- Jan 2, 2006
- Reaction score
DELETED POST (please remove from the thread)
macca said:I know this is an old thread, and more about submarines that carry landing-craft, but some years ago (about 1991 IIRC) the Seaforth Group produced this brochure, from which I've enlarged the section about the S-60 submersible landing-craft. Quite how close to the shore it could get, and how long the inflatable pathway would have to be for a craft drawing 4m are not mentioned; I think they'd have done better carrying fewer personnel and more equipment, like 20 SBS with full kit, for insertion/recovery rather than attack.
fightingirish said:Some of that techniques should be adapted on the Advanced SEAL Delivery System.
macca said:That Seaforth brochure is A3 and my scanner is only A4, so I had to shrink it and stick it back together - here are the two halves in a bigger size.
The year must have been earlier than 1991, because Seaforth apparently went bust in 1987. I went to a few RN Equipment Exhibitions around that time, but can't remember at which one I scrounged the brochure.
I don't believe any of the subs in the brochure was built - I think Seaforth were trying to get into the sub market generally, because they advertised they were buying an obsolete Oberon-class for updating and sale.
That LPD in the background (either my Dad's old ship Fearless, recently scrapped, or Intrepid, being scrapped on Merseyside) couldn't have launched that submersible landing craft anyway, as it's about 3m draught and their docks could only take LCUs which drew 1.7m.......maybe it's acting as a diversion, or maybe that's the defender the SLC's are avoiding!
With the Marine Corps looking beyond its Cold War-era fleet of amphibious assault platforms as the need for stealth grows more important, there's a strong case for tacking a few troop-carrying variants of the Columbia class SSBNs at the end of the production run. Congress may not be amenable.www.forbes.com