This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
mits ground and other aviation forces to function rela11 unimpeded by enemy aviation forces (,at
► Assault Support—Has the capability to move c° ^ personnel, supplies, and equipment for the MAGT*^^
of
This futuristic heliborne assault—in which Marines landing in MV-22 Ospreys are covered by AH-1W Cobras and F/A-18 Hornets—may be little more than five years away, if Marine Corps aviation continues to roll in hot.
Marine Corps aviation has come a long way since Lieutenant Alfred A. Cunningham, the first Marine aviator, talked the Commandant of the Philadelphia Navy Yard into letting him test his airplane on the yard’s half-mile field in July 1911. The Marine Corps today is organized as a combined-arms force—with air and ground elements—trained and equipped for amphibious operations. During amphibious operations, Marine aviation provides one of the three components of a Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF). The ground combat element serves as the core of the MAGTF, with the aviation combat element and the combat service support element providing essential support. The ability to conduct successful tactical air operations is also required for amphibious operations. Over the years, Marine aviation has established and refined an organization that is equipped to support the MAGTF—while simultaneously ensuring significant commonality with Navy aviation forces. The support requirements of MAGTF and Navy aviation forces demand a flexible and responsive aviation combat element, task-organized to meet the anticipated threat in any potential operating environment.
Marine aviation combat element tasks involve six functions of Marine air:
► Air Reconnaissance—Provides the intelligence-gathering capability essential to successful military operations ► Antiair Warfare—Achieves air superiority, which per
- Offensive Air Support—Delivers timely f"ir®P Sj when and where it is needed, against enemy install3 equipment, and personnel
- Electronic Warfare—Determines, exploits, reaL“'jrUlTi,
prevents hostile use of the electromagnetic spec while retaining it for use by friendly forces ^
- Command and Control—Coordinates and integrJ
preceding functions , njqUeS,
In developing and refining doctrine, tactics, tech y, and weapon systems for amphibious operations, the ^ Marine Corps team has sought innovative ways to''nL£(\- the effectiveness of its forces. Forward vision and mentation have produced unique concepts, revolutio ^ warfare, and posed serious dilemmas for p°tent‘ .^p. mies. Such concepts as the MAGTF itself and the ^ ,0 terbome vertical assault resulted from constant stn ^ ,0 enhance the effectiveness of amphibious operations counter new enemy threats. The employment of j„g copter in vertical assaults revolutionized warfare. a^ey0nd commanders to concentrate their forces rapidly to defended areas at critical times and places, an m extract and redeploy them to exploit opportum amphibious operations, this complemented t*ie. f£(id^ assault by placing the attacking forces behind . beaches—to threaten enemy rear areas, block re ments, and enhance surprise and deception. ute its
The degree to which the Marine Corps can ^x^jj,jlity> assigned missions depends on its mobility, > capability, and responsiveness. The nature jt i”'
political environment throughout the world ,mrL forceS creasingly likely that the Marine Corps will lfdo< that are equipped and trained under Soviet-force and tactics, or—in the worst case—Soviet f°rC
F. MORMILLO
selves. For success on the battlefield, we must have the equipment to overcome the enemy forces. Equally important, we must train to win. Future battles will require greater warfighting capabilities than those provided by past technology. Successful vertical assault will require aircraft with greater range and speed than the aircraft in service today. It will be necessary to strike from over the horizon and to penetrate deeper into enemy-held territory. Speed and momentum must be maintained once the assault commences.
No greater illustration of Marine Corps aviation’s status is available than the currently unprecedented levels of readiness in personnel, material, and training that our operating forces now maintain. We are procuring better aircraft, increasing operational effectiveness and readiness, and improving aviation safety. In 1985, we achieved our second lowest mishap rate ever while flying more hours and achieving the highest average mission-capable rate in peacetime history. In addition, the Marine Reserve Aircraft Wing recorded a peacetime high in its Flying Hour Program and improved both its readiness and mishap rates over the previous year.
The Marines are better off today, and this is reflected in more work productivity, which can be measured by the upward trend in aircraft readiness rates. In 1985, mission- capable aircraft percentages achieved an overall aggregate readiness record of 75%. But the most startling improvement is the dramatic rise in the full mission-capable rates. (Full mission-capable status indicates the availability of combat aircraft to perform the full range of tactical missions for which they were designed.)
It is axiomatic that the challenges posed by an increasingly sophisticated threat continually drive the development of weapon systems that are technologically more advanced. In the past, the cycle of technological reliance to counter the threat has often adversely affected aircraft full mission-capable readiness. Although new aircraft still
fleCt 2
possess the latest affordable technology, they also re ^ conscious effort to design systems that are relink ^ti- maintainable. For example, the F/A-18 Hornet, a sop . cated frontline strike fighter, averaged 85% capable and 79% full mission-capable rates for ] t0 These high levels of aircraft readiness are a testim00f good aircraft design and, as well, to the professions the men and women who operate and maintain ofl These individuals demonstrate extraordinary undef daily, and the sometimes difficult circumstances which they work make their collective achievements ^ remarkable. Enthusiastic and purposeful today- young Marines must be provided with the necessary fives to ensure that their skills are retained. nae
Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squa . (MAWTS-1) is a superb example of training inifi311^ 0f has impacted significantly on the combat proficie Marine aviation. MAWTS-1 provides graduate-lev^.gjjy ing in aviation tactics and techniques to already m qualified Marine aircrewmen. When they comp jn- course, these Marines, designated weapons and ta ^jr structors, return to their parent organizations to Pa knowledge on to other Marine aircrews. fup£ra^
The Flying Hour Program is the major means o joeing and maintaining the readiness of our aircreWSj tioning like the full mission-capable and rn‘ssl0IJ"ujidin§' rates do for our aircraft. We have used the same Jn block approach to produce increases in both a jn a
1985, we flew more than 350,000 hours, resU significant and measurable increase in aircrew ^g^es1 readiness. Today, Marine aircrews are at their instate of readiness since Vietnam, and will contmu ^sCal prove with a projected 369,528 flying hours durm
year 1987. he reg^
In assessing readiness, aviation safety must t> o c0fl- as both a contributor and benefactor: it contributes ^.^ft serving irreplaceable aircrews and indispensab
fo *
prof^ 'ntcn<^ei^ purpose; it benefits from the increased duce’sClency of aircrews that the emphasis on readiness pro- rj--,S' As the readiness of Marine aviation improves, our ^aP rate continues to decline.
Port f ^ar'ne Corps continues to adopt initiatives to sup- safet Urt^er reductions in the mishap rate. Some of these oient .lnit‘at*ves include: early identification and docu- jq, 10n of unsatisfactory aeronautical performance; cloSepVe<^ ^'sscm'nad°n of safety-related information; and °PerC00Perat'on between the aircraft manufacturers and trol °rS' ^ dh the attrition of aircraft under more con> We can focus our attention on developing new and "J 'j-Pable aircraft.
serve Crn'zat'°n of Marine aviation assets, active and renew 1S 3n ev°lutionary process. The elapsed time from a tj0nsaircraft’s first definition until the last squadron transi- Man ° ^at new” aircraft is often longer than 25 years, natig an^oreseen changes—in threat, technology, inter- Unqu3 . Poetics, and the national economy—and other m°stat,fiable factors affect this process. Perhaps the famatic change in recent years has been the rapid ogy, tilt-rotor MV-22 Osprey aircraft. This vertical assault, joint-3ervice aircraft is designed to assume the medium-lift mission beginning in the early 1990s. It will carry 24 combat troops or 10,000 pounds of cargo and will have an unrefueled ferry range of 2,100 nautical miles, making it self-deployable worldwide. Ultimately, the Marine Corps intends to procure 552 MV-22s, for both the active and reserve forces—current projections are 16 active and two reserve squadrons.
By far, the most technologically advanced Marine aircraft in the force today is the F/A-18 Hornet. More than 60 of these highly capable aircraft are presently in service. The Marine Corps is currently operating three squadrons of F/A-18s at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro, California, and two at MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina. The Hornet has proven to be a true force multiplier, effective in both air-to-ground and air-to-air combat. Pilots are scoring impressively on all types of ordnance deliveries; and, as a fighter, the Hornet repeatedly demonstrates its ability to engage all opponents successfully. The missions of the Marine fighter attack squadrons (VMFAs) will also
a<IVat)ce .
lhe jntrln technology. The basic assumption underlying tile ajr° Uction of new aircraft, however, is that the Ma- !tti$sj0nCra^ f°rcc mix must be capable of performing the ltTlPly th a^a’nst an ever-growing threat. This does not °f Ajar- a new technology will replace the basic structure 'tent ann,e av'ation; rather, that technology will comple- Theenhance aviation effectiveness.
Ss g Urri^er °ne priority in the modernization of Marine lation is the acquisition of the advanced technol-
another CH-53E. Three 16-aircraft squadrons a( fully operational—the goal is a total of four active -s rons and one reserve squadron. [0 fill
An attack helicopter upgrade also is under way g, the present shortfall. The Marine Corps origin3 j^eli' cured the AH-1 Cobra-series aircraft to escort assau(0 N copters. After some.time, the Corps found the Co
The modernization of the attack helicopter u the
when the AH-1W rolled out in June 1986, and ^ (llre
hese new aircra
the T-700 General Electric engine, which vastly inl
be expanded to include tactical air coordinator airborne (TACA)/forward air controller airborne (FACA) and reconnaissance, with the introduction of the two-seat, allweather F/A-18D in 1990. Each VMFA squadron will have 16 aircraft—eight single-seat F/A-18Cs, and eight F/A-18Ds. The Marine Corps will continue to expand its F/A-18 Hornet force to 12 active and eight reserve squadrons.
Concurrent with the F/A-18 introduction, the second- generation V/STOL (vertical/short take-off and landing) light-attack aircraft, the AV-8B Harrier, is exceeding all expectations for handling, reliability, and ordnance delivery accuracy. It has twice the range of the AV-8A while maintaining its unique V/STOL characteristics. The ability of the Harrier to operate from roads, damaged airfields, unprepared surfaces, and amphibious assault ships offers more deployment and employment options. Marine air will fully incorporate the AV-8B into its light-attack forces, with eight V/STOL squadrons haying 20 aircraft each, by 1991.
Along with the introduction of new fighter/attack aircraft, other efforts in the fixed-wing community are focused on expanding aviation capabilities, particularly on increasing reserve aircraft numbers. Included in this effort is the addition of one more KC-130 squadron. The KC- 130 aircraft provides in-flight refueling for tactical aircraft, both fixed-wing and helicopters, and also serves in a secondary mission role as an assault support transport for personnel and cargo. Twelve new KC-130T aircraft are being assigned to the Marine Corps reserves in Glenview, Illinois, and 12 more are projected for a new reserve tanker squadron starting in fiscal year 1988 at Stewart Airport, New York.
Major developments have also occurred in our helicopter community. The CH-53E was Corps in March 1981. It provides heavy-lift capability than earlier variants of the
is are
ideally suited for additional missions, such as am1** weapons delivery, close-in fire support, FAL ’ TACA. The current upgrades for the attack helic°P ^il' designed to round out and improve its antiarmor c‘^ ity. The Hellfire missile system will be introduce ^ Marine Corps with the AH-1W for this purpose. weapon system has better accuracy and range than systems, and can use fire-and-forget tactics. fleet be£a"
AH-lTs were upgraded to Ws. These new ;
,ves
Perfo,
year period.
tine The first Marine adversary squadron, Ma-
F'21 a'RtCr ^ra‘n'nS Squadron-401, will receive Israeli 198? tu 'r a'rcraft during the first quarter of fiscal year
ttSS!
JC^U .
MAGTpUPP°rt missions of Marine aviation within the • The current DASC is old, worn out, and unsup-
(nentrmance’ particularly in the high-altitude/hot environ- five !lA tota' Purchase of 78 AH-lWs is projected over a
forces"? moc*ern'ze our active forces, our reserve aviation 18 s 3 S° benefit. As aforementioned, eight reserve F/A- A-41VtUa^r0nS 316 ProJected to replace the aging F-4S and the j, aircraft- The older KC-130F is being replaced with
^-nOT TKr, \ a—:— „___ 1_ \/f„
static’ a ^ase agreement. This squadron will be
p°jt ?. at MCAS Yuma, Arizona, and will provide sup- bee^ rin.lar'ly to active-duty pilots, but the squadron has 13 ^ assigned to the Reserve Marine Aircraft Wing. The Si ';aircraft WH1 be flown by active and reserve pilots,
l^a'ng the Soviet MiG-21 and -23 fighters, forts h116 ^orPs command and control modernization ef- mentsave also kept pace with tactical aircraft improve- vi(jes' Tactical Air Operations Module (TAOM) pro- sy^er? State'°fothe-art automated command and control for (l ^SSential to maintaining an integrated air defense track t lVlAGTF. The TAOM can acquire, correlate, and ten, j 1Ce as many adversary aircraft as the current sys- t° tj)onter°Perubility features permit linkage of this system Comr j6 ot^er U. S. services and allied command and aHowstb8enCieS- m°dcmized concept of the TAOM ity cj- ae system to be tailored to the scope and complexly^ ,e operation, which reduces strategic and tactical to the rctllents by two-thirds, decreases the logistical tail deploySrnaHest s'ze possible, and provides for the rapid COrUro]nient an<l employment of essential command and
An K
direct a Cr COrnmund and control initiative is the Improved H toAlr Support Center (IDASC). The IDASC is essen- a«.„ e control and integration of close-air support and portable because it lacks replacement parts. The IDASC is a low-cost initiative to resolve the difficulties of the present system. While it represents only a short-term, low-cost solution, it will alleviate the supportability problem until the Marine Integrated Fire and Air Support System (MIFASS) is introduced in the 1990s.
Marine aviation is moving forward into the 1990s with modernization and enhancements across the board, but future challenges are legion. What structure will support the MAGTF best? Are all six functions of Marine aviation properly equipped for any contingency? What will the future battlefield require of aviation capabilities? Can the impact of today’s modernization efforts be predicted accurately; and are our efforts truly sufficient to support the ground forces? A continuing effort to explore innovative methods that draw more fully on Marine Reserve expertise must include evaluating the applicability of the Navy’s squadron augmentation unit program to the Marine Corps.
Despite the challenges we now face and those that await us, the future looks bright for Marine Corps aviation. It will, however, require innovative direction from leaders at all levels. The results we see today in readiness, safety, and modernization are products of past leadership. A continuing imperative for Marines is to respond to all challenges, as they arise.
The future will be no different.
General Smith is Deputy Chief of Staff for Aviation, Headquarters U. S. Marine Corps, Washington, D.C. A native of Cherey, Washington, he joined the Marine Corps Reserve in 1951. His distinguished career includes service with the first Marine F-4B Phantom squadron to see action in Vietnam.
Colonel Williams serves as Reserve Aviation Plans Officer on General Smith’s staff. He has an extensive aviation background in both fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, and also holds a law degree—with emphasis on aviation law.
Premier V/STOL Flying
By John Tegler
I d0
Sis any°ne ques-
S w * act that the Harrier is Sfoai1^ Premier V/STOL
ait
rnu k 7"”"ou niU1,c f'Sieaii *mProved that it is Sv hr3 Afferent aircraft. S w e 'eve that V/STOL is
S) .‘‘l/Sfl°rt take-off and land- AV-8a aft’ As good as the ■' So n,.1S: the AV-8B Harrier II
jifo Avl0f lbe future, and if
ll,
eoproduced by the tes and Great Britain.
161
is an example, they are probably correct.
Because the AV-8B can take off and land vertically, and from short airstrips and roadways, it can be based in areas inaccessible to conventional tactical aircraft. The AV-8B has significant payload/radius improvements over its predecessor. Its payload/ radius capability is comparable to any light attack aircraft in the
world, and it has improved basing flexibility, performance, and weapons delivery accuracy, with an accurate first-pass weapon delivery using an angle rate bombing system. The Harrier II has a greatly reduced pilot workload because of its improved flight control system and new digital avionics package. It also has improved V/STOL capability, and better reliability and