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; Originally Posted by gf0012-aust 6 jets or less means that any flat top cannot maintain and sustain minimum operations. that ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old January 3rd, 2011   #31
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,631
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
6 jets or less means that any flat top cannot maintain and sustain minimum operations. that includes CAP, support to the ASW rotors, support to airborne AWACs and hav redundancy of capability for surge events.

There's a reason why through deck and STOVL cruisers became a bad idea and why all modern navies dropped them after the assets hit their shelf life, and were subsequently not replaced for like capability.

A single small carrier with 6 fixed wing fighter jets will not be able to enter contested complex battlespace and survive with any confidence.

all the assumptions in the world will not change the facts of what all modern navies have learnt about what a minimum fixed wing fighter squadron should comprise.

redundancy of combat air assets is essential - 4 to 6 aircraft is a nonsense in contested space.
Just to bring this point across from the Hypothetical Carrier thread

I understand what you are saying here GF with regards redundancy and sustaining minimum ops in a contested space, but this is where I don't understand having 2 Tigers on each LHD ? What are they supposed to achieve ?
Can you clarify why we have this current line of thinking in our Amphibious Doctrine and procedures

Thanks
aussienscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2011   #32
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,041
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
Just to bring this point across from the Hypothetical Carrier thread

I understand what you are saying here GF with regards redundancy and sustaining minimum ops in a contested space, but this is where I don't understand having 2 Tigers on each LHD ? What are they supposed to achieve ?
Can you clarify why we have this current line of thinking in our Amphibious Doctrine and procedures

Thanks
The LHDs when carrying the ARG will carry more than two Tigers. The requirment is a squadron of Tigers, which probably amounts to six or so. Only when a single ship is carrying the ARE will only a pair of Tigers be carried.

I think the key difference between a pair of Tigers on the LHDs being useful and 6-8 F-35s on a carrier not being particularly useful, is that in an amphib op you can control the tempo.

Since the Tigers have no role in ship bourne defence, and because you control the tempo of the amphib op, you can ensure that your pair of Tigers are available when required for the plan. For the 6-8 JSFs though, since they form the key component in the defence of the ship/task group, they need to be available 24/7 to respond to a threat you can't control. If you need a pair of aircraft to be good to go 24/7, then 6-8 available on the ship isn't going to cut it.
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2011   #33
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
To give you an indication of what this means the 20 or so Harriers sent to the Falklands flew something like 1,200 combat air patrol missions and only 200 odd strike recce missions. This includes the missions flown by the strike only RAF Harriers. Further the ARH is limited to only three types of missions: recce, attack and MRH/CH escort. The attack part of that is very much the poorer cousin and they will only fly this against high value targets. All of the sorts of missions that a strike fighter force could supply the ARH wonít do and will be carried out by missiles or go wanting.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011   #34
Banned Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,452
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by old faithful View Post
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.
Actually operational para drops are witnessing a bit of a renaissance. UK 1 Para (SFSG) have jumped into action in Afghanistan in recent months, marking the Parachute Regiment's first combat drop (Coy Level) since the Suez crisis in 1956. SF have been jumping in with dogs / translators strapped to their fronts. I'm sure SASR will be undertaking similar operations and theoretically there's no reason why they won't be supported by regular Oz Para's in the future?
riksavage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011   #35
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by riksavage View Post
Actually operational para drops are witnessing a bit of a renaissance. UK 1 Para (SFSG) have jumped into action in Afghanistan in recent months, marking the Parachute Regiment's first combat drop (Coy Level) since the Suez crisis in 1956. SF have been jumping in with dogs / translators strapped to their fronts. I'm sure SASR will be undertaking similar operations and theoretically there's no reason why they won't be supported by regular Oz Para's in the future?
These are all SOF jumps which are apples to oranges compared to a conventional airborne force. SASR have 2 Cdo Regt to provide the same role as 1 Para.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011   #36
Banned Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,452
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
These are all SOF jumps which are apples to oranges compared to a conventional airborne force. SASR have 2 Cdo Regt to provide the same role as 1 Para.
Whilst in support of SF, 1 Para have been inserted using conventional parachutes (operational deployment at 250 feet) to provide cut-off groups / outer cordon. So technically there's no reason why 3RAR couldn't fulfill the same role in support of SASR. My main argument being Coy sized conventional para drops are not confined to the history books and remain a credible option outside the confines of the SF community (HALO/HAHO). The SFSG are not free-fall trained, unlike their SF/Pathfinder Platoon counterparts.

I was also under the impression a Oz Cdo Sqn flip-flopped with a SASR Sqn in theatre allowing for down-time in both units to prevent operational overstretch. Allowing 3RAR to provide a single rotated support company to who ever is deployed (Cdo or SASR Sqn) reduces manning pressure on the the two primary SF units. 3RAR are more than capable of providing the outer cordon and would jump (excuse the pun) at the opportunity.
riksavage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011   #37
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by riksavage View Post
So technically there's no reason why 3RAR couldn't fulfill the same role in support of SASR.
Except SASR would turn to 2 Cdo Regt to provide this role. This is the job of 1 Para, 2 Cdo and 75 Ranger Regt to provide direct action SOF capability. 3 RAR like 2 and 4 Para and 82 Abn Div are outside the SOF command structure. Its not just an issue of using parachutes but command and mission approaches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by riksavage View Post
So I was also under the impression a Oz Cdo Sqn flip-flopped with a SASR Sqn in theatre allowing for down-time in both units to prevent operational overstretch.
Not really. There has been deployment of reserve commandos during winter to provide alleviation to SASR and 2 Cdo Regt but they donít do the mission SASR do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by riksavage View Post
Allowing 3RAR to provide a single rotated support company to who ever is deployed (Cdo or SASR Sqn) reduces manning pressure on the the two primary SF units. 3RAR are more than capable of providing the outer cordon and would jump (excuse the pun) at the opportunity.
It doesnít work this way. SOF would want their own people providing the cordons. This was why they set up 2 Cdo Regt in the first place.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011   #38
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,041
Threads:
Since the latest news is that 3 RAR have lost the ACT role (again) its all a moot point really. Unless the the decision is reversed in March, 2 Cdo will take on the ACT role.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
Except SASR would turn to 2 Cdo Regt to provide this role. This is the job of 1 Para, 2 Cdo and 75 Ranger Regt to provide direct action SOF capability..
I think you'll find that, for the most part, it is the SASR providing the cordon while the Cdos conduct the clearance, not the other way round.
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011   #39
Banned Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,452
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
Except SASR would turn to 2 Cdo Regt to provide this role. This is the job of 1 Para, 2 Cdo and 75 Ranger Regt to provide direct action SOF capability. 3 RAR like 2 and 4 Para and 82 Abn Div are outside the SOF command structure. Its not just an issue of using parachutes but command and mission approaches.



Not really. There has been deployment of reserve commandos during winter to provide alleviation to SASR and 2 Cdo Regt but they donít do the mission SASR do.



It doesnít work this way. SOF would want their own people providing the cordons. This was why they set up 2 Cdo Regt in the first place.
Most military tacticians think it unlikely we will witness battalion sized operational drops in the near future. Company at most and invariably these would be preceded by either the pathfinders or SF to mark the DZ. If I was the CO of 3RAR I would be straining at the leash to get my unit better integrated with SASR/Cdo formations and push for a support role, even if it was limited to just the pathfinder platoon providing a localised safe harbour.

The UK SFSG comprises 1 Para, 1 x Coy of RM & 1 X Coy of RAF Reg (SAR support/ airfield defence). Moving forward 2 Cdo could add a single 3RAR Coy made up of top percent of troopers/NCO's/officers from the battalion. The 3RAR Coy could specialise (heavy weapons for example).
riksavage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011   #40
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,041
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by riksavage View Post
Moving forward 2 Cdo could add a single 3RAR Coy made up of top percent of troopers/NCO's/officers from the battalion. The 3RAR Coy could specialise (heavy weapons for example).
Why not just add another coy to 2 Cdo instead of using a coy from 3 RAR? It makes no sense.

1 Cdo Regt will gain a third reserve commando coy based in Brisbane, but there is no thought to adding any other units to SOCOMD.
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011   #41
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by riksavage View Post
If I was the CO of 3RAR I would be straining at the leash to get my unit better integrated with SASR/Cdo formations and push for a support role
Yeah they did but the SOF didnít want to have anything to do with them. They had 2 Cdo Regt (aka 4 RAR (Cdo)). In the UKSF they have 1 Para in this role. They donít need to turn to 2 and 3 Para.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011   #42
Banned Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,452
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
Yeah they did but the SOF didnít want to have anything to do with them. They had 2 Cdo Regt (aka 4 RAR (Cdo)). In the UKSF they have 1 Para in this role. They donít need to turn to 2 and 3 Para.
That's a shame because I would have thought 3RAR provided the largest percentage of recruits for SASR selection. Having a 3RAR Coy supporting the SF community would give them exposure to the role and hopefully encourage more young thrusters to go for selection.
riksavage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011   #43
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,631
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
To give you an indication of what this means the 20 or so Harriers sent to the Falklands flew something like 1,200 combat air patrol missions and only 200 odd strike recce missions. This includes the missions flown by the strike only RAF Harriers. Further the ARH is limited to only three types of missions: recce, attack and MRH/CH escort. The attack part of that is very much the poorer cousin and they will only fly this against high value targets. All of the sorts of missions that a strike fighter force could supply the ARH wonít do and will be carried out by missiles or go wanting.
What I am getting at is how are we proposing to cover the landing troops ? Obviously with the Tigers, buy how effective will this really be ? I am certainly not suggesting trying to run the B's from the LHD's, but from what GF was saying is that if, and correct me if I am not understanding correctly, is that if 6-8 of them can't do the job what hope is there for the Tigers ?
Which is why I am interested in the Doctrine and foreseable task's that we will expect the LHD's to be in ? Which of course ties back to the earlier discussions regarding the Army's approach to this
aussienscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2011   #44
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
These like the Orions and Wedgetails also pictured would be shore based and operating in support of the amphibious operation.



These two pictures are included because they show Australian Army personnel training with the USMC. If Army had a wishlist requirement it would be in the issues section of the presento. Army has the project to acquire 24 odd independent operations and raiding watercraft. This is going to be a crucial project to ensure we end up with something survivable and capable of escorting the LCMs. This is much better to be something like the CB90 (or smaller similar) rather than RHIBs or rigid raiders. A day boat is better than a raft.
CB90, oh I do hope so, something along that line is long overdue. Any chance of a NEMO or AMOS equiped version?

If we do go the way of the CB90 it may be worth ensuring the OCVs can operate one or more as well.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2011   #45
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
What I am getting at is how are we proposing to cover the landing troops ?
Cover? There won't be any of that...
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:52 PM.