Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[weegee]

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.

I have always wondered why an LCAC hasn't been considered? Too expensive? I wonder can the well dock divider be removed on Adelaide and Canberra? to accommodate an LCAC. I know Canberra had one pop in and out during RIMPAC but it was only popping its nose in the rear.

Because as you say they are faster, carry way more weight, handle the sea states better and even beach obstacles. Hell they can even ride over waves on the beach within reason.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I have always wondered why an LCAC hasn't been considered? Too expensive? I wonder can the well dock divider be removed on Adelaide and Canberra? to accommodate an LCAC. I know Canberra had one pop in and out during RIMPAC but it was only popping its nose in the rear.

Because as you say they are faster, carry way more weight, handle the sea states better and even beach obstacles. Hell they can even ride over waves on the beach within reason.

The LCAC has a few problems:
Expensive to purchase
Expensive to operate and maintain (think Osprey).
Consumes huge amount of aviation fuel
Sprays seawater everywhere
While very fast, it can only carry slightly more than a LCM-1e.
It is physically quite large, a serious reduction in the number of landing craft.

The new SSC is meant to decrease costs of operation by something like 50% (so from insane to just mad).

They are are awesome for the USMC, but not so sure of how awesome they are for Australia.

I do think we should look at the LCATs (or something like it). You get a return speed that is nearly as fast as a LCAC, faster carrying speed, much better range than a LCM-1e, running costs and fuel use in the order of a LCM-1e and carry usefully larger loads.They have limitations as well, but it feels like a better fit IMO.

I don't think the tanks are the problem.. Land 400 is going to bring some pretty serious deployment limitations as well.

They were also looking at building a really big Lcat that was half landing craft half HSV.Able to operate independently, carry 100 tons, twin 25mm mounts, ASW capable, able to deploy amphibious vehicles at sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engin_de_débarquement_amphibie_rapide

https://cnim.com/en/businesses/defense-security-and-digital-intelligence/l-cat-shore-shore

But then at that size, you could get more traditional landing craft heavy.

I guess it really depends on what capability the Army really wants. Who I guess is watching the USMC on what they are doing. For now the LCM-1E is fine. There are some pretty bold new directions in this space. You would want to wait for land 400 and maybe new/modified tanks and where the US is heading before you get too caught up.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

...

I do think we should look at the LCATs (or something like it). You get a return speed that is nearly as fast as a LCAC, faster carrying speed, much better range than a LCM-1e, running costs and fuel use in the order of a LCM-1e and carry usefully larger loads.They have limitations as well, but it feels like a better fit IMO.
...

I have always wondered why an LCAC hasn't been considered? Too expensive? I wonder can the well dock divider be removed on Adelaide and Canberra? to accommodate an LCAC. I know Canberra had one pop in and out during RIMPAC but it was only popping its nose in the rear.

Because as you say they are faster, carry way more weight, handle the sea states better and even beach obstacles. Hell they can even ride over waves on the beach within reason.

The problem is will either the LCAC or LCAT even fit in a Canberra-class well deck?
The from what I've seen in images the divider extends back at least halfway back in the well deck from the steel beach.
View attachment 6903

If either manages to fit, is there still enough space to lower their ramps to onload vehicles?
If they manage to lower their ramps at the rear of the divider, will there be enough space for vehicles to maneuver between the divider and the landing craft's outboard structure to facilitate loading?

 

[aussienscale]

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

Exactly, and to be honest, the only time we will ever see our M1's leave our shores is to send them back to the US after we have finished with them !

Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

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

The IIP could be changed at a moment’s notice, just as the old DCP was changed regularly as priorities change.

Now that it seems Army is concerned about the LLC’s ability to carry the full range of Army’s armoured vehicles and a good portion of it’s protected vehicles across the range of conditions it is supposed to do so, I think that will be one priority that changes...

 

[Volkodav]

A quicker easier solution would be just to reinstate the LCH replacement should the strategic situation require. A larger more seaworthy vessel with greater automation to keep crew size down would be easy enough to select from the various designs available these days. A US Army Besson Class for instance can lift 15 Abrams and land them over the beach.

 

[kato]

the various designs available these days.

Which designs?

Other than the Besson, or rather the LSV-7 subclass with its somewhat curious 4-years-per-ship-from-launch-to-completion period at VT Halter, the only traditional beaching LSTs (i.e. not LPDs misnamed LSTs) have been the Bayraktar class from ADIK Furtrans in Turkey and the much smaller couple Stan Lander 5612s that Damen had their Cuban subsidiary build for Venezuela (they have some vapourware in their catalogue that may apply though).

And since you mentioned crew, those Bayraktars have a crew of 129 (!) compared to 29-32 (!) on a LSV.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The problem is will either the LCAC or LCAT even fit in a Canberra-class well deck?
The from what I've seen in images the divider extends back at least halfway back in the well deck from the steel beach.
View attachment 6903

If either manages to fit, is there still enough space to lower their ramps to onload vehicles?
If they manage to lower their ramps at the rear of the divider, will there be enough space for vehicles to maneuver between the divider and the landing craft's outboard structure to facilitate loading?

The divider would have to be removed or modified to be able to pull up to the steel beach ramp. Of course removing the divider would make LCM operations more problematic and less efficient. Perhaps a removable (or Telescopic) divider could be constructed?

The LCAC and LCAT could load vehicles from the rear of the Lhd. This has been proven with the LCAC and the Australian LHD's. The LCAT can operate from US ships. They conducted ops with USS Wasp back in 2012.

French LCAT Visits Wasp

As Alexsa has explained, it might be somewhat difficult to make a better LCM given the fixed dimensions.

Probably the bigger issue is operating landing craft over much longer distances.

Which you then start to look at heavy landing craft. Which we are apparently moving away from.(?)

But really it is up to the army what they see as the priority. Depends what you want to land, how much of it, how quickly, is it an assault or a landing etc.

If land400 vehicles end up being pretty heavy, and future tanks look like getting heavier, and we expect both vehicles in amphibious landings then look at changing the landing craft.

However, the army may decide that kind of capability isn't needed, Australia is only likely to use its amphibious capability in a peace keeping type role. Or maybe want an amphibious vehicle then perhaps just acquire some (~24) terrex 2 type vehicles.

The doctrine and requirements in this space are pretty fluid, even the US hasn't got it all worked out,look at the cancellation of the EFV and some of the issues they have been playing with the JHSV's and amphibious concepts. The SSC and the UHAC..

No, I think the LCM-1E was quite a good purchase. We will get decades of use out of them, and for most things they will be fine and the go to option. Sure keep our eyes and ears open, but I think they were a great acquisition.

 

[alexsa]

As Alexsa has explained, it might be somewhat difficult to make a better LCM given the fixed dimensions.

.

To be clear I was indicating that a new design on a 'similar' (enlarged) footprint is likely to be a better option than extending the current design. if you can improve the buoyant volume then things would improve.

In noting this I also agree the LCM 1E is still an impressive craft.


With the LCAT, no doubt it could be used, but how do you get it to the theater of operations. These will not always be close and getting there under their own steam in the Pacific region may not be practical.


I have always favored an LST (like the Damen LST80 or LST100) for combined and independent operations but these are not on the table

 

[StingrayOZ]

To be clear I was indicating that a new design on a 'similar' (enlarged) footprint is likely to be a better option than extending the current design. if you can improve the buoyant volume then things would improve.

True, but most LCM's look pretty similar, some almost identical. I think this may be a case of being limited to the overall dimensions. I think even a clean sheet design is only going to be a small incremental improvement and the improvement will come at reduced capability in other areas.

With the LCAT, no doubt it could be used, but how do you get it to the theater of operations. These will not always be close and getting there under their own steam in the Pacific region may not be practical.

The LCAT could be transported in the well docks of the LHD's in the same way France uses them.I see value in something like that augmenting the LCM-1E. The LCAT would be a bit more autonomously capable, possibly useful as an intra island/theatre transport. More affordable and flexible than a HSV or a LCAC but overlaps into that space. While they would displace some LCM-1E's, these (LCM-1E) could possibly be carried into theater other ways. Particularly for longer deployments. At other times they wouldn't be carried.

An LCAT could be useful for wider operations where a LCM may not be ideal. In that way I see it more complimentary. It may not be ideal, but its a very real and doable capability. It has an 80t max capacity. Obviously something like that would be attractive to Austal or Incat in making it.

I have always favored an LST (like the Damen LST80 or LST100) for combined and independent operations but these are not on the table

I think there is still space for something like that. But given the uncertainty I can see why that have maybe been shelved for greater priorities. Plus I think they want to make the OPV separate from any amphibious type capability which I think was becoming a bit intermingled with the original OCV.

Certainly I think there is value in that. It would help free up the LHD's/Choules and make us a little less permanent reliance on them always being available. It would also give more deployment flexibility and release the LHD from perhaps burdensome duties like, moving tanks or resupply.

 

[alexsa]

True, but most LCM's look pretty similar, some almost identical. I think this may be a case of being limited to the overall dimensions. I think even a clean sheet design is only going to be a small incremental improvement and the improvement will come at reduced capability in other areas.


.

Sorry I do not agree .... small changes mean a lot


If you can increase the buoyant volume by 12 cubic meters that is huge. Even 6 cubic meters is a lot. You will lose some advantage out of additional structure but even 4 cubic meters within the submerged water plane area (at the current loaded draft) means ...... 4 tonnes increase in capacity (and a tad more in salt water as the relative density is 1.025).


The increase in draft by 1cm (Tonnes per Centimetre immersion) in salt water is calculated using


TPCSW=WPA/97.56.


If we assume a box for the waterplane area (and take a worst case assume just 20m x 6.4m) then the LCM 1E is about 128 sqm, the tonnes per centimeter immersion is 1.312. A modest increase of 300mm to the beam results in 1.359. Go to a 7m beam and we are up to 1.435 tonnes per centimeter of immersion.


To put it another way ..... again assuming a box shape of 20mx6.4mx1m(draft) then total displacement is 128 tonnes
- Increase the beam to 6.7m it becomes 134 tonnes
- Increase the beam to 7.0m it becomes 140 tonnes.

Noting the Well deck is over 69m long the other option is to add 1m in length. This gives you a displacement of 134.4 tonnes on the current beam.

Some of this weight margin will be taken up by additional structure but not all (or even most of it). This shows that a modest increase in beam or length can significantly increase displacement.

 

[Stampede]

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.

Hi Stingray

Your positivity is not with out foundation as your correct in that we do have options re the movement of heavy stuff ship to shore.
For myself I see it as a necessity to have a more seaworthy connector for our Amphibious fleet available now, and not rely on the options mentioned. I don't see it as a nice to have, but a in service priority.
In many ways it reflects the value we have now for our ability to conduct heavy kick in the door warfare. This is understandable given our recent army history of deploying light forces and special operation groups. Sure we have sent ASLAVs to Afghanistan and Iraq. M113's to Timor and of course many bushmasters and B vehicles to various theatres of operation. But we seem adverse to taking seriously the heavy STUFF in meaningful quantities.
Plan Beersheba should be a step in the right direction but we seem to vacillate with the force structure and it appears to me planning seems more to be based on economics rather than need.There seems to be a cultural mind set that we can wait till the mid 2020's when land 400 comes together and that we make do with our current inventory as a training capability only.
Reality check - Thats a long way off.
If we are serious in deploying the ready brigade with it full spectrum of military options to government then we need to look seriously at logistic movement ship to beach. This is the need for our geography and suggest the very reason why we chose amphibious ships with a docking well rather than a alternative.
I would also look at an intern fix to make our m113's more relevant to the modern battle space and also boost the numbers of M1A1 tanks asap. The M113As4 has its limitations but there is weight redundancy that could be capitalised upon to add armour to increase protection levels to give more options of commitment rather than the current configuration.
More tanks is a no brainer .
We can spend billions on ships and aircraft but tanks are always lacking in priority. At the end of the day an increase in tank numbers is a small financial investment for what it gives back and thats ---- firepower!
Which in reality is deterrence. A deterrence that can be deployed anywhere in the region is a good option to have up you sleeve.


Regards S

 

[John Newman]

Noting the Well deck is over 69m long the other option is to add 1m in length. This gives you a displacement of 134.4 tonnes on the current beam.

Some of this weight margin will be taken up by additional structure but not all (or even most of it). This shows that a modest increase in beam or length can significantly increase displacement.

Talking about the well dock:

Amphibious Assault Ship (LHD) | Royal Australian Navy

This cutaway diagram has been around for a long time, it shows the well dock occupied by 4 x LCM-1E and 4 x RHIB, and assuming it is showing accurate dimensions, it would certainly appear that future replacements for the LCM (lets call it LCM-1E Mk II) could potentially be lengthened by 1m or 2m at least and still fit four LCM in the well dock (excluding the RHIB's).

As far as increasing the beam of a future replacement LCM, well I wouldn't have a clue if there is sufficient space, but if there is the potential to add slightly to the beam (without the added expense of modifying the LHD's), their dimensions could potential be increased both ways, length and beam.

But that's all for the future and probably best to be decided when both types of LAND 400 vehicles have been selected and when we know what version of M1 tank we finally end up with too.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Noting the Well deck is over 69m long the other option is to add 1m in length. This gives you a displacement of 134.4 tonnes on the current beam.

Some of this weight margin will be taken up by additional structure but not all (or even most of it). This shows that a modest increase in beam or length can significantly increase displacement.

But they would require a lot of expense and time for a small (but critical) margin improvement.

It just that I think better potential gains in terms of capability by going with a larger format. Particularly when you consider actual tonnage moved under given time.
With doctrine drifting to having ships operate further from shore, larger craft carrying more and heavier vehicles would seem to be the future.

Carrying two or (three land) 400 vehicles at a time would make amphibious deployment much more effective. Comparing landing craft that can carry 60 tons and one with 80t capacity, the 80t one is likely to be able to double the throughput (when each vehicle is over 30t) and be much more flexible.

If you could make an LCM variant that could carry 80t in normal seastates, that is likely to be much, much more useful than a variant that can carry 70t.

If you were drawing up a new LCM I would be looking at getting as much dimension as possible. That would include decreasing the thickness or removing the centre divider on the LHD.

I don't see the M113 being in the ADF's future deployments. I do see additional tanks, and plenty of land 400 vehicles.

I think as a leading middle power in amphibious operations we should also possibly in the future acquire some amphibious vehicles, Terrex2, develop a new LARC-V in combination with the US.

 

[John Newman]

If you were drawing up a new LCM I would be looking at getting as much dimension as possible. That would include decreasing the thickness or removing the centre divider on the LHD.

Talking about dimensions, I just had a look back at the link I posted earlier regarding the 'cut away' diagram of the LHD's well dock (I'll relink it here):

Amphibious Assault Ship (LHD) | Royal Australian Navy

Scrolling down a bit further on that page, it does mention the dimension of the well dock, the well dock is 69.3m long and 16.8m wide.

There is no info on the centrally placed fender, but looking at numerous bits of vision on YouTube (that I'm sure we've all seen), the fender isn't very wide, probably a bit more than 1m, but certainly looks to be well less than 2m.

But lets be generous and say that it is 1.8m wide, take that off the overall width of the well dock (16.8m) and you are left with 15m, divide that in two and you have approx. 7.5m available either side of the fender.

An LCM-1E is, 23.3m long and 6.4m wide, which gives you about 1.1m to play with each side of the fender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCM-1E

A future 'new' class of larger LCM could potentially be about 1m wider, and there appears to be plenty of scope for an increase in length (the dock is 69.3m long, half of that is 34.65m), which means the current length of 23.3m could grow substantially and still allow for four (4) larger LCM's and without removing or reducing the size of the fender.

On the other hand....

If we went down the US path and decided to operate LCAC for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion

You are talking about a craft that is 26.4m long and 14.3m wide, basically that would mean the central fender is removed (you can't put two side by side, they would have to be tandem, one behind the other).

Simply put, without modifying the LHD's, there is potentially enough space to still operate four (4) enlarged LCM, slightly wider, certainly can be longer.

Or, modify the LHD and remove the fender, and you can potentially operate two (2) LCAC.

So which is the best way to go? That is a how long is a piece of string question.

Lots of different ways to look at it, LCAC is certainly a lot faster, could do more return trips to the beach (but of course it would have to, only two vs four LCM in operation).

A negative against LCAC could be that if one goes unserviceable in an operation, you loose 50% of your capability, if one of the four LCM's goes down, you loose 25% of your capability.

Anyway, there's my two cents worth!

 

[ASSAIL]

For example, I can't think of a single battle damaged A-vehicle from Iraq or Afghanistan where, if the capability existed, a swap of mission modules would have been used. War just isn't that neat - you just crack on with the capability at hand until a new vehicle is deleivered from the theatre/strategic reserve.

I've attached a video of a Boxer module change and it's nothing that could be done without a substantial crane although the process looks pretty simple, a few bolts and a couple of power plugs.
Pretty impressive really.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=mn_WblYc4xk

 

[Volkodav]

I've attached a video of a Boxer module change and it's nothing that could be done without a substantial crane although the process looks pretty simple, a few bolts and a couple of power plugs.
Pretty impressive really.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=mn_WblYc4xk

There is a frame that allows the modules to serve as containerised systems, able to function standing alone or mounted on the back of a truck, potentially even on a train or a ship. It is conceivable that the additional special modules could be used to support an operational base and be vehicle mounted as required.

 

[koala]

Talking about dimensions, I just had a look back at the link I posted earlier regarding the 'cut away' diagram of the LHD's well dock (I'll relink it here):

Amphibious Assault Ship (LHD) | Royal Australian Navy

Scrolling down a bit further on that page, it does mention the dimension of the well dock, the well dock is 69.3m long and 16.8m wide.

There is no info on the centrally placed fender, but looking at numerous bits of vision on YouTube (that I'm sure we've all seen), the fender isn't very wide, probably a bit more than 1m, but certainly looks to be well less than 2m.

But lets be generous and say that it is 1.8m wide, take that off the overall width of the well dock (16.8m) and you are left with 15m, divide that in two and you have approx. 7.5m available either side of the fender.

An LCM-1E is, 23.3m long and 6.4m wide, which gives you about 1.1m to play with each side of the fender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCM-1E

A future 'new' class of larger LCM could potentially be about 1m wider, and there appears to be plenty of scope for an increase in length (the dock is 69.3m long, half of that is 34.65m), which means the current length of 23.3m could grow substantially and still allow for four (4) larger LCM's and without removing or reducing the size of the fender.

On the other hand....

If we went down the US path and decided to operate LCAC for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion

You are talking about a craft that is 26.4m long and 14.3m wide, basically that would mean the central fender is removed (you can't put two side by side, they would have to be tandem, one behind the other).

Simply put, without modifying the LHD's, there is potentially enough space to still operate four (4) enlarged LCM, slightly wider, certainly can be longer.

Or, modify the LHD and remove the fender, and you can potentially operate two (2) LCAC.

So which is the best way to go? That is a how long is a piece of string question.

Lots of different ways to look at it, LCAC is certainly a lot faster, could do more return trips to the beach (but of course it would have to, only two vs four LCM in operation).

A negative against LCAC could be that if one goes unserviceable in an operation, you loose 50% of your capability, if one of the four LCM's goes down, you loose 25% of your capability.

Anyway, there's my two cents worth!

As we all talk about removing the central divider/fender I am wondering just how much structural support the divider provides to the bulkheads, it could end up a major engineering issue if the divider itself adds to the structural support of the bulkhead.

 

[alexsa]

As we all talk about removing the central divider/fender I am wondering just how much structural support the divider provides to the bulkheads, it could end up a major engineering issue if the divider itself adds to the structural support of the bulkhead.

The fender is there for a reason (to guide the LCMs into location and to avoid movement between LCM when loading with the dock flooded). It would add some stiffness to the hull structure (actually a lot given the depth of the section) but I could say if it is vital.

In any case removing the centre fenders is not a simple option and cannot be taken lightly...... it is a common gripe of mine that people seem to think steel and be added and/or removed from a ships and other 'stuff' added in with no impact of the vessels stability of operational limitations.

Pull the fender out and your only choice would be a large vessel. I am with John on this and I am not a fan of the LCAC in the Australian context given the fuel burn and limited uplift capacity for such a large vessel.

The current LCM can move the Abrams in clam conditions and can carry the LAND400 vehicles. If it becomes critical that we beach land the tanks then careful planning and/or and improved LCM would be the best option IMHO.

 

[Stampede]

The fender is there for a reason (to guide the LCMs into location and to avoid movement between LCM when loading with the dock flooded). It would add some stiffness to the hull structure (actually a lot given the depth of the section) but I could say if it is vital.

In any case removing the centre fenders is not a simple option and cannot be taken lightly...... it is a common gripe of mine that people seem to think steel and be added and/or removed from a ships and other 'stuff' added in with no impact of the vessels stability of operational limitations.

Pull the fender out and your only choice would be a large vessel. I am with John on this and I am not a fan of the LCAC in the Australian context given the fuel burn and limited uplift capacity for such a large vessel.

The current LCM can move the Abrams in clam conditions and can carry the LAND400 vehicles. If it becomes critical that we beach land the tanks then careful planning and/or and improved LCM would be the best option IMHO.

Like John and others I have been intrigued if it is possible to to capitalise on any spare space in the docking well to enlarge the current in service lcm1e.
I am no marine engineer, but would postulate that the centre fender has both a structural benefit and a role in docking and stabilising the movement of the LCM's.
If there is scope, then the marginal clearance in the beam of the landing craft would probably preclude any widening of either existing craft of future builds.
The only scope I see would be in lengthening the craft or new vessel which is some what a guess without knowing a firm figure of the clearance behind the landing craft to the well deck door.
At a guess from images and what information of dimensions are out in the public space, I would guess it's only about 8 metres which at most is not much to play with.
However if you get about 2 - 2.5 tonnes load carrying capacity for each metre of LCM1e then this may just make the difference in load carrying options across some sea states to justify extending the LCM's a few metres; or alternatively a larger extension on only one of the Two in-line LCM1E's.
In other words a LCM1E fleet of two lengths.
The option of lengthening the well deck looks too problematic so we work with what we have.............A connector of compromise and the options that come with it.


Regards S