After talking to General Mullen and Mr. Strock one thing stood out. Connectors were a concern of both men. Here is a pictorial rundown of just a few of the designs that were hinted at....understand that this isn't everything that is being considered AND these can be called the SSC after next. The SSC is the near term future.
The early candidates....
 |
| Ultra Heavy Lift Amphibious Connector. |
 |
| The Power Augmented Ram Landing Craft (PARLAC). |
 |
| PASCAT 128M High Speed Connector. This is really a blast from the past. I'd like to see a JHSV modified in the same way. This is a personal favorite that I'll be writing McCain about...This has the potential to be a modern day LST. |
 |
| LCU-F. Note that this is the only design that I see with self defense weapons as part of its concept. |
 |
| JHSV. The talk about transporting AAVs or ACVs to about 3 miles offshore and doing an "instream launch" is real. That alone would include it in the connector conversation BUT (and this is only my impression) considering the work done with the ramps on these ships to get them into service and the budget crunch I almost expect modifications to allow them to (depending on the beach) drop gear ashore. |
The problem is....Money. Fortunately these designs are all within the realm of the possible. They're not exotic and the only issue is affordability and determining which one gives the most bang for the buck.
Don't get too excited though. If the SSC serves as long as the LCAC then you're looking at 2040 before we see one of these boats in service.
What about the French EDA-R? This concept is ignored or just they look on something bigger?
ReplyDeleteAt all performance parameters about 50 % less compared to A330MRTT offered.
ReplyDeleteToday the A330 is a available with latest generation engines and higher MTOW. The 767 just sucks and the US Air Force will be the Last to get some.
http://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/l-cat-44-le-nouvel-engin-de-debarquement-de-cnim
ReplyDeleteI would write off the LCU-F and the Ultra Heavy Lift, not really practical. If you wanted weapons on the rest, it is an easy matter to fit them.
ReplyDeleteSolomon, your conclusion above is about the worst piece of logic I have read here on Snafu. The premise alone doesn't make sense. How does the increase frustrations of SMSgt MAC automatically translate into F-35 haters gaining any ground? Quite frankly, I have notice a rather rash increase in fact bending by the media and F-35 critics as if they are increasingly getting desperate running out of excuses to justify their position. The critics and media have been more "in your face" to the public more than ever which has become increasingly annoying. Before I may get a posting of bad news on the F-35 once every 1-2 weeks if I google searched the F-35. Now its daily! 90% of it is the same old recycled crap news re-spun to give the appearance of fresh news. If anything, over the past three years, I have notice the F-35 haters losing ground and the supporters gaining ground.
ReplyDeleteThe legacy image appears to have a different looking "boxy" front end but when you zoom in and look at it, it actually has the distinctive LAV/Stryker front end at the CGI image shows. Also, the CGI image has the front flap closed, while the legacy vehicle has it open (and it appears to be thinner than the CGI image, probably just the distance in the photo).
ReplyDelete'Flotation armor' talk about brilliant ideas!
ReplyDeleteWhat about the JHSV.
ReplyDeleteSo here's a thought piece - So Australia has launched a light wheeled armour competition, now I don't know much about the requirement, what's the chances this could be pitched with an emphasis on the ability to launch off the back of the Canberra class? (Sure the Marines are the main prize but still?)
ReplyDeleteI agree. There are any number of landing vessels other than the SSC which can mount small arms. Let me know when you see those in real drawings?~~
ReplyDeleteIn truth, an evolved JHSV pathway is available and is cheap as fuck, in overall USN terms. Excuse my French. And they could probably be increased in build-rates, starting in FY18? Modify them accordingly later and build them to accommodate such strategic follow-on modulations etc down the road as required. Just my views.
ReplyDeletegood catch. more of an LSM. How do they get to the AOA or more specifically what are they lifed on? OR are the self-deployers? I got to run the translator
ReplyDeleteSee below by Owl re: UHAC and LCU-F techno-toys.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the PASACAT did not make it past trials for the RN. That design is basically different form the JHSV. BUT if one completely redesigned the bows of the JHSV and completely redesigned the stern of the JHSV it might be able to do what mention in your captions above. The JHSV has control surfaces which go below the base plane and therefore don't allow grounding the bows which are not structured for such. Can those be changed yes big $$$. Current JHSV ramps cannot be used for "instream launch" dream, were you shown ANY engineering designs to support that?
BTW the HSV WestPac Express has a short bow ramp and reportedly was beached so the ramp could connect to a ramp on the beach. SO if one starts with the right design criteria, bow and stern ramps can be fitted, but nothing like they have now.
Some other older designs
Roughly 2,500nm range @ 12 knots? Ok, but perhaps there are more cost-effective options yet in a larger-capacity baseline design already available? But as for a connectors go, perhaps there should/could be a 'mix' of smaller and larger capacity, shorter ranged and longer??
ReplyDeleteGood questions, I think the Marines know about the EDA-R aka the CNIM L-CAT, but since it is NOT fully amphibious they shrug it off. IMHO all landing craft do NOT have to be that way. And they latter are a hellavu lot cheaper to buy, not to mention that the French have theirs in production and in service, unlike ANY new landing craft for the USN~
ReplyDeleteThis APC is very tall...its a sitting duck in modern warfare...
ReplyDelete