BTW this sort of overlooks the problems with the other legs of the "connector" Triad. I know mentioned in other threads?
2nd thought about EFV: Do the Marines NEED a fully amphibous vehicle for ALL of its ship to shore movements? Can some of their tactical vehicles go ashore on other connectors?
Does every vehicle have to be as specialized as the EFV?
have to disagree totally about the other legs of the triad. the Navy has been doing a GREAT job with the LCAC. its tried and true and the only thing that can replace it is a product improved LCAC. as a matter of fact it performs so well that the Chinese are copying it.
the V-22 is proving its worth in the fight in Afghanistan. its fast, it flies high and its a winner.
the average Marine will be able to service the EFV. as a matter of fact it will be on par with the Abrams M1 as far as complexity is concerned.
LCACs are a 40 year old design which is aircraft centric and obsolescent. The USN is throwing tens of millions of dollars at keeping the remaining LCACs operating. Go look a DOD contract announcements. SSC will probablly be a stretched and improved version thereof. The craft will forever be limited by the size of an amphibs wet well (a WW2 anachronism)
The same question about amphibiosity applies to LCAC/SSC, how much of the landing force MUST be lifted by fully amphibious craft? Answer ONLY the first wave of an assault needs that lift capability. Other materials can and should be lifted in by LCU/LCM or better yet British PASCAT of French L-Cat.
V-22s certainly have speed but internal dimension are so limiting that the Marines special vehicles and weapons had to be procured to fit Osprey. So they are mainly troop haulers unlike the Phrogs. Not to mention the lack of defensive weapons. I agree with some who say truncate the Osprey and spend the money on new CH-53K.
LCAC's are hovercraft, not an aircraft design and its hardly obsolete.
take a look at the PASCAT and the L-CAT. yeah they can haul heavier loads but to what purpose? ports or other type ship to shore connectors can handle the really heavy stuff.
oh and the assault and follow on assault echelon need fully amphibious craft.
the V-22 has the same internal dimensions as the CH-46. the issue is that the V-22 is going to be used for deeper insertions and distributed operations need fire support which is why the 120mm mortar and its mover were developed.
oh and CH-46's were primarily troop haulers. if anything is out of sorts is the use of CH-53's in that role.
LCAC use aircraft engines, aircraft construction techniques and aircraft type maintenance. The damn things have to get a fresh water washdown after every "mission". There design is over 40 yrs old i.e obsolescent.
Even British Hovercraft dumped that building style when they went to the AP 1-88 series. NO modern large hovercraft is built that way. Both the PASCAT and L-Cat use marine grade aluminium and marine engines and are built like boats.
Hopefully the SSC won't repeat those problems?
THE point about "connectors" is getting the heavy tacitcal equipment and materials to the beach. "ports..." etc are NOT always where you need them and conventinal hulled USN connectors are pretty few and far between. AFOE has NEVER needed fully amphib landing craft not in doctrine nor in practice. AFOE is about sustainment meaning throughput tonnage. By the time the AFOE gets going there will be ELCAS and other things to help move cargo from ship to shore without being fully amphbibious. That is what is now being called Theater Entry Operations. Go read Bob Work and Frank Hoffman's article in NOV USNI Proceedings. (which I have discussed with them).
That having been said I DO think the first wave needs to be fully amphibious.
This looks far too complex for the Average EFV Marine to me? How about comparing it to the old P7?
ReplyDeleteBTW this sort of overlooks the problems with the other legs of the "connector" Triad. I know mentioned in other threads?
ReplyDelete2nd thought about EFV: Do the Marines NEED a fully amphibous vehicle for ALL of its ship to shore movements? Can some of their tactical vehicles go ashore on other connectors?
Does every vehicle have to be as specialized as the EFV?
leesea,
ReplyDeletehave to disagree totally about the other legs of the triad. the Navy has been doing a GREAT job with the LCAC. its tried and true and the only thing that can replace it is a product improved LCAC. as a matter of fact it performs so well that the Chinese are copying it.
the V-22 is proving its worth in the fight in Afghanistan. its fast, it flies high and its a winner.
the average Marine will be able to service the EFV. as a matter of fact it will be on par with the Abrams M1 as far as complexity is concerned.
LCACs are a 40 year old design which is aircraft centric and obsolescent. The USN is throwing tens of millions of dollars at keeping the remaining LCACs operating. Go look a DOD contract announcements. SSC will probablly be a stretched and improved version thereof. The craft will forever be limited by the size of an amphibs wet well (a WW2 anachronism)
ReplyDeleteThe same question about amphibiosity applies to LCAC/SSC, how much of the landing force MUST be lifted by fully amphibious craft? Answer ONLY the first wave of an assault needs that lift capability. Other materials can and should be lifted in by LCU/LCM or better yet British PASCAT of French L-Cat.
V-22s certainly have speed but internal dimension are so limiting that the Marines special vehicles and weapons had to be procured to fit Osprey. So they are mainly troop haulers unlike the Phrogs. Not to mention the lack of defensive weapons. I agree with some who say truncate the Osprey and spend the money on new CH-53K.
LCAC's are hovercraft, not an aircraft design and its hardly obsolete.
ReplyDeletetake a look at the PASCAT and the L-CAT. yeah they can haul heavier loads but to what purpose? ports or other type ship to shore connectors can handle the really heavy stuff.
oh and the assault and follow on assault echelon need fully amphibious craft.
the V-22 has the same internal dimensions as the CH-46. the issue is that the V-22 is going to be used for deeper insertions and distributed operations need fire support which is why the 120mm mortar and its mover were developed.
oh and CH-46's were primarily troop haulers. if anything is out of sorts is the use of CH-53's in that role.
LCAC use aircraft engines, aircraft construction techniques and aircraft type maintenance. The damn things have to get a fresh water washdown after every "mission". There design is over 40 yrs old i.e obsolescent.
ReplyDeleteEven British Hovercraft dumped that building style when they went to the AP 1-88 series. NO modern large hovercraft is built that way.
Both the PASCAT and L-Cat use marine grade aluminium and marine engines and are built like boats.
Hopefully the SSC won't repeat those problems?
THE point about "connectors" is getting the heavy tacitcal equipment and materials to the beach. "ports..." etc are NOT always where you need them and conventinal hulled USN connectors are pretty few and far between. AFOE has NEVER needed fully amphib landing craft not in doctrine nor in practice. AFOE is about sustainment meaning throughput tonnage. By the time the AFOE gets going there will be ELCAS and other things to help move cargo from ship to shore without being fully amphbibious. That is what is now being called Theater Entry Operations. Go read Bob Work and Frank Hoffman's article in NOV USNI Proceedings.
(which I have discussed with them).
That having been said I DO think the first wave needs to be fully amphibious.