G'day John
I feel you may be on the right track if the load carrying margin for the LCM 1e
falls short by only bit. I'm not sure what usable space is left over for the storage of the RHIB's behind the LLC's but I'd speculate it's of the order of around 6 to 8 metres.
As a rough calculation I feel you get about two and a half tonnes of load carrying capacity for each metre of LCM, so using the spare space in the dock to either stretch one or alternatively both then maybe ............just maybe, it's potentially the difference between having a capability or not!
I had a chat to a welder at work a year ago about this very subject and what he made of the challenge of cutting the craft in two and fitting a plug to extend it's length.He was familiar with th type of craft but on his own admission said it was difficult to say without working plans. However he spoke about what he thought would be the internal structure and what would be involved and the sort of cost and time to complete.
Now for the warehouse bravado............"Can it be done I say" sure, cut in half by lunch time and rebuilt and fitted about a month. As to cost well who knows ...........Defence project?......... Smile!
I'm no engineer but I can't imagine it's that difficult a job to extend the LCM1e if it's both warranted and cost effective to do so.
It may just be the sort of simple solution for ship to shore transport of heavy vehicles that gets us over the line.
However I'm also open that it may be a bridge too far so lets see the full results of the trials.
Further to the discussion, the LCM1e should be a complement to,but not at the expense of a larger Landing Craft Heavy replacement.
As to what form such a vessel takes is another conversation.
Regards S
Yeah 'cut n shut' always sounds good in theory, but I'm sure it's far more complex than that (adding a plug of a few metres if it was the solution), in the long run it's probably going to be simpler to just build a fleet of new LCMs from scratch (third time lucky perhaps??).
As to the LCMs and LCH, it would be nice to have both, have to have an LCM type vessel for the two LHD's and Choules (that pretty obvious), but it appears that the project to replace the LCH fleet 'has gone to God', disappeared when the DIIP was published.
Whilst yes the RAN's amphibious capability is massively increased from what it was just a few short years ago (Bill, Ben, Tobruk and the 6 LCH gone, replaced by the two LHD's, Choules and their respective landing craft, LCMs and Mexeflotes), I can't help but think there is a gap between the top and bottom ends.
Whilst in the past the LPA's, Tobruk and the 6 LCH could all operate independently of each other (appropriate ship for the appropriate job), today yes the LHD's and Choules can operate independently of each other, but I can't see the LCM's and Mexeflotes in operation without their respective 'mother ships' in attendance, which comes back to the question of the 'missing' LCH capability from the DIIP.
And talking of the DIIP, doesn't matter how many times I read (and re-read it), I still find the language a bit confusing regarding the possible
'third AOR or additional logistic support ship, similar to Choules in the late 2020s' and later on it also talks, when Choules is mentioned,
'The Integrated Investment Program also provides for the replacement of this logistics support ship around 2030'.
On the one had that can be read that the RAN might end up with 3 x AORs, plus Choules (and eventually her replacement), or 2 x AORs and 2 x logistics supports ships, one new and one as the replacement for Choules.
But where I find it more confusing is that in the actual 'budget allocations' there is an allocation of $1b-$2b, in the 2024-30 time period for that possible third AOR or additional logistics ship, but there is no budget allocation for the eventual Choules replacement in 2030, even though the 'wording' of the DIIP suggests that Choules will be replaced around 2030.
Confused? I am!!!