LHD, LPD Amphibious news and reviews and all things pertaining to them

New built since when and by whom?

By almost everyone since almost a decade.

Spain has designed and built Juan Carlos I.

Australia will buy two slighty modified BPE (i.e. Juan Carlos I).

France as built two Mistrals, is building a third Mistral, maybe will build a fourth one too.

Japan has built in the near past three LSD LCAC-capable, Osumi class.

South Korea has built Dokdo.

Italy is planning between two and three LHD, rumors got their dock should be LCAC capable (meaning U.S. LCAC 1, of course).

Every of the above mentioned classes has a dock compatible with U.S. built LCAC 1.

The last amphibious class designed in western countries lacking a dock LCAC capable seems to be the Rotterdam-Galicia-Bay family, designed in the early nineties.

Ta. I have the dimensions of the LCU Mk 10 & RCL.

All new built amphibious ships are provided with a dock wide enough for an LCAC, so this could be applied as a de facto standard.

New built since when and by whom?

The Bay class certainly can’t take a LCAC*. The Albion class I vaguely recall having a partition down the middle of the dock that would have to be removed (and is designed to be removed).

*The US version. They will take an LCAC(L).

For swerve, I don’t have the dimensions of the Bays’ dock to hand, but I do have a good idea of what will and will not fit. 1 x LCU Mk10 which can be dried out, or 1 x full length powered Mexe raft which cannot be dried out entirely on the bottom of the dock, the front section has to be partially detached and dried out on the beach.

I remember checking out whether an RCL would fit, and I think it did just fit for length and beam, but the mast did not.

Any LCVPs carried in addition to a docked LCU or Mexe would have to go on deck.

For H K, ignore that callsigns book, it’s full of errors, at least in the designations, and contains ships long since decommisioned and scrapped. RFA Resource in 2008?!

Of course, (just for completeness):

WW2 USN LSD (Dock Landing Ship) classes:

Ashland, 8 units, commissioned 1943-44
Displacement 8,057 tons full (8,700 later); overall length 458′, beam 72′
Docking well: length 392′, width 44′
Troop capacity 240

Casa Grande, 13 units (+4 to UK), commissioned 1944-46
Displacement 8,057 tons full (9,375 later); overall length 458′, beam 72′
Docking well: length 392′, width 44′
Troop capacity 240

Ships of these classes also served with: Argentina (#5), France (#12 [ex Greek, ex UK]), Greece (#9 [ex-UK], #12 [ex-UK], #21), Spain (#25), and Taiwan (#8, #22, #19 [appropriated from scrap-yard in Taiwan and placed in service without export permission]).

All new built amphibious ships are provided with a dock wide enough for an LCAC, so this could be applied as a de facto standard.

About San Giorgio class LPDs, they are quite unconventional ships, because they were the response to a urgent requirement raised with the italian deployment in Lebanon in 1982.

They have been based on a civilian ferry project and the first and foremost requirement was to be as cheaper to buy and to operate as possible.

Quite obviously that requirement translated in a hull as little as possibile, and again in a dock designed around only italian landing crafts MTM (actually former U.S. LCM dating back to Korean war) and MEN, both less than 19 meters long and 5 meters wide.

In the end, San Giorgio apart, until your landing craft’s width is no greater than half of LCAC’s width, and they are as long as LCAC (more or less) there is no interoperability or efficency issue.

But if you are going to deploy landing crafts larger than half LCAC’ width, it is likely you will be forced to put one single landing craft where anybody other would put two slight smaller ones when operating from allied ships.

There are some landing craft in use more than half the width of an LCAC, there are other old ships around apart from the Santi, & landing craft differ in length, which affects how many can fit in a dock. Hence my question.

I’ve now adjusted it to allow for new information.

USN LSD (Dock Landing Ship) classes:

Thomaston, 8 units, commissioned 1954-57
Displacement 11,270 tons full; overall length 510′, beam 84′
Docking well: length 391′, width 48′
Troop capacity 340

Raleigh, 2 units, commissioned 1962-63
Displacement 13,900 tons full; overall length 522′, beam 84′
Docking well: length 168′, width 50′
Troop capacity 930

.

Thanks for those. I think they give me a full set of dock sizes for USN landing ships still in use.

I was always confused about LPD vs LSD, now I’m even more so.

The confusion can be cleared up if you consider the context in which each type was developed.

In WW2 the USN faced the prospect of having to conduct a series of large-scale amphibious landings across the Pacific Ocean (and in Europe). They lacked large, purpose-designed landing craft (essential for the distances involved), but had lots of conventional freighter & passenger ships that had been “taken up from trade”. These were redesignated as “Attack Transports” (APA, later “Amphibious Transports” LPA) and “Attack Cargo Ships” (AKA, later “Amphibious Cargo Ships” LKA)

Building a lot of LSTs could alleviate this issue, but most Pacific islands had coral reefs that would prevent LSTs from reaching the beaches… thus a lot of small landing craft were needed.

The solution was the LSD… a large cross-ocean ship that could carry both a decent number of troops and a large number of small landing craft (that could land all or most of the troop complement in one wave). This combination could put a lot of troops on the beach quickly (to seize a beach-head), and then the boats could come to the conventional transports and load their troops in several waves to stabilize the beach-head and expand it enough to allow a temporary pier system to be built).

This solution worked, but there were problems in the second phase of operations… in order to load the landing craft quickly, the troops climbed down nets and/or rope ladders (and a few stair sets) to the craft beside the transport… which led to a large number of deaths & injuries due to falls into the ocean or the landing craft.

Given the time-frames, little could be done then… nor was the funding available afterwards, leading to the same situation during the Korean War (save that there were more port facilities available).

During and after the KW, the US Navy began (and continued) to receive adequate funding, and designed a ship to replace the conventional transports… and the issue of loading troops was addressed by including a smaller dock to allow safer loading.

As the ships were to replace the transports, they had large troop capacities, and were also designated transports… but the basic concept remained: the LSDs were to land a powerful initial attack wave, and the LPDs were to re-enforce and support that attack, and to provide a sustained force to expand the beach-head.

The “confusion of roles & designation” comes with smaller navies that cannot afford both types, and which create hybrid ships that fit in between the types. Thus, they are often designated according to their assigned slot in their navy’s OOB, not according to their design features.

LHA: Tarawa, 5 units, commissioned 1976-80
Displacement 39,300 tons full; overall length 834′, beam 132′
Docking well: length 268′, width 78′
Troop capacity 1,700-1,900

LHD: Wasp, 8 units, commissioned 1989-2007
Displacement 40,530 tons full; overall length 844′, beam 140′
Docking well: length 267′, width 50′
Troop capacity 1,900

In the USN, the difference between a LSD and a LPD is very clear, and is clearly stated in the full name of the ship type.

LSD = Dock Landing Ship
LPD = Amphibious Transport, Dock

In a LSD the important feature is the docking well.
In a LPD the important feature is the troop/equipment capacity (averaging twice that of contemporary LSDs).

USN LSD (Dock Landing Ship) classes:

Thomaston, 8 units, commissioned 1954-57
Displacement 11,270 tons full; overall length 510′, beam 84′
Docking well: length 391′, width 48′
Troop capacity 340

Anchorage, 5 units, commissioned 1969-72
Displacement 13,700 tons full; overall length 553′, beam 84′
Docking well: length 430′, width 50′
Troop capacity 375

Whidbey Island, 8 units, commissioned 1985-92
Displacement 16,300 tons full; overall length 609′, beam 84′
Docking well: length 440′, width 50′
Troops capacity 450 + 100 surge

Harpers Ferry LSD-CV (Cargo Variant), 4 units, commissioned 1995-98
Displacement 16,500 tons full; overall length 609′, beam 84′
Docking well: length 220′, width 50′
Troops capacity 400 + 100 surge

USN LPD (Amphibious Transport, Dock) classes:

Raleigh, 2 units, commissioned 1962-63
Displacement 13,900 tons full; overall length 522′, beam 84′
Docking well: length 168′, width 50′
Troop capacity 930

Austin, 12 units, commissioned 1965-71
Displacement 16,900 tons full; overall length 570′, beam 84′
Docking well: length 168′, width 50′
Troop capacity 930 (840 + 90 Flag accommodation in 4th through 10th units)

San Antonio, 5 units (5 more building), commissioned 2006-?
Displacement 25,300 tons full; overall length 684′, beam 105′
Docking well: “similar to LPD-4” (length 168′, width 50′)
Troop capacity 700 + 100 surge
Double vehicle storage capacity and aviation capability vs Austin class.

All new built amphibious ships are provided with a dock wide enough for an LCAC, so this could be applied as a de facto standard.

About San Giorgio class LPDs, they are quite unconventional ships, because they were the response to a urgent requirement raised with the italian deployment in Lebanon in 1982.

They have been based on a civilian ferry project and the first and foremost requirement was to be as cheaper to buy and to operate as possible.

Quite obviously that requirement translated in a hull as little as possibile, and again in a dock designed around only italian landing crafts MTM (actually former U.S. LCM dating back to Korean war) and MEN, both less than 19 meters long and 5 meters wide.

In the end, San Giorgio apart, until your landing craft’s width is no greater than half of LCAC’s width, and they are as long as LCAC (more or less) there is no interoperability or efficency issue.

But if you are going to deploy landing crafts larger than half LCAC’ width, it is likely you will be forced to put one single landing craft where anybody other would put two slight smaller ones when operating from allied ships.

Thanks. That’s a good start.

I have dimensions for some, from which one can easily calculate area, & areas without measurements for a couple of others. Mistral is 885 m2, for example, just over half the area of Foudre.

What I’d really like (being greedy) is dimensions for everything, so that I can work out exactly which landing craft, & how many, can fit in each one. Unfortunately, LCMs & LCUs aren’t quite standardised from country to country. Our LCU Mk 10, for example, wouldn’t fit in the dock of San Giorgio or her sister ships.

BTW, on the subject of LSDs/LPDs/LHDs. etc., I’d quite like to know the sizes of docks of various classes.

You can infer from stated landing craft numbers, adding a few feet in length and width. Generally speaking, since LCMs and small LCUs all take up roughly 175-250m2, all well decks will be multiples of that. For example:

1 LCM/LCU (200-300m2): San Giorgio, Bay class
2 LCM/LCUs (575m2): Johan de Witt
4 LCM/LCUs (800-1000m2): Mistral, BPE, Albion, Galicia, LPD-4, LPD-17, LSD-49 classes
6 LCM/LCUs (~1500m2): Rotterdam, LHD-1 class
10 LCM/LCUs (~1800-2000m2): LSD-36, LSD-41, Foudre classes

Ultimately though, all amphibs whether LSDs, LPDs, LHDs or LPHs can be expected to have similar capabilities in terms of total payload area/volume (for a given displacement). The only differences being in how these spaces are broken down between aviation/vehicle & cargo/well dock/accommodation areas.

P.S. For VERY detailed specs of USN amphibs, this is a treasure trove:
http://www.usmc.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCRP%203-31B%20Amphibious%20Ships%20and%20Landing%20Craft%20Data%20Book.pdf

That’s rather random.

BTW, on the subject of LSDs/LPDs/LHDs. etc., I’d quite like to know the sizes of docks of various classes. I have some measurements from Janes, but far from a complete list. Does anyone know the dock measurements for –

Albion
Bay class
Rotterdam/Galicia
Johann de Witt
Makasar
Oosumi
Dokdo

The new Chinese LPD – though I’ll be surprised if anyone can help with it.

Just looked at NATO’s callsign books, and they only add to the confusion!

1996 callsign book: http://www.p530-daphne.dk/Downloads/call%20sign%20book%20for%20ships.pdf
2008 callsign book: http://jcs.dtic.mil/j6/cceb/acps/acp113/ACP113AH.pdf

Back on Topic – LPDs vs. LSDs

Reviving this thread to continue the discussion about LPDs vs. LSDs from the CVF thread (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=92518&page=31). Here’s what triggered our debate:

I won’t derail this topic anymore, but I would point out the a Foudre, being a LSD a-la-“Widbey Island”, make little sense as a LPD, lacking any provision to sustain any troop or vehicle it can deploy ashore.

It’s a worst choice, IMHO.

It’s a huge force multiplier for the Mistrals, providing a huge first amphibious landing force, even well motorized or mechanized, but it makes little or no sense at all if take it alone.

You must be confusing with another ship. 😉 The Foudre class are 100% LPDs, very much in the same class as the Rotterdam/Johann de Witt and Albions, as can be seen below:

– Dock for simultaneous storage of LCMs & heavy vehicles (1,700m2)
– Light/medium vehicle storage (mostly topsides – 1,000m2)
– Hangar for 4 helos (400m2), two-spot helo platform (1,100m2), and aviation fuel for ~120 sorties (215m3)
– 50-bed hospital (500m2)
– Command facilities – these are very cramped and old-fashioned by modern standards, but they do exist. Provision for additional containerized HQ facilities.
– Accommodation for ~400 troops (long-term)

The differences between an LSD (e.g. Whidbey Island or Bay class) & an LPD are a little fuzzy, but AFAIK are generally reckoned to be in the aviation facilities, & the mix between troops & vehicles, not in the ability to sustain whatever it lands. LSDs generally lack hangars or aviation support & are oriented towards troops rather than heavy equipment. Foudre is typical of LPDs in having a hangar, & the ability to support sustained helicopter operations.

Of course, the French have their own classifications. Foudre is a TCD – transport de chalands de débarquement, & Mistral is a BPC – bâtiment de projection et de commandement.

Agree on the rest of your post, though. That big dock, & the first wave capability it gives, is very useful.

@H_K

No, I’m not confusing ships and calissifications.

I base my own on U.S. Navy standards, it could be questionable if they are the best or most appropriate, but there is intrinsic logical coherence with them.

By U.S. Navy standards, an LSD is a ship with most of its hull devoted to a very large dock, able to transport and deploy ashore large amounts of landing crafts.

By the same standards, what you save of your LSD’s hull from the dock is part deck space for motorized or mechanized assets, or berthing facilities.

There is almost no room at all for storing facilities, either dry or liquid.

And at the present time, U.S. Navy LSDs are the Widbey Island class ones, whose cutaway is really close to Foudre class cutaway, and related facilities as well.

By the aforementioned standards, is LPD’s standard (Austin class and now San Antonio class) to provide facilities for logistic support, i.e. mainly stores.

This is the rationale dictating a dock’s depth of less than 30 meters for San Antonio class vs. around 100 meters for Widbey Island class

Of course you can sort out of an LSD something resembling an LPD, e.g. you can turn out with sometinhg like an Harpers Ferry, an iteration of Widbey Island with only 30 meters depth dock and plenty of stores builded on the saved room.

But it is something I would think of for a new built ship, like if Marine National discovered their amphibious fleet is severely impaired by the lack of a logistic amphibious ship (and they actually lack that asset) and like to keep R&D costs low modifying the Foudre project the same way U.S. did with Widbey Island, but ways too expensive to refit in an already built ship.

Verbatim,

Well in that case, it’s the USN standards that are rather overly simplistic, because they focus on form (size of well deck) rather than function. By contrast, I believe most NATO navies would agree to a classification based on function:

LPDs: Cover the tactical side of ship-to-shore – this requires an ability to embark and sustain troops, a mix of landing craft and helicopters, some vehicles, a command element, and medical facilities.
LSDs: Cover the logistic side of ship-to-shore , i.e. supporting other amphibs – this focuses much more on cargo, vehicle and/or (especially in the USN) landing craft stowage.

To me this kind of functional classification is much clearer and generally applicable. For example, both the Whidbey Island and Bay class are clearly LSDs, even though the former have a huge dock and the latter have a poststamp-sized one. Similarly, the Albion and Foudre class are both LPDs, even though the former have no hangar (but still can sustain helos, so they’re LPDs) and the latter’s dock is “too big” for a traditional LPD…

I was always confused about LPD vs LSD, now I’m even more so.

I was also under the impression the main difference was in the size of the well dock, LSDs having a smaller well dock but large storage while the LPDs have large well docks but at the expense of storage capacity.

This is how it is in the RN atleast, IIRC the well dock of the Albion able to store up to four LCU Mk 10s while the Bay class’s dock can only support one + a couple of LCVP Mk 5s, but the Bays able to carry far more vehicles than the Albions. I thought this was due to the Albions landing the first wave, so focusing on getting what they have onto the beaches as soon as possible while the Bays simply trickle reinforcments onto the captured beachhead at a much slower rate, but ultimately delivering more equipment.

As amusing as this game of ‘bait the spams on this forum‘ is.

I think that the limiting factor might not be paper capability but operational availability. All of the European navies have been starved of cash and I suspect that routine, planned maintenance has just not been up to scratch.

Of course in this alternative universe we offer the Mexican/latino population Florida and Texas and an undertaking that the new regime will stop actively scapegoating Spanish speakers for all of their ills. With a monopoly on the underpaid, unqualified* jobs our fifth columnists bring the USA to its knees. We block up the **** and the brain drowns in ****.

Al

*which ain’t the same as unskilled…….

Actually what i was thinking was that in a preplanned attack you would have the time to cut back on ops a bit and start putting more ships through refits in order to increase availability.

As amusing as this game of ‘bait the spams on this forum‘ is.

I think that the limiting factor might not be paper capability but operational availability. All of the European navies have been starved of cash and I suspect that routine, planned maintenance has just not been up to scratch.

Of course in this alternative universe we offer the Mexican/latino population Florida and Texas and an undertaking that the new regime will stop actively scapegoating Spanish speakers for all of their ills. With a monopoly on the underpaid, unqualified* jobs our fifth columnists bring the USA to its knees. We block up the **** and the brain drowns in ****.

Al

*which ain’t the same as unskilled…….

And in the alternate universe where the Republicans win the last election and the EU decides for the good of the world its time for a regime change…..

So UK puts three Invincibles to sea, along with Argus and Ocean- That would be a minimum of 100 A/c berths . Spain joins with Principd’A, Italy joins with GariB and rushes Cavour into service, that would add another 50-60 A/c, then France throws in the jewel of the EU strike fleet, CDG with its 40 A/c complement, decides to attach the Mistral and Tonnnnnnnerrrrre to the Dutch and German fleets as ASW carriers and offers Jean D’Arc to Scandanavians.

So that would be something like 100 strike/fighter, 100 odd ASW Helos and 20 odd AEW a/c…. then throw in escorts, Auxilaries with their organic air…

Subs -6SSN from FN, lets say 8SSN from UK backed up by 4 German U212a and the plethora of costal subs acting as back stops….

I think that might see the USN in difficulties in the North Atlantic….especailly if we do a deal with China to get all feisty in the Pacific.

Of course the heat might be getting to me…. :p

Precisely, hell the RN or FN could give the USN a bloody nose. Not for long, but it would hurt and they’d lose a carrier or two.

Plan it right and they could potentially lose half their active carrier force in the first strike to submarines. How many of them are actually at sea at any one time 3 or 4? The rest can be taken out with cruise missiles. The problem is that the USN also has a dozen “Harrier Carriers”plus they’d have around 20 active SSn’s at any one time who could potentially return the favour. Then again, the invincibles are designed for ASW and taking out the USN carrier force would put a dent in their ASW helicopter inventory whereas an RN if it initiated the conflict could potentially have 4 ASW carriers plus the RFA’s all loaded up with ASW birds plus their 8+ SSN’s (i assume some of the Swiftsures could possibly be brought back). Since unlike the USN the RN would be expecting an attack they would have half a chance of taking out any SSN attack.

If as assumed, the RN chose to attack, they’d also probably have time to return FA.2’s to service as air defense against the USMC AV-8B’s and with only around 100 of those available they don’t have much of a numbers advantage over the GR.9 and FA.2’s available to the RN. You’d just have to make sure one of your first cruise missile targets was Lockheed’s F-35 production facility, preferably after you acquire the complete plans for local production.

With the US Harriers spread between 12 ships and the RN’s spread between 3 the RN would have a numbers advantage on an individual ship vs ship basis, even if only 12 aircraft were embarked with the other 10-12 being ASW and AEW aircraft.

Precisely, hell the RN or FN could give the USN a bloody nose. Not for long, but it would hurt and they’d lose a carrier or two.

Yeah. Times have changed beyond the point where anyone can completely dominate the seas.

I take it we’re ignoring strategic assets of the fleets.