My message to them...
Let it go.
The time to fight isn't after its been canceled...its before it got to this point.
My previous statements stand...with a few added bits after some thought today.
1. Kill the EFV in total. A token buy of a few hundred (I've heard the number 200) will be a waste of resources, will hugely expensive and will not serve a worthwhile purpose. We need a vehicle that can be used everywhere, all day long. A specialized vehicle (which is what such a small vehicle buy would make it) isn't worth the money, effort or even the dollars it would take to make it workable.
2. Don't even think about the Marine Personnel Carrier. Close that shop down. We don't have the money and we don't need funds diverted to a questionable vehicle.
3. Get out of the JLTV program. The budget war has been declared...its upgrade the Humvee time.
I don't know what the future holds but the ground side of the Marine Corps' house is in disarray. All kinds of foolish ideas are being forwarded...
Loose the well decks because they're unnecessary! WTF!
Adopt smaller, less capable amphibs! WTF!
Adopt the Stryker or a similar wheeled vehicle! WTF!
All of the above are non-answers to this very important problem. The nay-sayers have carried the day---this time, but we need to not retreat but to reload! Amphibious Assault is too important for us to do anything else.
Wet wells are needed to preload the assault waves. No argument there. That is the only significant role.
ReplyDeleteMy concern is that wet well docks actually restrict the size of any landing craft that goes into a wet well. I call that the funnel effect.
In addition, wet well dock systems are notoriously unreliable. IF the system goes down everything inside is bottled up - none of the heavy gear goes ashore. I call that the closed garage door.
Wet well dock systems are very expensive to install and maintain. They take up a large volume of internal space in an amphib and thereby reduce its cargo capactiy.
NONE of the above means the Marines should do away with amphib assaults, they should come up with a different MEANS to accomplish that end.
I would use a semi-submersible ship design which allows more landing craft of different types to be discharged simultaneously atwhartships. I have seen 22 pieces of Army watercrart be discharged from the American Cormorant in 45 minutes - dead stick! Not many gators could match that.
What about an LCAC that can carry a platoon and/or hummer? It wouldn't be as armored as the EFV or able to be used as far inland but it would open up more terrain for landings.
ReplyDeleteThe semi-submersible transport ships had a sudden rise in popularity during the MPF(X) and MPF(F) studies, but have apparently been overtaken by the MLP "steel beach" ships.
ReplyDeletePity, for as you say leesea, these semi-sub vessels are dynamite amphibs, especially when pre-loaded with LCACs. They can even load larger LCACs which - again as you say - wouldn't be restricted to amphib dock size (Zubr ACV anyone?).
I believe the main gripe is that the semi-submersible is too large; USN amphib ships are restricted to a certain size so they can pass the Suez and Panama Canals (IIRC this is also true for the MPS squadrons).
On vehicles, I think the USMC should just bypass the Stryker. Good vehicle, just not suited to mate with the USMC-type infantry TOE units, which are larger than the US Army's.
The Patria AMV is my favourite off-the-shelf vehicle for the USMC as it is still amphibious and modular, so may be airlifted in segments without having to sacrifice (add-on) armor to save weight.
Back it up with more improved M-1s and perhaps BVS-10s, and invest in enough LCACs and its successor.
Btw LCAC is also getting old; it's replacement will be another USN-USMC inter-service fight.
Sol
ReplyDeleteFind it interesting that you want to cancel the MPC Program and adopt a Stryker Vehicle. The Stryker Vehicle is over weight, under powered and lacks internal volume. The Army has spent millions "re-doing" all the wrongs of the Stryker. Don't get me wrong, the Stryker saved my life many times in Iraq (172nd).
My 10 cents (please provide change)
Go after an MPC that does not require much development. Get a vehicle that has the capability to swim and has the capability to maneuver in land as needed (Stryker like mobility with higher levels of protection). Some of the vehicles are ready to go. The market is flooded with capably 8x8 Vehicles. Selection should be simple.
Now, the USMC has the decide to go in on the cheap. Make the selection and procurement process simple, don't try to push the realm of the possible. No 8x8 vehicle will travel in the water at the same speeds as the EFV, the physics isn't there.
me - it's not so much getting to the beach, but getting beyond the beach to the objective. Nobody wants to repeat a Normandy with infantry storming machine-gun nests, so the plan was always to totally bypass dug-in defenses with EFV and MV-22 Ospreys and go straight for the throat, as it were.
ReplyDeleteYou're LCAC idea is available, would be something like the ABS, or Griffin 8100TD family.
http://www.abs-hovercraft.com/m10-hovercraft/
http://www.griffonhoverwork.com/galleries
Marcase, I managed the MV American Cormorant from 1985 until 1991. It was a clear deck Flo/Flo. It carried 22 pcs of Army "Port Support Equipment". I know what they can and can't do. Makes the Amtrac launches we did from Newport look pretty weak!
ReplyDeleteThe MLP is an abortion! First off the Navy went back to the '80s way of building then by cutting down an tanker (of course that was a flipup to NASSCO). NAVSEA has chopped the MLP deck up to be parking dock for ONLY four LCAC, a landing pad for big side ramps and open deck area for little else. The designer should be fired for stupidity!
With the Panama Canal being widened and the Suex always wider, the narrow beam of amphibs is NO longer justified. I would make them up to 125 ft wide. Sure they may not make 20 kts anymore, once again a question of the speed needed?
A new amphib could have an overhead monorail so that combat cargo could loaded as needed or reconfigured enroute.
LCACs are ALREADY obsolescent a 40 yr plus design. The SSC is nothing more than a longer product-improved design. So more deck area and payload. SSC is restricted by the narrowness of wet well docks. Lots of money and time for not much improvement in throughput. The Navy needs to have a large parking lot at sea for whatever type of vessel is involved in an amphib op or TEO. IMHO
hey ME...
ReplyDeletei posted the adoption of the Stryker as a FOOLISH idea. not one that should be taken seriously...sorry i wasn't more clear.
"...the narrow beam of amphibs is NO longer justified. I would make them up to 125 ft wide."
ReplyDeleteThen something like this perhaps? ;)
http://www.dockwise.com/media/uploaded/type0.flv
Alternative link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dockwise.com/page/movies.html - New Super Vessel Animation
a good sealif ship only needs to be wide enough to carry what is in our inventory or expected and fit through the canals.
ReplyDeleteI posted on other thread that a Transhelf or Swift/Swan might work. I need to concert dimenions etc
I feel like we should have kept the EFV alive. North Korea is a serious threat and the U.S. needs a vehicle to be able penetrate and dominate on the beach. Amphibious warfare would be key in a conflict with North Korea. As for the MPV, bail for now until economy improves...which at this point is highly unlikely. Thank you government for screwing that one up. Or I agree with pursuing a cheap, reliable, foreign vehicle that proves itself in testing. Freeze JLTV. Our Gov't. has dug us into a deep hole. Hopefully the newly elected officials will change this around.
ReplyDeleteI also think we should keep EFV alive, we should also create an EF-MBT, based on the M1 Abrams, but water capable. Both designs should should withstand IED's and RPG's. The NLOS system is a wash, even the Army is scrapping their new future system. Why can't they put their heads together and build something with a base that is available to both branches, like the JSF F-35. The USAF and US Navy should also be considering the large vehicles that could deliver these systems, i.e. for the Navy the new USS New York and USS America are steps in the right direction. The USAF should be serious looking into a V-22 the size of a C-130, they show tv commercials with this kind of plane, why don't they build it! The Sikorsky X2 is also important, VTOL is the future! Weapon systems that work together, controlled costs, realistic time frames, and happy allies= a strong and safe USA!!!
ReplyDelete