Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

There are some options if the RAN/Army want to explore. But when operating from the LHD there is plenty of connector options. LCM-1E, Chinook, MRH90, are already open. It may seem overkill compared where the ADF has handled things in the past but things have changed. Certainly for high threat environments (ie anything other than aid delivery in an other wise stable nation.)

Actually the platform I would imagine that would suit the LARC-V the most would be something like the JHSV. Which would operate in a different way to a LHD, in a very different mission. US was looking at launching amphibious vehicles off its much smaller ramp. Something like a LARC-V would be quite a nice fit (if it did actually fit), being big enough to be useful, but small enough to be deployable, able to operate right up past the beach zone.

Being able to resupply SOF, insertion, distribute aid, intra-theater ferry etc. It would be dropping/picking up any amphibious vehicle more like a hundred meters off shore. Within a bay for example.

That if the ADF are looking at something like JHSV to replace Balikpapan class. I don't know if thats the case, but given the US interest, local build, ferry use in East Timor it would seem to be possible. Given the LARC-V originally operated from the Balikpapans it would seem fitting that they could also operate from its replacement.

This would actually address one of the issues of the JHSV in that it can't really deploy into the water anything other than a RHIB and they don't go so well on land. While a LARC-V is slow and has very little armour, its a heck of a lot faster than walking and can carry much more useful loads than a RHIB.

 

[Monitor66]

Well once the LHD are up an operating it will be interesting to see what they find useful and what they don't. We still have and operate the LARC-V so it might be one of those old flexible things that is just perfect for the job in a new way. I agree that I think they would be highly useful in non-combat or logistics missions.

But I would imagine some of what the LARC-V and the LCVP do will be taken over by mexflotes

But as part of the new concept of amphibious operations, there really is no beach head. Helos move troops exactly where they are needed, supported by air. LCM and helicopters travel so much faster, and the LHD will be based OTH making amphibious tanks, vehicles etc unsuitable as crawling across the open sea for 40 km at 5 kt is not what most amphibious craft are designed for.

It will be interesting if in reality in the type of missions Australia is most likely to undertake how this will work. Given the different type of environment we will most likely operate by ourselves or lead a mission, I would imagine bring the LHD much closer to shore might be very useful. Obviously for a non-combat mission, there would be less issues being much closer relying more on sea based connectors than on air.

The mexeflotes are organic to Choules. Not sure if they are suitable for use from the LHD well dock with centreline divider as they are wider than the LCM-1E by about 1 metre. They are quite effective but can be limited by sea state and tidal windows.

There may be no beach head, however all but the lightest materiel and stores still need to be discharged somewhere on the shore and moved overland to the objective - helos can't lift them. Helos are great when conditions suit them but in reality can only move personnel and light stores. MRH90 (the predominant rotary-wing platform on LHD) is really a trooplift helo only; its underslung load carrying ability is pretty ordinary and internally there is room for vehicles no bigger than a quad bike (ramp opening dimensions are very restrictive at 1.78 wide x 1.52m high).

CH-47 is better at underslung and internal loads loads but at best will bring in towed artillery (M777 155mm) and light vehicles (G-Wagon and later Hawkei) - all underslung. But with only 7 aircraft on inventory we don't have the airframes to move serious amounts of kit by air. USMC certainly does, we don't.

With Choules, its small flight deck and temporary fabric hanger might at best accommodate a pair of MRH90 and a single CH-47, making helo rate of effort very limited from that ship. It can also only operate a single LCM-8 at a time (there is a report that the LCM-1E won't fit in its well dock!).

I can see LARC-V coming into its own when operating from Choules - trundling in all day and bringing modest quantities of men and cargo ashore regardless of conditions. Bit like a solid medium pace bowler - not one of the star players but very handy to have around.

Think also about distributed manoeuvre whereby forces are lodged at various secondary locations that perhaps the LCM-1Es can't get to (up rivers, estuaries etc)or are not available for and where the opposition least expects it. Being able to bring ashore and move inland with a couple of infantry platoons when and where a commander chooses is also a part of the ADF's amphibious CONOP and something the LARC-V can achieve (dropping troops well short of the objective of course). It is also a concept well suited to our archipelagic neighbourhood.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We are pretty deficient in helicopters, Chinooks should be the backbone of LHD airlift, but we will be way short in trying to operate OTH USMC style.

With choules I'm sure helos will be even rarer if operating afar from the LHD's (as you mentioned) and not that suitable for bulky resupply which Choules would most likely be tasked with, with much more limited aviation facilities. I can see your point how the LARC-V would be able to fill a gap with Choules between mexflotes and one LCM-8.

Same with JP2048 phase 5. Where your most likely not going to have airlift, and quite possibly limited beaching capability (either as a high speed cat or a large landing craft). Being able to move equipment and troops to secure the area before attempting unloading at austere or makeshift quay/port facilities.

Have Australia's LARC-V been upgraded like the american ones with hydro static drive etc.

 

[Monitor66]

There are some options if the RAN/Army want to explore. But when operating from the LHD there is plenty of connector options. LCM-1E, Chinook, MRH90, are already open. It may seem overkill compared where the ADF has handled things in the past but things have changed. Certainly for high threat environments (ie anything other than aid delivery in an other wise stable nation.)

Actually the platform I would imagine that would suit the LARC-V the most would be something like the JHSV. Which would operate in a different way to a LHD, in a very different mission. US was looking at launching amphibious vehicles off its much smaller ramp. Something like a LARC-V would be quite a nice fit (if it did actually fit), being big enough to be useful, but small enough to be deployable, able to operate right up past the beach zone.

Being able to resupply SOF, insertion, distribute aid, intra-theater ferry etc. It would be dropping/picking up any amphibious vehicle more like a hundred meters off shore. Within a bay for example.

That if the ADF are looking at something like JHSV to replace Balikpapan class. I don't know if thats the case, but given the US interest, local build, ferry use in East Timor it would seem to be possible. Given the LARC-V originally operated from the Balikpapans it would seem fitting that they could also operate from its replacement.

This would actually address one of the issues of the JHSV in that it can't really deploy into the water anything other than a RHIB and they don't go so well on land. While a LARC-V is slow and has very little armour, its a heck of a lot faster than walking and can carry much more useful loads than a RHIB.

A high speed transport like JHSV is not something which the ADF sees as part of ADAS as far as I know. Little interest has been shown in Austal's high speed catamaran designs, despite a largely positive experience with Jervis Bay (an Incat design) when it played a role in East Timor during 1999/2000.

The JHSV is a port-to-port proposition only and as you point out does not have the ability to disembark amphibious craft into the water; its rear deck crane is for lifting RHIBs in and out of the water. The stern ramp appears only for mating onto a jetty, via which vehicles load into the ship.

The LARC-V (or its replacement) could certainly deploy from the LCH replacement, and would be an ideal way to distribute troops or patrols ashore at multiple points. The LCH replacement (under Phase 5 of JP 2048) however won't resemble anything like a JHSV, but rather a large landing craft in the 60-70m range with ocean going capability. Stern landing craft could also be an option to replace the LCH.

 

[Monitor66]

We are pretty deficient in helicopters, Chinooks should be the backbone of LHD airlift, but we will be way short in trying to operate OTH USMC style.

With choules I'm sure helos will be even rarer if operating afar from the LHD's (as you mentioned) and not that suitable for bulky resupply which Choules would most likely be tasked with, with much more limited aviation facilities. I can see your point how the LARC-V would be able to fill a gap with Choules between mexflotes and one LCM-8.

Same with JP2048 phase 5. Where your most likely not going to have airlift, and quite possibly limited beaching capability (either as a high speed cat or a large landing craft). Being able to move equipment and troops to secure the area before attempting unloading at austere or makeshift quay/port facilities.

Have Australia's LARC-V been upgraded like the american ones with hydro static drive etc.

Details of the life-of-type-extension (LOTE) for our LARC-Vs are scant, but they did receive a new engine as part of that upgrade. The 12 upgraded craft that went through the LOTE were delivered in 1999/2000; the LOTE was designed to keep the LARC-V in service for another 10 years, so they are actually past their life-of-type by several years. They would have to be the oldest platforms in ADF service by far!

I don't believe the Australian LARC-V LOTE was the same as the US LOTE, which involved 42 LARC-Vs. The Americans started delivering their upgraded craft in 2006so appear to have a few more years left in their fleet than ours.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well I agree the JHSV is probably not what Phase 5 of JP 2048 is written for, I don't think we can completely rule it out. The Americans are well into the JHSV concept with 10 being built any learning from the JHSV impacted directly on the LCS concepts. The current vibe is that if a JHSV can deploy amphibious craft it would solve a heck of a lot of problems with their current amphibious EFV concepts. While the ramp isn't currently deploying amphibious vehicles, it could be used that way, infact the incats HSV concept still lists it as a feature. Link. If not for us (2048 P5 is not the JHSV ticket), then for the US forces. You could even build or modify the ramp more specifically for amphibious deployment (which is something that the Americans are looking into). The LARCV lote they did was pretty significant.

Which indicates the LARCV concept (or even hulls) will be with us (and the US) for a while yet. And with things like JHSV might find new applications.

 

[alexsa]

Well I agree the JHSV is probably not what Phase 5 of JP 2048 is written for, I don't think we can completely rule it out. The Americans are well into the JHSV concept with 10 being built any learning from the JHSV impacted directly on the LCS concepts. The current vibe is that if a JHSV can deploy amphibious craft it would solve a heck of a lot of problems with their current amphibious EFV concepts. While the ramp isn't currently deploying amphibious vehicles, it could be used that way, infact the incats HSV concept still lists it as a feature. Link. If not for us (2048 P5 is not the JHSV ticket), then for the US forces. You could even build or modify the ramp more specifically for amphibious deployment (which is something that the Americans are looking into). The LARCV lote they did was pretty significant.

Which indicates the LARCV concept (or even hulls) will be with us (and the US) for a while yet. And with things like JHSV might find new applications.

When you look at the INCAT specs one thing is pretty obvious, the JHSV is intended for high speed transport of 500 troops and gear from point A to point B but not to sustain them. Accommodation, support services and other facilities make as well as operating this apparent. This is a good concept to shuttle transfer troops and is only fully effective is there is a wharf to load and discharge off.

The LCH has done stirling service in the local northern area with a capacity to discharge military vehicles, any other 4x4, aid and supplies directly onto a beach. The problem with them is they are quite slow, limited in Accommodation and do not have other multipliers such as a helo deck.

The JHSV is a very capable shuttle but it is not cheap. You could build a range of capable landing craft of the size of the LCH or larger for the same money .......... and they would last longer.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The JHSV is a very capable shuttle but it is not cheap. You could build a range of capable landing craft of the size of the LCH or larger for the same money .......... and they would last longer.

I suppose that is the key issue. But it think the jhsv will evolve into an extremely useful craft. The us forces are looking what they are able to do with them. As several projects are in limbo, tcraft, efv etc. jhsv offers an insight of what a very fast ship would be capable of. However, I do believe they work best as a multiplier and particularly in non combat logistics, particularly in our region.

. They can support a small number of troops for a very limited time (300 for 96 hrs or 100 for 14 days). But your point is taken. They aren't landing ships or able to sustain embarked forces in the way other craft can.

But then, moving troops on a lch or worse civilians is problematic as is supporting operations over long distances, operating air units, etc. They are and always will be very different ships. While they are expensive to purchase and operate, they are cheaper than aircraft like chinooks or fixed wing and can support both of those. Moving 600 tons across say 600 km within 24 hours by chinook would be very expensive.

If you could operate say 4 larc-v type craft from a jhsv type ship, you would have something very interesting. Not a Lch, but still interesting.

 

[Volkodav]

I think what needs to be looked at is how often are the set of capabilities offered by a JHSV or a LCH likely to be required by the ADF as opposed to the US Army.

The LCHs were kept quite busy and had they been larger and more sea worth they would have been busier still moving gear about the place, the US Army operate numbers of similar landing craft as well as larger LSVs for the some of the roles we used our LCHs for. The JHSVs are fine for the US, moving troops from one port to another quite rapidly and they probably do it often enough to justify the expenses of the platforms but I doubt the ADF does, just look how quickly Jervis Bay was disposed of although useful in Timor.

I think in the Australian context craft taken up from trade would be the way to go for high speed transports in the future but we definitely need an organic heavy lift capability to supplement the LHDs and Choules.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think what needs to be looked at is how often are the set of capabilities offered by a JHSV or a LCH likely to be required by the ADF as opposed to the US Army.

Well the US is still working out the CONOPs for the JHSV, although they have a much better idea of what it is good at. Its not in replacing a LCH, even if it could launch a wide variety of amphibious vehicles (which it can't and we only have a few LARC-V anyway). Its about freeing up and multiplying other platforms.

The JHSV isn't about combat, or high threat environments, its more about everyday logistics. Its not replacing anything we have it would only be in addition.

The LHD, LPD, are hugely capable, but they aren't quick or nimble. They will be dumping stuff around themselves, the mexeflote and LCM-1e aren't exactly long ranged assets and LCH aren't exactly fast, especially when loaded. The JHSV is that intralift shuttle that allowed the LCH to do their thing all over the place, with out making long slow return journeys to different islands over long distance, with cargo they aren't great with, say troops, civilians etc.

The LCHs were kept quite busy and had they been larger and more sea worth they would have been busier still moving gear about the place, the US Army operate numbers of similar landing craft as well as larger LSVs for the some of the roles we used our LCHs for. The JHSVs are fine for the US, moving troops from one port to another quite rapidly and they probably do it often enough to justify the expenses of the platforms but I doubt the ADF does, just look how quickly Jervis Bay was disposed of although useful in Timor.

Well I think its something for the future as a force multiplier. We are way short on helo lift with barely a handful of chinooks. Moving say 20t loads to 6 or 7 points over a 200 km range would tie up a chinook, or MRH90 for days and use up valuable flight hours and cost a fortune on some non combat aid load. With a JHSV you could do it in half a day (or reach much further), using just LARC-V to do your door delivery in places with no quay or port (which would be few). More important in peace time operations.

 

[Volkodav]

Well the US is still working out the CONOPs for the JHSV, although they have a much better idea of what it is good at. Its not in replacing a LCH, even if it could launch a wide variety of amphibious vehicles (which it can't and we only have a few LARC-V anyway). Its about freeing up and multiplying other platforms.

The JHSV isn't about combat, or high threat environments, its more about everyday logistics. Its not replacing anything we have it would only be in addition.

The LHD, LPD, are hugely capable, but they aren't quick or nimble. They will be dumping stuff around themselves, the mexeflote and LCM-1e aren't exactly long ranged assets and LCH aren't exactly fast, especially when loaded. The JHSV is that intralift shuttle that allowed the LCH to do their thing all over the place, with out making long slow return journeys to different islands over long distance, with cargo they aren't great with, say troops, civilians etc.



Well I think its something for the future as a force multiplier. We are way short on helo lift with barely a handful of chinooks. Moving say 20t loads to 6 or 7 points over a 200 km range would tie up a chinook, or MRH90 for days and use up valuable flight hours and cost a fortune on some non combat aid load. With a JHSV you could do it in half a day (or reach much further), using just LARC-V to do your door delivery in places with no quay or port (which would be few). More important in peace time operations.

The more I think about it the more I believe that the RAN could do with a much larger replacement for the LCHs capable of lifting a squadron of tanks or an armoured infantry combat team (or what ever we are going to call a rifle company being lifted by an Armoured Cavalry Troop). These will be our building blocks, the vehicles will need to be moved by sea even if the troops are air lifted, it only makes sense that we are able to move them in useful numbers.

This gets us back into Frank S. Besson LSV size ships, to quote Wikipedia "Named in honor of Frank S. Besson, Jr., these ships have bow and stern ramps and the ability to beach themselves, giving them the ability to discharge 900 short tons of vehicles and cargo over the shore in as little as four feet of water, or 2,000 short tons as an intra-theater line haul roll-on/roll-off cargo ship.[2] The vessel's cargo deck is designed to handle any vehicle in the US Army inventory and can carry up to 15 M1 Abrams main battle tanks or 82 ISO standard containers." or the improved Robert T. Kuroda sub-class. These ships have the MBT capacity of Tobruk but with a crew of only 29 verses 145 as such would be a very good complement to the LHDs.

Another option of course is something far larger along the lines of Japans Osumi Class LPD or Singapore's proposed through deck Endurance and rely on LCAC and or LCUs for ship to shore. i.e. go for a small through deck LPD/LSD to complement our LHDs in large scale operations but able to bring the full spectrum of capabilities to smaller missions on their own.

LSV would be cheaper and a massive increase in capability over the LCH, the LPD/LSD option would be another leap again but would also round out the capability sought with the LHDs.

 

[Monitor66]

The more I think about it the more I believe that the RAN could do with a much larger replacement for the LCHs capable of lifting a squadron of tanks or an armoured infantry combat team (or what ever we are going to call a rifle company being lifted by an Armoured Cavalry Troop). These will be our building blocks, the vehicles will need to be moved by sea even if the troops are air lifted, it only makes sense that we are able to move them in useful numbers.

This gets us back into Frank S. Besson LSV size ships, to quote Wikipedia "Named in honor of Frank S. Besson, Jr., these ships have bow and stern ramps and the ability to beach themselves, giving them the ability to discharge 900 short tons of vehicles and cargo over the shore in as little as four feet of water, or 2,000 short tons as an intra-theater line haul roll-on/roll-off cargo ship.[2] The vessel's cargo deck is designed to handle any vehicle in the US Army inventory and can carry up to 15 M1 Abrams main battle tanks or 82 ISO standard containers." or the improved Robert T. Kuroda sub-class. These ships have the MBT capacity of Tobruk but with a crew of only 29 verses 145 as such would be a very good complement to the LHDs.

Another option of course is something far larger along the lines of Japans Osumi Class LPD or Singapore's proposed through deck Endurance and rely on LCAC and or LCUs for ship to shore. i.e. go for a small through deck LPD/LSD to complement our LHDs in large scale operations but able to bring the full spectrum of capabilities to smaller missions on their own.

LSV would be cheaper and a massive increase in capability over the LCH, the LPD/LSD option would be another leap again but would also round out the capability sought with the LHDs.

The 2012 Defence Capability Plan for Phase 5 JP 2048 is quite clear in its guidance: "...acquire six new heavy landing craft with improved speed and sea keeping capabilities able to transport armoured vehicles, trucks, stores and personnel and land them over the shore. It will provide a capability to conduct independent small scale regional amphibious operations or to support the Canberra Class vessels as part of an Amphibious Task Group.

"This phase is expected to have an extended development schedule owing to the likely design innovation necessary to meet these parameters."

The last sentence is interesting and gives rise to the prospect that a design somewhat outside the box is desired. Any innovation, however, will be tempered with Defence's appetite for risk in this area, which is likely to be low. It is hard to see the ADF as launch customer for any candidate heavy landing craft that isn't in service or on order somewhere else.

The $500-$1 billion in funding set aside for Ph 5 is another encouraging point. There seems to be scope for a capability which is a step-up from the LCH and not just a like-for-like replacement.

Like the look of the Frank S Besson LSV but I'm not sure there is enough money in the kitty to buy six of them. Also expect that Australian industry will be pushing hard to have the LCH replacements built here, which will cost more again.

Importantly, we probably need to actually listen to what Defence is telling us about the LCH replacement, in that it will be a "landing craft" not a ship or a vessel. Even still, we will end up with a capability better all round than the LCH, which is all good.

 

[Volkodav]

Not sure how much a LSV would cost but I would assume you would be able to get six of even the helicopter or semi-submersible variant for less than a A$1 billion, I would imagine for less than the A$500 million with the upper price being for a bespoke i.e. BMT option with helo and everything else.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I like the BMT, I could imagine with some more minor tinkering it would be a good fit (increased/improved troop capacity for example). Sort of low risk and shared with US design. Do we really want to go into some sort of high risk experimental design like the wacky Heavy sealift connector.

Problem is that the Balikpapans are gone. Tobruk I doubt is going to make any long sea voyages, or even past syndey heads. We are still trying to get our MR90 and tiger operational, we still barely any Chinooks, our LHD's aren't operational, Choules is but has proven somewhat fragile and has limited medium range landing capability and aviation. Fiji is going to elections in September.

Would it be worth looking at adding JHSV type capability to 2048p5 with a short lease of an existing vessel(s) (Austal and/or Incat) prelude to a 1 or 2 ship build.

 

[StevoJH]

Would it be worth looking at adding JHSV type capability to 2048p5 with a short lease of an existing vessel(s) (Austal and/or Incat) prelude to a 1 or 2 ship build.

Nope, I don't think the problem is getting the troops into theatres aboard ship, its getting them from ship to shore.

Choules has one helicopter and one LCM8. It would take a long time to get the 300-500 troops that can be carried aboard her from ship to shore..

 

[swerve]

Yep. She's not designed for amphibious assault. She's meant for logistic support & reinforcement of a landing.

 

[Monitor66]

Nope, I don't think the problem is getting the troops into theatres aboard ship, its getting them from ship to shore.

Choules has one helicopter and one LCM8. It would take a long time to get the 300-500 troops that can be carried aboard her from ship to shore..

High-speed catamarans and trimarans have their place in port-to-port transport of troops and light equipment, but with less than 9% of ports in our region with roll-on/roll-off capability they provide less options for a small navy looking to conduct operations where the opposition least wants or expects you to be.

The Choules flight deck is one-spot only, with two MRH90 (one hangared) or one CH-47 and one MRH90 (hangared) able to be carried.

As it is a sealift and not amphibious assault capability, the rapid build-up of men and materiel is not a requirement, the LHDs will do that. Choules will trundle troops, vehicles and supplies to shore over an extended period of time using the two mexeflotes and single embarked LCM-1E. Helos will lift troops and light underslung cargo, but slowly given the one spot deck. To deploy an embarked Amphibious Ready Element (150-220 pers) from via helo, for instance, would require multiple sorties, even with a CH-47 on board.

But this is still useful, particularly for insertion/extraction of SF patrols where often just one or two helos are used.

For regional work at the middle and lower end of the operational spectrum I can see Choules being a very busy ship over the next 20 years or so. She gives the ADF/Govt options when the LHDs are not available or when deploying them might send the wrong message.

A very flexible ship that carries more cargo than Tobruk, Manoora and Kanimbla combined, Choules is able to conduct landing craft and helo ops day and night and in significant sea states, which is something the LPAs suffered with.

I would, however, like to see improved self-defence armament on her, which would be easy as right now there is NONE according to the RAN itself!! Two or three Rafael Typhoon 25mm gun systems (as fitted to the LHDs) would be a reasonable start.

 

[Gordon Branch]

I would, however, like to see improved self-defence armament on her, which would be easy as right now there is NONE according to the RAN itself!! Two or three Rafael Typhoon 25mm gun systems (as fitted to the LHDs) would be a reasonable start.

Drawings I have seen of RFA Largs Bay show a CIWS on Deck 01 on the roof of the deckhouse on the focsle and another CIWS aft of the mainmast on 06 Deck. They also show a single 30mm mounting on either side of 05 Deck to the rear of the superstructure. Note: The Bridge would be on Deck 5.5 so 06 is above the Bridge and 05 is below it.

She seems to be "fitted for but not with" 2 CIWS. How hard it would be to wire in a couple of 25mm Typhoon mounts where the Brits would mount the 30 mm mounts I do not know. It shouldn't be too hard should it?

You could probably put a Mini-Typhoon on either side,to the rear of the flight deck to cover the stern a little better without too much trouble.

 

[Monitor66]

Drawings I have seen of RFA Largs Bay show a CIWS on Deck 01 on the roof of the deckhouse on the focsle and another CIWS aft of the mainmast on 06 Deck. They also show a single 30mm mounting on either side of 05 Deck to the rear of the superstructure. Note: The Bridge would be on Deck 5.5 so 06 is above the Bridge and 05 is below it.

She seems to be "fitted for but not with" 2 CIWS. How hard it would be to wire in a couple of 25mm Typhoon mounts where the Brits would mount the 30 mm mounts I do not know. It shouldn't be too hard should it?

You could probably put a Mini-Typhoon on either side,to the rear of the flight deck to cover the stern a little better without too much trouble.

Not hard at all. There is no through-deck penetration with the Typhoon 25mm, only power supply and wiring to the control station where the remote gunner sits in front of his screen. Deck footprint of the complete mount is about 3sqm. Very doable.

Mini Typhoon .50 cal installation even easier.

 

[Raven22]

Tobruk I doubt is going to make any long sea voyages, or even past syndey heads.

Er , Tobruk just got back from delivering disaster relief to the Philippines.

I dare say she could sail past Sydney heads if need be.