Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

The job to be done by Lcm1e, to deploy from over the horizont wrt the beach, is well acomplished with 190 nm range.

Yes and that is called ship to shore. The Australian Army however has additional coastal and inland waterway missions for its LCMs that require extra range. I have made this difference clear from post no. 1 on the topic. I don’t understand why you’re making a big deal out of it. Accept that the Australian Army will want a LCM with sufficient range for all of its missions. The LCM-1E can do the ship to shore mission (about 1/3 of the force) but not the remainder.

The Lcac speed with payload is 40 knots wrt 15 of Lcm1e, so say 3 times faster (incl. load/unload time), a normal load on Lcac of 50 t. for 2 Lcac is 100 t. times 3 is 300 t., while in that time 4 Lcm1e has put say 70 t. normal load (distributed) times 4 is 280 t. so my numbers don´t out perform Lcm1e by a significant margin (just 20 t., talking about distributed load), maybe yes in fuel burnt :lol2

The LCM-1E can only make 13.5 knots with a 56 tonne load, with 100 tonnes onboard it can only make 9 knots. Your time to shore comparison does not include the two hours it takes to ballast down the LHD so the LCMs can float in and out. Using M1A1 tanks as a load benchmark (62 tonnes) it takes just over four hours for the first wave of four LCM-1Es carrying M1 tanks to hit the shore.

During that time LCACs carrying M1 tanks can offload three waves to shore or with two LCACs per wave six tanks. Which is more than the four tanks the single wave of LCM-1Es can achieve. The LCACs have the benefit as well as being able to cross three times more littoral zones than the LCMs which need a sharp sloping beach. Plus the LCACs have little problems with returning to sea as they don’t get beached and their tanks are delivered totally dry to the hard earth.

But is important the first wave is heavy armoured enough, whenever you decide to reach the beach that important first touch of the beach in distributed in 4 different landing points with 4 Lcm1e and more those 200-260 t. more to be able to defence themselves. I hope i explain well, until the 2nd wave arrives.

I understand what you are trying to say but it just doesn’t add up to the real data. The LCAC can put 50% more armour ashore even when outnumbered two to one.

I don´t know where you get your info, but Lcm1e is was designed to lift a Leopard tank of more than 60 t. to complete that full misssion. The 100 t. is "overload" what it means it wont be able to carry that on high state easily, but yes in good state, similarly the figure 70 t. for Lcac is also "overload" and i don´t think is not affected by sea state if this is bad enough, as you say.

My data is from the Navantia brochure and it details the various speeds, sea states and load conditions of the LCM-1E. With the full 100 tonne overload it isn’t really something outside of harbour conditions and certainly no surf zone. It is clearly customised for the 56 tonnes load – the Spanish Marines M60 tank – but can carry the Leopard II but at a penalty in speed, sea worthiness and landing ability.

 

[Jaimito]

Yes and that is called ship to shore. The Australian Army however has additional coastal and inland waterway missions for its LCMs that require extra range. I have made this difference clear from post no. 1 on the topic. I don’t understand why you’re making a big deal out of it. Accept that the Australian Army will want a LCM with sufficient range for all of its missions. The LCM-1E can do the ship to shore mission (about 1/3 of the force) but not the remainder.



The LCM-1E can only make 13.5 knots with a 56 tonne load, with 100 tonnes onboard it can only make 9 knots. Your time to shore comparison does not include the two hours it takes to ballast down the LHD so the LCMs can float in and out. Using M1A1 tanks as a load benchmark (62 tonnes) it takes just over four hours for the first wave of four LCM-1Es carrying M1 tanks to hit the shore.

During that time LCACs carrying M1 tanks can offload three waves to shore or with two LCACs per wave six tanks. Which is more than the four tanks the single wave of LCM-1Es can achieve. The LCACs have the benefit as well as being able to cross three times more littoral zones than the LCMs which need a sharp sloping beach. Plus the LCACs have little problems with returning to sea as they don’t get beached and their tanks are delivered totally dry to the hard earth.



I understand what you are trying to say but it just doesn’t add up to the real data. The LCAC can put 50% more armour ashore even when outnumbered two to one.



My data is from the Navantia brochure and it details the various speeds, sea states and load conditions of the LCM-1E. With the full 100 tonne overload it isn’t really something outside of harbour conditions and certainly no surf zone. It is clearly customised for the 56 tonnes load – the Spanish Marines M60 tank – but can carry the Leopard II but at a penalty in speed, sea worthiness and landing ability.

Ok thanks, i am happy with that.

But think about the cushion...imagine they throw mortars, bombs, big bullets, etc... would the blast or sharpnel destroy the cushion?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Ok thanks, i am happy with that.

But think about the cushion...imagine they throw mortars, bombs, big bullets, etc... would the blast or sharpnel destroy the cushion?

Seriously you don't think this hasn't been considered and tested before they were built? The cushions are actually extremely resilient to battle damage. More so than a displacement hull. While there may be perforations they self seal and most importantly maintain the plenum chambers air pressure. Bullet hulls in thin walled aluminium and soft steel landing craft tend to poor in the water and cause flooding. With beaching landing craft you don’t even need enemy action raking damage from rocks under the sand and the like have sunk many a LCM. Any LCM just can’t compare to the LCAC except in how much it costs. The US Navy didn’t just build them so they can wear aviator sunglasses (technically all hovercraft are aircraft).

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don´t know where you get your info, but Lcm1e is was designed to lift a Leopard tank of more than 60 t. to complete that full misssion. The 100 t. is "overload" what it means it wont be able to carry that on high state easily, but yes in good state, similarly the figure 70 t. for Lcac is also "overload" and i don´t think is not affected by sea state if this is bad enough, as you say.

Sorry, it's not a "high sea state" - its based on being able to do its mission set at a safe sea state - that could be medium conditions.

Overload is based on stability to dismount in a given sea state condition.

Both the russians and americans were highly focused on the merits of hovercraft based platforms and certainly did substantial research into their survivability in contested locations. They certainly are more than aware of what is survivable under such conditions. After all, you're talking about the two countries that between them have conducted real life amphib events (and base their doctrine and platform development on such experience), have been the pre-eminent developers of beach head assaults, and with the UK have been the ones who maintained a consistent coherent amphib assault capability at a major force level for theatre events.

no-one else has the wealth of experience and prior activity to back up their logic

 

[Sea Toby]

When it comes to amphibious operations with landing craft over a beach, I doubt whether anyone would attempt to do so in rough sea conditions, heavily laden troops would drown before they hit the beach. Airborne assaults are another matter...

Amphibious assaults are conducted at the time and place of an assaulting force's choosing... I don't understand this quibbling over landing craft sea worthiness....

 

[hairyman]

Why all the love for Austal? Has Incat gone out of business?


(Posted as result of all the Austal comments on page 289.)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Amphibious assaults are conducted at the time and place of an assaulting force's choosing... I don't understand this quibbling over landing craft sea worthiness....

Maybe the first wave but once the forces are ashore they need to be sustained. Especially with the sea basing concept where logistics is kept on the ship and only brought to land on demand. You can’t just turn off the logistical supply because there’s a light chop on the waves.

Also landing craft can face heavy seas even in good weather as they transit the surf zone. The rest of the ocean may be flat but you have to get through the swell to land your cargo.

Anyway this is pretty academic. The 100 tonne overload condition of the LCM-1E isn’t really a practical assault load. In the Australian Army the biggest load they will carry is a M1A1 with TUSK so about 66-68 tonnes or two LAND 400 IFVs (there is not enough length for three). So for the later at the most this would be an 80-84 tonne load though more likely around 60-64 tonnes. While you could load it with 100 tonnes of pallets this is very much a logistics mission not assault wave.

The LCM-1E may not compare to the FLC or the LCAC but the former is in design stage only and the later requires a cost of ownership the ADF can’t afford while maintaining a bloated administration structure (costing 50% of net funding).

 

[PeterM]

Not so affordable, they burn a lot of gas. JHSVs are a very different requirement to that of JP 2048/5 and I doubt they will be well suited.

I was referring to the overall general design (ie an Aluminium Catamaran design). I think it would be highly unlikely the RAN would require the 40kn speed of the JHSV, more economical engines would be almost certain (imho).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was referring to the overall general design (ie an Aluminium Catamaran design). I think it would be highly unlikely the RAN would require the 40kn speed of the JHSV, more economical engines would be almost certain (imho).

You just said a "JHSV style" vessel. If you want it to be a low power, low speed, economical version you really need to say that in the first place.

In that case the question becomes why bother with all the extra expense of alumnium and a catamaran? You'd be better off building a steel monohull to achieve the same cargo payload at an economical speed.

That is like building a Concorde and just hanging some turbofans under it so it can only cruise at Mach 0.85. Much better off buying a 737 to do that job.

 

[PeterM]

You just said a "JHSV style" vessel. If you want it to be a low power, low speed, economical version you really need to say that in the first place.

In that case the question becomes why bother with all the extra expense of alumnium and a catamaran? You'd be better off building a steel monohull to achieve the same cargo payload at an economical speed.

That is like building a Concorde and just hanging some turbofans under it so it can only cruise at Mach 0.85. Much better off buying a 737 to do that job.

Fair points, that does make sense

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I am a fan of a JHSV for the pacific islands, based in Darwin for use around the north. One day it can be assigned as a high speed intercept of fisherman/people smugglers, or the next as Rapid Response for the army deployment in the region.

They may be fast but what do you do when you get to the crisis area? These vessels all need ports to offload. The cats have the advantage of low draft so they can enter most of the local ports but you still need a wharf and the like to get to shore.

US Navy Post graduate School designed the Joint Access concept for a high speed ASSAULT connector.

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/GSEAS/TSSE/docs/projects/2004/TSSE-Report-2004.pdf

Total Ship Systems Engineering

This ship has its own ramp/barge/floats that it can deploy to beach cargo. But even this concept to land a mechanised battle group needs six 5,000 tonne ships (3,000 tonnes light). Six JHSV type ships will also carry a mechanised battle group. Which require 400 total crew and a procurement cost of at least $3 billion. It would take four hours to load and two hours to offload. Max speed is 43 knots (1,600 NM) and cruise speed 34 knots (2,600 NM range).

So if based in Darwin they could get to Dili and offload within 16 hours assuming Army equipment is stored at the port. It would take 30 hours to load, sail and offload to Kuta, Bali. 64 hours (2 days, 16 hours) to load, sail and offload at Brunei.

These aren’t bad times to deploy the land force equivalent of the amphibious task group. Certainly the LHDs based in Sydney will take much, much longer to reach Diki, Kuta and Brunei (or other regional ports) in a crisis. But the cost is the same if not more than the current LHD project. JHSVs would be cheaper but suffer from reduced range-speed and the need for a port to land the force. High speed assault connectors would be a good meet for ADF strategic needs but would cost a lot and is a totally different mission to that of the LCH replacement.

 

[Jaimito]

Wrt Lcm1e and Abrahams tank or Leopard i past the picture with the Leopard. And a video in youtube with the Leopard boarding in the Galicia with the Lcm1e (some similar measures to Bay class).
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbaCzWensAk&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Pruebas embarque Leopard en L-52 Galicia[/nomedia]

I mention heavy vehicles like Centauro, antitank wheel vehicle, 25 t., 3-4 in a Lcm1e, maximun 2 in Lcac, Bradley´s tanks 31 t., restricted to sea state 3 in a Lcm1e, maximum 2 in Lcac or Piranhas types with 13 t. etc, and 5-6 in a Lcm1e and 4 in Lcac or 5 restricted. In terms of Centauros type 4 Lcm1e give 12 Centaros or 16 if overload max. vs 12 Centauros given by 3 Lcac journeys, or 16 if 4 Lcac journeys, with 2 Lcac. EDITED And in terms of first wave, the first Lcac journey is just 4 Centauros vs the 12 Lcm1e, etc.
I paste:
"Jane´s Defense Weekly nº 44 de 7 de marzo de 2007 Fast landing craft ‘can take Australian Abrams’

Navantia has assured Australia that its LCM-1E fast landing craft will, after a few modifications, be able to carry an Abrams MBT

Spanish shipbuilder Navantia has confirmed to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) that its LCM-1E fast landing craft is capable of transporting the army’s new Abrams M1A1 main battle tank (MBT).

The 55-ton landing craft was designed to carry an M60A3 MBT weighing 60 tonnes as a standard payload and can accommodate a 62-tonne Leopard MBT with some minor operating restrictions. In trials the landing craft has sailed with a 75-tonne load.

Studies undertaken by Navantia at the request of the RAN have confirmed that it is feasible for the LCM-1E to transport a 67.5-tonne Abrams MBT after some modifications, including placing the engine exhausts higher in the hull to allow for the extra weight and adjusting the centre of gravity. The normal range of 190nmiles at a cruising speed of 18 kt would be reduced to 160nmiles at a top speed of 12 kt with the heavier load.
The studies followed Navantia’s response in July 2006 to a Request for Information from Australia’s Defence Materiel Organisation for Joint Project 2048 Phase 3, which is intended to provide a new breed of amphibious watercraft that will integrate with the two landing helicopter
dock (LHD) vessels to be acquired by the RAN.

The two contenders for the LHD are Navantia’s strategic projection ship (BPE) and the Armaris Mistral-class landing platform dock (LPD). The Spanish Navy has received five of the 12 LCM-1Es ordered for deployment on its two Galicia-class LPDs and the BPE currently under construction. The hull is built of high-grade steel and the composite structure wheelhouse is armoured up to window height against 7.62 mm fire.

A joint Australian army and navy team recently inspected the LCM-1E during exercises at the Spanish Navy’s Rota base. According to Navantia executives, the LCM-1E can operate with waves of up to 1.8m breaking on the beach. It has also been tested hitting the beach at 9 kt, although this is not recommended for everyday operations.

Julian Kerr JDW Correspondent, Sydney"

And also some pics on Izar (before Navantia) extendend F100 version.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Julian Kerr JDW Correspondent, Sydney"

.

I've met julian a number of times at various defence conferences and dog and pony shows, quite frankly, as nice as he is at the human being level, he knows as much about military capability as I know about the mating habits of the 3 toed lemur - IOW, close to zero. He quotes what he is given by the vendors, he doesn;t have any of the smarts and experience to work out whether what he's been told is tosh.

I say that because I'm aware of the probs with the fatship landing craft - navantia might be doing the public spin cycle about how they can fix things, but those babies are way way off getting certified for use.

rule number 1. ignore the claims of the vendor when problems are found and send in your own teams to make the call.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I say that because I'm aware of the probs with the fatship landing craft - navantia might be doing the public spin cycle about how they can fix things, but those babies are way way off getting certified for use.

They like the LCM 2000 are just trying to do too much from an LCM8 sized hull. At 21.3 long (waterline) and 6.4m beam (LCM-1E) that is pushing it at gross displacements over 110 tonnes. You just can't support enough mass to effectively and quickly move the MLC70 type loads from ship to shore in anything other than near perfect conditions. This sizing is inherited from legacy LCM8s but isn’t mandated by any of the well docks of current ships.

Everyone would be better off moving to the British LCU sizing of 30m length (maximum) and 7.4m beam of which you can fit four in a Juan Carlos I LHD. Such a sizing is well proven to support over 200 tonne gross displacements. So you can easily carry MLC 70 loads.

 

[aussienscale]

You just can't support enough mass to effectively and quickly move the MLC70 type loads from ship to shore in anything other than near perfect conditions.

Yeah, just like the groomed beach in the above youtube video in harbour
After looking at what is available, in my opinion there are a lot more suitable craft out there, the British one looking on the money for to many obvious reason's to bother listing here, it would just be a repeat of what has been said before.

 

[Marc 1]

Now there are defence offices in Russell, Cambell Park, great swathes of Majura Park, and a stack of other places. Not one bunch weilding anything more lethal than a No26 stapler (but I've heard papercuts can be a bitch).

 

[gf0012-aust]

Now there are defence offices in Russell, Cambell Park, great swathes of Majura Park, and a stack of other places. Not one bunch weilding anything more lethal than a No26 stapler (but I've heard papercuts can be a bitch).

this is kind of not reflecting what is actually happening.
the different divisions are being located into different areas - eg DMO staff for various projects were removed from R3 and put into R2. a number fo R2's ended up at Brindabella etc....

although its convenient to blame publc service bloat the actual facts (and from people who do actually work in there and might have a clue) is that the processes for why things are going wrong are not something that can be atrributed to PS bloat.

the governance process is what determines how projects can progress - if you look at performance and complexity of defence projects compared to those in the mining sector and US space programs (and thats how the US does their assessments) the Defence projects are an order of magnitude more complex.

as someone who has worked on the industry side, who has actually done miiitary procurement overseas, and as someone who is now experiencing how DMO has to work in the current rules, I get mightily ferked off at how this gets dumbed down to throw away comments such as admin bloat and PS negligence.

there are any number of govt decisions which have been made against the recommendations by the uniforms and the suits - but hey, we're all bound by caveats which see us exposed to the commonwealth and crimes act - and them exposed to zero except a job change on the next election

you'd be surprised at how many stuff ups that are blamed on the procurement process are actually due to political interference across many many levels

this isn't theory for me, I've done it all sides of the shop, in other countries and across a number of programs, subs, skimmers, hypersonics, armoured vehicles, UDT, ballistics, small arms. UAV's.. I've worked for the primes, the SME's and various Govts and Govt agencies

I get mightily ticked off when these things are sheeted home to people who are bound to work within processes defined by the cabinet and entities such as the NSC

this is a general spray - and not directed at you.

 

[Aussie Digger]

It does seem somewhat difficult as an outsider to see that non-uniform defence numbers are about 28,000 when our regular army had to have NSC approval to GROW to 28,800...

One begins to wonder whom is supporting whom when these numbers start to reach parity only because Government agreed to INCREASE the size of our regular Army...

 

[gf0012-aust]

It does seem somewhat difficult as an outsider to see that non-uniform defence numbers are about 28,000 when our regular army had to have NSC approval to GROW to 28,800...

One begins to wonder whom is supporting whom when these numbers start to reach parity only because Government agreed to INCREASE the size of our regular Army...

It's worse when you consider and factor in the outsourcing thats done - in fact all the countries that have adopted the australian mantra of outsourcing are starting to see the tail grow way ahead of what it was ever intended.

reservist hours have been cut, so we can't even use reservists (atypically at GpCapt or other service equiv level) as SME's

 

[t68]

It's worse when you consider and factor in the outsourcing thats done - in fact all the countries that have adopted the australian mantra of outsourcing are starting to see the tail grow way ahead of what it was ever intended.

reservist hours have been cut, so we can't even use reservists (atypically at GpCapt or other service equiv level) as SME's

Is it time to go back to the way thing used to be?
With outsourcing becoming the not so clever idea that it was to be and defence is so reliant on the outside for help basic storage and distribution, mechanical repairs within their own establishments should it go back to an in house philosophy again?

Obviously not all things can be done in house and the general original idea was that people would be moved to more operational side of the house, but with some of stories i have heard coming out of DNSDC where it is having a detrimental effect on defence and leaves a lot to be desired by having it outsourced.

it not the area for it but has to do with last post,
Is the Moorebank military site up for sale other parts have been sold off looks like the main site might be to.
http://www.stockland.com.au/leasing...ence-national-storage-distribution-centre.htm