The end of Litorial warfare?

So why has nobody done that? Why do most navies that build amphibious ships think it’s worth having a couple of different types, e.g. an LHD & a cheaper (& usually smaller) LPD or LSD?

Might it be because a high/low mix can provide more flexibility? Because having more ships is more flexible, enabling one to send a basic LSD when that’s all that’s needed, & save the more expensive LHDs for the tasks only they can do?

exactly. The UK does not need 6 full on LPDs of the Albion class. It needs a couple for high end ops and the much simpler bay class for smaller ops and everyday taskings. They have proved very useful, dock, good sized flight deck, loads of cargo space and four of them for much less than full spec ships. its a model that should be pursued across all types of ships me thinks (hopefully so with C1-3).

As for my comment about the various carriers, my point is that the Euro harrier stuff is more akin to a US LHDs and really can’t be listed in comparison to a CVN. Only QEs and CDG can. it underlines that even if they had 9 ships the USN has massive advantage over everyone else.

So why has nobody done that? Why do most navies that build amphibious ships think it’s worth having a couple of different types, e.g. an LHD & a cheaper (& usually smaller) LPD or LSD?

Might it be because a high/low mix can provide more flexibility? Because having more ships is more flexible, enabling one to send a basic LSD when that’s all that’s needed, & save the more expensive LHDs for the tasks only they can do?

LHDs aren’t inherently more expensive than LPDs. Certainly the Mistrals and Juan Carlos are cheaper than the Albions and San Antonios. It’s a question of equipment fit and modular design, not displacement or deck shape.

In addition, LHDs do have one huge inherent advantage over LPDs. They have much more volume, thanks to having more internal decks and a flush deck. This is great for low density payloads such as helicopters, pallets, command & hospital spaces etc. Partially as a result, the 21,000t Mistrals have the same vehicle and dock space as the larger 25,000t San Antonios, but also a huge hangar, larger command and hospital spaces, not to mention the empty deck space!

The other reason why Mistrals have more usable internal volume than the San Antonios is that they have half the crew requirements.

In summary, the LHD vs. LPD debate is pointless. What matters is:

1. Ship automation to reduce crew requirements & volume uptake
2. Modular design to cut costs (might be a bit easier with an LHD than an LPD?)
3. Maximizing volume (easier on LHDs)

A smaller number of a single design to cover the main amphibious functions would clearly be cheaper, and provide greater flexibility.

basic shared design:
rotterdam (1) <> galicia (2) <> bay class (4)

associated designs
dutch Johan deWith (enlarged, modified rotterdam)
dutch JSS (cross rotterdam/galicia lpd x amsterdam/patinho aor)

Looking at Europe as a whole, that’s actually what you have

at least 4 VSTOL carriers
a helicopter carrier or two
various sized LPD (albions, rotterdam/galicia/dewith/bays, italian & french lpds)

So why has nobody done that? Why do most navies that build amphibious ships think it’s worth having a couple of different types, e.g. an LHD & a cheaper (& usually smaller) LPD or LSD?

Might it be because a high/low mix can provide more flexibility? Because having more ships is more flexible, enabling one to send a basic LSD when that’s all that’s needed, & save the more expensive LHDs for the tasks only they can do?

How many LHA/D does the USN operate again? How are they any less multi purpose than Mistral or BPE?

AFAIK, there are more than 30 ships in the ‘Gator Navy’ (LHAs, LHDs, LPDs, LSDs). If the LHAs/Ds can do it all, what are the others for?

A smaller number of a single design to cover the main amphibious functions would clearly be cheaper, and provide greater flexibility.

I wouldn’t cound Cavour/GG/Princip/ in the pile with QE and CDG, surely apples and oranges there, they are much more comfortable in the LPH pile (as are the Lusty and Ark at present.)[/QUOTE]
The Italian & Spanish navies have ships in the Indian Ocean. Cavour has just been to the South Atlantic & Caribbean.

GG & PdA have no amphibious role.

Sorry, yes of course…. perhaps I meant ships in Navies that would actually deploy beyond the med and bay of biscay…..

I wouldn’t cound Cavour/GG/Princip/ in the pile with QE and CDG, surely apples and oranges there, they are much more comfortable in the LPH pile (as are the Lusty and Ark at present.)

Short answer: yes. A few general-purpose vessels like the French Mistral or the Navantia BPE (Spain and Australia), rather than a large collection of specialised ships, seems a cheaper, more flexible option.

And the LCS seems over-specced and over-priced: you could probably get 90% of the functionality for a small fraction of the price.

How many LHA/D does the USN operate again? How are they any less multi purpose than Mistral or BPE?

I do not understand the link between the heading the news reported. Also if gates was really interested in making the US NAVY lean you would think he would go for something like the LCS and all it tries to offer in terms of man power reduction.

What is a standard crew of a destroyer? What are the overheads? If you use 246 as the number of people x 60 dollars an hour (for over head) x 356 days x 8 hours a day you end up with $31,527360 per year.

Assuming the overheads in running a ship with the level of technology a destroyer has is very high.

Or you could do it the other way around, which would be lets assume a sailor would get something similar to a graduate engineer which would be somewhere around £25,000 or $25,000 x 246 which is the complement of the ship 6,150000 not considering the other over heads.

Times either figure by 50 and you start talking scary numbers.

Does the US Navy publish figures as to how much it costs to operate and sail a destroyer or submarine?

It is better that the LCS carry on with its reduced crew and be used as a new wave and model to restructure the US NAVY.

I am suprised that lean has not been taken up by the NAVY.

After thought, just because the NAVY kills of the LCS does not mean that littoral combat itself is redundant or not required.

europe in perhaps a decade might field 4 large carriers (QEs and CdG + Frog CV 2), 4 large LPH/LHD (Ocean and Mistrals) and perhaps 10-12 ships comparable to a San Antonio (with a certain amount of imagination)

Carriers
Queen Elizabeth class CV – 2 building
Charles de Gaulle CV – 1
Cavour CVS – 1. Secondary LPH role.
Invincible class CVS – 2 + 1 reserve (to retire when QE class enter service). Secondary LPH role.
Principe de Asturias CVS – 1 (to retire early 2020s – replacement planned)
Giuseppe Garibaldi CVS – 1 (to retire – probably by 2020)
+ Possible new carrier for France.

Amphibious ships
Ocean LPH – 1
Juan Carlos 1 LHD – 1 on sea trials
Mistral class LHD – 2 in service, 1 building, 4th planned
+ LHD planned by Italy

Albion class LPD – 2
Johann de Witt LPD – 1
Galicia/Rotterdam LPD – 3
Foudre class LPD – 2 (1 or both to retire by 2020, replaced by Mistral)
‘Santi’ class small LPD – 3 (1 or 2 to be replaced by 2020)

Bay class LSD – 4

Possible new amphibs for Germany by 2020.

The San Antonio class is bigger than any of the European amphibs except Juan Carlos.

And Italy’s Cavoir

europe in perhaps a decade might field 4 large carriers (QEs and CdG + Frog CV 2), 4 large LPH/LHD (Ocean and Mistrals) and perhaps 10-12 ships comparable to a San Antonio etc…

You forgetting about Spain’s BPE ‘Juan Carlos’, bigger than both Ocean and Mistral?

I think we’ll see the force structure cut from 11 to 9, matched with 9 LPH (wasp/america) and 9 san antonios.

Still insanely formidable.

europe in perhaps a decade might field 4 large carriers (QEs and CdG + Frog CV 2), 4 large LPH/LHD (Ocean and Mistrals) and perhaps 10-12 ships comparable to a San Antonio (with a certain amount of imagination) So yes 9 of everything still makes the USN the big man on campus by a long shot, especially if you compare size and ability of the airwings etc.

The trick for the US will be to ensure that in another decade that 9 doesn’t become 6 or 7 in the same way 14 became 11 a few years back etc…

I think we’ll see the force structure cut from 11 to 9, matched with 9 LPH (wasp/america) and 9 san antonios.

Still insanely formidable.

Absolutely. At the height of empire (by gad) the RN by law had to exceed the combined tonnage of the next two.

Even if the USN does not quite manage this on tonnage (and it might) in terms of skimmer capability it comfortably exceeds this.

It would be a shame to see a reduction in CVN strength, just because they are superlative. However if this did happen I wonder whether LPHs would be used in a different manner (i.e. get ski jumps) or whether that would be seen as weakening CVNs place in the USN further?

I think we’ll see the force structure cut from 11 to 9, matched with 9 LPH (wasp/america) and 9 san antonios.

Still insanely formidable.

Robert Gates has said the US Navy has too many carriers (the quote being along the lines of we have 11 no one else has more than 1) and has hinted that he thinks the days of litorial warfare are over. Thoughts? Where does that leave the USMC and LCS etc? And have the rest of us got it wrong spending billions of various LHD, LPH, LPD etc….?

Sure there are too many carriers for the current budget. Eight Fords (nice before, since Nimitz still needs RCOH), and instead of sending the next CVN into RCOH it should be retired early (or sold), and CVN-65 should be retired on the spot. But don’t forget: 11 is a law currently.

The Marines would be a prime target for savings, esp the fast jets. But they are saints and have heavenly protection from inside the beltway. Even their 3 divisions force structure is a law currently.

Unifying the forces, cutting back ambitions, pulling back troops from abroad, and actually cutting back the force level is the way forward to safe the forces. But still it might not be enough. This is the end of the empire we are watching, and no idea where the fall-back line is.

The statements from Gates are as much a reflection on what Obama wants to do as they are a trial balloon. Look for a lot of AAA aimed at this and other such balloons to follow both in Congress, the Services and “circumstances on the ground”.

Not entirely, The RMs still maintain their assault boats for use in conjunction with the helos, but the majority are airlifted in. But it does mean that in a heavily contested environment there are a couple of ways of getting ashore and securing the beachhead nice and quickly.

I can’t however see the use for an amphibious tank, especially where the USN is involved, anything that’d require a tank to deal with (such as other tanks and fortifications) should really have been pounded by NGS, PGMs or attack helos in the opening stages before a landing begins. Everything else should be able to be handled (at least briefly while the beachhead is secured) by the Marines being inserted and helos. If anything a tank is just a larger target for AT missiles.

I am not convinced the EFV is a good way to put Marines ashore because of a proliferation of IIR anti tank missiles. I would use airlift to insert Marine assaukt forces a short distance inland instead. Once the beach head is secure, LCACs can bring the bulk of equipment ashore.

Thats certainly the RMs way of doing things these days, heli ashore and then bring in the ships. Does the USMC still expect to launch opposed landings?

So much for rambling thoughts. Its still early here.

Cheers!