Raven22, what have you heard about the future of LARC-V? I know BMT Australia did a LOTE study on LARC-V and LCM-8 last year and understand a number of recommendations were made to Defence. Know anything?
Tobruk has definitely been good value for money, despite years of being maintained on a shoe string she has out lasted her replacements and keeps plodding along doing her job. Maybe that's what we need, a couple of updated Tobruks with modern engines/ systems and a smaller crew. Just a simple work horse that gets the job done without all the bells and whistles.
Interesting that she is still hanging in there. Until all the new fancy stuff gets sorted I hope she is kept operational. She has out lived so many others.
There may be something said for durability.
Sorry to disappoint but I don't believe there is any chance of acquiring another amphib fleet asset outside the triad of ships already secured under JP2048 (LHDs and Choules). There is neither the money nor the available manpower to entertain another ship/s. I think we will find Choules doing a lot of the donkey work once the two LHDs come on line. I think the RAN also sees the LCH replacements as taking on a broader role than the LCHs (they keep talking them up as "independent" craft).
Once, or even some months before, the second LHD enters service Tobruk will be decommissioned.
Just curious, with the roll out of Plan Beersheba and the changes to 2RAR for the Amphibious role, and I know it has been touched on before, what are peoples thoughts on whether we could possibly look at AAV7/ACV in the future for the Army ?
As we actually begin to operate the LHD's and understand what we can do with them and how we use them will evolve and be reflected in our operations, could this be a necessity in the future ?
Also looking at our area of operations (SE Asia) will we re-visit the possibility of getting Combat Style boats for the Army ? Not necessarily CB90 size, but something that could be deployable on the LHD's for use in SE Asian littoral/riverine waters in support of the force ?
Cheers
As we actually begin to operate the LHD's and understand what we can do with them and how we use them will evolve and be reflected in our operations, could this be a necessity in the future ?
Also looking at our area of operations (SE Asia) will we re-visit the possibility of getting Combat Style boats for the Army ? Not necessarily CB90 size, but something that could be deployable on the LHD's for use in SE Asian littoral/riverine waters in support of the force ?
Cheers
IMO CB-90 would be a perfect fit for the LHD's and Choules. Dont know if either have a crane large enough to launch but surely some sort of trailer could be made for internal steel beach launching? That way they could continue carrying their usual load of LCM-1E.
The LHD's have 2 internal gantry cranes, light vehicle/hangar deck and heavy vehicle/well dock deck, both are rated at 16t. The flight deck crane in front of the bridge is rated at 18t.
Choules has 2 cranes between the bridge and flight deck rated at 30t each, not sure if they have an internal gantry crane on the vehicle deck, could not find any specific information, but assuming it would.
So it would come down to weight of the selected boats, certainly easy enough to have rig's for them to sit in on the vehicle decks and then lower into the dock for launch and not take away from embarked LCM-1E's and RHIB's.
Could be room in the well dock also if you exclude the RHIB's, but once again comes down the what you could fit and not take away from the primary task/mission.
I was more interested in whether anyone can see a use for either AAV/ACV or a combat style boat and what they could bring to our operations in the region, and how they could be utilised, otherwise if there is no real use no point discussing
Cheers
t68
Well-Known Member
As you would be well awere the US used the PBR to great effect in the brown water environment during the Veitnam war with its draft of 2ft at 8.9t displacement.
CB-90 at 20.5t only has a draft of 2ft 7in considering all the inland waterways within our area of interest across the SP, CB-90 would make a good deal of diffrence from pirate hunting to brown water ops general patrol duties to dealing with the specials as well.
But the question begs is it an Army asset or Navy?
Looking at the specs for CB90, 15.3t is the standard, with 13t being empty so LHD's could handle them into the dock and then load from there depending on tasking.
I think any such asset like it should be Army, and would only be onboard as required. I also found some more internal pics of Choules and does not appear to have a gantry crane on the vehicle deck or well, just the block style mentioned above
Cheers
Not sure the AAV7 fits the Beersheba vision or the way the ADF wants to conduct STOM. Army will however get some deep exposure to the AAV7 with the presence of the USMC in Darwin.
The USMC has now backed away from the requirement for a well protected ACV to swim at high speed from ship-to-shore, and will instead use connectors such as LCAC to move ACV over water quickly.
With their budget constraints and the aborted Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle debacle still fresh in mind, they are keen to avoid high technical risk acquisitions and will now seek to purchase an existing off-the-shelf wheeled ACV (known as ACV 1.1). It will be able to swim but only in calm water (slowly) and cross water obstacles. ACV 1.2 will likely represent a high-speed and highly survivable amphibious combat vehicle, but that appears some years off if it does go ahead.
Re combat boats for the LHDs, 3-4 years ago Phase 6 of JP 2048 was to have acquired riverine craft for use as you describe, with 2 Cdo Regt a heavy user. But it is no longer in the DCP (2012 version). It will be interesting to see if it re-appears in the next DCP.
The way I could see CB-90 being used is by the Battalion recon team doing doing pre-beaching/insertion reconnaissance. According to wiki it has a range of approx.440km, so the main naval fleet can still be a fair distance off the proposed beachhead whilst the area is being recon'ed. Once this is done they could act as a screen for the LHD's. There are some pretty gunned up CB-90's out there with typhoon/mini typhoon mounts on them.
The CB90 might be too much boat for what the Army had/has in mind. Big, heavy and expensive.
In addition to the various riverine craft in US service, take a look at the Offshore Raiding Craft (ORC) used by the Royal Marines.
ORC
It will be interesting over time to see how things do change, AAV probably not suitable at this time, but as you mentioned depending what happens with 1.1, which really is just a gap fill, and in particular 1.2 in the future will be interesting
Don't ever recall seeing anything on Ph 6 ? I have done some searches, but does anyone have any original reference's to what was laid out in Phase 6 prior to being deleted ? I can only find minimal reference to it
Cheers
I don't think Phase 6 ever made it into the public versions of the DCP at the time, but it was certainly a future phase of JP 2048; remember talking at length with project office staff in the 2008/09 period before it vanished.
If you take a look at this presentation on ADAS (slide 19) from around 2011 there is direct reference to the riverine craft capability, so the requirement is probably still there.
http://www.defence.gov.au/opex/exercises/caex/pdf/hawkins.pdf
Jeneral2885
Banned Member
May I interject again, isn't Choules being ex- RFA Bay Class, suppose to be able to carry at least 1 MBT Squadron? Is that still possible or a plan within the ADF operational mind set?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Choules will easily take a squadron of M1A1 Abrams MBT, with linear metres left over for other vehicles and cargo.
Under Plan Beersheba, Army envisages Choules being able to accommodate significant numbers of MBTs, Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles, Manoeuvre Support Vehicles and IFVs, the latter three types to be acquired under Project Land 400.
Jeneral2885
Banned Member
Cool thanks. With the Canberra-class that would certainly be a game changer, though I m not sure under what future scenario M1A1 will be deployed--or hae they ever been deployed outside Australia?
Thanks again
The Australian Army uses its tanks as part of the combined arms team in support of infantry operations etc, not so much in the tank-on-tank scenario.
Theoretically, any time an infantry-centric battlegroup leaves our shores for an OS op, it could bring Abrams. Whilst Australia has not used tanks since Vietnam (52 tonne Centurions) that experience taught us just how valuable a capability the tank is in jungle fighting and complex terrain. Like elsewhere, the tank was shown to be a decisive battlefield component and one that also saved lives.