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 Raven22 Why not just add another coy to 2 Cdo instead of using a coy from 3 ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old January 6th, 2011   #46
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
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.
Its starting to sound like reorganising 2 Cdo Regt into a multi Btn Regt would make more sense than maintaining a Para Btn or forming a Marine Btn. I suppose the question is "are there enough suitable recruits to man the extra units"?
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2011   #47
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,632
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
Cover? There won't be any of that...
I suppose there is really no reason to worry about something that we would never be put into a position to need
aussienscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2011   #48
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
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

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.
Wow, I heard rumbles along this line but never realised it was being looked at seriously. Having served in both RAINF and RAAC (both reserves) I can see the common sense in allowing the experts in each corps do what they do best and work together to get the job done.

Has any thought been given to creating a speciallist regiment of say 3 or 4 sqns to facilitate amphibious operations? Not Marines as such but experts in ship to shore and littoral operations who will operate the landing craft, support vessels and vehicles i.e. BARVs etc. A unit that would povide the special gear and training the line troops need to get over the beach and back to the warfare they know?

What would they be RAE, RAAC, or very much combined arms?
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2011   #49
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Its starting to sound like reorganising 2 Cdo Regt into a multi Btn Regt would make more sense than maintaining a Para Btn or forming a Marine Btn. I suppose the question is "are there enough suitable recruits to man the extra units"?
2 Cdo Regt is for SOF tasking. Any need for a conventional warfighting para bn or amphib bn would come from the rest of the army and in the regular infantry form the RAR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Has any thought been given to creating a speciallist regiment of say 3 or 4 sqns to facilitate amphibious operations? Not Marines as such but experts in ship to shore and littoral operations who will operate the landing craft, support vessels and vehicles i.e. BARVs etc. A unit that would povide the special gear and training the line troops need to get over the beach and back to the warfare they know?
There already is such a unit: 10 FSB. Which combines an RACT terminal squadron and a RACT watercraft squadron and some RAAOC amphibious fuel capabilities. It also has the amphibious beach teams. RACT is basically the amphibious corps of the army something they inherited from RAE on formation.

In the post WWII army there was 15 Amphib Assault Regt (NRL) equipped with Amtracs but they were disbanded at the end of the Nasho CMF.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2011   #50
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,632
Threads:
EFV to be axed ? Gates thinks so

Attached article say Defence Secretary Robert Gates is recomending the EFV program be cancelled
Gates Recommends Cancelling the Procurement of USMC’s Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle - Defense-Update

I think this one was coming for a while, and I would not be surprised if they got out of it while the timing is right ? It is quoted as saying it would cost 12 billion to build a fleet capable of putting only 4,000 troops ashore and that other assetts available will do the job

With the likes of the America Class LHA coming without the well dock and more emphasis on the air side of this for OTH and the insertion of troops it is not surprising.

What effect do you guys think this may have on the USMC ? and do you possibly see this as an embarassment with the likes of China and their ZBD2000 being in service ? It is reported as a simular vehicle with the Ski hull, waterjet propulsion and a "reported speed" comparable to the EFV. Although I have only ever seen footage and pics of it in very calm waters and not at speed, so not sure what the capabilities of it really are ?

Abraham, do you have any info or reports that you have seen on its capabilities ?

The report also states that money will be invested into the current AAV for new engines, comms etc until a viable option comes along, not sure how much life the AAV hulls actually have left in them though
aussienscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2011   #51
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
With the likes of the America Class LHA coming without the well dock and more emphasis on the air side of this for OTH and the insertion of troops it is not surprising.
That’s not the case at all. The deletion of the well dock from the LHA 6 is because of the evolution of the capability of the Gator ships in the USN’s ESG. In contemporary ESGs the LHD/LHA was usually loaded with vehicles that could all be lifted by the helos and the well dock used for LCACs. With the new LPD 17 these LCACs can now be carried closer to the shore and the LHD/LHA carry exclusively aircraft (and helo liftable vehicles). Its just further customisation of the ships based on experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
What effect do you guys think this may have on the USMC ? and do you possibly see this as an embarassment with the likes of China and their ZBD2000 being in service ? It is reported as a simular vehicle with the Ski hull, waterjet propulsion and a "reported speed" comparable to the EFV. Although I have only ever seen footage and pics of it in very calm waters and not at speed, so not sure what the capabilities of it really are ?
The USMC has already stated that their mission is bigger than a single program. They will be replacing the EFV with a clean sheet design with better technology for swimming ashore. There is some very interesting stuff in the US in this area like the Fast Trac amphibians.

As to the ZBD 2000 this is an even bigger failure than the EFV. It can’t even plane to achieve high speed but the Chinese mass produced it anyway because they don’t have any responsible government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
The report also states that money will be invested into the current AAV for new engines, comms etc until a viable option comes along, not sure how much life the AAV hulls actually have left in them though
The LVTP7 (aka AAV) has a marine grade aluminium hull like the M113 which doesn’t corrode and is over engineered for stress (to be armoured) so they can basically be rebuilt for long service lives by replacing everything else in them time and time again.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2011   #52
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,632
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
That’s not the case at all. The deletion of the well dock from the LHA 6 is because of the evolution of the capability of the Gator ships in the USN’s ESG. In contemporary ESGs the LHD/LHA was usually loaded with vehicles that could all be lifted by the helos and the well dock used for LCACs. With the new LPD 17 these LCACs can now be carried closer to the shore and the LHD/LHA carry exclusively aircraft (and helo liftable vehicles). Its just further customisation of the ships based on experience.


The USMC has already stated that their mission is bigger than a single program. They will be replacing the EFV with a clean sheet design with better technology for swimming ashore. There is some very interesting stuff in the US in this area like the Fast Trac amphibians.

Is this the type of Amphibian you are talking about ?
http://www.hightech-edge.com/lockhee...mphibians/447/
http://www.gibbslockheedamphibians.com/acc-e.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_U5JxFD8GY
I have been reading up on these lately, very interesting

As to the ZBD 2000 this is an even bigger failure than the EFV. It can’t even plane to achieve high speed but the Chinese mass produced it anyway because they don’t have any responsible government.



The LVTP7 (aka AAV) has a marine grade aluminium hull like the M113 which doesn’t corrode and is over engineered for stress (to be armoured) so they can basically be rebuilt for long service lives by replacing everything else in them time and time again.
Thanks for the info, forgot to put the LPD into what I was saying, do you see these being used in conjunction with the initial landings from the LHA6, or do you think they would be used in the follow up role landing the heavier equipment as you said with the LCAC's etc ? Although thinking about it you would probably need a bit of both, just landing troops by Helo/V22 you would still have a requirement for Command vehicles etc, are the current contenders for the US PMV Helo friendly, IIRC it was a requirement but the weight of them was very borderline ?

I had my doubts about the ZBD, the usual internet propaganda, but as you mentioned had not seen any proof of it being capable of planing, let alone anything other than pristine conditions.

So with the AAV are there then any potential problems with stress and fatigue ? or with there design is it just a matter of chop and replace any effected area ? This is just the wishfull thinking in me but if they do continue for a pretty subtantial period of time until the replacements are ready, what would be the chance of Australia looking at some units if the price (and funding) was right ? Or are the current numbers they have critical to maintaining their requirements

Thanks

Last edited by aussienscale; January 9th, 2011 at 09:28 PM. Reason: additional comments and links
aussienscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2011   #53
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
Thanks for the info, forgot to put the LPD into what I was saying, do you see these being used in conjunction with the initial landings from the LHA6, or do you think they would be used in the follow up role landing the heavier equipment as you said with the LCAC's etc ? Although thinking about it you would probably need a bit of both, just landing troops by Helo/V22 you would still have a requirement for Command vehicles etc, are the current contenders for the US PMV Helo friendly, IIRC it was a requirement but the weight of them was very borderline ?
The USN uses a force of ships in the Gator Navy end of the ESG. One LHA/LHD, one LSD and one LPD. All there ships work together to land a MEU. When landing larger MEBs you start to see a bit more echeloning with the LSDs to the rear. The LPD traditionally operates closer in than the LHA/LHD and LSD one of the reasons why the LPD 17 has a lot more defensive systems than other amphibs. The LPD carries the Amtracs and operates a FARP for the attack helps. The Amtrac borne marine companies tend to land at the same time as the helo/tilt-rotor borne companies just at different locations. Its not a case of follow up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
I had my doubts about the ZBD, the usual internet propaganda, but as you mentioned had not seen any proof of it being capable of planing, let alone anything other than pristine conditions.
There’s some pretty compelling evidence that it can’t plane certainly not with a combat load. It’s a nice Amtrac but not in EFV territory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
So with the AAV are there then any potential problems with stress and fatigue ? or with there design is it just a matter of chop and replace any effected area ? This is just the wishfull thinking in me but if they do continue for a pretty subtantial period of time until the replacements are ready, what would be the chance of Australia looking at some units if the price (and funding) was right ? Or are the current numbers they have critical to maintaining their requirements
If the US is rebuilding AAVs for >15 years then they could always build more brand new. The difference between such a rebuild using the old hull and a new build is not so great. BAE (aka FMC) would still have the jigs to build new hulls and with the rest of the production (aka rebuild) line in place you could get new Amtracs easy. As to the condition of the hulls I have no specific information but like the M113 the over engineering needed to make an armoured monocoque hull should be enough for a very long life vehicle chassis.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2011   #54
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,632
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
The USN uses a force of ships in the Gator Navy end of the ESG. One LHA/LHD, one LSD and one LPD. All there ships work together to land a MEU. When landing larger MEBs you start to see a bit more echeloning with the LSDs to the rear. The LPD traditionally operates closer in than the LHA/LHD and LSD one of the reasons why the LPD 17 has a lot more defensive systems than other amphibs. The LPD carries the Amtracs and operates a FARP for the attack helps. The Amtrac borne marine companies tend to land at the same time as the helo/tilt-rotor borne companies just at different locations. Its not a case of follow up.



There’s some pretty compelling evidence that it can’t plane certainly not with a combat load. It’s a nice Amtrac but not in EFV territory.



If the US is rebuilding AAVs for >15 years then they could always build more brand new. The difference between such a rebuild using the old hull and a new build is not so great. BAE (aka FMC) would still have the jigs to build new hulls and with the rest of the production (aka rebuild) line in place you could get new Amtracs easy. As to the condition of the hulls I have no specific information but like the M113 the over engineering needed to make an armoured monocoque hull should be enough for a very long life vehicle chassis.
Thanks for the info, with the efv shelved, do you think it may (dreaming) be a possibility for the ADF to maybe look at some AAV's ?

I also need to learn to multi quote (after stuffing my last post) are these the type of Fast Amphibians you were talking about ? I have been reading about them a lot lately, could bring some interesting capabilities in not only the Amphibious Landing Group but in Littoral Ops as well
Marine Corps Military HSA Amphibious Assault Amphibians by Lockheed Martin Gibbs Military Contract | HighTech EDGE
Gibbs Military Amphibians // Military Vehicles // Amphibious Combat Craft Expeditionary ACC/E (Concept)
YouTube - RIPTIDE! BEST 4x4 Vid EVER! Will give u Chills!!! Holy Crap
aussienscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2011   #55
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,043
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
Thanks for the info, with the efv shelved, do you think it may (dreaming) be a possibility for the ADF to maybe look at some AAV's ?
Under the Army Objective Force, there is a requirement for a squadrons worths of Amtrac equivalents. Of course, there is a requirement for a whole lot of stuff we don't have, and not much money to buy them. Personally I doubt any amphibious armoured vehicles will ever be bought.
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2011   #56
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
If the US is rebuilding AAVs for >15 years then they could always build more brand new. The difference between such a rebuild using the old hull and a new build is not so great. BAE (aka FMC) would still have the jigs to build new hulls and with the rest of the production (aka rebuild) line in place you could get new Amtracs easy. As to the condition of the hulls I have no specific information but like the M113 the over engineering needed to make an armoured monocoque hull should be enough for a very long life vehicle chassis.
An issue I have heard is that the aluminium used for the hull has been known to delaminate, ironically, while this makes it more difficult to weld during any structural mods, it also improves the protection provided by the armour.

What I am interested in is what sort of mods the USMC is going to ask for now? Buoyant composite appliqué armour anyone?
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2011   #57
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,632
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
Under the Army Objective Force, there is a requirement for a squadrons worths of Amtrac equivalents. Of course, there is a requirement for a whole lot of stuff we don't have, and not much money to buy them. Personally I doubt any amphibious armoured vehicles will ever be bought.
Sorta like the "fitted for but not with" style planning, Do you have any references you could post for that ?

Volkodav, Gates did say in his statement that funding would be made available for engines and communications equipment, apart from that I would think better armour would be nice, weapons upgrade ? Surely someone has enough brains to find a way to make them faster through the water, that would be a biggy IMO ?
aussienscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2011   #58
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
An issue I have heard is that the aluminium used for the hull has been known to delaminate, ironically, while this makes it more difficult to weld during any structural mods, it also improves the protection provided by the armour.
What I am interested in is what sort of mods the USMC is going to ask for now? Buoyant composite appliqué armour anyone?
I doubt there will be any major hull structural mods. If the LVTP7 needs to motor for another 10-15 years then running gear and powerpack will be the major mods. Perhaps some nice C2 gear and new generation armour. But they’d be crazy to try and make it faster in water or anything major.

Though FMC (now BAES) did have a pretty cool idea for a high speed amtrac for the LVA program that was later cancelled and replaced by the AAAV which was later renamed EFV. See attached image…

Last edited by Abraham Gubler; February 22nd, 2011 at 06:46 AM.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2011   #59
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
Sorta like the "fitted for but not with" style planning, Do you have any references you could post for that ?
The entire army is full of that thing. All of the order of battle charts for units has all sorts of value added equipment with * beside it. At the bottom of the chart * says that said gear will be supplied by ABCA allies in time of war.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2011   #60
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
I also need to learn to multi quote (after stuffing my last post) are these the type of Fast Amphibians you were talking about ? I have been reading about them a lot lately, could bring some interesting capabilities in not only the Amphibious Landing Group but in Littoral Ops as well
Marine Corps Military HSA Amphibious Assault Amphibians by Lockheed Martin Gibbs Military Contract | HighTech EDGE
Gibbs Military Amphibians // Military Vehicles // Amphibious Combat Craft Expeditionary ACC/E (Concept)
YouTube - RIPTIDE! BEST 4x4 Vid EVER! Will give u Chills!!! Holy Crap
That Gibbs stuff – deep v boats with wheels – may be great for on road driving and sailing but how does it get from one to the other without a handy boat ramp?

YouTube - High Speed Tracked AmphibianIf they can scale it up this looks like the ticket to ride.
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 01:07 AM.