Thanks for the link Lee!
via Defense News.
The Marine Corps burned the Navy on the MLP and instead of acting as seagoing piers at least half will become AFSBs.
The Navy has to trust that Marine Corps requirements are real or else we'll see more and more swing role/re-roled ships in the fleet.
via Defense News.
U.S. amphibious warfare ships often have been pressed into a variety of roles beyond those of carrying Marines and their gear and taking part in beach assaults. Now, the design of the Navy’s next amphib might itself be adapted to different missions and requirements.Read it all here.
That’s the thinking behind a recent decision to change the name of the next amphibious ship program from LSD(X) — representing a replacement for today’s landing ship docks — to LX(R), reflecting a ship that can be adapted to even more roles.
“It’s an effort by the Navy to not confine themselves to looking at a ship configured just for amphibious work,” said one knowledgeable source.
“It gives you the option to look at everything,” said Cmdr. George Doyon of the service’s Amphibious Warfare Branch. “LSD(X) kind of narrowed the focus. Changing the name opens up the aperture.”
The Marine Corps burned the Navy on the MLP and instead of acting as seagoing piers at least half will become AFSBs.
The Navy has to trust that Marine Corps requirements are real or else we'll see more and more swing role/re-roled ships in the fleet.
The way I read the article, they aren't talking about sacrificing gators, they are talking about building gators AND adopting the hull to LPD-17 for new ships rather than design new vessels from the keel on up.
ReplyDelete"The LPD 17 hull form, Glenn wrote, 'can accommodate many missions, such as amphibious warfare, humanitarian operations, joint command and control, ballistic missile defense (BMD), and [serve as] a hospital ship.'”
SInce the LPD-17 are on budget and the shipyard is cranking them out, they want to keep building hulls.
...except that without adequate amphibious capability due to those 'after-thought' shorty well-decks, those hulls can't serve USMC much. LPD-17 class is less amphibious than even the first LSD-1-through-13 batch beginning in 1943 !?
DeleteAnd way less that the first LPD-types.
A massive step backwards in basic amphibious capability.
Why would you support that ?
Paralus you're right HII is trying to sell the idea that ONE hullform can perform as many ship types. You KNOW where we heard that before. To which I say BS!
DeleteHII is putting the full court press on Congress and DON to buy ships for "Iffy Ingalls". What about BIW after the DDG-1000 class finish in a couple of years?
Snap in modular ships seems the way of the future, like huge lego blocks need an amphib? Snap in the module at the dock, need a convoy escort snap in mine, torpedo and asw modules.
ReplyDeleteWill it work?
Probably unless the docks are targeted.
Nobody will ever 'snap-in' the massive infrastructure necessary to be a fully amphibious vessels, fit to support the MEU.
DeleteSince early childhood I liked LEGOs a lot. But you do indeed have to design the whole ship around careful placement of ballast-tanks, extensive plumbing, power-supply to run that system etc. Not an 'after-thought' !!
LEGO ships NO freaking way. One hull type does NOT work of different purposes.
DeleteFor instance, the MLP hullform and propulsion is meant for big and slow, not what is needed in an amphibious assault ships AS OPPOSED TO an amphibious LIFT ship.
Yep. HII LPD Flight II proposal is the only realistic LR(X) option on the table. Basically it's a simplified LPD17 hull without the big (and expansive) masts. I am not sure about keep building dedicated command ships or hospital ships. On the other hand, the BMD ship is a good concept. I would like to expand the ideal even further, why not resurrect arsenal ship? That ideal was a big deal back in the early 90’s. One ship capable of carrying hundreds of VLS cells and thus massive amount of fire power.
ReplyDeleteap, I don't agree the LPD Flight II merely fixes the screwed up features in the original design.
DeleteThe LSD49 replacement does NOT have to be done on an LPD hull at expensive LPD/Ingalls prices~
Why would you think a fast missile shooter should be built on a big, fat slow hull?
the San Antonio class is anything but slow. its kept pace with destroyers with no problems at all.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf we are interested in USMC's future as anything other than some <USA-force without serious amphibious power, then embracing anything LPD-17 based is hard to exlain.
ReplyDeleteThat idea should be as alarming as the fractured logic of calling a plain helo-carrier 'amphibious' - since birds are really not amphibians.
If, however, USMC's distinct and indispensable amphibious capability is central to its character and thus its future as a fighting-force with unique capabilities, then the long-standing cynical toss-off gesture of adding a wee well-deck as an after-thought to LPD-17 should really alarm every Marine.
With under 189 feet of well-deck length on under 50 feet width, that 'advanced' class offers under 42% of the LSD-41 class designed in the late 70s with 440 feet x 50 feet.
That is like
- showing up with a 55mm cannon to a 120mm shoot-out,
- or insisting that that shiny new 4-ton truck is good enough to replace that trusted 10-tonner.
In which forum would that be treated with respect ?
Sol, where is your alarm ?
All this F-35 focus is all nice and well, but the Marines will live with or without it.
But you won't survive growing budget-woe if you cannot even do anything plausibly 'amphibious' - except on a nice day, in perfectly non-violent circumstances, getting to shore piece-meal if and when. Might as well paint your helmets a 'happy' blue !!
Without stout amphibious capability, you'll be what ?
- Airborne something ?
- Camo'd folks only doing passive Blue-Helmet work over some pretty beach somewhere ?
- US Army 'light' dependent on intact and friendly port-facilities, while USA's significant fleet on no well-deck-capable LCUs never get anywhere in time to where they'd be suddenly needed ?
Methinks, you/USMC are being played here !
Makes that F-35B story look like.... indeed a distraction while being plausibly 'amphibious' is gradually stripped away, Sol.
there is much alarm on my part regarding the amphibious nature of the Marine Corps but if i'm going to express that concern it has to be in regards to the biggest threat to the Marine Corps amphibious nature....the F-35. that is the one program that is gobbling up the rest of the budget and causing needed improvements in our "reason for being" being delayed.
Deleteadditionally while i think we can stop with the number of LSDs that we currently have that is with the thought that the number of LX(R)s need to be increased. and an LSD produced on the San Antonio hull will have the same length well deck as the legacy vessel.
Any evidence for the "same well-deck length" claim :?
DeleteThe traditional approach of ship to shore amphib assault may not be relevant. Over the horizon vertical assault is the preferred method now. You can see it on the wall, the Corps is steering acquisition priority toward air assets (V-22, CH-54K, H-1 SLEP, JSF) at the expanse of ground/surface assets. We are witnessing the transformation of USMC into one dimensional air assault force. It’s only logical for flight deck space, aircraft hangar, or any other aviation heavy infrastructures take the presence over ground/surface properties such as well deck.
ReplyDeleteit isn't logical and its full of peril. first how far off shore can you credibly launch an assault? if you're talking 200 miles then you're still in range of land based anti-ship missiles. additionally, there is the small matter of what happens to your force once they get on land. you can conduct helo assault after helo assault. you are going to need to transport people and supplies by land and what does that mean? armored transport and NO, the MTVR with an armor package does NOT get the job done.
DeleteSo, you are back to sending young Marines into combat with light-weight soft-top HWMMVs ?
DeleteYou simply cannot do serious combat without serious armor.
Serious armor is heavy.
Right now not even the biggest Russian Helos could lift even just a single a combat-weight AAV-7 one foot off the flat-top.
Never mind any CH-53 K.
MV-22 can barely do for short distances a single up-armored HMMWV
Never mind the 'big-target' issue of slow-&-low helos.
And no latest-model AH-1/UH-1 helo has the combat-range to go to work from the ARG-protective distance of OTH-100. 50 perhaps, while straining.
On armor, I thought that this hard lesson had been learned in the tragic uglies of Fallujah.
And increasingly-capable shore-defenses will continue to push the ARG well over the horizon.
Too much casual 'dreaminess' on basic underlying assumptions.
and now you understand why i'm starting to not reply to comments. you didn't read it and if you did, then you twisted my words to fit your warped logic.
Deletei want armor. i've advocated for the MPC and ACV .... everyone knows that.
So, Sol, how do you get them to shore ?
DeleteI read what you post.
Otherwise I would not forever argue for the Marine Corps position in any of these posts.
BTW the real solution to replacing the LSF49 class is to WIDEN and/or LENGTHEN it. Why?
ReplyDeleteThe LSDs are too narrow to support more landing craft. A deficit of L/C spots is a known issue for our Gator Force. Ergo more L/C spots and more cargo space
The Panama Canal is being widened, Ship could go out to around 100 beam.
OR adopt a full semi-submersible hull (not like MLP) to allow for more L/C and perhaps side launching?
At 50-feet of USN-standard well-deck width and 440-feet of length, they have more well-deck capacity than any other amphib-class in USN or any navy. LSD-41 is the only Amphib able to carry up to 5 stowed/ four active LCAC.
DeleteBasic stuff, SeaLeak !
2020 why not BIGGER? In the Flo/Flo world 30/440 ft dimen is small. I have chartered a barge for Army gear which was as big~
ReplyDeleteNOT to forget that the Marines keep saying their tactical equipment is bigger and heavier, therefore they need more cargo space in that LX(R) the Navy is talking about.
When it comes to the WW2 anacronism which is wet well docks, you got to think outside the current boxes
MORE intelligence guy