Comments on: The Army’s LSV: Why ignore the modern-day LST?

By: Jim W

Jim W — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:14:59 +0000

LSV is not a comfortable ride because it is not a cruise ship. It is well designed for its purpose. I spent three years sailing out of Pearl Harbor as a Chief Engineer on LSVs. During my tenure, we sailed to Japan once (17 days underway) and to Guam (15 days underway). They are easy to work on and are extremely reliable. If something breaks, we are normally able to fix while underway. Army wants a little more speed out of the vessel but each knot over the current 10-12 knot speed costs lots of dollars. You can only push a brick through the water so fast. We are currently looking for the future replacement for the LSV when they wear out. Not sure what it will be yet, maybe more of the same.

By: Jimmy W

Jimmy W — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 19:33:05 +0000

Mr. Hooper,

Are you aware that the LSVs and LSTs are not comfortable rides? That, due to their flat bottom, they are more “pitchy” in even moderate waves, than same-sized v-hulls? The flat hull tends to follow the waves, thus inducing sea-sickness even in seasoned crews, and restricts hours of watches.

If we can put a v-hull on them, they would be more effective at all missions other than beaching, but then, they won’t be able to beach.

By: War Is Boring » Warships International Fleet Review: For Littoral Ops, the Navy Should Look to the Army

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 09:01:35 +0000

[...] commissioned beginning in the late 1980s, are what independent U.S. naval analyst Craig Hooper called “humble-tech.” “They are long-legged, lightly-manned utility infielders — perfect for experimentation, [...]

By: Blacktail

Blacktail — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:35:46 +0000

It’s high time the US military got a hold of some new ships with tank-landing capability.

A lot of people would scoff the idea over the C-17 and C-5, without considering just how hard it is to get them safely into and out of the air with an M1 tank inside (not to mention, how much shorter the range becomes) — not to mention the dismal performance of the C-5 and C-141 fleets in Desert Shield (or the mass airframe overhauls and premature retirements that followed), and the disaster we all know as Task Force Hawk.

By: Michael Antoniewicz II

Michael Antoniewicz II — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:23:09 +0000

Flanking movements, maintenance & logistic toeholds, get the FRACK out of Dodge lifts, dispersed re-supply, dispersed transport….

Right now, the Navy’s landing craft can only reach from their transport ships while the LSV’s are ocean going. Also, LSV’s, unlike transports, don’t require *any* kind of port facilities to off/on load. And on the Gripping Hand, presently all an Enemy has to do is get lucky *once* when they shoot at us in the Logistics Tail and we’re stuck so far up the creek we’re already in but now without a paddle.

Build more because eight certainly isn’t enough.

By: Craig Hooper

Craig Hooper — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 06:37:56 +0000

Hi Leesea_–Not clear on what you are asking for! You want…a more purpose-built “clean sheet” mothership? Or a LSV variant modified for mothership duties? Or a modified OSV? (you want the latter, right?)

Now…just to clarify…I don’t think the current LSVs are entirely fully occupied with LOTS duties. Surely they can spare a few for experimentation (and they’ve been working other missions anyway, so…a temp duty elsewhere won’t kill ‘em). Then, if they work, build more. The Army ones can go back to LOTS.

Second, it’d be great if you could tell us more about what the OSVs have done for MSC. Somebody (you?) should give us blog-folk a rundown of how they’ve been utilized (C-Commando, Champion and the Hos boats…Frankly, I think their draft is too high. And the LSVs offer greater protection for cargo plus (with the last two ships) a few other interesting extras. I like OSVs, but…just as a raw utility issue, I think the LSVs offer more options. (and for future utility by other navies, too)

If we need platforms in a hurry, sure, rent OSVs, but…for now, what the hey…newbuild LSVs do it for me. But I’m open to being convinced otherwise

By: leesea

leesea — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 04:57:37 +0000

here is what I posted on USNI Blogsite:
Yes LSVs can serve a mini-motherships, but they lack the full set of capabilities which the Brownwater Navy’s AGP (ex-LSTs) did in Vietnam. Those boat tenders had full boat M&R crew support plus good sized helo deck for Seawolf gunships to fly off of (something else the USN does NOT have in its fleet as yet. And real guns and a CIC also. (yes I spent time on an AGP which supported my PBRs.)

LSVs are good inexpensive ships which the Army needs for LOTS operations, but how about a USN platform as real mothership. No LCS need apply!

To which I added:
Now to throw in the Plan B curve ball:
LSVs are good inexpensive ships which the Army needs for LOTS operations, but how about a USN platform as real mothership? There is NO need to take LSVs from their Army mission to standup a offshore mothership. MSC has been chartering OSVs for such missions for decades now. The Navy could quite easily charter any number of modern US built OSVs suitablly modified for the mothership role. It would not take billions nor a long time to do such. The problem is that naval leadership discounts the expedient answer to less intense missions. The KISS principle is not being applied

By: Craig Hooper

Craig Hooper — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:44:37 +0000

Thanks Mike! They sure won’t do it all, but they can do a heck of a lot. And for a time where so much is changing in maritime tech…the more cheap utilitarian platforms we can get for presence and low-threat experimentation, the better!

By: Mike Burleson

Mike Burleson — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:35:53 +0000

Craig, I’m seeing this story everywhere. Glad you are spreading the word. Such a super-idea needed for modern threats, and without busting the budget. I’d long thought the kind of foes the Marines have fought since WW 2 in the shallow seas, the ships from that era would be quite adequate.