Brazilian Navy intwerested in Sir Galahad

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-12-12T192328Z_01_N11483542_RTRIDST_0_BRAZIL-ARMS-SUBMARINES.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

New diesel U-boat for Brazil, nuclear goal fades

By Andrei Khalip

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil, Dec 12 (Reuters) – The Brazilian navy has chosen Germany’s HDW-ThyssenKrupp to build a new conventional submarine and upgrade its underwater fleet.

But the draft deal worth $1.4 billion means the postponement of the military’s goal of producing its own nuclear-powered sub.

Brazil’s five submarines are all based on the same firm’s diesel-electrical IKL-209 model. The new IKL-214 has an improved design but is far from the concept of a teardrop-shaped hull of a nuclear submarine built to operate for years undetected without resurfacing

South Korea has recently ordered 6 additional Type 214 boats to the original 3. Add to this the Brazilian order. Type 214 is also the most favorite candidate in Turkish Navy’s 6 AIP submarine contest. On the other hand there is this problem with Hellenic Navy’s first of four planned Type 214 boats, the Papanikolis.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-12-12T192328Z_01_N11483542_RTRIDST_0_BRAZIL-ARMS-SUBMARINES.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

New diesel U-boat for Brazil, nuclear goal fades

By Andrei Khalip

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil, Dec 12 (Reuters) – The Brazilian navy has chosen Germany’s HDW-ThyssenKrupp to build a new conventional submarine and upgrade its underwater fleet.

But the draft deal worth $1.4 billion means the postponement of the military’s goal of producing its own nuclear-powered sub.

Brazil’s five submarines are all based on the same firm’s diesel-electrical IKL-209 model. The new IKL-214 has an improved design but is far from the concept of a teardrop-shaped hull of a nuclear submarine built to operate for years undetected without resurfacing

Thanks bager I see what you are saying. But lets not continue on this thread..lest Mr Mushashi hollers for the mods again.

Broncho, thanks.

Ok, that confirms that Mistral is being looked at as one possible base for the new ships, but the article also says:
“to build its own Landing Platform Dock (LPD), besides buying an old American Amphibious Transport Dock (ATD),”
“By undertaking the project to build its own LPD, or Amphibious Transport Dock”

ATD is a designation I have seen nowhere else, and the use of LPD, Landing Platform Dock, LTD, and Amphibious Transport Dock seems interchangeable in the exerpt you posted… and seem to be locally-used designations.

This is a bit contradictory, as it clearly links the new ships with the Trenton, while Mistral is classified as a Landing Ship Helicopter (Dock) [LHD] by France, the US, and other nations which operate them … Korea, for example (Spain calls theirs a “Strategic Projection Ship”), and that full-length flight-deck (with dock) type of ship is clearly different in design than the aft-only helicopter-deck LPD design.

The USN lists Trenton as a Landing Ship Personnel Dock (LPD)… as opposed to Landing Ship Dock (LSD) which designates nearly identical ships with smaller troop compartments and larger docking wells.

All in all, it seems that the final design is not yet set, so they are hedging their statements in an effort to avoid “getting it wrong”… by by listing all possible options of different types and designations.

Time will tell, and I look forward to seeing just what they do finally build.

Either type would do well, but I do think they need a good helicopter complement… definitely a proper hangar for at least 2 medium-large helos, something Trenton lacks, and maybe something more like Mistral than Trenton.

Having Trenton on hand to examine will help either design… the design of the dock gate can go on either, for example, as well as the trim/ballasting equipment etc.

Heck, it might even be a variation no one else has actually built… who knows?

Who the hell hijacked it? Someone asked a question and I answered. Period. You want to see hijacking ask why sealord, scooter and other yankee fan boys are commenting on F-18 and MMRCA on the IN thread?

Actually who said Brazilian navy is looking at sir Galahad? I can find nothing on google or brazilian navy site?

This looks like more internet speculation than anything else.

So that justifies you hijacking the thread for an unrelated topic?

Actually who said Brazilian navy is looking at sir Galahad? I can find nothing on google or brazilian navy site?

This looks like more internet speculation than anything else.

Well this is great, a thread about Brazil buying ships from Britain has been turned into yet another thread about India- thanks for wrecking another thread Broncho.

Are there actually any moderators on this forum? Normal procedure is to delete O/T comments……..

Well this is great, a thread about Brazil buying ships from Britain has been turned into yet another thread about India- thanks for wrecking another thread Broncho.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1005491

While the Indian Navy is planning to undertake an ambitious Rs2,000 crores project to build its own Landing Platform Dock (LPD), besides buying an old American Amphibious Transport Dock (ATD), the Indian Air Force is planning to buy 80 multi-utility medium-lift helicopters. The Indian Army on its part is looking at inducting more Advanced Light Helicopters (ALH).

By undertaking the project to build its own LPD, or Amphibious Transport Dock, the navy hopes to substantially increase its capability to carry relief material and personnel. Sources say the entire project would be based on French Mistral class design and built at the Garden Reach Shipyard, Kolkata.

Well, hello, pot… how’s the tan coming? Nice and black?

“The LST’s are required but I am just saying that hopefully they would be a little bigger and not 5-6k ton roundtable designs.”

The ~5,500-6,000 ton size is considered to be at the maximum limit for LSTs… you know, self-beaching ships.

The USN came to that determination in the 1970s, when it found that its 5,800 ton Terribone Parish class LSTs it build during the Korean war could access 15%-20% more beaches than its brand-new 8,300 ton [I]Newport[I] class LSTs… including a number that they considered to be “must-use” ones in their current plans. That is why most of the [I]Newport[I] class were retired before the first of the 5-year older Austin class LPDs (Trenton, for example)

For your information, the [I]Newport[I] class, as built, carried the same tonnage of cargo (500 t.), and the same number of troops (385), as the smaller Terribone Parish class or HMAS Tobruk… one of those “too small” Round-table LSTs you so despise. They were felt by the USN to have been “less useful than expected”.

The entire ~2,500 ton increase was entirely taken up in providing 7 knots more speed (more than doubling the required H.P.: 16,500 vs 6,000) and range.

As for “Try reading a bit before typing out a novel in response.”, there is someone else who posts here who refuses to provide any references to back up his claims, or verifiable data to refute the information others have posted, just like you did. I ignore what he has to say, too as it is just his opinion, not facts.

Yes, I DID do some research before posting that… where the heck do you think I got what I posted in my first post?

The statement on India looking to build ships derived from information gained from examining and using the Trenton came from an Indian publication.

I have not seen anything regarding a Mistral-type design for India, but I would expect that they are looking at that… it would be foolish not to examine all options before deciding.

I specifically said IF india decides to build LPD/LSD types… NOT “they will”!

I don’t know, and I suspect neither do you since you declined to provide any reference for your claim.

It appears that you prefer short, fact-less exchanges of unsupported opinion over longer, reasoned discussions of capabilities and reasons for the choices made, with supporting facts and references. I don’t… if I wanted to engage in “you’re wrong, and you know why” style arguments, I would still be married.

I don’t speak to her anymore, please don’t force me to do the same with you.

I would love to see the reports, etc that show India is planning to build Mistral-type ships… it would add to my knowledge, and make me better informed.

So, LPD/LSDs are “ancient designs”, are they?

Someone ought to tell the USN (San Antonio class), China (071 class), RN (Albion class), Netherlands… many others… who are building (or have just built) these types of ships for their navies!

Mistral is a LHD, which is built to a different conceptual and operational philosophy than a LPD or LSD.

Mistral is focused primarily toward helicopter-based operations, with landing craft deployed from the dock as secondary. This places personnel lift as the first priority, as they carry fewer landing craft than any of the LPD/LSD types do.

LPD/LSDs are primarily landing craft/hovercraft oriented… with the higher weight lift of the landing craft as the main focus… tanks, cargo trucks, etc…. with personnel lift as secondary.

While a LPD carries more troops and less cargo/vehicle lift than a LSD, it still is intended for sustained heavy movement operations, where a LHD is intended for quick-strike scenarios.

That is why the USN has all 3, to “mix & match” as needed for the specific mission profile.

If India determines that they need more surface-based heavy lift rather than air-delivered troop/light cargo lift, then that is what they feel they need.

The LPD/LSD brings a different capability than does the LST type… the smaller landing craft of a Trenton-type can reach islands and beaches that are unreachable for LSTs (coral reefs, long shallow approaches, etc.), as well as enter rivers & the like.

Yes, the LSTs carry these as well, but fewer, and require calmer seas to load/unload them, and have to refill/empty them with cranes, where a dock-type ship can do that much quicker and more easily (vehicles can drive into/out of the landing craft, and overhead rail-mounted cranes handle other cargo much more quickly).

Try reading a bit before typing out a novel in response. IN is looking at Mistrals from france and not a trenton based design which by any strech of imagination is old.
The LST’s are required but I am just saying that hopefully they would be a little bigger and not 5-6k ton roundtable designs.

So, LPD/LSDs are “ancient designs”, are they?

Someone ought to tell the USN (San Antonio class), China (071 class), RN (Albion class), Netherlands… many others… who are building (or have just built) these types of ships for their navies!

Mistral is a LHD, which is built to a different conceptual and operational philosophy than a LPD or LSD.

Mistral is focused primarily toward helicopter-based operations, with landing craft deployed from the dock as secondary. This places personnel lift as the first priority, as they carry fewer landing craft than any of the LPD/LSD types do.

LPD/LSDs are primarily landing craft/hovercraft oriented… with the higher weight lift of the landing craft as the main focus… tanks, cargo trucks, etc…. with personnel lift as secondary.

While a LPD carries more troops and less cargo/vehicle lift than a LSD, it still is intended for sustained heavy movement operations, where a LHD is intended for quick-strike scenarios.

That is why the USN has all 3, to “mix & match” as needed for the specific mission profile.

If India determines that they need more surface-based heavy lift rather than air-delivered troop/light cargo lift, then that is what they feel they need.

The LPD/LSD brings a different capability than does the LST type… the smaller landing craft of a Trenton-type can reach islands and beaches that are unreachable for LSTs (coral reefs, long shallow approaches, etc.), as well as enter rivers & the like.

Yes, the LSTs carry these as well, but fewer, and require calmer seas to load/unload them, and have to refill/empty them with cranes, where a dock-type ship can do that much quicker and more easily (vehicles can drive into/out of the landing craft, and overhead rail-mounted cranes handle other cargo much more quickly).

This is of course why most Navies operate both types………..:diablo:

So, LPD/LSDs are “ancient designs”, are they?

Someone ought to tell the USN (San Antonio class), China (071 class), RN (Albion class), Netherlands… many others… who are building (or have just built) these types of ships for their navies!

Mistral is a LHD, which is built to a different conceptual and operational philosophy than a LPD or LSD.

Mistral is focused primarily toward helicopter-based operations, with landing craft deployed from the dock as secondary. This places personnel lift as the first priority, as they carry fewer landing craft than any of the LPD/LSD types do.

LPD/LSDs are primarily landing craft/hovercraft oriented… with the higher weight lift of the landing craft as the main focus… tanks, cargo trucks, etc…. with personnel lift as secondary.

While a LPD carries more troops and less cargo/vehicle lift than a LSD, it still is intended for sustained heavy movement operations, where a LHD is intended for quick-strike scenarios.

That is why the USN has all 3, to “mix & match” as needed for the specific mission profile.

If India determines that they need more surface-based heavy lift rather than air-delivered troop/light cargo lift, then that is what they feel they need.

The LPD/LSD brings a different capability than does the LST type… the smaller landing craft of a Trenton-type can reach islands and beaches that are unreachable for LSTs (coral reefs, long shallow approaches, etc.), as well as enter rivers & the like.

Yes, the LSTs carry these as well, but fewer, and require calmer seas to load/unload them, and have to refill/empty them with cranes, where a dock-type ship can do that much quicker and more easily (vehicles can drive into/out of the landing craft, and overhead rail-mounted cranes handle other cargo much more quickly).

Don’t expect Mistrals, etc. anytime soon, India has other plans:
http://www.idsa.in/publications/stratcomments/gskhurana030406.htm

“Although Trenton is 35 years old and would have only about 15 years of residual life, the vessel would provide the Indian Navy with invaluable expertise to operate a vastly different platform and enable refinement of its operational concepts for amphibious missions. (Of course, it would also entail acquisition of hovercraft/landing-craft and more transport helicopters to be used in conjunction). Besides, the LPD design could also be studied by Indian shipyards for indigenous construction in the future. Reports indicate that plans are on the anvil to build similar vessels at Kolkata. Although relatively expensive, such versatile vessels are particularly suited for the presently unthinkable out-of-area (OOA) contingencies.”

There are actually to be 5 LST-Ls… 2 already in service, and the 3 new ones.
Class Landing Ship Tank — Large (LST-L)
L 20 Magar; commissioned 15 Jul 1987
L 23 Gharial; commissioned 14 Feb 1997

Based on the Sir Lancelot design, these Landing Ship Tank — Large (LST-L) are built at Hindustan SY but fitted at the Garden Reach DY. In fact, GRSE is the only shipyard in India which specialises in designing and building amphibian LST(L) ships for the Indian Navy.

INS Shardul; ordered December 2001; launched 04 April 2004
INS Kesari; ordered December 2001; launched 08 June 2005
INS ?; ordered December 2001; status unknown

In December 2001, a letter of intent for construction of three landing ship tanks (large) was placed on the Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd (GRSE) shipyard. GRSE would deliver the landing ship tank by June 2007. The three large landing ship tanks would cost around Rs 350 crore each. The LST designs is an updated versions of two earlier vessels, INS Magar and INS Gharial, built by GRSE for the Indian Navy.

Since the first group was to have 3 ships, and the third was cancelled in favor of the improved type, has the planned third of the improved class been cancelled in favor of larger ships, or is it building?

The trenton based design is pure speculation. Well maybe if they find it better than Mistral (which I seriously doubt), they might opt for a design based on it. The 3 shardul classes are already built and launched. The INS kesari and INS airawat will be commissioned sometime late this year. So IN is pretty much done with roundtable designs.

I doubt IN will go for an ancient trenton based design when a newer and more modern mistral is available.

I’m not interested who buys it, so long as they’re the highest bidder!

Don’t expect Mistrals, etc. anytime soon, India has other plans:
http://www.idsa.in/publications/stratcomments/gskhurana030406.htm

“Although Trenton is 35 years old and would have only about 15 years of residual life, the vessel would provide the Indian Navy with invaluable expertise to operate a vastly different platform and enable refinement of its operational concepts for amphibious missions. (Of course, it would also entail acquisition of hovercraft/landing-craft and more transport helicopters to be used in conjunction). Besides, the LPD design could also be studied by Indian shipyards for indigenous construction in the future. Reports indicate that plans are on the anvil to build similar vessels at Kolkata. Although relatively expensive, such versatile vessels are particularly suited for the presently unthinkable out-of-area (OOA) contingencies.”

There are actually to be 5 LST-Ls… 2 already in service, and the 3 new ones.
Class Landing Ship Tank — Large (LST-L)
L 20 Magar; commissioned 15 Jul 1987
L 23 Gharial; commissioned 14 Feb 1997

Based on the Sir Lancelot design, these Landing Ship Tank — Large (LST-L) are built at Hindustan SY but fitted at the Garden Reach DY. In fact, GRSE is the only shipyard in India which specialises in designing and building amphibian LST(L) ships for the Indian Navy.

INS Shardul; ordered December 2001; launched 04 April 2004
INS Kesari; ordered December 2001; launched 08 June 2005
INS ?; ordered December 2001; status unknown

In December 2001, a letter of intent for construction of three landing ship tanks (large) was placed on the Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd (GRSE) shipyard. GRSE would deliver the landing ship tank by June 2007. The three large landing ship tanks would cost around Rs 350 crore each. The LST designs is an updated versions of two earlier vessels, INS Magar and INS Gharial, built by GRSE for the Indian Navy.

Since the first group was to have 3 ships, and the third was cancelled in favor of the improved type, has the planned third of the improved class been cancelled in favor of larger ships, or is it building?

Why simpler? If you’re looking for a short-term capacity boost until a new design can be sorted out, a secondhand ship of the same basic type as you already operate is ideal. New ships cost more, tie up slipways which could be used for something else, & then you’re stuck with an old-fashioned ship for decades. In fact, I’m a little surprised the IN bought Shardul at al (basically, modernised Round Tables, aren’t they?), because I agree with you about them being rather small. I’d have thought something along the lines of Rotterdam would be more useful.

Because it is old and would be a waste of money while gaining nothing new unlike the trenton. The basic design might be same but the machinery, weapons and other small details are all different between the british ships and IN ships.

I hope the 3 sharduls are the last of that batch. They should shift to Mistrals (20 ktonne, 3 atleast) and a smaller design around 12-16k tonne (4-5).

I doubt IN would be interested in that ship. It would be simpler to let GRSE build a new one. The last ones were built in a record 18 months. If hope IN would go for bigger LST’s now, the round table ones are too small.

Why simpler? If you’re looking for a short-term capacity boost until a new design can be sorted out, a secondhand ship of the same basic type as you already operate is ideal. New ships cost more, tie up slipways which could be used for something else, & then you’re stuck with an old-fashioned ship for decades. In fact, I’m a little surprised the IN bought Shardul at al (basically, modernised Round Tables, aren’t they?), because I agree with you about them being rather small. I’d have thought something along the lines of Rotterdam would be more useful.

Anyway getting back to the Brazilian theme of this topic.

How many County class LST’s did the MdB buy from the USN? are they active? i’ve seen pics of them and they look like they are ready for the scrap heap (no offence).