Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Marines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How will LHA(R) land armour without a well deck?
westwords2020    9/16/2005 9:33:41 AM
I am puzzled by the lack of welldeck on LHA(R). With only MV-22 and CH-53X the USMC will not have capability to land armour such as tanks. LAVs might be hauled by CH-53X and HUMVEES externally by MV-22s but how do they plan to put EFVs in the water? Or will the Marines do without mechanized units like EFV and M1A1 tanks?
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Eagle601    RE:How will LHA(R) land armour without a well deck?   9/16/2005 12:54:28 PM
The armor is primarily carried on LSDs and LPDs anyway.
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:How will LHA(R) land armour without a well deck?   9/16/2005 2:00:34 PM
The well deck was eliminated because it was felt that there was little benefit, yet great cost in having one. The design instead is supposed to have a ramp, which would still allow LCACs, thus allowing heavier vehicles. The real reason is that the ships are intended to be used as mini carriers, more than amphibs...
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:How will LHA(R) land armour without a well deck?   9/18/2005 5:44:10 PM
That is to say, the LHA is not a stand alone ship. It is susposed to function as part of a group. It is primarily a helo carrier. In any case tanks in bulk will arrive by roll off transport ships, at some sort of dock. I dont think there are enough LSD/LPD in the US Navy to carry more than a battalion of tanks & necessary support vehicals, along with the several AAV companys required as well.
Quote    Reply

westwords2020    RE:How will LHA(R) land armour without a well deck?   9/19/2005 10:48:57 AM
Then maybeye the Joint Heavy Lift aircraft,helo or quad tiltrotor can do the heavy lifting over short distances ship to shore of LAVs and perhaps EFVs.
Quote    Reply

leerw    RE:How will LHA(R) land armour without a well deck?   11/16/2005 11:58:21 AM
All of what has been said about the LHA(R) is true, but there is also another method for offloading heavy tactical vehicles. The MPS ships use a RRDF, Ro/Ro Discharge Facility, to land their ramps onto thus allowing vehicles to be driven off onto whatever kind of lighterage there is available. Also the well deck is a "legacy" system which as was pointed out is VERY expensive and takes up a lot of an amphib ships internal volume for all of legacy landing craft (yes the age of the LCAC makes it an OLD system). My solution is to land all kinds of lighterage from LCACs to HSVs to LCUs on a semi-submersible ship which can act a mobile, floating drydock for all of the above vessels. That vessel can come alongside an amphib and vehicles can be cross-decked, or it too can serve as a gigantic RRDF to and amphib's stern ramp.
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:How will LHA(R) land armour without a well deck?   11/16/2005 5:26:56 PM
The LHA is simply not intended to carry heavy vehicals. The purpose designed dock ships will still be there. Carrying LAVs by helos or tiltrotors looks cool in the propaganda shots, and has a small role on the battlefield. But 99% will come ashore via docks & small landing craft. The EFV is able to swim ashore on its own, and is too heavy for air lift anyway.
Quote    Reply

Galrahn    RE:How will LHA(R) land armour without a well deck?   11/18/2005 12:46:09 PM
I didn't think the LHA(R) is being built to replace the LHD-Wasp class. I thought the LHA(R) is being built to solve the air strike capability issue for the Marine Corp when there isn't a land based air field to use, and replace trhe LHA Tarawa class ships. The life cycle of the USS-Wasp LHD-1 should take it until 2024 based on its 35 year life cycle. Seems to me that with the Well Deck capability of the Wasp-class ships, combined with the increased load capability of the LPD-17 ships, the Marine corp has sufficient over the water capability for vehicles. The more and more the LHA(R) thing drags on, particularly since Congress ignored LHA(R) completely in the Senate version of the FY2006 budget, and both the House and the Senate reduced the advanced precurement request by over 400 million dollars in FY2006, the LHA(R) will eventually be a 50,000 ton CV class for the Marine Corp.
Quote    Reply

Clausewitz    RE:How will LHA(R) land armour without a well deck?   1/25/2006 4:35:08 AM
The future of the USMC is basend on its amphibious capabilities. I think the navy will save money to build some new high tech tools. But the navy should be cautious. Without a truly amphibious force their is less demand for navy capabilities too. The US is giving up more more oversea bases. So the task for an amphibious force will widen. Without harbors and airfields the army can't do anything. Taking this into acount, the USMC is of more value than ever. But to take an harbor you will need heavy forces to go ashore. You need LCAC for LAV, tanks and supplies. And many many EFV too. Why do the US will buy so many EFV but do will not procure ships will well decks. I do not understand that.
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:How will LHA(R) land armour without a well deck?   1/25/2006 8:51:50 AM
That question has been answered already. The ships with the well decks already exist & will not be retired for some time. Beyond that: 1. Design work for new well deck ships will probably begain before the decade is out. The USMC Development cmd is keeping the sea lift requirements updated and regularling reviewing hypothetical specs for such ships. 2. Over the past sixty years USMC amphibious doctrine has broadend beyond the concentrated surface assualt against a defended beach. Current doctrine includes focusing on the enemys weak points and the use of air lift to manuver around the enemys hard points. 3. The EFV is not being purchased in large quantitiys. The ratio of EFV to be purchased is one company to each existing battalion of AAV7. Since the individual EFV have a much smaller payload than the AAV7 the over all lift of rifle companys will be about 25% of the current vehicals. There is a growing possibility the EFV will not even be built. There is a internal debate within the Corps over canceling the EFV & and developing something with better capacity and greater reliability.
Quote    Reply

Clausewitz    RE:Maybe the navy procurs little carriers at the expense of the USMC   1/25/2006 9:57:36 AM
Well, the most likley operations will be against failed states, some peacekeeping and dealing with insurgencies. So the USMC will fight against armed gangs and guerrillas with RPG, machine guns and technicals. The EFV with its armor and its 30 mm chain gun will be of great value here. The high tech stuff (Ospreys, JSF, CUAV, ...)and seabased airmobile operations is fine for commandolike operations (raids against iranian facilities for example) and for big wars (China for example - not very likley at the moment). But what scenaorio whatsoever: the USMC exists for amphibious operations. That means to put heavy stuff from ship to shore. Thats true for desaster relief operations too (you do some good with some loaden trucks on a LCAC or a LCU). And if - sometimnes - the USMC will use at least parts of the FCS the LHA (R) will not deliver them ship nto shore. And they are to heavy to be air-lifted. For the LHA(R) I guess (OK: it is a feeling) the navy tries to procure little carriers at the expense of the USMC.
Quote    Reply
1 2