I was making a swing around the internet this morning and ran across this story from Defense News.
With that being said a couple of ships that can sail together carrying a Brigade Combat Team (-) might be just what the Army needs to get back in the "relevancy" game. For war you would link up with the Navy but for operations other than they could ferry the US Army around the region.
With that being said wouldn't the SNR Tank Landing Ship be a better fit than an LCM? More info on the LST is here.
The impetus to find scant dollars in budgets that have already squeezed out once-critical programs like the Ground Combat Vehicle is, of course, Washington’s strategic rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region.Read the entire story but my question is this. Is the US Army thinking too small? Some believe that for the near term, the US is going to mainly build relationships, conduct tons of exercises, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
The Army operates several varieties of watercraft and logistics ships from tugboats to large Logistics Support Vessels, but at issue are the four-decade-old Landing Craft Mechanized (LCM) ships that can operate from ship to shore, carrying troops and equipment up to the weight of five Abrams tanks.
The service issued a request for information to industry for the program in early 2013 that it is calling the Maneuver Support Vessel-Light.
With that being said a couple of ships that can sail together carrying a Brigade Combat Team (-) might be just what the Army needs to get back in the "relevancy" game. For war you would link up with the Navy but for operations other than they could ferry the US Army around the region.
With that being said wouldn't the SNR Tank Landing Ship be a better fit than an LCM? More info on the LST is here.
And if the Army is just stuck on a LCM type vessel then how about something with a bit of speed behind it like the TCG C-155 also from a Turkish Shipyard? Read about this vessel here (make sure to take a look at their proposal for a LST under naval projects).
Sol,
ReplyDeletewhat would you fault about the US Army's
- 35x copies of early-90s 1100-tons Landing Craft ("Design-2000" WLCU)?
Or the
- 8x copies of '88-'04 built 4200-tons "Besson"-class WLSTs ?
Which other Army (or Navy for that matter) has that many ?
And why would we need more ?
Built in Turkey ????
And I thought we were tight on money....
you know better than that. just like the Austal and Fin LCS are built in the US so would these ships.
Deleteas far as which would i rather. i'd rather they have a LST. i like a big Army that fights big wars with heavy armor.
How would you say to Congress that 8x 4200-tons LSTs and 35x large 1100-tons LCUs are "not enough".
DeleteMore would "save the Army"... from what ?
43 i.e. FORTY-THREE very big LCUs and LSTs are very adequate indeed.
However your 'tip' on some "four decade-old" LC-whatevers is laughably ill-informed.
I'd say, poor 'reconn'...
And it is good to know that you like to see the US Army fight with big armor.
DeleteWhy then such little interest in having USMC acquire the capability to do the same via fast heavy-lift LCUs to enable the troops from MEU to MEF ?
I doubt that Marines will agree with your approach.
P.S.: The Army's LCMs can not even carry a single MBT, thus would beyond modest supportive roles here and there - assuming someone carries them there first - have little to contribute in the context of a 'Pivot to Asia'... Surely would offer at best negligible assistance in terms of "heavy armor", perhaps by hauling fuel-tankers to a pacified coast-line.
2020, here is some intel on a new Army boat to replace their LCM-8, its easy just Google:
DeleteManeuver Support Vessel-Light and you will find what is a kicked up LCU in an RFI last year which has NOT been funded~ Also my intel say the Navy cancelled its LCU replacement project again~
The problem that has existed for years now is that most of those Army landing craft are NOT where the Army needs them (stuck in reserve centers and RSAs) and the US Army does NOT want to pay for the sealift ships needed to move them forward. Hence the Army has decreased its APS-3 inventory afloat~
USN (hopefully) cancelling their LCU(x) program because USMC is doing this one, as per CMC at WEST 2014 and other sources.
DeleteGod damne! You are a US (ex-?) marine! Of cause not. What a question. If cant dont do, nobody can do. Particularly Turkey, with a non-existing armaments industry.
ReplyDeleteSOL I think you are comparing apples and pears~ The Newport class were meant to be trans-oceanic and high speed (~20 kts), while the Turkish LST is really more like a large LSM meant for shorter intra-theater missions, I think.
ReplyDeleteThat having been said the Turk profile reminds me of how the Aussies converted two old USN Newport class LSTs. I am ALWAYS for a amphib with guns and davits~ Note also the pontoon on the fore deck. At least this LST can fire its guns FORWARD unlike the Newports!
2020, the Besson and other larger Army landing ships are USAV. MSC lifted four LCU2000 on the MV Strong Virginian plus other Army "Port Support Equipment" internallty.
That 43-vessel strong WLST and WLCU Landing Craft Fleet is run by US Army Transportation Corps out of Fort Eustis, VA.
Delete2020, BTW the US Army has stated that the TC will be merged into the new Logistics Corp and all officer above Major will be converted to LC types. The Army has also stated it intention to get OUT of all ocean transporatation by ships. There was a rumour that all of their ships vice boats was going to be turned over to MSC, but that did not happen.
DeleteSee the handwriting on the wall about the US Army and its vessels?
I guess you'd want to address this to Sol...
DeleteWow, look at all the opposition to Sol's suggestion...it must have merit ; )
ReplyDeleteIf the swing to the Pacific is for real, we have to provide Army with reassurances that it is in their best interest to keep their BCT's heavy. It is a mistake for Army to 'go light' considering all the lessons we've learned over the past decade of war is that the BCT's were too light and overstretched.
Navy, USMC and Army need to sit down and see what assets, be it Highspeed catamarans or Log Support vessels or more medium-speed RO/RO sealift, we have to find a way for Army to transport heavy BCTs so they can respond to situations anywhere in the world with enough heavy units to dissuade aggressors.
and, just a proposal, Army should be given the Air Force's C-17s, C-5s and half the C-130s along with the KC-10s tankers and some of the new KC-X and KC-Y. If we want an Army capable of responding with enough force and in a timely manner, it needs to know it can count on known assets rather than goodwill and promises.
No opposition Para,
Deletebut addition to the assumption-base of Sol's.
He seemed genuinely convinced that US Army has nothing but ancient LCMs.
Now he knows that the Army has by displacement a more potent Landing-Craft fleet than USMC.
The fact that you are not likely to be able to use these WLCUs and WLSTs on anything but 'Club Med'-ready hyper-permissive peaceful 'peachy' beaches seems to never matter much to him...
And that is before we get to fire them up and get going at, what, 12knots ?!
I guess the 'aggressor will be sent a note to please hold their breath until that fleet has a chance to get there, i.e. 20+ days from the West-Coast to Japan. USA troops onboard where ??
So your language of "dissuading aggressors" with essentially WW-2 concepts of 'slow-&-heavy' seems somewhat optimistic.
Sol, though, seems not to mind. He is
- neither champion of fast heavy-lift LCUs,
- has not much use for Krulak's STOM,
- does not believe that any ARG/MEU could be safe anywhere off an adversary's coast,
- while he proposes that an MPC or APC should approach the beach on its own bottom, without sharing how they get to near the coast to begin with.
Not sure about this 'Amphibious Ambition' ??!!
No war-gaming necessary on this scenario.
i speak clearly. additionally your twisting of my words, restating my beliefs in a warped way and constant reshaping of every post to fit your world view ends now.
Deletehave a care. and stop it.
SOL in regards to beachers like the LST, I got three terms from USMC staregy for you to consider:
DeleteG-RAMMS A2D2 and HVT (modern version of LST large slow moving target)
Sol, A bit a small tangent, but you might this interesting: http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/xct.gd.e140221.htm George looks at the world a bit differently, but I think he nailed this one to the wall. I say a few more years and it will be a knife fight in a telephonebooth.
ReplyDeleteSolomon, look for the Army to build up Prepo Stocks in Japan, South Korea, Guam, or Taiwan for a "serious" pivot to the pacific. If we don't do that, the Army isn't serious, just wargaming. I guess you could add Australia to the list, but that would be more along the lines of a "political strategic" move than tactical.
ReplyDeleteBecause last time I checked, our serious Prepositioned Stocks in Diego Garcia and Germany weren't pivotal to the Pacific.
AM you are conflating things I believe. There are MSC Afloat Prepositioning Force ships in DGAR with APS-3 gear on them, and Guam/Tinian.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msc.navy.mil/PM3/
There WERE Army Prepo Stocks in Germany and elsewhere LAND based.
I am pretty sure the Marines have got a lock on Aussie turf?