• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Marine Corps, Navy Remain Split Over Design, Number of Future Light Amphibious Warship, Divide Risks Stalling Program

The USN may not have a ship for the Marines but they have a name for the ship.


Last act of the outgoing SECNAV?
 


It strikes me that the USMC's biggest problem is the USMC, in particular the retired Corps residing in Washington.

The Force Design relies on getting some new ships. The USN is bucking against swapping 7 San Antonios (7x28 Officers and 7x333 Enlisted = 196 Officers and 2331 Enlisted or 2527 total) for 38 LSTs (18 crew each total = 664 total per the Aussie solution).

The USN tried to buck that up to 77 per ship for a total of 2926.

The US Army would have done the job with 30 or so per watercraft (total of 1140 and not an Officer in sight)

...

Meanwhile the USMC have sold the Aussies on the Littoral concept hook line and sinker.

Bushmasters with NSMs instead of JLTVs with NSMs.
42 HIMARS with PrSMs (Surface to Surface and Anti-Shipping)
8 LSTs for regional mobility.

The Aussies are going to look more like the USMC than the USMC

Oh, and I forgot the NASAMs regiment.

...

It seems to me that the "change agents" in the USMC weren't only bucking the USN but also their own retirees. Hard to convince the Navy to hand over those bucks an PYs if they can point to the USMC as being "divided" on the concept. Harder still to convince the politicians to pony up if the USN can say the USMC isn't sure.


Meself? I like the MLR concept. Always have done. And given that Coastal Defence doesn't naturally seem to fit into Army, Navy or Air Force roles the USMC seems like a logical provider.
 
Resolution

Damen's LST-100

100 m
15 kts
4000 NM
18 crew

234 pax
1020 m2 RORO
900 to 1400 DWT

 
Meself? I like the MLR concept. Always have done. And given that Coastal Defence doesn't naturally seem to fit into Army, Navy or Air Force roles the USMC seems like a logical provider.
IMHO, Coastal defence is very much an army, navy and air force role. Coastal assault on the other hand -> USMC

🍻
 
IMHO, Coastal defence is very much an army, navy and air force role. Coastal assault on the other hand -> USMC

🍻

Cool. All you want is to get Canada to stand up another Joint Command dedicated to Coastal Defence. Concurrent with establishing the Joint IAMD Air Defence Command?
 
IMHO, Coastal defence is very much an army, navy and air force role. Coastal assault on the other hand -> USMC

🍻

Don't believe the hype ;)

In WW2:

"Collectively, US Army had considerably more amphibious experience than the USMC. Over the course of the war, the USMC made 16 division assaults, while the Army made 43 division assaults."

 
IMHO, Coastal defence is very much an army, navy and air force role. Coastal assault on the other hand -> USMC

🍻

Courtesy of AI....

WW2 UK Coastal Artillery

Units & Manpower:
Royal Artillery: Formed specialized regiments like the Thames & Medway Coast Artillery.
Royal Marines: Often manned the heaviest naval guns.
Defence Batteries: Rapidly formed to counter invasion fears post-Dunkirk, using standard and improvised weapons.
 
Stand-in forces. Operating under the enemy's guns.

Suppose Trump's Battleship isn't designed to replace the Iowa but instead the 1964 vintage B;ue Ridge LCCs?


If the US wants a mobile Tac CP for the first island chain it would look a lot like a Trump battleship.
 
"the new amphib should blend in with commercial ship traffic."


The U.S. Marine Corps wants a whole lot of new amphibious ships. Small ones that, in wartime, would sail alone with a couple platoons of Marines aboard, skipping between secretive islands outposts in the Western Pacific where the Corps would set up missile batteries and airfields inside the outermost ring of Chinese forces.

If that sounds like a dangerous mission, you’re not wrong. Now consider that the ships also need to be cheap so that the U.S. Navy, which operates amphibs on the Marines’ behalf, can afford to buy up to 36 of them and spread them out across the Pacific.

To be cheap, the Navy plans to build the Light Amphibious Warfare vessels to commercial standards, with thinner hulls, fewer flooding and fire countermeasures and practically no armament beside a 30-millimeter gun.

So how would the small amphib survive in wartime? The LAW “has to look like everything else,” Jay Stefany, the Navy’s acting acquisition chief, told a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee last week.

In other words, the new amphib should blend in with commercial ship traffic. The Chinese wouldn’t be able to target it because they’d never be able to tell it apart from many thousands of fishing boats, trawlers and coastal tankers that also ply the Western Pacific.

.....

What the customer asked for. One of hundreds operating in those island waters.

1767716270381.jpeg

What the project delivered - a ship that looks like nothing else, and to help it stand out it is painted battleship gray.

1767716391724.jpeg

.....

Meanwhile

1767717914293.jpeg

1767716899681.jpeg

"Images have emerged of a Chinese medium-sized cargo ship, docked at Shanghai’s Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard, fitted with a modular electromagnetic catapult for launching advanced combat drones, or perhaps even fighter jets.

"This vessel, roughly 100-metres long and built as a container ship, has been reconfigured in just days to include a train of four connected vehicles secured on deck to form the launch track. This is probably an electromagnetic aircraft launch system (Emals). Pictures show stealth drones next to the launcher as if ready for take-off. The ship also has the recently fitted, containerised 30mm close-in auto cannon system, phased-array radar and frigate-like amounts of vertical launch missile cells, that I commented on last week.

"As a merchant mariner friend of mine commented, “the hull is rubbish, common and cheap. It’s therefore perfect for mass and disguise. It also needs very few people to run it”."

"....Add to this (the PLAN's military navy) China’s 4,000-plus merchant vessels, many of them built in dual-use yards to military specifications including reinforced hulls and extra compartmentalisation for improved damage control. These could convert en masse to warship-like levels of capability, like this drone ship."

....

Civilian ships, subsidized to military standards, that can earn their keep in peace time, hide in plain sight, travel the world's oceans freely, and can rapidly unmask military capabilities.

Containerized missiles. Containerized drones. Containerized LAA/C-UAS systems. Containerized radar. Containerized comms. Containerized gensets. Containerized boats. Containerized vehicles.

Containerized little green men?


1767717660119.jpeg
 
I am also reminded of the tale of the WestPac Express, the Austal built civilian ferry that the USMC liked so much.

The ferry that became, in military parlance, an HSV or High Speed Vessel.
Which begat the HSTs Guam and Puerto Rico
Which begat the HSV-2 Swift
Which begat the 19 Spearheads of the JHSV project
Which begat the 19 Independence class LCS vessels

All of the above, built by Austal, were water jet driven, multi-hull, aluminum cargo carriers capable of carrying a variety of loads.

But the LCS project also begat the 16 monohull Freedom class vessels built by Marinette Marine in competition to the Austal system.
Which begat the Saudi Multi Mission Surface Combatant,
1767719589854.jpeg
 
Back
Top