Military Review

The concept of a "folding" landing boat for the US Navy

The July issue of 2013, the year of Proceedings, the main US naval magazine, published an article by Susan Altenburger, head of engineering company Phil Bolger and Friends Inc. of Gloucester, Massachusetts, by retired commander, "A Landing Craft For the 21st Century" by Susan Altenburger The US Navy Michael Bosworth (Deputy Director of Project Management Naval Sea Systems Command) and the US Navy Captain Michael Jung (Professor at Naval War College, and previously Commander of the Landing Transport Dock LSD 41 at Whidbey Island). The authors describe a proposal for the US Navy of a promising landing craft of a fundamentally new architecture, designated as Landing Craft Utility-Folding (LCU-F), and designed, according to the authors of the project, to replace in the US Navy as tank-landing LCU-1610 type boats, and partly - landing LCAC type air cushion boats (and proposed by them as a replacement for the KVP of the SSC project). The concept of the LCU-F boat was invented and started by the development of the recently deceased founder of the company Phil Bolger and Friends Inc. Phil Bulger, and is currently being developed by this company with the support of Naval Sea Systems Command and several other US Navy structures. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether the matter will reach the practical implementation of this project.

Project image of the proposed US Navy innovative landing craft LCU-F (c) Proceedings

The design of the LCU-F boat is based on a fundamentally new architectural concept for the "folding landing craft". The boat is similar to the “Swiss folding knife”, with folding aft and bow ends with sharp contours, removed during storage on board or in the dock chamber of the carrier ship, providing relative compactness. When launching, the ends of the boats “unfold”, transforming it into a high-speed vessel with a large elongation, low draft and significant payload, while the folding feed is also a long ramp, providing a convenient landing. The nasal tip has "water-cutting" contours, providing good seaworthiness in waves. When folded, the LCU-F has a length of 143 feet, a width of 22 feet and a height of 20,5 feet, which allows it to be placed not only on landing ships, but also on the decks of transport vessels and supply vessels. When unfolded, the boat has a length of 270 feet, a width of 22 feet, a draft on the bottom of 4,5 feet and is capable of carrying up to 420 tons of payload with a full displacement of up to 200 tons (up to tanks M1A1) with a speed of up to 19-20 knots. The boat has two 1200 hp diesel engines. Movers with propellers having a recess of up to 11 feet are used for throwing to shore. When approaching directly to the shore, the propellers are retracted into the hull, and the boat is set in motion by two helical columns, capable of providing up to 4,5 knots with a draft of 10 feet, and thanks to the ability of the columns to rotate 360 ​​degrees, giving exceptional maneuverability. For unloading equipment, the boat is deployed and approaches the shore with a feed ramp. Speakers are also used to remove the boat from the shore. The cruising range at a speed of 19 knots with a full load should exceed 1500 miles, while the boat will be able to carry out operations on landing from landing ships located at a distance of 100 to 200 miles from the coast, and will also be able to stay in the open sea at night, avoiding termination landing operations.

The same steering wheels provide the boat with good maneuverability when approaching the landing craft for reloading. In this case, the loading of vehicles and 20-foot containers can be carried out afloat by cargo booms through the sliding roofs of the landing compartment of the boat. Another feature of the LCU-F boat is the presence of folding on-board sponsons on it, controlled by a special gyrostabilization system. The folding sponsons should increase the stability of the boat at low speeds (when departing from the landing craft and approaching the coast).

The armament of the LCU-F boat should include an Avenger eight-charge firing module (using Stinger missiles) and a Vulcan automatic X-gun caliber 20-30 mm. At the rear of the hull, there is a landing pad capable of adopting a helicopter class AH-1 / UH-1, which will allow the use of boats as intermediate bases for refueling these helicopters during the landing operation. In the tanker version, the boat must carry 55 thousand gallons of light fuel. The presence of weapons, capacity and high speed and seaworthiness will allow the use of boats as light combat, guard, anti-sabotage, the provision of special operations forces, for anti-piracy actions, etc. Also, boats can provide fire support for the landing by placing on them combat vehicles MLRS HIMARS or MLRS, capable of firing directly from boats.

According to the authors of the article, the innovative project LCU-F will provide a combination of high speed, maneuverability, heavy payload, fuel efficiency and low draft - a combination of properties that the LCAC type boats (and the proposed ones for replacement of CWP SSC) and LCU-1610 are currently lacking. The best choice of the authors consider the combination of LCS type LCAC and boats type LCU-F. In particular, the amphibious combat group (Amphibious Ready Group - ARG) consisting of one universal landing craft LHD and two amphibious transport docks LPD / LSD is capable of carrying three boats of type LCAC (Lna HD) and no less than 12 of boats of type LCU-F (on LPD / LSD), thereby ensuring a speedy throw to the coast in one wave of at least 15 landing craft.

The concept of a "folding" landing boat for the US Navy

The concept of the proposed US Navy innovative "folding" landing craft LCU-F (c) Proceedings
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Genera
    Genera 10 July 2013 09: 10
    While it will be laid out, it’s not only that they will throw missiles and shells, but also seagulls at obs.rut.
    1. old man54
      old man54 10 July 2013 21: 56
      so he laid out then planned far into the sea, beyond the horizon, at a distance of 100 miles! Is it really not clear written !?
  2. Nayhas
    Nayhas 10 July 2013 10: 16
    Interesting concept. But unloading from the stern is not entirely convenient, maneuvering offshore while turning around 180 degrees is certainly feasible, but damn it under enemy fire is quite dangerous ...
    1. Aryan
      Aryan 10 July 2013 10: 25
      first homosexuals were allowed to serve ...
      now they are going to land troops through zheppu ... sad
  3. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 10 July 2013 10: 23
    It will be interesting to see when it develops on the go.
  4. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 10 July 2013 11: 02
    An interesting "knife". But it is unlikely that it will do IMHO. There will be many problems with strength and hydrodynamics.
    1. StolzSS
      StolzSS 10 July 2013 11: 44
      We solve technical problems))) But the main purpose of this child prodigy drank babos))) Although if they do it anyway they won’t build much, they can save a series of pieces 50-60 and they won’t be able to save ala f-35 current in boats)))
  5. Kir
    Kir 10 July 2013 16: 30
    I never cease to be amazed at the "creative genius" of minke whales, it seems that the most important thing there is to get into the book of records, and how, even though (I ask for the expression) repeatedly bare ass on a hedgehog, it is even better to get a patent, or find a sponsor for this very "unaware of analogues in world history project ", and then throw it by force majeure ....
  6. Simple
    Simple 10 July 2013 18: 36
    "In the folding aft part of the hull there is a landing area capable of accommodating an AH-1 / UH-1 class helicopter."

    The pilot of an "AH-1 / UH-1 class helicopter" probably gets a lot of adrenaline when boarding this boat.
  7. old man54
    old man54 10 July 2013 22: 01
    the whole concept and possible technical solutions are very interesting !!! But here is the financial side of this issue? bully
    I liked the article very much, thank you, a lot of new things, little hurray-patriotism, to the author of the "+"!
    And now I have my own question. to backfill, so to speak! And where are they going to land all the landings, eh? Moreover, on the coast, de might be organized strong fire resistance to the landing, and ??? What do you think? drinks laughing
    1. Genera
      Genera 11 July 2013 04: 43
      old man 54. so it is planned to unfold far out to sea, over the horizon, at a distance of 100 miles! Isn't it clearly written !? Well, you have questions. I wrote that they will not even have time to decompose, and even if they decompose as you expect 100 miles before the landing point, so while they are swimming half way back, they will fold back and not from a hail of shells, but on the waves, given the modular structure. And you generally imagine what 100-200 miles is. Taking into account the speed of 19 knots, it will cover 100 miles to the shore in 3-3 / 5 hours. The airborne assault turns out. And still, judging by the sketches, the landing party will all this time stand in an upright position in cramped conditions - this is probably so that when the landing party runs ashore, it does not feel pain from the bullets piercing it (i.e. when the body becomes numb, then the needles tingle to horror is not pleasant, it usually happens when you sit out on the jerk) I can imagine a picture of such a landing, a parody of the movie "Saving Private Rain". Only in the original film did the Germans shoot from machine guns, and in the parody it would be enough to have a felt boot like the grandfather from the cartoon about Red, freckled red ...
      1. old man54
        old man54 11 July 2013 21: 12
        Quote: Genera
        I wrote that they won’t even have time to decompose, and even if they decompose as you expect for 100 miles to the point of disembarkation, so long as they float half way back they will not form from a hail of shells, but on the waves, given the modularity of the structure.

        Justify why it does not have time to decompose after it enters the water from a carrier ship in the open sea at 100 miles from the enemy coast ?? I quite admit the opposite.
        And why should it be inapplicable on the wave. Why is that?? bully They will probably calculate everything as it should and make it based on some kind of storm points. MBK does not open its gates with a front opening ramp into the curtains, or how ??
        And you generally imagine what 100-200 miles are.

        I imagine it quite vividly! Do not even believe how. laughing And 100 miles is 185 kilometers and 200 meters.
        Given the speed at 19 knots, he will land 100 miles to the coast in 3-3 / 5 hours

        Well, actually a little more than 5 hours will go if the speed is constant in 19 nodes.
  8. self-propelled
    self-propelled 10 July 2013 22: 44
    another prodigy from yuserovtsy. well, freedom lovers and shitcrats love to be sprayed on all sorts of fiction. well, good luck to them. I hope for another "shnyazhka" Russian leadership will not lead (in the sense of "catch up and overtake")
    1. castle
      castle 10 July 2013 23: 06
      Write the truth! Lived well in the caves! Why come up with a new one? And then the inventors got divorced, they don’t give a nap for vodka in the country.
      1. self-propelled
        self-propelled 10 July 2013 23: 45
        Quote: hrad
        Why come up with a new one? And then the inventors got divorced, they don’t give a nap for vodka in the country.

        why so. just need to THINK, not INITIATE. I propose to recall the well-known SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) program - when, allegedly, the United States planned to create a large constellation of space interceptor satellites to destroy Soviet ballistic missiles (have you heard of such a project?). as a result, it turned out to be a wunderwaffle (it's easier to say "disinformation"), created in order to drag the Union into the next round of the arms race (or rather, to dissipate funds allocated for defense on counter projects) ... request
        you can bring a more mundane project - the combat expeditionary vehicle EFV.

        a project for which almost 1 billion dollars were swelled (EFV development began in the middle of 1996 year. Almost 217 million dollars was allocated for the creation of three prototypes of General Dynamics (in 2001, a new contract was signed to create 9 prototypes of EFV BTRs - the cost of the contract more than 700 million dollars). Following the plans of the military command, 935 armored personnel carriers and 78 KShM were to be serially produced. As a result, this project was abandoned ... request
        to announce the price of development and production of the "super invisible" B-2?

        or google yourself in the net? has the project paid off?
        and there are enough such "wunderwatches".
        I will repeat THINKING FOR THE PROSPECTS it is necessary, but not to THINK ... the time of hypersonic interplanetary spacecraft has not yet arrived. I hope you understand what I mean hi
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 11 July 2013 00: 27
          Quote: self-propelled
          I propose that many recall the well-known SOI (Strategic Defense Initiative) program - when, supposedly, the United States planned to create a large group of space satellite interceptors to destroy Soviet ballistic missiles (heard of such a project?)
          Yes, not "supposedly", but really planned. Only that time the USSR outplayed them beautifully. The forces of the SMP portrayed an "asymmetric response" from improvised means, I saw this miracle in Severodvinsk good Simple, inexpensive, and absolutely fatal to SDI forces. The idea is simple to genius. They took a pair of 667A missiles with cut-out missile blocks (there were plenty of them on Zvezdochka at that time), drove to the side and depicted a stormy rework activity over them. And ... they leaked information about this to the USA. The fact that rocket blocks will be welded in for a simple single-stage rocket without any navigation and control means at all, only an altitude machine to ensure detonation. And with hefty warheads. The filling is something like TNT in half with chopped nails wassat That is, in the event of a threat, the missiles stupidly start and ... they sweep away ALL that everything is there from ALL orbits. But we, as a last resort, will do without satellites, not for the first time ... laughing
          1. old man54
            old man54 11 July 2013 00: 55
            Quote: Misantrop
            Yes, not "supposedly", but really planned. Only that time the USSR outplayed them beautifully. laughing

            beautiful idea, haven't heard of this before! But it is not entirely clear why exactly nuclear submarines should be used for "such" missiles, it is possible and simpler, in general, ground, mineless launch, such as R-12.
            Today, such a layout will not already be projected, a strong FBI (KGB) is needed, political will! And today spies are 50% of the inhabitants of Russia. Yes, and I doubt that it was because of this "idea" of ours that they closed the SDI, this is a joke of ours, they simply did not pull it technically, in general, and they still will not pull it, I am sure!
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 11 July 2013 01: 06
              Quote: old man54
              But it is not entirely clear why nuclear submarines should be used for "such" missiles, it can be simpler, generally ground, mineless launch, such as R-12.

              So I say, from improvised means blinded. And then the Americans were VERY closely watching the products of the NSR. And all that they did was perceived seriously. IMHO desu so merge was easier. I remember, then I also laughed for a long time laughing
          2. self-propelled
            self-propelled 11 July 2013 08: 35
            Quote: Misantrop
            Yes, not "supposedly", but really planned

            the fact of the matter is that in the USA they did not plan to build SDI. it was originally a des request
        2. old man54
          old man54 11 July 2013 01: 05
          Quote: self-propelled
          THINKING FOR THE OUTLOOK is necessary, but not THINKING ... the time of hypersonic interplanetary spacecraft has not yet arrived. I hope you understand what I mean hi

          but we, their time, it seems very scared! And they, as always, really believed us! bully After the Second World War, Stalin had a project, quite real, a project to create a military base on the moon, so that the whole Earth would be kept at gunpoint from there! How do you like it? laughing drinks Then we flew so vividly into Space the 1s, gathered up on the Moon, began to plan stations inhabited there and so on. Amer seems to have learned this over time, and so it began to smell bad in the oval office of the White House, well, just like in a cheap station toilet! wassat So they wildly accelerated, about the moon. But ... this is another story, why there are still neither our (Russian) nor Amerov bases there! good
  9. castle
    castle 10 July 2013 22: 57
    And this is almost like: "where are the Airborne Forces going to drop?" Planes are shot down, and almost cardboard BMDs are made for what kind of fight? And here today I read "The Ministry of Industry for 285 million will find out why Russian aircraft are worse than foreign ones." Generally fucking. Yeah, guys, the old story is right about how when the Lord God makes a person, he takes 100 percent of the material and the more of this material for the muscles he uses, the less is left for the intellect.
  10. castle
    castle 11 July 2013 00: 48
    You're right. But you also understand that disinformation is one of the components of a struggle (or war) with an adversary or potential adversary. And if the country's leadership makes decisions based on someone else’s misinformation, then a lot of questions arise about the competence of this leadership.
  11. castle
    castle 11 July 2013 00: 55
    I don’t quite understand what principle or criteria here are used to distribute minuses. Maybe someone intelligibly and wisely explain.
  12. _KM_
    _KM_ 11 July 2013 12: 16
    Foldable design is always an increase in complexity, weight and price. The long thin bow of a landing boat, which leans up, is contrary to the operating conditions. And the power of the folding and unfolding drives is huge. It is necessary to fold a long, durable nose and ensure its tightness. Isn't it easier to use catamaran / trimaran contours and hydrofoils?