AMPHIBS/LTDs/LPAs/Hovercraft

File: bold-alligator-2012-LCAT-EDAR-inside_mistral_class_bpc_lhd_french_navy.jpg (298KB, 544x842px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 544x842px

>>34421960
>is the future all LHA or LHD
What do you think they carry in their internal docks ?

File: A_Republic_of_Korea_Tank_drives_off_a_Korean_Amphibious_Ship.jpg (178KB, 800x521px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 800x521px

>>34422039
Damn Austal designs some ugly stuff
I know
I'm talking about wholeship beachings

File: ms2_9267-jpg.jpg (162KB, 1518x1000px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1518x1000px

Blocks you're path.

People should look at actual amphibious assaults/invasions to see what is required

versus

The fantasy of modern amphibious doctrine that has never been used.

>>34421960

>Do you believe large amphibious ships that beach themselves will be completely phased out

The actual term for what you are referring to is called an LST, or Land Ship Tank, or simply "Tank Landing Ship." They have already been phased out of the US navy to my knowledge, but they still exist in other navies, especially in Russian/Asian militaries where any sort of amphibious operation would be carried out relatively close to home. The US navy has a strong institutional bias towards larger vessels because of the requirement to maintain global presence.

>>34424140

Which is what?

>>34425072
Which is modern armored LST's so they can directly land at a port, which is a necessary part of amphibious invasion.

>>34421960
I think the whole idea of beach assault is pretty obsolete because you really need the element of suprise because securing a beachhead takes a shit amount of time, and you can end up like the brits in the Falklands.
Unless you suprised your enemy (which is really hard in this modern age) or have absolute air supreriority you gonna have a relly bad time. Your troops will be pretty vulnerable untill you have a strong position.

Any a trackers on? How long do you think we have until they phase us out completely?

File: image.jpg (466KB, 1000x785px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1000x785px

>>34427924
Well seals/divers/commandos/Recon usually clear the beach of mines etc the night before assault
I agree it's really hard in this day in age but how about the Mediterranean, Caspian and Black Sea ? Greece has a lot of islands right next to Turkey, overwhelming a Greek island with tanks and paratroopers whilst maintaining the element of surprise as Turkey is always breaching Greeces maritime waters and airspace with warships and fighter aircraft
We could see a Cyprus 2.0

>>34427944
Yeah I'm a tracker as well they'll always need us to do nigger tier jobs around the ship

>>34427924
>because you really need the element of suprise

Not at all, thats like claiming ALL offensives need to be "surprise"
You hit with superior force, overrun the garrison at whatever port you are seizing, then move inland towards your objective.
China cannot garrison every single port on their coasts for example.

But this is the whole problem with US Marine doctrine, rather than practical thought about how to seize a port, they think they can just chopper in at some random beach then wait for the Army to do the heavy lifting.

>>34428076
After my first deployment I realized we're just there to either help do watch, share the nigger tier jobs on ship or do provisional infantry shit which I'm not a fan of

>>34423900
>russian sold this thing to China

Sometimes it kinda sad that Russian economy collapsing and they forced to sell all their cool shit to Chinks.

>>34428076
That's the only time i could imagine a succesfull beach assault, doing a covert operation under a fake military exercise or regular patrolling.

>>34428085
Of course suprerior force work but your enemy obviously will notice a large scale assault and during the landing you get hit by waves and waves of aerial force. Also your enemy will concentrate their force, that's why before D-Day the allies needed some kind of diversion.

>>34428173
The enemy will never know where you intend to land, and has to spread out their forces + keep a reserve to respond
Still, there are limited suitable ports/harbors worth taking.

You will always need to fight for it.

In D-Day they floated portable harbors across the channel, thats how they achieved their surprise.

File: Kh-35 TEL.jpg (57KB, 790x420px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 790x420px

>>34421960
The future of Amphib ops is all about staying offshore or landing at undefended ports.

Naval mines, AShM and ATGM have defeated the amphibious operation. Clearing the minefields takes massive amounts of time, which lessens the usefulness of a naval landing compared to a ground attack. Effective AShM such as Kh-35 have been widely proliferated forcing the attacker to either keep its large craft far from shore or risk losing them. Finally effective ATGMs make any defended beach a killing field as large landing craft make their way in.

The risks are simply too high for an amphibious to be launched unless there are no other options.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3008x2000px

>>34430227
Amphib ships will always be within that dangerous range and have to traverse a mind field in some cases just wondering why new amphibs have to rely on landing craft that have to do multiple journeys to and from the ship whilst a LST can offload everything in one landing also provide close support and then bug out to the protection of the task force

>pic related

File: M2.jpg (420KB, 2560x1037px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 2560x1037px

>>34423900
>pokes holes in your skirt

>>34428114
Awww don't be sad sunshine. If it's any consolation, all of those missiles, jets and ships will be inevitably used against US servicemen in the Pacific.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uz1iJF0JEQ

File: Raptor.jpg (101KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x819px

>>34431977
*shoots down your entire third world air force in one salvo*

nothin personell, chang

>>34430227
Wrong. Any radar that could effectively hit an amphibious invasion will have been taken out well before the actual invasion. You do know you can't just shot a missile hundreds of miles away in the general direction of the enemy and expect to hit right? not to mention the fleet has very advanced defensive measures rendering them moot. It would take a barrage of dozens if not hundreds of missiles to score enough hits against an amphibious invasion flotilla to force it to give up. Good look getting something like that set up.

>>34430442
>nothing happens
Do you know how much air those things push? Holes dont matter. Not even small tears will make it fail. You need big gashes.

>>34432077
Do we have any f-22's in the pacific?
They arent carrier aircraft.

>>34432212
guam

>>34432212
they are stationed in guam. there are also suitable bases in okinawa and south korea IIRC.

>>34432215
So too far away to matter.

>>34432222
I did some googling and the f-16 has almost 1000 miles more range than an f-22. It doesnt matter for this but i thought it was interesting.

>>34432174
>missile hundreds of miles
Kh-35 max range is 70nm, simply siting it on a large hill lets its own radar reach max the radar horizon. Its a midweight missile, not one of the anti-carrier monstrosities.

>Dozens
Literally six TELs.

All a force needs to do is leave a few canistered AShMs on TELs laying around. We know from the Serbian campaign that killing stationary, dispersed, camouflaged armor with air assets is extremely hard to do. This leaves a AShM force covering the minefields. Current US minesweepers lack their own SAMs and the future countermine ships of the USN, the LCS, carry few when outfitted for minesweeping. With the radars not emitting the attacking force can not be certain the AShM threat is gone, with the AShM threat active the minesweepers cant clear a route for the surface combatants and transports.

No clear route, no invasion.

File: image.jpg (42KB, 451x326px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 451x326px

>>34432336
There's no way in hell the U.S would use a frigate to clear minefields that seems insane I know that's one of the reasons why the independence class has a huge empty compartment for installing equipment depending on its mission but I figured the navy would use small cheap vessels to launch minehunter drones

>>34432230
What numbers are you using?

>>34432212
>>34432212
Google Rapid Raptor teams.