Just wait & see what the replacement for PdA will be. The Armada is reported to want a real carrier. Whether they'll get one is another matter. But we won't know for several years. PdA is just coming up to 20, IIRC.
BPE news and information
- Thread starter StingrayOZ
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #22
I think Spain is waiting out to see how the F-35 program turns out.
If the B program fails, or more realistically too expensive, any vessel with stovl carrier as its primary task is going to be fairly useless.
The BPE is a exellent peice of insurance. It makes a fine amphibious, 6 spots, 20+ helicopters, over 1000 troops can be deployed, landing craft, command, hospital, container capability, tanks, UAV capability etc. It would be a kingpin in any Australian led mission anywhere in the world, and would be a huge force multiplier.
If the F-35B program is affordable and practical then you also get quiet a handly light carrier into the bargin, IMHO about the equivlent of a UK Invincible class when operating as a full carrier. The F-35 however is a far more capable plane than the harriers were and additional flexability means you can launch a large amphibious assault with fixed wing support.
Which is again a force multiplier to its existing capabilities and the ADF in general.
I don't see spain commiting to a full carrier until after 2020. Even then questions will be asked whats after the F-35.. What benifits would a specific carrier ship provide over the BPE? Speed? Is that it? Is it required?
If the B program fails, or more realistically too expensive, any vessel with stovl carrier as its primary task is going to be fairly useless.
The BPE is a exellent peice of insurance. It makes a fine amphibious, 6 spots, 20+ helicopters, over 1000 troops can be deployed, landing craft, command, hospital, container capability, tanks, UAV capability etc. It would be a kingpin in any Australian led mission anywhere in the world, and would be a huge force multiplier.
If the F-35B program is affordable and practical then you also get quiet a handly light carrier into the bargin, IMHO about the equivlent of a UK Invincible class when operating as a full carrier. The F-35 however is a far more capable plane than the harriers were and additional flexability means you can launch a large amphibious assault with fixed wing support.
Which is again a force multiplier to its existing capabilities and the ADF in general.
I don't see spain commiting to a full carrier until after 2020. Even then questions will be asked whats after the F-35.. What benifits would a specific carrier ship provide over the BPE? Speed? Is that it? Is it required?
Good point. Hence the insurance policy being built into the new British design, allowing for catapults and arrester wires if required.
I couldn't agree more. It would be a huge force multiplier with or without VSTOL aircraft.
In terms of aircraft capacity it certainly matches an Invincible. It does, however, have considerably less speed and, IMO, it would need an upgrade to its weapons and fire control systems to match an Invincible in its self defence capability.
Agreed.
Cheers
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
But all the fashion these days with carriers and large amphibious ships is to remove all weapon systems from them. Nothing at all. They are dependant on escorts for protection the use embarked aircraft. I would be quiet happy to see no weapon systems on the BPE bar a maybe a few mounted light machine guns or at most ciws, but I doubt you need either. Including them pushes up crewing requirements, costs, reduces space that can be used for its primary missions. The LHD has limited room for weapons (small area up front and at rear). Your talking Cwis or light machine gun, not missiles.
It would most likely be escorted by aleast a destroyer and perhaps a frigate or two depending on the mission. It is not a ship you let wander out alone. On more risky missions I can see it being the centre peice of a multi national force, with maybe as three destroyers (OZ, UK, US) , half a dozen frigates and a few nearby subs. Perhaps one or two HSV's or/and littorial combat ships. Forming a Amphibious Strike Group (or Amphibious ready group). Any weapons the LHD has will just get in the way and take up valuable space.
I would rather the money spent on either getting 4 destroyers or beefing up the destroyers and frigates. There is space and man power on these ships for additional upgrades. Given our few surface units each of the destroyers/frigates should be moving platforms of unchallenged regional power. SM-2, SM-3, Harpoon, Tomahawk, 80+ tubes, CIWS and/or RAM. With 4 destroyers you could double your destroyer escort (2 Hobarts) meaning hostile operations could be conducted without international assistance.
With 1 or 2 Hobart destroyers and 2 upgraded Frigates and a submarine nearby it would be hard to see how that is inadiquate protection. Anything the LHD wears is just for show.
It could also be argued if the destroyers are not going to operate without either the LHD or a frigate then aircraft facilities are not really needed making room for more firepower. However I would have to look very carefully at that as a small force we would want to stay flexable.
As a full carrier it would be helpful to have other ships nearby able to conduct helicopter flights. Freeing precious deck space for fixed wing operations.
For Australian purposes, I hope they keep to the origional BPE design as much as possible. Free and flexable.
It would most likely be escorted by aleast a destroyer and perhaps a frigate or two depending on the mission. It is not a ship you let wander out alone. On more risky missions I can see it being the centre peice of a multi national force, with maybe as three destroyers (OZ, UK, US) , half a dozen frigates and a few nearby subs. Perhaps one or two HSV's or/and littorial combat ships. Forming a Amphibious Strike Group (or Amphibious ready group). Any weapons the LHD has will just get in the way and take up valuable space.
I would rather the money spent on either getting 4 destroyers or beefing up the destroyers and frigates. There is space and man power on these ships for additional upgrades. Given our few surface units each of the destroyers/frigates should be moving platforms of unchallenged regional power. SM-2, SM-3, Harpoon, Tomahawk, 80+ tubes, CIWS and/or RAM. With 4 destroyers you could double your destroyer escort (2 Hobarts) meaning hostile operations could be conducted without international assistance.
With 1 or 2 Hobart destroyers and 2 upgraded Frigates and a submarine nearby it would be hard to see how that is inadiquate protection. Anything the LHD wears is just for show.
It could also be argued if the destroyers are not going to operate without either the LHD or a frigate then aircraft facilities are not really needed making room for more firepower. However I would have to look very carefully at that as a small force we would want to stay flexable.
As a full carrier it would be helpful to have other ships nearby able to conduct helicopter flights. Freeing precious deck space for fixed wing operations.
For Australian purposes, I hope they keep to the origional BPE design as much as possible. Free and flexable.
spot on singray.if really needed,a det from 16AD with rbs70 could tag along. a couple of .50 cals would do.
This is a very interesting thread.
Question, will the BPE have a well deck? Will the Australian LHD have a well deck?
There is a growing debate regarding well decks in the US, I am curious what other nations are thinking as they build new, larger amphibious ships. Are they going without a well deck to increase air power? Are they demanding a well deck?
I know the Mistral has a well deck, but I don't think it is a serious contender anywhere on the export market, or is it?
Question, will the BPE have a well deck? Will the Australian LHD have a well deck?
There is a growing debate regarding well decks in the US, I am curious what other nations are thinking as they build new, larger amphibious ships. Are they going without a well deck to increase air power? Are they demanding a well deck?
I know the Mistral has a well deck, but I don't think it is a serious contender anywhere on the export market, or is it?
Yes the BPE has a well deck capable of holding 4 LCMs or at least 1 LCAC, plus 4/6 RHIBs. The well deck is also a requirement for the Australian LHD, regardless of whether the BPE or the Mistral design is chosen.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1453&stc=1&d=1176781521
http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/CapAnfibia.asp?SecAct=050209
Cheers
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #28
Yes, the BPE has floodable dock or well deck. As does the Mistral.
In Australia's case, a well deck is required. Australia is very short on amphibious capability and many missions regionally will require some sort of well deck to deploy tanks, heavy vechicals, APC's, etc. Australia also lacks a great deal of heavy lift helicopters (we are short on chinooks) so its even more essential.
Australia is seriously concidering the Mistral and the BPE. The vibe is the BPE is most likely to be selected, but the Mistral is still a competitive option. The Mistral Airpower capabilities are more limited, not being able to hanger a chinook, V-22, or use a Harrier or F-35. The BPE can use all of these and its well deck is flexable enough not to be a big disadvantage to air operations (certainly hanger wise its not compromised with 20 fixed wing aircraft able to be hangered at once, simular number as the new preposed UK carrier designs).
With out a well deck (like the new 27,000t Italian Cavour carrier) you gain space for engines, and some speed. But outside of carrier functions they are very limited. However, several small primary (rotary or fixed wing) carriers have been built.
The BPE can perform mixed missions (amphibious landings with some air support) something a single function carrier can't do with out another ship.
It depends what your countries needs are. Australia definately wants to be able to land troops and equipment in a region completely made up of islands and generally poor or few port facilities.
In Australia's case, a well deck is required. Australia is very short on amphibious capability and many missions regionally will require some sort of well deck to deploy tanks, heavy vechicals, APC's, etc. Australia also lacks a great deal of heavy lift helicopters (we are short on chinooks) so its even more essential.
Australia is seriously concidering the Mistral and the BPE. The vibe is the BPE is most likely to be selected, but the Mistral is still a competitive option. The Mistral Airpower capabilities are more limited, not being able to hanger a chinook, V-22, or use a Harrier or F-35. The BPE can use all of these and its well deck is flexable enough not to be a big disadvantage to air operations (certainly hanger wise its not compromised with 20 fixed wing aircraft able to be hangered at once, simular number as the new preposed UK carrier designs).
With out a well deck (like the new 27,000t Italian Cavour carrier) you gain space for engines, and some speed. But outside of carrier functions they are very limited. However, several small primary (rotary or fixed wing) carriers have been built.
The BPE can perform mixed missions (amphibious landings with some air support) something a single function carrier can't do with out another ship.
It depends what your countries needs are. Australia definately wants to be able to land troops and equipment in a region completely made up of islands and generally poor or few port facilities.
I agree with you re keeping to the original BPE design.
Re armament I expect the RAN ships will be lightly armed in similar fashion to the Spanish vessel. It is planned to equip the BPE with 4x20mm guns and 2x12.7mm MG, but with provision for ESSM or SEARAM to be added in future if required. I expect a couple of Mini Typhoons and a couple of manual 12.7mm would be embarked on the RAN ships, in line with the present LPAs (I'm not certain Mini Typhoon is currently fitted to them but I understand it is planned). The LPAs mount a Phalanx CIWS when deploying so I wouldn't be surprised to see the LHDs at least fitted for but not with ESSM or SEARAM. Also, along the lines suggested by old faithful, it is normal practice for RAN amphibious ships to carry a couple of army RB-70 mounts when deploying to a hot spot.
http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/FTArmamento.asp?SecAct=050203
Cheers
The UK has built a pure LPH (HMS Ocean), having decided after the Falklands campaign that such ships were useful. Ark Royal has also been modified in her latest refit to improve her ability to operate as an LPH. i.e., as a helicopter assault ship, with no well deck. Ocean is the same size as an Invincible.
But note that they're intended to supplement assault ships with well decks, of which we now have 6 in service or fitting out. For a smaller navy, LHDs make more sense.
This is a strange issue.
The USN regarded the LPHs as relative failures because they lacked a well deck.
So they built the LHA/LHD classes. The differences are minimal actually.
Now they have decided to build the new LHA(R) class w/o a well deck.
Now if eventually all the LHA/LHDs are replaced by non-well deck designs and there is no replacement for the existing LSDs as has been suggested then the USN(along with reducing LHD/LHAs from 12 to 8 and LPDs from 11 to 9) would have given up much of its former well deck space!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course this would/could/should? be a rather slow drawdown over the next three decades even so this should tell us something about amphibious assaults future. At least as envisioned currently.
In fact even now the four newest of twelve LSDs are transitioining to Global Fleet Station ships at least experimentally this year and probably next.
It now looks like the USN is drawing down to eight 3-ship ARGS for support of eight ESG's. Eventually possibly only two ship ARGs if the LSDs are not replaced.
And it looks like at least nine LPD-17s will be built with two fwd deployed to Japan.
Three LHA(R)s are programmed to replace the last three LHAs. Two of these are slated for the MPF(F) squadron and one will replace one of the 8 LHDs which will transition into the MPF(F) squadron.
And as always shipuilding and task group plans remain subject to change w/o notice. LOL
The USN regarded the LPHs as relative failures because they lacked a well deck.
So they built the LHA/LHD classes. The differences are minimal actually.
Now they have decided to build the new LHA(R) class w/o a well deck.
Now if eventually all the LHA/LHDs are replaced by non-well deck designs and there is no replacement for the existing LSDs as has been suggested then the USN(along with reducing LHD/LHAs from 12 to 8 and LPDs from 11 to 9) would have given up much of its former well deck space!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course this would/could/should? be a rather slow drawdown over the next three decades even so this should tell us something about amphibious assaults future. At least as envisioned currently.
In fact even now the four newest of twelve LSDs are transitioining to Global Fleet Station ships at least experimentally this year and probably next.
It now looks like the USN is drawing down to eight 3-ship ARGS for support of eight ESG's. Eventually possibly only two ship ARGs if the LSDs are not replaced.
And it looks like at least nine LPD-17s will be built with two fwd deployed to Japan.
Three LHA(R)s are programmed to replace the last three LHAs. Two of these are slated for the MPF(F) squadron and one will replace one of the 8 LHDs which will transition into the MPF(F) squadron.
And as always shipuilding and task group plans remain subject to change w/o notice. LOL
That is the matter. Spain has a relatively powerful marine infantry, brigade sized, with some MBT, SPH, AAV and so. This only make sense if you have the ships to disembark them.
BPE will replace the two Newport class LST.
In 2009 Spanish Armada will has 3 amphibious ships with 3 well decks, the absolutely minimum for the marine brigade.
But also, Spanish discovers the benefits of the well decks in peacekeeping/human relief missions (Haiti, Indonesia, even Lebanon, more recently). If we can only have 3 amphibs seems wise that all 3 have well decks.
I don't know if this is the same for Australia.
Regards.
PdA hasn’t any serious issue in relation with her sea keeping. In fact, the vessel is well appreciated in Spanish Armada exactly by the opposite. In some international exercises the ship has operated in heavy seas without any more problems that other comrades like Garibaldi or even CdG.
In some of them her Harriers taken-off in sea conditions where the planes of other allies didn’t do (her 12º ski-jump is a help in situations of strong pitch compared with others ski-jumps more moderate).
The problems with PdA in order to operate in a regular basis with the F-35B are, IMHO, two:
- The flight deck isn’t, probably, reinforced for continuous operation with the powerful and hot stream of the F-135/136 turbojets.
- The front elevator is completely unsuitable for a plane like F-35 (if at least it had folding wings…), in fact is difficult to use it with the AV-8B (the things was better with the old AV-8A, with less wingspan), and usually is dedicated exclusively for the helos. The aft elevator may be is big enough for the F-35, but I’m not sure.
Why the PdA will not be modified in her MLU in order to operate the F-35 in a more comfortable way?, taking account that isn’t a cheap MLU (200 million €, 250 million $, half the price of a new BPE).
It seems that Spanish Armada don’t expect to have the F-35B before 2017-2018, even after. For that date an adequate substitute would be building and a possible first batch of F-35 could operate instead from BPE. Enlarging the elevators (not easy) and reinforce all the flight deck may be is too expensive in an already expensive MLU for, may be, only 3-4 years of F-35B use in an undetermined future
Of course, F-35B could fail or could be prohibitively expensive and in any case Spanish Armada prefers “wait and see”.
Regards
I can see the advantages of a mix of amphibious assets (LHDs, LSDs, LPDs, etc) for a large fleet like the USN as it provides flexibility re the mix of troops, aircraft, helos, vehicles, landing craft and troops and avoids the danger of 'all eggs in one basket'. As swerve reminded us the RN has also gone down this track with a pure LPH (Ocean) together with the Albion class LPDs and the Bay class LSD(A)s. However, for smaller navies like the Spanish and the RAN which can only afford to operate two or three ships in this role I believe the advantages of the LHD justify the concept of an all purpose design which includes a well deck as well as substantial aviation, troop carrying, vehicle and landing craft capability.
Cheers
Last edited:
Where do you get this from, the BPE will have space a weight for Mk41 and will allow ESSM to be fitted. It will also have space for a number of CIWS and MG's.
Since the ship will be operation aircraft it will have to have a capable air search radar in any case and should be able to maintain an air and surface picture. On this basis, and noting these vessel are intended to go in harms way, giving a credible self defence is sensible ...... in fact it would be unforgivible not to.
The BPE is fitted with double ended podded propulsion (i.e. a prop at either end of the pods) with two pods and a total of 4 props. Max speed will depend upon the capcilty of the pods fitted and the generation capacity of the vessel
As an example the QM2 is fitted with 4 single ended pods and has a max speed just under 30 knots but the ship has a very fine underwater shape and massiver generations capacity.
In so far as the hull shape of the BPE is concnered I would expect it has been optimised to provide maiximum efficiencey at the loaded draft and appears to be fitted with a high efficiency bulbous bow from the drawings (depending on which one you believe) so it should be possible to get more speed out of the design but you would have to question the economics of this as it with the the main body of any group and will be able to sustain 19.5 knots which is a tad higher than the cruise speed of most of our escorts. I like the idea of 24 knots but without the figures to determine the cost of the additional 4 knots could not make a value judgement on whetehr it is worth it.
Just for clarification a high efficiency bulbous bow is desinged to provided the greatest benifit wihtin a limited varaitionof draft. It is posible to use such mechanims on cruise ships and war ships as their operating draft range tends to be limited compared to even container ships.
I agree that the BPE ought to be fitted from the outset with ESSM or at least SEARAM but the Armada website indicates that this is seen as a possible future addition in Spanish naval service and initial armament will only comprise 20mm and 12.7mm guns. As I mentioned before, the RAN LPAs mount a CIWS when they deploy operationally and it is normal to add army RB-70 detachments as well if they are going in harms way. On that basis the fitting of ESSM in the Canberras from the outset would seem logical. The problem may be the pressure to keep within budget to ensure that the ships are actually built. There is already criticism about the size and cost of these ships and the RAN will need to contain this to ensure the project goes ahead. IMO, this could lead to a 'fitted for but not with" approach with ESSM being fitted after completion. It is not an approach that I like but I guess the number one objective will be to get the ships built with the need for a weapons upgrade being argued after the project is well advanced.
Cheers
Having served in the RAN I am completely disallusioned with fitted for but not with approach as it ends up costing more in the long run and, when you need it in a hurry, is not there.
HMS Sheffield and the lack of CIWS being a prime example.
To fit the necesary gear at build to give a credible self defence capability (i.e. not just CIWS) should be the minimum. You can build up from there.
I agree completely but I'm not sure the government will.
Another example of how this can cause problems was the deployment of HMAS Anzac to GW2 without a CIWS fitted (it had space and weight for Phalanx). This had the potential, IMO, to lead to disaster. Fortunately Anzac was not subject to air or missile attack as its 8 Sparrow SAMs would have been expended very quickly. Naval ships invariably have to fight with what they have not what they are capable of carrying!
A 27,000 ship carrying 1000 troops deserves a credible self defence capability. IMO, this should include ESSM and a modern decoy system such as Nulka.
Cheers