Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

World Wide Marine Corps & Amphibious Ops Discussion

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by aussienscale, Dec 23, 2010.

Share This Page

  1. aussienscale

    aussienscale Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Northern Rivers, NSW
    @ rip (sorry to quote myself)

    You are more than welcome to kick us off with whatever you would like to discuss :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 23, 2012
  2. Abraham Gubler

    Abraham Gubler Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,270
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  3. Marc 1

    Marc 1 Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Messages:
    820
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    The land of Oz
    Thanks Abraham. T68, there's your increase in numbers, not more infantry, more cav to make better use of the infantry.:australia
     
  4. Navor86

    Navor86 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    1
    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
     
  5. aussienscale

    aussienscale Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Northern Rivers, NSW
    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.com/images/NAVY_Lighterage_USS_Seay_Bradleys_lg.jpg

    Here also is a link to the BMT FLC BMT Defence Services - Fast Landing Craft
     
  6. Abraham Gubler

    Abraham Gubler Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,270
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    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.
     
  7. Abraham Gubler

    Abraham Gubler Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,270
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    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.
     
  8. aussienscale

    aussienscale Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Northern Rivers, NSW
    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 ?
     
  9. Jaimito

    Jaimito Banned Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. old faithful

    old faithful Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,268
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    Darwin Australia
    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.
     
  11. aussienscale

    aussienscale Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Northern Rivers, NSW
    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
     
  12. Raven22

    Raven22 Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,209
    Likes Received:
    324
    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.
     
  13. Abraham Gubler

    Abraham Gubler Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,270
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 won’t do and will be carried out by missiles or go wanting.
     
  14. riksavage

    riksavage Banned Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Singapore
    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?
     
  15. Abraham Gubler

    Abraham Gubler Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,270
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  16. riksavage

    riksavage Banned Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Singapore
    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.
     
  17. Abraham Gubler

    Abraham Gubler Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,270
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 don’t do the mission SASR do.

    It doesn’t 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.
     
  18. Raven22

    Raven22 Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,209
    Likes Received:
    324
    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.

    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.
     
  19. riksavage

    riksavage Banned Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Singapore
    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).
     
  20. Raven22

    Raven22 Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,209
    Likes Received:
    324
    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.