Naval News website has an absolutely fascinating article on Army Landing Craft Utility (LCU) vessels and Marine Light Amphibious Warships (LAW).[1] The article is an interview/feedback from Army LCU Vessel Masters (I guess that’s what the Army calls a ship captain?) with their comments about the Marine LAW.
The Army LCU can transport 350 short tons of cargo over a range of 6,500 miles at 12 knots without refueling.[1]
… the Army LCU can carry up to five M1 Abrams tanks, and all the other vehicles listed above; however, they are not meant for troop transport.[1]
 |
| Army LCU |
Here’s some points that jumped out from the article/interview:
Purpose – The LCU is not a combat vessel. It is purely a logistic asset. The two functions are radically different and should not be confused or conflated. This is exactly the risk the Marine LAW concept runs. The Marines seem to be heading down a path that wants to utilize the LAW as a maneuver/combat asset and that will only lead to failure. As the Army Vessel Masters state,
The LCU is not a maneuver asset; it is a logistical asset for moving large quantities of supplies and materials to include equipment.[1]
If the Marines desire a maneuver/combat vessel then they need a vessel designed for that purpose. For example, such a vessel would need speed, stealth, extensive sensors, and defensive armament, among other requirements. Fast APDs (see, “High Speed Transport”) would be a much better model for the role than a slow, unarmed LAW.
Weather – We’ve foolishly and naively come to believe that our technology has allowed us to rise above the effects of weather. We assume that our sensors, our people (seasickness!), our aircraft, and our ships are immune to the ravages of weather. Nothing could be further from the truth. Small vessels are still susceptible to wind and wave and the LCU and LAW are small vessels. We forget this at our peril. If the Marines envision using the LAW to clandestinely dart (you know, at 14 kts as specified for the LAW transit speed) from island to island, totally befuddling the Chinese, then we need to account for, and factor in, weather. What happens when it’s time to ‘dart’ and the sea is not calm? As the Army warns,
The Army LCU … relies heavily on the weather to cooperate; these vessels can handle 10ft waves on the bow and stern, but only 5ft waves on the beam.[1]
I can say from experience that 12ft waves in an LCU is not fun and is really hard on the crew.[1]
Helicopters – ComNavOps has repeatedly criticized the Navy’s obsession with helicopters on every vessel from carriers to canoes. Placing a helo on a LAW is a bad idea for so many reasons not the least of which is that helo facilities consume huge amounts of space on board the ship, to the detriment of the main function of the ship.
From what I can tell looking at the model drawings, the overall LAW design is good; however, with a landing pad it will limit what the “LAW” can carry as far as containers and may be limited to vehicles.[1]
Complexity – As this blog has repeatedly demonstrated, complexity is the enemy of reliability and, in combat, you desperately want reliability. The LAW should be simplest possible design. Landing vessels that utilize complex bow designs are failures waiting to happen. Mechanical monstrosities where the nose of the ship lifts up and over, or some such, as some of the LAW designs envision, can’t help but be prone to failure. This was one of the criticisms of the Newport class LST with their over-the-bow, swinging ramp design using two derricks.
From the drawings and models, there are two very different concepts, one with a stern ramp [Sea Transport Solutions] and the other with the LSV design “Kuroda class” enabling the nose of the vessel to be lifted and a ramp to unload vehicles along with other cargo [Austal’s design]. I think that it is best for the vessel master to be able to see the payload while maneuvering the vessel to ensure proper placement on a beachhead or port ramp. It is a lot easier to control the vessel moving forward than while backing in.[1]
Just to show that the Army is not perfect, either, consider this tidbit:
The biggest issue that we [the Army] have is the inability to communicate with Navy vessels on a non-civilian maritime frequency. These vessels are built for commercial operations and all of the communications equipment is set up for that purpose.[1]
Ironically, the Army seems to have a much better handle on what a LAW is and is not than the Marines do.
_________________________________
[1]Naval News website, “U.S. Army Japan’s LCU Vessel Masters Discuss U.S. Navy LAW”, Peter Ong, 23-Apr-2022,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/04/u-s-army-japan-lcu-vessel-masters-discuss-u-s-navy-law/
