SHIPBUILDING
Comments (6)
The US Army already has this type of proposed ship, General Frank S. Besson class LSV, not sure why we need a 2nd Army (Marine Corp) anymore!!!
Carl Webber at 5:17 PM
There are several things that I don't like about the LAW concept...the weak gun armament, the lack of guided missiles and self-protection CIWS and jammers, and the slow speed. If the Requirements were tweaked for better performance, armament, protection, and if the USMC carried a better ground vehicle complement complete with some light and medium tanks and armor, the LAW concept might work.
Bear in mind that LAW will transport 75 Marines and their wheeled vehicles = HMMWVs, JLTVs, HIMARS, MTVRs, and LVSRs. Is LAW for amphibious assault? Is LAW for logistics? Is LAW for Stand-in Forces? Is LAW to pick up Marines from islands? What is LAW for...to run up on the beach or to feed hovercrafts and LCUs? The vagueness from NAVSEA and the USMC is such that LAW seems so undefined and unrefined that the concept itself seems shaky. After all, why not build a military commercial design ferry instead that can go faster?
The LAW designs aren't finalized yet, but I think LAW should be a new design instead of a borrowed design that sails at 14 knots. If the US Army wants in to spend more funds, then the US Navy should accept LAW to transport M1A2 SEP tanks. A joint US Army and USMC LAW concept seems more suitable than just Marines on LAWs because that will amp up the usefulness of LAW and the LAW design = $250 million instead of $150 million just to transport M1A2 tanks.
There are several things that I don't like about the LAW concept...the weak gun armament, the lack of guided missiles and self-protection CIWS and jammers, and the slow speed. If the Requirements were tweaked for better performance, armament, protection, and if the USMC carried a better ground vehicle complement complete with some light and medium tanks and armor, the LAW concept might work.
Bear in mind that LAW will transport 75 Marines and their wheeled vehicles = HMMWVs, JLTVs, HIMARS, MTVRs, and LVSRs. Is LAW for amphibious assault? Is LAW for logistics? Is LAW for Stand-in Forces? Is LAW to pick up Marines from islands? What is LAW for...to run up on the beach or to feed hovercrafts and LCUs? The vagueness from NAVSEA and the USMC is such that LAW seems so undefined and unrefined that the concept itself seems shaky. After all, why not build a military commercial design ferry instead that can go faster?
The LAW designs aren't finalized yet, but I think LAW should be a new design instead of a borrowed design that sails at 14 knots. If the US Army wants “in” to spend more funds, then the US Navy should accept LAW to transport M1A2 SEP tanks. A joint US Army and USMC LAW concept seems more suitable than just Marines on LAWs because that will amp up the usefulness of LAW and the LAW design = $250 million instead of $150 million just to transport M1A2 tanks.
This isn't 1944. An amphibious assault on Chinese shores will never happen. Stop wasting money on platforms that we don't need.
GiantDixieCup at 4:00 PMI agree with Andy and Cenebar that the size and cost of each LAW will need to increase somewhat for it to be effective. I'd put a self-contained SeaRAM CIWS with 11 RAM missiles on each along with a 30 mm gun turret and crew-served weapons. I'd also have a flight deck (which also conceals the cargo below) that could take at least an AH-1 or UH-1 and ideally an MV-22. And either the flight deck or another location should allow a combat vehicle to operate on ship (HIMARS mainly for land attack, NEMESIS for anti-ship, SHORAD for added air defense, or APC or other vehicle with additional guns and anti-tank missiles).
StealthFlyer at 5:41 PM
150 million will get a ship without much value everyone will hate. I think your magix number is 250. 8 LAW that can really deploy with troops for the cost of 1 LPD.
Andy at 11:21 AM