World Wide Marine Corps & Amphibious Ops Discussion

StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The F-35 wont be cancelled.

But the USMC might scale back the fast air, and have to do with minimal fast air.

But its not a huge issue because you still have the world largest carrier force and air force to fall back on.

I can see an argument for them having it, the US carriers are such strategic game changers they are in high demand, they won't always be avalible for every little conflict that flares up.
 
S

SteelTiger 177

New Member
The Marines are still going to have a fast jet force what'll happen is they'll proably go to a blended force of F-35Bs and Cs.The EFV is needed because it can keep up with the M1 and if the the M1A3 does goe forward I believe the U.S.M.C. should get them first since they don't have a large tank force (500 for the Marines and around 6000 for the Army.)
 
S

SteelTiger 177

New Member
I've just learned that the EFV programm has been cancelled.Will General Dynamics Land Systems be putting their former EFV design in (minus the hydroplanning) in as a contender for ACV programme.
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
I was looking thru the stats on various LHD and have come across something i have not seen before.
On wiki for the Mistral class it list displacement 3 different weight configuration, not hard to figure it out with empty and loaded but has with ballast,

Type: landing platform helicopter
Displacement: 16,500 tonnes (empty)
21,300 tonnes (full load)
32,300 tonnes (with ballasts)
Length: 199 metres (653 ft)
Beam: 32 metres (105 ft)
Draught: 6.3 metres (21 ft)


Can someone give me a definition to why they have a full load of 21300 tonnes what does 32300 tonne with ballast?
If she was running empty ballast tanks would full but would that only be at its full weight mark of 21300 tonne?
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
Reading thru this at the moment, thought people might be interested.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12481/11-18-AmphibiousShips.pdf

EDIT
Just had a quick look, but found this bit interesting pg7

Interesting to note that there will only be 2x LHA-6(America class) built without the well dock and any ships ordered after 2011 will have the well dock reinstated. Out of the 12 original planned it looks like it has been scaled back to 7 with the addition of 11 LSD(X) of a type not yet finalised.
 
aussienscale

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #128
Also of interest is DARPA's inclusion into the ACV (Amphibious Combat Vehicle) program, which is the follow on from the cancelled EFV project. Interesting article attached below which basically puts DARPA's FANG (Fast Adaptable Next Generation) program up against what the USMC has already done with the ACV program and they will battle side by side and the USMC will then deicde which to go for.

The article goes into more detail of the process, but I would be interested in your views of this process ? Especially from those of you who have good understanding on aquisition. I will also ad the link to the FBO website

Cheers

DoD Sinks FANG Into Acquisition; Marines, DARPA Join for New Amphib

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=5576f8da1958572524d9be21f62ba9b7&tab=core&_cview=0
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
I have been wondering for some time about the rotary assets of the USMC, they have continued to evolve the Bell Iroquois/Cobra family of helicopters. The US Army still have a number of UH-1H in inventory but are to be replace with the UH-72 Lakota, but their mainstream battlefield helicopter is UH-60 Blackhawk, USN have converted to SH-60 Seahawk since the early 1980's and only had a dozen or so aircraft Twin Huey aircraft for shore based SAR, why did the USMC not follow suit and continue with the UH-1N Twin Huey?

A naval version of the AH-64 Apache was looked at in the 1980’s for what ever reason the funding was not forthcoming with the USMC having no option but further develop the type to what they currently use the AH-1Z Viper, would that have a major effect on Bell if USMC only which to proceeded with Cobra development and not the UH-1N development program?

It is my understanding that the UH-1N nearly did not happen for the US defence force, with the House Armed Service Committee opposing the use of the aircraft with a Canadian produced powerplant, because of the Canadian government opposition to the US involvement in Vietnam.
 
L

LGB

New Member
The US Army uses the UH-60 for air assault while the Corp uses the larger CH-46 which is being replaced by the MV-22. The Corp uses the UH-1N as a utility transport and replacing them with a CH-60 is not only more expensive than going with the UH-1Y, as well as a slightly larger aircraft, but the Corp already is well invested with the UH-1N in terms of both equipment, procedures, etc.

The UH-1Y is a bit smaller than the UH-60 but now with the same engines it's a bit faster and purpose built for the utility role and shares commonality with the AH-1Z. It's a good fit for the USMC.



t68 said:
I have been wondering for some time about the rotary assets of the USMC, they have continued to evolve the Bell Iroquois/Cobra family of helicopters. The US Army still have a number of UH-1H in inventory but are to be replace with the UH-72 Lakota, but their mainstream battlefield helicopter is UH-60 Blackhawk, USN have converted to SH-60 Seahawk since the early 1980's and only had a dozen or so aircraft Twin Huey aircraft for shore based SAR, why did the USMC not follow suit and continue with the UH-1N Twin Huey?

A naval version of the AH-64 Apache was looked at in the 1980’s for what ever reason the funding was not forthcoming with the USMC having no option but further develop the type to what they currently use the AH-1Z Viper, would that have a major effect on Bell if USMC only which to proceeded with Cobra development and not the UH-1N development program?

It is my understanding that the UH-1N nearly did not happen for the US defence force, with the House Armed Service Committee opposing the use of the aircraft with a Canadian produced powerplant, because of the Canadian government opposition to the US involvement in Vietnam.
Click to expand...
 
C

colay

New Member
aussienscale said:
Also of interest is DARPA's inclusion into the ACV (Amphibious Combat Vehicle) program, which is the follow on from the cancelled EFV project. Interesting article attached below which basically puts DARPA's FANG (Fast Adaptable Next Generation) program up against what the USMC has already done with the ACV program and they will battle side by side and the USMC will then deicde which to go for.

The article goes into more detail of the process, but I would be interested in your views of this process ? Especially from those of you who have good understanding on aquisition. I will also ad the link to the FBO website

Cheers

DoD Sinks FANG Into Acquisition; Marines, DARPA Join for New Amphib

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=5576f8da1958572524d9be21f62ba9b7&tab=core&_cview=0
Click to expand...
The FANG concept is intriguing..an open competition to conceptualize and build an ACV alternative for the Marines will hopefully generate novel and innovative solutions to meet user requirements.. great idea and it will be interesting to see how the eventual end-product matches up with the ACV designed the traditional way.. stay tuned..
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
Looking thru an analysis of the back flip of the UKGov in regards to F35B for the Queen Elizabeth class carrier, in regards for bring back of ordnance part of the design requirements was for a technique called rolling vertical landing (SRVL) could the USMC use the same landing technique on the smaller LHA/D class of ship, if not what would the difference in weapons loads outs be between US and RN F35B is it a significant amount.

Making Sense of the F35 Decision | Think Defence
 
S

SteelTiger 177

New Member
I wonder whats going to be done about a new generation of landing craft.Today in the U.S.Navy this role is mainly filled by the LCACs the biggest thing to happen to amphibious warfare since the higgens boats that were built in WWII.The U.S. needs to give some thought to developing a new generation of LCACs not just to replace the existing models but also a smaller hovercraft that'll replace the LCM and LCUs which are to slow but also serve a a gunboat to provide close-in fire support amphibious forces.
 
C

colay

New Member
SteelTiger 177 said:
I wonder whats going to be done about a new generation of landing craft.Today in the U.S.Navy this role is mainly filled by the LCACs the biggest thing to happen to amphibious warfare since the higgens boats that were built in WWII.The U.S. needs to give some thought to developing a new generation of LCACs not just to replace the existing models but also a smaller hovercraft that'll replace the LCM and LCUs which are to slow but also serve a a gunboat to provide close-in fire support amphibious forces.
Click to expand...
There's a new generation hovercraft in the works, the Ship
to Shore Connector (SSC).

Ship to Shore Connector: the USN’s New Hovercraft
 
aussienscale

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #136
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Looks like the emphasis is in the water performance and the tracks are for shore landing and traversing short distances but just a guess.
 
FormerDirtDart

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
John Fedup said:
Looks like the emphasis is in the water performance and the tracks are for shore landing and traversing short distances but just a guess.
Click to expand...
That's what i was thinking. Crawling over coral or through the shallows and off of the beach before discharging its occupants. Looks like passengers will mount/dismount over the sides
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top