Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[OldNavy63]

Government announces Damen LST-100 selected for Army Landing Craft Heavy.

Government announces next-gen Army Landing Craft Heavy

Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery Pat Conroy has announced the selection of the preferred option for the Australian Defence Force’s Landing Craft Heavy under a program that will bolster national defence by establishing a new littoral fleet.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Hot off the press, Austal to build 8 x Damen LST-100 at Henderson WA probably commencing in 2026. Displacing 3,900 tonnes and capable of carrying six Abrams MBT, 11 Reback IFV or 26 HIMARS.

A decent size, the former HMAS Tobruk was around 6,000 FL tons.

 

[Morgo]

Government announces Damen LST-100 selected for Army Landing Craft Heavy.

Government announces next-gen Army Landing Craft Heavy

Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery Pat Conroy has announced the selection of the preferred option for the Australian Defence Force’s Landing Craft Heavy under a program that will bolster national defence by establishing a new littoral fleet.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Hot off the press, Austal to build 8 x Damen LST-100 at Henderson WA probably commencing in 2026. Displacing 3,900 tonnes and capable of carrying six Abrams MBT, 11 Reback IFV or 26 HIMARS.

A decent size, the former HMAS Tobruk was around 6,000 FL tons.

This is excellent news. Seems to be likely to be a very capable ship.

 

[Going Boeing]

A fleet of 8 will add a significant capability to the ADF. With such a large coastline, these are necessary to deploy our limited resources.

I hope that these vessels are crewed by RAN personnel.

screenshot courtesy of Damen.com

 

[ADMk2]

A fleet of 8 will add a significant capability to the ADF. With such a large coastline, these are necessary to deploy our limited resources.

I hope that these vessels are crewed by RAN personnel.

screenshot courtesy of Damen.com

View attachment 52028

I am sure there will be some “joint” positions but these are Army vessels, to be operated by Army’s new littoral warfare regiments.

 

[Richo99]

I am sure there will be some “joint” positions but these are Army vessels, to be operated by Army’s new littoral warfare regiments.

Interestingly, the ministers announcement did not explicitly confirm they were army (or navy) vessels. I suspect (and this is dangerous) that the sensible decision will be made to commission these into the RAN, and that these will not only be LCH replacements, but also, effectivly, the Choules replacement.

 

[Reptilia]

Interestingly, the ministers announcement did not explicitly confirm they were army (or navy) vessels. I suspect (and this is dangerous) that the sensible decision will be made to commission these into the RAN, and that these will not only be LCH replacements, but also, effectivly, the Choules replacement.

Never know, with Damen now partnered, we could see 1 or more Enforcer LPDs or MultiRole support ships replacing Choules.

 

[Redlands18]

Never know, with Damen now partnered, we could see 1 or more Enforcer LPDs replacing Choules.

I would have a guess that once we have a couple of L-100s in service the RAN will retire the Choules without replacement to help crew the Frigates and SSNs.

 

[Redlands18]

Interestingly, the ministers announcement did not explicitly confirm they were army (or navy) vessels. I suspect (and this is dangerous) that the sensible decision will be made to commission these into the RAN, and that these will not only be LCH replacements, but also, effectivly, the Choules replacement.

It is a Land Project (Land8710) and that normally indicates Army.

 

[Reptilia]

It is a Land Project (Land8710) and that normally indicates Army.

Picture released by defence says different. Joint crew probably correct.
Homeport-Cairns(Navy) to Townsville(Army)?

 

[Stampede]

I am sure there will be some “joint” positions but these are Army vessels, to be operated by Army’s new littoral warfare regiments.

Is there any info as to the composition of the three Littoral Lift Groups.

Is the role to provide crew and maintainers solely for the LCM Heavy and Medium plus other intended watercraft

Or are they the above , plus the skill sets to be found in 2RAR.

I assume these are large regimental sized units rather than Sqn / Coy sized groups.

The establishment of such a units may account for the reduction in other areas of Army

Cheers S

 

[spoz]

I am sure there will be some “joint” positions but these are Army vessels, to be operated by Army’s new littoral warfare regiments.

God, I hope not, having nearly put a number of 4.5 inch bricks into an Army manned vessel which wandered across an active range in the early 70s.

Then there is the issue of how Army would develop the competency to operate them.

 

[76mmGuns]

at the bottom of the LST 100 page, Damen's page says

"Trade-in your current vessel

Explore our options for vessel trade-in at Damen Trading. Our in-house shipbroker. "


I wonder what we'd get for the Choules,

As an aside, I was thinking- getting 8 LST's is pretty good......but we have so few Abrams as it is.

 

[Reptilia]

at the bottom of the LST 100 page, Damen's page says

"Trade-in your current vessel

Explore our options for vessel trade-in at Damen Trading. Our in-house shipbroker. "


I wonder what we'd get for the Choules,

As an aside, I was thinking- getting 8 LST's is pretty good......but we have so few Abrams as it is.

This will mainly be for himars, ifv, crv, bushmaster, hawkei, trucks.

 

[ADMk2]

Interestingly, the ministers announcement did not explicitly confirm they were army (or navy) vessels. I suspect (and this is dangerous) that the sensible decision will be made to commission these into the RAN, and that these will not only be LCH replacements, but also, effectivly, the Choules replacement.

The entire Littoral Maneuver enterprise are Army (LAND) projects.

https://www.army.gov.au/our-work/strategy/australian-army-contribution-national-defence-strategy-2024#:~:text=The%202024%20National%20Defence%20Strategy%20directs%20Army%20to%20optimise%20for,the%202023%20Defence%20Strategic%20Review

.

 

[ADMk2]

God, I hope not, having nearly put a number of 4.5 inch bricks into an Army manned vessel which wandered across an active range in the early 70s.

Then there is the issue of how Army would develop the competency to operate them.

The same way it learned to fly (previously) owned RAAF helicopters I expect…

if need be they can always ask the US Army for help…

 

[Going Boeing]

The biggest problem with having the Army operating these vessels is the attitude of senior officers whereby all personnel are “soldiers first” and any other role comes a long way second.

This has been an ongoing issue within aviation units where personnel who maintain the helicopters have to frequently undergo other training which reduces their available time to learn their most important role. Often, these personnel are just getting on top of their aviation duties when they are posted out of aviation to a new role. They are struggling to maintain knowledge and experience In these units.

I can’t see things being any different for Army personnel assigned to crew these vessels.

 

[Perentie]

The biggest problem with having the Army operating these vessels is the attitude of senior officers whereby all personnel are “soldiers first” and any other role comes a long way second.

This has been an ongoing issue within aviation units where personnel who maintain the helicopters have to frequently undergo other training which reduces their available time to learn their most important role. Often, these personnel are just getting on top of their aviation duties when they are posted out of aviation to a new role. They are struggling to maintain knowledge and experience In these units.

I can’t see things being any different for Army personnel assigned to crew these vessels.

I have no doubt the Army is capable of building the skills to operate the LST100s, but my experiance was, that to progress your career ,we had to leave the maritime stream which defied common sense in building capability.
Maybe with the number of new vessels coming on board, the Army wont have the luxury to move staff on from the maritime stream.

 

[Richo99]

The entire Littoral Maneuver enterprise are Army (LAND) projects.

https://www.army.gov.au/our-work/strategy/australian-army-contribution-national-defence-strategy-2024#:~:text=The%202024%20National%20Defence%20Strategy%20directs%20Army%20to%20optimise%20for,the%202023%20Defence%20Strategic%20Review

.

I understand that, but I have to question the logic behind taking away what is essentially a naval function from the....uhhh....navy.

Battlefield helo transfer from raaf to army is a relevant example, but should we then transfer c27s? C130s? C17s? I think there is a limit as to what is logical, and I think the LC-Ms are on one side, and the 4000t LSTs (not LCHs) are a country mile on the other side.

 

[Redlands18]

At present the Army is operating 15 110t, 22m LCM-8 with a crew of one JNCO and 2 Privates, they are being replaced by 18 500t, 50m LCMs that are going to require a larger crew, possibly under the command of a SNCO. On top of this we are getting 8 4000t, 100m LSTs that require a crew of 16-18 probably under a Junior Officer, SNCO, several JNCOs as well as 8-12 Privates. Water Tpt is going to have to be dramatically increased in size, with all the career opportunities that will bring.
Water Transport is going to go through a massive revolution right across the board, comparing personnel numbers it to previous requirements is somewhat pointless.

 

[SammyC]

Well the good news is that if the Army run the new boats aground, they can classify it as a practice run.