Navy's New Mobile Landing Platform, Montford Point, To Revolutionize Amphibious Warfare

[unhappycamper]

http://defense.aol.com/2013/03/04/navy-mobile-landing-platform-montford-point-amphibious-warfare/



The Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ship from the side, showing its distinctive "cut away" hull.

Navy's New Mobile Landing Platform, Montford Point, To Revolutionize Amphibious Warfare
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. and Robbin Laird
Published: March 4, 2013

SAN DIEGO: Saturday saw the formal christening of the USNS Montford Point, the first of a new class of Navy vessel, the Mobile Landing Platform, meant to revolutionize the conduct of amphibious operations. By serving as a kind of floating pier, the MLP allows an amphibious force to offload heavy combat vehicles and bulk supplies at sea, without having to capture a major seaport -- which can be a bloody chokepoint in seaborne operations.

An unarmed vessel operated by civilians rather than by uniformed Navy personnel -- hence the designation USNS, United States Naval Ship, rather than USS -- and derived from a commercial oil tanker design, the Montford Point boasts a unique and visually striking "cut away" design: a high forecastle and aftercastle at either end with a much lower main deck between them. The ship is in fact semi-submersible, designed to take on ballast until the main deck is beneath the waves. That allows landing craft to sail right aboard for loading and unloading, principally the Navy LCAC (Landing Craft Air Cushion) hovercraft and its successor the SSC (Ship-to-Shore Connector). In conjunction with a kind of deployable build-a-port kit called Joint Logistics Over the Shore (JLOTS), the Mobile Landing Platform is intended to enable a new kind of amphibious warfare that can put troops ashore -- and sustain them -- without depending on a port.

Built by General Dynamics' NASSCO shipyard in San Diego, the Montford Point is the first of three planned Mobile Landing Platforms. Frequent AOL Defense contributor Robbin Laird, co-founder of the website Second Line of Defense, was present at the christening and will be writing an in-depth analysis of why the MLP matters militarily. We use many of Mr. Laird's photos below, interspersed with long-distance and helicopter shots taken by General Dynamics.



unhappycamper comment: Since I have nothing on the cost of this bad boy, I went a-googling. After a half hour of searching this is all I could come up with:

http://www.sldinfo.com/adding-capability-to-the-evolving-seabase-the-coming-of-the-usns-montford-point/

In the FY11 Navy shipbuilding plan, the Navy funded one of them. In the resource management decision signed off by Secretary Gates in March of 2010 for FY11, the Sec Def RMD 700 stipulated that the Navy would buy a total of three of these MLPs and OSD provided an extra $1 billion to do so.

The first twop MLP’s were funded in FY11. Now since then, we’ve come down to two squadrons, so at this juncture for prepositioning purposes, MLP’s 1 and 2 are crucial.

MLP-1 is getting christened in March and we expect delivery later in 2013. The keel was laid for MLP-2 in December, and it will be named after Senator Glenn.

After she’s delivered, MLP-1 will go through probably a year’s worth of post delivery shakedowns and so on. And in the meantime, the Marines, in concert with the Navy are holding various working groups and meetings. We’re developing tactics, techniques, procedures, operational handbooks, working with the assault craft units, LCAC operators, particularly the experimental LCAC crew down in Panama City, Florida, who did all of the original 90-degree approach and departure testing and demonstrations on a MLP surrogate, the motor vessel Mighty Servant, to get it in all place.




The Little Crappy Ship cost half a billion dollars each. Should I believe this ship costs less that the little crappy one?

I think not.

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[BlueStreak]

2. And this fits into modern warfare, how?

Unless the plan is for an amphibious landing of killer robots (which I guess could very well be the case) I don't see any use for such an anachronistic pile of metal -- other than to create jobs in key districts.

Wouldn't we rather see that money go to rebuilding bridges and other parts of our dilapidated infrastructure?