Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

I have another question about HMAS Choules. I read some where that she can only embark LCM8's and the LCM1e's do not fit.

This surprised me as both vessels have similar dimensions (although the LCM1e is 1 meter longer), if correct the only thing I can think of is that the LCM1e has a bigger air draft, or is it a case that the LCM1e's have not been certified to work from the Choules yet.

I have only seen photographs of HMAS Choules working with LCM8's. Is any one in a position to clarify if the LCM1e can be accommodated on board HMAS Choules?

That is interesting as the Bays operate the LCU10 which are significantly larger than the LCM1E or LCM-8, though smaller than the USNs LCUs that are similar in capacity to the RANs old LCHs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Utility


LCM1E
General characteristics

Type: Roll-on/roll-off landing craft mechanised
Displacement: 56.6 tonnes (55.7 long tons; 62.4 short tons) light
110 tonnes (110 long tons; 120 short tons) loaded

Length: 23.3 metres (76 ft)
Beam: 6.4 metres (21 ft)
Draught: 1 metre (3 ft 3 in) loaded
Ramps: Bow ramp and stern gate
Propulsion: 2 × MAN D-2842 LE 402X diesel engines (809 kW each)
2 × waterjets

Speed: 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph) light
13.5 knots (25.0 km/h; 15.5 mph) loaded

Range: 190 nautical miles (350 km; 220 mi) at economic speed
Capacity: 1 × main battle tank, or
1 × self-propelled howitzer plus resupply vehicle, or
2 × MOWAG Piranha, or
6 × light tactical vehicles, or
170 personnel with equipment

Complement: 4


General characteristics LCU Mk.10[2]

Displacement: 240 t (240 long tons; 260 short tons)
Length: 97 ft 10 in (29.82 m)
Beam: 25 ft 3 in (7.70 m)
Draught: 4 ft 11 in (1.50 m)
Propulsion: 2 × MAN D2840 LE diesel engines (400 kW / 2150 r.p.m. each)
Speed: 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)
Range: 600 nautical miles (1,100 km)
Capacity: 1 main battle tank, 4 large vehicles, or 120 troops

The LCU10 was designed with the Challenger MBT in mind so would be easily able to lift even an up armoured Abrams.

 

[Alf662]

That is interesting as the Bays operate the LCU10 which are significantly larger than the LCM1E or LCM-8, though smaller than the USNs LCUs that are similar in capacity to the RANs old LCHs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Utility


The LCU10 was designed with the Challenger MBT in mind so would be easily able to lift even an up armoured Abrams.

I agree with you Volk, in the mean time I have gone off and done some research.

The following has appeared verbatim in a number of websites:

The LCM-1E+ landing craft being acquired by the RAN will not fit into the dock.Gillett, ''Australia's Navy'', Part 2, p. 22

I am not convinced that the comment is correct. Being a published historian I think it has been accepted as correct with out questioning it's authenticity.

 

[Bluey 006]

A few of us here were a surprised (myself included) that land based anti-shipping missiles were included on the white paper shopping list and the IIP.

I came across this RAND article at work today - Link

It discusses how they'd be used as part of the allied A2/AD strategy and from there some further insight into the strategic thinking of Defence and the threats that justify their procurement.

 

[Muar River]

This may be of interest in view of the imminent decision regarding the shortlist for the future frigate. The size and appearance of the ship reminds me of the former RN cruiser HMS Effingham.

First German Navy F 125 frigate begins sea trials | Naval Today

 

[Oberon]

A few of us here were a surprised (myself included) that land based anti-shipping missiles were included on the white paper shopping list and the IIP.

I came across this RAND article at work today - Link

It discusses how they'd be used as part of the allied A2/AD strategy and from there some further insight into the strategic thinking of Defence and the threats that justify their procurement.

As the choke points are in SE Asian countries, notably Indonesia, does this mean that the ADF's plan is to deploy the land-based ASMs overseas if there is a potential conflict?

 

[vonnoobie]

As the choke points are in SE Asian countries, notably Indonesia, does this mean that the ADF's plan is to deploy the land-based ASMs overseas if there is a potential conflict?

Most deffintely. From Australia's location we have no capability to implement choke points however with our growing capability in forward deployment (with out relying on our allies) we are better situated then ever before to occupy regions that could be made into choke points, It's these locations that the mobile ASM's will excell.

 

[Bluey 006]

As the choke points are in SE Asian countries, notably Indonesia, does this mean that the ADF's plan is to deploy the land-based ASMs overseas if there is a potential conflict?

Well that is my take on it. Looks like a blockade containment strategy to me.
I can't imagine the ADF is planning to blockade the Baltic :gun
So the SCS is my guess

Land based ASM is a very smart play. It will deliver a lot of strategic capability at a relatively low cost. Ask yourself,how many ships would it take to blockade that same area?

the diplomacy required to get them in place is another matter

 

[vonnoobie]

the diplomacy required to get them in place is another matter

Not necessarily, We already have forces stationed in Malaysia (RMAF Butterworth) made up of Rifle Company Butterworth, No. 19 SQN and elements (AP-3C) of No. 92 SQN. With that relationship and the issues Malaysia is having with China to date getting there support to station mobile ASM batteries will not be a major obstacle.

Singapore too wouldn't be a major issue with us already having strong ties and growing ones, Not to mention Australia, Singapore and Malaysia are all part of the 5 powers agreement (including UK and NZ but they don't matter so much in this instance).

 

[Oberon]

Not necessarily, We already have forces stationed in Malaysia (RMAF Butterworth) made up of Rifle Company Butterworth, No. 19 SQN and elements (AP-3C) of No. 92 SQN. With that relationship and the issues Malaysia is having with China to date getting there support to station mobile ASM batteries will not be a major obstacle.

Singapore too wouldn't be a major issue with us already having strong ties and growing ones, Not to mention Australia, Singapore and Malaysia are all part of the 5 powers agreement (including UK and NZ but they don't matter so much in this instance).

It's Indonesia I was thinking of as the choke points in SE Asia that would effect Australian shipping are mainly between the islands of the Indonesian archipelago.

Sure will require a lot of diplomacy!

 

[Punta74]

Anyone know if/when the Japanese boats come into Sydney Harbour today ? Assume there is a welcoming ceremony with 400 personal.

Was stated they are here from 15th to 29th April.

 

[Bluey 006]

Not necessarily, We already have forces stationed in Malaysia (RMAF Butterworth) made up of Rifle Company Butterworth, No. 19 SQN and elements (AP-3C) of No. 92 SQN. With that relationship and the issues Malaysia is having with China to date getting there support to station mobile ASM batteries will not be a major obstacle.

Singapore too wouldn't be a major issue with us already having strong ties and growing ones, Not to mention Australia, Singapore and Malaysia are all part of the 5 powers agreement (including UK and NZ but they don't matter so much in this instance).

Alliances are interesting things - its all fine and dandy until the heat is really on. Might seem like an easy task now to base ASM on foreign soil but , when push comes to shove IMHO things would likely be different. Lets not forget that ASM batteries are also targets for opposing forces, in most situations (with the possible exception of imminent invasion) the local populations may not be too happy with a big fat priority one target in their backyard.

I am not convinced Malaysia would automatically accept Australian missiles on their soil - there is a big difference between a rifle company and long range missiles.

The FPDA does not guarantee support.

 

[Punta74]

Anyone know if/when the Japanese boats come into Sydney Harbour today ? Assume there is a welcoming ceremony with 400 personal.

Was stated they are here from 15th to 29th April.

Never mind - Sitting here from my office overlooking the harbour, and can confirm all 3 boats at currently docking at Garden island.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Why the Japanese proposal is low risk (part 1)

Why the Japanese proposal is low risk (part 2)

Love the stuff on lithium batteries and AIP. Wished it contained more information about the actual sub. But I can see why they are very hesitant to say anything, even the irrefutable good bits they release get FUD by the Germans and the French which then gets repeated by media and experts.

BTW ASPI seems to be "exploding" with sub articles and stories at the moment.

This ones claims that submarines are not ready for lithium batteries, as they will explode. Particularly because there will likely to be 100,000 cells in the submarine fleet, and one of them is going to explode. (Even though Tesla builds batteries with millions of cells!)
Australia’s Future Submarine: the great battery debate

I dunno. Lithium sounds heaps safer than huge tanks of compressed hydrogen and liquid oxygen in my books. Japan couldn't jump out of liquid fuelled AIP fast enough.

Very interested in the Japanese option. Could be a real game changer, particularly for what Australia wants and needs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am not convinced Malaysia would automatically accept Australian missiles on their soil - there is a big difference between a rifle company and long range missiles.

The FPDA does not guarantee support.

the Malays don't need our missiles, they have their own TBM's

 

[cdxbow]

BTW ASPI seems to be "exploding" with sub articles and stories at the moment.
.

Yes it does. Enjoying it. I thought this one was very interesting from a management point of view: Planning for failure—the Oberon to Collins transition

I hope these sorts of 'bad organisation' issues don't occur with the new subs, there will always be enough technical issues to sort out without shooting yourself in the foot with poor planning.

 

[ADMk2]

A few of us here were a surprised (myself included) that land based anti-shipping missiles were included on the white paper shopping list and the IIP.

I came across this RAND article at work today - Link

It discusses how they'd be used as part of the allied A2/AD strategy and from there some further insight into the strategic thinking of Defence and the threats that justify their procurement.

Nah we're going to 'Chinook-lift' truck mounted ASM's and SAM's onto oil rigs to keep Dr Kopp's feverish nightmares of Chinese Aviation / Naval Regiments destroying them, at bay, aren't we?

 

[Stampede]

I'm not 100% on this but I read somewhere that the tripods and beams are external reinforcing beams for the decks and hull when fully loaded. Maybe Alexsa has further insight.
I understand they aren't used as lifting beams but in the RFA modified Bays they carry the redirected exhausts and some electronic/FC radomes. I think Cardigan Bay has Phalanx mounts on deck abaft the tripods on each side when deployed to the ME?

Thanks for the reply.
Any other feedback would be appreciated..
Regards S

 

[vonnoobie]

Thanks for the reply.
Any other feedback would be appreciated..
Regards S

They may actually be lifting beam's judging by this video.

HMAS Choules, Exercise Squadex - Defence Video Portal

At the 4 second point you see a close up shot of them with a water craft being suspended from it.


On the other hand there are other images showing them supporting two smoke stacks either side of it.

Though they werent used for Phalanx as I did find a picture of the Largs Bay and they were located near but just aft of the unknown structure.

 

[ASSAIL]

They may actually be lifting beam's judging by this video.

HMAS Choules, Exercise Squadex - Defence Video Portal

At the 4 second point you see a close up shot of them with a water craft being suspended from it.


On the other hand there are other images showing them supporting two smoke stacks either side of it.

Though they werent used for Phalanx as I did find a picture of the Largs Bay and they were located near but just aft of the unknown structure.

You're mistaken, the boats are lifted by the two 30 ton cranes and Choules has not been modified with the exhausts re-routed to the beam as have the three RFA Bays. Choules exhausts remain on the quarters.
I didn't say the phalanxes were supported on the beam, they are, as you mention placed on the deck but some radomes are on some RFAs

 

[Pike]

Just a quick question re HMAS Choules

What is the large structure just forward of the flight deck and behind the two cranes.
It looks like two A frames supporting a large beam extending almost the full width of the ship.
Just curious and would appreciate any feedback.

Regards S

It's an aircraft lighting frame, also nicknamed the goal posts. It has no "intended" structural benefit. It's just used to mount spotlights, GPI, HRS etc and allow gantry access for servicing.