Damen Enforcer Designhttps://products.damen.com/-/media/Prod ... _Docks.pdf
Note that Enforcer 7000-10000 with narrow beam (24.8m) carries 2 LCM, not LCU.
- Bay class (beam 26.5 m) is similar to "Enforcer 15000" (slightly larger beam for tilted side wall?).
- HNLMS Johan de Witt (beam 29 m) will be "Enforcer 18000", and Rotterdam (beam 27m) "Enforcer 13000".
- Spanish Garcia (beam 25m) will be also "Enforcer 13000", but with narrower beam.
I also understand RN LCU Mk.10 (30x7.7 m) cannot be embarked in Rotterdam. Netherlands' LCU is much narrower and longer (36x6.9 m).
Also, we can see Bay class is particularly efficient but less capable. It has less crew (core RFA 70 + RN additional + RM), smaller well-dock (but anyway Bay might not be able to have 2 LCU-wide dock), and no helo hangar. << Personally opinion>> A: Efficiency is the key
As German ship builder guy was saying in some exhibition, "landing ships is starving for peace time operations". The reason why Bay-class LSD is used for APT-N and not Albion-class LPD is clear = much efficient. Bays are "spot on" for Caribbean operation AND logistic landing support. If we make it "HNLMS Johan de Witt", I think UK will not be able to have the same hull number as Bays.
Bay class is very versatile because it is cheap to operate = less capable. Capability sacrifices efficiency. Efficiency is essential as a "damage control" against harsh budgetary condition. If the ship saved hundreds of live last year in HADR at Caribbean sea, it is politically very difficult to disband her. But, it the ship is moored on the port because of lack of crew and fuel, she is very vulnerable. For example, Bulwark (and Albion) was on big danger for disbanding last year, but little was discussed about disbanding Bays. B: My proposal
I understand the plan to have a large LHD and 2 large LPDs (cost will not allow more). But I personally think 1 LPH and 3 Bay-like (but with 2 LCU and 1-2 Merlin hangar and 2 Mexefloats) will be better.
1: LHD vs LPH
The LHD will be need to have high level of damage control because it must go near ashore to use her well-dock. On the contrary, the LPH will not be needed to have such damage control because it does NOT need to go near ashore. Also, this ship will be at least 5000t smaller than LHD (no well dock). Combined, LPH will be considerably cheaper than LHD, allowing more resource left for LPD/LSD replacements.
Also, are we going to operate LHD like LPD? (go near ashore for LCU/LCVP/ORC assault ?) I do not think so. At the initial phase, LHD will be operated as LPH, no well-dock operations
. Only in the second wave, it's well-dock will be used. This is NOT the same for US Navy/Marine.
They have significant numbers of LCAC. RN do not and will not. LCAT or Carmen 90 is not as fast as LCAC (QinetiQ PACSCAT is dead, as I understand)
My proposal will be 3 Bays with enhanced damage control (and therefore only 3 will be there). It can be based on Enforcer 20000, but we seriously need to consider how to operate them with smaller crew.
Personally, I think 1 ship shall be "fully-manned" with crew of 170 RN, while the other 2 with reduced crew of 100 RFA (+RN added). This "2 crew plan" needs to be implemented in the design. Not easy, but doable I think.
Less armaments, less landing crafts, letting some of the damage control system with no crew (keep the redundancy control room vacant), only use half of the water pumps for well-dock to reduce maintenance load, less watch crew, less fire fighting (rely on firewalls), etc...
3: C&C systems
These systems will be onboard the LPH and PoW CV. This will reduce the crew need onboard the LSDs significantly.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.