PLA Navy second medium-size hovercraft sea trial

[Armand2REP]

the big box can be removed. so space is still ok.

only one light tank and some soldiers. they will not face Taiwan. may be they are for Somali and other African countries.

The width of the cargo area is less than half that of an LCAC...

It is wide enough for only one row of vehicles yet it takes up the docking space of two landing craft = wasted space

 

[J20!]

Indeed I have seen them.

Our Coast Guard has them.

I would not like to base my ideas of amphibious operations on gung ho war movies or the Rambo and Jackie Chang fantasies!

Helicopters, air force, artillery and the amphibious operation are on, right?!

Think again.

Neither would be a similar to a beach landing in Normandy. The world has changed and the militaries are geared up with modern weapons and surveillance systems.

What in your opinion would constitute an amphibious force?

And how will it be fought?


Do you think in the initial stages, a helicopter has a ghost of a chance with hand held AD and AD weapons?

Do you realise that given the composition of the amphibious force, what would be the number of ships to ferry such force that has troops, tanks, artillery, combat support echelons, combat service support echelons, helicopters and the tonnage to sustain the force, if it can achieve its mission?

Can you visualise the situation when the Beach Head is being taken?

Do you think it is a cakewalk?

The greatest obstacle to amphibious operations, whether in times of international conflict is that area between the point of departure – a transport ship at anchor offshore, or formal port within sailing distance of the destination – and the beach or landing point. Any amphibious force is at its most vulnerable during the transition from water to land. In war, this area will be strongly defended by an enemy, while changeable beach gradients, unsurveyed obstacles and mis-forecast weather conditions all take their toll on accurate predictions – and the safe arrival of a displacement vessel.

And as the amphibious infantry sails in and then disembarks to move and land, it is met with opposition. Soft skinned Hovercrafts and the troops therein have no hope in hell! Why? They are huge targets. Check the silhouette!

Other military disadvantages are that: it is soft skinned and thus the crew and payload bay are vulnerable to small arms fire; it is certainly noisy, although with ducts and modern propeller designs it is becoming less so; and it has a small payload/tonnage ratio.

Operating Hovercraft in ROUGH sea condition is not feasible!

Can one predict the sea conditions?

They are useful for support once the beachH has been taken, provided they have been brought on ships.

One must not forget the Hovercrafts are huge and not small like inflatable boats and they take a lot of space and so add to the flotilla!


If Chinese Admirals and Generals are like you, life would be a ball!

I thought you were some kind of retired army man, and thus assumed you would understand amphibious warfare beyond Rambo movies. If we go by your analysis, then amphibious warfare is obsolete and countries like, the US, Britain, France, China etc with large amphibious forces are wasting their time then.

Hovercraft do not just float into contested territory with infantry on board all Rambo-like Ray, its called air-superiority and SEAD/DEAD. Both must be undertaken and achieved before any amphibious force in the world, including the USMC and Royal Marines can land on a beach and establish a beach head.

That's why any large amphibious operation is usually undertaken under the air-defense umbrella of a CBG, as seen in the recent joint Anglo-French Corsican Lion excercisse where MN Mistral class LHD's and RN Albion Class LPD's(quite similar in tonnage and capacity to the Type 071 LPD) delivered hundreds of troops and multitudes of armor and other military support vehicles on to a beach head under the umbrella of the MN carrier Charles De Gaulle's flight operations.

Only after

1. the air-space has been cleared of enemy flight operations,

2. SAM installations have been detected and destroyed

3. and airborne infantry( either dropped by fixed wing air-lifters or via heli-borne assault) and helicopter gunships have cleared the beach head of enemy armor and anti-tank weaponry bearing infantry,

do sea-borne amphibious operations(including all ship to shore connectors - eg. hovercraft landing craft, catamarans(MN's case), logistics helicopters etc ) begin.

In the Corsican Lion excercise, Rafale and Super Etendard fighter aircraft both cleared the air-space and performed DEAD operations against land targets with the assistance of E2C AEW&C aircraft and Tigr helicopter gunships.

AAW ships clear the sea-space of enemy aircraft and naval vessels as well as provide AA cover for ASW operations to remove sub surface threats such as lingering coastal SSK's.

Tigr and Apache gunships also cleared the beach head of infantry and armor formations as well as denying the immediate sea space to small boat operations by the stimulated opposition. Then a helicopter assault involving NH90, Super Puma, Merlin as well as Chinook transport and utility helicopters transported marines and their logistics support over to the beach head under the protection of Apache, Tigre and Lynx/Lynx wildcat anti-armor and anti-personel flight operations over the beach-head and surrounding battle space.

Only then did the new MN ship-to-shore connector catamarans, landing craft and RN landing craft deliver their cargo from their amphibious, well deck equipped mother ships: FNS Mistral, HMS Bulwark, and RFA Mount's Bay.

A major amphibious operations undertaking isn't just a single LPD carrying hovercrafts and two or three heli's trying to establish a beach head on its own. It's an enormous undertaking involving several naval capital ships and their various support vessels, all performing their design capabilities towards the establishment of a beach-head on enemy or contested territory..,

I know you'll say you knew all this, but I'm posting it alll anyway.

PS. Amphibious warfare isn't carried out in heavy sea states anyway because heavily laden soldiers would drown should their landing craft capsize or be sunk as they make their way to land.
Hovercraft are also much more sea worthy in heavy sea states because of their natural buoyancy vs their more traditional landing craft cousins. Both the PLAN/PLAMC and USN/USMC aren't idiots for choosing hovercraft over the basically WW2 technology landing craft you know... But maybe you're smarter than both these massive organizations,

 

[Ray]

I thought you were some kind of retired army man, and thus assumed you would understand amphibious warfare beyond Rambo movies. If we go by your analysis, then amphibious warfare is obsolete and countries like, the US, Britain, France, China etc with large amphibious forces are wasting their time then.

Hovercraft do not just float into contested territory with infantry on board all Rambo-like Ray, its called air-superiority and SEAD/DEAD. Both must be undertaken and achieved before any amphibious force in the world, including the USMC and Royal Marines can land on a beach and establish a beach head.

That's why any large amphibious operation is usually undertaken under the air-defense umbrella of a CBG, as seen in the recent joint Anglo-French Corsican Lion excercisse where MN Mistral class LHD's and RN Albion Class LPD's(quite similar in tonnage and capacity to the Type 071 LPD) delivered hundreds of troops and multitudes of armor and other military support vehicles on to a beach head under the umbrella of the MN carrier Charles De Gaulle's flight operations.

Only after

1. the air-space has been cleared of enemy flight operations,

2. SAM installations have been detected and destroyed

3. and airborne infantry( either dropped by fixed wing air-lifters or via heli-borne assault) and helicopter gunships have cleared the beach head of enemy armor and anti-tank weaponry bearing infantry,

do sea-borne amphibious operations(including all ship to shore connectors - eg. hovercraft landing craft, catamarans(MN's case), logistics helicopters etc ) begin.

In the Corsican Lion excercise, Rafale and Super Etendard fighter aircraft both cleared the air-space and performed DEAD operations against land targets with the assistance of E2C AEW&C aircraft and Tigr helicopter gunships.

AAW ships clear the sea-space of enemy aircraft and naval vessels as well as provide AA cover for ASW operations to remove sub surface threats such as lingering coastal SSK's.

Tigr and Apache gunships also cleared the beach head of infantry and armor formations as well as denying the immediate sea space to small boat operations by the stimulated opposition. Then a helicopter assault involving NH90, Super Puma, Merlin as well as Chinook transport and utility helicopters transported marines and their logistics support over to the beach head under the protection of Apache, Tigre and Lynx/Lynx wildcat anti-armor and anti-personel flight operations over the beach-head and surrounding battle space.

Only then did the new MN ship-to-shore connector catamarans, landing craft and RN landing craft deliver their cargo from their amphibious, well deck equipped mother ships: FNS Mistral, HMS Bulwark, and RFA Mount's Bay.

A major amphibious operations undertaking isn't just a single LPD carrying hovercrafts and two or three heli's trying to establish a beach head on its own. It's an enormous undertaking involving several naval capital ships and their various support vessels, all performing their design capabilities towards the establishment of a beach-head on enemy or contested territory..,

I know you'll say you knew all this, but I'm posting it alll anyway.

PS. Amphibious warfare isn't carried out in heavy sea states anyway because heavily laden soldiers would drown should their landing craft capsize or be sunk as they make their way to land.
Hovercraft are also much more sea worthy in heavy sea states because of their natural buoyancy vs their more traditional landing craft cousins. Both the PLAN/PLAMC and USN/USMC aren't idiots for choosing hovercraft over the basically WW2 technology landing craft you know... But maybe you're smarter than both these massive organizations,

As anyone would know amphibious warfare can never be out. Therefore, your contention that I have suggested so is totally bogus and deflectory. It is just that the composition of the force will vary depending upon the task and phases of the operation. All countries that have island territories or desire expeditionary forces, will have amphibian capability.

The issue is that is being debated is the usefulness or otherwise of Hovercrafts in such operations.

It is easier said than done that there will be air superiority, SEAD/DEAD unless ofcourse one is contesting very weak countries like Iraq vs US. Integrated Air Defence continues to be a deterrent and to believe that it will be a cakewalk with SEAD/DEAD is living in a Fool's Paradise. If it were not so, none would be pouring billions on research into Stealth Technology. Also one must should remember that engagement and acquisition radars are automatic pseudorandom frequency hoppers, many in fact "fast" frequency hoppers with pulse-to-pulse hopping capability and they can defeat offensive measures taken against them. These radars is currently in use with even the Chinese military.

Attempting to project yourself as a military expert your own statement gives away that you do not understand warfare

You stated:

large amphibious operation is usually undertaken"¦...only after"¦"¦..airborne infantry( either dropped by fixed wing air-lifters or via heli-borne assault) and helicopter gunships have cleared the beach head of enemy armor and anti-tank weaponry bearing infantry,

Now, if AB infantry and other forces have cleared the beach of armour and infantry, where is the need for amphibious warfare? The beach having been cleared of the enemy would mean the beach head has been established and the expeditionary force can safely land.

I might draw attention to use of Hovercrafts in combat. In the Gulf War, Assault Craft Unit 5 equipped with LCACs were used. But they were used to merely ferry men and materiel not under active combat conditions.

To obviate wishful pithy patter, let us see what the US (possibly the only nation that can independently mount expeditionary force, has to say.

An amphibious operation is a military operation launched from the sea by an amphibious force, embarked in ships or craft with the primary purpose of introducing a landing force (LF) ashore to accomplish the assigned mission.

Types of amphibious operations include assaults, withdrawals, demonstrations, raids, and other operations in a permissive, uncertain, or hostile environment.

Comprise the initial phase of a campaign or major operation where the objective is to establish a military lodgement to support subsequent phases.

Types of Amphibious operations are:

Amphibious Assault. The establishment of an LF on a hostile or potentially hostile shore.

Amphibious Withdrawal. The extraction of forces by sea in ships or craft from a hostile or potentially hostile shore.

Amphibious Demonstration. A show of force conducted to deceive with the expectation of deluding the enemy into a course of action unfavourable to it. (This was done in Gulf War I)

Amphibious Raid. A swift incursion into, or a temporary occupation of, an objective, followed by a planned withdrawal.

Other Amphibious Operations. The capabilities of amphibious forces may be especially suited to conduct other types of operations, such as noncombatant evacuation operations and foreign humanitarian assistance.

The characteristics of an amphibious operation are:

Integration between the Navy and landing forces. The key characteristic of an amphibious operation is close coordination and cooperation between the ATF, LF, and other designated forces.

Rapid buildup of combat power from the sea to shore. The salient requirement of an amphibious assault is the necessity for swift, uninterrupted buildup of sufficient combat power ashore from an initial zero capability to full coordinated striking power as the attack progresses toward amphibious force objectives.

Task-organized forces, capable of multiple missions across the full range of military operations to enable joint, allied, and coalition operations. Amphibious forces are task-organized based on the mission.

Unity of Effort and Operational Coherence. The complexity of amphibious operations and the vulnerability of forces engaged in amphibious operations require an exceptional degree of unity of effort and operational coherence

Unity of Effort and Operational Coherence. The complexity of amphibious operations and the vulnerability of forces engaged in amphibious operations require an exceptional degree of unity of effort and operational coherence.

What constitutes an amphibious operation?

The following constitutes an amphibious operation.

Amphibious Assault. An amphibious assault involves the establishment of an LF on a hostile or potentially hostile shore. The organic capabilities of amphibious forces, including fire support, logistics, and mobility, allow the United States to gain access to a crisis area by forcible entry.

Forcible entry operations can be accomplished through amphibious operations, airborne operations, air assault operations, or a combination of any or all of these forcible entry techniques. If the JFC's decision is to use a combination of forcible entry techniques to seize a lodgement, the JFC must further decide, based on maritime factors and mission, enemy, terrain and weather, troops and support available, time available analysis, whether to conduct the forcible entries as concurrent or integrated.

Concurrent forcible entry operations occur when a combination of amphibious, airborne, and/or air assault forcible entry operations are conducted simultaneously, but as distinct operations with eparate operational areas and objectives.

Integrated forcible entry operations result when amphibious, airborne, and/or air assault forcible entries are conducted simultaneously within the same operational area and with objectives that are mutually supporting.

I might add that Amphibious Operation should not be mistaken for Forcible Entry Operations. It may constitute to be an element of a Forcible Entry Operation

LCAC's construction is soft skinned and has no armour protecting the crew or the troops. It is a large craft and hence a large radar reflection. Once on land, its speed and manoeuvrability, it is reported reduces to 6 knots. Its six gas turbines are very noisy and can be heard from great distances. If damaged LCACs are difficult to tow and driving in reverse is taxing to the driver. It is said that it has a large turnaround time.

Now given the above, do fit Hovercrafts in an amphibious operation in the active combat role in an amphibious landing.

 

[Ray]

PS. Amphibious warfare isn't carried out in heavy sea states anyway because heavily laden soldiers would drown should their landing craft capsize or be sunk as they make their way to land.
Hovercraft are also much more sea worthy in heavy sea states because of their natural buoyancy vs their more traditional landing craft cousins. Both the PLAN/PLAMC and USN/USMC aren't idiots for choosing hovercraft over the basically WW2 technology landing craft you know... But maybe you're smarter than both these massive organizations,

The Princess Margaret, a Hovercraft operating on the Cross Channel Ferry was blown in high winds against the Southern Breakwater. A large chunk was knocked out of her starboard passenger cabin and of those that fell into the sea, four lost their lives.
Ferry Fantastic: S. R. N. 4 'Mountbatten Class' Hovercraft

The Defence Management Journal states:

Any discussion on the merits of hovercraft has to include comparisons with landing craft and the clich̩ 'horses for courses'. One type of craft will often complement the other and, thus, by operating both amphibious vessels, a commander will have greater balance and flexibility and a better chance of achieving the overall aim. That said, there are occasions when only a hovercraft will be of any value, while the same can be said Рalthough less often and then usually when discussing heavier payloads Рof the landing craft. In general, the hovercraft can operate in all the geographical areas that the landing craft can, whereas the opposite is not so.

The military disadvantages are that: it is soft skinned and thus the crew and payload bay are vulnerable to small arms fire; it is certainly noisy, although with ducts and modern propeller designs it is becoming less so; and it has a small payload/tonnage ratio. To carry the same payload as, for instance an LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle and Personnel) or LCA (Landing Craft Assault), a hovercraft would need to have the equivalent footprint of the far larger LCU or LCM. (Landing Craft Utility or Landing Craft Mechanised). Being more complex than a displacement craft, it may not be possible to carry out first or second-line repairs on the beach in one tide and with just the crew, although, with any luck, the problems of tides should be avoided. The transport of hovercraft to an operational zone may not always be easy and while most LCAC(L)s can be carried on a flatbed lorry, the LCAC(M) can only be carried by sea. It is also likely that in heavy weather the hovercraft would need to seek shelter before a conventional landing craft.
Air apparent - Maritime - Defence Management Journal Issue 47

I cannot comment on whether the Chinese are idiots or not, but the fact that the US has not used LCAC in combat indicates that they possibly aim to employ it for logistical support once the beachhead is sanitised of hostile fire and elements.or use it as demonstration amphibious operation as they reportedly did in Gulf War I.

I find it amusing that you say amphibious operations are not carried out in heavy seas state. Normandy Landings was the largest amphibious operation ever to take place. And what were the conditions?

The conditions were so horrible that on 4 June, the wind and high seas made it impossible to launch landing crafts from larger ships at sea, while low clouds would have prevented the aircraft from finding their targets. The Allied forces already at sea were forced to rush for shelter in bays and inlets on the south coast of Britain for the night.

On 6 June, it had improved but was hardly suitable with high seas and high wind, so much so that the paratroopers were blown off course and some landed in the sea and drowned.

The weather and the poor conditions made the Germans complacent to believe that no invasion would be possible for several days. Even high ranking Generals were off for the weekend.


One must learn to be conversant with warfare, and even military history before one wants to cast aspersions on others whether they were in the military or not or adopt a supercilious attitude while discussing exposing total ignorance in the bargain.

 

[J20!]

As anyone would know amphibious warfare can never be out. Therefore, your contention that I have suggested so is totally bogus and deflectory. It is just that the composition of the force will vary depending upon the task and phases of the operation. All countries that have island territories or desire expeditionary forces, will have amphibian capability.

The issue is that is being debated is the usefulness or otherwise of Hovercrafts in such operations.

It is easier said than done that there will be air superiority, SEAD/DEAD unless ofcourse one is contesting very weak countries like Iraq vs US. Integrated Air Defence continues to be a deterrent and to believe that it will be a cakewalk with SEAD/DEAD is living in a Fool's Paradise. If it were not so, none would be pouring billions on research into Stealth Technology. Also one must should remember that engagement and acquisition radars are automatic pseudorandom frequency hoppers, many in fact "fast" frequency hoppers with pulse-to-pulse hopping capability and they can defeat offensive measures taken against them. These radars is currently in use with even the Chinese military.

Attempting to project yourself as a military expert your own statement gives away that you do not understand warfare

You stated:



Now, if AB infantry and other forces have cleared the beach of armour and infantry, where is the need for amphibious warfare? The beach having been cleared of the enemy would mean the beach head has been established and the expeditionary force can safely land.[/b]

I might draw attention to use of Hovercrafts in combat. In the Gulf War, Assault Craft Unit 5 equipped with LCACs were used. But they were used to merely ferry men and materiel not under active combat conditions.

To obviate wishful pithy patter, let us see what the US (possibly the only nation that can independently mount expeditionary force, has to say.

An amphibious operation is a military operation launched from the sea by an amphibious force, embarked in ships or craft with the primary purpose of introducing a landing force (LF) ashore to accomplish the assigned mission.

Types of amphibious operations include assaults, withdrawals, demonstrations, raids, and other operations in a permissive, uncertain, or hostile environment.

Comprise the initial phase of a campaign or major operation where the objective is to establish a military lodgement to support subsequent phases.

Types of Amphibious operations are:

Amphibious Assault. The establishment of an LF on a hostile or potentially hostile shore.

Amphibious Withdrawal. The extraction of forces by sea in ships or craft from a hostile or potentially hostile shore.

Amphibious Demonstration. A show of force conducted to deceive with the expectation of deluding the enemy into a course of action unfavourable to it. (This was done in Gulf War I)

Amphibious Raid. A swift incursion into, or a temporary occupation of, an objective, followed by a planned withdrawal.

Other Amphibious Operations. The capabilities of amphibious forces may be especially suited to conduct other types of operations, such as noncombatant evacuation operations and foreign humanitarian assistance.

The characteristics of an amphibious operation are:

Integration between the Navy and landing forces. The key characteristic of an amphibious operation is close coordination and cooperation between the ATF, LF, and other designated forces.

Rapid buildup of combat power from the sea to shore. The salient requirement of an amphibious assault is the necessity for swift, uninterrupted buildup of sufficient combat power ashore from an initial zero capability to full coordinated striking power as the attack progresses toward amphibious force objectives.

Task-organized forces, capable of multiple missions across the full range of military operations to enable joint, allied, and coalition operations. Amphibious forces are task-organized based on the mission.

Unity of Effort and Operational Coherence. The complexity of amphibious operations and the vulnerability of forces engaged in amphibious operations require an exceptional degree of unity of effort and operational coherence

Unity of Effort and Operational Coherence. The complexity of amphibious operations and the vulnerability of forces engaged in amphibious operations require an exceptional degree of unity of effort and operational coherence.

What constitutes an amphibious operation?

The following constitutes an amphibious operation.

Amphibious Assault. An amphibious assault involves the establishment of an LF on a hostile or potentially hostile shore. The organic capabilities of amphibious forces, including fire support, logistics, and mobility, allow the United States to gain access to a crisis area by forcible entry.

Forcible entry operations can be accomplished through amphibious operations, airborne operations, air assault operations, or a combination of any or all of these forcible entry techniques. If the JFC's decision is to use a combination of forcible entry techniques to seize a lodgement, the JFC must further decide, based on maritime factors and mission, enemy, terrain and weather, troops and support available, time available analysis, whether to conduct the forcible entries as concurrent or integrated.

Concurrent forcible entry operations occur when a combination of amphibious, airborne, and/or air assault forcible entry operations are conducted simultaneously, but as distinct operations with eparate operational areas and objectives.

Integrated forcible entry operations result when amphibious, airborne, and/or air assault forcible entries are conducted simultaneously within the same operational area and with objectives that are mutually supporting.

I might add that Amphibious Operation should not be mistaken for Forcible Entry Operations. It may constitute to be an element of a Forcible Entry Operation

LCAC's construction is soft skinned and has no armour protecting the crew or the troops. It is a large craft and hence a large radar reflection. Once on land, its speed and manoeuvrability, it is reported reduces to 6 knots. Its six gas turbines are very noisy and can be heard from great distances. If damaged LCACs are difficult to tow and driving in reverse is taxing to the driver. It is said that it has a large turnaround time.

Now given the above, do fit Hovercrafts in an amphibious operation in the active combat role in an amphibious landing.

I never said I was an expert, you have afforded me such high praise. Don't mistake not being an expert for ignorance. I never said hovercraft come in flying into a hail of gunfire.

You're trying to argue the null point that WW2 generation landing craft can compete with NEXT generation ship-to-shore connectors like hovercraft. Yes hovercraft have their disadvantages. They're hard to tow, much louder than landing craft, are HUGE gas guzzlers, agreed.

But they have much longer range, meaning true OTH amphibious ops, ie much safer operations against an ASM and precision artillery system equiped adversaries. HOVERCRAFT ARE ALSO ABLE TO ACCESS 70% OF THE WORLD'S COASTLINE. NOT JUST 15% LIKE CONVENTIONAL LANDING CRAFT DESIGNS. That 6knots is still very helpful when negotiating terrain a conventional landing craft could never hope to beach on.

SEAD/DEAD are not optional, in a forcible entry amphibious undertaking against a well armed adversary. Yes their difficult, but so are most millitary operations, its not just fanboy talk. Without SEAD/DEAD, heliborne assaults, which have become the mainstay of modern amphibious ops, face serious survivability issues. Not forgetting other soft airborne targets such as ELINT or SIGNIT aircraft.

And I hate to break it to you, but against heavy, precision artilery and machine gun fire, even conventional landing craft are considered "soft targets", and every opposition force would defend their beaches with such systems. Only against SAF (small arms fire) do hovercraft stand at a disadvantage.

I don't know what you saw in those amphibious landing excersices you may or may not have witnessed, but no landing craft throws itself into the jaws of enemy fire before a DEFENSIVE LINE along the beach has been established. Heli-borne assaults are tailor made for this role. With helicopter gunships such as the US Marine operated AH1 or French Tigre's operating in the anti-armour and anti-personel role, airborne infantry Only when this line has been established, can armour be delivered onto the beach. This is the stage of the operation where Marine forces equiped with amphibious armor land their amphibious tanks and IFV's, to secure or break through the defensive line.

Again Ray, landing craft do not just sail onto a beach gun-ho before a defensive line is manned to protect tvery soft targets like landing craft against heavy opposition fire.

Your only problem with the hovercraft is that Chinese Marines are equipped with them and their indian counterparts still have to rely on shortlegged, conventional landing craft off very small LST's incapable of OTH amphibious warfare. Similar to your previous assertions that light tanks are now obsolete because a new PLA light tank was unveiled.

But if you still insist on hovercraft being obsolete in amphibious warfare, please contact PLAN command and the US DoD and inform them of your "eye-opening" theories because according to you, their commitments to hovercraft S2S connectors for the fore-seable future are severely misplaced and they should return to post WW2 designs like the American L 88 perhaps.

PS. "I might draw attention to use of Hovercrafts in combat. In the Gulf War, Assault Craft Unit 5 equipped with LCACs were used. But they were used to merely ferry men and materiel not under active combat conditions."

What did you think they were for? Landing craft in general are designed to "ferry men and materiel not under active combat conditions".

 

[J20!]

The Princess Margaret, a Hovercraft operating on the Cross Channel Ferry was blown in high winds against the Southern Breakwater. A large chunk was knocked out of her starboard passenger cabin and of those that fell into the sea, four lost their lives.
Ferry Fantastic: S. R. N. 4 'Mountbatten Class' Hovercraft

The Defence Management Journal states:

Any discussion on the merits of hovercraft has to include comparisons with landing craft and the clich̩ 'horses for courses'. One type of craft will often complement the other and, thus, by operating both amphibious vessels, a commander will have greater balance and flexibility and a better chance of achieving the overall aim. That said, there are occasions when only a hovercraft will be of any value, while the same can be said Рalthough less often and then usually when discussing heavier payloads Рof the landing craft. In general, the hovercraft can operate in all the geographical areas that the landing craft can, whereas the opposite is not so.

The military disadvantages are that: it is soft skinned and thus the crew and payload bay are vulnerable to small arms fire; it is certainly noisy, although with ducts and modern propeller designs it is becoming less so; and it has a small payload/tonnage ratio. To carry the same payload as, for instance an LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle and Personnel) or LCA (Landing Craft Assault), a hovercraft would need to have the equivalent footprint of the far larger LCU or LCM. (Landing Craft Utility or Landing Craft Mechanised). Being more complex than a displacement craft, it may not be possible to carry out first or second-line repairs on the beach in one tide and with just the crew, although, with any luck, the problems of tides should be avoided. The transport of hovercraft to an operational zone may not always be easy and while most LCAC(L)s can be carried on a flatbed lorry, the LCAC(M) can only be carried by sea. It is also likely that in heavy weather the hovercraft would need to seek shelter before a conventional landing craft.
Air apparent - Maritime - Defence Management Journal Issue 47

I cannot comment on whether the Chinese are idiots or not, but the fact that the US has not used LCAC in combat indicates that they possibly aim to employ it for logistical support once the beachhead is sanitised of hostile fire and elements.or use it as demonstration amphibious operation as they reportedly did in Gulf War I.

I find it amusing that you say amphibious operations are not carried out in heavy seas state. Normandy Landings was the largest amphibious operation ever to take place. And what were the conditions?

The conditions were so horrible that on 4 June, the wind and high seas made it impossible to launch landing crafts from larger ships at sea, while low clouds would have prevented the aircraft from finding their targets. The Allied forces already at sea were forced to rush for shelter in bays and inlets on the south coast of Britain for the night.

On 6 June, it had improved but was hardly suitable with high seas and high wind, so much so that the paratroopers were blown off course and some landed in the sea and drowned.

The weather and the poor conditions made the Germans complacent to believe that no invasion would be possible for several days. Even high ranking Generals were off for the weekend.


One must learn to be conversant with warfare, and even military history before one wants to cast aspersions on others whether they were in the military or not or adopt a supercilious attitude while discussing exposing total ignorance in the bargain.

Normandy? Hahahaha! You're kidding right? So exactly which Navy, into today's modern age would purposefully accept such high attrition rates to land? This isn't WW2 Ray, no American or Chinese General would allow thousands of troops to drown before any shots were ever fired just to rush an amphibious operation in high sea states. Show me an forcible entry amphibious assault excercise held in high sea states.

 

[Ray]

I am afraid you are high on verbiage in post your replies without any counter from a military standpoint.

Do let us know what you visualise as an amphibious operation?

If a Beach Head is taken by means other than amphibious, and then if the troops are ferried ashore, would that be what you visualise is an amphibious operation?

The Normandy Landing, to you, is a joke?

 

[J20!]

I am afraid you are high on verbiage in post your replies without any counter from a military standpoint.

Do let us know what you visualise as an amphibious operation?

If a Beach Head is taken by means other than amphibious, and then if the troops are ferried ashore, would that be what you visualise is an amphibious operation?

The Normandy Landing, to you, is a joke?

You refferencing Normandy and applying it to modern amphibious warfare is a joke. Don't divert the subject at hand. Conventional landing craft can only land on 15% of the world's coastline. Hovercraft can engage in amphibious landings on 70% of the globe's coastlines. That's the difference between two generations of ship-to-shore connectors.

What do you classify as amphibious Ray? Normandy style landings with thousands of landing craft approaching a beach with thousands of troops at once?

Heli-borne landings fall under the classification of "amphibious assault" first pioneered in large scale operations by French and British naval forces during the Suez Crisis of 1956. Even today, the US Navy engages in large scale heli-borne amphibious assaults off its LHA's and LHD's which will soon include the America class LHA, whose first units wont have well decks to operate landing craft due to their focus on naval aviation.

This is an amphibious assault:

In contrast to the days of Normandy style invasions (where the helicopter hadn't entered into military use), air assault is an integral part of any forcible entry, large scale, amphibious operation.

But as I said before, maybe the world's navies are catastrofically wrong and you're a military vissionary(most unlikely).

 

[SATISH]

You refferencing Normandy and applying it to modern amphibious warfare is a joke. Don't divert the subject at hand. Conventional landing craft can only land on 15% of the world's coastline. Hovercraft can engage in amphibious landings on 70% of the globe's coastlines. That's the difference between two generations of ship-to-shore connectors.

What do you classify as amphibious Ray? Normandy style landings with thousands of landing craft approaching a beach with thousands of troops at once?

Heli-borne landings fall under the classification of "amphibious assault" first pioneered in large scale operations by French and British naval forces during the Suez Crisis of 1956. Even today, the US Navy engages in large scale heli-borne amphibious assaults off its LHA's and LHD's which will soon include the America class LHA, whose first units wont have well decks to operate landing craft due to their focus on naval aviation.

This is an amphibious assault:

In contrast to the days of Normandy style invasions (where the helicopter hadn't entered into military use), air assault is an integral part of any forcible entry, large scale, amphibious operation.

But as I said before, maybe the world's navies are catastrofically wrong and you're a military vissionary(most unlikely).

What will you do if they have around 20 to 30 Tunguska or Tor M1 standing there?

What if the Enemy has complete air superiority in the region?

What will you do if the enemy has more ECM and ECCM capability?

Establishing a beach head using only amphibious operations launched from ships is impossible without the support of atleast two CBGs and if the enemy has good Anti-ship capability then it is going to be a nightmare.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

The Princess Margaret, a Hovercraft operating on the Cross Channel Ferry was blown in high winds against the Southern Breakwater. A large chunk was knocked out of her starboard passenger cabin and of those that fell into the sea, four lost their lives.

Any vessel named after that royal personage was doomed to bad luck.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Gentlemen, this is a good read on the subject of modern amphibious warfare:

Introduction to Modern Amphibious Operations

Military experts sometimes proclaim that major amphibious operations will never be conducted because they are too risky and bloody. With that attitude, the Allies would never have won World War II. What if Iran overran Kuwait and nearby Arab nations refused to allow American troops to land? Would Generals tell their American President that there is nothing the massive US military can do because amphibious landings are too dangerous? During World War II, the US Army conducted more large amphibious operations than the US Marine Corps. Unfortunately, the Army's long-time infatuation with massive Soviet armor battles erased institutional memory. Some soldiers have suggested that large airborne operations are more effective, but only if you ignore logistics and modern air defense weaponry.

The United States has not conducted a major amphibious operation since the Korean war, so deep thinking about amphibious operations is rare. The US Marine Corps itself never conducts realistic training for anything more than a 2000-man landing force. As a result, amphibious warfare doctrine has devolved into "Operational Maneuver From The Sea" (OMFTS); a confusing sales pitch for new weaponry that is fundamentally wrong. Recently, the term "Ship-To-Objective Maneuver" (STOM) has been used because it forms a meaner acronym.

 

[Ray]

You refferencing Normandy and applying it to modern amphibious warfare is a joke. Don't divert the subject at hand. Conventional landing craft can only land on 15% of the world's coastline. Hovercraft can engage in amphibious landings on 70% of the globe's coastlines. That's the difference between two generations of ship-to-shore connectors.

What do you classify as amphibious Ray? Normandy style landings with thousands of landing craft approaching a beach with thousands of troops at once?

Heli-borne landings fall under the classification of "amphibious assault" first pioneered in large scale operations by French and British naval forces during the Suez Crisis of 1956. Even today, the US Navy engages in large scale heli-borne amphibious assaults off its LHA's and LHD's which will soon include the America class LHA, whose first units wont have well decks to operate landing craft due to their focus on naval aviation.

This is an amphibious assault:

In contrast to the days of Normandy style invasions (where the helicopter hadn't entered into military use), air assault is an integral part of any forcible entry, large scale, amphibious operation.

But as I said before, maybe the world's navies are catastrofically wrong and you're a military vissionary(most unlikely).

What you are calling and showing images as amphibious operations is actually Integrated forcible entry operations .

Integrated forcible entry operations is when amphibious, airborne, and/or air assault forcible entries are conducted simultaneously within the same operational area and with objectives that are mutually supporting.

An amphibious operation is a military operation launched from the sea by an amphibious force, embarked in ships or craft with the primary purpose of introducing a landing force (LF) ashore to accomplish the assigned mission.

Types of amphibious operations include assaults, withdrawals, demonstrations, raids, and other operations in a permissive, uncertain, or hostile environment.

It is time you understood the subtle nuances of military warfare and doctrines, though to the unlearned, it appears all the same.

 

[J20!]

What you are calling and showing images as amphibious operations is actually Integrated forcible entry operations .

Integrated forcible entry operations is when amphibious, airborne, and/or air assault forcible entries are conducted simultaneously within the same operational area and with objectives that are mutually supporting.

An amphibious operation is a military operation launched from the sea by an amphibious force, embarked in ships or craft with the primary purpose of introducing a landing force (LF) ashore to accomplish the assigned mission.

Types of amphibious operations include assaults, withdrawals, demonstrations, raids, and other operations in a permissive, uncertain, or hostile environment.

It is time you understood the subtle nuances of military warfare and doctrines, though to the unlearned, it appears all the same.

Wow! #smh, seems someone is quite proud of the little info he was able to google. Maybe its time you stop underestimating my knowledge and just discuss the matter at hand.

I don't know about you, but from the very beggining, I've been discussing forcible entry AMPHIBIOUS OPERATIONS in the same vein as the Corsican Lion amphibious excercise, not "intergrated forcible entry". Try not to confuse the two.

Integrated forcible entry operations imply the use of non- naval assets such as long range, transport aircraft dropping para-troopers or air-force AWACS aircraft, or land based fighter aircraft to gain contol of the near airspace etc etc. in conjuncton with traditional amphibious assets with the set goal of gaining entry to hostile territory.

Forcible entry amphibious assault operations imply the use of naval forces only, including but not limited to a carrier battle group, amphibious ready groups and the assorted vessels and platforms that constitute them (including ship based rotary wing platforms), with the set goal of establishing a beach head, landing additional troops and supplying and equiping them regularly, sometimes with LHD's and/or LPD's acting as operational headquaters for the landing force.

French Navy:
Charles de Gaulle (R91), Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier
Chevalier Paul (D621), Forbin-class Anti-Air Destroyer
Mistral (L9013) LHD, Amphibious Assault Ship, Force Projection & Command Vessel
Jean de Vienne (D643),Georges Leygues-class Anti-Submarine Destroyer
Meuse (A607), Durance-class Replenishment Oiler

Royal Navy:
HMS Illustrious (R06), Invincible-class Light Aircraft Carrier
HMS Bulwark (L15), Albion-class Landing Platform Dock
HMS Northumberland (F238), Duke-class Type 23 Frigate
HMS Montrose (F236), Duke-class Type 23 Frigate
RFA Mounts Bay (L3008), Bay-class Auxiliary Landing Ship Dock
Hartland Point, Ro-ro cargo

These are the 13 naval assets that part-took in the Corsican Lion excercise. These classes of naval vessels and their associated platforms (landing craft and helicopters) are what any expeditionary marine force would need to take a beach under hostile conditions VS modern, well-equipped, integrated armed forces.

Carrier battle groups and Amphibious ready groups form the vangaurd of American naval expeditionary power, and hovercraft are an integral part of that force structure. You could argue and try to twist classifications all week, but that wont change the military viability of hovercraft in todays expeditionary warfare.

 

[Ray]

It would be prudent to understand the scenario of the Ex Corsican Lion.

From 17 to 26 October 2012, Corsican Lion brought together more than 5,000 French and British service personnel in naval and amphibious manoeuvres off Corsica. The fictional scenario of Corsican Lion envisaged an intervention by an amphibious force under an international mandate, in a politically weakened state gripped by insecurity and an upsurge in maritime piracy.

That reminds one of Somalia! But not Iraq or Iran!

Exercises are meant to validate certain issues and contingencies that they might confront. It appears that in this exercise, it was against a politically weakened state gripped by insecurity and an upsurge in maritime piracy

In short, not against a full fledged militarily strong adversary, but a hotch potch.

In real combat, it is another issue, when one may expect stiff opposition.

The US which has real amphibious capability, in the Gulf War, only did an amphibious demonstration.

It puts paid to your contention that this exercise was aimed- to take a beach under hostile conditions VS modern, well-equipped, integrated armed forces.

It was aimed against a scenario of a politically weakened state gripped by insecurity and an upsurge in maritime piracy and that nation would hardly be capable of a well equipped, modern or integrated armed forces.

Further, no military platform that is soft skinned is put in the show window during operations. If it were that soft skinned platforms could enter into combat without being torn apart, there would be no requirement for tanks, IVCs or Strykers and instead the combat forces could charge like Sir Galahad or Sir Launcelot on trucks and win the day for Harry, God and England!

Hoevercraft of today are soft skinned.

I am not underestimating your prowess of matters military.

I am sure you could be a Chinese Admiral without our knowing this fact!

 

[Ray]

Unless a Hovercraft is made capable of withstanding small arms fire, RPGs and capable of thwarting top attack missile and protecting personnel on board, and equipped to take on threats at sea and on land, less noisy, it is as good as a soft skin vehicle that is merely a sea taxi.

Phrases like Carrier battle groups and Amphibious ready groups form the vangaurd is mere rhetoric! One has to see through the mission, environment, capabilities of the Opposing Forces, and so on! This will give the idea as to what type of an operation is to be launched.

Since, the US is the only country that can mount Expeditionary Forces that are reckonable, I would go by their concepts. doctrines and FMs.

It would be silly to go by Johnnies Come Lately who go gaga over showcasing and being people who are more keen on keeping up with the Joneses and nothing more than that militarily!

Can China solve her problems in the South China Sea with Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, and others by a simple amphibious operation as Corsican Lion on each?

Or through a Forced Entry version?

If you feel that it would be adequate to take each through amphibious assault, then you are right!

Got that , Steve?

 

[shiphone]

this hovercraft( Side Number: 3321) has entered service for about a month...she was loaded in No999 JingGangShan LPD for the landing excise on South China Sea days ago...

source: PLA Navy official site

 

[shiphone]

the No.999 TF in this exercise....

071 LPD---999 and her escort vessels: 052C DDG---170, 054A FFG---569,572

 

[Armand2REP]

You guys are missing the point that amphib landings are planned to hit the soft underbelly of opposing forces, not heavily defended points. That is why landing craft are designated over the horizon so they can land any number of places and catch them off guard, or even undetected. Also it gives the landing ships the ability to stay within the defence umbrella of the task force. Speed and range are its survivability, not how much weapons and armour it has.