View Full Version: Amphibious Ships Acquisition

Military Nuts > General Discussion > Amphibious Ships Acquisition

Pages: [1] 2

Title: Amphibious Ships Acquisition


Callsign 24 Seira - September 3, 2006 03:12 AM (GMT)
Seems like the whole region's navies is focusing these Amphibious vessels

...But it reads ...need a crew of 420 personel !


India Buys Used American Helicopter Carrier

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htamph/ar...aspx?comments=Y
http://navysite.de/ships/lpd14.htm

September 1, 2006: Thinking along the same lines as the Mexican navy, the Indian navy is buying a surplus carrier from the United States, for use as a disaster relief ship along India's enormous coastline. The Indians are paying $48 million for the former USS Trenton, an Austin class LPDs that entered service in 1971. This a large ship, 570 feet long and displacing 17,000 tons. The flight deck can hold half a dozen large helicopters, and support simultaneous landings and takeoffs. The well deck can hold up to 24 landing craft (like AAVs), or four lighter type boats, for transferring cargo and personnel. These ships require a crew of 420, and can carry up to 800 combat troops. The Indians are getting four smaller landing craft, to operate from their new LPD, as part of the deal, and are negotiating to buy navalized transport helicopters as well.

This LPDs is to be used as a floating helicopter bases and emergency response center. The troops berthing spaces could be used for storing relief supplies, in addition to the space already available for some 2,000 tons of supplies and equipment. There are also seven cranes on board (one 30-ton and six 4-ton cranes). The elevator from the flight deck to the hanger deck can carry eight tons. There are tanks for 224,500 gallons of aviation fuel and 119,000 gallons of vehicle fuel.

To build new, the Austin class ships would cost about a billion dollars each. They cost the U.S. Navy about two million dollars a month to operate, but the Indian navy, with a lower operating tempo and lower labor costs, could probably operate them for about half a million dollars a
month each. The Indian Navy has been operating smaller amphibious ships for decades, and has plenty of sailors experienced in this type of ship.

The only weapons carried were four automatic cannon for stopping anti-ship missiles or small boats. India may mount similar weapons, as their LPD could also be used for military operations.



Callsign 24 Seira - August 5, 2007 02:24 PM (GMT)
Navy Ship $840 Million Over Budget and Still Unfinished

Louis Hansen

NORFOLK, VA --- The highly touted nerve center of the new, $1.8 billion amphibious ship San Antonio is fraught with computer hardware crashes that could cripple operations. The ship lacks basic safety equipment, such as hand rails and reliable guns to battle close-in attacks.

In all, Navy inspectors found 30 major flaws aboard the San Antonio, according to an internal report obtained by The Virginian-Pilot.

Despite the deficiencies, the Navy has earmarked $13 billion to purchase nine amphibious ships in the San Antonio class.

The report reflects some of the same problems disclosed by The Pilot in July 2005. Two years later, the San Antonio is still incomplete and $840 million over budget.

The LPD-17 class of ships, or landing platform dock, replaces older amphibious ships used to deliver Marines and their equipment, including aircraft, into combat. The San Antonio is the first ship in the new class.

Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter criticized shipbuilder Northrop Grumman Ship Systems for substandard work and, in a letter last week, questioned the future of amphibious and destroyer ship programs under contract with the company.

“By taking delivery of incomplete ships with serious quality problems, the Fleet has suffered unacceptable delays in obtaining deployable assets,” Winter wrote to Ronald Sugar, Northrop Grumman’s chief executive officer. Two years after accepting the San Antonio, “the Navy still does not have a mission capable LPD ship,” Winter wrote.

Bill Glenn, a spokesman for the company’s shipbuilding division in Mississippi, said in a statement that the San Antonio is a “revolutionary first-in-class U.S. Navy amphibious ship.”

Responding to the myriad problems found by Navy inspectors, he said the amphibious class “continues to improve and mature as lessons learned on early ships are rolled into follow ships.”

Capt. Bill Galinis, the Navy’s program manager for the LPD-17 class, said in an interview that engineering problems are common for the first ship built in a new class. “Lead ships are difficult,” he said. Despite the equipment failures, he said the ship is “absolutely safe.”

“It would not have been accepted by the Navy if the ship was not safe,” he said.

One veteran naval analyst, Norman Polmar, said other first-in-class amphibious ships have never been so flawed when they joined the fleet. “These are basically troop transport ships,” he said in an interview. “We’ve been building these ships for 65 years.”

The Navy accepted the San Antonio from the shipbuilder in July 2005. Two other ship manufacturers worked on the vessel before the companies were consolidated into Northrop Grumman.

When it reached the fleet, Navy inspectors found “poor construction and craftsmanship standards,” according to an earlier report.

In March 2006, chief of naval operations Adm. Mike Mullen also attacked Northrop Grumman over its work quality. The average cost per ship has risen 50 percent over original estimates, according to the Navy.

Polmar said “the entire program should be stopped right now.”

The San Antonio spent most of last year at sea, although it has not left for a full, six-month deployment. It is undergoing $36 million in previously scheduled Navy-funded repairs at local shipyard BAE Systems.

Officials from the Navy Board of Inspection and Survey met the ship March 26 to 30 for its final trials in Norfolk . The ship was unable to leave its pier because of a steering failure caused by an electronic malfunction, the report said.

Inspectors detailed their observations and test results in a 45 -page report.

The worst problems were in the propulsion, auxiliary and aviation systems. Nearly two-thirds of those serious problems were discovered during an earlier inspection, reported as fixed, but still existed during the later check.

Fluid leaks, tangled wires and broken hardware were found across the ship, the report said. In fact, inspectors wrote that the “San Antonio remains an unfinished ship” – almost two years after it joined the fleet.

About 15 percent of the spaces aboard the ship need additional work in the yard, with no completion dates set.

The computer network that allows the crew to operate the ship from almost any terminal on board is common in commercial vessels but new to Navy amphibious ships.

Inspectors discovered hardware and software failures. The system sometimes crashes, hindering the crew’s ability to command and control the ship and launch Marines on air, land and sea assaults.

Replacement parts for the computer network were made by a company that has gone out of business. Often, repair parts are costly and need to be custom-made, the report said.

Serious problems also exist in the well deck, where amphibious vehicles are kept and launched.

The ship suffered from a faulty communication link between pilots and landing officers. The report recommends suspending all helicopter and tilt-rotor Osprey flight operations until the deficiency is fixed. The ship’s crew told inspectors that flight safety had been a concern for more than six months.

Inspectors also paint a picture of an uncomfortable and unsafe ship for the 360 San Antonio sailors and 700 troops that would embark on amphibious missions. A live, ungrounded cable was discovered in a berthing area; 124 of 156 auto-inflatable life preservers were missing for topside crew; equipment failures meant the ship could not make enough fresh water at sea for the crew; and the galley could struggle to cook enough food.

Galinis said many problems have been fixed since the inspection. Life preservers have been properly placed, gun mounts repaired and faulty computer parts replaced. Other issues, he said, were less serious than the report spells out.

The ship-wide network will make the ship more efficient and easier to operate, he said. The network has been overhauled and upgraded.

“We knew we were going to see some premature failures,” Galinis said. “It is in very good shape now.”

The Navy is sympathetic to the sailors aboard the San Antonio, he said. The equipment failures have “probably made a hard job more difficult,” he said.

The second ship in the amphibious class, the New Orleans, has fewer problems but was still incomplete when accepted by the Navy, Winter wrote to Northrop Grumman.

The company’s “inefficiency and mismanagement of LPD 17 put the Navy in an untenable position,” according to Winter.

He has assigned a deputy to perform quarterly reviews on the shipyard and all ships under contract with Northrop Grumman.

Polmar suggested that the Navy use more established ship designs used by other navies to upgrade its amphibious fleets.

The Navy also should hold the contractor and the project leadership accountable for the failures, he said. “The Navy leadership should have laid down the law,” he said.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/c...k&modele=jdc_34

Callsign 24 Seira - August 5, 2007 02:36 PM (GMT)
East Asians Get Into the Game

Large amphibious ships are not just coming from Europe and the United States – Asian countries are getting into the game as well. In essence, the power projection game is getting new players – and the ships involved are going to be big. It is believed that a lot of this activity is driven by the numerous disputes over uninhabited islands (and potential oil deposits nearby, not to mention fishing rights).

South Korea has perhaps the largest such vessel in the Dokdo-class landing platform dock vessel. This ship displaces about 14,000 tons, and can carry about 700 troops (about as much as a U.S. San Antonio-class LPD). It also can carry up to fifteen helicopters and 200 vehicles. The Dokdo-class ships also have a lot of command and control capabilities. In essence, this is a somewhat scaled-down San Antonio. Three ships are planned for this class – all to be names after border islands whose ownership is disputed by Japan.

Japan has not been idle. Its largest landing ship is the Osumi-class vessel. Designated an LST, it is more accurately described as a LPD. It can carry two CH-47 helicopters, two air-cushion landing craft, and the ability to carry a number of vehicles, including up to 14 heavy tanks. Officially displacing 13,000 tons, there is suspicion that this figure is low – and Japan has been known to understate warship displacements in the past, with the Mogami-class cruisers of World War II being the most blatant (Japan claimed they only displaced 8,500 tons, in reality, they displaced nearly 13,000 tons). Three of the Osumi-class vessel are already in service. Old habits die hard.

Japan is also building a new-class of helicopter-carrying destroyer. This vessel, officially 13,500 tons, will be able to carry lots of helicopters. Plans are for them to mostly carry SH-60 and MH-53 helicopters, but others could be carried as well. In essence, they could act as small aircraft carriers or as a landing platform helicopter, if transport helicopters are used. These vessels also have an offset island for a superstructure.

China is working on its own class of amphibious vessels, the Type 071 Wu Deng LSD. This ship will displace about 12,000 tons. One model the Chinese have had on display shows that the ship will carry a couple of heavy-lift helicopters (Chinese copies of the Super Frelon) and up to four air-cushioned landing craft.

In essence, Asia is getting to see more capable navies that are getting into the business of projecting power. These vessels are probably only the first to enter service – and one can be assured that additional ships will be built as the various countries in that region respond to the ships that are already being built.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htamph/ar...s/20070709.aspx


MilFan - August 6, 2007 03:11 AM (GMT)
The Dokdo and Osumi are LPD/LST in name only but more like Multiroled LPHs; just like the French Mistral Class.
user posted image

The Canberra Class MRV (Galicia/Rotterdam Enforcer Class derived ) that Navantia is building for Oz is the winner of the Aust LPD competition, proving to be one of most popular modern LPD designs with 3 operators at the moment.

user posted image


The new HMSNZ Canterbury class (UK Bay Class derived) is giving NZ an amphibious capability although the design sacrificed the covenience of a welldock for more cargo space. Cranes for launching LCMs are used instead

user posted image

warspite - August 6, 2007 02:57 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (MilFan @ Aug 6 2007, 11:11 AM)


The Canberra Class MRV (Galicia/Rotterdam Enforcer Class derived ) that Navantia is building for Oz is the winner of the Aust LPD competition, proving to be one of most popular modern LPD designs with 3 operators at the moment.

user posted image



Unless there is a separate requirement for an LPD, of which I'm not aware of,
I think you got it wrong, regarding the winner of the Australian requirement is not the Galicia/Rotterdam LPD but is actually a new LHD class, which the winner was announced together with the new AAW destroyers, based on the Spanish F100 design. ;)

MilFan - August 6, 2007 03:29 PM (GMT)
might be , but I thinking Navantia could have derived it from the LPH version of Enforcer series that Schelde developed with Navantia

Canberra Concept
user posted image

Enforcer Series
user posted image


Sayaret - August 6, 2007 05:57 PM (GMT)
Would not be long before RSN acquires this ability too...

Shotgun - August 6, 2007 06:24 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Sayaret @ Aug 7 2007, 01:57 AM)
Would not be long before RSN acquires this ability too...

Yeah, I smell something in the works too. Something bigger than our current "LST".

MilFan - August 7, 2007 02:00 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Shotgun @ Aug 7 2007, 02:24 AM)
QUOTE (Sayaret @ Aug 7 2007, 01:57 AM)
Would not be long before RSN acquires this ability too...

Yeah, I smell something in the works too. Something bigger than our current "LST".

they'll need replenishment ships, but I think the Endurance can do Vertrep and Onrep

Callsign 24 Seira - August 25, 2007 09:42 AM (GMT)
Moderators, please help change the thread title to from LPD Acquisition to Amphibious Ships Acquisition, so that the scope is wider.,,,.thanks!

Refresher on the Amphibious Ships roles and tonnage……

Amphibious ships are ocean-going vessels that are capable of conducting amphibious operations with either embarked aircraft or amphibious landing craft. There are a number of ship types that fall within the larger category of amphibious ships:

Amphibious Assault Ship, General Purpose (LHA) - A medium to large-sized ship (20,000 to 40,000 tons) that has a full flight deck and hangar for carrying and operating helicopters and supporting VSTOL aircraft, and a well-deck for carrying and operating embarked landing craft. The US Navy's Tarawa class is an example of a LHA.

Amphibious Assault Ship, Multipurpose (LHD) - A medium to large-sized ship (20,000 to 40,000 tons) that has a full flight deck and hangar for carrying and operating helicopters and supporting VSTOL aircraft, and a well-deck for carrying and operating embarked landing craft. The US Navy's Wasp class is an example of a large LHD (displacing around 40,000 tons) and France’s new Mistral class is an example of a medium-sized LHD (displacing around 21,000 tons).

Amphibious Assault Ship, Helicopter (LPH) - A medium-sized ship (approximately 20,000 tons) that has a full flight deck for carrying and operating helicopters and supporting VSTOL aircraft. The Royal Navy's Ocean class is an example of a LPH.

Amphibious Transport, Dock (LPD) - A medium-sized ship (10,000 to 25,000 tons) that has a well-deck aft for carrying and operating embarked landing craft. An LPD also has a flight deck, usually aft over the well-deck, for operating up to five helicopters. An LPD differs from a Landing Ship, Dock (LSD) in that an LPD usually carries large numbers of troops at the expense of vehicles and cargo.

Landing Ship, Dock (LSD) - A medium-sized ship (10,000 to 25,000 tons) that has a well-deck aft for carrying and operating embarked landing craft. An LPD also has a flight deck, usually aft over the well-deck, for operating up to five helicopters. An LSD differs from an LPD in that an LSD usually carries vehicles and cargo, while an LPD carries large numbers of troops.

Landing Ship, Tank (LST) - A ship designed to beach and discharge personnel, vehicles, and cargo via a bow ramp system. Usually over 2,000 tons full load displacement and capable of landing over 400 metric tons of cargo.

Landing Ship, Logistic (LSL) - Similar to an LST, but may not have a beaching capability.

Landing Ship, Medium (LSM) - A ship designed to beach and discharge personnel, vehicles, and cargo via a bow ramp. Smaller than an LST, under 2,000 tons full load displacement and capable of landing under 400 metric tons of cargo.

Amphibious Transport (LPA) - A ship designed to carry assault troops to the site of an amphibious operation. Troops are delivered to the beach by embarked landing craft launched via davits or cranes. An LPA is not equipped with a well-deck.

Amphibious Cargo Ship (LKA) - A ship designed to carry vehicles and cargo to the site of an amphibious operation. The cargo is delivered to the beach by embarked landing craft launched via davits or cranes. An LKA is not equipped with a well-deck.

http://www.amiinter.com/vessel_type.html#amphibious_ships

Callsign 24 Seira - August 25, 2007 09:47 AM (GMT)
Japan's First Helo Carrier Launched

On August 22, 2007, the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force launched the Hyuga, a new, large, flat deck vessel which had been laid down in May of 2006. The vessel is scheduled for commissioning in 2009.
The name 'Hyuga' is taken from the name of WWII Battleship Hyuuga, the 2nd ship of 'Ise' type.

Designation: CVH (DDH)
Length: 650 ft
Width: 108 ft
Beam: 108 ft
Displacement: 20,000 tons
Propulsion: 2 GE LM2500 COGAG, 2 shafts
Speed: 30+ knots
Crew: 350 (Naval)
Airwing: 18 helo (vstol)
Armament:
- 1 X 16 Cell Mk 41 VLS
- 2 X 2 20mm Phalanx CIWS
- 2 X Triple 324mm topedoe tubes
Elevators: 2
Ships in class: 1+1
16DDH Vessel
Fire Control System :
FCS-3KAI, Japanese original phased alley radar/
fire control system.
Rumour is that it’s one of the best FCS system for individual ship defence.
It also controls missiles.

To read more ….
http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/16ddh.htm
http://military.gozaru.jp/others/16ddh.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ddh-x.htm

LionFlyer - August 25, 2007 11:35 AM (GMT)

oerlikon - August 25, 2007 02:11 PM (GMT)
Noticed that they have chosen pod drives for the Aust LPH. Understand the 2nd Rotterdam class was seriously delayed due to problem with its pod drive and propulsion train. So Canberra may have some problem too if they cannot resolve the problem.

The JMSDF new LPH is a beauty.

Callsign 24 Seira - August 25, 2007 03:21 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (oerlikon @ Aug 25 2007, 10:11 PM)
Noticed that they have chosen pod drives for the Aust LPH. Understand the 2nd Rotterdam class was seriously delayed due to problem with its pod drive and propulsion train. So Canberra may have some problem too if they cannot resolve the problem.

The JMSDF new LPH is a beauty.

Yeah, Japanese are known for their engineering feat and quality; during the last INDEX show, we briefly visited a Japanese frigate, the impression we got is that it is quite a well designed ship with good layout.

Coming back to the Hyuga...I'm a little surprised that Japanese should have at least made provision for a "ski-ramp" bow so that they can operate some sort of V/STOL aircraft in future...or at least signal that ambition.

Fingolfin - August 25, 2007 03:48 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Callsign 24 Seira @ Aug 25 2007, 11:21 PM)
QUOTE (oerlikon @ Aug 25 2007, 10:11 PM)
Noticed that they have chosen pod drives for the Aust LPH. Understand the 2nd Rotterdam class was seriously delayed due to problem with its pod drive and propulsion train. So Canberra may have some problem too if they cannot resolve the problem.

The JMSDF new LPH is a beauty.

Yeah, Japanese are known for their engineering feat and quality; during the last INDEX show, we briefly visited a Japanese frigate, the impression we got is that it is quite a well designed ship with good layout.

Coming back to the Hyuga...I'm a little surprised that Japanese should have at least made provision for a "ski-ramp" bow so that they can operate some sort of V/STOL aircraft in future...or at least signal that ambition.

Her displacement suggests that they can't operate much more than a squadron unfortunately. She's about as light as the Invincible Class carriers.

YourFather - August 26, 2007 03:15 AM (GMT)

Callsign 24 Seira - September 2, 2007 07:54 PM (GMT)
Could not find a suitable thread ...so post here....

SAF Landing Ship Tank Deployment to the Gulf
01 Sep 2007

Pix
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/etc/medialib/imin...ge.gif?direct=1

Singapore made its latest contribution to the multinational effort in
support of the reconstruction of Iraq, with the deployment of a Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Landing Ship Tank (LST) RSS Persistence to the Gulf. Chief of Navy Rear-Admiral Chew Men Leong officiated at a send-off ceremony for the LST and its crew of 180 personnel this morning at Changi Naval Base.

During its three-month long deployment, RSS Persistence will undertake tasks such as providing logistics support for coalition vessels and helicopters, protecting the waters around key oil terminals, and conducting patrols and boarding operations. Lieutenant-Colonel Li Lit Siew, Commanding Officer 191 Squadron, will lead the Republic of Singapore Navy contingent.

Since 2003, the SAF has made three deployments of LSTs, four
deployments of KC-135 tanker aircraft, and one deployment of a C-130 transport aircraft to the Gulf in support of the reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_...1sep07_nr2.html

oerlikon - September 3, 2007 03:01 PM (GMT)
Notice its a crew of 180 going. Not the usual 60+ mentioned. Thats an acknowledgment that lean crew dont work in a real operation.

gary1910 - September 3, 2007 06:59 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (oerlikon @ Sep 3 2007, 11:01 PM)
Notice its a crew of 180 going. Not the usual 60+ mentioned. Thats an acknowledgment that lean crew dont work in a real operation.

Past operation in the Gulf did have NDU personnel and those that operate Protector USV as well and maybe some other that was not mentioned perhaps.


|-|05| - September 4, 2007 12:27 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (oerlikon @ Sep 3 2007, 11:01 PM)
Notice its a crew of 180 going. Not the usual 60+ mentioned. Thats an acknowledgment that lean crew dont work in a real operation.

we've still got NSmen to call upon for the navy in times of war.

But i believe it's also because of the NDU who have teams for security and teams for boarding ships.plus people to operate the USV.Plus knowing the RSN maybe abit more just incase

spiderweb6969 - September 4, 2007 01:26 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (oerlikon @ Sep 3 2007, 11:01 PM)
Notice its a crew of 180 going. Not the usual 60+ mentioned. Thats an acknowledgment that lean crew dont work in a real operation.

the ship is on 24 hr operations at sea....so 60 crew for every 8 hours rotation....

oerlikon - September 4, 2007 02:32 PM (GMT)
We cant be carrying 120 NDU security people and people to operate protector. Thats too ridiculous. So I reckon at most 60 are from NDU and USV crew. The other 60 extra are additional crew to argment the current crew to allow 24hrs operation for 3 mths. So the actual crew size will be about 120.


Shotgun - September 4, 2007 03:16 PM (GMT)
This time round is sort of special as a shooting war with Iran might actually breakout. They have to carry a full complement just in case.

tankee1981 - September 7, 2007 03:02 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Shotgun @ Sep 4 2007, 11:16 PM)
This time round is sort of special as a shooting war with Iran might actually breakout.  They have to carry a full complement just in case.

Ah yes, Iran may give some problems as their relations with US and the International community aren't getting any better. Remember the kidnap of British naval personnel and the attempted kidnap of Australian sailors which end up in failure. :D

BBC news report

Shotgun - September 7, 2007 06:04 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (tankee1981 @ Sep 7 2007, 11:02 AM)
QUOTE (Shotgun @ Sep 4 2007, 11:16 PM)
This time round is sort of special as a shooting war with Iran might actually breakout.  They have to carry a full complement just in case.

Ah yes, Iran may give some problems as their relations with US and the International community aren't getting any better. Remember the kidnap of British naval personnel and the attempted kidnap of Australian sailors which end up in failure. :D

BBC news report

I'd like to see them try to surround one of our USVs.... hur.

LazerLordz - September 7, 2007 06:27 PM (GMT)
From one of the past issues of Pioneer, I believe that the USVs are used to give verbal warnings and will not hesitate to fire if these warnings are not met.

Our boys operate in a different ROE over there. Being the kiasu ones we are, we'd probably send out USVs as first line of recon, before boarding is done.

IIRC, our LST has been used as a base for operations command in the Gulf, like the RN frigate was when her sailors were kidnapped.

LazerLordz - September 7, 2007 06:28 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (tankee1981 @ Sep 7 2007, 11:02 AM)
QUOTE (Shotgun @ Sep 4 2007, 11:16 PM)
This time round is sort of special as a shooting war with Iran might actually breakout.  They have to carry a full complement just in case.

Ah yes, Iran may give some problems as their relations with US and the International community aren't getting any better. Remember the kidnap of British naval personnel and the attempted kidnap of Australian sailors which end up in failure. :D

BBC news report

Is this why we visited Iran recently?

oerlikon - September 8, 2007 10:33 AM (GMT)
The USV only has a 7.62mm MG. If a RPG is fired on it, it will not stand a chance.

LazerLordz - September 8, 2007 11:21 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (oerlikon @ Sep 8 2007, 06:33 PM)
The USV only has a 7.62mm MG. If a RPG is fired on it, it will not stand a chance.

There was another version with the Typhoon system, or am I wrong?

We have both the Scout and the Spartan platforms, IIRC.

oerlikon - September 8, 2007 04:20 PM (GMT)
Protector has only a mini typhoon which is a 7.62 MG. The spartan is still under development. I believe its the Protector thats deployed.

Against determined enemy, we need a bigger gun.

LazerLordz - September 8, 2007 04:25 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (oerlikon @ Sep 9 2007, 12:20 AM)
Protector has only a mini typhoon which is a 7.62 MG. The spartan is still under development. I believe its the Protector thats deployed.

Against determined enemy, we need a bigger gun.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

I agree too.

Callsign 24 Seira - September 9, 2007 12:41 AM (GMT)
Finally got time to checkout MNs......

Gosh ! our LSTs is still underarmed in terms of CIWS. Given the opportunity to upgade, what should be install?

tankee1981 - September 9, 2007 04:41 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (LazerLordz @ Sep 8 2007, 02:28 AM)
QUOTE (tankee1981 @ Sep 7 2007, 11:02 AM)
QUOTE (Shotgun @ Sep 4 2007, 11:16 PM)
This time round is sort of special as a shooting war with Iran might actually breakout.  They have to carry a full complement just in case.

Ah yes, Iran may give some problems as their relations with US and the International community aren't getting any better. Remember the kidnap of British naval personnel and the attempted kidnap of Australian sailors which end up in failure. :D

BBC news report

Is this why we visited Iran recently?

Oh yes, never thought about that! Maybe this is to tell the Iranians not to disturb us while we contribute to UN missions by dangling the prospect of future cooperation with them. They will bite the carrot as they are kind of under immense economic and financial 'blockade' by the USA. :D

homing - September 9, 2007 04:34 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (LazerLordz @ Sep 8 2007, 02:28 AM)
Is this why we visited Iran recently?

More than meets the eye, remember where they got spares for their F-14s and F-4s? With "war drumming" and all the "news", the visit is not a simple "win- win situation"........... :lol:

Shotgun - September 9, 2007 04:58 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Callsign 24 Seira @ Sep 9 2007, 08:41 AM)
Finally got time to checkout MNs......

Gosh ! our LSTs is still underarmed in terms of CIWS. Given the opportunity to upgade, what should be install?

MetalStorm Deluxe!

Big-ass cannisters filled with enough lead to rip any missile that flies through it to shreds. The response time is pretty good too, + don't need to much accuracy, just good ranging.

Callsign 24 Seira - September 11, 2007 07:45 PM (GMT)
http://i12.tinypic.com/6hhvokx.jpg

http://i1.tinypic.com/6693tbb.jpg

http://i2.tinypic.com/6ftxld0.jpg

http://i19.tinypic.com/4qh4vbs.jpg

http://web.stratfor.com/images/asia/photo/...071_big_160.jpg


China: Small Steps toward a Modern Amphibious Fleet
April 06, 2007 19 52 GMT

Summary
The Chinese have taken the first step toward a more modern and robust amphibious capability -- though they still have a long way to go.

Analysis
The People's Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN) has begun to outgrow its amphibious warfare fleet. While China has taken the first step toward developing a more modern and robust amphibious ship, its neighbors have taken longer leaps down the same path.

The lead ship of the PLAN's Type 071 Landing Platform Dock (LPD) was photographed in the water at Shanghai's Jiangnan Shipyard in March. Though it is smaller than the U.S. Navy's new San Antonio-class LPD, estimates place the Type 071 at around 17,000 tons displacement -- more than triple the size of the next largest PLAN amphibious warships. In many respects, the two ship designs are quite similar.

Type 071 is built around its well deck, a floodable bay in the stern of the ship that can embark large air-cushioned landing craft, conventional landing craft and amphibious vehicles. Although the design might have been changed somewhat in the final stage, preliminary models of the class suggest that the Type 071 was designed to embark four indigenously designed air-cushioned landing craft (perhaps a scaled-down version of the large Russian Zubr amphibious assault hovercraft), by far the largest capacity of a single ship in any regional naval force.

Though it has not always been the case, the latest generation of LPDs -- including both the Type 071 and San Antonios -- not only can operate, but can actually shelter, a small helicopter contingent. Although it is not clear precisely what the helicopter capacity of the new PLAN warship is, it is certainly a significant expansion of the PLAN's capacity to maintain and repair helicopters to be used in amphibious warfare at sea.

A helicopter hanger capacity and a large well deck are most useful for operations far from friendly shores -- that is, farther than the 100 nautical-mile-wide Taiwan Strait. Projecting amphibious assets several thousand nautical miles poses a much different strategic problem than projecting them across the Taiwan Strait. The Type 071 design favors the longer-range objective and thus marks a break from years of PLAN's amphibious capability focus on Taiwan. (Of course, the intention could have been -- or could still be -- to use this new LPD simply to flank Taiwan and come at the island from the Pacific side.)

Another PLAN focus -- fixed-wing carrier-based aviation -- seems to have eclipsed more ambitious progress in big-deck amphibious warships. Consequently, China remains at a disadvantage in power-projection across the region and, as far as the Type 071 is concerned, only an armada of this class would fundamentally alter that. The LPD is an essential component of a modern amphibious warfare fleet. But the recent history of amphibious operations -- from the Falkland Islands to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan -- demonstrates the absolute importance of a large helicopter capacity.

There appears to be little to suggest that more ships of the Type 071 class are in the works. It is possible, however, that a second keel was laid as soon as the lead ship was launched or that parallel construction of a second ship was begun at another shipyard. China has a massive shipbuilding capacity; should the PLAN choose to build another two -- or 10 -- it will be only a matter of time. The armada is not outside the realm of possibility.

However, as long as the lead Type 071 ship stands alone, it will mark only a modest (if important) expansion of Chinese sealift capacity, not a great leap forward. As such, even a small run of three ships still would leave the PLAN lagging behind its neighboring naval services in terms of its ability to project power.

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/r...e.php?id=286905
Specifications
• Displacement: 20,000 tons (estimated from other ships of similar size)
• Length: 210 m (estimated from pictures)
• Beam: 26.5 m (estimated from pictures)
• Draft: 7 m (estimated)
• Speed: 20 kt (estimated)
• Range: 6,000 nm at 18 kts (estimated)
• Propulsion: CODAD, 2-shaft, 4 x SEMT Pielstick 16 PC2.6 V400 Diesel engines (35,200 kW) [3]
• Armaments:
o 1 x AK-176, 76 mm gun
o 4 x AK-630, 30 mm CIWS
o Possible installation of 2-4 heavy machine-guns
o Possible installation of HQ-7 SAM system (currently not fitted)
o Possible installation of 2 x 18-tube MLRS (decoy/chaff launcher)
• Sensors:
o Surface search radar: 1 x Type 360 Radar Seagull S, E/F-band
o Air search radar: 1 x Type 364 Radar, Seagull C, G-band, aft
o Fire control radar: 1 x Type 344 Radar, I band
o Navigational radar: 1
• Complement: 120
• Military lift: 2 air-cushion vehicles plus 400-800 troops and vehicles
• Helicopters: 2 or more Z-8 Super Frelon


Related article :
http://www.chinascope.org/briefing/defense...tary-power/1240


Callsign 24 Seira - December 15, 2007 01:32 PM (GMT)
Canberra class large amphibious ships

user posted image user posted image
The Australian government has approved a AU$3 billion project to build two Canberra class large amphibious ships for the Royal Australian Navy. These ships will have air support, amphibious assault, transport and command centre roles, and are planned to replace in turn HMAS Tobruk and one of the RAN's two current Kanimbla class vessels.

Program overview
The Australian government's requirements include the capacity to transport up to 1,000 troops and 150 vehicles, including the new M1A1 Abrams tank in service with the Australian Army, have six helicopter spots on a full length flight deck for a mix of both transport and battlefield support helicopters, and a fully equipped hospital. On January 20, 2006, it was announced that the two ships would be named Canberra and Adelaide.
In August 2005, the government chose two designs to participate in a run off.The first was a modified version of the French Mistral class which was proposed by the French company Aramis. The second design was based on Spanish Buque de Proyección Estratégica design and was proposed by the Spanish company Navantia.
The Navantia design was larger, at approximately 27,000 tonnes gross displacement, but the first unit for the Spanish Navy had only just started construction, making it an unknown quantity in terms of capability. By contrast, the French design was smaller, at approximately 24,000 tonnes, but had entered service with the French Navy.
In June 2007, the Australian Minister for Defence announced that Tenix Defence was the preferred tenderer for the construction of the two large amphibious landing ships at a cost of $3 billion. The ships are due to enter service from 2013. Tenix had proposed to build the Navantia design in partnership with the Spanish company.
The Australian Government stated that around 25 percent of the value of the project would involve work in Australia. This would be largely limited to construction of the superstructures of the two ships in Tenix's shipyard in Williamstown, Victoria, with some systems work done in South Australia. Consolidation of the two ships and systems integration would occur in Williamstown.

Info :
Builders: Navantia Ferrol, Spain and Tenix Defence, Victoria (Australia)

Preceded by: HMAS Tobruk, Kanimbla class

Followed by: N/A
Commissioned: 2013
Displacement: 27,851 tonnes (30,700 tons) maximum
Capacity: 978 embarked troops, 2000 square meters (21,528 sq.ft) of vehicle/additional aircraft space
Length: 230.8 m (760 ft)
Beam: 32.0 m (105 ft)
Draft: 7.18 m (23.5 ft)
Speed: stated as 20.5 kts (maximum)
Range: 6,100 nm at 15 kts
Complement: 243 core + 36 additional
Armament: 4 25mm Rafael Stabilized Deck Guns (Naval Bushmaster M242)

Sensors: Saab 9LV combat system
Boats and other craft: 4 LCM

Aircraft carried: Up to 16 helicopters or STOVL Aircraft.
Aviation facilities: flight deck with 13 degree ski-jump, 6 in-line deck landing spots and permanent deck parking space for 6 extra aircraft.

Aviation capability
The Canberra class ships will provide the Australian Defence Force with greatly increased naval aviation capabilities, with each ship carrying up to 16 Army and Navy helicopters. These aircraft will include Army and Navy MRH-90 transport helicopters, Army Tiger helicopter gunships and Navy S-70B Seahawk anti-submarine helicopters. The Canberra class will primarily operate as amphibious assault ships.
While the tender released for the Canberra class did not specify that the ships needed to be capable of operating STOVL fixed wing aircraft, it has been proposed that such a capacity be included in the final design. In 2004 a review by the Australian Parliament's Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended that the Australian government should consider purchasing a small number of F-35B Lightning II‎ for the Fleet Air Arm to operate from the Canberra class ships.This recommendation appears to have been rejected by the Royal Australian Navy and there has been "no consideration" given to using the ships to operate fixed-wing aircraft.
The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's recommendation was made on the grounds that STOVL aircraft would provide deployed Australian forces with air defence and close air support. Despite the slight reduction in range and payload of STOVL F-35B compared to CTOL F-35A (and C) aircraft, they are inherently flexible in terms of operation, and can provide organic close air support right at the edge of the Field of Battle Area, which land based aircraft cannot do. An order of F-35Bs for the Canberra-class could form part of the planned order of up to 100 F-35s for the Royal Australian Air Force. The Navantia design has a ski-jump included in its initial design, and is designed to operate and sustain a mixed jet and helicopter carrier air group of up to 36 aircraft for the Spanish Navy.
Armament
The Canberra class ships will be each armed with four RAFAEL Typhoon 25mm remote weapons systems placed at the ships' corners. These weapons will be used to defend against asymmetric threats such as small boats. It is unusual for large warships such as the Canberra class to not be armed with anti-aircraft missiles and close-in weapon systems for protection against missiles. The RAN believes that the new Hobart class destroyers and Royal Australian Air Force aircraft will be sufficient to protect the Canberras from attack, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_clas...amphibious_ship
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images...Navantia_lg.jpg

Joe Black - December 16, 2007 04:14 PM (GMT)
Interesting last paragraph
"The Canberra class ships will be each armed with four RAFAEL Typhoon 25mm remote weapons systems placed at the ships' corners. These weapons will be used to defend against asymmetric threats such as small boats. It is unusual for large warships such as the Canberra class to not be armed with anti-aircraft missiles and close-in weapon systems for protection against missiles. The RAN believes that the new Hobart class destroyers and Royal Australian Air Force aircraft will be sufficient to protect the Canberras from attack, however."

What they are not saying is that Australia has its own way of mounting ESSM quickly if needed. CEA has a radar called CEAMount for guiding ESSM. The quad pack ESSM does not have to be through deck and does can be quickly installed on the ships if and when needed.

user posted image

YourFather - December 19, 2007 05:06 PM (GMT)
Video of full commissioning ceremony of LPD-19 Mesa Verde

http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/12535946.html#

Callsign 24 Seira - December 20, 2007 02:23 AM (GMT)
More here abt the San Antonuio class LPDs...damned ex..

http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89...sport-dock.html

San Antonio class LPD Tactical capability
https://www.pms317.navy.mil/tech/tourPops/tactical.htm

Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor (AEM/S) System
https://www.pms317.navy.mil/tech/tourPops/mast.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/dd-968-aems.gif
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/Lpd-17mast.jpg

Improved Control and Command capability
https://www.pms317.navy.mil/tech/tourPops/command.htm

The one of the San Antonio class LPD = (LPD17 USS San Antonio)
http://www.san-antonio.navy.mil/

Second one = LPD 18 USS New Orleans
http://www.surfpac.navy.mil/new-orleans/

Third one = LPD 19 : USS Mesa Verde
https://www.pms317.navy.mil/ships/lpd19.asp

Next one (4TH)……..USS GREEN BAY (LPD 20)
http://www.greenbay.surfor.navy.mil/default.aspx

Fifth ship will be the LPD 21 USS New York
https://www.pms317.navy.mil/ships/lpd21.asp

6th ship be the LPD 22 USS San Diego
https://www.pms317.navy.mil/ships/lpd22.asp

7th ship will the LPD 23 USS Anchorage
https://www.pms317.navy.mil/ships/lpd23.asp

8th ship will be the LPD 24 USS Arlington
https://www.pms317.navy.mil/ships/lpd24.asp




Hosted for free by InvisionFree