Thread: Marine vs. Naval Aviation

I have wondered why the hell the USMC has it's own aviation when the USN already does, and the USN technically controls the USMC. Is there some special reason?

The USMC is an integrated armed force with organic air power. That air power is determined by the needs of the USMC in the pursuit of their mission. The United States Navy has a different mission, part of that is to move the USMC and USA around, part of that is to provide naval support to Army and USMC operations on land, thus there is some overlap with marine and even army aviation. However, the USN has other missions which neither the USMC nor USA can carry out.

The USMC does provide rotor wing medium lift, fixed wing medium transport, rotor wing close air support, fixed wing light attack, medium attack at both the tactical and even strategic levels and offensive electronic warfare at all levels. The USN provides fixed wing fleet and even national air defense, airborne early warning and control, light and medium attack, medium transport, maritime reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare, light and medium lift and strategic strikes. As you can see there is some overlap in the light and medium attack missions and in the light and medium airlift.

Indeed. Wouldn't it make sense to integrate all that into the Navy's job? I've always thought that the Marine Corps should not be so huge. Because a lot of the time they end up just doing the same thing that either the Army is doing, or in the case of Marine Aviation, that the Navy is doing.

Originally Posted by Stan187

Indeed. Wouldn't it make sense to integrate all that into the Navy's job? I've always thought that the Marine Corps should not be so huge. Because a lot of the time they end up just doing the same thing that either the Army is doing, or in the case of Marine Aviation, that the Navy is doing.

It wouldn't make sense to the Marines, far from it. Marine Air is there for Marine purposes and it will be like pulling teeth if someone tries to pull it for some non Marine purpose.

On the other hand, if the Air is provided by another service, it might happen. Consider the scenario of joint service coverage. Marines are on the shore, the artillery is coming from a destroyer off shore, and then a call comes in for the destroyer to go off 500 miles to handle an ASW problem (or the Admiral in Pearl wants the ship elsewhere for a reason). The Marines are without artillery at that point.

Can it happen? Certainly a possibility because odds are the Marines are nowhere in the chain to sign the destroyer's CO's fitrep ...... but that Admiral probably is.

Has such a situation happened? Personally, I don't know, only heard the anger anytime the question comes up of letting another service provide one's air/artillery cover where one doesn't have direct control. But I have seen a situation where a Coast Guard taskforce Commander was robbed of a drug boat bust because the Atlantic Fleet Commander, Navy, said that his ships weren't going to be used that way.

History is loaded with such examples. Doenitz of Germany went thru hell to get air support from the Luftwaffe. It's loyalty to one's service, first.
----------------------------------------------------------
("I told them I was with Military Intelligence. They are bitter enemies with each other. It will take them days to check out my story."--Female French Resistance Agent being held by the Gestapo, (w,stte), "Hogan's Heros")

One of the reasons that the USMC is so passionate about maintaining its own air assets comes from the Battle of Guadalcanal (WWII) and its lessons are taught in boot camp and at OCS. Shortly after the Marines landed, the Navy pulled out with all of their warships and supply transports, leaving the Marines without air cover and without sufficient supplies. Marine air (along w/ some Army & Navy squadrons) was flown in shortly thereafter and provided the majority of the air support and air cover over Guadalcanal.

Marine air focuses heavily on near CAS, supporting the troops directly (vice Air Force CAS which was more of an interdiction type CAS – but that’s another thread). All Marine pilots go through The Basic School where they learn basic rifle platoon commander skills, so they have a good understanding of the ground fight and can apply that when they fly CAS missions. In addition, common doctrine and techniques makes close support more accurate and easier. (Yes, all the Services should have the same rule book when it comes to CAS, but it hasn’t happened yet.) Marine fixed-wing air is not completely focused on CAS, but also air superiority. Rotary wing assets provide CAS, troop transport, and supply among their many missions.


During GW I, the USMC strongly resisted lumping Marine aviation assets into a common pool, Marine air supported the Marines on the ground.


The Navy has only so many carriers to base its aircraft. If the Navy loses a carrier, it loses its associated Air Wing also. If Marine air were absorbed by the Navy, it would be reduced in size and scope and eventually would be cut by lawmakers; why have extra Air Wings when you do not have the carriers to move them around? While not bad at CAS, the Navy does not focus on it as much as the Marine Corps.

My gripe is, why doesn't the US military have a common doctrine in regards to this? If Marines get their own Air Wings, then why doesn't the Army, which has to either rely on the Air Force or helos, but has no fixed-wings of its own. I understand that there is a rule against them having it, I'm just questioning doing that to one service and not all of them.

Originally Posted by Stan187

Indeed. Wouldn't it make sense to integrate all that into the Navy's job?

No. Marine aviation is just enough to support the Marine Corps and nothing more. Naval aviaition is larger and designed to support the multitude of naval missions. Larding the USN with all of marine aviation would only reduce the effectiveness of the Marine Corps and add unnecessary burdens to the navy.

I've always thought that the Marine Corps should not be so huge. Because a lot of the time they end up just doing the same thing that either the Army is doing, or in the case of Marine Aviation, that the Navy is doing.

Three regular infantry divisions and three regular air wings is not overly large. Even the Marine reserve component is not large, just one infantry division and one air wing. Thankfully these numbers are set by an act of congress and are difficult to reduce. Otherwise, I think our Marine Corps would have been substantially reduced like the army was in the 1990s.

Originally Posted by Stan187

My gripe is, why doesn't the US military have a common doctrine in regards to this? If Marines get their own Air Wings, then why doesn't the Army, which has to either rely on the Air Force or helos, but has no fixed-wings of its own.

Because the army has a different mission and does not want to become the USMC.

I understand that there is a rule against them having it, I'm just questioning doing that to one service and not all of them.

Certainly the air force could be reduced by the A-10 squadrons without doing any real harm. I would call the A-10 a light attack aircraft. Others have suggested the air force be relieved of its ICBM force as this is really just fixed artillery. Artillery is something the army is very good at. That really just leaves medium attack, strike, air defense and air transport as meaningful air force missions. If we do away with strike (nuclear) or transfer it to the navy (where it belongs) the air force becomes nothing but a very big cargo airline. I don't subscribe to that theory, other than moving nuclear strike to the navy and closing up the ICBM force. We should bargain these away as quickly as our diplomats can round up some arguably sober Russians to negotiate with. But, that is a different discussion for a different day.

Originally Posted by wabpilot

Because the army has a different mission and does not want to become the USMC.

Certainly the air force could be reduced by the A-10 squadrons without doing any real harm. I would call the A-10 a light attack aircraft. Others have suggested the air force be relieved of its ICBM force as this is really just fixed artillery. Artillery is something the army is very good at. That really just leaves medium attack, strike, air defense and air transport as meaningful air force missions. If we do away with strike (nuclear) or transfer it to the navy (where it belongs) the air force becomes nothing but a very big cargo airline. I don't subscribe to that theory, other than moving nuclear strike to the navy and closing up the ICBM force. We should bargain these away as quickly as our diplomats can round up some arguably sober Russians to negotiate with. But, that is a different discussion for a different day.

That's what I'm talking about, like Army having control of those A-10s and CAS mission seems to make more sense to me. I actually think the Soviets worked sort of based on such a model, only a lot more Army-centered.

The Army has a hard enough time obeying basic flight rules with just their helos. Give them airplanes and it'll be a mess. The dont follow comm procedures, IFF procedures, altitude restrictions...

Originally Posted by Stan187

That's what I'm talking about, like Army having control of those A-10s and CAS mission seems to make more sense to me. I actually think the Soviets worked sort of based on such a model, only a lot more Army-centered.

Soviet frontal aviation was a part of the air force, not the army. FA was dedicated to the army mission. However, the A-10 squadrons are similarly dedicated. They really have no other mission. I do not see any real problem keeping the A-10s in the air force.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

The Army has a hard enough time obeying basic flight rules with just their helos. Give them airplanes and it'll be a mess. The dont follow comm procedures, IFF procedures, altitude restrictions...

Originally Posted by Stan187

Well, they usually do ok...but they wig out and do their own thing often enough that they're worth keeping an eye on if they're in the area. These things have been contributing factors to fratricide in the past.

Originally Posted by wabpilot

Because the army has a different mission and does not want to become the USMC.

Certainly the air force could be reduced by the A-10 squadrons without doing any real harm. I would call the A-10 a light attack aircraft. Others have suggested the air force be relieved of its ICBM force as this is really just fixed artillery. Artillery is something the army is very good at. That really just leaves medium attack, strike, air defense and air transport as meaningful air force missions. If we do away with strike (nuclear) or transfer it to the navy (where it belongs) the air force becomes nothing but a very big cargo airline. I don't subscribe to that theory, other than moving nuclear strike to the navy and closing up the ICBM force. We should bargain these away as quickly as our diplomats can round up some arguably sober Russians to negotiate with. But, that is a different discussion for a different day.

Yeah I had considered the idea of putting A-10s under Army control, but I guess I belong to the school of the thought that the AF should handle all fixed-wing aviation, maybe cause thats how we do it in Australia. Hell I'd have no issue with all Aircraft belonging to the RAAF with units, equipment and personnel being placed under Army and Navy command through the ADF Operational Commands, but we're much more joint than the US Armed Forces (seeing as how we're one organization).
As for Army control of ICBMs, I guess that would be a pretty pure interpretation of MacNamara's 'triad' concept. Army ICBMs (Strategic Artillery I guess), USN SLBMs and USAF Bombers with Nukes on board. Then again, would it make so much difference really? Like the Armie's concern appears to be on the Battlefield, and ICBMs aren't really practicle battlefield weapons.