Naval News website has an absolutely fascinating article on Army Landing Craft Utility (LCU) vessels and Marine Light Amphibious Warships (LAW).[1] The article is an interview/feedback from Army LCU Vessel Masters (I guess that’s what the Army calls a ship captain?) with their comments about the Marine LAW.
The Army LCU can transport 350 short tons of cargo over a range of 6,500 miles at 12 knots without refueling.[1]
… the Army LCU can carry up to five M1 Abrams tanks, and all the other vehicles listed above; however, they are not meant for troop transport.[1]
 |
| Army LCU |
Here’s some points that jumped out from the article/interview:
Purpose – The LCU is not a combat vessel. It is purely a logistic asset. The two functions are radically different and should not be confused or conflated. This is exactly the risk the Marine LAW concept runs. The Marines seem to be heading down a path that wants to utilize the LAW as a maneuver/combat asset and that will only lead to failure. As the Army Vessel Masters state,
The LCU is not a maneuver asset; it is a logistical asset for moving large quantities of supplies and materials to include equipment.[1]
If the Marines desire a maneuver/combat vessel then they need a vessel designed for that purpose. For example, such a vessel would need speed, stealth, extensive sensors, and defensive armament, among other requirements. Fast APDs (see, “High Speed Transport”) would be a much better model for the role than a slow, unarmed LAW.
Weather – We’ve foolishly and naively come to believe that our technology has allowed us to rise above the effects of weather. We assume that our sensors, our people (seasickness!), our aircraft, and our ships are immune to the ravages of weather. Nothing could be further from the truth. Small vessels are still susceptible to wind and wave and the LCU and LAW are small vessels. We forget this at our peril. If the Marines envision using the LAW to clandestinely dart (you know, at 14 kts as specified for the LAW transit speed) from island to island, totally befuddling the Chinese, then we need to account for, and factor in, weather. What happens when it’s time to ‘dart’ and the sea is not calm? As the Army warns,
The Army LCU … relies heavily on the weather to cooperate; these vessels can handle 10ft waves on the bow and stern, but only 5ft waves on the beam.[1]
I can say from experience that 12ft waves in an LCU is not fun and is really hard on the crew.[1]
Helicopters – ComNavOps has repeatedly criticized the Navy’s obsession with helicopters on every vessel from carriers to canoes. Placing a helo on a LAW is a bad idea for so many reasons not the least of which is that helo facilities consume huge amounts of space on board the ship, to the detriment of the main function of the ship.
From what I can tell looking at the model drawings, the overall LAW design is good; however, with a landing pad it will limit what the “LAW” can carry as far as containers and may be limited to vehicles.[1]
Complexity – As this blog has repeatedly demonstrated, complexity is the enemy of reliability and, in combat, you desperately want reliability. The LAW should be simplest possible design. Landing vessels that utilize complex bow designs are failures waiting to happen. Mechanical monstrosities where the nose of the ship lifts up and over, or some such, as some of the LAW designs envision, can’t help but be prone to failure. This was one of the criticisms of the Newport class LST with their over-the-bow, swinging ramp design using two derricks.
From the drawings and models, there are two very different concepts, one with a stern ramp [Sea Transport Solutions] and the other with the LSV design “Kuroda class” enabling the nose of the vessel to be lifted and a ramp to unload vehicles along with other cargo [Austal’s design]. I think that it is best for the vessel master to be able to see the payload while maneuvering the vessel to ensure proper placement on a beachhead or port ramp. It is a lot easier to control the vessel moving forward than while backing in.[1]
Just to show that the Army is not perfect, either, consider this tidbit:
The biggest issue that we [the Army] have is the inability to communicate with Navy vessels on a non-civilian maritime frequency. These vessels are built for commercial operations and all of the communications equipment is set up for that purpose.[1]
Ironically, the Army seems to have a much better handle on what a LAW is and is not than the Marines do.
_________________________________
[1]Naval News website, “U.S. Army Japan’s LCU Vessel Masters Discuss U.S. Navy LAW”, Peter Ong, 23-Apr-2022,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/04/u-s-army-japan-lcu-vessel-masters-discuss-u-s-navy-law/
Didn't i hear the US is giving the Israel two landing craft. https://www.israelhayom.com/2022/05/23/in-tactical-boost-israeli-navy-to-receive-2-us-made-landing-craft/
ReplyDeleteNote that the army also has the Besson class "logistical support vessels", which are larger and carry heavier loads and can also beach themselves. They seem quite similar to the Marines' LAW in size and capabilities (although the range is longer). I seem to recall that the Army was trying to sell off a couple of them a few years ago. Maybe the Marines should take on a few and use them for experimenting until actual LAW's are available.
ReplyDelete"Placing a helo on a LAW is a bad idea"
ReplyDeleteWhat if you put a hull mounted sonar and a towed array. Then these things could be sweeping the ocean clear of submarines at the same time that they're doing logistics.
A couple of helo's for ASW. Winner!
Man, is that idea ever going to look good on a briefing slide!!!!
Lutefisk
As far as I know the Army has tried to divest this ships in the last years.
ReplyDeleteThe Marines could order something along this lines: https://www.damen.com/insights-center/news/new-landing-ship-transport-for-nigerian-navy-launched-at-albwardy
It should come around 50 mil apiece (with higher cost with US production). It is a simple design, the helo deck could double as cargo deck with a second crane, the most important thing in the end would be to reduce electronics to a minimum, no gold plating, only manually operatred weapons.
My browser says that's a bad link, but has the info at https://punchng.com/nigerian-navy-to-get-landing-ship-2022-firm/.
DeleteDamen actually has a whole family of landing ships at https://www.damen.com/catalogue/defence-and-security/landing-ships.
It would seem that would be a place to start if we are trying to do some sort of LAW.
One of the major suggestions for the LAW is the "Stern Landing Vessel". I think that, before we go down that route, it would be really good for the Marines and Navy to examine history to see why, throughout World War 2 (when our Navy and Marines were experts at amphibious operations) and in all the years since, we have never had our amphibious ships or landing craft back up to the beach, but have always unloaded from the front. It COULD be simple inertia, but there might also be a good reason for it. In which case it would be great to know what the reason was. For example, even in the Newport case, when we wanted pointy bows for speed, they still didn't back up to the beach but instead had that Rube Goldberg ramp over the bow thing.
ReplyDeleteHere are a couple possible reasons:
- the army LCU guy says it's easier to control the ship while approaching the beach when it's going forward
- Going in backward will probably mean it will take more time to approach the beach, both because you have to first turn around, and because you probably go more slowly in reverse than forward. So, if there is any opposition to the landing, that means you are spending more time under fire.
- Given that the propellers are in the back, and on the bottom, it MAY require more water under the ship at the back than the front. Which might reduce the number of beaches that the ship can access. Even our current landing craft (except for the LCAC) can only access a minority of the world's beaches. This might be worse. Why is that? Not sure. Maybe it has something to do with the slope of the bottom near the beach. If the slope is too shallow, the ship may have to stop fairly far out and dump vehicles and infantry into fairly deep water.
Maybe I am just too set in my ways from my experience in Gator Navy 50 years ago, but I have never liked the stern landing vessel concept for the reasons listed.
DeleteIn order to beach, you have to conform the shape of your bottom to the gradient of the beach. My old Newport class LST could go to the beach drawing as little as 3 or 4 feet forward. But to do that with a full load, it had to draw 19 feet aft, and very few beaches have that steep a gradient.
I don't see how the stern first mode can work without grounding out the props, which is the cardinal sin, unless the beach gradient is very steep, and few beaches have that kind of structure.
I think we have lost a lot of institutional knowledge over the. last 50 years, and maybe that examination of history is exactly what is needed. That, and a lot of boots on the ground actual training.
The fast transports, you know, the ones with no defined purpose, seem to be more suitable than a slow moving slug going between islands. The excuse that these ships can mingle with other ships to befuddle the Chinese neglects the one law that comes with governments of their type- they will just sink every ship that remotely could be transporting Marines. Better off using something built, modify as needed, and use the speed. The fact they basically want an LST after ditching tanks, and then want it armed, like they are the navy, is laughable. Point defense weapons not the worst thing to add, but for god's sake, USE WHAT'S ON THE SHELF JUST THIS ONCE!
ReplyDelete