there's also the issue of centre of gravity and handling impact with a bad topside.... we've seen that happen once already with early ANZAC engineering issues...
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
first post on this board - ill make it quick.
Whilst i understand that SEA1180 is tasked to provide SO insertion, surely the limited capacity of such a ship (reinforced platoon?) is such that commando assault ops are unlikley and special recon (SAS) is more likley. As such, is the level of protection of a CB90 actually necessary, as covert insertion, out of contact with the enemy, is pretty much essential to the success of such a mission. Surely speed and stealth are more important than protection for this type of craft, with the added benefit that such a craft is considerably lighter. Surely a higher capacity RHIB is more appropriate??
Whilst i understand that SEA1180 is tasked to provide SO insertion, surely the limited capacity of such a ship (reinforced platoon?) is such that commando assault ops are unlikley and special recon (SAS) is more likley. As such, is the level of protection of a CB90 actually necessary, as covert insertion, out of contact with the enemy, is pretty much essential to the success of such a mission. Surely speed and stealth are more important than protection for this type of craft, with the added benefit that such a craft is considerably lighter. Surely a higher capacity RHIB is more appropriate??
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
CB-90 is a bigger beast, significantly it allows you to carry your troops inside the hull away from the weather and without exposing them to enemy fire. Two CB-90's would more then have the capacity to land a platoon/troop, and it needs to be remembered that small scale amphibious Op's doesnt necessarily mean commando's or the SASR, it could also mean landing clearance divers ashore.
A 2,000 tonne boat with a 400 tonne deadweight mission deck is going to be able to deploy up to a commando company (-) in strength. There are a range of potential missions other than special recce like an opposed recovery or conventional old fashioned raid that will require more than just stealth.
But the key issue here is not trying to double guess and place caveats on any such mission but rather recognise the ADF’s planned assets for such operations. Apart from SOF RHIBs (11m) this also includes the new TLC. Therefore a SEA 1180 capability to deploy TLCs is prudent nor particular onerous.
Is a company(-) realistic though?
The Danish Navys 6300t Absalon supposedly only has containerised accomodation for 130 (Naval Technology.com) whilst the 9000t HMNZS Canterbury only carries 250 (navy.mil.nz) so it seems pretty ambitious to fit 100 on a 2000t (maximum) SEA1180.
Whilst I understand there is an ADF requirement for a TLC, I can find nothing giving even broad characteristics of such a craft - do you have a link? Is there any stated requirement for armour?
Last edited by a moderator:
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
It depends on the level of the accomodation and the duration they are expected to spend on the ship though.
If they are only going to be onboard for a limited period of time hours/days then you can carry a lot more troops then if you are say going on a deployment to the middle east for several months.
If they are only going to be onboard for a limited period of time hours/days then you can carry a lot more troops then if you are say going on a deployment to the middle east for several months.
you're not going to insert SOF by skimmer unless your options are limited.
it's not the way they deploy.
think about it. SOF are discretionary assets. think of the number of times they've gone on the job in the past and what assets were used to get them there.
Tampa is not an example as it was a media motivated action.
:redface
The only reference i can find to the TLC are some pics of pretty lightweight craft in a presentation by Col. Hawkins of the Joint Amphibious Capability Implimentation Team.
You professionals may have inside info not available in the public domain, but based solely on these pics, a CB90 type craft appears NOT to be what is being considered for the TLC.
Any more solid info either way would be appreciated.
Where are we deploying 100's (or atleast more than a platoon) of troops and not using the LHD's?
Sizes seem to be increasing. To do what is being listed sea 1180 is going to have to be bigger than Absalon (6000+t) which can only operate the much smaller SB90E's, less troops.
3500t seems like awefully big growth. So now we are going to have 20 x anzac sized ships? Are we not then better off ordering a small number of trimerans and several absalons with out the guns?
Sizes seem to be increasing. To do what is being listed sea 1180 is going to have to be bigger than Absalon (6000+t) which can only operate the much smaller SB90E's, less troops.
3500t seems like awefully big growth. So now we are going to have 20 x anzac sized ships? Are we not then better off ordering a small number of trimerans and several absalons with out the guns?
There has been some discussion on this previously. As to your assessment about the TLC being in a different class based on those photos I'm not sure what your basis of this assement is. The JMEC pictured (who's boat builder is now defunct) has a maximum displacement of 21 tonnes. The CB90 has a displacement of 20.5 tonnes. The SURC and ORC (the other two boats) are of a lighter class of around 10 tonnes but they are just day boats and the operational requirement of independent littoral operations will require something able to sustain itself overnight.
As with LCS 2 space on the MRV may not be an issue but weight is likley to be. This is a HSC hull and not tolerant to increased immersion if you want to maintain you performance in both speed and sea state. On most light weight high speed hulls the TPC is quite low and there is limited deadweight.
As such the mission packages, including weighty items such as CB90s and helos, will have to compete with fuel, stores, spares, water, ammunition, the crew, passengers, their gear an weapons etc (in fact anything not in the light weight measurement of the ship) when you plan you mission.
The importance of weight and uplift capacity cannot be underestimated. As an example lloing at just crew weights .... 10 average Australians and their clothing and personal gear (nothing esle and not counting their bedding) will give you 1.2 to 1.3 tonnes. Add to that the need to feed, water and keep such crew clean adds quite a bit more. 10 crew can use over 20 tonnes of water a month depending on sanitary, washing and laundary facilties. RO's can cover production but if you are carrrying passengers (troops) then considerable water will need to be in tanks.
The same goes for mission items such as helicopters. The 11 tonne mass of the helo is supplmeted by fuel and oils, weapons, spares, crew and ther gear etc.
The issue I have with HSC such as the MRV is that desired speed (28 knots) of SEA 1180 can be achived with less cost on a steel displacement hull with greater weight capabiltiy, and less operating restictions, better fuel efficiency and should be cheaper to construct. What you are likely to lose is internal volume.
Ahh SOF operations…
??? The SEA 1180 boat is a swing role craft it isn’t a MCM, HS, patrol boat and SOF boat all at the same time. The Absalon is a major warship designed to sail around the world.
It hasn’t grown to 3,500 tonnes it remains capped at 2,000 tonnes. Sources of growth aren’t going to be all the nonsense spruiked in this thread in the past day or so but the Navy wanting more comms and more endurance and the like.
I’ve provided a link to the statement of requirement, presentos and the like and even tried to explain it over and over again. I throw my hands up at the lack of getting these basic concepts into the minds of some. Please have a fanboy level discussion about making the SEA 1180 boat a worldwide deployment strike cruiser but leave me out of it.
my assessment is, as previously explained, based solely on these 4 pictures, 3 of which show considerably smaller craft than a CB90, and all 4 of which show open troop compartments. to me this 'suggests' a type of craft different to a CB90. In fact it makes me wonder why a pic of a CB90 was not included in this presentation...
Last edited:
Anyone know about the 'big orange lifeboats' (technical term) on the Largs Bay /Choules? Are they specifically there because the RFA operates in the North Sea /North Atlantic and if so are they unnecessary in Australian waters? Could they feasibly be replaced by LCVPs or, for instance, CB90s ?
I was under the impression lifeboats/rafts were required by international law, a sufficient capacity for all aboard any ship. So they are required in Australian waters...
Why would you think otherwise? And if not international law, surely the Australian government would have passed such legislation, if not already...
Being a retired coastie, nothing pleased us more than citing anyone for not having enough life savers aboard any boat, much less a ship... And candy doesn't count... You would be shocked to find there are many boaters have one or two too few... They will have a life saver for their dog, but not one for all of their guests aboard...
Let me clarify. Im not suggesting that lifeboats are not required (!!) just whether rigid, heavy (& orange!) ones are.
AFAIK this type of lifeboat has not been provided on RAN ships for years, being replaced by inflateables. What I am wondering is why they were provided in RFA service and if it was specifically because of the extreme temperatures in UK waters, or was it a civy thing due to RFA vs RN service? And then, if they can be replaced by inflateables in RAN service, can the davits be used for LCVPs?
Naval ships rarely carry lifeboats. They have liferafts, inflateable carried in distinctive white hardshells. The RFA is operated to merchant standards so their auxiliaries are equipped with lifeboats for their merchant crews. On the Bay class there are no lifeboats for the onboard troops they have liferafts.
Of course any other boat of less than or equal dimensions and weight can be carried in place of the lifeboats. That is assuming enough liferafts have been provided to offload the balance of the crew. RHIBs, LCVPs etc could all be carried in these davits assuming they fit. The Bay class also have a stern dock and crane access to the extensive deck space aft. There is no shortage of places to carry LCVPs, TLCs, CB90s, SF RHIB, etc on these ships.
While there are four pictures there are only three boats. One boat gets pictured twice. They are in two classes. The Northrop/Safe Boat JMEC is actually an enclosed boat. While it has an open cargo bay it has the safety features of an enclosed boat via a series of air tight chambers built into the side of the boat. You enclose a boat so you don't get swamped by waves and sink. The JMEC could have its entire open bay filled with water and still float. The other two boats (SURC and ORC) have no such protection from being swamped and sunk and are in a very different class.
If you had read the discussion in this thread on the TLC previously you would see that I point out the drive for a length limiter for this boat. Which would preclude the16m long CB90. This has nothing to do with the SEA 1180 vessel but everything to do with using the surplus length in the well docks of an LHD after it is filled with four LCM1Es. However the Army has other requirements for mission utility, survivability and supportability which indicate that the TLC will be pushed up in size and won't be able to use this convenient left over space in the LHD. One of the TLC’s mission set is escorting LCMs from ship to shore and supporting the amphibious assault of the ARG.
The CB90 will be strongly bid for TLC because it has an Australian licensee with a strong army boat connection (Birdon Marine). With several hundred units in use worldwide it is also the only contender who can came global fleet support. Which is an extremely big deal for the Army and a major reason behind LAND 907, LAND 121 and future LAND 400 decisions.
winnyfield
New Member
Army LCM-8s in the Gulf were used to do all manner of things: patrolling, support dive and boarding teams in RHIBs and zodiacs etc.
Army requirements would surely be greater than CB90s, more akin to LCVP mk5s (used by UK & Dutch) or Mark V SOC (USN)
- Status