Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

Sounds good.

Unfortunately our merchant fleet is a shadow of days gone bye. Does raise the question of what expectations modern industrial countries like Australia can have regards to mechant ships and who owns and crews them.
You would think a large island trading nation would have greater ownership of its maritime trade than we do. I think someone did some non strategic maths on that capability. No RFA for Australia.
The Spirit of Australia style ship would be an ideal Ship Taken Up From Trade.
RO RO with bunks,sound good but just not many of this type at our disposal.
For Australia the Navy will have do most of the heavy lifting.

I know that it bores may to tears but I would be more than happy to pay the money and ineffectivly use a third LHD as a pool of 3 for occasioal strategic transport.
The ship is designed to be many things, one of which is to carry containers and pallets in just such a role with cranes, lifts and conveyors sized accordingly.

Remember the HMAS Sydney that flew aircraft in the Korean war was later used as a transport on the run between Australia and Vietnan.
Not ideal I know just practical.

Buy LHD number three and have no regrets for it will pay for it's self many times over in the many hats it will wear over it's 30 plus year service life.

Regards S

Taking up ships from trade is a thing of the past for Australia, we have only 6 ships on the Register for international ships thanks to the slow and steady strangulation by the Maritime Union's excessively greedy demands. There is no way an Australian trading vessel can be profitable/competitive when crewed by Australians which is the main reason for the Lib govt's push to abolish cabotage.
The last product tanker lies immobilised in Devonport while 36 MUA members refuse to crew it and still they don't see that their actions have caused the demise of their jobs.

So.. Navy will have to do the heavy lifting with whatever hulls are in the ORBAT.

 

[ASSAIL]

The alternative is, as I stated earlier and Abe suggested a couple of years back, is to kill two birds with one stone and acquire two, or preferably three, modified AKEs. With the LHDs our need for JP5 has gone up significantly and any future acquisition of F-35Bs would require the provision of significantly more aviation stores and ordinance.

The mods needed wouldn't be that major, just a reassignment of tanks and perhaps using some of the huge amount of space available to embark some other existing or desired capabilities. Ideally we will progressively move to modular containerised MCM, hydrographic, command, communications, medical, even special forces support systems. These ships are basically floating warehouses that have AOR sized fuel bunkers.

Interestingly they are a product of GD NASSCO and as such there are ties through the BIW and EB experts who have worked closely with ASC over the last decade and a half. It could make for a very interesting local build or at least outfit.

Plus they are built to commercial standards and cost and this alone makes them ideal for local build.

I'm not sure that this has been posted before but you will see the strategic importance the US govt. placed on maintaining commercial construction skills when ordering these 14 ships.

The sad truth is that there is no ANL/Jeparit type ships left on the Australian register to help with anything other than the 2 weeks of sustainment stores .carried on an LHD

US Navy on the T-AKE As It Beefs Up Supply Ship Capacity

 

[alexsa]

I wonder if Australia could implement such a system? Admittedly they would have to fix up the system surrounding the coastal shipping in Australia but if they could get some vessel's based in Australia able to do what the RAN needed then we should do it, Hell the Spirit of Tasmania line would be a good start.

No they would not. Firstly the SPOTs are an essential element in the Tasmanian economy and second they are run pretty hard (and fast). They are a very expensive vessel to run where a Truck RO-RO able to maintain the same sustained speed as the LHD offers better value and uplift.

 

[vonnoobie]

Does raise the question as to the LCH replacement. Do we forego a beaching capability and get a larger pier to pier transport like the Point Class.
Agree it needs to be a Navy ship.

Or do we go for a larger LCH such as the Damen 120 LST or a mix of both?

A larger ship is all well and good but if the situation lack's actual port facilities and nothing is able to be built up in short order then the beaching capability becomes a necessity.

Personally I think a mix of both RoRo ships and LCH's would be best.

 

[Goknub]

Or do we go for a larger LCH such as the Damen 120 LST or a mix of both?

I would say neither are what would best suit the RAN.

The LCM1E (x 12) can land a tank, something the previous LCM8 couldn't do. With that requirement now covered there is no need for something as small as an LCH (aprox 40m). Likewise, with a decent fleet (x 3) of either truck RORO ships or T-AKE type ships there is no need for a ship as small as the Damen LSTs, including the 120m version.

The roles of intra-theatre lift and heavy landing could be better met by a ship modelled on the US Army LSV (80m).
It doesn't duplicate the capabilities of the LCM1E as an LCH would and be less complex than an LST. Damen have great PR but it doesn't mean that is the fit for us.

So to recap, from smallest to largest:
12 x LCM1E - 1 tank
6 x LSV - 15 tanks
3 x RORO/T-AKE (+ AOR) - sealift/sustainment
2 x LHD - assault

 

[swerve]

Or do we go for a larger LCH such as the Damen 120 LST or a mix of both?

A larger ship is all well and good but if the situation lack's actual port facilities and nothing is able to be built up in short order then the beaching capability becomes a necessity.

Personally I think a mix of both RoRo ships and LCH's would be best.

If you have a sheltered anchorage & a beach, you can unload a ro-ro via Mexeflotes. The RFA practices this, & reckons it works.

 

[vonnoobie]

I would say neither are what would best suit the RAN.

The LCM1E (x 12) can land a tank, something the previous LCM8 couldn't do. With that requirement now covered there is no need for something as small as an LCH (aprox 40m). Likewise, with a decent fleet (x 3) of either truck RORO ships or T-AKE type ships there is no need for a ship as small as the Damen LSTs, including the 120m version.

The roles of intra-theatre lift and heavy landing could be better met by a ship modelled on the US Army LSV (80m).
It doesn't duplicate the capabilities of the LCM1E as an LCH would and be less complex than an LST. Damen have great PR but it doesn't mean that is the fit for us.

So to recap, from smallest to largest:
12 x LCM1E - 1 tank
6 x LSV - 15 tanks
3 x RORO/T-AKE (+ AOR) - sealift/sustainment
2 x LHD - assault

Except having LCH's leave's open more options and reduces the risk of a capability loss in the event both of the Canberra's and the Choules are out of service as happened with the Kanimbla's and the Tobruk.

That aside if the argument is that the LCM1E's fill the role in landing heavy forces ashore then the US Army LSV's become a less suitable option as they carry the same amount as some of the Damen LST's with more restrictive use. You would actually be better off acquiring ships similar to the Point class that the RFA has rather then the US Army LSV's.

 

[vonnoobie]

If you have a sheltered anchorage & a beach, you can unload a ro-ro via Mexeflotes. The RFA practices this, & reckons it works.

That is if you have a sheltered anchorage, We have actually acquired a few with the Choules so the RAN should know hopefully soon enough them selves if they are good enough to alleviate the need for beach-able ships.

 

[swerve]

Yes, it's limited, but so is beaching. There are many beaches you'd only want to offload over in calm seas, because of their exposure.

A question of which compromise is acceptable.

 

[Goknub]

If you have a sheltered anchorage & a beach, you can unload a ro-ro via Mexeflotes. The RFA practices this, & reckons it works.

That's actually something I've mostly assumed but probably could be further fleshed out. The use of Mexeflotes and similiar barges/pontoons by the US are a major component of getting heavy stuff onto land.

As far as I am aware the only ones the RAN posses are those that came with HMAS Choules. Any serious amphibious force wouldn't be complete without a large number of these and they would cost pocket change compared to the other assets being discussed. Getting sufficient quantities into theatre without negatively impacting the land force could be an issue however with smaller ships.

 

[Goknub]

Except having LCH's leave's open more options and reduces the risk of a capability loss in the event both of the Canberra's and the Choules are out of service as happened with the Kanimbla's and the Tobruk.

That aside if the argument is that the LCM1E's fill the role in landing heavy forces ashore then the US Army LSV's become a less suitable option as they carry the same amount as some of the Damen LST's with more restrictive use. You would actually be better off acquiring ships similar to the Point class that the RFA has rather then the US Army LSV's.

I'm confused by your logic.

If the LHDs/LPD are unavailable then 6 LSVs would haul far more than 6 LCHs.

6 x LSV - 90 tanks (as a unit of measurement)
6 x LCH - 12 tanks

Also, the LCM1Es wouldn't fill the role of the heavy landing craft, they'd fill the role of the LCM8s but on a larger scale. The LSVs would fill the role of heavy landing but now on a much larger scale as well.

I also recommended Point class RORO as the sealift ships in addition to the LSVs. They fill completely different tasks.

 

[Stampede]

I would say neither are what would best suit the RAN.

The LCM1E (x 12) can land a tank, something the previous LCM8 couldn't do. With that requirement now covered there is no need for something as small as an LCH (aprox 40m). Likewise, with a decent fleet (x 3) of either truck RORO ships or T-AKE type ships there is no need for a ship as small as the Damen LSTs, including the 120m version.

The roles of intra-theatre lift and heavy landing could be better met by a ship modelled on the US Army LSV (80m).
It doesn't duplicate the capabilities of the LCM1E as an LCH would and be less complex than an LST. Damen have great PR but it doesn't mean that is the fit for us.

So to recap, from smallest to largest:
12 x LCM1E - 1 tank
6 x LSV - 15 tanks
3 x RORO/T-AKE (+ AOR) - sealift/sustainment
2 x LHD - assault

Thanks for the input.
The reality as I see it is that you and the others with their respective ideas are all correct! Australia needs alot of amphibious lift.
All the ships mentioned - LHD, LST, LCH, AOL, RORO ship's, LSV and many others will all have a place but what can we expect for a navy of our size.
We can always try and do it better, but in the last two decades we have had just five large ships.Three amphib's and two replenishment ships. As things stand the numbers will not change for the future with Choule's,Canberra and Adelaide accompaining two new replacement AOL's for Westralia and Success. Again five big ship's. Much better ship's for sure, but still the same numbers.
I'm not questioning the demand and the diversity of assets mentioned in recent posts but treasury, politicians and Joe public will rightly want a please explain for an increased fleet size. The RAN will need the selling skills of the RAAF to make this happen.
This will be a challenge
At best I feel we could realistically get one more large ship.Push for a third AOL or a sister ship for Choules.
An opptertunity may also exist with the LCH replacement trading six replacement units for say three much larger ships. Either LST or go with a small RORO design.
At the end of the day it's just dollars, the sell , politic's and a bit of luck.

Let's see what happen's in the DWP.

 

[Goknub]

Let's see what happen's in the DWP.

I am well aware of the realities of government spending so that force is designed as something that could be sold. Firstly, it's not that big a change to the present force.
The LCM1E and LHD already exist. There is a project to replace the LCH and a relatively simple ship like an LSV could be built domestically for a one-for-one replacement.
That leaves the sealift ships and/or the third AOR to be sold.

Given that, A. the government has shown a strong interest in logistical assets that have a good at HADR (ie positive PR) and B. the RAAF are now pretty much done, it makes sense that the attention could be directed to the RAN.

 

[Stampede]

I am well aware of the realities of government spending so that force is designed as something that could be sold. Firstly, it's not that big a change to the present force.
The LCM1E and LHD already exist. There is a project to replace the LCH and a relatively simple ship like an LSV could be built domestically for a one-for-one replacement.
That leaves the sealift ships and/or the third AOR to be sold.

Given that, A. the government has shown a strong interest in logistical assets that have a good at HADR (ie positive PR) and B. the RAAF are now pretty much done, it makes sense that the attention could be directed to the RAN.

HADR will be the hook.
I think your correct there is a politial enlightenment re RAN amphibious needs.
Hopefully it translates to more amphibious assets purchased!
Time will tell.

 

[vonnoobie]

I'm confused by your logic.

If the LHDs/LPD are unavailable then 6 LSVs would haul far more than 6 LCHs.

6 x LSV - 90 tanks (as a unit of measurement)
6 x LCH - 12 tanks

Also, the LCM1Es wouldn't fill the role of the heavy landing craft, they'd fill the role of the LCM8s but on a larger scale. The LSVs would fill the role of heavy landing but now on a much larger scale as well.

I also recommended Point class RORO as the sealift ships in addition to the LSVs. They fill completely different tasks.

I too am confused by your logic when we know the Balikpapan's are to be replaced by larger more capable vessels, That I have put forth the Damen option and you seem to think that such a fleet could only carry a combined 12 MBT's.

That all aside I'll point out my mistake since you haven't, I was under the impression the LSV's could not beach them selves, Turns out that they can. That aside do we really want to be going for an older design when we have learnt so much since then in ship design?

The LST's and LSV's are basically the same, Only difference is one is older the other is newer.

 

[Goknub]

The reason I favour the Point class RORO type over the T-AKE is that the RORO has a much greater chance of being sellable considering its smaller crew and less complex design.

Crew size:
Point-class - 22
T-AKE - 136

The LST's and LSV's are basically the same, Only difference is one is older the other is newer.

I didn't realise the confusion over the LSV beach landing capability. That makes more sense now.

My argument is that a larger force of LSVs could be acquired compared to a force of LSTs. If there are no heavier sealift ships then the Damen LSTs would be the better bet. But with decent sealift ships it is of more value to get the LSV design. It should also operate more easily with the LHDs

 

[Stock]

I would say neither are what would best suit the RAN.

The LCM1E (x 12) can land a tank, something the previous LCM8 couldn't do. With that requirement now covered there is no need for something as small as an LCH (aprox 40m). Likewise, with a decent fleet (x 3) of either truck RORO ships or T-AKE type ships there is no need for a ship as small as the Damen LSTs, including the 120m version.

The roles of intra-theatre lift and heavy landing could be better met by a ship modelled on the US Army LSV (80m).
It doesn't duplicate the capabilities of the LCM1E as an LCH would and be less complex than an LST. Damen have great PR but it doesn't mean that is the fit for us.

So to recap, from smallest to largest:
12 x LCM1E - 1 tank
6 x LSV - 15 tanks
3 x RORO/T-AKE (+ AOR) - sealift/sustainment
2 x LHD - assault

The LCM-1E is limited to a maximum payload of 51 tonnes in Sea State 3, so won't be bringing M1 Abrams ashore under those conditions. It might be able to do it at Sea State 2. Maybe. Land 400's CRV (approx. 35 tonnes) and IFV (approx. 42 tonnes) will be less problematic.

So if we want to land M1 Abrams on a beach in conditions above dead calm then the LCH-R will most definitely be needed.

 

[swerve]

...The use of Mexeflotes and similiar barges/pontoons by the US are a major component of getting heavy stuff onto land.

As far as I am aware the only ones the RAN posses are those that came with HMAS Choules. Any serious amphibious force wouldn't be complete without a large number of these and they would cost pocket change compared to the other assets being discussed. Getting sufficient quantities into theatre without negatively impacting the land force could be an issue however with smaller ships.

They can be hung on the sides of ships. Google for pictures, & you'll see it being done on the Bay class. It was also done on the much smaller old Round Tables.

 

[peterAustralia]

I am not having a go at anyone, I had to google some of the terms used earlier this day.

AKE= dry cargo ship
AFSB = afloat forward staging base
MLP= Mobile Landing platform

maybe 3/4 here knew what the terms meant, information is just for the remaining quarter of us that cant keep up with the acronyms

AKE, basically bulk carrier with some helicopter decks, no landing well
AFSB - I guess like a larger AKE, but the idea is that instead of carrying stores back and forth, it anchors close to the bridgehead and works as a floating supply base
MLP, something like the blue marlin, a ship that can raise and lower itself, you put the landing craft on deck, to launch the landing craft you submerge the ship and the landing craft float off.

Again, just for the ignorant minority among us that had no idea

 

[t68]

I am not having a go at anyone, I had to google some of the terms used earlier this day.

AKE= dry cargo ship
AFSB = afloat forward staging base
MLP= Mobile Landing platform

maybe 3/4 here knew what the terms meant, information is just for the remaining quarter of us that cant keep up with the acronyms

AKE, basically bulk carrier with some helicopter decks, no landing well
AFSB - I guess like a larger AKE, but the idea is that instead of carrying stores back and forth, it anchors close to the bridgehead and works as a floating supply base
MLP, something like the blue marlin, a ship that can raise and lower itself, you put the landing craft on deck, to launch the landing craft you submerge the ship and the landing craft float off.

Again, just for the ignorant minority among us that had no idea

USN has now got three MLP called the Montford Point Class which marry up with the AKE, it's not exactly how the US envisaged it due to budget concerns. only problem with the way you suggested it is that once it draws down everything must be in the landing craft, the US use 3x LCAC (landing craft air cushioned) for MLP operations.


Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) Ship - Naval Technology