Yeah that's right I'm saying that we can afford to delay or kill the MLP.
The MLP is the result of happy thinking and fat budgets. Those days have definitely passed. Can you honestly tell me that the sea base, as the Marine Corp envisioned it, is an absolute necessity to the US way of war?
It isn't and since it isn't essential it should be done away with. Quite honestly the money would be better used to purchase more LCACs or even other really needed ships. As for getting vehiclesashore in areas with limited port facilities...check out the pic below.
The MLP addresses moving equipment and supplies from sealift ships ashore without local port infrastructure. Amphibs really aren't a solution to that problem. INLS would be a more appropriate, if less capable, option.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'm a fan of the MLP, so I'd rather cut elsewhere.
sealift ships are most commonly used in areas with ports. the times when they've operated in areas without port facilities can be counted on one hand.
ReplyDeletewe can make due without it.
Sealift ships don't operate in areas without ports because they are limited in these situations without the MLP.
ReplyDeleteThe MLP enables follow-on forces and logistics without having to take a major port. Amphibs only carry limited quantities of forces and logistics.
Yes, we can live without it (just like we can live without the F-35B ;) and many other programs), but IMHO, it opens up a lot of possibilities.
Some of Britain's RFA ships are equipped with mexeflotes for transferring stores etc, is that not an acceptable solution?
ReplyDeleteAnd since when are the US going to invade and not take a major port? I didn't realise it was they were in the business of half-assed invasions now :P.
Sol, did you compliment a UK solution in a roundabout way? Are you ill?
yes i did. i'm rather tired of reinventing the wheel to solve problems that rarely come up...especially when cheaper, just as good options exist.
DeleteINLS is the US mexeflote.
ReplyDeleteYes, we probably would want to take a port in a major invasion. MLP just opens up throughput from sealift vessels before that happens or to augment the port.
MLP also lets you take smaller ports and use JHSVs to transfer cargo from sealift to the port.
and how many times have we actually needed to use that capability? yet we're about to build a family of ships to solve that problem? it just doesn't make sense.
Deleteyes the MLP should be killed, BUT not for the reasons you cite. The design is screwed up, well actually the ship has been redesigned several times after contract award which is a big red flag and acqusition no-no.
ReplyDeleteThe MLP should have been a flexiable sealift ship with max spots of all types of landing craft and lighterage. BUT no the design now only has three LCAC/SSC spots. DUMB design.
The amphibs are NOT great when it comes to interfacing with other ships especially sealift ships where the REST of the DOS comes from. Gators NEED to be modified with more cranes etc and clean sides to allow alongside moorings.
And NO Freaking way does the Navy need to spend hunreds of millions on the SSC. I'll pin down the unit cost. Way too much to buy many craft needed.
P.S. The seabase concept as a "USMC service unique" system FAILED. Go read history of MPF-F. Current seabase ideas all address JOINT use and are much less grandiose.
the concept didn't fail because it was USMC service unique. of course it wold be USMC unique. the MARINE CORPS DEVELOPED IT! geez leessea, your be a critic of the Corps but don't be a hater.
DeleteSol I saw my first brief about MPF-F in 2000 having worked prepo ships since 1980. What Genl Krulak wanted is NOT what the Marines "dreamed up". USMC (i.e. MCWL and MCCDC) developed rqmts that overburdened the MPF-F with a bunch of psuedo-amphib stuff. And killed it.
DeleteFor the record I have supported the US Marines from my tours on two Gator Freighters to the MPF-E project to the HSV WestPac Express. ALL of which need to connect to a seabase. It is much broader a concept and complicated a system than you make it out to be.
I checked production unit cost of SSC are over $71 mil EACH.
ReplyDeleteless than the cost of a F-35, C-130 or number of other aircraft. quite honestly considering the price of armored vehicles it comes in a a bargain.
Deletenot if the Navy wants to buy 80 or more of the SSC. Landing craft should not cost that much~
DeleteWhat sea state does off loading onto Mexe's stop? And how fast and sea worthy are they compared to even conventional landing craft let alone LCACs? The UK don't do choose that method because it is the optimum only because it is cheap.
ReplyDeletegood enough is often good enough. why do we need a family of ships to do this?
DeleteConsidering the USN investment in LCAC, the sheer scale of US deployments, increasing need for OTH, ability to use ships that aren't amphibians etc. MLP is a good investment.
DeleteBTW the top two photos are of a chartered Flo/Flo ship Super Servant III I believe and in NO WAY reflect what the MLP is now designed to be. Can you at least get the right pictures?
ReplyDeleteare there any modern equivalents to mulberry's of normandy landings?
ReplyDelete