Speed ​​or survivability: the Marine Corps and the US Navy disagree over the concept of a new amphibious assault ship

5
Speed ​​or survivability: the Marine Corps and the US Navy disagree over the concept of a new amphibious assault ship

The ship of the future, which the US Marine Corps needs to replenish the dwindling number of amphibious assault ships of the Navy, may not be suitable for the intended mission during a military conflict. Recent comments from a Marine Corps Command spokesman cast doubt on both the survivability of the Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) and the broader issue of how the Corps will support remotely deployed units under its latest concept.

The Marines want the LAW, which is a fraction of the size and capability of current amphibians, to support their Force Design 2030 plans. Congress has yet to set funding for the first LAW, scheduled to be built in 2025, giving enough time to set serious questions to the leadership of the Navy and the Marine Corps.



The Navy and Marine Corps disagree on how reliable a LAW should be. The Marines want to keep the cost of each ship at $150 million so more units can be built. This concept requires the creation of a ship with a maximum speed that is significantly less than that of existing amphibians. fleet. Also, the ship is going to be equipped with minimal weapons. According to the characteristics of survivability, this should be an analogue of the base commercial vessel.

The Navy rejected the latter point, arguing that the ship should have the survivability of traditional American warships, which would push the cost of the ship up to $350 million. But increased survivability can ultimately affect speed.

Opposing a more reliable design and higher cost, the Marine Corps command said that when conflict erupted, the risk to the LAW would be reduced by the efficiency of moving Marines.

This argument creates an obvious dilemma: if the redeployed Marines are unable to continue attacking enemy ships, they become useless in the operation. If they are ready to fight, they will be easy targets on LAW.

As a result, some for speed and maneuverability, others for survivability.

Before Congress agrees to fund a new class of ships to support a concept that has drawn a lot of criticism from various quarters, it should need a better explanation of how these ships will fulfill the mission that the Marine Corps envisions for them, and whether they are a suitable replacement for the current ones. moment in service.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

5 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    February 7 2023
    The old armor versus speed dilemma. Tank building also suffers from this.
    1. -4
      February 7 2023
      Speed ​​or survivability: the Marine Corps and the US Navy disagree over the concept of a new amphibious assault ship
      yes, speed, of course ... the Yankees, the main thing is to "save your ass."
  2. 0
    February 7 2023
    They need 5 thousand abrams. nemflot, especially the landing of soldiers.
    Texas war against Boston and San Francisco.
    A land power after the collapse of the global dollar empire.
    And who will Illinois and Detroit be for and against?
  3. 0
    February 7 2023
    I think the industry will squeeze the ILC, and then they will build something that is more expensive, it’s just that apparently they haven’t put the right amount in the right office yet
  4. 0
    February 7 2023
    We would have their problems. For 11 billion to build a vessel or for 23 yards. This is a microdistrict of 10 houses with 100 apartments or even three. I am in rubles. Not in Moscow. In the age of missiles and UAVs, the maximum speed is nothing, cruising is more important. Armor with the development of the same underwater drones (in the protection version), anti-missiles and systems like KAZ on tanks is preferable to the armor itself.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"