Time to give the LCU-F a second look.
Why?
Quite honestly because Amos seems infatuated with it. During recent speeches, he almost identifies the LCU-F as the future of ship to shore connectors (or something REMARKABLY like it).
So is this something that might be of benefit? I'm not sure but its definitely worth a second gander. The PDF outlining the proposal is here.
A promising idea. I don't know of how much use those defensive weapons are however.
ReplyDeleteWith that 'AVENGER' turret upgraded per Boeing's thinking with at least 2x AIM-9X, you'd have better than STINGER defense against air.
DeleteThat 20/30mm turret (AH-1type) would be useful as a 25mm BUSHMASTER aboard an Amphib or 'Cyclone' class.
Adding perhaps an AN/MPQ-64 F1 3-D radar amidships - stowed folded - there might be a 40nm 'bubble' minus curvature of the earth. And that could help 'catch' outgoing cruise-missiles to at least warn the ARG, if not intercept them with STINGER or SIDEWINDER ? What fits on a single-axle trailer behind a HMMWV will ride well aboard a 400+tons LCU-F.
Could LCU-F serve as the forward-most sea-based defensive perimeter ?
use the LCU-F as a picket ship? never seen that done before. i would think getting the GAT/OR radar ashore would be a better use but i guess its doable.
DeleteWhichever 3-D radar will be best, picture that system folded flat on her top 'quiet' until you need it.
DeleteWith LCU-F's extraordinarily low visual and radar-signature - a supersized 'Kayak' really - with very little radar returns, and next to no IR with those 2400HP Diesels exhausting underwater, what radar-system could see her between the swells, what seeker-head could 'see' - her unless already staring at her before launch.
Hence the defensive measures, with at least the cannon and the 8x STINGER launcher manually reloadable - less happily so with 190 lbs SIDEWINDER but not inconceivable either with on-deck support-system - perhaps less difficult than reloading Mk-41 VLS aboard a DDG-51 at sea.
-----------------------------------
Now, Sol, picture one or two LCU-F loaded with 12-tube MLRS (double-size big older brother to USMC's HIMARS) to throw up to 4x ATACMS per salvo up to 180nm inland - or just the 2nd.-gen guided short-to-medium range ammo in 24-missile salvos with perhaps 6-8 reloads ? Inshore Fire Support would not feel this good since 8" Cruiser-barrels worked inshore in Vietnam.
And, if tragically happens, you can afford to lose an LCU-F - but not an LCS and never a DDG-51.
And the ARG must be protected by distance and defenses at all cost.
So LCU-F would be doing the inshore work to first deliver and then support the Marines moving inland.
---------------------------------------------------
420-tons LCU-F might really be useful in a broad range of ways:
- Amphibious Assault,
- taking ill-or undefended islands to establish multiple F-35B 450-foot steel-mesh runways and dispersed support-system,
- 55,000gals combat-tanker to refuel K-MV-22 which refuels F-35B way forward,
- forward-most mobile hospital,
- the aforementioned IFS function, perhaps even with barrels via stabilization,
- MARSOC base with 2x RHIB, 1x AH-1 and 1x AH-6 per LCU-F,
- 300 troops inter-theater transport,
- Directed-Energy-Base to intercept ASCMs (?)
etc.
Since that piece was published, lots of opportunities have been coming to mind.
Eager to see what's next.
Great that you take another look.
Clearly I've been fixated with this concept !
Make that at least 2x MLRS per LCU-F , 3x if third is loaded on her after-deck for 24 to 36 tubes per hull.
DeleteYou can't load through this boat like on any other LCU or LCAC.
ReplyDeleteJust pimp the LCU 1610 with a better engine and you are done.
NIH: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engin_de_d%C3%A9barquement_amphibie_rapide
DeleteMPC: 300 t, 27 kn, 30 m x 14 m (length x width)
MPC2: 600 t, 30 kn, 60 m x 17 m
As the article states, you trade the 'drive-through convenience for much higher heavy-lift speed.
DeleteSince you'd preload LCU-F with GCE-assets before even inserting her into the flooded Amphib well-deck in the homeport or on the high seas at the sea-base, driving the vehicles into LCU-F backwards seems a minor driving challenge, no drama with laser-indicators and Ford Focus-level 'Parking Aid'.
Apart from the LCU-shape being stuck by the laws of physics at 11-12kts max, its fundamental geometry does not allow carrying enough LCU-1610 inside the ARG to remotely address the needs of the MEU commander.
With LCU-F you'd get 2x 200tons of GCE-load (up to 3x M1As) @ 19kts versus 1x 140 ton at 11kts.
Which Marine would prefer which option ?
And no other LCU-type from anywhere currently matches her combination of well-deck-correct stowed geometry - 6 LCU-F on each of the just SLEP'd 8-vessel LSD-41 class.
DeleteOr in a tactically highly implausible opportunity - nutty but thinkable scenario - throwing 48 LCU-Fs with up to 3 MBTs each against some shoreline to pump ashore up to 144 MBTs in one concurrent 'shot' across 48 insertion-points.
Then you'd add 4x LSD-49 with 2x LCU-F each, and 11 LPD-17 (shorty well-deck type) LPD-17 with 2x LCU-F each, leaving LHD/LHA to carry 3x LCAC/SSC each.
With more realism, the article offers more modest MEU-options.
And yet between
- MLP,
- self-deployment via 1500nm internal range,
- near doubled by a 'Combat-Tanker' tank-farm-equipped 5th LCU-F per 4x GCE preloaded LCU-F on the way to the frontline,
or
- stacking how many GCE-preloaded units (?) aboard a heavy-lift float-on/float-off commercial transport - as the Commandant pointed out on video at USNI WEST-2014
(see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHWy1LIYyjQ )
Working this thinking opens up interesting options, as he barely touches upon here. Whether via LCU-F or something like her.
At any rate, General Amos seems to lead what could be a major shift in USMC amphibious capability. And that seems highly intriguing in the context of the just released 'Expeditionary Force 21' context of moving the ARG/MEU out to beyond 65nm to discharge the assault-wave.
Very serious business. It should be the best defense against over time budget-cutting USMC down to some barely-recognizable fraction of itself.
you glossed over the biggest selling point of the LCU-F...at least to me.
Deleteself deployment. if it can travel with MPS and help get a heavy brigade combat team (ARMY) ashore then you're cooking with gas. the scenario you laid out with heavy tanks is one where the US finally gives up bases in the Middle East and the Army must operate from stored vehicles aboard ship. it also applies to many activities in Africa.
Spot on, Sol.
DeleteThere would be so many options for this kind of tool, far beyond 'just' the traditional LCU-type of mission.
A lot of folks warming up to that thinking will come up with even more very useful purposes, along with utterly ridiculous stuff, some of which may prove to be good thinking after all.
I figure that our Australian-, Singaporean-, Philippino-, Japanese-, and South Korean friends may look at this in their particular geo-political and geo-strategic setting.
From their ports, self-deployment would often allow doing without investments in big, and typically very few Amphibs - assuming the weather cooperates.
But well-deck operation needs calmer seas anyway.
Twenty Twenty said "Since you'd preload LCU-F with GCE-assets before even inserting her into the flooded Amphib well-deck in the homeport or on the high seas at the sea-base..."
DeleteHave you EVER deployed on a MEU or ship where you kept the same assets on the landing craft (LCU/LCAC whatever) the entire time? I have done so many reconfigurations of the landing craft while underway due to shifting needs and missions (Wanna take a load of LAV's to shor first for a humanitarian relief mission?). MEU/MAGTF's are all the same...plan for war, load for war, perform humanitarian relief.
i agree Coffee Man, but for some reason this appears to be a no compromise point for him. again i don't know why but that will be a show stopper if he can't work around that. i'm thinking thats why Amos is talking about storing them on deck. to avoid the issue of having them pre-loaded.
DeleteNot at all a point of "no compromise" - just a major opportunity to really dense-pack your GCE-assets aboard the limited vehicle-lane parameters of any Amphib.
DeleteIf you are doing anti-piracy, or have been sent to a post-earthquake/post-hurricane/post-Tsunami scenario, you'd know what you don't want aboard an LCU.
You can then launch all pre-loaded LCU-Fs, drain the ocean out of the well-deck, unload the LCU-Fs, to then at-will change your LCU-F vehicle load mix - all via LCU'F's stern-ramp and the L-ships gate.
In fact, with decent self-deployment range, you can let the LCU-F flotilla follow the mothership-Amphib, even empty, up to the very moment you know which exact mix you'd want 'this time'.
Analyzing the article's information and L-ship data, and taking the case of the most potent Amphib-class - the LSD-41 - it would seem that a 6 'preloaded' LCU-Fs plus the remaining internal parking spaces would get not quite but close-enough to the vehicle-lane length of the short well-deck LSD-49 !
LSD-49 on the identical hull of LSD-41 was given a very short well-deck for just one LCU-1610 (or 2x LCU-F equivalents) because of the greater internal footprint offered to then park vehicles in.
Which means that here you could about 'have your cake - and eat it too' by leveraging the 440-foot well-deck of LSD-41 to carry 6x preloaded LCU-F (versus 3x LCU-1610 or 4/5 LCAC) and still get much of the LSD-49 parking area.
'Shorty well-deck types like LSD-49 and LPD-17 are quite undesirable for the MEU Commander since these cheat her out of enough heavy-lift Connector-capacity to plausibly go to work via a stout First Wave.( LPD-17 Fight-II is not remotely an LSD-41 equivalent - as their builders claim, never mentioning the massive 189' well-deck limitation, a 58% penality 'by ship-design').
Pre-Loading is thus a Major Conflagration-option to carry the most GCE-asset aboard LCU-F, with every other square-yard of parking-lane aboard the Amphib taken up with Second Wave assets.
In the context of Sea-Basing, MLP, even stabilized RoRo Stern-ramps, all sort of big and smaller rapid changes of combat- or HA/DR-asset mixes should be doable - always sea-state dependent.
Good points raised here by C-Man and Sol - and I hope plausibly addressed.
Any idea on the integration on the GAU-13 on this boat?
ReplyDeleteGAU-13 would seem tempting indeed.
DeleteThe 20/30mm Vulcan shown on the LCU-F renderings seems just an inverted AH-`1 chine-turret likely for least systems-complexity and great ammo-commonality. The current AH-turret seems part of the Universal Turret System by General Dynamics, Burlington VT which allowed a broad range of barrel-options such as M-197 triple-barrel 20mm (current AH-1 piece), twin-barrel 25mm GE225, 25mm GAU12/U etc, incl. 30mm single-barrel M230 chain-gun and the 30mm three-barreled XM188E1.
Whichever one of these remains available is less clear, with e.g. the M230 of course being the AH-64 APACHE gun.
Assuming the 3-barrel 30mm remains available, you'll find that it could indeed - as the authors touch on - be running those three 30mm barrels with about half the rounds out of that AH-ammo-tub. Of course on LCU-F no ammo-weight issue would be of much concern. So as a most affordable option, perhaps the same AH-1 turret-mechanism, but 30mm barrels instead of the 20mm set.
The one serious limitation using that inverted AH-1 turret would likely not be the ammo-feed. But it is primarily the max 50-degrees upwards barrel-movement not allowing a full 180 horizon-to-horizon range of uninterrupted target-coverage - a limitation but not unheard of on naval mounts, well accepted because few aircraft would indeed line up with the cannon's pivot point.
An odd detail, but not inherently impossible, is the apparent proposal to for most occasions use the 200-220 degrees turret field-of-fire, but then offering the whole assembly, including the ammo-tub to rotate along to permit likely 480 degrees before any harness gets braided too much. Of course, on modern cars so many steering-wheel-mounted electric/electronic function allow more revolutions than that, just not perhaps in a salt-water spray plus occasional 'whitewater'-splash environment.
It seems a good economy that any AH and AVENGER-maintenance crew would be able to tend to LCU-F's self-defenses as well. Just keep extra the different barrels and ammo-feed. As usual maintenance is paramount this close to the water-surface.
Nothing would beat the A-10 gun-system of which GAU-13 seems a derivative.
If you could integrate GAU-13 into a plausible turret-geometry someone may try it.
In the meantime, the 20mm AH-1 system may be a plausible baseline to work upwards from.
After all, these defense-systems seem bolt-on types requiring the umbilical chord from below, but not much else to place these on her 'shoulders'. Cannon-system options might change aboard her should she live and match LCU-1610's 40+ years of service.