Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[PeterM]

UH1Ys don't have a shot at the SF helicopter requirement. The pot of money for SF helicopters is only so big, so I think one of two things will happen - a buy of Blackhawks to equip all of 6 Avn, or a buy of Little Birds to equip one squadron, with MRH equipping the other. There won't be enough money for both new Blackhawks and Little Birds. My money is just on new Blackhawks.

What kind of airframe numbers are we realistically looking at? 24 airframes?

A FMS of blackhawks seems to make a lot of sense. They are a very useful piece of kit with commonality with the US blackhawk fleet, our MH-60Rs and will have a relatively easy transition with our current blackhawk experience.

Little Birds to me seem to be a nice to have. If it is a choice (as it seems to be) of a number of Little Birds or a similar number of new blackhawks, the latter seem to give alot more bang for buck.

 

[oldsig127]

Army / Navy may not have much choice soon...

www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/small-waves-could-stop-defence-moving-craft-to-shore/news-story/4361cd1a20c012af593b7c317a5ac148+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au]Small waves ‘could stop Defence moving craft to shore’[/url]

Typical hatchet job by the Australian. Sloppy research as usual.

Twelve of the landing craft mechanised-1Es are being built by Spanish ship builder Navantia for about $248 million and are due to be operational by later this year.

Except that the last of them was launched in April 2015. (Source: Janes) Must be a slow news day when they dig up a year old story and try to run it as news. Except that their Defence Correspondents are clearly out of their depth and probably don't know where to look

oldsig

 

[ADMk2]

Typical hatchet job by the Australian. Sloppy research as usual.



Except that the last of them was launched in April 2015. (Source: Janes) Must be a slow news day when they dig up a year old story and try to run it as news. Except that their Defence Correspondents are clearly out of their depth and probably don't know where to look

oldsig

They aren’t wrong about the capability limitations and that is what worries me. Not according to Defence anyway...

 

[ASSAIL]

They aren’t wrong about the capability limitations and that is what worries me. Not according to Defence anyway...

The only mitigation here is that no commander will undertake a beach landing in rough weather, there is risk to more than just the tanks in that situation.
Suitable weather will also be a consideration for uncontested landings.

If a contested landing is undertaken by the LHDs it will only be as part of an alliance and in that case there are more suitable options to land the M1A1.

It was my understanding that the IIP has programmed a replacement for the current Navantia craft in the mid 2020s and that will resolve the issue anyway.

 

[hairyman]

What is the point of getting these craft from Navantia if they cant handle our tanks? Maybe we should join in with the German and French with their new tank under consideration, at 45 ton from memory. Eventually get rid of the heavy Abrams.

 

[t68]

What is the point of getting these craft from Navantia if they cant handle our tanks? Maybe we should join in with the German and French with their new tank under consideration, at 45 ton from memory. Eventually get rid of the heavy Abrams.

The LLC can move Abrams just in low sea states, it's not the end of the world we will have updated ship to shore connectors sometime in the 20's, we are only getting our feet wet at the moment in terms of our amphiboius capabilty.

Crawl walk run:kar

 

[ADMk2]

What is the point of getting these craft from Navantia if they cant handle our tanks? Maybe we should join in with the German and French with their new tank under consideration, at 45 ton from memory. Eventually get rid of the heavy Abrams.

We already have them, it’s not a case and of ‘getting’.

The ADF obviously believed Navantia and the single photo they have released of a Leopard II on an LCM-1E, as to it’s ability to do what we need. Unfortunately however it seems they can’t. Just like the LCM-2000’s couldn’t either...

Our purchases of smaller watercraft hasn’t exactly bathed ADF’s procurement processes in glory...

 

[Volkodav]

We already have them, it’s not a case and of ‘getting’.

The ADF obviously believed Navantia and the single photo they have released of a Leopard II on an LCM-1E, as to it’s ability to do what we need. Unfortunately however it seems they can’t. Just like the LCM-2000’s couldn’t either...

Our purchases of smaller watercraft hasn’t exactly bathed ADF’s procurement processes in glory...

I think its fair to say Australia's defence procurement since the peace dividend of the early 90s has not been particularly impressive. Once the cold war ended strategic thought seemed to leave the political psych and it became about pork barrelling and ideology on both sides. The number of poor decisions is astounding, but even more alarming was the number of acceptable or even good decisions that were hamstrung by shocking contracts, politics and very little consideration of life cycle requirements, i.e. the understanding that making adequate provision for sustainment, upgrades and even early replacement can actually save money in the long term.

 

[Stampede]

The LLC can move Abrams just in low sea states, it's not the end of the world we will have updated ship to shore connectors sometime in the 20's, we are only getting our feet wet at the moment in terms of our amphiboius capabilty.

Crawl walk run:kar

Crawl Walk Run is true.

But it should not limit our expectations of equipment being fit for purpose.
If the LLC falls short of expectation then it needs fixing or replacing.
I personally don't see the answer in relying on mexeflotes or the benevolence of allied assets to solve our lack an appropriate connector.
I also don't see that we can tolerate long term having the LLC in service when it is so restricted in what it can do.
A decision to have an LHD with all its features was made some 15 years ago.
This gestation period should now be walking if not running. Talk of waiting till mid 2020's for the next connector is simply not acceptable.
The LCM1e is a integral part of having a ship with a docking well.
It needs to work and an answer needs to be found very soon.
The Canberra class needs to house four connector's that can each carry a MBT or TWO future weighted IFV's.
There can be no compromise.
Engineering and money can fix any short coming in LHD and LLC.

This should be a priority defence project

Regards S

 

[old faithful]

I agree with stampede, with $tied up in these assets, they must be able to the job properly, not just fudge our way around it.
This is a great capability, and to be able to do 80% of possible tasks is not good enough.

 

[t68]

I agree with stampede, with $tied up in these assets, they must be able to the job properly, not just fudge our way around it.
This is a great capability, and to be able to do 80% of possible tasks is not good enough.

when it came to JP2048 ph3 I don't think they looked at any other craft, they only seemed to be concerned with either Spanish or Australian built.

JP2048 Phase 3 Amphibious Watercraft Replacement

 

[BigM60]

when it came to JP2048 ph3 I don't think they looked at any other craft, they only seemed to be concerned with either Spanish or Australian built.

JP2048 Phase 3 Amphibious Watercraft Replacement

I suppose it was an easy fix once LCM2000 project was terminated. All the compatibility work had been done by the Spanish. I don't see adding a handful of larger LCU's a huge burden. We have an Army water transport squadron operating LCM8's, so, it's only the capital cost of changing them over. Not asking for more people, a new facility, or new supporting technology - it's a flat bottom marine vessel.

 

[zhaktronz]

https://www.defensenews.com/breakin...llar-contract-for-small-transportation-boats/

The new US Army Maneuver Support Vessel might be an option

 

[FormerDirtDart]

https://www.defensenews.com/breakin...llar-contract-for-small-transportation-boats/

The new US Army Maneuver Support Vessel might be an option

I suspect the US Army's MSV(L) is going to be significantly larger, roughly 28-29% longer, than the LCM-1E, and likely would have a problem fitting into the Canberra-class' divided well deck.
View attachment 6902

 

[ADMk2]

I suspect the US Army's MSV(L) is going to be significantly larger, roughly 28-29% longer, than the LCM-1E, and likely would have a problem fitting into the Canberra-class' divided well deck.
View attachment 6902

The length should be okay, though it would mean only 2 of these could be carried per LHD, however the beam will be the issue which may be the reason why no details of the size of the beam of these vessels has been released, but I suspect you might be correct.

However ADF will have to come to terms with the apparent reality that it’s choice of LLC may not be able to carry the majority of Army’s armoured vehicles and an increasing majority of Army’s large protected B vehicle fleet, which will significantly impact the utility of these vessels in an amphibious role, which is it’s alleged purpose...

 

[kato]

Dutch MkII would work at two per ship. They have the beam of a LCM-1E with the length of a LCU-1627 (i.e. less than two LCM-1E behind each other), and are capable of carrying a 65-ton load. Probably could carry a number of LCVP alongside them, like everyone else seems to be doing nowadays...

(or just do it like the Dutch did and lengthen those LCM-1E...)

 

[BigM60]

Dutch MkII would work at two per ship. They have the beam of a LCM-1E with the length of a LCU-1627 (i.e. less than two LCM-1E behind each other), and are capable of carrying a 65-ton load. Probably could carry a number of LCVP alongside them, like everyone else seems to be doing nowadays...

(or just do it like the Dutch did and lengthen those LCM-1E...)

I am not a marine architect and lengthening may be feasible but we would be turning a standard in service platform into something quite bespoke. I find it interesting that our Bay class landing ship HMAS Choules was built to take a bigger LCU MK10 but the LCM1-E isn't compatible? It must be that relatively high "bridge" on the LCM1-E?

 

[alexsa]

I am not a marine architect and lengthening may be feasible but we would be turning a standard in service platform into something quite bespoke. I find it interesting that our Bay class landing ship HMAS Choules was built to take a bigger LCU MK10 but the LCM1-E isn't compatible? It must be that relatively high "bridge" on the LCM1-E?

It is not easy to simply lengthen a vessel as you need to add reinforcing structure for longtitudinal strength and there may also be torsional issues with the longer hull. Basically your are better off building from scratch as there will be less additional weight compared to modifying an existing vessel. (the FFG7 are a good case in point, more structure was required to lengthen the early vessels than to build from scratch as you have 'refit' addition structural strength - this was obvious from the reinforcing strips down the hull sides).


However length is not the sole issue here, it is the ability to carry the load in a sea state which means it is buoyancy and freeboard as well as stability. You could build a longer vessel and have the same problem.


Add to this that length and width are not the only issues as draft is also a factor. The dock will have a maximum draft limit so simply building a taller hull may not help noting the additional structure over a similar length will result in increased hull immersion.


Looking at the image there is some scope for a wider hull. This would certainly provide more buoyance and greater stability. This would also allow for greater freeboard. If it were practical to widen the hull by 300mm over 10m either side over a 2m height you could increase volume by 12 cubic m, noting you still have to offset some of this with the additional structure weight penalty.


Looking at it for the outside I suggest the answer may be a revised design from scratch with a similar footprint but maxed out to allow four units in the dock. Noting the current LCM-1E are fine for most gear (and can carry tanks in benign conditions) it may only be necessary to provide two per vessel (plus spare units for shore training and Choules perhaps). Please note, this is just an idea as I don't have enough information to the design to hand.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't see this as a huge issue.

• They can move them in very calm conditions on the LCM-1e in what you might find in a protected bay. While some what limiting, the tank itself is quite heavy and is likely to see only limited deployment regionally via beach insertion.
• They can be moved off Choules (LCU or mexflote?)
• They can be moved on and off pierside (LHD/Choules or RoRo)
• They can be flown in a C17
• They can be deployed from allied ships such as the USMC.

I do believe the LCM-1e can operate from the Bay class. I don't believe it is logical to do so because of the LCU10.

I can see eventually the LCM-1e being replaced or augmented with something like an LCAT or new ship to shore connector (new LCAC).

• Which can carry more
• Is much faster
• Able to land in more locations
• Is much more seaworthy

One ship might be modified to carry LCAT/SSC while the other continues with LCM-1e's.

In terms of our amphibious priorities, its not a major issue and is more likely to be solved when fixing higher priority issues.

But its a pretty specific set of circumstances where we have to deploy tanks amphibiously in our region(?), the US (or other allies) can't help us, we have to do it in rough open waters, there is no pier available or airport and Choules is unavailable. If there is that much working against us I would say we have bigger issues than getting tanks ashore.

 

[ASSAIL]

They (LLC) will be replaced after 20 years in service iaw the IIP. Obviously our planners don't see any limitations or problems.