Amphibious ships and air power

[ThePuss]

The below link is for a Hydroplaing LCU built by Textron

http://www.systems.textron.com/pdf/products/lcur_datasheet.pdf

The LCU's built recently by ADI will provide valuable service being crained on and off our current Amphibs. But they are too small (can not carry Abrams) and slow (12knots) to operate effectivley of the LPD's. The Textron design above can sprint to 36 knots (faster than everything except maybe the FFG's in RAN service) and at a sustained speed of 28 nots can travel 900 NM. It can carry three Abrams plus troops and has berthing for 14 (inclucding crew of 8).

It think four of these operating of a LPD would be ideal and would give us a over the horizon landing capability for heavy equipment.

Thoughts ? (apologies to anybody who has read this post on the Aust Strategypage, but I thought I would post here as well to get the opinions of more naval minded foke).

 

[alexsa]

Out of pure interest I decided to look at the hanger capicty of LHD8 (USS Makin Island) and the BPE.

Interesting outcome. The LHA8 has a hanger capacity of 21480 sqr feet or 1995 sqr m

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lha-r-2005-line3.gif

The BPE has an hanger capacity (when not used for vehicles) of about 2046 sqr m. The total carrying capacity of the LHA8 is much greater in cubic capacity but only 20900 sqr ft, or 1941 sqr m, is available in the vehcile deck due to the LCAC stowage.

http://www.makin-island.navy.mil/lhd8_characteristics.htm

By contast the lower deck of the BPE has only 1400 sqr m in the lower vehcile deck but apprently the dock area can also be used providing another 975 sqr m of space. However this does limit 'amphibous' operations.

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?h...h?q=juan+carlos+I+BPE&start=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=N

 

[Tasman]

Actually I am pretty impressed with the BPE and think it is the correct option for Australia. The segregation of the hanger deck appears to be intended as part of the damage control arrangements. The lower vehicle deck has to be divided up or you run the risk of having an MV Estonia type incident. The stockholm rules for commercial RO-RO ships were adopted for precislely this reason.

For their size and crewing levels these appear to be very capable vessels. The Wasp class vessel is a third as big again but can only carry an additional 400 troops over the BPE and has a crew of about 1300 compared to the 270 on the BPE. For a navy like the RAN crew size is a significant issue. According to Naval technolgy the vessel will carry 8 to 10 VSTOL aircraft and helos but I understand its capacity in this regards is bigger than the BPE as would be expected.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/wasp/

I certainly agree that the 'Wasp' class are excellent vessels and any navy with an amphibious lift requirement would be pleased to have one if it could afford to buy it and to man it.

As stated above crew size is a big issue for the RAN, a major reason why it found it difficult to support a light fleet carrier in the past, and no doubt other small/medium sized navies face the same problem.

IMO the BPE seems to provide an excellent capability for its cost and manning requirements.

 

[Galrahn]

It think four of these operating of a LPD would be ideal and would give us a over the horizon landing capability for heavy equipment.

The LCU(R) is roughly the same size as the existing LCU-1600s. The LPD-17 would only be able to deploy with 1 LCU(R), and a Wasp class LHD could only deploy with 2.

Assuming a combination of LCU(R)s and LCACs, following some of the more common loading plans (if such a thing exists!) it will probably be the LHD that carries two of these for an ESG. This has less to do with the LCU(R) than it does the LPD-17, which is a significant upgrade over the LPD-4 by putting the AAV (EFV) rifle company in its third vehicle deck.

The third V as it is called by San Antonio sailors, is specifically designed for the storage of the EFV rifle company for an ESG. This change alone significantly changes loading plan options for the USMC, allowing for a much larger first wave from sea compared to the LPD-4, on which the AAV rifle company usually consumes the well deck leaving no room for LCACs, much less 2 of them like the LPD-17.

Would Australia look into something like the LCU(R)? From what I can tell the BPE well deck is too small to accommodate a landing craft this large.

Maybe I see the Juan Carlos I wrong, but to me the BPE appears to be the lighter assault capability to augment the current Galicia class that can deploy heavy forces. The smaller well deck compared to the Galicia class implies the BPE role will be more along the lines of 'beyond the beach' air insertion for lighter troops with an amphibious offshore logistics capability to augment the Galicia class, which appears better suited to deploy heavier forces with its larger well deck.

I'm not saying the BPE couldn't deploy larger troops, I am just saying it wouldn't appear to be its primary function due to the small size of the well deck and the larger alternative for Spain with the Galicia class.

 

[Gladius]

Is support for the JSF a core requirement envisioned for Australia's aviation projection ship? Is a well deck a core requirement or is it a secondary requirement?

Is offloading a M1A1 an expected capability? What type of connectors is Australia envisioning for the ship, LCAC or LCU? What aviation platforms is Australia looking into for medium/heavy lift on the aviation platform?

Is there any plan for supporting helicopter gunships or only fixed wing strike aircraft?

IIRC in the JP2048 Program the M1A1 capability is a imperative requirement. Both designs Armaris Mistral and Navantias BPE are designed with equivalent capability on mind (the Mistral for the Leclerc & the BPE for the heavier Leopard 2E).

About the LCAC/LCU, well the question AFAIK remains undecided, and should be resolved by the JP2048 Phase 3 Program., conceived to provide a suitable replacement for the entire paisage of Australian LCH/LCVP/LCM-8/NLE/LARC-V/... If there are any recently developed proposals, remains unknowed by me. But perhaps anybody better informed on this could give any new info about that.

Logicaly the combat helo contempled to serve aboard the ship would be the Tiger. Again both ships were designed with this helo capability as "must be" requirement because is the Combat Helo in service on the French and Spanish Armed Forces. Incidentaly the Australian Combat Helicopter is the Tiger.

Medium or Heavy transport Helos, IIRC the Australian indications were directed to obtain a capacity for both, heavy and medium helos.
Well this is an aspect that I dubt about. I know that the Mistral was designed for the NH-90 (with 6 spots for them like the BPE) but I don't know if the french ship is CH-47 Chinook capable. However the most prominent diference is on the Osprey capacity, the BPE was designed to be capable to operate this... thing, the Mistral not. But I belive that this is not an important point on the Australian requeriments, particularly with the contract for NH-90s signed last year.

The fixed-wing capacity AFAIK is clearly a not priority aspect in the Program.

 

[Gladius]

Would Australia look into something like the LCU(R)? From what I can tell the BPE well deck is too small to accommodate a landing craft this large.

AFAIK the LCU(R) dimensions are predicted over 13,10 x 40,3 meters. With these dimensions the BPE capacity is of 1 LCU (R) and you cans use the remainins space for other crafts (LCMs/LCVPs/...) or RHIBs.

The dock dimensions of the BPE Juan Carlos are 16,80 x 69,30 meters.

Maybe I see the Juan Carlos I wrong, but to me the BPE appears to be the lighter assault capability to augment the current Galicia class that can deploy heavy forces. The smaller well deck compared to the Galicia class implies the BPE role will be more along the lines of 'beyond the beach' air insertion for lighter troops with an amphibious offshore logistics capability to augment the Galicia class, which appears better suited to deploy heavier forces with its larger well deck.

Yes, you are seeing wrong...

The dock of the BPE is bigger than the docks of the Galicia Class ships, 949 m2 against 885 m2. The overal transport cappacity is also bigger 1400 m2 [3446 m2 with the light vehicle garage/hangar deck] (BPE) against 1000m2 (Galicia Class). In the troops chapter the diference is very clear 925 (BPE) against 400 (Galicia Class).

In the Spanish Navy the amphibious capacity of the three ships is equivalent in the LCMs chapter, the Galicias and the BPE embark the same number: 4 LCM-1E each.

And you are also wrong over the role of the BPE on amphibious operations, the BPE will be the main inserction vector for the heavy forces, because is the ship with the Leopard 2E (yeah the moster of 65 Tons can be tricky) cappability optimized and also the ship with the higher capacity for troop & vehicle transport. We dont have too ships to spare one. Off course his helo cappacity is key but also the landing chapter, and the LCM-1E with their autonomy of 305 Km (on full load) able to the Navy to deploy and supply forces from an enough secure distance.

I'm not saying the BPE couldn't deploy larger troops, I am just saying it wouldn't appear to be its primary function due to the small size of the well deck and the larger alternative for Spain with the Galicia class.

The problem Galrahn, is that Spain is not the USA, and our Navy is not the US-Navy. We don't have many LPDs, LSDs, LHD, etc... We will have only three, I repeat three amphibious ships (the BPE is the replacement of the two Newport LSTs) with only three ships to project our Marines, we must use all our resources ad-maximum.

To be clear, the mission of the BPE is "do all and do well". Sure, it's dificult but that is our reality. Is this reasonably... Well, if you have the numbers and budget of the US-Navy, maybe not; but with our numbers and budget the response is yeah.

 

[ThePuss]

I have looked into this a little bit more.

The dock dimension for the Spainish LPA is 69.3x16.8m and the dimension of the LCU-R is 40.7x13.1m so unfortunatley the maximum we could carry would be one.
However the dimension of the ADI LCUs are 25x7.8m so we could operate one LCU-R and two ADI LCUs. The ADI LCU can carry up to 5 ASLAVs, so in one trip 3 Abrams and 10 ASLAVS (or a simular number of M-113s) could be landed.

 

[alexsa]

I have looked into this a little bit more.

The dock dimension for the Spainish LPA is 69.3x16.8m and the dimension of the LCU-R is 40.7x13.1m so unfortunatley the maximum we could carry would be one.
However the dimension of the ADI LCUs are 25x7.8m so we could operate one LCU-R and two ADI LCUs. The ADI LCU can carry up to 5 ASLAVs, so in one trip 3 Abrams and 10 ASLAVS (or a simular number of M-113s) could be landed.

There is a third element to this project which is the amphibous support ship. The size or design of this ship has not been set and I understand its primary role will be carriage of vehicles and troops. As such the combination of the two types may provide a useful solution in off laod capabiliyt and arial support.

I understand an 'operator' propsed a 40000 tonne+ ship based on a current commercial RO-RO design for this role but the rumour is the RAN are balking at the size. Using standard commercial crewing the 'primary crew' (recognising the need for additioanl crew for many operations) would be as low as 20.

 

[Galrahn]

The dock of the BPE is bigger than the docks of the Galicia Class ships, 949 m2 against 885 m2. The overal transport cappacity is also bigger 1400 m2 [3446 m2 with the light vehicle garage/hangar deck] (BPE) against 1000m2 (Galicia Class). In the troops chapter the diference is very clear 925 (BPE) against 400 (Galicia Class).

In the Spanish Navy the amphibious capacity of the three ships is equivalent in the LCMs chapter, the Galicias and the BPE embark the same number: 4 LCM-1E each.

Gladius,

Thank you for the information, my information about the BPE well deck being smaller appears to be inaccurate. The description I gave regarding the expected usage of the BPE in operations was how it was explained to me, albeit from a USN officer, on how he saw it being deployed operationally.

One of the reasons I still think his information is valid is because it is assumed to be unlikely the BPE would give up hanger space for an amphibious operation. Modern amphibious operations of placing troops on the ground from sea based units has involved air transport, not sea transport, and I don't see the BPE giving up its unique capability of inserting a large force over the beach for a handful more heavy units, at least not during an assault phase.

I understand the single ship is replacing 2 LSTs, and I understand the Armada Española will have only 3 amphibious assault ships, I have spent a good amount of time over the last year studying the Armada Española and the Marina Militare, both of which I see as potential 21st century influential sea powers of Europe if they can effectively address their shortcomings in ASW over the next decade with FREMM.

In my discussions it was explained that it is unlikely Spain would ever conduct amphibious operations unilaterally, but is more likely to conduct an amphibious operation than most European countries if the operation was apart of a coalition. As such, whether the coalition included the United States or not, the role of the BPE within the coalition would more likely require a full hanger of helicopters, not only for initial assault operations but to provide an important logistical capability to units operating beyond the beach.

Do you see a scenario where Spain would conduct an amphibious assault operation unilaterally? Do you think the BPE would be used as a large LSD and give up hanger space for more vehicles for assault operations? The scenario's I see the BPE giving up hanger space for vehicles would be for peacekeeping or humanitarian response, do you see it that way or differently?

I admit I am a US citizen on the outside looking in regarding the Armada Española, but when I take a close look at any specific Navy I try to see it from the perspective of most probable scenario's based on the most likely circumstances of political certainty, as opposed to least probable scenario's rooted in circumstances of political uncertainty.

I certainly welcome your perspective, and thank you for your response.

 

[Gladius]

Galrahn, it's nothing, all we are here to talk with others and learn from different points of view.

The Spanish doctrine about that is very simple, we have to be capable to carry out unilateral amphibious ops. because some of our territory is out of NATO Treaty* umbrella. With the problems to invoke the 5th Article you understand this question.
On normal situation, the international deployments will be common as proof the existence (from 1998) of the SIAF (Spanish & Italian Amphibious Force) now converted on one of the UE Battlegroups, but as the day to day demonstrate many time we have to deploy forces alone (without international naval support), the last time was the operation "Libre Hidalgo" to deploy the Spanish Marine Infantry on Lebanon, or the first contingent deployed on Um Qasr during the Iraki-Freedom Op. or the Operation "Romeo-Sierra" in 2002.

Do you see a scenario where Spain would conduct an amphibious assault operation unilaterally?

Unfortunately the answer is yes, this pass in the past and probably will occur in the future.

Do you think the BPE would be used as a large LSD and give up hanger space for more vehicles for assault operations?

It will depend, of where the operation occur, if the Príncipe is available or not (the things are very different if you have two flat-tops or only one), if the Army Forces will participate in the operation, If the plans include a mayor Air Assault Op. or not, and a large etc...
But for answer your question, if the Op. Plans have Leopards 2E or heavy Army Forces included, the BPE will be one necessary participant in the LCM assault/landing phase. The standard configuration of Hangar/light Vehicles deck of the BPE planned by the navy on amphibious ops is the included in the first Attached Thumbnail.

As you can see, our navy plan deploy a normal helo force of 12 NH-90s in the Hangar, plus the helos carried in the flight-deck and use the light vehicles garage adjacent (conceived to serve as dual purpose Taller/Hangar/Garage) for Marine/Army forces and vehicles.

The scenario's I see the BPE giving up hanger space for vehicles would be for peacekeeping or humanitarian response, do you see it that way or differently?

Yes, as far as we know with the info published by the Spanish Navy the normal situation will be a mixed configuration in the Hangar Deck, only extending the Hangar to use the full deck during the times that the ship serve as alternative fixed-wing vector during the times of unavailability of the R-11 Príncipe de Asturias, as will occur during her refit for Mid Life Update. The configuration designed by the Navy for this contingency will be the one included in the second Attached Thumbnail.

*And WEU umbrella, for this question.

 

[swerve]

... some of our territory is out of NATO Treaty* umbrella. ...

Ceuta & Melilla, because they're on the African mainland? Las Canarias are north of the Tropic of Cancer.

 

[Gladius]

Yes swerve, the cities of Ceuta & Melilla mostly, but also the Chafarine Islands, the Rock of Vélez de la Gomera & the Alhucemas Islands.
Of course there are some minor islands like Peregil with an undecided situation, remaining with a temporal mutual pact of no-sovereignty or status-quo ante over them.

 

[swerve]

Yes swerve, the cities of Ceuta & Melilla mostly, but also the Chafarine Islands, the Rock of Vélez de la Gomera & the Alhucemas Islands.
Of course there are some minor islands like Peregil with an undecided situation, remaining with a temporal mutual pact of no-sovereignty or status-quo ante over them.

Thanks for the clarification.

I've sometimes wondered about Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Isles, & the Caribbean territories of France, Britain & the Netherlands. Are any of them counted as North America? If not, they're out of scope, being too far south to be covered by the Atlantic islands clause - but if they are . . . .