Monday, November 04, 2013

Modest Proposal. Is it time to consider a two ship ARG?

General characteristics
Displacement:11,604 tons (light)
16,601 tons (full)
Length:610 ft (190 m)
Beam:84 ft (26 m)
Draft:21 ft (6.4 m)
Propulsion:Four Colt Industries, 16-cylinder diesel engines, with two shafts, 33,000 shp (25 MW)
Speed:20+ knots (37+ km/h)
Boats & landing
craft carried:
Two Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCACs)
Complement:22 officers, 397 enlisted men
Marine detachment: 402 + 102 surge
Armament:Two 25 mm Mk 38 rapid-fire cannon
Two 20 mm Phalanx CIWS mounts
Two Rolling Airframe Missile launchers
six .50 caliber M2HB machine guns

Some will consider this a radical proposal but if you work the numbers it makes sense.  Remember when Bob Work, former Sec of the Navy stated that you can't count hulls and get a real estimation of the effectiveness of today's Navy versus those of years past?

Well when it comes to amphibious ships it does ring true.  Think about the San Antonio Class (LPD-17).  When you stack it against the LPD-49 which they're replacing and you get a two fold increase in capability.  The same applies to the America Class LHA when you look at it versus the legacy LHDs.

Which brings us to the modest proposal.  Is it time to think about a two ship ARG?  It will provide no "extraneous" personnel but it would be a fully focused and realized MEU.  Additionally with the flight deck that the San Antonio brings, you could still split these ships and have Amos' vaunted aviation capability...without the F-35 mind you, but you would still be able to put Vipers in the air to escort CH-53s and MV-22s filled with Marine Infantry to carry out the nations policies.

I think its worth a consideration.

It would save money.  The LSD(X) could be tailored to a more versatile mission set (consider it a US version of a flex module ship----an LCS on steroids).  And it would allow us to give work that we could stretch out for years to our ship yards to keep our industrial base intact.

General characteristics
Type:Amphibious transport dock
Displacement:24,900 t
Length:684 ft (208 m)
Beam:105 ft (32 m)
Draft:23 ft (7.0 m), full load
Propulsion:Four sequentially turbocharged marineColt-Pielstick diesel engines, two shafts, 41,600 shp
Speed:In excess of 22 knots (41 km/h)
Boats & landing
craft carried:
Two LCACs (air cushion); or
1× LCU (conventional)
14× Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles/Amphibious Assault Vehicles
Complement:Crew: 28 officers, and 333 enlisted men
Landing force: 66 officers, and 633 enlisted men
Sensors and
processing systems:
AN/SPS-48G, AN/SPQ-9B[1]
Electronic warfare
& decoys:
AN/SLQ-32[1]
Armament:2× Bushmaster II 30 mm close-in-guns
two Rolling Airframe Missile launchers
two Mk 41 eight-cell VLS for quad-packed ESSMs (if required)
Several twin M2 Browning machine gunturrets
Aircraft carried:Launch or land up to four CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters, or up to two MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft simultaneously with room to place four MV-22s on theflight deck and one in the hangar deck

1 comment :

  1. The idea that a short-well-deck Amphib could ever be of any plausible tactical use to USMC or even USN's amphibious mission remains mystifying.

    If the future of USMC is at stake, then its amphibious capability is central to boosting USMC's standing in an age of fiscal austerity.

    Shorty well-decks are an astonishing dismissal of what it takes to get any GCE into any theater. What is the point of increasing ship-internal parking-lane length if you can't get those vehicle to shore in a plausible fashion from a well-defendable distance ?

    Showing LSD-49 HARPER'S FERRY in the illustration documents the first instance of losing tactical focus via ship-redesign by shrinking the unique 440-foot long well-deck of LSD-41 -48 down to a ridiculous 'shorty', utterly unable to deliver its rolling cargo.

    If the term 'pussification' is to be used, LSD-49 et cetera marked the beginning of that process for USMC's amphibious capabilities: Lot's of garage - but never any adequate go-to-shore-juice...
    LPD-17 ? Just another 'shorty'...

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.