Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

Unless in the future we get a government that is willing to spend the extra I don't see us getting anything bigger then the Damen LST 80, Even then that may be pushing it as you will have some thinking a like for like replacement would suffice thus the Caimen 200 LCT, Still great vessel's that would be an improvement over our current asset's but we can always do better.

In any case for a vessel that isn't that complicated they are taking there sweet time for the project, Retiring the Balikpapan's right now yet don't plan to even start building the replacements until the early - mid 2020's ....

 

[Raven22]

As a minimum this would be the capability to sail in open ocean (Sea State 5) with three 63 tonne M1 Abrams (a tank troop). I believe an ASLAV troop is nine vehicles but unsure how Beersheba or Land 400 CRV affects that. Others on this forum might know.

A tank troop is four tanks and an ASLAV troop is six vehicles. Land400 is unlikely to change that other than there will be no -PC version, with all six being turreted 'gun cars.'

 

[Bluey 006]

The downside on these particular vessels is that the smallest one is 4,500 tons and is a lot larger than the 2,000 ton OPV that I think was actually specified.

The Crossover discussions where regarding its potential for southern ocean and Antarctic fringes patrols, Not as a solution for the OPV requirement (which does not require the the vessels to operate below 50 degrees south) .

While currently there is no requirement for a vessel in this area, there could be in the future, and indirectly the discussions where asking should there be?

While militarization of this region is not desirable, it is inevitable. When this happens is anyone's guess.

Some very valid points where made regarding other options, civilian bases, ice breakers and UAVs etc however the existing treaty against militarization does not apply to naval activity within these bounds (in the Southern Ocean) so long as it takes place on the high seas. Making versatile ships ( that can also be used for other purposes) the only legally viable option until things get really out of hand

Given the rough nature of the conditions, requirement to operate independently/resupply bases/ and conduct research, security or intelligence duties, a larger versatile ship like the crossover may be desirable over an OPV. Such a ship does not need to be an ice breaker or replace civilian ice breakers, but rather supplement them (obviously it does need to be ice strengthened).

There is no immediate credible risk to Australia's national interests in the Antarctic that might require substantial military responses over the next decade, and thus it is not something that will get funding in the short term. Especially,when we have so many other priorities. However, there is increasing evidence that this region is being used for Military research; particularity the control of space based systems and satellites. There is the potential for illegal extraction of resources in this area to increase and that, nation states are now considering it a strategically important area.

Also, consider the proliferation of submarines capable of launching missiles - if you wanted to strike the major industrial centers of Australia using such systems and do so with little warning avoiding systems like JORN or Missile defence. Where might you launch these strikes from?

These are the things Australia needs to plan for in the long term, hence the early stage consideration as to what type of ships is best suited to operate in this region and be most versatile

Currently we have a very limited capacity to operate in the far south if the need arises, a little troubling given this is part of the ADF's primary operational environment

 

[Volkodav]

A tank troop is four tanks and an ASLAV troop is six vehicles. Land400 is unlikely to change that other than there will be no -PC version, with all six being turreted 'gun cars.'

The only change will possibly be the AIFV depending how many are needed in each troop to lift an infantry company. From memory pre Beersheba a troop had three sections, each with four M-113A1 APCs, and a troop HQ with a an ACV and another pair of APCs. The question is will the LHD replacement be sized to lift an AIFV troop or a section?

 

[Stampede]

With the LCH replacement I wonder if we should be looking to LAND400 and what type of vehicles but also what number of vehicles would be required to be lifted before discussing types of vessels. For example the LCH could lift an APC Troop / CAV Sqn, or a Troop of Centurions (later Leopards), or for instance the US Army's Frank S Besson Class is sized to lift a company (plus 1) of M-1A1s.

With the LCH the Abrams were already too heavy for the ramp and they would have had insufficient space for as many LAND400 vehicles as they did for M-113s. Will the LCH(R) be required to lift a troop or a squadron or perhaps a combined arms combat team including AIFVs, MBTs and an ARV? Basically its pointless discussing vessels or even sizes of vessels until we see the requirements of what they will be expected to do.

It is different with frigates as we know as a minimum the RAN required an enhanced ASW capability, the potential to deploy land attack cruise missiles and almost certainly a MOTS or modified MOTS design. Same with submarines, the RAN needs something more capable than the Collins, including the ability to operated over the same sort of distances. In both cases this pretty much defines the alternatives that can seriously be considered.

OPVs are interesting as there are no defining requirements to be derived from another capability except for possibly the ability to operate a helicopter of given size, i.e. hanger a Romeo, land an MRH90 and possibly refuel (without landing) a CH-47F. They will be so far in advance of the preceding patrol boats that realistically anything could be looked at for the role, the question being the trade off between cost and capability.

So realistically we are not really in a position to speculate on specific designs for the LCH until it is announced (hopefully in the DWP) what they need to do, the future frigate almost definitely already exists in-service or is about to be ordered by a major western navy, the future submarines will be one of three well understood options and the OPVs are probably the most open to speculation as a multitude of potentially suitable designs exist across a broad range of sizes.

Thanks Volk
for a good overview as to where we're at regarding the current and future fleet. As you suggest there is some mystery/oppertunity regarding both the LCH and a future OPV. These two projects could go many ways and I guess we just have to wait for clarification from the DWP. It is good however to throw some ideas around as to how to meet these two requirements.
Regarding the LCH, your correct, just what is to be specified for lift requirements?ie,section,troop,squadron and is it just for vehicles or will it also include troop accomodation.
Land 400 will needed to marry up with this requirement so the left and right hand can work together.
Just for your information I think in the early 80's a platoon lift was three M113 (10 sandwiched diggers to each APC ) with three for COY HQ........12 APC for COY lift.
testing the memory others may need to qualify
Regards S.

 

[Alf662]

The Crossover discussions where regarding its potential for southern ocean and Antarctic fringes patrols, Not as a solution for the OPV requirement (which does not require the the vessels to operate below 50 degrees south) .

While currently there is no requirement for a vessel in this area, there could be in the future, and indirectly the discussions where asking should there be?

While militarization of this region is not desirable, it is inevitable. When this happens is anyone's guess.

Some very valid points where made regarding other options, civilian bases, ice breakers and UAVs etc however the existing treaty against militarization does not apply to naval activity within these bounds (in the Southern Ocean) so long as it takes place on the high seas. Making versatile ships ( that can also be used for other purposes) the only legally viable option until things get really out of hand

Given the rough nature of the conditions, requirement to operate independently/resupply bases/ and conduct research, security or intelligence duties, a larger versatile ship like the crossover may be desirable over an OPV. Such a ship does not need to be an ice breaker or replace civilian ice breakers, but rather supplement them (obviously it does need to be ice strengthened - 1A or 1B).

There is no immediate credible risk to Australia's national interests in the Antarctic that might require substantial military responses over the next decade, and thus it is not something that will get funding in the short term. Especially,when we have so many other priorities. However, there is increasing evidence that this region is being used for Military research; particularity the control of space based systems and satellites. There is the potential for illegal extraction of resources in this area to increase and that, nation states are now considering it a strategically important area.

Also, consider the proliferation of submarines capable of launching missiles - if you wanted to strike the major industrial centers of Australia using such systems and do so with little warning avoiding systems like JORN or Missile defence. Where might you launch these strikes from?

These are the things Australia needs to plan for in the long term, hence the early stage consideration as to what type of ships is best suited to operate in this region and be most versatile

Currently we have a very limited capacity to operate in the far south if the need arises, a little troubling given this is part of the ADF's primary operational environment

I understand where you are coming from Bluey, I just cannot see the Government coming to the party for supplying such dedicated assets for the Southern Ocean.

I can see them coming to the party with an oversize OPV in support of army operations if the army and navy made a good enough business case with a view to supporting the LHD's and LCHR. An oversize OPV would also be ideal for anti piracy patrols or any small sea basing requirements. If it was looked at seriously then the ice strengthening could be looked at as a secondary role.

The way I see it Defence is going through a major paradigm shift and the Navy are going to be expected to work a lot closer with the army by providing any required lift and maneuvering capacity, this extra lift capacity would need to be in addition to current combatant numbers. May be we need to consider that rather than an extra LHD some smaller general utility assets may be more appropriate. In many cases an LHD is going to be a massive overkill and some thing more discreet may be called for.

 

[oldsig127]

Just for your information I think in the early 80's a platoon lift was three M113 (10 sandwiched diggers to each APC ) with three for COY HQ........12 APC for COY lift.
testing the memory others may need to qualify
Regards S.

It was certainly so in the 70's though we seldom had full 10 man sections. By the 80's I was otherwise employed.

oldsig127

 

[Bluey 006]

I understand where you are coming from Bluey, I just cannot see the Government coming to the party for supplying such dedicated assets for the Southern Ocean.

I can see them coming to the party with an oversize OPV in support of army operations if the army and navy made a good enough business case with a view to supporting the LHD's and LCHR. An oversize OPV would also be ideal for anti piracy patrols or any small sea basing requirements. If it was looked at seriously then the ice strengthening could be looked at as a secondary role.

The way I see it Defence is going through a major paradigm shift and the Navy are going to be expected to work a lot closer with the army by providing any required lift and maneuvering capacity, this extra lift capacity would need to be in addition to current combatant numbers. May be we need to consider that rather than an extra LHD some smaller general utility assets may be more appropriate. In many cases an LHD is going to be a massive overkill and some thing more discreet may be called for.

I tend to agree with you, but who is say the ice strengthened Crossover couldn't be the discreet lift capacity you mentioned. Just because it is ice strengthen doesn't mean it is limited to the Southern Ocean.

A lot depends on the size OPV that eventually gets selected and the number I suppose, and/or if they are supplemented by smaller multi-role patrol vessels. Even if we get the 20 number (which i find doubtful) they still have to patrol all of our northern approaches, take over hydrographic duties, mine warfare, and potentially support expeditionary task forces etc.... ( remembering that of the 20 at the very best 8 be available for operations). They can't be everywhere at once. Task one for the southern ocean and it gets very thin up top. IMHO bigger is better when it comes to the rough seas down south.

 

[Alf662]

I tend to agree with you, but who is say the ice strengthened Crossover couldn't be the discreet lift capacity you mentioned. Just because it is ice strengthen doesn't mean it is limited to the Southern Ocean.

A lot depends on the size OPV that eventually gets selected and the number I suppose, and/or if they are supplemented by smaller multi-role patrol vessels. Even if we get the 20 number (which i find doubtful) they still have to patrol all of our northern approaches, take over hydrographic duties, mine warfare, and potentially support expeditionary task forces etc.... ( remembering that of the 20 at the very best 8 be available for operations). They can't be everywhere at once. Task one for the southern ocean and it gets very thin up top. IMHO bigger is better when it comes to the rough seas down south.

Bluey, I think we might be talking about the same thing, but coming from different directions.

One of the biggest problems we have is the tyranny of distance. So to operate effectively in our primary area of operations we need long legs and in many cases we need to take the tools of trade along as well. The ACPB's have a range of 3,000 nautical miles, the Navantia BAM (as an example) has a range of 3,500 nautical miles, a Damen 1800 OPV has a range of 5,000 nautical miles. If you want to go further then you will need a bigger vessel. If that is the case then we start getting into the types of vessels we have been talking about.

I am a keen historian (amongst other things) and time and again history has shown that we need to be able to roam far and wide in the islands of the South Pacific and fuel availability can be the biggest limitation on capability. We are only getting two AOL's so we can not rely on them being available, appropriate fuel on the various islands cannot always be guaranteed, so any asset needs long legs and versatility (I am not talking major combatants here), these are also two capabilities that would be very useful in the southern ocean.

But once again we will not know what the new direction will be until the DWP is released.

 

[Stock]

A tank troop is four tanks and an ASLAV troop is six vehicles. Land400 is unlikely to change that other than there will be no -PC version, with all six being turreted 'gun cars.'

I stand corrected. Cheers.

So to lift 4 x M1 Abrams, load would be approx. 250 tonnes, and around 210 tonnes for 6 x CRVs.

Therefore an LCH-R with a minimum payload of 300 tonnes would seem to be a starting point WRT capacity to lift legacy and planned AFV types.

 

[Stampede]

It was certainly so in the 70's though we seldom had full 10 man sections. By the 80's I was otherwise employed.

oldsig127

Thanks for the reply
Regards S

 

[Stampede]

I stand corrected. Cheers.

So to lift 4 x M1 Abrams, load would be approx. 250 tonnes, and around 210 tonnes for 6 x CRVs.

Therefore an LCH-R with a minimum payload of 300 tonnes would seem to be a starting point WRT capacity to lift legacy and planned AFV types.

Just following up with the LCH replacement.
Does anyone know at what tonnage or length does it become impractical for a beached landing craft to self extract itself. I understand that with the short length of the LCM8 landing craft they would sometimes need assistance, yet the longer LCH were relatively light compared to their length and could usually self extract without assistance. At the larger end,ships such as HMAS Tobruk rarely beach and are usually dependant on the tide or supported ocean going tugs. I may be wrong in the above and would appreciate some clarity if anyone knows.
I ask this question with the view of a possible future LCH. What is the largest vessel that can beach and self extract unassisted, and would such a vessel have the size and length to then deploy on open ocean voyages. Does such an animal exist.
Just putting it out there, would the old French Batral class be such a ship?

Would appreciate any feedback from those that know
Regards S

 

[Volkodav]

Thanks Volk
for a good overview as to where we're at regarding the current and future fleet. As you suggest there is some mystery/oppertunity regarding both the LCH and a future OPV. These two projects could go many ways and I guess we just have to wait for clarification from the DWP. It is good however to throw some ideas around as to how to meet these two requirements.
Regarding the LCH, your correct, just what is to be specified for lift requirements?ie,section,troop,squadron and is it just for vehicles or will it also include troop accomodation.
Land 400 will needed to marry up with this requirement so the left and right hand can work together.
Just for your information I think in the early 80's a platoon lift was three M113 (10 sandwiched diggers to each APC ) with three for COY HQ........12 APC for COY lift.
testing the memory others may need to qualify
Regards S.

In the mid 90s operating as Cav we had five APCs in each of three troops and a SHQ with an ACV plus one or two APCs, a RAEME detachment with a LRV and a "Fitters Track" and a pair of Tillies. When operating as an APC troop it was three sections of four APCs and a THQ with an ACV and a couple of APCs. In either org it was one infantry section per APC and PHQ in a fourth. From what I understand from articles and information posted on here the platoon is now larger, as it is reinforced with support weapon teams, meaning APC troops now have six vehicles each. This would push an APC Troop up to about twenty vehicles which is way above the capacity of an LCH or even a US Army Runnymede Class LCU.

In addition to the LAND 400 vehicles and tanks the army's new trucks are also larger and heavier than their predecessors so realistically if the same sort of capability the LCH provided is still required something larger is needed. How much larger, does it need to be a traditional army type LCU configuration (ramp, vehicle deck and large aft superstructure), could a small or medium LPD, or even through deck LST do, does it even need to be able to lift an APC/ AIFV troop?

We have so far assumed that the ADF will stick to the 2009 DWP proposal but this need not be the case as technology has moved on. For instance if the LCM-1E is truly unsatisfactory a possible solution could be a new LCU that is small enough to fit in the docking well of the LHDs, a single one or even a pair. Another option is a larger LCH sized vessel operating in conjunction with larger logistics platform such as deck cargo on a maritime prepositioning ship or a maybe something like a Mountford Point MLP.

Lots of options, too many actually, what is needed is strategic direction which is what the DWP and following capability plan. Personally I like the Damen and BMT designs, the Besson LSV looks interesting too, then there is the JMSDF Osumi class LST with a flat deck and a dock for two LCAC, or the Singaporean Endurance class. Lots of options and lots of completely different directions to go.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

...We have so far assumed that the ADF will stick to the 2009 DWP proposal but this need not be the case as technology has moved on. For instance if the LCM-1E is truly unsatisfactory a possible solution could be a new LCU that is small enough to fit in the docking well of the LHDs, a single one or even a pair. Another option is a larger LCH sized vessel operating in conjunction with larger logistics platform such as deck cargo on a maritime prepositioning ship or a maybe something like a Mountford Point MLP...

BMT's Caimen -90 would seem like a decent option for an LCM/smaller LCU. It's dimensions would appear to match well with the Canberra-class. With a possible mix of two LCM-1E and two Caimen -90, working toward eventually carrying four Caimen -90.
Plus, with one option you mentioned, "larger LCH sized vessel" you really don't need to operate in conjunction with like an MLP. You could simply use it via a gate-ramp berthing:
View attachment 6572

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Just following up with the LCH replacement.
Does anyone know at what tonnage or length does it become impractical for a beached landing craft to self extract itself. I understand that with the short length of the LCM8 landing craft they would sometimes need assistance, yet the longer LCH were relatively light compared to their length and could usually self extract without assistance. At the larger end,ships such as HMAS Tobruk rarely beach and are usually dependant on the tide or supported ocean going tugs. I may be wrong in the above and would appreciate some clarity if anyone knows.
I ask this question with the view of a possible future LCH. What is the largest vessel that can beach and self extract unassisted, and would such a vessel have the size and length to then deploy on open ocean voyages. Does such an animal exist.
Just putting it out there, would the old French Batral class be such a ship?

Would appreciate any feedback from those that know
Regards S

Most large LCU, like the Runnymede-class, and LST, like the old US Newport-class (which was significantly bigger than Batral) come equipped with an aft archor to utilize in self extarction

 

[ASSAIL]

I stand corrected. Cheers.

So to lift 4 x M1 Abrams, load would be approx. 250 tonnes, and around 210 tonnes for 6 x CRVs.

Therefore an LCH-R with a minimum payload of 300 tonnes would seem to be a starting point WRT capacity to lift legacy and planned AFV types.

The ship will also be required to carry fuel, fresh water and stores in addition say, 150, tonnes of fuel/cargo fuel, 50 tonnes fresh, water and 50 tonnes stores which brings the Dead Weight Tonnage up to 500 tonnes plus.
Therefore whatever ship is chosen needs to be substantial to fulfil that role

 

[t68]

If the maximum capabilty requirements for the LCH(R) to move a MBT troop do we need the capabilty to move them as a troop on a single vessels if the only operational use is in the regional area, surly if we do that we would be using more than one, unless we have a requirment to transport them globally than other mean would be better like the LST/LSV or Endurance class without relying on the LHD

On that have we ever practiced transferring a troop of MBT onto a landing craft offshore?

 

[rockitten]

Protesters voice concerns over shipbuilding job losses outside Christopher Pyne's Adelaide office - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

"But Defence Teaming Centre chief executive Chris Burns said every other developed country managed to have effective long-term plans for continuous shipbuilding, including Canada.

"They are a similar nation. They have a 30-year shipbuilding strategy that sees two shipyards permanently and continuously building ships in Canada," he said."

would any Canadian friends here mind to explain how successful Canada's "30-year shipbuilding strategy" is?

Or are some special interest group(s) from SA living in a parallel universe called the Cloud cuckoo land?

 

[John Fedup]

Protesters voice concerns over shipbuilding job losses outside Christopher Pyne's Adelaide office - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

"But Defence Teaming Centre chief executive Chris Burns said every other developed country managed to have effective long-term plans for continuous shipbuilding, including Canada.

"They are a similar nation. They have a 30-year shipbuilding strategy that sees two shipyards permanently and continuously building ships in Canada," he said."

would any Canadian friends here mind to explain how successful Canada's "30-year shipbuilding strategy" is?

Or are some special interest group(s) from SA living in a parallel universe called the Cloud cuckoo land?

Construction on Canada's first Arctic offshore patrol ship is to begin in Sep at Irving shipyard in Halifax. The plan was 8 ships then 6 and now 5. The Future Canadian surface combatant ships (15) will follow. I doubt 15 will be built. The SeaSpan yard in Vancouver will build 2 Berlin class AORs and an icebreaker. With only three ships I don't see a long term future for SeaSpan. Irving's future looks more secure but only if the planned number of ships are actually built. Given Canada's record of scaling back and delaying various defence procurements, I do not think one can say Canada has a secure 30 year ship building strategy.

 

[Volkodav]

Protesters voice concerns over shipbuilding job losses outside Christopher Pyne's Adelaide office - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

"But Defence Teaming Centre chief executive Chris Burns said every other developed country managed to have effective long-term plans for continuous shipbuilding, including Canada.

"They are a similar nation. They have a 30-year shipbuilding strategy that sees two shipyards permanently and continuously building ships in Canada," he said."

would any Canadian friends here mind to explain how successful Canada's "30-year shipbuilding strategy" is?

Or are some special interest group(s) from SA living in a parallel universe called the Cloud cuckoo land?

They do have a strategy, he just left out the bit that they haven't managed to kick it off yet. Ironically we were well on our way to developing a sustainable industry based on privately owned Transfield / Tenix Williamstown as prime, with blocks being fabricated around the country (including Eglos in Adelaide) back in the 90s, fell over after just two projects when Keating decided to upgrade the FFGs instead of replacing the DDGs and overseas built FFGs, then Howard cancelled the OPC / corvette program and decided to build a new yard to build the much delayed AWDs.