Carrier strike and amphibious
platforms may need to group even closer in order to share some or all of the anti-air, anti-surface and anti-under- water capability available.
In the same
way that a modern amphibious force will not choose to select a landing beach it knows will be heavily opposed, it will also strive to minimise the threats to the launch and sustainment of the operation. In effect, these littoral risks are transferred
to the aviation and surface connectors. Whilst critical as a component, they are more numerous, detection and targeting is more difficult and individual losses are more bearable. Te increased range to the amphibious objectives clearly affects the tempo for both aviation and surface assault waves (critical for exploiting the advantage of operational surprise) but the latter faces a disproportionately negative impact. Despite the wider use of heavy-lift
helicopters (MH53, CH47) within the amphibious inventory, and the development of such capabilities as the tilt rotor MV-22 Osprey, their maximum payload capability is between 8-15tonnes, below the weight of many modern fighting and logistic vehicles. Te utility and reliance on these vehicles, alongside the inherent flexibility of delivering force by both sea and air, means that surface manoeuvre remains a fundamental element of projecting power from the sea.
Surface connector challenge Te performance of the heavy Landing Craſt Air Cushion (LCAC) continues to provide a very real solution to the issue of covering distance quickly; with the full weight load of a main battle tank (MBT) it has a planing speed of 40knots and can reach a beach (and beyond) at 30nm from its launch in 45 minutes. Teir ability to cross 80% of the world’s coastlines and operate into the hinterland over mud, marsh, ice and sand make them a highly attractive asset. However, they are comparatively
expensive to purchase, run, maintain and train to operate, and numbers carried within an ATG are limited. Teir wide beam restricts the number able to be stowed in the amphibious platform dock, being broadly twice the width of an LCU (UK Mk10) that can liſt the same MBT load.
Warship Technology October 2014
CNIM’s L-CAT 100 is a catamaran hulled landing craft with a well deck mounted on rams
Tere are indications of concern within
the most capable amphibious force in the world, the US Navy and the US Marine Corps, that their current surface connector capacity does not close the gap between doctrinal aspiration and operational reality. Despite the impressive speed of the
LCAC, their finite numbers carried within an ATG and the extended operating range means that the build-up of heavy equipment is not fast enough. Te fact that the USMC has abandoned their extensive and expensive efforts to develop an expeditionary fighting vehicle that could triple the afloat speeds of the current amphibious assault vehicle (8-12knots) exacerbates this issue further. Te Mobile Landing Platform concept,
providing more LCACs and an increased operating capacity, will undoubtedly mitigate some of this shortfall. However, the transition of Ship Life Extension Programme (SLEP) LCACs to the new LCAC-100 fleet over the next 20 years may see declines in availability before the new connector fleet is fully in place. Te challenge of operating well beyond
the horizon is even more of an issue for those amphibious forces without heavy LCAC to deliver armour, vehicles and combat supplies to the beach. Te speed of conventional displacement landing craft (utility) has changed little since their development from World War II, with planning speeds varying from approximately 14knots for lighter loads (60tonne tank and below) to 9-10knots (72tonne tank).
Originally planned to operate within
less than 5nm of the beach, the extended range of declared sea bases does not allow the required tempo of amphibious flow. Whilst first waves can be launched to ensure arrival at H-Hour, it is the interval between the second, third and on stream waves that are so important to the Commander Land Forces, to ensure consolidation on the objectives before any counter attack. Slower landing craſt become more exposed and vulnerable to enemy action on theses longer transits to and from the beach, with crew times extended and embarked troops fatigued.
Modern alternatives to LCAC However, there have been some recent developments which offer a real alternative to non-displacement surface connectors. CNIM has produced the L-CAT 100, a catamaran hulled landing craſt used by the French Navy since 2011, with a well deck mounted on rams, that when raised clear of the water is able to operate at speeds of up to 28knots, depending on the load. A more traditionally robust design, but
with a step change in capability, is BMT’s Fast Landing Craſt (FLC), the Caimen 90. A shaped monohull with BMT’s ‘Tribow’ design and three powerful waterjets, it is broadly the same size as a UK Mk 10 LCU.
It has been tank tested to be able
to deliver a 90tonne load at 24knots, and 40knots when unloaded. Notably, this performance is only marginally impacted by sea state, with a speed drop of only 1knot at Sea State 4. Te same sea state, with wave heights of 1.25-2.5m, will have
39
Feature 2
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