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 aussienscale Sorta like the "fitted for but not with" style planning, Do you have any references you ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old January 11th, 2011   #61
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,041
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 ?
Not really. The 'Army Objective Force 2030' is just that, it is an aspirational model for how army should be organised in the future based on strategic direction and outlook. It's never going to look the same as the army in being due to real world concerns like resourcing, changes in strategic direction etc. There are a number of capabilities in the AOF that don't exist in the current army, (mostly in the boring CS and CSS parts), of which an Amtrac-type capability is just one. There's a requirement for a riverine squadron of CB-90-like boats as well, and I give that more chance of being realised than Amtracs.
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2011   #62
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Kirkzzy's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 284
Threads:
If we wanted an amphibious capability, it is likely we would only need two battalions, with one being ready to go at any given time, actually more like 3 with one being on high readiness that can deploy in 24 hours max and the other 2 either training or ready to go but not until the next 3 days or so until called upon.

An idea of how to use existing structure for this is simple, we make the 1st Commando Regiment full time and get its numbers up to full strength, raise another Commando Regiment (3rd Commando Regiment) and then combine them all into marine commandos? Which can still be used in missions like Afghanistan as our general commando unit, but they specialise in Amphibious warfare?
Kirkzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2011   #63
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,631
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
Not really. The 'Army Objective Force 2030' is just that, it is an aspirational model for how army should be organised in the future based on strategic direction and outlook. It's never going to look the same as the army in being due to real world concerns like resourcing, changes in strategic direction etc. There are a number of capabilities in the AOF that don't exist in the current army, (mostly in the boring CS and CSS parts), of which an Amtrac-type capability is just one. There's a requirement for a riverine squadron of CB-90-like boats as well, and I give that more chance of being realised than Amtracs.
Ah ok with you now, yes riverine & Litoral would be a better spend. I have looked at the CB90 before (I think it was Abe who put me onto it) it has some versatile variations, looks like a good bit of kit. What type of numbers and variations of this type of boat do you think the Army would seriously look at ?
aussienscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2011   #64
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,041
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
Ah ok with you now, yes riverine & Litoral would be a better spend. I have looked at the CB90 before (I think it was Abe who put me onto it) it has some versatile variations, looks like a good bit of kit. What type of numbers and variations of this type of boat do you think the Army would seriously look at ?
The requirement I have seen is for a squadron of three or so troops, each with four boats - two for carrying grunts armed with an RWS with light cannon, and two for fire support armed with 120mm mortars or similar. Each troop can carry a grunt platoon.
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2011   #65
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
The requirement I have seen is for a squadron of three or so troops, each with four boats - two for carrying grunts armed with an RWS with light cannon, and two for fire support armed with 120mm mortars or similar. Each troop can carry a grunt platoon.
CB90 and AMTRACs would probably be quite useful in QLD at the moment.

The CB90 and related fast interceptor craft would also be a very useful acquisition for the RAN to operate from the planned OCVs rather or in addition to RHIBs. They could be used for extended ops away from the mother OCV with the type of craft being carried being determined by the mission, i.e. littoral, light amphib, disaster relief, counter piracy etc.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2011   #66
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,767
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by F-15 Eagle View Post
If the F-35B gets canceled, they could in theory anyways replace all 400 F-35Bs with F-35Cs and more F/A-18 Super Hornets on a 1 for 1 basis and still save billions of dollars.

Not too bad of an idea especially if the F-35B has not that great performance compared to the A and C model as well as the F/A-18.

The F-35B is only rated for 6.5-7Gs compared to the 9Gs for the F-35A and 7.5Gs for the F/A-18 and F-35C.
Only downside to this for the USMC is that F35A/C model cannot use the current Wasp/America class ship to launch from, more likely the Supers and F35C model will be chosen if the B model gets canned and can integrate with a USN carrier, but I just cannot see it happening not only will the America class become a white elephant but Spain and Italy will be having kittens on what to replace Harrier with. Would the USMC look at Queen Elizabeth class carrier to fix their light carrier problem, so they will still have organic fixed wing capability at sea to support the Marine on the beach, there is just too much at risk not only for nations currently using Harrier but a fundamentally a change in doctrine and long lead time orders for America class into the future of American shipbuilding.

What has happened with the tooling equipment how difficult would it be in put the next gen radar and engines in a new build Harrier, could it even be done might as well just continue with the F35B.


Just a thought could you put a plug and length an America class and still use her in the same vain or will it need angled decks to use SH/F35C?
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2011   #67
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,684
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Would the USMC look at Queen Elizabeth class carrier to fix their light carrier problem,
65000 metric ton light carriers?
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2011   #68
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,765
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
65000 metric ton light carriers?
When you are building 100,000-110,000t carriers yes. Its only 20,000t larger than a america class.

I wonder if you could convert an America into a F-35C/F-18 launcher. Emag launcher, hmm, maybe.. It would be pretty crappy, aircraft handling would be a mess, but could be possible.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2011   #69
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Kirkzzy's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 284
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
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?
I like the idea, maybe 3 battalions. One ready to deploy at any time (like current structure of one deployed while one is readying and the one is ready) with one replacing the navy clearance divers and acting as the navies boarding party teams. the other readying and the last ready to embark at any given time. Then the three battalions go through all these different roles of readying, ready (ready to embark on the Canberra Class) and deployed rotating three times a year. And the word "marine" would attract a lot of recruits, honestly with all the Call of Duty games these days kids today will most likely be soldiers tomorrow.
Kirkzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2011   #70
Banned Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,452
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkzzy View Post
I like the idea, maybe 3 battalions. One ready to deploy at any time (like current structure of one deployed while one is readying and the one is ready) with one replacing the navy clearance divers and acting as the navies boarding party teams. the other readying and the last ready to embark at any given time. Then the three battalions go through all these different roles of readying, ready (ready to embark on the Canberra Class) and deployed rotating three times a year. And the word "marine" would attract a lot of recruits, honestly with all the Call of Duty games these days kids today will most likely be soldiers tomorrow.
To maintain a credible 24-7 ready amphib capable battalion sized group you need to have at least 3 battalions. One on immediate standby/deployed at sea (six month), one training for the next deployment cycle and one on its leave / trade / leadership course cycle. This allows for 12 months home basing for every six months high readiness operational deployment. You would have a much higher retention level by following this pattern and greatly reduce the pressure on family life. Two dedicated battalions would not allow for a full bat group to remain fully committed without causing manning problems. Another factor is you will need to have dedicated companies of aviators, gunners, engineers, logisticians following a similar rotational cycle to ensure the active battalion is a true all arms self sustaining fully amphib capable battlegroup.

Unfortunately you can't just embark a resident infantry battalion at sea. You need to practice loading/unloading/cross-decking of resources in day/night conditions in varying sea-states to gain operational certification. This takes time, experience and careful planning, hence countres such as the UK/US have all-arms Marines/Commados (gunners, tankies et al) asigned to role to ensure they remain current and practiced operating at sea.
riksavage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2011   #71
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Kirkzzy's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 284
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by riksavage View Post
To maintain a credible 24-7 ready amphib capable battalion sized group you need to have at least 3 battalions. One on immediate standby/deployed at sea (six month), one training for the next deployment cycle and one on its leave / trade / leadership course cycle. This allows for 12 months home basing for every six months high readiness operational deployment. You would have a much higher retention level by following this pattern and greatly reduce the pressure on family life. Two dedicated battalions would not allow for a full bat group to remain fully committed without causing manning problems. Another factor is you will need to have dedicated companies of aviators, gunners, engineers, logisticians following a similar rotational cycle to ensure the active battalion is a true all arms self sustaining fully amphib capable battlegroup.

Unfortunately you can't just embark a resident infantry battalion at sea. You need to practice loading/unloading/cross-decking of resources in day/night conditions in varying sea-states to gain operational certification. This takes time, experience and careful planning, hence countres such as the UK/US have all-arms Marines/Commados (gunners, tankies et al) asigned to role to ensure they remain current and practiced operating at sea.
Hence why I said 3 battalions for all the stuff you mentioned in the first para I couldn't be bothered to put up.

Although at the current time I don't think we have the resources unfortunately... anyone know how our regular infantry do in amphibious training?
Kirkzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2011   #72
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,041
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkzzy View Post
I like the idea, maybe 3 battalions. One ready to deploy at any time (like current structure of one deployed while one is readying and the one is ready) with one replacing the navy clearance divers and acting as the navies boarding party teams. the other readying and the last ready to embark at any given time. Then the three battalions go through all these different roles of readying, ready (ready to embark on the Canberra Class) and deployed rotating three times a year. And the word "marine" would attract a lot of recruits, honestly with all the Call of Duty games these days kids today will most likely be soldiers tomorrow.
What you've described there is exactly how it works now, and will work on the future. Considering the Army is already recruiting 170% of its infantry target, I'm not sure exactly what changing the name of a brigade to 'marine' would achieve.
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2011   #73
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Kirkzzy's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 284
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
What you've described there is exactly how it works now, and will work on the future. Considering the Army is already recruiting 170% of its infantry target, I'm not sure exactly what changing the name of a brigade to 'marine' would achieve.
Because my idea is that it would be part of the RAN.

Although then again it doesn't have to be to achieve the goal set out.
Kirkzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2011   #74
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,041
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkzzy View Post
Because my idea is that it would be part of the RAN.
Good idea. We can then have the Army raise a wing of F-22s and the Air Force can man the submarine squadron...
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2011   #75
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Kirkzzy's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 284
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
Good idea. We can then have the Army raise a wing of F-22s and the Air Force can man the submarine squadron...
Yes a unit of marines that is part of the army... and not the navy which it will be operating with the most.
Kirkzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:43 PM.