F-22A Raptors for the Marine Corps

[Brian]

07:26 GMT, February 9, 2009 The USMC has a proud, 233 year history of
unexcelled service to their country. Projecting US power from US Navy ships,
they are the first to engage the enemy, often in deadly fights where
weakness brings rapid death and high casualty rates. In amphibious assaults,
they take and hold territory to provide safe bases for US and Coalition
operations. If the President wants something difficult done, he asks the
Marines.

In the very near future, the Marine’s military dominance could come to a
crashing, jarring halt. Their equipment is obsolete, overmatched and out of
life.

In their next embarked transit to a battlefield, they could be ferociously
attacked with modern weapons of war. The nightmare for the USN is to have a
swarm of supersonic anti-ship missiles target the Carrier Battle Group. The
formula for missile saturation swarm attack is simple – count the number of
Aegis class DDGs, multiply by four, then add a few for good measure. Launch
the missiles so they overwhelm the defences. Attack aircraft could be Sukhoi
Flankers with one to four supersonic missiles apiece, the modified H-6K
Badger that can carry up to six missiles with an un-refuelled radius over
2,000+ nautical miles, or the Tu-95M/142 Bear with multiple wing and
fuselage hard-points and a combat radius of almost 4,000 nautical miles. K
Supersonic weapons include the Kh-41 BrahMos / Yakhont ‘Stallion’, the Kh-41
‘Sunburn’ and the 3M54 ‘Sizzler’.

If the Marines are lucky, and reach the assault point, more bad things will
await them. The future enemy Integrated Air Defence System (IADS) is a
symbiotic coupling of air combat fighters (ACFs) and Surface-to-Air Missiles
(SAMs), with active and passive multi-spectral sensors that guide the air
and ground intercepts of incoming fighters and cruise missiles. The SAMs
protect the ACFs bases, and the ACFs protect the SAMs.

If the USMC attempts to assault a shore without air dominance, the enemy can
attack the Marines and the USN unhindered. A Sukhoi Flanker can carry up to
three KAB-1500 guided bombs. If the fill is thermobaric, and the bombs GPS
or EO guided and air-fused, then a single Sukhoi can annihilate a battalion
of Marines in the tough transit from ship-to-shore. These same weapons
create such an over-pressure, they will break the back of many ships.

The Marines are often given a raw deal with their equipment. They are
assigned the toughest jobs, but are given hand-me-down, tired and
ineffective war-craft. While their courage and aggression may have
compensated for second-rate equipment in the past, this is not a safe policy
to extrapolate into the future.

In modern warfare, the old F/A-18A/C/D Hornets have little capability
against new Sukhois and SAMs. The ‘Super Hornet’ is already obsolete. The
much delayed, untested, battlefield interdictor Joint Strike Fighter was
never designed to impose air dominance against modern ACFs, nor will it
penetrate a modern IADS with SAMs that can detect and fire on the radar
returns from pigeons when the radar reflections of the Joint Strike Fighter
will be more of the size of a goose. Courage in the face of a
technologically superior enemy unjustly results in the death of many fine
warriors.

So, if the USMC is going to spearhead future US military operations, why not
give them the sharpest spear?

No change of role is required – intercept and destroy enemy aircraft, and
support the amphibious force. Let the Marines develop their own tactics, but
here are some suggestions.

Their first task is to get the USN Battle Task Group safely to the
amphibious assault point. With careful routing, by flying top cover, the
Raptors can find and destroy missile carrying aircraft before they reach an
anti-ship missile launch point. Supersonic anti-ship missiles are fearsome
weapons, but they consume prodigious amounts of fuel in the process. So
while their ‘below radar horizon range’ is longer than ship’s radar and
missile systems, it is still quite close to the battle group - typically
100-200 nautical miles. The Raptors need to ‘sanitize’ this launch doughnut,
killing the launch aircraft before release, preferably enroute to their
attack and well away from the CSG/CVBG. In the fog of war, some ‘leakers’
always get though, but if the number is much reduced, then the Aegis DDGs
can cope with the attack.

At the amphibious assault point, USMC air power must ‘kick down the door’
for their assaulting ground forces. They must cut the symbiotic link between
the ACFs and the SAMs. They do this by engaging the ACFs first. If the enemy
fighters show, they are destroyed. If they don’t show, then the Raptors move
onto the SAMs, killing them in a Destruction of Enemy Air Defences (DEAD)
operation with close-in Small Diameter Bomb attacks before the SAMs can
‘shoot-and-scoot’.

Now, the argument against this new capability for the USMC, is that it is
‘land-based’, and couldn’t possibly give the USMC 24/7 air dominance
coverage when and where it needs it. This argument needs to be tested in the
crucible of detailed operations research. The Marines have been operating
successfully from shore basing for many decades, so the argument that the
Marines must operate off carriers only is ideological, and specious.

What we already know is that the F-22A has superior range/payload
performance to the STOVL F-35B Joint Strike Fighter in all regimes, and
better short field performance than both the STOVL F-35B and CTOL F-35A
Joint Strike Fighter variants when both are flown as conventional fighters
off runways. This is a key performance criterion, as there are many 4-5,000
ft airstrips the F-22A can use with undiminished range and payload, which
the F-35 cannot. The F-22A has an identical internal payload of JDAMs or
SDBs as the STOVL F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but does so with twice as many
air to air missiles onboard.

Where does the USN need to get to, how will it get there, and can it be
protected by the USMC Raptor fleet along the way? Can some innovative
‘gap-filling’ solutions be found? For example, would it be possible to
refuel a patrolling Raptor from a carrier based aircraft, perhaps a
rejuvenated KS-3 Viking ‘mini-tanker’?

Could the USMC afford to buy the F-22A? Well, yes, in fact. Financial
provision has been made for purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter – the World’s
most costly combat aircraft. Look at the USMC Headquarters page on its
Aviation Plan ‘Brainbook 2008’ Aviation Ref Guide (Brainbook) - May 2008,
Page 22

Over the 08-13 FYDP, acquisition of 91 Joint Strike Fighter’s are planned
for a Weapon System Unit Cost of $14,412.3M. Forgetting the complexities of
‘X-Year’ dollars, this makes the average acquisition cost of a Joint Strike
Fighter of $158.4M. The F-22A’s Unit Procurement Cost is currently around
$140M, therefore there are quite significant savings to be had, moreso, as a
fair chunk of the Joint Strike Fighter $3,957.1M RDT&E could be saved, as
this work has been wholly completed for the F-22A Raptor. These savings do
not account for the greater cost/benefit i.e. "bang for buck" provided by
the F-22A vs F-35B. The Marines could invest some of these funds in the
latest sea-lift Patriot batteries, to provide essential IADS coverage of
their Forward Operating Bases.

Conversely, can the USN and the embarked USMC afford NOT to have Raptors to
impose air dominance around its Task Groups? Massed, saturation supersonic
missile attacks raise the spectre of ship and personnel losses of the scale
experienced at Pearl Harbour or Guadalcanal – only this time in blue water
where the causalities would be higher. A USMC fleet of Raptors protecting
the USN fleet during combat operations seems to be very inexpensive
insurance for the coming years.

The USAF should rejoice at the prospect of the USMC being armed with the
F-22A Raptor. The 96 aircraft would add 50% to the existing planned fleet of
183. If a desperate situation arises as described in the much quoted RAND
Study (see below), then the Marines can fight side-by-side with the USAF.
They could become the linchpin, bringing the mighty combat power of the USN,
USMC and the USAF together to fight and win whenever and wherever needed.

The Department of the Navy (DoN) and the Pentagon should be happy since such
a plan provides an additional avenue for return on the investment so far
made in the Joint Strike Fighter Program particularly in the systems areas
with their inbuilt and advanced interoperability, supportability and
sustainability enabling simple porting across to the F-22A.

The new President and his Administration should be pleased with this
advancing on return of investment with the overall plan generating far more
jobs for Americans over the next five years than the Joint Strike Fighter
Program could ever achieve over the same period for the same price. The
additional bonus being achieving far greater capability in shorter time at
far lower risk than the Joint Strike Fighter Program offers.

Even if the F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighter survives the fundamental design
problems, which have bedevilled it since its conception, the Marines still
end up with an aircraft which lacks the firepower, performance and
survivability to do the job required.

A deep rethink of the future of Marine Corps fighter aviation is needed, and
it is needed now. The United States Marine Corps deserves no less.
----
APA NOTAM:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-090209-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

----
WgCdr Chris Mills, RAAF (Retd), Air Power Australia - Australia's
Independent Defence Think Tank

Touchdown news

[ehusmann]

Attack aircraft could be Sukhoi
Flankers with one to four supersonic missiles apiece, the modified H-6K
Badger that can carry up to six missiles with an un-refuelled radius over
2,000+ nautical miles, or the Tu-95M/142 Bear with multiple wing and
fuselage hard-points

In modern warfare, the old F/A-18A/C/D Hornets have little capability
against new Sukhois and SAMs. The ‘Super Hornet’ is already obsolete.

So the Super Hornet is already obsolete, but the mighty Bear and Badger are worthy opponents.....

...why am I not taking this man very seriously....?

Erwin

[Hans Rolink]

In modern warfare, the old F/A-18A/C/D Hornets have little capability
against new Sukhois and SAMs. The ‘Super Hornet’ is already obsolete.

So the Super Hornet is already obsolete, but the mighty Bear and Badger are worthy opponents.....

...why am I not taking this man very seriously....?

Erwin[/quote]

It's not the Bear and Badger that are worthy opponents, but their missiles. Small, agile and with a decent range.
Add to that that the Bear's range is enormous, which means that you will have to cover a really big stake of real estate (=open ocean) to be sure it doesn't get the chance to ruin your day. That takes a big fighter with a big radar. In other words, an F-22.

Hans.

[Polecat]

It's not the Bear and Badger that are worthy opponents, but their missiles. Small, agile and with a decent range.
Add to that that the Bear's range is enormous, which means that you will have to cover a really big stake of real estate (=open ocean) to be sure it doesn't get the chance to ruin your day. That takes a big fighter with a big radar. In other words, an F-22.

..and for the time being: a stealthy fighter

[ehusmann]

That takes a big fighter with a big radar. In other words, an F-22.

Isn´t that the job of the Hawkeye / E-3?

Erwin

[Hans Rolink]

That takes a big fighter with a big radar. In other words, an F-22.

Isn´t that the job of the Hawkeye / E-3?

Erwin

True, but an E-2 or E-3 is only part of a team. The eyes so to say. You have to have some teeth as well.
Not only that, but your fighter needs to be very good in order to compensate for being outnumbered.

Hans.

[canberra]

In modern warfare, the old F/A-18A/C/D Hornets have little capability
against new Sukhois and SAMs. The ‘Super Hornet’ is already obsolete.

somebody please inform the "Danish Air Force" real quick, as the "Super Hornet" is still on the shortlist as F-16 replacement
Although, I am a bit confussed, is talking about F/A-18A/C/D or the Super Hornet

/M

[Polecat]

That takes a big fighter with a big radar. In other words, an F-22.

Isn´t that the job of the Hawkeye / E-3?

Erwin

True, but an E-2 or E-3 is only part of a team. The eyes so to say. You have to have some teeth as well.
Not only that, but your fighter needs to be very good in order to compensate for being outnumbered.

Hans.

a bit like the MiG-31, basically an armed AWACS-lite, built around a huge radar..

[ehusmann]

That takes a big fighter with a big radar. In other words, an F-22.

Isn´t that the job of the Hawkeye / E-3?

Erwin

True, but an E-2 or E-3 is only part of a team. The eyes so to say. You have to have some teeth as well.
Not only that, but your fighter needs to be very good in order to compensate for being outnumbered.

Hans.

You are right about that of course.
I just find the article a bit weird in saying one of the newest fighters in the USN is already obsolete against naming the oldest planes in Russian/Chinese service a big threat. Even with rockets, I find it hard to believe that the current capabilities of the USN are not able to counter such a threat.

And by the way, he is not very charmed of the JSF or so it looks....

Erwin

[SPERX]

Is there not a problem here? The Marines have never had an organic Air Defence capability - the Marine air element has the role of supporting the Marines on the Ground. True, with the F4 and latterly the F/A18 they have had a swing fighter capability, but not a decicated AD role.

I get the snse this "article" is just a bit of wishful thinking, or worse still an apparently independent piece inserted as partr of a lobbying effort to persaude US decision makers that the Marine should have F22. One question. Is there a navalised F22 we have never heard about?

[Richard from Rotterdam]

So, if the USMC is going to spearhead future US military operations, why not
give them the sharpest spear?

The clues are all there. First of all, this story is written by an Australian retired Wing Commander, for an "independent think tank". It all sounds more like a plea for F-22s for Australia.

Above quote is the What If story. Fact is: The USMC never spearhead a military operation, when air superiority is required. That will be done by USAF tactical fighters, or carrier borne US Naval aviation fighters.

His assumptions on requiring a modern fighter to deliver state-of-the-art missiles may be true, but with a little bit of fiddling on the offensive weapons systems, even "outdated" fighters will be able to launch anti-missile missiles.

If the Marines buy an air superiority fighter at all, it would have to be a carrier borne aircraft. But - they do not perform this role at all, so this whole story is conjured up out of thin air.