Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[PeterM]

It looks like the ADF is at least considering the L-Cat as an option for landing craft for the new amphibious ships

It seems to be a cost effective solution with significantly more capability than the existing/traditional landing craft such as LCM8.

from IDEX 2007 - Novel L-Cat bridges the gap

A scaled-up L-Cat 2, 42m in length, has also been the subject of design work. It would be able to carry a payload of 200 tonnes (sufficient for three main battle tanks). CNIM is in talks with a number of other interested parties regarding the L-Cat concept. These include Australia, which is studying its needs for a new amphibious connector.

more recent info
IDEX 2009 - L-Cat landing craft prototype runs naval trials
CNIM - Landing Craft and Multipurpose Patrol Craft - Naval Technology

some general info from
The Ship Model Forum • View topic - A new French experimental landing craft

L-Cat catamaran landing craft statistics
Displacement (full): 162tons
Length: 30m
Width: 13.5m
Height: 6.15m
Draft: 0.6m (empty) 2.50m (full load)
Speed: 20 (full load) to 30 (empty) knts
Payload: 130tons.

23x6.9m loading platform (two French Leclerc medium tanks, or four light tanks or six armoured vehicles or up to 150 personnels)​

Aluminium construction with HTS main transverse girders.
Propulsion: 4 MTU diesel engines, two Wärtsilä waterjets.
Power plant: 5MW
Range: 1,000 nm @ 15knts
Crew: four

How it works:
The loading platform (main deck: 23x6.9m) can be elevated (four hydraulic levers designed from offshore stuff) above sea level, leaving only the two slim catamaran hulls in the water. This gives better seaworthiness and high speed (20knts at full load, 30knts empty) during transfer from the mother ship to the shore.

When approaching the beach, the main deck is lowered to sea level and a traditional ramp is unfolded fore and/or aft. Alternatively, the platform maybe kept in its up position when delivering cargo on a pier.

The craft is of Ro-Ro type, allowing easier handling aboard mother ships, as with LCAC.

It is considered as a cheaper alternative to the LCAC for smaller Navies.

Larger L-CAT are being studied for military or civilian (humanitarian) use.

If anyone is interested, here is a video of L-Cat on trials with French Navy
[ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2706134709592356882"]Landing Catamaran (L-Cat) démonstration à Toulon[/ame]

 

[peterAustralia]

hi, I am a dedicated non-expert, so please forgive my ignorance in advance.

On reading The Age, a week or so back there was talk about replacing the Armidale class with some larger ships of 2000 or so tonnes, I assume these are OPV. It is just me or does this sound a bit weird. I would have thought there would continue to be a need for small boats.

If the small boats were a lengthened version of the Armidale class, which logic would suggest could give a bit more range and useable space, plus a fraction faster, or a multihull like the Incat 91m ferry, that can do 41 to 49 knots on a 510 tonne hull (from Incat website). I know that with long range fuel tanks the cat would be slower, but still ought be much faster than the 25 knots of present. Additionally a 91m cat would have space for a large helicopter pad, a fairly useful thing as events in recent weeks would indicate.

Are these OPV thingies a replacement for our patrol boats or a supplement to them.

Maybe I am naive, but I would have thought a patrol vessel in the same class as the 91m Incat ferry would be a good replacement for the Armidale class. Whether that craft be built by Austal or Incat would be a question of which company had the better proposal as opposed to dictating that one company is deemed to build them over another.

 

[PeterM]

hi, I am a dedicated non-expert, so please forgive my ignorance in advance.

On reading The Age, a week or so back there was talk about replacing the Armidale class with some larger ships of 2000 or so tonnes, I assume these are OPV. It is just me or does this sound a bit weird. I would have thought there would continue to be a need for small boats.

If the small boats were a lengthened version of the Armidale class, which logic would suggest could give a bit more range and useable space, plus a fraction faster, or a multihull like the Incat 91m ferry, that can do 41 to 49 knots on a 510 tonne hull (from Incat website). I know that with long range fuel tanks the cat would be slower, but still ought be much faster than the 25 knots of present. Additionally a 91m cat would have space for a large helicopter pad, a fairly useful thing as events in recent weeks would indicate.

Are these OPV thingies a replacement for our patrol boats or a supplement to them.

Maybe I am naive, but I would have thought a patrol vessel in the same class as the 91m Incat ferry would be a good replacement for the Armidale class. Whether that craft be built by Austal or Incat would be a question of which company had the better proposal as opposed to dictating that one company is deemed to build them over another.

Here is what the defence white paper has about these Light Combatant Vessels (this should clear things up a bit for you):

The Navy currently operates four relatively small fleets of vessels for important tasks such as offshore resource protection, border security, hydrographic and oceanographic environmental assessments and clearing sea mines. This significantly increases whole-of-life ownership costs and personnel overheads. Smaller vessels also have less seagoing capacity and a reduced scope for installing more capable sensor or weapons systems over time.

9.20 The Government has therefore decided that Defence will develop proposals to rationalise the Navy's patrol boat, mine counter measures, hydrographic and oceanographic forces into a single modular multirole class of around 20 Offshore Combatant Vessels combining four existing classes of vessels. This has the potential to provide significant operational efficiencies and potential savings. The new vessels will be larger than the current Armidale class patrol boats, with an anticipated displacement of up to 2,000 tonnes.

9.21 This concept relies on the use of modular unmanned underwater systems for both mine countermeasures and hydrographic tasks. These systems are envisaged to be containerised and portable modules capable of being used in any port or loaded onto any of the Offshore Combatant Vessels or other suitable vessels.

9.22 The future Offshore Combatant Vessel will be able to undertake offshore and littoral warfighting roles, border protection tasks, long-range counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations, support to special forces, and missions in support of security and stability in the immediate neighbourhood. Defence will examine the potential for these new ships to embark a helicopter or UAV, to allow a surge in surveillance and response capabilities without the need to deploy additional ships. This increased capability will also ensure that major surface combatants are free for more demanding operations.

 

[peterAustralia]

Here is what the defence white paper has about these Light Combatant Vessels (this should clear things up a bit for you):

hi

Thanks for that

It was as I thought, daft (just my opinion, no need to give me the third degree). Replacing a 270 tonne boat with a 2000 tonne boat. Gee is that a step up or what. I assume that in a while customs will suddenly find themselves with a requirement for 270 tonne boats and things will go back to the way they were

I find it a little silly to send a 2000 tonne ship after a 8 tonne illegal fishing boat. The logic seems to be 270 tonnes is too small thus we need larger. Now 2000 is larger than 270, thus we need 2000 tonne ships.

Maybe I am silly and all that. For a country as large as Australia, there has to be the need for many smaller vessels. If 270 tonnes is too small, I am sure 500 tonnes would make a quite nice patrol boat. Does anyone really believe that they will really build all twenty of these 2000 tonne ships? No way, (the cost will be huge) they will build a few, then have a review, and give customs a larger role with 300 tonne craft, or 350 tonne craft. Realistically there is no way they will build twenty. Maybe they will build four, and then get 16 boats on 500 tonnes.

How many 500 tonne patrol boats can you get for a 2000 tonne ship, my guess is three, maybe four, considering the patrol boat does not need sophisticated SAM, sonar, SSM etc etc. Do you need and can you afford a sophisticated vessel with electronics, electronic warfare etc to go after a little wooden boat. What will happen is that these corvettes will get made bigger and have more things in them and end up costing a billion dollars each (at least a good $400 million) or even more. So they are going to send a billion dollar vessel after a little fishing boat?

It was not that long ago that the Attack class patrol boats (146 tonnes fully laden) were patrolling our Northern waters, now it is deemed that a 2000 tonne ship is essential.

I am sure there is a place for 2000 tonne OPV's - corvettes, but there equally is a place for relatively simple 400-500 tonne patrol craft.

Is this 2000 tonne nonsense a strategy for getting Customs to pay for patrol boats out of their budget, in order to allow for money for the Navy. A bit of history, the ANZAC's were originally meant to be the low end vessels of 1500 tonnes or so. The Navy did not like that, so they built 3,500 tonne ships and labeled them low-end, just so say they can say, we are doing as policy dictates.

 

[uuname]

I believe the quote goes "steel and air are cheap".

The actual size of the ship is only one part of the cost, and not as significant as you might think in a force like the RAN.

The electronics, sensors and weapons are the expensive part, and since they will be in modules, they won't be fitted on boats that do not need them.

You also need to factor in training and maintenance- having many ship types makes this far more expensive. Future-proofing vessels has also proven to be important for long term cost savings.

The question is what you want the light ships for. Remember that the current Armidales aren't customs boats- Customs use a different class, which (as far as I know) is not going to be replaced with the OCV.
The Armidales are for defence, and the lack of any anti-submarive capability is pretty glaring there. They have also limitations on where they can operate.

The current hydrographic survey ships are actually larger than the suggested OCV, while the current mine hunters are over 700t

It's not the massive shift it sounds like- it's just a move to amalgamate several smaller vessels into a single class of modular ship.

 

[NOMAD]

hi

It was not that long ago that the Attack class patrol boats (146 tonnes fully laden) were patrolling our Northern waters, now it is deemed that a 2000 tonne ship is essential.

The Attack and Freemantle clasc patrol boats may be ok for Fisheries, Customs and Immigration patrol they did very little in the way of adding to Navy's combat power.

The addation of 2000t multi purpose corvettes, especially if they are for example like the DCNS Gowind corvettes.

"Gowind weapons

The corvettes can be armed with the weapon systems tailored to the customer country's mission requirements. The weapon systems include: water cannons, 12.7mm remotely controlled machine guns, 20mm machine gun, 76mm naval gun on the forward gun deck, anti-ship missiles, ship self-defence system and electronic warfare suite." (from Naval Technology Site).

Ships like this fitted with a basic armaments and electronics etc package and modules added depending on mission requirements would add greatly to the Navy's combat power.

Nomad

p.s. of the three services the Navy would be the most likely to turn up in times of tension/confrontation/hostilies dressed as they are

 

[StingrayOZ]

It looks like the ADF is at least considering the L-Cat as an option for landing craft for the new amphibious ships
It seems to be a cost effective solution with significantly more capability than the existing/traditional landing craft such as LCM8.

They do seem to bridge the gap between traditional LCM and LCAC. Actually given the larger payload they could be even more effective than LCAC, but you would be more restricted where you could use them.

L-cats would seem to be a good design (we could possibly make them here?). If proven they could be exactly what we are after.

OCV seems to be a long term future project.
I think it kinda makes sense to look at that sort of direction given that the Huons don't get much of a work out and some have even been reconfigured or just mothballed. I think as a blue water nation we need ships big enough to go into open blue water.

I would imagine that the whole class would be "fitted for but not with" in every regard (except for maybe a stabilised gun and some .50 cals).

While a 2,000 t OCV may seem overkill, it makes more sense than a sending a frigate or destroyer. The 2000t I think comes down to the ability to embark or land a helicopter and accomodating 100 people for short periods of time.

Task~5-6 with minehunting, but still be useful as a general OPV (helo deck, space etc). 5 might befitted with very capable radar systems. The rest might just be very basic ships making up the numbers but be able to be retasked as required.

A 2,000t ship with enough flexable space could become a makeshift hospital with an O.R and beds for 25. These can be located in areas where the LHD are not to ensure speedy medical service or insituation where the operational goal is medical (natural disaster, etc). SAS insertion/extraction might be another possible duty. Being able to helicopter/UAV to and from makes them far more useful than regular patrol boats, and as patrol boats makes them far more effective. 20 of these ships will cover australian waters bettern than 40 x 300t patrol boats.

Basically just unify all diffrent ships/boats to a single (larger) hull.

 

[PeterM]

They do seem to bridge the gap between traditional LCM and LCAC. Actually given the larger payload they could be even more effective than LCAC, but you would be more restricted where you could use them.

L-cats would seem to be a good design (we could possibly make them here?). If proven they could be exactly what we are after.

I imagine there could be considerable industry opportunities, most likely with Austal and Incat; presumably they could improve the product leveraging experience with the various US amphibious catamaran and Littoral Combat Ship technologies and experience

 

[PeterM]

OCV seems to be a long term future project.
I think it kinda makes sense to look at that sort of direction given that the Huons don't get much of a work out and some have even been reconfigured or just mothballed. I think as a blue water nation we need ships big enough to go into open blue water.

I would imagine that the whole class would be "fitted for but not with" in every regard (except for maybe a stabilised gun and some .50 cals).

While a 2,000 t OCV may seem overkill, it makes more sense than a sending a frigate or destroyer. The 2000t I think comes down to the ability to embark or land a helicopter and accomodating 100 people for short periods of time.

Task~5-6 with minehunting, but still be useful as a general OPV (helo deck, space etc). 5 might befitted with very capable radar systems. The rest might just be very basic ships making up the numbers but be able to be retasked as required.

A 2,000t ship with enough flexable space could become a makeshift hospital with an O.R and beds for 25. These can be located in areas where the LHD are not to ensure speedy medical service or insituation where the operational goal is medical (natural disaster, etc). SAS insertion/extraction might be another possible duty. Being able to helicopter/UAV to and from makes them far more useful than regular patrol boats, and as patrol boats makes them far more effective. 20 of these ships will cover australian waters bettern than 40 x 300t patrol boats.

Basically just unify all diffrent ships/boats to a single (larger) hull.

The biggest advantage of larger size is the ability for greater range and longer deployments, primarily in border control. They could better protect our valuable offshore assets (such as Oil/Gas platforms), patrol the south ocean etc.

I imagine the general kind of vessel they are thinking of is something like the High Seas Master version of the French Gowind class corvettes which are designed for long-range intervention and long period at sea (up to three weeks), and have a helicopter hanger.

for more info: Gowind Class Corvette Multi-Mission Combatant - Naval Technology

 

[StingrayOZ]

The L-CAT seems to be right up our ally. I wonder what the range is?

Given the longer deployment I wonder if we are going to have to restructure the entire navy in terms of crews given longer deployment.

The Gowinds are a very interesting family of ships. There are some interesting ideas, like the mini rear docks on some models. I wonder what price they are and if we could get them. I certainly hope we get something that capable. I could imagine something like that fitting very well into the RAN's force mix.

The OCV's could be up gunned (76mm) /missiled (harpoon and ESSM)/radar (auspar) to near ANZAC levels if required. Even with a bare fitout, they would still be very useful ships. Able to patrol much futher out and be more useful for other missions.

With 11-12 front line ships (~7,000t each) and 20 possibly very capable OCV's (2,000t each) that is a massive boost for the RAN. Thats 32 blue water combat ships. Combined with 12 super subs (well most likely more than 6), two LHD's, the RAN post 2020 seems to be a muscle bound heavyweight.

I wonder if NZ would be interested in getting a few OCV's as well.

 

[PeterM]

The L-CAT seems to be right up our ally. I wonder what the range is?

Range: 1,000 nm @ 15knts

 

[uuname]

It looks like the ADF is at least considering the L-Cat as an option for landing craft for the new amphibious ships

The specific mention of a scaled-up version makes me wonder if it might be a candidate for the heavy landing craft mentioned in the white paper (9.25).

I hope not, to be honest- I would like to see a significantly larger vessel in that role.

 

[exported_kiwi]

The L-CAT seems to be right up our ally. I wonder what the range is?

Given the longer deployment I wonder if we are going to have to restructure the entire navy in terms of crews given longer deployment.

The Gowinds are a very interesting family of ships. There are some interesting ideas, like the mini rear docks on some models. I wonder what price they are and if we could get them. I certainly hope we get something that capable. I could imagine something like that fitting very well into the RAN's force mix.

The OCV's could be up gunned (76mm) /missiled (harpoon and ESSM)/radar (auspar) to near ANZAC levels if required. Even with a bare fitout, they would still be very useful ships. Able to patrol much futher out and be more useful for other missions.

With 11-12 front line ships (~7,000t each) and 20 possibly very capable OCV's (2,000t each) that is a massive boost for the RAN. Thats 32 blue water combat ships. Combined with 12 super subs (well most likely more than 6), two LHD's, the RAN post 2020 seems to be a muscle bound heavyweight.

I wonder if NZ would be interested in getting a few OCV's as well.

It'd be nice if NZ got some more combat capability for sure but I doubt that the NZ public would go for it sadly!

 

[PeterM]

The specific mention of a scaled-up version makes me wonder if it might be a candidate for the heavy landing craft mentioned in the white paper (9.25).

I hope not, to be honest- I would like to see a significantly larger vessel in that role.

It is possible I guess, but I think it is unlikely. I am not sure how well it qualifies for the "intra-theatre lift tasks to augment the larger amphibious vessels" requirement. Purely my personal hunch, but I think the RAN may be looking at the JHSV as a heavy landing craft option.

The current LCH with a 175 tonne load has a range of 1,300 nautical miles (2,400 km) (increasing to 2,280 nautical miles (4,220 km)). I don't think the L-Cat qualifies as "improved ocean-going capabilities"; I doubt transfering people 1000nm+ in an open L-Cat style design is all that great.

I expect the scaled up version of the L-Cat is what they are looking at to operate from the LHDs and perhaps the strategic sealift ship; and the increased size is to better accomodate the Abrams (instead of Leclerc).

 

[StevoJH]

Regarding the the replacement off the armidales by the OCV in about 20 years time, how much extra weight would a steel hulled ship of roughly the same size as the Armidales cost.?

It could be something similar to a slightly stretched HMS Clyde (image bellow) with a smaller flight deck (we don't have merlins) and a hanger for small UAV's or a helicopter along the lines of the Squirrels currently used by the RAN aboard hydrographic vessels.

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/715/HMS_Clyde.JPG

 

[rossfrb_1]

LHD landing craft

ADM: Landing craft announcement for JP2048
"
Landing craft announcement for JP2048

12 May 2009

Minister for Defence Joel Fitzgibbon has announced first pass approval for a number of landing craft to complement the two new CANBERRA class Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) amphibious assault ships currently under construction for the Royal Australian Navy.These landing craft - to be acquired under Phase 3 Joint Project 2048 - will enable the CANBERRA class LHD ships to conduct operations over the shore, where there are no fixed port facilities.
The landing craft will be able to lift heavy equipment which may be embarked on the ships, including the new M1A1 Abrams tank and transport it to shore.
"During the next stage of the project, Defence will seek offers from Navantia for the construction and delivery of the LCM-1E landing craft," Fitzgibbon said.
"This landing craft is designed for inter-operability with the CANBERRA class LHD and is in service with the Spanish Navy."
A final decision on the LCM-1E will be made by Government in 2010, once Defence has developed more accurate cost information and can consider offers to be sought from Navantia.
Options to build the LCM-1E in Australia will also be considered."


When i read the bit about 'over the shore' i thought (somewhat excitedly) they must have gone with the hovercraft style of transport.
I was quickly dispelled of that notion some seconds later on...


rb

 

[PeterM]

For those who are interested, here is a traslated page on the capabilities of the LCM-1E

from Google Translate

Displacement: 56.6 t (ballast), 110 t (apc)
Length: 23.3 meters
Beam: 6.4 meters
Draft: 1 meters (apc)
Sensors: radar navigation, GPS
Propulsion: 2 MAN D 2842 LE-402X and water jets
Power: 809 kw
Speed: 22 knots (ballast), 13.5 knots (apc)
Range: 190 nm to speed economic
Crew: 4 people
Capacity: Any of the following configurations:

* 1 M-60 A3, M1 or Leopard 2E
* 6 HUMMER 6 HUMMER
* 2 AAV-7 * 2 Piranha IIIC
* 2 trucks with trailers 6t,
* 1 howitzer M-109A2 with vehicle munitions M-992
* 1 company (170 men & equipment)

The landing craft LCM-1E, have a payload of 56 t (may be overloaded up to 100 depending on the state of the sea) in an area of 103 m².

What are the options being considered for the 6 Heavy Landing Craft? Perhaps the upscaled L-Cat 2?
from http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/idex2007/day4/novel-lcat-bridges-the-ga.shtml

A scaled-up L-Cat 2, 42m in length, has also been the subject of design work. It would be able to carry a payload of 200 tonnes (sufficient for three main battle tanks). CNIM is in talks with a number of other interested parties regarding the L-Cat concept. These include Australia, which is studying its needs for a new amphibious connector.

 

[alexsa]

For those who are interested, here is a traslated page on the capabilities of the LCM-1E

from Google Translate


What are the options being considered for the 6 Heavy Landing Craft? Perhaps the upscaled L-Cat 2?
from IDEX 2007 - Novel L-Cat bridges the gap

The vessel have a beam of 12.8m (twice that of the LCM 1E) and a draft of 2.5 m laoded. This they say translates to a beached draft of 0.6m fwd and 1.2m aft which is only possible if driven onto the shore (fi this is practical in all conditions). it does restrict acces given the LCM8 and the LCM1E have a draft of 1.2m. The L-Cat air draft also appears higher.

The LCM1E has a speed of 22knots and carries 50+ tonnes in payload(half that of the L-Cat) but two can berth in the the LHD dock in the same width as a single L-CAT (and the L-Cat is longer). For the increased flexiblity, redundancy and better over beach draft access the LCM1E appear the better option if only the L-CAT and the LCM1 E were considered for carriage on the LHD.

The L-Cat has a distinct advantage in range for independent operations but it appears (I have to check on this and expect to be adivsed otherwise if I am wrong) that only one could be carried in the dock of an LHD.

 

[alexsa]

For those who are interested, here is a traslated page on the capabilities of the LCM-1E

from Google Translate


What are the options being considered for the 6 Heavy Landing Craft? Perhaps the upscaled L-Cat 2?
from IDEX 2007 - Novel L-Cat bridges the gap

Tunnel slam and other design issues will be a limiting factor on extende L-Cat operations. The LCH have significnat limitations as well but I suspect will have a wider operating range (sea state) than L-CAT.

A slightly larger monohull wiht better bow design and a higher sustained speed (even 17knots) would appear to provide better flexibiltity for a smaller navy like te RAN.

 

[PeterM]

The L-Cat has a distinct advantage in range for independent operations but it appears (I have to check on this and expect to be adivsed otherwise if I am wrong) that only one could be carried in the dock of an LHD.

I had thought that the new Heavy Landing Craft would be operated very much in the same fashion as the RAN's current Balikpapan class LCH (Landing Craft, Heavy).

Are there any other designs being considered for the new Heavy Landing Craft?