Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military

US Marines Demonstrate Ultra Heavy-Lift Amphibious Connector Prototype 91

Posted by samzenpus
from the getting-there-no-matter-what dept.
Zothecula writes In a recent demonstration carried out during RIMPAC 2014, the US Marines displayed and tested a fully-functional, half-scale prototype of its new amphibious transport vehicle. The proposed full-size version of the Ultra Heavy-Lift Amphibious Connecter (UHAC) is designed to power across the water with a payload of nearly 200 tons at up to 20 knots and be capable of driving up on to the shore and over the top of obstructions up to 10ft high.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Marines Demonstrate Ultra Heavy-Lift Amphibious Connector Prototype

Comments Filter:
  • by Harlequin80 (1671040) on Thursday July 17, 2014 @02:34AM (#47473069)

    Don't know why but I kind of feel like I have seen something like this before.... The ww2 landing vehicle tracked (LVT) looked very similar to this, just on a much smaller scale.

    Some of the variants even used paddled tracks like this. oblig wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • 20 knots isn't that fast, when the marines already have the LCAC that does 40+ knots and can carry an Abrams ashore and across the beach

    Who are we planning to invade anyway?

    • by mosb1000 (710161)

      This would have over three times the capacity of the LCAC. I'm not sure what they're planning to haul on it (3 tanks, maybe?). There certainly is construction equipment that weights 200 tons, or industrial equipment.

    • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Thursday July 17, 2014 @03:02AM (#47473141)

      This has three times the capacity of the LCAC but takes up the same amount of space in an Amphibious Assault Carrier. So even though it is half the speed, it will be able to transfer equipment to shore at a 50% greater rate than LCAC.

      • The ability to run over objects ten feet in height means this critter is getting close to being able to run over homes. At its weight it could be a crushingly good weapon eliminating entire suburbs like Godzilla smashing homes with its feet. Remember the guy who stole a tank and crushed cars all over town?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No one. Read about the LCACs; they are maintenance beasts and the Marines are reducing their number by half. This thing looks a bit maintenance heavy too, but with 3X the carrying capacity it's still a cost savings in terms of cost/ton carried.

      These are used not just to invade, but on humanitarian missions as well. They're one of the few craft that can land on a ravaged or destroyed or undeveloped coastline, and with a 200 ton carrying capacity they can carry some seriously heavy construction equipment.

      • by sumdumass (711423)

        Just as a reference, a typicle semi truck running down the highway will have almost 50,000 lbs carying capacity or roughly 25 tons. And these are not built to operate off road or with debris in the road. So if one of these shows up with supplies for disaster relief or whatever, its about the same as trucking in 12 fully loaded semis -or more if you figure the reduced hauling capacity from suring them up to operate in those conditions.

  • It looks pretty much like a tank on flip-flops.

  • Sorry, someone has to say it.
    • by gtall (79522)

      So this self-loathing you are afflicted with, is it something you are attempting to spread around?

  • I'm glad I'm living in a landlocked country.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You shouldn't be. The marines haven't carried out an actual amphibious assault since Inchon in 1951; just some small operations and one giant feint with 40 amphibs during the Gulf War that never happened. The marines have carried out significant humanitarian assistance however in the past few decades, including during the Haiti earthquake and the 2004 tsunami. The primary advantage of landing craft like this is that they can land on completely undeveloped shoreline of which some 70% of the world's coasts

    • Don't worry global citizen, the glorious forces of the United States Military still have paratroopers and air power to reach you in your time of need!
  • Now we can continue to kill people of no threat to us, in greater and greater numbers!

  • For some reason, roughly half the apparent street traffic in Beantown is amphibious tour vehicles. What's it going to be like when these things replace the current WW II design?

  • And the last time Marines stormed a beach was? The last time US ground forces were put in the fight prior to aerial decimation of the opposition was?

    • The last time US ground forces were put in the fight prior to aerial decimation of the opposition was?

      WWI probably. Why would you want to? It's pretty much the cornerstone of our entire war fighting doctrine to gain air superiority and then pound the heck out of our adversaries prior to full engagement. I can guarantee you the air strikes on D-Day were coming fast and furious. We spent nearly five months before that destroying the Luftwaffe in order to ensure air superiority prior to the invasion.

      • The invasion of Guadalcanal, and the following months of bitter fighting, were without air dominance, although the Marines usually had some degree of air superiority. The Marine invasions in 1943 and later tended to follow the pattern: destroy all nearby Japanese airfields, aircraft, and boats of significant size, shell the #$#@^)&* out of the Japanese positions, and attack. It didn't make it easy (think Tarawa or Iwo Jima), but it made it possible. No US or British amphibious assault of the war ev

    • by jklovanc (1603149)

      And the last time Marines stormed a beach was?

      Kuwait [wikipedia.org]

      The last time US ground forces were put in the fight prior to aerial decimation of the opposition was?

      Grenada, Panama, Kuwait City. Aerial bombardment has limited effects and can not completely wipe out opposition. It will weaken them but ground forces still need to go in and hold the land.

      • Kuwait: bombing went on for a month prior to that. Grenada: Operations were already well underway before a small Marine amphibious landing

        Few landings of Marines happen in contested zones and one of the only reaons they continue to try to build things like this is the ego of the Marine's who feel without the amphibious capability they are just Army. Rather than think of better ways of delivering equipment they just try to make a new spin on an old story.

  • On the trail of the F-35, a plane that is underpowered, can't fly in the rain, or at night, or most anytime else it seems, that breaks when it does get flown, and is basically a complete waste of 1.4 trillion dollars (and climbing).... we have congress pressing forward with a super-sized landing craft because they're used just so often by our forces... assuming we're still in the 1940's.

    Wonder where the government wastes money? Look no further.
    • by idontgno (624372)

      You know why the U. S. Marine Corps hasn't had to conduct a contested amphibious landing in over 50 years?

      Because the world fully understands that it most certainly could, and woe betide anyone that earns that distinction.

      Si vis pacem, para bellum. [wikipedia.org]

      • by meglon (1001833)

        You know why the U. S. Marine Corps hasn't had to conduct a contested amphibious landing in over 50 years?

        ... because the rest of the world understands there's this thing called helicopters now days. I know it's a new fangled idea, and it might take a few years to sink into the heads of the truly incredibly stupid.... but i think they're here to stay.

        By the way, we haven't had to conduct a full scale cavalry charge on horseback for a while either. I wonder if that's just because the world knows we're just so damn good at them? Or maybe they're just not as fucked in the head.

  • Turret would allow it to play secondary role of a scout.
    Now that I think about it, turret like that is perfect for a gun!
    Lets not forget to put some armor on it now that it has this scary gun, and tow missiles.

    • by idontgno (624372)

      The article's about a half-scale prototype. The real deal is supposed to be lightly armored and have a few self-defense machine guns. The real deal will also be too big to be an actual tactical vehicle, comparable in size a current LCAC.

      That said, there were interesting experiments in putting self-contained 30mm antitank gun pods onto the cargo deck of LCACs, making them into ghetto gunships, and I bet that would work here too. Something to make beach defenders keep their heads down long enough for the land

    • You are not going to put significant armor on an amphibious vehicle. Heavy armor is for things that either don't have to float in fairly shallow water, or very specially designed ships that aren't much good for anything else (see British monitors of WWI and WWII).

      • by citizenr (871508)

        I call bs, Bradley is amphibious and look at that glorious scout with big turret and sexy gun/tow missiles.

        /facepalm. My post was just a joke

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

        • It's well armed, and by APC standards well armored. That doesn't count as heavily armored. It's a gimme to any reasonable AT weapon.

          And, yes, I think my irony detector was on the fritz yesterday.

  • In the current terrorist, not nation state world, what does this service.
    Except to waste my tax dollars!

Truth is free, but information costs.

Working...