|
|
Background
— Sealifter Comparisons — San Antonio Class LPD |
|
Amphibious Landing if necessary but not necessarily Amphibious Assault
US Navy San Antonio class vessels are meant to deliver US Marines, their vehicles, equipment,
and supplies for amphibious warfare. Beneath the rear helicopter deck is a flooding ‘well’ for landing
craft (conventional or hover- craft, left). Awkward as the ‘Landing Platform Dock’ term is, it
is also a fair description of these ships’ function – LPDs are, in effect, a floating staging ground for
amphibious landings. The LPD carries troops and vehicles but it also provides replenishment (supplies, potable
water, ammunition, fuel, etc).
|
|
|
“Jump in the water... get wet”
There are three vehicle decks enclosed within the hull which can accommodate M1 tanks or any
smaller vehicles. The well deck for landing craft is aft of the vehicle decks. A rear ramp door is lowered
for hovercraft (LCAC), or the well is flooded for conventional landing craft.
|
|
| Dimensions: |
208m long x 32m beam x 7m draught |
| Displacement: |
25,300t (full load) |
| Crew / Troops: |
361 / 700 (max 800 transient) |
| Carrying capacity: |
7500m2 lanes, 7500m3 bulk, 1,234m3 fuel |
| Docking well: |
2 x LCAC (or 9 x smaller landing craft) |
| Aircraft: |
4 x medium / 2 x large helicopters |
| Armament: |
RAM or ESSM, 2 x 30mm, 12.7mm M2HB |
| Countermeasures: |
AN/SLQ-25A Nixie / Mk53 Nulka / ESM |
| Sustained speed: |
22 knots (40.7 km/h) |
|
|
|
The San Antonio was designed with the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey in mind.[1] Meant to operate beside
the US Navy’s proposed DD(X) destroyers, the LPDs were still to be able to defend themselves. [2] Two launchers
for RAM missiles are fitted but, although designed for the ESSM, no vertical launch system is actually installed. The
hull was designed to minimize radar return as are the ship’s distinctive twin AEM/S (Advanced Enclosed
Mast/Sensor systems). The result is an imposing, survivable class of vessel.
|
|
|
But events have conspired to ruin the USN’s plans. Instead of LPDs, the US finds that RO/RO transport is in
higher demand. Of the original 46 planned LPDs, only 12 will now be built. Of those 12, only 9 are needed by the US.
The remaining 3 may be available for export. They suit General Hillier’s image of a transformed CF, would
be available far sooner than a ‘keel-up’ design, and might be a bargain. [3]
|
|
|
Also see: Joint Support Ship. The JSS
Project is distinct from the Amphibious Assault Ship but the two are related (at least by budget).
|
|
[1] The V-22 program’s fate remains uncertain, but the LPD was also designed to accommodate a range of US
Navy or USMC helicopters. The landing deck was designed for 2 Sikorsky CH-53E, 4 Boeing CH-46 (equivalent
to the CF CH-113 Labrador), 6 Bell AH-1, or 2 V-22s. The aircraft hangar is to
house 3 of the small AH-1 attack helicopters, or 2 medium-sized CH-46, or just 1 of the large CH-53/V-22
Ospreys.
[2] The RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) is of interest to the CF since its Mk 31 launcher is derived from
the Phalanx CIWS remote 20mm gun system used on Canadian ships. Likewise, the planned
larger air defence missile (the Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missile) is also planned for CF service (replacing
existing Sea Sparrows). The close-in surface self-defence 30mm Mk 46 guns are Chain
Guns like CF 25mm guns.
[3] There have been cost overruns for the San Antonio class. The first ship, LPD-17, fell 10 months behind
schedule (and about 30% over budget). The final cost for this first ship in the class is expected to be over US$800M,
later production ships should be less expensive. To be a bargain, Canada must ensure that DND did not end up paying
for this cost overrun. The price of LCACs should also be factored in. For more on LPD-17 production (and the
state of US shipbuilding), see page 5 of James Hasik’s piece "Further delay and cost are likely" How
Complexity Has Confounded Competition in Shipbuilding and Options for the Navy Department [Avondale and the San
Antonio].
|
|