The LPD-17 SHOULD be a great ship, it is a pity they were built in such a bad shipyard. Avondale has a horrilbe reputation and it is rumored that once the current LPD-17 contract is up they will either be sold of go out of business.
Wasp/America and Juan Carlos/Canberra LHA/D crew size
- Thread starter t68
- Start date
Its not just rumoured Northrop have already announced Avondale will close in 2013 with all work transferred to Mississippi.
Northrop to Close Avondale, Might Leave Shipbuilding - Defense News
Also they plan to sell their entire shipbuilding sector with submissions of interest due in late September.
Buyer Emerges for Northrop Yards - Defense News
In alternate history world one would hope an Aussie LPD17 built at Avondale would be a better product because it would lack a lot of the complex engineering that has caused problems like the long life piping.
LPD would seem to be somewhat less troop capable compared to the BPE design. It seems more of the mistral troop carrying capacity, can anyone confirm that? (How are crew quarted in this ship compared to the canberra?)
The LPD seems to be setup for a bit of a different mission (for a different navy) to the LHD like the BPE.
The governments requirements seemed to requrie more man power than Mistral or the LPD17 were origionally designed to handle because of the way we want to use them.
For a LPD its commendably smooth and looks good, but I think it looks less awesome compared to the BPE fat minicarrier look. Although I wasn't a fan of the BPE with 7 landing spots and no jump, made the ship look a little wrong.. This is just personal taste and nothing to do with capability.
I would imagine that if we had bought into the LPD, then its issues would have been a big worry for the government. Being a billion dollar over budget, long time to get operational and still having issues (although I agree its not a design issue but poor shipyard construction).
I wonder what Australia would have come up with if it was able to design clean sheet for the JP2048. Would we have gone something bigger than BPE (more like a Wasp) or simular size without the jump or smaller and got three of them? There are certainly quiet of few of these types of ships, and the BPE design seems to be quiet capable in that group.
The LPD seems to be setup for a bit of a different mission (for a different navy) to the LHD like the BPE.
The governments requirements seemed to requrie more man power than Mistral or the LPD17 were origionally designed to handle because of the way we want to use them.
For a LPD its commendably smooth and looks good, but I think it looks less awesome compared to the BPE fat minicarrier look. Although I wasn't a fan of the BPE with 7 landing spots and no jump, made the ship look a little wrong.. This is just personal taste and nothing to do with capability.
I would imagine that if we had bought into the LPD, then its issues would have been a big worry for the government. Being a billion dollar over budget, long time to get operational and still having issues (although I agree its not a design issue but poor shipyard construction).
I wonder what Australia would have come up with if it was able to design clean sheet for the JP2048. Would we have gone something bigger than BPE (more like a Wasp) or simular size without the jump or smaller and got three of them? There are certainly quiet of few of these types of ships, and the BPE design seems to be quiet capable in that group.
You can’t just compare the number of troops that can be carried without a comparison of the accommodation standard. The Mistral as built for the for the French navy carries less troops than the Juan Carlos I (aka BPE) as built for the Spanish Navy because the French requirement is for long times at sea as part of a pre-positioned force. The real issue is how much volume is available for accommodation (and other things) and in this regard the JCI, Mistral and LPD17 could all be customised to meet the Australian requirement of over 1,000 troops per ship for 2+ weeks and then around half that for four more weeks and so on.
Of course. But like the JCI could be modified to the Australian requirement.
Most of these issues are related to things would not be in the Australian LPD17. Also having the ship in service long enough to have its kinks worked out is a much better idea than having your first ship half built by the time the prototype is still in trials (as is Canberra and JCI).
There is a big difference between able and willing. But a clean sheet amphibious ship to the JP2048 spec would probably look like the JCI but with less attention to the air wing side. By that I mean no ski jump and no large hangar/vehicle bay high in the ship. The vehicle decks would all be lower without a personnel deck between them. Also the elevators would probably be very large deck edge with less requirement for weight (the heavy aft jet capable elevator) and more emphasis on volume so as to be able to move an unfolded MRH between decks. I would also imagine a military spec hull below the waterline with conventional shafted propulsion.
I would have thought the JC1 lifts were pretty optimal for what we want (helos). I thought deck edge lifts on smaller carriers caused problems in big rough seas? I could certainly see the advantage of edge lifts for operations, but given our oceans of operations I think the "pretty close to the edge" lifts are a fair compromise. Certainly better than invincibles in the middle.
Were these type of modifications that were concidered for that no skijump model of the JC1 made for the RAN?
It did seem riskier choosing the JCI over existing and proven designs and the the emphasis on minimising risk I thought it might have put JCI out of contention. Have you heard much about the JCI build quality? There was a report of some very minor issues, which seems to be inline with its quick commissioning. Is Natavia proving to be a good contractor for us? Given the Billions we will be sinking with them?
Not at all. From memory none of the two lifts can fit a MRH without folded rotors. The MRH does not have an automatic folding rotor capability to fold them will require the Navy deck crew to fold them not their Army hangar techs which will add considerably to the tasks required of the deck crew. Which means the Canberra class LHD is not really going to be able to operate more than six MRHs at any one time. You just won’t be able to move them around the deck to facilitate simelteanous flight operations. Which will make it pretty much impossible to operate ARHs and other helicopters from the LHD in addition to the six MRHs.
And is the JCI small? Nope its fricken huge. The flight deck of the JCI is higher than the Queen Elizabeth class CVF. So the problem of aft deck edge elevators being hit by waves is not a serious consideration in anything other than the “2012” sea states.
For the lift capacity there is no difference between a central or ‘near edge’ elevator. u Apart from length overhang the advantage of a deck edge elevator is it can be bigger without effecting the structural integrity of the flight deck and ship hull. So you can have a nice wide elevator to lift a helicopter without a folded rotor.
Before JP2048 Izar (now Navantia) had designed a pure LHD which did not have a ski jump. This was not designed for the RAN. It was a smaller ship and basically aimed at a similar level to the Mistral or Albion classes. The JCI is as the BPE name suggests a combination of LHD and aircraft carrier capability. It is a swing role ship.
Since the alternative was the Mistral and its dog’s breakfast design it was a risk worth taking. Which doesn’t mean that the competition could have been better structured. Either true OTS or an evolved, all Australian build like the AWD. Of course if the Government had done the right thing back in 1993 we would have had a new build LPD in service in 1999 that could have been followed by a second and third (and fourth) of class after East Timor and we would have had a high end amphibious capability 15 years before the LHD.
Herein lies the irony. All the public chatter is about how they perform as LHA's and in the expeditionary role, yet internally our focus is on other things.
sure they can cash and carry, but we've moved beyond that already.
Its about time someone posted that.
Officialy both lifts in the Jc1 have the reserve of space and weight to upgrade them for lifting the F35b, hence the deck is expected to be able to carry them. Then if helos or jets can be parked there, Canberras have more "hangar" space vs more flight deck space in the Wasp, and it will not be a big difference.
Other thing is operating that aircraft fleet, probably the more you have parked in the flight deck the better time ratio for having the spot avalaible for other aircraft, maybe better ratio for putting weapons or fuel, but it does not mean that the Canberras cannot generate schedule of an operation using 20 jets or 30 helos, provided sea state does not disturb the ratios.
I cannot find the surface assigned for vehicle stowage in the Wasp, but i find a figure for the upper vehicle stowage (heavy vehicles prob.) in Wasp and is 21 AAV7, below that they have the lower vehicle stowage (light vehicles prob.), i do not how big this, vs Canberra´s for heavy vehicles have 29 Leopard tanks, and the upper deck which can be fully used for lorries, containers or more light vehicles. So we have to compare the lower vehicle stowage in Wasp vs the upper deck+hangar in Canberra, which then cannot be used for aircraft. That is without counting the docks.
Canberra should have room for supplies for 50 days, or able to sustain a deployment inland for 30 days.
This is getting silly. The US Marines and US Navy amphibious ships deploy throughout the world for six months, if not longer, before they return to their home ports in a rotation of three. The Australians and Spainards have no intentions of doing the same. While both nations have replenishment ships, neither have the train of different supply ships of the US Navy or naval bases located worldwide.
Lets not get involved in a pissing contest of which ship is better. As I noted before the Canberra meets the requirements of Australia and Spain while the Wasp meets the requirements of the United States. While the two ships appear similar, they aren't the same ships. They were designed for two different operational requirements.
I repeat apples and oranges, apples and oranges, apples and oranges...
As I understand it, whenever a LHD's sail from Sydney on a routine "Uptop" deployment it will swing by Townsville and pick up a Company from a either 1,2 or 3 RAR, a troop of four MRH-90's and an assortment of light vehicles. The LCM-1E will be permanently embarked (No room at the inn @ Ross island barracks apparently...and looking at Google earth I can see why).
This so they can respond much more quickly to disaster relief/citizen evacuation like taskings as they do not have to sail back to OZ to pick up the troops before heading to the AO.
Please nobody put words into my mouth. This is NOT an USMC MEU like capability and at the UPMOST of what a small defence force can forward deploy (and it will not be on a permanent basis). I.e. no single handed invasion of a pacific nation (who may or may not have a "Pesky" Commodore in charge) by a single LHD with 4 LMC-1e, 4 MRH-90's, a company of light infantry and a couple of Land rovers, Mack trucks and Mil Spec Backhoes.
Why is this getting silly ? The 50 days was a requirement of the chosen ship to be able to sustain the embarked personel for this period of time before needing to be replenished, its not a comparison between the ships, just a capability of the Canberra class
It is a very nice animation, worth to see the package they have assigned to it, 2 Tigers, 6 Nh90, 2 Chinooks, and the rest vehicles, well this is BAE packing the Lhd not the RAN, but note they say 18 medium size helos fit in the upper deck but in Nh90 helo´s numbers are 30, not 18.
About Wasp:
"consists of six operating rooms, a 15-bed intensive care unit, 44-bed hospital ward with 500 overflow beds"