Thanks for the pdf Lee.
I have a feeling that this concept and the more aggressive (and challenging 21st Century Landing Craft from an earlier post) are both going to take a a backseat to the LCAC SLEP and then the Ship to Shore Connector (LCAC on steroids).
I have a feeling that this concept and the more aggressive (and challenging 21st Century Landing Craft from an earlier post) are both going to take a a backseat to the LCAC SLEP and then the Ship to Shore Connector (LCAC on steroids).
2.6:1 lenght to beam ratio LOL i would love to see this thing go trough waves at 30kn ,over horizon or not anyone and anything this thing would be ferrying would be in for a hell of a rough ride. Just for kicks look at the specs for LCAT(EDA-R) which is in roughly same class while a bit slower and offering a way way softer ride needs cca half the engine power, 16V4000 weighs cca 10tons vs 12/2000 3.7t so instead of ferriying an aditional IFV you are just carrying 30 tons more in engines add rest of the drive train weight and fuel and a very rough ride to that an LCU(R) makes no sense.
ReplyDeletesorry but the L-CAT is nowhere near this things class. at best the L-CAT is a competitor to the LCAC, and that's based only on its being economical. but no one is biting so that tells me that something is scaring the world's navies off and i'd bet that it has to do with the raising and lowering platform as well as the costs (not enough bang and still a pretty big buck).
Deletewhen i say its not in the same class i'm talking payload. this is being designed for 200 tons. the L-CAT is less than half that.
DeleteMy bad overlooked the payload difference.
DeleteSol sorry I did NOT explain my fwd (was busy)..
ReplyDeleteAnwyay the Textron LCU(R) was a proposal for an earlier LCU replacement program. The USN has had so many starts and stops with replacing the 1600 class LCUs it is pitiful. It might be resurrected for the current program?
MrT When comparing fast landing craft there are three critical metrics: Payload, Speed AND whether the craft is merely beachable OR fully amphibious. IRT the LCU(R) those would be 225 tons @ 28 kts and NO. The CNIM L-Cat/ERDA is rated at 78 tons @ 20 kts and NO. Not comparable to next-gen LCAC nee SSC which is 74 tons @ 35 kts and YES.
The obvious conclusion is more speed LESS payload. The next most important thing is landing spots IOW where and how many of a particular FLC can be carried on other ships. To the USN that means amphib warships to OTHERS like myself it means why not lift FLCs on naval auxiliaries to supplement the warships?
Don't get me wrong I believe the USN/USMC should have BOTH beachable and fully amphibious types of FLC. I just am REALLY doubtful the Marines will ever get off their hovercraft kick? LCAC/SSC are too expensive to operate and maintain IMHO. Yes SOME are good to have for the first assault wave, but....
IOW one does not need speedster (even updated) to do ALL the lift which is needed by a landing force.
Some of the above applies to the other post about LCF too high tech and not practical especially with tactical vehicles getting taller and of course ignoring that landing craf ARE also loaded by LO/LO.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHeck, if you can load aboard LCU-F an RTCH at 14' cab-height - in her cargo-bay, not atop her after-deck - then you may be able to carry all sorts of stuff.
ReplyDeleteBut before stovepipe helmets become standard-issue, as the recent USN/USMC Load-Out exercise showed, some higher vehicle-types may (unexpectedly) not fit into all corners of our amphibs.
As to 'high-tech' - LCU-F is apparently on the level of a common backhoe. Meaning not for everyone...