Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Takao
The Bunker Group
Fair warning - my thoughts on watercraft and amphib keep getting shot down 
But, my 3 thoughts only....
I think the answer to the LARC-V is a hovercraft - but CASG didn't agree. While the LARC-V offers a niche capability, it's arguments for replacement normally boil down to 'we have to replace it otherwise we wouldn't need it'. You want to cross the shore via a means that a LCM-esque platform can't? LARC can do that - so can a hovercraft. But nooooo..... Not helped by the fact there are so few options, because the niche isn't very big. Ironically, the biggest users of the niche ability isn't the ADF.....
Anything bigger than a LCM should be crewed by RAN. Especially if it has to go beyond 12 nm. There are literally no disadvantages (beyond CO 10 FSB doesn't get more platforms in their yard) and it makes everything safer, more useful and more resilient. It also allows opportunities for sailors and junior officers - imagine making an LCH command a CPOs? Or a LEUT? Think of what that would do for the skills and attributes of the personnel across the fleet. Seamanship is learnt in the boats, isn't it?
Delete the riverine patrol vessel. Would you run ASLAV's along formed roads only in a modern war? That's what a riverine patrol vessel is.
But, my 3 thoughts only....I think the answer to the LARC-V is a hovercraft - but CASG didn't agree. While the LARC-V offers a niche capability, it's arguments for replacement normally boil down to 'we have to replace it otherwise we wouldn't need it'. You want to cross the shore via a means that a LCM-esque platform can't? LARC can do that - so can a hovercraft. But nooooo..... Not helped by the fact there are so few options, because the niche isn't very big. Ironically, the biggest users of the niche ability isn't the ADF.....
Anything bigger than a LCM should be crewed by RAN. Especially if it has to go beyond 12 nm. There are literally no disadvantages (beyond CO 10 FSB doesn't get more platforms in their yard) and it makes everything safer, more useful and more resilient. It also allows opportunities for sailors and junior officers - imagine making an LCH command a CPOs? Or a LEUT? Think of what that would do for the skills and attributes of the personnel across the fleet. Seamanship is learnt in the boats, isn't it?
Delete the riverine patrol vessel. Would you run ASLAV's along formed roads only in a modern war? That's what a riverine patrol vessel is.
I have no idea what we would do with this. Note a LARC-V carries 5 ton of cargo, so it can't do that.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
How much enthusiasm is there in the RAN for a new LCHFair warning - my thoughts on watercraft and amphib keep getting shot down
I think the answer to the LARC-V is a hovercraft - but CASG didn't agree. While the LARC-V offers a niche capability, it's arguments for replacement normally boil down to 'we have to replace it otherwise we wouldn't need it'. You want to cross the shore via a means that a LCM-esque platform can't? LARC can do that - so can a hovercraft. But nooooo..... Not helped by the fact there are so few options, because the niche isn't very big. Ironically, the biggest users of the niche ability isn't the ADF.....
Anything bigger than a LCM should be crewed by RAN. Especially if it has to go beyond 12 nm. There are literally no disadvantages (beyond CO 10 FSB doesn't get more platforms in their yard) and it makes everything safer, more useful and more resilient. It also allows opportunities for sailors and junior officers - imagine making an LCH command a CPOs? Or a LEUT? Think of what that would do for the skills and attributes of the personnel across the fleet. Seamanship is learnt in the boats, isn't it?
Delete the riverine patrol vessel. Would you run ASLAV's along formed roads only in a modern war? That's what a riverine patrol vessel is.
I have no idea what we would do with this. Note a LARC-V carries 5 ton of cargo, so it can't do that.
I’m finding the reasoning behind the Riverine Patrol Vessels a real head scratcher. How does the Army intend to deploy them at any sort of useful range away from base? The CB-90 for instance is 20t and has a cruising range of about 300nm, so you are going to have to use other assets to deploy them to the Waterways you are operating in. So minimum would be the LCH replacement using a Crane to lift them on and off, you wouldn’t want to have to rely on having one of the Big Amphibs available to deploy them.Fair warning - my thoughts on watercraft and amphib keep getting shot down
I think the answer to the LARC-V is a hovercraft - but CASG didn't agree. While the LARC-V offers a niche capability, it's arguments for replacement normally boil down to 'we have to replace it otherwise we wouldn't need it'. You want to cross the shore via a means that a LCM-esque platform can't? LARC can do that - so can a hovercraft. But nooooo..... Not helped by the fact there are so few options, because the niche isn't very big. Ironically, the biggest users of the niche ability isn't the ADF.....
Anything bigger than a LCM should be crewed by RAN. Especially if it has to go beyond 12 nm. There are literally no disadvantages (beyond CO 10 FSB doesn't get more platforms in their yard) and it makes everything safer, more useful and more resilient. It also allows opportunities for sailors and junior officers - imagine making an LCH command a CPOs? Or a LEUT? Think of what that would do for the skills and attributes of the personnel across the fleet. Seamanship is learnt in the boats, isn't it?
Delete the riverine patrol vessel. Would you run ASLAV's along formed roads only in a modern war? That's what a riverine patrol vessel is.
I have no idea what we would do with this. Note a LARC-V carries 5 ton of cargo, so it can't do that.
Air Transport is not really operationally viable either, for a number of reasons, including having a Air Strip within reasonable distance of a suitable Boat Ramp, and you would need a Tank Transporter to move a Boat weighing 20 odd tons.
Maybe there is a place for something like that. But replacing the LARC-V, no way? Maybe something for the specials? possibly deployable from their riverine patrol craft for stealthier amphibious insertion. If you made it electric, it could have no significant noise/IR signature, and be able to quickly move in from the horizon to several kilometers inland. A small insertion, through a small mangrove creek, onto land, with lots of cover. Small wheels though..
The UK has their smaller hovercraft and perhaps that is a better way to augment the capability. Hovercrafts are as noisey as fuck (not in anyway stealthy, with huge noise and spray) , terrible in windy conditions or rough conditions, there is plenty of terrain which is difficult for them. They are really fast, and some terrain which is almost impassible with other amphibious vehicles. They can carry 5 or 10t.
The LARC-V is good at what is used for. Resupply, scouting, assisting in prepping for landings, seebee stuff etc. This is vitally important in amphibious operations.
While you can resupply via helicopter, you can't really explore the tidal surf zone of a potential landing zone with it. A boat can't drive over a sandbar, but a LARC, no isssue at all, checking depths and conditions. A LARC doesn't need to travel at 30 knots, or 120kmph on land. It just needs to be good in that odd zone between water and land. So in the end I think you end up with the LARC for that role. It doesn't need to be heavily armored and isn't designed to carry troops into battle. But if you want to remove logs or debris from an area LARC is great for that kind of work, vital work, in that tidal zone.
The Antarctic program uses them as well, Macquarie island is basically inaccessible without them. There is one usually permanently stationed there. They previously contracted the Army for resupply but now they have their own capability. The device is reliable enough and easy enough to maintain they keep on over winter. Its a great example of how difficult many locations are without port facilities. Landing craft can't land directly at Macquarie island. See the image below.
Macquarie Island - readily accessible by LARC only.
Typical pacific island, with rocky coast, and fringing coral reef.
They are also very useful in the pacific around smaller islands, where even a tinny may be impossible to land as its fringed by reefs and rocks sometimes extending a hundred meters or more. Such islands may not be the focus of an amphibious landing but may be key strategic points, communication, observation posts, etc.
With many rocky features around the beaches, landing craft just can't get in there. It is also extremely shallow even at high tides. You need a narrow, maneuverable, amphibious, truck. This is common in the many volcanic islands around the pacific.
Also more recently, the LARCs proved the fastest, safest way to evacuate people in the fires. More than helicopters, LCM, RHIBs etc. Smoke made air operations dangerous and difficult. Aviation assets were also doing other duties.
Civilian facilities are often based around boat trailer sized capabilities. They were able to drive directly to evacuation centres and where people had gathered, and move people directly. No unloading/reloading. No moving people to an appropriately clear airfield (impossible because of fires/smoke). When shit hits the fan its often the oldest and simplest equipment and solutions that work the most effective.
I think the LARC-V is genuinely useful.
We should have a 100 of the dam things. Then sell/gift them to pacific nations and others who are still operating the 50-60 year old lugs.
Last edited:
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
No, but they are fast. SAR (and rich boys toys) seem to be the main market they are pitching for, but it's likely people will find many uses for them if they truly work as advertised. For a ship operating In austere locations like the Pacific I could see they could be very, very useful. Perhaps they will become the 21st century version of the Pinnace, with the added benefit of wheels. Gibbs is a Kiwi and has been developing vehicles for more than a decade, but so far the concept is yet to take off. I couldn't find any comments/reviews regarding off road performance, but both road and water performance was described as 'snappy & responsive'.
Can I have one too?
John Newman
The Bunker Group
This was discussed briefly in the Army thread at the time of the press release announcement.
See the attached one page PDF from the 2020 Defence Strategic Update:
The PDF is a summary of ‘Naval Shipbuilding’ projects. On the right hand side is a timeline and budget for all of the projects.
You’ll notice there are ‘blue’ and ‘green’ coloured projects, eg, Navy and Army projects.
Near the bottom of the list is three ‘green/army’ projects:
* Future Army Watercraft - $600m-$800m
* Large Army Landing Craft - $800m-$1.2b
* Riverine Patrol Craft - $60m-$90m
The first project, now started, is the LCM-8 and LARC-V project, the second project, starting 2025, appears to be the LCH replacement project, the last project, Riverine Patrol Craft, starts in the late 2020s.
Cheers,
Edit:
A potential LARC-V replacement?
DSEI Japan 2019: JMU Defence Systems developing new multipurpose amphibious vehicles for JGSDF
JMU Defence Systems, a subsidiary of Japan Marine United (JMU) Corporation, revealed at the 18–20 November DSEI Japan 2019 defence exhibition in Chiba that it is...
www.janes.com
Last edited:
If the GKN Aquatrack was still being made I wonder if it could be a contender for the LARC-V replacement, cheers.
Army Guide
Army Guide - information about the main battle tanks, armoured vehicles and armament of the land forces and also the information concerning other army subjects - Aquatrack, Tracked armoured personnel carrier, Armoured Vehicles
www.army-guide.com
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Good pick up, ticks a lot of boxes as a LARC-V replacement, timing looks spot on.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
It’s almost as if this Japanese company got hold of a LARC-V and modernised it.
Be interesting to see if they might put a bid in for this competition.
One to watch!
Yeah....I posted this on the army thread about 3 weeks back. Looks talor made.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Hopefully not yet posted before...
www.skynews.com.au
I do not think that the new DCNS-designed Shortfin Barracuda will be an inferior class of conventional submarines, but if Australia ordered the original nuclear-powered Barracuda/Suffren class design, the construction process will certainly be faster and maybe also more cost-effective.
I have no knowledge about nuclear propulsion, let alone about Australia's nuclear capabilities and know-how, but maybe it was a better plan to let DCNS build the first of 12 submarines and the others in Australia (with the reactor shipped from France ofcourse).
Btw, does Australia has nuclear powerplants?
Edit: the answer is no.
www.nuclearaustralia.org.au
Australia should ‘look carefully’ at cancelling French submarine contract
Australia should ‘look carefully’ at cancelling French submarine contract
www.skynews.com.au
I do not think that the new DCNS-designed Shortfin Barracuda will be an inferior class of conventional submarines, but if Australia ordered the original nuclear-powered Barracuda/Suffren class design, the construction process will certainly be faster and maybe also more cost-effective.
I have no knowledge about nuclear propulsion, let alone about Australia's nuclear capabilities and know-how, but maybe it was a better plan to let DCNS build the first of 12 submarines and the others in Australia (with the reactor shipped from France ofcourse).
Btw, does Australia has nuclear powerplants?
Edit: the answer is no.
Nuclear Power – some facts – Australian Nuclear Association
Nuclear power. Nuclear power is the only proven generation technology offering solutions on all three fronts of the energy trilemma: security and rel
www.nuclearaustralia.org.au
Last edited:
Ah yes, renowned Defence expert and rational intelligent debater Peta Credlin. That noise you heard was my eyes rolling out of my skull. It's very evident there is a concerted campaign now against this project from elements on the right. Someone somewhere missed out on getting on the contract gravy train. It's hard for such complex projects to get established and underway when a noisy media camp are continuously baying against it from well funded podiums.Hopefully not yet posted before...
Sky News host Peta Credlin says if Australia is serious about standing up to its “superpower bullies” then it needs submarines which are just as capable as theirs. Australia currently has a multi-billion-dollar contract with a French manufacturer to convert 12 nuclear submarines to normal diesel engine submarines which are not expected to be ready until around 2035.
ill continue later...Australia should ‘look carefully’ at cancelling French submarine contract
Australia should ‘look carefully’ at cancelling French submarine contract
Peta Credlin Does not have a clue about indiscretion ratio. The Collins are one of the most capable conventional submarines now and the LOTE programme will simply enhance this. This report is nonsense.
France do offer a low enrichment reactor which would be the best if we were go down that path. BUT ...... unless there is bipartisan support it does not have a hope in hades of getting up. We certainly have the facilities to house low enriched rods (the OPAL reactor uses low enriched fuel and has storage facilities as well as transport arrangements in place) but has no facilities that could be used to refuel an SSN nor do we have the facilities to enrich rods in house (meaning rods would need to be produced overseas and transported here). Even fuelling facilities will take time and I doubt they could be developed for hull 1 to 3 or 4.
I can imagine the NIMBY response if the government suggested we have nuclear fuelling facilities. Lets fact it we cannot get agreement on storage of our own nuclear waste which is produced as a result of our research reactor (OPAL) and cyclotrons, Xray heads, pipe cameras etc. Much of this is medical waste. Political parties will make this into an election issue .... and that will end that.
None of the COTS conventional submarines meet the specific Australian needs so the Attack Class is the only real option on the current time frame. Killing the project will simply push the time frame out.
Yes, Peta Credlin was Tony Abbot's co-Prime Minister (or acted that way), and equally annoyed that Australia didn't choose Rupert Murdoch's Captain's Pick. News Ltd has used Credlin to try to discredit the project ever since. Clearly Murdoch or one of his mates had a business connection with Japan that was upset. She has no credibility on Defence whatsoever (as @DDG38 intimates)
oldsig
Last edited:
News has had a pathological dislike for the Attacks ever since the Decision was made to dump the Soryu bid, a Tony Abbott favourite.
Gottliebsen and his cronies (strategic experts on all defence acquisitions) wanted the Type 218 and suggested we could have 20+ of those and then changed his tune to SSNs and that well known expert Ben Fordham wouldn’t know a towed array from a fishing line.
I watched Credlin until she said “diesel subs have to surface to recharge their batteries and then everyone will know where they are” then my eyes and ears bled uncontrollably.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
The thing to understand is the issue of ‘nuclear’ is very much political here in Oz.Hopefully not yet posted before...
Australia should ‘look carefully’ at cancelling French submarine contract
Australia should ‘look carefully’ at cancelling French submarine contract
I do not think that the new DCNS-designed Shortfin Barracuda will be an inferior class of conventional submarines, but if Australia ordered the original nuclear-powered Barracuda/Suffren class design, the construction process will certainly be faster and maybe also more cost-effective.
I have no knowledge about nuclear propulsion, let alone about Australia's nuclear capabilities and know-how, but maybe it was a better plan to let DCNS build the first of 12 submarines and the others in Australia (with the reactor shipped from France ofcourse).
Btw, does Australia has nuclear powerplants?
Edit: the answer is no.
Nuclear Power – some facts – Australian Nuclear Association
Nuclear power. Nuclear power is the only proven generation technology offering solutions on all three fronts of the energy trilemma: security and rel
The Australian Labor Party (ALP = Left side of politics), is completely ‘anti-nuclear’, the other side, Liberal and National Party coalition (LNP = Right side of politics), is far more likely to go down the nuclear path.
But....
There is simply no way an LNP Government would go ahead with an order for Nuclear Submarines (or nuclear power), because the ALP would immediately come out and say it would cancel said order when in Government. When it come to Nuclear they are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum.
Whilst the two major political parties have pretty much a bipartisan approach to defence policy and defence spending, it would stop and end at nuclear.
Until such time that we can have a mature adult debate (driven from the top political level) and come to a consensus, then nuclear is off the table.
Cheers,
Takao
The Bunker Group
Err....yes we do: Visit Sydney OPAL Reactor | ANSTO Sydney | ANSTOBtw, does Australia has nuclear powerplants?
Edit: the answer is no.
Nuclear Power – some facts – Australian Nuclear Association
Nuclear power. Nuclear power is the only proven generation technology offering solutions on all three fronts of the energy trilemma: security and rel
And we have a (small) crew of nuclear experts and throughput of students. In fact, I know at least three that are currently doing their Masters in Nuclear Engineering. All on the eastern coast in Australia too. It may not be enough to support a fleet of 12 SSN, but that's a yet. We wouldn't be starting from scratch.
- Status