Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USNS John Glenn

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Ponce's first captain (CAPT Rogers) did mention that USS Denver (LPD-9) is scheduled to decom later this year and, given his experience with Ponce, it would make a nice sister I-AFSB. He also made the case for multiple classes of ASFB because each parent hull brings something unique to the role. Ponce has a large well deck and flight deck (limited hanger space, though) in addition to a good deal of "whitespace" in former Marine berthing compartments. The MLP has different strengths, as does a potential LDP-17 based AFSB.

    CAPT Roger's interview on Midrats is very informative for anyone interested in Ponce or the ASFB concept.

    Comment


    • #17
      Nothing new- LSD's and LST's were utilized as bases and support ships for the riverine units in Vietnam. Very useful ships as they have ample space, flight decks, well decks, relatively shallow draft and can be operated by a reasonably small crew. History repeats itself.

      Comment


      • #18
        Some more info about this class of ship.


        'this 80,000-ton giant. As we looked at the ship, the big gaping hole in the middle is where the change has come. It’s built on the foundation of an oil tanker which NASSCO built for British Petroleum. Instead of tanks, you have open space on the ship.

        The Montford is designed to offer a mix and match functionality for support to the fleet. Modules will be developed for the ship like the first module which will be placed on the ship to allow three assault landing or LCACs deployed per module.

        The ship can be configured to support disaster relief, such as the Japanese tsunami, to support assault operations with many vehicles on board, or to support sustained at-sea operations. It can also be a floating support systems with aviation or ground operations. It can clearly function as support for higher intensity assault operations or for a more sustained operational tempo.

        In an interview with the ship’s operator, Military Sealift Command, Admiral Buzby underscored the ship’s flexiblity. Along with his other new asset, the T-AKE ship (also built by NASSCO), new multi-mission assets were being bought to allow for more flexible operations.

        “New modules to support other missions could be added to support a new generation of sailors and Marines who have not even been born yet. One could easily envision this ship serving as a repair ship, a hospital ship, an aviation depot/support ship, or a dedicated LCS mothership in the future — given the appropriate mission capability package was developed and fitted. It’s 800 feet of ‘use your imagination,” Buzby said.

        The admiral was underscoring a key element: the ship’s ability to add capabilities in years to come. The new ship is a platform, which will be enabled more effectively over time as new modules are added.

        So far, the only mission capability package that is approved and being built is called the Baseline capability. It allows ship-to-ship offload from Large, Medium-Speed, Roll-on/Roll-off Ships or LMSRs via a vehicle ramp onto MLP, which has the capability to then enable further onload of up to three Landing Craft Air Cushion- class hovercraft or LCACs for transport ashore of equipment. The baseline package includes a raised vehicle platform (no covered storage), LCAC mooring ramps/support facilities, vehicle ramp (ship to ship), and fenders.

        The $500 million cost per ship includes the baseline capability package. From an MSC perspective, the ship’s ability to stay at sea for long periods of time will enable it to support a wide range of missions, ones that require long on-station time. Mission capability packages will be designed, constructed, and placed aboard the ships over time as needs are identified and funding available.

        It also should be noted that such a large ship requires a relatively small crew of 34 core sailors to operate the ship. More crew will be needed during cargo ops to run the deck and moor the LCACs. There is no berthing on board for the additional personnel. After the interview with the Admiral, our colleague Ed Timperlake commented that the “mission of the ship was logistics, but it was engagement agnostic.”
        80,000 Tons Of Innovation: USNS Montford Point, The Navy’s New Mobile Landing Platform Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

        Comment


        • #19
          Here is a video of MLP-1 taking on three LCAC's.
          USNS Montford Point Parking Hovercrafts - YouTube

          Comment


          • #20
            Navy League 2015: Navy to consider arming support ships - IHS Jane's 360
            Key Points
            US studies options for arming support vessels, which may be required to support amphibious operations
            USN is considering the legal and policy implications of such a move
            The US Navy (USN) and US Military Sealift Command (MSC) are studying options for arming some of the support ships that are expected to play an increasingly important role in USN and US Marine Corps (USMC) seabasing concept.

            USNS vessels - non-commissioned navy ships that are operated by civilian or mixed military and civilian crews - are figuring heavily in seabasing plans. Such vessels include the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) and the Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) concept; large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off ships (LMSRs); and perhaps others, including logistics support ships such as SS Wright (T-AVB 3) and SS Curtiss (T-AVB 4).

            As such vessels possibly could be used in amphibious combat operations, the navy is now considering the legal and engineering ramifications of arming those vessels, Rear Admiral TK Shannon, MSC commander, told the Navy League's annual Sea-Air-Space event at National Harbor, Maryland on 14 April.

            "MSC is all in on our navy's idea to look at distributing lethality," he said.

            Moving civilian mariners into an armed warfare role, however, requires overcoming some policy and legal issues. Accordingly, there is now a team actively studying how this could be done, for example in terms of policy and legal contexts such as if and how the government can convert a USNS ship to a USS ship, essentially declaring the vessel to be a combatant.

            There are also technology solutions needed. For example, Rear Adm Shannon noted that communications systems in USNS ships are not on par with their USS counterparts and so MSC needs to explore the expansion of its communications capability to handle a bigger information flow.

            MSC would also need to undertake engineering work to incorporate weapons and combat systems into ships. For T-AKE auxiliary support ships, for instance, the navy and MSC need to see how much space and weight are available in that class for accommodating armaments, Rear Adm Shannon noted.

            He added that officials would also explore adding weapons to the new T-AO(X) fleet oiler. The navy in fiscal year 2016 requested funding for the lead ship of 17 planned T-AO(X) vessels.

            Comment


            • #21
              They should consider RAM or CIWS for the MLP anyway, with CIWS being the least dependent on additional systems like SSDS or other combat systems sensors. Given the range of an LCAC, the MLP will be within range of shore based weapon systems and aircraft and possibly small craft. I'm sure they will come under the cover of Burkes or Tico's or carrier based aircraft, but you need to account for leakers getting thru.

              Comment


              • #22
                Maybe some lasers? Ponce will not need hers for much longer.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hello Naval Thread followers..... forgive my intrusion to the USNS John Glenn thread

                  What ever gremlins are in the WAB system has had an effect on "Blidgepump".
                  This is the only thread I can activate and post?
                  At present I can not seem to post to the Destroyer - Fletcher thread or any other thread?
                  Can anyone else post to the Destroyer or any other thread?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by blidgepump View Post
                    Hello Naval Thread followers..... forgive my intrusion to the USNS John Glenn thread

                    What ever gremlins are in the WAB system has had an effect on "Blidgepump".
                    This is the only thread I can activate and post?
                    At present I can not seem to post to the Destroyer - Fletcher thread or any other thread?
                    Can anyone else post to the Destroyer or any other thread?
                    Nope... tried and I couldn't get the thread To open, on any page.
                    "We are all special cases." - Camus

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Not to fear there, shipmates! It twernt you! Nor I!
                      The entire site went down for a few days and they are just getting it back up and functioning. But, just like the old salts that frequent it, recovery is a bit slow! :red:
                      If you check the "new posts" or the "last 24 hrs" you will find a couple of threads discussing it.
                      Even though I have been otherwise occupied and unable to participate as much as I'd like, I was also experiencing some withdrawel symptoms. Good thing it was from this or I might have thought my meds were out of wack!


                      Originally posted by blidgepump View Post
                      Hello Naval Thread followers..... forgive my intrusion to the USNS John Glenn thread

                      What ever gremlins are in the WAB system has had an effect on "Blidgepump".
                      This is the only thread I can activate and post?
                      At present I can not seem to post to the Destroyer - Fletcher thread or any other thread?
                      Can anyone else post to the Destroyer or any other thread?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Thank you for the confirmation ....

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          SLaterDoc , thank you for the background....

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X