The title is definitely tongue in cheek. Perhaps the Brits came up with a suitable work around...the stern gate.
But here's a primer on the LHA-6 gate issues (note the reference to the failed operations of the LPH during the 1970's) ...
via National Defense Magazine (its an old article but definitely worth the read)...
An aviation-centric amphibious ship is not a new concept. In the late 1950s, the Navy built a class of amphibious assault ships called Landing Platform Helicopters, or LPH. These vessels carried Marines and rotory-wing aircraft. The only way to leave the ship was by air.and this...oh and note...that's the same Robert Work that's now Under Secretary of the Navy...
“That turned out to be largely a failed experiment,” says Work. In operations off the coast of Lebanon in the late 1970s, the ships’ helicopters encountered a significant air threat that resulted in the Marines being transferred to another amphibious ship to go ashore by sea.
“What we learned about the LPH is that we needed a well deck,” says Marine Col. Robert Coates, director of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force’s training and exercise group.
The aviation-centric design of the LHA replacement — or LHA(R) — also has raised questions about its long term usefulness. Considering that Marines require heavy trucks and armored vehicles once they reach the shore, most of that equipment can only be transported by hovercraft, not by helicopters.
“It’s been a long-running debate, and it’s still not settled,” says Robert Work, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. “There are a lot of questions on LHA(R). Will it become the standard, or will it become only a niche capability?”
I do not buy the arguments against and LPH for the following reasons:
ReplyDelete1) LPHs were aviation platforms, the troops onboard and small equipment were meant to be flown ashore. IF there was an air threat then the aviation assets needed to be changed NOT the platform.
2) when was the last time anyone saw troops lifted ashore by an LCAC or LCU? Simply stated Marines troops have not floated ashore in ANY significant numbers for decades. The AAVPs, and EVF, only are needed for the first assault wave.
3)the Marine tactical equipment and supplies come off the LPD/LSDs which in current form would need wet well docks.
My conclusion is there is NO need for a wet well dock in an aviation platform primarily intened to move troops and light gear ashore. Not to mention the exorbitant cost to install and the ship volume lost to wet well docks.
Okay that said now for the comment which I am sure will rankle many: IMHO wet well docks are WW2 anachronisms - design features from an earlier form of amphibious warfare which need to be supplanted and/or modified using new ship design features.
Let the furor begin!
Good issue to bring up. We can add it to the list of things non-Marines second guess Marines on. And we don't even need to get contentious over the topic. We just need to itemize everything that has changed since 70's/60s Lebanon, and see if we think it makes a difference. I'll start:
ReplyDelete1. Operational Doctrine changed from 'hit the beach' to 'hit the beach or beyond' - a more complex problem for bad guys to defend against.
2. Air platforms are faster, harder to hit.
3. Air platforms have better countermeasures, harder to hit.
4. Air Platforms are longer ranged -we can send them in from farther away without tipping off the bad guys about the 'incoming' surprise.
5. Air platforms have better/more lethal weapons - able to hit harder, more accurately.
6. Better surveillance/reconnaisance assets, organic to 'National' - better situational awareness before we get there, on the way, and after we're boots on ground.
I'm sure others can think of more things.
Again, good topic.
Well I THOUGHT I typed 70's/80's
ReplyDeleteAs an old Gator sailor, I do respect the Marines greatly for what they do, I just question how they go about it? Marines should not be designing ships I think?
ReplyDeleteNew to the equation is the recent USNI Proceeding article in which Bob Work & Frank Hoffman talked about scaleble joint theater entry and its implicaitons on traditional LTLF type phib ops.
Mac, Your list is impressive. When you add in a need to operate more V-22s and the new CH-53K to whichever bid deck, I see less and less need for those to have wet wells.
Go look up the design vatiations considered before going with America. You should be amazed by how much is lost to that boat dock.