3-d animation of new French landing craft cat.

[Number4]

The design of the Engin de débarquement amphibie rapide will have been a compromise between the requirements of the Marine Generals, Naval Admirals (both of whom will know alot more about these things than anybody here), the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury, and the defence contractors capabilities.
The major factor involved beeing that it can operate from a Mistral class amphibious assault ship, and thus it's dimensions.
This landing craft is completely revolutionary and without equal.
It's range, load, speed, and versatility are in a class of its own. It has a draft of 0.60 metres.
As it is only now entering service, we will have to wait and see as to the quality of the engineering and maintenance.
Some marine corps have smaller vessels, some have much larger.

There appears to be a small family of these boats, of varying proportions.
They alledge it's big brother can carry 260 tonnes capacity, 2000 nm range, and a speed of 21 kts.
http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/patrol/cnim/

Why anybody is suggesting that one of NATO's largest militaries does not need landing craft is beyond me.

 

[PAR]

Landing craft such as that, are the result of a spec requested my the remnants of a bye gone leadership. They fight the last war really well in retrospect, but fail (repeatedly) to foresee their future needs.

Considering deployment options for large masses of boots, this is just another battleship waiting to be proven a foolish consideration, in the realities of modern warfare. Establishing a beachhead is a silly thought in light of modern, possibly robotic alternatives.

Picture the situation, an uppity overlord has control of a coast line and threatening his neighbors (or whatever). Do you frontal assault with 10's of thousands? You do if you're leadership is still fighting with 1/2 a century old tactics. On the other hand, the wise commander sends in waves of drones and other impeccably accurate, guided munitions and levels the entire area, removes command and control, disassembles defensive positions and stores, then drops in marines on their flanks, to crush them into the beach they are attempting blindly to defend, with now very limited resources.

France's abilities in regard to military operations, is well documented in the last century and their record isn't especially envious. This isn't a dig at Frenchmen around the world, but a testament to the softer nature, that does seem to dominate their typical "la say fair" approach to these sort of things. It's a bit like Luxemburg, developing a battle tank. You have to just say "really?"

 

[daiquiri]

The design of the Engin de débarquement amphibie rapide will have been a compromise between the requirements of the Marine Generals, Naval Admirals (both of whom will know alot more about these things than anybody here),

Outrageous words, you evidently don't know what you're saying. We have people here who know much more than anyone else, folks who have lived on the seaside and hence know precisely the requirements for a landing craft which the French military needs.

 

[Number4]

Dear PAR,
Please stick to what you know which is boat design and not warfare. I am having as much amusement with your post about tactics as you do with other peoples funny boat design ideas.
There is nothing wrong with the frog military, it is as good as (or better) it's US or UK equivalent. An ability to land a marine force is as important (or greater) than an airborne force. In fact the list of succesful airborne assaults is very much smaller than the list of succesful marine assaults.
As for your battle plan, all that I can say is "Good luck with that!"
By the way it is "laissez faire".
Best Wishes,
Adam

 

[PAR]

Spoken by a battle wagon fan? There's absolutely no reason to deploy troops at insanely slow speeds, in completely exposed vessels any more. In this vane, much of the world's navies are obsolete, just too exposed and slow. Other then coastal interdiction, submarine and carrier task forces to project power quickly (short term), the majority of the ships in the world's navies are redundant and obsolete. We've be inexorability heading down this road since WW II and the last 20 years has proven it. We can strike without warning or detection, from bases on the homeland, with crews (it the ship even has one) that can have dinner with their families the same evening. It's ridiculous to think that you'll put dozens of infantry laden, slow, easy targets off a beach, in light of the modern determinants to such a force. The same can be said of the secondary vessels in carrier task force, other then offering torpedo (another antiquated weapon) shielding. Typically the air umbrella of the carrier protects them, rather then the other way around. Besides missile and air attack are bigger and more likely concerns, not torpedoes.

We are way past frontal assaults by sea, just to costly in terms of manpower and equipment. The last one preformed by the US, was two decades ago and used appropriately as a diversion, not the true thrust of the assault. When unmanned, or guided weapons can launch from safety and deliver with relative impunity, the idea of a laying down a smoke screen and hoping the wind will cooperate as the troops land, is just ludicrous. You can debate these simple truths all you like, but this same argument was made for BB's and other now mothballed classes. It was a joke to drag the Missouri to the Persian gulf during the first war there, though admittedly awe inspiring, a joke that could have been preformed cheaper and more efficiently by a Ticonderoga class or even a sub.

This same argument has happened repeatedly in the history of navies, which have to reinvent themselves to remain retentive after reality sinks in and they lose a bunch of man and ships. We're now at the point where we literally don't need the men, so what's this new ship for?

 

[Stumble]

As probably the only one here who has actually taken part in a modern day amphibious assault this ship is 1) much better than some of the old relics of WWII. And 2) woefully behind the times compared to modern thought.

Just a few issues I have:

1) ships are frankly a little silly for landing craft, which is why the USMC has switched to hovercrafts. Which can handle and grade these things can, but can also make landings into or thru swamps and marsh. Conventional landing crafts are generally expected to be able to use 15% of the worlds shorelines, while hovercrafts can use 70ish percent.

2) the cross bars across the ramps preclude the ability to carry a number of pieces of equipment, and complicate the problem of loading other pieces. They need to be removed.

3) the variable geometry seems like a difficult thing to maintain and keep working when it's getting hit by bullets.

4) those ramps need to go up and down much faster. The most dangerous part of a landing is waiting for the doors to open. Best option is a gravity release where they just fall when you hit the button. The telescoping ones they have require troops to stand there and be shot at for a long time while waiting to unload.

5) the payload is a weird number. With Main battle tanks running around 60 tons, this craft can carry just shy of two of them. Is would be much more desirable to be able to either carry 2, or reduce payload capability to just be able to carry 1, but with reduced draft and increased speed.

 

[Number4]

Hi Greg,
Very good points. I think you have analysed this boat very well.
Are you an ex leatherneck?
1/ Unfortunately most of us cannot afford to buy or run Gas turbine Hovercraft, which are obviously superior. Your defence budget and logistical support is in another league to ours. Here they are announcing 5,000 redundancies in the armed forces, and plan at least 13,000 more in the future. Nearly 1/5 of the Army will go. They have scrapped a new aircraft carrier, and the RAF fleet dates back to the 1950's.
2/ I think the crossbar is holding it all together when the deck moves.
3/ & 4/ Definitely
5/ It appears to come in several shapes and sizes, I think it has to fit the mother ship.
http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/patrol/cnim/

Our Marines will have to make do with their rust buckets for a few years yet.
Heres a video you may enjoy, from about 4.45 minutes in you will get the point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e7R3y-qwZ0
Cheers,
Adam

 

[El_Guero]

Dear PAR,
Please stick to what you know which is boat design and not warfare. I am having as much amusement with your post about tactics as you do with other peoples funny boat design ideas.
There is nothing wrong with the frog military, it is as good as (or better) it's US or UK equivalent. An ability to land a marine force is as important (or greater) than an airborne force. In fact the list of succesful airborne assaults is very much smaller than the list of succesful marine assaults.
As for your battle plan, all that I can say is "Good luck with that!"
By the way it is "laissez faire".
Best Wishes,
Adam

Then may the rest of us wish you the same?

An ability to land, is completely different than success. Successful airborne assaults?

Gulf War 1; Gulf War 2; D-Day and the list goes on.

Marine Assaults .... Iwo Jima; Guadalcanal .... ?

How you define the result depends upon the geniuses who sent the troops in in the first place.

And just like this deplorable catamaran which cannot land its cargo on probably 80% of the 'successful marine assault' beaches, wishing for war to prove ones point is equally insane.

I just wish designers were required to spend a couple years in a foxhole before they were allowed to design.

There is a huge difference between a littoral ship resupplying at a dock and troops hitting a beach.

 

[El_Guero]

Hi Greg,
Very good points. I think you have analysed this boat very well.
Are you an ex leatherneck?
1/ Unfortunately most of us cannot afford to buy or run Gas turbine Hovercraft, which are obviously superior. Your defence budget and logistical support is in another league to ours. Here they are announcing 5,000 redundancies in the armed forces, and plan at least 13,000 more in the future. Nearly 1/5 of the Army will go. They have scrapped a new aircraft carrier, and the RAF fleet dates back to the 1950's.
2/ I think the crossbar is holding it all together when the deck moves.
3/ & 4/ Definitely
5/ It appears to come in several shapes and sizes, I think it has to fit the mother ship.
http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/patrol/cnim/

Our Marines will have to make do with their rust buckets for a few years yet.
Heres a video you may enjoy, from about 4.45 minutes in you will get the point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e7R3y-qwZ0
Cheers,
Adam

You afford what you want to afford.

Even when broke by decades of waste, you still make choices.

Unfortunately, our military is following yours because our politicians are following your decades of wasteful spending and taxation ....

Life should be easy, when you know it doesn't work - do not do it that way.

 

[tom28571]

WOW! Don't know whether this is a discussion of a ship or warfare tactics or political persuasion(s). There is more than one person here who has be a participant in amphibious landings. Inchon 1950 and 1951. Not "modern" , I suppose, but maybe the last large force landing on a hostile beach. In that case, the initial landing was not of vehicles but troops and the topography required very shallow draft because of mud, not sand. Tides were also 30 feet or more which precluded support vessels hanging around after the initial landing. It was a great success, not because of our equipment, but because of our strategy and tactics.

Maybe the French need a machine to recover from a coup on Martinique where this ship might do very well. On Omaha beach, probably not, or any beach defended by either big guns or troops with smart projectiles. Don't they all have them now?

As a ship concept, it is very interesting, if complex. Complex doesn't work too well in the unknowns of a well defended shoreline. Maybe too many possibilities for malfunction or damage and the risk gets exponentially greater for larger and more complex systems.

The current situation is not large force invasions but counter insurgent action against lesser trained, equipped and commanded groups. Martinique or the Falklands perhaps.

 

[El_Guero]

WOW! Don't know whether this is a discussion of a ship or warfare tactics or political persuasion(s). There is more than one person here who has be a participant in amphibious landings. Inchon 1950 and 1951. Not "modern" , I suppose, but maybe the last large force landing on a hostile beach. In that case, the initial landing was not of vehicles but troops and the topography required very shallow draft because of mud, not sand. Tides were also 30 feet or more which precluded support vessels hanging around after the initial landing. It was a great success, not because of our equipment, but because of our strategy and tactics.

Maybe the French need a machine to recover from a coup on Martinique where this ship might do very well. On Omaha beach, probably not, or any beach defended by either big guns or troops with smart projectiles. Don't they all have them now?

As a ship concept, it is very interesting, if complex. Complex doesn't work too well in the unknowns of a well defended shoreline. Maybe too many possibilities for malfunction or damage and the risk gets exponentially greater for larger and more complex systems.

The current situation is not large force invasions but counter insurgent action against lesser trained, equipped and commanded groups. Martinique or the Falklands perhaps.

Thank you for your service. You served in much tougher times than I.

Did the Navy promise the beer factory to the Marines and then shell it just before you guys seized it?

wayne

 

[tom28571]

Thank you for your service. You served in much tougher times than I.

Did the Navy promise the beer factory to the Marines and then shell it just before you guys seized it?

wayne

I doubt such stories. There may be a minor bit of truth in some but most are just legends that get passed on. Fog of war makes all such nearly impossible. Plans are only plans. I did not have to go ashore and I was thankful for that. Marines get the dirty end of the stick. I was on a destroyer that had to get out before the tide caught us. Surprise of the attack was complete and we were not even fired on this time. Not always so lucky. In between the two invasions of Inchon, there was Chosin and Hungnam. Major disaster.

Just imagining being in an LCVP chugging toward a defended beach is enough to chill the bones. Watching it unfold is enough for me. We do what we have to do. At the time I was very young and invulnerable. What we expect of some of our military today is shameful. I get furious seeing the lack of guts of our leaders. We have better leadership now than recently but whether there are enough cajones in the bunch to do what is right is yet to be shown.

 

[Paul Farley]

I served in the US Marines from 1967-1973. I trained in the Carib for beach landings, but never actualy was involved in one.

I did serve under fire in Viet Nam as a forward air observer, it was all Rotary wing vertical envelopment. From what I've seen,Helicopters have taken over most of the troop movement duty. I would think these days the first part of a conflict will involve autonomus weapons until the risk of landing troops is reduced to a more managable level.
PaulF

 

[Squidly-Diddly]

My guess it the major "niche" for this craft isn't a D-Day style human-wave/ant-slaughter attack, but taking decent amount of much smaller RIB based commandos to just out of RPG/mortar range and disembarking them, then THEY 'infiltrate' the beach head and generally secure it, THEN a bunch of these craft loaded with vehicles from the mother ship just off shore come swarming into to quickly land a sizable mechanized force.

Given the speed and range and beaching ability, it would be hard to know where they would show up.

Sure the USMC hovercraft can do a lot of things these can't, but they got their own problems. I'd guess it would cost at least 4X more to use hovercraft, and probably more like 20X more, given the high maintenance costs of hovercraft.

No one has every accused hovercraft of being quiet, or resistant to even small arms fire.

Overall I think displacement(not hover) "all steel" craft even with a few moving parts is going to be a lot more robust for moving a lot of material.

Given its "stealth"(no air prop noise, no huge hover spray) and decent speed, I'd think a "storm the beaches" assault would be doable. Hit the beach and drop off a few armored vehicles.

Overall it looks like a good way to get a lot of material from a ship to shore fast.

It looks like they can also roll on and off to each other on the 'high(calm) seas'. Since they are 'drive through' and open on both ends maybe they could beach one, then 'daisy chain' a couple more out on to the water to a small ship to make an instant "port" similar to what was done just after D-Day (with various anchors, etc of course).

Here is a link to the expanded range, including the largest with some sort of "ship to shore" oil spill capability planned. http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/patrol/cnim/

 

[troy2000]

Outrageous words, you evidently don't know what you're saying. We have people here who know much more than anyone else, folks who have lived on the seaside and hence know precisely the requirements for a landing craft which the French military needs.

Ummm.... that wasn't an insult. He was saying that he believes they know what they're doing.