World Wide Marine Corps & Amphibious Ops Discussion

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #21
@ rip (sorry to quote myself)

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 a moderator:

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.



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.
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.

Thanks Abraham. T68, there's your increase in numbers, not more infantry, more cav to make better use of the infantry.:australia
 

Navor86

Member
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
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #25
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.com/images/NAVY_Lighterage_USS_Seay_Bradleys_lg.jpg

Here also is a link to the BMT FLC BMT Defence Services - Fast Landing Craft
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.

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

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.

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.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #28
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 ?
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #31
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
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
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?
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
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.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.

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 don’t do the mission SASR do.

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 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.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.

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.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
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.
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).
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 
Top