The Military SeaLift Command has recently put into service (a few years ago) an Improved Lighterage System. Its purpose? To provide the Joint Services a ship to shore logistics system that is capable, adaptable and deliverable to whatever spot on the globe its needed.
So why do we need the MLP again? Before I answer, let me add...the system can be expanded to service several ships and is ready made to integrate with the JHSV. Working with current and projected amphibs would not be an issue either.
So the answer to the question is this. The Navy and Marine Corps for some ungodly reason, mixed the Assault Echelon, with the Assault Follow On Echelon and decided that they needed a ship to speed cargo ashore. Without considering that the Military Sea Lift Command would be arriving with the AFOE and would have the ILS with them.
Long story short. The MLP is a waste of money. The ILS will serve us well and bet your retirement funds on the MLP being converted to an Afloat Forward Staging Base. All 3 of them. Payback for the Corps will probably be the big LSD based on the LPD-17 hull.
_for_ship-to-shore_operations.jpg)
Want a good primer on what the Military Sea Lift Command is doing with this system? Follow the links below...
To read more about previous JLOTS exercises:
http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2010/August/mendonca.htm
http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2011/July/morocco.htm
http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2009/August/transcom.htm
http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2010/March/gap.htm
http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2010/March/lummus.htm
http://www.msc.navy.mil/N00p/pressrel/press08/press35.htm
NOTE: The image below shows the mixing of the AE with the AFOE. MSC ships alongside big deck amphibs with the MLP serving as a connector to the ship to shore connectors! If that isn't convoluted I don't know what is! Want another "what the fuck were the thinking" moment? With the Amphibious Combat Vehicle at sea range closed down to 12 instead of 25 miles off shore, the need for an MLP type ship is rendered moot.
So why do we need the MLP again? Before I answer, let me add...the system can be expanded to service several ships and is ready made to integrate with the JHSV. Working with current and projected amphibs would not be an issue either.
So the answer to the question is this. The Navy and Marine Corps for some ungodly reason, mixed the Assault Echelon, with the Assault Follow On Echelon and decided that they needed a ship to speed cargo ashore. Without considering that the Military Sea Lift Command would be arriving with the AFOE and would have the ILS with them.
Long story short. The MLP is a waste of money. The ILS will serve us well and bet your retirement funds on the MLP being converted to an Afloat Forward Staging Base. All 3 of them. Payback for the Corps will probably be the big LSD based on the LPD-17 hull.
_for_ship-to-shore_operations.jpg)
Want a good primer on what the Military Sea Lift Command is doing with this system? Follow the links below...
To read more about previous JLOTS exercises:
http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2010/August/mendonca.htm
http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2011/July/morocco.htm
http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2009/August/transcom.htm
http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2010/March/gap.htm
http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2010/March/lummus.htm
http://www.msc.navy.mil/N00p/pressrel/press08/press35.htm
NOTE: The image below shows the mixing of the AE with the AFOE. MSC ships alongside big deck amphibs with the MLP serving as a connector to the ship to shore connectors! If that isn't convoluted I don't know what is! Want another "what the fuck were the thinking" moment? With the Amphibious Combat Vehicle at sea range closed down to 12 instead of 25 miles off shore, the need for an MLP type ship is rendered moot.
The MLP gives you a few things,
ReplyDelete1. It enables offload in somewhat higher sea states (IIRC, low sea sate 4 vs SS3 for INLS)
2. It provides much greater parking and offload area and enables multiple SSCs access to those parking areas simultaneously. This should greatly improve offload speed.
3. In theory it is faster to ballast down an MLP than to construct an RRDF (which can take up to 24 hours), especially in higher sea states.
4. The MLP can carry its own SSCs (three LCACs).
5. It is inherently more mobile.
The AAVs and ACVs aren't meant as cargo and follow-on-force connectors. They can't provide the level of log sustainment needed, or move non-amphibious forces ashore. The MLP is meant to enable this without having to take a major port.
Why it had to cost as much as it does, and the specifics of its design are major questions, IMHO, but I think the core concept has merit.
Sol a few corrections. The Navy procured the INLS Improved Navy Lighterage Systems components in response to NAVFAC needs for Seabees use. It replaced the WW2 era NL component mainly pontoon sections. INLS is only carried on MPS ships.
ReplyDeleteThere are only going to be two MLPs each assigned to one MPSron. The third one is now going to be redesigned for the FOURTH time to be AFSB and it too is a waste of money.
I disagree with Bsmitty IRT the MLP design because there is NO reason WHY a ship this simple needs to cost around $500 mil when you include the OPTIONAL Core Capabilities Set
The drawing you posted has so many technical errors in it, it would take a long email to explain them. Suffice to say a navy Capt I know called it a "dream sheet".
Bsmitty observations are correct except I would say there is a limited turning area to the port side where the LCAC/SSC parking spots are. Flo/Flo ops of which I am very familiar could allowing ballasting down in 2 to 4 hrs. INLS discharge and assembly is comparable in up to SS3.
The "connectors" term which some folks use covers everything from JHSV to LCM8.
MLP is meant of ops far offshore anywhere from 125 to 250 nmi. where theortically SS4 is, but practically SS3 is the true limit for all "interface ops" MPS and Amphibs are meant for ops close in say 25 nmi and less in SS3.
By bottom line question is WHY are amphibs NOT designed to be directly compatible with sealift ships from MPS to LMSR to any other ship which carries sustainment cargo?
P.S.
ReplyDeleteSecond and fourth photos aree of older NL pontoons etc
Third photo is the RIGHT one showing INLS in large RRDF configuration
Drawaing does NOT depict current MLP configuration and that is NOT a JHSV