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

[gf0012-aust]

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,

Nope. The Wasp decision was about bunkerage - bunkerage denotes capability and relevance to the tasking.

The bottomline was always going to be about australian industry content for a new build. It was political comfort and national interest that was critical.

Wasp was designed around a mission set that we just don't. The ship is irrelevant against our future planning requirements.

 

[aussienscale]

Nope. The Wasp decision was about bunkerage - bunkerage denotes capability and relevance to the tasking.

The bottomline was always going to be about australian industry content for a new build. It was political comfort and national interest that was critical.

Wasp was designed around a mission set that we just don't. The ship is irrelevant against our future planning requirements.

Nope ?
I understand why we went for the Canberra as opposed to the Wasp, just pointing out the difference in displacement is not just becuase of increased fuel bunkerage and ammo, naval design and construction is a bit more complicated than that.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Nope ?
I understand why we went for the Canberra as opposed to the Wasp, just pointing out the difference in displacement is not just becuase of increased fuel bunkerage and ammo, naval design and construction is a bit more complicated than that.

Bunkerage covers many things, some of which you mix up with fitout.

Bunkerager defines relevance for tasking.

the Wasp design layout and bunkerage was never suitable for what we needed and/or wanted.

Even if it was a newbuild we wouldn;t have got it.

I've said before, one of the RAN members on here was involved with assessing the Wasp as part of a requirements definition.

we do know why it wasn't suitable

 

[aussienscale]

Bunkerage covers many things, some of which you mix up with fitout.

No, not mixing it up with fitout ? Not sure if you are understanding what I am saying here ? I am not debating whether we sould have got this or that or the other, all I am pointing out is that many people on here seem to have an impression that if two ships of approx the same dimensions have x amount difference in displacement that they seem to automatically assume it is because it carries more fuel/jp5, more ammo, more this more that making it somehow a superior ship (as had been discussed between the Wasp & Canberra). As we have pointed out numerous time thes Wasp and Canberra class are two very different ships with different missions and requirements of two very different countries

If I did not make that clear at the start, I will ensure I explain my position better in the future when I reply to posts, but it seems that of late you appear to be on the attack in reply to pretty much anything posted on this site, I am not saying this to stir the pot but that is how you are coming across lately I always read your posts and reply's looking forward to your insight, but you seem a bit testy lately

 

[gf0012-aust]

No, not mixing it up with fitout ? Not sure if you are understanding what I am saying here ? I am not debating whether we sould have got this or that or the other, all I am pointing out is that many people on here seem to have an impression that if two ships of approx the same dimensions have x amount difference in displacement that they seem to automatically assume it is because it carries more fuel/jp5, more ammo, more this more that making it somehow a superior ship (as had been discussed between the Wasp & Canberra). As we have pointed out numerous time thes Wasp and Canberra class are two very different ships with different missions and requirements of two very different countries

ah, - and yes I agree

If I did not make that clear at the start, I will ensure I explain my position better in the future when I reply to posts, but it seems that of late you appear to be on the attack in reply to pretty much anything posted on this site, I am not saying this to stir the pot but that is how you are coming across lately I always read your posts and reply's looking forward to your insight, but you seem a bit testy lately

Seems to be a loss in translation I think. the shortness and brevity of my responses doesn't mean I'm testy, it just means that I'm trying to stuff my response into a short window of availability. no malice intended.

 

[aussienscale]

Fair enough GF. I am probably guilty of the same thing, in that I over simplify my post and dont get my poing across properly leaving it open to interpretation

 

[Sea Toby]

Frankly, I don't like the threads of which ship is better than another, the so called pissing contests. Eventually its up to its crew to operate a ship as effectively as possible. For example, New Zealand's Canterbury isn't the best amphibious ship design around, but for her price she does the sea lift mission requirements she was bought and designed for...

Alike New Zealand, Australia kicked the tires of several amphibious ship designs and chose the Canberra/Juan Carlos I design which best suited their needs...

Not everyone chooses a Hummer for a 4 wheel drive vehicle, some choose pick ups and SUVs of different makes...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Was there any specific assessment or planning regarding a JC1 and a Wasp working together as part of a multinational effort?

It would seem highly likely at some stage they will operate together given the histories between us. Or does sort of stuff get shaken out during training exercises when the equipment and capabilities are known in detail?

The LHD seems to be able to hanger pretty much anything that a Wasp would operate? Does this open the door to any sort of amazing synergy or operational options?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Was there any specific assessment or planning regarding a JC1 and a Wasp working together as part of a multinational effort?

combat platforms go through a series of operational vignettes where they are "rolled" into various scenarios. one of those includes a coaliition event as a junior partner, another involves a coalition event as principle partner

It would seem highly likely at some stage they will operate together given the histories between us. Or does sort of stuff get shaken out during training exercises when the equipment and capabilities are known in detail?

staff are embedded with foreign navies when we buy foreign kit so as to build operational familiarity

The LHD seems to be able to hanger pretty much anything that a Wasp would operate? Does this open the door to any sort of amazing synergy or operational options?

we already do cross deck exercises, doing so with a Wasp is just a variation of the same.

 

[Jaimito]

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)

Yes, it is a bit weird to have a ship of 21000-27000 tonnes of displacement and then compared with other with 40000 tonnes and discover that the measures are similar, in lenght, height, width, note the Wasp class has 50 mts more of flight deck which gives more parking, and being like 20 mts longer. The amount, weight, of steel of the lhd, empty, is like 12000 tonnes, not talking of displacement.
But displacement is it of volume of water that ocupies when it is in the water?
:vamp

 

[My2Cents]

Why the differences? Lets look at a few items . . .

Well for a starter the Wasp can carry twice as many aircraft and troops as the Canberra.

Another could be the way that jobs are allocated. If the shipboard flight ops (but not maintenance) and support jobs (hospital staff, mess, cleaning, etc.) on the Wasp were Navy jobs, but were handled by Marine on the Canberra, that would explain a lot of the differences in crew size. The Canberra’s crew size is clearly too small to handle these jobs.

How big in the hospital on the Canberra? I have not been able to find any reference. The Wasp has 600 beds and 6 operating rooms. What if the Canberra only has 69 beds and 2 operating room like the similar Mistral class?

 

[kato]

There are two major factors:
- the dedicated damage-control positions which exist in US crews (and pretty much nowhere else)
- the outdated extremely manpower-intensive steam propulsion of the Wasps.

 

[gf0012-aust]

How big in the hospital on the Canberra? I have not been able to find any reference. The Wasp has 600 beds and 6 operating rooms. What if the Canberra only has 69 beds and 2 operating room like the similar Mistral class?

The canberras will be the only full theatre capable non mainland facilities available. they have full NBC treatment areas for injured personnel etc.... the bed strucuture can be changed at short notice - its not a fixed facility.

 

[Sea Toby]

The canberras will be the only full theatre capable non mainland facilities available. they have full NBC treatment areas for injured personnel etc.... the bed strucuture can be changed at short notice - its not a fixed facility.

It reasonable to expect as much of the soldiers accommodations could be used as a ward for wounded soldiers and other personnel whenever necessary outside the beds of the hospital.... She is a very flexible ship...

 

[My2Cents]

It reasonable to expect as much of the soldiers accommodations could be used as a ward for wounded soldiers and other personnel whenever necessary outside the beds of the hospital.... She is a very flexible ship...

On the Mistral they carry 50 extra beds that are set up on the hanger deck.

Soldier accommodations do not allow sufficient access to patients requiring nursing care. There would also be major issues in dealing with sterilization, privacy, and spills and body wastes in the standard bunking arrangements.

Soldier accommodations are adequate for 'walking wounded'.

 

[Jaimito]

Reading some details, the draught for the Canberra is 6.9 mts, i think at full load so 27000 t., for unloading the ship in secondary ports, while for Wasp is 9.1 mts, maybe at full load so 41000 t. That 2.2 mts difference on draught gives a difference on the displacement of water, ie say 200mts long at the bottom x 30 mts wide gives 6000 tonnes of water displacement, x 2.2 difference on draught gives 13000 tonnes, which is the difference between 27000 t. and 41000 t, and corresponds probably to that the Wasp has a higher flight deck, ie like one more deck, and more net "steel" weight.

 

[aussienscale]

Canberra Class Animation

Not sure how long this has been on the Navy website but it is a good animation runs almost
8 mins
Canberra Class - Royal Australian Navy

It is a great example of how flexible the Canberra Class really is, as opposed to the Wasp which is much more specific in its taskings, so for the RAN it does make sense for us to have such a flexible platform, although I personally beleive it is very optomistic in the animation showing the Tigers operating from them

 

[My2Cents]

Not sure how long this has been on the Navy website but it is a good animation runs almost
8 mins
Canberra Class - Royal Australian Navy

It is a great example of how flexible the Canberra Class really is, as opposed to the Wasp which is much more specific in its taskings, so for the RAN it does make sense for us to have such a flexible platform, although I personally beleive it is very optomistic in the animation showing the Tigers operating from them

Would you please explain how the Canberra Class is more flexible than the Wasp Class?

Nothing in the video would seem to even imply that, much less support it.

 

[Sea Toby]

Would you please explain how the Canberra Class is more flexible than the Wasp Class?

Nothing in the video would seem to even imply that, much less support it.

Why does it matter whether one ship is more flexible than another? Appears from the video the Canberra LHDs are as flexible as the ADF requires. Probably one of the main reasons why the Wasp LHDs are a bit larger is because US Marines maintain a higher level of readiness throughout their armed forces.

From what I have been able to comprehend, the Aussies aren't developing three Marine divisions. Of course they won't need so many as they don't have the number of amphibious ships. However, it reveals that the Americans have much more personnel than the Aussies do. The ADF ruled out the Wasps as noted before in this thread for personnel reasons. Americans have the personnel to operate Wasps, the Aussies don't.

Personnel reasons is why the Aussies never bought an American Iwo Jima class LPHs to replace the former Sydney and Melbourne light carriers. At the time they would have bought the Invincible because her manning requirements didn't overburden the ADF...

The operative term is overburden...

 

[aussienscale]

Would you please explain how the Canberra Class is more flexible than the Wasp Class?

Nothing in the video would seem to even imply that, much less support it.

USMC = 3 X The entire ADF

Do you want me to continue ?