BPE news and information

[Aussie Digger]

I don't belive the current ones will be used. Dont carry M1A1's?

I belive they might be looking at getting some new ones with the LHD's. The $2 billion set aside should allow for a few nice options. I belive this is one of them.

Didn't the UK remove all missiles from their carriers a while back?
Like I said, provide them with some protection, but keep it simple with a simple objective. If it can all be done with ESSM and few light machine guns then I can't complain. If you start trying to fit, 3 Phalax CIWS, Sea RAM, RB-70, ESSMs, 2x20mm x3,4x 12.7mm its starting to sound like a WWII battleship.

The project provides for a self defence capability for the vessels. They will virtually always operate with a surface escort capacity so the need for them to be "heavily" armed just isn't there.

I'd expect that the vessels will have a layered defence against both air and surface targets, it's just be the "extent" of those layers that will be a matter for debate.

Personally, whilst I'd like to see them armed with ESSM and a 5 inch /62 Cal gun and ERGM, (imagine the munitions storage capacity on an LHD!!!), I think the best that can be hoped for in terms of weapon systems, is probably 2-3 "millenium guns" and/or 2-4 Typhoon/mini-Typhoon guns and a short range SAM system.

 

[StingrayOZ]

5" gun!! On a LHD? Your nuts! Theres plenty of deck, just use some of those troops on board with RPG's, motars, etc. 1000 soliders with rifles. Not to mention Tigers and armed seakings, NH-90's, F-35's, Harriers.

With more being known about the BPE now, it appears an even stronger option for the Canberra class.

I wonder if any other nations will be interested in the BPE design after Australia and Spain.

Any idea what UAV's they might fly of the BPE? Either Spain or Australia?

 

[Aussie Digger]

5" gun!! On a LHD? Your nuts! Theres plenty of deck, just use some of those troops on board with RPG's, motars, etc. 1000 soliders with rifles. Not to mention Tigers and armed seakings, NH-90's, F-35's, Harriers.

I'm nuts? I'm not the one proposing soldiers with SMALL ARMS be employed in a NGS role. Tell me mate, can an RPG or a mortar provide NGS to ranges of 40k's (in the case of Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm gun firing standard munitions) or 120k's (in the case of the Mk 45 Mod 4 firing ERGM?)

Can a man portable mortar be fired from the pitching (and hard) flight deck of a ship? If 1000 soldiers are firing from the flight deck, who's conducting the amphibious landing the vessel is supposed to be conducting?

Tell me, how many Harriers and F-35 (B's presumably) are ADF getting exactly?

How many "armed Seakings" do we have?


The USS Tarawa Class landing ships were equipped with 5 inch guns when they were commissioned, so apparently someone else thinks the idea's not "nuts" either. Given the paucity of vessels able to provide long range NGS to deployed troops, they would add valuable capability to a taskforce.

Far more so than troops "firing from the flight deck".

With more being known about the BPE now, it appears an even stronger option for the Canberra class.

I wonder if any other nations will be interested in the BPE design after Australia and Spain.

Any idea what UAV's they might fly of the BPE? Either Spain or Australia?

I agree. It's a far superior vessel to the French design, however it's probably (slightly) more expensive.

RAN is looking at UAV's. No designs have been chosen as yet, but more than likely they'll be a "VTOL" design (ie: helo styled)...

 

[swerve]

...

I am a big fan of the Mistral class. I think the Mistral class is the right ship at the right time for the French Navy, and would probably fit in very well for India, but few nations outside those two. ...

It might also suit Italy. The MMI is looking for a ship in that class (& eventually, at least two, to replace the San Giorgios), if they can wheedle the money. But they're more likely to pick a home-grown ship. Fincantieri have a new LHD design which would suit, especially if they choose the option of replacing both the San Giorgios & Garibaldiwith one class, adaptable a la BPE.

 

[swerve]

over at http://www.lhd.tenix.com/ (from Australian LHD thread)

It appears:
-BPE is built to military spec damage control. Which is definately good.
-The ski jump is back on!
-They have a time line for BPE production (only one spanish BPE planned at this stage).

Very interesting.

Hey! What happened to the diesels? I can't find any reference to them, just the gas turbine. Are they still there but not mentioned?

 

[contedicavour]

It might also suit Italy. The MMI is looking for a ship in that class (& eventually, at least two, to replace the San Giorgios), if they can wheedle the money. But they're more likely to pick a home-grown ship. Fincantieri have a new LHD design which would suit, especially if they choose the option of replacing both the San Giorgios & Garibaldiwith one class, adaptable a la BPE.

Yes though priority is adding a 4th LPD to our still relatively recent Santi class (in service dates from 1987 to 1993), so the new build ship is not supposed to replace them. In order to make sure no politician thinks the ship is a replacement for the Garibaldi, the ship will not be a thorough-deck design like the BPE but something closer to the Rotterdam class. Expect in service date around 2012, while the Garibaldi will still be in service until 2020 and beyond...

Regarding the discussion on which armament to deploy on a LHD, I'm in favour of serious CIWS / short range SAM, and that's it. Providing fire support for Marines arriving by helo or LCM/LCACs should be assigned to escort ships equipped with 127mm guns and land-attack capable missiles, plus Mavericks and JDAMs from the AV8B+/F35Bs.

cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes though priority is adding a 4th LPD to our still relatively recent Santi class (in service dates from 1987 to 1993), so the new build ship is not supposed to replace them. In order to make sure no politician thinks the ship is a replacement for the Garibaldi, the ship will not be a thorough-deck design like the BPE but something closer to the Rotterdam class. Expect in service date around 2012, while the Garibaldi will still be in service until 2020 and beyond...

Regarding the discussion on which armament to deploy on a LHD, I'm in favour of serious CIWS / short range SAM, and that's it. Providing fire support for Marines arriving by helo or LCM/LCACs should be assigned to escort ships equipped with 127mm guns and land-attack capable missiles, plus Mavericks and JDAMs from the AV8B+/F35Bs.

cheers

We got a little bit off topic I suppose and "Australian slanted". I proposed 127mm guns as a "preferred" option, not a realistic one.

The only thing I'd add to CIWS/SAM is a dedicated anti-surface weapon such as "mini-typhoon" or Typhoon itself. Millenium guns can handle the role I know, but it seems like an expensive way to do it (with that flash "AHEAD" ammunition) and the ammo in the Millenium gun is probably better saved for higher level threats. Stabilised 12.7mm HMG's can fire out to 2000m's so I can see these being sufficient for the anti - suicide attack craft role.

A "swarm type" attack would probably be justifiably engaged by the 35mm weapon, but for individual or limited numbers of craft etc, I think a less expensive weapon would probably suffice.

 

[contedicavour]

We got a little bit off topic I suppose and "Australian slanted". I proposed 127mm guns as a "preferred" option, not a realistic one.

The only thing I'd add to CIWS/SAM is a dedicated anti-surface weapon such as "mini-typhoon" or Typhoon itself. Millenium guns can handle the role I know, but it seems like an expensive way to do it (with that flash "AHEAD" ammunition) and the ammo in the Millenium gun is probably better saved for higher level threats. Stabilised 12.7mm HMG's can fire out to 2000m's so I can see these being sufficient for the anti - suicide attack craft role.

A "swarm type" attack would probably be justifiably engaged by the 35mm weapon, but for individual or limited numbers of craft etc, I think a less expensive weapon would probably suffice.

For that type of threat we are deploying 25mm Oto Melara/Breda guns on most of our vessels (they can function manually without radar-illuminator guidance if needed). I agree it is key to limit vulnerability from such unconventional warfare, although my fear is mostly about attacks once in harbour (SEAL type squads as our WW2 X-MAS unit using small torpedoes or mines). Against those you can use active sonar / mine-detection sonars, SLAT torpedo-decoy and good old Marines with binoculars

cheers

 

[santi]

Is there even room for ESSM on the BPE? I think CIWS like RAM combined with 20mms are optimal fits for amphibious ships, which always operates with escorts for 'that other stuff' anyway.

Yes, it seems. But, of course, you need something more than the VLS: at least one or two fire directors, or a solution like CEA-FAR/MOUNT.
Time ago Spanish Armada specified the RAM/SeaRAM like the preferred solution for point defence in amphibs and AOR’s….. when some cash were available.
Nowadays the philosophy of Armada is that every auxiliary or amphib ship sent to a place more or less dangerous has an F-100 near… (Lebanon, for instance). That’s the best defence. Of course, RAM or CIWS would be great.

Another question, is the BPE being built to military spec or civilian spec?

It’s a mix of both. Military for the most sensible areas and civilian for the less… That’s the same for other vessels like Galicia LPD’s or AOR’s in Armada service, or the Mistral BPC’s in the Marine Nationale…..
Only in this way is possible to build a 28.000 t LHD for 360 million €/ 450 million $ (note that this total, regarding BPE, is very optimistic and don’t includes the development of some systems for the ship).

Hey! What happened to the diesels? I can't find any reference to them, just the gas turbine. Are they still there but not mentioned?

BPE has a full electric propulsion, consisting in 1 Turbo-alternator of 20 MW and 2 Diesel-alternators of 8 MW each (36 MW total). Last infos are that pods will be Siemens-Schottel SPP twin-props of 10 MW nominal (11.5 MW maximun) each.
I suppose that would be basically the same for the RAN LHD’s.

Regards

 

[swerve]

...BPE has a full electric propulsion, consisting in 1 Turbo-alternator of 20 MW and 2 Diesel-alternators of 8 MW each (36 MW total). ...

I know. Hence the comment, because the Tenix/Navantia site for Australia mentioned the gas turbine, but I couldn't find any mention of the diesels.

I suppose that would be basically the same for the RAN LHD’s.

One would expect so, but see above.

 

[Tasman]

It’s a mix of both. Military for the most sensible areas and civilian for the less… That’s the same for other vessels like Galicia LPD’s or AOR’s in Armada service, or the Mistral BPC’s in the Marine Nationale…..
Only in this way is possible to build a 28.000 t LHD for 360 million €/ 450 million $ (note that this total, regarding BPE, is very optimistic and don’t includes the development of some systems for the ship)

The mix of civilian and military specs in the construction seems to be a good approach if it is able to keep costs down without compromising the safety and survivability of the ship in action.

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

I don't belive the current ones will be used. Dont carry M1A1's?

I belive they might be looking at getting some new ones with the LHD's. The $2 billion set aside should allow for a few nice options. I belive this is one of them.

Didn't the UK remove all missiles from their carriers a while back?
Like I said, provide them with some protection, but keep it simple with a simple objective. If it can all be done with ESSM and few light machine guns then I can't complain. If you start trying to fit, 3 Phalax CIWS, Sea RAM, RB-70, ESSMs, 2x20mm x3,4x 12.7mm its starting to sound like a WWII battleship.

No you are staarting to look at a reasonable self defence arrangemnt for a vesel that will operate in litorial water. ESSM is a self defence system the AWD will use SM2 (and perhap SM6 in the future) for its primary Air Warfare role but will also have ESSM for self defence. You should also note we are not particualry flush wiht escorts in the RAN and most are fitted with just ESSM.

A ship carrying over a thousand troops and a bunch of enxpensive aircraft need a credible self defence arrangement.

As far as I know the UK removed the missile systsm to improve deck space and cut upkeep costs noting the sea dart is not a VLS system. However, until recently thos ships had a credible air defence figher ..... we do not at this stage.

Finally it is worth noting even the US careiers are fitted wifh RIM7 (and I assume are being upgraded to ESSM) as well as CIWS and capable aircraft.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Hence why a 4th destroyer and F-35B should be seriously concidered. They aren't just navy gravy, we really need em.

I suppose due to the lack of power in the RAN they should be loaded fairly extensively.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hence why a 4th destroyer and F-35B should be seriously concidered. They aren't just navy gravy, we really need em.

I suppose due to the lack of power in the RAN they should be loaded fairly extensively.

I agree we need both, but Government doesn't have a bottom-less pit of money to give to Defence, nor and endless supply of manpower to equip said additional capabilities.

The LHD's in the words of RAN and Government (just like the ANZAC's) will have a "reasonable" self defence capability. Nothing more.

 

[kato]

Can a man portable mortar be fired from the pitching (and hard) flight deck of a ship?

not exactly a ship, or a man-portable mortar, but Germany has fired 120mm Tampella mortars on M113 from oil-platform support rigs in tests (though those tests weren't for the mortars, but for an onshore C-RAM system). The rig had two regular army M113 with mortars and one M577 with an artillery control system loaded on its deck (and fastened to the deck), and was then towed out to about ~8 km offshore, from where a few dozen rounds were fired towards the coast.

 

[Aussie Digger]

not exactly a ship, or a man-portable mortar, but Germany has fired 120mm Tampella mortars on M113 from oil-platform support rigs in tests (though those tests weren't for the mortars, but for an onshore C-RAM system). The rig had two regular army M113 with mortars and one M577 with an artillery control system loaded on its deck (and fastened to the deck), and was then towed out to about ~8 km offshore, from where a few dozen rounds were fired towards the coast.

Fair enough. My point was directed at the idea that a man pack 81mm mortar could be fired from the deck of a ship and would adequately replace the NGS capability of a 127mm naval gun... nfloorl:

 

[StingrayOZ]

Hahah, our M113's wouldn't even be able to do that.

Wonder if you can have a Leopard or M1A1 on deck? If you could have half a dozen on deck, that would be a fairly significant amount of firepower to soften up a landing spot before going ahead and landing the tanks/troops on shore. I doubt the deck would respond well to half a dozen 60 ton tanks cruising around and firing on top of it. But then again, a mobile artilary platform based off oil rig structures would be interesting, for another topic.

I do find it interesting that Spain seems to be leaning toward escorts where Australia seems to be leaning towards self defence. Yet both may end up with simular weapon systems. With the Australian LHD missing a fixed wing aircraft that the Spanish one looks likely to carry atleast some of the time.

 

[swerve]

...
Wonder if you can have a Leopard or M1A1 on deck? ....

What weight does the biggest lift take? Does it go down to the vehicle deck?

 

[rossfrb_1]

Hahah, our M113's wouldn't even be able to do that.

Wonder if you can have a Leopard or M1A1 on deck? If you could have half a dozen on deck, that would be a fairly significant amount of firepower to soften up a landing spot before going ahead and landing the tanks/troops on shore. I doubt the deck would respond well to half a dozen 60 ton tanks cruising around and firing on top of it. But then again, a mobile artilary platform based off oil rig structures would be interesting, for another topic.

Tank guns are relatively short ranged compared with their naval bretheren.
The 120mm gun on a Leo 2/M1A1 is good for what ~2km (3?)? The naval equiv 127mm(?) is good for >20km.
Better off with 120mm mortars in M113s or whatever. Range is around 7km.
Certainly a lot less stress on the deck
Still if you need shore bombardment, would you really want to bring an expensive LHD in that close?

rb

 

[Tasman]

What weight does the biggest lift take? Does it go down to the vehicle deck?

I can't find information regarding the weight that the lift can carry but it is designed for the F-35 and CH-47 Chinook. Both weigh far less than a MBT like the Leopard 2 or M1A1 Abrams. The hangar only goes to the aircraft and 'light vehicle' hangar. MBTs would be stored below adjacent to the well deck and would not have access to the flight deck. In any case I expect that a 60+ ton MBT would be likely to damage the flight deck.

Cheers