Australia choses winner of naval contracts

[Josh]

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.

 

Considering the vehicles the US would employ in amphib roles I think it makes sense. I don't think there's much you're going to do with a big ol' AAV or whatever the new thingie is when its beached. Besides which on all but seriously opposed landings, delivery would be by LCAC, LCU, and helicopter. IMO any beach so tight and cluttered that individual AAVs were clogging it shouldn't have been a beach head in the first place.

[Catalan]

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.

 

Nigelfe,

 

I think the point is that Navantia won the competition. That's evidence enough that it knows enough about LHDs to sell it to Australia. Frankly, I don't know what kind of bias you have against Spain but the argument you're proposing is ridiculous. Spain has, indeed, have had experience with amphibious landings - they may not have been on the scale of Gallipolli or the Normandy landings, but the point remains that they have undertaken amphibious operations [including the first amphibious operation with tanks]. But, I think that it's irrelevant - what is relevant is that the BPE is a highly successful design and there has been nothing that I've read in various defense magazines that have said that it's worthless because Spain does not have ample amphibious experience. They obviously do, or it's not required and Navantia has done a great job without it.

 

- Jon

[RETAC21]

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.

 

Of course, how could the Dutch have done anything by themselves...

 

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).

 

Much misinformed criticism there too. Of course, for ARRSE there's only the British Army, with the US a runner up, no surprises there.

 

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.

 

It tells them they rate them as amphibious units, as the "Galahads" replacements that they are, or should we put down the Falklands as merely an administrative transport operation?

 

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.

 

Again you are confusing your ignorance with lack of evidence. That you are lazy enough to look it does not mean anything else than that you are too lazy to look it up.

 

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.

 

I guess it went under your radar becuase its called "M88" rather than BARV, how unkind of them. Curious, the Spanish Marines use the same vehicle...

 

Guess that's because Spain that has its Marine forces based in the Atlantic, although actually that's irrelevant, but you cannot be expected to know that, can you?

 

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.

 

But the thing here is that you are flinging your uninformed opinion here and there like it means something, while being unable to provide anything as backup more solid than a tepid reference to ARRSE.

[MikeAI]

Of course, how could the Dutch have done anything by themselves...

Much misinformed criticism there too. Of course, for ARRSE there's only the British Army, with the US a runner up, no surprises there.

It tells them they rate them as amphibious units, as the "Galahads" replacements that they are, or should we put down the Falklands as merely an administrative transport operation?

Again you are confusing your ignorance with lack of evidence. That you are lazy enough to look it does not mean anything else than that you are too lazy to look it up.

I guess it went under your radar becuase its called "M88" rather than BARV, how unkind of them. Curious, the Spanish Marines use the same vehicle...

 

Guess that's because Spain that has its Marine forces based in the Atlantic, although actually that's irrelevant, but you cannot be expected to know that, can you?

But the thing here is that you are flinging your uninformed opinion here and there like it means something, while being unable to provide anything as backup more solid than a tepid reference to ARRSE.

[MikeAI]

M88 a BARV?

 

Recenty modified/upgraded? Please post link!

[RETAC21]

Nigelfe,

 

I think the point is that Navantia won the competition. That's evidence enough that it knows enough about LHDs to sell it to Australia. Frankly, I don't know what kind of bias you have against Spain but the argument you're proposing is ridiculous. Spain has, indeed, have had experience with amphibious landings - they may not have been on the scale of Gallipolli or the Normandy landings, but the point remains that they have undertaken amphibious operations [including the first amphibious operation with tanks]. But, I think that it's irrelevant - what is relevant is that the BPE is a highly successful design and there has been nothing that I've read in various defense magazines that have said that it's worthless because Spain does not have ample amphibious experience. They obviously do, or it's not required and Navantia has done a great job without it.

 

- Jon

 

There's more to that I fear. Nigel appears to believe that only the British are able to pass on their experience to other countries, so no one is going to learn from the US and the experience operating ex-US ships is worthless. There are plenty of LHD look alike around including Japan, S.Korea, France, etc. but I guess in every case those are ships forced upon the respective navies. Of course, there are other countries with amphibious experience, we can ask the Turks if they learned something from the Cyprus invasion, but that would be unfair as it's not based upon British experience...

[Guest aevans]

'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).

 

Having actually been on a couple of ARG deployments, I can tell you that the nominal troop capacity has almost nothing to do with a vessel's effectiveness as an ARG component. US Austin class LPDs have a nominal troop capacity of 900. Guess what? For an ARG deployment you don't say, "Give me something of the same tonnage but laid out for 650 troops." You just don't embark more than those 650 troops. You're trying to make rocket science out of something where counting on your fingers and toes works.

[Guest aevans]

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.

 

Give me a break. ARGs are often combat loaded using the best guess of the planning staff as to what order things will need to come off ships most of the time, but even these palns don't cover all contingencies, and it's not uncommon to have to enter a friednly port and shuffle the loads around for the plan you actually use. And you can combat load any ship. All combat loading requires is that the cargo go in in reverse order it is expected come out. Any ship can be used for this kind of thing, you just have to remember that you waste about 25% of your mass/cube in doing things this way. Even amphibious optimized shipping has this problem.

 

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.

 

Everybody who operates amphibious shipping has to deal with this. The design principles are pretty well understood, and if the yard doesn't have that doamin knowledge, the customer generally does.

[nigelfe]

I realise that some posters to the list have a bit of difficulty recognising reality. The whole point about 'landing' ships is that it depends on what sort of landing. At one end its quayside with welcoming bands, at the other there's real opposition and over the beaches (although this is increasingly unlikely as ships stand further off shore and land the embarked force ever further inland, up to 200 km or so if I've understood current US and UK doctrinal hints correctly. In between there's the issue of no real opposition, but no port infrastructure either so the landing force goes over the beach. I suspect this is the Aust situation and the Spanish design ships are probably adequate, but don't kid yourself its a serious landing operation.

 

My undertanding of BARVs is that their job is not just vehicle recovery but also pushing off empty landing craft, hence my comments about tidal range. Since no one seems to have realised this I'm led to the conclusion that the various self appointed experts on this list aren't! (Since Aust now has redundant Leopards perhaps they need to talk to Haggelunds)

 

Another interesting point about the Spanish design is its off loading rate. Its probably OK if the ships aren't too far offshore and are dropping the embarked force fairly close to the beach, but the number of men carried, and the limited number of heli spots suggests an issue, certainly wouldn't want to try going too far inland in the assault, and Aust has ordered MH 90 not Osprey! I also note nothing has been said about the number of LCU type craft carried in the well deck (or onboard - the artwork suggest none, but I wouldn't take that as authoritative).

 

Tactical loading is a real issue, and is the big problem with STUFT. Unfortunately you can't rely on being able to drop into a convenient port to shuffle loads, you might be limited to what heli can do and your embarked LC. The reality is, if you can plan the landing op before leaving port then you can pack the vehicles in in the right offload order, if you can't you can make a guess but since you can't rely on a port to shuffle you have to give yourself space on board, notable the veh routes to allow it (even if its just to get to the flight deck to give shuffling space).

 

Despite the protestations Spain has bugger all military experience since the Civil War (and the Blue Division is irrelevant, by the time the Sovs let them go in 1956 or so), and there's nothing I've come across to suggest that their modern commanders and staff are notably able and competant or that their doctrine is well thought out. This leads me to the logical conclusion that their naval architects could be heading in all sorts of tangental directions.

 

Incidentally, I note from the MoDUK website a few days ago the RNLN have just finished work up test exercises for their new landing ship, conducted by RN off and on the S of England. I just mention that for the benefit of the underinformed.

[swerve]

Re: "the number of men carried, and the limited number of heli spots suggests an issue".

 

Let us compare the BPEs number of landing spots with those of HMS Albion, & then compare the number of troops which can be carried. BTW, the RN says Albion carries up to 710, or 305 normal load. We see that at the normal load, the number of spots, in proportion to the number of troops, is virtually identical for the two ships. 6 spots vs 2, 902 troops vs 305. If both are carrying their official maximum, then BPE has a much better ratio than Albion.

 

Contrary to what you say ("nothing has been said about the number of LCU type craft carried in the well deck"), the drawings & models of Juan Carlos on the Armada website show 4 LCM-1E (capable of carrying a Leopard 2E) plus up to 6 small boats in the well, & capacity is stated as being exactly that. See -

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/Buqu...p?SecAct=050209

 

Nigel, why should anyone believe your opinions on the quality or lack of it of Spanish naval architects (who, BTW, have been working closely with the Dutch for the last 16 years on amphibious ships), & their inability to learn anything from anyone? You've been consistently wrong on matters of checkable fact.

 

Oh yes - you keep banging on about the BPE design being overcrowded, & only the USN & RN having got it right. But it carries fewer troops, in relation to its size, than a US LHD.

Edited June 28, 2007 by swerve

[Guest aevans]

I realise that some posters to the list have a bit of difficulty recognising reality. The whole point about 'landing' ships is that it depends on what sort of landing. At one end its quayside with welcoming bands, at the other there's real opposition and over the beaches (although this is increasingly unlikely as ships stand further off shore and land the embarked force ever further inland, up to 200 km or so if I've understood current US and UK doctrinal hints correctly. In between there's the issue of no real opposition, but no port infrastructure either so the landing force goes over the beach. I suspect this is the Aust situation and the Spanish design ships are probably adequate, but don't kid yourself its a serious landing operation.

 

I'm way more in touch with that reality than you are, nige. I haven't just read about it. Even the USN/USMC trains to avoid serious landing operations these days, if by "serious" you mean strongly opposed at the waterline and immediate hinterlands. I certainly never trained for an opposed landing, even though I spent most of my twenties on active duty in USMC rifle battalions.

 

My undertanding of BARVs is that their job is not just vehicle recovery but also pushing off empty landing craft, hence my comments about tidal range. Since no one seems to have realised this I'm led to the conclusion that the various self appointed experts on this list aren't! (Since Aust now has redundant Leopards perhaps they need to talk to Haggelunds)

I spent ten years in the US Marine Corps, and I had to google "BARV". Turns out to be a UK specific designation, not a generic descriptor. Based on what I found in Wikipedia, however, I'm guessing that that requirement is most often met in US service by the D9 bulldozers that always seem to be preloaded on LCUs for deployments and phib training ops. What, the Australians can't do business with Caterpillar?

 

Another interesting point about the Spanish design is its off loading rate. Its probably OK if the ships aren't too far offshore and are dropping the embarked force fairly close to the beach, but the number of men carried, and the limited number of heli spots suggests an issue, certainly wouldn't want to try going too far inland in the assault, and Aust has ordered MH 90 not Osprey! I also note nothing has been said about the number of LCU type craft carried in the well deck (or onboard - the artwork suggest none, but I wouldn't take that as authoritative).

 

I didn't realize that there was anything magickal about Osprey. Helicopeters have certainly proven adequate over the past 50 years, and the jury is still out on the V-22. As for helo spots, well...six spots isn't the eight or nine of an LHA/D, but it's not the end of the world. As for offload rate and mission range, the further inland you go, the more time for spotting and launching a second (or even third) wave. Surely anyone who can do simple arithmetic could see that?

 

Tactical loading is a real issue, and is the big problem with STUFT. Unfortunately you can't rely on being able to drop into a convenient port to shuffle loads, you might be limited to what heli can do and your embarked LC. The reality is, if you can plan the landing op before leaving port then you can pack the vehicles in in the right offload order, if you can't you can make a guess but since you can't rely on a port to shuffle you have to give yourself space on board, notable the veh routes to allow it (even if its just to get to the flight deck to give shuffling space).

Uhhh...has it occurred to you that if you can plan your offload order in port for one type of ship prior to departure, you can do so for any type of ship, and that if you have to leave space for at sea contingency shuffling of vehicles and cargo, you would have to leave that space on any type of ship? Phibs aren't magickally designed to avoid this, they just have the ability to carry landing craft and better facilities for transfering vehcles and cargo to landing craft. They still have all of the internal cargo handling restrictions of any RORO.

 

Despite the protestations Spain has bugger all military experience since the Civil War (and the Blue Division is irrelevant, by the time the Sovs let them go in 1956 or so), and there's nothing I've come across to suggest that their modern commanders and staff are notably able and competant or that their doctrine is well thought out. This leads me to the logical conclusion that their naval architects could be heading in all sorts of tangental directions.

 

That's not a logical conclusion at all. As I maentioned earlier, the customer gets a say, so he can tell the shipyard to build it a certain way for a given reason. Also, nothing about amphibious shipping design is exactly a secret. It's all actually pretty pedestrian, and since Spain is both a US and UK ally, their naval architects working on another ally's (Australia's) ship can count on plenty of help, for no more than some consulting fees (and maybe even free of charge).

 

Incidentally, I note from the MoDUK website a few days ago the RNLN have just finished work up test exercises for their new landing ship, conducted by RN off and on the S of England. I just mention that for the benefit of the underinformed.

 

And this is relevant how? You'd expect the end user to be able to design an acceptance test. Are we now proceeding form the Spanish beeing incompetent boobs to the Australians being clueless as well?

[RETAC21]

I realise that some posters to the list have a bit of difficulty recognising reality.

 

Certainly, there's pfcem and there's nigelfe.

 

The whole point about 'landing' ships is that it depends on what sort of landing....

 

Adressed by Tony, so won't bother.

 

Despite the protestations Spain has bugger all military experience since the Civil War (and the Blue Division is irrelevant, by the time the Sovs let them go in 1956 or so), and there's nothing I've come across to suggest that their modern commanders and staff are notably able and competant or that their doctrine is well thought out. This leads me to the logical conclusion that their naval architects could be heading in all sorts of tangental directions.

 

After all, fighting a COIN war in 1944 and a conventional war in 1956 does not count, not to speak about the multiple peace operations.

 

Again you are confusing "not having come across anything" with actual knowledge, which puts you solidly into the

posters to the list have a bit of difficulty recognising reality.

 

 

Incidentally, I note from the MoDUK website a few days ago the RNLN have just finished work up test exercises for their new landing ship, conducted by RN off and on the S of England. I just mention that for the benefit of the underinformed.

 

Incidentally you missed that the RNLN has participated in the FOST training for some time, none of which has any relevance.

 

But then, this debate is like arguing with a barking dog...

[Catalan]

I know the Spanish marines were deployed to the Balkans. Were there any amphibious operations there?

[Coldsteel]

Are we now proceeding form the Spanish beeing incompetent boobs to the Australians being clueless as well?

Well, um someone signed that contract for the Seasprites.

[nigelfe]

My understanding is that Osprey flies a tad faster than heli, this being the case (and why bother with it otherwise) then faster means shorter duration for a given distance which means the capability to concentrate force deeper quicker. Seems simple to me.

 

Obviously D9 in the US are different to those elsewhere. Deep wading isn't an attribute I'd associate with them. Perhaps it's those gently sloping Pacific beaches with hula girls lining the shore that makes deeper wading irrelevant. I seem to remember there was some difficulty with the US and special armour in 1944 although BARVs don't relly come into that category but I can't resist stirring it up :-)

 

I don't know why folk keep offering irrelevant comparisons, by definition LPDs are primariy designed to launch landing craft. You wouldn't expect lots of heli spots. Of course this raises an interesting question, is a multi-function LHD preferable to a mix of LPH and LPD. Obviously there are pros and cons, its the old generalised vs specialised debate.

 

Another issue that hasn't yet been raised is the command facilities on amph ships. Obviously this occuppies space and the staffing of it probably counts against crew rather that embarked force, or perhaps a mix of both depending on the colour of their uniform and the practices for transferring command from the amph commander to the land commander.

 

Of course the real issue with the ships for Aust hasn't been addressed, this is the politics of DOD in Canbera. A good question is why on earth these ships need a ski jump. A cynic like me might think it reflects the RAN's long term hankering for a carrier. The current govt has an expeditionary defence policy that may not survive a change of govt in anything like its present form. It's really the army that needs amph ships, change of govt, change of policy and the RAN ends up with indulging their carrier fantasy. Flash a brochure of an amph ship with a ski jump at them and you've won the RAN's heart. The fact that it might not be particularly well suited to the Army's needs is neither here nor there. Perhaps Australia would have been better following something on the line that the RNZN is getting (just fitting out in NL IIRC). Perhaps scaled up a bit, but that wouldn't suit the RAN agenda. Of course suggesting that the K1W1s might have the right idea is far worse than farting in church.

 

I'm terribly impressed by all the attempts to promote Spanish naval expertise. Yeah, right. Keep scratching around, it keeps me amused. I'm surprised no ones pointed out how Spain saved Europe from Islam.

 

Incidentally I'm still waiting for someone to produce info about the lane length available on these ships.

[Josh]

Just to nible on the BARV argument rather than get into the pointless crap storm of Spanish naval construction, the USN largely uses LCAC for beach delivery which by its nature doesn't benefit from a BARV. If an LCAC can't unbeach itself its going to sink when it hits water anyway. I know some LCUs are maintained for heavy loads and such; I'm not sure what the ratio is. Pretty sure an ARG carries a couple but that except for heavy armor, LCAC would be preffered for speed and for the vasly larger amount of beach they can traverse. Not sure what the Brits use for going ashore.

 

Getting well off topic, is the LCU-2000 program or whatever its called canned? It was a program to make a 20-30 kt LCU. Haven't heard about it; assume it was canned as redundant.

[swerve]

...

I don't know why folk keep offering irrelevant comparisons, by definition LPDs are primariy designed to launch landing craft. You wouldn't expect lots of heli spots.

 

Because you started in with the irrelevant comparisons, adversely comparing the BPE with unspecified British ships. Since there are no directly comparable British ships, we have to guess at which not directly comparable ones you might have meant. So far, you've rejected both Ocean & Albion as irrelevant, so I'm wondering which RN ships you were adversely comparing the BPE with. Do tell. Sir Bedivere, perhaps?

 

Of course this raises an interesting question, is a multi-function LHD preferable to a mix of LPH and LPD. Obviously there are pros and cons, its the old generalised vs specialised debate....

 

Now this is an interesting point, & if you'd raised it to start with, instead of jumping straight in with the abuse of all things Spanish, we could have had a much more constructive debate.

[Catalan]

I'm terribly impressed by all the attempts to promote Spanish naval expertise. Yeah, right. Keep scratching around, it keeps me amused. I'm surprised no ones pointed out how Spain saved Europe from Islam.

 

 

Keep preaching Nigel. The point is that Navantia has not only sold three [maybe four] frigates to Australia and a LHD, but it has also sold five to Norway. Navantia is bound to make further sales with the S80 [joint program between Navantia and DCN, IIRC] (it has already sold to India, Malaysia and Chile). You can insult Spain all you want but it won't prove the fact that Spain's naval industry has been growing exponentially, especially when relevant to the export market.

 

The entire premise of your argument is so ridiculous that I have trouble believing that you're past the age of eighteen. You base your opinion that Spain cannot build a proper amphibious ship on this fantastical idea that Spain has no naval expertise. Get real, Nigel, and educate yourself instead of basing your incredibly stupid positions on national bias.

 

- Jon

Edited June 29, 2007 by Catalan

[Guest aevans]

My understanding is that Osprey flies a tad faster than heli, this being the case (and why bother with it otherwise) then faster means shorter duration for a given distance which means the capability to concentrate force deeper quicker. Seems simple to me.

 

THe fact that you're using comparative terms ("deeper" and "quicker") indicates in itself that it's not an all or nothing game. Just because you don't have the latest toys doesn't mean you're totally bereft of capabilities. And when you're a state like Australia, sometimes you have better things to do with your money in the arena of getting as much merely adequate equipment as possible per dollar.

 

Obviously D9 in the US are different to those elsewhere. Deep wading isn't an attribute I'd associate with them. Perhaps it's those gently sloping Pacific beaches with hula girls lining the shore that makes deeper wading irrelevant. I seem to remember there was some difficulty with the US and special armour in 1944 although BARVs don't relly come into that category but I can't resist stirring it up :-)

Once again, you're setting up a straw man here. A nice-to-have does not equate to a need-to-have simply because you're enamoured with ETLAs.

 

I don't know why folk keep offering irrelevant comparisons, by definition LPDs are primariy designed to launch landing craft. You wouldn't expect lots of heli spots.

 

As already pointed out, there is no direct comparison between the Australians' choice and anything in the RN. Also, for the displacement, six helo spots isn't bad.

 

Of course this raises an interesting question, is a multi-function LHD preferable to a mix of LPH and LPD. Obviously there are pros and cons, its the old generalised vs specialised debate.

You're a continental nation state with money in the budget for two amphibious vessels. You can buy one LPD and one LPH and hope both are in servic, in the same geographical region, when a need for them arrises. Or you can have two LHDs. That's not a hard decision at all. Were the budget for four vessels, or even three, that would be a different story, but with money for only two, you have to spread load your capabilities.

 

Another issue that hasn't yet been raised is the command facilities on amph ships. Obviously this occuppies space and the staffing of it probably counts against crew rather that embarked force, or perhaps a mix of both depending on the colour of their uniform and the practices for transferring command from the amph commander to the land commander.

 

Yes, and? They have to set aside space for command facilities. You think they're going to forget that just because their yard is in a country that you apparently have some serious personal problems with?

 

Of course the real issue with the ships for Aust hasn't been addressed, this is the politics of DOD in Canbera. A good question is why on earth these ships need a ski jump. A cynic like me might think it reflects the RAN's long term hankering for a carrier. The current govt has an expeditionary defence policy that may not survive a change of govt in anything like its present form. It's really the army that needs amph ships, change of govt, change of policy and the RAN ends up with indulging their carrier fantasy. Flash a brochure of an amph ship with a ski jump at them and you've won the RAN's heart. The fact that it might not be particularly well suited to the Army's needs is neither here nor there. Perhaps Australia would have been better following something on the line that the RNZN is getting (just fitting out in NL IIRC). Perhaps scaled up a bit, but that wouldn't suit the RAN agenda. Of course suggesting that the K1W1s might have the right idea is far worse than farting in church.

If you want to operate Harriers or a similar successor off that size vessel, a ski jump helps. If you're going to be buying large flight decks, a little bit of auxiliary carrier capability is an absolute good, regardless of your politics, or who the primary operational beneficiary of the type may be.

 

I'm terribly impressed by all the attempts to promote Spanish naval expertise. Yeah, right. Keep scratching around, it keeps me amused. I'm surprised no ones pointed out how Spain saved Europe from Islam.

 

Spanish naval expertise, adequate or inadequate, has nothing to do with whether or not a Spanish yard can build a ship to buyer specs. We proved right here in the US during WW2 that almost any shipbuilder, given proper guidance by the naval customer, can build an adequate naval vessel. So leaving your personal problems with the Spanish aside, what exactly is wrong with the RAN that it can't specify and manage the construction of a pretty run-of-the-mill naval vessel?

 

Incidentally I'm still waiting for someone to produce info about the lane length available on these ships.

 

Per the RAN's news release:

 

830 lane metres (3290 square metres)

Heavy Vehicle deck: 1,410 square metres

Helo Hanger Capacity: 990 square meters

 

I couldn't in the time available find anything about US phibs cargo deckspace, but using what I could find about hangar space, it turns out that the Australian choice will have 57.5% of the hangar deck space on 69.8% of the displacement, compared to a US LHA. Given the necessary overhead in any ship type, that doesn't seem too far out of line at all, and there's no reason to suspect that the vehicle cargo spaces are too far out of line either.

[Catalan]

Another issue that hasn't yet been raised is the command facilities on amph ships. Obviously this occuppies space and the staffing of it probably counts against crew rather that embarked force ...

 

Well, it's possible that the troop compliment on the BPE includes the command on the ship, and volume and surface area alloted to transport material is built around the volume and surface area required for command facilities. Or, do you think that Spain regularly makes ad hoc command areas on their ship's decks, and they don't allot space for it within the design? Well, probably, given that obviously Spain has no naval experience.

 

Of course the real issue with the ships for Aust hasn't been addressed, this is the politics of DOD in Canbera. A good question is why on earth these ships need a ski jump.

Well, actually, it has been addressed - the ship carries fixed-wing VTOL/STOL aircraft. The real question you probably wanted to ask was why it carried fixed-wing aircraft. It's far cheaper for a country like Spain to operate a multi-role ship than it would be a brand-new aircraft carrier and a brand-new large amphibious ship. Spain already operates an aircraft carrier, it's not as if Spain lacks the experience and doesn't know what an aircraft carrier is (or wait, does it? I forgot how terribly navy illiterate Spain is !).

 

Incidently, the BPE is not truly one-of-a-kind. The last and final Wasp class Amphibious Ship, the Making Island is somewhat similar - it can carry heavy armor [the M1 Abrams] and has a fixed-wing air compliment [albeit smaller - 8 Harriers]. AFAIK, Italy's Giribaldi replacement is similar to the BPE as well [amphibious + air compliment].

 

Admittedly, the BPE is the only one with a ski-jump. Damn those inexperienced Spaniards!

 

Flash a brochure of an amph ship with a ski jump at them and you've won the RAN's heart.

 

As simple as that!

 

 

Incidentally I'm still waiting for someone to produce info about the lane length available on these ships.

 

You haven't produced any fact whatsoever in any of your posts, whilst several people have proved you wrong and you have just ignored them. Hell, your posts are probably as close to flaming as any others I've seen. Why don't you find it out yourself, instead of making ridiculous assumptions without actually checking if you're right?

[Catalan]

If you want to operate Harriers or a similar successor off that size vessel, a ski jump helps. If you're going to be buying large flight decks, a little bit of auxiliary carrier capability is an absolute good, regardless of your politics, or who the primary operational beneficiary of the type may be.

 

In Spain's defense, the air compliment is required because the BPE will also act as a replacement for the Príncipe de Asturias when this ship can't sail due to maintenance.

[Guest aevans]

In Spain's defense, the air compliment is required because the BPE will also act as a replacement for the Príncipe de Asturias when this ship can't sail due to maintenance.

 

No need to defend Spanish design choices to me. I have no problem with Spanish naval policies.

[swerve]

... AFAIK, Italy's Giribaldi replacement is similar to the BPE as well [amphibious + air compliment].

 

Admittedly, the BPE is the only one with a ski-jump. ...

 

Quibble time -

 

AFAIK, Italy hasn't ordered a Garibaldi replacement yet. Cavour & Garibaldi will serve together until another ship is bought to replace Garibaldi, if the Italian navy gets its way. If you mean Cavour - well, she has a ski-jump, & is a carrier with limited amphibious, or maybe just transport, abilities (no well deck, & AFAIK no landing craft - but ro-ro ramps), not the other way round.

 

http://www.marina.difesa.it/programmi/portaerei.htm

 

Note the - "portaerei".

Edited June 29, 2007 by swerve

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

The second GALICIA class ship, CASTILLA, has specific command a control area designed for coordinating amphibious ops. It was designed by Indra under Spanish Navy especifications. I guess that the actual service experience PLUS many years working with other NATO and Allied navies would have been enough to design a sound doctrine despite what somebody around here may think

 

JUAN CARLOS PRIMERO will have pretty extensive command and control capabilities as she is designed to operate both as a flagship of a combat group (when PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS is unavailable) or an amphibious group. The Australian ships will probably at least share this later equipment level. By the way, the combat system is being developed with the help of Lockheed Martin as is will be based in the current combat system of the F-100 class frigates. The aim of the Spanish navy is to create a common scalable framework to suit any ship from patrol to carrier size including subs sharing as much hardware as possible. L-M is interested due to potentially high marketability, specially for smaller navies buying new ships or upgrading older ones.

[ross.browne]

There has been a fair bit of new naval spending in the region recently.

 

The brand-new HMNZS Canterbury