Feature 2 | AMPHIBIOUS/LOGISTICS VESSELS


Step change required in landing craft performance


As Toby Middleton, amphibious business development lead at BMT Defence Services argues, there is an urgent need for new types of landing craſt to be developed


security strategies are refocusing upon the maritime domain as their preferred base from which to generate and sustain required effects. Te littoral remains an important and


F


challenging part of this domain, not least when projecting power ashore as an amphibious operation. Both contemporary and emerging threats have made this area between land and sea even more contested, reflected in the doctrinal push to position sea bases well beyond the horizon. For example, the US Marine Corps


Expeditionary Force 21 Concept refers to advance force/shaping operations being launched at ranges from 65+ nm, and surface assault waves with ranges of 30-12nm for transit to the beach. Operating at such range provides


increased protection to the amphibious task force and a greater degree of uncertainty for any adversary, as they attempt to predict both where and when beaches may be crossed to manoeuvre towards a number of potential objectives. Conversely, it creates a significant


problem for the amphibious force in generating the required tempo of the surface assault, providing the necessary offload volume in time to compliment and support the aviation assault component.


To meet this challenge,


amphibious forces should embrace recent (and affordable) advances in surface connector technology to decrease both transit times and craſt vulnerability. Treats to an Amphibious Task Group


(ATG) operating close to the land are varied and considerable. Fast aircraſt and guided missiles will use terrain masking when approaching over land; the closer the ATG to the shore, the shorter its response


38


ollowing the protracted and costly land campaigns of the early 21st Century, national


LCACs are comparatively expensive to purchase and operate, and their wide beam restricts the number that can be stowed in an amphibious platform’s dock


times. Te ranges of any enemy shore-based artillery (and their associated surveillance mechanisms) must be considered when selecting an amphibious operating area. Platforms tasked with protecting the ATG will need maximum manoeuvre space and a high ship speed to ensure the effectiveness of decoy measures. Treats from fast inshore attack craſt


(whether deployed as an asymmetric (state operated) or irregular (terrorist operated) means) are mitigated by range, allowing earlier tracking, identification and selective action. Te greater the range from operating bases, with an increased sea state further from shore, makes such craſt less potent. Below the waves it can be argued that shallower water reduces the conventional submarine threat (although uncertain hydrography bites


both ways) but small SSK, mini-submarines


and even divers could devastate an ATG in confined and shallow waters. Mine laying options increase with proximity to the coastline, as does the vulnerability of mine countermeasure operations. An ATG operating at range will allow an early warning of threats, platform manoeuvrability, full operating freedom of weapons and countermeasures and a reduced vulnerability to mines; it is also increasingly difficult to detect and track.


Transfer of risk Whilst many of the capabilities available to a defender are not new (at least in concept) the modern amphibious force’s appetite for risk has reduced, reflecting the decrease in the number of assets available and the consequences of the loss of even one major platform.


Warship Technology October 2014


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50