What does the LVT-1, LVT-2, LVT(A)-1, LVT(A)-2, LVT-4, LVT(A)-3, LVT(A)-4, LVT-3C, LVTP-5, LVTP-7, AAV and AAV RAM/RS all have in common?
A water speed of around 8mph.
That's it. Over 80 years of technological improvements and we're barely (and I mean JUST barely) moving faster than a World War 2 tracked landing craft when it comes to getting Marines ashore in armored transports.
The EFV was the first real attempt at a high water speed Landing Vehicle Tracked but it required a complicated drive and suspension system with the added benefit of packing more power than a M1A1 Abrams Tank (horsepower that is).
Everyone knows where I stand as far as the bird in hand versus one in the bush.
I want the MPC now. Everything else (procurement wise) be damned.
If a water speed of around 8mph is the upper limit when it comes to Landing Vehicle Tracked without overpowering it and making it uber complex with the side issue of having it water plane then the MPC is making more and more sense.
Physics has been a hard reality since Day 1.
ReplyDeleteA shape of a given length - however well or ill-shaped - pushed through the water is subject to certain Laws of Physics. And a 26 foot long 'chunk' like AAV-7 will forever be limited to that maximum speed you stated. As certain as an eastern sunrise.
The only way out is planing: EFV tried planing, but... very expensive, very fuel-intensive (awful/implausible combat logistics), and as proven here quite unreliable, apart from being hyper-costly for what you get.
So, laws-of-physics, logistics, and final per-unit expense suggests a modern AAV-7 equivalent - and no more ! Fording through rivers, lakes, estuaries etc. is highly desirable - even in desert Iraq.
AAV-7 is a good case-study between
- necessary bulk (length, width, height) to carry up to 25 infantry internally,
- maximum weight possible for additional armor
- and still remain float (laws of physics again).
Any griping about the characteristics of AAV-7 should bear in min that it is 'as good as it gets' for what it is expected to do.
So - like EFV demonstrated for $3+billion - there is no way around certain hard realities.
Which sounds familiar, since there is also no way around an OTH- ARG and the need for stout fast heavy-lift capability ( more laws of physics to deal with) to get the MEU from ARG to the shore, preferably in one shot... such as via LCU-F.
this is the best argument to abandon high speed tracked landing vehicles until the tech becomes affordable, which in turn is the best argument for the LCU-F. ok.
DeleteThank you, Sir.
ReplyDeleteWhat would you guess would be the Quantico perspective on LCU-F ?
A to a new USMC APC going fast on land - as long as it can also ford, float, chug across a lake or an estuary tidal creek... But you'd be more seasoned in figuring which current model might suit 'commercial of the shelf'.
A somewhat longer AAV-7 - length to carry/float additional armor - would still work - unless tracks are disliked. LAV-25 seems fleet underfoot. Would much heavier AAV-8 have to be as swift ?
In, fact, looking at a transport-ready M1A1/2 that measures about 30' (gun over its rear) then adding well over 3' to an AAV-7 hull would allow
ReplyDelete-1. adding another set of wheels aft,
-2. that much more track for likely less psi,
-3. a somewhat better 'hull'-shape,
-4. more infantry volume inside,
-5. better way to carry additional armor
and
-6. still float lighter by a few inches of freeboard.
If one went one step further and
-7. assumed a TUSK-width M1A1/2 (12'8"?)and made this the width of AAV-8 including its applique-armor, (EFV was 12') you'd gain 1 foot in beam, (plus the 3 in length), and she'd be more able 'at sea' since she'd likely float quite a bit lighter.
-8. A bigger gun perhaps, and/or a second turret ?
Of course, in my ignorance, I may be describing an old idea...
the only thing that concerns is space aboard ship. you'd be back to a squad plus per vehicle but that makes each vehicle loss much more catastrophic when involved in enemy action. additionally you're talking about a much larger volume to armor which will mean a much heavier vehicle.
DeleteBAE is suppose to be working on a AAV upgrade and a new hull form. i want to see what they come up with. i'm sure General Dynamics is working on a simplified EFV with probably some design changes to make it more user friendly since it will lose the complex drive.....it should be interesting.
but what should be upsetting is that LCAC replacement and LCU replacement didn't come up in the discussion that Greenert and Amos had at CSIS.
As to CNO Greenert and Commandant Amos not mentioning LXCU- and LCAC-replacements, did they have the PROCEEDINGS copy yet ?
DeleteLCAC/SSC will be closely related.
LCU-options are very limited, with a 2014-version of the 50s era LCU on offer - and as of just now the LCU-F proposal.
How would Marines capitalize on the opportunities of LCU-F ?
i have no idea how they would capitalize on the LCU-F. the pre-loading causes concern and makes it sound more like a sea lift command asset, but even then it'll be problematic because the USMC and Navy are all about being able to selectively unload ships.
DeleteI would assume that for a 'hot' landing, there would not be too many philosophical disagreements as to what constitutes a plausible GCE mix.
DeletePerhaps similar to a howitzer going to work, carrying a modest range of round-types is routine, assuming it may need most of them.
When not facing contretemps, driving around with empty LCU-F (while complaining about 'not enough' vehicle-stowage aboard) would be a massive waste of carrying-capacity - but perfectly doable. But WHY ?
Could it be that NOT pre-loading basic GCE-assets is deemed 'normal' or even a 'virtue' based on the astonishingly persistent incapacity to even dream of a First Wave ? If you don't routinely do it, it would never be standard protocol for a well-defined task.
However, if pre-loading LCU-Fs with GCE-assets opens the door to that highly desirable scenario, then most MEU Commanders likely would entertain that option.
And if things change suddenly, you could always shove LCU-Fs out the gate and have them 'regurgitate' their loads into the 440'x50' well-deck for a re-shuffle of your assets.
This 'preloading' for a particular well-defined task - why else would you be in the theater - is as normal as preloading a Mk.41 VLS system aboard a DDG, or rounds aboard an M1A1/2. And one would hope that a MEU Commander knows what he needs for the mission...
One obvious option is to keep one LCU-F per ARG EMPTY as a 'utility'-craft for all sorts of uses.
Would not a First Wave capability be of central vital interest - whatever the 'yes-buts' ??!!
you're making some massive assumptions when you pre-load an MEU. what if you plan for a combat load out and instead you have disaster relief? so off come all the AAVs and M1s and on go the MTVRs and PLSs.
Deletehow are you going to do maintenance? training? how is troop loading going to be affected if you have your vehicles packed in tight? what about all that now vacant vehicle storage area? does that store even more vehicles or do we turn that into a type of shuffle area?
this is your concept. you sell me. don't have me make the argument for you.
It is clear that preloading the GCE frees up significant space aboard the ARG. Unlike their otherwise identical sister-ships LSD-41-48, LSD-49-52 were built modified with a much shorter well-deck, because it was claimed more vehicle-stowage was needed. The LPD-17 concept featured this error in forethought right from the start - since they 'learned' from the LSD-49 episode.
DeleteThe 30-40 year cost was in available well-deck length and thus USN-capability to carry Connectors and USMC-capability to do a 'Forced Entry' with a MEU GCE First Wave. Poor equation it seems.
LCU-F would not quite make up for that 'gained' area and volume aboard LSD-49 and LPD-17. But carrying as many of them as possible is a major gain towards a GCE First Wave.
Your worry about 'empty' spaces seems unnecessary since - as you already know - MEUs tend to very quickly adapt to available volumes and 'lane-length' to stuff stuff into. Every time a MEU deploys to a particular vessel-mix ARG, it shrinks or grows.
Training and maintenance is by no means a challenge either, since, like at the home-base, way out on the high seas the whole LCU-F SSC flotilla can be moved out of the mother-ships, moved about, with gear emptied into the three well-decks, with LSD-41 alone offering over 20,000 square feet of well-deck 'parking' available.
Of course, since none of the GCE vehicle move any inside LCU-F, maintenance seems not an urgent concern. Regular system-checks - yes. And keep the umbilical cords plugged in.
For those with respective urges, there would be all the Combat Support Element assets to tinker with - if tools really need to be used and knuckles skinned.
Fully-loaded unobserved runs of LCU-Fs and SSCs way off-shore would allow all sorts of practice of running and choreographing them, incl. live-fire exercises of self-defense systems, incl. the occasional MBT-shot over the LCU-F's stern, or a field-piece volley to stay sharp.
This just in: "There may a long forlorn pile of rocks west of the Philippines to storm and squat upon..."
Really ?
LCU-F assumes maximizing available ship-board volume/square-footage by pre-loading an assault GCE aboard the LCU-Fs before the ARG leaves the base towards the area of (projected) hostilities.
ReplyDelete200tons LCU-F capacity suggests 3 MBTs and thus their length. Hence the proposal for AAV-8 to match that length in order to attain better seaworthiness etc.
Depending upon use of hull-section, 'machinery and 'soft targets' need armor - but not hydro-dynamic additions.
Where would USMC take LCU-F ?