viability of using the T-AKE-1 design as a amphib

Re: viability of using the T-AKE-1 design as a amphib

It just seemed implied that these Euro-LPD/LHD couldn’t take LCAC.

I was mistakenly referring to the FS Tonnerre. The tight fit of around a meter on a side, the LCAC will fit but, I wouldn’t want to steer the LCAC in heavy seas with a load of cargo into a well deck that tight.
I saw on the Discovery Channel a program about the amphibious fleet. In one exercise an LCAC left a LHD, went to the ‘beach’ and, loaded an M-1 Abrams MTB. Then traveled several hours back to LHD to rendezvous, in heavy seas and move into the well deck. Having meters of space on either side of the LCAC, seeing the difficulty the pilot had getting into the well deck, I wouldn’t want to see someone try that with less room.
America has a desire to have the biggest, baddest, costliest etc. systems available. Compare the USN’s LHD/LPD versus the same combination anywhere else, America has the largest, most expansive, etc.
France’s carry C. DeGaulle is a good carrier but, considered to small for America’s needs. Or, the Typhoon or Rafale and fine aircraft but, the USAF has the F-22A. For better or worst it is the American mentality.

You Tube;
“US NAVY LCAC entering the Well Deck”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uyYoHvzn9Q&NR=1

“F.S. Tonnerre passes interoperability tests with U.S. Navy”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1bs8hLsYDY

As I stated, the USN is looking at a different set of parameters because, plans exist where the Navy will perform and amphibious operation without the help of allies, if necessary against a very hostile shore! The scale of operations is reflected in its size. It is not that one design is more advanced than the other, it is one is designed for different needs.
I would also check into weapons designed outside the the USA and is manufactured in the USA. I don’t know of a situation where major modification aren’t made. (Start with the Canberra medium bomber converted to the B-57.)
I am not going to get a “mine is better than yours” argument, let us say…. each navy has what they want.

It just seemed implied that these Euro-LPD/LHD couldn’t take LCAC.

Re: viability of using the T-AKE-1 design as a amphib

As I stated, the USN is looking at a different set of parameters because, plans exist where the Navy will perform and amphibious operation without the help of allies, if necessary against a very hostile shore! The scale of operations is reflected in its size. It is not that one design is more advanced than the other, it is one is designed for different needs.
I would also check into weapons designed outside the the USA and is manufactured in the USA. I don’t know of a situation where major modification aren’t made. (Start with the Canberra medium bomber converted to the B-57.)
I am not going to get a “mine is better than yours” argument, let us say…. each navy has what they want.

The Spanish Navy has some nice ships but, are to small and to limited to fit USN’s needs. No ability to use LCACs means no heavy armor could be sent to the beach.

LCAC dimensions are 26.8m long x 14.3m beam

The 32m beam Spanish strategic projection ships (LHD) has a dock of 69.3m length and 16.8m width. Her flooding deck can carry four LCM-1E/LCM-8 + 4/6 SUPERCAT type RIBs, one LCAC and LVTs. I’m sure with relatively minor modifcation (there’s e.g. a divider inside the welldeck that would need to be removed), they could fit 2 LCAC easily.

Likewise, the 32m beam french Mistral can already carry either four CTM, landing craft utility (LCU) or two air-cushion landing craft (LCACs).

HNLMS Johan de Witt (which is slightly modified relative to Rotterdam/Galicia class) can accommodate 2 LCACs. Rotterdam/Galicia cannot fit LCACs. But e.g. HMS Albion can carry 2.

Re: viability of using the T-AKE-1 design as a amphib

With all the hate directed to the San Antonio class, I was wondering what any other options the USN had on a new amphib and honestly the only thing that would come to mind is the Lewis and Clark class ship converted to a amphibious role.

The idea behind the San Antonio Class amphibious ships is, that nine ships will replace thirty-four other amphibious ships scheduled to be retired. While retaining much of their total capabilities. So the bulk of the USN amphibious capability will be in the eight USS Wasp (LHD) and the nine USS San Antonio (LPD) Class ships. America’s amphibs are intended to insert very large numbers of Marines onto a “opposed entry” beach. Something few countries are currently able to do.
Another aspect is when you look at what the US Navy requires, the smaller amphibs are not up to the task.
One aspect not previously mentioned is the reality that Congress is fickle! The idea of making many less costly systems is nice. But only a few times it has worked out….. the F-16, USS Los Angeles (SSN), USS Perry (FFG), USS Burke (DDG), etc. Many times we start with this idea, make a bunch and then the political winds change and the US Government decides it doesn’t need as many as planned and the program gets cut short. Much like the F-22, which Washington told Lockeed back in 1991 to change the schedule, operational status would be seven years later (1996 to 2003), and the production run would cut at least in half! This is what drove the cost of the F-22A by at least 30%. These are all weapon systems started or produced in the Cold War.
I have little faith that the F-35s will be built in the numbers originally intended. Cost will cited as the reason but, the reality is the ‘political winds’ will have changed!

The Spanish have proven that they can design an excellent amphibious ship at a great price, and how long have they been in the modern Amphibious warfare business?

The Spanish Navy has some nice ships but, are to small and to limited to fit USN’s needs. No ability to use LCACs means no heavy armor could be sent to the beach.

when one considers that the U.S Navy from mid WWII to the 1990’s was the world leader in Amphibious warfare, in both design, strategy and excerption!
And then they come up with the ultra modern, ultra expensive and yet backwards design like the San Antonio class!

Look at the USA’s participation in foreign military involvements (legitimate or otherwise), it would be foolish to downgrade the USA’s amphibious capabilities.

If you check the registry for the Spanish Navy you will see they have purchased the LST’s from the USN. (Both built in 1972.) The Pizarro “L-42” (formerly the USS Harlan County) and the Hernán Cortés “L-41” (formerly the USS Barnstable County). Sold to the Spanish Navy in 2002. The Hernán Cortés “L-41” was decommissioned in 2009.
LPD “The Galicia Landing Platform Dock” (LPD) 524-ft long, 82-ft beam and, 13,900-tons displacement. Built in 1998.
The USS San Antonio is 684-ft long, 105-ft beam and, 24,433-tons displacement. It can carry two LCACs or, one LCAC and one LCU or, fourteen “expeditionary fighting vehicles” and, 2,200 troops!
The landing platform dock (LPD) is made for support in amphibious operations with the LHD class dealing with the most violent amphibious operations.
When one considers the USA has not gone more than twenty years (since the late 1800s) without military intervention, the USS San Antonio and Wasp class amphibs would serve this country better.

One could say, no one is threatening the USA now but, the same thing could have been in May of 1950 (a month before the Korean War), in July of 1964 (a month before the Viet Nam War) or, July of 1990 (a month before Kuwait was invaded). What will trigger the next military involvement, I have no idea? I would bet my paycheck that the US military will be used before 2021, twenty years after 09-11-01.

Pioneer, I understand your frustration. It is so evident in your writing… hang in there! I would like to see a better solution but, considering all aspects involved… I don’t know what that solution would be.

[QUOTE][The modern trend of sacrificing numbers in the name of a smaller ‘silver bullet’ force is pretty dangerous. The same can be seen in the USAF, with ever reducing numbers, all in the name of the stealth game, pinning their hopes on quality to offset shortfall in quantity.
/QUOTE]

I too like the way you think!!!!
There are some great Amphibious designs out there, which are not American designed and built!
The Spanish have proven that they can design an excellent amphibious ship at a great price, and how long have they been in the modern Amphibious warfare business?
What about taking the U.S Navy Top-brass out of the equation?
I am serious!
If one looks at the continues blunders and miss management that the U.S Navy (or the U.S Military full stop!) has carried out, with multiple projects in the past decade, one really must wonder how long it is going to tolerated.
I for one can not work it out!
Especially when one considers that the U.S Navy from mid WWII to the 1990’s was the world leader in Amphibious warfare, in both design, strategy and excerption!
And then they come up with the ultra modern, ultra expensive and yet backwards design like the San Antonio class!
Hay if I was a U.S Marine, I would be protesting why it has taken decades to replace something as simple and straight forward as the CH-46 Sea Knight – whilst his brass has waisted billions and billions of dollars on ‘silver bullet’ projects only to can them!
And yet he still has to get to a beech in a warn out and flight restricted Sea Knight time and again!!

And again the same old use of the U.S Military (or more so U.S senators!!) ‘get out of jail free’ trump card of – ‘if its not made in America, it want be put into service here’!!
Crazy!!!!

I use to hate bean counters, but I never thought I would say it – but this is a perfect reason that the U.S Military need them

Regards
Pioneer

A much more sensible choice would be to order the some ships of the Schelde Enforcer type. A limited LSD could be built very cheaply, along the same lines as the British Bay class LSD(A)s. For a more capable LPD option, the sister ships, like the Dutch Rotterdam/Johan de Witt class, could be built, still for low cost compared with the San Antonio class. I think a large part of the problem for the US Navy amphibious shipping fleet has been the insistence on building the most expensive ships possible. If you look at the new LHA and LPD-17 designs, these just scream of excessive spending. By spending so much, on so few ships, they are being forced to cut numbers, which then hurts capability. This can be seen in more than just the amphibious fleet, the USN seems to be trying to buy impossibly expensive ships.

More modest choices might have been better, such as going for amphibious ships more like the Enforcer series (which would have been able to replace all the old LPDs and LSDs). For replacing the Perry class, a relatively low risk option, along the lines of a frigate-sized Sa’ar 5 type, using the SPY-1F could have been a good choice.

Basically, by going for a relatively conservative approach, but going for a better trade-off between capability and cost, things could have been looking a lot better. It is worth noting that the hey-day of the US Navy power, i.e. ’50s-’70s, they relied on a lot of relatively old, cheap and cheerful ships. They relied on extensively modified Essex class carriers, modernised world war two destroyers, small SSNs and SSKs, etc…

The modern trend of sacrificing numbers in the name of a smaller ‘silver bullet’ force is pretty dangerous. The same can be seen in the USAF, with ever reducing numbers, all in the name of the stealth game, pinning their hopes on quality to offset shortfall in quantity.

+++
If only I could make you minister of defence…

The folly of going entirely down the quality route *sigh* People bemoan the shipping losses in the Falklands, but thats why you have lots of cheap and cheerful escorts. If the RN lost a frigate or worse a T45 in action now that would be a significant % of the fleet gone and with all the golden egg toys stuffed into them a sizable chunk of the fleets capability gone too. Lose two type 45s today in the same way we lost two t42s then one third of the detroyer fleet is gone. ouch.

A much more sensible choice would be to order the some ships of the Schelde Enforcer type. A limited LSD could be built very cheaply, along the same lines as the British Bay class LSD(A)s. For a more capable LPD option, the sister ships, like the Dutch Rotterdam/Johan de Witt class, could be built, still for low cost compared with the San Antonio class. I think a large part of the problem for the US Navy amphibious shipping fleet has been the insistence on building the most expensive ships possible. If you look at the new LHA and LPD-17 designs, these just scream of excessive spending. By spending so much, on so few ships, they are being forced to cut numbers, which then hurts capability. This can be seen in more than just the amphibious fleet, the USN seems to be trying to buy impossibly expensive ships.

More modest choices might have been better, such as going for amphibious ships more like the Enforcer series (which would have been able to replace all the old LPDs and LSDs). For replacing the Perry class, a relatively low risk option, along the lines of a frigate-sized Sa’ar 5 type, using the SPY-1F could have been a good choice.

Basically, by going for a relatively conservative approach, but going for a better trade-off between capability and cost, things could have been looking a lot better. It is worth noting that the hey-day of the US Navy power, i.e. ’50s-’70s, they relied on a lot of relatively old, cheap and cheerful ships. They relied on extensively modified Essex class carriers, modernised world war two destroyers, small SSNs and SSKs, etc…

The modern trend of sacrificing numbers in the name of a smaller ‘silver bullet’ force is pretty dangerous. The same can be seen in the USAF, with ever reducing numbers, all in the name of the stealth game, pinning their hopes on quality to offset shortfall in quantity.

well this is just for musing and wanted others opinions on what needs to be done to make it a amphibous attack platform there is certainly enough space. Mainly in response to all the blogger hate against the LPD-17 besides i don’t see them making any other suggestions other then to “buy foreign” which is not politically viable in the United States (something you think ‘enlightened and brilliant’ blogger would get.)

back on the subject you could hollow out the main super structure and use it as a larger hanger for Medium and heavy life helicopters ( i think that is kind of how the Newport class LST was designed but for vehicle storage instead) as well as ramps so the any vehicles that are carried can be moved around from the main deck to the storage decks

you could put Davits for landing craft mid ship and more facilitates for helicopters.

That would be a step back in the evolution of amphibious warfare ships IMHO. The only way I could see that being viable is when operated as part of a system (with other vessel types) like in ‘Seabasing‘

you could put Davits for landing craft mid ship and more facilitates for helicopters.

That reminded me the MV Julius Fucik from “Red Storm Rising” novel 😀

Mmmm, LPD versus T-AKE…. docking well and LCAC versus no docking well. :rolleyes: