Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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.
For whatever reason, RAN wasn’t interested in replacing it’s Balikpapan Class and yet Army needed the support of such a capability. Government directed that we would pivot to a substantially greater littoral maneuver capability and Army is stepping up to provide it.

Perhaps it’s as simple as Army can manning-wise and RAN can’t?

But I am sure like any new capability, a crawl, walk, run approach will be employed while the capability is worked up.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
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.
The non-Corps postings are intended to develop a wider appreciation of other Corps and systems. It is meant to develop selected personnel for higher promotion. If the individual wants to stay in the trade stream then that is fine. But that will also limit their potential promotion. After doing non-Corps postings there is nothing stopping the individuals return to their trade stream.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
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.
The transfer of the troop lift helicopters from RAAF to Army (UH-1s as CH-47Cs had been retired) also saw the transfer of fixed wing AAvn roles to RAAF (the Pilatus Turbo Porters were retired). The helicopters due to their shorter range etc were located much closer to forces requiring their capabilities so it made sense for them to be operated by that service. It is also the reason why the Navy helicopters are not RAAF.
 

Richo99

Active Member
The transfer of the troop lift helicopters from RAAF to Army (UH-1s as CH-47Cs had been retired) also saw the transfer of fixed wing AAvn roles to RAAF (the Pilatus Turbo Porters were retired). The helicopters due to their shorter range etc were located much closer to forces requiring their capabilities so it made sense for them to be operated by that service. It is also the reason why the Navy helicopters are not RAAF.
Exactly what I was saying....there is a line, and helos and lt fw were on one side of the line
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
Exactly what I was saying....there is a line, and helos and lt fw were on one side of the line
The Balikpapen LCHs were originally procured for and operated by Army. The decision, similar to the later helicopter one, was that Navy should operate them moved the capability but not the need. For Army the LCMs and LCHs were maritime versions of the Unimog and Mack trucks. They were intended to move material and personnel as part of a battle plan from either Divisional or Brigade HQs.
If Army is now better placed to man these new vessels, and develop the CONOPS and TTPs, then so be it. Navy can still influence that development but don't need to provide it. Also Navy might just be the Safety regulation authority just like RAAF is for all aircraft (including Army and Navy helicopters).
 

Underway

Active Member
They can easily be crewed by navy pers, but come under operational joint command during operations or the Army budget. Land label just indicated that the Army are paying for them as its a capability they need not a capability the navy needs.
 

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
Just catching up with this decision and from the point of view of the specification and capabilities of the Damen LST 100 there seems a lot to like. They have a helicopter deck, crane, 4000nm range and 15 knot speed so could have many uses in peace and war. With the crane able to lift landing craft (and drones) in and out of water, they could be used for lots of missions - Damen lists mine warfare. So eight of these should be really useful.

For all those reasons though, surely these should count as auxiliary warships and be commanded by naval officers. In fact, wouldn’t these make ideal early commands to make it easier for navy officers and sailors to work their way up in developing command experience?

I have never been in the military and understand that there are always turf wars over who controls what. But surely this is obviously a ship. The new LCM is effectively the size of the old LCH, and the new LCH is the size of the old LST. In fact, that is exactly what these are called in the Damen catalogue.
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
Just catching up with this decision and from the point of view of the specification and capabilities of the Damen LST 100 there seems a lot to like. They have a helicopter deck, crane, 4000nm range and 15 knot speed so could have many uses in peace and war. With the crane able to lift landing craft (and drones) in and out of water, they could be used for lots of missions - Damen lists mine warfare. So eight of these should be really useful.

For all those reasons though, surely these should count as auxiliary warships and be commanded by naval officers. In fact, wouldn’t these make ideal early commands to make it easier for navy officers and sailors to work their way up in developing command experience?

I have never been in the military and understand that there are always turf wars over who controls what. But surely this is obviously a ship. The new LCM is effectively the size of the old LCH, and the new LCH is the size of the old LST. In fact, that is exactly what these are called in the Damen catalogue.

Good but 100 vs 120 design…
-4,000 nm vs 8,000nm range (might be a mistake on the webpage, also states 4,500nm)
-15 vs 16 knt max speed
-2 small craft spots vs 4 (huge difference when you factor in drones)
-18 crew vs 22
-Troops 234 vs 336
-Roro space 575m sq vs 750m sq
-Cargo deck 440m sq vs 650m sq

Maybe because the 120 has never been built and the 100 has? or does it exceed 5,000 ton?
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Good but 100 vs 120 design…
-4,000 nm vs 8,000nm range (might be a mistake on the webpage, also states 4,500nm)
-15 vs 16 knt max speed
-2 small craft spots vs 4 (huge difference when you factor in drones)
-18 crew vs 22
-Troops 234 vs 336
-Roro space 575m sq vs 750m sq
-Cargo deck 440m sq vs 650m sq

Maybe because the 120 has never been built and the 100 has? or does it exceed 5,000 ton?
With the new fires brigade, and water transport expansion, we couldn't fill the 120 with 300+ troops.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
For whatever reason, RAN wasn’t interested in replacing it’s Balikpapan Class and yet Army needed the support of such a capability. Government directed that we would pivot to a substantially greater littoral maneuver capability and Army is stepping up to provide it.

Perhaps it’s as simple as Army can manning-wise and RAN can’t?

But I am sure like any new capability, a crawl, walk, run approach will be employed while the capability is worked up.
And arguably it will be a less intense learning curve than it was for army aviation.

It wasn't just taking on the Blackhawks, it was absorbing the much more complex chinooks, skipping several generations going from Kiowa to Tiger, and then making the abomination of a hangar queen, the MRH 90 work.

Army used to operate their own ships, as well as large landing craft, the skills are there, they just need to be expanded.

Navy are going to be flatout crewing the new combatants, it's not like the 70s when plans for corvettes, fast frigates and light destroyers fell over so the LCHs were needed just to provide enough command billets for navy to maintain through put of seaman officers.
 
Top