Military Review

Amphibious amphibious groups of the US Navy. A bluff or a real threat?

60
Amphibious amphibious groups of the US Navy. A bluff or a real threat?



Brave American GIs take cities by the forces of a single battalion of marines! Neither the lack of Coca-Cola, nor the delay in the delivery of pizza to the front line - nothing can break the morale of the American Marines. Steadfastly enduring the army’s military service, US soldiers crush a ten-fold superior enemy force and hoist a stars and stripes flag (a-k "mattress") on Iwo Jima, Okinawa or At-Tahrir central square in the glorious city of Baghdad.

What? The situation looks quite realistic. The Americans have everything they need to carry out such operations: a fleet of universal landing ships, special landing craft, helicopters, high-speed hovercraft, amphibious Tanks and four divisions of selected thugs equipped with the most advanced weapons. There is even a special term - the amphibious assault group (ADH) of the US Navy. Powerful and compact tool for "projection of force" anywhere on the planet.

Universal landing ship!

A modern "Noah's Ark" capable of transporting and disembarking marines on an equipped or unequipped enemy coast. Huge autonomy and cruising range allow UDC to act independently on the other end of the Earth, and the presence on board of two or three dozen units of aircraft makes it possible to land combat teams in the depths of the enemy’s territory, providing solid fire support to the landing forces.

UDC is not just a landing ship. This is the command center of the entire operation - the headquarters and the combat information center, where all the information about the current situation in the landing zone flows. The Admiral Cabin, a multitude of satellite channels, dozens of working posts for operators and operators ... The universal landing ship presents fantastic opportunities for managing amphibious operations.

UDC is a comfortable floating hospital, designed to accommodate hundreds of victims of military operations, accidents and cataclysms. There are a dozen operating rooms aboard the ship, in which the most complex surgical operations can be performed at the same time - a coastal hospital would envy the medical equipment of the UDC.



UDC has created a new format for amphibious operations. Over-the-horizon landing makes it possible not to expose the ship to the danger of shelling from the shore - during landing, the modern UDC must be located tens of kilometers from the coast of the enemy, remaining invisible to enemy radar and invulnerable to the fire of the barrel artillery. Equipment and personnel are transported to the shore by speedboats and helicopters.

Finally, the modern UDC is equipped with a complex of self-defense weapons, capable of repelling random attacks of broken missiles, enemy aircraft and sabotage groups.
Boats, helicopters, armored vehicles, thousands of personnel units, gigantic warehouses and storage facilities, a command center and a hospital are all one UDC. Power, efficiency and savings. One ship duplicates the tasks of a dozen ships. Is not that great?

No, that's not great. This is ridiculous.

According to statistics, the rate of tonnage required per paratrooper during World War II was 7 gross registered tons. What does this figure mean? Just ordinary human needs - eat and drink. Without any vulgar jokes.

In the long journeys there is a shortage of the most necessary - it is often difficult to find even fresh water suitable for drinking. Soldiers need a camp kitchen with all the necessary equipment. Tents, blankets, medicines. Hygiene products - you do not want your platoon turned into a herd of stinking animals? Often, special equipment is needed (from shovels and binoculars to laser illumination equipment). Optional - air conditioning, Coca-Cola and mobile diesel generators.

Weapons and Ammunition. This is just a nightmare — for example, the Red Army's supply standard for the 1941 model of the year installed an 72 shot per day for one 152 mm gun; in reality, in a tense battle, the ammunition consumption exceeded the norm many times. In our case, thousands of artillery shells will have to be delivered far to distant lands!

It is no secret that the demand for material resources has increased many times over time - already during the Falkland Conflict (1982 year), the tonnage rate per British paratrooper reached 50 gross registered tons. What do you want? Severe weather conditions, a long expedition on the other end of the Earth.
It turns out a simple proportion. Are the Marines 2000 aboard the universal assault ship? Very well, immediately put in the wake of UDC three container ships with equipment, provisions and ammunition.

It is easy to imagine how much fuel the Abrams' gas-turbine engines eat, how much fresh water is required for soldiers in hot desert conditions, and will two, five, even ten thousand Marines have enough strength to carry out a large landing operation in modern conditions? However, this is slightly lower.

UDC - the flagship! A common misconception, actively introduced into the philistine consciousness with the help of vivid but meaningless phrases such as “coordination center”, “combat information server” etc. In reality, when there is a need for centralized management of a large landing operation conducted by the diverse forces of the Marine Corps, aviation и fleet - special command ships come to the rescue.

In the Soviet Union, two outdated cruisers of the 68-bis project were converted for these purposes. “Zhdanov” and “Senyavin” lost part of their armament, in return, the ships received an additional mast with antenna devices, a helipad, a printing house, comfortable cabins for senior officers, cockpit for a musical orchestra and working premises of a staff operational post with a total area of ​​350 square. meters


USS Mount Whitney - US Navy Sixth Fleet Staff Ship

As for the US Navy, the Americans initially built specialized staff of the Blue Ridge type. Smooth open deck with a multitude of covers of antenna devices, a helipad, modern communication systems, equipped rooms for briefings and press conferences, as well as command posts where up to 200 officers and 500 junior specialists can work simultaneously.
Trying to "shove" all this equipment onto a universal landing craft means turning the UDC into an overly complex and unreasonably expensive design that is not capable of fully performing landing and staff functions.

History with the “ultra-modern hospital” on board the UDC is completely analogous to the story of the headquarters. Evacuation and medical assistance are always carried out by specialized hospital vessels, whose activities are regulated by the Hague Conventions 1899 and 1907.


Hospital ship "Irtysh", Pacific Fleet

Dozens of operating rooms, an infirmary for a thousand beds, an X-ray room, a medical laboratory, a pharmacy, functional research rooms, an intensive care unit, a dental room, a morgue, oxygen stations ... it’s a non-trivial task to put all this on board.

Finally, hundreds of victims have nothing to do on a warship - they need to be urgently brought home, while putting as little danger as possible. The best solution is a special floating hospital that meets all the requirements of the Hague Convention.

White color, green stripe along the entire length of the hull, interrupted by three red crosses - deliberate sinking of such a vessel is regarded as a war crime. Whatever the skeptics say, victims who are aboard a hospital ship are many times more likely to reach their native shores than those who remained aboard a universal landing craft.

As a result, instead of one “universal” landing ship, several specialized ships and vessels appear - container ships with equipment, staff and hospital ships ...

But what about an escort? True, a dozen surface and underwater warships. And to them - a dozen naval tankers with fuel, fresh water and technical liquids. In addition, our squadron will need a floating master and several ocean tugboats (rescue complexes) to evacuate damaged and damaged ships from the database area. Plus a couple of mine-sweeping ships ... As a result, a giant compound of dozens of pennants looms, which is quite unlike the "compact amphibious group."

A vivid example - during the Anglo-Argentine conflict 1982, the British "sea wolves" drove a squadron of 86 warships and support vessels to the Falklands! (excluding the group sent to the island of Y. George and the ships that provided the transatlantic squadron crossing).

Paradoxically, but true:

1. Amphibious amphibious groups do not exist, because their existence in today's realities, in principle, is impossible. Landing operations are carried out by the colossal forces of the army, aviation and navy - this is a very expensive “game” in which, in addition to dozens of warships, hundreds of support vessels are involved.

2. The universal amphibious assault ship (helicopter carrier-dock), similar to the American "Wospam" and "Taram" - empty bravado and the release of funds to the wind. Exceptionally large, expensive and useless ships are not able to solve the problem for which they were once created. They cannot even seize the smallest country (as they say, not according to Senka's hat), while their use in any of the modern conflicts is inefficient and wasteful.



The French-Russian Mistral, the Spanish Juan Carlos, the American San Antonio and their counterparts look a little better - these ships are of relatively modest size and adequate cost, however, their scope is limited to colonial disassembly and the suppression of savage riots .

As for the "serious" conflicts ("Desert Storm", etc.), in the course of them, the UDC "Mistral" can be, and even should be. But, it should be understood that the contribution of "Mistral" will be microscopic. UDC does not solve anything in modern war, it requires a completely different technique.

But who are these mysterious conquerors that make a decisive contribution in the transfer of forces of the marines? Who are these monsters that can quickly deliver a million-strong army to foreign shores? They are not shown in parades and in museums, they are not made films about them and they do not write books. The existence of these machines is the Great Secret of the American fleet, which cannot be mentioned in the media. Therefore, instead of the real state of affairs, the Pentagon tells a tale about “amphibious groups” and focuses the attention of listeners on other nonsense.

High-speed transports of the Shipping Command.

Pleiad of 100 Leviathans that can bring democracy to any of the enemies of the State Department. Their size will be envied by the aircraft-carrying cruiser “Admiral Kuznetsov” (up to 300 meters in length, the displacement in cargo is more than 60 thousand tons). At the same time, the giants can well claim the "Blue Ribbon of the Atlantic" * - their speed goes beyond the 20 nodes, up to the 33 nodes at the Algol gas turbine lines!
* "Blue Ribbon of the Atlantic" - a prize awarded to the fastest trans-ocean liners in the early twentieth century









Most of them have a civilian past - ordinary Dutch, Danish, British, South Korean (and even one Soviet!) Container ships recruited for the needs of the American fleet. The Pentagon carefully monitors high-speed container ships, roll-overs (vessels for the transport of wheeled and tracked vehicles), dry cargo ships around the world, and dry cargo ships and actively purchases samples of marine engineering. A period of intensive modernization (ramps and ramps, 110V electrical network, cargo arrows, and other special equipment) - and the nightmarish ghost of war enters the ocean - a tank landing ship capable of delivering a hundred Abrams and tens of thousands of other equipment in one flight .

- The former name?

- “Laura Maersk”

- Place of Birth?

- Denmark.

- Who are you now?

- USNS Shughart (T-AKR 295), 277-meter roller of the Shipping Command, lead ship in a series of three units.

A little less epic, but no less useful units are periodically found among the Leviathans - cable handlers, tankers, submarine bases, oceanographic ships and mobile landing platforms. Each ship has its own clear purpose, while in peacetime, some of them sleep in conservation, and sometimes perform tasks in the interests of civil organizations. By the way, the bulk of the crews of the Shipping Command are civilian civilian sailors, the military appear on the decks of the Leviathans only during trips to the combat zone.

***

It is worth making a small digression. Of course, the concept of the Shipping Command does not imply direct participation in the landings on the enemy coast. It seems that the Yankees completely abandoned the idea of ​​large-scale amphibious assault forces - in modern conditions, an attempt to attack head-on at the enemy’s shore is too complicated and risky, threatening to result in unjustifiably high losses. The brave Americans act in a different, knurled pattern - unload tanks in the port of the nearest friendly state, accumulate strength and ... voila! Steel avalanche of armored vehicles rushed across the border.

Goal is Iraq? But why storm the Iraqi coast - let's carry democracy across the border of Saudi Arabia. Goal - Syria? We'll stop across the Turkish-Syrian border. Goal is Iran? We'll stop across the Iran-Iraq border.

This is where the need for Leviathans arises - in a couple of months, the giant transports will deliver thousands of armored vehicles, fuel, provisions, equipment and hundreds of thousands of army and marines personnel to the right port. And then - the war.
The giant fleet of Leviathans is the very means to "project force" in any corner of the planet. Only, in contrast to the cheap threats emanating from amphibious groups, the Maritime Traffic Command is really ABLE to bring democracy to any country in the world.

***

Comparing Leviathans with “Mistrals”, “Wasps” and “Tarawas” is simply insulting - the UDC is just puppies compared to these mutants. How many aircraft fit aboard the Mistral? 16 Medium-sized helicopters?
Leviathan, without batting an eye, delivers 100 helicopters + spare parts, fuels and lubricants, ammunition and auxiliary equipment to the enemy coast.


Helicopters "Apache" are preparing for loading

Cargo decks of military transport "Bob Hope" (by the way, one of the few that was originally built in American shipyards by special order of the US Navy) is equal in area to eight football fields. This allows you to transport Hummer truck and car units to 900 at a time. To save time, the vehicle is driven on its own power through a folded aft ramp.

Unloading can occur in several ways: through the aft and side ramps, using four cargo arrows with a load capacity of 110 tons, or, if there is no possibility to get close to the shore, using pontoon ferries or using MLP mobile landing platforms (tanks are distilled to the moored board platform, from where they are delivered by boats and barges to the shore).
Most of the Leviathans have equipped helicopter pads (and even hangars) on the upper deck - all this further expands the capabilities of these giant cargo ships.




Unloading equipment using pontoons




MLP at work

Epilogue

The river of truth flows through the bed of delusions. Media reports about the arrival of another amphibious-amphibious group of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf - dummy, stun grenade, snag. The real war begins only after the Leviathans of the Maritime Transportation Command arrive in the intended combat area. In this technique lies the entire strength of the American armed forces - power, mobility, speed of deployment. It is from these giant transports that the greatest threat emanates: without them, the US Army would be locked up, as in a prison, on the North American continent and would not have the slightest opportunity to establish democracy outside its own country.




USNS Antares is one of the fastest cargo ships in the world (Algol-type gas turbine vessel)







Based on:
http://www.fas.org/
http://www.msc.navy.mil/
http://historiwars.narod.ru/
Author:
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Guun
    Guun 29 May 2013 09: 40 New
    +2
    (Gallant American GIs take cities with the help of one battalion of the Marine Corps! Neither the lack of Coca-Cola nor the delay in delivering pizza to the front line can help break the morale of the American Marines. Having endured the hardships and deprivations of army service, US soldiers crush ten times superior in strength to the enemy and hoist a star-striped flag (a-ka "mattress") on the next Iwo Jima, Okinawa or the central square of At-Tahrir in the glorious city of Baghdad.)
    It killed simply. And where is the Sunni Triangle that was never taken? Two unsuccessful assaults of Fallujah and a loss in Afghanistan? They mastered Japan only when the Legendary Zhukov defeated the Kwantung Army and before that did not dare. Maybe on the contrary, dozens of Taliban confront a whole US army and soullessly destroy honor. Everyone remembers about Vietnam, and when the Chinese brought the armada of the United States and Europe from North Korea to the infamous parallel, I did not hear that one battalion could withstand the onslaught of the Reds. Tales are all, yes they are strong but only against banana republics - if not, they would have taken Syria and Iran long ago, and Afghanistan would have been under control right from its occupation.
    1. Atrix
      Atrix 29 May 2013 10: 37 New
      +5
      Quote: Guun
      Two unsuccessful assaults of Fallujah

      Do not teach history again? The first assault ended in a truce, and the second assault ended in the fall of Fallujah.
      Quote: Guun
      And where is the Sunni Triangle that was never taken?

      Does Iraq Still Resist US Occupation? Or maybe he fell a long time ago.
      Quote: Guun
      losing in Afghanistan?

      This is the same loss as the loss of the USSR before. I do not understand how to control Afghanistan? That in the USSR attacks were carried out on the columns that in the USA are also being committed.
      Quote: Guun
      They mastered Japan only when the Legendary Zhukov defeated the Kwantung Army

      Read about it below. You have already written that you need to learn history.
      Quote: Guun
      but before that they did not dare

      And before that they dropped a couple of nuclear bombs. The defeat of the Kwantung Army only accelerated the end of the war. This is the same if people claim that the opening of the 2nd front played a major role in the victory over Germany, but we know that this is not true, the opening of the 2nd front only accelerated its defeat.
      Quote: Guun
      Everyone remembers about Vietnam, and when the Chinese brought the armada of the United States and Europe from North Korea to the infamous parallel

      Well, if the United States and Europe were driven out, then probably now there is no South Korea? As always, do not teach history recourse
      1. helix
        helix 29 May 2013 11: 26 New
        +5
        I agree with Atrix. The first comment is too harsh. But I agree with the main idea of ​​the article. Was on "Mistral" and on a similar UDC "Johan de Vitto". Not warships. For colonial wars.
      2. Kazanok
        Kazanok 6 June 2013 22: 19 New
        0
        Quote: Atrix
        This is the same if people claim that the opening of the 2nd front played a major role in the victory over Germany, but we know that this is not true, the opening of the 2nd front only accelerated its defeat.

        By the way, it’s not true .. if it weren’t for the help of the Allies and if they hadn’t existed ... 100% of the scoop would have fallen .... there aren’t even any questions ... it’s just that the human resources were so high that we started the call 17- summer at the same time as Germany .... so the alliance saved us ...
    2. Pushkar
      Pushkar 29 May 2013 11: 10 New
      0
      Quote: Guun
      They mastered Japan only when the Legendary Zhukov defeated the Kwantung Army but before that they did not dare.
      The feat of the Red Army, which defeated the Kwantung Army in two weeks, is undoubtedly great. But the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which demoralized the Japanese, were on August 6 and 8, 1945. Ours entered the war on August 9, 1945. There is no need to hatred.
      1. Santa Fe
        29 May 2013 15: 53 New
        +7
        Quote: Pushkar
        But the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which demoralized the Japanese, were 6 and 8 of August 1945 of the year.

        The outcome of the war in the Pacific was decided by the four previous years of the war.

        By 1945, Japan had lost 2 million troops, the entire fleet and aircraft, and had lost sources of oil and ore (all that remained in the East Indies). A completely defeated country with broken factories, stopped industry and demoralized leadership.

        Atomic bombs and the entry of the USSR into the war was the last straw that forced the Japanese to sign surrender
        Quote: Pushkar
        Red Army, defeating the Kwantung Army in two weeks

        Naturally, the Kwantung Army arr. 1945 was a dysfunctional gathering of reservists. Without aviation, BTT, fuel and modern weapons.
        Fact - not a single airplane of the Kwantung army took off, and the only tank battle took place on Sakhalin
      2. Kazanok
        Kazanok 6 June 2013 22: 20 New
        0
        Quote: Pushkar
        The feat of the Red Army, which defeated the Kwantung Army in two weeks, is undoubtedly great

        oh .. and what a feat there ... the gobins drove through the desert that's all ... so the chances with johnny all of North Africa so traveled for 3 years ...
  2. StolzSS
    StolzSS 29 May 2013 09: 42 New
    0
    Well, yes, until these mutants deliver the army, the war will not begin a maximum raid of aviation ...
  3. alex67
    alex67 29 May 2013 09: 50 New
    +7
    THANKS TO THE AUTHOR FOR AN INTERESTING ARTICLE AND QUALITATIVE PHOTOS hi
  4. avt
    avt 29 May 2013 09: 50 New
    18
    Damned aircraft carriers! laughing Perhaps only cooler is this comment.
    Quote: StolzSS
    They mastered Japan only when the Legendary Zhukov defeated the Kwantung Army and before that did not dare.
    laughing good Nothing that the Far East Headquarters sent Vasilevsky?
    1. Atrix
      Atrix 29 May 2013 10: 09 New
      +9
      Quote: avt
      Damned aircraft carriers! laughing Perhaps only cooler is this comment.
      Quote: StolzSS
      They mastered Japan only when the Legendary Zhukov defeated the Kwantung Army and before that did not dare.
      laughing good Nothing that the Far East Headquarters sent Vasilevsky?

      It's not scary recourse Learning history is not in fashion now, as well as thinking before writing.
      1. Guun
        Guun 29 May 2013 10: 20 New
        +3
        Sorry, confused (.
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 29 May 2013 15: 27 New
      0
      They mastered Japan only when the Legendary Zhukov defeated the Kwantung Army and before that did not dare
      Eloquence of utterances FULLY replaces knowledge of facts wink
      Carrier ships are really the main evil wink and should be erased even from memory.
      The whole dumb world is being led by admiral complexes and is building them wink
      Well, and the general feeling - the author read about the ILC and, in general, the role of shipping, could not fail to reproach them with aircraft carriers wink wink wink
  5. SPIRITofFREEDOM
    SPIRITofFREEDOM 29 May 2013 11: 09 New
    0
    True democrats must be able to bring hell to the earth
  6. Nayhas
    Nayhas 29 May 2013 11: 20 New
    +7
    Oleg, as always, simplifies everything. USNS support ships belong to the Command of Maritime Transportation (Com.MP), they are the logistics units involved in supporting not only the US Navy, but all units operating outside the United States. Their task is to bring, refuel, provide, transfer. Landing operations and cargo delivery are different from each other. Military personnel serve on landing ships, civilian personnel on ships of the sea transportation command, respectively, they cannot be in the combat zone. In the same Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US Navy's UDC, DKD and DVKD were actively used, which, after the landing, performed various tasks from air cover for the marines to sweeping sea mines. In total, 19 amphibious ships were used, the support was carried out by 15 ships of the Kom.MP and 1 hospital ship. If the landing ships were not engaged in direct landing on the coast of Iraq, this does not mean that they are not needed at all and their place may well be taken by the ships of the Kom.MP. They complement each other and cannot be interchangeable.
    PS: I consider it necessary to clarify US landing ships
    LHA (Landing Helicopter Assault) - UDC (Universal Landing Ship), perhaps not quite the right classification, in fact it is an attack landing helicopter carrier, has a full flight deck, but without a catapult. Attack wing includes both aircraft GDP, and attack helicopters, as well as transport helicopters. Displacement of more than 40 thousand tons, a large docking chamber accommodates a variety of landing boats. It is currently represented by one USS Peleliu (LHA-5) of the Tarawa type, which will soon replace USS America (LHA-6) with a displacement of about 46 thousand tons.
    LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock) - almost the same as LHA, the US Navy has 8 Wasp ships, which will also be replaced by America's LHA.
    LPD (Landing Platform / Dock) - DVKD (Landing Helicopter Carrier Ship-Dock), has a smaller displacement of 20 thousand tons, instead of a flight deck, a large helipad in utah, there is a hangar for helicopters or convertiplanes. The docking chamber is correspondingly smaller and holds less landing facilities. The United States Navy is represented by two types of Austin and six types of San Antonio, the first to be decommissioned as you enter the new type of San Antonio.
    LSD (Landing Ship, Dock) - DKD (Landing Ship Dock), displacement of 16 thousand tons, there is a large helipad in Utah, but there is no hangar, so it does not have its own aircraft. Of the landing facilities, only boats placed in the docking chamber. In the U.S. Navy, 8 types of Whidbey Island and 4 types of Harpers Ferry are no longer being built.
    1. Santa Fe
      29 May 2013 16: 14 New
      +3
      Quote: Nayhas
      PS: I consider it necessary to clarify US landing ships

      LHA, LSD ... This is all money down the drain.
      Large landing operations against trained opponents have become too dangerous and unprofitable.

      Indeed, why crawl under bullets onto a spiky beach, if you can accumulate more strength and move across the border from the land side. More powerful, safer, more efficient!

      It can be said even easier - the Marines these days have lost their original meaning. The Marines have turned into elite expeditionary units that fight anytime, anywhere. But just not knee-deep in the water, getting out under fire at the enemy shore.
      1. Kars
        Kars 29 May 2013 16: 46 New
        +2
        1991 did not decide to drop
        1. Santa Fe
          29 May 2013 17: 09 New
          +2
          Quote: Kars
          1991 did not decide to drop

          right. they drove through the Saudis (73Isting and all that)
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas 30 May 2013 08: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Indeed, why crawl under bullets onto a spiky beach, if you can accumulate more strength and move across the border from the land side. More powerful, safer, more efficient!

        The fact that the United States did not have to make a landing on an unfitted coast does not mean that amphibious forces are not needed at all. All countries that have strained relations with the United States and have a sea coast mean that they have a huge fleet of landing ships. In this regard, in the event of a war, it will be necessary to deal not only with equipping land borders, but also the sea coast, which entails a scattering of forces and means. For example, this happened with Iraq in 1991, when Hussein was waiting for an amphibious operation from the sea, because the United States conducted exercises to land expeditionary brigades of the Marine Corps in the Saudi Arabia, moreover, "in the period from January 31 to February 1, Marine units with the support of aviation and naval artillery occupied Umm al-Maradim, 25 km east of Kuwait (Iraqi air defense systems and artillery positions were destroyed). " Will there be amphibious operations in the future? Nobody knows, but it is difficult to reproach the Americans for their impracticality.
  7. Maks111
    Maks111 29 May 2013 11: 34 New
    +1
    US soldiers crush the enemy ten times more powerful and hoist a star-striped flag (aka “mattress”) on the next Iwo Jima, Okinawa or central At-Tahrir square in the glorious city of Baghdad.
  8. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 29 May 2013 11: 41 New
    +1
    Thanks for the article, in fact, everything is correct.
  9. smart ass
    smart ass 29 May 2013 11: 43 New
    +4
    OLEG! EXCELLENT ARTICLE AND PHOTO! WELL DONE!
  10. USNik
    USNik 29 May 2013 11: 52 New
    +2
    Nayhas thanks, clearly and to the point. Unlike the author of the article, who is mistlephobic. The beginning was more or less adequate, and then, as usual, the comparison of the UDC began, either with hospitals, or with command ships, or with barges, and all this against the background of "lethal" evidence like "there are a lot of people and they need to eat and drink a lot, so UDC is garbage "(then cruise liners are also bullshit, people are consuming even more there, so what?); "More disassembled helicopters fit into the hold of the barge, therefore the UDC is not suitable", "many additional escort ships are needed for the UDC" (yeah, and the barge itself took and sailed, and was abruptly unloaded), etc. etc. In general, as they say
    Started for health, and finished for repose (s)
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 29 May 2013 12: 32 New
      +3
      Quote: USNik
      Unlike the author of the article, which is a mistralophobe

      Yes, not so much.
      Author
      As for the "serious" conflicts ("Desert Storm", etc.), in the course of them, the UDC "Mistral" can be, and even should be. But, it should be understood that the contribution of "Mistral" will be microscopic. UDC does not solve anything in modern war, it requires a completely different technique.
    2. Santa Fe
      29 May 2013 16: 27 New
      0
      Quote: USNik
      UDC comparison with hospitals, then with command ships

      If the UDC is trying to duplicate the tasks of command ships and hospitals, then they should be compared with the command ship and the hospital.
      UDC in both cases loses
      Quote: USNik
      it turns out then cruise ships are also garbage, where people consume even more, so what?

      The landing operation lasts much longer than a cruise. Without transports and container ships, the marines will die of starvation and will be left without cartridges.
      Quote: USNik
      and all this against the background of "killer" evidence like "there are a lot of people and they need to eat and drink a lot

      Okay, give the calculation of the required number of food, fuel, ammunition and equipment per 2000 marines and 50 units. automotive technology + 20 turntables. The duration of the operation is 2 months (as in the Falklands).

      And now compare the resulting figure with the displacement of the UDC type "Wasp" - we take the largest one)))
      Quote: USNik
      "More disassembled helicopters fit into the hold of the barge

      At the same time, the barge is also cheaper.
      And faster!
      1. Raphael_83
        Raphael_83 29 May 2013 18: 52 New
        +5
        Oleg, thanks.
        I cannot but note that although a number of your articles periodically suffer from some radicalism of judgment (in the opinion of site visitors) smile , it should be noted that in most cases the analyst is just the same unbiased, just very unusual. It is in terms of comparing aggregates, structures or concepts that are different in appearance. I myself am an analyst (by work), but I, like the absolute majority of "room" analysts, are subject to typical "script", so to speak, cliches, they are caught in the trap of stereotypical thinking. For example, it would never have come to my mind to compare UDC and express transports, simply because these ships are from fundamentally different categories: combat ships and support ships - but if you think about it, indeed (!) In modern geopolitical conditions, the delivery of an army corps with all means of support and reinforcement to the force projection area is much more effective than a marine battalion with a dozen turntables, a dozen LAV-25s, but completely without or with a minimum of dry rations and shells.
        Thank you for the periodic and - most importantly - non-trivial "instructions" (although not always indisputable)fellow . Then let me take my leave hi .
        1. Santa Fe
          30 May 2013 14: 22 New
          +3
          Rafael, my contribution here is modest - all this was invented by smart heads in the Pentagon (General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, British Admiralty, etc.).

          When you start to analyze these things, tactics, the number of forces and means involved, dozens of unaccounted circumstances pop up, the war does not look at all as it is presented on television.

          In any case, successful military operations are carried out with a very VERY serious preparation and tales about "compact amphibious groups" and "invincible AUGs" are nothing more than fairy tales
  11. vomag
    vomag 29 May 2013 12: 13 New
    +3
    [quote = Pushkar] The feat of the Red Army, which defeated the Kwantung Army in two weeks, is undoubtedly great. But the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which demoralized the Japanese, were on August 6 and 8, 1945. Ours entered the war on August 9, 1945.

    yeah? and when did Japan capitulate? so their poor demoralized that they still about a month from fear truncated ** running away from mattresses? her brother, our army, our soldiers knelt them and no kamikaze bushido and other rubbish were our obstacles !!!! The surrender of Japan was signed on September 2, 1945 aboard the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay, when the country's last hope was rising almost a millionth Kwantung army was completely defeated !!!.
    1. IRBIS
      IRBIS 29 May 2013 13: 51 New
      +5
      Quote: vomag
      at our army our soldiers put them on their knees

      Of course, I am a patriot, but history needs to be taught. With whom did Japan fight four years before the USSR entered the war?

      Quote: vomag
      the last hope of the land of the rising sun, the almost millionth Kwantung army was completely defeated

      Look through the books and read the composition of this "million" army, its weapons and who it was staffed with. Just don't read the campaign materials! I do not beg the feat of our soldiers in the war with Japan, no. Except for the shouts of "hurray !!!" there is also truth.
      And answer one question for yourself: why was there such a rush in conducting operations by our troops in the Far East? And it was dictated by all the same reasons why the Allies began to rush to open a second front in Europe - the possibility of an early end to the war without them and the opportunity to "fly through" when dividing glory and booty. Nothing but politics and naked pragmatism.
  12. Dima190579
    Dima190579 29 May 2013 12: 31 New
    0
    DIFFERENCES OF INFECTIOUS DEMOCRACY,
  13. fluke
    fluke 29 May 2013 12: 47 New
    +4
    The article did not like. Good material is spoiled by an excessive number of derogatory epithets and captain slogans.
    Serious material must be weighed and objective, but here everything is saturated with hypertrophic malice, as if the author does not analyze something, but is simply jealous.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 29 May 2013 14: 36 New
      +5
      Quote: fluke
      as if the author does not analyze something, but is banal envy.

      I'm analyzing jealous.
      The author, in my opinion, wanted to convey the idea that large, high-speed transport ships play the main role in wars remote from the United States.
      A real war begins only after the Leviathans of the Shipping Command arrive in the alleged war zone. In this technique, all the strength of the American armed forces is enclosed - power, mobility, speed of deployment.
      And this is so, UDC with escort ships might have been able to create a temporary bridgehead, but long-term retention for them is almost impossible without large transport ships.
      1. Santa Fe
        29 May 2013 16: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        UDC with escort ships perhaps could create a temporary bridgehead

        will not be able to. proven by history.

        ps / to give an example of complete Papuans (Grenada, etc.) is not necessary - everything is solved much easier there, without any UDC and AUG
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 30 May 2013 15: 50 New
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          will not be able to. proven by history.

          I would like to see examples of history that prove.
          1. Santa Fe
            30 May 2013 16: 57 New
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            I would like to see examples of history that prove.

            For example
            http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%B7%D0%B0_%D0%94%

            D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BF

            The landing began on August 19, 1942 at 5 o’clock in the morning, and by 9 o’clock the Allied command was forced to issue an order to retreat. Thus, the operation ended with a quick and crushing defeat of the allies. Of the 6086 landed paratroopers, 3623 were killed, wounded, or captured (only about 60%)

            Did they think they were in a fairy tale? Next time 1 million people landed in France with 6-fold air superiority
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 31 May 2013 13: 19 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Next time 1 million people landed in France with 6-fold air superiority

              So how did it end in Normandy in 1944?
              1. Kars
                Kars 31 May 2013 13: 42 New
                +2
                This photo is more informative.
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 31 May 2013 16: 22 New
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  This photo is more informative.

                  In my photo you can clearly see that the landing is waist-deep in water, landing from ships.
              2. Santa Fe
                31 May 2013 16: 54 New
                +1
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                So how did it end in Normandy in 1944?

                Established on the shore and began the offensive inland
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 31 May 2013 19: 16 New
                  +1
                  But how did you end up on the shore? out of the sea like Pushkin?
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 31 May 2013 21: 34 New
                    0
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    came out like Pushkin?

                    These were the first Russian marines
                    1. Santa Fe
                      31 May 2013 22: 49 New
                      0
                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      came out like Pushkin?
                      These were the first Russian marines

                      Smiled))
                  2. Santa Fe
                    31 May 2013 22: 48 New
                    0
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    But how did you end up on the shore? out of the sea like Pushkin?

                    After many years of training, thousands of tank landing barges, boats and lighters delivered 1 million soldiers on the French coast

                    The landing was provided by EMNIP 200 large artillery ships, with 6-fold superiority in the air - they knocked out all the firing points of the Fritzes, while on two beaches (Omaha and Utah) everything did not go according to plan - there the Yankees lost 3 thousand people. In the rest of the landing zones, everything was OK, they landed with minimal losses and began to develop an offensive deep into France.

                    The special landing of special forces in the near rear of the enemy was of good help - the commando damaged bridges and communication lines, disrupting the transfer of German reinforcements

                    It is impossible not to note the work of the 617 squadron of the Royal Air Force - Lancaster circled above the water itself, simulating landing ships and diverting the fire of surviving German batteries

                    And this despite the fact that the Germans had minimal forces - quantitatively 4 times less than what was on the Eastern Front, there is even nothing to discuss qualitatively. + daily bombardments of German positions preceding the landing + unprecedented secrecy measures - the Fritz did not know ANYTHING concrete about the Allied plans

                    That's how real operations were carried out
                    1. tlauicol
                      tlauicol 1 June 2013 06: 12 New
                      -1
                      and where are the Leviathans here?
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 1 June 2013 09: 53 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        and where are the Leviathans here?

                        The years are not the same, and England is the unsinkable leviathan.
                      2. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 1 June 2013 13: 44 New
                        0
                        and those falklands? 1982 - Where are the Leviathans?
                      3. Santa Fe
                        1 June 2013 17: 31 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        and those falklands? 1982 - Where are the Leviathans?

                        Supply ships

                        RFA Regent (A486) 22,890 t
                        J. Logan
                        RFA Resource (A480) 22,890 t
                        BA Seymour
                        RFA Fort Austin (A386) 23,600 t
                        Commodore Sam Dunlop RFA (SC Dunlop)
                        RFA Fort Grange (A385) 23,600 t
                        DGM Averill
                        RFA Stromness (A344) 16,792 t

                        Liners

                        SS Canberra 44,807 GRT - equipped with helicopter pad [5] and carried personnel of the 3rd Commando Brigade to San Carlos on 21 May.
                        RMS Queen Elizabeth 2. 67,140 GRT - equipped with helicopter pad [5] and carried 3,200 men of the 5th Infantry Brigade. At South Georgia, the men of 2nd Battalion Scots Guards, 1st Battalion Welsh Guards and 1/7 Gurkha Rifles were transferred to Canberra, Norland and RFA Stromness on May 27 for transport to San Carlos. [7] [8]
                        SS Uganda 16,907 GRT - equipped with helicopter pad and used as hospital ship from 11 May. [5] [9]

                        Roll-on-roll-off ferries

                        Elk 5,463 GRT - equipped with helicopter pad and two Bofors 40 mm guns to carry three Sea King helicopters, ammunition, and heavy vehicles including eight Bofors 40 mm guns, four FV101 Scorpion and four FV107 Scimitar light tanks - joined carrier battle group on 16 May [5] [10]
                        Baltic Ferry 6,455 GRT - equipped with helicopter pad and carried three Army helicopters, 105 troops, and 1,874 tons of stores and ammunition to Ajax Bay on 1 June [5] [11]
                        Europic Ferry 4,190 GRT - equipped with helicopter pad and carried vehicles, ammunition, fuel, and four Scout helicopters of 656 Squadron Army Air Corps to San Carlos on 21 May [5] [12]
                        Nordic Ferry 6,455 GRT - equipped with helicopter pad and carried troops, stores, and ammunition to Falklands on 29 May [5] [13]
                        Norland 12,990 GRT - equipped with helicopter pad [5] and carried 800 men of 2 Para to San Carlos on 21 May [14]
                        Rangatira 9,387 GRT - equipped with helicopter pad and Oerlikon 20 mm cannon to carry 1,000 engineers with vehicles and equipment, but sailed after cease fire. [5] [15]
                        St Edmund 8,987 GRT [16] - equipped with helicopter pad and carried troops and vehicles [5]
                        Tor Caledonia 5,056 GRT - equipped with helicopter pad and carried vehicles and equipment; arrived 12 June [5] [17]

                        Container / Cargo ships

                        Atlantic Conveyor
                        Astronomer 27,867 GRT
                        Atlantic Conveyor 14,496 GRT
                        Atlantic Causeway 14,946 GRT
                        Contender Bezant 11,445 GRT

                        Freighters

                        Avelona Star 9784 GRT (refrigerated) - equipped with helicopter pad and carried provisions; arrived after cease fire [5] [22]
                        Geestport 7,730 GRT (refrigerated) - equipped with helicopter pad and carried provisions and stores; arrived 11 June [5] [17]
                        Laertes 11,804 GRT - Soviet-built with armored cable trunks and damage control centers - carried general supplies; arrived after cease fire [5] [17]
                        Lycaon 11,804 GRT - Soviet-built with armored cable trunks and damage control centers - carried ammunition and supplies; arrived 28 May [5] [23]
                        Saxonia 8,547 GRT (refrigerated) - carried provisions; arrived 23 May [5] [17]


                        THIS IS JUST A STAR. Only half, the rest did not fit into the comment

                        Here are how many ships and vessels provided landing on the UNABLE islands during sluggish raids by enemy aircraft !!!!
                      4. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 1 June 2013 19: 10 New
                        0
                        put a plus even for the work done! But still - Queen Elizabeth 2 teammates seized the bridgehead or had to use a helicopter and naval assault and landing ships and boats, respectively? They were not unloaded at Port Stanley on May 21
                      5. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 1 June 2013 19: 46 New
                        +1
                        here is the full composition in Russian and cr. description, give, write hi
                        http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/2007_02/02.htm
                      6. Santa Fe
                        1 June 2013 23: 08 New
                        0
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/2007_02/02.htm

                        Great source, thanks
                        I didn’t think what is in RuNet
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        But still - Queen Elizabeth 2

                        EMNIP it was called the program STUFT (Homeland in danger!)
                        The right decision. Many centuries ago, the Venetians also donated jewelry for the defense of the Motherland.
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        teammates seized the bridgehead or had to use a helicopter and naval assault and landing ships and boats, respectively?

                        Leviathans know how to unload on an unequipped coast - pontoons, sometimes lighters and landing barges on the upper deck, then landing craft descend into the water with 110 ton cranes and ... forward (somewhere there were photos) The British also had tanks and heavy weapons on container ships .

                        The British were lucky - they landed on an uninhabited coast, with virtually no opposition - if the Arg battalion had a MBT battalion, the landing could be drowned.

                        As for the turntables, this is also not a problem. "Atlantic Conveyor" conversion took 10 days
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 31 May 2013 21: 37 New
          +1
          Soldiers of the 165th Infantry Regiment land on the coast of Butaritari Island, part of the Makin Atoll, which had previously been bombed from warships, on November 20, 1943. American soldiers recaptured the atoll from the Gilbert Islands
          1. Kars
            Kars 31 May 2013 21: 39 New
            +2
            ____________________
          2. Santa Fe
            31 May 2013 22: 51 New
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            which was previously bombed from warships, November 20, 1943

            )))

            After a two-week bombardment of the islands included in the Kwajalein Atoll there is not a whole tree left on the island. Of the several thousand thousands of Japanese soldiers, 50 were left alive. Deaf and demented by the endless fiery rain from American ships and planes
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 31 May 2013 23: 47 New
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Of the several thousand thousand Japanese soldiers, 50 survived.

              Sorry for the Japanese soldiers, but the Americans also died.
              The bodies of American soldiers lie on the beach of one of the islands of the Taraw Atoll after a fierce battle during the US invasion of the Gilbert Islands in late November 1943
              1. Kars
                Kars 1 June 2013 09: 56 New
                +1
                ______________________
  • Vital 33
    Vital 33 29 May 2013 13: 14 New
    +5
    Another article on the topic "what a useless guano are these UDCs, aircraft carriers, and so on ..", but the Americans don’t know about it and continue to use it successfully))). It's like about a bumblebee, physicists and aerodynamics say that the bumblebee can't fly, but the bumblebee doesn't know about it, and flies calmly ...
    By the way, there was already an article about these "monster carriers", why print it again?
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 29 May 2013 16: 01 New
      +1
      I agree. Moreover, there is a habit of taking some kind of weaponry of a potential enemy and discussing its "uselessness" in isolation from everything else. But the essence is generally simple. The US Armed Forces are trying to be ready to fight anywhere in the world and to solve any tasks assigned to them. Something they succeed, something they do not, but the desire to "correspond" can be clearly traced. Including the desire to ensure success in possible battles with anyone, anywhere. And to fight "anywhere" without massive sea transport of troops, their landing on land and cover for such a landing, including from the air, will not work. That is why in the United States and in other US allies, along with the construction of nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, URO cruisers, and other "shock troughs", a considerable number of ships are being built to solve the above tasks, including in conditions of local conflicts. And in the event of an emergency evacuation of their citizens from the zones of such conflicts, such "transport workers" will not interfere. Of course, in the event of a full-scale vigorous war, there is zero sense from them ... as, indeed, from everything else.
      1. Santa Fe
        29 May 2013 16: 06 New
        -3
        Quote: gregor6549
        But the essence is generally simple. US Armed Forces try to be ready to fight anywhere in the world and solve any tasks assigned to them

        Well, what tasks will UDC help solve?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 29 May 2013 18: 08 New
    +1
    Well, there’s no satellite observation anymore,
    submarines are not on the database, patrolling?
    Are they now in the ports of their posts?
    Yes, the article is frightening at first glance, but ... remember Marinesco!
    The attack and flooding of even a couple of these Leviathans is a rather small target,
    I think it will disrupt any parade landing of the "striped"!
  • Sirocco
    Sirocco 29 May 2013 18: 08 New
    0
    during the landing, modern UDCs should be tens of kilometers from the enemy’s coast, remaining invisible to enemy radars and invulnerable to barreled artillery fire. Equipment and personnel are transported to the shore by high-speed boats and helicopters.
    Okay, let's say that UDC is invisible and invulnerable. But what about boats and helicopters? Or are they like at the parade moor to the shore? The enemy should not be underestimated, just then the coastal missile systems of the BAL type and other weapons systems, including air defense, will enter the battle. Somehow everything is simple with them, they are engaged in cap-making. But in fact, how toads inflate at the sight of danger. But how do you not sulk, and when meeting with a worthy adversary, the US always retreats. This is their rule.
  • Wolf
    Wolf 29 May 2013 20: 59 New
    0
    Modern UDC, big qi.ostadostno argue and see. The accumulation of technology in a small space is concentrated, this is the dream of rocket launchers. They are on their own and a great risk, if one drowns or, God forbid, this is the damage that will be dealt with in combat battle! nada many times and sily.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 29 May 2013 22: 01 New
    0
    Oleg, I just saw the topic of the article - I immediately guessed that you were 8)))
    Your main mistake is that you literally tear the ship out of the concept, and create a situation as if it will fight alone, outside the logistics system, etc. Therefore, they are useless for you. Stupid to see people build them
    1. Santa Fe
      29 May 2013 22: 43 New
      +2
      Quote: Pimply
      Your main mistake is that you literally rip the ship out of concept

      Zhenya, what is the concept?
      Quote: Pimply
      and you create a situation as if he will fight alone, outside the logistics system

      I actually said about the logistics system
      Fans of AUGs and amphibian groups do not respect logistics - we will drive FIVE SHIPS and TAKE THE WHOLE WORLD
      Quote: Pimply
      Stupid to see people build them

      "Wasps" perform their function - they fill the pockets of American shipbuilders, inflate the number of admiral posts, increase the US national debt
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 30 May 2013 00: 36 New
        +1
        Oleg, they do not expect to drive five ships and take over the whole world. If you pay attention, they rely on the fact that it is ONE OF several advanced groups with high mobility. That is, they can design a force vector in any desired corner of the globe, and moreover, from several points simultaneously. There are problems in one place - they overlap with the approach of other means.
        1. Santa Fe
          30 May 2013 01: 14 New
          0
          Quote: Pimply
          If you pay attention, they rely on the fact that this is one of several advanced groups with high mobility.

          What does a "vanguard" look like in your understanding?
          What tasks is it intended for?
          Quote: Pimply
          That is, they can design a force vector in any desired corner of the globe, and moreover, from several points simultaneously. There are problems in one place - they overlap with the approach of other means.

          UDC and where?
          Projecting power is the task of the Military Sealift Command with their Leviathans.
  • Skuto
    Skuto 29 May 2013 23: 25 New
    -1
    Author.
    You can do a lot of things with pliers and electrical tape around the house, but it is best when there are a lot of different tools. Is the analogy clear?
    1. Santa Fe
      30 May 2013 01: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: Skuto
      You can do a lot of things with pliers and electrical tape around the house, but it is best when there are a lot of different tools. Is the analogy clear?

      Fed horseback not on foot
      Is the analogy clear?
      1. Skuto
        Skuto 31 May 2013 00: 10 New
        0
        Let me explain well. In fact, one atomic bomb is enough for the enemy to have a kirdyk, but it is much more convenient to have many different "toys": from a tank to an aircraft carrier. Like so))))
        1. Santa Fe
          31 May 2013 10: 35 New
          0
          Quote: Skuto
          Let me explain well. In fact, one atomic bomb is enough for the enemy to have a kirdyk, but it is much more convenient to have many different "toys": from a tank to an aircraft carrier.

          Do you need airships and war chariots?
          And how is a sailing brigantine useful in a modern war?
          Or a galley?
          Would you like to cast a tank of pure gold? Perhaps useful?

          Moral: weapons are useful, there are useless (outdated, ineffective, excessively expensive). UDC - this is exactly the case
  • vomag
    vomag 30 May 2013 00: 34 New
    +3
    dear "IRBIS" I read the books but it is clear not the ones that you are because these 4 years the Japanese crushed everyone and everything with these troops, which you sort of belong to the 3rd grade! They smashed the British Expeditionary Force with their allies to smithereens with the same weapons they fought with against us and amers seizing vast territories! but amers patted them on the sea, they took Okinawa there, etc. but what did that decide ?? Yes, they detonated 2 atomic bombs in cities that are insignificant from a military and strategic point of view, and do you seriously think that the Japanese put in their pants out of fear? (remember the USSR with the loss of huge territories 82% of the factory capacity of 3 million prisoners, etc., etc., and no one was going to stop the war, but your Japanese are different, they are all cowards to one, a little something wrong
    immediately hryakiri cartilage !!!) there should have been a ground operation to estimate (very approximate) losses from 1 million people amers were horrified !! Well, if you really are such an expert, you should know that the USSR entered the war with Japan on the basis of the Yalta agreements (read Roosevelt’s personal request and if they don’t lie, the signed secret protocols!
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik 30 May 2013 10: 53 New
    0
    It is useless to argue with the author of the article. He lives in the world of his theory, and everything that does not fit into this theory is dismissed. He does not understand that absolutely universal ships do not exist. Each type has a strictly defined range of tasks for which it is intended. He will probably be able to solve some other problems, but this will be a bad option. The author does not want to understand that the fleet is a SYSTEM of units complementary to each other, and the combination of these units can be changed depending on the problem being solved (but you need to have them for this). The author writes that there will be no large landing operations - it is more profitable to bypass by land. Taiwan wants China to clean up through whom it will bypass. Through whom Japan, or England, for example, their hypothetical opponents will bypass. Or the neighbors of the captured state were intractable, they don’t want to let your troops through. The task of landing ships is to throw out the first wave of landing and capture the bridgehead. And then the ILC transports come into effect.
    1. Santa Fe
      30 May 2013 14: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: spravochnik
      Each type has a strictly defined range of tasks for which it is intended

      Quote: spravochnik
      the fleet is a SYSTEM of units complementary to each other, and the combination of these units can be changed depending on the task being solved


      What tasks can the UDC type "Uosp" solve?

      Someone will finally answer this question. Just list the tasks for which UDC of this type is needed.
      Quote: spravochnik
      The author writes that there will be no large landing operations - it is more profitable to bypass by land.

      In the next few decades - exactly
      All tank landing ships of the "Newport" class (20 units) were decommissioned by amers 20 years ago. And they are not going to build a replacement
      Quote: spravochnik
      Taiwan will clean up through whom it will bypass. Through whom Japan, or England, for example, their hypothetical opponents will circumvent

      1. All examples are meaningless. No one will attack these countries for the foreseeable future.
      2. Purely hypothetically - for such operations, hundreds of landing ships and thousands of dichters, barges, platforms will be required. But not a dozen "Wasps"
      Quote: spravochnik
      Or the neighbors of the captured state were intractable, they don’t want to let your troops through

      They want it. There is never a problem with this (see the political map of the world and learn history)
      Quote: spravochnik
      The task of landing ships is to throw the first wave of the landing and capture the bridgehead

      for such an operation, hundreds of landing ships and thousands of dichters, barges, and platforms will be required. But not a dozen "Wasps" (c)