I continue to be fascinated by the EDA-R...the French solution to the 'enhanced' landing craft problem. The fascination isn't with its operation...I don't think that its any more capable than a legacy landing craft with improved thrust. It's rising and lowering deck doesn't impress...I find it to be overly complicated with little utility.
It's like a strange painting or a car accident (no injuries)...I stare in fascination and wonder how someone could come up with that. Pics via the French Navy website.
It's like a strange painting or a car accident (no injuries)...I stare in fascination and wonder how someone could come up with that. Pics via the French Navy website.
I think it starts to look better when you consider costs of operation (vs LCAC) and higher sea state operations.
ReplyDeleteYou are NOT going to push a conventional, displacement hull landing craft at 20 knots WITHOUT a huge amount of installed power and special hullform - talk about complicaions. By the time you get those engines installed the resultant carft (TBN) might do 20 kts and might carry 90 tons as the EDR-A aka L-Cat can do NOW. BTW go try to find any USN landing craft in the budget? LCU(R) dropped out and might come back it 5 yrs or so~ Bird in hand vs two in bush.
ReplyDeleteThe future SSC can only haul 74 tons at 35 kts.
And if I remember right the French craft fit into US wet wells?
The other part of the landing craft situation is a hard policy question. Does the US Marines absolutely need all of their landing craft to be fully amphibious. If the answer is no or partly no, than the French L-Cat and British PACSCAT become viable alternatives.
ReplyDelete74 tons at OVER 35 knots is no small feat. additionally it can operate/will operate in sea state 5 which will make most people sea sick...but how can you look at that raising and lowering deck and not think that the EDA-R isn't complicated? you have a platform that is lifting several tons several feet in either direction.
ReplyDeleteoh and having a truly amphibious landing craft seems like a real big good to have kind of thing. all the extraneous stuff that bogs down landings can be removed...no huge beach parties and other such stuff...no worry about vehicles getting bogged down in the surf...no worry about reef etc...
with the turn back to the Pacific, the EDA-R just won't do.
I agree the SSC numbers are an improvement over LCAC. My issue is they are not MUCH of an improvement and when you are looking at a product improved craft which costs $150 EACH (need to check that), I got to ask what is their value compared to the British and French craft?
DeleteThe biggest cost drivers in this type vessel are marine construction methods, propulsion plants and lift systems. I *think* when you compare the lifting deck to LCAC/SSC lift systems, ducted fans, swiveling propulsors, gas turbines and folding ramps, you may see a significant cost savings (I do NOT know those cost details)?
Mix the USN inventory of landing craft from hovercraft to fast landing craft to displacement boats.
BWO comparison the Textron LCU(R)proposal, of many years ago, had their semi-planning hull lifting 225 tons at 28 knots. That is a good goal. I am still looking to see where the next LCU is in the budget?
All I am asking is does EVERY stick and barrel HAVE to be lifted ashore by the MOST expensive means? No matter the Naval Support Element will still be there. Getting goods to the high water mark was fine for Marines for decades, I believe?
Do you really expect US Marines are going to perform amphibious assaults on Pacific islands/shorelines?
@Leesea : yes it does, it trained during Bold Aligator with both a Wasp class and a San Antonio if I remember well...
ReplyDelete@Solomon : I would not be so sure the EDA-R would not fit for the Pacific, remember the French have quite a few islands in there (they got the world's largest sea-areas and thus fishing rights thanks to those islands) and know the area well, so they probably did not make a ship that could'nt operate there. Especially since there are plans to build either more EDA-R or a larger version for colonial duty, in replacement of soon to be discarded/already discarded ships like the BATRAL class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BATRAL_class_landing_ship)
Also note the third picture, which seems to show an EDA-R alongside a ship for vehicule transfert, not inside the larger ship's berth : that a bit of sea-basing if I'm not wrong...
@Bryanis, I knew the the British FLC was in BA12. Perhaps that what started SOl's thread?
ReplyDeleteAND you point to a significant design failure of many USN amphibs IMHO. They have NO or limited capability to handle cargo by Lo/Lo. Look for multiple cranes or booms on LPD17 or LSDs, not more than one per hull. Look at MPS to see how many stations that cargo can be offloaded from. Look at MOST foreign amphibs or amphib support ships like the BPCs and you will see cranes for cargo offload.
Bryaxis.
ReplyDeleteyou're right of course and that is sea basing you're seeing there. but when i talk about not fitting the pacific i'm specifically talking about the boat being tailored to USMC type operations. the French perform almost all of their assaults by boat in an administrative fashion. they conduct raids on such with their helos almost exclusively.
Leesea.
you're right and i was quite surprised and dismayed to hear that the LCU-R had been moved right on the procurement schedule. i also agree that the MLP is misplaced spending. but i disagree that the EDA-R is a good fit. i like the speed of the current boat and i rather like the idea of landing feet dry. i don't mind getting wet but its not the best for engines...especially when reefs cause the landing craft to be even further from the shore than normal.
leesea.
ReplyDeletecan you verify the info on the British FLC! i don't recall seeing it.
please verify! i would hate to have missed that juicy nugget!