy (USN) can provide TACAIR
support to the United States Marine Corps (USMC) when
required. This issue surfaces whenever purse strings
tighten or roles and missions come up for review. Here we
go again! The Navy would like to absorb Marine TACAIR and
the Air Force would possibly benefit dollar-wise if Marine
TACAIR ceased to exist. The argument about which branch of
the services (including the Marine Corps) can effectively
support the Marine Corps ground combat element (GCE) during
amphibious landings or once established ashore, is wrought
with egos, rice bowls and professional jealousies.
The bottom line is dollars. Whether TACAIR supports
Marines in Somalia or the Persian Gulf, Marine Corps TACAIR
can do it for less cost than either the USAF or USN, and be
just as effective.
This paper will present a review of the historical
employment of Marine TACAIR, and aviation doctrine of the
USAF, USN and USMC. Current USMC TACAIR employment followed
by USMC TACAIR costs versus the USAF and USN is then
discussed.
This is not an argument concerning roles and missions.
Marine TACAIR exists to support the Marine on the ground.
Whether GCE support occurs during amphibious or land based
operations utilizing close air support (CAS) or deep air
strikes (DAS) is irrelevant.
On 3 August 1950, the first Marine air strikes during
the Korean War, flown by VMF-214, flew off Navy aircraft
carriers striking strategic targets at Chinju and Sinban-ni.
VMF-323, operating off the USS Badoeing Strait, flew the
first Marine close air support sorties for 8TH Army units.1
Marine Night Fighter Squadron 513 (VMF(N)-513) based at
Itazuki, Japan, flew night interdiction missions operating
under 5TH Air Force. During the first 42 days of flight
operations Marine sorties totaled over 950, of which over
300 sorties flew in support of the United States Army (USA)
and Republic of Korea (ROK) Army.
VMF-323 embarked on the USS Badoeing Strait, and VMF-
214 embarked on the USS Sicily, provided CAS and air cover
for the amphibious landing at Inchon. After securing the
beachhead, MAG-33 established itself at Kimpo Airfield.
Marine TACAIR doctrine is built around supporting
amphibious landings. This does not necessarily mean they do
it from aircraft carriers. Another amphibious landing,
planned for Wonsan on the east coast of North Korea, was
supported by Marine air from Kimpo and eventually Wonsan
airfields. Throughout the war Marines continued to fly off
aircraft carriers and airfields. The support structure,
much like today, allowed this to take place and is the
essence of flexibility.
The Vietnam War saw Marine aviation primarily land-
based at Da Nang and Chu Lai. Marine All-Weather Fighter
Squadron 212 (VMF(AW)-212) embarked aboard the USS Oriskany
and attacked strategic ground targets in North and South
Vietnam. General Westmoreland projected a need for more
TACAIR assets, which could only be provided by Marines at
that time. Admiral Sharp (CINCPAC) and General Westmoreland
requested that a second air base be established in South
Vietnam and received approval from the Secretary of Defense
in March 1965.2 That base became Chu Lai and initially
operated as a short airfield for tactical support (SATS)
until the runways and support facilities were constructed.
The main employment of Marine TACAIR was in the
delivery of air-to-ground ordnance in direct and close
support of ground troops. The Navy wanted more Marine
squadrons afloat to support the carrier decks, but that
meant decreasing the number of squadrons ashore supporting
Marine ground units; the Marine Corps could not do both.
Higher sortie rates are generated when supporting ground
units with TACAIR from land bases vice aircraft carriers.
Twelve of the Marine Corps 27 fighter-attack squadrons
deployed to Vietnam.
During the Persian Gulf War Marine TACAIR flew
primarily from land bases with the exception of 20 AV-8B
Harriers aboard the USS Nassau. TACAIR assets during the
first phase of the war struck strategic targets as far north
as Baghdad and eventually transitioned to striking tactical
targets. A myriad of missions to include deep air strikes
(DAS), interdiction, suppression of enemy air defenses
(SEAD), and CAS was accomplished by 202 TACAIR assets, which
accounted for over 9,000 sorties flown and 33,000 pieces of
ordnance delivered.3 A total of 566 Marine aircraft (fixed
wing and rotary wing) in theater accounted for approximately
11% of total coalition sorties flown during the war, with
only 7% of the total aircraft supporting the war.4
USAF Doctrine
Current USAF doctrine of "Global Reach-Global Power,"
described in Air Force Manual 1-1 (AFM 1-1), outlines the
doctrine and priorities for employment of aerospace power in
future conflicts and will carry the USAF into the next
century.
United States air power is defined as the United States
Air Force--not because of its name or any theoretical
concept that air power must be unitary, but because of
the military tasks that have been assigned to the Air
Force, that it is organized and prepared (given the
means) to perform, and that will not be performed at
any significant level of effort except by the USAF.5
The basic tenet of AFM 1-1 is that "Controlling the
aerospace environment is a prerequisite to accomplishing
other aerospace roles and missions." AFM 1-1 also points
out that "The most effective and efficient scheme is
control of all aerospace assets by a single joint force air
component commander (JFACC), responsible for integrating
employment of all aerospace forces within a theater of
operations."
The USAF has in the past and will continue to argue
that there is no requirement for USMC tactical aviation
assets and that when required the USAF can provide the
support to the ground combat element (GCE).
USN Doctrine
The Secretary of the Navy (SecNav), Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO), and the Commandant of the Marine Corps
(CMC) developed and implemented a new Navy-Marine Corps
strategy on 28 September 1992. The updated strategy
"Forward...From the Sea" encapsulates the vision of our
future Navy and Marine Corps power projection role. It
emphasizes the capability to project power ashore with the
emphasis on littoral warfare.6 This doctrine, developed in
response to the current challenges, is a shift in focus from
global threats to a more regional focus, and concentrates on
littoral waters and maneuver from the sea.
A conference convened during the summer of 1993 at
Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada, brought together all the
Carrier Air Wing Commanding Officers to discuss the future
of carrier aviation. Areas discussed included pilot
training, munitions, lines of communication, aircraft
procurement, and roles and missions. During two days of
discussions not once did the role of amphibious operations
or close air support come up. Let there be no doubt that
the mindset of today's Navy is still long range power
projection from the sea.
USMC Doctrine
The primary mission of Marine Corps aviation is to
participate as the supporting air component of the FMF in
the seizure and defense of advanced naval bases and for the
conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the
prosecution of a naval campaign.7 A collateral mission of
Marine Corps aviation is to participate as an integral
component of naval aviation.9
The mission of Marine Corps aviation has not changed
since Alfred A. Cunningham remarked, "The only excuse for
aviation in any service is its usefulness in assisting
troops on the ground to successfully carry out their
operations."9
The Commandant co-authored the current Navy and Marine
Corps doctrine. "Forward...From the Sea" emphasizes the
cohesion between the Navy and Marine Corps as the US shifts
from a global threat to a more littoral, regional strategy.
The doctrine remains predicated on the traditional
expeditionary role of the Marine Corps and the need for
joint operations capable of projecting power ashore and
further inland if necessary.
USMC TACAIR Employment
With recent reductions in the defense budget, the
services are reviewing their roles and missions in an effort
to sustain their current structure. Marine TACAIR is viewed
as a target for a way to cut spending. An argument used is
that only once since WW-II has an amphibious landing
occurred (Inchon) and should one occur in the future either
the Navy or Air Force can support it. This implies that
Marine TACAIR exists solely to support amphibious landings,
which is wrong. As stated in FMFM 5-1 "... Marine Corps
aviation is to participate as the supporting air component
of the FMF in the seizure and defense of advanced naval
bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be
essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign." Marine
Corps TACAIR's sole mission is to support FMF operations,
regardless if the mission is amphibious or not.
The focus of the Marine Corps is, and has been for
decades, expeditionary operations and other duties that the
President directs. For over 40 years it has trained,
organized, and equipped itself for expeditionary operations.
Amphibious operations are just one way to employ the Marine
Corps under the expeditionary umbrella. Although Marine
TACAIR has not been involved recently in wartime amphibious
operations, neither has the GCE. This is not a reason to
dissolve the Marine GCE nor does it carry any weight in the
argument to dissolve Marine TACAIR.
Marine tactical air combat power serves Marine ground
forces as airborne artillery. This allows the force to
remain light and to maintain its expeditionary "on-call"
focus. The Army, in contrast, historically lacking reliance
on Air Force close air support, has invested heavily in
attack helicopters, tanks, armored vehicles, artillery
pieces and MLRS launchers. It also acquired the Patriot,
originally designed as a long-range anti-aircraft missile.
Over the past five years a reduction in Marine ground
artillery by 45 percent severely reduced the GCEs combat
effectiveness.10 This puts more emphasis on the use of
TACAIR to provide heavy firepower for ground combat. The
Air Force in recent years has openly put little emphasis on
close air support and discussed the options of dissolving
their A-10 squadrons. Who then will provide support to the
Army when required, let alone the Marine Corps should its
TACAIR be dissolved? Realistically the Navy, although
contrary to "Forward...from the Sea", can not be counted
on due to the aviation elements linkage to the carrier and
possible limited ability to navigate to within a reasonable
distance of the area of operations. Retired Air Force
General McPeak would like to believe that even if the Air
Force gave up the close air support mission, "In an
emergency, we would always be able to augment the Army and
Marine Corps with multirole fighters and gunships."11 In
light of the recent Persian Gulf War this type of thinking
is very flawed. US Air Force A-10 squadrons flew in excess
of 8,000 missions while US Marine Corps TACAIR flew over
9,000 missions.12 Had Air Force A-10 squadrons and Marine
Corps TACAIR been dissolved prior to the Persian Gulf War,
who would have made up the missions? Certainly not the
Navy, where sortie generation is limited by the carrier, and
neither would the US Air Force, who already had a full
schedule. Air Force A-10 pilots have publicly said on
programs such as "Wings" that they flew three times a day,
remaining in the cockpit for 10-12 hours reaching total
exhaustion. F-15 and F-16 pilots also approached over
tasking and required medication to help remain alert.
Supporting maneuvering ground forces requires much more
than an aircraft and pilot. If the combination does not
have the proper training and currency it becomes
ineffective. One of the most telling arguments for
maintaining Marine TACAIR, in light of the US Air Force
position to give up the close air support mission, comes
from the Air Force's own official history.
Competition in close air support from Marine Corps
aviation in Korea at first proved painfully
embarrassing to the Air Force because of the superior
performance of the Marines. Marine flyers were
specialists in close support. It was their major
mission, they were trained for it, and their equipment
was optimized for the role. They were consciously part
of a well-honed team. Little wonder that Marine
aviation was almost universally praised by ground
troops and universally feared by the enemy, according
to POW testimony. The net effect of this competition
was to induce the Air Force to match the Marine Corps
performance or lose credibility.13
To integrate Marine TACAIR into the Navy would create a
severe shortfall in Navy and Marine TACAIR assets and would
not save money. Merely repainting aircraft and changing
uniforms does not decrease spending but will decrease combat
effectiveness. According to "The Department of the Navy's
Integrated Amphibious Operations and USMC Air Support
Requirements Study," Marine forces in a regional conflict
require the support of 15 carrier equivalents if Marine
tactical air support is not available, support that could
not be provided today.14 Also, as pointed out by a Center
for Naval Analysis study on Navy and Marine TACAIR,
integration is a force structure and capability reduction.
Integrating blue and green TACAIR assets would reduce
sortie-generation capability in one major regional conflict
by about 20 percent and significantly reduced the Department
of Navy contribution to theater strike.15 With full
integration (or even partial integration), the CV's may be
required to provide increased MAGTF support. This could
tether the CV to Marine Corps operating areas and thus limit
the CV's flexibility to the theater CINCs for other required
operations.
Cost Comparison
The Marine Corps is a force of economy. It operates on
about 6 percent of the defense budget, providing 20 percent
of the active divisions and 14 percent of the tactical
aircraft. Personnel strength levels are also significantly
more cost effective when compared to the other services.
The ratio of officers to enlisted Marines is 1:9.16 The
ratio of officers to enlisted in the Navy is 1:7, in the
Army 1:5, and in the Air Force 1:4.17
The question to be asked is which service can
accomplish the mission of supporting Marines with TACAIR at
a lower cost? Neither the Air Force nor Navy can compete
with the Marine Corps when it comes down to cost
effectiveness. The following evaluation of TACAIR costs
utilized the January 1992 President's Budget. This budget
had been through service, Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) scrutiny.
It reflects the last official executive department DOD
budget. Operations, maintenance, and manpower costs were
evaluated.
To replace Marine Corps TACAIR with Navy TACAIR would
cost almost $140 million dollars more per year in operating
and support costs. To replace Marine Corps TACAIR with Air
Force TACAIR would cost almost $398 million dollars more per
year.18
The following table reflects the operating and support
costs per one airframe during fiscal year 1993 (FY93).19
Included in the cost are manpower authorizations, peculiar
and support equipment, necessary facilities and the
associated costs specifically identified and measurable to
the type aircraft squadron and maintenance required.
FY93 SINGLE ACFT
AIR FORCE A/C OPER COST (MILLION)
F-15 2.4
F-15E 2.2
F-16 1.8
A-10 1.5
EF-111 3.1
MARINE CORPS AV-8B 1.6
F/A-18ACD 1.6
EA-6B 2.4
NAVY F/A-18AC 1.7*
EA-6B 3.0*
*Does not include intermediate maintenance or wing
operating and manpower requirements.
Clearly, the above figures document that Marine Corps
TACAIR is an economy of force when compared to the Air Force
and the Navy.
Conclusion
The Marine Corps receives constant pressure to justify
their requirement in maintaining fixed wing tactical
aviation. The Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (dtd 7 Aug
92) specifies that Marine Corps "Forces are deployed as
fully integrated MAGTF's ... combined arms forces consisting
of air, ground and combat service support units." It is
the "A" in MAGTF that gives the ground combat element the
firepower and lethality that embody the combat capability of
the MAGTF.
Due to the total force downsizing, each service branch
is straining to meet peacetime operational commitments while
trying to maintain combat readiness to support the national
security strategy. The United States military forces today
are currently capable of fighting just one major regional
contingency, not two, as called for in the current national
security strategy.
If Marine Corps TACAIR is decommissioned, who will
support the Marine Ground Combat Element (GCE)? The Navy is
currently straining just to equip its aircraft carriers with
TACAIR. Navy aircraft are heavily tasked supporting
existing OPLANs, and due to location, time and distance
factors, may not be capable to support the GCE. The Air
Force is also heavily committed in numerous OPLANs. Should
the Air Force dissolve its A-10 community (CAS mission
aircraft) a tremendous gap will be created. The firepower
contributed by the A-10 during the Gulf War had a
significant impact on enemy destruction in the close battle.
What asset will provide this support should the A-10 or CAS
mission be deleted from the Air Force? The F-16 and F-15E
could effectively do the mission, but what will be the
impact of taking these sorties away from their current
missions of interdiction and shaping the deep battle
Deleting Marine TACAIR would not only decrease the
effectiveness of the Marine Air Ground Task Force but also
degrade the Air Force and Navy missions by stripping
aircraft from them to fill the void. The CINC will have
fewer assets and therefor fewer options available. Sadly,
as the current creeping of hollow forces occurs, the end
result will lead to lives lost in combat due to decreased
capabilities.
Maybe the Air Force should concentrate solely on the
deep battle and strategic targets and relinquish the close
battle to Marine and Navy TACAIR-not only for the Marine
Corps but also the Army. Marine TACAIR can accomplish all
missions in the close battle as swiftly, effectively and at
a very significant cost savings than either the Air Force or
Navy.
There is a very justifiable requirement to retain
Marine Corps TACAIR assets. Losing Marine TACAIR will
destroy the MAGTF and its ability to support the roles and
missions assigned by Title 10, U.S. Code. The United States
National Security Strategy, which is questionably
supportable now, would become unsupportable.
The United States Air Force and Navy do not have the
equipment or manpower to replace Marine Corps TACAIR during
wartime operations. Even now, during peacetime, neither the
USAF nor USN could fill in required USMC TACAIR UDP,
exercise and boat commitments that are tasked by the
Department of Defense. Marine TACAIR is currently being
considered to augment USAF aircraft standing alerts
overseas.
The bottom line is dollars. If Marine TACAIR can
operate at a lower cost, which statistics show that it does,
then why are taxpayers spending more money on a more
expensive product to achieve the same results? Cutting back
Marine Corps TACAIR is not the answer.
1 Thomas E. Doll, USN/USMC Over Korea (Squadron/Signal
Publications Inc., 1988), 58
2The Marines in Vietnam 1954-1973, (History and Museums
Division, Headquarters, U. S. Marine Corps,1985), 95
3Marine Aviation Brief For The Secretary of Defense,
USMC Aircraft and Munitions: Performance in Desert Storm,
(WDID SWA 0049, 25 June 1991)
4Ibid
5Air Force Manual 1-1, Basic Aerospace Doctrine of the
United States Air Force, (Washington, DC: GPO, March 1992),
219-220
6RADM Riley D. Mixson, "Naval Air: Projecting Power,"
Naval Aviation News, November-December 1992, 1
7US Marine Corps, Marine Aviation FMFM 5-1, Marine
Corps Development and Education Command, (Quantico, VA
1991), 1-1
8Ibid. 1-1
9Ibid. 1-1
10LtCol M.Scott Craig, "Let Marines Keep Tactical Air
Power," Defense News, October 24-30, 1994
11Col Robert S. Melton, "The Value of Marine
Aviation," Marine Corps Gazette, December 1994, 32
12Gulf War Airpower Survey, Volume V, Department United
States Air Force, Washington, D.C., 1993
13Col Robert S. Melton, "The Value of Marine
Aviation," Marine Corps Gazette, December 1994, 33
14LtCol M. Scott Craig, "Let Marines Keep Tactical Air
Power," Defense News, October 24-30, 1994
15Marine Corps Projects at CNA, "Navy/Marine Corps
TACAIR Integration," April-June 1994
16Department of Defense, Defense 94 ALMANAC, Issue 5,
(Washington, D.C. GPO, 1994), 24
17Ibid. 24
18Cost figures were based on the January 1992
President's Budget and calculated by HQ, USMC for the
Aviation Comment on: CMC Memorandum to PP&O concerning
Marine TACAIR brief "RELEVANT, CAPABLE, FLEXIBLE, READY."
19 Ibid.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Air Force Manual 1-1, Basic Aerospace Doctrine of the United
States Air Force, (Washington, D.C.: GPO, March 1992).
Craig, LtCol Scott M. "Let Marines Keep Tactical Air
Power." Defense News, October 24-30, 1994.
Department of Defense, Defense 94 ALMANAC, Issue 5,
(Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1994).
Doll, Thomas E. USN/USHC over Korea. Squadron/Signal
Publications Inc., 1988.
Marine Aviation Brief For The Secretary of Defense. USMC
Aircraft and Munitions: Performance in Desert Storm.
WDID SWA0049, 25 June 1991.
Marine Corps Projects at CNA. "Navy/Marine Corps TACAIR
Integration." April-June 1994.
Melton, Col Robert S. "The Value of Marine Aviation."
Marine Corps Gazette, December 1994.
Mixson, RADM Riley D. "Naval Air: Projecting Power." Naval
Aviation News, November-December 1992.
U.S. Air Force. Gulf War Air Power Survey, Department of the
United States Air Force. Washington, D.C., 1993.
U.S. Marine Corps. The Marines in Vietnam 1954-1973. History
and Museums Division. Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps,
1985.
U.S. Marine Corps. Marine Aviation FMFM 5-1. Marine Corps
Development and Education Command. Quantico, VA, 1991.
U.S. Marine Corps. Doctrine for Amphibious Operations
LFM 01. Washington, D.C., 1986
NEWSLETTER
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|