I was checking out Admiral Greenert's page and found the following pics...
Above you see the first "concept of the AFSB. It appears to have a "add on" flight deck and spaces below contain machinery and I assume workshops. It was a basic design and didn't seem like it would add much complexity and costs. Perhaps more important, it also looks like it could revert back to supporting an amphibious assault without much work.
Now you see the latest "image" of what the AFSB will look like. Quite honestly it seems like the Maersk concept of converting a tanker into a heavy amphibious assault ship is reborn in a smaller package.
Quite honestly this might be the best thing to come out of this "concept". The Mobile Landing Platform has always been a ship in search of a mission. If it leads to converting Oil Tankers to heavy assault ships...each one capable of embarking a complete MEU...with two of them capable of carrying a Marine Expeditionary Brigade, then we might finally be seeing amphibious assault evolve into a heavyweight strike force from the sea, able to take on heavy mechanized forces --- and win ---- upon landing.
Above you see the first "concept of the AFSB. It appears to have a "add on" flight deck and spaces below contain machinery and I assume workshops. It was a basic design and didn't seem like it would add much complexity and costs. Perhaps more important, it also looks like it could revert back to supporting an amphibious assault without much work.
Now you see the latest "image" of what the AFSB will look like. Quite honestly it seems like the Maersk concept of converting a tanker into a heavy amphibious assault ship is reborn in a smaller package.
Quite honestly this might be the best thing to come out of this "concept". The Mobile Landing Platform has always been a ship in search of a mission. If it leads to converting Oil Tankers to heavy assault ships...each one capable of embarking a complete MEU...with two of them capable of carrying a Marine Expeditionary Brigade, then we might finally be seeing amphibious assault evolve into a heavyweight strike force from the sea, able to take on heavy mechanized forces --- and win ---- upon landing.
how hard would it be to put VLS cells on it and have it sail with the fleet as an arsenal ship with guidance given from E2D's, Burkes and fighters?
ReplyDeleteWhat a nice, fat target for these big anti ship missiles....
ReplyDeleteAlso for the torpedoes of the many silent SSK out there at the seas.
DeleteThe US Navy has serious problems detecting conventional diesel submarines.
SOL they are all concepts at different times.
DeleteFirst one is MLP modified to AFSB as I mentioned in the other thread. About 2 years old?
Second is MLP hullform modified to be LX(R) an equally dumb idea IMHO. About one year old.
Last is the Maersk proposal to convert one of their older S-Class full container ships into a FULL blown AFSB of the Logistics type. Every rqmt then known (about 5 years ago?) cranked into a very large open hull (formerly for containers).
Of course it would work, of course it will NEVER be done! Why? Because the ship was built foreign and the BIG US shipyards do not want little conversion jobs done here.
ou are RIGHT the USN is confused about what the ship should be. They ignore existing sealift ships, think mostly of naval auxiliaries, and are myopic about ALL the other choices that are possible.
Add on top of that the Navy thinks that using one hullform regardless of design is THE way to buy new ships. Would you buy a MTVR and turn it into a tank?
Lean times should indeed make for less conventional and more progressive thinking, with all sorts of cost-effective solutions to be put on the table.
ReplyDeleteHowever, without
- heavy-lift
- fast ship-to-shore capability,
- available in plausible numbers,
- and able to run to shore from 100-200nm (OTH-100, OTH-200),
in the limited numbers suggested, these would indeed be 16knots targets for the growing numbers of modern smaller subs and all sorts of other shore-defense systems.
2020 just FYI:
DeleteMLP is NOT a heavy lift ship
Fast connectors come in the form of SSC (few & $$$)
RRF ships are available and we already OWN them
ONR has been working on "connectors" to run in from offshore. Lots of designs all expensive transformers~ Their only good concept the RSLS was not funded.
What do you think the new amphibs are if NOT under armed targets ballasted down offshore?
Personally I think we take the A2/D2 argument too far?
Why not us the French L-Cat?
You are spot-on on 16kts MLP.
DeleteSince amphibs - new and old - are what they are, you need to keep them way off-shore, for which 200-tons 20kts max Connectors are central to bridge the 100-200nm distance to shore.
L-Cat - use it where ?
It carries no more than LCAC-1/2 but eats up plenty of well-deck foot-print for not enough transport-capability.
So, how many could you actually deploy to any theater ?
With L-Cat you're ending with as limited transport-capability as you have now - which sensible folks have deemed under-par for too long.
Furthermore,a strong impact on the beach with one of those hulls will wrack the whole geometry, putting an end to both the variable geometry and going fast and straight. Shipyard time !
Odd idea overall, as L-Cat does not multiply tonnage throughput - which is central to USMC amphibious assault.
Very 'techno' though... even though the DS one-spoke steering wheel was way cooler.
That sounds more like a merging of a MPF ship and a amphibious assault ship.
ReplyDeletejust sauce for the goose, but i see AND like where you're coming from. imagine the amount of material that you can offload? imagine if the Marine Corps actually got into the port seizure mode and actually trained hard for that mission? hmmm....
DeleteUSMC spot on the second it very much a merging. It could be done using a better hull form, BUT one has to decide UP FRONT whether it will be USS or USNS? The Navy is foggy on that and the sea lawyers don't help any (no weapons on USNS).
DeleteOne of the ideas kicked around is that when conducting COIN do not have the mega-fobs. Do not build an Al Assad or a Camp Leatherneck. If there is a need for a FOB is needs to be very small and only directly support infantry. This is more in line of a firebase hosting the supported units head quarters. Patrol bases would be partner bases between Marine advisors and friend HN security forces. So an BN AO might have 20-30 patrol bases but on 4-6 Marines per patrol base with 20-30 host nation troops per base. The one FOB would have 200-250 personnel and 100 of them being artillerymen manning a mix of Cannons and HIMARS.
DeleteThe idea is that offensive actions, ranging from a SEAL fire team, up to a Company+ would be launched from the AFSB for decisive operations. The idea of being spread out and seldom to never traveling the roads eliminates the IED threat and also the need for MRAPs. Resupply would be by air and the small number of troops also drastically lowers the resupply requirements.
The CE, ACE, and most of the LCE stay afloat at sea to lower the logistics requirements. Even a large portion of the GCE might stay afloat at any given time the thinking being that if you are not directly useful this moment than back on the boat you go. This being tanks, combat engineers and artillery.
This is also viewed as a better investment to the US. We invested million in Al-Asad and now have nothing to show for it.
if we're going to do COIN ops then that sounds perfect...but why is the USMC stuck on stupid when it comes to COIN. why is it believed inside the brain trust that COIN is future when it comes to warfare? i don't believe it, the USAF, USN and US Army don't believe it and it seems that only SOCOM and the USMC are in love with the idea.
DeleteHere is just a wild shot in the dark. If you remember the General's testimony that the USMC contribution to Air-Sea Battle would be FARPs refueling and arming F-35Bs between runs from the big decks, it leaves the grunts nothing to do.
DeleteThe AFSB and what I described is a something for everyone approach. The grunts will do COIN from the AFSB while the Wing practices for Air Sea Battle and making a F-35B operate from FARP.
Just a crazy shot in the dark but still some thoughts.
I think the idea for this ship is not anphib assault or fighting with the fleet in contested areas. We are running the anphibs to death around Africa and S America doing work in benign enviroments putting hours on our major units when they are needed in the high threat areas were their billion dollar tags and tech warrants the cost. We need the anphibs in the high threat areas and practicing operating in those areas. These ships will be what puts the anphibs back into the areas their skills are needed and not waste their time policing the 3rd world facing threats that on a bad day are RPG's.
ReplyDeleteThese low cost ships (compared to a LHA/LHD) with drones, helos, marines, and some small boats will be more than enough to at least takeover the two horns of Africa and S America. Then also when you have a humanitarian mission like say the Philippines you have staying power as the LHD may be lead reaction these ships take over with a mixed crew of mil/civ they can operate with the NGO's while the LHD/LHA's are left to do what they are designed to do.
These ships will not be pitted against nation states with ASM and diesel subs, they will be floating bases finding pirates/drug smugglers with drones then running them down with small boats/helos. They will be lily pads to launch raids or rescues in X 3rd world bucket or supporting training of X 3rd world bucket militaries. Finally because the politicks need their warm and fuzzies at night they will do the occasional humanitarian meals on helos mission.
C-Low, the middle photo of the MLP converted to LX(R) is very close what you are thinking. The Navy, is trying to merge the sealift features of say an MPS with the assault features of an LSD. Not mainly for use in low Phase Order ops, but also to improve lift capacity.
DeleteThe problem is that a merger into ONE hull is NOT needed, there are plenty of sealift ships to be chartered by MSC or already in MARAD RRF.
Which is complicated by the dumb ideas shown above by big blue Navy~
one of my mantras is: "Pick the Right Ship Type First"
you keep saying the middle pic depicts the LX(R). why do you say that? i got the pic from Admiral S' webpage where he's talking about the AFSB. nothing on his page talked at all about an LX(R).
Deletemore info please.
The bow and stern are straight off the MLP. I saw that dwg in an LX(R) AoA study, will try to find it and fwd to you
DeleteCertainly cheap and cost effective but I don't suppose you Americans remember what happened to the Atlantic conveyor.
ReplyDeletethe Falklands War is required study in the naval services. everyone gets a full dose of the good and the bad....so to answer your question, yep, we know what happened to that glorious ship.
DeleteAFSB's aren't designed or intended participate in naval warfare. they're not even designed to accompany amphibious ships. they're suppose to go to backwater areas and support special operations and act as offshore bases.
Problem is that with defense spending cuts affecting everyone it would only take one politician who doesn't know any better to decide to deploy one of these things to a warzone. It's the sort of thing that could and probably would happen at some point.
DeleteAnd if one did get hit or even if a munition accidentally detonated it would be nasty, like the Atlantic Conveyor most of the people below deck would be killed in the fire, if you've got an MEU aboard that could be 1000+ people. It's a great idea for humanitarian and rescue missions but that sort of thing is best left to axillary and hospital ships to handle if possible.
scot, Applying the Atlantic Conveyor to modern auxiliaries or specialized sealift ships like the MPS, is like comparing Model Ts to MTVRs.
DeleteMost sealift ships have much more firefighting and damage control equipment AND most cargo is carried below main deck UNLIKE the AC. Especially hazardous cargo.
All that "black hulls sink easier" is a bunch of bull. Go look up how many merchant ships were sunk during the 1987 Tanker War.
Rember that the STUFT ships used for the Falklands were strictly expedient loadings.
Well, I was under the impression that these were basic container ships not designed with any damage control capabilities with bolted on flight decks and basic accommodation. If they're built like auxiliaries then that would remove the issue,
DeleteAnyway, The idea isn't new, RFA Argus was used as an LPD for a while by the RN but it was deemed unsuitable and a dedicated ship was built.
AHH??? The first two drawings are presumably USNS (see the stack stripes). The S-class are container ships the size of carriers. All of the above are built to modern merchant standards with HAVE FF & DC in the rules. Any flight deck you see in the above has to be built to NAVAIR standards which DO include FF.
DeleteDid you mean this RFA Argus which is still in service?
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Royal-Fleet-Auxiliary/Casualty-Ship-RFA-Argus
That's the one, aviation training ship primarily now,
Delete