What is a "T-Craft". Luckily Mike from NEW WARS Blog left his stuff up after he stopped posting so I can grab info from his site...
Enter the T-Craft. Textron’s version is 253 feet long and carries a 250-350-ton payload – an M1 tank company or an entire Patriot battery. In long-range mode, as a waterjet-powered catamaran, it can ferry itself empty over 2500 miles of open ocean. Backing up to the stern of the ro-ro, it activates its air-cushion fans and uses a sophisticated three-dimensional positioning system to maintain station on the ship, which deploys a stern ramp so that vehicles can load.Read his write up here. This program or concept has fallen off the radar. Where once it was viewed as the modern day LST that would connect the sea base to the shore from upwards of 250 miles away, today we hear nothing about it. Pity. The Mobile Landing Platform was a gimmick without substance. I'm proven correct by Navy plans to convert most of those ships to Afloat Forward Staging Bases, instead of using them in conjunction with the Sea Base. The T-Craft however would have proven useful to both US Army and Marine Corps operations. After an initial Marine Corps assault, a T-Craft would be able to land a Stryker Brigade in short order. Consider this an opportunity missed.
.jpg)
Now that is something that makes sense. JHSV speed with LST functionality. Buy 50 of them and you'd have a scary capability wouldn't need to be tied to capturing ports or building a Sea Base.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be surprise if the Japanese fielded this is the sort of vessel in a decade or twos time. I just don't seem them going down a USN route.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't hard to envision a US Army follow on group with 12/16 of these T-craft spread across 3/4 semi-submersible heavy lift ships coupled with 2/3 stores/accommodation dock ships (with limited aviation support facilities).
As for the Gator Navy the possibilities are endless. :)
As for cost well I am lead to believe the US has over 700 bases world wide. How many of them could be cut to fund shipping for the USN/USMC/US Army "amphibious" team? If you look at it from the point of air hubs (and accessories hospitals) there are what 5 continents? How many air does the US need? Especially when you consider the use of allied runways? The US could cut the bases to 100, fund a move to the sea, buy the kit that is needed, still probably save money, not lose influence, and actually gain something by not sitting next to nations intimating them unnecessarily.
for accessories read associated
ReplyDeleteyeah. its like HQMC hasn't read any of the work or studies that have already been done. they're flailing around and want to push a method of operations so much that they're missing the bigger picture. its pure chaos. our Commander in Chief likes chaos. the democrat party likes chaos. liberals like chaos and instead of having a coherent policy, the USMC seems to be embracing chaos too.
Deleteusually we're the ones that put things in order while delivering justice. now we're as fucked up as the rest of the world.
Then again:
ReplyDelete- What environment would be permissive enough to announce your intention as you are approaching the shore with this bulk and massive signature for this long before you're likely to run into oblivion.
- This much structure to haul just 300-tons ?
- Triple/quadruple LCAC-drive-train for between 45-and 60,000hp (or more yet ??) and the stunning logistics-challenges associated with this ??
- Unrefueled range with 300-tons combat-cargo just 500nm, and thus no inter-theater combat-transport possible ? Barely OTH-200 with reserves, one-time roundtrip, loaded...
- Thoroughly tragic/wild/questionable energy-burn and logistics for what level of 'lift' ?
- Would these be traveling with an ARG/MEU ? In what numbers ? Would they be fit to 'tag along' / be towed-along across this globe's oceans for the next 20-30 years ?
- No interoperability with the whole Amphib-fleet already built ?!
- All the techno-mania of Soviet ZUBRs, and more, but without the benefit of buying new off a production-line, or used, as Greece did to poke the Turks in the eye...amongst NATO-neighbors that is.
- How much money would we need to print to pay for this much Unobtainium ?
Let's all be grateful that neither this nor EFV ever went further...or we'd indeed be f***** terminally on any chances that USMC could ever again hope to do Amphibious Assault beyond happy 'Blue Helmet' HA/DR sessions.
Meanwhile in the 'real world' we are looking at Connectors...
currently the Commandant that only you seem to love is stating that LCACs will do the job until research is conducted into higher speed transports.
Deletethe problem?
they're all big, they're all noisy and they're all vulnerable to current much less future threats.
a swimming EFV with trophy anti-missile systems and an enhanced gun and a return to gunnery practice from the sea for our Amtrack crews is whats called for because one thing is apparent.
they can do the song and dance about being out of distance of shore threats but its just a dream. the air sea battle will take place, the only question is whether we'll have the balls to use our amphibs in a combat capacity to have them charge thru one of the corridors established for them to discharge Marines in our new swimming vehicles or whether we're going to be stuck with fairytale solutions like using the LCAC in combat.
Obviously, Sol, I'd disagree.
DeleteI'd rather focus on the positive, such as the logical sequence of progress at USMC-HQ on LCU-(x), AAV-7(x), MPC etc. These programs interconnectedness appears to have been well understood. And subsequent decisions seem to match that - particularly the cases where taking NO decision yet is more appropriate than any rush to (expensive) judgment (such as the aborted EFV).
And no - they are not all big, noisy and equally vulnerable... not remotely comparable. And as a matter survivability in this high-risk endeavor of amphibious assault, any serious gains towards 'stealth' and thus surprise first by Connector-design and next - hand-in-hand - smartest -operations will make all the tactical difference.