|
| Last
Updated: Sun Aug 29 16:43:38 UTC 2010
|
APA NOTAMS ISSN 1836-7135
F-22A Raptors for the Marine Corps
|
|
Air Power
Australia - Australia's Independent Defence Think Tank
|
Air Power Australia NOTAM
9th February, 2009
|
|
| Contacts: |
Peter
Goon
|
Carlo
Kopp |
|
|
Mob:
0419-806-476 |
Mob:
0437-478-224 |
|
|
The F-22A Raptor is the only fighter
available to the Marines which has the firepower, performance and
survivability to effectively defend the beachhead. With excellent short
field performance it is well suited to shore based operations from
forward locations (C. Kopp image).
|
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 Their equipment is obsolete,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’.
Digital
rendering of the air launched supersonic Novator 3M-54AE Sizzler being
released from an
Su-33 Flanker D. The F/A-18A-D, F/A-18E/F and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
all lack the performance to credibly intercept such threats (Novator).
Digital rendering of
the launch sequence
for the supersonic 3M-54AE
Sizzler. Rather than redesign the missile airframe to accommodate
hard
points, Novator opted to use a canister not unlike the encapsulated sub
launch Harpoon arrangement. Once the canister is clear of the aircraft,
the nosecone is jettisoned, the missile ejected, upon which it deploys
its wings and tail controls, starts its turbojet engine, and cruises
until the target is acquired. Not depicted is the terminal stage of the
missile's flight, where the subsonic cruise airframe is jettisoned and
the supersonic rocket propelled kill stage engages the target at a
speed in excess of Mach 2.5. The US Navy have publicly
acknowledged that they as yet do not a viable defence against this
weapon (Novator).
Above former LPH-9 USS Guam
under
attack by the JFK's CVW during an exercise in October, 2001 (USN
image). Below former USN LST
Schenectady takes
a
hit by multiple JDAMs, the vessel sank 1.5 hrs later (USAF image).
Amphibious ships, laden with fuel and munitions, are highly vulnerable
to guided munitions. Case studies include Anzio, Salerno, and the
Falklands.
The Atlantic Conveyor burned
out
after being hit by a single Aerospatiale AM39 Exocet ASCM launched by
an
Argentinian Super Etendard strike fighter. The Royal Navy suffered
heavy losses in the Falklands including two LSTs and one RORO transport
(UK MoD image).
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?
Suspend disbelief, inter-service rivalry,
and prior political
commitments for a few minutes. Imagine replacing the following
eight
USMC Fighter Attack Squadrons of old, worn-out F/A-18s with new F-22A
Raptors – some 96 aircraft.
|
|
Marine
Corps Fighter Attack Squadrons
|
| Squadron
Name |
Insignia |
Nickname |
Date
Commissioned |
Senior
Command |
Station |
VMFA-112
|
|
Cowboys
|
March 1, 1942
|
MAG-41, 4th MAW
|
NASJRB Fort Worth, TX
|
|
VMFA-115
|
|
Silver Eagles
|
July 1, 1943
|
MAG-31, 2nd MAW
|
MCAS Beaufort, SC
|
|
VMFA-122
|
|
Werewolves
|
March 1, 1942
|
MAG-31, 2nd MAW
|
MCAS Beaufort, SC
|
|
VMFA-232
|
|
Red Devils
|
September 1, 1925
|
MAG-11, 3rd MAW
|
MCAS Miramar, CA
|
|
VMFA-251
|
|
Thunderbolts
|
December 1, 1941
|
MAG-31, 2nd MAW
|
MCAS Beaufort, SC
|
|
VMFA-312
|
|
Checkerboard
|
June 1, 1943
|
MAG-31, 2nd MAW
|
MCAS Beaufort, SC
|
|
VMFA-314
|
|
Black Knights
|
October 1, 1943
|
MAG-11, 3rd MAW
|
MCAS Miramar, CA
|
|
VMFA-323
|
|
Death Rattlers
|
August 1, 1943
|
MAG-11, 3rd MAW
|
MCAS Miramar, CA
|
Table: Wikipedia
|
The internal guided bomb payload of the
F-22A Raptor is identical to the planned payload of the F-35B STOVL
Joint Strike Fighter, either two JDAMs,
or eight Small
Diameter Bombs. Above, an F-22A
Raptor
drops a GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb from
its weapons bay during a test
mission
Sept. 5, 2007. Below, Maj.
John Teichert, USAF, of the 411th Flight Test Squadron
performs the first supersonic release of the 1,000 lb GBU-32 Joint
Direct Attack Munition over the Mojave test range, on the 14th July,
2005. The F-22A has a ~50 percent greater
external weapon payload
potential compared to the F-35A/B (US Air Force).
The Marine Corps has a distinguished
history of shore based operations. Above VMF-214 in the New Hebrides,
below Marine Corps F-4Us supporting troops in Korea, 1950 (US DoD).
|
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.
|
|
Assessing
Joint
Strike Fighter Defence Penetration Capabilities [Click for more ...]
Assessing
Joint Strike Fighter Air Combat
Capabilities [Click for more ...]
Surviving
the Modern Integrated Air Defence
System [Click for more ...]
The
Russian Philosophy of Beyond Visual Range Air Combat [Click for more
...]
F/A-18E/F
Super
Hornet
vs. Sukhoi
Flanker Analysis [Click for
more ...]
Sukhoi
Flanker Analysis [Click for
more ...]
F-22A
Raptor Analysis [Click for more
...]
Joint
Strike Fighter Analysis
[Click for
more ...]
[Please embed this graphic and link on your website]
|
Air
Power Australia Website - http://www.ausairpower.net/
Air Power Australia Research and
Analysis - http://www.ausairpower.net/research.html
|
|
|
|
|
![Australia's First Online Journal Covering Air Power Issues [ISSN 1832-2433]](apa-analyses.png "Australia's First Online Journal Covering Air Power Issues [ISSN 1832-2433]")
