Sidenote: HQMC, Marine Corps Communications etc...should really consider putting out videos of briefs on these subjects. ACV and Sea Basing slides are one thing, but to hear Mullen and Strock actually discuss these issues takes it to another level.
So what exactly is this LCAC Carrier Concept?
The LCAC Carrier Concept are based on the T-AKR class of ships which were originally designed to be heavy lift Sea Bee Barge Carriers. Its a two ship class composed of the SS Cape May and the SS Mohican.
You can read their Wikipedia entries here and here.
Why are they important? Both Mullen and Strock pointed to them as being an important part...correction, potentially important part of Marine Corps operations. The problem is simple. If the Sea Base is going to work...If we're going to do over the horizon delivery of ACV's to a launch point...If we're going to keep amphibious assault viable now and in the future then the A2/AD threat needs to be overcome. Today that means launching LCACs from perhaps as far away as 60 plus miles.
Additionally if you're talking about sustaining more than an MEU, say perhaps a gas guzzling Stryker Brigade or two ashore, then you're going to need more LCACs than the Amphibious Ready Group normally carries. The LCAC Carrier Concept fills the gap by transporting additional Surface Connectors that might be needed to augment those carried by the ARG.
How many LCAC's could this ship potentially carry? I have no idea and I kick myself for not asking. Even worse? I had two bites at the apple and didn't get the job done.
My take? The Sea Base and concepts like this are tailor made to enhance Joint Operations and Coalition Warfare.
The sticky widget with this? These ships are old. A purpose built "carrier" will need to be developed sooner than many would like (although these will do until then).
The planning for the Sea Base is much further along, much more involved and a reality now. The LCAC Carrier Concept is simply a tool to help evolve it.
Terminology correction; There is NO one T-AKR class of ships. T-AKR is a ship TYPE and stands for auxiliary, cargo Ro/Ro. So if Strock used that term he is wrong. Second the ship class you picture is that of a SEABEE barge carrier. Like the LASH ships, MARAD now types those ships as Heavy Lift which is mainly corrected. But they are NOT submergeable ships as are Flo/Flo the true heavy lift ships.
ReplyDeleteLet's get technical. The SEABEE ships use an elevator to lift up to 1000 tons. The LASH use an overhead gantry to lift up to 500 tons at a time. The LASH ships in the Afloat Prepositioning Force lifted LCM-8s and medium pusher tugs onto deck. SEABEEs load barges horizantally, LASH load vertically. I COULD see either as a landing craft/connector lift ship, BUT .....
There ONLY three SEABEE ships in the MARAD RRF and TRANSCOM controls there use. There are more LASH ships in the MARAD RRF and TRANSCOM controls there use. I think it unlikely that the Marines can gain control of Strategic Sealift ships for Service Unique missions.
The better solution is simply to have MSC charter a Flo/Flo to lift LCACs, SSC, or any landing craft. MSC has been doing that for sealift jobs since I did the first one in 1985. Why was that not considered a COA?
So you proabably saw the USS Cole lifted on the Blue Marlin, well there are heavy lift ships (HLS) with even bigger deck area out there NOW. Imagine how many landing craft or connectors they could lift? There are also quite a few dockships which are like modern equivalents to the first LSDs in commercial service NOW. Go look up the MV Blue Giant
What you did NOT say was whether the concept included CARGO onboard the sealift ship (dump the odd "carrier" term). Do the Marines what more sealift ships to add to their Amphibious LIft capacity? Did they actually admit that in your interview?
BTW Heavy Lift Ships aka Flo/Flo have been lifting US military watercraft since 1985. American Cormorant was first, followed by Strong Virginian. And the latter carried cargo internally and has a large stern ramp.
ReplyDeleteOfftopic, did you hear about this :
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/12/inside-china-myanmar-bombed-chinese-village/
Wasn't that ship in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising delivering Russian Paratroopers to Iceland? :-)
ReplyDeleteHaving spent time on various MARAD ship over the years I have to say that the whole program seemed like a huge scam the government bought old ships ripe for the breakers and then spent million in conversions and upkeep. Even some of the new builds have been real boondoggles .
ReplyDeleteYou're thinking of this ship:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Yulius_Fuchik
True, but pretty darn close! :-)
ReplyDeleteouch bit too aggressive there leesea. my leg has teeth marks. :(
ReplyDeleteDo get your point though, which is why I was for sacrificing cruising range for speed in "connectors". If you need range, LASH and FLO-FLO can carry lots of your smaller LC for you, but if you need to take the last mile at speed, only the LCU can deliver that unless you want to bring an LST in, which also is an option sometimes.
Ok its a buggabo of mine. I also worked on a USN project to BUY a Flo/Flo way back in 1994. The Navy said not needed we can charter what we want. aka the cheap way out.
ReplyDeleteFast forward to beginnings of MLP, originally called Intermediate Transfer Ship, program. It was SUPPOSED to be a fully functional Flo/Flo. Guess what? NOT now, and after being descoped three times the design ended up costing about $500 Million each.
So you can see that putting landing craft on sealift ships has a checkered history made worse by some wanting service unique functions.
P.S. the American Cormorant stayed in MSC service for about 11 years and cost about $40k per day. You do the math
The govt kept old ships in service to meet strategic sealift rqmts identified by TRANSCOM. And many of those ships have seen active service from Desert Shield to this day.
ReplyDeletethat certainly looks like a SEABEE design perhaps the Russian scammed it? Let me check?
ReplyDeletedahh I should have read the Wiki post~ And it makes sense since the SEABEE services to I believe South America were stopped about that time.
ReplyDeleteThe contract for two ships was awarded to the Finnish state-owned shipbuilding company Valmet and was, at the time, the largest single contract made by a Finnish industrial company at FIM 700 million (US$200 million).] Although Valmet had been developing its own barge handling system, it was agreed that the proven American Seabee concept would be adopted instead of the shipyard's own design due to the relatively short timescale before delivery. The Soviets purchased two sets of drawings from the American owners for US$1 million.
However, a number of changes were made to the original design, and as a
result the design costs accounted for some 25 percent of the manhours
spent on the project. The work included extensive model testing, which
resulted in the adoption of a bulbous bow that alone increased the ships' service speed by 0.5 knots.[3]
Well Owl yes and no. Certainly Flo/Flo can lift many different types of landing craft and ligherage. But no to the "only LCU" part since both INLS barge ferrys and LCM-8 do in fact go the last mile to the beach at about the same speed as LCU.
ReplyDeleteNOW if one were to use a L-CAT they could move cargo about as fast as a loaded LCAC.
I hate the connector buzzword, since is a generic non-specific newly invented term.
Landing craft and lighterage have been around for decades (like me) and should work if used properly.
Being an old LST sailor, there are pros & cons to those type ships.
My bad, the term "LCU" that I was using was in the context of "last mile connector", so if you wanted high speed, it would have to be on the "last mile" unit itself. Agree on the L-CAT, that was the kind of "LCU" speed I was thinking of.
ReplyDelete