via Proceedings...
An alternative conceptual craft with its pedigree in the LCU-1610 class is the LCU (F). This design was described in Proceedings in the summer of 2013 (see “A Landing Craft for the 21st Century,” by Susanne Altenburger; Commander Michael Bosworth, U.S. Navy (Retired); and Captain Michael Junge, U.S. Navy, July 2013, pp. 60–64) and currently only exists in PowerPoint, but appears worthy of further examination. It promises to provide the higher speed, larger payload capacity, greater fuel efficiency, and better beach-landing ability needed to fulfill today’s amphibious-force requirements, yet the LCU (F) could be hydraulically folded in a “transformer-like” manner to fit neatly into the standard well-decks of major amphibious transport ships. In theory, conceptual connectors like this could also be flexible enough to aggregate via nonconventional means, similar to how we bring lighterage into theater via container ships today. Additionally, the LCU (F) is envisioned to carry up to 200 tons of personnel and equipment at a speed of almost 20 knots—an improvement of more than 20 tons and 10 knots when comparing it to the LCU-1610 class.That article has the current Commandant's name on it. Read it here.
My take on it?
Enough dithering. Give these people some coin and have them prove the concept. If it works then we've solved a number of issues....They can be carried aboard the deck of MPS ships, Amphibious Ships and in the right conditions self deploy.
Do I believe in Amos' 200 miles off shore sea base? Nope. Do I believe that we need an LCU 1600 replacement? You bet your ass.
So again. Enough talk. We've seen MCDCC waste enough money on several dubious projects. This one makes sense. Lets get on it.
Sidenote: I continue to be unimpressed with the L-CAT and wonder why it has so many fans. Read its stats here but its payload is unimpressive and its speed mediocre when compared to the LCAC or what the designers say the LCU(F) will deliver. The Marine Corps has a fascination with foreign designs...and sometimes they deliver. The L-CAT in my opinion doesn't and should be dropped from further consideration.
The reason why I like the L-CAT is that it is in service which puts it ahead of all these other designs sailing on paper. It may be utter crap but it appears to work.
ReplyDeleteI second Steve about the L-Cat. In service, built to marine constaruction standards and reportedly fits USN wet wells.
ReplyDeleteThe BIG problem with the LCU-F is it takes too much transforming to get to full underway and probably will never get to lift 200 tons of payload (BTW when was the last time 200 Marines went ashore in one landing craft?).
Any time one wants to go fast, the payload lifted suffers. What is the desire for speed? Still will be a target?
The LCU 1600 replacement procurement has started, is not moving too fast~, and will probably result in just a product improved vessel.
P.S. your comment service keeps dumping my text when I log in?
i'll try and run down the problem on comments....as far as the LCU replacement, i dont' know....i saw a TExtron product improved version that seemed impressive but haven't seen anything on it since around 2000
DeleteUnfortunately the LCUR) by Textron died when the USN dumped LCU1600 replacement earlier as it has done several times~
DeleteI used Google Blogger entrance and it dumped text?~~
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/US_Navy_120207-N-CW137-252_A_French_landing_catamaran_%28L-CAT%29_pulls_into_the_well_deck_of_the_amphibious_assault_ship_USS_WASP_%
ReplyDeletethanks for link
DeleteThank you for sharing valuable information. Nice post. I enjoyed reading this post. The whole blog is very nice found some good stuff and good information here Thanks..Also visit my page. Exhaust Gas Recirculation Shop powered by PrestaShop.
ReplyDelete