Fire, Fire, Fire...

The photos are hard to look at.

This will take more than sending a few 2-Kilos to SIMA to get this fixed.
 
Imagine the smell. Not just burn smells of various kinds, but stagnant seawater, and the inevitable mildew that’s going to get started until they get all the burned matter out of there.
 
Good point, @Capt MJ . Mold spores thrive in temperatures between 32 and 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures from about 70 – 90 degrees are the most conducive for mold growth. If there's moisture and stuff for it to eat (cotton, leather, wood, paper products, etc.) within 24 hours, you'll have mold.
 
THParent said:
Good point, @Capt MJ . Mold spores thrive in temperatures between 32 and 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures from about 70 – 90 degrees are the most conducive for mold growth. If there's moisture and stuff for it to eat (cotton, leather, wood, paper products, etc.) within 24 hours, you'll have mold.
Click to expand...

Plus an atmosphere ripe with burned particles of who-knows-what. That will be full PPE clean-up in nasty conditions.
 
We know a lot more about health issues such as mold and asbestos now than, for example, when the Forrestal and Enterprise burned in the 60’s. Not to mention COVID-19. The cost of putting the BHR back in service will likely be too high to justify
 
THParent said:
I don't understand why the Wasp class doesn't have a well deck, either.
Click to expand...

I am the least qualified person on this forum to give an opinion on this. But I think the answer is one word “Osprey”. It no longer makes much sense to deploy marines in surface landing craft. The Osprey and likely similar follow-on generations of similar aircraft will be the way to deploy marines. The LHA is now a “baby flat top” similar in concept to the escort carriers of the past. It can operate both F-35’s and deploy a marine amphibious unit. I believe it is preferable to find a way to crank out more of this type hull and move away from the large fleet carrier of the Ford Class type. Sometimes quantity is a quality all its own as one scoundrel once said. More LHA’s!

seapowermagazine.org

Lack of Well Deck Seen as a Wash for LHA USS America - Seapower

ARLINGTON, Va.— The transfer of the new amphibious assault ship USS America to the Forward-Deployed Naval Force (FDNF) next fiscal year will bring a change in capabilities to the 7th Fleet’s amphibious ready group, but the Marines that will go...
seapowermagazine.org seapowermagazine.org
 
THParent said:
Good point, @Capt MJ . Mold spores thrive in temperatures between 32 and 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures from about 70 – 90 degrees are the most conducive for mold growth. If there's moisture and stuff for it to eat (cotton, leather, wood, paper products, etc.) within 24 hours, you'll have mold.
Click to expand...

These are exactly the conditions present in Halsey. I picked up a moldy set of whites today.
 
NJROTC-CC said:
I am the least qualified person on this forum to give an opinion on this. But I think the answer is one word “Osprey”. It no longer makes much sense to deploy marines in surface landing craft. The Osprey and likely similar follow-on generations of similar aircraft will be the way to deploy marines. The LHA is now a “baby flat top” similar in concept to the escort carriers of the past. It can operate both F-35’s and deploy a marine amphibious unit. I believe it is preferable to find a way to crank out more of this type hull and move away from the large fleet carrier of the Ford Class type. Sometimes quantity is a quality all its own as one scoundrel once said. More LHA’s!

seapowermagazine.org

Lack of Well Deck Seen as a Wash for LHA USS America - Seapower

ARLINGTON, Va.— The transfer of the new amphibious assault ship USS America to the Forward-Deployed Naval Force (FDNF) next fiscal year will bring a change in capabilities to the 7th Fleet’s amphibious ready group, but the Marines that will go...
seapowermagazine.org seapowermagazine.org
Click to expand...
Can't put an APC on an MV-22.
 
Physicsguru said:
Can't put an APC on an MV-22.
Click to expand...

Correct. The next America Class LHA’s starting with LHA-8 (under constructiom) will have well decks. There is however a big problem with arriving at a design for a new amphibious combat vehiicle for the Marines to replace the current aging inventory.
 
NJROTC-CC said:
Correct. The next America Class LHA’s starting with LHA-8 (under constructiom) will have well decks. There is however a big problem with arriving at a design for a new amphibious combat vehiicle for the Marines to replace the current aging inventory.
Click to expand...
The AAV replacement problem has been going on for decades. I got hired shortly after retiring from USN by a contractor that was working several projects including the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. I would have been working on a shipboard medical computer program separate from the EFV. I ended up staying where I was employed. Good thing I did as the EFV program was scrapped and the contractor closed their doors. I’ve lost track of where the AAV replacement effort is currently.
 
Devil Doc said:
The AAV replacement problem has been going on for decades. I got hired shortly after retiring from USN by a contractor that was working several projects including the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. I would have been working on a shipboard medical computer program separate from the EFV. I ended up staying where I was employed. Good thing I did as the EFV program was scrapped and the contractor closed their doors. I’ve lost track of where the AAV replacement effort is currently.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that a new AAV program will be very costly and there is currently a greater philosophical debate going on about future role, structure and size of the Marine Corps. Will there be a need for a large amphibious assault force in the future? Who knows? But its hard to imagine any large WWII-style amphibious invasions. Too vulnerable? We need to plan for the next war, not the last. VERY difficult to do because no one has a crystal ball. But to get Congress to allocate funding for any new major weapons system it all must be very well thought out and presented. If I were a young man, planning and procurement of future weapons systems would be my area of interest in the Military. Maybe my DS can carry on for me.
 
Bar joists and metal deck. If it wasn't for the rounded corners on the openings for hatches and ladderwells, I would swear I was looking at an office building, after a fire.
 
Physicsguru said:
Can't put an APC on an MV-22.
Click to expand...
As it has been for decades. The Osprey replaced the CH-46 which handled similar loads to the Osprey - the difference with Osprey is mostly speed. We've been able to do vertical landing of troops for a very long time, we practiced it when I was a gator freighter manipulator in the early 80's and the flattop that we deployed with as an LPH which had no well deck so all of the thousand or so troops aboard were mostly dependent on helos to get ashore. The LPHs were around at least since the 60's so it was not a new concept. At the same time though, the well deck ships and (at the time) LSTs carried much of the rolling stock and cargo that the Marines need after the first couple of hours ashore. CH46's and CH53's just can't handle the volume of "stuff" needed ashore so landing craft and other waterborne craft are used. The LVTs which are the first and sometimes second wave coming over the beach are part of it but there is a hell of a lot more to bring. Even the LCACs which are fast and highly capable have pretty light loads. Take a look at what an LCU can carry or talk to people who have done amphib deployments and see how the heavy stuff moves.
 
OldRetSWO said:
As it has been for decades. The Osprey replaced the CH-46 which handled similar loads to the Osprey - the difference with Osprey is mostly speed. We've been able to do vertical landing of troops for a very long time, we practiced it when I was a gator freighter manipulator in the early 80's and the flattop that we deployed with as an LPH which had no well deck so all of the thousand or so troops aboard were mostly dependent on helos to get ashore. The LPHs were around at least since the 60's so it was not a new concept. At the same time though, the well deck ships and (at the time) LSTs carried much of the rolling stock and cargo that the Marines need after the first couple of hours ashore. CH46's and CH53's just can't handle the volume of "stuff" needed ashore so landing craft and other waterborne craft are used. The LVTs which are the first and sometimes second wave coming over the beach are part of it but there is a hell of a lot more to bring. Even the LCACs which are fast and highly capable have pretty light loads. Take a look at what an LCU can carry or talk to people who have done amphib deployments and see how the heavy stuff moves.
Click to expand...

We may need a modern day equivalent of the LST to land heavy equipment. LHA cannot do everything. However, a vessel with a hull that can land equipment directly on the beach is by its nature slow and not very seaworthy. And, landing a force on a foreign shore is offensive rather than defensive. So, I question what possible scenarios we would need to have a large ability to land heavy equipment in an overseas invasion. Do we need to invest in modern day LST’s at all? I am not saying yes or no. We need to study and plan for realistic future scenarios. All defense budgets are limited, so we can’t be perfectly prepared for everything, just the most likely future conflicts.

 
Last edited:
NJROTC-CC said:
And, landing a force on a foreign shore is offensive rather than defensive. So, I question what possible scenarios we would need to have a large ability to land heavy equipment in an overseas invasion.
Click to expand...
This is far beyond the scope that I can discuss here as I don't care to write pages and pages but suffice it to say that our force which by the way takes a really long time to build and train is built to meet the National Security Strategy which is rather long and involved. There are many scenarios, actually classes of scenarios that use a pretty large number of different force packages.
In addition to the military,there is the non-military such as evacuations and disaster relief. Amphib ships carry specific cargo for disaster relief in stores - not onloaded for specific deployments, rather it is always there. Truckloads and truckloads of "stuff" and the best way to move it is often via boat.

I don't care to continue here - you are going to believe what you want to believe. I've been on the pointy end when I spent 6 months with the Multi-National Peacekeeping force in Beirut and was in charge (my watchstation) of everything moving through the water to the marines ashore. Actually the helos generally moved people while the boats moved cargo including food, bullets, trucks, and actually a decent number of people from the ships to the shore via a causeway pier that we brought with us, deployed and used as the path ashore for the US forces. By the way, supporting a beachhead for months at a time was not planned for in any way but having capable forces that could adapt to circumstances allowed us to do this. There were plenty of "no-fly" days due to weather and other issues but the boats ran just about every day.

Later I worked dozens of wargames at the war college and saw the tactics and plans that we were developing and things moving over the surface is still in the mix. By the way, the Surface Navy is very aware of potential LST replacements and it gets a fair amount of interest. In the end, that need has to compete for dollars and for Amphib stuff, it is actually a USMC General who runs the prioritization.
 
OldRetSWO said: "Later I worked dozens of wargames at the war college and saw the tactics and plans that we were developing and things moving over the surface is still in the mix. "

At the Air War College, we ran "tabletop" scenario's and a couple of times as a joint exercise, we did it with the other services. I really didn't appreciate the complexity of a surface battle group until then. It seemed like a finely choreographed ballet that you knew would not survive the first contact, could not work, was too complicated, too many moving parts, and yet...it had to work...so it did.

I'm sure that smarter people than I will make the call here for the betterment of the fleet.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
flieger83 said:
OldRetSWO said: "Later I worked dozens of wargames at the war college and saw the tactics and plans that we were developing and things moving over the surface is still in the mix. "

At the Air War College, we ran "tabletop" scenario's and a couple of times as a joint exercise, we did it with the other services. I really didn't appreciate the complexity of a surface battle group until then. It seemed like a finely choreographed ballet that you knew would not survive the first contact, could not work, was too complicated, too many moving parts, and yet...it had to work...so it did.

I'm sure that smarter people than I will make the call here for the betterment of the fleet.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
Click to expand...
Thanks!

I spent much of my Navy career as a "shooter" on Cruisers and Destroyers and later on those Battle Group Staffs which included the carriers but my time in Amphibs was a revelation about flexibility and flat out complexity. The conduct of an actual amphib operation which is generally a landing is indeed a ballet but the timing, roles and details change continually to adapt to the specifics of the situation, weather, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top