Military Review

Amphibious transports docks type "San Antonio"

36
Amphibious transports docks type "San Antonio"



In 1990, the American fleet was monstrously plundered and cut: over 400 warships were sent for scrapping. The process of global reduction of the Navy has affected even the holy of holies - amphibious forces. In less than a decade, the fleet lost 20 tankers of the Newport type (analogous to the Soviet BDK with a bow ramp), 5 universal landing ships of the Anchorage type, 10 amphibious transports-docks of the Austin type, and also 5 transports of amphibious forces of the Charus type »For the delivery of materials and heavy equipment to the landing area.

Watching the degradation of the first largest fleet, Pentagon strategists frantically scrolled through their mind possible solutions to the problem: is it possible to replace dozens of decommissioned ships with 10-12 highly efficient structures, thereby preserving its former power at a lower cost? The answer to the question was LSD (X) - a project of a promising airborne landing platform, created taking into account all the requirements of the new time and the most modern achievements in the field of science and technology. The concept of the new ships turned out to be close to Austin-type transport docks - unlike the European Mistral and Juan Karlosov, the main emphasis was placed on the capacity of cargo decks and the number of crew members. A capacious “ferry” for delivering expeditionary forces to the combat zone, followed by unloading using own means or landing equipment from other ships.

In addition to its main task - trans-ocean transportation - the new transport dock was to ensure the presence of the US Navy in troubled areas of the oceans, to participate in counter-terrorist operations and missions of a humanitarian nature. Among other mandatory requirements is unification with all existing and promising amphibious assault vehicles of the marines: light and heavy helicopters, convertible gliders, floating tracked conveyors, high-speed boats and amphibious assault vehicles. The ship should be able to stand up for itself in battle, but its cost should remain within 800 million dollars.


USS San Antonio (LPD-17) and USS New York (LPD-21). 6,4 tons of steel from the ruins of the World Trade Center are symbolically used in the construction of the "New York" building

As a result of December 9, the 2000 of the year was laid down by the USS San Antonio, the leading ship of the same type, becoming the representative of the new generation Landing platform dock (LPD-17). The most notable feature of San Antonio was the widespread introduction of stealth technology - despite the obviously impossible task of masking the 200-meter ship against the sea surface, the Yankees used a whole range of simple and ingenious solutions that made it possible to reduce the detection range of the transport dock several times enemy radars.

Simple and clean lines of settings, piled up “inwards”, the upper part of the bead, a minimum of openings and radio contrast parts. Particular attention was paid to detail - a special anchor shape, a stealth cover for a folding crane, the widespread use of radio absorbing materials ...



Of particular interest are the unusual pyramidal masts of the Advanced Enclosed Mast / Sensor System (AEM / S) - 28-meter hexagonal structures made of composites, balsa and carbon, inside which is hidden a complex of antenna devices. In addition to a significant reduction in the ship's radar visibility, the use of AEM / S has reduced the number of mutual interference when many radio electronic devices are working, and also increases the equipment life by protecting antenna devices from the influence of adverse weather conditions.

Inside the fantastic masts, the AN / SPS-48E general detection radar, the AN / SPQ-9B two-coordinate radar for horizon tracking, satellite communications equipment, as well as the TACAN radio navigation system for driving and landing are hidden. Under the fairing in the nose is installed another navigation radar AN / SPS-73.

All ship detection tools are integrated into a single information network AN / SPQ-14 Advanced Sensor Distribution System (ASDS).
AN / USQ-119E (V) 27 - Global Command and Control System - Maritime (GCCS-M) is responsible for communication.
For logistics when disembarking / unloading personnel, equipment and gear - AN / KSQ-1 Amphibious Assault Direction System. It is a server that automatically communicates with amphibious means and calculates their current position in space.


Three-coordinate surveillance radar AN / SPS-48E - another modification of the famous radar with the HEADLIGHTS, created at the turn of 60-70. Such systems are used on aircraft carriers such as "Nimitz".


The Mk.1 Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS) self-defense complex, in addition to the above detection tools, includes:
- 2 self-defense SAM system Mk.31 RAM - 21-charging launchers with melee missiles;
- 2 automatic guns Mk.46 30 mm caliber with remote guidance;
- system for shooting passive interference Mk.36 SBROC;
- EW system AN / SLQ-32 (V) 2.

In addition, there is a Nixi towed anti-torpedo trap rattle on board, and another Mk.53 NULKA dipole reflector shooting system.

To participate in serious conflicts in the nose of the LPD, it is possible to install an 16 DPS Mk.41 with an 64 ammunition load of ESSM anti-aircraft missiles, but at the moment neither of them from ships of this class carries such weapons.

In general, despite the abundance of beautiful names and abbreviations, the San Antonio self-defense complex is not able to protect the ship from modern means of attack. All hope is only on the destroyers that are part of his escort.

Transport and amphibious capabilities

As noted above, the “San Antonio” has a different purpose than the European UDC - a solid flight deck and helicopter hangar were sacrificed to the cargo decks and marine corps.
According to official statements, the interior of the LPD-17 provides unprecedented spaciousness and level of comfort for personnel. The ship was designed with the current trends of the US Navy - special attention was paid to the placement of persons of both sexes: there are separate female and male quarters and latrines on board. A great achievement of the designers is the increased interlayer distance between the paratroopers' beds, the presence of its own ventilation system at each berth. The beds have folding tables / cup holders, in each cabin there is WiFi Internet. There is a gym on board, as well as special rooms for relaxing and holding briefings ...

Despite such a “glaring” level of comfort that does not allow feeling all the deprivation of military service on board the San Antonio, we managed to provide space for 396 crew members and 700 marines (with the possibility of increasing the landing force group by using additional rooms). For comparison, the estimated capacity of the Mistral is 450 paratroopers.

Also on board the amphibious transport dock are available:
- three cargo decks for trucks and armored vehicles with an area of ​​2229 square. meters;
- two cargo holds volume 963 cubic. m;
- fuel tanks (kerosene JP-5) cube 1190 volume. m;
- tank with diz. fuel volume 38 cc. meters



The amphibious capabilities of the LPD-17, on the contrary, are poorly expressed. The stern dock chamber capacity is two hovercraft (LCAC). Aviation the hangar allows you to place on board just one heavy helicopter (CH-53E) or V-22 Osprey tiltrotor. Or two medium-sized helicopters CH-46 SiNight. Or the three lungs of the Iroquois.
The flight deck in the aft part of the "San Antonio" allows you to prepare for the departure at the same time two tevertoplanov or up to four light helicopters.

There is a side crane for launching / lifting from the water amphibious boats and semi-rigid boats RHIB.

Finally, the issue price.

During the construction and retrofitting of the ship with additional systems, its cost exceeded the calculated figure by half - by now the average cost of the San Antonio type LPD is 1,6 billion. The cost of the last ships of the series has already exceeded 2 billion. Because of the inability of Northrop Grumman to keep the cost of work within the agreed schedule a series of transport docks was limited to 11 units. To date, the United States Navy has 8 LPD of this type, and three more docks are in the process of completion.

For comparison, the Russian Mistrals cost the treasury at the price of 800 million dollars for each ship (the total value of the contract for the construction of two UDCs is 1,2 billion euros). Such a great difference in the cost of the European and American amphibious ships is explained by the dramatic differences in their design and construction.

In comparison with the Mistral, the American transport dock has more chances to survive in the combat zone. Unlike the "European", which was designed according to the standards of civil shipbuilding, the San Antonio was created as a real combat ship, which is why it is able to withstand a powerful hydrodynamic strike, more durable and tenacious. Three knots higher speed. More sophisticated means of detection and self-defense. Stealth - with other things being equal, the enemy will detect the Mistral earlier.

But it is in theory. In practice, the advantage of an American is not so obvious - indeed, San Antonio is more likely to avoid serious consequences when it explodes on a ground mine, but the missile attack may become equally fatal for both ships. Ultimately, the safety and security of any UDC or transport dock is determined by the capabilities of their escort. So was it worth it to invest an extra billion in a slightly more durable case and stealth technology? From the point of view of the US Navy with their dimensionless budget - it was worth it. After all, they can afford it.


It is noteworthy that the LPD "San Antonio" - the first large ship of the US Navy, whose design was conducted in the metric system (instead of the traditional American feet / pounds / inch)

Big money is not always a guarantee of success. For example, the head USS San Antonio (LPD-17) “became famous” for a large number of technical faults.

A year after the ship’s entry into service, the ship went to Post Shakedown Availability (short repairs and upgrades after the first months of service, fixing all the deficiencies identified). The standard procedure for ships of the US Navy unexpectedly dragged on - in July 2007, the office of Northrop Grumman received an annoyed letter from the Pentagon, signed by Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter: ship. "

Repairs completed by the end of the year, but the trouble did not end there.

In August, the San Antonio 2008 was not able to go on a campaign in time because of the breakdown of the drive of the stern wall of the docking chamber. Two months later, being in a position in the Persian Gulf, LSD-17 again needed urgent repairs in Bahrain (a problem with fuel lines). In February, 2009, when passing through the Suez Canal, one of the engines suddenly switched to the reverse mode - as a result, the newest ship was nearly broken on the bottom and walls of the channel.



The process of entry into "San Antonio" was accompanied by a two-year series of repairs at the Norfolk shipyards, scandals with the dismissal of responsible persons and the breaks in contracts with unscrupulous suppliers.

In principle, a typical situation for any of the fleets when testing new equipment. The US Navy is no exception. Money is important, but even they are not able to solve all the problems.

Prospects

The very fact of the appearance of the amphibious transport dock-type "San Antonio" indicates a simple and obvious situation: despite all the colorful descriptions of the tactics of the use of amphibious groups, the US Navy does not plan to conduct amphibious landing operations. All the stories about the “over-the-horizon landing” are nothing more than tales for impressionable inhabitants. Landing from the sea will at best be a distraction or turn into a “point” attack of a special forces group. Using San Antonio in a large-scale war is pure suicide. But why do the Yankees continue to build such ships? The Pentagon is well aware of the purpose of “San Antonio” - if you call a spade a spade, then LPD-17 should be called a “comfortable ship”.

All major wars of our time are conducted according to a single scenario - the Yankees for several months unload equipment, soldiers and equipment in the port of a nearby state, and then, breaking through the land border, proudly enter the territory of the chosen victim. This is much simpler, safer and more useful than sailing on a flimsy boat, fearing a crazy projectile, and then crawling knee-deep in water to the shore, covered with thorns under enemy fire tanks and machine guns. Without cover with their heavy armored vehicles. With multiple numerical superiority of the enemy. This is madness.

Americans act differently.

The tanks, the necessary materials and fuel will be delivered to the nearest port by transports of the Shipping Command. But how to be in this case with the staff? American contract servicemen will flee, having learned that they have to spend a month in the stuffy hold of the ship. For these cases, there is just a “San Antonio” - a comfortable motor ship, which will deliver to the other end of the Earth a couple of battalions of marines, with personal weapons, equipment and heavy machinery. Cheap, convenient, efficient. And then go to the next flight on the route Norfolk - Persian Gulf.

That is why there is only one helicopter on board and a clear disregard of landing craft. Why does “San Antonio” carry dozens of helicopters if he plans to unload onto the pier using a ramp? And if necessary, help helicopters that arrive from the nearest coastal base.

But these are plans for the future ... In the meantime, the 2 billion-dollar ships chase the feluci of Somali pirates and provide the US naval presence in the most troubled corners of the world.






A couple of shots of the interior of "San Antonio"










Based on:
http://www.fas.org
http://www.navytimes.com
http://www.wikipedia.org
LPD 17 on the Shipbuilding Frontier: Integrated Product & Process Development. Association of Scientists and Engineers, 35th Annual Technical Symposium - 17 April 1998
Author:
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nayhas
    Nayhas 24 December 2013 08: 57
    +14
    The AN / SPQ-9B radar is not inside the "fantastic mast" but at the very top of it. In the photo it is a rectangle at the top of the first mast.
    Regarding the scope. According to Oleg’s logic, all UDCs that exist in the world are useless, because it is possible to land at the port from a conventional roller, but for some reason many states tend to acquire UDC. I believe that if you do not have to use the tool, it does not mean that you should get rid of it.
    PS: I honestly don’t care for what reasons the creators of San_Antonio took care of the living conditions on board the landing, but I think the paratroopers are grateful to them. People are always pleased when they are treated like people ...
    1. Civil
      Civil 24 December 2013 11: 02
      +4
      But the Yankees themselves built as they wanted and according to their requirements
      1. Ataman
        Ataman 24 December 2013 11: 32
        +5
        Why does Oleg call UDC a comfortable ship for transporting personnel to the other end of the earth? This is easier to do with military transport aircraft. Airborne capabilities are sacrificed, probably because it is not just an amphibious assault, but also a headquarters ship, an electronic warfare and reconnaissance ship. The photo shows that he is simply stuffed with electronics.
        1. Magellan
          Magellan 24 December 2013 12: 42
          0
          Quote: Ataman
          It is easier to do with military transport aircraft

          700-1000 people with equipment, food supplies and other bulky goods and equipment?

          Multi-purpose cargo and passenger ship
          Quote: Ataman
          as well as a headquarters ship, an electronic warfare and reconnaissance ship. The photo shows that he is simply stuffed with electronics.

          Do not tell my slippers.

          Truly "stuffed with electronics" cruiser "Ticonderoga" or SBX-radar



          San Anton has one outdated airborne surveillance station and a couple of navigation radars.
          About a command ship - this is generally nonsense, for this there are special designs (68-K, Mount Whitney), but as practice shows, you can completely do without them - FKP on board any modern destroyer and the main headquarters of the operation on the shore, where - anywhere in Portsmouth or Severomorsk.
    2. sancho
      sancho 24 December 2013 11: 16
      0
      The article is interesting! Amazing scale. Costs dough! And, indeed, with such ships you can only fight with the Papuans or Somali pirates.

      But! As the sailors say: - To a large ship, - a large torpedo.

      With a serious enemy, these "container ships" will not go far ...
    3. sancho
      sancho 24 December 2013 11: 16
      0
      The article is interesting! Amazing scale. Costs dough! And, indeed, with such ships you can only fight with the Papuans or Somali pirates.

      But! As the sailors say: - To a large ship, - a large torpedo.

      With a serious enemy, these "container ships" will not go far ...
    4. Santa Fe
      24 December 2013 20: 12
      0
      Quote: Nayhas
      The AN / SPQ-9B radar is not inside the "fantastic mast" but at the very top of it. In the photo it is a rectangle at the top of the first mast.

      This is not like SpookNine
      This is a completely new radar with two headlights - for conspiracy, the previous designation remains. Its full name is AN / SPQ-9B Lightweight Back-to-Back Slotted Array Antenna - that's why I did not notice it, taking it at first for a communication antenna or tsp like that

      The original AN / SPQ-9B looks like this
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 25 December 2013 06: 46
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This is a completely new radar with two headlights - for conspiracy, the previous designation remains. Its full name is AN / SPQ-9B Lightweight Back-to-Back Slotted Array Antenna - that's why I did not notice it, taking it at first for a communication antenna or tsp like that

        According to the directories, it passes as AN / SPQ-9B, it is doubtful that the reason for duplicating the name is conspiracy. By the way, they put on almost all Nimitsa (except one), as well as on the upgraded Ticonderoga. It’s still on America, and next year they’ll put it on Burke.
        1. Santa Fe
          25 December 2013 15: 05
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          According to the directories, it passes as AN / SPQ-9B, it is doubtful that the reason for duplicating the name is conspiracy

          It attracts less attention from the sponsor. No new developments - just tiny modernization
          Quote: Nayhas
          also put on upgraded Ticonderoges.

          direct confirmation that nature could not be deceived. SPY-1 poorly distinguishes targets above the horizon
          Quote: Nayhas
          and next year they’ll put on Burke.

          it turns out that all the last 20 years Berks have been walking with, sorry, "bare butt"

          now everything is like on the warships of other states -
          German Sachsen-class
  2. avt
    avt 24 December 2013 10: 32
    +6
    In general, good +, but here - “All the stories about the" over-the-horizon landing "are nothing more than fairy tales for impressionable ordinary people. A landing from the side of the sea will be, at best, a distraction or turn into a "point" sortie of a special forces group. "And what? An expeditionary battalion, or a sabotage group only from the coast and certainly to disembark from the ramp? That's why they make comfortable, large ships, and they don't equip them like ours with the Grad", so as not to get into the zone of destruction of coastal means, where this technique is most vulnerable. Which is quite clear to itself, and, for impressionable inhabitants. "With regard to one helicopter. Actually, there are four" bananas "can be accommodated on the flight deck, standing on the load, but to stuff them and carry them with you - there is no reason, as correctly noted in article, well, not this UDC "Anton". So it is quite within the framework of their strategy that the kids are rebuilding the fleet, one can only envy, remembering the sad fate of "Ivan Gren", who, on the slipway, was transformed into the thoughts of another Russian naval commander.
  3. Russian sniper
    Russian sniper 24 December 2013 12: 19
    0
    In Russia with the Mistrals, everything is more or less clear. But, comrades, who knows what happened to "Ivan Gren", what is the situation today ?? Does anyone have the latest photos and information when it will join the fleet and in which fleet? And what will happen to a series of these ships? hi
    1. Sokol peruna
      Sokol peruna 24 December 2013 13: 44
      +7
      With Gren everything is old. There is a sluggish completion afloat.
      Amber promises to surrender it no earlier than 2015, it seems to be part of the BF. You can forget about a series of ships along the way.
  4. lx
    lx 24 December 2013 13: 09
    0
    Quote: Magellan
    Quote: Ataman
    It is easier to do with military transport aircraft

    700-1000 people with equipment, food supplies and other bulky goods and equipment?

    In general, Ataman (and Oleg) spoke about personnel. And 700-1000 is 2-3 747 Boeing - quickly and comfortably :)
    By the way, it is curious that the declared maximum load of personnel - 800 people - is only 100 more than the standard, since on the comparison (as always with Oleg, fantasy-made-up) 450-900. And the Amer UDCs of the type WASP and America, although they are 2 times more expensive, take 2.5 times more marines and this is not counting other goodies.
    Quote: Magellan

    Multi-purpose cargo and passenger ship
    Quote: Ataman
    as well as a headquarters ship, an electronic warfare and reconnaissance ship. The photo shows that he is simply stuffed with electronics.

    Do not tell my slippers.

    Honestly, I really do not understand the value of this particular type of ship. Probably, all the same, so that Amer’s defense industry does not rot, we’ll build it, but we'll figure it out :)
    1. Magellan
      Magellan 24 December 2013 14: 02
      +1
      Quote: lx
      In general, Ataman (and Oleg) spoke about personnel

      And two holds and three cargo decks with an area of ​​2229 square meters. meters - this is to play baseball (or sokker)
      Quote: lx
      it is curious that the declared maximum load of personnel - 800 people - is only 100 more than the standard

      So, if necessary, on board will accommodate more than 1000. And with a very high level of comfort - just the beds will stand denser

      marginal case -
      The Enterprise during Operation Magic Carpet (1945-46) Evacuation of American soldiers from islands in the Pacific Ocean. There were 27 thousand people on board the ship at that time.

      Quote: lx
      And the Amer UDCs of the type WASP and America, although they are 2 times more expensive, take 2.5 times more marines and this is not counting other goodies.

      Their operation is 5 times more expensive
      Quote: lx
      Honestly, I really do not understand the value of this particular type of ship.

      Similar opinion.
      The river-sea bulk carriers cope with such tasks. The personnel can be transferred by transport sides.
      But the Americans wanted to show off - to build special cargo and passenger ships. Eligible - Dollar World Reserve Currency
    2. igor67
      igor67 24 December 2013 18: 01
      +2
      Quote: lx
      Quote: Magellan
      Quote: Ataman
      It is easier to do with military transport aircraft

      700-1000 people with equipment, food supplies and other bulky goods and equipment?

      In general, Ataman (and Oleg) spoke about personnel. And 700-1000 is 2-3 747 Boeing - quickly and comfortably :)
      By the way, it is curious that the declared maximum load of personnel - 800 people - is only 100 more than the standard, since on the comparison (as always with Oleg, fantasy-made-up) 450-900. And the Amer UDCs of the type WASP and America, although they are 2 times more expensive, take 2.5 times more marines and this is not counting other goodies.
      Quote: Magellan

      Multi-purpose cargo and passenger ship
      Quote: Ataman
      as well as a headquarters ship, an electronic warfare and reconnaissance ship. The photo shows that he is simply stuffed with electronics.

      Do not tell my slippers.

      Honestly, I really do not understand the value of this particular type of ship. Probably, all the same, so that Amer’s defense industry does not rot, we’ll build it, but we'll figure it out :)

      And if the Boeing cannot land? The strip is stupidly broken or missing, or else in the hands of the expected enemy, where to land the plane?
      1. Santa Fe
        24 December 2013 19: 32
        +1
        Quote: igor67
        And if the Boeing cannot land? The strip is stupidly broken or missing, or else in the hands of the expected enemy, where to land the plane?

        Nowhere
        The operation is knowingly failed. the enemy was the first to strike at a deployed group at its borders
      2. Papakiko
        Papakiko 24 December 2013 20: 16
        0
        Quote: igor67
        The strip is stupidly broken or missing,

        Build and remodel.
        They have been doing this for the past 20 years.
        Quote: igor67
        or else in the hands of an alleged adversary,

        It is only in your head that there can be "expected", and in their heads everything has long been laid out on the shelves.
        Quote: igor67
        And if the Boeing cannot land

        It’s better not to take off.
        For the transfer of large masses of people by sea, you can use (charter) a bunch of cruise liners with a capacity of each from 2000 to 6000 people. Company alone Carnival(http://www.carnivalcruise.ru/cruises/LainerList.aspx) has 24 liners !!!!!
        The speed of these liners is not inferior to the "Anthony", they are many times superior in capacity and comfort.
        From all of the above: "Anthony" and his "brothers" of the court for pinpoint operations over dwarf states and banana republics. Which make up the majority on the world map.
        And of course, as a comrade, I correctly emphasize:
        Quote: Magellan
        But the Americans wanted to show off

        Quote: Magellan
        dollar world reserve currency

        Quote: lx
        so that Amer’s defense industry does not rot

        hi
  5. Leshka
    Leshka 24 December 2013 14: 48
    +1
    Nitsche so cool thing but a little roomy for its size
  6. barbiturate
    barbiturate 24 December 2013 15: 31
    +2
    the purpose of this ship is in the name, UDC) A ship for transporting and disembarking a battalion of marines as part of other diverse forces and means, why is it incomprehensible to someone else? Amers have several types of special ships for amphibious forces, who, usually because of greater poverty, create one special ship, and some will carry their soldiers on chartered motor ships and get their portion of the problems because of this, everything is simple and the Americans are most experienced in this matter and application , but you can wriggle yourself as a specialist and gossip over the ship when you yourself are 25 years old and all your life you read articles in the office at the computer and killed only flies with a fly swatter and it’s not always successful (I’m not talking about Oleg Kaptsov, but about some commentators at))
  7. lx
    lx 24 December 2013 16: 22
    +1
    Quote: Magellan
    Quote: lx
    In general, Ataman (and Oleg) spoke about personnel

    And two holds and three cargo decks with an area of ​​2229 square meters. meters - this is to play baseball (or sokker)

    According to the article, the main feature of this particular ship is "a comfortable motor ship that will deliver a couple of Marine battalions to the other end of the Earth." According to Oleg's concept, there is no over-the-horizon landing, the equipment is simpler (more carrying capacity), faster (more speed) and cheaper to deliver by ro-ro.
    And the personnel is similar (simpler, faster, and cheaper) by air transport (which I also mentioned). Apparently, it is important for the Pentagon that the Marines remain romantics (where are they without the sea) and that they do not spare money for this.

    Quote: Magellan

    Quote: lx
    And the Amer UDCs of the type WASP and America, although they are 2 times more expensive, take 2.5 times more marines and this is not counting other goodies.

    Their operation is 5 times more expensive

    hmm, what’s more expensive - I have no doubt (2 times the displacement, 3 times the crew), but 5 times? (Can I proof?). I suspect that this is with an air wing. But with an air wing - these are fundamentally different opportunities, and without it (they can even sit at the base) it may well be that the cost of delivery per unit of marine / equipment is even less.
    1. Santa Fe
      24 December 2013 20: 03
      0
      Quote: lx
      According to the article, the main feature of this particular ship is "a comfortable motor ship that will deliver a couple of marine battalions to the other end of the Earth"

      And there is. For tanks and heavy loads - 25 rollers

      Apparently there was a serious calculation - after all, sea transport is much cheaper than aviation. 1000 + fighters, equipment, fifty units of trucks and armored vehicles. They thought - it turned out to be more profitable to build 11 LPD and drag troops onto them, to help the skaters

      additional bonuses: so-called "flag display" in peacetime, participation in peacekeeping operations, special / humanitarian missions
      Quote: lx
      According to Oleg’s concept, there is no over-horizon landing

      If there is, give an example
      Quote: lx
      (2 times greater displacement, 3 times crew)

      You consider not the displacement, but the filling:
      Read what kind of GEM at Wasp. What are the water distillers. Required pump power and volume of ballast tanks. Intra-ship monorail transport system. Two twenty-ton aircraft lifts. The crew is 1100 people. Etc. "buns" that greatly affect the cost of the ship.
      http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/amphibiousassault/lhd1Wasp.html

      While all efforts are in vain - Wosp is too weak for a war with Iran, but it is too expensive for a war with Somalia
      Quote: lx
      But with an air wing - these are fundamentally different opportunities

      down the drain such a wing
      what can it do? to drop a special forces group from 50 people? or clear the channel from mines? Even Mistral can do this, while it costs only $ 800 million.
  8. misterwulf
    misterwulf 24 December 2013 17: 58
    -3
    Floating coffin :) A mixture of a bulldog with an anteater = gavnoyed. One of the most ridiculous ships IMHO
    And so, a cognitive article
  9. Takashi
    Takashi 24 December 2013 18: 09
    0
    I think the Americans built it under the motto: "You even have to die in comfort"
  10. lx
    lx 24 December 2013 22: 18
    0
    Quote: igor67

    And if the Boeing cannot land? The strip is stupidly broken or missing, or else in the hands of the expected enemy, where to land the plane?

    ... The option "in the hands of the enemy" (it is not worth starting a fight if the enemy is still suspected :) - is not considered here, since we are discussing the transfer (in which way, faster, more profitable, more comfortable and generally more effective), and not landing (although there are just no big problems - how to do this not so long ago the French in Mali demonstrated - the airborne assault seizes the airfield and prepares the strip, the rest calmly land on it without landing)
    In general, it was about the 747 Boeing that I said with a certain degree of joke. Indeed, not every runway can take such a plane. It’s just cheaper and faster for them :) It’s possible, after all, by military transporters to unpaved strips, and in many cases within a radius of several hundred kilometers from the required place, you can also find a strip for 747, and there are a lot of options for quick relocation. However, the sea transfer also has its own significant limitations - the target area may also be located far from the coastline, and for unloading rather than landing, you need the same port.
    1. igor67
      igor67 24 December 2013 22: 38
      0
      Quote: lx
      Quote: igor67

      And if the Boeing cannot land? The strip is stupidly broken or missing, or else in the hands of the expected enemy, where to land the plane?

      ... The option "in the hands of the enemy" (it is not worth starting a fight if the enemy is still suspected :) - is not considered here, since we are discussing the transfer (in which way, faster, more profitable, more comfortable and generally more effective), and not landing (although there are just no big problems - how to do this not so long ago the French in Mali demonstrated - the airborne assault seizes the airfield and prepares the strip, the rest calmly land on it without landing)
      In general, it was about the 747 Boeing that I said with a certain degree of joke. Indeed, not every runway can take such a plane. It’s just cheaper and faster for them :) It’s possible, after all, by military transporters to unpaved strips, and in many cases within a radius of several hundred kilometers from the required place, you can also find a strip for 747, and there are a lot of options for quick relocation. However, the sea transfer also has its own significant limitations - the target area may also be located far from the coastline, and for unloading rather than landing, you need the same port.

      As I understand it, the BDK data is still intended specifically for a naval invasion, if, like the French in Mali, I think the Americans use transport aircraft, by the way, off the coast of Syria, Russia has also been using the BDK in large quantities for the second year already, and not only as transport workers ... It just turns out American Marines like in a 5 star hotel,
  11. lx
    lx 24 December 2013 22: 48
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: lx
    According to the article, the main feature of this particular ship is "a comfortable motor ship that will deliver a couple of marine battalions to the other end of the Earth"

    And there is. For tanks and heavy loads - 25 rollers

    Apparently there was a serious calculation - after all, sea transport is much cheaper than aviation. 1000 + fighters, equipment, fifty units of trucks and armored vehicles. They thought - it turned out to be more profitable to build 11 LPD and drag troops onto them, to help the skaters

    I have no doubt that they have some kind of their own concept, on the basis of which they substantiated and calculated a model with proven financial efficiency. I myself, if desired and necessary, can come up with 20 such different calculations that justify the profitability. But if it is stupid to transfer (and not drop) equipment and people, in the presence of ro-ro rokers, equipment is cheaper and faster, 1000-2000 people are faster and cheaper by air, if there are more people and not in a hurry, then charter a pass. a liner with all the amenities (I think, at least not more expensive, and more people can be transferred). I would like to draw your attention to the clause "in the presence of ro-rokers" - again, remembering Mali, where it was more efficient for the French to use the Mistral, since they do not have ro-rokers, and the UDC is a universal ship for that.

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    Quote: lx
    According to Oleg’s concept, there is no over-horizon landing

    If there is, give an example

    exercises are conducted regularly. Oleg, you would immediately deny landing as such.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    Quote: lx
    (2 times greater displacement, 3 times crew)

    You consider not the displacement, but the filling:
    .
    great affecting the cost of the ship.

    Oleg, I appreciate your literary talent, but you also need to read a little. Firstly, they talked about the cost of operation. Secondly, I mentioned this data myself and I have no doubt that it is more expensive - the question is how many times. Thirdly, I asked the proof about the cost of operation, not those. data that is widely known.

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    Quote: lx
    But with an air wing - these are fundamentally different opportunities

    down the drain such a wing
    what can it do? to drop a special forces group from 50 people? or clear the channel from mines? Even Mistral can do this, while it costs only $ 800 million.

    I immediately warn that I will not start a pointless argument. The facts are that an air wing is ~ 20 attack planes / helicopters, and 12 v-22s can land almost 300 troops in one go. If the wing is removed, then in terms of the cost of operation, this will mean a decrease in fuel consumption and minus 100-300 people of the crew serving it.
    1. Santa Fe
      24 December 2013 23: 55
      0
      Quote: lx
      1000-2000 people faster and cheaper than air

      Where did you meet such numbers ... 1-2 thousand, it's nothing
      Iraq 1991 year - 1 million soldiers (of which 500 thousand Americans)
      Quote: lx
      If people are no longer in a hurry, then charter a pass. liner with all amenities (I think, at least not more expensive, and more people can be transferred

      The Britons used the Black Queen to deliver soldiers to the Falklands
      But the Yankees are not handy to deal with such pranks - their budget allows them to build specialized equipment for the Navy
      Quote: lx
      it was more effective for the French to transfer the Mistral, since they do not have any rollers, and the UDC is also a universal ship.

      UDC UDC discord
      Quote: lx
      Oleg, you would immediately deny landing as such.

      Yes, nowadays large-scale landing (even from the sea even with a parachute) is suicide for thousands of paratroopers. Only "point" landings make sense - sabotage groups / special forces / reconnaissance / DShB.

      Therefore, over the past 50 years there has not been a single at least any significant landing operation. Although there were so many wars that the whole world was redeemed in blood
      Quote: lx
      Thirdly, I asked the proof about the cost of operation, and not those. data that is widely known.

      I know the figures for Tarava - 75 million per year, FY1996. Excluding aircraft and crew salaries.
      Any data on CA?
      Quote: lx
      air wing is ~ 20 attack aircraft / helicopters

      it is nothing. Even for a five-day turmoil in South Ossetia
      Quote: lx
      and 12 v-22 can land almost 300 landing troops in one go.

      Place on the Mistral 12 CH-46 SeaKnight - the result of the same 300 paratroopers in 1 approach.
  12. lx
    lx 25 December 2013 00: 36
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: lx
    1000-2000 people faster and cheaper than air

    Where did you meet such numbers ... 1-2 thousand, it's nothing

    In the comments answered and this is more than the stated "hero" capacity of the SA article.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    Quote: lx
    it was more effective for the French to transfer the Mistral, since they do not have any rollers, and the UDC is also a universal ship.

    UDC UDC discord

    Namely, some are more universal. Therefore, I understand WASP, America, Mistral, but SA, in the presence of rollers, does not.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    Quote: lx
    Oleg, you would immediately deny landing as such.

    Yes, nowadays large-scale landing (even from the sea even with a parachute) is suicide for thousands of paratroopers. Only "point" landings make sense - sabotage groups / special forces / reconnaissance / DShB.

    I don’t argue. UDC just provides point landings of several companies with fire support from the air or point strikes by aviation without landing - it can be very useful. And for special operations with UDC, a direct example was also not so long ago.
    Or are we still waiting for an article from Oleg "All BDKs of the Russian Navy must go on pins and needles!" with a bunch of pictures?


    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    Quote: lx
    Thirdly, I asked the proof about the cost of operation, and not those. data that is widely known.

    I know the figures for Tarava - 75 million per year, FY1996. Excluding aircraft and crew salaries.
    Any data on CA?

    Well, why this figure here, and even without proof? Okay, in terms of constructive discussions, I will try to look for data on SA and WASP in the near future.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    Quote: lx
    and 12 v-22 can land almost 300 landing troops in one go.

    Place on the Mistral 12 CH-46 SeaKnight - the result of the same 300 paratroopers in 1 approach.

    So I don’t argue - Mistral is a great ship :) Whether Russia needs UDC is a moot point, but if necessary, Mistral is definitely the best choice. I will not argue :). If we discard export restrictions, then only the American WASP and AMERICA surpass it quantitatively (max. 3 times), but not qualitatively, but cost at least 5 times more (in fact, even more).
    1. Santa Fe
      25 December 2013 01: 46
      0
      Quote: lx
      In the comments answered and this is more than the stated "hero" capacity of the SA article.

      The whole trick in a few months of preparation - after all, LPD is involved not one, and each will make more than one flight. That's how a million people will be recruited and the obvious savings in air travel + 3 cargo decks on each flight.
      Quote: lx
      Namely, some are more universal. Therefore, I understand WASP, America, Mistral, but SA, in the presence of rollers, does not.

      Mistral is the most effective.
      Wasp and America - Overgrowth
      SA - cargo-passenger vessel, has little relation to UDC
      Quote: lx
      UDC just provides point landings of several companies with fire support from the air

      This is the tactical tactic of JBB - it works only against the basmachi. And for fire support, a pair of Mi-24 / Ka-52 is enough. Mistral will cope with a bang. Without any Uospov and Americas
      Quote: lx
      And for special operations with UDC, a direct example was also not so long ago.

      UDCs are of interest to me primarily as carriers of minesweepers. Nowhere else to place such a technique. Mistral would handle
      Quote: lx
      Well, why this figure here, and even without proof?

      http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/lha-1.htm
      Quote: lx
      "All BDK of the Russian Navy must go on pins and needles!"

      The Navy of the USSR / RF Navy was never used for its intended purpose. They have other tasks.
      Quote: lx
      If we discard export restrictions, then only the American WASP and AMERICA surpass it quantitatively (max. 3 times), but not qualitatively, but cost at least 5 times more expensive (in reality even more).

      what is it about
  13. lx
    lx 25 December 2013 01: 06
    +1
    Quote: lx
    Well, why this figure here, and even without proof? Okay, in terms of constructive discussions, I will try to look for data on SA and WASP in the near future.

    In general, here is http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/2012-s
    ars/13-F-0884_SARs_as_of_Dec_2012/Navy/LPD_17_December_2012_SAR.pdf
    and here
    http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/2012-s
    ars/13-F-0884_SARs_as_of_Dec_2012/Navy/LHA_6_December_2012_SAR.pdf
    looked through quickly and if correctly understood
    then the first indicates the cost of operating SA for 1996
    Total 38.6
    secondly, the cost of operation
    Total:
    LHA-6 144.9 (America class, which has not existed! Apparently simulated data to show that it is cheaper than WASP)
    LHD 1 159.0
    that is, even if you do not take inflation into account over 10 years, the difference is not 5 times
    1. Santa Fe
      25 December 2013 01: 48
      +1
      Thanks, it was interesting
  14. barbiturate
    barbiturate 25 December 2013 10: 55
    0
    after reading the comments, you can either be very surprised or laugh. guys, go down from heaven to earth and understand, this ship is not designed to conquer countries and wage wars alone, this is one of the phalanges of the finger, there is the whole finger, there are hands and arms, and so on. You, possessing insignificant knowledge (compared with those who design them) and zero combat experience of landings, easily deny the decisions of developers and admirals, requirements for a marines ship, etc. who are actually engaged in planning and conducting operations for which real data and real requests of people are open and what kind of ship they want, judge the redundancy or accuracy of a ship))
    Then nobody liked Mistral, now Mistral kul - the rest are oversized or undersized)) instead of figuring out how this ship can be used in connecting ships and why the "stupid Yankees" build them, a simple statement is taken for children of 15 years old with burning eyes and clean brains - the ship is too weak to attack the country)), but too big and expensive to chase pirates)) Curtain
  15. lx
    lx 25 December 2013 13: 25
    +1
    Quote: barbiturate
    after reading the comments, you can either be very surprised or laugh .... a simple statement is taken for children of 15 years old with burning eyes and clean brains - the ship is too weak to attack a country)), but too big and expensive to chase pirates)) A curtain

    My dear, so far your argumentation is in the style of "myself, but the Americans are smart." If you have something to say in essence - speak up. I personally have no doubt that Americans are smart, but in the context of the discussion, this is not interesting.
    1. barbiturate
      barbiturate 25 December 2013 15: 32
      -1
      but in essence I left my opinion above) and here, my dear, I left my opinion on the substance of the comments and I will not ask anyone for permission to do this. After reading for example your comments, it is clear that they are all at the level of your speculations and assumptions and no specifics on this type of ships, are you essentially saying this?

      PS With age, I guessed right, huh?)
  16. lx
    lx 25 December 2013 17: 19
    -1
    Quote: barbiturate
    but in essence I left my opinion above)
    .... you can make yourself a specialist and gossip over the ship when you yourself are 25 years old ...
    and here, my dear, I left my opinion on the substance of comments and permission

    only the age guessing figure has changed
    Quote: barbiturate

    After reading for example your comments, it is clear that they are all at the level of your speculations and assumptions and no specifics on this type of ships, are you essentially saying this?

    who has eyes, let him see ... but you, apparently, from a cohort of writers
    1. barbiturate
      barbiturate 25 December 2013 18: 13
      0
      Quote: lx
      only the age guessing figure has changed

      Well, I guessed it)

      Quote: lx
      who has eyes, let him see ... but you, apparently, from a cohort of writers


      so I saw, your solid (and not only) assumptions and arguments from the field of boys (which is cooler than a Ferrari or a Bentley, although no one even sat behind the wheel). And judging by how much you reasoned in writing here in the comments, you are from the cohort of writers (although is it really bad?)
      You would rather speculate on the concept of using this ship as part of other fleet forces, make out a typical amphibious assault force and what place this ship will take. Well, the fact that those who gave those tasks, designed and discussed, then defended this project, pushed allocations to it, etc. much better understood than you that such a ship is needed, I think and do not need to say, right?)
  17. lx
    lx 25 December 2013 18: 38
    0
    Quote: barbiturate
    Quote: lx
    only the age guessing figure has changed

    Well, I guessed it)

    What time is 25 or 15?


    Quote: barbiturate

    You would rather speculate on the concept of using this ship as part of other fleet forces, make out a typical amphibious assault force and what place this ship will take. Well, the fact that those who gave those tasks, designed and discussed, then defended this project, pushed allocations to it, etc. much better understood than you that such a ship is needed, I think and do not need to say, right?)

    So essentially have something to say? Explain "the concept of using this ship as part of other fleet forces" and so on give proofs? It would be really interesting. I give my opinion, argue with numbers and links to the original documents of the US Department of Defense. So far, you are only demonstrating rudeness and ignorance - according to the American classification of SA, you never have a UDC (amphibious assault ship)
    1. barbiturate
      barbiturate 25 December 2013 19: 01
      -1
      Quote: lx
      What time is 25 or 15?


      apparently for the second time, since a reaction followed)

      Quote: lx
      So essentially have something to say? Explain "the concept of using this ship as part of other fleet forces" and so on give proofs? It would be really interesting. I give my opinion, argue with numbers and links to the original documents of the US Department of Defense. So far, you are only demonstrating rudeness and ignorance - according to the American classification of SA, you never have a UDC (amphibious assault ship)


      I can google it too, I did not see the discussion of the ship, only "expensive", "unnecessary" "Mistral is cooler", etc., like schoolchildren, which I wrote about. Figures and links are the two files that you brought? Cheto does not pass my computer on them (I really wrote with UDC in a hurry and it is not UDC, here you are right)
      But on the ship it came down to a discussion of its cost and life cycle costs and which Americans are not smart, who built it, as if here on the forum, someone knows more than them) For example, since you write and are interested in this topic, they have increased or decreased the capabilities of the US amphibious forces with the adoption of these ships, especially given the fact that the training of landing forces operating from the sea has intensified significantly since 2011 and large-scale exercises are being conducted.
      By the way, you should not think that my goal is to cheat on you) ... but the links do not follow me
  18. Sax
    Sax 26 December 2013 00: 52
    +1
    Quote: sancho
    indeed, such ships can only be fought with the Papuans or Somali pirates.

    But! As the sailors say: - To a large ship, - a large torpedo.

    With a serious enemy, these "container ships" will not go far ...

    I am not an expert, but I am amazed at this!
    It turns out that the most advanced industry in the world is working on the creation of warships ... belay
    I have a question on the last sentence: the Americans will hide when they see a serious enemy. Will he do what he wants? And then, who is their "serious opponent" today?
    1. barbiturate
      barbiturate 26 December 2013 16: 14
      -2
      but don’t tell me, I’m already pissed off here) The Americans are building these ships in a decent series, they are replacing other ships that have already served, they are seriously training in amphibious landing operations and clearly understand this many orders of magnitude more than the local "specialists"), but tell me about it and they will tell you that these remarks are unconstructive and our forum "experts" do not see the point in this ship (that's who the Americans forgot to convince their Navy to convince the ship was needed) and will enthusiastically begin to discuss and equally unanimously agree that it is expensive, and that means even more complete junk. (although what does this have to do with the nature of the use of the ship is not clear and why count other people's grandmother?)

      Most experts here have such thoughts and give out the desire to impose their dogmas and opinions, rather than to sort out the situation and try to understand the Americans, where and when to use these ships and in what composition, based on what experience + complete lack of stability in third countries, the coasts of which, a well-prepared landing force with solid support from the air, have a 100% chance of success and the realization of the will of their government.