shen
Senior Member
Because it is not designed to be LPD based. There is a smaller version, but also shore based. Russia don't have LPD.
071 LPD thread
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
Because it is not designed to be LPD based. There is a smaller version, but also shore based. Russia don't have LPD.
They would've had mistrals, but obviously Ukraine happened.
But my point was that a design half as small as what they offer would also need less propulsion
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
When Putin put his name to the contract with the French they also ordered 4 with 4 Additional options for Landing craft of the L-CAT type which I believe are built for the hold of the Mistral class.
TE, I saw your PM but the links were not working and the PM itself was locking up my Internet Explorer.
I do believe that the USMC brass is concerned about future US amphibious capability. Now, to a nation like China or others who have limited amphib capability historically, it might seem that the USMC generals could easily get by with less.
Also, when you consider that this current administration is not really enamored with, or high on US amphibious intervention capabilites, it is likely that the USMC, for a time at least, may have to learn to do with less. Which will still be several times more than the nearest peer will have.
The new ship to shore connector to replace the LCAC is promising and is basically pretty much like the current LCAC but with a number of very decent enhancements.
The LCU(R) is not full determined yet, but I believe ti will pretty much be the same. An enhanced LCU 1600.
I do like some of the innovative designs, and have great hopes that something like the new Ultra Heavy-Lift Amphibious Connector (UHAC) will gain traction. If you remember, a 40% scale prototype was tested at RIMPAC this year:
Here's a good video of the 40% prototype:
[video=yourtube;KQDLnGAMCS4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQDLnGAMCS4[/video]
The full sized version of that baby will have the following specs:
Length: 95 ft.
Width: 49 ft.
Height: 30 ft.
Speed: 20 knots
Range: 200 miles
Capacity: 190 tons (3 Abrams Tanks)
The current LCAC is 87 feet long and 47 feet wide. They can carry 60 tons, or one Abrams and a few troops.
I quickly put together some depictions of what the full sized craft may look like:
shen
Senior Member
One reason why PLAN LCAC experiment seems to have slowed down could be that PLAN already have a large fleet of the most advanced armored amphibious track vehicles in the world. Complete with fire support, infantry fighting and SP artillery vehicle variants. The reason why USMC is looking for new amphibious connector option is precisely because its AAAV program failed.
No...it precisely is not.
They are completely different assets comprising differing doctrine on their use.
BTW, your terminology is dated. The Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) was changed to the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) quite a while ago, well before it was ever cancelled.
The LCAC replacement is being pursued over and above any issue with the EFV program cancellation. That's because pursuing that replacement is just one of the three types of equipment the US uses off of its well-deck equipped fleet of LHDs, LHAs, LPDs, and LSTs.
One is the Amphibious Assault Vehicle. The US maintains over 1,000 AAV-P7/A1 vehicles. While they were initially put into production in 1972, they have been continuously upgraded. They were significantly enhanced in the mid-1980s and will be going through a new upgrade to enhance and improve their reliability, and maintenance through to the end of their service life in 2030. Those vehicles are very up to date in terms of their capabilities and armament.
There are three different varieties of AAV-P7s:
Personnel: This is the most common and is used to transport troops. It has a turret equipped with an .50 caliber heavy machine gun and a Mk19 40mm automatic grenade launcher. It has four crew radios and is equipped with a AN/VIC-2 intercom system. It carries up to 25 combat equipped Marines to shoe and has a crew of 4: driver, crew chief/vehicle commander, gunner, and rear crewman.
Command: This vehicle is for command and control. It does not have a turret. Most of the cargo space is occupied by communications equipment. It has two crew radios, the VIC-2, two VRC-92s, a VRC-89, a PRC-103 UHF radio, a MRC-83 HF radio and the MSQ internetworking system. It has a crew of 3, and carries 5 radio operators, three staff members, and two commanding officers.
Recovery: This vehicle is an AAV "wrecker." It has a crane as well as most tools and equipment needed for field repairs of other AAVs. It is by far the heaviest of the three, and sits lower in the water.
I would not place the US vehicles behind the Chinese equipment in the least. But the doctrines are quite a bit different. For example, the Chinese vehicles focus less on troop transport and more on IVF (carrying only 8 personnel), also having light tank, command, and recovery variants. They design their equipment accordingly,. The US has designed its equipment to meet its doctrine.
The US is also in the midst of replacing its LCU fleet. That is te third type of equipment used from the well decks. That program too is not related to the cancelation of the EFV program.
The US amphibious doctrine uses all three. They are very experience in all of them...and remain, and will remain for the foreseeable future, the most capable, most flexible, and most lethal amphibious force on earth.
That statement is not an attack on the PLAN. The PLAN is relatively new to the use of well decks and more modern Amphibious assault capabilities. But they are making very credible and significant progress.
@Jeff
I think the key "difference" Shen was referring to was more in terms of water transit speed of the ZBD05 variants versus the USMC's AAV derived variants.
I believe he is correct, in that the USMC's next generation AAV will not have high speed water transit requirements like EFV but rather use a ship to shore connector to reach the beach instead.
From wikipedia: "Given the budget environment, the ACV program was split into two separate phases. The first phase will consist of several hundred commercial off-the-shelf wheeled armored vehicles each costing $3–$4.5 million. It will rely on connectors to get it from ship-to-shore, like the Landing Craft Air Cushion and Joint High Speed Vessel. Relying on connectors to bring the vehicle to a breach allows the sea base to be located 100 miles from enemy threats. The second phase is the original high water speed effort for a vehicle to self-deploy from 12 miles from shore and travel 13-15 knots on water, each costing $12–$14 million."
[The reason for emphasizing a ship to shore connector (i.e.: LCAC and its replacement) is because it can travel far faster than what EFV could do -- that is to say, even if EFV succeeded as a programme, its 25 knot water planing speed wouldn't have been fast enough to conduct the 100 mile OTH assaults the USMC wanted. So now, instead of building a vehicle meant to transit water at high speed on its own power, it will rely on a fast delivery vehicle instead. I think that makes great sense; it makes the vehicle simpler, more affordable, more able to put in the capabilities you want. They are also focusing on a medium speed water planing vehicle that can swim on its own power, for use in other scenarios, it seems, but it is far from the original EFV's speed requirements.]
In that sense, ZBD05 with its 20 knot water transit speed (from a CCTV report a while ago), is meaningfully faster than the USMC's current AAV family in water transit speed (slightly over 7 knots). Obviously water transit speed isn't everything, but having an armoured amphibious assault vehicle with faster water transit could potentially explain why the PLAN hasn't been as keen on developing LCACs, as Shen said....
However I do not think that is the main reason. While yes, ZBD05 and its variants do have impressive water transit speed and potentially the fastest for any in service amphibious assault vehicle for years to come, its speed is not quite enough to do a meaningful OTH assault at 100 miles out -- then again, we don't know enough about PLAN/MC's doctrine on amphibious assaults to even say whether they consider OTH assault a key strategy.
What cannot be disputed however, is that without a LCU or LCAC to take vehicles to shore at decent speed, the PLA will not be able to land MBTs, artillery, and other such vehicles in a pressing environment, and I doubt they will be content sending in only amphibious IFVs and light tanks in any amphibious assault scenario. That is why I think the slow pace in LCAC development doesn't reflect the fact that a 20 knot ZBD05 is enough to satisfy PLA's expectations -- simply because ZBD05 and its variants almost certainly aren't enough going into a hostile environment alone. (Also, I dont' think the ZBD05 122mm SPH version has ever been seen in water the same way as ZBD05 and ZTL05)
----
I think the key "difference" Shen was referring to was more in terms of water transit speed of the ZBD05 variants versus the USMC's AAV derived variants.
I believe he is correct, in that the USMC's next generation AAV will not have high speed water transit requirements like EFV but rather use a ship to shore connector to reach the beach instead.
From wikipedia: "Given the budget environment, the ACV program was split into two separate phases. The first phase will consist of several hundred commercial off-the-shelf wheeled armored vehicles each costing $3–$4.5 million. It will rely on connectors to get it from ship-to-shore, like the Landing Craft Air Cushion and Joint High Speed Vessel. Relying on connectors to bring the vehicle to a breach allows the sea base to be located 100 miles from enemy threats. The second phase is the original high water speed effort for a vehicle to self-deploy from 12 miles from shore and travel 13-15 knots on water, each costing $12–$14 million."
[The reason for emphasizing a ship to shore connector (i.e.: LCAC and its replacement) is because it can travel far faster than what EFV could do -- that is to say, even if EFV succeeded as a programme, its 25 knot water planing speed wouldn't have been fast enough to conduct the 100 mile OTH assaults the USMC wanted. So now, instead of building a vehicle meant to transit water at high speed on its own power, it will rely on a fast delivery vehicle instead. I think that makes great sense; it makes the vehicle simpler, more affordable, more able to put in the capabilities you want. They are also focusing on a medium speed water planing vehicle that can swim on its own power, for use in other scenarios, it seems, but it is far from the original EFV's speed requirements.]
In that sense, ZBD05 with its 20 knot water transit speed (from a CCTV report a while ago), is meaningfully faster than the USMC's current AAV family in water transit speed (slightly over 7 knots). Obviously water transit speed isn't everything, but having an armoured amphibious assault vehicle with faster water transit could potentially explain why the PLAN hasn't been as keen on developing LCACs, as Shen said....
However I do not think that is the main reason. While yes, ZBD05 and its variants do have impressive water transit speed and potentially the fastest for any in service amphibious assault vehicle for years to come, its speed is not quite enough to do a meaningful OTH assault at 100 miles out -- then again, we don't know enough about PLAN/MC's doctrine on amphibious assaults to even say whether they consider OTH assault a key strategy.
What cannot be disputed however, is that without a LCU or LCAC to take vehicles to shore at decent speed, the PLA will not be able to land MBTs, artillery, and other such vehicles in a pressing environment, and I doubt they will be content sending in only amphibious IFVs and light tanks in any amphibious assault scenario. That is why I think the slow pace in LCAC development doesn't reflect the fact that a 20 knot ZBD05 is enough to satisfy PLA's expectations -- simply because ZBD05 and its variants almost certainly aren't enough going into a hostile environment alone. (Also, I dont' think the ZBD05 122mm SPH version has ever been seen in water the same way as ZBD05 and ZTL05)
----
Last edited:
shen
Senior Member
okay, just one reply to this so as to not derail this thread further with off topic discussion.
I'm aware of the AAAV was renamed to EFV to justify the program in post Cold War environment, but I'm not going to play that game. You knew what I was talking about.
AAV family of vehicles are clearly old, slow and under-armed compare to the Chinese amphibious track vehicles. The way USMC was using them in Iraq, as APC, they are also under armored death traps for the marines as demonstrated in battles.
You can check out the blog of a marine named Solomon at snafu-solomon.blogspot.com to follow the developments in sad story of AAV replacement. It is not happening. USMC will run the AAV until they are worn out. USMC won't get a direct replacement for AAV. The attempt to introduce new "connectors" is a desperate attempt to whitewash that downgrade of USMC amphibious capability.
I'm aware of the AAAV was renamed to EFV to justify the program in post Cold War environment, but I'm not going to play that game. You knew what I was talking about.
AAV family of vehicles are clearly old, slow and under-armed compare to the Chinese amphibious track vehicles. The way USMC was using them in Iraq, as APC, they are also under armored death traps for the marines as demonstrated in battles.
You can check out the blog of a marine named Solomon at snafu-solomon.blogspot.com to follow the developments in sad story of AAV replacement. It is not happening. USMC will run the AAV until they are worn out. USMC won't get a direct replacement for AAV. The attempt to introduce new "connectors" is a desperate attempt to whitewash that downgrade of USMC amphibious capability.
I don't think that's quite fair -- while EFV failed as a programme, even if it succeeded, it won't have met the current OTH requirements of the marine corps.
The new ACV programme is a far more logical and reasonable programme imo -- rely on LCACs to deliver survivable armoured fighting vehicles of the APC and IFV kind to shore, at weak points of the foe's shore defence.
Later increments of the ACV will have similar or slightly better swimming capability compared to the current AAV for the situations where a ship can park a few miles off shore, but in the OTH role only a fast LCAC (or high speed LCU) can really work, given the difficulty of building a 40 knot swimming speed AFV.
Also, the PLA's ZBD05 and variants aren't exactly that survivable compared to AAVs, given they lack V hulls for mines and IEDs. That said, ZBD05 and variants aren't really meant to be used in the same way as the USMC uses its AAVs. In fact the entire PLAMC is different to USMC, they're not really meant for deep inland operations, more to assault and secure beach heads or small islands imo.