Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [bolger] Re: LCU-F - PROCEEDINGS Magazine article 'pdf'

Expand Messages
  • phil.bolger
    Not sure about that ‘water-through-hinges’ concern. Beyond the hatches on top and hard-patches, where would water intrude ? One the M1A2 weight a quick
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 6 10:35 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Not sure about that ‘water-through-hinges’ concern.  Beyond the hatches on top and hard-patches, where would water intrude ?

      One the M1A2 weight a quick short-cut at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
      The point of LCU-F is to be able to deliver two if not three 68 short-tons M1A2 per LCU-F – not that anybody would want to put that many eggs in one basket.  The typical USMC MEU seems to have 4 M1A2s plus one recovery tank, plus 15 AAV-7 amphibious personnel carriers, a bunch of etc. etc.
      In the rarest of cases one LSD-41 could deliver at least 12 such tanks, if not 18 and thus up to 36 per two LSD-41s alongside the LHD with her 3 LCACs – all embarked at the base into LCU-Fs which then enter the LSD/LPD well-decks for global delivery, loitering, sudden assault. 
      36 Main Battle Tanks in one unannounced delivery would be quite potent indeed...
      Delivery of one MEU ‘First Wave’ at 15 concurrent surface-borne insertion-points is pretty ‘nifty’ as well, since currently not remotely doable.

      Why fly tanks ? 
      And where would you land them ?  Friendly heavy-duty airfields near the ‘theater’ ?
      And how would you avoid announcing your intentions, your numbers, caliber, capabilities ?

      Amphibious fleet-assets – some 30 ships ranging from 16,000ton to over 40,000 tons fully loaded – are designed to carry ‘everything’ aboard, incl. Marines in order to then deliver them via LCU, LCAC and/or perhaps LCU-F.  They may do so for years and never get to ‘pull the trigger’ - beyond exercises.   
      Currently they could have 8 ‘ARGs’ deployed at ay one time.
      Plus the carriers, destroyers, subs etc.
       
      Current policy is for the Navy and Marines to ‘fly in’ at most 10% of the force-weight, i.e. folks, lighter supplies, a field-piece or two, a truck or two etc. and that only from the LHD-flat-top and the LPD/LSD helo-pads – not from halfway around the world.
      The Navy can indeed deliver ‘slowly’ at 20 kts+ a great many tons of assault power to just about anywhere on the globe. 
      With LCU-F the First Wave could max out at over 2600 tons to land concurrently.

      Lot’s to ruminate over.
      Not your typical ‘small-craft’ forum topic !
      But part of national defense and thus suitable topic in a democracy....

      Susanne Altenburger, PB&F 




       
       
      Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 1:07 PM
      Subject: [bolger] Re: LCU-F - PROCEEDINGS Magazine article 'pdf'
       
       

      Could be some serendipity at work here.   I notice that the Marines and Japanese SDF are having a big exercise on the west coast to practice seaborne assault.  The big question with the LCU-F is “how will you keep the water from squishing up through all those hinged joints in the decks??”  ;-)

      Light assault troops, whether air or seaborne, have always had a problem with not having heavy weapons and armor to back up their punch.  Usually, if there is no armor in a US force it is because someone up the command chain didn’t want to authorize tankers to operate.  Clinton and the boys didn’t want armor in Mogadishu until after the “Black Hawk Down” incident showed that they should have had some.  As a result of that, we built a company sized quick reaction armor force capable of flying anywhere in the world in chop-chop time.

      But a force like that needs some deep runways to land in on.   C-17s with a battle ready M1A2 Abrams tank on board are not light weight.  The tank weights around 82 tons by itself.  So sealift is vital to send heavy equipment to un-improved areas where airlift can’t operate.

      Good luck with your efforts, Sue.

      SSK

    • phil.bolger
      As a design-challenge neither leading aeronautic powerhouses of the US and Russia/Soviet Union ever got that done. Way more challenging than LCU-F. Physics
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 7 11:07 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        As a design-challenge neither leading aeronautic powerhouses of the US and Russia/Soviet Union ever got that done.
        Way more challenging than LCU-F.  Physics and cost might stand in the way...

        Back on smaller-craft design matters, to those who (still) do not read MAIB ‘as a matter of course’, the next issue will feature another here-to-fore unpublished Design.
        Bob Hicks of Wenham MA could be contacted at  maib.office@...  - the best way to ‘get it all’.

        Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
         
        Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 1:56 PM
        Subject: RE: LCU-F - PROCEEDINGS Magazine article 'pdf'
         

        Not at all.  Perhaps I didn’t put it very clearly.  The 12 LCU-Fs and 3 LCACs, etc. to land a one wave assault force is a grand idea.  But I also think that it would be grand if we had the capability to air land a tank company on short notice up to 100 miles inland.  We don’t with the existing air craft in the fleet.

         

        Yeah, it is kind of funny no one has thought of that…??   It is just so obvious!

         

        Have fun, SSK

         

        From: philbolger@... [mailto:philbolger@...]
        Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 1:34 PM
        To: Stephen Kandul
        Subject: Re: LCU-F - PROCEEDINGS Magazine article 'pdf'

         

        So, instead of using 12 LCU-Fs and 3 LCACs - brought into the theater with those three ships (ARG) - to pump across the surface in one First Wave up to 2600-ton of vehicles, people and gear -  you propose to just fly-in the MEU of the MARINES ?
        You’d figure, someone would have thought of that...

        Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

         

        Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 12:56 PM

        Subject: Re: LCU-F - PROCEEDINGS Magazine article 'pdf'

         

        Sue said…
        Why fly tanks ?
        And where would you land them ? Friendly heavy-duty airfields near the ‘theater’ ?
        And how would you avoid announcing your intentions, your numbers, caliber, capabilities ?

        Amphibious fleet-assets – some 30 ships ranging from 16,000ton to over 40,000 tons fully loaded – are designed to carry ‘everything’ aboard, incl. Marines in order to then deliver them via LCU, LCAC and/or perhaps LCU-F. They may do so for years and never get to ‘pull the trigger’ - beyond exercises.
        Currently they could have 8 ‘ARGs’ deployed at any one time.
        Plus the carriers, destroyers, subs etc.

        Current policy is for the Navy and Marines to ‘fly in’ at most 10% of the force-weight, i.e. folks, lighter supplies, a field-piece or two, a truck or two etc. and that only from the LHD-flat-top and the LPD/LSD helo-pads – not from halfway around the world.
        The Navy can indeed deliver ‘slowly’ at 20 kts+ a great many tons of assault power to just about anywhere on the globe.
        With LCU-F the First Wave could max out at over 2600 tons to land concurrently.

        There are occasionally situations where flying in the heavy stuff is necessary.   We just about flew the wings off the C-5A fleet immediately after the ’74 Israeli/Egypt war resupplying the Israeli army with new armor.  Most of theirs was destroyed in the tank battles immediately after the crossing of the Suez canal.  It also is not widely reported that a lot of our heavy equipment in A-Stan was flown in on chartered Russian aircraft.   Happily, they are escorted/accompanied by two or more US personnel to make sure the hatches stay closed and the black boxes arrive intact.

         

        I am sure you are aware that the US Army is the biggest proponent of US Air Force strategic lift capability.   The Air Force itself is more interested in spending it’s budget on other missions.   You are correct in understanding the limitations of strategic airlift.   Heavy duty airfields, friendly hosts, cheap booze, etc. are all more or less necessary.  

         

        The “cube-square” load limitations of aircraft are also a factor.  I once did a rush job on a “momma hatch” for an attack sub that was in overhaul at Pearl Harbor.  The hatch would give the sub the capability to host special ops vehicles.  We planned to fly it out in a C-5 but forgot to check the cube-square load limits on the C-5 cargo deck.  Imagine our surprise when the load master told us the hatch couldn’t be loaded aboard as it would likely crush through the bottom of the aircraft!  Too much weight concentrated in too small an area.  Aircraft can be fussy about what they carry.

         

        Regarding current policy for the Navy and Marines….  I think it is shaped more by the limitations of their aircraft than any aspect of their war fighting doctrine.  The only load carrying aircraft in the fleet have some major operational constraints.  All helos are dead meat if there are fast movers in the opposition.  We ran evaluation exercises at Nellis in ’77 &’78 and pretty much showed that helos can’t survive serious attack by fixed wing fighters.  We even had helo drivers who would try to hover in volcanic craters to avoid attack but the F5’s could still drop their gear and pitch down for a kill shot, and then pop up over the rim.  When a helo meets a fast mover, the best thing he can do if he can’t land, is to turn head on into the attacker and under fly him.  That makes his gun run quicker and minimizes IR for missiles.

         

        All this to get to the point that Marine airlift has to have air superiority of the area they want to operate in and land on.   And with the proliferation of man pad SAMs in the last thirty years a defending force may tear hell out of a helo assault even without fast movers in the air for support.

         

        So, with limited airlift capability it is natural that the Marines must land ninety percent of their force and logistic tail over the beach.   But this is not ideal, especially when current lexicon is shifting more towards “littoral” action.  What the Marines need (in addition to vessels like the LCU-F for improved seaborne assault) is a heavy air assault vehicle that can operate off the mother ships.  There are going to be missions where the main force will want/need to stay 150 miles offshore and send in a heavy armored force to an objective 100 miles inland.  Asymmetric warfare will take on a new flavor when the US Marines can land a company of tanks with supporting troops and arms 100 miles inland to kick ass and take names.  And with the ability to leave the same way they got there.

         

        And the guys heading towards the beach on your LCU-Fs will be happier knowing that there is already a real covering force in place to make sure there are no surprises in those hills beyond the beach.

         

        Where is the little landing craft/patrol boat you have been building for the past two years?  I have lost track of it in MAIB and wonder if you launched it yet?  The evolving Windermere/Container Boat concept is looking rather nice.  

         

        Regards, SSK

        No virus found in this message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3204/6471 - Release Date: 07/07/13

      • phil.bolger
        For those more ‘thirst’ on the ‘big’ navy project – no, make that “monumental” as Bruce Hallman put it – here are the first stirrings of what I
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 7 6:00 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          For those more ‘thirst’ on the ‘big’ navy project – no, make that “monumental” as Bruce Hallman put it – here are the first stirrings of what I hope to eventually be vigorous online discussions amongst Sailors, Marines, Experts and ‘Nixperts’...
          This one is US Marine Corps-centric:   http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-21st-century-landing-craft.html 

          Could someone book me Tea-& Cookies with the CNO and the Commandant ?  Lot’s to discuss...

          Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
           
          Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 2:07 PM
          Subject: [bolger] Re: LCU-F - PROCEEDINGS Magazine article 'pdf'
           
           

          As a design-challenge neither leading aeronautic powerhouses of the US and Russia/Soviet Union ever got that done.
          Way more challenging than LCU-F.  Physics and cost might stand in the way...

          Back on smaller-craft design matters, to those who (still) do not read MAIB ‘as a matter of course’, the next issue will feature another here-to-fore unpublished Design.
          Bob Hicks of Wenham MA could be contacted at  maib.office@...  - the best way to ‘get it all’.

          Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
           
          Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 1:56 PM
          Subject: RE: LCU-F - PROCEEDINGS Magazine article 'pdf'
           

          Not at all.  Perhaps I didn’t put it very clearly.  The 12 LCU-Fs and 3 LCACs, etc. to land a one wave assault force is a grand idea.  But I also think that it would be grand if we had the capability to air land a tank company on short notice up to 100 miles inland.  We don’t with the existing air craft in the fleet.

          Yeah, it is kind of funny no one has thought of that…??   It is just so obvious!

          Have fun, SSK

          From: philbolger@... [mailto:philbolger@...]
          Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 1:34 PM
          To: Stephen Kandul
          Subject: Re: LCU-F - PROCEEDINGS Magazine article 'pdf'

          So, instead of using 12 LCU-Fs and 3 LCACs - brought into the theater with those three ships (ARG) - to pump across the surface in one First Wave up to 2600-ton of vehicles, people and gear -  you propose to just fly-in the MEU of the MARINES ?
          You’d figure, someone would have thought of that...

          Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

          Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 12:56 PM

          Subject: Re: LCU-F - PROCEEDINGS Magazine article 'pdf'

          Sue said…
          Why fly tanks ?
          And where would you land them ? Friendly heavy-duty airfields near the ‘theater’ ?
          And how would you avoid announcing your intentions, your numbers, caliber, capabilities ?

          Amphibious fleet-assets – some 30 ships ranging from 16,000ton to over 40,000 tons fully loaded – are designed to carry ‘everything’ aboard, incl. Marines in order to then deliver them via LCU, LCAC and/or perhaps LCU-F. They may do so for years and never get to ‘pull the trigger’ - beyond exercises.
          Currently they could have 8 ‘ARGs’ deployed at any one time.
          Plus the carriers, destroyers, subs etc.

          Current policy is for the Navy and Marines to ‘fly in’ at most 10% of the force-weight, i.e. folks, lighter supplies, a field-piece or two, a truck or two etc. and that only from the LHD-flat-top and the LPD/LSD helo-pads – not from halfway around the world.
          The Navy can indeed deliver ‘slowly’ at 20 kts+ a great many tons of assault power to just about anywhere on the globe.
          With LCU-F the First Wave could max out at over 2600 tons to land concurrently.

          There are occasionally situations where flying in the heavy stuff is necessary.   We just about flew the wings off the C-5A fleet immediately after the ’74 Israeli/Egypt war resupplying the Israeli army with new armor.  Most of theirs was destroyed in the tank battles immediately after the crossing of the Suez canal.  It also is not widely reported that a lot of our heavy equipment in A-Stan was flown in on chartered Russian aircraft.   Happily, they are escorted/accompanied by two or more US personnel to make sure the hatches stay closed and the black boxes arrive intact.

          I am sure you are aware that the US Army is the biggest proponent of US Air Force strategic lift capability.   The Air Force itself is more interested in spending it’s budget on other missions.   You are correct in understanding the limitations of strategic airlift.   Heavy duty airfields, friendly hosts, cheap booze, etc. are all more or less necessary.  

          The “cube-square” load limitations of aircraft are also a factor.  I once did a rush job on a “momma hatch” for an attack sub that was in overhaul at Pearl Harbor.  The hatch would give the sub the capability to host special ops vehicles.  We planned to fly it out in a C-5 but forgot to check the cube-square load limits on the C-5 cargo deck.  Imagine our surprise when the load master told us the hatch couldn’t be loaded aboard as it would likely crush through the bottom of the aircraft!  Too much weight concentrated in too small an area.  Aircraft can be fussy about what they carry.

          Regarding current policy for the Navy and Marines….  I think it is shaped more by the limitations of their aircraft than any aspect of their war fighting doctrine.  The only load carrying aircraft in the fleet have some major operational constraints.  All helos are dead meat if there are fast movers in the opposition.  We ran evaluation exercises at Nellis in ’77 &’78 and pretty much showed that helos can’t survive serious attack by fixed wing fighters.  We even had helo drivers who would try to hover in volcanic craters to avoid attack but the F5’s could still drop their gear and pitch down for a kill shot, and then pop up over the rim.  When a helo meets a fast mover, the best thing he can do if he can’t land, is to turn head on into the attacker and under fly him.  That makes his gun run quicker and minimizes IR for missiles.

          All this to get to the point that Marine airlift has to have air superiority of the area they want to operate in and land on.   And with the proliferation of man pad SAMs in the last thirty years a defending force may tear hell out of a helo assault even without fast movers in the air for support.

          So, with limited airlift capability it is natural that the Marines must land ninety percent of their force and logistic tail over the beach.   But this is not ideal, especially when current lexicon is shifting more towards “littoral” action.  What the Marines need (in addition to vessels like the LCU-F for improved seaborne assault) is a heavy air assault vehicle that can operate off the mother ships.  There are going to be missions where the main force will want/need to stay 150 miles offshore and send in a heavy armored force to an objective 100 miles inland.  Asymmetric warfare will take on a new flavor when the US Marines can land a company of tanks with supporting troops and arms 100 miles inland to kick ass and take names.  And with the ability to leave the same way they got there.

          And the guys heading towards the beach on your LCU-Fs will be happier knowing that there is already a real covering force in place to make sure there are no surprises in those hills beyond the beach.

          Where is the little landing craft/patrol boat you have been building for the past two years?  I have lost track of it in MAIB and wonder if you launched it yet?  The evolving Windermere/Container Boat concept is looking rather nice.  

          Regards, SSK

          No virus found in this message.
          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3204/6471 - Release Date: 07/07/13

        • Joe T
          Tough reading through the military acronyms but enlightend replies seem to heavily favor the concept. Joe T
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 8 12:40 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Tough reading through the military acronyms but enlightend replies seem to heavily favor the concept.

            Joe T

            --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:
            >
            > For those more ‘thirst’ on the ‘big’ navy project â€" no, make that “monumental” as Bruce Hallman put it â€" here are the first stirrings of what I hope to eventually be vigorous online discussions amongst Sailors, Marines, Experts and ‘Nixperts’...
            > This one is US Marine Corps-centric: http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-21st-century-landing-craft.html
            >
            > Could someone book me Tea-& Cookies with the CNO and the Commandant ? Lot’s to discuss...
            >
            > Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
            >
          • phil.bolger
            I could offer a ‘translation’ for the ‘mil-speak’; actually it seems no worse than other areas of particular focus where ‘tech-speak’ is
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 8 7:56 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              I could offer a ‘translation’ for the ‘mil-speak’;  actually it seems no worse than other areas of particular focus where ‘tech-speak’ is inevitable to compress lengthy word-combinations that compress larger concepts into indeed acronyms.
              List the ‘puzzle’ and I will offer the solution.

              Susanne
                
               
              From: Joe T
              Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:40 AM
              Subject: [bolger] Re: LCU-F - PROCEEDINGS Magazine article 'pdf'
               
               

              Tough reading through the military acronyms but enlightend replies seem to heavily favor the concept.

              Joe T

              --- In mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:

              >
              > For those more ‘thirst’ on the
              ‘big’ navy project â€" no, make that “monumental” as Bruce Hallman put it â€" here are the first stirrings of what I hope to eventually be vigorous online discussions amongst Sailors, Marines, Experts and ‘Nixperts’...
              > This one is US Marine Corps-centric:
              href="http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-21st-century-landing-craft.html">http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-21st-century-landing-craft.html
              >
              > Could someone book me Tea-& Cookies with the CNO and the
              Commandant ? Lot’s to discuss...
              >
              > Susanne Altenburger,
              PB&F
              >

            • Paraplegic Racehorse
              ... SNIP ... Speaking of such, what is the present status of AS-34 (#676)? I was intrigued by the MAIB article and enchanted by the hull shape.
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 8 12:52 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:
                >

                SNIP

                > Back on smaller-craft design matters, to those who (still) do not
                > read MAIB ‘as a matter of course’, the next issue will feature
                > another here-to-fore unpublished Design.

                Speaking of such, what is the present status of AS-34 (#676)? I was intrigued by the MAIB article and enchanted by the hull shape.
              • Joe T
                Got enough of the lingo to get what I need out of it. Understand enough to get the main message, Thanks. Joe T
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 8 11:31 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Got enough of the lingo to get what I need out of it. Understand enough to get the main message, Thanks.

                  Joe T

                  --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I could offer a ‘translation’ for the ‘mil-speak’; actually it seems no worse than other areas of particular focus where ‘tech-speak’ is inevitable to compress lengthy word-combinations that compress larger concepts into indeed acronyms.
                  > List the ‘puzzle’ and I will offer the solution.
                  >
                  > Susanne
                  >
                  >
                  > From: Joe T
                  > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:40 AM
                  > To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: [bolger] Re: LCU-F - PROCEEDINGS Magazine article 'pdf'
                  >
                  >
                  > Tough reading through the military acronyms but enlightend replies seem to heavily favor the concept.
                  >
                  > Joe T
                  >
                  > --- In mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > For those more ‘thirst’ on the ‘big’ navy project â€" no, make that “monumental” as Bruce Hallman put it â€" here are the first stirrings of what I hope to eventually be vigorous online discussions amongst Sailors, Marines, Experts and ‘Nixperts’...
                  > > This one is US Marine Corps-centric: http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-21st-century-landing-craft.html
                  > >
                  > > Could someone book me Tea-& Cookies with the CNO and the Commandant ? Lot’s to discuss...
                  > >
                  > > Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
                  > >
                  >
                • phil.bolger
                  Well, PR, the ‘dark secret’ is that someone will have to help finance its further development. There is a fair amount of energy necessary to develop the
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 11 6:07 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Well, PR, the ‘dark secret’ is that someone will have to help finance its further development.
                    There is a fair amount of energy necessary to develop the concept.
                    Here we’d have to see it subsidized through ‘the rest’ of the process.

                    As to her shape and appearance, beyond some of the optional curves in her profile the shape is a fairly sober assembly of desirable attributes:
                    - another developmental stage of the sharpie with that box-forefoot,
                    - the fillets for a smooth entry sailing and at rest,
                    - integration into the cat-, cat-yawl- and periauger (cat-schooner) -rig geometries,
                    - together with the ‘wing catheads’ for ready-to-drop anchors.

                    AS-34 and AS-40 are ‘my’ designs in those respects.
                    Phil had used is ‘Advanced Sharpie’ in designs from 12’ OLD SHOE to at least 38’ LOOSE MOOSE II.
                    As with our sharpie-related powerboat hulls of those years together, we moved developments further, such as with #679 and now post-Phil my #681 SACPAS-3.

                    But this all takes resources to get done.  Progress thus often depends upon support by clients, or ‘syndicates’ of clients pooling modest resources to see a design completed.

                    Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

                       
                     
                    Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:52 PM
                    Subject: [bolger] Unpublished designs (was Re: LCU-F - PROCEEDINGS Magazine article 'pdf')
                     
                     



                    --- In mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:

                    >

                    SNIP

                    > Back on
                    smaller-craft design matters, to those who (still) do not
                    > read MAIB
                    ‘as a matter of course’, the next issue will feature
                    > another
                    here-to-fore unpublished Design.

                    Speaking of such, what is the present status of AS-34 (#676)? I was intrigued by the MAIB article and enchanted by the hull shape.

                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.