Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Blas de Lezo]

Here you can find lots of pictures of the LCM 1E
fotosdebarcos.com :: Ver tema - Lanchas Anfibias

One of the main characteristics of the LCM 1E, is that all of them can easily be loaded at the same time; the vehicles can roll through positions 1 and 2 to be loaded on positions 3 and 4.
So when the four LCM´s leave the ship are fully loaded and when they return they get loaded at the same time just rolling the vehicles over them. That on its own is a great time saver.
The LCM 1E can be loaded whichever way it enters the ship, is not in the same league as the LCM 8.
The LCM 8 used props and shafts as opposed to jets, and that is also a big difference, less prompt to prop fowling, higher speed and higher payload.
Regards.

 

[alexsa]

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?

I was looking at them from both contexts. For extended large scale operations it is lilkly the landing craft would need ot be carried on the LHD, hence the comment.

As a replacement for the LCH in that role then my coments in regards to operating limitations apply.

 

[PeterM]

I was looking at them from both contexts. For extended large scale operations it is lilkly the landing craft would need ot be carried on the LHD, hence the comment.

As a replacement for the LCH in that role then my coments in regards to operating limitations apply.

the requirement for the new Heavy Landing Craft, specifically the intra-theatre lift tasks to augment the larger vessels and improved ocean going capabilities.

Could something like the JSHV be an viable option (albeit on the higher end)?

 

[StingrayOZ]

LCM1E? Not being able to carry the heavy loads (like M1A1 tanks) would I think put it out of the running. If it can't carry a tank its really not that useful for us. Can it carry M1A1?

Ideally what we would want is an L-cat that is ~7 wide ~24 m long that can carry atleast 1 M1A1. Then we would be able to carry two useful L-cats. But I don't know if that is possible. Depends on the size of the LHD dock.

Then again the LCAC is over 7 meters so I don't know if you would be able to fit two of those into the LHD dock either. The mistral can, I suspect the Canberras should. However there is an achived post here from dinivan saying only 1 LCAC. I think there is a world of difference between operating (between two ships) and say 4 LCAC/L-Cats or 2 LCAC/L-cats.

The 2 LCAC/LCAT the comes upagainst 4 modern LCM's things become more blured as these is really less benifit.



Dinivans post also show the LHD dock as being
"Dock dimensions: 69.3x16.8m"
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3943.html
Which seems massive. I don't know how big the entry into the dock is I would imagine its smaller. Should be big enough to hold 2 LCAC and or large L-cats (Say 7.5x 30 or perhaps 4x 7.5 x 20). You might not be able to load both at the same time, but you could have two lanes to feed in.

The L-cats I think would also be useful for island hopping, moving equipment by sea to other islands or to other areas where is more effective (to get around rivers/mountains/swamps/mudflats/mangroves etc). The greater range would be more useful for that type of task, operating further afield from the LHD.

Perhaps some sort of green water supersized L-cat like (roro JHSV) thing (30m x 120m) with enclosed space (and a helo landing and helo airlifting areas) could be constructed as a direct heavy lifter that would operate out of Darwin. The larger ship could have a larger bi/trifolding ramp (with pontoon sections) so beach access is still good (with floodable ballast areas etc).

 

[Blas de Lezo]

The official Spanish Armada site states that the LCM 1E can carry one Leopard 2E.
The wiki states the weight of a L2E at aprox 63 metric tonnes, the L2 A6 at 62.3 metric tonnes and the M1A1 at 61.4 metric tonnes.
I have not seen any pictures of an L2E on a LCM 1E so I can not confirm it, I have to go by what the Armada site states.
When the first two units where built... prototipes 1 and 2, it was said that they could carry the L2A4 but not the L2E, since then, changes were introduced on the design of units 3 to 12 ( changes that are quite visible on the pictures) and now the Armada clearly states that it can carry the L2E so...I guess the answer is yes, it can carry the M1A1.
Grupo Naval de Playa - Surface Ships - ArmadaEspannola

[Capacidad de Carga
1 carro de combate tipo M60 A3./M88A1
1 carro de combate tipo Leopard 2E de 62,5 ton.
2 camiones pesados C10T con remolque.
6 vehículos tipo HUMMER.
1 vehículo M-109 A2 y 1 vehículo M 992.
2 vehículos M-109 A2.
2 vehículos anfibios AAV.
1 compañía de fusileros (170 hombres) equipada.
1 camión tipo medio con contenedor estándar de 20 pies y hasta 20 ton con estado de la mar 2/3.
2 Vehículos tipo “PIRANHA”.
1 camión pesado C10T con remolque +/QUOTE]

Regards

 

[santi]

I have not seen any pictures of an L2E on a LCM 1E so I can not confirm it, I have to go by what the Armada site states.


Regards

Take a look:
http://i39.tinypic.com/keyv7t.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/2qx7rtc.jpg

Regards

 

[PeterM]

What kind of ship will be considered for the Strategic sealift ship?

9.24 The Government has decided to enhance this amphibious capability by acquiring a large strategic sealift ship to move stores, equipment and personnel. Based on a proven design, the new ship will have a displacement of 10,000 - 15,000 tonnes, with landing spots for a number of helicopters and an ability to land vehicles and other cargo without requiring port infrastructure. The new ship will provide ongoing sustainment support for deployed forces, allowing the LHD ships to remain in areas of operations in direct support of the land force ashore.

The proven design likely rules out smaller versions of the US Strategic Sealift vessels or larger versions of HMNZS Canterbury.

Both the Albion LPD (full load 16,000t) and Bay LSD (A) (full load 16,200t) seem too large, Cantbury (full load 9,000t) is too small

I guess the only likely option is:

Galicia Class LPD seems to be the only obvious option with a full load displacement of 13,900t and contructed by Navantia

Rotterdam Class qualifies, but it pretty much the same as the Galicia
Foudre Class technically fits, but is an older design

interestingly the Galicia and the Castilla are listed as 13,900t logistic support ships.

any thoughts? any other options?

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Thanks Santi, I had not seen those pictures, self explaining for me and I guess for the RAN.

 

[winnyfield]

Wasn't there a LCM-8 replacement program that started a few years ago? Water jet design I recall, maybe a Newcastle company. Has that been canned for the 'LCM-1E'?

 

[swerve]

What kind of ship will be considered for the Strategic sealift ship?

The proven design likely rules out smaller versions of the US Strategic Sealift vessels or larger versions of HMNZS Canterbury.

Both the Albion LPD (full load 16,000t) and Bay LSD (A) (full load 16,200t) seem too large, Cantbury (full load 9,000t) is too small

I guess the only likely option is:

Galicia Class LPD seems to be the only obvious option with a full load displacement of 13,900t and contructed by Navantia

Rotterdam Class qualifies, but it pretty much the same as the Galicia
Foudre Class technically fits, but is an older design

interestingly the Galicia and the Castilla are listed as 13,900t logistic support ships.

any thoughts? any other options?

Depends on whether the tonnage is deadweight, full load, or something in between. Johann de Witt or the Bay class would fit in the tonnage range at light load, though not full load.

All the ships you list are LPDs or LSDs, but there's no guarantee it would have a dock. It also says "based on" a proven design, allowing the possibility of a variant. The Bay class, for example, is a variant of the Rotterdam/Galicia design, the Damen Schelde Enforcer family. The Dutch are building a much larger variant of the same family with no dock, but a stern ramp which would permit offloading onto lighters, Mexeflotes or the like. This would be a relatively simple - and cost-saving - modification. A Rotterdam with such a ramp & no hangar (like the Bays) would meet all the stated requirements, & be significantly cheaper than a full-on LPD.

Alternatively, a modified commercial ro-ro design could suit, depending on how the requirement for independence of port facilities is interpreted. Add helicopter platform, its own unloading equipment, & a few other mods & you're there. Depending on the meaning of the tonnage, a variant of the Point class could fit (assuming the tonnage is deadweight). Or the RAN could buy a used ro-ro (prices are low at present) & modify it.

There is also the very cheap Korean utility LPD design adopted by Indonesia, the Makasar class. A less basic version might fit the requirement.

 

[battlensign]

Depends on whether the tonnage is deadweight or full load. Johann de Witt or the Bay class would fit in the tonnage range at light load, though not full load.

A Bay Class is preferred by Navy and gets most mentions.

Brett.

 

[uuname]

Wasn't there a LCM-8 replacement program that started a few years ago?

Yes, the LCM2000. They broke.
Media Release - Department of Defence

Has that been canned for the 'LCM-1E'?

No idea, but it looks that way. Hope the new ones work.

A Bay Class is preferred by Navy and gets most mentions.

Perhaps they're worried Navantia will end up building everything they get.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Perhaps they're worried Navantia will end up building everything they get.

Considering the amount of unhappiness that the Norwegians have over their spanish builds, then it is an issue for everyone.

 

[FutureTank]

Have to disagree with you there. LCACs offer several advantages over LCMs. They do burn a lot more fuel but so do jet fighters compared to prop fighters...

Fuel and load comparison model: the two LHDs are located 25 NM offshore and need to load 1,300 tonnes (between them) to the beachhead.

With four LCACs it will take less than 10 hours and all the cargo will be delivered over the beach dry to solid ground. They will burn 130 tonnes of diesel to do it.

With eight LCMs it will take about 20 hours and all the cargo will be delivered to the beach wet and have to transit the beach zone before making it to solid ground. They will burn 20 tonnes of diesel to do it.

The other key difference is during the 10 hour LCAC mission the LHDs will be free to manoeuvre at their top speed. On the other hand with LCMs the LHDs will be limited to around 2-3 knots as the well dock is flooded down. The flood/dry cycle takes about 2 hours. So the LHD will be a fat juicy target for 20 hours...

At the cost of 110 tonnes of extra fuel per unloading cycle the ADF gets stuff ashore twice as fast, massively increased survivability for the LHD and the assurance that the over the beach deliverables end up useable and not bogged out in the surf.

But all that extra fuel has to be brought along, and not just for the 10 hours of operation. There are also higher maintenance considerations. The fuel has to be on board the LHD since oiler operations would make it an even juicier target inshore.

By the way, in current operations the USMC has to slow down anyway to launch the tracks, so no one is sailing at 20knots, and how far can the LHD go manoeuvring at 20knots while conducting a landing?
They make more sense for higher volume, higher logistics support capability navy like the USN, but alas not the RAN.

In any case I doubt that the Army requirement will be over 300t a day for a brigade group, i.e. both LHDs working together on one beach. Even with artillery and possible humanitarian support that may become 400t/d, not 1,300t/d.

 

[FutureTank]

Are you for real? The difference in speed has a huge impact on survivability. With the well dock flooded the LHDs are basically stationary for 20 hours. The enemy can fix its location with a reconnaissance asset and then attack at their leisure. Even keeping 'close' to the shore with a 25 NM stand off the ability to sail at 20 knots enables the LHDs to change their position so if they are detected they will need to be shadowed in order to allow a directed attack.

As to the time savings maybe its not so important in an administrative landing where you are just sending peacekeepers ashore. But for amphibious manoeuvre when you are trying to avoid having the enemy counter attack it is hugely important.

All countries now have all weather naval attack capabilities, so evasive actions are not going to save an LHD for 10 hours at 20knots for an air threat or a submarine one, least of all a surface one armed with missiles designed to engage fast smaller manoeuvring combat vessels.

Who cares what the engineers and bean counters 'like'. Its the end user who has to take the combat system into the line of fire. Just about every single weapon, including the LCAC, has been conceived by an operational user.

We can sail ashore in an LCM8 because it was cheap and easy to acquire but one day we might have to pay the butchers' bill... That could be an LHD sunk with 500 people on board, all for the cost of 130,000 litres of diesel per landing cycle (which is under $50,000 to the Government).

Could not agree with you more, which is all the more reason to equip LHDs with viable self-defence systems aside from those provided by the escorting TF.

for those interested 130,000 litres of diesel = 130 cubic meters. A 40' x 8'6" container is 66.9cbm or 26t of cargo

 

[FutureTank]

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.

THe OPVs are not intended to operate only off Australian shores....

 

[FutureTank]

What kind of ship will be considered for the Strategic sealift ship?



The proven design likely rules out smaller versions of the US Strategic Sealift vessels or larger versions of HMNZS Canterbury.

Both the Albion LPD (full load 16,000t) and Bay LSD (A) (full load 16,200t) seem too large, Cantbury (full load 9,000t) is too small

I guess the only likely option is:

Galicia Class LPD seems to be the only obvious option with a full load displacement of 13,900t and contructed by Navantia

Rotterdam Class qualifies, but it pretty much the same as the Galicia
Foudre Class technically fits, but is an older design

interestingly the Galicia and the Castilla are listed as 13,900t logistic support ships.

any thoughts? any other options?

Don't get hung up on tonnage. The primary considerations are cost and capability, and there is never enough of the later since Army requirements tend to expand with available volume

 

[kato]

France will be selling Foudre soon anyway. Just get her from the market.
Considerably higher capacity than a Bay (reduced Enforcer) or Albion, far cheaper than a new Enforcer.

Oh, and you could probably fit at least one Armidale in the well deck. Gotta be worth something too. And of course the full load displacement also isn't the 12,400 tons often floated, but 17,200 tons.

 

[riksavage]

Some good news for Aussie Submariners, I read today that the LR5 Submersible Submarine Rescue system is being moved to Australia now the new NATO system is fully operational in Scotland. The Aussie press refer to the LR5 as being 'obsolete', which is a load of rubbish.

I thought the Singaporeans where looking at taking the LR5, maybe they have come to some agreement with the RAN to allow the unit to be shared, if and when required in an emergency. Not sure if the same team of pilots, engineers and technicians employed by James Fisher Rumic Ltd will be deploying aswell.

Makes sense to have these systems dotted around the globe, with rescue units in Europe, Australia and the US, we now have the globe pretty well covered.

 

[StevoJH]

Some good news for Aussie Submariners, I read today that the LR5 Submersible Submarine Rescue system is being moved to Australia now the new NATO system is fully operational in Scotland. The Aussie press refer to the LR5 as being 'obsolete', which is a load of rubbish.

I thought the Singaporeans where looking at taking the LR5, maybe they have come to some agreement with the RAN to allow the unit to be shared, if and when required in an emergency. Not sure if the same team of pilots, engineers and technicians employed by James Fisher Rumic Ltd will be deploying aswell.

Makes sense to have these systems dotted around the globe, with rescue units in Europe, Australia and the US, we now have the globe pretty well covered.

From memory the RAN's rescue submersible got retired a few years ago due to safety issues, i bet the RAN submariners will feel a bit safer knowing there will be something to come get them if anything goes wrong again.