Here’s a topic that was inspired by reader “Jjabatie” in the “Buckley Vs. Constellation” post.
As we know, the Marines have come up with … how can I put this somewhat politely? … an ill-conceived concept to insert small units onto far forward bases and shoot missiles at passing ships while also hunting subs. The key to this scheme is a new class of … how can I put this somewhat politely? … ill-conceived Light Amphibious Warfare (LAW) ships that are small, slow, not particularly stealthy, and have no defenses. The idea is that these LAWs would transport troops and supplies to, and between, various islands while making round trips for resupply … all while China remains oblivious (from laughter, one presumes).
Okay, this concept is idiotic but there is a historical antecedent at least for the type of small transport that the Marines describe and one whose characteristics would much better serve the concept. I’m talking about the WWII high speed transport.
In WWII, with a need to move smaller units of troops between islands, some destroyer escorts were converted to high speed transports (APD).
From Wikipedia,
APDs performed arduous service. They transported troops to beachheads, served as escorts for transports and supply vessels, conducted anti-submarine patrols and survey duties, operated with Underwater Demolition Teams and commando units, performed messenger and transport duties, conveyed passengers and mail to and from forward units, and were involved in minesweeping operations.
Typical of these ADPs were the 90+ Buckley and Rudderow class conversions.
 |
USS Bowers (DE-637 / APD-40); Buckley class APD conversion; note 5" gun forward and landing craft in davits |
As an example, in the Buckley conversions, the superstructure was enlarged to house some 160 troops. This provided a useful degree of both troop and cargo transport capacity while also retaining a useful defensive and ground support capability. The Buckley’s weapons fit was changed to: (1)
- 1x 5-inch/38 dual purpose gun
- 3x twin 40mm gun
- 6x single 20mm gun
- 2x depth charge tracks
- 3x torpedo tubes
- 8x K-gun depth charge launchers
Thanks to their 5” gun (upgraded from a 3” gun!), the APDs could provide a degree of fire support for their embarked troops.
Of course, the ships retained their inherent speed and maneuverability.
Notably, the APDs typically carried four LCVPs (Landing Craft Vehicle and Personnel) in davits.
The destroyer history website lists the following specs: (1)
Troop capacity: Officers: 12; Enlisted: 150.
Troop accoutrements: 4x LCVP landing craft; 6x 1/4 ton trucks; 2x 1 ton trucks; 4x ammunition carts; 4x pack howitzers.
Ammunition: 6,000 cubic feet.
General cargo: 3,500 cubic feet.
Gasoline: 1,000 cubic feet.
Compare the WWII APDs with the Marine’s LAW (see, “Berger’s Amphibious Warships”, “Light Amphibious Warship Update 1”, and “Light Amphibious Warship Update 2”) and we see that the APD specs put the LAW to shame in every conceivable way. If the Marines insist on pushing ahead with their idiotic scheme, an APD type vessel would make far more sense.
__________________________________
(1)https://destroyerhistory.org/de/apd/
Believe our CNO, SECNAV and SECDEF all need to re-read the Service's mission as none of them are actually aligning platforms/people/performance to their missions. The Navy Mission: The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.
ReplyDeleteWho is at the helm?
Bring back the 'Flying LST', the R3Y Tradewind.
ReplyDeleteA seaplane/LST, fly right up to the beach and land 80 troops. In practice difficult to hold on the beach during unloading and unreliable engines, sounds like a modern Navy project. Maybe a submersible LST to support the New Model Marines instead ?
"A seaplane/LST, fly right up to the beach and land 80 troops."
DeleteI think you're adding a bit of humor to the discussion but let me expound a bit on the actual challenge of transporting what the Marines are calling for, for the general benefit of people who do seriously call for various transport ideas.
Transporting troops is only one part of the requirement. The Marines also need medium to large missile firing vehicles (those missiles weigh a LOT!) along with cranes or some kind of missile handling/reloading equipment. They need fuel bladders or fuel storage of some type for those vehicles. They need food, water, and shelter supplies. Although they haven't described how they'll find targets yet, they'll need some sort of surveillance system and some way to transport it (trucks, presumably). They'll need maintenance tools and spare parts supplies and some way to move those around (trucks/jeeps, presumably). That means more fuel storage. … … … … You see where this is going? Those things can't be transported by aircraft. They have to come by ship because only a ship can carry the totality of all those vehicles, missiles, and supplies.
Consider the need to drive those missile-toting trucks around a jungle island. The Marines are going to need to carve out some type of 'road'. That means more equipment.
On a closely related note, does any of that conglomeration of large vehicles, jeeps, fuel storage, surveillance equipment, handling equipment (cranes, fork lifts, whatever), etc. sound like a 'hidden' base as the Marines have claimed? To me, it sounds like a pretty obvious and easily seen base.
I know I've said it before ( and off topic) but why don't the Marines put most of their focus/time/planning into how to capture and / or hold ports. In the modern (and the old for that matter) Ports are crucial for hot and cold wars.
ReplyDeleteThe skills are very transferable (eg sneaking ashore and blowing up a power station / railways etc); needs lots of personnel, lots of kit.
The could even ask for a nice new big port complex practice area.
All above would need $$$$$.
I can't think what the Marines don't like about the idea.
Sorry, end of rant, feel free to delete if off topic, just had to get it off my chest, really winds me up when one of our best friend is continually self mutilating themselves.
So
Mr Shed, no one said Marines are not looking into port capture. This was exactly the mission in Inchon during the Korean War.
ReplyDeleteCNO, this topic is disingenous. Sometimes, people have to go for what they can get funded. Marines will not get any more LHAs /LHDs funded for amphibious operations since doctrine says they will not operate within 100 miles of a medium or high threat coast. This means that we have more than enough LHAs than we need. With reduced F35 numbers being funded (10 per squadron instead of 16) and reduced squadrons, how do you justify LHAs /LHDs?
The LAW is something cheap enough to buy that can range most thing in the Western Pacific to project Marine Companies or missile launchers.
"this topic is disingenous. Sometimes, people have to go for what they can get funded."
DeleteWell, let's examine your implied contention. Your implication is that the Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) is all that the Marines can get funded. Is this true? Well, the Marines have stated that they are out of the opposed amphibious assault business and that they're now into the platoon size, dispersed unit, missile shooting business. Taking them at their word, that means that they absolutely don't need 3 divisions and 180,000 troops for the handful of platoon size units they envision. They ought to be able to cut the strength down to 50,000 or so. That's a huge savings and source of immense future funding! They also don't seem to have a need for the MV-22 so that's more immense operational savings and further personnel cuts.
Since they're out the opposed assault business, they would not seem to need their AAVs/ACVs so … more savings!
You see where this is going? Based on their stated missions, they can make HUGE cuts in personnel and equipment and have GIANTIC amounts of available future funding. Thus, your implication that there isn't funding available for anything more than the LAW is incorrect.
Also, ship funding comes out of the Navy budget, not the Marines. Since the Marines have stated that they're out of the large assault business, around 25 of the 30+ big deck amphib ships could be immediately retired resulting in immense savings for the Navy which could be re-tasked into a better LAW or APD-ish vessel.
The larger point is that anyone who claims a budget limitation is utterly wrong. The US military has more than enough funding for whatever they NEED. What we have to do is stop buying things we don't need (LCS, F-35, Ford, LPD, Zumwalt, Constellation, etc.). Simply stopping the Ford program and continuing to build Nimitzes would provide a savings of around $8B per carrier all by itself!
"no one said Marines are not looking into port capture."
DeleteI've said that! I am completely unaware of any doctrine, exercises, or training regarding port seizure. If you know of any, please share it.
They just announced the F-35C squadrons will be changing to 1 squadron of 14 each per carrier air wing..
Delete"Marines will not get any more LHAs /LHDs funded for amphibious operations since doctrine says..."
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whatever doctrine the Commandant may be pushing, there are 11 LHAs planned. The third is under construction, and the fourth has preliminary funding. I've read nothing about any planned class cancellations, so thats probably not accurate.
"Sometimes, people have to go for what they can get funded."
That's a horrible concept, and one that has no place in the military. Sure the reality of budgets has relevance, but you dont buy substandard weapons, or anything else, based on budget alone. These new LAWs are inferior to just about anything comparable in history. This post shows that even ships converted to the purpose most of a century ago were infinitely more capable. Even excepting the idiocy of the concept behind it, clearly the LAW is an underwhelming design that yet again shows a lack of thought given to capacity, capability, and utility. Our fathers and grandfathers did much better, and we'd be well off to look back at their achievements as examples for now and the future.
@CNO Thanks for diving deeper into this comparison. Actually reading more on APD operations has been fascinating!! A couple questions that came to mind that I havent found answers for though: First, the specs stated 4 LCVPs, but every pic Ive found only shows 2. I wonder if they were stackable in the davits(??). Second, the "quarter and half-ton trucks", Id gather those were Jeeps(?), but Im wondering where they were carried, and how they got ashore?? Could the Higgins boats carry them? If so I guess they were preloaded into them?? Specific details of their use aren't presenting themselves, and Id like to know, as its discussion-relevant!!
ReplyDelete" I wonder if they were stackable in the davits(??)."
DeleteYes, they were typically stacked two high but there were variations.
"Im wondering where they were carried, and how they got ashore??"
I don't any specifics. Sorry. Many of the APDs had a boom/crane assembly on the stern which is how I imagine they handled vehicles and cargo.
Here's a photo link showing both the double stack of landing craft and the aft boom/crane: http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/04/100413511.jpg
DeleteThank you!!
DeleteRE: the LAW. Did you know that the Army has a Navy? Well, they do!! And the Army's Navy includes a bunch of ships similar to the proposed LAW, although the Army uses them for more sensible purposes.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the Army has 8 ships in the General Frank S. Besson Logistics Support Vessel class. They are a little bigger than the proposed LAW: 267 feet long, 60 feet beam, around 4000 tons displacement. They have ramps (both bow and stern, actually) and can unload on a beach. They are slightly slower than the spec for the LAW: about 11 to 12 knots depending on load, vs 14. But they have a much longer range: 6000 to 8000 nautical miles, depending on load. And the Army recently tried to divest some, but was stopped by Congress.
Perhaps we should transfer a few to the Navy. Next week. Or next month. Or as soon as the bureaucracy can bestir itself. Then the Navy and Marines could experiment with them, and practice the CONOPS (assuming that the Commandant actually HAS a CONOPS) as realistically as possible, to determine if it works. I know most of US are pretty sure what the answer to that is, but if they actually practice it realistically and it doesn't work, it might even convince the Commandant!
Hopefully this can happen before we spend 5 to 7 billion dollars that we don't have buying 30 of these LAWs.
Might be a stupid question, but in the spirit of the Buckley conversion, would it be worth considering the LCS in this role? I understand the reliability issues might be insurmountable, but otherwise, they are fast, have some level of self-defense, and space from the missing combat modules...
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe. Although keep in mind that the LCS can't offload directly onto the beach, and as CNO mentioned in an earlier comment, a bunch of vehicles need to be delivered and they can't all swim.
DeleteUSN won't even bother trying it, they don't want to waste even more money and remind Congress how bad of a screw up LCS was, I predict that entire class will be gone by 2030, maybe even retired before that.
Delete"would it be worth considering the LCS in this role?"
DeletePossibly, but the LCS has certain, inherent limitations that argue against this. The LCS range is quite limited and the maintenance requirement (putting into port every couple of weeks) almost precludes ANY combat duty.
Both LCS classes are weight challenged so one would have to calculate whether a useful cargo/troop load could be transported.
Cargo (and troop) transport would be problematic and any modification solution would, undoubtedly, add weight and subtract from available space. The LCS is only spec'ed for a single SH-60 type helo so that's not really an option.
In short, the LCS has inherent limitations that almost preclude such a conversion or, best case, would make the conversion extremely expensive (like replacing the entire propulsion system with a more conventional one).
It's actually spec'ed for 2. 1 folded and one with the tail not folded. Weight and space.
Delete"It's actually spec'ed for 2."
DeleteActually, I've spoken with two manufacturer's engineers and both versions had their flight deck structural supports downgraded as an early cost savings measure. Each can handle a single SH-60 size helo.
Wouldn't the LCS in the Independence class LCS fit the bill as a High speed troop transport
ReplyDeleteSee the preceding comment. Limited range, limited endurance, limited aviation, maintenance constraints, non-existent weight margins, etc.
DeleteIF doing a conversion then the Ticonderoga would (unlikee the LCS)
ReplyDeleteYou could remove the aft VLS, torpedo room, ASW equipment and perhaps reduce the size of the forward VLS to 32 and use some of that as well. This probably more space than a WW2 Marine had on a Buckly. With two five inch guns and a couple dozen Tomahawks for Fire support, and ESSM+CIWS+SeaRAM for AAW. This would be a true equivalent to the Buckleys.
Using Ticos as transports... In a pinch, sure, why not?? I think not having a helo embarked would allow the hangar to become a nice big berthing space. Although Id prefer any Tico in commission to keep doing what it does best...
DeleteA more apt comparsion of ADP's would be what happened to Japanese ADP's at Wake and Midway. Such ships do not do well, and the only reason they worked better for US forces was because of Sea , Air , Land supremacy when they tried to land troops. In the face of opposition Japanese ADP's had their butts and landing forces shot up.
ReplyDeleteWhich might bring up , using submarines instead. Howver any force landed by subs has zero support and is pretty a dead duck if opposed at all, and a dying duck within 24 hours, if the Makin raid proves anything.
"Japanese ADP's"
DeleteExcellent historical example. I may have to shamelessly appropriate the idea and do a post!