Monday, September 21, 2020

Berger wants to move fast but the cornerstone of his concept, the Light Amphibious Warship is bogging him down and will lead to his concept's failure!


First I gotta get this off my chest before we dig into this thing.  Where are the screws on this ship?  I can't see how it moves thru the water if they're not at the stern (cause I can't see them at the bow) and if they're back there then how will it not beach itself.  Additionally you do realize what this is don't you?

Type:Tank landing ship
  • 4,793 long tons (4,870 t) light
  • 8,342 long tons (8,476 t) full load
  • 522 ft 4 in (159.2 m) oa
  • 562 ft (171.3 m) over derrick arms
Beam:69 ft 6 in (21.2 m)
Draft:17 ft 6 in (5.3 m) max
Speed:22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph) max
Range:2,500 nmi (4,600 km; 2,900 mi) at 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph)
Troops:431 max
Sensors and
processing systems:
  • 2 × Mk 63 GCFS
  • SPS-10 radar
Armament:2 × twin 3"/50 caliber guns

It's just a MODERNIZED Newport Tank Landing Ship!  Even the specs are similar...

But onto the story.  via Defense News.

The U.S. Marine Corps is moving as fast as it can to field a new class of light amphibious warship, but it remains unclear what it will do, where it will be based or what capabilities it will bring to the fight.

The idea behind the ship is to take a commercial design or adapt a historic design to make a vessel capable of accommodating up to 40 sailors and at least 75 Marines to transport Marine kit over a range of about 3,500 nautical miles, according to a recent industry day presentation.

While the presentation noted that the ship should have few tailored Navy requirements, that also creates a problem: If the Navy is going to pay tens of millions to develop, build, crew and operate them, should it not provide some additional value to the fleet?

A bit more.

When asked whether the ship should contribute to a more distributed sensor architecture to align with the Navy’s desire to be more spread out over a large area during a fight, King answered in the affirmative.

"[But] I really see it benefiting from [that architecture] more,” he said. “We need to build an affordable ship that can get after the ability to do maritime campaigning in the littorals.”

The unstated implication appeared to be that if the ship is loaded up with sensors and requirements, it will slow down the process and increase the cost. Analysts who spoke to Defense News agreed with that, saying the Navy is likely trying to put more systems on the platform that will make it more complex and more expensive.

A little bit more and the real meat of the story.

 "The commandant can’t divest of some of the legacy platforms he’s building — these big, expensive and vulnerable platforms — until he has something that replaces it in the water. And so he’s anxious to get going with something else so he then has a reason to move away from what he has.

“The commandant is well aware he has a four-year clock and its ticking. So if he’s going to make changes, he’s got to get moving to get those changes in place and commit the Marine Corps to them to make sure it’s going to last. And right now I’m not sure there’s a lot of high confidence that they are going to last.”

Hendrix acknowledged that the Navy has good reason to want the light amphibious warship to have more capability, but added that the Corps is more interested in something simple than something costly and elaborate.

“What that does,” Hendrix said, “is drive up unit cost and drive down the numbers that can be purchased.”

Story here. 

The stark reality facing the Commandant of the Marine Corps?  He attempted to be a change agent but stumbled into the common failure of all change agents.

He went bold.  He went big.  But he failed to get those he led onboard with his change.


No comments :

Post a Comment

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