Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Flexson

Active Member
Just following up with the LCH replacement.
Does anyone know at what tonnage or length does it become impractical for a beached landing craft to self extract itself. I understand that with the short length of the LCM8 landing craft they would sometimes need assistance, yet the longer LCH were relatively light compared to their length and could usually self extract without assistance. At the larger end,ships such as HMAS Tobruk rarely beach and are usually dependant on the tide or supported ocean going tugs. I may be wrong in the above and would appreciate some clarity if anyone knows.
I ask this question with the view of a possible future LCH. What is the largest vessel that can beach and self extract unassisted, and would such a vessel have the size and length to then deploy on open ocean voyages. Does such an animal exist.
Just putting it out there, would the old French Batral class be such a ship?

Would appreciate any feedback from those that know
Regards S
It’s true we rarely beach Tobruk, the last time was in 2007 and before that in 2006. Previous to the 2006 beaching I believe that it had been 9 years since a beaching. It was impractical to do it as the beaches had to have just the right conditions to make it doable. Usually we would just use LCM-8’s or LCH’s to land equipment via a Stern Door Marriage like the one shown in FormerDirtDart’s photo.
The aft anchors (Kedge Anchors) could be used to help pull her off the beach but they were more for keeping the ship from washing up sideways on the beach if there was a cross current along the beach. Because of the length of the ship with the Bow planted in the sand even a slight current could wash the Stern around. Usually she would just use the main engines at up to Half Astern 200 Shaft RPM and swing the rudders slowly from one side to the other to break the suction of the sand.
Apparently in the early days Tobruk did unassisted beachings but the last couple time she always had a tug with her and didn’t even run the Kedge Anchors out at all. They were actually removed in May 2012 if I remember correctly.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It’s true we rarely beach Tobruk, the last time was in 2007 and before that in 2006. Previous to the 2006 beaching I believe that it had been 9 years since a beaching. It was impractical to do it as the beaches had to have just the right conditions to make it doable. Usually we would just use LCM-8’s or LCH’s to land equipment via a Stern Door Marriage like the one shown in FormerDirtDart’s photo.
The aft anchors (Kedge Anchors) could be used to help pull her off the beach but they were more for keeping the ship from washing up sideways on the beach if there was a cross current along the beach. Because of the length of the ship with the Bow planted in the sand even a slight current could wash the Stern around. Usually she would just use the main engines at up to Half Astern 200 Shaft RPM and swing the rudders slowly from one side to the other to break the suction of the sand.
Apparently in the early days Tobruk did unassisted beachings but the last couple time she always had a tug with her and didn’t even run the Kedge Anchors out at all. They were actually removed in May 2012 if I remember correctly.
This is exactly where the MLP (Mobile Landing Platform) comes in, sits of the coast and loads and deploys landing craft (called connectors) after landing craft with stores and equipment offloaded from other ships. Whether such a specialised vessel could be justified for the RAN is another matter, but then again what a capability that would be to contribute to a coalition operation or HADR.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
They do have a strategy, he just left out the bit that they haven't managed to kick it off yet. Ironically we were well on our way to developing a sustainable industry based on privately owned Transfield / Tenix Williamstown as prime, with blocks being fabricated around the country (including Eglos in Adelaide) back in the 90s, fell over after just two projects when Keating decided to upgrade the FFGs instead of replacing the DDGs and overseas built FFGs, then Howard cancelled the OPC / corvette program and decided to build a new yard to build the much delayed AWDs.
Tthanks everyone for a great response to my question, it has been most informative.
Flexson it appears you have some knowledge on the subject so thanks for coming on board.
If it is difficult / irregular for larger ships to actively beach then maybe the future approach lies only with off shore LPD's using LCM-1E sized connectors. As the RAN will have three in service large amphibous assets maybe a couple of smaller LPD's such as Indonesia's Makassar class may be of merit. Should be good for a company sized lift with vehicles and I believe although fairly basic are also not that expensive.
Then again as you said Volk, what we really need is some clarity from the DWP as there really are too many choices.

KInd regards S
 

Trackmaster

Member
Tthanks everyone for a great response to my question, it has been most informative.
Flexson it appears you have some knowledge on the subject so thanks for coming on board.
If it is difficult / irregular for larger ships to actively beach then maybe the future approach lies only with off shore LPD's using LCM-1E sized connectors. As the RAN will have three in service large amphibous assets maybe a couple of smaller LPD's such as Indonesia's Makassar class may be of merit. Should be good for a company sized lift with vehicles and I believe although fairly basic are also not that expensive.
Then again as you said Volk, what we really need is some clarity from the DWP as there really are too many choices.

KInd regards S
Big article by Brendan Nicholson in the Australian today on the coming White Paper.
A nicely placed leak, I would say.
According to the article, the focus of the WP will be on the RAN and saving the shipbuilding industry. OPVs of a "corvette" class get a mention, along with submarines of course.
"Saving the shipbuilding industry" is an interesting choice of words.
There is strong emphasis that the Valley of Death is upon us and that orders needed to be placed around three years ago.
So it's not a case of saving the shipbuilding industry, but a case of re-building the ship building industry.
Cue the outrage from Adelaide.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
This is exactly where the MLP (Mobile Landing Platform) comes in, sits of the coast and loads and deploys landing craft (called connectors) after landing craft with stores and equipment offloaded from other ships. Whether such a specialized vessel could be justified for the RAN is another matter, but then again what a capability that would be to contribute to a coalition operation or HADR.
It wouldn't have to be be as massive as US mobile landing platforms. Although I can't help but think that such capability might be better served integrated into the lift ship some how (mexflotes, or some sort of aft ramp etc).
 

Milne Bay

Active Member
It wouldn't have to be be as massive as US mobile landing platforms. Although I can't help but think that such capability might be better served integrated into the lift ship some how (mexflotes, or some sort of aft ramp etc).
Sounds like HMAS Choules.
No chance of another Bay type coming up I suppose?
MB
 

Alf662

New Member
It wouldn't have to be be as massive as US mobile landing platforms. Although I can't help but think that such capability might be better served integrated into the lift ship some how (mexflotes, or some sort of aft ramp etc).
The Damen Logistic Support Vessel 19000 (sorry I can't post the link at this stage) comes close as it was being discussed on the New Zealand thread the other day. It is not as big as an MLP but is quite sizable at 18,800 tonnes, it has an aft ramp, side ramp, flight deck with double hangar and a RAS station (reduces the need for a dedicated AOL). It can also carry 40 TEU's and 2 LCM.

The LCM's shown on the data sheet could be LCM1e.

How often were the LCH's beached? If it was a lot more common than Tobruk then that indicates that smaller landing craft have greater utility, especially if their is a need to go up rivers etc.
 
Last edited:

Goknub

Active Member
A large quantity of additional Mexafloats or other pontoon/barges would be very useful and also very cheap compared to other options.
I bought up earlier the requirement to transport these into theatre. These take up plenty of space, the large open deck of Choules could be very useful for this.

I don't know if it would actually work but I like the Besson LCH/LSV because it has both a front and rear ramp .This could allow for the LCH to be beached and serve as an anchor point for a pontoon bridge poking out the rear. Again, not sure if could work or would simply be a waste of a vessel.
 

rockitten

Member
Big article by Brendan Nicholson in the Australian today on the coming White Paper.
A nicely placed leak, I would say.
According to the article, the focus of the WP will be on the RAN and saving the shipbuilding industry. OPVs of a "corvette" class get a mention, along with submarines of course.
"Saving the shipbuilding industry" is an interesting choice of words.
There is strong emphasis that the Valley of Death is upon us and that orders needed to be placed around three years ago.
So it's not a case of saving the shipbuilding industry, but a case of re-building the ship building industry.
Cue the outrage from Adelaide.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
In case someone can't by-pass the subscription..........

"Defence white paper to focus on jobs rescue

The Australian
July 28, 2015 12:00AM

Air Chief Marshall Mark Binskin. Source: News Corp Australia

A detailed plan to re-equip the Royal Australian Navy and to save the naval shipbuilding industry will be the centrepiece of the coming defence white paper.

In a joint interview, Defence Department secretary Dennis Richardson and Defence Force chief Mark Binskin told The Australian it was too late to bridge the “valley of death” shipbuilders faced when current projects run out. To avoid job *losses, the previous government would have had to have placed orders for ships at least three years ago and probably much earlier, they said.

But the forthcoming white paper, expected late next month or in early September, would be designed to place the industry on a sustainable footing to avoid a jobs crisis.

“While it is too late to avoid the valley of death, you can take decisions now to minimise its impact and to put the industry on a long-term basis,” Mr Richardson said.

Air Chief Marshal Binskin and Mr Richardson said after completion of the two giant landing ships and three Air Warfare *Destroyers, to rush a project to the steel-cutting stage would leave *insufficient planning time and *increase the risk of mistakes.

Hundreds of shipbuilding workers have lost their jobs *already and many more losses are expected. “Everyone’s got their own quick-fix solution to it but the long and short of it is if you’re looking to avoid the valley of death, the point of no return *occurred some years back,” Mr Richardson said.

“A decision on a project or a program would have had to have been made back then so that you could make the transition from the current projects to the next,” Air Chief Marshal Binskin said.

Mr Richardson said the “big decisions and the big capital *expenditure” in the white paper — the strategic blueprint for Australia’s defence over the next two decades — would be related to *re-equipping the navy.

The Royal Australian Air Force was well set up and the key decisions about aircraft had been made, he said, and a major project was under way to re-equip the army with vehicles.

“This white paper will do for the navy what decisions over the past 15 years have done for the RAAF,” Mr Richardson said.

The white paper and naval shipbuilding plan went together, he said, and the shipbuilding strategy would not be “doom and gloom … but a story of reform”.

The two Defence leaders said building a ship fell into three broad stages: design, cutting of metal and then fitting out the hull.

For a “continuous build” process to work, different sections of the workforce had to overlap. By the time the fitting out was nearing completion, the workers who cut the original steel might not still be around.

“The workforce you’ll have at the front end of a shipbuilding program is not the same as the workforce you’ll have at the back end,” Mr Richardson said.

As well, a submarine workforce would have very different skills from that building surface ships.

Air Chief Marshal Binskin said the continuous build process did not mean the same type of ship would be turned out ad infinitum. “But you have the design teams and the workforce established and while you build a block of three or four ships, you are planning and working on designs for the next program,” he said.

“So you are not having to re-*establish the workforce. You know what you need to feed that workforce with skilled labour — understanding your design needs, capability needs, how you are going to train and sustain the workforce required to keep that going.”

Mr Richardson said he believed the white paper process was the most meticulous ever.

Cabinet’s national security committee had considered about 10 submissions.

The two Defence heads defended the competitive evaluation process set up to select the navy’s new submarines, which is looking at three options from Germany, France and Japan.

There are plans to build the boats abroad, to build in Australia or to build some abroad and some in Australia.

“Believe it or not, what you see in that process is what you get,” Mr Richardson said. “There’s no smoke and mirrors. The notion that a deal has been done is simply not true.”

Air Chief Marshal Binskin said that because no submarines were being built in Australia at present, no shipyard workers would lose their jobs if the decision were made to build them overseas.

If the boats were built in Australia, the workforce would be rebuilt; even if they were built off*shore, considerable work would be done fitting them out in Australia, Mr Richardson said.

He said the submarines would be maintained in Australia.

Air Chief Marshal Binskin said the white paper would consider the need for new offshore patrol vessels in the “corvette” class, larger than the current patrol boats but smaller than frigates.

To meet the government’s promise for the white paper to be “fully costed”, it would have unprecedented detail on spending with all costings independently verified, Mr Richardson said.

Air Chief Marshal Binskin said its investment plan would include not just the cost of an item but all other elements including personnel, facilities and IT."

Most acquisition of our air force in the last 15 years are through FMS and not local manufacturing..........
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
That is a very interesting read. If they do start building corvettes how do you think they will be armed?
I worry. We would be better off with more capable Tier 2 (sea5000) than 20 corvettes. However a name is a just a name, and with ships there really hasn't be a coherent naming system used since WW2.

If they were fitted with a decent radar, there is plenty of older stuff they could be armed with.
* 25 mm (from patrol boats)
* 76 mm (from FFG)
* Harpoon (I would imagine we have plenty around and with SM-6 may not really be required on AWD/Frigates - maybe not fit to all of them but a pool of ~6 sets could be shared as required)
* Phalanx (from the pool - maybe just space/weight allocated).

I wouldn't think we would need any more options than that.
 

Alf662

New Member
I worry. We would be better off with more capable Tier 2 (sea5000) than 20 corvettes. However a name is a just a name, and with ships there really hasn't be a coherent naming system used since WW2.

If they were fitted with a decent radar, there is plenty of older stuff they could be armed with.
* 25 mm (from patrol boats)
* 76 mm (from FFG)
* Harpoon (I would imagine we have plenty around and with SM-6 may not really be required on AWD/Frigates - maybe not fit to all of them but a pool of ~6 sets could be shared as required)
* Phalanx (from the pool - maybe just space/weight allocated).

I wouldn't think we would need any more options than that.
I know that Ceafar is scalable, but how effective would it be if it was downsized to fit a corvette sized vessel, would it be possible?
 

Goknub

Active Member
That is a very interesting read. If they do start building corvettes how do you think they will be armed?
I didn't read that as saying we would get corvettes, rather that we would get OPVs in the corvette-sized range. Corvette being used as a unit of scale, not an actual ship type.
"..consider the need for new offshore patrol vessels in the “corvette” class, larger than the current patrol boats but smaller than frigates."

------

A continuous build that employs all three of the build stages will be a tough nut to crack. If there's too much change between ship sets then we still get the "first-of-type" issues we have now, if there's not enough change then there's not enough work for the design stage. That's my understanding of the problem.
 

Alf662

New Member
I didn't read that as saying we would get corvettes, rather that we would get OPVs in the corvette-sized range. Corvette being used as a unit of scale, not an actual ship type.
"..consider the need for new offshore patrol vessels in the “corvette” class, larger than the current patrol boats but smaller than frigates."

------

A continuous build that employs all three of the build stages will be a tough nut to crack. If there's too much change between ship sets then we still get the "first-of-type" issues we have now, if there's not enough change then there's not enough work for the design stage. That's my understanding of the problem.
My understanding for the definition of a Corvette is any thing smaller than a frigate and larger than a patrol boat and sizes range from 500 tons up to 3,000 tons. Many of the newer acronyms such as OPV and OCV are just new names for the more traditional naval definition.

If I am incorrect please let me know as I might just be old and incapable of change.
 

Goknub

Active Member
I'd say it is more just showing their inexperience with exporting military equipment, particularly something on this scale.

The mix of Federal-State politics, public PR campaigns and all the other nonsense is typical fare for Western companies looking to win contracts. For the Japanese it'll be jumping into the deep end for the first time. I'd say the cultural differences could be quite a leap for them.

It would be better if they did team up with BAE or some other company with more experience in this type of competition.
 

Flexson

Active Member
The Damen Logistic Support Vessel 19000 (sorry I can't post the link at this stage) comes close as it was being discussed on the New Zealand thread the other day. It is not as big as an MLP but is quite sizable at 18,800 tonnes, it has an aft ramp, side ramp, flight deck with double hangar and a RAS station (reduces the need for a dedicated AOL). It can also carry 40 TEU's and 2 LCM.

The LCM's shown on the data sheet could be LCM1e.

How often were the LCH's beached? If it was a lot more common than Tobruk then that indicates that smaller landing craft have greater utility, especially if their is a need to go up rivers etc.
The LCH's were beached very regularly, there weren't many places you couldn't beach them. They were even a lot more versatile then the LCM-8's as the LCH's could be left completely out of the water, such as positioning them above a sand bar at high tide and leaving them there high and dry till the next high tide. They could even run their generators by swinging them to air cooling instead of water cooling.

The LCM-8's however needed to be on stands whenever they are out of the water. HMAS Choules can now transport one in its well deck because one has been fitted with special skids to the bottom of its hull as a trial. There might be a plan to fit them to more so that they can be transported in the LHD's as well if its ever needed. Choules can't transport them on deck like Tobruk and the LPA's used to as Choule's deck cranes are only 30 tons and the LCM-8's with the modern upgrades weigh in at something like 68 tons.
 
If they were fitted with a decent radar, there is plenty of older stuff they could be armed with.
* 25 mm (from patrol boats)
* 76 mm (from FFG)
* Harpoon (I would imagine we have plenty around and with SM-6 may not really be required on AWD/Frigates - maybe not fit to all of them but a pool of ~6 sets could be shared as required)
* Phalanx (from the pool - maybe just space/weight allocated).

I wouldn't think we would need any more options than that.
Hopefully we can do better than cobbling together a bunch on old systems. If we go down the Corvette path hopefully we do it right. Maybe a stealthy Khareef class or even a Visby class (probably too small, I know).
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The LCH's were beached very regularly, there weren't many places you couldn't beach them. They were even a lot more versatile then the LCM-8's as the LCH's could be left completely out of the water, such as positioning them above a sand bar at high tide and leaving them there high and dry till the next high tide. They could even run their generators by swinging them to air cooling instead of water cooling.

The LCM-8's however needed to be on stands whenever they are out of the water. HMAS Choules can now transport one in its well deck because one has been fitted with special skids to the bottom of its hull as a trial. There might be a plan to fit them to more so that they can be transported in the LHD's as well if its ever needed. Choules can't transport them on deck like Tobruk and the LPA's used to as Choule's deck cranes are only 30 tons and the LCM-8's with the modern upgrades weigh in at something like 68 tons.
Thanks again Flexson
Certainly the LCH was the workhorse of the fleet for many decades and will be missed, but as discussed which way do we go? Is it for a like vessel or do we take another approach. Certainly an interesting area because of the dual military and increasingly important HADR role.
As for the LCM8 I've seen images of lost and lonely LCM8's taken in the high tidal areas of north / west Australia. Quite a sight to see these big bits of metal with no water to be seen for miles.
I knew the LCM8 needed a cradle for storage on deck but was unaware one was needed for in the dock of Choules.Does the newer LCM1-E need a crade? Also do you know how practical it is to crane on and off this size craft. My understanding is it was like having a wrecking ball over the side of the ship and could only be done in the most favourable conditions. Hence the move towards a well dock.
Do you know anything about the LCVP on Tobruk?.These old style craft are making a comeback in other navys and I think there simplicity and low cost give them a place on many diffferent styles of ships.They seem to be much faster craft now offering small patrol boat capabilities while maintaining a good amount of troop lift or light vehicle transport.
Regards S
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top