Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), light carriers CVL als basis ipv LHD

Gestart door Harald, 13/02/2017 | 14:49 uur

Harald

New Small Aircraft Carrier Unlikely, Admiral Says As US Navy Begins New Assessment

Air warfare chief: "I believe the L-class ships operating with the F-35B fit that bill."

The U.S. Navy likely has no need to add a proposed small-deck aircraft carrier to its existing amphibious assault ships, a top admiral said Tuesday ahead of a formal review of the concept.

"I believe the L-class ships operating with the F-35B fit that bill," Rear Adm. Gregory Harris, who leads his service's air warfare division at the Pentagon, said during a virtual Navy League event Tuesday. "Others would disagree and that's OK. I think the beautiful part of any study is that it'll take the most current data."

L-class ships include the Wasp- and America-class amphibious assault ships (LHDs and LHAs).

Trump administration officials had championed the idea of smaller, non-nuclear powered carriers as a cheaper, agile and more lethal way to project power in different parts of the world. In October, then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced a naval roadmap that raised the question of buying smaller light carriers as a way to further distribute forces.

And in December, the Navy's most recent 30-year shipbuilding plan said that "capability concepts like the light aircraft carrier (CVL) need to be further refined to fully illuminate their potential to execute key mission elements in a more distributed manner, and to inform the best mix" of future nuclear-powered and light carriers.

The Navy is preparing to launch a formal review — called an analysis of alternatives — that will look at options for a light aircraft carrier and the type of ship that replaced the Ford-class, the never class of supercarriers.

"We did just finish a Ford study — an extensive one — that looked at over 70 hull forms before it settled on Ford," Harris said. "And I would say that the majority of that study is still very valid. Some of the mission sets may have changed slightly."

The study, which is expected to begin next year, will look at anticipated threats at the time the new ships enter the fleet.

"It'll be good for us to do that," Harris said. "But I'm confident that over the long run, we'll find that there's not a compelling return on investment to make a smaller carrier just as a result of the speed, station keeping, the air wing that you would put on top of that carrier, and the ability to have the fuel for the air wing and for the carrier and perhaps the surface combatants that are moving forward with that aircraft carrier."

https://www.defenseone.com/business/2021/03/new-small-aircraft-carrier-unlikely-admiral-says-us-navy-begins-new-assessment/173024/

Harald

USMC General Tracy King Comments on the US Navy's New Light Amphibious Warship

The U.S. Navy's new and upcoming Light Amphibious Warships (LAW) will be the "new strategy and tactic" to countering the Chinese Anti-Access/Area Denial island chains around the South China Sea.

The USMC General offered his insights and opinions during SNA 2021

LAWs will patrol the U.S. Navy's Indo-Pacific Command (INDO-PACOM) area with a platoon of 75 U.S. Marines, an optional helicopter deck, and their associated (armored) vehicles (JLTVs, HMMWVs, ACVs, LAVs, M-ATVs, MRZRs, LVSRs, MTVRs, HIMARS, etc.) that can drive directly onto the beach once the LAW lands on the shoreline.

According to the Congressional Research Service's (CRS) report, the Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) has the following characteristics:
•"a length of 200 feet to 400 feet;
•a maximum draft of 12 feet;
•a displacement of up to 4,000 tons;
•A ship's crew of no more than 40 Navy sailors;
•an ability to embark at least 75 Marines;
•4,000 to 8,000 square feet of cargo area for the Marines' weapons, equipment, and supplies;
•a stern or bow landing ramp for moving the Marines and their weapons, equipment, and supplies from the ship to shore (and vice versa) across a beach;
•a modest suite of C4I equipment;
•a 25mm or 30mm gun system and .50 caliber machine guns for self-defense;
•a transit speed of at least 14 knots, and preferably 15 knots;
•a minimum unrefueled transit range of 3,500 nautical miles;
•a "Tier 2+" plus level of survivability (i.e., ruggedness for withstanding battle damage)—a level, broadly comparable to that of a smaller U.S. Navy surface combatant (i.e., a corvette or frigate), that would permit the ship to absorb a hit from an enemy weapon and keep the crew safe until they and their equipment and supplies can be transferred to another LAW;
•an ability to operate within fleet groups or deploy independently; and

a 20-year expected service life."

According to the CRS report, the 28-30 LAWs that the U.S Navy wants will cost around $100 to $150 million each.  One or multiple shipyards can build LAWs with the first 10 LAWs procured in FY2022-FY2026 at an estimated price of $150 million each.

.../...

Riding "LAW Shotgun" with LPD-17s and not the Expeditionary Sea Bases (ESB)

the LPD-17 serving as a "shotgun" to the LAWs, sheep-dogging them and communicating and controlling their missions. The LPD-17s are tasked with receiving a form of Anti-ship missiles in the future to improve their long-range protective firepower.

.../..

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/03/usmc-general-tracy-king-comments-on-the-us-navys-new-light-amphibious-warship/

Sparkplug

A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.

-- Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.

Umbert

Citaat van: Harald op 12/01/2021 | 08:11 uur
USMC bringing containerized anti-ship missiles to San Antonio-class

The director of expeditionary warfare in the Office of the Chief of U.S. Naval Operations has disclosed a plan to bring a containerized anti-ship missile system to the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock.

Maj. Gen. Tracy W. King said one system will be deployed to a ship within 12 months to let the Navy and Marines "play around with it" before deciding how to field it.

He added that the RGM-184 Naval Strike Missile (NSM) is a leading contender.

http://alert5.com/2021/01/12/usmc-bringing-containerized-anti-ship-missiles-to-san-antonio-class/#more-86312


Navy Envisions Containerized Weapon System to Arm Amphibious Ships

The U.S. Marine Corps general in charge of the U.S. Navy's expeditionary warfare directorate said the Navy is looking at options to increase the lethality of its amphibious warfare ships with a containerized weapon system. A demonstration of this capability may occur after a year of development.

Speaking to reporters on Jan. 8, MGen Tracy W. King, director of expeditionary warfare in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, did not specify which types of missile could or would arm an amphibious warfare [L-class] ship, but a leading candidate is the RGM-184 Naval Strike Missile (NSM) — built by a Raytheon-Kongsberg partnership, being installed on littoral combat ships and the Constellation-class guided-missile frigate.

"We have these magnificent 600-foot-long, highly survivable, highly LPD 17s," King said. "The LPDs need the ability to reach out and defend themselves and sink another ship. It's not from the aspect of using them as a strike platform; it will drastically increase their survivability if the enemy has to honor that threat. My intent is to ensure that my desire to increase lethality of LPDs doesn't interfere with [Director of Surface Warfare Rear Adm. Paul] Schlise's efforts to increase lethality on LCSs. 

"We're working with Raytheon and other partners to see if they can increase production to get it [the Naval Strike Missile] out there. I suspect what you will see in the next year that we will probably test-fire a system off of an L-class ship and let the fleet play around with it, build up the doctrine on how we will use it and to confirm or deny whether it is worth the expense, which we think it is. We need the operators to confirm that."

King said that Vice Adm. James W. Kilby, deputy chief of naval operations for warfighting requirements and capabilities, has him conducting a formal analysis and running some excursions on what the war games would tell us about lethality, and survivability and would the enemy actually honor it. He would than show empirical data to the fleet commanders.

"It's a legitimate concern [about] putting these very rare systems on an L-class ship instead of another kind of warship," King said. "We're going to do it cautiously. My prediction is that we will have one within the next 12 months. We will let the fleet play around with it probably a year or so and then decide how we're going to field it."

King said a likely solution is a containerized weapon system that the Marine Corps will be using.

"When we jump on aboard a ship, that [weapon system] becomes available to the ship's captain," he said. "So maybe we don't need to install launchers and NSMs. Maybe the Marine Corps EABO [Expeditionary Advance Base Operations] forces serve as the main battery when we are moving out. To me that just makes sense. We give the latitude and flexibility to the ship's captain to use those assets when he needs to."

King acknowledged the concern of some in the Marine Corps that the missiles could be expended in combat at sea before the Marines reach their destination.

"I am a little bit dismissive of that complaint because the ship's got to get there first," he said. "So, I think you're going to see us deploying containerized weapon systems that we can use wherever we want to use them."

https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-envisions-containerized-weapon-system-to-arm-amphibious-ships/

Iets voor ons? ook voor de OPV's?

Harald

USMC bringing containerized anti-ship missiles to San Antonio-class

The director of expeditionary warfare in the Office of the Chief of U.S. Naval Operations has disclosed a plan to bring a containerized anti-ship missile system to the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock.

Maj. Gen. Tracy W. King said one system will be deployed to a ship within 12 months to let the Navy and Marines "play around with it" before deciding how to field it.

He added that the RGM-184 Naval Strike Missile (NSM) is a leading contender.

http://alert5.com/2021/01/12/usmc-bringing-containerized-anti-ship-missiles-to-san-antonio-class/#more-86312


Navy Envisions Containerized Weapon System to Arm Amphibious Ships

The U.S. Marine Corps general in charge of the U.S. Navy's expeditionary warfare directorate said the Navy is looking at options to increase the lethality of its amphibious warfare ships with a containerized weapon system. A demonstration of this capability may occur after a year of development.

Speaking to reporters on Jan. 8, MGen Tracy W. King, director of expeditionary warfare in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, did not specify which types of missile could or would arm an amphibious warfare [L-class] ship, but a leading candidate is the RGM-184 Naval Strike Missile (NSM) — built by a Raytheon-Kongsberg partnership, being installed on littoral combat ships and the Constellation-class guided-missile frigate.

"We have these magnificent 600-foot-long, highly survivable, highly LPD 17s," King said. "The LPDs need the ability to reach out and defend themselves and sink another ship. It's not from the aspect of using them as a strike platform; it will drastically increase their survivability if the enemy has to honor that threat. My intent is to ensure that my desire to increase lethality of LPDs doesn't interfere with [Director of Surface Warfare Rear Adm. Paul] Schlise's efforts to increase lethality on LCSs. 

"We're working with Raytheon and other partners to see if they can increase production to get it [the Naval Strike Missile] out there. I suspect what you will see in the next year that we will probably test-fire a system off of an L-class ship and let the fleet play around with it, build up the doctrine on how we will use it and to confirm or deny whether it is worth the expense, which we think it is. We need the operators to confirm that."

King said that Vice Adm. James W. Kilby, deputy chief of naval operations for warfighting requirements and capabilities, has him conducting a formal analysis and running some excursions on what the war games would tell us about lethality, and survivability and would the enemy actually honor it. He would than show empirical data to the fleet commanders.

"It's a legitimate concern [about] putting these very rare systems on an L-class ship instead of another kind of warship," King said. "We're going to do it cautiously. My prediction is that we will have one within the next 12 months. We will let the fleet play around with it probably a year or so and then decide how we're going to field it."

King said a likely solution is a containerized weapon system that the Marine Corps will be using.

"When we jump on aboard a ship, that [weapon system] becomes available to the ship's captain," he said. "So maybe we don't need to install launchers and NSMs. Maybe the Marine Corps EABO [Expeditionary Advance Base Operations] forces serve as the main battery when we are moving out. To me that just makes sense. We give the latitude and flexibility to the ship's captain to use those assets when he needs to."

King acknowledged the concern of some in the Marine Corps that the missiles could be expended in combat at sea before the Marines reach their destination.

"I am a little bit dismissive of that complaint because the ship's got to get there first," he said. "So, I think you're going to see us deploying containerized weapon systems that we can use wherever we want to use them."

https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-envisions-containerized-weapon-system-to-arm-amphibious-ships/

Harald

US Navy USS America Amphibious Assault Ship conducts air defense operations with Japanese F-35A

According to information published by the U.S. Navy on October 23, 2020, the first-in-class amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6) from the U.S. Navy participated in advanced combined operations with Japan this week in the western Pacific Ocean. She conducted integrated air defense operations on October 20, 2020, with F-35A Lightning II aircraft from the Japan Air Defense Command.

The advanced training operations were designed to increase the tactical proficiency, lethality and interoperability of the amphibious forces of the America Expeditionary Strike Group and the Japan Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) in the maritime domain.

U.S. Navy USS America and the Japan Self Defense Forces operate routinely together in the Indo-Pacific to strengthen a shared commitment to regional stability and a free and open Indo-Pacific.

On Dec. 20, 2011, Japan originally selected the F-35A to replace Japan's aging F-4 aircraft. Japan's latest decision to further extend the requirement by another 105 F-35s to replace 100+ pre-MSIP F-15Js reflects Japan's confidence in the aircraft's transformational 5th Generation capabilities and further promotes Japan's increasing role in promoting regional stability and enhancing the US-Japan security alliance. In addition to the 42 F-35As already authorized, Japan also approved for the first time, acquisition of a STOVL version. Expected mix of the additional 105 aircraft will be 63 F-35As and 42 STOVL jets to be produced and delivered in the future.

In May 2012, the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress April 30 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Japan for a possible sale of an initial four F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft with an option to purchase an additional 38 F-35 CTOL aircraft.

On December 18, 2018, Japan's National Security Council and Cabinet authorized acquisition for 105 additional F-35s beyond the already approved 42 F-35s in the Japan Program. Total procurement was established at 147 F-35 aircraft which will make Japan the largest international customer on the F-35 Program.

In July 2020, the U.S. State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Japan of one hundred five (105) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and related equipment for an estimated cost of $23.11 billion. The Government of Japan has requested to buy sixty-three (63) F-35A Conventional Take­Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft, forty-two (42) F-35B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft, and one hundred ten (110) Pratt and Whitney F135 engines (includes 5 spares). The JMSDF is proceeding with plans to modify its two Izumo-class helicopter carriers to enable them to operate F-35B aircraft. These 'multifunctional destroyers', as they are termed by the JMSDF, will allow considerable power projection capabilities.

In March 2019, Japan has announced that the first F-35A squadron was operational with the 302 Squadron of Japan Air Self Defense Forces (JASDF). According to the military balance 2020, currently, the JASDF has a total of 12 F-35A Lightning II in service.

The USS America is an amphibious assault ship of the United States Navy and the lead ship of her class. The class is designed to put ashore a Marine Expeditionary Unit using helicopters and MV-22B Osprey V/STOL transport aircraft, supported by AV-8B Harrier II or F-35 Lightning II V/STOL aircraft and various attack helicopters.

The USS America can be used as a small aircraft carrier with a squadron of jet fighters plus several multipurpose helicopters, such as the MH-60 Seahawk. It can carry about 20 to 25 AV-8B, F-35Bs. She has a hangar large enough to accommodate aircraft movement. The ship also has increased aviation fuel capacity, and storage for aviation parts and support equipment.

The USS America is armed with two rolling airframe missile launchers and two evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM) launchers. She is also armed with seven dual .50 caliber machine guns and two Phalanx CIWS (Close-In Weapon System).

The USS America is powered by two gas turbines, two shafts, with 70,000 bhp (52,000 kW) total and two 5,000 hp (3,700 kW) auxiliary propulsion engines. She can reach a top speed of 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph). She has a crew of 65 officers, 994 sailors and can accommodate 1,687 Marines.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2020/october/9203-us-navy-uss-america-amphibious-assault-ship-conducts-air-defense-operations-with-japanese-f-35a.html

Harald

SECDEF Esper Calls for 500-Ship Fleet by 2045, With 3 SSNs a Year and Light Carriers Supplementing CVNs
( LHD's als Light Carriers )

.../...

Esper stated that nuclear-powered aircraft carriers would remain the most visible deterrence on the seas, but he said a new future air wing would have to be developed to increase their range and lethality, and that light carriers would have to supplement the Nimitz- and Ford-class supercarriers to help achieve greater day-to-day presence while preserving limited CVN readiness, which has been strained recently by overuse and backups at maintenance yards. Up to six light carriers, possibly based on the America-class amphibious assault ship design, would operate both instead of and alongside the CVNs.

"While we anticipate that additional study will be required to assess the proper high/low mix of carriers, eight to 11 nuclear-powered carriers will be necessary to execute a high-end conflict and maintain our global presence, with up to six light carriers joining them," Esper said in his remarks.

../...

https://news.usni.org/2020/10/06/secdef-esper-calls-for-500-ship-fleet-by-2045-with-3-ssns-a-year-and-light-carriers-supplementing-cvns?utm_source=USNI+News&utm_campaign=007eb9f708-USNI_NEWS_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0dd4a1450b-007eb9f708-233901069&ct=t(USNI_NEWS_DAILY)&mc_cid=007eb9f708&mc_eid=7a401a782b

Harald

No Shipbuilding Plan, But Navy Works On New Ships To Counter China    ( alwel een ouder artikel (mei 2020) maar wel interessant )

The Navy and Marine Corps' vision of a future surface fleet is starting to come together, even if they're still waiting for the Defense Secretary and Congress to give their blessings.

The Navy might not yet have an overarching plan to design and build its fleet of the future, but it is taking small steps that provide clues as to where service leadership wants to go.

Over the past week, the Navy announced two industry days to meet with prospective shipbuilders for a new class of logistics ship that can operate under fire, and an unmanned anti-mine vessel, both new programs that would allow the Navy and Marine Corps to push deeper into contested territory in the Pacific, and keep troops and sailors resupplied once they get there.

The Next Generation Medium Logistics Ship is the bigger effort, representing an entirely new class of manned ship designed to operate in a crowded environment while supplying ships at sea and a new, lighter, Marine force on the ground that is currently being designed by Commandant Gen. David Berger.

A May 15 post on a government contracting website asked the defense industry for their ideas, explaining  that the Navy is looking for ships that are "smaller than existing ships in the Combat Logistics Force, and will operate near contested environments, sustaining afloat (Surface Action Group) and ashore (Expeditionary Advanced Base) requirements."

The expeditionary advanced base idea is part of a wide-ranging overhaul of the Marine Corps to get lighter, faster, and more deadly by employing precision weapons the Corps hopes to integrate into its formations in the coming years.

Berger is working to stand up several Marine Littoral Regiments, with the first based in Hawaii and falling under the Japan-based III Marine Expeditionary Force. The first three regiments, designed to move fast and have anti-air and possibly anti-ship weapons, will be based in the Pacific region, pointing to where Berger and the Marines see the pacing threat coming from in the future.

Relying on smaller units armed with precision weapons that can operate inside the weapons range of an enemy, moving in tight waterways and using small islands to provide cover for naval air air forces is key to the emerging Marine Corps vision, which has its eye cast squarely on the South China Sea.

More broadly, Berger plans to lop off a significant portion of the Corps' traditional strength — artillery, armor, and rotary wing lift — in favor of a leaner, more precise and much faster force. The Navy, conversely, while pledging to move forward with some unmanned ship plans, generally wants to retain its huge nuclear aircraft carriers, dozens of big deck amphibs, and an aging destroyer fleet while introducing a new frigate to the mix.

Not all  those ships would be able to move as far afield as the new Marine regiments, making support and resupply an issue, though a new class of frigates, which the Navy selected earlier this month, could possibly fit the bill. The small, multi-mission ships will be more maneuverable than Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and will come with the Aegis combat system, 32 vertical launch cells, the new SPY-6 radar system, and more power generation capabilities that will make it capable of sustaining new directed-energy weapons as they become available.

"I see it doing multiple things, this is going to be a real workhorse supporting distributed maritime operations in the future,"  Vice Adm. James Kilby, deputy chief for warfighting requirements and capabilities, recently said.

To supply those Marines ashore, the Navy believes there are several types of commercial vessels which may be able to perform these missions, but is also considering" conversion of existing vessels, new construction, or a combination of conversions and new construction in order to acquire the required number of Next Generation Logistics Ships," the solicitation said.   

On May 13, the Navy also announced a virtual industry day for the Mine Countermeasures Unmanned Surface Vehicle program, one of several unmanned efforts the service is planning to bolster the larger, manned fleet. "The purpose of this industry day is to improve industry's understanding of how the MCM USV program fits into the Navy's plans to expand the use of unmanned vehicles," according to the notice, which adds the MCM "will be a ship-launched or shore-launched, open architecture (OA), surface vehicle capable of autonomous safe navigation and mission execution."

The plans for both programs — and the frigate, as well — depend on what a study being helmed by Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist finds in his look at the Navy's Integrated Navy Force Structure Assessment, which the Pentagon blocked the Navy from releasing in February, as planned.

After being briefed on the plan for building a 355-ship fleet over the next decade, Defense Secretary Mark Esper told the Navy he was taking over the project, and putting Norquist in the lead of relooking the plan. It's not clear what issues Esper had with the plan, but some officials and experts have speculated that the Navy isn't moving fast enough to divest of older, larger ships in favor of smaller, faster and unmanned vessels.

Esper has said he expects the study to be complete by July (2020).

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/no-shipbuilding-plan-but-navy-works-on-new-ships-to-counter-china/

Harald

The Pentagon is eyeing a 500-ship Navy, documents reveal

The Pentagon's upcoming recommendation for a future Navy is expected to call for a significant increase in the number of ships, with officials discussing a fleet as large as 530 hulls, according to documents obtained by Defense News.

Supporting documents to the forthcoming Future Navy Force Study reviewed by Defense News show the Navy moving towards a lighter force with many more ships but fewer aircraft carriers and large surface combatants. Instead, the fleet would include more small surface combatants, unmanned ships and submarines and an expanded logistics force.

Two groups commissioned by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to design what a future Navy should look like suggested fleets of anywhere from 480 to 534 ships, when manned and unmanned platforms are accounted for — at least a 35 percent increase in fleet size from the current target of 355 manned ships by 2030.

..../....

Fewer carriers, more logistics

The fleets designed by the CAPE and Hudson teams agreed on the need to increase the number and diversity of ships while boosting vertical launch system capacity — while also holding the operations and sustainment cost of the fleet as steady as possible and avoid adding to the number of sailors required to operate it.

As of the April drafts, both the CAPE and Hudson Institute teams were supportive of shrinking the number of supercarriers to nine from the current 11, which would effectively give the country eight active carriers, with one carrier always in midlife overhaul and refueling. The Hudson study also called for investing in four light carriers.

The CAPE fleet called for between 80 and 90 large surface combatants, about the same level as today's 89 cruisers and destroyers. Hudson looked to reduce the number slightly and instead fund more lightly manned corvettes, something Hudson has called for in the past.

The reports called for between 65 and 87 large unmanned surface vessels or optionally unmanned corvettes, which the Navy hopes will boost vertical launch system capacity to offset the loss over time of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and the four guided missile submarines.

Both fleets called for increased small surface combatants, with the CAPE study putting the upper limit at 70 ships. Hudson recommended a maximum of 56. The Navy's 2016 Force Structure Assessment called for 52 small surface combatants.

Both fleets also favored a slight increase in attack submarines over the current 66-ship requirement but reflected a big boost in large unmanned submarines, anywhere between 40 and 60 total. The idea would be to get the Extra Large Unmanned Underwater Vehicle to do monotonous surveillance missions or highly dangerous missions, freeing up the more complex manned platforms for other tasking.

On the amphibious side, both fleets reduced the overall number of traditional dock landing ships, such as the LPD-17, from the current 23 to between 15 and 19. As for the big-deck amphibious ships, CAPE favored holding at the current level of 10, while Hudson favored cutting to five, with the savings reinvested towards four light carriers.

The studies called for between 20 and 26 of the Marines' light amphibious warships, which they need for ferrying Marines and gear around islands in the Pacific.

Both fleets significantly expanded the logistics force, with big increases coming from smaller ships similar to offshore or oil platform support-type vessels. The fleets called for anywhere from 19 to 30 "future small logistics" ships. The CAPE and Hudon fleets increased the number of fleet oilers anywhere from 21 to 31, up from today's 17.

The Marines and Navy have talked about the need to rethink logistics for a more distributed fight in the Pacific.

..../....

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/09/24/the-pentagon-is-eyeing-a-500-ship-navy-documents-reveal/

ARM-WAP

Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 23/09/2020 | 15:53 uur
Volgens mij moet dit toch ook goedkoop te maken zijn ? ...maar zo'n platbodem van 60m ...vol met voertuigen ..en dan een beetje
een wilde zee ...dat wil je niet lijkt mij.
De Duitsers waren van plan met een armada bestaanden uit geconverteerde aken hun "Unternehmen Seeloewe" uit te voeren (inval in de UK...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#Landing_craft

Gelukkig is het nooit zover gekomen want ik kan me niet voorstellen dat die vaartuigen heelhuids het Kanaal zouden overgestoken hebben en dan quasi zonder weerstand hun lading zouden lossen.

Oorlogsvis

Citaat van: Ace1 op 23/09/2020 | 13:58 uur
Je kan dit vaartuig een beetje vergelijken met  een LST  (Landing Ship Tank).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Ship,_Tank
Volgens mij moet dit toch ook goedkoop te maken zijn ? ...maar zo'n platbodem van 60m ...vol met voertuigen ..en dan een beetje
een wilde zee ...dat wil je niet lijkt mij.

Ace1

Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 23/09/2020 | 13:03 uur
Ok best handig deze schepen ...de landing zal veel sneller gaan zo dan steeds met een paar LCU's op en neer te varen naar de LPD, nu zet je in een klap
al je voertuigen zo op het strand.
Alleen die Helikopter erop snap ik nog niet zo ...zit geen  hangar op bijvoorbeeld en het is een schip om je troepen op het strand af te zetten niet om
langdurig met een heli te varen.

Een LPD vervangen door 6 van deze ?

Je kan dit vaartuig een beetje vergelijken met  een LST  (Landing Ship Tank).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Ship,_Tank

Harald

Marines, Navy Wrestle With How To Upgun Amphibs    ( extra punch voor LPD, goed idee ! .. maar dat kost wel extra pecunia )

The Marines want Vertical Launch System missile tubes on their new amphibious ships -- but the Navy isn't planning to leave room for them.

The Marines want better-armed amphibious warships for high-end combat, but there's no money in the budget and little room on the ships for their preferred solution, the Vertical Launch System. That leaves them looking at less capable but more affordable upgrades. Those range from bolting small Naval Strike Missile pods onto the deck – as on the Littoral Combat Ship – to parking a HIMARS missile-launcher truck on the back of the ship – as they tested during last year's Dawn Blitz wargames.

Why does this matter? In a major war against Russia or China, or even Iran, amphibious warships — as currently equipped — would have to rely on escorting destroyers both defensively, to shoot down attacking missiles and airplanes, and offensively, sinking enemy ships and bombarding targets ashore.

But those destroyers might not always be available and, even if they are, they might overwhelmed by the sheer volume of incoming fire. So the Marines want better-armed amphibs that can, ideally, operate unescorted or, at minimum, take on some of the burden of their own defense.

..../....

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/01/marines-navy-wrestle-with-how-to-upgun-amphibs/

Oorlogsvis

Ok best handig deze schepen ...de landing zal veel sneller gaan zo dan steeds met een paar LCU's op en neer te varen naar de LPD, nu zet je in een klap
al je voertuigen zo op het strand.
Alleen die Helikopter erop snap ik nog niet zo ...zit geen  hangar op bijvoorbeeld en het is een schip om je troepen op het strand af te zetten niet om
langdurig met een heli te varen.

Een LPD vervangen door 6 van deze ?

Sparkplug

Uit het rapport van reactie #141

CitaatShip Design
The Navy wants LAWs to be a relatively simple and relatively inexpensive ships with the
following features, among others:
  • a minimum length of 200 feet;
  • a maximum draft of 12 feet;
  • a ship's crew of no more than 40 Navy sailors;
  • an ability to embark at least 75 Marines;
  • a minimum of 8,000 square feet of cargo area for the Marines' weapons, equipment, and supplies;
  • a stern or bow landing ramp for moving the Marines and their weapons, equipment, and supplies the ship to shore (and vice versa) across a beach;
  • a modest suite of C4I equipment;21
  • a 25mm or 30mm gun system and .50 caliber machine guns for self-defense;
  • a minimum transit speed of 14 knots;
  • a minimum unrefueled transit range of 3,500 nautical miles;
  • an ability to operate within fleet groups or deploy independently; and
  • a 10-year expected service life.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46374
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.

-- Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.