BPE news and information

[StingrayOZ]

Buque de Proyección Estratégica (BPE) Or Juan Carlos

This the new spanish LHD/Part time carrier. Australia is concidering it for its canberra class.

I really like this ship and have been doing some mining on it.

Interesting spanish thread http://www.portierramaryaire.com/foro/viewtopic.php?t=238&start=0&sid=0b4da6503acb024e41e21f3aa401555e

Interesting points:
* Spain may look at buying two of them, given it would most likely be a far superior aircraft carrier than the R11 PdA. In that it can operate more aircraft (maxium of 30 fixed wing), operate the F-35 (PdA can't due to deck and lift concerns).

*Interesting comparisons between Spanish and Australian ships. Frigates and destroyers and comparing spanish ships to French and Italian ships.

*Explains how a V-22 can operate off a BPE from the stern.

The possibilities the BPE offers the ADF are huge.

[Tasman]

Buque de Proyección Estratégica (BPE) Or Juan Carlos

This the new spanish LHD/Part time carrier. Australia is concidering it for its canberra class.

I really like this ship and have been doing some mining on it.

Interesting spanish thread http://www.portierramaryaire.com/foro/viewtopic.php?t=238&start=0&sid=0b4da6503acb024e41e21f3aa401555e

Interesting points:
* Spain may look at buying two of them, given it would most likely be a far superior aircraft carrier than the R11 PdA. In that it can operate more aircraft (maxium of 30 fixed wing), operate the F-35 (PdA can't due to deck and lift concerns).

*Interesting comparisons between Spanish and Australian ships. Frigates and destroyers and comparing spanish ships to French and Italian ships.

*Explains how a V-22 can operate off a BPE from the stern.

The possibilities the BPE offers the ADF are huge.


I agree with you that this design would provide a tremendous capability for the ADF. It offers huge growth potential, allowing for a comparatively easy return of fixed wing airpower to the RAN if ever a future government should ever decide to take up this option.

I used the following link and found a tremendous amount of info:

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/FichaTecnica.asp?SecAct=050202

I recommend visiting the link. Non Spanish readers can use the Google free translation service to get a full appreciation of what these ships offer.

As an amphibious ship they can embark 16 - 18 helos, 4 LCMs or 1 LCAC plus 4-6 RHIBs, 150 vehicles and 1000 troops. If the RAAF acquires some they could also embark a detachment of F-35Bs in place of some helos or in place of some of the vehicles which would normally be stored in the forward hanger.

As a light carrier they could embark, if the RAAF acquires them, a full squadron of F-35Bs, a detachment of Tiger helos and a detachment of Seahawk helos for ASW work.

They could also be used to cross deck USMC or RN F-35Bs.

Cheers

[old faithful]

Good link Tas. That is a very exciting prospect for the RAN. Having 2 of these would really give us some flexibility,and with a Tobruck replacement,some significant projection capability.I think it would be a shame to settle for the Mistral, although that desighn may some advantages that im not aware of....

[santi]

Tenix has open a web site with very good information on the Tenix/Navantia proposal for JP-2048.

http://www.lhd.tenix.com/

[Tasman]

Tenix has open a web site with very good information on the Tenix/Navantia proposal for JP-2048.

http://www.lhd.tenix.com/

Thanks for the link Santi.

I note that Tenix/Navantia is pushing the merits of the ski jump for UAV operations. As Australia has no plans at this stage to buy the VSTOL version of the F-35 it is probably a good idea to emphasise advantages that such a design offers. If the BPE is selected the RAN will be able to operate its own UAVs from these ships and also cross deck USMC or RN F-35Bs or Harriers. Importantly it would preserve the option of operating its own (RAN and/or RAAF) F-35Bs if decided later.

Cheers

[contedicavour]

Buque de Proyección Estratégica (BPE) Or Juan Carlos

This the new spanish LHD/Part time carrier. Australia is concidering it for its canberra class.

I really like this ship and have been doing some mining on it.

Interesting spanish thread http://www.portierramaryaire.com/foro/viewtopic.php?t=238&start=0&sid=0b4da6503acb024e41e21f3aa401555e

Interesting points:
* Spain may look at buying two of them, given it would most likely be a far superior aircraft carrier than the R11 PdA. In that it can operate more aircraft (maxium of 30 fixed wing), operate the F-35 (PdA can't due to deck and lift concerns).

*Interesting comparisons between Spanish and Australian ships. Frigates and destroyers and comparing spanish ships to French and Italian ships.

*Explains how a V-22 can operate off a BPE from the stern.

The possibilities the BPE offers the ADF are huge.

Amazing... it's the first time I read the Principe de Asturias is incompatible with F35s !! This would be a big issue indeed... can it be fixed with a sort of MLU ? Our Garibaldi is compatible AFAIK even if the total number embarked would be reduced to 6-8

cheers

[StingrayOZ]

Well the PdA is extremely limited as a whole, and extremely limited as a carrier (with command as well). I belive it has some sea worthy issues too. It also apparently has issues with F-35 weight (they way a lot more than Harriers) and lift size.

The BPE is 300 million euro and much larger, and more capable. Able to act as a amphibious, carrier, command, etc. Given the costs of operating the PdA and its limitations, I can certainly see them retiring it. The production line will be busy most likely with two BPE's for Australia. They might squeeze one in before Aus order, or after it. Theres definately many on the forum promoting the idea of additional BPE's are retiring the PdA.

Which also lends support that the BPE has more than "limited" carrier capabilities. Spain may use it as its full time carrier. As a full time carrier key changes would be removal of the amphibious dock to improve top speed (changing the hull shape) and make space for another engine to improve top speed and electrical capacity.

[Tasman]

Well the PdA is extremely limited as a whole, and extremely limited as a carrier (with command as well). I belive it has some sea worthy issues too. It also apparently has issues with F-35 weight (they way a lot more than Harriers) and lift size.

The BPE is 300 million euro and much larger, and more capable. Able to act as a amphibious, carrier, command, etc. Given the costs of operating the PdA and its limitations, I can certainly see them retiring it. The production line will be busy most likely with two BPE's for Australia. They might squeeze one in before Aus order, or after it. Theres definately many on the forum promoting the idea of additional BPE's are retiring the PdA.

Which also lends support that the BPE has more than "limited" carrier capabilities. Spain may use it as its full time carrier. As a full time carrier key changes would be removal of the amphibious dock to improve top speed (changing the hull shape) and make space for another engine to improve top speed and electrical capacity.

A version of the BPE optimised for carrier operations along the lines you suggest would certainly seem to provide a very capable ship for its size. Re the production line being busy it is possible that the Australian LHDs will be built in Australia, so this could free the Spanish production line.

BTW, do you have any info re speed and range with the additional power?

Cheers

[StingrayOZ]

No I don't have the performance figures as none have been provided, how serious this preposal is remains to be seen. However such a upgrade would want to target Cavour type speed but still maintaining large range (as spain operates over a much larger area).26-30kts would be ideal, being able to keep up with US CSG's and faster deployment to the region etc. Additional speed would assist take off performance of aircraft.

I would love to see the canberra's built in Australia, but I'm not sure we have the avalible docks and yard to produce a 27,000 ton 230m ship. Although I think the budget allocated would be able to cover the additional cost of building in OZ. We will have to see how that plays out.

As we will have to watch about the ski jump. UAV's and the ability to cross deck UK/US Harrier and F-35B's would be great selling points. Atleast is more useful than a 7th spot, given our fairly limited helicopter capability the 7th spot I would seriously doubt get much use, plus very few small LHD's have 7th spots (I can't think of any) and it is outside its origional design.

[alexsa]

No I don't have the performance figures as none have been provided, how serious this preposal is remains to be seen. However such a upgrade would want to target Cavour type speed but still maintaining large range (as spain operates over a much larger area).26-30kts would be ideal, being able to keep up with US CSG's and faster deployment to the region etc. Additional speed would assist take off performance of aircraft.

I would love to see the canberra's built in Australia, but I'm not sure we have the avalible docks and yard to produce a 27,000 ton 230m ship. Although I think the budget allocated would be able to cover the additional cost of building in OZ. We will have to see how that plays out.

As we will have to watch about the ski jump. UAV's and the ability to cross deck UK/US Harrier and F-35B's would be great selling points. Atleast is more useful than a 7th spot, given our fairly limited helicopter capability the 7th spot I would seriously doubt get much use, plus very few small LHD's have 7th spots (I can't think of any) and it is outside its origional design.

The hull size is not an issue and these could be built in a dry dock. the problem is using thie method ties up the dock.

The building way on cockatoo is decommissioned (and may be a tad small). Williamstown is way too small and the other commecial way we used to build on are decommisioned (one acutally had a D9 cut it up so it could not be reused which was an act of real studipity).

A new facility has been considered in SA whihc does not present a real technological challenge but the fact is:

1. Two ships are already under constrcution in Spain and they have learn the lessons from hull 1.

2. We have refit facilties (dry dock) of the size required already so so uless we plan to build a lot of ships in this size range then a building way will be left idle for a lot of the time (wasted asset).

3. There are real economies of scale with using the spanish facility and existing infrastructure and skills.

Believe me from a ship building perspective getting decent welders and fitters is a serious challenge world wide at present. Wiht the AWD constrution undrway we wouel be pressed to conduct both projects at once.

The best opitonin my mind is to build the hul in Spain with navigation and propulsion systems and then sent it homw to fit it out with weapons and C3I etc. This would be very cost effective compared to trying to build a one of shipyard in Australia.

[Tasman]

The hull size is not an issue and these could be built in a dry dock. the problem is using thie method ties up the dock.

The building way on cockatoo is decommissioned (and may be a tad small). Williamstown is way too small and the other commecial way we used to build on are decommisioned (one acutally had a D9 cut it up so it could not be reused which was an act of real studipity).

A new facility has been considered in SA whihc does not present a real technological challenge but the fact is:

1. Two ships are already under constrcution in Spain and they have learn the lessons from hull 1.

2. We have refit facilties (dry dock) of the size required already so so uless we plan to build a lot of ships in this size range then a building way will be left idle for a lot of the time (wasted asset).

3. There are real economies of scale with using the spanish facility and existing infrastructure and skills.

Believe me from a ship building perspective getting decent welders and fitters is a serious challenge world wide at present. Wiht the AWD constrution undrway we wouel be pressed to conduct both projects at once.

The best opitonin my mind is to build the hul in Spain with navigation and propulsion systems and then sent it homw to fit it out with weapons and C3I etc. This would be very cost effective compared to trying to build a one of shipyard in Australia.

Thanks for that info alexsa.

Much as I would like to see the LHDs built in Australia I have to agree that what you say makes sense.

Cheers

[gf0012-aust]

Believe me from a ship building perspective getting decent welders and fitters is a serious challenge world wide at present. Wiht the AWD constrution undrway we wouel be pressed to conduct both projects at once.

I've been on a few projects where a shortage of specialist welders, fitters and turners had the capacity to kill the projects.

Collins, Bushmaster and even the current AWD are all examples of problem projects where this has occurred.

In the case of a Kuwaiti armoured car project I worked on, we had to train up specialist ballistics welders from another trade.

within 2 years of the finish of Collins, most of the spec welders had picked up jobs in deep sea rigs, mining and heavy plant.

a decent welder, esp stainless steel, overhead, pressure vessel, underwater and TiG are like hens teeth to find. a good workman can almost name their own price.

[StingrayOZ]

Ideally there would be a steady stream of defence projects to keep top notch welders (or atleast a group of experienced welders) working for the same company or avalible for future work.

A defence industry isn't something you can just turn on and off. Spain seems to be focusing on building are nice little industry. For a ship like the LHD's where we will only order 2 every ~25 + years, let spain build the hulls and we do the fitout.

[old faithful]

I've been on a few projects where a shortage of specialist welders, fitters and turners had the capacity to kill the projects.

Collins, Bushmaster and even the current AWD are all examples of problem projects where this has occurred.

In the case of a Kuwaiti armoured car project I worked on, we had to train up specialist ballistics welders from another trade.

within 2 years of the finish of Collins, most of the spec welders had picked up jobs in deep sea rigs, mining and heavy plant.

a decent welder, esp stainless steel, overhead, pressure vessel, underwater and TiG are like hens teeth to find. a good workman can almost name their own price.

I am going to Karratha tomorrow. Im filling in there because,our whole Directional drilling department has quit. One of the guys quit to drive forklifts with an oil co.woo....better not name them....150K A YEAR. For a forkie! So you can imagine the $$$ good tradeys make there. Our staff house is a 3 bed room wreck. My company pays $1500 per WEEK rent. There is some serious money in the pilbera at the moment. One of my best mates is RSM of the pilbera Regt,and he has A-Res diggs that ern 3 times what he does.

[swerve]

No I don't have the performance figures as none have been provided, how serious this preposal is remains to be seen. However such a upgrade would want to target Cavour type speed but still maintaining large range (as spain operates over a much larger area). ....

I think that what you're describing is, in effect, a new ship. New stern & additional engines (& think of the implications for those external pods) means considerable rearrangement of internal spaces. Higher speed & same range means more fuel - more rearrangement - and considerably reduced carrying capacity, which you say is one of the things you most like about her (& I agree, it's one of her strengths). I think that even with a redesigned stern, to match Cavour for speed would mean a lot more power: current max speed of 21 knots is only achievable at less than full load (the official Armada website says 24660 tons). Max speed at full load is 19.5 knots.

I suspect the ship you'd end up with would not be the ship you now like, & I fear that the whole project may not be sensible. I'm no expert on ship design, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of the decisions made when designing Juan Carlos are linked to the choice of top speed, & are not well-suited to a significantly faster ship.

BTW, you have to be careful comparing costs. It looks to me as if Navantia has done an excellent job at keeping costs down, but I think when comparing the cost of Juan Carlos with, e.g., Cavour, there's a certain amount of apples & oranges. AFAIK, the price of Juan Carlos is for a bare ship, with "mission modules" bought under separate contracts. It certainly doesn't include any missile armament.

[Tasman]

I think that what you're describing is, in effect, a new ship. New stern & additional engines (& think of the implications for those external pods) means considerable rearrangement of internal spaces. Higher speed & same range means more fuel - more rearrangement - and considerably reduced carrying capacity, which you say is one of the things you most like about her (& I agree, it's one of her strengths). I think that even with a redesigned stern, to match Cavour for speed would mean a lot more power: current max speed of 21 knots is only achievable at less than full load (the official Armada website says 24660 tons). Max speed at full load is 19.5 knots.

I suspect the ship you'd end up with would not be the ship you now like, & I fear that the whole project may not be sensible. I'm no expert on ship design, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of the decisions made when designing Juan Carlos are linked to the choice of top speed, & are not well-suited to a significantly faster ship.

BTW, you have to be careful comparing costs. It looks to me as if Navantia has done an excellent job at keeping costs down, but I think when comparing the cost of Juan Carlos with, e.g., Cavour, there's a certain amount of apples & oranges. AFAIK, the price of Juan Carlos is for a bare ship, with "mission modules" bought under separate contracts. It certainly doesn't include any missile armament.

Good points swerve. I suspect designers would prefer to start with a clean sheet of paper if they were designing a 'pure carrier'. It may be possible though to incorporate some common features, such as flight deck configuration and aircraft handling arrangements, which may appeal to pilots who would probably deploy to both ships or cross deck from one to the other at different times.

21 knots at 24,660 tons is the figure for the BPE set up in carrier configuration (i.e. no amphibious loadout but extra aircraft and helos). 19.5 knots at 27,079 tons is the expected max load in an amphibious configuration.

You are also correct that costs have been kept down by keeping the BPE to a basic design. This, and its small complement are two of the features that have appealed to Australia.

Cheers

[swerve]

Good points swerve. ....

You are also correct that costs have been kept down by keeping the BPE to a basic design. This, and its small complement are two of the features that have appealed to Australia.

Cheers

Nice of you to say so.

I may have give the impression in some of my posts that I don't much like the BPE. If so, I'd like to correct that. As I said, I'm no expert, but to me it looks like an excellent design. The diesel powered podded electric propulsors look very clever to me, the amount of usable space compared to tonnage is impressive, the cost is very good, & I like the flexibility & small crew (the propulsion system helps there). I don't think the RAN will have any regrets at all if the design is chosen. I just don't think it's the ideal ship if you want a dedicated carrier.

[alexsa]

Nice of you to say so.

I may have give the impression in some of my posts that I don't much like the BPE. If so, I'd like to correct that. As I said, I'm no expert, but to me it looks like an excellent design. The diesel powered podded electric propulsors look very clever to me, the amount of usable space compared to tonnage is impressive, the cost is very good, & I like the flexibility & small crew (the propulsion system helps there). I don't think the RAN will have any regrets at all if the design is chosen. I just don't think it's the ideal ship if you want a dedicated carrier.

But is not being sought as a dedicate carrier. The podded propulsion can give more speed if you fit units with a greater output and have the generation capacity. The latter is the issue.

Using gas turbine imposes a range of stuctural and sapce issue due to feed air and exhaust. If you use the more efficnet combine cycle systesm te demands are greater but the long term benifits increase if you focus on mas speed.

21 knots max sustainable is not bad and most escorts will be hard pressed to sustain this on an ongoing basis. The BPE is based on a commercial system and shoudl sustain about 19 to 19.5 knots which is pretty good.

The cost of the extra 4 knots imay not be worth it for an amphibios asset. This being said if the block coefficient and underwater dynamics of the hull is such that you are not on the curve of critically dimishing return on power to speed then ther is no great impediment to trying to ekk a few more knots out of the system as the deisel generator footprint (space) should be similar.

[StingrayOZ]

It may well be forum speculation. Certainly the types of modifications are very major. IMHO I think the BPE is more useful as it is. If you need more carrier coverage then build another and have three. As I've stated, I don't think it would be a half bad primary light carrier, it major weaknesses are slow speed, possible lack of a jump in OZ spec, deck edge lifts would be better for flight operations but would have issues regarding seaworthyness.

Lots of large flexable hanger space, protected lifts in (fairly)good spots, decent deck space, big enough size. Really even if Australia does put F-35B's on it the BPE design will most likely never be taxed with the number of aircraft we will have.

But it was interesting to read the arguments about a dedicated spanish carrier. I always thought the spanish might build a specialised carrier, perhaps as large as 40,000 tons, possibly for other interested countries. Maybe even with CATOBAR. But that does not appear to be the case.

While the inital cost is low, and for a bare ship, the 2 billion $ for the canberras is quiet a great deal on top of that.

[swerve]

But is not being sought as a dedicate carrier. ....

I know. If you read back a bit, you'll see this began with speculation from Stingrayoz that the BPE might make a suitable basis for a dedicated carrier. This is a little bit of discussion around that speculation - which, IMO, is a perfectly reasonable thing to speculate about, & this is a BPE thread, not an Australian LHD thread, so exactly the right place for it.

BTW, what you say about the hull & the potential for increased speed - that's one of the things I have no idea about, but would be interested in the answer to. Would it be possible for someone who knows about hull design to make a half-decent guess from the published pictures? Also, I've wondered about the props. Would they be suitable for greater speed?

[swerve]

... But it was interesting to read the arguments about a dedicated spanish carrier. I always thought the spanish might build a specialised carrier, perhaps as large as 40,000 tons, possibly for other interested countries. Maybe even with CATOBAR. But that does not appear to be the case.
....

Just wait & see what the replacement for PdA will be. The Armada is reported to want a real carrier. Whether they'll get one is another matter. But we won't know for several years. PdA is just coming up to 20, IIRC.

[StingrayOZ]

I think Spain is waiting out to see how the F-35 program turns out.

If the B program fails, or more realistically too expensive, any vessel with stovl carrier as its primary task is going to be fairly useless.

The BPE is a exellent peice of insurance. It makes a fine amphibious, 6 spots, 20+ helicopters, over 1000 troops can be deployed, landing craft, command, hospital, container capability, tanks, UAV capability etc. It would be a kingpin in any Australian led mission anywhere in the world, and would be a huge force multiplier.

If the F-35B program is affordable and practical then you also get quiet a handly light carrier into the bargin, IMHO about the equivlent of a UK Invincible class when operating as a full carrier. The F-35 however is a far more capable plane than the harriers were and additional flexability means you can launch a large amphibious assault with fixed wing support.

Which is again a force multiplier to its existing capabilities and the ADF in general.

I don't see spain commiting to a full carrier until after 2020. Even then questions will be asked whats after the F-35.. What benifits would a specific carrier ship provide over the BPE? Speed? Is that it? Is it required?

[Tasman]

I think Spain is waiting out to see how the F-35 program turns out.

If the B program fails, or more realistically too expensive, any vessel with stovl carrier as its primary task is going to be fairly useless.



Good point. Hence the insurance policy being built into the new British design, allowing for catapults and arrester wires if required.


The BPE is a exellent peice of insurance. It makes a fine amphibious, 6 spots, 20+ helicopters, over 1000 troops can be deployed, landing craft, command, hospital, container capability, tanks, UAV capability etc. It would be a kingpin in any Australian led mission anywhere in the world, and would be a huge force multiplier.



I couldn't agree more. It would be a huge force multiplier with or without VSTOL aircraft.


If the F-35B program is affordable and practical then you also get quiet a handly light carrier into the bargin, IMHO about the equivlent of a UK Invincible class when operating as a full carrier. The F-35 however is a far more capable plane than the harriers were and additional flexability means you can launch a large amphibious assault with fixed wing support.

Which is again a force multiplier to its existing capabilities and the ADF in general.


In terms of aircraft capacity it certainly matches an Invincible. It does, however, have considerably less speed and, IMO, it would need an upgrade to its weapons and fire control systems to match an Invincible in its self defence capability.



I don't see spain commiting to a full carrier until after 2020. Even then questions will be asked whats after the F-35.. What benifits would a specific carrier ship provide over the BPE? Speed? Is that it? Is it required?

Agreed.

Cheers

[StingrayOZ]

But all the fashion these days with carriers and large amphibious ships is to remove all weapon systems from them. Nothing at all. They are dependant on escorts for protection the use embarked aircraft. I would be quiet happy to see no weapon systems on the BPE bar a maybe a few mounted light machine guns or at most ciws, but I doubt you need either. Including them pushes up crewing requirements, costs, reduces space that can be used for its primary missions. The LHD has limited room for weapons (small area up front and at rear). Your talking Cwis or light machine gun, not missiles.

It would most likely be escorted by aleast a destroyer and perhaps a frigate or two depending on the mission. It is not a ship you let wander out alone. On more risky missions I can see it being the centre peice of a multi national force, with maybe as three destroyers (OZ, UK, US) , half a dozen frigates and a few nearby subs. Perhaps one or two HSV's or/and littorial combat ships. Forming a Amphibious Strike Group (or Amphibious ready group). Any weapons the LHD has will just get in the way and take up valuable space.

I would rather the money spent on either getting 4 destroyers or beefing up the destroyers and frigates. There is space and man power on these ships for additional upgrades. Given our few surface units each of the destroyers/frigates should be moving platforms of unchallenged regional power. SM-2, SM-3, Harpoon, Tomahawk, 80+ tubes, CIWS and/or RAM. With 4 destroyers you could double your destroyer escort (2 Hobarts) meaning hostile operations could be conducted without international assistance.

With 1 or 2 Hobart destroyers and 2 upgraded Frigates and a submarine nearby it would be hard to see how that is inadiquate protection. Anything the LHD wears is just for show.

It could also be argued if the destroyers are not going to operate without either the LHD or a frigate then aircraft facilities are not really needed making room for more firepower. However I would have to look very carefully at that as a small force we would want to stay flexable.

As a full carrier it would be helpful to have other ships nearby able to conduct helicopter flights. Freeing precious deck space for fixed wing operations.

For Australian purposes, I hope they keep to the origional BPE design as much as possible. Free and flexable.

[old faithful]

spot on singray.if really needed,a det from 16AD with rbs70 could tag along. a couple of .50 cals would do.

[Galrahn]

This is a very interesting thread.

Question, will the BPE have a well deck? Will the Australian LHD have a well deck?

There is a growing debate regarding well decks in the US, I am curious what other nations are thinking as they build new, larger amphibious ships. Are they going without a well deck to increase air power? Are they demanding a well deck?

I know the Mistral has a well deck, but I don't think it is a serious contender anywhere on the export market, or is it?

[Tasman]

This is a very interesting thread.

Question, will the BPE have a well deck? Will the Australian LHD have a well deck?

There is a growing debate regarding well decks in the US, I am curious what other nations are thinking as they build new, larger amphibious ships. Are they going without a well deck to increase air power? Are they demanding a well deck?

I know the Mistral has a well deck, but I don't think it is a serious contender anywhere on the export market, or is it?

Yes the BPE has a well deck capable of holding 4 LCMs or at least 1 LCAC, plus 4/6 RHIBs. The well deck is also a requirement for the Australian LHD, regardless of whether the BPE or the Mistral design is chosen.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1453&stc=1&d=1176781521


http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/CapAnfibia.asp?SecAct=050209

Cheers

[StingrayOZ]

Yes, the BPE has floodable dock or well deck. As does the Mistral.

In Australia's case, a well deck is required. Australia is very short on amphibious capability and many missions regionally will require some sort of well deck to deploy tanks, heavy vechicals, APC's, etc. Australia also lacks a great deal of heavy lift helicopters (we are short on chinooks) so its even more essential.

Australia is seriously concidering the Mistral and the BPE. The vibe is the BPE is most likely to be selected, but the Mistral is still a competitive option. The Mistral Airpower capabilities are more limited, not being able to hanger a chinook, V-22, or use a Harrier or F-35. The BPE can use all of these and its well deck is flexable enough not to be a big disadvantage to air operations (certainly hanger wise its not compromised with 20 fixed wing aircraft able to be hangered at once, simular number as the new preposed UK carrier designs).

With out a well deck (like the new 27,000t Italian Cavour carrier) you gain space for engines, and some speed. But outside of carrier functions they are very limited. However, several small primary (rotary or fixed wing) carriers have been built.

The BPE can perform mixed missions (amphibious landings with some air support) something a single function carrier can't do with out another ship.

It depends what your countries needs are. Australia definately wants to be able to land troops and equipment in a region completely made up of islands and generally poor or few port facilities.

[Tasman]

But all the fashion these days with carriers and large amphibious ships is to remove all weapon systems from them. Nothing at all. They are dependant on escorts for protection the use embarked aircraft. I would be quiet happy to see no weapon systems on the BPE bar a maybe a few mounted light machine guns or at most ciws, but I doubt you need either. Including them pushes up crewing requirements, costs, reduces space that can be used for its primary missions. The LHD has limited room for weapons (small area up front and at rear). Your talking Cwis or light machine gun, not missiles.

It would most likely be escorted by aleast a destroyer and perhaps a frigate or two depending on the mission. It is not a ship you let wander out alone. On more risky missions I can see it being the centre peice of a multi national force, with maybe as three destroyers (OZ, UK, US) , half a dozen frigates and a few nearby subs. Perhaps one or two HSV's or/and littorial combat ships. Forming a Amphibious Strike Group (or Amphibious ready group). Any weapons the LHD has will just get in the way and take up valuable space.

I would rather the money spent on either getting 4 destroyers or beefing up the destroyers and frigates. There is space and man power on these ships for additional upgrades. Given our few surface units each of the destroyers/frigates should be moving platforms of unchallenged regional power. SM-2, SM-3, Harpoon, Tomahawk, 80+ tubes, CIWS and/or RAM. With 4 destroyers you could double your destroyer escort (2 Hobarts) meaning hostile operations could be conducted without international assistance.

With 1 or 2 Hobart destroyers and 2 upgraded Frigates and a submarine nearby it would be hard to see how that is inadiquate protection. Anything the LHD wears is just for show.

It could also be argued if the destroyers are not going to operate without either the LHD or a frigate then aircraft facilities are not really needed making room for more firepower. However I would have to look very carefully at that as a small force we would want to stay flexable.

As a full carrier it would be helpful to have other ships nearby able to conduct helicopter flights. Freeing precious deck space for fixed wing operations.

For Australian purposes, I hope they keep to the origional BPE design as much as possible. Free and flexable.

I agree with you re keeping to the original BPE design.

Re armament I expect the RAN ships will be lightly armed in similar fashion to the Spanish vessel. It is planned to equip the BPE with 4x20mm guns and 2x12.7mm MG, but with provision for ESSM or SEARAM to be added in future if required. I expect a couple of Mini Typhoons and a couple of manual 12.7mm would be embarked on the RAN ships, in line with the present LPAs (I'm not certain Mini Typhoon is currently fitted to them but I understand it is planned). The LPAs mount a Phalanx CIWS when deploying so I wouldn't be surprised to see the LHDs at least fitted for but not with ESSM or SEARAM. Also, along the lines suggested by old faithful, it is normal practice for RAN amphibious ships to carry a couple of army RB-70 mounts when deploying to a hot spot.

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/FTArmamento.asp?SecAct=050203

Cheers

[swerve]

...
With out a well deck (like the new 27,000t Italian Cavour carrier) you gain space for engines, and some speed. But outside of carrier functions they are very limited. However, several small primary (rotary or fixed wing) carriers have been built. ...

The UK has built a pure LPH (HMS Ocean), having decided after the Falklands campaign that such ships were useful. Ark Royal has also been modified in her latest refit to improve her ability to operate as an LPH. i.e., as a helicopter assault ship, with no well deck. Ocean is the same size as an Invincible.

But note that they're intended to supplement assault ships with well decks, of which we now have 6 in service or fitting out. For a smaller navy, LHDs make more sense.

[rickusn]

This is a strange issue.

The USN regarded the LPHs as relative failures because they lacked a well deck.

So they built the LHA/LHD classes. The differences are minimal actually.

Now they have decided to build the new LHA(R) class w/o a well deck.

Now if eventually all the LHA/LHDs are replaced by non-well deck designs and there is no replacement for the existing LSDs as has been suggested then the USN(along with reducing LHD/LHAs from 12 to 8 and LPDs from 11 to 9) would have given up much of its former well deck space!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course this would/could/should? be a rather slow drawdown over the next three decades even so this should tell us something about amphibious assaults future. At least as envisioned currently.

In fact even now the four newest of twelve LSDs are transitioining to Global Fleet Station ships at least experimentally this year and probably next.

It now looks like the USN is drawing down to eight 3-ship ARGS for support of eight ESG's. Eventually possibly only two ship ARGs if the LSDs are not replaced.

And it looks like at least nine LPD-17s will be built with two fwd deployed to Japan.

Three LHA(R)s are programmed to replace the last three LHAs. Two of these are slated for the MPF(F) squadron and one will replace one of the 8 LHDs which will transition into the MPF(F) squadron.

And as always shipuilding and task group plans remain subject to change w/o notice. LOL

[santi]

But note that they're intended to supplement assault ships with well decks, of which we now have 6 in service or fitting out. For a smaller navy, LHDs make more sense.

That is the matter. Spain has a relatively powerful marine infantry, brigade sized, with some MBT, SPH, AAV and so. This only make sense if you have the ships to disembark them.
BPE will replace the two Newport class LST.
In 2009 Spanish Armada will has 3 amphibious ships with 3 well decks, the absolutely minimum for the marine brigade.
But also, Spanish discovers the benefits of the well decks in peacekeeping/human relief missions (Haiti, Indonesia, even Lebanon, more recently). If we can only have 3 amphibs seems wise that all 3 have well decks.

I don't know if this is the same for Australia.

Regards.

[santi]

Well the PdA is extremely limited as a whole, and extremely limited as a carrier (with command as well). I belive it has some sea worthy issues too. It also apparently has issues with F-35 weight (they way a lot more than Harriers) and lift size.



PdA hasn’t any serious issue in relation with her sea keeping. In fact, the vessel is well appreciated in Spanish Armada exactly by the opposite. In some international exercises the ship has operated in heavy seas without any more problems that other comrades like Garibaldi or even CdG.
In some of them her Harriers taken-off in sea conditions where the planes of other allies didn’t do (her 12º ski-jump is a help in situations of strong pitch compared with others ski-jumps more moderate).

The problems with PdA in order to operate in a regular basis with the F-35B are, IMHO, two:
- The flight deck isn’t, probably, reinforced for continuous operation with the powerful and hot stream of the F-135/136 turbojets.
- The front elevator is completely unsuitable for a plane like F-35 (if at least it had folding wings…), in fact is difficult to use it with the AV-8B (the things was better with the old AV-8A, with less wingspan), and usually is dedicated exclusively for the helos. The aft elevator may be is big enough for the F-35, but I’m not sure.

Why the PdA will not be modified in her MLU in order to operate the F-35 in a more comfortable way?, taking account that isn’t a cheap MLU (200 million €, 250 million $, half the price of a new BPE).
It seems that Spanish Armada don’t expect to have the F-35B before 2017-2018, even after. For that date an adequate substitute would be building and a possible first batch of F-35 could operate instead from BPE. Enlarging the elevators (not easy) and reinforce all the flight deck may be is too expensive in an already expensive MLU for, may be, only 3-4 years of F-35B use in an undetermined future
Of course, F-35B could fail or could be prohibitively expensive and in any case Spanish Armada prefers “wait and see”.

Regards

[Tasman]

This is a strange issue.

The USN regarded the LPHs as relative failures because they lacked a well deck.

So they built the LHA/LHD classes. The differences are minimal actually.

Now they have decided to build the new LHA(R) class w/o a well deck.

Now if eventually all the LHA/LHDs are replaced by non-well deck designs and there is no replacement for the existing LSDs as has been suggested then the USN(along with reducing LHD/LHAs from 12 to 8 and LPDs from 11 to 9) would have given up much of its former well deck space!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course this would/could/should? be a rather slow drawdown over the next three decades even so this should tell us something about amphibious assaults future. At least as envisioned currently.

In fact even now the four newest of twelve LSDs are transitioining to Global Fleet Station ships at least experimentally this year and probably next.

It now looks like the USN is drawing down to eight 3-ship ARGS for support of eight ESG's. Eventually possibly only two ship ARGs if the LSDs are not replaced.

And it looks like at least nine LPD-17s will be built with two fwd deployed to Japan.

Three LHA(R)s are programmed to replace the last three LHAs. Two of these are slated for the MPF(F) squadron and one will replace one of the 8 LHDs which will transition into the MPF(F) squadron.

And as always shipuilding and task group plans remain subject to change w/o notice. LOL

I can see the advantages of a mix of amphibious assets (LHDs, LSDs, LPDs, etc) for a large fleet like the USN as it provides flexibility re the mix of troops, aircraft, helos, vehicles, landing craft and troops and avoids the danger of 'all eggs in one basket'. As swerve reminded us the RN has also gone down this track with a pure LPH (Ocean) together with the Albion class LPDs and the Bay class LSD(A)s. However, for smaller navies like the Spanish and the RAN which can only afford to operate two or three ships in this role I believe the advantages of the LHD justify the concept of an all purpose design which includes a well deck as well as substantial aviation, troop carrying, vehicle and landing craft capability.

Cheers

[alexsa]

But all the fashion these days with carriers and large amphibious ships is to remove all weapon systems from them. Nothing at all. They are dependant on escorts for protection the use embarked aircraft. I would be quiet happy to see no weapon systems on the BPE bar a maybe a few mounted light machine guns or at most ciws, but I doubt you need either. Including them pushes up crewing requirements, costs, reduces space that can be used for its primary missions. The LHD has limited room for weapons (small area up front and at rear). Your talking Cwis or light machine gun, not missiles.

.

Where do you get this from, the BPE will have space a weight for Mk41 and will allow ESSM to be fitted. It will also have space for a number of CIWS and MG's.

Since the ship will be operation aircraft it will have to have a capable air search radar in any case and should be able to maintain an air and surface picture. On this basis, and noting these vessel are intended to go in harms way, giving a credible self defence is sensible ...... in fact it would be unforgivible not to.

[rickusn]

Its interesting to note that the Italians eliminated the well deck from the original multi-purpose Cavour design.

Comparing and contrasting the Cavour with the new spanish LHD is an interesting excercise.

[alexsa]

BTW, what you say about the hull & the potential for increased speed - that's one of the things I have no idea about, but would be interested in the answer to. Would it be possible for someone who knows about hull design to make a half-decent guess from the published pictures? Also, I've wondered about the props. Would they be suitable for greater speed?

The BPE is fitted with double ended podded propulsion (i.e. a prop at either end of the pods) with two pods and a total of 4 props. Max speed will depend upon the capcilty of the pods fitted and the generation capacity of the vessel

As an example the QM2 is fitted with 4 single ended pods and has a max speed just under 30 knots but the ship has a very fine underwater shape and massiver generations capacity.

In so far as the hull shape of the BPE is concnered I would expect it has been optimised to provide maiximum efficiencey at the loaded draft and appears to be fitted with a high efficiency bulbous bow from the drawings (depending on which one you believe) so it should be possible to get more speed out of the design but you would have to question the economics of this as it with the the main body of any group and will be able to sustain 19.5 knots which is a tad higher than the cruise speed of most of our escorts. I like the idea of 24 knots but without the figures to determine the cost of the additional 4 knots could not make a value judgement on whetehr it is worth it.

Just for clarification a high efficiency bulbous bow is desinged to provided the greatest benifit wihtin a limited varaitionof draft. It is posible to use such mechanims on cruise ships and war ships as their operating draft range tends to be limited compared to even container ships.

[Tasman]

Where do you get this from, the BPE will have space a weight for Mk41 and will allow ESSM to be fitted. It will also have space for a number of CIWS and MG's.

Since the ship will be operation aircraft it will have to have a capable air search radar in any case and should be able to maintain an air and surface picture. On this basis, and noting these vessel are intended to go in harms way, giving a credible self defence is sensible ...... in fact it would be unforgivible not to.

I agree that the BPE ought to be fitted from the outset with ESSM or at least SEARAM but the Armada website indicates that this is seen as a possible future addition in Spanish naval service and initial armament will only comprise 20mm and 12.7mm guns. As I mentioned before, the RAN LPAs mount a CIWS when they deploy operationally and it is normal to add army RB-70 detachments as well if they are going in harms way. On that basis the fitting of ESSM in the Canberras from the outset would seem logical. The problem may be the pressure to keep within budget to ensure that the ships are actually built. There is already criticism about the size and cost of these ships and the RAN will need to contain this to ensure the project goes ahead. IMO, this could lead to a 'fitted for but not with" approach with ESSM being fitted after completion. It is not an approach that I like but I guess the number one objective will be to get the ships built with the need for a weapons upgrade being argued after the project is well advanced.

Cheers

[alexsa]

I agree that the BPE ought to be fitted from the outset with ESSM or at least SEARAM but the Armada website indicates that this is seen as a possible future addition in Spanish naval service and initial armament will only comprise 20mm and 12.7mm guns. As I mentioned before, the RAN LPAs mount a CIWS when they deploy operationally and it is normal to add army RB-70 detachments as well if they are going in harms way. On that basis the fitting of ESSM in the Canberras from the outset would seem logical. The problem may be the pressure to keep within budget to ensure that the ships are actually built. There is already criticism about the size and cost of these ships and the RAN will need to contain this to ensure the project goes ahead. IMO, this could lead to a 'fitted for but not with" approach with ESSM being fitted after completion. It is not an approach that I like but I guess the number one objective will be to get the ships built with the need for a weapons upgrade being argued after the project is well advanced.

Cheers

Having served in the RAN I am completely disallusioned with fitted for but not with approach as it ends up costing more in the long run and, when you need it in a hurry, is not there.

HMS Sheffield and the lack of CIWS being a prime example.

To fit the necesary gear at build to give a credible self defence capability (i.e. not just CIWS) should be the minimum. You can build up from there.

[Tasman]

Having served in the RAN I am completely disallusioned with fitted for but not with approach as it ends up costing more in the long run and, when you need it in a hurry, is not there.

HMS Sheffield and the lack of CIWS being a prime example.

To fit the necesary gear at build to give a credible self defence capability (i.e. not just CIWS) should be the minimum. You can build up from there.

I agree completely but I'm not sure the government will.

Another example of how this can cause problems was the deployment of HMAS Anzac to GW2 without a CIWS fitted (it had space and weight for Phalanx). This had the potential, IMO, to lead to disaster. Fortunately Anzac was not subject to air or missile attack as its 8 Sparrow SAMs would have been expended very quickly. Naval ships invariably have to fight with what they have not what they are capable of carrying!

A 27,000 ship carrying 1000 troops deserves a credible self defence capability. IMO, this should include ESSM and a modern decoy system such as Nulka.

Cheers

[swerve]

Its interesting to note that the Italians eliminated the well deck from the original multi-purpose Cavour design.

Comparing and contrasting the Cavour with the new spanish LHD is an interesting excercise.

Indeed it is. Very different ships, even though not much different in size, & built to meet what at one time looked like a similar requirement. It looks to me as if the MMI did all they could to reduce the amphibious, & increase the aviation, potential of Cavour.

Italy has an even smaller & older dedicated Harrier-carrier than Spain, & three ships already in service with well decks (though they're pretty small). Perhaps this influenced them towards a more aviation-oriented ship. There's also the matter Santi brought up, of the large Spanish marine corps: Italy has a much smaller marine force, having traditionally concentrated on marine commandos, elite raiders. Perhaps another factor influencing thinking.

There's talk of the MMI getting another, larger, LPD or maybe LHD. Money is, as always, a factor, but it seems possible that a little creative accounting may occur. Perhaps the MMI didn't want to jeopardise future amphibious assets by buying a multi-role ship.

I'm not saying any of these is the, or even an, answer, I'm merely putting them forward as speculations.

[alexsa]

I agree completely but I'm not sure the government will.

Another example of how this can cause problems was the deployment of HMAS Anzac to GW2 without a CIWS fitted (it had space and weight for Phalanx). This had the potential, IMO, to lead to disaster. Fortunately Anzac was not subject to air or missile attack as its 8 Sparrow SAMs would have been expended very quickly. Naval ships invariably have to fight with what they have not what they are capable of carrying!

A 27,000 ship carrying 1000 troops deserves a credible self defence capability. IMO, this should include ESSM and a modern decoy system such as Nulka.

Cheers

Given the quoted unit cost of 300m, built in Spain to their spec, there would appear to be scope in the allocated budget for a comprehensive fit. This would be particualry true if we take the most cost effective option an build the hulls and basic systems in spain.

[swerve]

Given the quoted unit cost of 300m, built in Spain to their spec, there would appear to be scope in the allocated budget for a comprehensive fit. This would be particualry true if we take the most cost effective option an build the hulls and basic systems in spain.

Let me get this straight - the budget for these ships is AUD 2 billion? At todays exchange rate, 300 mn Euros is AUD 487 mn. That leaves half the budget for extras, which is a hell of a lot. That should cover ESSM, RAM, or whatever you like, CIWS if you want, landing craft, & plenty more. Just about anything you might want to fit on such ships, in fact.

BTW, Mistral & Tonnerre cost 560 mn Euros the pair. A touch less, but we all know comparisons are unreliable unless you know exactly what's included in the price. [edit] - not meant to divert this to full-on discussion of the Australian amphibs deal - please!

[VGNTMH]

A 27,000 ship carrying 1000 troops deserves a credible self defence capability. IMO, this should include ESSM and a modern decoy system such as Nulka.



The LHD should have at least ESSM and a decoy system!

Also probably:
* A proper fire control system for the ESSM, such as CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT/the Saab combat data system fitted on the ANZACs.
* Some form of defence against small craft, such as 25mm Typhoons and even possibly a larger gun, such as a 57mm or 76mm.

[Aussie Digger]

The LHD should have at least ESSM and a decoy system!

Also probably:
* A proper fire control system for the ESSM, such as CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT/the Saab combat data system fitted on the ANZACs.
* Some form of defence against small craft, such as 25mm Typhoons and even possibly a larger gun, such as a 57mm or 76mm.

I wouldn't count on it though. I suspect the LHD's will have Typhoon 25mm guns OR "mini-typhoon" 12.7mm guns and whatever CIWS system is chosen for AWD and the ANZAC upgrade and MAYBE a SAM based system. Cost I'd imagine (as usual) is the biggest factor here and I suspect RAM or Mistral would be much cheaper than ESSM, though less capable obviously...

Rumours are, that the "millenium" gun has been chosen as RAN's next gen CIWS...

[alexsa]

Let me get this straight - the budget for these ships is AUD 2 billion? At todays exchange rate, 300 mn Euros is AUD 487 mn. That leaves half the budget for extras, which is a hell of a lot. That should cover ESSM, RAM, or whatever you like, CIWS if you want, landing craft, & plenty more. Just about anything you might want to fit on such ships, in fact.

BTW, Mistral & Tonnerre cost 560 mn Euros the pair. A touch less, but we all know comparisons are unreliable unless you know exactly what's included in the price. [edit] - not meant to divert this to full-on discussion of the Australian amphibs deal - please!

Correct, however the budget will include training, intial spares and support and associated systems as well air and troop support facilites and equipement to be carried on the vessel. If we do not blow a large portion of this trying to build the hulls in Australia there does not seem to be any reason they could not have a comprehensive fit.

[alexsa]

Rumours are, that the "millenium" gun has been chosen as RAN's next gen CIWS...

Thats cool, a very capable system. I would still like to see ESSM on the BPE as well.

[Aussie Digger]

Thats cool, a very capable system. I would still like to see ESSM on the BPE as well.

As would I, though I'd like the money to be spent on making the ship as capable as possible in it's role first, and if sufficient mone exists within the project budget, then fine, get ESSM too.

A weapons fit of ESSM, Typhoon/mini-Typhoon, multiple Millenium guns, Nulka, plus the small arms component and necessary combat system, radar/sensor/ESM fit etc would make the LHD very capable of "looking after" itself...

[Tasman]

Rumours are, that the "millenium" gun has been chosen as RAN's next gen CIWS...

I think that this would be a great choice to back up ESSM on the LHDs. From what I can read it would be an extremely effective weapon against small craft as well as providing last ditch defence against missiles.

Cheers

[Galrahn]

Is there even room for ESSM on the BPE? I think CIWS like RAM combined with 20mms are optimal fits for amphibious ships, which always operates with escorts for 'that other stuff' anyway.

Another question, is the BPE being built to military spec or civilian spec?

[gf0012-aust]

Is there even room for ESSM on the BPE? I think CIWS like RAM combined with 20mms are optimal fits for amphibious ships, which always operates with escorts for 'that other stuff' anyway.

Another question, is the BPE being built to military spec or civilian spec?

i'd think that any non intrusive system has a better chance of getting in - esp as we have this tendency to build to a retrofit capability in recent times.

[Tasman]

Is there even room for ESSM on the BPE? I think CIWS like RAM combined with 20mms are optimal fits for amphibious ships, which always operates with escorts for 'that other stuff' anyway.

Another question, is the BPE being built to military spec or civilian spec?

ESSM is allowed for in the design.

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/FTArmamento.asp?SecAct=050203

My understanding when the new amphibious ships for Australia were first being discussed was that they would be built to civil rather than military standards. However I can find no references to this on the Navantia site. Global Security.com reports that the Mistral will be built to civil standards so I presume the BPE will be similar.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/mistral.htm

Cheers

[StingrayOZ]

Im not a big fan of things like ESSM being fitted. These should be part of the duty of its escorts.

CIWS and RAM are understandable, ships in small navies need some sort of air defence. But when you start loading anti shipping missiles things are heading the wrong way. Next it will be torpedos, SM-2, etc. Then you have a ship so cluttered that its amphibious ops etc are compromised as is its flexability. Maybe thats not the case, maybe ESSM can easily be accomodated and for minimal cost, but my fear is the RAN is trying to get the BPE to do too much. We know the ADF can get carried away when specing things.

Anti shipping should be handled by its escorts or by its aircraft. This is a ship that should be escorted.

Just some sort of Air defence against missiles/aircraft and decoy.

Im not saying penny pinch, I'm saying instead of putting essm and all the other goodies on it, use that money to go for the fourth destroyer. Or F-35B's. Why shoot missiles when they are flying at you in the air, when you can destroy them on land or at sea before they are fired.

Regarding PdA I heard it got into trouble off the coast of Canada during the Cod wars and needed assistance (from Canada?). I'm not sure of the details, can anyone confirm? I think generally the PdA is a good ship for all sea states. But a ship like that is extremely vunerable if a lift packs in and in very heavy seas, it sits lower to the water than alot of other amphibious/carriers.
I think the cavour would have to be very careful operating outside of the mediterain with those huge deck edge lifts. BPE seems to extremely well protected from the seas, which is one of the reasons Australia is interested as it would be entirely suitable for either the pacific or Indian oceans where seas are bigger, and distances longer.

[Galrahn]

Ya I knew Mistral was, not sure about BPE. BPE appears to be a combination, but I can't find confirmation anywhere.

I am a big fan of the Mistral class. I think the Mistral class is the right ship at the right time for the French Navy, and would probably fit in very well for India, but few nations outside those two.

After reading this thread, which has led me to do research on the BPE, I am starting to get the same feeling regarding the BPE and Spain, and have already convinced myself the BPE is the better fit for the requirements in the Australian LHD bid.

[StingrayOZ]

over at http://www.lhd.tenix.com/ (from Australian LHD thread)

It appears:
-BPE is built to military spec damage control. Which is definately good.
-The ski jump is back on!
-They have a time line for BPE production (only one spanish BPE planned at this stage).

Very interesting.

[Tasman]

Im not a big fan of things like ESSM being fitted. These should be part of the duty of its escorts.

CIWS and RAM are understandable, ships in small navies need some sort of air defence. But when you start loading anti shipping missiles things are heading the wrong way. Next it will be torpedos, SM-2, etc. Then you have a ship so cluttered that its amphibious ops etc are compromised as is its flexability. Maybe thats not the case, maybe ESSM can easily be accomodated and for minimal cost, but my fear is the RAN is trying to get the BPE to do too much. We know the ADF can get carried away when specing things.

Anti shipping should be handled by its escorts or by its aircraft. This is a ship that should be escorted.

Just some sort of Air defence against missiles/aircraft and decoy.

Im not saying penny pinch, I'm saying instead of putting essm and all the other goodies on it, use that money to go for the fourth destroyer. Or F-35B's. Why shoot missiles when they are flying at you in the air, when you can destroy them on land or at sea before they are fired.



Whilst ESSM has a far greater range than the older NATO Sea Sparrow it still has the same anti missile and anti aircraft role but can engage at medium as well as close range. In the latest Arleigh Burkes a CIWS is not fitted at present as it is felt the ESSM can handle the close in threats. Likewise the RAN Anzacs rely on ESSM and don't ship a CIWS. As provision for ESSM is allowed for in the design of the BPE it should not be a big issue to fit it or at least allow for it.

Has anyone suggested an anti shipping missile for the BPE? If they did I missed it but I agree that anti shipping work is a role for escorts or embarked aviation assets (eg Penguin AShM fired from an embarked helo). The role of the 25mm typhoon or the 12.7mm mini typhoon is primarily to deal with high speed motor boats, etc, though they can also have a role as a last ditch weapon against missiles. The 35mm millenium gun, now under development, can double as a CIWS and anti small craft weapon. For amphibious vessels operating in a littoral environment the threat of small high speed craft is a real danger.

http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?lang=3&fid=2177

Cheers

[VGNTMH]

Does anyone know what landing craft are planned for the RAN LHDs to use from their docks?

Just the current LCMs? Some of the new 30 knot LCUs?

LCACs? :D

[Tasman]

over at http://www.lhd.tenix.com/ (from Australian LHD thread)

It appears:
-BPE is built to military spec damage control. Which is definately good.
-The ski jump is back on!
-They have a time line for BPE production (only one spanish BPE planned at this stage).

Very interesting.

Interesting indeed. Good damage control is an important issue in a ship designed to carry 1000 troops and so many other valuable assets (helos, vehicles, etc). Also, as mentioned earlier, even without VSTOL aircraft the ski jump improves the ability to cross deck allied aircraft.

Cheers

[Tasman]

Does anyone know what landing craft are planned for the RAN LHDs to use from their docks?

Just the current LCMs? Some of the new 30 knot LCUs?

LCACs? :D

The ADF has a project called: JP 2048 Phase 3 - Amphibious Watercraft Replacement

JP2048 Phase 3 seeks to acquire craft that will replace the existing capability inherent in the RAN’s current LCH and LCVP and the Australian Army’s LCM-8, LPA Watercraft, LARC-V and NLE. The Phase 3 craft will be a key element of the future Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment (ADAS) capability.

The ADAS System will include landing craft that will operate out of a wet dock in the ADAS major ships to facilitate landing of heavy equipment and logistics over the shore (LOTS). Taken together the JP2048 Phase 3 craft will provide a significant lift capability and further enhance the flexibility of the ADAS.



http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/adas/jp2048ph3/index.cfm

I guess we will have to wait and see. The LCAC would be nice but only one will fit in the docking well compared with 4 LCMs!

Cheers

[StingrayOZ]

I don't belive the current ones will be used. Dont carry M1A1's?

I belive they might be looking at getting some new ones with the LHD's. The $2 billion set aside should allow for a few nice options. I belive this is one of them.

Didn't the UK remove all missiles from their carriers a while back?
Like I said, provide them with some protection, but keep it simple with a simple objective. If it can all be done with ESSM and few light machine guns then I can't complain. If you start trying to fit, 3 Phalax CIWS, Sea RAM, RB-70, ESSMs, 2x20mm x3,4x 12.7mm its starting to sound like a WWII battleship.

[Aussie Digger]

I don't belive the current ones will be used. Dont carry M1A1's?

I belive they might be looking at getting some new ones with the LHD's. The $2 billion set aside should allow for a few nice options. I belive this is one of them.

Didn't the UK remove all missiles from their carriers a while back?
Like I said, provide them with some protection, but keep it simple with a simple objective. If it can all be done with ESSM and few light machine guns then I can't complain. If you start trying to fit, 3 Phalax CIWS, Sea RAM, RB-70, ESSMs, 2x20mm x3,4x 12.7mm its starting to sound like a WWII battleship.

The project provides for a self defence capability for the vessels. They will virtually always operate with a surface escort capacity so the need for them to be "heavily" armed just isn't there.

I'd expect that the vessels will have a layered defence against both air and surface targets, it's just be the "extent" of those layers that will be a matter for debate.

Personally, whilst I'd like to see them armed with ESSM and a 5 inch /62 Cal gun and ERGM, (imagine the munitions storage capacity on an LHD!!!), I think the best that can be hoped for in terms of weapon systems, is probably 2-3 "millenium guns" and/or 2-4 Typhoon/mini-Typhoon guns and a short range SAM system.

[StingrayOZ]

5" gun!! On a LHD? Your nuts! Theres plenty of deck, just use some of those troops on board with RPG's, motars, etc. 1000 soliders with rifles. Not to mention Tigers and armed seakings, NH-90's, F-35's, Harriers.

With more being known about the BPE now, it appears an even stronger option for the Canberra class.

I wonder if any other nations will be interested in the BPE design after Australia and Spain.

Any idea what UAV's they might fly of the BPE? Either Spain or Australia?

[Aussie Digger]

5" gun!! On a LHD? Your nuts! Theres plenty of deck, just use some of those troops on board with RPG's, motars, etc. 1000 soliders with rifles. Not to mention Tigers and armed seakings, NH-90's, F-35's, Harriers.

I'm nuts? I'm not the one proposing soldiers with SMALL ARMS be employed in a NGS role. Tell me mate, can an RPG or a mortar provide NGS to ranges of 40k's (in the case of Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm gun firing standard munitions) or 120k's (in the case of the Mk 45 Mod 4 firing ERGM?)

Can a man portable mortar be fired from the pitching (and hard) flight deck of a ship? If 1000 soldiers are firing from the flight deck, who's conducting the amphibious landing the vessel is supposed to be conducting?

Tell me, how many Harriers and F-35 (B's presumably) are ADF getting exactly?

How many "armed Seakings" do we have?


The USS Tarawa Class landing ships were equipped with 5 inch guns when they were commissioned, so apparently someone else thinks the idea's not "nuts" either. Given the paucity of vessels able to provide long range NGS to deployed troops, they would add valuable capability to a taskforce.

Far more so than troops "firing from the flight deck".

With more being known about the BPE now, it appears an even stronger option for the Canberra class.

I wonder if any other nations will be interested in the BPE design after Australia and Spain.

Any idea what UAV's they might fly of the BPE? Either Spain or Australia?

I agree. It's a far superior vessel to the French design, however it's probably (slightly) more expensive.

RAN is looking at UAV's. No designs have been chosen as yet, but more than likely they'll be a "VTOL" design (ie: helo styled)...

[swerve]

...

I am a big fan of the Mistral class. I think the Mistral class is the right ship at the right time for the French Navy, and would probably fit in very well for India, but few nations outside those two. ...

It might also suit Italy. The MMI is looking for a ship in that class (& eventually, at least two, to replace the San Giorgios), if they can wheedle the money. But they're more likely to pick a home-grown ship. Fincantieri have a new LHD design which would suit, especially if they choose the option of replacing both the San Giorgios & Garibaldiwith one class, adaptable a la BPE.

[swerve]

over at http://www.lhd.tenix.com/ (from Australian LHD thread)

It appears:
-BPE is built to military spec damage control. Which is definately good.
-The ski jump is back on!
-They have a time line for BPE production (only one spanish BPE planned at this stage).

Very interesting.

Hey! What happened to the diesels? I can't find any reference to them, just the gas turbine. Are they still there but not mentioned?

[contedicavour]

It might also suit Italy. The MMI is looking for a ship in that class (& eventually, at least two, to replace the San Giorgios), if they can wheedle the money. But they're more likely to pick a home-grown ship. Fincantieri have a new LHD design which would suit, especially if they choose the option of replacing both the San Giorgios & Garibaldiwith one class, adaptable a la BPE.

Yes though priority is adding a 4th LPD to our still relatively recent Santi class (in service dates from 1987 to 1993), so the new build ship is not supposed to replace them. In order to make sure no politician thinks the ship is a replacement for the Garibaldi, the ship will not be a thorough-deck design like the BPE but something closer to the Rotterdam class. Expect in service date around 2012, while the Garibaldi will still be in service until 2020 and beyond...

Regarding the discussion on which armament to deploy on a LHD, I'm in favour of serious CIWS / short range SAM, and that's it. Providing fire support for Marines arriving by helo or LCM/LCACs should be assigned to escort ships equipped with 127mm guns and land-attack capable missiles, plus Mavericks and JDAMs from the AV8B+/F35Bs.

cheers

[Aussie Digger]

Yes though priority is adding a 4th LPD to our still relatively recent Santi class (in service dates from 1987 to 1993), so the new build ship is not supposed to replace them. In order to make sure no politician thinks the ship is a replacement for the Garibaldi, the ship will not be a thorough-deck design like the BPE but something closer to the Rotterdam class. Expect in service date around 2012, while the Garibaldi will still be in service until 2020 and beyond...

Regarding the discussion on which armament to deploy on a LHD, I'm in favour of serious CIWS / short range SAM, and that's it. Providing fire support for Marines arriving by helo or LCM/LCACs should be assigned to escort ships equipped with 127mm guns and land-attack capable missiles, plus Mavericks and JDAMs from the AV8B+/F35Bs.

cheers

We got a little bit off topic I suppose and "Australian slanted". I proposed 127mm guns as a "preferred" option, not a realistic one.

The only thing I'd add to CIWS/SAM is a dedicated anti-surface weapon such as "mini-typhoon" or Typhoon itself. Millenium guns can handle the role I know, but it seems like an expensive way to do it (with that flash "AHEAD" ammunition) and the ammo in the Millenium gun is probably better saved for higher level threats. Stabilised 12.7mm HMG's can fire out to 2000m's so I can see these being sufficient for the anti - suicide attack craft role.

A "swarm type" attack would probably be justifiably engaged by the 35mm weapon, but for individual or limited numbers of craft etc, I think a less expensive weapon would probably suffice.

[contedicavour]

We got a little bit off topic I suppose and "Australian slanted". I proposed 127mm guns as a "preferred" option, not a realistic one.

The only thing I'd add to CIWS/SAM is a dedicated anti-surface weapon such as "mini-typhoon" or Typhoon itself. Millenium guns can handle the role I know, but it seems like an expensive way to do it (with that flash "AHEAD" ammunition) and the ammo in the Millenium gun is probably better saved for higher level threats. Stabilised 12.7mm HMG's can fire out to 2000m's so I can see these being sufficient for the anti - suicide attack craft role.

A "swarm type" attack would probably be justifiably engaged by the 35mm weapon, but for individual or limited numbers of craft etc, I think a less expensive weapon would probably suffice.

For that type of threat we are deploying 25mm Oto Melara/Breda guns on most of our vessels (they can function manually without radar-illuminator guidance if needed). I agree it is key to limit vulnerability from such unconventional warfare, although my fear is mostly about attacks once in harbour (SEAL type squads as our WW2 X-MAS unit using small torpedoes or mines). Against those you can use active sonar / mine-detection sonars, SLAT torpedo-decoy and good old Marines with binoculars ;)

cheers

[santi]

Is there even room for ESSM on the BPE? I think CIWS like RAM combined with 20mms are optimal fits for amphibious ships, which always operates with escorts for 'that other stuff' anyway.


Yes, it seems. But, of course, you need something more than the VLS: at least one or two fire directors, or a solution like CEA-FAR/MOUNT.
Time ago Spanish Armada specified the RAM/SeaRAM like the preferred solution for point defence in amphibs and AOR’s….. when some cash were available.
Nowadays the philosophy of Armada is that every auxiliary or amphib ship sent to a place more or less dangerous has an F-100 near… (Lebanon, for instance). That’s the best defence. Of course, RAM or CIWS would be great.

Another question, is the BPE being built to military spec or civilian spec?

It’s a mix of both. Military for the most sensible areas and civilian for the less… That’s the same for other vessels like Galicia LPD’s or AOR’s in Armada service, or the Mistral BPC’s in the Marine Nationale…..
Only in this way is possible to build a 28.000 t LHD for 360 million €/ 450 million $ (note that this total, regarding BPE, is very optimistic and don’t includes the development of some systems for the ship).

Hey! What happened to the diesels? I can't find any reference to them, just the gas turbine. Are they still there but not mentioned?



BPE has a full electric propulsion, consisting in 1 Turbo-alternator of 20 MW and 2 Diesel-alternators of 8 MW each (36 MW total). Last infos are that pods will be Siemens-Schottel SPP twin-props of 10 MW nominal (11.5 MW maximun) each.
I suppose that would be basically the same for the RAN LHD’s.

Regards

[swerve]

...BPE has a full electric propulsion, consisting in 1 Turbo-alternator of 20 MW and 2 Diesel-alternators of 8 MW each (36 MW total). ...

I know. Hence the comment, because the Tenix/Navantia site for Australia mentioned the gas turbine, but I couldn't find any mention of the diesels.


I suppose that would be basically the same for the RAN LHD’s.


One would expect so, but see above.

[Tasman]

It’s a mix of both. Military for the most sensible areas and civilian for the less… That’s the same for other vessels like Galicia LPD’s or AOR’s in Armada service, or the Mistral BPC’s in the Marine Nationale…..
Only in this way is possible to build a 28.000 t LHD for 360 million €/ 450 million $ (note that this total, regarding BPE, is very optimistic and don’t includes the development of some systems for the ship)

The mix of civilian and military specs in the construction seems to be a good approach if it is able to keep costs down without compromising the safety and survivability of the ship in action.

Cheers

[alexsa]

I don't belive the current ones will be used. Dont carry M1A1's?

I belive they might be looking at getting some new ones with the LHD's. The $2 billion set aside should allow for a few nice options. I belive this is one of them.

Didn't the UK remove all missiles from their carriers a while back?
Like I said, provide them with some protection, but keep it simple with a simple objective. If it can all be done with ESSM and few light machine guns then I can't complain. If you start trying to fit, 3 Phalax CIWS, Sea RAM, RB-70, ESSMs, 2x20mm x3,4x 12.7mm its starting to sound like a WWII battleship.

No you are staarting to look at a reasonable self defence arrangemnt for a vesel that will operate in litorial water. ESSM is a self defence system the AWD will use SM2 (and perhap SM6 in the future) for its primary Air Warfare role but will also have ESSM for self defence. You should also note we are not particualry flush wiht escorts in the RAN and most are fitted with just ESSM.

A ship carrying over a thousand troops and a bunch of enxpensive aircraft need a credible self defence arrangement.

As far as I know the UK removed the missile systsm to improve deck space and cut upkeep costs noting the sea dart is not a VLS system. However, until recently thos ships had a credible air defence figher ..... we do not at this stage.

Finally it is worth noting even the US careiers are fitted wifh RIM7 (and I assume are being upgraded to ESSM) as well as CIWS and capable aircraft.

[StingrayOZ]

Hence why a 4th destroyer and F-35B should be seriously concidered. They aren't just navy gravy, we really need em.

I suppose due to the lack of power in the RAN they should be loaded fairly extensively.

[Aussie Digger]

Hence why a 4th destroyer and F-35B should be seriously concidered. They aren't just navy gravy, we really need em.

I suppose due to the lack of power in the RAN they should be loaded fairly extensively.

I agree we need both, but Government doesn't have a bottom-less pit of money to give to Defence, nor and endless supply of manpower to equip said additional capabilities.

The LHD's in the words of RAN and Government (just like the ANZAC's) will have a "reasonable" self defence capability. Nothing more.

[kato]

Can a man portable mortar be fired from the pitching (and hard) flight deck of a ship?
not exactly a ship, or a man-portable mortar, but Germany has fired 120mm Tampella mortars on M113 from oil-platform support rigs in tests (though those tests weren't for the mortars, but for an onshore C-RAM system). The rig had two regular army M113 with mortars and one M577 with an artillery control system loaded on its deck (and fastened to the deck), and was then towed out to about ~8 km offshore, from where a few dozen rounds were fired towards the coast.

[Aussie Digger]

not exactly a ship, or a man-portable mortar, but Germany has fired 120mm Tampella mortars on M113 from oil-platform support rigs in tests (though those tests weren't for the mortars, but for an onshore C-RAM system). The rig had two regular army M113 with mortars and one M577 with an artillery control system loaded on its deck (and fastened to the deck), and was then towed out to about ~8 km offshore, from where a few dozen rounds were fired towards the coast.

Fair enough. My point was directed at the idea that a man pack 81mm mortar could be fired from the deck of a ship and would adequately replace the NGS capability of a 127mm naval gun... :onfloorl:

[StingrayOZ]

Hahah, our M113's wouldn't even be able to do that.

Wonder if you can have a Leopard or M1A1 on deck? If you could have half a dozen on deck, that would be a fairly significant amount of firepower to soften up a landing spot before going ahead and landing the tanks/troops on shore. I doubt the deck would respond well to half a dozen 60 ton tanks cruising around and firing on top of it. But then again, a mobile artilary platform based off oil rig structures would be interesting, for another topic.

I do find it interesting that Spain seems to be leaning toward escorts where Australia seems to be leaning towards self defence. Yet both may end up with simular weapon systems. With the Australian LHD missing a fixed wing aircraft that the Spanish one looks likely to carry atleast some of the time.

[swerve]

...
Wonder if you can have a Leopard or M1A1 on deck? ....

What weight does the biggest lift take? Does it go down to the vehicle deck?

[rossfrb_1]

Hahah, our M113's wouldn't even be able to do that.

Wonder if you can have a Leopard or M1A1 on deck? If you could have half a dozen on deck, that would be a fairly significant amount of firepower to soften up a landing spot before going ahead and landing the tanks/troops on shore. I doubt the deck would respond well to half a dozen 60 ton tanks cruising around and firing on top of it. But then again, a mobile artilary platform based off oil rig structures would be interesting, for another topic.



Tank guns are relatively short ranged compared with their naval bretheren.
The 120mm gun on a Leo 2/M1A1 is good for what ~2km (3?)? The naval equiv 127mm(?) is good for >20km.
Better off with 120mm mortars in M113s or whatever. Range is around 7km.
Certainly a lot less stress on the deck
Still if you need shore bombardment, would you really want to bring an expensive LHD in that close?

rb

[Tasman]

What weight does the biggest lift take? Does it go down to the vehicle deck?

I can't find information regarding the weight that the lift can carry but it is designed for the F-35 and CH-47 Chinook. Both weigh far less than a MBT like the Leopard 2 or M1A1 Abrams. The hangar only goes to the aircraft and 'light vehicle' hangar. MBTs would be stored below adjacent to the well deck and would not have access to the flight deck. In any case I expect that a 60+ ton MBT would be likely to damage the flight deck.

Cheers

[gf0012-aust]

In any case I expect that a 60+ ton MBT would be likely to damage the flight deck.

Cheers

they're also unlikely to get stowed on top for a variety of reasons.


if ship is damaged, then they need real estate to clear the aircraft in the fastest possible manner. the parking bay to top deck is the fastest aircraft evacuation route - you don't want it cluttered with assets that are minor CAPEX ;)
tanks would effect ship stability, ie centre of gravity - so having them high will effect roll and heel issues, it will also mean that above the notional centre of gravity that they could accelerate list.
its easier to evacuate heavy equipment at dockside level.
policy is generally to clear aircraft as you enter a docking situation. IIRC its a F&S issue. The higher up the aircraft, or the closer they are to the deck, the faster it will be to clear them.

[swerve]

Tank guns are relatively short ranged compared with their naval bretheren.
The 120mm gun on a Leo 2/M1A1 is good for what ~2km (3?)? The naval equiv 127mm(?) is good for >20km....

Still if you need shore bombardment, would you really want to bring an expensive LHD in that close?

rb

Apples & oranges. Those 120 mm smoothbores can penetrate other tanks at 2-3 km, i.e. fire an APFSDS projectile on a pretty flat trajectory so it still has a high velocity at that distance. For indirect fire, you should add a multiplier to that range. But they will still be inferior to naval guns. Lower sustained RoF, inferior (for the purpose) ammunition, FCS unsuitable, etc., etc. And I think we've now established, as I suspected, there's no way to get them to the deck.

Agreed about the unwisdom of using an LHD for shore bombardment. Big expensive (not just the ship - the contents) target.

[StingrayOZ]

I am only exploring possibilities. Like the possibility of landing a Spartan on a LHD.

What about leopard 1's we have? Still got 80 of those don't we? They are much lighter (what a mere 40 tons!). May even fit onto lifts. Still, top heavy ship, wreck the deck and close range. Although I've seen pictures of the melbourne I think with trucks etc on deck

If we had a light weight m113 with a mortar, that might just be able to be airlifted by a Skycrane or CH-54. That would be a interesting possibility for a amphibious assault.

[gf0012-aust]

I am only exploring possibilities. Like the possibility of landing a Spartan on a LHD. .


well, they landed a herc on the forrestal.... :)

[Aussie Digger]

Apples & oranges. Those 120 mm smoothbores can penetrate other tanks at 2-3 km, i.e. fire an APFSDS projectile on a pretty flat trajectory so it still has a high velocity at that distance. For indirect fire, you should add a multiplier to that range. But they will still be inferior to naval guns. Lower sustained RoF, inferior (for the purpose) ammunition, FCS unsuitable, etc., etc. And I think we've now established, as I suspected, there's no way to get them to the deck.

Agreed about the unwisdom of using an LHD for shore bombardment. Big expensive (not just the ship - the contents) target.

I'm not so sure it IS unwise. The LHD will be sitting off the coast ANYWAY. Why not give it an indirect fire capacity if it's affordable?

The ship is GOING to have to come with range of certain systems, certainly air attack if it wants to conduct Amphibious landings and the ANZAC class frigates are going to have to too. Maximising their ability to support the troops on-shore seems like a wise idea to me.

[swerve]

I am only exploring possibilities. Like the possibility of landing a Spartan on a LHD.

What about leopard 1's we have? Still got 80 of those don't we? They are much lighter (what a mere 40 tons!). May even fit onto lifts. Still, top heavy ship, wreck the deck and close range. Although I've seen pictures of the melbourne I think with trucks etc on deck

If we had a light weight m113 with a mortar, that might just be able to be airlifted by a Skycrane or CH-54. That would be a interesting possibility for a amphibious assault.

I don't see the point in any of these suggestions. They're all lash-ups will will compromise the main function, & put an expensive ship & its valuable contents at unnecessary risk.

If you want shore bombardment capability from an LHD, I suggest that a much more effective way to get it is to have the ship carry some boats armed for the purpose, e.g. the Swedish CB90H with twin 120mm automatic mortar (the AMOS system).

http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/CB90.htm

That's using the LHD as it's intended.

[Aussie Digger]

I don't see the point in any of these suggestions. They're all lash-ups will will compromise the main function, & put an expensive ship & its valuable contents at unnecessary risk.

If you want shore bombardment capability from an LHD, I suggest that a much more effective way to get it is to have the ship carry some boats armed for the purpose, e.g. the Swedish CB90H with twin 120mm automatic mortar (the AMOS system).

http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/CB90.htm

That's using the LHD as it's intended.

I agree that would be an effective option and would also solve the "force protection" issues that the British discovered the hard way recently with the Iranians...

However even a gun like the Mk3 57mm Bofors boasts a 17k indirect fire range and could EASILY be accomodated on an LHD, plus add a valuable air defence capacity...

The LHD would have to be a more effective firing platform too I'd imagine...

[Tasman]

I'm not so sure it IS unwise. The LHD will be sitting off the coast ANYWAY. Why not give it an indirect fire capacity if it's affordable?

The ship is GOING to have to come with range of certain systems, certainly air attack if it wants to conduct Amphibious landings and the ANZAC class frigates are going to have to too. Maximising their ability to support the troops on-shore seems like a wise idea to me.

As you said in an earlier post the Tarawas were originally equipped with 5" (127mm) guns for just this purpose (According to Janes Fighting Ships 1982/83 they were still carrying 3 each in the early 80s). Does anyone know why they were removed?

Cheers

[swerve]

I'm not so sure it IS unwise. The LHD will be sitting off the coast ANYWAY. Why not give it an indirect fire capacity if it's affordable?

The ship is GOING to have to come with range of certain systems, certainly air attack if it wants to conduct Amphibious landings and the ANZAC class frigates are going to have to too. Maximising their ability to support the troops on-shore seems like a wise idea to me.

It has to come within range of certain systems, but it doesn't have to loiter within range of every Tom, Dick & Harry on shore with a light howitzer, mortar, tank, ATGW (imagine them being within range of your helicopters sitting on the deck). The RN is quite clear that LPDs & the like are meant to stand offshore until a beachhead is secured. Bringing them in too close doesn't only risk the ship, but all the supplies on it, which those troops ashore will need, plus the helicopters which the LHD carries, the medical facilities, communications, etc. - all valuable to the troops onshore. And I don't see how cramming the deck with vehicles will maximise its ability to support the troops on-shore. The flat deck is for helicopters: parking tanks on it compromises its main purpose. Carrying a few armed choppers would probably be a better way to use some of that limited deck space for fire support. They can continue to support the troops as they move inland.

And see my previous post for a superior (IMO) indirect fire solution, which can get much closer inshore (even up rivers, into lagoons, etc), so providing better, closer, fire support, & doesn't put the whole ship at risk.

[Tasman]

It has to come within range of certain systems, but it doesn't have to loiter within range of every Tom, Dick & Harry on shore with a light howitzer, mortar, tank, ATGW (imagine them being within range of your helicopters sitting on the deck). The RN is quite clear that LPDs & the like are meant to stand offshore until a beachhead is secured. Bringing them in too close doesn't only risk the ship, but all the supplies on it, which those troops ashore will need, plus the helicopters which the LHD carries, the medical facilities, communications, etc. - all valuable to the troops onshore. And I don't see how cramming the deck with vehicles will maximise its ability to support the troops on-shore. The flat deck is for helicopters: parking tanks on it compromises its main purpose. Carrying a few armed choppers would probably be a better way to use some of that limited deck space for fire support. They can continue to support the troops as they move inland.

And see my previous post for a superior (IMO) indirect fire solution, which can get much closer inshore (even up rivers, into lagoons, etc), so providing better, closer, fire support, & doesn't put the whole ship at risk.

Certainly the use of attack helos and boats like the CB90H would take advantage of two of the best features of the LHD's design, i.e. its aviation capability and its well deck.

Cheers

[swerve]

I agree that would be an effective option and would also solve the "force protection" issues that the British discovered the hard way recently with the Iranians...

However even a gun like the Mk3 57mm Bofors boasts a 17k indirect fire range and could EASILY be accomodated on an LHD, plus add a valuable air defence capacity...

The LHD would have to be a more effective firing platform too I'd imagine...

Unlike some of the lash-ups previously mentioned, I think this - i.e. fitting a real naval gun - is an idea which merits serious examination, rather than being dismissed out of hand. I'm still inclined against it, though, as I feel that a small gun requires the ship to come in too close (I'd rather not put it within range of visually-spotted MRLs and the like), & a large one (e.g. 127mm) needs too much space & weight.

One thing that worries me, as I mentioned in my last post, is the ship being hit by weapons which might not endanger the ship itself, but could damage its ability to do its job. A salvo of 122mm rockets could clear the deck of helicopters, & if a lift was down, a luck shot might wreak havoc in the hangar. Aerials, the unarmoured upperworks, etc. would all be vulnerable to cheap weapons, of the sort which even the worst-equipped army, or even guerilla force, can afford plenty of. And an LHD is a big target, which (by the nature of what it's doing when supporting a landing), will be moving slowly if at all.

I don't think the game is worth the candle. It's moving your HQ, logistics base & airfield up to the front line.

[swerve]

Certainly the use of attack helos and boats like the CB90H would take advantage of two of the best features of the LHD's design, i.e. its aviation capability and its well deck.

Cheers

The CB90H would fit on davits, so you don't even need to use the well deck. The RN carries LCVPs on them, & they're slightly bigger. Ocean carries LCVPs & doesn't even have a well deck

[Aussie Digger]

It has to come within range of certain systems, but it doesn't have to loiter within range of every Tom, Dick & Harry on shore with a light howitzer, mortar, tank, ATGW (imagine them being within range of your helicopters sitting on the deck). The RN is quite clear that LPDs & the like are meant to stand offshore until a beachhead is secured. Bringing them in too close doesn't only risk the ship, but all the supplies on it, which those troops ashore will need, plus the helicopters which the LHD carries, the medical facilities, communications, etc. - all valuable to the troops onshore. And I don't see how cramming the deck with vehicles will maximise its ability to support the troops on-shore. The flat deck is for helicopters: parking tanks on it compromises its main purpose. Carrying a few armed choppers would probably be a better way to use some of that limited deck space for fire support. They can continue to support the troops as they move inland.

And see my previous post for a superior (IMO) indirect fire solution, which can get much closer inshore (even up rivers, into lagoons, etc), so providing better, closer, fire support, & doesn't put the whole ship at risk.

I didn't advocate that, but rather an inherent indirect fire capability able to standoff beyond the range of virtually ANY land based system, bar some long range missile systems.

The 127mm gun with appropriate long range munitions (Oto Melara Vulcan or similar) would provide this, and take up little room on such a large vessel...

My reasoning is the fact that RAN will only have 11 surface vessels in total with ANY capacity to provide NGS for deployed forces. At best we'll have 2 or 3 vessels providing it and the LHD's HAVE to be present in these situations anyway...

I didn't suggest the capability at the expense of anything, just pondered whether or not it would be worthwhile. Certainly it would boost the fire support capacity RAN can provide, which at present is not high...

[Tasman]

The CB90H would fit on davits, so you don't even need to use the well deck. The RN carries LCVPs on them, & they're slightly bigger. Ocean carries LCVPs & doesn't even have a well deck

From looking at the diagrams on the Armada Espanola website there doesn't appear to be any provision for carrying boats on davits, but I don't suppose it would be a huge technical problem to fit them. However, I think there would be room in the well deck to carry CB90Hs and LCMs, with the number of RHIBs reduced.

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/CapAnfibia.asp?SecAct=050209

Cheers

[swerve]

I didn't advocate that, but rather an inherent indirect fire capability able to standoff beyond the range of virtually ANY land based system, bar some long range missile systems.

The 127mm gun with appropriate long range munitions (Oto Melara Vulcan or similar) would provide this, and take up little room on such a large vessel...
....

I agree, that's worth considering. An Oto compatto could probably be fitted in somewhere without losing much else, & would add considerably to the self-defence capabilities of the ship. But for shore bombardment - weelll, only using the extended-range ammo, so you could stand off below the horizon. And only in dire need, if you think there are Smerch batteries or the like onshore.

[Aussie Digger]

I agree, that's worth considering. An Oto compatto could probably be fitted in somewhere without losing much else, & would add considerably to the self-defence capabilities of the ship. But for shore bombardment - weelll, only using the extended-range ammo, so you could stand off below the horizon. And only in dire need, if you think there are Smerch batteries or the like onshore.

There seems to be quite a bit of spare room in front of the crane, located in front of the bridge as seen here: (http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/galeria_detalle.asp?GFimagen=bpe3g.jpg&GFtitulo=BPE&GFdescripcion=Fotomontaje) for a 5 inch gun turret, but obviously some fairly extensive engineering work would be needed to make such an idea a reality.

I'm aware that Tiger etc will boost the fire support capacity for Aus forces, however you can NEVER get to much fire support IMHO, and this could be one way to achieve it.

Standoff munitions may be required, I agree and the Oto Melara Vulcano range at first glance looks like a definite possibility. ERGM might be too, however I hope RAN study the matter in depth, before making a choice.

Certainly they've expressed a requirement for extended range munitions for the 127mm gun aboard the AWD's so some possibility exists that these might move across the "fleet"...

[gf0012-aust]

Certainly they've expressed a requirement for extended range munitions for the 127mm gun aboard the AWD's so some possibility exists that these might move across the "fleet"...

thats 65km of "Hallmark" - not bad going when you look at the old 5" ranges...

[alexsa]

What about leopard 1's we have? Still got 80 of those don't we? They are much lighter (what a mere 40 tons!). May even fit onto lifts. Still, top heavy ship, wreck the deck and close range. Although I've seen pictures of the melbourne I think with trucks etc on deck

Th stablity should handle it but why would you bother as it clutters the flight deck. Tank guns do not have the guidance system for indirect NGS. If the LHD is wihtin gun range where direct tank fire would be effective then it is too close and opposition should have been supressed before it move into that range.

Naval guns with the required FCS and now with the advent of PGM are really the only option for indirect NGS. Good thing both the ANZAC and AWD will so equiped.

The LHD flight deck is best employed combined launching and recovering air assets as it is designed to do.

[gf0012-aust]

Although I've seen pictures of the melbourne I think with trucks etc on deck

It was HMAS Sydney - and she was converted to a troop carrier at that stage in her life. If you have the photo you'll see a huge crane aft of the island.

She was nicknamed the "Vung Tau Ferry"

[Tasman]

It was HMAS Sydney - and she was converted to a troop carrier at that stage in her life. If you have the photo you'll see a huge crane aft of the island.

She was nicknamed the "Vung Tau Ferry"

Here is a link where you can view a photo of Sydney with a deck load of trucks, etc, and another which shows LCVPs on davits:

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/austr.htm

Back OT I have to agree with alexsa re the use of the flight deck.

Cheers