Just a thought...
-
i think the navy should train 'marine' soldiers....not a huge force of course...like 4 companies making up the whole unit...1 company based in each endurance class LST.....makes the whole navy more flexible for humanitarian or/and conflict.......
just my 2 cents...what do u guys think? -
Typical answer from MINDEF would be,think of the cost....
But then again,if we include a bunch of marines...I think it would affect the way the 4 services will work.Imagine the US Armed Forces,Army has their own internal "air force and navy",Airforce also have their own "Army",Navy also have their own "airforce and army"so at the end of the day,you get the same thing.
But if these bunch of marines,were created and placed under control of the SG Army that would be better,as it would prevent inter-service rivarly and all that. -
sg army has guards....Originally posted by SpecOps87:Typical answer from MINDEF would be,think of the cost....
But then again,if we include a bunch of marines...I think it would affect the way the 4 services will work.Imagine the US Armed Forces,Army has their own internal "air force and navy",Airforce also have their own "Army",Navy also have their own "airforce and army"so at the end of the day,you get the same thing.
But if these bunch of marines,were created and placed under control of the SG Army that would be better,as it would prevent inter-service rivarly and all that.
marines always fall under the navy like the royal thai navy and the USN....
anywaes...since we have the changi defence squadron(or unit...dunno the actual name)...it wouldnt be too far fetched...
just a thought....just a thought.... -
A dedicated Bn comprising of 4 fighting Coy for amphibious assault? Why? Figure out SAF's main mission and current threats of today and perhaps you know why one isn't needed. ...Don't assume that MINDEF's standpoint is in error, they prob have more info than you in order to reach that decision. 4 fighting coys need to be supported as well, who's gonna provide that support? Leach off other svcs and units? then it kind of defeats the purpose of creating a specialized force in the first place right?
And this specialized Bn, what's their unit's purpose? Humanitirian effort? I'm sure you don't need a specialised force for that, in a pinch, we can even use a couple of BMT Coys. As an assault force, i highly doubt a single Bn is gonna suffice.... -
2nd Battalion, Naval Reaction Regiment (CSAR)
9th Battalion, Naval Reaction Regiment (RDF)
16th Reserve Battalion, Naval Reaction Regiment (RDF)
22th Battalion, Naval Raaction Regiment (Base Defence) (NSF)
They can be rotated amongst all the naval installations, with the 2nd and 9th on standby.Just a thought.. -
well..they could work hand in hand with guards....Originally posted by gonegoose:A dedicated Bn comprising of 4 fighting Coy for amphibious assault? Why? Figure out SAF's main mission and current threats of today and perhaps you know why one isn't needed. ...Don't assume that MINDEF's standpoint is in error, they prob have more info than you in order to reach that decision. 4 fighting coys need to be supported as well, who's gonna provide that support? Leach off other svcs and units? then it kind of defeats the purpose of creating a specialized force in the first place right?
And this specialized Bn, what's their unit's purpose? Humanitirian effort? I'm sure you don't need a specialised force for that, in a pinch, we can even use a couple of BMT Coys. As an assault force, i highly doubt a single Bn is gonna suffice....
anywaes...not onli humanitarian effort...
the presence of 1 such force would make the navy even faster than it already is...rather than waiting for army 'passengers' they could ferry their own equivalent...their support could be from the navy too....with surface to surface platforms...and some naval artillery....(i think need to invest money and manpower in that too...)
yup....recruits from bmt companies can be used rather than making it a wholly new command.... -
MAYBE we have such units......
juz tat we do not know abt it....
(classified units)
juz like the Delta Force... who was once unknown..... -
Don't need US-style Marines, lah. In S'pore context, both the GDS & the CDO (more covert-oriented, but fits the small-unit ops you advocated) are trained in amphibious warfare. In anything, our version pattern ourselves after the British Commandos more - red berets & all - & they're also called the UK Royal Marines.
The Americans have a glorious history & continually strive to stay relevant, but IMO their government's historical attempts to close them down is built on very solid arguments. Today's catchphrase - inc. for S'pore - is "rapid deployment", which means the crack troops must be trained in heli-ops in particular. (For example, the Royal Marines have that capacity now.) Even though the US Marines keep drilling for beachfront assaults, frankly that Napoleonic mode of attack is obsolete nowadays (except for maybe China vs. Taiwan). IMO The Americans' last few such endeavors, like at Grenada & the Gulf War "decoy", are more or less wayang, lah. They haven't kena widescale bloodletting since WWII, so a lot of those myths have been romanticized through the subsequent generations.
I can sorta visualize our RSN getting its own combat troops someday - IMO likely patterned after the RSAF's FDS soldiers - but nothing as grand as a Marine Force. Too expensive, & without purpose: Why should we deploy so many troops out to sea for 6 months, like the US Marines' Expeditionary Forces (MEPs)? -
Support equipment could come from refurbished Cadillac Gage V-200 and V-150 LAVs, if PDF were to give them up, we could transfer them for a new naval regiment.Agreed with heli-ops and air-ops being the most effective and timely way to insert your troops in-theatre these days.Beachfront assault is for coastal conflicts, and with urban centers becoming the most likely place for any future battles, we should also concentrate on HALO training for our elite elements.Originally posted by Moxie:Don't need US-style Marines, lah. In S'pore context, both the GDS & the CDO (more covert-oriented, but fits the small-unit ops you advocated) are trained in amphibious warfare. In anything, our version pattern ourselves after the British Commandos more - red berets & all - & they're also called the UK Royal Marines.
The Americans have a glorious history & continually strive to stay relevant, but IMO their government's historical attempts to close them down is built on very solid arguments. Today's catchphrase - inc. for S'pore - is "rapid deployment", which means the crack troops must be trained in heli-ops in particular. (For example, the Royal Marines have that capacity now.) Even though the US Marines keep drilling for beachfront assaults, frankly that Napoleonic mode of attack is obsolete nowadays (except for maybe China vs. Taiwan). IMO The Americans' last few such endeavors, like at Grenada & the Gulf War "decoy", are more or less wayang, lah. They haven't kena widescale bloodletting since WWII, so a lot of those myths have been romanticized through the subsequent generations.
I can sorta visualize our RSN getting its own combat troops someday - IMO likely patterned after the RSAF's FDS soldiers - but nothing as grand as a Marine Force. Too expensive, & without purpose: Why should we deploy so many troops out to sea for 6 months, like the US Marines' Expeditionary Forces (MEPs)? -
yeah...to buy some time for the guards and commandos to reach the point of conflictOriginally posted by LazerLordz:Support equipment could come from refurbished Cadillac Gage V-200 and V-150 LAVs, if PDF were to give them up, we could transfer them for a new naval regiment.Agreed with heli-ops and air-ops being the most effective and timely way to insert your troops in-theatre these days.Beachfront assault is for coastal conflicts, and with urban centers becoming the most likely place for any future battles, we should also concentrate on HALO training for our elite elements. -
Support equipment could come from refurbished Cadillac Gage V-200 and V-150 LAVs, if PDF were to give them up, we could transfer them for a new naval regiment.Agreed with heli-ops and air-ops being the most effective and timely way to insert your troops in-theatre these days.Beachfront assault is for coastal conflicts, and with urban centers becoming the most likely place for any future battles, we should also concentrate on HALO training for our elite elements.
Actually I dunno if the idea of naval crack troops will work. On the one hand, the RSAF & the SPF now respectively have FDS & KINS units & it seems unlikey the RSN will be left out. On the other hand, these existing "internal" ground forces are all land-based & largely defensively oriented. I'm hoping to pick the mind of a cousin of mine over CNY, who's a longtime Naval officer (at least MAJ) but has somehow spent almost half of his service stint on overseas study leave!
I didn't connect the dots until last night, but the American equivalent to our naval contribution to the Aceh HATF mission isn't the Marines or the US Navy. Rather it's their Coast Guard or, rather, the role of their WWII Coast Guard, who manned the LSTs, landing crafts (aka revamped as the DuckTour ride at Suntec) & transport ships in places like Guadacanal, Normandy, the Philippines, Okinawa, et al. That was about the only time their sailors truly did amphibious ops, albeit in an auxiliary role. Armed or not, their goal remained helping both to establish & to evacuate from a beachead, even if there's enemy fire. I'm not sure infantry-fighting skills are needed in this respect.
On the US Marines: I'm not saying they don't heli-drop or do rapid-deployment, cuz these trainings have existed even before the Vietnam War. In fact they function as an independent combined-arms fleet, with their own command, ground combat, aviation combat (planes & choppers) & service support elements - & could deploy anytime from BN to DIV size.
But their latter nomenclature ("MEU", "MEB", "MEF") contains a common word - "Expeditionary" - that is synoymous with them, & that their ops are primarily amphibious-oriented as well. It also remains however that their last (only) great post-WWII beach assualt was at Inchon, Korea - an event that's 55 years ago. Since then, the Marines have conducted seaborne landing-force missions here & there, in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama (overelaborated overthrow of Noreiga) & the Persian Gulf. All of them were contributive to topical military objectives, but notably none gained headliner status like in the glory years.
The times the Marines were deployed in a Regular Army or Joint-Staff Task Force role, the impression lingered that less-elite infantrymen could've done just as well (eg. vs. Vietcong/NVA; land sweep into Iraq), or they plainly resulted in disaster (blotched embassy rescue in Tehran; 240 killed by Beirut truck bomb). Yet they must lobby for these missions in order to stay militarily relevant & prevent budget cuts, an expeditionary force paradoxically seeking continual work in a peacetime operational readiness.