Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Marines Demonstrate Ultra Heavy-Lift Amphibious Connector Prototype

Posted by samzenpus on 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.

91 comments

  1. Total Annihilation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First thing that came to mind was the amphibious tanks.

    1. Re:Total Annihilation by maroberts · · Score: 2

      the land-sea capability of the UHAC is provided buy a set of tracks – similar to a tank – fitted with captured-air foam cells that provide buoyancy, act as paddles when in the water, and behave as track-driven pads when on the land

      The first thing that came to mind was bubble-wrap.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    2. Re:Total Annihilation by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      I still hum that little tune they did with the musical cheat or whatever it was... You are talking about the rts right?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  2. But does it have more KILLING POWER? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is what is important. Whatchgonnado?

    1. Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is what is important. Whatchgonnado?

      The thing it carries from the ship, through the surf zone, over the sand and onto the hard ground has the killing power -- an M1 Abrams main battle tank.

    2. Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      At 200 Tons capacity, it could carry three.

    3. Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? by confused+one · · Score: 2

      No, the thing it caries from the ship, through the surf zone, over sand and onto hard ground that has the killing power are the U.S. Marines.

    4. Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      At 200 Tons capacity, it could carry three.

      due to comment scores I could see your comment but not the parent and my response was "What, Americans?"

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? by maroberts · · Score: 1, Funny

      At 200 Tons capacity, it could carry three.

      This just goes to show how obesity has become a real problem for the American military.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    6. Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? by Talderas · · Score: 2

      200 tons of marines.

      Each marine carries between 97 and 135 lbs of equipmen so let's just say an average of 116 pounds. Let's say the average marine weighs 181 (I took 6'2" as the height marker and average weight between max and minimum weight for that height by their own charts). So one marine puts a load of 297 pounds. This monster is capable of carrying 1346 combat geared marines (space not-withstanding). That about an entire marine brigade.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    7. Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Though after reviewing the dimensions..... 1346 marines would be a bit beyond its capability unless you're stacking them like a lincoln logs.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    8. Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? by blue9steel · · Score: 2

      A transport configured LCAC can carry 180 fully equipped troops. The full size UHAC will have similar dimensions so I don't imagine it will carry much more than a company at a time. With the much larger carrying capacity though it'll be able to move a lot more heavy equipment per load which means consolidating the beachhead and moving inland should go much faster.

    9. Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's a coffin. It's slow, easily seen, loud.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re: But does it have more KILLING POWER? by Vastad · · Score: 1

      I agree with you but only partially. A D-Day style beach invasion with today's tech would truly be suicidal. These days though, no amphibious assault would be considered without air- and naval-superiority being firmly established with a control zone measured in the hundreds of miles around the beachhead first.

      Only an adversary of similar tech-level would be a threat since there is no real defence against super long range missile artillery like cruise missiles. The UHAC's advantage here is that it will be a small (relatively speaking) moving target, not some bunker with a fixed ventilation port.

    11. Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes Drinkypoo it can carries 3 members of the elite FastFood Unit, It take 500 or more of the Ultra Heavy-Lift Amphibious Connecter to all the whole group to shore.

  3. Anyone recognize that thing from HALO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Art imitating life or life imitating art?

  4. Botters gonna bot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is "poontang varmint poontang" You're a bot aren't you?

    1. Re:Botters gonna bot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is "poontang varmint poontang" You're a bot aren't you?

      More likely a kiddie who heard the older boys use the word "poontang" and thought it sounded cool and couldn't wait to use it himself. Let him have his fun, its about as close to poontang as a troll is likely to get.

    2. Re:Botters gonna bot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is "poontang varmint poontang" You're a bot aren't you?

      Yosemite Sam's having flashbacks to Vietnam. It'll pass.

  5. Haven't we seen something like this before by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

    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/...

    1. Re:Haven't we seen something like this before by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The tracks on this one look rather different: it seems that it's massive air-filled chunks in the tracks that provide bouyancy, not the hull. This seems to be designed to cross muddy bogs as well, something I doubt that much older vehicle could do.

      Certainly anphibious assult vehicles are not a new concept, but this one does look really cool.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Haven't we seen something like this before by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Here is a picture of their very first prototype (the one that was too alpha to show the press).

    3. Re:Haven't we seen something like this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This seems to be designed to cross muddy bogs as well, something I doubt that much older vehicle could do."

      um, in the link provided, first paragraph of the description it says:
      The LVT had its origins in a civilian rescue vehicle called the Alligator. Developed by Donald Roebling in 1935, the Alligator was intended to operate in swampy areas,

      so these started as bog boats.

  6. 20 knots isn't that fast by rossdee · · Score: 0

    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?

    1. Re:20 knots isn't that fast by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:20 knots isn't that fast by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:20 knots isn't that fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't matter, gotta keep the money flowing from tax payers to military factories

    4. Re:20 knots isn't that fast by itzly · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's mainly designed to carry huge budgets.

    5. Re:20 knots isn't that fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't discount its large capacity for pork barrels.

    6. Re:20 knots isn't that fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all the empty seats for our fearless warmongering leaders and their children that won't be coming to the next meaningless war for profit...

    7. Re:20 knots isn't that fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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. That allows the marines to drop in engineers that can build up a temporary dock in a ravaged place like during the 2004 Tsunami or the Haiti earthquake, allowing for cargo ships to land with relief supplies and medical personnel.

      The military's primary mission is to project the nation's will through force when called to do so, but that is not their only mission. They are a well equipped, well disciplined, highly trained force, which makes them the best first responders in all sorts of crises.

    8. Re:20 knots isn't that fast by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 1

      It does seem odd that a defense budget would need to pony up so much for craft that are only useful for invading.

    9. Re:20 knots isn't that fast by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you are invading to defend a friendly nation. See D-Day, and Incheon.
      Other times you are bringing large amounts of help to a nation see Haiti after the earthquake.
      Also it probably is not that expensive.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:20 knots isn't that fast by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:20 knots isn't that fast by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      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?

  7. Needs weapons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will requires weapons to function as a law enforcement vehicle. I recommend the Thermal laser system.

    While microwaves, such as those used in the Active Denial System, will go through any clothing and can only be stopped by wrapping oneself in tinfoil, the infrared [laser] of the Thermal Laser System can be blocked by clothing; fine if you're trying to subdue a group of nudists, but problematic otherwise.
    - www.gizmag.com

    This baby-sized replacement for cargo-carrying hovercraft will barely fit on a semi-trailer. Where will they park the full size paddle-boat?

  8. wo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice Infomation!
    Viem lo chan long

  9. This was on Gizmag yesterday... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... as usual.

    1. Re:This was on Gizmag yesterday... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      It's usual for Gizmag to have this article posted yesterday? Outside of Alice in Wonderland, what would that even mean?

  10. Flip-flops by sdack · · Score: 2

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

  11. What would be weird is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the US sending support to the Palestinians in Gaza to defeat their foe. Send the Marines, with this 1/2-scale transport mofo, onto the shores of Israel, and pound the infidels into submission so to surrender Palestine once and for all back to its rightful peoples. That would be weird.

    1. Re:What would be weird is by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      That would be weird... the Romans named the area Palestine when the Jews were living there. Why would anyone want to give the land to Arabs?

    2. Re:What would be weird is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's next, giving Amerikkka back to the Native Americans and the Mexicans?

    3. Re:What would be weird is by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      Give Amerikka back to the large mammal species that the Native Americans drove into extinction (there were horses on North America, and giant sloths the size of bears, and many other large mammals) shortly after they arrived here over the Bering Straight.

      The Indians didn't have horses again to ride until the Europeans broght them over and showed the noble wise red men how to ride, not eat, them.

    4. Re:What would be weird is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, the Torah itself describes the new-born nation-tribe of Israel displacing Philistines in the Levant, who already lived there. Palestine is a corruption of Philistine (or should I say, a word resembling that in the now-lost Philistine language), so that name is inarguably the older one.

      And if you want to move to claims based on genetics rather than allegiance to a particular holy book, the "Arabs" currently living in Palestine are much more closely related to the Jews of antiquity than are modern-day Jewish populations, who have had substantially more foreign admixture via the effects of the diaspora.

    5. Re:What would be weird is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to claim superiority of the European settlers (that decimated the American Bison) or are you belittling the Native Americans by comparing them to animals?

    6. Re:What would be weird is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so to surrender Palestine once and for all back to its rightful peoples

      You're referring to the Natufians?

    7. Re:What would be weird is by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I'm saying the Native Americans were a stone age culture, one that drove horses to extinction without ever figuring out how to tame and ride them.

      Granted, the humans who ate almost all of the large mammals to extinction were many generations back from the more evolved Native Americans that the first European settlers encountered.

      The European settlers didn't decimate the American Bison out of stupidity, incidentally. It was impossible to build a transcontinental railroad system with the huge bison herds intact. When a million bison rumble over some railroad tracks, there's nothing left there but an unpleasant surprise for the next train to encounter.

      It also helped the European settlers subjugate the Indians to take away their resource supply, but that was secondary to the impossibility of a railroad while the buffalo herds roamed the land.

  12. 'MURICA by conscarcdr · · Score: 1

    Sorry, someone has to say it.

    1. Re:'MURICA by gtall · · Score: 1

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

  13. Phew! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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 fall into that category, whereas normal landing craft can only land on about 15% of the world's shoreline.

      So the next time your landlocked country has a major ecological disaster, I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune, wishing you had some shoreline so the US Marines could bring in a heavy 100 ton truck with caterpillar treads so it can operate without roads and drop 100 tons of food, shelter, and medical supplies to the displaced people.

    2. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you're just wrong. Ronnie saved some American med students in Granada. That was (technically) an amphibious landing. Against no particular defense, mind you, but it was amphib.

    3. Re:Phew! by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      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!

    4. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truth! UAVs will bomb the insurgent ecological disaster out of existence!

    5. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was an amphibious landing, not an amphibious assault. Hard to call it an assault when the landing is unopposed.

  14. Lake Ontario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if they send that thing North across Lake Ontario they'll never make it over Kathleen Wynne's budget!

  15. removed SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude! I know /. is crap, but seriously? Cooyimg the first paragraph of TFA then editing out the SI units? What valie is that supposed to add?

    1. Re:removed SI units by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Cooyimg the first paragraph of TFA then editing out the SI units? What valie is that supposed to add?

      About as much "valie" as making sure one's post is free of typos like "Cooyimg".

  16. Oh thank God! by fredrated · · Score: 1

    Now we can continue to kill people of no threat to us, in greater and greater numbers!

    1. Re:Oh thank God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False! Once we've killed a bunch of innocent people to get the few bad guys, the rest will want to kill us. Therefore, they will be a threat to us in the future, so logically we must begin murdering them as soon as possible.

  17. Look out, Boston! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    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?

  18. Another boondoggle by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:Another boondoggle by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Another boondoggle by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      And the last time Marines stormed a beach was?

      Kuwait

      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.

    3. Re:Another boondoggle by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Another boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the last time Marines stormed a beach was?

      Korea, Vietnaim, Gulf of Sidra, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, Iraq 2, Libya

    5. Re:Another boondoggle by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      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 ever failed.

      So, I'd say the year you're looking for is 1943.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  19. so true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet it couldn't lift your momma!

  20. Ha, Marines don't get $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dollar for dollar, the best fighting force this country will ever have.

  21. Sandwalker in Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should dress the driver like a Jawa

    1. Re:Sandwalker in Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These tracks are side by side. Marines always move single file to hide their numbers.

  22. So.... by meglon · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    1. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amphibious capabilities of the Marines allow them to land on 80% of the world's coastline. That provides many many options that could save lives and it provides quite a deterrent when necessary.

    2. Re:So.... by idontgno · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, no actually. Since the Normany landings it's been pretty well accepted that opposed landings - i.e. ones where you have a reasonable expectation of being up against an organised, disciplined and well-equipped force are...out.

      For a recent example, see the last Iraq invasion where Marines (not just US) sat in their ships since the approaches to their landing sites were heavily mined.

    4. Re:So.... by meglon · · Score: 1

      .... and it hasn't been necessary since WWII. It provides no options other than a new toy they don't need that will cost more of the taxpayers money.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    5. Re:So.... by meglon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  23. could use a turret by citizenr · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    1. Re:could use a turret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we should make it capable of hovering as well. Also, wouldn't it be great if it were submersible? Then we could really get our money's worth! Yeah, the Submersible Hovering Amphibious Tank...

    2. Re:could use a turret by idontgno · · Score: 1

      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 landing craft to land and disembark.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:could use a turret by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      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).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:could use a turret by citizenr · · Score: 1

      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?...

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    5. Re:could use a turret by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  24. WHY? by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

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

  25. Hmm! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like a sci-fi space rover. Or, a hover craft used to shuttle across SF Bay. Or, a futuristic tractor.