World Wide Marine Corps & Amphibious Ops Discussion

[Abraham Gubler]

RAA should become very familiar with the LHD, as its going to be a pretty much every major deployment of the RAA.

RAA? The Royal Australian Artillery stopped using this name a while ago and now uses Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery (RRAA).

It amazes me that Australians can mistake the name of our Army. It is the plan simple “The Australian Army” and before that was called “The Australian Military Force” but never, ever the “The Royal Australian Army”. Because an army in the British tradition is not a service it is a collection of regiments. The regiments can earn “Royal” titles but not the force.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It amazes me that Australians can mistake the name of our Army. It is the plan simple “The Australian Army” and before that was called “The Australian Military Force” but never, ever the “The Royal Australian Army”. Because an army in the British tradition is not a service it is a collection of regiments. The regiments can earn “Royal” titles but not the force

So is the navy a force? like the RAAF. The airforce is a Force but has Royal?! Ok, now Im confusing myself.

If I write AA then people think Im refering to AntiAircraft. Its an incorrect abbreivation but one many can understand in the context of (RAN, RAAF and RAA). AMF would only be familiar with WWI ish era. I think I will just type army as its only 1 more letter anyway)..

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So is the navy a force? like the RAAF. The airforce is a Force but has Royal?! Ok, now Im confusing myself.

The difference is the Navy and the Air Force are/were services. That is you joined the Navy or you joined the Air Force. No one actually joins the Army. They join a regiment. Now the Australian Army is not exactly like the British Army anymore in that you join the Army but after basic training are assigned to a corps (like a regiment). But the function and tradition are still there. The Army is not a service but an amalgam of corps and regiments.

If I write AA then people think Im refering to AntiAircraft. Its an incorrect abbreivation but one many can understand in the context of (RAN, RAAF and RAA). AMF would only be familiar with WWI ish era. I think I will just type army as its only 1 more letter anyway)..

There is no such thing as the Royal Australian Army. You might as well refer to it as the Queen’s Land Force of Anzacs. People will get that you mean the Army but you’re still typing nonsense. AMF was the official name up until the early 90s but using that would be inappropriate. Also in the order of precedence it goes: RAN, Army, RAAF.

 

[Raven22]

Also in the order of precedence it goes: RAN, Army, RAAF.

Ah, tradition. Even though the RAN didn't exist until ten years after the Army, somehow it's still the senior service.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Ah, tradition. Even though the RAN didn't exist until ten years after the Army, somehow it's still the senior service.

Actually the RAN is older than 1911. The Navy, like the Army, was formed on 1 March 1901 as the "Australian Commonwealth Naval Forces" which were renamed "Royal Australian Navy" in 1911. The ACNF was formed by amalgamating the various colonial naval forces.

As to seniority the Navy comes first because of inherited tradition from Great Britain and because the 1901 formation order had naval forces followed by military forces. All it takes is being first on a piece of paper to be more senior...

 

[Raven22]

Actually the RAN is older than 1911. The Navy, like the Army, was formed on 1 March 1901 as the "Australian Commonwealth Naval Forces" which were renamed "Royal Australian Navy" in 1911. The ACNF was formed by amalgamating the various colonial naval forces.

As to seniority the Navy comes first because of inherited tradition from Great Britain and because the 1901 formation order had naval forces followed by military forces. All it takes is being first on a piece of paper to be more senior...

I understand the reason. It's the same as I like to point out the RAAC is the senior corps in the Army (you're gunner mates always assume it is them).

 

[Volkodav]

I understand the reason. It's the same as I like to point out the RAAC is the senior corps in the Army (you're gunner mates always assume it is them).

My personal favourite is RAAF officers having ceremonial swords, I just can’t see how that can be justified by tradition….unless of course you stretch to Keith Smith having been a Light Horseman before becoming an AFC pilot at a time swords were being reissued to the Mounted Corps in Palestine in WWI.

Interesting point on the Naval Infantry Abe, I wonder if the RAN could make good use of such a force these days.

Base security, watch keeping on ships in port, boarding parties and damage control parties on deployment, brown water and counter piracy operations in fast interceptor craft and combat vessels, SF support (insertion and extraction etc), operation of landing craft, establishment and defence of beach heads. Above all they could form the core of an amphibious and brown water capability, run and staff a specialist amphibious school and be an enabling force to assist the Army in operating in the maritime environment.

The personnel would undertake their initial training with the RAN before officers would be posted to Duntroon and sailors to Kapooka or Singleton. They would be sailors first but fully trained soldiers as well, perfect to serve as a force multiplier helping the Army get the most out of the RAN’s amphibious assets.

 

[swerve]

The Royal Marines and USMC are part of the Navy due to a couple of hundred years of tradition, not because it is a smart way to run things. Neither organisation was formed for amphibious operations as we know them today, but simply absorbed that role as time went on. Both the Royal Marines and USMC are constantly having to justify their existence, as their role can easily be performed by their respective armies. The only thing that saves them is tradition and the fact that they are excellent fighting organisations. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of US amphibious operations in WWII were carried out by the Army not the USMC, ditto for the Brits.

Absolutely right.

The RM & USMC both started out as soldiers on ships for fighting in naval battles, which were then conducted at ranges, & in a manner, in which men with muskets & bayonets could be useful. Both also had secondary roles as on-board security, & for raiding ashore. When the nature of naval warfare changed, marines in many countries ended up being divided into base guards (little more than police) & raiders, & greatly reduced in numbers. Some managed to find new roles, e.g. the USMC became a colonial army, delivered by the navy to whatever small country the USA wanted to occupy.

Amphibious assault was never exclusively or even primarily a marine task. If you're in a war which necessitates sea-borne invasions, you need to use your army, not just the marines, as WW2 proved. The USMC reinvented itself as the amphibious assault force of the USA post-WW2 to keep its manpower & budget. It's not an ancient tradition.

The RM, USMC, & every other 'marine' force larger than a small raiding unit consists of ground troops, & whenever their nations are in a war they fight on land. How many US marines are there in (landlocked, not even a navigable river) Afghanistan?

 

[Kirkzzy]

Absolutely right.

The RM & USMC both started out as soldiers on ships for fighting in naval battles, which were then conducted at ranges, & in a manner, in which men with muskets & bayonets could be useful. Both also had secondary roles as on-board security, & for raiding ashore. When the nature of naval warfare changed, marines in many countries ended up being divided into base guards (little more than police) & raiders, & greatly reduced in numbers. Some managed to find new roles, e.g. the USMC became a colonial army, delivered by the navy to whatever small country the USA wanted to occupy.

Amphibious assault was never exclusively or even primarily a marine task. If you're in a war which necessitates sea-borne invasions, you need to use your army, not just the marines, as WW2 proved. The USMC reinvented itself as the amphibious assault force of the USA post-WW2 to keep its manpower & budget. It's not an ancient tradition.

The RM, USMC, & every other 'marine' force larger than a small raiding unit consists of ground troops, & whenever their nations are in a war they fight on land. How many US marines are there in (landlocked, not even a navigable river) Afghanistan?

I actually admit I have hardly any knowledge but I am still very curious. So what if Australia was to do what the UK do and use the 2nd commando regiment and just change the name to 2nd marine commando regiment? Use them as ship security/boarding parties that are capable of amphibious assault operations and commando mission that they currently do in Iraq. Much like the Royal Marines, or am I missing something?

 

[riksavage]

I actually admit I have hardly any knowledge but I am still very curious. So what if Australia was to do what the UK do and use the 2nd commando regiment and just change the name to 2nd marine commando regiment? Use them as ship security/boarding parties that are capable of amphibious assault operations and commando mission that they currently do in Iraq. Much like the Royal Marines, or am I missing something?

The RM operational structure is different to the army regimental system. A commando is larger, training is longer and you have all the maritime add-on badged assets, which are unique. During the cold war 3 commando had a specific role defending the northern flank, today they represent the RN's spearhead rapid reaction corps, the same way 16 air assault is the army's.

The UK has 30 odd infantry battalions to play with, Aus doesn't have the same sort or critical mass to allow for the farming off of commandos to the Navy budget with all the associated separate training establishments for officers, NCO's and OR's. Keep the Aus units as pure army commando's using existing facilities under the army orbit.

 

[rip]

Absolutely right.

The RM & USMC both started out as soldiers on ships for fighting in naval battles, which were then conducted at ranges, & in a manner, in which men with muskets & bayonets could be useful. Both also had secondary roles as on-board security, & for raiding ashore. When the nature of naval warfare changed, marines in many countries ended up being divided into base guards (little more than police) & raiders, & greatly reduced in numbers. Some managed to find new roles, e.g. the USMC became a colonial army, delivered by the navy to whatever small country the USA wanted to occupy.

Amphibious assault was never exclusively or even primarily a marine task. If you're in a war which necessitates sea-borne invasions, you need to use your army, not just the marines, as WW2 proved. The USMC reinvented itself as the amphibious assault force of the USA post-WW2 to keep its manpower & budget. It's not an ancient tradition.

The RM, USMC, & every other 'marine' force larger than a small raiding unit consists of ground troops, & whenever their nations are in a war they fight on land. How many US marines are there in (landlocked, not even a navigable river) Afghanistan?

The US Marines have always done all the odd jobs. Among many other things they provide security for all US embassies or anything that just pops up and needs to be done. If something happens they just send in the Marines they will figure it out and get it done, and it is their flexibility above all which has been their greatest advantage over that long traditional history that you talk about. If there is a hole they fill it.

 

[aussienscale]

It is interesting to note the many and varied changes the "Marines" have gone through in time, even from the Marines on the first fleet through to the current UK Marines, to the USMC and the campaigns they have waged through WWI & WWII and the evolutions they have all had in between.
A lot of people are talking about the gaps they fill to keep themselves relevant and how quickly they can evolve to suit the given task.
I have been reading a lot about the history of the Marines and an interesting description I have read recently described the Marines as the "Cameleons" of the modern day fighters ?

 

[ThePuss]

The Navy does NOT use Clearance Divers as boarding teams on their ships. The sailors that make up said teams and shore parties are normal sailors, usually the Quartermaster Gunner rating. Clearance Divers are only posted to mine hunters where they do… clearance diving…

Actually we do use CD's or "Bubble Heads" as boarding parties in the RAN. Yes normally BP members are made up from sailors from any department, but they are only trained to a level to conduct unopposed or low risk boarding. I.e. seizing illegal immigrant vessels or illegal FFV's. However for opposed or high risk boarding's we either employ SASR (Pong Sue) or Clearance divers (There has been a detachment onboard all deployments since we started to chase pirates off Somalia a few years ago).

CD's do more than just hunt mines, A RAN CD team is divided into three discreet sections, Mine Counter Measures, Battle Damage repair/fleet support (every MFU has at least one CD onboard) and Maritime tactical operations.

Also QMG's have not been a rate in the navy for nearly 20 years, they where replace by Bosons.

 

[t68]

65000 metric ton light carriers?

Compared to a Nimitz or Ford class carrier’s, Queen Elizabeth class carriers are a light carrier, comparing the Queen Elizabeth to earlier light carriers she is a super carrier.

Unless they want to redesign the America class for an angled flight deck if the F35B gets dumped and the USMC goes a mix of Super hornets and F35c it might be the cheaper way to build Queen Elizabeth class under licence from the UK.

Comparing other light carriers designs over the years with angled decks raging from HMAS Melbourne and HMS Ark Royal (R09), they compare about the same overall dimensions of an America class without the beam length for an angled deck. They range in length from 214m to 245m, while America class is 257m in length compared to a queen Elizabeth class 284m, with a redesign would the catapult launch area be sufficient to launch Supers Hornets and F35C?

From the redesign to an angled deck, next on the list would be hanger and maintenance spaces will it be sufficient for 20 odd aircraft, it might be the case it will only be sufficient for the fixed wing component without the helicopter support or a smaller fixed wing flight of around 10/12 super Hornet plus the MV22 Osprey, AH1Z Vipers, CH 53 super Stallion and Sea hawk.

With a planned build of 12 ships and with 1 being built at the moment and with Robert gates recent desire to reel in the defence budget, being larger and more flexible with the amount of fixed wing and helicopter support it may be the case of a more potent light carrier for the USMC but with a reduced number of hull required to do the overall job they might only want 8 instead of the 12.

The above is only a thought, but I cannot see it happening I really cannot see the F35B getting dumped, too much money has been spent with not only ramifications for the USMC but also the Italians and Spanish military.

 

[kato]

Compared to a Nimitz or Ford class carrier’s

The QE class is the same size as the Forrestals and Kitty Hawks. Those were supercarriers and are still called that.

 

[t68]

The QE class is the same size as the Forrestals and Kitty Hawks. Those were supercarriers and are still called that.

In relation to early super carriers, yes she is comparable to a super carrier in displacement, but that’s where they difference come to the fore in the different mentality between UK/US designs. But to compare her with a modern super carrier she is on the small side.

Forrestal class are about 50 odd metres longer than a Queen Elizabeth class (more than half length than a footy field), beam and draught are almost identical. Forrestal class are designed with up to 90 aircraft in mind Queen Elizabeth up to 50 max, there is a big difference in operational footprint of the carrier.

I am in no way knocking the Queen Elizabeth carrier; she is more than capable of holding her own and is what the RN wants from a carrier.

 

[aussienscale]

to build Queen Elizabeth class under licence from the UK.

with a redesign would the catapult launch area be sufficient to launch Supers Hornets and F35C?

From the redesign to an angled deck

Are you talking about redesigning the America Class deck or the QE deck ?

If you are talking about the QE they are actually designed for both, so although the original design was a straight deck layout with the Ski Jump, it can also be configured to the angled deck for cat and trap ops and IIRC the original plan was to make it a STOVL Carrier first and if ready in time to convert the second (Prince of Wales) to the Emals, and later convert QE to the same at the first major refit, with potential talk of a carrier variant of the Typhoon, although not sure how accurate that last bit was

 

[t68]

Compared to a Nimitz or Ford class carrier’s, Queen Elizabeth class carriers are a light carrier, comparing the Queen Elizabeth to earlier light carriers she is a super carrier.

Unless they want to redesign the America class for an angled flight deck if the F35B gets dumped and the USMC goes a mix of Super hornets and F35c it might be the cheaper way to build Queen Elizabeth class under licence from the UK.


From the redesign to an angled deck, next on the list would be hanger and maintenance spaces will it be sufficient for 20 odd aircraft, it might be the case it will only be sufficient for the fixed wing component without the helicopter support or a smaller fixed wing flight of around 10/12 super Hornet plus the MV22 Osprey, AH1Z Vipers, CH 53 super Stallion and Sea hawk.

.

to build Queen Elizabeth class under licence from the UK.

with a redesign would the catapult launch area be sufficient to launch Supers Hornets and F35C?

From the redesign to an angled deck

Are you talking about redesigning the America Class deck or the QE deck ?
If you are talking about the QE they are actually designed for both, so although the original design was a straight deck layout with the Ski Jump, it can also be configured to the angled deck for cat and trap ops and IIRC the original plan was to make it a STOVL Carrier first and if ready in time to convert the second (Prince of Wales) to the Emals, and later convert QE to the same at the first major refit, with potential talk of a carrier variant of the Typhoon, although not sure how accurate that last bit was

Yeah with the redesign referring to an America class to make her Super Hornet or F35C capable, if they dump the F35B in the future.

My reasoning for the US to licence build Queen Elizabeth class it will save money on redesigning America class and building less to save money buy having a larger flexible and capable ship. Instead of the 12 planned, QE being larger they might only have a need for say 8.

 

[swerve]

Compared to a Nimitz or Ford class carrier’s, Queen Elizabeth class carriers are a light carrier, comparing the Queen Elizabeth to earlier light carriers she is a super carrier.

Unless they want to redesign the America class for an angled flight deck if the F35B gets dumped and the USMC goes a mix of Super hornets and F35c it might be the cheaper way to build Queen Elizabeth class under licence from the UK.

You've just classified all carriers except super-carriers as 'light'. That covers everything from Chakri Naruebet (11500 tons full load) to the QE class (65000 tons full load, with growth capacity). Don't you think that's making the term meaningless? Let's use some meaningful terms, for example: Nimitz et al are super-heavy; QE is heavy; Charles de Gaulle & Gorshkov/Vikramaditya are medium; Cavour is light; everything smaller is very light. There, that didn't hurt, did it?

The QE class is so different from America that it would need substantial redesign to fill the same role, & would end being a different ship, which damages the argument for licence-building it. If you just want smaller carriers for the USN, then yes, it could do that - but how do you link that to the USMC? If you're arguing for USMC-specific carriers, why do they have to be 65000 tons? What's the argument for a separate class, instead of devoting some CVNs to the USMC?

 

[t68]

You've just classified all carriers except super-carriers as 'light'. That covers everything from Chakri Naruebet (11500 tons full load) to the QE class (65000 tons full load, with growth capacity). Don't you think that's making the term meaningless? Let's use some meaningful terms, for example: Nimitz et al are super-heavy; QE is heavy; Charles de Gaulle & Gorshkov/Vikramaditya are medium; Cavour is light; everything smaller is very light. There, that didn't hurt, did it?

Fair enough

The QE class is so different from America that it would need substantial redesign to fill the same role, & would end being a different ship, which damages the argument for licence-building it. If you just want smaller carriers for the USN, then yes, it could do that - but how do you link that to the USMC? If you're arguing for USMC-specific carriers, why do they have to be 65000 tons? What's the argument for a separate class, instead of devoting some CVNs to the USMC?

The redesign for America class from the Wasp class is for enhanced aviation capacity, no well docks. USMC does not have to go to 65000t ship, if the F35B gets dumped and replace’s them with more Super Hornets or F35C to replace the aging harrier and legacy hornets.

With Sec Def Robert Gates desire to roll in the defence budget, redesigning once again the America class to accept the Super Hornet might be cost prohibitive, hence my thoughts on a licence build Queen Elizabeth with less hulls but will have a larger capacity to operate all of the USMC aircraft in inventory without having to rely on USN Nimitz/Ford class carriers which might be cost and waste of resource taking the larger carrier away from other duties/requirements.