Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

I'd rather something that is specifically for ASW and has the ability to keep up with the Frigate/Destroyer force.

That LHD is likely to be limited to the 18-22kts that most LHD's are, plus its probably not as survivable.

A pair of smaller (cheaper) LHD's might be good for replacing Tobruk and Choules though when the time comes.

Except that the speed of advance of any TG will be at economical cruising speed not 22 knots.......... unless a very short voyage is planned. Speed will be determined by your main body, including your tankers.

The destroyer force will not maintain a high speed in transit or fuel starvation will rapidly become a problem. In fact in more difficult conditions the LHD will probably be able to maintain a higher speed of advance.

Survivability is not driven by speed alone.

 

[alexsa]

There has been concerns raised in the forum, that the new defence minister will point the pork barrel at his home state and at Austral in perticular. If this was to happen I would much rather a local built version of the JHSV than another aluminium PB or a multi hull OPV.

Several people here have pointed out the problems of operating such vessels for extended periods in a blue water enviorment.

The HSV would not replace any existing capabilities but act as a force multiplier.

It should be constructed at the outset to operate the Mexeflote or similar system to overcome its lack of over the beach capability. It could be carried in sections along both sides of the ship to balance the weight. It need only be carried when operating in areas lacking support structure.

The HSV could unload onto the flote via the stern ramp, the cargo would then be rafted in. In addition the flote could be fastened to the shore to act as a temp jetty for direct unloading.

Sorry I don't see it. The JHSV is an moderate range inter or intra theatre asset that has the potential to be more effective than airlift at moving men and equipment (excluding MBTs) at speed in certain circumstances. Certainly the US have found it very effective in this role.

If it is to rely on Mexiflotes to unload then the LSD and LHD will be there already and, to be honest, between these vessels much of our deployable equipment could be accommodated. I just do not see the value in 100 to 150m dollars tied up in just one such platform when this could fund a number of modern LST's which:
- Would have better utility and persistence in independent operations (both civil assistance and military operations)
- Would have a significantly higher deadweight
- Will cost a LOT less to run
- Will have greater longevity.

If we need an inter-theatre ferry for a given operation then we can charter one as required.

 

[Gordon Branch]

While we are discussing all things amphibious I have a question.

The "source of all that is true", Wikipedia, states that; "The LCM-1E landing craft being acquired by the RAN will not fit into the dock" in reference to HMAS Choules. This information is tagged as coming from Ross Gillet's book "Australia's Navy, Part 2, p. 22".

I believe the LCM8 and the Mexeflote can both be carried in the well dock so I have checked the dimensions of the LCM8, the LCM-1E and the Mexeflote and come up with the following figures;

LCM8:
Length: 73 ft 7⁄12 in (22.265 m)
Beam: 21 ft 0 in (6.4 m)
Draft: 4 ft 7⁄12 in (1.234 m) light 5 ft 3 in (1.60 m) loaded

Mexeflote:
Length Standard: 20.12 m (66.0 ft) Maxi: 38.41 m (126.0 ft)
Width Standard: 7.42 m (24.3 ft) Maxi 12.20 m (40.0 ft)

LCM-1E:
Length: 23.3 metres (76 ft)
Beam: 6.4 metres (21 ft)
Draught: 1 metre (3 ft 3 in) loaded

From information I have available to me HMAS Choules' dock is 8.1 m wide and 31.2 m from the door to the foot of the steel beach. Additionally the dock appears to be able to hold a British LCU Mk.10 when unflooded and they are way bigger than an LCM-1E.

With those figures it would appear the LCM-1E can be carried by HMAS Choules easily.

Can the LCM-1E be carried in the well dock of HMAS Choules?

 

[MickB]

If it is to rely on Mexiflotes to unload then the LSD and LHD will be there already

I stated that it should be able to carry and operate it's own mexeflote, making it independent from the LSD and LHD.

I have my own question about its cost. Most sources state that the JHSV in built to civil standards, yet its cost is listed at up to 3 times the cost of the fast ferries upon which it is based. Can anyone tell what modifications drove the price up.

Are these USN only requirements. Would an Australian HSV built to perform a similar role for the RAN be just as expensive.

 

[Monitor66]

I stated that it should be able to carry and operate it's own mexeflote, making it independent from the LSD and LHD.

I have my own question about its cost. Most sources state that the JHSV in built to civil standards, yet its cost is listed at up to 3 times the cost of the fast ferries upon which it is based. Can anyone tell what modifications drove the price up.

Are these USN only requirements. Would an Australian HSV built to perform a similar role for the RAN be just as expensive.

You can guarantee that a JHSV built for the ADF would be more expensive than that built for the US for at least three reasons.

Firstly, the JHSVs for the US are built at Austal's yard in Mobile, Alabama, where labour and other production costs are less than here (assuming an Australian JHSV would be built at Henderson in WA).

Secondly, the multitude of MIL-STDs and DEF(AUST) which DMO would impose on Austal in building a JHSV for Australia would add another layer of cost.

Thirdly, the contractual and commercial demands which the DMO would place on Austal in signing the contract require a great deal of sunk project management and contract management costs as well as transfer most risk to the contractor. Austal, like all OEMs, will build these costs into the final contract price.

 

[Monitor66]

While we are discussing all things amphibious I have a question.

The "source of all that is true", Wikipedia, states that; "The LCM-1E landing craft being acquired by the RAN will not fit into the dock" in reference to HMAS Choules. This information is tagged as coming from Ross Gillet's book "Australia's Navy, Part 2, p. 22".

I believe the LCM8 and the Mexeflote can both be carried in the well dock so I have checked the dimensions of the LCM8, the LCM-1E and the Mexeflote and come up with the following figures;

LCM8:
Length: 73 ft 7⁄12 in (22.265 m)
Beam: 21 ft 0 in (6.4 m)
Draft: 4 ft 7⁄12 in (1.234 m) light 5 ft 3 in (1.60 m) loaded

Mexeflote:
Length Standard: 20.12 m (66.0 ft) Maxi: 38.41 m (126.0 ft)
Width Standard: 7.42 m (24.3 ft) Maxi 12.20 m (40.0 ft)

LCM-1E:
Length: 23.3 metres (76 ft)
Beam: 6.4 metres (21 ft)
Draught: 1 metre (3 ft 3 in) loaded

From information I have available to me HMAS Choules' dock is 8.1 m wide and 31.2 m from the door to the foot of the steel beach. Additionally the dock appears to be able to hold a British LCU Mk.10 when unflooded and they are way bigger than an LCM-1E.

With those figures it would appear the LCM-1E can be carried by HMAS Choules easily.

Can the LCM-1E be carried in the well dock of HMAS Choules?

I wondered the very same thing when I read that on Wikipedia the other day. Given that the LCM-8 and LCM-1E have the same beam you would think that the latter will fit in Choules. Unless there is a height issue??

Given that the LCM-8 will be decommissioned around 2017-18 or earlier, the LCM-1E will be the only in-service medium landing craft. It is difficult to comprehend Defence did not foresee this and ensure LCM-1E compatibility with Choules when doing its desktop analysis and inspections prior to purchase.

So I too expect it will fit. But then again....

 

[ASSAIL]

......

 

[ASSAIL]

So I too expect it will fit. But then again....

Logic tells me if an LCM8 can sit on the dock floor in Choules it can sit on the floor in LHD and likewise for LCM 1E, unless of course, the beach ramp is radically different? can't see it.
Sounds like someone has tried to differentiate between jets and screws without checking facts.

 

[Blas de Lezo]

There should be 4 LCM 1e´s already delivered in Australia, I have not seen any news of their arrival but they departed on March the 8th .
That should end any speculation , also Australia ordered 12 babies , so......

Also, when the Galicia class was built it operated with LCM 8´s , the LCM 1E´s where not ready yet.

I find difficult to believe that an 1E can not operate where an 8 can and vice versa.


Regards.

 

[gf0012-aust]

There should be 4 LCM 1e´s already delivered in Australia, I have not seen any news of their arrival but they departed on March the 8th .
That should end any speculation , also Australia ordered 12 babies , so......

it was a news item in one of the daily maritime newsbriefs mid last month

 

[aussienscale]

Logic tells me if an LCM8 can sit on the dock floor in Choules it can sit on the floor in LHD and likewise for LCM 1E, unless of course, the beach ramp is radically different? can't see it.
Sounds like someone has tried to differentiate between jets and screws without checking facts.

Well considering the LCM-1E was actually originally designed for the Galicia Class for the Spanish Navy, of which the Bay Class is basically an upsized version of the Galicia Class, I have no doubt there would be no problems at all.

IIRC the original plan was to only get 10 LCM-1E's but that was increased to 12 when ordered in Sep 2011 which was after we got Choules

But hey it is Wiki after all, so just log on and change it

 

[swerve]

The Bay class has the same basic design as Galicia, but there are more differences than size. E.g. no hangar, & I think the dock is smaller because it's not meant for amphibious assault.

 

[weegee]

2014 budget

I see that in the budget tonight there has been an allowance for 1.5 billion projects brought forward or earlier. I wonder what they could be? New patrol boats? Replenishment ships?

 

[Todjaeger]

My Google-fu has failed me...

So, I have been trying to find out the unladen displacement of a Mexe Flote, and the only number I have come across really does not sound right, i.e. under 1 tonne. I know the published numbers for a laden one, but can anyone advise when the displacement is or would be if one where strapped to the size of a vessel, or carried as deck cargo?

Thanks!

 

[John Fedup]

So, I have been trying to find out the unladen displacement of a Mexe Flote, and the only number I have come across really does not sound right, i.e. under 1 tonne. I know the published numbers for a laden one, but can anyone advise when the displacement is or would be if one where strapped to the size of a vessel, or carried as deck cargo?

Thanks!

Perhaps there is something here;


A Trip Down Mexeflote Lane - Think Defence

 

[Todjaeger]

Perhaps there is something here;


A Trip Down Mexeflote Lane - Think Defence

Thanks John, though that is one of the sites I looked at in my search. It does cover the cargo capacity of a mexeflote, but what I am looking for is the displacement of a mexeflote without cargo. Specifically I am trying to determine how much dwt a mexeflote requires in order for another vessel to carry it.

Like in the case of a pair of mexeflotes being carried aboard a HSV with available cargo displacement of 600 tonnes.

-Cheers

 

[aussienscale]

The Bay class has the same basic design as Galicia, but there are more differences than size. E.g. no hangar, & I think the dock is smaller because it's not meant for amphibious assault.

So why have the dock ? The Bay Class have/do operate the LCU Mk 10 which is bigger than the LCM-1E, so I don't think there will be a drama

 

[alexsa]

Thanks John, though that is one of the sites I looked at in my search. It does cover the cargo capacity of a mexeflote, but what I am looking for is the displacement of a mexeflote without cargo. Specifically I am trying to determine how much dwt a mexeflote requires in order for another vessel to carry it.

Like in the case of a pair of mexeflotes being carried aboard a HSV with available cargo displacement of 600 tonnes.

-Cheers

The Jenkins Marine page has each 6.1m x 2.5m module weighing in at 5 tonnes. This does not include the weight of connectors, ramps, drive units etc.

The other weight penalty will be the hull fittings and reinforcing to carry them as well as the lifting and securing arrangment.

 

[Monitor66]

So why have the dock ? The Bay Class have/do operate the LCU Mk 10 which is bigger than the LCM-1E, so I don't think there will be a drama

See this below link to photos of LCM-8 in the well dock of Choules during Squadex 2012. Excellent views of the clearances inside the dock with LCM-8 and mexeflote inside.

Given the almost identical dimensions of the LCM-8 and LCM-1E, it is clear that the LCM-1E will certainly fit inside Choules.

Australian Defence Force - Thread - Page 77

 

[swerve]

So why have the dock ?

For landing stuff when there's no quay available. The role of the Bay class in the British forces is to deliver heavy equipment, supplies & reinforcements once a beachhead has been established, IIRC. That may mean landing stuff on a beach. Maybe you can get in close enough to string together Mexeflotes to make a floating wharf. But if not, a dock where you can drive heavy vehicles straight into a landing craft and/or on to Mexeflotes, for transport to the beach, is very useful. Maybe there's a harbour - but it's some little fishing port, too small for your big ship. Same applies.

The Bay Class have/do operate the LCU Mk 10 which is bigger than the LCM-1E, so I don't think there will be a drama

No, I'm sure there isn't. The dock appears to be just big enough for one LCU Mk 10, & as the pictures show, that means plenty of room for an LCM-1E..