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

[t68]

Looking at both the Spanish ship Juan Carlos I and Australian Canberra class LHD and comparing them with American ship’s of the same class between Wasp/America class LHA/D there dimension’s are similar except for displacement size. Having a larger displacement is for larger bunkerage and ordnance stocks on hand and the capacity for more aircraft.

Why the big difference in crew sizes?
Are American ship’s not as automated as European ships?

If a Wasp class could have a smaller crew would it have been in Australia’s best interest to have gone to a bigger platform instead of the smaller Juan Carlos.


Class and type: Wasp Class
Displacement: Approx. 40,500 tons (41,150 metric tons) full load
Length: 844 ft (257 m)
Beam: 106 ft (32 m)
Propulsion: Two boilers, two geared steam turbines, two shafts, 70,000 shaft-horsepower (52 megawatt);
but two General Electric LM2500 geared gas turbines, two shafts on the USS Makin Island)
Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h)
Complement: 104 officers, 1,004 enlisted
1,894 Marine Detachment
Armament: Two Rolling Airframe Missile launchers
Two Sea Sparrow missile launchers
Three 20 mm Phalanx CIWS systems (LHD 5-7 with two)
Four .50 BMG machine guns
Four 25 mmMk 38 chain guns (LHD 5-7 with three).
Aircraft carried: Actual mix depends upon the mission[1]
Standard Complement
6 AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft
4 AH-1W SuperCobra attack helicopter
12 CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters
4 CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters
3 UH-1N Huey helicopters
OR
Assault
42 CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters
OR
Sea Control
20 AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft
6 SH-60F/HH-60H ASW helicopters



Type: Canberra Class
Displacement: 27,851 tonnes (30,700 tons) maximum
Length: 230.8 metres (757 ft)
Beam: 32.0 metres (105.0 ft)
Draft: 7.18 metres (23.6 ft)
Propulsion: 1 x GE LM 2500 (17.4 MW) Combined diesel and gas turbine (CODAG), 2 x 7.2 MW diesels, 2 x 11 MW pods
Speed: Stated as 20.5 knots (38.0 km/h) (maximum)
Range: 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km) at 15 knots (28 km/h)
9,250 nautical miles (17,130 km) at 12 knots (22 km/h)
Endurance: 50 days before requiring replenishment
Boats and landing
craft carried: 4 x LCM

Capacity: 830 lane metres (3290 m2) Heavy vehicle deck: 1410 m2
Light vehicle deck: 1889 m2
Helo hangar capacity: 990 m2
Troops: 978 (+ 146 additional)
Complement: 243 core (+ 36 additional)
Sensors and
processing systems: Giraffe AMB radar, Saab 9LV combat system
Electronic warfare
and decoys: TBA
Armament: 4 x 25 mm Rafael Stabilized Deck Guns (Naval Bushmaster M242)

Aircraft carried: Between 16 and 24 helicopters[1]

Aviation facilities: Flight deck with 13 degree ski-jump, 6 in-line deck landing spots and permanent deck parking space for 6 extra aircraft.

 

[StingrayOZ]

steam turbines are more maintence heavy and usually requrie more crewing AFAIK. Its american. The idea of sending a 3,000t ship with a crew less than 300 frightens them. the USN/USMC never really focused on low manning numbers until recently. Every marine is a rifleman, so having a crew of 1000 also means they have the ability to deploy another 1000 marines if required. (job rotation?). Most of the additional would be aircrew to maintain and man the aircraft on board (42 choppers!).

Its also the 2nd biggest badest warship america has and requires all sorts of stuff most other don't need. Nuclear weapon storage, muntions to arm several thousand american marines (who aren't frugal in ammo useage), huge fuel bunkerage for jet planes, hovercrafts etc.

 

[t68]

steam turbines are more maintence heavy and usually requrie more crewing AFAIK. Its american. The idea of sending a 3,000t ship with a crew less than 300 frightens them. the USN/USMC never really focused on low manning numbers until recently. Every marine is a rifleman, so having a crew of 1000 also means they have the ability to deploy another 1000 marines if required. (job rotation?). Most of the additional would be aircrew to maintain and man the aircraft on board (42 choppers!).

Its also the 2nd biggest badest warship america has and requires all sorts of stuff most other don't need. Nuclear weapon storage, muntions to arm several thousand american marines (who aren't frugal in ammo useage), huge fuel bunkerage for jet planes, hovercrafts etc.

If having the steam turbines removed on a new build ship of her class with the same as a Canberra Class diesel /gas turbines would it reduce the numbers to a level of a Canberra Class, also with reduced manning levels the berthing bunks which would have been used by the crew is freed up to make way for more troop berths which could possibly fitted another battalion minus on board.

As by Gf numerous statements on the issue the Wasp class was over looked because of the manning issue far to large for the RAN, if manning was manageable would Wasp still be to large for our needs?

You also sated that every Marine is a rifleman, do the sailors who man the Marine shipping go thru the same recruit training plus navy training or do the Navy supply the crew for them?

 

[gf0012-aust]

As by Gf numerous statements on the issue the Wasp class was over looked because of the manning issue far to large for the RAN, if manning was manageable would Wasp still be to large for our needs?

the USN have larger crews due to a different philosophy on things like damage control parties and that positions are task specific.

 

[StingrayOZ]

You also sated that every Marine is a rifleman, do the sailors who man the Marine shipping go thru the same recruit training plus navel training or does the Navy supply the crew for them

I was talking about USMC doctrine. And from what I've heard, everyone has to shoot. quoting wikipedia..

All enlisted Marines, regardless of military specialization, receive training as a rifleman; all officers receive training as infantry platoon commanders. Marines have demonstrated the value of this culture many times throughout history. For example, at Wake Island, when all of the Marine aircraft were shot down, pilots continued the fight as ground officers, leading supply clerks and cooks in a final defensive effort.

So you can see with this attitude a USMC ship may not suit the RAN or even the USN. It is an asset designed to fit into the USDF with existing USN assets. Being one huge mother, it can't deploy from two different locations or sustain itself on long deployment missions indefinately, also in refit we would have nothing at all for amphibious ops.

As GF said the US has different ideas for crewing than just about everyone else. Its a big ship for a big navy of a superpower. After all the modifications required your designing a new ship from scratch.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Every marine is a rifleman, so having a crew of 1000 also means they have the ability to deploy another 1000 marines if required. (job rotation?). I was talking about USMC doctrine. And from what I've heard, everyone has to shoot. quoting wikipedia..

Wait, I'm desperately confused here...

To the best of my understanding here's how I think everything works out.

The Wasps and Tarawas are/were crewed by US Navy crews. That means SWOs (Surface Warfare Officers), engineering personnel, etc. (that's appx. 98 officers and 983 other ranks according to FAS) Their job is to run sail, steer, and navigate the ship and they won't be leaving it unless their in port or the ship is sinking.

In addition to these Navy personnel, the Wasp class can carry a 2,000 man Marine Expeditionary Unit along with a detachment from the aviation assets of the Marine Expeditionary Force (FAS.org and Globalsecurity.org).

The job of these Marines is a) to do the fighting on the land and b) to handle logistics and fire support for the combat Marines via aviation, etc. Thus the MEU has riflemen, LAV drivers, logistics specialists, medics, and attached pilots, crew chiefs and helicopter maintainers.

But even though "every Marine's a rifleman," not every Marine on an LHD is going to be expected to fight like one, nor is he going to be used like one. If the going gets rough on the beachead, I doubt the commanding Colonel is going to raid the ready rooms, give the CH-46 mechanics M-16s, stick 'em in a hovercraft, and zip them off to go fight the hajiis.

That large crew can't and isn't going to be used as a pool of combat replacements.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Wait, I'm desperately confused here...

To the best of my understanding here's how I think everything works out.

But even though "every Marine's a rifleman," not every Marine on an LHD is going to be expected to fight like one, nor is he going to be used like one. If the going gets rough on the beachead, I doubt the commanding Colonel is going to raid the ready rooms, give the CH-46 mechanics M-16s, stick 'em in a hovercraft, and zip them off to go fight the hajiis.

That large crew can't and isn't going to be used as a pool of combat replacements.

No, yes, maybe. Really you would have to talk to someone who is in the marines to get a complete picture. No, essential personel aren't going to be loaded up and tossed onto beaches to fight ze germans. Yes, a USMC cook could be deployed ashore to perform his duties as part of an amphibious landing. Yes marine flight engineer could be deployed to a nearby land base to perform his duties there while the ship gets by without him. If that base is taking heavy casualties and they can cook without him, he maybe used in what ever capacity as a rifleman if that job becomes more important.

USN and USMC have larger crewing numbers per tonnage than any comparible navy. Damage control for example is one reason. I suspect fatigue would be another (US ships tend to be on station longer than other navies). Where as the RN or the RAN can afford to overtime crew during conflicts for short amounts of time, the US would perfer to have more people to share the load. Also the USN isn't as big on cross skilling as say the RAN would be. The RAN for example might have a pool of people that perform several jobs on a ship, while the USN might keep seperate pools for each job. Take a look at artillary like the 155mm guns, the US tends to be heavy on personel when operating equipment, it suits the doctrine and SOP they operate with.

When your as big as the USN you can afford this. The RAN is a jam tin and candle operation in comparison, I believe the RN shares a simular mindset to the RAN. It just developed from what worked in conflicts previously and what they can afford. The RAN hot crews its patrol boats and it works for them. USN tried it, failed badly (again AFAIK, not a apple to apple). You can hot crew a patrol boat, but you can't hot crew a supercarrier.

 

[t68]

USN and USMC have larger crewing numbers per tonnage than any comparible navy. Damage control for example is one reason. I suspect fatigue would be another (US ships tend to be on station longer than other navies). Where as the RN or the RAN can afford to overtime crew during conflicts for short amounts of time, the US would perfer to have more people to share the load. Also the USN isn't as big on cross skilling as say the RAN would be. The RAN for example might have a pool of people that perform several jobs on a ship, while the USN might keep seperate pools for each job. Take a look at artillary like the 155mm guns, the US tends to be heavy on personel when operating equipment, it suits the doctrine and SOP they operate with.

When your as big as the USN you can afford this. The RAN is a jam tin and candle operation in comparison, I believe the RN shares a simular mindset to the RAN. It just developed from what worked in conflicts previously and what they can afford. The RAN hot crews its patrol boats and it works for them. USN tried it, failed badly (again AFAIK, not a apple to apple). You can hot crew a patrol boat, but you can't hot crew a supercarrier.

So in theory with more automation and a less man power intensive power plant manning levels could be significantly reduced?
Would the extra displacement and fuel bunkerage, ordnance handlings come in handy for the RAN.
How much redesigning would have to achieve these out come, are you basically redesigning the whole ship?
When the RAN looked into the WASP Class was there any official reason for rejecting or was it based purely on cost to redesign to RAN needs?

 

[gf0012-aust]

When the RAN looked into the WASP Class was there any official reason for rejecting or was it based purely on cost to redesign to RAN needs?

rejected because it didn't suit the CONOPs for the capability. One of the defprofs in here was part of the assessment team IIRC.

 

[StingrayOZ]

rejected because it didn't suit the CONOPs for the capability. One of the defprofs in here was part of the assessment team IIRC.

Here I am talking out of my arse. Concept of operations yes? Being a single ship I would imagine be a pretty big sticking point concidering there was signficant pressure to get 3 or 4 smaller ships.

could you guys please confirm, expand and explain this list for me?

List looks good. We are also getting some landing craft as well. But you seem to have all the major stuff. Some stuff is in the pipeline but not yet confirmed, in some cases we will buy something just not sure exactly what, in others its yet to be confirmed to be purchased. 4th awd is in the latter, sealift ship is in the former. The white paper spelt this stuff out, but public info on exactly what for subs etc is thin on the ground. The AWD and LHD are a done deal, everything else is in the "strongly likely catagory", replacing existing equipment.

In terms of redesigning Wasp, thats what the US is doing now, evolving it into something else. And that program hasn't exactly been a roaring success. Its high risk for even the US. Makin. Something like $320 million just to fix faulty wiring!. And these are small (in comparison) changes (populsion) using existing proven technologies. Removing 700 from the crew is just not feasable, even if done, these are massive ships with massive running costs. The US had lots of involvement in previous Spanish ships, I assume there was lots in the BPE itself.

Even the Royal navy can't afford a (man power + $'s) wasp type ship. It doesn't even fit into navies significantly larger than the RAN's with populations triple the size.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Concept of operations yes?

Yes. apols, I tend to forget and talk in acronyms out of habit

 

[Sea Toby]

Manpower leads to operational costs as well. The Iwo Jima's LPHs were considered by Australia and rejected as was the Hermes. Both required larger crews to operate than the old Melbourne. Eventually the Invincible was offered with similar manning requirements as the Melbourne. Its purchase was cancelled more or less by the Falklands conflict.

Simply put, Australia requires lean warships as far as crewing is concerned....

While the US today has a volunteer armed forces, the dreaded draft can be and will return if the US ever got itself into a big war anywhere. Australia has much more problems politically with a draft for service abroad than the US does...

Our youth today expect the government to provide low costs college loans. Back in my younger days one had to join the armed forces to get such loans...We didn't have Pell grants....

 

[StevoJH]

Simply put, Australia requires lean warships as far as crewing is concerned....

Yup, forgetting additional costs even, the resources boom we seem to be having hasnt helped matters, probably best shown up by the crewing problems with the Collins class where we have only two or three full crews out of the probably 6+ that are required.

 

[von_noobie]

Now i dont have a problem with the Canberra class LHD's.. They seem like a very capable ship on paper.. What i do have a problem with is the costing of them... Looking at the Spanish Juan Carlos I.. It cost gove or take $500m AU to get... However the Australian Canberra's will be at around $1.5b AU each.. Does the price tag include servicing? or something else i am not seeing. So if some one wouldn't mind explaining the extra billion per a ship i would be very grateful =)

Also on a small note... A friend and me got into a debate.. About Australia's ship building capability.. Would Australian company's/ship yards be able to build a naval vessel of 25,000t - 40,000t? Just find it annoying that in our current time we are building ships like that mostly in foreign countries :/

Cheers

 

[t68]

Now i dont have a problem with the Canberra class LHD's.. They seem like a very capable ship on paper.. What i do have a problem with is the costing of them... Looking at the Spanish Juan Carlos I.. It cost gove or take $500m AU to get... However the Australian Canberra's will be at around $1.5b AU each.. Does the price tag include servicing? or something else i am not seeing. So if some one wouldn't mind explaining the extra billion per a ship i would be very grateful =)

Also on a small note... A friend and me got into a debate.. About Australia's ship building capability.. Would Australian company's/ship yards be able to build a naval vessel of 25,000t - 40,000t? Just find it annoying that in our current time we are building ships like that mostly in foreign countries :/

Cheers

i believe it has something to do with the final fit out,Canberra will b used differently to the Spanish as they have a light carrier will be used as a flag ship for the head sheds and 2 Galicia class LPD in the amphibious role as well

 

[Sea Toby]

Now i dont have a problem with the Canberra class LHD's.. They seem like a very capable ship on paper.. What i do have a problem with is the costing of them... Looking at the Spanish Juan Carlos I.. It cost gove or take $500m AU to get... However the Australian Canberra's will be at around $1.5b AU each.. Does the price tag include servicing? or something else i am not seeing. So if some one wouldn't mind explaining the extra billion per a ship i would be very grateful =)

Also on a small note... A friend and me got into a debate.. About Australia's ship building capability.. Would Australian company's/ship yards be able to build a naval vessel of 25,000t - 40,000t? Just find it annoying that in our current time we are building ships like that mostly in foreign countries :/

Cheers

The Australian government did a study and found in summary while their shipyards can build the LHDs in Australia, trained shipbuilders weren't sufficient in numbers to build AWDs as well at the same time. Plus, the Spanish could build the ships quicker and cheaper. A sign many of the European nations have invested into modernizing their shipyards...

I am not an expert on the worth of the Australian dollar exchange, but recently the Greek debt and worldwide credit crunch have hurt the Euro considerably. A few years ago the Euro was worth one and a half US dollars, not any more...

Australia also started including operating costs or through life costs to new builds. In the past these costs weren't considered when buying new equipment, now they are...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Now i dont have a problem with the Canberra class LHD's.. They seem like a very capable ship on paper.. What i do have a problem with is the costing of them... Looking at the Spanish Juan Carlos I.. It cost gove or take $500m AU to get... However the Australian Canberra's will be at around $1.5b AU each.. Does the price tag include servicing? or something else i am not seeing. So if some one wouldn't mind explaining the extra billion per a ship i would be very grateful =)

through life cost issues - and an australian political decision to travel this path

Also on a small note... A friend and me got into a debate.. About Australia's ship building capability.. Would Australian company's/ship yards be able to build a naval vessel of 25,000t - 40,000t? Just find it annoying that in our current time we are building ships like that mostly in foreign countries :/

Cheers

why do we need a 40,000 tonne vessel?

australian yards do not have the capacity to build such sized vessels now - and quite frankly, its dumb to do so.

as it is we've paid the price already for this decision so we have to live with it.

move on

 

[weasel1962]

Re":

Didn't the facilities at Whyalla churn out vessels >40k tons?

Understand the new shiplift at techport might be able to handle 22k tons...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Didn't the facilities at Whyalla churn out vessels >40k tons?

It used to, but the cost to reinvest in infrastructure would be huge - the same reason why williamstown docks were not viable to refurb on potential contracts is even more so for Whyalla.

the smart builders are in WA, FNQ, Tas and believe it or not, some of the best small fishing hulls in the world come out of Port Adelaides smaller slips.

I've seen many a foreign naval officer and maritime engineer attend a launch for a prawn trawler and get engaged in "deep and meaningfuls" with the local maritime engineers. those builders are coming up with design features that some small OPV owners would kill for .....

 

[aussienscale]

Looking at both the Spanish ship Juan Carlos I and Australian Canberra class LHD and comparing them with American ship’s of the same class between Wasp/America class LHA/D there dimension’s are similar except for displacement size. Having a larger displacement is for larger bunkerage and ordnance stocks on hand and the capacity for more aircraft.

Without giving a long winded explanation the difference in displacement size of the two ships would have very little to do with fuel bunkerage, ammo etc. It is more to do with the construction of the vessel, have a look at how the Wasp class is made, very chunky, thicker steel, boilers ad a large amount to this as well. Then take into account the number of personel on the ship, how much weight do you think the accomodation requirments would ad to this when they have a crew of 1,000 and can then carry 2,000 marines compared to the Canberra ? Not just acom, but victuals, messing, laundry etc etc etc. The fact that they squeeze as many aircraft as is possible into them. There is less that 9,000 t between them, it is very easy to make that up in such things. As has been stated in other replys, maning by the USN &USMC is simple they have the numbers to do it, we dont. The USMC alone 250,000, the ADF as a whole 60,000 (give or take)