Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ThePuss]

Whilst we a discussing the well deck I thought I would post this link to a Spanish ship spotter website. This particular page has some good shots of the the Well dock as well of some of the Hanger/light Vehicle deck and the Heavy Vehicle deck.

http://www.fotosdebarcos.com/viewtopic.php?t=25951&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=70

The whole thread is pritty interesting but not all the photos come up all the time due to the site exceding their bandwidth max.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Whilst we a discussing the well deck I thought I would post this link to a Spanish ship spotter website.

Also here is the new tri-bow, monohull landing craft from the BMT. Capable of 28 knots with an MBT on board so much faster than the LCM8 or LCM1E (which can only plan for >10 knot speeds when empty).

BMT Defence Services - Fast Landing Craft

http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/reso...pmentofaMonohullFastLandingCraftFinalCopy.pdf

 

[aussienscale]

Also here is the new tri-bow, monohull landing craft from the BMT. Capable of 28 knots with an MBT on board so much faster than the LCM8 or LCM1E (which can only plan for >10 knot speeds when empty).

BMT Defence Services - Fast Landing Craft

http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/reso...pmentofaMonohullFastLandingCraftFinalCopy.pdf

That's an interesting piece of kit, this is why I can't understand why we are getting the LCM-1E, very slow compared to what is available out there. I raised the question some time ago as to whether we would look at the likes of the EFV, which was put to bed pretty quick. The reason I asked that question is that most of our allies are moving to OTH amphibious ops, with speed being a pretty key point in this. So if this is the way they are heading, and in particular the US and we will be exercising and operating with them are we going with this method ?

I understand in the case of the LHD's the intention in the fast insertion of the initial troops is via the choppers, but if I was landing in the choppers I would like to think the heavy gear was not that far behind. We will be getting the new LCH but they will be some time off and as I see it they would only really be for littoral ops around Australia, and outside the scope of the initial landing but rather follow on equipment depending on what their final capability is.

Correct me if my way of thinking on this subject is wrong, have not seen too much published with regards to our Amphib Doctrine

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That's an interesting piece of kit, this is why I can't understand why we are getting the LCM-1E, very slow compared to what is available out there.

LCM-1E offers little more than legacy LCM8s and a lot less endurance. It is great for joyriding VIPs and other idiots because without a load it can plan so is quite fast. Of course with a load it is as slow as any other conventional landing craft (9 knots).

However it has one great advantage: it’s made by the same people who made the LHD that will carry it. So it’s Navantia’s version of Internet Explorer.

PS We haven't actually ordered the LCM-1E. It was just given first pass approval as a potential order.

Correct me if my way of thinking on this subject is wrong, have not seen too much published with regards to our Amphib Doctrine

Our amphibious doctrine is sea basing so – in theory – only the combat elements are unloaded ashore and all of their logistics is brought from ship to the user. This places a much larger burden on the ship to shore connectors like the LCM/LCUs and helicopters because they don’t just unload everything on the beach and go home they have to be constantly bringing things in and out. So the better and faster the LCM/LCU the more efficient this service can be.

The British Fast Landing Craft (FLC) project is still in development. Clearly the BMT tri-bow, monohull is the best LCM/LCU currently being marketed around the world. Four of these can fit in the JCI LHD well dock and their increased speed and carrying capacity would significantly enhance our amphibious task group.

I would be inclined to purse FLCs and even more capable amphibian FLCs further from this point in time. LCM8s or a repeat build can carry the load until something with a significant capability enhancement is available for their replacement.

 

[riksavage]

That's an interesting piece of kit, this is why I can't understand why we are getting the LCM-1E, very slow compared to what is available out there. I raised the question some time ago as to whether we would look at the likes of the EFV, which was put to bed pretty quick. The reason I asked that question is that most of our allies are moving to OTH amphibious ops, with speed being a pretty key point in this. So if this is the way they are heading, and in particular the US and we will be exercising and operating with them are we going with this method ?

EFV is a pretty expensive option and is still suffering a few hitches, also is Gates still discussing its potential cancellation?

If anything I would have thought Aus would opt for a much cheaper protected Viking/Bronco type platform, suitable for snow, sand and swamp (all found in Aus/Asia). Viking was designed specifically to fit inside the MK10 like a Russian doll, Bronco's too big, so not sure how many you could fit in the planned LCM-1E compared to say the smaller Viking.

Aus could JV with Singapore on Bronco to develop an number of derivatives (C&C, recovery, ambulance, mortar, APC) and benefit from joint training in Aus along with both nations heavy-armour. It's no EFV , but still brings a level of tested mobility in tough environments not available in any other platform.

The UK purchased 100 Bronco's at the cost of £150 million, I wonder how much a single EFV costs?

 

[aussienscale]

PS We haven't actually ordered the LCM-1E. It was just given first pass approval as a potential order.

Quote: The British Fast Landing Craft (FLC) project is still in development. Clearly the BMT tri-bow, monohull is the best LCM/LCU currently being marketed around the world. Four of these can fit in the JCI LHD well dock and their increased speed and carrying capacity would significantly enhance our amphibious task group.

I would be inclined to purse FLCs and even more capable amphibian FLCs further from this point in time. LCM8s or a repeat build can carry the load until something with a significant capability enhancement is available for their replacement.

misunderstood that about the LCM-1E, so there is a glimmer of hope for us yet

Would the time frame for this be within our requirements, and is this being looked at in the UK or other nations ? (noting that it is being marketed around the world) Although after the recent review, probably not. The reason I ask this is that many countries around the world cutting defence spending so potentially a lot of projects like this may never get off the ground. This would of course restrict us to what is available of the shelf so to speak. Frustraing to see a potentially good piece of kit for us once again not being used to its full potential

Although as an afterthough, there are a significant number of countries obtaining enchanced Amphib capability in the near future, time will tell

 

[Abraham Gubler]

EFV is a pretty expensive option and is still suffering a few hitches. If anything I would have thought Aus would opt for a much cheaper protected Viking/Bronco type platform, suitable for snow, sand and swamp (all found in Aus/Asia).

EFV can do something Viking can’t: swim from out at sea into shore and cross a beach swell. Australia already has more than a few armoured vehicles and a large scale replacement project. Viking is great for crossing rough terrain but does not offer a crucial mobility capability for the amphibious task force above legacy M113/Bushmasters and future LAND 400 vehicles.

Consideration of an EFV type capability is natural for the sea basing concept of the amphibious task force but its very high expense would most likely rule it out unless there is a significant threat increase. The ADF hopes via the Manoeuvre Operations in a Littoral Environment (MOLE) doctrine that they can avoid the kind of beach zone defences you need an EFV to cross.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Would the time frame for this be within our requirements, and is this being looked at in the UK or other nations ?

The UK MoD is running the Fast Landing Craft (FLC) program. FLC is currently in the DE&S Design Solutions Study phase and the BMT tri-bow, mono-hull was developed under a contract from this phase. Also being developed is the QinetiQ’s PACSCAT (Partial Air Cushion Supported CATamaran). Next phase is the Concept Phase where the tri-bow, mono-hull, PASCAT and any other options will be costed.

I don’t know when their ISD is but probably around 2015 to replace the LCU Mk 10s which would be 15 years old and in need of rebuild/replacement. Of course this timeframe dovetails nicely with the Canberra class. With low risk concepts like the BMT tri-bow, mono-hull being considered would make for a natural – and far more capable than LCM-1E – fit for the amphibious task group.

 

[riksavage]

The UK MoD is running the Fast Landing Craft (FLC) program. FLC is currently in the DE&S Design Solutions Study phase and the BMT tri-bow, mono-hull was developed under a contract from this phase. Also being developed is the QinetiQ’s PACSCAT (Partial Air Cushion Supported CATamaran). Next phase is the Concept Phase where the tri-bow, mono-hull, PASCAT and any other options will be costed.

I wonder if Aus would consider compromising and invest something akin to the ROK K21 amphibious fighting vehicle (NIFV), packs the punch of an EVP (but cheaper) with the amphib capabilities of a Viking. Nothing more embarrassing than running aground in your landing craft close to the beach, but in water too deep for a standard AFV to cross. Plus having a limited amphib capability reduces your reliance on bridging units once ashore, particualry in parts of Asia where coastal areas lie near or below the high water mark with heavy concentrations of mango swamps and the like.

According to the manufacturer the K21 is 50% cheapr to build than a Bradley MkII

 

[ThePuss]

Whilst we are talking Landing Craft, Does anybody know what happened to the ill fated LCM-8 replacement that was built around 10 years ago by the same ADI dock yard that built the Huon class?. I think they where called LCM-2000 from memory and they where not accepted because of dodgye welding or something like that.

Where they simply scraped or sold into civil service?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Whilst we are talking Landing Craft, Does anybody know what happened to the ill fated LCM-8 replacement that was built around 10 years ago by the same ADI dock yard that built the Huon class?. I think they where called LCM-2000 from memory and they where not accepted because of dodgye welding or something like that.

Where they simply scraped or sold into civil service?

The LCM 2000 were not built as a replacement for all of the LCM 8 just those attached to the LPAs. They were sourced so as to be lighter so more easily handled by the cranes on the LPA. They were rejected for LPA operations for being too wide for safe handling. The sort of thing one would expect would have been obvious before they were contracted.

The build job was subcontracted out because ADI did not have the aluminium welding experience and they ended in disaster being too week for serious strain. Also the sort of thing one would expect would have been obvious before they were contracted.

Before the welds started popping they were used like most LCM 8s for coastal and inland waterway logistics movements. Interestingly they are still in their original aluminium and have never been painted olive drab. The LCM 2000s are on the hard stand at Rosshaven waiting someone to work out how to fix their welds.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I wonder if Aus would consider compromising and invest something akin to the ROK K21 amphibious fighting vehicle (NIFV), packs the punch of an EVP (but cheaper) with the amphib capabilities of a Viking. Nothing more embarrassing than running aground in your landing craft close to the beach, but in water too deep for a standard AFV to cross. Plus having a limited amphib capability reduces your reliance on bridging units once ashore, particualry in parts of Asia where coastal areas lie near or below the high water mark with heavy concentrations of mango swamps and the like.

According to the manufacturer the K21 is 50% cheapr to build than a Bradley MkII

The K21 does not have the carrying capability of the EFV with only half the dismounts. Also its amphibious capability is strictly river crossing. The method of buoyancy it uses was first installed on the M109 howitzer and quickly removed because it doesn’t provide the best stability. No one is going to be crossing the surf zone in K21s without a high tolerance of drowning…

To even consider swimming in to beaches, even the last leg (which is the hardest) you will need your vehicle to be inherently buoyant so it can’t get swamped. The BV 206 design the Viking and Bronco are based on is great for this because of their high enclosed volume for gross weight and low centre of gravities. But the advantage of these vehicles is that they are very good for driving from the landing craft to dry land through the surf and across the sand. This is because of their low ground pressure, twin sources of torque and waterproof nature.

The ADF has serious deficiencies in beach crossing capability that will hopefully be corrected as the new amphibious task group is stood up. This is more so in beach recovery. But a swimming armoured vehicle or good beach crossing APC is not a glaring deficiency for the MOLE doctrine.

 

[ThePuss]

Before the welds started popping they were used like most LCM 8s for coastal and inland waterway logistics movements. Interestingly they are still in their original aluminium and have never been painted olive drab. The LCM 2000s are on the hard stand at Rosshaven waiting someone to work out how to fix their welds.

Wow, Still just sitting on hard stands after all these years, What a waist of money paying Rosshaven for the rent. Sounds like the disposal of the LCM-2000's has fallen into the "too hard basket". Much easy just to pay the hardstand rent and hope everybody forget's about them :hitwall

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Wow, Still just sitting on hard stands after all these years, What a waist of money paying Rosshaven for the rent. Sounds like the disposal of the LCM-2000's has fallen into the "too hard basket". Much easy just to pay the hardstand rent and hope everybody forget's about them :hitwall

According to what the Junior Minister said:

The Joint Project 2048 Phase 1A landing watercraft were originally approved in 1997.

The six watercraft have not been able to prove they meet the needs for their operational roles on HMA Ships Kanimbla and Manoora and for support of land forces.

“Over the past two years Defence has invested time and resources on resolving issues with these landing watercraft including detailed assessments of other roles they could perform,” Mr Clare said.

“I am expecting advice from Defence in the near future recommending what action needs to be taken on the project.”

At the release of this years projects of concern list Defence is looking for an alternate role for the LCM 2000s. There is plenty of work for them in the northern border patrol duties but the question is are they robust enough for that job? Otherwise its Sydney Harbour tug and ferry duties for them...

All a shame, they are a nice design and if built properly would make a good LCM for the Canberras.

 

[icelord]

Is there any update on the status of the Manoora and Kanimbla? Given their issues, Is a rapid procurement Bay class purchase from RN cuts a realistic possibility?

Any news on the likely options that will be considered for the LCH replacement?

What is the status on the Maritime Helicopter (ie NFH vs MH-60R)

Im heading over tommorrow to see a man about a dog so ill ask around, but last i checked they were still not sailing for 6mths, only in an extreme emergency could they venture past sydney heads(well, maybe not Kanimbla...)

The term rapid is the question. it could take defence 2 years to realise the ships available, and 2 more years to sign a contract to get it to aus, being all wise with contracts that they are...
The Helo is still undecided, but theres currently issues with MRH-90, mostly inexperience with the airframe and procedures from the mechanics point of view.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Where they simply scraped or sold into civil service?

they're paperweights. AFAIK they're not going anywhere and there's not much enthusiasm to fix them.

you can add them to the list of emerging problems fitting out the fatships...

 

[aussienscale]

The LCM 2000 were not built as a replacement for all of the LCM 8 just those attached to the LPAs. They were sourced so as to be lighter so more easily handled by the cranes on the LPA. They were rejected for LPA operations for being too wide for safe handling. The sort of thing one would expect would have been obvious before they were contracted.

The build job was subcontracted out because ADI did not have the aluminium welding experience and they ended in disaster being too week for serious strain. Also the sort of thing one would expect would have been obvious before they were contracted.

Before the welds started popping they were used like most LCM 8s for coastal and inland waterway logistics movements. Interestingly they are still in their original aluminium and have never been painted olive drab. The LCM 2000s are on the hard stand at Rosshaven waiting someone to work out how to fix their welds.

he he, I remember when that happened, what an absolute joke !! and yet who got an arse kicking for it ?? and absolutely no attempt what so ever to fix the problem, and um let me think ???? did anything ever replace it ??

Good design, but I hope they are not stupid enough to try and use them for the LHD's, to many problems with manufacture and still not fast enough

 

[Volkodav]

I wonder if the US will restart the LCU(R) program, it would fit in the LHD dock well and have similar capability to the LCH if required...two birds with one stone.

I do like the Viking, not for over the beach assaults but as a general purpose light armoured vehicle suitable for supporting light infantry in amphibious, airmobile / airborne, mountain, jungle operations. Possibly a good fit for 3/4 CAV.

That said a squadron of EFVs would be a good fit with the LHDs, maybe split 3/4 CAV into 3 and 4 CAV with one operating Vikings and the other EFVs.

I know that some dream of LAND 400 replacing every armoured vehicle in the ADF with a single FOV but the simple existence of the LHDs makes this unachievable. We need to provide the ADF with the necessary gear to make the best of the fat ships other wise we will have blown our money.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I wonder if the US will restart the LCU(R) program, it would fit in the LHD dock well and have similar capability to the LCH if required...two birds with one stone.

Dead and buried, the USN’s SeaBase plan is focused on the T-Craft as its high speed connector. You could only fit one LCU(R) in the back of an LHD and that would be a significant reduction in ship to shore connectivity as well as putting all your eggs in one basket.

I know that some dream of LAND 400 replacing every armoured vehicle in the ADF with a single FOV but the simple existence of the LHDs makes this unachievable. We need to provide the ADF with the necessary gear to make the best of the fat ships other wise we will have blown our money.

How does the LHD make LAND 400 unachievable? The LHD will just carry the new IFV in place of ASLAVs and M113s.

 

[Raven22]

That said a squadron of EFVs would be a good fit with the LHDs, maybe split 3/4 CAV into 3 and 4 CAV with one operating Vikings and the other EFVs.

I know that some dream of LAND 400 replacing every armoured vehicle in the ADF with a single FOV but the simple existence of the LHDs makes this unachievable. We need to provide the ADF with the necessary gear to make the best of the fat ships other wise we will have blown our money.

For starters, Land 400 is unlikely to deliver a single vehicles type, but why would the existence of the LHDs change Land 400 plans? The LHDs will deliver their vehicles via landing craft direct to the beach, meaning there is no requirement for amphibious vehicles. Buying EFVs would simply be a ridiculously expensive way to buy AFVs with a design feature we would never use, and Vikings or similar would provide no extra utility to an amphibious landing and are completely unsuitable vehicles for the armoured corps anyway.