Once the pointy sharp stick stuff has been done, the logistics follow up will generally include the Bay class LSD(A) and combinations of LCU Mk10’s and Mexeflotes to get the bulk of the stores onshore. As capable as this is, a deep water port with container handling and roro facilities will for any operation of decent scale, be a pre requisite for continuing operations. The Points class RORO ships and commercial vessels will then bring the bulk of the materiel. Of course, not all operations start with an amphibious assault and not all operations are of such a scale that they need a deep water port.

Amphibious logistics are simply about throughput, the ability to offload from ships, usually onto smaller ships/hovercraft and deposit their cargo onto shore, ready for movement inland. Its a complicated, finely choreographed, operation that has to deal with many variables. This has resulted in many imaginative solutions and proposals, mainly from the US of course but in some respects the UK with its Albion/Bay/Mexeflote/Points capability has many advantages. The QinetiQ partial air cushion catamaran (PASCAT) demonstrator shows that the UK can still innovate in this area. The PASCAT concept from IMAA builds on the sidewall hovercraft from the sixties. As innovative as it is, it still doesn’t solve the problem of capacity, for that one needs a port, not a beach.

The earthquake in Haiti bought into sharp relief the need for port facilities, even the combined capabilities of a number of nations amphibious ships, serious capacity did not start moving until port facilities had been re-established. The allies faced exactly the same problem of logistics in 1942, when they started planning for D Day. Planners knew there was little chance of securing a deep water port, so basically built their own, the Mulberry, the remains of which can still be seen. The principle problems were twofold, providing a protected anchorage and some means to bridge the gap between the shore and a ship at anchor. Although amphibious transports were used, everything from the DUKW to the LCT, the Mulberry was instrumental in the success of the operation. A little known aspect of Mulberry was the US RHINO floating barge ferry.

Rhino pontoon ferry and LST - D-Day +

These diverse systems have evolved into the UK Mexeflote and very impressive US JLOTS, seen below in a couple of videos.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Despite being very impressive for RORO cargo these still do not handle break bulk or ISO containers particularly efficiently, container handling is especially slow in comparison with established.

It is arguable whether any significant advances have been made since Mulberry and Rhino.

Instead of planning ever more expensive large scale hovercraft, PASCAT or T Craft, we should perhaps be concentrating here, improving a known and thoroughly unglamorous capability, yet one which is likely to be increasingly used. As it becomes easier to deny ports and push amphibious operations further away from within striking distance of such facilities  the need to deliver actual real life bulk cargo, which means containers, into an austere location, will be more needed than ever.

Piers for use on beaches

This was the basic requirement laid down by Winston Churchill to the D Day planners, and the resultant Mulberry’s handled between 5,000 and 7,000 tonnes per day. Although the situation was of course quite different, one wonders what the transfer rate was in Haiti?

We always assume these are new problems that no one has ever faced before but in this case, again, we have been here before, particularly in the aftermath of the Falklands Conflict.

Based on technology and systems developed for the North Sea oil industry, the Falkland Islands Intermediate Port and Storage System (FIPASS) was designed to resolve a number of issues; port access, refrigerated warehouse space and personnel accommodation. Six North Sea oil rig support barges (300×90 ft) were connected together and linked to the shore via a 600 foot causeway. Four of the barges carried warehouses, with provision for refrigerated storage.  In addition there was accommodation offices, which include a galley and messing facility for 200 persons.

The first cargo ship to use Flexiport unloaded 500 tonnes of general cargo and 60 ISO containers in 30 hours, by way of comparison, the same load, offloaded using Mexeflotes took 21 days

All this cost £23 million, or about £50 million in todays money.

The company responsible for FIPASS (ITM Offshore) developed the concept further but have since gone out of business, Flexiport is now marketed and supported by ASP Ship Management. One of the key advantages to using barges is they do not transmit any load to the sea bed, improving siting flexibility. Flexiport is designed to turn any coastal or river anchorage into a working deepwater port by mooring custom designed and built pontoons in sufficient depth of water to enable ships to lie alongside and connecting the quayside formed by the pontoons to the road system ashore by a prefabricated bridge or causeway.

Of particular interest is the container port concept.

Simulation has confirmed this can handle 150 TEU’s per hour and can be expanded to include accommodation, storage, repair, aviation support or RORO facilities. It is very flexible and quick to install, except for the causeway to shore.

The US has also been looking at improvements to their capabilities and as might be expected, have come up with some fantastic solutions but one of the lowest profile yet potentially revolutionary, is the Lightweight Modular Causeway System or LCMS.

LCMS was originally designed to enhance interoperability between MPF, MPF(F), and JHSV, the wider programme even looking at PASCAT designs. The Joint Enable Theater Access Sea Ports of Debarkation (JETA/SPOD) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) has demonstrated that a hybrid design, incorporating elements of land based tactical bridging equipment and floating causeways can support significant loads up to main battle tank weight. Although it is primarily designed for direct unloading of intermediate ships it could be combined with the Flexiport. The system is compact, allowing 120 feet of causeway to be shipped or stored in a space with a footprint equal to that of three 20-foot ISO containers.

Unlike other systems, the LMCS uses no in-water connections. And in contrast to the current causeway systems (ELCAS) can be deployed by seven trained personnel and be operational in approximately 3 hours. An equal number of personnel can recover the system in approximately the same time. The system is stored in a folded configuration with floatation bladders empty. When deployed, the system is sequentially joined, or assembled, and the floatation bladders are inflated. The bladder nearest the shore can be partially inflated as needed to provide a ramp-like entry and exit point. A unique feature of the LMCS is that the floatation bladders will not be filled with high-pressure air. Instead, they will be rapidly filled with only the volume of air suitable to provide floatation for the roadway system. This significantly speeds up deployment times and can be done with a prepressurised compressed air system (similar to that used to inflate aircraft emergency exit slides) or with a lightweight portable blower system that is smaller than a commercial vacuum.

LCMS has also investigated a powered system for dragging ISO Containers of 463L pallets along its length using a deployable winch system.

As you might realise, the concept of air supported bridging is not a new one, I guess you knew that already!

On its own it will also enhance ship to shore capabilities but as we mentioned above, the causeway from a Flexiport to shore can be a construction bottleneck, combining the two would yield significant benefits.

Instead of having to transfer containers, vehicles and break bulk cargo from container or RORO ships onto shallow draft lighters (JHSV etc) so than can mate with the LCMS causeway, combining it with a large Flexiport allows these deeper draft cargo vessels to unload directly, cutting out the middle man and supporting significant offload capacity in the early stages of an operation. Container and break bulk offload would use commercially available handling equipment

The standard sized offshore barge is in widespread use, designs are mature and there are many manufacturers. Usage includes floating pipe layers, accommodation, heavy lift cranes, power stations, ROV operation and salvage. Since the Flexiport concept was envisaged things have moved on considerably, dynamic positioning and other technologies have lowered operating costs and improved utility.

Offshore barge

Helicopter Barge

For other designs have a look here and here

Some have limited self deployment capability but in general are either towed or carried on FLO/FLO vessels.

Pipe Laying Barge aboard a FLO FLO Vessel

One of the claimed advantages of the Flexiport model that uses these offshore barges is that they float, therefore no load is placed on the sea bed. Their size, anchors and ballasting will contribute to stability but if absolute stability is desirable there are other options.

Jack up or self erecting barges are used for salvage, craning and offshore construction, especially for wind turbines. This design could be used instead of the free floating type. If more mobility is required the offshore wind turbine industry has created a solution, the MPI Resolution, Discovery and Adventure. These combine the features of a jack up construction barge with a normal self propelled vessel. Although smaller than the larger offshore barges above they are much more mobile. Although much smaller than an offshore barge, because they sit on the sea bed, stability for load handling is assured and it is unlikely that anything above 100 tonnes would be handled anyway.

The first of the class was constructed for less than $30 million

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Using a similar design concept, the vessel could be converted to act as the Flexiport loading pier, with a container handling crane and a self deployable lightweight floating causeway.

Deployment time could be measured in hours not weeks, as with conventional methods.

Solutions can often be found in the offshore industry but we tend to ignore them and go off on tangents, designing bespoke military solutions.

This is innovative but not high technology, and an area that is crying out for investment.

It would not even be a large investment.

The FDR littoral series of posts is summarised below;

Part 1 – Introduction

Part 2 – Hover and Raiding Craft

Part 3 – Fires and Support Craft

Part 4 – The C3

Part 5 – Ship to Shore

Fires and Support Craft

One of the operational feedback lessons from littoral operation in Iraq was the need for more armour, this resulted in the Offshore Raiding Craft with their clip on Dyneema armour panels that provide basic small arms ballistic protection. In order to retain high speed, manoeuvrability and air portability the ORC relies on speed as much as armour for protection. The open top design also provides superb situational awareness which also contributes to protection and the ability to rapidly return fire with a range of automatic weapons clearly makes attacking an ORC a difficult proposition.

That said, attackers may naturally have the element of surprise and with the proliferation of guided anti tank weapons and RPG’s the vulnerability of the ORC may be exposed, situational awareness, speed and firepower may not be enough. The same might also be said of the hovercraft, feedback showed that whilst the Griffon 2000TD’s were able to withstand greater small arms damage than imagined the crew were exposed, the newer 2400TD LCAC(L)(R) feature armoured panels and bulletproof glass.

There are operational parallels, the US brown water navy in Vietnam faced similar challenges and came up with the concept of the heavily armoured and armed monitor. These including a broad range of types even including those that had water jets for literally washing away shore based fortifications.

So my thinking on this is that there might be a need for a heavily armed and heavily armoured fire support platform.

In a previous post I thought there was not a great need for replacing the existing LCVP Mark 5B landing craft but on further thinking I think there might be some justification (see later on in the post) and this would free up a number for conversion. It might be argued that a dedicated design might be more appropriate but in these bargain basement times I am trying to squeeze capabilities out of existing kit for little money.

LCVP-Mk5

How could any conversion proceed?

The existing craft can carry a payload of about 3 tonnes, which is not very much for a fire support platform. Additional buoyancy will be required and possibly additional fuel/engine power, this was the route taken for the US river monitors. If one looks at pictures of these 1960’s vintage craft and a a Mastiff (for example) one can see the bar/slat armour on both. Apart from wondering about the circular nature of armour developments and the fact that military organisations seem doomed to learn and forget the same lessons that their forebears have, the logic for additional protection is clear. Armour technology has of course improved in the last 50 years but so have offensive capabilities. As a minimum the wheelhouse, engine and fuel areas should be heavily protected against small arms, light canons, RPG’s and ATGW’s. There is of course a balance to be struck and practical limitations but as a general principal, the purpose of the craft is to go into harms way so protection trumps speed and manoeuvrability.

The fire support variant of the Offshore Raiding Craft moves the console to the middle of the craft to allow a weapon position to be placed towards the stern. Creating an armoured wheelhouse towards the centre of the craft will allow all round arcs of fire but if this is not possible due to equipment or machinery placement than a lightweight weapon mount like the Kongsberg Sea Protector should be fitted, to provide this greater coverage, perhaps on the wheelhouse roof.

In the well deck could be fitted a series of weapon or support modules, based on the standard ISO container. The modular concept is not new, it has been used in naval and ground vehicle equipment for some time, examples include the Danish naval STANFLEX or German/Dutch Artec Boxer armoured vehicle. The modular approach allows a wide variety of equipment fits to be utilised, there are many graduated firepower options.

In the direct fire mode one springs immediately to mind, the MSI Defence Systems DS30M mount (Automated Small Calibre Gun) is already fitted to Royal Navy vessels for close in protection against small craft and is a remotely operated system equipped with an ATK  Mk44 Bushmaster 30mm cannon.

DS30M

For logistics commonality this would be the favoured option, especially if the air bursting ammunition (based on the AHEAD design) is taken. As an alternative, If commonality with the Apache gunship ammunition is favoured, the ATK M230LF might be fitted.

MSI have also produced the Stablilised Integrated Gun/Missile Array (SIGMA) A2 design that adds a 7 cell launcher for the Thales Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM) system. A laser-guided missile powered by a Roxel two-stage solid propellant motor and carrying a 3kg blast/fragmentation warhead, the LMM is small and highly accurate, using components from the Starstreak system it has a maximum range of 8km. Designed for mounting on a wide variety of platforms including surface vessels, UAV’s and vehicles it is likely to fulfil the Future Air to Surface Guided Weapon – Light (FASGW(L)) requirement.

If greater firepower is needed a modified armoured vehicle turret could be utilised, either manned or unmanned. Recoil might be a problem so a low recoil weapon would be sensible, for example, one of the CMI Defence 90mm or 105mm weapons I thought might be a possible contender for the FRES Fire Support variant. Ordinarily a more traditional naval mount would be the preferred option but these tend to have a significant deck penetration or height and this might not be suitable. Vehicle turrets and mounts tend to have a lower profile although the stabilisation might not be as effective as a naval mount, compromises might have to be made.

To provide indirect fire support another obvious choice would be the Patria Nemo, a 120mm rifled mortar that has been successfully trialled on the Marine Alutech M12 landing craft.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Counter battery fire against a mobile platform such as this landing craft conversion would be very difficult and the 120mm mortar can use precision natures in addition to the usual HE, smoke and illumination. They could sit off the effective range of RPG’s and anti tank missiles, providing sustained, distributed and effective fire support from a range of up to 10km. The Nemo can also provide direct fire so the previous module might be superfluous, depending on performance and detailed requirements. In later posts I will be looking at artillery and indirect fire support, there might a place for the Nemo to be used for the RM, fitted to a Viking.

Patria NEMO, M12

The front ramp might need to be reduced in height to provide clear arcs of fire for a weapons module. Other modules might include diver support, command and control or communications. It might even be used in the plain old logistics role, just better protected and armed than normal.

The key to this proposal is protection and modularity, they will be required to go in harms way and speed and maneuverability only go so far. Modularity adds flexibility.

Landing Craft

Because the existing LCVP Mk5’s have all been converted (in this proposal) there exists an obvious need for a replacement landing craft. We might simply replace like with like, after all, there is very little actually wrong with them.

However, additional performance is never a bad thing!

The QinetiQ partial air cushion catamaran (PASCAT) demonstrator has recently been launched and although this 30m demonstrator is LCU Mk10 size the design might be scaled for the smaller requirement.The demonstrator sits slightly below the Mk10’s in terms of payload and weight. To be compatible for the davits and other machinery on various RN/RFA vessels the size and weight should be the same as the Mk5’s.

PASCAT is an innovative concept that seeks to provide easier beach handling, greater payload and speed for landing craft. The demonstrator has been created by QinetiQ in conjunction with BMT, Aluminium Shipbuilding and of course, Griffon Hoverwork. The specification for the demonstrator is predicated on transporting 5 Viking armoured vehicles from ship to shore, rather than a Challenger 2 so maximum payload is 55 tonnes. PASCAT is not a solely military technology and was originally developed by the Independent Maritime Associates for a European Commission Study into transport options for European waterways. Additional studies for the USMC, USN and German MoD have also been carried out.

If the PASCAT technology cannot be scaled down to Mk5 size then a simple one for one replacement would be the lowest risk option.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Summary

The expanded assault squadrons of the Royal Marines, in this proposal, should be relatively flexible organisations (as they are now) able to integrate with a variety of other units/capabilities and support a wide range of missions.

The greater in number and capability equipment as proposed in this and the previous post can only enhance their utility.

The next and final post in this series will look at logistics and a larger, offshore and littoral combat ship.

The FDR littoral series of posts is summarised below;

Part 1 – Introduction

Part 2 – Hover and Raiding Craft

Part 3 – Fires and Support Craft

Part 4 – The C3

Part 5 – Ship to Shore

Operation PANLAKE involves various teams and resources and RFA Largs Bay will stay in the area supporting the UN.

Continuing our obsession with Mexeflotes some pictures from the Royal Navy

More information here

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/operations/haiti-diary/

And to really depress anyone with even a passing interest in the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary, how Uncle Sam does things.

A Tip of the Hat to SNAFU

The US Navy use a similar system to the Mexeflote called the Improved Navy Lighterage System (INLS) that uses a combination of floating modules to form powered rafts, causeways and floating piers.

In response to the Haiti earthquake the US Navy will no doubt be taking part in relief and logistics operations, not everything can go by air and if one wants to transport anything in bulk, sea transportation is the only way to do it.

The earthquake may have destroyed significant port facilities so there will possibly be a bottleneck getting equipment and supplies to shore. Conventional landing craft can be used but the INLS system would allow direct ship to shore transfer, in bulk.

We don’t know if INLS will be needed or deployed but it is a good illustration of how seemingly small and insignificant items of equipment that are low technology and low cost yet can have a disproportionate impact on operations. Without the INLS or UK equivalent Mexeflote any logistics operation against the backdrop of damaged port facilities would be completely hamstrung.

H/T Eagle Speak

The preferred option is of course via a port, just dock and drive off but there might not be port facilities available, they might be damaged or one might simply not want to come ashore in an obvious place for tactical reasons.

Apart from helicopters and small boats like the rigid raider, offshore raiding craft, inflatables, combat support boat or small hovercraft the familiar ‘Saving Private Ryan’ style landing craft are the most widely used means of ship to shore transport for men, stores and vehicles.

The UK uses 2 types of landing craft and a floating pontoon called a Mexeflote (a number of older types remain in service but I have not included them here)

Landing Craft Vehicle and Personnel LCVP Mk 5

The LCPV Mk5 is carried on davits on the assault ships (HMS Bulwark and Albion) and HMS Ocean, they can carry 35 troops, a couple of light vehicles or 6 tonnes of mixed stores. With a range of 210 nautical miles a top speed of 24 knots they can be also used as a patrol boat. The UK has a total of 12 LCVP Mk5’s, purchased at a cost of £750k each.

LCVP Mk5

Landing Craft Utility LCU Mk 10

At a cost of £3million each the LCU Mk10 are a much larger craft designed for transporting men, stores,  armoured vehicles and large plant. They have a roll on roll off design with both a stern and a bow ramp so then can be easily loaded and unloaded in the well deck of the assault ships. Up to 100 troops, a Challenger main battle tank or other heavy vehicles can be carried in the 30m long craft. The LCU Mk10 can be used for general movement of equipment and operate independently for up to a couple of weeks with its 9 man crew out to a range of 600 nautical miles. Interestingly (in light of our recent discussions), the bow ramp can be used to lift an inflatable raiding craft out of the water when operating as a mother ship for raiding parties and such like.

LCU Mk10

LCU Mk10 embarking a Challenger MBT

Mexeflote

After the assault phase the amphibious force will need to land supplies and vehicles in bulk and the Mexeflote system is an incredibly versatile, used as a powered raft, causeway between vessels , utility platform, jetties or other floating structure . Modular Z Drive propulsion units from Sykes Hyrdromaster provide the motive force when used as a powered raft and although it might not look particularly seaworthy can be used in 1.5m wave conditions. The pontoons come in three types, a bow, centre and stern that can be connected together in a number of configurations as required. The large Maxi-Mexeflote c an carry nearly 2oo tonnes and are normally carried on the Bay Class Landing Ship Dock(Auxiliary). If the Bay class can get close enough to the shore the Mexeflote pontoons can be configured as a causeway so vehicles can drive directly from the ship to shore. Pontoon sections are ingeniously sized to be compatible with ISO container dimensions for ease of transport and handling.

Mexeflote 01

Mexeflote 02

Mexeflote and HMS Ocean