Australia choses winner of naval contracts

[nigelfe]

IIRC a few years back UK released some figures to show that the actual ship building (ie metal bashing) component of a warship was quite small, the 'platfom' is basically el cheapo, the systems cost a pile.

 

Interesting that the LHDs don't seem able to support a Chinook, if they can't do this then it may be that the decks aren't strong enough to launch a fully laden jet never mind recover one.

 

The quoted number of passengers and ships displacement suggest this is not a proper LHD as it would be known in the USN or RN. It's merely a fancy transport, ie load the troops sail for a few days and put them ashore (but not anywhere too hostile). Proper LHDs are designed to support an ARG, this means carrying embarked troops for months on end, which also means they carry less troops.

 

The big question is whether the Spanish are capable of designing a LHD that includes all the learnings from actually using amphibious ships. IIRC the the last time the Spanish tried a amphibious venture it was in 1588, not a very good precdent.

[sunday]

(...)

 

The big question is whether the Spanish are capable of designing a LHD that includes all the learnings from actually using amphibious ships. IIRC the the last time the Spanish tried a amphibious venture it was in 1588, not a very good precdent.

 

 

I'm not very sure, but you're British, ain't you?.

 

About the last Spanish amphibious operation, Have you heard of the Al Hoceima landings (Alhucemas in Spanish) in 1921. And that was a joint op with the French, on top of that. And thanks for the K barges, they were very useful.

 

And I think the Aussies are more than capable to spec the ship they want. This one was designed with OOW in mind.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Interesting that the LHDs don't seem able to support a Chinook, if they can't do this then it may be that the decks aren't strong enough to launch a fully laden jet never mind recover one.

 

The Spanish ship has a spot for V-22 and was designed with F-35B ops in mind as it should act as a makeshift carrier when our own little ship became unavailable. Also the ship for Spain should be able to operate with all the current helicopter types in service which includes a fair number of CH-47D. I have no reasons to believe the Australian ships would have been chosen to a lower spec.

 

Here you can see a official Spanish Navy rendering with a number of Chinooks on deck:

 

 

And this was taken from the official Spanish Navy website:

 

Permite operar con las siguientes aeronaves:

 

* V-22 Osprey (Un spot localizado a popa de la Cubierta de Vuelo)

* AV-8B Plus

* Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

* 6 x NH-90

* 6 x SH-3D

* 4 x CH-47 Chinook

* 6 x AB 212

* 1 x spot SAR

 

The quoted number of passengers and ships displacement suggest this is not a proper LHD as it would be known in the USN or RN. It's merely a fancy transport, ie load the troops sail for a few days and put them ashore (but not anywhere too hostile). Proper LHDs are designed to support an ARG, this means carrying embarked troops for months on end, which also means they carry less troops.

 

The big question is whether the Spanish are capable of designing a LHD that includes all the learnings from actually using amphibious ships. IIRC the the last time the Spanish tried a amphibious venture it was in 1588, not a very good precdent.

 

Well, Spain has the oldest Marine corps service of the world and has been operating this kind of ships continuously in the modern era. Firstly hand me downs from the USN and later home designed and built ships which seems to be well regarded in naval circles......

 

On the troop loading capabilities, you may decide how many men to embark and thus balance the endurance. Overaal, not a bad design when comparing what`s available in the international market.....

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Construction and Program

The ships' hull from keel to flight deck will be built in Navantia's modern naval shipyard in Ferrol, Spain. DID's Spanish correspondent informs us via anonymous sources that Spain's BPE (LHD) project has experienced some schedule issues. The were rumored to stem from not having enough cranes in the shipyard to build Norway's Frijtof Nansen Class AEGIS frigates, Sapin's new F-105 Alvaro de Bazan Class AEGIS frigate, and Spain's BPE all at the same time. Word is that the delay is now solved, but it will be interesting to see whether adding 5 Australian ships to the backlog will create future issues.

 

Well, this information is quite incorrect: Navantia has an excess of building capability and manpower. BPE is being built at several yards to spread workload, while the first steel for F-105 hasn`t still been cut, so I don`t see where the problem with her construction may lay.....

 

By the time the Australian program will be in full swing, the Norwegian contract will be being finished so I cannot see where the problem may be.....

[swerve]

...

Interesting that the LHDs don't seem able to support a Chinook, if they can't do this then it may be that the decks aren't strong enough to launch a fully laden jet never mind recover one.

 

Look at the armada website -

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/Buqu...p?SecAct=050207

 

Note the words "incluidos CH-47 "Chinook" con las palas desmontadas".

 

The quoted number of passengers and ships displacement suggest this is not a proper LHD as it would be known in the USN or RN. ...

 

The size of the embarked landing force is up to the buyer. Navantia & Tenix will outfit the ship accordingly. On the Tenix website, it says 243 crew + 978 embarked troops for Australia, with an optional 36 + 146 extra. Without the extras, that's less per ton than HMS Ocean.

Edited June 23, 2007 by swerve

[nigelfe]

Look at the armada website -

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/Buqu...p?SecAct=050207

 

Note the words "incluidos CH-47 "Chinook" con las palas desmontadas".

The size of the embarked landing force is up to the buyer. Navantia & Tenix will outfit the ship accordingly. On the Tenix website, it says 243 crew + 978 embarked troops for Australia, with an optional 36 + 146 extra. Without the extras, that's less per ton than HMS Ocean.

 

Meaningless comparison, Ocean doesn't have a well deck and doesn't carry '150' vehicles (of undefined average length).

 

'The size of the embarked landing force is up to the buyer.' Misses the point, the size of the embarked landing force actually depends on how long they are going to be at sea, this key factor is what is up to the customer. For short trips you can always pack the hangars with camp cots, (and hope the heads and galleys can cope - which they may if civilian evacuations are also a role).

[RETAC21]

IIRC a few years back UK released some figures to show that the actual ship building (ie metal bashing) component of a warship was quite small, the 'platfom' is basically el cheapo, the systems cost a pile.

 

Supposedly true, but for some reason RN ships were continuously limited in size to cut costs with deleterous effects.

 

The quoted number of passengers and ships displacement suggest this is not a proper LHD as it would be known in the USN or RN. It's merely a fancy transport, ie load the troops sail for a few days and put them ashore (but not anywhere too hostile). Proper LHDs are designed to support an ARG, this means carrying embarked troops for months on end, which also means they carry less troops.

 

A very odd interpretation, in fact more troops could be embarked by adding habitability modules in the hangar deck, so the figure is the number of troops embarked for months on end. I wonder what you understand as "too hostile", Suez?, where there was no opposition to the landings, San Carlos Water?, no opposition either, Iraq? more of the same, Sierra Leone?... Note that the same caveats apply to the USN, just which landing has been performed against a "too hostile" shore since Okinawa?

 

The big question is whether the Spanish are capable of designing a LHD that includes all the learnings from actually using amphibious ships. IIRC the the last time the Spanish tried a amphibious venture it was in 1958,...

 

There, I fixed that for you. The last amphibious operation undertaken by the Spanish navy apart from exercises was in 2006, when putting troops ashore in Lebanon for the UN mission.

[swerve]

Meaningless comparison, Ocean doesn't have a well deck and doesn't carry '150' vehicles (of undefined average length).

 

You really ought to do some checking. The comparison is far more meaningful than yours with what the RN would call an LHD. The RN has never operated an LHD. Ocean is the nearest comparable ship. No well deck, true, but she does carry vehicles, artillery, etc: up to 40 vehicles alongside more helicopters than Juan Carlos would normally carry when in an amphibious role, and her normal troop load, while that 150 vehicle load for Juan Carlos would appear to be when used purely as a transport, using the well deck & hangar as vehicle parking. So the well deck is irrelevant.

 

'The size of the embarked landing force is up to the buyer.' Misses the point, the size of the embarked landing force actually depends on how long they are going to be at sea, this key factor is what is up to the customer. For short trips you can always pack the hangars with camp cots, (and hope the heads and galleys can cope - which they may if civilian evacuations are also a role).

 

And how is that missing the point? You've clearly misunderstood, so I'll spell it out. Any buyer may have the interior layout modified to fit their requirements. The quoted troop-carrying capacity is what the buyer - in this case Australia - has chosen. The RAN specified the accommodation standards for its LHDs, & that determines how many troops can be carried. So if you have a criticism, address it to the RAN, because they're getting exactly what they asked for. This, BTW, means that if they'd bought the Armaris proposal, it would carry far more troops than Mistral & Tonnerre, with more men per head & shower, with the recreation space cut, more bunks per cabin, more cramped bunks, etc. RAN spec. is more spartan than French.

 

Admit it, Nigel. You know nothing about the background, not having followed it up to now, & you skimmed the description & made a mistake (perhaps a little anti-Spanish prejudice revealed in the 1588 comment, or maybe an attempt at a humourous dig which didn't quite come off?), & now having got yourself in a hole, you're busy with the spade. Time to give up.

Edited June 24, 2007 by swerve

[nigelfe]

Supposedly true, but for some reason RN ships were continuously limited in size to cut costs with deleterous effects.

 

A very odd interpretation, in fact more troops could be embarked by adding habitability modules in the hangar deck, so the figure is the number of troops embarked for months on end. I wonder what you understand as "too hostile", Suez?, where there was no opposition to the landings, San Carlos Water?, no opposition either, Iraq? more of the same, Sierra Leone?... Note that the same caveats apply to the USN, just which landing has been performed against a "too hostile" shore since Okinawa?

 

There, I fixed that for you. The last amphibious operation undertaken by the Spanish navy apart from exercises was in 2006, when putting troops ashore in Lebanon for the UN mission.

 

I believe it is true that in the 1960s when the T42s were designed Treasury demanded their length was reduced to cut the cost. I wasn't aware that anything similar had happended since. Point is??

 

So you fill the flight deck up with 'modules', I assume you heave them over the side so that you can move the helis up from the hangars to launch the landing force. Sounds like a rather dumb idea to me.

 

Suez was a milestone in history, the first ever amphibious assault by helicopters it was also quite hostile because the Egyptians weren't exactly hanging out the welcome banners. Inchon in 1950 was also a hostile shore. San Carlos was more or less secured by SF before troops went over the beaches and ashore by heli. However, there was some naval gunfire, which indicates there was some local tthreat hence the shore was hostile. Sierra Leone was fairly close to a logistic landing, obviously they flew things like guns ashore as per normal. Iraq involved considereable naval gunfire because there was a local threat. Like most experienced armed forces (I guess that excludes Spain) UK tries to avoid opposed landings, but that does not mean the the shore is not hostile. IIRC the last time UK troops coming ashore took casualties from defenders it was 1962, and something like a LCU was the largest ship in sight.

 

UN Lebanon was even more logistic than SL, in Lebanon RoRos could have been put alongside the quay, landing ships on the beach was a total wank, just the sort of stunt you'd expect from the naval equivalent of a 'parade ground' force. (In fact the UK's putting a RFA into Iraq in 2003 was probably a lot more risky due to the state of the waterway). Earlier pulling off of refugees in Lebanon was a bit more chancy due to Israeli antics around the port infrastructure so using ships capable of working to a beach was being careful.

[sunday]

This thread is gonna to require popcorn

[nigelfe]

You really ought to do some checking. The comparison is far more meaningful than yours with what the RN would call an LHD. The RN has never operated an LHD. Ocean is the nearest comparable ship. No well deck, true, but she does carry vehicles, artillery, etc: up to 40 vehicles alongside more helicopters than Juan Carlos would normally carry when in an amphibious role, and her normal troop load, while that 150 vehicle load for Juan Carlos would appear to be when used purely as a transport, using the well deck & hangar as vehicle parking. So the well deck is irrelevant.

And how is that missing the point? You've clearly misunderstood, so I'll spell it out. Any buyer may have the interior layout modified to fit their requirements. The quoted troop-carrying capacity is what the buyer - in this case Australia - has chosen. The RAN specified the accommodation standards for its LHDs, & that determines how many troops can be carried. So if you have a criticism, address it to the RAN, because they're getting exactly what they asked for. This, BTW, means that if they'd bought the Armaris proposal, it would carry far more troops than Mistral & Tonnerre, with more men per head & shower, with the recreation space cut, more bunks per cabin, more cramped bunks, etc. RAN spec. is more spartan than French.

 

Admit it, Nigel. You know nothing about the background, not having followed it up to now, & you skimmed the description & made a mistake (perhaps a little anti-Spanish prejudice revealed in the 1588 comment, or maybe an attempt at a humourous dig which didn't quite come off?), & now having got yourself in a hole, you're busy with the spade. Time to give up.

 

Ocean carries landrovers and trailers, because the helis can't lift anything bigger, that goes in the LPDs or LSAs/LSLs. Aust is talking about carrying MBTs (which probably means a fule tanker and ARV as well), not to mention trucks and probaly M113s and or Bushmaster and or LAV. As I said Ocean is a meaningless comparison.

 

There's actually a lot more to amph ships design than just accomodation. There's a heap of stuff about the ease of moving troops quickly from their accomdation/assembly areas up to the flight desk and down to the well deck, not forgetting being able to shuffle vehicles around. Of course that gets back to a main point, there's a heap of differnece between a ship capable of operating an ARG and a simple trnsport. In the latter you can tactically load having planned the landing operation so no need to shuffle vehicles. With an ARG you have to plan the landing while everything is already embarked, different ball game. As I said only the USN and RN has ARG capability, the Spanish ships are just fancy transports, load a A, chuff, chuff, offload at B. No rocket science there and only a marketing person would call them amphibious ships. Making them strike air capable proably adds another layer of complication (= inefficiency) for amph ops, starting with the ammo lifts to the flight deck, handling arragemtns to the well deck and magazine arrangements for air and land ammo. Incidentally I note they talk about Tigers - are these marinesed for shipboard operations? Or is that mere detail as well?

[nigelfe]

Well, Spain has the oldest Marine corps service of the world and has been operating this kind of ships continuously in the modern era. Firstly hand me downs from the USN and later home designed and built ships which seems to be well regarded in naval circles......

 

On the troop loading capabilities, you may decide how many men to embark and thus balance the endurance. Overaal, not a bad design when comparing what`s available in the international market.....

 

Length of existence of marines/maritime foot doesn't mean a lot for

modern amphibious practices - long boats aren't relevant. As it happens

the first marines to adopt amphibious ops as their key competency was

the USMC in the late 19/early 20 century. UK marines, for example,

didn't adopt it until after WW2 because there was no future for them

otherwise - prior to WW2 (apart from manning gun turrets) they'd been

little more than naval infantry, which is the role in most European

countries. As for amphibious ops in 1921, probably on a par with

Dardanelles 1915, and they didn't even bother to use marines for that.

 

For most of the last 60 years Spanish amphibious capability has been ex

US LSTs, a totally different concept to the modern amphibious ships

introduced by USN and RN from the 1950s onwards - even if they started

by converting light carriers they got to accumulating experience and

expertise which informed their naval architects.

 

Scratching around for vaguely relevant history smacks of desperation

and confirms the point that Spain has only very shallow foundations for

the expertise needed to build amphibious ships that function to reflect

real experience in their role. There's a heap of difference between a

ship that looks good on the outside and on paper and one that actually

works properly in its role. It reminds me that the Chinese purchased

an ancient aircraft carrier for scrap and spent years pouring over it to

work out how it really functioned - they were after the intellectual

capital.

[swerve]

Ocean carries landrovers and trailers, because the helis can't lift anything bigger, that goes in the LPDs or LSAs/LSLs. Aust is talking about carrying MBTs (which probably means a fule tanker and ARV as well), not to mention trucks and probaly M113s and or Bushmaster and or LAV. As I said Ocean is a meaningless comparison....

 

Ocean is limited to what her landing craft can carry, not what her helicopters can lift. Nothing heavy (I think a BVs10 may be their limit*), but what you say shows just how well-informed you are on this particular topic. Admit it, Nigel: you've been winging it from the start. You got it wrong, & you're trying to bluster your way out of the hole you're in.

 

I presume you're as well-informed about the internal layout of Juan Carlos & how it affects her amphibious assault usefulness as you were about Oceans offloading capabilities, since you've said nothing to show that other than an animus against Spain, you have any particular knowledge of how her ships are built.

 

Agreed that comparisons between Ocean & Juan Carlos are of limited value, but so are comparisons between Juan Carlos & any other RN ship. We just don't have anything similar. The RN has never owned nor operated an LHD. So why did you start comparing her with RN ships?

 

I note that you reference the RNs history of modern (in concept) amphibious ships. This began with Fearless & Intrepid (both laid down 1962). Their standard (not overload) troop carrying capacity in relation to tonnage was significantly more than Juan Carlos. BTW, the RN continued building old-style beaching landing ships until the 1980s.

 

*her own website has photos of BVs10 driving off her beached landing craft.

Edited June 25, 2007 by swerve

[Argus]

<snip> with

Dardanelles 1915, and they didn't even bother to use marines for that. <snip>

 

 

Actually they DID use the RM in the Dardanelles, they were the first ashore and some of the last off. Admittedly the RM's primacy in landing comes from the failed naval assault, but the RND's record on the peninsulia was a solid one - the poor sods.

 

shane

Edited June 25, 2007 by Argus

[RETAC21]

Must be dark by now in the pit you are digging...

 

I believe it is true that in the 1960s when the T42s were designed Treasury demanded their length was reduced to cut the cost. I wasn't aware that anything similar had happended since. Point is??

 

I dunno, YOU brought that point up. I merely pointed out that it made fine print but that the UK has avoided putting it in practice with much success.

 

So you fill the flight deck up with 'modules', I assume you heave them over the side so that you can move the helis up from the hangars to launch the landing force. Sounds like a rather dumb idea to me.

 

The point you obviously miss is that said modules allow the setting up of different mission oriented package in port. Modules are needed for the transport mission you so deride, not for the amphibious one.

 

Suez was a milestone in history, the first ever amphibious assault by helicopters it was also quite hostile because the Egyptians weren't exactly hanging out the welcome banners. Inchon in 1950 was also a hostile shore. San Carlos was more or less secured by SF before troops went over the beaches and ashore by heli. However, there was some naval gunfire, which indicates there was some local tthreat hence the shore was hostile. Sierra Leone was fairly close to a logistic landing, obviously they flew things like guns ashore as per normal. Iraq involved considereable naval gunfire because there was a local threat. Like most experienced armed forces (I guess that excludes Spain) UK tries to avoid opposed landings, but that does not mean the the shore is not hostile. IIRC the last time UK troops coming ashore took casualties from defenders it was 1962, and something like a LCU was the largest ship in sight.

UN Lebanon was even more logistic than SL, in Lebanon RoRos could have been put alongside the quay, landing ships on the beach was a total wank, just the sort of stunt you'd expect from the naval equivalent of a 'parade ground' force. (In fact the UK's putting a RFA into Iraq in 2003 was probably a lot more risky due to the state of the waterway). Earlier pulling off of refugees in Lebanon was a bit more chancy due to Israeli antics around the port infrastructure so using ships capable of working to a beach was being careful.

 

So no, there was no hostile fire at all, so your definition of "hostile shores" is quite meaningless in the end and in any case a LHD has little to do with opposed landings "a la Normandy".

 

Oh, you mean the same Iraq off which Castilla operated in 2003? so hostile shore means a shore in which bad people may live? guess that Lebanon then meets your mark, as just yesterday 6 of our soldiers were killed there. Of course, since the Israelis did not interfere at all with the evacuation, I guess it wasn't that hostile after all, specially as most of the evacuees were taken out in civilian ferries...

 

Oddly enough, the RN does not share your uninformed opinion, let's see, first there was:

 

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

 

which the Dutch made into:

http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/

 

which the UK bought as:

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

 

Must be very dark in the hole now.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

snipped history lesson

 

For most of the last 60 years Spanish amphibious capability has been ex

US LSTs, a totally different concept to the modern amphibious ships

introduced by USN and RN from the 1950s onwards - even if they started

by converting light carriers they got to accumulating experience and

expertise which informed their naval architects.

 

Scratching around for vaguely relevant history smacks of desperation

and confirms the point that Spain has only very shallow foundations for

the expertise needed to build amphibious ships that function to reflect

real experience in their role. There's a heap of difference between a

ship that looks good on the outside and on paper and one that actually

works properly in its role. It reminds me that the Chinese purchased

an ancient aircraft carrier for scrap and spent years pouring over it to

work out how it really functioned - they were after the intellectual

capital.

 

Ahem, taking aside your personal attack, as swerve mentioned I believe you should have a look to the current RN assests and the Spanish ones. The two GALICA LPD, designed in collaboration with the Dutch operated succesfully in the PAcific in distaster relief missions. Of course, the Dutch haven`t got a clue about aphibious ops, but again looks like this design as aroused quite a bit of interest. Did I mention this includes the RN? (Four BAY class based in the Dutch Enforcer design, itself a version of the GALICIA/ROTTERDAM design by Navantia (Them Still Bazan)/Schelde)

 

On the OCEAN vs BPE, I think your own countryman Swerve clearly pointed out the differences.

 

In any case, per your logic the two options faced by the RAN were quite unsuitable: the French MISTRAL Vs BPE. Cause the French haven`t got a clue on aphibious ops, either do they?

 

I hope the US yards start to develop affordable amphibious ships so everybody can buy the right stuff and dump the crap designed by those who really have got no idea......

Edited June 25, 2007 by Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo

[RETAC21]

Ocean carries landrovers and trailers, because the helis can't lift anything bigger, that goes in the LPDs or LSAs/LSLs. Aust is talking about carrying MBTs (which probably means a fule tanker and ARV as well), not to mention trucks and probaly M113s and or Bushmaster and or LAV. As I said Ocean is a meaningless comparison.

 

Which the RM does not have but the Spanish Marines do, since 30 years ago, guess they may have learned something about them after having used them with 3 LPDs and 5 LSTs...

 

There's actually a lot more to amph ships design than just accomodation. There's a heap of stuff about the ease of moving troops quickly from their accomdation/assembly areas up to the flight desk and down to the well deck, not forgetting being able to shuffle vehicles around. Of course that gets back to a main point, there's a heap of differnece between a ship capable of operating an ARG and a simple trnsport. In the latter you can tactically load having planned the landing operation so no need to shuffle vehicles. With an ARG you have to plan the landing while everything is already embarked, different ball game. As I said only the USN and RN has ARG capability, the Spanish ships are just fancy transports, load a A, chuff, chuff, offload at B. No rocket science there and only a marketing person would call them amphibious ships. Making them strike air capable proably adds another layer of complication (= inefficiency) for amph ops, starting with the ammo lifts to the flight deck, handling arragemtns to the well deck and magazine arrangements for air and land ammo. Incidentally I note they talk about Tigers - are these marinesed for shipboard operations? Or is that mere detail as well?

 

There certainly is, the problem is that you don't know what that may be and you have little idea about the ship's layout, intended uses, users and capabilities.

[RETAC21]

In any case, per your logic the two options faced by the RAN were quite unsuitable: the French MISTRAL Vs BPE. Cause the French haven`t got a clue on aphibious ops, either do they?

 

No, no, the French were also at Suez, you know that horribly hostile shore... and what could they know of their ops in Indochina and Algeria...

[Catalan]

I guess Spain should find consolidation in the fact that Navantia was chosen over several other defense contractors to help build the LHD. I mean, if Spain has no experience with amphibious assaults and obviously lacks the expertise to build an LHD, imagine their competitors in Britain. They must really suck!

[sunday]

BTW, Alhucemas was the first amphibious landing in which tanks were put ashore...

[Koesj]

Of course, the Dutch haven`t got a clue about aphibious ops, but again looks like this design as aroused quite a bit of interest.

 

I've got no idea what the Dutch Korps Mariniers is about these days but haven't they got decades of training for the AMF mission in Scandinavia under their belt?

[Catalan]

I've got no idea what the Dutch Korps Mariniers is about these days but haven't they got decades of training for the AMF mission in Scandinavia under their belt?

 

He was probably being sarcastic.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

He was probably being sarcastic.

 

VERY much!!

 

There are many very competent forces in Europe with specific training in aphibious ops (Dutch marines, San Marco Battalion, Spanish Marines, Royal Marines....) which gtrain togeteher and share expertise, doctrine and learnings. Looks like one of our posters only considered English speaking forces, so that`s why I was making my sarcastic comment. Sorry if I let myself to be misunderstood......

[nigelfe]

The RNMC have spent 25 yrs+ as fully paid up members of the UK/NL amphibious force (they slot a NL DepComd into 3 Cdo Bde), during the Cold War assigned to AFNORTH. This is where the RNMC learned their amphib skills and why they do not just jt exs with UK but also some individual training. Don't confuse this with the AMF - another interesting force, US and UK used standard units, the Europeans used 'elite' units, the Brits still made them look indifferent (actually the Brits once put a Para bn in for a stint, but it was too embarrassing for the other nations). Interestingly the arrse site has been running a 'kick out/bring into NATO thread. All round agreement that Lux and Iceland are wasted slots in the 26 (a bit unfair, Iceland has no armed forces) but these two aside Spain seems quite highly rated on the 'waste of rations' scale. (I pass no judgement, I merely report).

 

Interestingly the Bay class (heavily based on the Dutch design) aren't actually operated by RN, they are RFAs and operated by merchant navy. Which tells you how UK rates them. They are, of course very useful in that role.

 

The only two nations with serious amph experience and competance are UK and US, the rest are also rans way back in the field. This means that UK and US have the user knowledge to inform their requirements and give good direction to their naval architects about their experience based looking ahead requirements. Hence they get ships to meet their needs.

 

The only odd bit is that the US doesn't seem to use BARVs. Its understandable that navies around the Med don't, there probably isn't enough tide to justify it, of course it also means they may have problems if they go outside the Med.

 

Some of this reminds me of the views of the Soviet Navy about their naval architects, they knew nothing about naval operations and what the user actually wanted, the navy was told what they wanted in their ships and were given it.

[seahawk]

@ nigelfe, let me get thsi right so you are saying :

 

- no other country, apart from the US or the UK is capable of building useful amphibs

- no other country, apart from the US or the UK does have a nidea how to do serious amphib operations

- no other country, apart from the US or the UK is capable of setting a requirement fpr a useful amphib