The Navy has released some new information on the Marine’s desired Light Amphibious Warship (LAW), as reported in a USNI article.(1) As you might expect, the information was contradictory and silly. For example,
… the services are eyeing a 30mm Gun Weapons System as the ideal system needed as a proportional response to the most likely threat to these ships.(1)
Even a cursory moment of thought concludes that the most likely threat will be aircraft and missiles. How is a 30 mm machine gun a proportional response? That’s just ignorant. And, since when is ‘proportional’ the desired response to a threat? The best response is overkill.
Moving on,
Their primary defense would be their ability to move quickly and evade detection … (1)
Their primary defense would be the ability to move quickly? The Navy revealed that the proposed speed of the LAW will be around 15 kts.
… the Navy and Marine Corps want about 15 knots … (1)
‘Evade detection’? Unless the LAW is an ultra-stealthy configuration - which none of the artist’s renditions have yet indicated – a 200-400 ft, slow ship is not going to ‘evade detection’.
 |
| Does This Look Like It Will Evade Detection? |
However, it may be that the Navy/Marines don’t think the LAW will have to defend itself. Apparently, it will be protected by … wait for it … an LCS or LPD. Of course, neither of those vessels has any AAW capability beyond point defense for themselves and only the LCS has an anti-ship capability (assuming the Naval Strike Missile actually gets installed).
Regarding cost, the Navy is looking for a price tag of $100M - $130M. Remember when the price target for the LCS was $200M? How’d that work out? If the LAW comes in at $100M it will be a bare bones, stripped down, shell of a vessel which ComNavOps might actually agree with as it fits my vision of single function, dedicated ships – although this particular ship and concept is idiocy floating on the water.
Regarding survivability, remember when the Navy tried to claim that the LCS met level 1+ survivability standards? We blew that claim out of the water and proved that the LCS was actually level nothing (see, “LCS Survivability”). Well, the Navy is trying the same non-existent, made up route again. They’re claiming the LAW will be Tier 2+: able to take a hit and survive until another LAW can come and rescue the crew and troops and ‘return them to the fight’ (yes, they used that phrase). A bare bones, stripped down vessel with no AAW protection is not going to be Tier anything.
The ship is projected to have a 20 year service life. I guess the Navy has been reading this blog and my calls for 20 year ship lives!
You can just see the LAW disaster taking shape in front of your eyes. Someday, people will be asking how this abortion came to be. Well, we’re seeing it develop right in front of us. There’s no hindsight involved. The future disaster is readily apparent today.
This isn’t really relevant to the merits of the vessel but you recall how we all got a great deal of enjoyment out of the Navy calling the LCS a Littoral COMBAT ship despite its utter lack of combat capability? Well, to call this tiny transport vessel with only a 30 mm gun a Light Amphibious WARship proves, yet again, the Navy’s sense of humor.
_____________________________________
(1)USNI News website, “Navy Officials Reveal Details of New $100M Light Amphibious Warship Concept”, Megan Eckstein, 19-Nov-2020,
"The ship is projected to have a 20 year service life", or 20 minutes in a battle area.
ReplyDelete:) !!!!!
DeleteOutstanding!
Just for fun, remember that Tier 2 includes, among many other things, "conventional and nuclear blast protection and nuclear hardening".
ReplyDeleteAnd this thingy is going to go beyond that? Yeah, sure.
By the time they get through spending $1B apiece on them, they might.
DeleteNo, on second thought, not really. They may spend the $1B apiece, but they won't even sniff Tier 2. Simple question, how do you provide "nuclear blast protection and nuclear hardening" to an open-air cargo bay?
"how do you provide "nuclear blast protection and nuclear hardening" to an open-air cargo bay?"
DeleteGood question. I guess I assume the blast protection and hardening requirement applies to the ship, itself, not the cargo?
If not the cargo, then why have the ship?
DeleteCargo can be replaced but the ship can't - at least, not in any short, useful time frame. Besides, if you're using your nuclear protection/hardening, you've probably got larger concerns than the welfare of the cargo!
DeleteI thought the Navy is envisioning "acceptable" ship losses? Or at least what they are working towards right now?
DeleteHave to agree, nuclear blast would cause more issues than just the survival of the cargo.
Mounting the US Navy's common MK 46 30mm autocannon is simple because it's used on the LCS and LPD-17, but equally stupid since it has very limited anti-air or anti-missile capability. Mount the radar guided CIWS 20mm gatling gun. A 40mm autocannon like the Italian radar-guided DARDO can provide twice the range and explosive power. In addition, the 40mm is the smallest round that can include a proximity fuze and enough explosive power for an effective anti-aircraft bursting round.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the millennium gun get around this by setting the ammo burst based on a radar feed as the round leaves the gun? Also, these 30mm mounts are supposed to be able to swap out for the 40mm barrel. They also could have their elevation modified from 30 to 60 degrees. Maybe its time to get that moving. Keep what we use standardized rather than grabbing another mount.
DeleteI'm only somewhat familiar with this system. It uses a remote radar which is, potentially, a vulnerability if the radars are not linked one-to-one with the guns. If one radar controls multiple guns, the loss of the radar could result in the loss of multiple guns which is an undesirable situation in close in defense scenarios. I'm unsure exactly how the radar-gun arrangement is typically handled. Any information on this? Do you see it as a problem?
DeleteAre you aware of any semi-realistic testing of the unit that's been performed?
I have a low opinion of the 30 mm. It seems like a combination of the worst features of a low end machine gun and a high end, larger caliber gun. In other words, it's a relatively slow firing, small caliber weapon that lacks the hitting power to quickly destroy swarm craft and surface targets and the high rate of fire to deal with aircraft and missiles. I've been puzzled about its selection by the Navy since it was first adopted.
Obviously this should be renamed the Fleet Light Amphibious Warship or as eveyone will call it- FLAW.
ReplyDeleteThe FLAW makes perfect sense when you have a Naval, I mean Marine Commandant that does not believe in amphibious landings against peer opponents. If he did then the FLAW would be carrying the tanks he is getting rid of.
30mm when contemporary foreign small warships are mounting 76mm or larger? I don't get this.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, it's not a combat ship. It's a small transport so it shouldn't need much although the way the Marines seem to want to use it would put it in a much higher risk situation than transport ships are normally exposed to.
DeleteTo be even fairer, the Distributed Lethality Concept calls for the usage of all ships in the front-line, contributing to an overall sensor platform.
DeleteI am not defending the idea, just pointing out that if you want to do a mission, you need to be prepared to do so and as such, in a sense, Anonymous contention is right.
"To be even fairer,"
DeleteA 30 mm has very little deck penetration and no significant magazine. In contrast, a 76 mm has significant deck penetration and internal ship's magazine which either increases the ship's size (more cost, larger radar signature, bigger target, slower speed, less range) or subtracts from the ship's primary mission.
As you noted in another comment, the Navy is kind of, sort of, moving to a disposable/expendable fleet structure. That being the case, how much more equipment and how much bigger and more expensive a ship do you want to create if the odds are high that you expect to lose it - especially in the high risk, distributed lethality role?
Finally, there's not really all that much more gain from a 76 mm versus a 30 mm in terms of performance relative to the cost/weight/penetration.
In contrast, a 76 mm has significant deck penetration"
DeleteThere is the newest variant of the 76/62, the Sovraponte/over deck, no deck penetration ~ 30-40% lighter than the standard Super Rapid both with or without the Strales/DART system, installed on the new Italian PPA frigates over the hanger
On YouTube video of 76mm trials with DART ammo successfully shooting down a low speed drone, didn't inspire me with confidence. Personal preference the Rheinmetall Oerlikon 35mm Millennium Gun with relatively high rate of fire and its Ahead shell with 152 tungsten particles.
Any idea what the ammo inventory is? With no deck penetration, it has to be limited to whatever can fit inside the enclosure which can't be much. I assume that at rapid fire, the ready ammo would be exhausted in seconds. As I understand it, reloading is a two-man, manual affair which is not desirable during an engagement. By the time reload is accomplished, the incoming missiles would have already finished.
DeleteNo of ready rounds on mount, quick check only found numbers for the 76/62SR, 120 rpm, eighty in its automated magazine, would think Sovrapont mount would have very similar number. It only fires in bursts of 3 or 4 rounds per engagement, eighty would be adequate for numerous engagements if time and system was fast enough to retarget.
DeleteThe OTO-Melara DART Ammunition Firing Trials video shows tracked drone at 10 km, fired at 5 km, hit at 4.5 km. As said what didn't give me confidence was the relatively slow speed of the Banshee target drones, 220 mph, thou saying that its small size compared to a Harpoon, question what chance against a Mach 2.8 BrahMos?
"3 or 4 rounds per engagement"
DeleteThat's optimistic in the extreme!
Yeah, they haven't posted a real brochure, but the diagrams on line look to have 80 ready rounds in 2 feeds. For ready rounds vs raate of fire the US 30mm turret has 400 rounds split between 2 feeds and a 200 rpm. 2 minutes ready to go is the most of any gun out there, technically.
DeleteThe writeup of the video event seems to suggest that many engagements took place as opposed to the two shown in the video. I wonder if we just saw the two best cases rather than the typical cases?
DeleteThe drone was flying at 223 mph which is WWII speed and it appeared to be flying a straight line without maneuvering. I assume that a maneuvering target would require many more shots to bring down. With an 80 round magazine, that's not a lot of engagement capacity.
Without more test information, it's impossible to evaluate. I suspect it's a decent option for a small ship that can't afford deck penetration and magazine volume but it's not an ideal solution for ships that are expected to conduct AAW.
I have yet to see any gun manufacturer conduct a test against a supersonic or even high subsonic target. Maybe someone has done it and I just haven't seen it?
DeleteFor what its worth this may be a way to get a useful ship (LST). It doesn't fit their concept but it does work as a workhorse for amphibious shipping.
ReplyDeleteIf they don't gold-plate it or anything, it'll be nice to have a modern LST.
DeleteToo bad their concept for it is completely nonsensical.
Where would even one put a 30mm gun or similar weapon? Looking at the artwork, there are three positions on the bow for, what appears to be a .50-cal guns. But, they would be pointed away from the beach when the ship is unloading vehicles and cargo.
ReplyDeleteThe best place would be on the flight deck near the ramp. Except, in that position, the gun might encroach into the vehicle loading area below. It could be mounted atop of the bridge, but anything on the flight deck would block its field of fire.
I think Damen has an Idea for a LST like this one
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCTPSoaUtwk
Theirs seems to be the real deal.
DeleteDoesn't that seems like a LHA/LHD? Isn't the purpose of the LAW is first wave landing? I don't think the Damen's LST here is solving any of the original issues.
Delete"Isn't the purpose of the LAW is first wave landing?"
DeleteNo, it isn't. At least, not in the Marine's concept. For the Marines, the role is transport rather than assault.
This is the problem with not having a well laid out CONOPS. No one really knows what the purpose is and, therefore, cannot evaluate the ship correctly.
An LAW in an opposed landing is a large, slow, non-maneuverable, non-stealthy target. This is why LSTs have not, generally, been used in initial assaults and are doctrinally relegated to follow on support and logistics.
To me, this is another potential fast catamaran ferry job. Harden the front portion of the hull. Have a ramp lower to offload at the beach. Waterjets are still back in the water. Yes, it would be smart to drop an anchor to pull it off the beach regardless. You could make use of a full 2500-3000 ton platform or a smaller version designed for just 1 M1 or 2 ACVs. The smaller version could outrange SSC/LCAC and provide some endurance. Larger version I'd call, EPF with a sense of adventure.
DeleteTurkey has an LST that I think the US Navy is looking for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjZ02KndXNc
DeleteThe navy is squandering money and wasting precious years.
ReplyDeleteSo frustrating...
Lutefisk
"....Additionally, they would operate under the protection of a “sheepdog” – likely an amphibious transport dock (LPD) or a Littoral Combat Ship – that could maintain situational awareness of the operating area inside the adversary’s weapons engagement zone and fire upon anything threatening the LAWs."
ReplyDeleteWho ever wrote this inside DoD should be fired and who ever allowed this to be printed by USNI should be fired. These people are insulting our intelligence. At a minimum, USNI should publish a rebuttal of how stupid this whole LAW ship is.
The worst, I think, is instead of solving the Catch-22 situation, they are creating another Catch-22 inside it.
DeleteThe Navy has recognized that a LHA/LPD can't survive in a peer landing operation to enable landing. So, the solution is a slow non-stealthy light ship??? And recognizing the vulnerabilities of it, it now must be escorted by the original ships that it was designed to replaced?????
Talking about a Catch-22 inception!
@Ip. I know,right???
DeleteIt's a disgrace that USN puts this out and USNI allows it to be printed with no rebuttal.
Perhaps the USN could go back and reconsider the Absalon Combat Support Ships. Since, the heaviest fighting vehicles in the USMC will the new ACV - which can swim ashore, the USN could utilize the flex deck and ramp inherent in the ship's design to deploy ACV's while (perhaps) swapping the SB90E LCP's) for RN style LCVP MK 5 to convey light vehicles to shore. The Absalon's flex deck specifications include:
ReplyDeleteA roll-on roll-off ramp installed at the stern of the ship accesses the flex deck (flexible deck). The flex deck, providing 915m², and 250m of parking lanes, is about 90m long. The reinforced deck can embark vehicles up to 62t such as the Leopard II main battle tank.
In addition, the Absalon comes armed with:
5 × StanFlex modules, typically:
3 × 12 RIM-162 ESSM SAM in Mk 48Mod3/ Mk 56 VLS
2 × 4 Harpoon Block II SSM
Fixed weapons:
1 × 5"/62 Mk 45 mod 4 gun
2 × Mk32 Mod 14, each with 2 × MU90 torpedoes (could be replaced with Mk-54 Torpedoes)
2 × Millennium 35 mm CIWS
2 × 2 Stinger Point-defence SAM
7 × 12.7 mm M/01 HMG
Just a thoughts.
This is a point raised in this piece: https://warontherocks.com/2020/11/lessons-from-operation-ke-for-the-marine-corps/
Delete