BPE news and information

[gf0012-aust]

In any case I expect that a 60+ ton MBT would be likely to damage the flight deck.

Cheers

they're also unlikely to get stowed on top for a variety of reasons.

• if ship is damaged, then they need real estate to clear the aircraft in the fastest possible manner. the parking bay to top deck is the fastest aircraft evacuation route - you don't want it cluttered with assets that are minor CAPEX
• tanks would effect ship stability, ie centre of gravity - so having them high will effect roll and heel issues, it will also mean that above the notional centre of gravity that they could accelerate list.
• its easier to evacuate heavy equipment at dockside level.
• policy is generally to clear aircraft as you enter a docking situation. IIRC its a F&S issue. The higher up the aircraft, or the closer they are to the deck, the faster it will be to clear them.

 

[swerve]

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....

Still if you need shore bombardment, would you really want to bring an expensive LHD in that close?

rb

Apples & oranges. Those 120 mm smoothbores can penetrate other tanks at 2-3 km, i.e. fire an APFSDS projectile on a pretty flat trajectory so it still has a high velocity at that distance. For indirect fire, you should add a multiplier to that range. But they will still be inferior to naval guns. Lower sustained RoF, inferior (for the purpose) ammunition, FCS unsuitable, etc., etc. And I think we've now established, as I suspected, there's no way to get them to the deck.

Agreed about the unwisdom of using an LHD for shore bombardment. Big expensive (not just the ship - the contents) target.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I am only exploring possibilities. Like the possibility of landing a Spartan on a LHD.

What about leopard 1's we have? Still got 80 of those don't we? They are much lighter (what a mere 40 tons!). May even fit onto lifts. Still, top heavy ship, wreck the deck and close range. Although I've seen pictures of the melbourne I think with trucks etc on deck

If we had a light weight m113 with a mortar, that might just be able to be airlifted by a Skycrane or CH-54. That would be a interesting possibility for a amphibious assault.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am only exploring possibilities. Like the possibility of landing a Spartan on a LHD. .

well, they landed a herc on the forrestal....

 

[Aussie Digger]

Apples & oranges. Those 120 mm smoothbores can penetrate other tanks at 2-3 km, i.e. fire an APFSDS projectile on a pretty flat trajectory so it still has a high velocity at that distance. For indirect fire, you should add a multiplier to that range. But they will still be inferior to naval guns. Lower sustained RoF, inferior (for the purpose) ammunition, FCS unsuitable, etc., etc. And I think we've now established, as I suspected, there's no way to get them to the deck.

Agreed about the unwisdom of using an LHD for shore bombardment. Big expensive (not just the ship - the contents) target.

I'm not so sure it IS unwise. The LHD will be sitting off the coast ANYWAY. Why not give it an indirect fire capacity if it's affordable?

The ship is GOING to have to come with range of certain systems, certainly air attack if it wants to conduct Amphibious landings and the ANZAC class frigates are going to have to too. Maximising their ability to support the troops on-shore seems like a wise idea to me.

 

[swerve]

I am only exploring possibilities. Like the possibility of landing a Spartan on a LHD.

What about leopard 1's we have? Still got 80 of those don't we? They are much lighter (what a mere 40 tons!). May even fit onto lifts. Still, top heavy ship, wreck the deck and close range. Although I've seen pictures of the melbourne I think with trucks etc on deck

If we had a light weight m113 with a mortar, that might just be able to be airlifted by a Skycrane or CH-54. That would be a interesting possibility for a amphibious assault.

I don't see the point in any of these suggestions. They're all lash-ups will will compromise the main function, & put an expensive ship & its valuable contents at unnecessary risk.

If you want shore bombardment capability from an LHD, I suggest that a much more effective way to get it is to have the ship carry some boats armed for the purpose, e.g. the Swedish CB90H with twin 120mm automatic mortar (the AMOS system).

http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/CB90.htm

That's using the LHD as it's intended.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't see the point in any of these suggestions. They're all lash-ups will will compromise the main function, & put an expensive ship & its valuable contents at unnecessary risk.

If you want shore bombardment capability from an LHD, I suggest that a much more effective way to get it is to have the ship carry some boats armed for the purpose, e.g. the Swedish CB90H with twin 120mm automatic mortar (the AMOS system).

http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/CB90.htm

That's using the LHD as it's intended.

I agree that would be an effective option and would also solve the "force protection" issues that the British discovered the hard way recently with the Iranians...

However even a gun like the Mk3 57mm Bofors boasts a 17k indirect fire range and could EASILY be accomodated on an LHD, plus add a valuable air defence capacity...

The LHD would have to be a more effective firing platform too I'd imagine...

 

[Tasman]

I'm not so sure it IS unwise. The LHD will be sitting off the coast ANYWAY. Why not give it an indirect fire capacity if it's affordable?

The ship is GOING to have to come with range of certain systems, certainly air attack if it wants to conduct Amphibious landings and the ANZAC class frigates are going to have to too. Maximising their ability to support the troops on-shore seems like a wise idea to me.

As you said in an earlier post the Tarawas were originally equipped with 5" (127mm) guns for just this purpose (According to Janes Fighting Ships 1982/83 they were still carrying 3 each in the early 80s). Does anyone know why they were removed?

Cheers

 

[swerve]

I'm not so sure it IS unwise. The LHD will be sitting off the coast ANYWAY. Why not give it an indirect fire capacity if it's affordable?

The ship is GOING to have to come with range of certain systems, certainly air attack if it wants to conduct Amphibious landings and the ANZAC class frigates are going to have to too. Maximising their ability to support the troops on-shore seems like a wise idea to me.

It has to come within range of certain systems, but it doesn't have to loiter within range of every Tom, Dick & Harry on shore with a light howitzer, mortar, tank, ATGW (imagine them being within range of your helicopters sitting on the deck). The RN is quite clear that LPDs & the like are meant to stand offshore until a beachhead is secured. Bringing them in too close doesn't only risk the ship, but all the supplies on it, which those troops ashore will need, plus the helicopters which the LHD carries, the medical facilities, communications, etc. - all valuable to the troops onshore. And I don't see how cramming the deck with vehicles will maximise its ability to support the troops on-shore. The flat deck is for helicopters: parking tanks on it compromises its main purpose. Carrying a few armed choppers would probably be a better way to use some of that limited deck space for fire support. They can continue to support the troops as they move inland.

And see my previous post for a superior (IMO) indirect fire solution, which can get much closer inshore (even up rivers, into lagoons, etc), so providing better, closer, fire support, & doesn't put the whole ship at risk.

 

[Tasman]

It has to come within range of certain systems, but it doesn't have to loiter within range of every Tom, Dick & Harry on shore with a light howitzer, mortar, tank, ATGW (imagine them being within range of your helicopters sitting on the deck). The RN is quite clear that LPDs & the like are meant to stand offshore until a beachhead is secured. Bringing them in too close doesn't only risk the ship, but all the supplies on it, which those troops ashore will need, plus the helicopters which the LHD carries, the medical facilities, communications, etc. - all valuable to the troops onshore. And I don't see how cramming the deck with vehicles will maximise its ability to support the troops on-shore. The flat deck is for helicopters: parking tanks on it compromises its main purpose. Carrying a few armed choppers would probably be a better way to use some of that limited deck space for fire support. They can continue to support the troops as they move inland.

And see my previous post for a superior (IMO) indirect fire solution, which can get much closer inshore (even up rivers, into lagoons, etc), so providing better, closer, fire support, & doesn't put the whole ship at risk.

Certainly the use of attack helos and boats like the CB90H would take advantage of two of the best features of the LHD's design, i.e. its aviation capability and its well deck.

Cheers

 

[swerve]

I agree that would be an effective option and would also solve the "force protection" issues that the British discovered the hard way recently with the Iranians...

However even a gun like the Mk3 57mm Bofors boasts a 17k indirect fire range and could EASILY be accomodated on an LHD, plus add a valuable air defence capacity...

The LHD would have to be a more effective firing platform too I'd imagine...

Unlike some of the lash-ups previously mentioned, I think this - i.e. fitting a real naval gun - is an idea which merits serious examination, rather than being dismissed out of hand. I'm still inclined against it, though, as I feel that a small gun requires the ship to come in too close (I'd rather not put it within range of visually-spotted MRLs and the like), & a large one (e.g. 127mm) needs too much space & weight.

One thing that worries me, as I mentioned in my last post, is the ship being hit by weapons which might not endanger the ship itself, but could damage its ability to do its job. A salvo of 122mm rockets could clear the deck of helicopters, & if a lift was down, a luck shot might wreak havoc in the hangar. Aerials, the unarmoured upperworks, etc. would all be vulnerable to cheap weapons, of the sort which even the worst-equipped army, or even guerilla force, can afford plenty of. And an LHD is a big target, which (by the nature of what it's doing when supporting a landing), will be moving slowly if at all.

I don't think the game is worth the candle. It's moving your HQ, logistics base & airfield up to the front line.

 

[swerve]

Certainly the use of attack helos and boats like the CB90H would take advantage of two of the best features of the LHD's design, i.e. its aviation capability and its well deck.

Cheers

The CB90H would fit on davits, so you don't even need to use the well deck. The RN carries LCVPs on them, & they're slightly bigger. Ocean carries LCVPs & doesn't even have a well deck

 

[Aussie Digger]

It has to come within range of certain systems, but it doesn't have to loiter within range of every Tom, Dick & Harry on shore with a light howitzer, mortar, tank, ATGW (imagine them being within range of your helicopters sitting on the deck). The RN is quite clear that LPDs & the like are meant to stand offshore until a beachhead is secured. Bringing them in too close doesn't only risk the ship, but all the supplies on it, which those troops ashore will need, plus the helicopters which the LHD carries, the medical facilities, communications, etc. - all valuable to the troops onshore. And I don't see how cramming the deck with vehicles will maximise its ability to support the troops on-shore. The flat deck is for helicopters: parking tanks on it compromises its main purpose. Carrying a few armed choppers would probably be a better way to use some of that limited deck space for fire support. They can continue to support the troops as they move inland.

And see my previous post for a superior (IMO) indirect fire solution, which can get much closer inshore (even up rivers, into lagoons, etc), so providing better, closer, fire support, & doesn't put the whole ship at risk.

I didn't advocate that, but rather an inherent indirect fire capability able to standoff beyond the range of virtually ANY land based system, bar some long range missile systems.

The 127mm gun with appropriate long range munitions (Oto Melara Vulcan or similar) would provide this, and take up little room on such a large vessel...

My reasoning is the fact that RAN will only have 11 surface vessels in total with ANY capacity to provide NGS for deployed forces. At best we'll have 2 or 3 vessels providing it and the LHD's HAVE to be present in these situations anyway...

I didn't suggest the capability at the expense of anything, just pondered whether or not it would be worthwhile. Certainly it would boost the fire support capacity RAN can provide, which at present is not high...

 

[Tasman]

The CB90H would fit on davits, so you don't even need to use the well deck. The RN carries LCVPs on them, & they're slightly bigger. Ocean carries LCVPs & doesn't even have a well deck

From looking at the diagrams on the Armada Espanola website there doesn't appear to be any provision for carrying boats on davits, but I don't suppose it would be a huge technical problem to fit them. However, I think there would be room in the well deck to carry CB90Hs and LCMs, with the number of RHIBs reduced.

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/CapAnfibia.asp?SecAct=050209

Cheers

 

[swerve]

I didn't advocate that, but rather an inherent indirect fire capability able to standoff beyond the range of virtually ANY land based system, bar some long range missile systems.

The 127mm gun with appropriate long range munitions (Oto Melara Vulcan or similar) would provide this, and take up little room on such a large vessel...
....

I agree, that's worth considering. An Oto compatto could probably be fitted in somewhere without losing much else, & would add considerably to the self-defence capabilities of the ship. But for shore bombardment - weelll, only using the extended-range ammo, so you could stand off below the horizon. And only in dire need, if you think there are Smerch batteries or the like onshore.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I agree, that's worth considering. An Oto compatto could probably be fitted in somewhere without losing much else, & would add considerably to the self-defence capabilities of the ship. But for shore bombardment - weelll, only using the extended-range ammo, so you could stand off below the horizon. And only in dire need, if you think there are Smerch batteries or the like onshore.

There seems to be quite a bit of spare room in front of the crane, located in front of the bridge as seen here: (http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFutu...3g.jpg&GFtitulo=BPE&GFdescripcion=Fotomontaje) for a 5 inch gun turret, but obviously some fairly extensive engineering work would be needed to make such an idea a reality.

I'm aware that Tiger etc will boost the fire support capacity for Aus forces, however you can NEVER get to much fire support IMHO, and this could be one way to achieve it.

Standoff munitions may be required, I agree and the Oto Melara Vulcano range at first glance looks like a definite possibility. ERGM might be too, however I hope RAN study the matter in depth, before making a choice.

Certainly they've expressed a requirement for extended range munitions for the 127mm gun aboard the AWD's so some possibility exists that these might move across the "fleet"...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Certainly they've expressed a requirement for extended range munitions for the 127mm gun aboard the AWD's so some possibility exists that these might move across the "fleet"...

thats 65km of "Hallmark" - not bad going when you look at the old 5" ranges...

 

[alexsa]

What about leopard 1's we have? Still got 80 of those don't we? They are much lighter (what a mere 40 tons!). May even fit onto lifts. Still, top heavy ship, wreck the deck and close range. Although I've seen pictures of the melbourne I think with trucks etc on deck

Th stablity should handle it but why would you bother as it clutters the flight deck. Tank guns do not have the guidance system for indirect NGS. If the LHD is wihtin gun range where direct tank fire would be effective then it is too close and opposition should have been supressed before it move into that range.

Naval guns with the required FCS and now with the advent of PGM are really the only option for indirect NGS. Good thing both the ANZAC and AWD will so equiped.

The LHD flight deck is best employed combined launching and recovering air assets as it is designed to do.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Although I've seen pictures of the melbourne I think with trucks etc on deck

It was HMAS Sydney - and she was converted to a troop carrier at that stage in her life. If you have the photo you'll see a huge crane aft of the island.

She was nicknamed the "Vung Tau Ferry"

 

[Tasman]

It was HMAS Sydney - and she was converted to a troop carrier at that stage in her life. If you have the photo you'll see a huge crane aft of the island.

She was nicknamed the "Vung Tau Ferry"

Here is a link where you can view a photo of Sydney with a deck load of trucks, etc, and another which shows LCVPs on davits:

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/austr.htm

Back OT I have to agree with alexsa re the use of the flight deck.

Cheers