Posted on 06/26/2010 1:53:52 AM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The Italian navy has received the go-ahead to procure two 20,000-ton amphibious assault ships (LHDs), with the possibility of a third ship, configured with extensive aviation facilities (LHA).
The preliminary LHD project is funded and will take 12 months for completion. It will be followed by a project definition phase requiring eight months and leading to a contract. Delivery of the first ship comes within 30 months after that. If everything goes to plan, the first LHD arrives in late 2014.
LHDs will replace two 8,000-ton San Giorgio-class LPDs, commissioned in 1987 and 1988. The LHA will eventually replace the carrier Garibaldi, which is being dedicated to amphibious and helicopter roles now that the Cavour carrier is in service.
The new LHDs will be 190 meters (623 ft.) long, feature a well dock that holds four LCACs (landing craft air cushions), and have a hangar with dedicated maintenance area where six medium-heavy helicopters can be recovered. The flight deck will provide six landing spots and be served by two elevators, one at the stern, the other forward of the island. It will thus be possible to launch air-assault operations, lifting a reinforced rifle company with each wave and rapidly moving personnel and equipment to the deck. Helicopter capacity will be 12-15, depending on mix.
Capabilities also include four smaller LCVP (landing craft, vehicle, personnel) vessels and two motorboats, all in dedicated spaces with cranes under the port flight deck.
The LHD can accommodate 760 troops, including an aviation detachment and staff personnel, in addition to a ship’s crew of only 200, a result of shipboard automation. The vessel will normally carry a reinforced marine battalion and aviation personnel,
(Excerpt) Read more at aviationweek.com ...
Ping
Better look out, Ethiopia.
LOL
LOL
Sealift is duly noted.
Larry the Cable Guy
They look cool and spec out nice. Does the US have any in inventory ?
Ping.
Should add, ours are roughly 2x as big.
Here is a key paragraph from the article:
To minimize costs, the LHDs will be built to commercial standards, modified somewhat to improve survivability, but without full military specifications. Tradeoffs between cost and survivability are being assessed. According to one estimate, the ship can be built for €300 million ($369 million), excluding combat systems.
Building them to commercial standards means that their structural design only incorporates some but not all of the hull strengthening, compartmentation, armoring, and other damage control measures routinely built into warships. These ships are really intended for a very specific set of missions.
Two other comments:
1. The price tag of €300 million ($369 million), even excluding combat systems, seems absurdly low. The equivalent US ship (noting, as I did above, how loose that equivalency really is) goes today for about $3 to 4.5 billion fully equipped. Halve that to account for the combat systems and electronics suites, and you still have a build cost of between $1.5 to 2.25 billion. Hard to believe a completed hull of near;y that size can be built for only about 1/5 the US cost (even allowing for the additional hull strenghtening).
2. The article says the design can carry 4 LCACs. In US service, the only amphibious ship claas capable of carrying 4 LCACs is the USS Whidby Island, LSD-41 class. To do that, the well deck is 440 feet long (the ship is only 580 feet long at the waterline). Given that the Italian LHD is supposed to be 623 feet long, it is hard to see how that is being done and still accommodate the necessary engineering, cargo, ammunition, and other lower hull spaces typically found on LHDs. Maybe the Italian LCACs are smaller (US LCACs are 47 feet wide and 87 feet long on cushion) or perhaps two of the four are being flown into the lower vehicle deck or otherwise stored.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
This is gonna cause the Swiss to invest heavily in coastal artillery.
If they are going to build them to commercial standards, why don’t they take the hassle and guesswork out of it and build them with a ten foot hole below the waterline. That is outrageous! Any nation owes their sailors and the other servicemen who sail with them ships with the best chance of surviving combat consistent with the mission. Building combat vessels to commercial standards clearly states that they do not value the lives of the men who protect their nation. /rant
And I'm waiting for Monaco to invest in a couple of armored tank battalions.
Leni
I was in Monaco last week. All they need to do is invest in some carefully sited catapults and rain rocks down on the beach below. They don’t call that area the Maritime Alps for nothing. Man that is some tough, steep, rocky terrain!
If Monaco joins forces with the newly-enhanced and powerful Italian Sea Armada, I'm sure Lichtenstein will be shaking in its boots.
Leni
If it comes to that, the designations of the Tarawas and the Wasps should be reversed, as the well deck (the "dock" of LPD) is a third smaller in the Wasps
Modern bombs, torpedoes, and anti-ship cruise missiles are all long ranged, computer and GPS-guided, and carry sizable explosive warheads. Many use under keel attacks (explosive charge going off underneath the ship as opposed to on its side) aimed at breaking the ship's back. If you examine the videos of various ship sinkings (expended as targets) on You Tube, the best even a warship can expect to do against such an attack is to not be sunk outright. In most cases, the damage is so severe that even if the ship survives, it will require a major rebuild.
Given such a reality, the current naval strategies for dealing with them is to:
1) not accept missions where such weapons might be used,
2) eliminate the weapons before becoming vulnerable to attack, or
3) to jam/decoy the weapon away from the vessel.
Considered in this light, the only advantage that building to warship standards is the ability, in certain limited cases, to survive an attack. The United States Navy and Marine Corps are expected to be able to operate in the full spectrum of naval warfare. Because of this mission requirement, US Navy ships must be built to the highest standard, that of warships. By contrast, if you decide to operate only in benign maritime environments, you can build a lighter ship but still accomplish a considerable range of missions. This latter choice, to limit employment scenarios, is the choice that a number of shipbuilding nations are making at present.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.