Wasp/America and Juan Carlos/Canberra LHA/D crew size

[Abraham Gubler]

USMC = 3 X The entire ADF

Do you want me to continue ?

What does gross size have to do with flexibility?

The Canberra class are no more flexible than the Wasp. Arguably the Wasp is more flexible because it has a lot more space and stuff in it.

Much of this argument is pretty misguided. The Canberra and Wasp are different in size and capability because they are designed to carry different types of amphibious groups. This is the great thing about the Canberra for the ADF: for the first time we have an amphibious capability built around what is needed rather than what was affordable or available.

Two Canberras (60kt) are designed to carry an Australian amphibious group of 2,000 soldiers and 12 MRH90s. The Wasp combined with a LPD and LSD (80kt) is designed to carry the USMC MEU. The MEU is about the same personnel strength (about 20% bigger with the landing craft which are USN) but has 31 shipboard aircraft.

The much bigger air component requires a bigger ship, more accommodations for Marine aviators and more crew for a bigger flight deck operation. The Canberra is also a much more modern ship design so has a range of efficiencies like the podded motors. The Wasp is fitted with a much better defensive system en par with an Anzac class frigate.

So they are quite different in the details. But no one in Australia has any right to complain about the Canberra. They will be the best ships we've ever had.

 

[gf0012-aust]

From what I have been able to comprehend, the Aussies aren't developing three Marine divisions.

Generally speaking people outside of defence misunderstand the main roles of these platforms. they see a large flat deck and rotor carrying capacity and focus on the expeditionary aspects.

the primary mission set for the canberras is not as a floating airbase - thats a plus benefit but not its primary mission.

the lessons learnt from East Timor in 99 have been a heavy influence on their roles - as has hw the
kanimbla and manorra have evolved with time. the experience and advantages that kanimbla generated out of MEO task force leading/flagship role with other allied assets has heavily influenced the LHAs.

their incoming and intended sensor fitout reflects this attitude.

its not about being floating airbases - although thats a side benefit

 

[gf0012-aust]

They will be the best ships we've ever had.

Not at this stage. Not by some margin. Ignore the senior spin. I can think of a number of issues unfit for public comment about them.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Not at this stage. Not by some margin. Ignore the senior spin. I can think of a number of issues unfit for public comment about them.

I meant that laurel in terms of their mission capability compared to other class. The LHD will be better at ADAS than say the Melbourne (II) at ASW or the Australia (II) at ASuW. The highest level of international capability since the Australia (I) and those ships had "something wrong with them" at Jutland. There are quite a few things suboptimal on the ship. Those pods aren't exactly ASW friendly, the build strategy is terrifying and so on. But the troop bunks will be much better than the green fold outs on Tobruk.

 

[Jaimito]

USMC = 3 X The entire ADF

Do you want me to continue ?

This link
triplew.navysite.de/ships/lhd1class.htm
where there is a deck´s arrangement for the Wasp class, a bit down in the page.
There is the hangar, which is smaller than the hangar + light deck for aircrafts in the Canberra, maybe a half of Canberra´s, depends on width. Also this deck in Canberras is connected twice by lift and ramp to the heavy deck and dock, which i do not think exist in the Wasp, adding that flexibility in packing either lots of vehicles or lots of aircrafts or containers, or mixed. But Wasp has 4-7 more parking places in the flight deck. An example is Wasp class cannot put 10 Chinooks in the hangar, or as many Tigers. And similarly Canberras will carry some more vehicles with its flexibility.

 

[harryriedl]

I at Jutland. There are quite a few things suboptimal on the ship. Those pods aren't exactly ASW friendly, the build strategy is terrifying and so on. But the troop bunks will be much better than the green fold outs on Tobruk.

which aspect do find most terrifying is it the long distance the hulls have to travel fit out and the integration of the various systems and contractors?

 

[Sea Toby]

This link
triplew.navysite.de/ships/lhd1class.htm
where there is a deck´s arrangement for the Wasp class, a bit down in the page.
There is the hangar, which is smaller than the hangar + light deck for aircrafts in the Canberra, maybe a half of Canberra´s, depends on width. Also this deck in Canberras is connected twice by lift and ramp to the heavy deck and dock, which i do not think exist in the Wasp, adding that flexibility in packing either lots of vehicles or lots of aircrafts or containers, or mixed. But Wasp has 4-7 more parking places in the flight deck. An example is Wasp class cannot put 10 Chinooks in the hangar, or as many Tigers. And similarly Canberras will carry some more vehicles with its flexibility.

The US Marines don't use Chinooks, so why would they design s ship for Chinooks? Apples and oranges come to mind... The same can be said of Tigers as well...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There is the hangar, which is smaller than the hangar + light deck for aircrafts in the Canberra, maybe a half of Canberra´s, depends on width.

The Wasp in LHD config can operate more aircraft than a Juan Carlos I in carrier config. The hangar is for maintenance. The use of the vehicle garage as a hangar extension in the JCI is limited by weight.

Also this deck in Canberras is connected twice by lift and ramp to the heavy deck and dock, which i do not think exist in the Wasp, adding that flexibility in packing either lots of vehicles or lots of aircrafts or containers, or mixed.

The Wasp very much has a ramp from the hangar to the flight deck. They were re configed to allow vehicles of Hummer width to drive them.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

which aspect do find most terrifying is it the long distance the hulls have to travel fit out and the integration of the various systems and contractors?

That the hull is built in one country and the island in another.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Seems to be exceptionally risky build process. Build the hull, then strap the hull to another ship, on a very very long journey to Oz. Where its hull will automagically meet perfectly with the island and fitout.

And when there are problems we can play the international blame game.

Have the Australian subcontractors been signed on (I would imagine yes?). Is there a way Australia can just have the entire build in Spain? This is dumb, build the two LHD in Spain, then with the money/risk saved build a 4th AWD. There will be more local content and build in a 4th AWD than the fitout of the LHD I would have thought.. and In a more economical and sustainable way (experience is more relevant to a Anzac II).

I suppose this is the thing, if we had gone with Mistral there would have been more local build, so as a compromise we get this really capable ship, but as a international Frankenstein.

 

[AegisFC]

This link
triplew.navysite.de/ships/lhd1class.htm
where there is a deck´s arrangement for the Wasp class, a bit down in the page.
There is the hangar, which is smaller than the hangar + light deck for aircrafts in the Canberra, maybe a half of Canberra´s, depends on width. Also this deck in Canberras is connected twice by lift and ramp to the heavy deck and dock, which i do not think exist in the Wasp, adding that flexibility in packing either lots of vehicles or lots of aircrafts or containers, or mixed. But Wasp has 4-7 more parking places in the flight deck. An example is Wasp class cannot put 10 Chinooks in the hangar, or as many Tigers. And similarly Canberras will carry some more vehicles with its flexibility.

Your link does not work.

The Wasp carries the Sea Knight, CH-53 and V-22 Osprey all very large helo's, they also carry the Sea Cobra. I fail to see how it is any less flexable than a Canberra.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Its too late to change any of the build arrangements for LHD1. BAES (aka Tenix) is the prime and Navantia the subcontractor. BAES will build the island at Williamstown and then stick it on the hull when it arrives. Which is next year. The voyage out isnt the problem its sticking them together. Even if had primed Navantia to build and integrate in Spain there is no way we would save enough money for a 4th AWD. The cost of two LHDs is about the same as one AWD.

Mistral is designed to be built in halves, right down the middile. While the integration between the two halves is easier than that planned for the Canberra it makes the ship's hull a nightmare. That Mistral is so bad is no suprise considering the Russians think it is good.

 

[StingrayOZ]

BAES will build the island at Williamstown and then stick it on the hull when it arrives. Which is next year. The voyage out isnt the problem its sticking them together.

The whole thing seems a bit risky. Didn't collins have problems with bits made in sweden arriving and not being exactly what they had hoped for. I hope it all works out, but from working in construction I've seen steelwork arrive on site that doesn't fit the site for various unforseen technical reasons and we always avoided having two different steel work contractors build onto each others steel, previous experience did not work out well.

Even if had primed Navantia to build and integrate in Spain there is no way we would save enough money for a 4th AWD. The cost of two LHDs is about the same as one AWD.

I thought they were billion ish each? There were some very cheap prices quoted for JC1 with an all spanish build that would be half that number (with no fit out or systems maybe?). Seemed like Australia was paying a lot (or quoting full real prices). Politically it might have been a way to force the 4th AWD into existance.

Im still positive about it, I think the ADF will get the right ship they needed. Interesting to see how the build goes compared to other major defence contracts. It certainly looks impressive..

 

[Todjaeger]

Something I have been pondering, is whether a Wasp-sized vessel with a more modern propulsion system would have been a viable option?

As has already been covered previously here, the USN and RAN (and other navies) have different doctrines in terms of crewing vessels. The USN tends to prefer large crews with dedicated damage control parties. Also with the Wasp utilizing an older designed steam propulsion plant, the plant itselt required a higher number of crew and did not allow for the degree of automation which can be done aboard never vessels or with more recently designed powerplants.

If (big IF) there had been such a design available to compete with what became the Canberra-class LHD, would such an entry have been viable assuming the fitout price was analogous to the price per LHD? Or would such a device still be inappropriate due to the expected RAN/ADF conops?

I would think that if a larger vessel could have been acquired with comparable crew manning levels and costs, but also have greater capacity for aircraft, troops and kit, and more room/tonnage available for consumables and stores. Not that I am complaining mine, more just wondering about what sort of difference (if any) it would have had with the selection.

-Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

The US seems to be experiementing a bit with smaller crews. I don't know if we will really see anything terribly useful from Australia's perspectives in the next 10-15 years.

Uss america is interesting, however it was outside of the LHD competition. Gas turbines are being used, however it has also had its well dock removed. It seems to be quiet expensive compared to what Australia was looking at spending. The earlier Makin Island also uses GT but doesn't seem to save hugely on crew. It also seemed to have several major wiring issues showing that even buidling a slightly modified proven design can involve significant risk.

The Canberras will be good ships, they are way more capable than anything we have ever had and will be capable of doing the mission we want. Ideally we would have 3, but 2 will be servicable and offer the capability we need.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Something I have been pondering, is whether a Wasp-sized vessel with a more modern propulsion system would have been a viable option?

Only if the Australian amphibious task force was bigger or if we had some legacy ship (the 1993 THSS) that couldn’t carry as much as an LHD (Spanish or American) so we needed a bigger ship to provide the balance of the required lift. In which case only a single Makin Island class LHD (which is the Wasp with gas turbines and other modern improvements) would have been needed.

The Americans bid their LPD17 for JP 2048. They struggled to be taken seriously because it wasn’t a carrier flat deck and included in the initial Defence scoping. They claimed you could effectively launch six MRH90/S-70 type helicopters from it and form them up in the same time as a flat top but the carrier look was vogue. Interestingly the USN has had a LPD17 operating against the Somalian pirates with an air group of six AH-1W, two UH-1N and three HH-60H or 11 choppers showing it could handle half a MRH squadron with ease. Since the MRH won't have automatically folding rotors not having to elevate them to get them in the hangar would probably be a great benefit.

They would also customise the ship for the Australian lift requirement. It also didn’t help that the USN standard LPD17 is built for twice the life of the RAN’s LHD requirement so has all sorts of high cost things like titanium pipes. Northrop said they could replace them with steel (and other things) and be cost competitive with the Mistral and proposed a similar build strategy to Tenix but with all iron work in the US and only mission systems integration in Australia. Similar to the way Northrop build them for the USN but after going down the Mississippi they would sail for Australia rather than the Gulf Coast for final fit out. One thing about the LPD17 is it would certainly be more combat worthy than the JCI or Mistral.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The US seems to be experiementing a bit with smaller crews. I don't know if we will really see anything terribly useful from Australia's perspectives in the next 10-15 years..

The USN has been heavily involved with RAN in looking at crew sizing. A sunstantial amount of work was done in relation to the AWD and getting crew sizes down. They're also looking at downsizing for their own needs, so they are heading down that path.

US experience on damage control in combat is a strong influence on their models - they have valid reasons in their eyes for crewing up rather than down

 

[Jaimito]

The Wasp in LHD config can operate more aircraft than a Juan Carlos I in carrier config. The hangar is for maintenance. The use of the vehicle garage as a hangar extension in the JCI is limited by weight.



The Wasp very much has a ramp from the hangar to the flight deck. They were re configed to allow vehicles of Hummer width to drive them.

I do not know any weight problems in parking aircraft in the vehicle garage, it is expected to carry Chinooks or F35b´s, as in the hangar, it´s the same structure supporting the floor, or containers.
I would say they have similar numbers on carrying aircrafts, a bit more any of them, but both on the 20´s jets or 30+ helos. And in terms of aircraft that need to be in the hangar more the Canberra.

 

[Jaimito]

Your link does not work.

The Wasp carries the Sea Knight, CH-53 and V-22 Osprey all very large helo's, they also carry the Sea Cobra. I fail to see how it is any less flexable than a Canberra.

You have to paste the link in the Explorer and substitute "triple" by "ww".

Ch-53 it is an impressive helo, assuming tasks of Chinooks without needing to hangar it.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I do not know any weight problems in parking aircraft in the vehicle garage, it is expected to carry Chinooks or F35b´s, as in the hangar, it´s the same structure supporting the floor, or containers.

It’s not a ‘problem’ it’s designed that way. It’s in the spec for the ship. Only the aft section of the upper deck hangar is weight stressed for Harriers/F-35s. If the upper vehicle deck is used for a hangar when the JCI is in the aircraft carrier configuration then only helicopters can be stored there.

I would say they have similar numbers on carrying aircrafts, a bit more any of them, but both on the 20´s jets or 30+ helos. And in terms of aircraft that need to be in the hangar more the Canberra.

The wasp can carry an air group of over 30 aircraft and half of a battalion landing team. The JCI can carry EITHER an air group that big or half of a battalion landing team. That extra 13,000 tonnes isn’t just there for show. The JCI could carry 20 jets but it couldn’t operate them all. It would be for ferry or for show.

This argument is ridiculous. One ship is clearly much bigger than the other and no amount of chat room posts is going to change that.