I got this from NRAINSTRUCTOR (thanks buddy! welcome aboard!)
via The Atlantic...(follow the link and read the whole thing)
Not the story big Navy wants out.Of the 11 commissioned U.S. warships ships en route to Japan, almost half are big Cold War-era amphibious assault vessels purpose-built to land Marines on hostile shores. But while these unglamorous transport ships dispatch helicopters and critical aid to a grateful ally, they're being marginalized by a Navy that tends to fixate on the capabilities to wage a high-tech, blue-water war, while underestimating the importance of mundane disaster-response work in maintaining our global power and influence.
The Navy's amphibious forces have carried out the lion's share of America's disaster-response work, responding to 114 crises and contingencies over the past 20 years. Yet this enviable record means little inside the beltway. With the recent cancellation of the pricey $25-million dollar Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, a specialized floating tank meant to speed Marines from sea to shore, defense leaders are signaling that troop transporters, helicopter carriers, and other old-school "charge the beach" tools of amphibious warfare are obsolete and not worth full funding. The EFV deserved cancellation for a number of reasons, not the least of which was its price tag, but skeptics of amphibious warfare are using the EFV's demise to claim that the amphibious fleet as a whole has lost its reason for being and should be cut.
But even as Washington cuts, more countries are investing in amphibious warfare platforms than ever before.
Not a story about the glorious aircraft carriers.
Not a story about the exotic and powerful destroyers.
Not a story about a "Global Force for Good".
A story about the busiest ships in the fleet.
ABOUT DAMN TIME!
and the Navy put CTF-76 7th Fleet Amphib force in charge of HA!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.navy.mil/search/ display.asp?story_id=59093
Still, the new LHA-6 doesn't have a well deck, and I've seen some speculation on other forums that the planned LHA-7 will also not have a well deck, really? I think the LPD-21 is the right direction for future conflicts for the USMC, but without a new EFV, are we totally going to rely on the LCAC to mainly get to shore, or keep upgrading the old AAV? I'd like to see a submersible LPD-21 and LHA-6, thats the future!
ReplyDeleteIMHO, amphibs are great Swiss Army Knives.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the disasters we've seen recently far out strip their capacity.
I'm starting to lean towards the New Navy Fighting Machine recommendations to buy a lot more sealift, even at the expense of amphibious ships.
I'd like to see the Afloat Forward Staging Base concept renewed.
ThinkDefense also has some interesting ideas for Ship to Shore Logistics,
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/05/ship-to-shore-logistics/
LCACs out of well decks just don't have the throughput, and amphibious ships don't have the capacity.
We need to improve our ability to perform timely JLOTS activities and have large sealift vessels prepositioned and ready to go.
Just MHO.
B.Smitty and I agree.
ReplyDeleteLHA are by design aviation centric platforms. They lift troops and light cargo ashore. Given that connectors, such as larger SSC, are used to lift vehicles and cargo ashore, I don't really see a need for wet well dock systems using up 40% of their internal volume?
There are better ways to lift landing craft and the cargo to an area of operation. LPD/LSD principal design advantage is launching landing craft, but they can only lift a finite number of landing craft (which are all stacked up inside a big garage).
sorry guys. you're both wrong.
ReplyDeletethe Amphibs are kings of the sea not because they're there first but they're there first with the right gear and the right mix of capabilities.
the issue in Haiti wasn't that we were asked to disaster relief...its that we were asked to disaster relief and nation build at the same time.
you need several things in an emergency to keep a society from collapsing.
1. a timely response by 1st responders (this has been jacked up by our bureaucracy but we still do ok)
2. you need manpower. you need men and women that are able to operate in austere conditions with little support for at least a few weeks....sailors on an aircraft carrier just aren't used to doing that. it takes conditioning and practice. it takes a Marine.
3. you need heavy vehicles. while a LPD might not have every piece of construction gear desirable, it has enough to get the job done.
what you guys are talking about isn't an initial response to a disaster but a long term response. that isn't the US military's job. talk to the State Department...USAID, heck even the Red Cross but long term work should be carried out by the host nation.
What we are talking about is the reality of what happens AFTER the first responders get there. Simply stated the amphibs do NOT have cargo capacity for sufficient relief supplies. In point of fact, MPS and other MSC ships lifted that down to Haiti. AND I might add Haiti was NOT the worse case situation since MANY commercial shipping routes were set up very quickly to bring rolling stock into Haiti. Amphibs are great first responders.
ReplyDeleteAfter they inevitably left the scene, the long term recovery work was/is supported by sealift ships and that has NOT been done by Haiti (nor could be).
Northern Japan will be hurting for a long time and hopefully the Navy won't have to be there too long. But as sure as the sun rises warships will leave and auxilaries and sealift ships will stay behind.
A notional MEU has, maybe, 3 bulldozers and 30-40 trucks (MTVR & LVS)?
ReplyDeleteLike I said, it's a Swiss Army Knife. Lots of useful tools, but they are just small and of limited capacity.
In cargo hauling,
1 LMSR = 400 C-17s
1 LPD-17 = 54 C-17s
( http://www.scribd.com/doc/27347009/Haiti-Collection-7 )
1 LMSR costs around $2-300 million
1 LPD-17 costs ~$1.7 billion
Much of the Naval Support Element equipment is carried in the MPS loads. That is a lot of SEABEE gear and the Marine combat engineer and their motor transport. An LMSR is being added to existing MPSron loadouts.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Navy NDSF budget has NO new sealift ships in it (since I don't count the MLP as one)
it isn't an issue between Sealift and Amphibs.
ReplyDeleteits an issue between Amphibs and Aircraft Carriers.
Amphibs and Destroyers...
Amphibs and Frigates/Coast Guard/US Air Force C-17's....
No one in there right mind would compare the lift capability of an LMSR to that of an LPD...what i'm saying is that when the US military is called to act, then the right ship for most circumstances is the Gator Navy.