tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post8568854841036001181..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: The Definition of Insanity?ComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74344471502464336242016-01-05T04:23:30.813-08:002016-01-05T04:23:30.813-08:00Couldn't agree more! Well said.Couldn't agree more! Well said.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90079423152014183842016-01-04T16:46:26.725-08:002016-01-04T16:46:26.725-08:00You can't do amphibious invasions over the bea...You can't do amphibious invasions over the beach anyways, certainly not after scrapping the LST's.<br />You have to directly seize a port where ships can dock at, unload asap, then leave.<br /><br />Otherwise the logistics of supporting a force is an impossible burden.<br /><br />The marines need to dump the air assault meme, convert to a fully mechanized force, and with their spare cash, buy commercial freighters capable of carrying the thousand LCU's that they would need.<br /><br />aka, an actual invasion, as opposed to some sort of helicopter raid.Blarghttp://blarg.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16984818680319072532016-01-04T15:40:51.159-08:002016-01-04T15:40:51.159-08:00"I won't get into the tactical aspects of..."I won't get into the tactical aspects of targeting only 3 HVTs~"<br /><br />leesea, I think this is an even more important aspect than loading considerations or task splitting. You're right to bring it up. Our WWII forefathers had it right to spread the risk among many dozens of ships. WWII commanders would have cringed at the thought of one third of the force in a single ship.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-13533552497367555492016-01-04T13:54:19.453-08:002016-01-04T13:54:19.453-08:00Trudy, I have driven many landign craft and loaded...Trudy, I have driven many landign craft and loaded even more. I completely agree with BSmitty that the LCU-F is a wizbang vessel.<br />And having already chartered heavy lift ships aka semi-submersibles aka Flo/Flo, the cost effective solution to adding landing craft spots to the ARG is to charter and/or convert an existing HLS which could lift MORE LCAC/SSC as well as other type landing craft than any 2 amphib warships combined.<br />BTW the USN is now looking just to update the 1660 class LCU, while the Army is going far beyond that by soliciting a MVS(L) lighter which is specifically meant to be lifted by amphib or HLS.<br />The USN IMHO has been behind the power curve on landing vessels for about 20 years now. Preferring to sink many millions into keeping the current LCAC in service FAR beyond their design life. AND buying the SSC nee LCAC-100 which only has a small payload improvement.leeseahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18420319144673744218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-91599210849493566382016-01-04T13:42:13.287-08:002016-01-04T13:42:13.287-08:00I could NOT figure out how to insert a reply where...I could NOT figure out how to insert a reply where I wanted so here goes several comments:<br />@BSmitty who said: "IMHO, the Marine "all singing, all dancing, everything but the kitchen sink" MAGTF concept needs to go on a diet." A SES I know who worked on amphib lift with Marines, said wisely: The Marines will ALWAYS ask for the most possible platform, and settle for what they get.<br />Having sailed in several ARGs that were larger in ship numbers, I HAVE to ask this question: Why only three ship to an ARG??? Seems to me trying to cram the larger tactical equipment cargo consist into ONLY 3 hulls complicates the problem, and by spreadloading the rqd lift over four hulls one not only reduces the ship size but also provides more fleixibility i.e. more hulls in more locations to do less than full blown assaults. I won't get into the tactical aspects of targeting only 3 HVTs~<br /><br />Note that the MPSRONs have been spreadloaded for about 15 years now.leeseahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18420319144673744218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42440899762341455242015-12-01T08:50:55.326-08:002015-12-01T08:50:55.326-08:00Dept.: "Great Minds Think Alike"
Here ...Dept.: "Great Minds Think Alike"<br /><br />Here more on this LXR topic from the current Dec.'15 PROCEEDINGS in the Comments and Discussion section: <br />http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-12/comment-discussion<br /><br />Is there momentum building towards a review of these Amphib- and Connector-Selection processes since they appear to be rather (self-) destructive in their outcomes ?<br />Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57362866113318542112015-11-26T08:40:18.106-08:002015-11-26T08:40:18.106-08:00... ah, the smell of fresh coconut-cookies in the ...... ah, the smell of fresh coconut-cookies in the house...<br />Being invited elsewhere has me have just the fun.<br />GAB, I have a few extra !<br /><br />Happy Thanksgiving to you, B.Smitty, and of course CNO.<br /><br />So, GAB, you think that Electric Boat lets us make off with some of that non-magnetic submarine-steel for a batch of LCU-F for MCM-duty ??...Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-48061067201271353162015-11-25T19:28:15.837-08:002015-11-25T19:28:15.837-08:00@Trudy
Happy Thanksgiving.
GAB
@Trudy<br /><br />Happy Thanksgiving.<br /><br />GAB<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47018391301704398212015-11-25T18:20:22.161-08:002015-11-25T18:20:22.161-08:00Not sure why you are conjuring these images.
I wil...Not sure why you are conjuring these images.<br />I will not argue with you how CSE moves its stuff.<br />We already touched on how containers can be made to roll.<br />If MTVRs fit, so will 8'6" high containers on axles for instance.<br /><br />It seems that you now have a third item to put on the list:<br />- Availability of clean intact non-dangerous port-facilities with adequate draft to bring in a 40-60,000tons MSC vessel.<br />No doubt desirable, however quite unlikely.<br /><br />Which leaves you with what - beyond arguing for or against what exactly ? <br /> Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-71431938586574620422015-11-25T18:05:51.836-08:002015-11-25T18:05:51.836-08:00@Trudy
Are you suggesting that you would risk an ...@Trudy<br /><br />Are you suggesting that you would risk an entire landing force by depending on container forklifts driving out into the surf zone to pick up 30-ton containers? Ignore getting stuck, tip-overs, etc; how long do you think the hydraulics will hold out in 24-7 operations dashing through saltwater? LSVRs or HEMTTS with PLS - maybe, but container forklifts …? Really? <br /><br />Seriously, the LCU-F *concept* has a beam of 22 feet and an overhead - it is just wide enough for an M-1 Abrams tank. Ergo a 20 foot ISO container will only fit in length-wise, which means a container forklift will be unable to grab the container, even if the cargo deck were open. I also believe that the proposed LCU has too low of an overhead for a 20' or 40' container to fit in.<br /><br />But why would you even consider this when AABFS could deliver up to 600 gallons of fuel a minute? <br /><br />LSD-41s do not have cranes that can offload of even a 5,000 TEU (PANAMAX) containership to pier due to a lack of lifting capacity, as well as, insufficient reach. You need a *pair* of tall, 110 or 120-ton pedestal deck cranes with a reach of ~35 meters (105 feet). LSD-41s have a low mounted 60-ton crane, and even smaller 20-ton crane that are not up to snuff (cranes are rated at max capacity, but this drops rapidly the farther out the crane has to reach). Intermodal containers have a gross weight of up to 30.4 metric tons. <br /><br />All of this demonstrates why precisely why MSC ships are required to support any ground force ashore – the fleet and FMF are not up to the job.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56318533211065744222015-11-25T14:15:40.104-08:002015-11-25T14:15:40.104-08:00Kindly I'll attest to the fact, that the LSD-4...Kindly I'll attest to the fact, that the LSD-41 types I've been on have both 20-tons and 60-tons cranes.<br /><br />The 20-tons unit is likely good enough for a 20-foot box, assuming nobody just robbed Fort Knox and hid it in a USN-Box. When in doubt use the big'n across on the other side of the ship.<br /><br />The well-deck gantry is good for 30-tons I was told by one of the guys knowing the specs, 'fit to lift AAV7s he claimed.<br /><br />But why crane-lift boxes at sea with wave-action and swells to get things going all over the place. Seems better to roll the box.<br /><br />I'd leave everything from hoses over pumps to wheeled tankers to the good folks in charge of the CSE. They see to it that their roster of gear is adequate.<br /><br />CSE, including the RTCH, is indeed part of the assault, right after all of GCE is ashore. You never mentioned how the RTCH is routinely tossing about those 20-foot ISO-boxes. RTCH/Rough Terrain Container Handler - a good-sized 14+' high Caterpillar articulated front-loader, just olive instead of Cat-Yellow. <br /><br />As to sea-state, that indeed dictates well-deck ops. Even with actively-balanced RoRo-ramps there is an upper limit rolling things from one ship to the other. But vehicles have suspensions to absorb odd movements, and things are dicier in the middle of the advancing GCE anyway.<br /><br />You seem to now have a second item to take care of:<br />- 1. state of MSC fleet, and <br />- 2. whatever you think is missing from the gator fleet.<br /><br />Sharing burdens is a good thing. I for one explore LCU-F... <br />Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47297216912686125232015-11-25T12:53:58.875-08:002015-11-25T12:53:58.875-08:00@Trudy: "Of course do Amphibs have the capaci...@Trudy: "Of course do Amphibs have the capacity to transfer ISO-20 containers under the motto - 'if it rolls we'll transfer and haul it to shore':"<br /><br />================================================<br /><br />Kindly point to the LPD, LSD or LHD that has a ship deck crane capable of picking up a 20' ISO container from another ship and transferring it. <br /><br />What about weather and its impact on well deck operations given Sea State 3+ occurs over 37% of the time during a Korean Summer, and 67% of the time during a Korean winter?<br /><br />I presume you are intending on using SIXCON FSMs to transfer fuel ship to shore, but I am curious about how you plan to drag them off LCACs or whatever, through a surf zone, and load them onto fuel trucks given they weigh about 4.5 tons wet? How many LVSRs or HEMTTS are you planning to bring? Just how fast you think that this can be done and how does that impact your plan?<br /><br />AABFS? OPDS? Nowhere to be found in the gator fleet…<br /> <br />GAB<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34479999598971113282015-11-25T12:09:59.121-08:002015-11-25T12:09:59.121-08:00Looking at a range of USMC-integrated plus other D...Looking at a range of USMC-integrated plus other DOD-spec COTS modular tank-farms, between LCU-F-correct bolt-in framing, bladders, plumbing and pumps, the total weight of these 'temporary' fuel-tanks is a matter of a few tons - and readily insertable into LCU-F's long and MBT+-wide cargo-bays (see the section in the article). <br /><br />Perfectly constrained by LCU-F's structure with endless mounting-points, plus those cat-walks left an right for access either side, these multiple smaller frame-&-bladder kits can be moved in, assembled and filled within hours. Under time-pressure, for all I'd care you'd finish plumbing and trials of the pumps., manifolds and hoses while you are on your way back towards the theater.<br /><br />As LCU-F (temporary) Combat-Tanker approaches inshore, helos can refuel. And assuming a reasonably quieter spot 24hrs later, she can be beached with multiple pumps and hoses filling wheeled tankers always hoping hat things are indeed calm enough for that to be possible - an issue at every FARP location. <br /><br />If the prospect to haul 200-tons of fuel is of interest to the MEU-Commander, the there are a range of mil-spec COTS solutions to convert one or more LCU-F into a temporary tanker. Those kits will have to address hard-points and chafe in LCU-F's internal parameters. <br /><br />Correct me on this one but 55,000gals may translate into approximately 100' x 12' x 6' footprint of framed bladders.<br />CSE-folks would make as short work of setting up that 'tank-farm' inside LCU-F as they'd do it in the field. Motivation should be high. Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11154240846308234232015-11-25T11:54:14.844-08:002015-11-25T11:54:14.844-08:00GAB,
while I am intrigued by opportunities offere...GAB, <br />while I am intrigued by opportunities offered by LCU-F, you prefer the sceptic posture with due references to various source that seem to give you pause. <br /> Familiar with not all but a fair number of the sources you quote, I'll just paraphrase what I've stated already elsewhere here: <br />- These studies all depend upon studying, evaluating and contextualizing known hardware, respective operational specifics and of course fiscal constraints if not also arbitrary doctrinal constraints.<br />- They can not remain a solid guide in all respects if certain long-standing technological constraints may no longer hold true - such as the opportunities that come with long-range high-speed heavy-lift Connectors organic to the ARG/MEU.<br /><br />Could you elaborate on why 2,400 tons is not even a start to a logistical solution towards sustaining advancing Marines ashore ? One of these studies stated less than that for an MEF of what 17,000+ troops ? <br /><br />As to other Connectors, none of these can be carried organic to the ARG flotilla in the numbers and the payload-capacity of LCU-F. Feel free to correct this observation.<br /><br />Of course do Amphibs have the capacity to transfer ISO-20 containers under the motto - 'if it rolls we'll transfer and haul it to shore':<br />- 'In anger' MTVR/8x8/10x10 serve that purpose.<br />- In somewhat calmer circumstances can ISO-20 boxes accept attachment of off-road-capable axles front and back for towing behind whatever tractor. LCU-F could thus have at least 4 such - 3 inside and one on her afterdeck to be towed one-by-one out of her once at the somewhat calmer beach.<br /><br />As outlined to B.Smitty elsewhere, as intended with the design of the MEU you'd invade suddenly from well offshore, start with that comparatively limited 'tip of the spear', to then scale things up as necessary, all the way to the 'near' endless supply of supplies via MSC and other transports. <br /><br />Perhaps your concerns about "shameful" state of MSC forces could be addressed once LCU-F and long-well-deck Amphibs would for the first time in generations make such an exceedingly dangerous enterprise as a MEU landing on someone else's territory reasonably planable, war-game-able.<br /><br />Once the ARG/MEU is significantly 'enabled', the next step should be addressing your concerns in order to feed that Connector-based conveyor/pipeline of troops, materiel and consumables to the shore - until a suitable harbor can be secured free of mortars, snipers, IEDs, etc. Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28751471417210276392015-11-25T10:32:44.370-08:002015-11-25T10:32:44.370-08:00@Trudy
1. It would help to what I said, and not c...@Trudy<br /><br />1. It would help to what I said, and not construe things that I did not say - where did I mention anything remotely connected to your family? I do not know you and you do not know me – lets be civil.<br /><br />2. I am not seeing an appreciation for logistical requirements in your argument - 2,400 tons a day is *not a solution* - in fact it isn’t even the start of a solution.<br /><br />3. "Landing craft", even large capacity landing craft like the LCAC, are insufficient to support the logistical demands of high intensity operations ashore. Optimizing the gator fleet to carry masses of landing craft of any type likely runs counter to the desired point to point delivery (ship to soldier or marine).<br /><br />4. You are quite strident about LCU-F and either unaware of, or have ignored other high speed landing craft solutions that are operational in fleets around the world, or have at least delivered prototypes (e.g. LCU-1U, PASCAT, L-CAT, UHAC, etc.). I have no financial or personal interest in any of them, but I am always wary that others may be. In the end, none of these are assault craft, nor do they solve the rather significant logistics challenges that face a modern amphibious operation.<br /><br />5. There is no “endless supply of ships” and no amphibious ship in the inventory has the capability to for transferring ISO containers from ship-to-ship and then ship-to-shore or bulk fuel from ship-to-shore. This is a long standing issue called out by logisticians, the National Academies of Sciences, and others. Ergo, the Marines and Navy can do nothing without massive augmentation from the MSC strategic sealift forces, which is shameful compared to the ARGs of the 1980s. <br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2509269600104971022015-11-25T10:29:40.407-08:002015-11-25T10:29:40.407-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-45231677928057835462015-11-25T07:28:43.898-08:002015-11-25T07:28:43.898-08:00What is wrong with this:
- OTH-200 means well off-...What is wrong with this:<br />- OTH-200 means well off-shore out of reach of most shore-based sensors short of fixed wing planes and satellites. And yes local fishing-craft trading-vessel will near comm.-gear jammed/fried.<br /><br />- OTH-200 with 4-Vessel ARG/MEU allows about a full FIRST WAVE of about all GCE in one concurrent movement suddenly in one dark-cycle. GCE and most ACE choreograph how and where they arrive to best effect with the MEU's limited punch.<br />- At flank-speed Sealift RoRos approach the theater.<br />- CSE gets pumped ashore in the next dark-cvcle.<br />- With ARG staying well offshore, RoRos arrive to then begin to feed their rolling/tracked payload on to LCU-Fs directly, or on to dry well-decks of Amphibs and then from dry well-deck on to LCU-Fs.<br />Up to 200-tons at a time. With the ARG and RoRos well protected by sheer distance.<br />- DDG will have joined by now for enhanced air-defense etc,<br />- Other Amphibs or just transports arrive with more GCE and troops.<br />- LCU-F keeps pumping gear and people.<br />Etc. Etc. <br /><br /><br />If you need more punch bring two ARG/MEUs and instead of up to 17 landing-locations, really mess with the adversary with 34 - topography and OMFTS-vector depending.<br /><br />If you need more yet, choreograph arrival of CSG etc. and really unleash superbly-supported uninterrupted heavy-weight ground-forces with air-support, IFS and full logistics.<br /><br />All tis with a plain-vanilla LSD-41-based long well-deck based Amphib-force supported by C2, ACE-assets and hospital etc aboard LPD-17 and LHD.<br /><br />Coming in <br />- suddenly <br />- with pretty much just a lean bow-wave showing, <br />- no IR-plumes <br />- or mad noise-signatures, <br />- never mind clouds of pretty foam<br />without predictable vectors per se - except of course likely landing-zones -.<br /><br />And if LCU-F show up with IFS suites to 'shape the theater' first not much surprise but possibly a chance for an iron rake clearing the landing region...<br />Etc. etc.<br /><br />I sure am convinced !<br /><br />What's wrong with this simple geometry of force-structure, -capability and -execution, plus on-demand -multiplication ? Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-53074201084648400352015-11-25T07:03:22.728-08:002015-11-25T07:03:22.728-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24057637008782384152015-11-25T06:40:59.121-08:002015-11-25T06:40:59.121-08:00On LAVs few would argue that you'd want to tak...On LAVs few would argue that you'd want to take on anyone with just an APC. You need MBTS plus arti etc.<br /><br />And are you planning a First Wave with 200 LAV ?<br />I don't mind exploring options, but...Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20854122591058729502015-11-25T06:33:51.831-08:002015-11-25T06:33:51.831-08:00Compared to LCU-1610, LCU-F has a pinch more deck-...Compared to LCU-1610, LCU-F has a pinch more deck-space, however with 3/4 of that hidden under cover, thus not offering any drone a full invitation on which Connector to focus precision-defenses.<br /><br />And LCU-F is the fastest heavy-lift and most stealthy of any Connectors under discussion anywhere.<br /><br />Stealth matter when it comes to Connectors:<br />- LCAC and SSC have none between impressive visuals and sound-pressure (bleeding ears anyone).<br />- LCU-F can exhaust under-water, can run 'super-critical mufflers for her Diesels and offers an air-draft of 11-12 feet on 22' lean beam following hungry lean bow. <br /> <br />Hard to see, full of (invisible) nasties and with self-defenses.<br />I won't argue with that. Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10207589586052585622015-11-25T06:25:18.797-08:002015-11-25T06:25:18.797-08:00Why do you feel safe to put any sizable vessel &qu...Why do you feel safe to put any sizable vessel "a few miles from shore" ?<br /><br />About the "favorite solution" on Connectors,<br />from OTH-100 on out<br />- LCAC is near impossible delivering MBTs essentially running on fumes in a 200+nm round-trip;<br />- Almost so as well, give or take a dozen miles extra range likely for SSC = LCACv.2.0 <br />- LCU-1610 is too slow and does not maximize on 30' beam the limited real-estate in a 50'-wide well-deck = squats and blocks more efficient usage.<br />- L-CAT is fragile, with lots of well-deck foot-print for her carry-capacity of just 1 MBT. <br /><br />And B.Smitty - I really like your hair today (oops you forgot one curler...) - except for old-tymey and slow LCU none of LCAC/SSC/L-CAT are frontline-rated. And that is before we talk about their spectacular fuel-burn per MBT-hauled.<br /><br />Fuel-supply matters once it is primarily LHD that carries big fuel-tanks. Using LCAC's 16,000+ HP to carry one MBT to shore - if you get there and no one shoots at you in a First Wave... - will quickly reduce available juice. Run the numbers on how quickly LHD will be 'on fumes' once all sorts of go-fast turbine visions are calculated through.<br /><br />Which brings us back to the basic hard realities of long well-deck and OTH-200 200-tons Connectors that can deliver in one dark-cycle.<br /><br />LCS is being built.<br /><br />And no need to plan a Bachelor's Thesis even, since the basic homework has been done already elsewhere. <br /> Except now we'd want to revise many of these studies under the available reality of a 4-ship ARG and 14 LCU-Fs. <br /><br />Suddenly a lot of both numbers but also tactics will start changing/cascading towards significantly different conclusions. <br /><br />Taddahh - A Shift in Paradigm' ! <br />Actually yes.<br />Numbers can be so charming... <br /><br />Why blue curlers ? Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49249736835375447032015-11-25T06:10:24.903-08:002015-11-25T06:10:24.903-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-88707567105772385222015-11-25T06:08:20.931-08:002015-11-25T06:08:20.931-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10324232778728321942015-11-25T05:54:04.407-08:002015-11-25T05:54:04.407-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58700652341611548222015-11-25T04:59:44.728-08:002015-11-25T04:59:44.728-08:00GAB said "the fastest way to put armor ashore...GAB said "the fastest way to put armor ashore is for it to swim there itself. However AAVs and ACVs can't swim all the way from OTH. So they need a ride closer to shore."<br /><br />Clearly neither MBTs nor many of the CSE assets can swim....<br />And why 6kts 'swimming' APCs are faster than 19kts Connectors needs explaining as well. <br /><br />Why degrading Marines combat-effectiveness by forcing them to wallow to shore for 1-2+ hours in an APC turning 'green', all to avoid Connectors your scheme ends up needing anyway ??!!<br /><br />Starting this discussion with Amphib-replacement and linking Connectors to the theme remained within the parameters of givens.<br /><br />You however want to now <br />- add not just new Connectors (which ones would you prefer ?) <br />- but also another vessel-type <br />- that can neither be carried by Amphibs ,<br />- nor can it beach, thus can not deliver much of the MEU at all, <br />- while making a fine sizable target 6-12nm from shore ?!<br /><br />Will be part of the ARG ?<br />Will it run alongside at 22kts+ empty or with APCs loaded ?<br /><br />Once you need OTH-200 capable Connectors you don't need FHPs...not that one could afford such a not-even-single-purpose vessel. <br /><br />We could indulge ourselves in endless alternate perspectives with all sorts of extra types and endless budgets.<br /><br />But once fiscal realities matter, and we've known for decades (really!) that new OTH-200 Connectors have to be developed that maximize well-deck infrastructure and that can support the logistics-needs of the MEU through MEF etc. then why not just focus on well-deck capacity and OTH-200-correct Connectors ?<br /><br />And while you emphasized logistics earlier, now you seem to drop the matter and ignore it in favor of new visions of new vessel-types...<br />Murky, or should I say muddled ?<br /> Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.com