I thought that this craziness was put into the trashbin of bad ideas a long time ago. Apparently I was wrong because Marine Corps Times is doing a teaser article about their Monday coverage of an upsized model of this thing.
We've seen this craziness before!
Its real simple so I don't know why DARPA, the Marine Corps and Navy is wasting time on this outlandish ideas that won't bear fruit.
1. We need a LCU replacement. There are several on the market that are high speed, have a decent if not great carry ability and are long ranged. This needs to be a priority.
2. We need a decision on the AAV. If its an interim MPC with AAV upgrades, a rebadged non-transforming EFV, or a drastically upgraded AAV that gets rebadged as the new ACV doesn't matter. Just make a fucking decision!
3. The LCAC has served us well. Get on with the upgrades!
4. Don't forget about the other amphibious workhorse...the DUKW. Get it modernized, get it on the same program as the mythical drastic AAV upgrade. Big compact engine. Digitized. More powerful jets. Increased load carrying!
I'll take a look at the MCT article on Monday but it won't be with excitement about the possibilities. No, I'll be marveling at all the money they're wasting chasing a concept that we won't use.
I like it. It is like Caterpillar 797 meets LARC-LX meets British WW1 tank meets Arktos. Bonkers.
ReplyDeleteI would build some LASH ships to launch them from............
Um. Do they dope test your generals? If not they should do. Can't believe a country with all the intelligence and reconnaissance capability which you have can manage to lose one very important thing, the plot!!! :)
Well people thought hovercraft were the result of drugs as well...
Delete:)
DeleteIt just doesn't look right does it? I having a good think now about it. I think to work those tracks will have to be "too buoyant" and consequently, there will be too little of the craft in the sea, its width will make it unstable (like all twin hulls), and the slab sides will give to much surface for the sea to push against. Phew! That was hard to say using non-technical language.
Well an LCAC doesn't exactly look right either. "we're going to moved several tanks on a cushion of air using big fans to push it around" doesn't exactly sound safe either. From my understanding part of the reason they are looking at these designs is that they will have higher capacity, better defense, and be cheaper. They are also robust enough to go reasonably far inland.
DeleteIf there are fundamental sea keeping issues they should have in theory shown up in the scale testing so far. Its at least worth keeping and exploring different designs, after all that's the only way to find something better, and it appears they are actually running this idea correctly so far doing scale testing and such and collecting good data.
I have it on a Marine Gunnys word that they do not use LCU/LCM's that is old thinking! We use LCAC's and Helicopters! The Chief and Lt Commander who were present and had brown water service thought it was rather funny.....
ReplyDeletehe's talking about for the assault and the follow on assault echelon. but that Gunny is a dumbass if he forgot about AAVs. either that or he's an Amos ass kisser.
Deleteregardless. the real issue is logistics. we can push people ashore one way or another. the issue always becomes how do you keep them supplied. an MEU is able to do 15 days. a MEB 30 and a MEF 45. but the reality is that anything bigger than the MEU is going to be a joint service project and even if the Army doesn't send one trigger puller we're still going to be relying on their logistics people...along with the Navy and Air Force to get us beans bullets and the Corpsmen bandages.
thats why you need a replacement LCU. thats' why the LCAC upgrade needs to get done and thats why we need to toss silliness like you see in the trash and concentrate on working the problem.
oh and that Chief and Lt Commander needed to have shot that Gunny in the ass for being so stupid. i can't even explain that type thinking but i know it exists.
Dont use LCU's my ass. The LCU is right behind the wave of Tracks and LCAC's, brining on the heavy arty, LAV's and such. Its got more armor, moves at a decent speed (faster than a track) and actually has guns on it unlike the LCAC (the future LCU should look at a 20mm, then you have the ability to post them for amphib ship defense)
DeleteThink he was being sarcastic, and that often LCU spots in the amphib are replaced by LCACs. US amphibs has one of the lowest LCU numbers per ship in the world, but the AAV self-deployment ability takes a bit of the edge off the need. I do see the advantages, no more Normandy style jumping off the Higgins into MG fire scenarios, but in return slower post entry logistics. All about ability trade offs.
DeleteThe US LC are mostly optimised for heavy cargo carrying and slow speed (for efficiency), if you wanted a faster LCU, it definitely is possible, just expect it to guzzle a bit more fuel. Think the class is called FCUs (Fast Craft Utility) instead of LCUs.
Solomon,
ReplyDeleteMakes me think the USMC just needs to invest in some Rolligon based logistic vehicles and marry it up with an amphibious hull. The oil fields up in Alaska and Canada have been using rolligon tractors and trailors for decades, although they are generally unheard of outside that industry use. The 10x10 model first produced in 1979 has an amphibious cargo capacity of 7.5 tons, and a normal capacity of 20 tons. Just need to bump up the amphib load bearing capabilities with either a watertight hull or pontoon flotation system and the USMC has a cheap "ship to shore to inland" logistics solution.
http://www.nov.com/Well_Service_and_Completion/All_Terrain_Vehicles.aspx
It wouldn't be "sexy" but it would be "functional."
this time SOL I agree with you 100% All of the numbered points are bang on. Speaking as an old LPA 1st LT who had 26 boats onboard and NO wet well, the USN has to figure out WHERE it is going to put all the landing craft it needs to support the Marines.
ReplyDeleteAnd remember most of the tactical equipment and supplies get ashore by boat aka landing craft. When it comes to tonnage then one brings in the ligherage like INLS barge ferry and true LCU which do not have to be amphibious and need to be bought in sufficient numbers (or the Marines won't have there beans and bullets~). Did you run that old Textron LCU(R) drawing?
BTW we don't need UHAC or T-Craft or CAST or LCU-F transformers either.