Sunday, February 16, 2014

Planting the seeds of another acquisition failure.

Thanks for the article Jonathan.

With the retirement of the Newport News class LST, the USMC essentially gave up heavy mechanized maneuver from the sea.  No matter what size formation deploys from the ocean, it will never pack the ground combat punch of old skool units.  This was the first sign that the Marine Corps was turning from a medium weight force into an air assault force.

via National Defense.
SAN DIEGO — Less than a month after conceding that the Marine Corps could not afford a high-speed amphibious tracked vehicle, Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James Amos renewed the call for industry to provide an affordable “connector” that can move Marines from ship to shore.
He went so far as to offer government research and development funding. “I’m committed. I just told my money guy… we’re willing to put some money in [research and development] for the future technology with regards to connectors," he said Feb. 13 at the AFCEA West 2014 conference.

In January, Amos said the Marine Corps could not afford a high-speed ACV and would opt instead for something less expensive. The amphibious combat vehicle — itself a rebranding of the now-defunct expeditionary fighting vehicle — soared in price because the Marines sought a vehicle with long range and high enough speeds to plane like a speedboat.
Amos insisted the Corps needs a vehicle that can “haul a lot of stuff” and “can move at high speed. He would like the vehicle to travel at 35 to 40 knots.
“What we need is to change the paradigm,” he said. “We think of connectors as something you carry in the bowels of an amphibious ship. We’re going to need that, I’m not saying we don’t need that." He suggested future connectors could be folded and stacked on the deck of a ship.
And this is how the seeds of another acquisition failure are planted.  A landing craft utility or mechanized that does 35 to 40 knots?

Not gonna work.

20 comments :

  1. Sol,
    if conditions are 'peachy' enough to put this 8500 (fl) ship on to any beach, then we might as well pull in next to some Loveboat at the local port and swing out the gangways...

    They were retired and sold off because no amphibious scenario could be deemed 'permissive' enough anymore to afford such optimistic ideas of planting an LST1179 in anyone's front-yard.

    And since then, shore-defenses have only gained in potency.
    Hence General Amos being
    - the first Commandant to not just emphasize the central necessity of fast heavy-lift (and "folding") LCUs,
    - but also the first Marines-leader to put the ARG/ME out to 70-80nm away from shore.
    - Then he proposed one scenario where the LCU-flotilla would move another "120nm down-range to then turn into shore" - his words ! - which suggests the need to be able to do 200nm One Way !

    And these 7+minutes of statement address soberly hard realities for the first time from the top.
    Lot's of repercussions...
    - No APCs floating along on their own bottom, which makes the next AAV-acquisition much simpler - if and when affordable after the new LCU.
    - The need to carry AH and UH helos part of the way and then support FARP functions far away from the ARG.
    - How to do Inshore Fire Support if we place the ARG at 70-80nm offshore, since DDGs may feel the need to stay that far offshore as well.
    - The role for LCS ?
    etc.
    etc.

    Astonishing and long-overdue shift in amphibious warfare paradigm.
    After this massive Exclamation-Mark planted in just 7+ minutes, one should expect this thinking to be reflected in the up-coming new USMC Amphibious Doctrine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2020 as former Newport Ops Officer, you are RIGHT. Landing ships on beaches given A2D2 is not going to happen in a contested area. BUT landing sustainment on beaches after they have been "taken" MUST happen to keep the TONS of cargo flowing to the troops inshore.

      Point #2 I don't agree with Amos' because his was a technically imprecise, nebulous, and perhaps even illogical statement. If one wants to know why amphib assaults are not easily accomplished its because of the above fuzzy thinking.

      This is at least the third CMC I have heard make statements about landing craft rqmts WITHOUT being definitive.

      And still not much has happened. SSC is a minor payload improvement. Does everyone know about the Surface Connector (X), Recapitalization (SC(X)(R) which is the latest (yes there have been a couple others~) attempt by the Navy to replace the 1600 class of LCUs.

      Not to mention SOME of the assets to accomplish what he want ALREADY exist in OTHER navies~ eg. French L-Cat, RN LCVP Mk 5,etc etc

      Delete
    2. Beyond the response below,

      leesea,
      with
      - 3x LCAC/SSC in LHD
      - 2x LCU-F in LPD-17
      - 6x LCU-F in LSD-41
      any current ARG/MEU CO has the toolset to

      - use 3x LCACs (3x 70tons each max.) for fast and light missions where over-the-beach capability matters assuming OTH-80nm

      - use 8x LCU-F hauling 8x 200 tons max for 1600 tons max. every 24 hrs assuming up to OTH-200 (12hrs at 19kts each way)

      MEU GCE and AH/UH helo ACE daily 'consumption' appears less in weight than that haulable by just 8 LCU-F. This allows losing one or two and still be able to move 1000-1200 tons every 24hrs.

      LCU-F-use from OTH-100 would double that tonnage per 24hrs towards a maximum of 3200-tons from ARG/MLP/TAKE to the beach, up the estuary etc.

      Which means that LST-1179 Newport' s maximum 2000-tons of cargo (beachable ?) could actually be pumped to 8+ different locations by these 8 LCU-Fs.

      And once LST-1179 is empty - and not shot up and ruined - she'd have to retreat to whatever base to reload, or hope to reload ship-to-ship at sea.

      LCU-F = lots of smaller eggs in many hard-to-target baskets sent to all sorts of insertion-points..

      LST-1179 a few big'ns in one imposing 'attractive nuisance' sitting there for many hours, assuming a snag does not make the tide have her sit for another 10+ exposed...

      Delete
    3. 202) you apparently misunderstoond my comments? First off, I thought the Newport's beachable payload was more like 1500 tons~ I am NOT advocating for that type (your rants are OBE).

      I am saying there are other vessel types which WILL be needed after the beach is secured. And remember, the I do not think "service-unique" applies to scalable Theater Entry Operations of which amphib assaults are a sub-set. The next one may start with the Marines but add the Army??

      LCU-F is a transformer boat never to be built~ It faces the same problems as does ANY vessel stuck inside a long wet garage (that goes inop all too often) - parking space is inline and time to launch and/or reconfigure their loads.

      The USN must rethink the LSD replacement dimensions from the inside out IMHO. Post-PANAMAX width may allow more landing craft? How about carrying adtl ones on the mis-begotten MLP?

      Delete
    4. "Rants" are for Sol's benefit who's still smitten with the LST-idea.

      US Army owns
      - 8x 4200(fl) "Frank Besson" class 12knots LSTs, good for up to 1800tons of over-the beach load,
      - 35x 1100(fl) "Design-2000" /"Runnymede"(?)-class LCUs, good for up to 350 beachable cargo.
      + 'Causeway-systems and 40+ (116-tons) lLCMs
      But it would take a while to get to the theater...assuming the theater would not be CONUS.

      LSDs never was intended to even get near 'old' PANAMAX hull-width of 106 feet of beam. New PANAMAX would allow over 160-feet of beam.

      LCU-F is as improbable as the outlandish idea of lifting a Main Battle Tank on to some air-cushion and flying it over the water and then over the beach up-country... We all know how well that went !

      OBE ? Order of the British Empire ? I shall stand up straight ! Yes I am worthy...

      Delete
  2. Sea basing with high speed connectors is not a new concept. Amos didn't dream it up.

    Sea Basing, March 2005 (pdf)
    --high-speed surface connectors are a critical Sea Basing enabler (HSC)
    --go to page 45

    High Speed Connector (p. 45)
    Enabler #2
    Threshold capabilities:
    • > 30 kts, 2000 nm loaded [!!!]
    • 3 loaded LCACs + additional cargo/troops
    • Rapid LCAC launch and recovery
    • Three loading modes
    –LCAC
    –Vertical
    –RO/RO

    After looking at the issues of surface connector solutions and connector/MPF(F) interface options in light of Sea Base operational requirements, the Panel has recommended that one of the tactical intra-theater roles for the HSC would be that of a transporter of loaded LCAC vehicles between the Sea Base and the shore area (i.e. a fast “flatbed truck”). A second role for the same HSC vehicle design would also be to serve as a high speed inter-theater connector between the Advance Base and the Sea Base. This would utilize the same HSC vehicle design, continuing the fast “flatbed truck” concept with minor configuration changes, but would likely be carrying different cargo formats, i.e. assembled JMIC containers in ISO container formats, assembled CH53 aircraft, personnel, etc. . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. leesea & Bacon

      Looking at that 2005 study (again) confirms that he is indeed the first CMC who speaks of high-speed heavy-lift Connectors that fit INSIDE extant Amphibs and can do the lift-work from OTH-80 (and beyond) !
      He carefully crafted his monologue around key concepts and key-words. Plus a repeat later that hour.

      That 2005 study reflects the conceptual disorientation on Connectors so widespread - and not the fault of the authors who attempted to work with what was available.

      So they are forced to propose a go-fast carrier (HSC) to carry 3x loaded LCACs from ship towards the beach, requiring a hull-geometry to first load the LCACs and then unload them near shore, to then reverse the process (?); unless I badly misunderstood the idea.

      The numbers alone are remarkable:
      - 3x LCAC (about 100tons empty @ 16,000HP) = about 50,000HP to lift about (3x 70) 210 tons, along with 300-tons of LCAC-structure, all that on top a of another go-fast mono-hull planning Connector (more mega-HP) that actually bridges the distance between the ARG via the (too) short-range LCAC and the beach.

      Sounds like a manic 'fest' of hardware and fuel-burning in breath-taking amounts to deliver 210 tons ??!!

      Earlier, that Report does dwell a bit on the fuel-burn of MEU operations and expresses hard limits on the underlying Logistics - but then arrives at proposals that would produce these truly mind-boggling numbers...

      Since CMC mentioned "folding LCU" then we'd assume LCU-F or equivalent, which would haul that same 210 tons (in 5% Overload Condition) via 2400HP at 18-19kts across 1400nm. And that would be Diesel horses versus Turbine-horses !! And each LSD-41 could haul six LCU-Fs.

      If you take LCU-F and LCAC-2/SSC you 'll find that
      - LCU-F carries 3x SSC-load at 60% speed burning 15% of fuel
      or
      - on a 70-tons to 70-tons cargo basis, LCU-F burns 5% of LCAC fuel while doing 60% speed.

      Add to that LCU-F's 1500nm range, versus LCAC/LCAC-2 200nm range, and then CMC's remarks become more interesting yet.

      Being aware of LCU-F, he issued a challenge to the industry in the hall to try for 30-40kts...

      No other type mentioned by leesea remotely fits in adequate numbers in any ARG well-decks nor could carry adequate tonnage to compete.

      That Report of 2005 was attempting to make something (sort-of) workable from OTH-quite far, but clearly lacked the central 'connecting' concept for a plausible Connector - not their fault at all. Now it may be at hand.
      We'll see.

      Delete
    2. your Daddy- Amos is talking about a ship to shore connector that travels at 35 to 40 knots. you ignore that part of his talk and grab on with both hands instead of acknowledging that he is in essence kicking another can down the road....while tossing R&D money toward something that the Marine Corps should spend on something else.

      Delete
    3. Check your sources, Sol !

      Last week you called me a "Squid"...

      Delete
    4. READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE! IT CLEARLY STATES 35 TO 40 KNOTS.

      geez. really? seriously? oh and check yourself. i didn't call you a squid. keep track of the websites you post to.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Yep, you did.

      But,
      if you want to save money towards new APCs, you should argue against 'shorty well-deck' LPD-17-Flight-2, as for 1.3 Billion you'd get 42% well-deck capacity.

      By contrast, a fresh copy of good old long well-deck LSD-41, upgraded to 2010 standards, and with radar-signature-reduction appliques would be about $600mill,
      - based on a class-average cost by late 1980s of $211 million,
      - plus inflation-rate,
      - plus upgrades etc.
      And thus time we might build all in one yard (versus Seattle and then New Orleans) for economies of scale. Perhaps Bath Iron Works.

      So, picking LDP-17 Flight 2, you'd get to
      - pay double per hull and required capability,
      - have to give up 58% well-deck capacity on top of that - 189' vs. 440' length -
      which amounts to a really bad deal.

      For the same money for 8x LPD-17-2
      - you could have 16 new LSD-41s,
      and
      - instead of 8x 190 feet (LPD-17) = 1520 feet of total well-deck length,
      - you could have 16x 440 feet (LSD-41) = 7040 feet of total well-deck length.

      Best deal would be to just stick to buying 8x (new-&-upgraded) LSD-41.

      And stash away the saved 6+ billion to buy lots of APCs with the most potent turrets etc.

      'Who could argue with that ?'

      But....
      INCOMING...!!
      ......
      Good thing that in Winter I never type without mittens and big bushy head-gear...

      Delete
  3. Don, the JHSV can lift most USMC tactical vehicles. No one ever came up with a HSC which could carry LCACs, why would they? One does NOT need a tactical landing craft to perform HS #inter-theater# sealift that is a function of sealift shipping. ONR spent plenty on the T-Craft has anyone seen it get built even as a prototype?
    With some modifications the JHSV can lift all that last cargo, it just can not be amphibious~

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm talking the concept of HSC, not the individual items they might carry. Let's leave the trees and step back to view the forest (asea).

      I've seen no evidence that a JHSV can serve as a “connector” that can move Marines from ship to shore. The requirement has been on the table ever since they decided they couldn't depend upon shore basing any longer, at least eight years ago when Sea Basing became a buzz-phrase.

      Apparently nothing has been done about high speed connectors, sea base to shore, so Amos thought it was safe to rediscover the idea and claim it as his own.

      Delete
  4. Don in point of fact, the Marines HS connector rqmts were merged into the JHSV specs. Remember it was a joint project office. That class is supposedly what the Marines signed up for. It is the Navy which is supposedly going to come up with a ship to shore connector (damn I hate that generic term, they are either Landing Craft or Lighterage).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just looked at the JHSV 2013 OT&E test report and I didn't see anything about Marines. Did I miss it?

      Delete
  5. General Amos in a recent interview.

    Q: What about sea-based operations, ship-to-shore movement? Is that still relevant to the Marine Corps?

    A: It’s more relevant today than it ever has been. If something bad happens around the world, you may not have access to airports. The only way you may be able to come in is by the sea. And we are less and less welcome to come ashore on even our allies’ lands and build bases or occupy land on their sovereign soil. Because of the Internet, they can see pictures of U.S. forces on their land. Some like it, some don’t. You can operate from sea with a very small footprint, stepping lightly on your friends. You can come in, train with your allies, and it becomes almost transparent to the population.

    Operating from a sea base is the way to go. What we need are more ships.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well thanks, general, nice of you to bring that up now that Sea Basing has been around for eight years at least, with no high speed connectors in sight.

    The Marines need more ships to operate from a ship base. The Navy has the new Joint High Speed Vessel, but it is not intended for servicing ship basing, but only shore-to-shore.

    "Combatant Commanders may employ the JHSV in a transport/resupply role in benign, permissive environments to:
    • Rapidly transport medium payloads of Marine Corps or Army cargo and combat-ready troops over intra-theatre distances between shore nodes
    • Deliver troops, combat-loaded vehicles, and equipment ready to be employed, requiring only ports with pier or quay wall access and no other infrastructure.
    • Support sustainment of forces between advanced bases, ports, and austere littoral access"

    And how about the new Littoral Combat Ship? Only for the Navy, with no Marine applications.
    Have I overlooked something?

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...he did say "folding connector"...
    Reference to PROCEEDINGS July'13 pp.60-64 ?
    Who knows...

    If so, then he's only been aware of this NAVSEA-reviewed concept-proposal since July 2nd'13 the earliest, the date for the publication of the online edition. Beyond the authors and some NAVSEA-folks few would have been aware of this.

    Only 6 months to review, reflect on, likely gathering as much as possible on that concept, kicking it around, and then apparently committing funding to something like it - not bad after ages of non-movement on fast heavy-lift well-deck capable Connectors so far.

    Sounds like institutional agility straight from the top.

    ReplyDelete
  8. something is wrong with Java and I can't reply above so here is an ALCON:
    2020, I carried older generations of those Army vessels on the first US flag semi-submersible MV American Cormorant. Guess what the MLP can NOT do (unless it goes to a shipyard)?
    The Marines have got to learn to play nice with the Army - LOL or said differently, amphib warships MUST be interoperable with USAVs and with Army gear at least for tactical intra-theater movements.
    the simplest COA would be to do a modified repeat of the LSD-49 but then all the improvements since original design may not get incorporated. I like the widened LSD approach.

    I got asked to review the LCU-F, it wasn't worth my time.

    Don, that info about merging of HSV and connector offices was open source, try Google. Happened aobut 5 or 6 yrs ago. The JHSV rqmts, you state, were built into the ship spec, OT&E tests to that spec.
    Agree what we need is more ships and by that I mean amphibs and sealift for Amphibious LIFT.

    P.S. I been seabasing since 1980 it was called Prepositioning back then~ 21 prepos ships under my belt.

    ReplyDelete

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