The next thing my mythical fleet needs is a mothership/sea control/littoral support ship. My choice? The Mistral class.
Specs from Wikipedia...
| General characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Type: | landing platform helicopter |
| Displacement: | 16,500 tonnes (empty) 21,300 tonnes (full load) 32,300 tonnes (with ballasts) |
| Length: | 199 m (653 ft) |
| Beam: | 32 m (105 ft) |
| Draught: | 6.3 m (21 ft) |
| Installed power: | 3 Wärtsilä diesels-alternators 16 V32 (6.2 MW) + 1 Wärtsilä Vaasa auxiliary diesel-alternator 18V200 (3 MW) |
| Propulsion: | 2 Mermaid azimuth thrusters (2 × 7 MW), 2 5-bladed propellers |
| Speed: | 18.8 knots (35 km/h) |
| Range: | 10,800 km (5,800 nmi) at 18 knots (33 km/h) 19,800 kilometres (10,700 nmi) at 15 knots (28 km/h) |
| Boats and landing craft carried: | 4 CTM (chaland de transport de matériel) alternatively, 2 LCAC (Landing Craft, Air Cushion) |
| Capacity: | 59 vehicles (including 13 Leclerc tanks) or a 40-strong Leclerc tank battalion |
| Troops: | 900 (short duration) 450 (long durations) 150 (serving as operational headquarters) |
| Complement: | 20 officers, 80 petty officers, 60 quarter-masters |
| Sensors and processing systems: | DRBN-38A Decca Bridgemaster E250 navigation radar MRR3D-NG air/surface sentry radar 2 optronic fire control systems |
| Armament: | 2 x Simbad systems 4 x 12.7 mm M2-HB Browning machine guns |
| Aircraft carried: | 16 heavy or 35 light helicopters |
| Aviation facilities: | 6 helicopter landing spots |
The vehicle capacity is really over kill, in my vision it'll be used for enhanced aviation and munitions storage. I'd fill this ship with Navy MH-60's armed to the gills and then I'd stuff the back end with Riverines and make this a US Navy Special Ops platform.
SOCOM would get its mothership, Riverines would get its mothership and NAVAIR would get a sea control beast from hell. MH-60's patrolling off the coast of Africa could shut down piracy in a week. In addition you'd have Riverines running patrols and SOCOM conducting raids from its deck.
What ship would be canned in order to bring this true mult-role ship to the fleet?
LCS.
What capability would we lose?
Mine hunting. Every other trick the LCS was expected to perform would be covered by these Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH). Its not much of a stretch either. They displace less than a San Antonio Class LPD so they would be considered relatively small ships. I envision a total of 4 being procured.
And the mine clearing can done by air too, their was a version of the CH-53 which could do it in the 90's I think...
ReplyDeleteright again, but isn't the Navy getting out of the CH-53 business?
ReplyDeleteIIRC only the aft spot on Mistral can handle heavy helos like the H-53.
ReplyDeleteI like Mistral as an LHD. I'm less enamored with it as an aviation warship. Lots of eggs in a single, lightly-armed, lightly built basket. So it depends on the CONOPS.
If the vessel is expected to be used as a combatant, you might be better off with something like the Italian Garibaldi or Cavour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Giuseppe_Garibaldi_(551)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Cavour_(550)
Or even the Japanese Hyuga class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer
No what you need is a modern one of these,
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_cruiser_Jeanne_d'Arc_(R97)
Fast. Sizeable aviation capabilities. And in original configuration multiple 100mm mounts.
Steve and B. Smitty.
ReplyDeleteyou're giving me warships when the intended role of this ship is mostly forward basing for aviation and to act as a mothership for the Riverines.
the aviation assets will let me control the waters for hmmm 250 miles in either direction and the Riverines will give me influence up to the beaches and provide boarding parties. the enhanced aviation will also get SOCOM where they need to be without tying up Marine Amphibs. they get to operate without the Green Machine in the way....
the Cavour is so capable that it rivals the LHD's that we have in service...the Garibaldi is much the same with the added expense of being phased out of service and the Hyuga class just doesn't float my boat.
Like I said, it depends on the CONOPS. If you expect this ship to operate in relatively benign waters, then Mistral is a good choice. If you want to send into the Persian Gulf during a shooting war with Iran, then maybe not.
ReplyDeleteOn other boards, I've proposed switching to an all Mistral/Juan Carlos-sized LHD amphibious fleet, instead of the LHD/LHA/LPD/LSD mix we have today. This would give you a lot of ships to meet your forward aviation ship requirement, when not needed as amphibious lift. It would also drive up economies of scale by stamping out the same type over and over, rather than four different types.
Fresh news: USMC CH-53 Sea Stallion conducts qualification trials on French Navy Dixmude LHD off Djibouti
ReplyDeletehttp://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=434
Less fresh but it can handle HH-60 too:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=121
hmmm don't really see a need to send these ships into a shooting war and if they did go there then we'd have carriers with them.
ReplyDeleteas far as using the Mistral and Juan Carlos....again, for the Marines they don't provide enough space to operate the CH-53K and F-35B. rumors say that the Juan Carlos can't fit it under decks. also i'm concerned about the number of vehicles and LCACs they can carry. i like our heavy amphibs, its just the light missions where i think i'm coming up short.
I'll have to do some research on deck heights.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/juandect/5738139346/lightbox/
Looks reasonably tall to me but hard to say exactly (my eyeball says maybe in the 18-20' range).
As far as cargo square and cube, just buy enough to fit your requirements. They are cheaper than our existing amphibs.
Switching the ESG over to 5 x Juan Carlos LHDs might not be any more expensive than the current three ship configuration (especially once economies of scale kick in), and provide more capacity and more ships.
The LCS is supposed to perform ASW as well as MIW and small craft ASuW. The current plan is to buy 24 LCSes. You only plan to buy four LHDs. That means only one-ish LHD deployed a any one time.
I did a Google Docs spreadsheet a while back to calculate the steady-state, yearly costs different fleet options presented, starting from the fleet composition proposed in the New Navy Fighting Machine.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiVQu4lA4SjvdGtJMGJ1Q3hmb2lwTGtFMHNZVWd3M3c#gid=6
I suggest copying it into a spreadsheet of your own and tweak the numbers, costs and types to present an overall fleet architecture. I tried to keep it as close to $15B/year in total construction costs, but I have a feeling doing another spreadsheet in the $12-13B range might be more realistic.
YOUR COST SHEET IS INTRIGUING! can you put some ship types besides those so i'll get some idea of what you're aiming for...for example...what do you see acting as your OPV????
ReplyDeleteyou went kinda heavy with BMD too. you see those as specific ships and not to be a fleet wide capability?
I used the NNFM fleet composition in the first tab.
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8Rk_52AMEzwM2U4OGEyMWEtZTJjNi00OTQwLThjMzItYmRhM2EzNDk2Mzgy/edit
The ship types are defined in there.
On other tabs, I experimented with other ship types and fleet compositions. Many of the cost figures on those tabs are guestimates. YMMV.
IIRC, the OPV type was a USCG Sentinel or USN Cyclone equivalent.
Sol as you're aware if it was up to me LCS would be canceled. That said we're going to buy dozens of them and between them and other ships it's not clear to me that we really need to buy another aviation asset. Moreover, LCS can also operate the riverine boats.
ReplyDeleteFrankly it'll be surprising if the Navy actually keeps all the 3 squadrons in service. They should of course but in lean budget times we tend to lose small effective and keep big and sexy. It's a nicer ticket punch.
It's not a bad idea, if we had the budget, but if we really need something like this there's no reason not to use an older LPD. There using one now as a forward staging base for both SOCOM, mine warfare, etc.
Moreover, how big an air group is going to be supported and how many boats? A smaller ship built to commercial standards might fit the bill as well.
Lastly on the mine warfare helicopters the USN has been operating them since 1971. There are two squadrons and two permanent detachments in Bahrain and Japan. Japan also flies the MH-53E but is replacing them with the MCH-101. One imagines the USN will keep flying them and perhaps replace them with an MH-53K eventually.
Operationally once a mine field is cleared by helo you still need to check with mine hunters to confirm. Moreover, the helo's have issues with bottom mines, as do all mine hunting operations.
SOl, the thing that B.Smitty is getting at is the BPC Mistral is another support ship design, not a warship. I roger your point about the being deployed in less intensive areas. But there are several existing good "straight deck carriers" of the CVL type which would work out.
ReplyDeleteMy take on this from discussions with former and current NSW and NECC sailors, is that YES they need a mothership, BUT not some huges target. The NSW in particular want modest sized ship such as the Maritime Security Vessel which MSC is currently contracting for them. I think the NECC needs an offshore logisitics/base ship. Why because there is NOT enough space on current amphibs to suport the larger boats and dets needed for a fighting force.
You know that the total number of amphibs is decreasing and that space for the new assault force are too large already. How is one to shoehorn any naval unit into those holds?
Answer use either a good sized OPV, or a specialized sealift ship like MSV IF you think they will only go in a Phase One environment?
Lane,
ReplyDeleteI was under the impression that the LCS designs couldn't handle the current riverine boats we're buying. The boats are too big.
You might be right but I had thought LCS could take a 12m boat and the SURC is 12m. Certainly it can operate a boat for the mission if required. At this point all LCS can do is carry around two helicopters and a boat for that matter.
ReplyDeleteA SURC can be lifted by a C-130. It's not really clear we need a specialized support ship to support riverine forces. Traditionally they've been supported by almost anything assigned. Moreover, it will be surprising if the USN actually keeps 3 squadrons long term.
If anything I'm far more concerned about not having actual ocean going patrol boats, other than $500+ million LCS. The Cyclone's are not going to be replaced and weren't ideal in the first place.
gents I have been following boats on LCS for sometime now. Both lift systems are set up for maximum of 11 meter Navy Standard RHIB. Both the NSW and NECC units used different versions of that boat which "should" fit. BUT the NSW is buying its next gen boat the CCM Mk1 and the NECC currently has bigger boats i.e. RPB and RCB which are both problematical. SURC was USMC designation and the Navy has significantly modified it into their RPB which is heavier. Further the new Coastal Riverine Force will be getting a 65 Ft Patrol Boat which I doubt can be lifted by either lift system much less be moved around the mission bays. So the LCS are de facto limited to 11 meter sized boats.
ReplyDeleteThe USN will NOT have any green water ship or boat between the 65 ft Mk6 PB and the LCS except the worn out PCs for some time to come (as in not in current FYDP).