Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


World Wide Marine Corps & Amphibious Ops Discussion

This is a discussion on World Wide Marine Corps & Amphibious Ops Discussion within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old December 28th, 2010   #16
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Well going by current listing and their role you can see that we have Light, Parachute, Mechanised and Motorised battalions on the books, you are quite right in what you say that they are all light infantry but regular training with the assets in a specific role be that Amphibious, parachute, Mechanised or whatever will ensure that there will be little disruptions in a fast and quick deployment if needed.
Actually whatever it says on paper is mostly redundant. The primary role of all of these battalions in recent years has been preparing motorised infantry combat teams (with Bushmaster PMVs) for deployment to Afghanistan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
The only other way i can think of doing this so the cycle of Reset/Readying/ready is intact is by keeping 9x Battalions, as you say once at their objective they all become light infantry. So now we will only require two additional Battalions, reraise 4RAR and delink 8/9RAR.
There is a strong push on to reconstitute all infantry battalions as pure light infantry battalions under the ‘modernised infantry battalion’ with all motorised, protected mobility provided by the armoured corps via APC lift squadrons (one squadron can lift a battalion).

Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Regular Infantry
The regular infantry was formed in 1948 from elements of the 2nd Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF) and is composed primarily of battalions of a single large Regiment, the Royal Australian Regiment this consists of seven regular battalions
Wikipedia… Even their intro paragraph is wrong. The AIF (2nd AIF was just a marketing name) was disbanded in 1946 and such soldiers enlisted under the Interim Army of the Australian Military Forces (AMF) until they were enlisted as part of the Australian Regular Army (ARA) from 1947. The regular infantry units were actually formed in 1945 as AIF battalions and these three battalions have stayed intact since then. They were renamed as battalions of the Australian Regiment in late 1948 and from March 1949 given the Royal title.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2010   #17
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 819
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Why have we got it know?
Leftover from Vietnam and primarily cost. Foot soldiers are much cheaper than mechanised or Para's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Well going by current listing and their role you can see that we have Light, Parachute, Mechanised and Motorised battalions on the books, you are quite right in what you say that they are all light infantry but regular training with the assets in a specific role be that Amphibious, parachute, Mechanised or whatever will ensure that there will be little disruptions in a fast and quick deployment if needed.
Dunno about little disruption - the idea is to maintain a skillset so old lessons don't have to be relearned every time. Also, the variety of units we have these days gives a choice of who to send where and for what task. When I was in the "light infantry' role was performed by 1 and 2/4RAR - their primary role in Odforce (the ODF) was a quick reaction force (company strength in x hours Bn strength in z hours) to assist in evacuation of Aust citizens from near regional neighbours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
The only other way i can think of doing this so the cycle of Reset/Readying/ready is intact is by keeping 9x Battalions, as you say once at their objective they all become light infantry. So now we will only require two additional Battalions, reraise 4RAR and delink 8/9RAR.

3x Amphibious battalions
3x Parachute Battalions
3x Mechanised battalions
Why raise a 'marine corps'? Do we have a need? As Raven (who is still in the ADF and therefore current on doctrine) has pointed out - arriving by boat is not that amazing a skillset. At 6 RAR we were supposedly were the ADF's designated maintainer of the 'ampibious capability'. All I remember in the 2 years there was being shovelled into a USMC AATV in a media stunt beach assault, then deploying ashore in the resulting exercise (Caltrop Force) in Chinooks. Didn't matter whether we were running down the ramp of an Amtrack or the ramp of a Chinook - just a different way of getting into battle.

Do we have a need for 3 x para battalions? 3's role was to secure an entry point for the other units to be airlanded (there's that different way of getting into battle again). If we are fighting a large enough adversary to require a brigade to secure the airhead, then we have bitten off more than we can chew.

What we do need is more mechanised and/or well protected (not 6x6 land rovers - think Bushmasters) equipped battalions. These days it is political suicide for any government to send troops O/S without protection - particularly in this era of IED's. Motorised or mechanised soldiers can self deploy, can conduct operations further from resupply and independent of some fire support (integral). BUT, these units can also be conventional foot soldiers - dismount, laager (sp?) up the vehicles and you have conventional or light infantry. This flexibility would have been useful in the late 80's/early 90's. When GW 1 came around, out of the 28,000 troopies in the ARA there was only one infantry battalion they considered depliying to Kuwait during Desert Shield/Storm - and that was 5/7 RAR (Mech). Foot soldiers and paratroopers are of bugger all use in the desert.

Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Would the RAAF have enough assets for a Battalion drop plus other lift requirements?
Yes. A Herc can drop 80 or so - 5 hercs = the people, another couple for the ATV's and supporting gear. That's without taking the C-17's into account

Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Regular Infantry
The regular infantry was formed in 1948 from elements of the 2nd Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF) and is composed primarily of battalions of a single large Regiment, the Royal Australian Regiment this consists of seven regular battalions

1RAR (light Infantry)
2RAR (light Infantry)
3RAR (Parachute Infantry converting to Light Infantry)
5RAR (Mechanised Infantry)
6RAR (Motorised Infantry)
7RAR (Mechanised Infantry)
8/9RAR (Motorised Infantry)

The Royal Australian Regiment will be able to provide a total of seven battle groups for deployment.
Remember 1948. Mech Inf hadn't been invented, motorised troops were starting to get a foothold. By 2000, that list should have read all Mechanised/motorised but for the one para battalion, and 4RAR (Cdo).

Incidentally, 3 RAR has had a reprieve on being turned into real soldiers - they get to retain the bird shit role and practice some more getting shorter...(where's Old Faithful when I'm fishing?)

Last edited by Marc 1; December 28th, 2010 at 03:21 AM.
Marc 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2010   #18
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 819
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
Actually whatever it says on paper is mostly redundant. The primary role of all of these battalions in recent years has been preparing motorised infantry combat teams (with Bushmaster PMVs) for deployment to Afghanistan.



There is a strong push on to reconstitute all infantry battalions as pure light infantry battalions under the ‘modernised infantry battalion’ with all motorised, protected mobility provided by the armoured corps via APC lift squadrons (one squadron can lift a battalion).



Wikipedia… Even their intro paragraph is wrong. The AIF (2nd AIF was just a marketing name) was disbanded in 1946 and such soldiers enlisted under the Interim Army of the Australian Military Forces (AMF) until they were enlisted as part of the Australian Regular Army (ARA) from 1947. The regular infantry units were actually formed in 1945 as AIF battalions and these three battalions have stayed intact since then. They were renamed as battalions of the Australian Regiment in late 1948 and from March 1949 given the Royal title.

Far more current than me. Good response. I supposed with all the networked soldier stuff, getting said same diggers proficient at operating armoured vehicles as well is stretching the skillset too far. At 5/7 we were already having difficulties with soldiers not having enough time spent on the basic fieldcraft (field signals, strip and reassemble a weapon in the dark etc) due to the need to be continually maintaining or training on the buckets. Then again, with more modern and less labour intensive vehicles it may have been different. Still, I suppose, let the blackhats be the experts on the wheels and tracks.
Marc 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2010   #19
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,041
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc 1 View Post
. Then again, with more modern and less labour intensive vehicles it may have been different. Still, I suppose, let the blackhats be the experts on the wheels and tracks.
The key issue is that the Land400 vehicles will be closer in complexity to the Abrams than legacy vehicles (a monkey can - and often does - operate M113A1s as you know), meaning the training liability for the new vehicles will be much greater than in the past. At the same time, the skills required of a dismounted infantryman have increased exponentially as well. In the end, with realistic training time and resources, a soldier can either be a mounted or dismounted expert. Hence the likely combined RAInf/RAAC infantry battalions and cavalry regiments of the future that Abe mentioned.
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2010   #20
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 819
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
The key issue is that the Land400 vehicles will be closer in complexity to the Abrams than legacy vehicles (a monkey can - and often does - operate M113A1s as you know), meaning the training liability for the new vehicles will be much greater than in the past. At the same time, the skills required of a dismounted infantryman have increased exponentially as well. In the end, with realistic training time and resources, a soldier can either be a mounted or dismounted expert. Hence the likely combined RAInf/RAAC infantry battalions and cavalry regiments of the future that Abe mentioned.
Does this mean an increase in ARA Cav squadrons?
Marc 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2010   #21
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,630
Threads:
@ rip (sorry to quote myself)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
This thread has been started to discuss current and future Amphibious Equipment, operations and personnel including force structures, policy, procedures and doctrine.
You are more than welcome to kick us off with whatever you would like to discuss

Last edited by OPSSG; September 22nd, 2012 at 10:40 PM. Reason: Fixed quote format
aussienscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2010   #22
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc 1 View Post
Does this mean an increase in ARA Cav squadrons?
The Plan Beersheba orbat has 3x armd cav regts each with 3x armd cav sqns. What mix of ISR or lift these sqns are remains to be seen. Also Beersheba identifies that the optimal force structure is an army of fours, so four brigades would be best. However it also recognises that there is a very low likelihood of being endorsed for a fourth brigade. Since there is a seventh infantry battalion it would only take another 3,000 soldiers (plus their loading for training and force level support) to bring a fourth manoeuvre brigade into being.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...r/Like_Bde.png

PS: I would say it would be highly likely that one of the armd cav sqns per bde would be lift and the other two ISR. Matches the amphib task group ratio of 1/2 inf APC mobile and 1/2 inf MRH mobile.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2010   #23
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 819
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
The Plan Beersheba orbat has 3x armd cav regts each with 3x armd cav sqns. What mix of ISR or lift these sqns are remains to be seen. Also Beersheba identifies that the optimal force structure is an army of fours, so four brigades would be best. However it also recognises that there is a very low likelihood of being endorsed for a fourth brigade. Since there is a seventh infantry battalion it would only take another 3,000 soldiers (plus their loading for training and force level support) to bring a fourth manoeuvre brigade into being.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...r/Like_Bde.png
Thanks Abraham. T68, there's your increase in numbers, not more infantry, more cav to make better use of the infantry.
Marc 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2010   #24
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 168
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
3x Amphibious battalions
3x Parachute Battalions
3x Mechanised battalions

.
And what about the Canadian approach?
For Example 3 Light Bn with one of its coys being para-trained?
And instead of 3 pure Amphibious Bn, 3 Motorized Bn each with a Amphibious Company.

Wouldnt it be enough when this proposed 4th Brigade would only contain a few assets.
Basically Infantry,CSS,HQ ,Eng,Sigs but without organic Cav and Arty
Navor86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2010   #25
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,630
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
Well the requirement for the independent operations, raiding craft (TLC: Tactical Littoral Craft) rules out something like the AAV/EFV because they are both 20% water, 80% land amphibious vehicles. This boat will need a fair bit more sea range than an EFV could provide. In terms of major landings the role of this boat would be to escort the LCMs not so much provide landing capability. Landing capability would be for advanced forces, low intensity operations, etc. I agree with problems with the LCM1E and obviously made that point in comparison to the UK FLC program.



This is probably going to be the biggest problem with the TLC: size. Each LHD will need to carry around six of them so this is probable driving the under 10m, 10 tonnes ORC/RHIB type requirement compared to a 15m, 15-20 tonnes CB90 type. But my concern is the ORC/RHIB will lack the range, carrying capability flexibility (for cargo missions) and importantly protection of an enclosed day boat type. There is a smaller cousin to the CB90: the SB90E which is 12m long and displaces under 10 tonnes. Similar ship is the Northrop/ACB JMEC (Joint Multi-mission Expiditionary Craft). This could be the solution for the Army.
Thanks for the info, I understand where they are coming from now with this requirement. The JMEC is along the lines of what I was thinking, multi role and as described in the attached article I found a "street sleeper"
Advanced Prototype in Oyster Bay: The Eastover Beach 'Invasion'

I have also noted in the presentation I posted earlier that the slide on page 15 showing the Phase 4C Sealift Capability that they have shown Lighterage on the slide ? Is a newer system something we are looking at ? I have not seen a reference to this withing the ADF, or is this once again for "illustration" purposes only. Or are we potentially looking at something along the lines of a Mexeflote/INLS style system. I can see many potential advantages and uses for a Lighterage system within the ADF. Most probable/common usage I could see would be in disaster relief. boxing day being a prime example.

Could something along the lines of an FLC style craft have the ability built in to link together to make a lighterage if required, making it more multi purpose ? That way rather that trips back and forth (depending of the tactical situation) the can link up and be used in this way to off load ?
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.co...radleys_lg.jpg

Here also is a link to the BMT FLC BMT Defence Services - Fast Landing Craft
aussienscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2010   #26
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Navor86 View Post
And what about the Canadian approach?
For Example 3 Light Bn with one of its coys being para-trained?
And instead of 3 pure Amphibious Bn, 3 Motorized Bn each with a Amphibious Company.
Because we want to be able to deploy a battalion based amphibious ready group (ARG) not just a company based amphibious ready element (ARE). Plus the required amphibious skill sets are needed far more in battalion headquarters and combat support units than they are in infantry platoons. For an infantry platoon amphibious warfare is trying not to be sea sick when riding the boat to shore. Unlike a parachute capability which requires knowing how to parachute and form up on the ground after being dispersed by a jump. But for a unit staff amphibious warfare changes a whole range of things they need to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navor86 View Post
Wouldnt it be enough when this proposed 4th Brigade would only contain a few assets.
Basically Infantry,CSS,HQ ,Eng,Sigs but without organic Cav and Arty
Sure. With 7 RAR based in Adelaide you have a kernel for the 4th Brigade. Just start building it up as much as possible with each new unit you can get funding for until it’s a full 3,800 strong brigade. Might take 20 years but is worth the effort. 3 RAR can be moved to Darwin (they deserve it) to bring 1 Bde up to full strength and 3/4 ACR take over their new lines at Townsville.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2010   #27
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
I have also noted in the presentation I posted earlier that the slide on page 15 showing the Phase 4C Sealift Capability that they have shown Lighterage on the slide ? Is a newer system something we are looking at ? I have not seen a reference to this withing the ADF, or is this once again for "illustration" purposes only. Or are we potentially looking at something along the lines of a Mexeflote/INLS style system. I can see many potential advantages and uses for a Lighterage system within the ADF. Most probable/common usage I could see would be in disaster relief. boxing day being a prime example.
Phase 3 of JP 2048 is defined as replacing ALL amphibious watercraft including the lighterage, the LARCs and the LCMs. Current inventory lighterage is the appropriately named Naval Lighterage Equipment (NLE) and is the old WWII designed stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
Could something along the lines of an FLC style craft have the ability built in to link together to make a lighterage if required, making it more multi purpose ? That way rather that trips back and forth (depending of the tactical situation) the can link up and be used in this way to off load ?
Any double ended LCM can be hooked up to form a causeway including the LCM1E. This is usually only done if you have a difficult beach and a larger bow door ship coming in that can’t get to shore. Perhaps something you would do with the new Phase 5 ~1,200 tonne ship is rope together a couple of LCMs (LCM1E or FLC) to form a causeway out to where the landing ship can come in and offload onto the aft of the outwards LCM.

But the idea of sea basing is to keep the LHDs a few 10s of KM out to sea, preferable over the horizon, so the otherside does not know where the landing is coming from. The LHD and LSD types are not suited to using LCMs for causeways because they only have side loading hatches. You would need a lot of LCMs to form a causeway to connect them to a normal beach.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2010   #28
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,630
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
Phase 3 of JP 2048 is defined as replacing ALL amphibious watercraft including the lighterage, the LARCs and the LCMs. Current inventory lighterage is the appropriately named Naval Lighterage Equipment (NLE) and is the old WWII designed stuff.

Ok, thanks was not aware it included such things, is there a system or type of system being looked at ?

Quote: But the idea of sea basing is to keep the LHDs a few 10s of KM out to sea, preferable over the horizon, so the otherside does not know where the landing is coming from. The LHD and LSD types are not suited to using LCMs for causeways because they only have side loading hatches. You would need a lot of LCMs to form a causeway to connect them to a normal beach.
Aware of that, probably should have made that a bit clearer, was thinking more along the lines of if the tactical situation permits, and depending on the mission this could potentially be a much faster method of getting much needed equipment ashore, especially in Disaster relief etc where time is of the essence, and port facilitys in an obvious bad way. That way the LCM/FLC can do an initial run to the beach off-load and progressively link up to allow follow on equipment from the LPA/D's etc to offload ? Just a thought

I have noted you input into potential force structure for the Army, what are you thoughts on where we want to be with regards to standards and certification levels and our interoperability with the likes of the USN/USMC and UK ?
Also on the flipside, what do you think we could potentially bring to the table for some regional Navy's such as NZ etc do they see this as an op to increase their knowledge and operations ?
aussienscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2010   #29
Banned Member
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 147
Threads:
Maybe there are some amphibious ops in these archives:
TDG Archives | Marine Corps Gazette
Jaimito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2011   #30
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant Colonel
old faithful's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Darwin Australia
Posts: 1,117
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc 1 View Post
Leftover from Vietnam and primarily cost. Foot soldiers are much cheaper than mechanised or Para's.



Dunno about little disruption - the idea is to maintain a skillset so old lessons don't have to be relearned every time. Also, the variety of units we have these days gives a choice of who to send where and for what task. When I was in the "light infantry' role was performed by 1 and 2/4RAR - their primary role in Odforce (the ODF) was a quick reaction force (company strength in x hours Bn strength in z hours) to assist in evacuation of Aust citizens from near regional neighbours.



Why raise a 'marine corps'? Do we have a need? As Raven (who is still in the ADF and therefore current on doctrine) has pointed out - arriving by boat is not that amazing a skillset. At 6 RAR we were supposedly were the ADF's designated maintainer of the 'ampibious capability'. All I remember in the 2 years there was being shovelled into a USMC AATV in a media stunt beach assault, then deploying ashore in the resulting exercise (Caltrop Force) in Chinooks. Didn't matter whether we were running down the ramp of an Amtrack or the ramp of a Chinook - just a different way of getting into battle.

Do we have a need for 3 x para battalions? 3's role was to secure an entry point for the other units to be airlanded (there's that different way of getting into battle again). If we are fighting a large enough adversary to require a brigade to secure the airhead, then we have bitten off more than we can chew.

What we do need is more mechanised and/or well protected (not 6x6 land rovers - think Bushmasters) equipped battalions. These days it is political suicide for any government to send troops O/S without protection - particularly in this era of IED's. Motorised or mechanised soldiers can self deploy, can conduct operations further from resupply and independent of some fire support (integral). BUT, these units can also be conventional foot soldiers - dismount, laager (sp?) up the vehicles and you have conventional or light infantry. This flexibility would have been useful in the late 80's/early 90's. When GW 1 came around, out of the 28,000 troopies in the ARA there was only one infantry battalion they considered depliying to Kuwait during Desert Shield/Storm - and that was 5/7 RAR (Mech). Foot soldiers and paratroopers are of bugger all use in the desert.



Yes. A Herc can drop 80 or so - 5 hercs = the people, another couple for the ATV's and supporting gear. That's without taking the C-17's into account



Remember 1948. Mech Inf hadn't been invented, motorised troops were starting to get a foothold. By 2000, that list should have read all Mechanised/motorised but for the one para battalion, and 4RAR (Cdo).

Incidentally, 3 RAR has had a reprieve on being turned into real soldiers - they get to retain the bird shit role and practice some more getting shorter...(where's Old Faithful when I'm fishing?)
LOL! 3 para bn,s....why? When was the last real use of parachute insertion that went right?
Grenada? Remember that parachuteing into a battle field is very risky buisness. Once on the ground, para,s are lightly armed, and only have a very limited resup capability. To have 3 of these units in a 9 Bn division is madness that cant be supported logisticly by the ADF.
2Commando can do the point of entry thing, and heavier infantry that can be resupped then take over, and the commando,s can then concentrate on doing what they do best. The days of para,s infiltrating behind enemy lines to disrupt them, are over. Now that we have a commando unit, i tend to think that a QRF of air mobile bns makes much more sence. combine them with mech inf, SF and cav, and you do have a force to be reckoned with. Para,s are usually tougher than normal infantry, because we walk further and carry heavier loads than the other bns, also we were very close, because we only had the 1 bn, so that means you could spend your whole career at 3 RAR, where normal infantry move around. So being so tight, the "pretenders" are already known, and weeded out early in their career.(most of the time).
We,re a pack of bastards, bastards are we, we are from 3 RAR the A--seholes of the Royal Australian Infantry.....that song go,s back to the occupation force in Japan, when 67bn AIF became 3RAR.
old faithful is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:57 AM.