Perhaps this is the best kept secret in the Navy. LSD's and LPD's can (in a high density operation) almost rival the first Iwo Jima Class LHA's in the number of helicopters they can carry.
The mini-ARG concept can work but it will require a careful balancing of assets and the LPD-17 class should be the centerpiece of the effort.
With this in mind it might make sense to re-class the LHD and especially the USS America Class LHA's as Amphibious Assault Carriers, limit our buy of them and fill them only with F-35s.
Imagine an amphibious fleet of 4 America Class Amphibious Assault Carriers with the balance of the ships being LPDs and LSDs. You could have reinforced companies all over the place and a forward presence that the Navy has been clamoring for.
Protection could be an issue but a Burke Class destroy to accompany each Mini-ARG should be sufficient for operations other than war.
I think I've hit on something.
It's nice, but even the two-spot helo-deck of an LPD-17 isn't that large. Helos, ntm the MV-22, need time to fold/unfold their blades, and that takes time, so your helo launch/recovery must be timed precisely to avoid a cluttered deck. Having a maintenance gripe on one helo may block the landing zone with detrimental effects during (time critical) operations.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to take it a step further. Forget the classic LPD/LSD configuration, and go for a mini-LHD design WITHIN LSD/LPD SPECS.
Thales Enforcer program made a pitch for a 'cheap' LHD by simply rearranging the modular Enforcer LPD design.
You'd still pay for a (large) LPD, but get a mini-LHD - which isn't JSF proof as yet and only has a small hangar, but it's more flexible as it has more helo-spots than traditional amphib designs.
Having abundant deck spots is a force multiplier, since it also allows very STOL ops (read UAV launch/recovery).
I know for a fact that the Spanish and Dutchies are kicking themselves that Thales didn't came up with this design sooner.
(Small) pic here -
http://pbrasil.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/enforc11.jpg
yeah Marcase, but if you look at the photo above you'll see 6 CH-46's on the deck of that LSD. From a quick look at it, it appears that you could easily stuff another 6 '46s or maybe 3 CH-53's on it.
ReplyDeleteAviation planning would be more difficult, you'd have to beef up the aviation dept on these ships but its doable...and with the stuff we already have in the pipeline.
How can you carry out aviation operations from a ship without a hangar? How will the aircraft be repaired or serviced?
ReplyDeletethey have a hangar...its just small...besides if you were going to reconfigure its aviation section then you'd make allowance for the carrying and upkeep of additional helicopters.
ReplyDeletei'm sure a few spaces below deck can be switched out and used for such a mission...you might end up leaving an LCAC behind or vehicles but it should be worth it.
"i'm sure a few spaces below deck can be switched out and used for such a mission..."
ReplyDeleteGuess that was the reason for the radical switch in LHA-6.
I have two observations about using "partial flight deck" amphibs as force enablers. The first was hit upon by JB. Aviation capable ships from which multiple aircarft are intended to be operated independently MUST have a hangar and aviation M&R capabaility. Otherwise they are just big lily pads spread around the oceans where the a/c depend on anohter ship for such work. So does one use the LPD/LSD AND have to buy America LHAs as well just to fufill that OMFTS function? I don't think the later is a good COA?
ReplyDeleteHow can any one suggest system centerd on the LPD17 clas which ALREADY has a history of breakdowns. The LSD(X) must NOT be based on a LPD17 which has design, systems and reliability problems. Another platform such as mentioned by Marcase must be selected, OR improve the LSD49 design if possible.