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.
World Wide Marine Corps & Amphibious Ops Discussion
- Thread starter aussienscale
- Start date
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?
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?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #63
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.
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.
t68
Well-Known Member
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I think you'll find any 'marine' brigade would spend >90% of its time ashore training for fighting on the ground. Amphibious ops is just another way to get to the fight, once the ramp goes down any 'marine' unit would fight exactly the same as anyone else. Paratroopers aren't part of the Air Force after all, they just use planes to get to the battle. We already have an organisation designed to win the land battle, it is called the army.
Any of the current brigades could perform the marine role with just a bit of extra training and resources, there is no need to raise a 'marine' brigade (even assuming there was money for it). As it currently stands 3 Bde will take on the role full time in 2014.
UK Royal Marines operate under the Naval Service.
United States Marines operate under the Department of Navy.
Spanish Navy Marines is a corps within the Spanish Navy...
The list goes on.
I am not saying raise a marine brigade, I am just saying in the future if we were to, that a 3 battalion regiment would be the best option operating under the navy. With one battalion ready to go, one readying and another deployed within the navy operating as boarding teams for ships replacing the Clearance Divers.
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.
And you're wrong.
The ADF is too small to break it up any more. The US can do it, because, frankly the USMC is proberly the 2nd biggest Navy and right up there in terms of most capable army. The RNM have a long tradition, is still sizeable by itself and they can afford to specialise.
ADF can't. Our 2 LHD when used together as planned will deploy over 2,000 troops and equipment to sustain that, we need our whole Army marine capable or atleast familiar with it. And if the poo hits the fan (as it did in WWII) they will have to get used to marine deployments anyway. We won't be so lucky as to be able to deploy off a painted ferry.
Whats the term GF uses? Purple?. RAAF, RAN and RAA all working together. I think thats going to be one of the strengths of the ADF is that because we are smaller, we will have to work harder together to achieve what we need. While we don't need to abolish names like Canada did, we should see ourselves as a completely intergrated force with out specific geographic territories as each branch brings something to the table for each location.
RAA should become very familiar with the LHD, as its going to be a pretty much every major deployment of the RAA.
ADF can't. Our 2 LHD when used together as planned will deploy over 2,000 troops and equipment to sustain that, we need our whole Army marine capable or atleast familiar with it. And if the poo hits the fan (as it did in WWII) they will have to get used to marine deployments anyway. We won't be so lucky as to be able to deploy off a painted ferry.
Whats the term GF uses? Purple?. RAAF, RAN and RAA all working together. I think thats going to be one of the strengths of the ADF is that because we are smaller, we will have to work harder together to achieve what we need. While we don't need to abolish names like Canada did, we should see ourselves as a completely intergrated force with out specific geographic territories as each branch brings something to the table for each location.
RAA should become very familiar with the LHD, as its going to be a pretty much every major deployment of the RAA.
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…
The Navy and Army are all part of the Australian Defence Force with a single operational command and bureaucracy system. The Army has had soldiers permanently assigned to Navy ships for some 30 years without significant problem. The Ship’s Army Detachments (SAD) of soldiers on the amphibs control all vehicle movements. The LHDs will add to this with Air Force personnel permanently attached for air traffic control (ATC). There is no need for these personnel plus the large number of Army/Air Force medics assigned to ships and the Army personnel assigned to patrol boats for security of boat people in border control missions to all be wearing Naval uniforms.
In addition if the Navy was ever to form a dedicated unit of sea soldiers they should NEVER be called “marines”. There have never been Australian marines but there has been an Australian sea soldier unit. It was called the Royal Australian Naval Brigade and with its colonial antecedents was involved in land fighting in the Boxer Rebellion, invasion of German New Guinea, and WWI campaigns in France and the Middle East.
Finally if you know so little about the ADF – as demonstrated above – I would respectively suggest that you shouldn’t be advising significant restructures in its organisation.