"How Can't America built a decent landing craft anymore." Topic

"In recent decades, the Pentagon has spent billions of dollars trying, and failing, to solve a straightforward military problem. How to haul people and equipment between ships at sea … and beachheads on land.

The Defense Department's "surface-connector" shortfall illuminates fundamental flaws in the political-industrial-military system. In theory, these institutions together are supposed to produce the weaponry American troops need at a cost taxpayers can afford and in time to be actually useful.

In fact, the military-industrial-political complex is a tangle of perverse incentives. The systems energetically produces multi-billion-dollar stealth drones, electric battleships and high-tech missile interceptors…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Another perfectly stupid article from War is Boring. If the author had done a shred of research he would have found the requirements (20kts and able to ground on a beach) are nigh impossible to meet. Build an improved LCU 1600? No problem. Build a 20kt LCU 1600? Are you nuts? Not that the navy hasn't tried (and tried a lot). But some requirements are just not doable (no matter what some dimwitted, snarky journalist might think).

(Actually, we do have something that fits those requirements. It's called the LCAC)

War is Boring certainly produces far more than its' fair share of lazy amateurish articles and this is consistent with their already low bar.

However the observation that the major Military suppliers aren't interested in producing something until the project runs into the $100 USD's of millions is pretty much right on.

If the gold plated solution doesn't work or can't be afforded, then dust off the plans for the ones that DO work & let some of the little guys make identical replacements for the ones that are wearing out. If your support ships have to stay too far out, maybe all you need are more LCU's and a few basic merchant hulls to cart them to where they are needed, much like the seaplane carriers of the 1920's and 30's.

Interesting, if ill-informed, article.

I served in three amphibs from 1994-2000: a LST (Operations Officer), a LSD (Executive Officer) and a LHA (Navigator), and operated with pretty much everything that can be launched, flown or otherwise leave a ship.

My experience is that the break point between LCUs and LCACs is about 10nm from the beach. LCUs carry three times the capacity of an LCAC, but only travel about one-third as fast. Inside 10nm, the LCU is a much better platform, while outside 10nm the LCAC theoretically is the better platform.

The problem lies in the fact that the LCAC is sea state limited; if the seas are too rough they cannot get "on the bubble" and fly over the water. When that happens, they not only carry less than an LCU, they are actually much slower. Add in the fact that the crews of the LCACs are subject to the same Crew Rest limitations as air crews and the unreliablity of the LCACs, and you have an asset of which I am not a fan. Give me an LCU any day.

AAVs are faster than the article advertises, but you really don't want to leave the Marines in them any longer than you need to or even the best will become horrible seasick.

Personally, I'd ditch the LCACs for a faster AAV and a faster LCU.

because they want it to do every job well (tank APC truck and command vehicle) and not just awesome at being a landing craft to get these other vehicles on the beach.

The US military is generally the most experienced force on the planet when it comes to Amphib and Naval Ops … And yes, of course, nukenips your insights are very interesting and obviously very accurate and valid … Thank you for your first hand comments …

The Marines tried to have a faster AAV, and it cost 3 billion dollars in R&D. They called it the Advanced AAV, and later the EFV. A planing-hull amtrack!

I'm not sure how much faster you could make an LCU, as it takes a crapton of power to go fast without planing. Maybe if the LCUs got a CODOG or COGOG powerplant. Diesel or small gas turbine for slow operations, and a big honking gas turbine for fast operations (two separate engines because Gas Turbines burn a whole lot of fuel at low power settings).

Yeah, and both the Advanced AAV and EFV had a tubload of problems (and a monster price tag). Neither should ever see the light of day.

? Advanced AAV and EFV are the same vehicle.

Expensive because they needed a 2800hp powerpack on the water. Yeah, nearly twice the installed hp of an Abrams, in a vehicle less than half the weight. Pricetag was $23 USDmil each. If I could find a decent cost number for the AAV-7, I could tell you how much of a jump up the EFV's price is. I found an FAS page that claimed replacement costs for an AAV7 at 2.2-2.5mil, but it doesn't say when that price came from. If that's a 1983 price, that's 5.8mil in 2013 dollars. Then you need to add the new radios and all the other electronics, which can easily add another several million dollars to the pricetag (the AH1Z upgrade program costs 10x more than a base AH1 per helo, for example). Need to add the 'Duke' and/or 'Warlock' IED jammers, the 'Boomerang' gunshot locator, 'Rhino' IED pre-detonator, maybe a remote weapons station…

And each one of those additions is roughly a million dollars.

But when you want something that can do 25 knots on the water, well, that requires horsepower. And horsepower equals dollars cubed.

"No Bucks … No Buck Rogers …"

The EDA-R (French) might be a decent base to consider. It can reportedly get up to 30kts and carry 80t, compared to 40+ for the LCAC at 60t. It's also a simple catamaran without the added complexities of the air-cushion system.

Just checked the stats on the EDA-R. The top speed w/30tons is 20kts (still pretty good). Gotta give the French credit, their solution is a novel (and winning) one. Still wonder what sea states the catamaran arrangement can handle.

Still wonder what sea states the catamaran arrangement can handle.

Doesn't look like it entirely cares if it takes a wave over the vehicle deck, so probably 2m waves or so. Still not as fast as an LCAC, but isn't it using 4x tank engines? *wikidive* Guess not.

I know the USN has been messing with bigger catamaran ferries as high-speed, roll-on/roll-off landing ships. They're big enough to handle an entire Marine Battalion, troops and vehicles. Loud as all hell, though, one about 15 miles away from my sub was drowning out closer ships, and I could hear the one ~5 miles away clearly over the water.