Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

Good payload and speeds but with a beam of 7.7m it might not be compatible with the dock lane. LLC has a beam of 6.4m. Caiman 90 would be a very tight fit.

Lanes are fixed spaces. At an overall dock width of 16.8m (and allowing about 1m for the width of the centreline baffle) this would leave around 7.9m of available width per lane.

The LLC (LCM-1E) has been designed specifically for the well dock of the LHD and I don't know how much free play is needed either side to enable safe movement in the dock during rough conditions. Don't think having 100mm tolerance each side of your craft would work somehow but I'm no expert.

There is also the drive through capability where a MBT can be loaded on the aftermost LCM-1E over the deck of the first. The Caimen drive through access is restricted by the machinery spaces.

The center divider is pretty important for handling the LCM's in the dock area as it ensures the beach where needed and speeds up the process.

A simpler option that avoid retrofit of this facility is an improved LCM with better operating capability.

Personally in lieu of LCATs or LCAC I would love to see the current LHD and LSD supplemented by a decent size LST that can operate with up to 200 troops and equipment independently but, as noted, JP2048 Phase 5 appears to have been shelved.

The LCAT and LCAC do not actually provide a marked increase in weight uplift than the LCM 1E but the LCAC provides speed while the LCAT better sea keeping (against the LCM-1E with a MBT). However, you sacrifice 75% of you uplift capacity for this.

 

[Stock]

There is also the drive through capability where a MBT can be loaded on the aftermost LCM-1E over the deck of the first. The Caimen drive through access is restricted by the machinery spaces.

The center divider is pretty important for handling the LCM's in the dock area as it ensures the beach where needed and speeds up the process.

A simpler option that avoid retrofit of this facility is an improved LCM with better operating capability.

Personally in lieu of LCATs or LCAC I would love to see the current LHD and LSD supplemented by a decent size LST that can operate with up to 200 troops and equipment independently but, as noted, JP2048 Phase 5 appears to have been shelved.

The LCAT and LCAC do not actually provide a marked increase in weight uplift than the LCM 1E but the LCAC provides speed while the LCAT better sea keeping (against the LCM-1E with a MBT). However, you sacrifice 75% of you uplift capacity for this.

Agree re LCAC/LCAT. A capability to replace the LCHs is sorely needed.

 

[aussienscale]

Good payload and speeds but with a beam of 7.7m it might not be compatible with the dock lane. LLC has a beam of 6.4m. Caiman 90 would be a very tight fit.

Lanes are fixed spaces. At an overall dock width of 16.8m (and allowing about 1m for the width of the centreline baffle) this would leave around 7.9m of available width per lane.

The LLC (LCM-1E) has been designed specifically for the well dock of the LHD and I don't know how much free play is needed either side to enable safe movement in the dock during rough conditions. Don't think having 100mm tolerance each side of your craft would work somehow but I'm no expert.

Understand what you are saying, the BMT design was given as an example, they can modify and adapt to specific requirements, so was not suggesting it as an actual replacement, but rather an example that there is plenty of options out there

Cheers

 

[John Newman]

The center divider is pretty important for handling the LCM's in the dock area as it ensures the beach where needed and speeds up the process.

A simpler option that avoid retrofit of this facility is an improved LCM with better operating capability.

This is exactly the thought that go through my mind regarding the 'reported' inability of the LCM1Es to carry a load such as an M1 in anything but 'smooth' water.

My question is (not modifying the LHD's themselves), but can the LCM's be 'improved' as you mentioned and still have four (4) of them fit in the well dock??

Obviously there is a 'physical' limitation as to what can fit within the well dock, and I'm sure we have all seen the 'cut away' graphic of the Canberra class showing four (4) LCM's in the dock and 'space' for four RHIB's packed in behind them.

Is the solution (yes sounds simple), having four 'enlarged/lengthened' LCM's instead?

Is it as simple as having LCM's with a wider beam (if possible within the confines) and/or lengthening them and doing away with the space 'available' for the four RHIB's??

Is it possible to just redesign the LCM's, within the current dimensions, that will allow for heavier loads in rougher sea states?

Or is the only solution (again without modifying the LHD's), to do away with the ability to carry four LCM1E's and replace them with, say, two 'stretched' LCM's??

Could we end up with 'two' classes of LCM's, the current version and a 'stretched' version as well?

 

[Volkodav]

This is exactly the thought that go through my mind regarding the 'reported' inability of the LCM1Es to carry a load such as an M1 in anything but 'smooth' water.

My question is (not modifying the LHD's themselves), but can the LCM's be 'improved' as you mentioned and still have four (4) of them fit in the well dock??

Obviously there is a 'physical' limitation as to what can fit within the well dock, and I'm sure we have all seen the 'cut away' graphic of the Canberra class showing four (4) LCM's in the dock and 'space' for four RHIB's packed in behind them.

Is the solution (yes sounds simple), having four 'enlarged/lengthened' LCM's instead?

Is it as simple as having LCM's with a wider beam (if possible within the confines) and/or lengthening them and doing away with the space 'available' for the four RHIB's??

Is it possible to just redesign the LCM's, within the current dimensions, that will allow for heavier loads in rougher sea states?

Or is the only solution (again without modifying the LHD's), to do away with the ability to carry four LCM1E's and replace them with, say, two 'stretched' LCM's??

Could we end up with 'two' classes of LCM's, the current version and a 'stretched' version as well?

We don't seem to have a particularly good track record with LCMs having screwed up the LCM2000 that was specifically designed for Bill and Ben as well. They are among the simplest craft out there, how hard can it be to actually set some reasonable requirements and then acquire something that meets them? Quite simple really, load up to a M-1A1 SEP, then transport it from the docking well of an amphibious ship (dimensions x:y:z), through a nominated sea state, to a required type(s) of beach.

 

[John Newman]

We don't seem to have a particularly good track record with LCMs having screwed up the LCM2000 that was specifically designed for Bill and Ben as well. They are among the simplest craft out there, how hard can it be to actually set some reasonable requirements and then acquire something that meets them? Quite simple really, load up to a M-1A1 SEP, then transport it from the docking well of an amphibious ship (dimensions x:y:z), through a nominated sea state, to a required type(s) of beach.

Yes you would think that procuring a fleet of LCM's (of the appropriate capability) would be a relatively simple task to complete, but obviously not!

Yes the LCM2000's, did they ever get sold? Or are they parked somewhere rotting away?

 

[alexsa]

Yes you would think that procuring a fleet of LCM's (of the appropriate capability) would be a relatively simple task to complete, but obviously not!

Yes the LCM2000's, did they ever get sold? Or are they parked somewhere rotting away?

At least some got sold as commercial vessels...... and are operating around the country. From my understanding it was their ability to withstand the lift on, lift off operations that was their final undoing.

 

[John Newman]

At least some got sold as commercial vessels...... and are operating around the country. From my understanding it was their ability to withstand the lift on, lift off operations that was their final undoing.

A couple of links I found regarding the LCM2000s:

LCM2000 Watercraft

And this one:

LCM 2000 Watercraft for Charter - Unused- Worldoils Oil, gas and offshore equipment marketplace

 

[Alf662]

We don't seem to have a particularly good track record with LCMs having screwed up the LCM2000 that was specifically designed for Bill and Ben as well. They are among the simplest craft out there, how hard can it be to actually set some reasonable requirements and then acquire something that meets them? Quite simple really, load up to a M-1A1 SEP, then transport it from the docking well of an amphibious ship (dimensions x:y:z), through a nominated sea state, to a required type(s) of beach.

The compliance bar is even higher now since the LCM2000 were designed and built. What might be considered a fairly simple application for even a domestic application is quiet involved.

Not only do they have to meet AMSA requirements for buoyancy and stability: https://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/domestic/publications/documents/NRIP00083.pdf

They would also be classified as Fast Craft if they go over 25 knots: https://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/domestic/publications/documents/NSCVF1A.pdf

Throw in additional classification society requirements for military applications and it starts to get bit hard.

Keep in mind that the type of landing craft that the Navy would need are restricted in size but also have to have significant payload requirements which affect stability.

 

[Stampede]

This is exactly the thought that go through my mind regarding the 'reported' inability of the LCM1Es to carry a load such as an M1 in anything but 'smooth' water.

My question is (not modifying the LHD's themselves), but can the LCM's be 'improved' as you mentioned and still have four (4) of them fit in the well dock??

Obviously there is a 'physical' limitation as to what can fit within the well dock, and I'm sure we have all seen the 'cut away' graphic of the Canberra class showing four (4) LCM's in the dock and 'space' for four RHIB's packed in behind them.

Is the solution (yes sounds simple), having four 'enlarged/lengthened' LCM's instead?

Is it as simple as having LCM's with a wider beam (if possible within the confines) and/or lengthening them and doing away with the space 'available' for the four RHIB's??

Is it possible to just redesign the LCM's, within the current dimensions, that will allow for heavier loads in rougher sea states?

Or is the only solution (again without modifying the LHD's), to do away with the ability to carry four LCM1E's and replace them with, say, two 'stretched' LCM's??

Could we end up with 'two' classes of LCM's, the current version and a 'stretched' version as well?

G'day John

I feel you may be on the right track if the load carrying margin for the LCM 1e
falls short by only bit. I'm not sure what usable space is left over for the storage of the RHIB's behind the LLC's but I'd speculate it's of the order of around 6 to 8 metres.
As a rough calculation I feel you get about two and a half tonnes of load carrying capacity for each metre of LCM, so using the spare space in the dock to either stretch one or alternatively both then maybe ............just maybe, it's potentially the difference between having a capability or not!
I had a chat to a welder at work a year ago about this very subject and what he made of the challenge of cutting the craft in two and fitting a plug to extend it's length.He was familiar with th type of craft but on his own admission said it was difficult to say without working plans. However he spoke about what he thought would be the internal structure and what would be involved and the sort of cost and time to complete.
Now for the warehouse bravado............"Can it be done I say" sure, cut in half by lunch time and rebuilt and fitted about a month. As to cost well who knows ...........Defence project?......... Smile!
I'm no engineer but I can't imagine it's that difficult a job to extend the LCM1e if it's both warranted and cost effective to do so.
It may just be the sort of simple solution for ship to shore transport of heavy vehicles that gets us over the line.
However I'm also open that it may be a bridge too far so lets see the full results of the trials.

Further to the discussion, the LCM1e should be a complement to,but not at the expense of a larger Landing Craft Heavy replacement.
As to what form such a vessel takes is another conversation.

Regards S

 

[John Newman]

G'day John

I feel you may be on the right track if the load carrying margin for the LCM 1e
falls short by only bit. I'm not sure what usable space is left over for the storage of the RHIB's behind the LLC's but I'd speculate it's of the order of around 6 to 8 metres.
As a rough calculation I feel you get about two and a half tonnes of load carrying capacity for each metre of LCM, so using the spare space in the dock to either stretch one or alternatively both then maybe ............just maybe, it's potentially the difference between having a capability or not!
I had a chat to a welder at work a year ago about this very subject and what he made of the challenge of cutting the craft in two and fitting a plug to extend it's length.He was familiar with th type of craft but on his own admission said it was difficult to say without working plans. However he spoke about what he thought would be the internal structure and what would be involved and the sort of cost and time to complete.
Now for the warehouse bravado............"Can it be done I say" sure, cut in half by lunch time and rebuilt and fitted about a month. As to cost well who knows ...........Defence project?......... Smile!
I'm no engineer but I can't imagine it's that difficult a job to extend the LCM1e if it's both warranted and cost effective to do so.
It may just be the sort of simple solution for ship to shore transport of heavy vehicles that gets us over the line.
However I'm also open that it may be a bridge too far so lets see the full results of the trials.

Further to the discussion, the LCM1e should be a complement to,but not at the expense of a larger Landing Craft Heavy replacement.
As to what form such a vessel takes is another conversation.

Regards S

Yeah 'cut n shut' always sounds good in theory, but I'm sure it's far more complex than that (adding a plug of a few metres if it was the solution), in the long run it's probably going to be simpler to just build a fleet of new LCMs from scratch (third time lucky perhaps??).

As to the LCMs and LCH, it would be nice to have both, have to have an LCM type vessel for the two LHD's and Choules (that pretty obvious), but it appears that the project to replace the LCH fleet 'has gone to God', disappeared when the DIIP was published.

Whilst yes the RAN's amphibious capability is massively increased from what it was just a few short years ago (Bill, Ben, Tobruk and the 6 LCH gone, replaced by the two LHD's, Choules and their respective landing craft, LCMs and Mexeflotes), I can't help but think there is a gap between the top and bottom ends.

Whilst in the past the LPA's, Tobruk and the 6 LCH could all operate independently of each other (appropriate ship for the appropriate job), today yes the LHD's and Choules can operate independently of each other, but I can't see the LCM's and Mexeflotes in operation without their respective 'mother ships' in attendance, which comes back to the question of the 'missing' LCH capability from the DIIP.

And talking of the DIIP, doesn't matter how many times I read (and re-read it), I still find the language a bit confusing regarding the possible 'third AOR or additional logistic support ship, similar to Choules in the late 2020s' and later on it also talks, when Choules is mentioned, 'The Integrated Investment Program also provides for the replacement of this logistics support ship around 2030'.


On the one had that can be read that the RAN might end up with 3 x AORs, plus Choules (and eventually her replacement), or 2 x AORs and 2 x logistics supports ships, one new and one as the replacement for Choules.

But where I find it more confusing is that in the actual 'budget allocations' there is an allocation of $1b-$2b, in the 2024-30 time period for that possible third AOR or additional logistics ship, but there is no budget allocation for the eventual Choules replacement in 2030, even though the 'wording' of the DIIP suggests that Choules will be replaced around 2030.

Confused? I am!!!

 

[Volkodav]

The compliance bar is even higher now since the LCM2000 were designed and built. What might be considered a fairly simple application for even a domestic application is quiet involved.

Not only do they have to meet AMSA requirements for buoyancy and stability: https://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/domestic/publications/documents/NRIP00083.pdf

They would also be classified as Fast Craft if they go over 25 knots: https://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/domestic/publications/documents/NSCVF1A.pdf

Throw in additional classification society requirements for military applications and it starts to get bit hard.

Keep in mind that the type of landing craft that the Navy would need are restricted in size but also have to have significant payload requirements which affect stability.

Not quite, the commonwealth are the flag authority in the case of naval vessels and while they aim to comply they don't have to and waivers can be granted. Not necessarily the right or smart thing to do but not AMSA, not SOLAS, not MARPOL have precedence.

 

[alexsa]

The compliance bar is even higher now since the LCM2000 were designed and built. What might be considered a fairly simple application for even a domestic application is quiet involved.

Not only do they have to meet AMSA requirements for buoyancy and stability: https://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/domestic/publications/documents/NRIP00083.pdf

They would also be classified as Fast Craft if they go over 25 knots: https://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/domestic/publications/documents/NSCVF1A.pdf

Throw in additional classification society requirements for military applications and it starts to get bit hard.

Keep in mind that the type of landing craft that the Navy would need are restricted in size but also have to have significant payload requirements which affect stability.

As miliatry craft they would have been benchmarked on the international stability, tonnage, laod line and MARPOL requirements not the NSCV (engines over 130Kw are subject to Annex VI of MARPOL). This includes cargo operations which are not covered in the NSCV. In so far as speed is concerned the high speed craft code and its domestic derivations is a scaling back of some requirements to facilitate the use of these craft. Under the HSC code the counterfoil to the scaling backing is operational restrictions.

As noted by Volk as a mititary vessel the Naval Flag Adminstration can very the requirements ..... and does.

Finally class are now embedded in defence and to be honest class does no hurt as they have the ability to inject some rigor into design assessment. Ship designers ofter make interpretation based on specifications that can lead to some real issues.

Case in point ...... designer is building an OPV for a southern customer and used the North Sea North Atlantic as the basis for the strength of hte bow, fore deck and fore accomodation. Problem is the weather assumptions do not work for the southern ocean. This was picked up by class and additional strengthening applied.

So Class is not the enermy ....... but they can be very expensive. For defence it really is not an issue as Class are currently engaged right down to the RHIBs.

 

[alexsa]

Yeah 'cut n shut' always sounds good in theory, but I'm sure it's far more complex than that (adding a plug of a few metres if it was the solution), in the long run it's probably going to be simpler to just build a fleet of new LCMs from scratch (third time lucky perhaps.

!!

Agree that this is not easy as an additional 8m is a lot on a vessel this size and the issue is longtitudinal strength (structure has to carry through) with respect to bending and sheer forces, racking and stablility. It seems the LCM1E are marginal with the Abrams based on RAN operating metrics but fine for everything else.

If the Abrams are to be carried in more diverse conditions then an improved design wouel be a better (lower risk) option.

 

[Alf662]

As miliatry craft they would have been benchmarked on the international stability, tonnage, laod line and MARPOL requirements not the NSCV (engines over 130Kw are subject to Annex VI of MARPOL). This includes cargo operations which are not covered in the NSCV. In so far as speed is concerned the high speed craft code and its domestic derivations is a scaling back of some requirements to facilitate the use of these craft. Under the HSC code the counterfoil to the scaling backing is operational restrictions.

As noted by Volk as a mititary vessel the Naval Flag Adminstration can very the requirements ..... and does.

Finally class are now embedded in defence and to be honest class does no hurt as they have the ability to inject some rigor into design assessment. Ship designers ofter make interpretation based on specifications that can lead to some real issues.

Case in point ...... designer is building an OPV for a southern customer and used the North Sea North Atlantic as the basis for the strength of hte bow, fore deck and fore accomodation. Problem is the weather assumptions do not work for the southern ocean. This was picked up by class and additional strengthening applied.

So Class is not the enermy ....... but they can be very expensive. For defence it really is not an issue as Class are currently engaged right down to the RHIBs.

Thank you for your feed back and insight Alexsa, always much appreciated.

I was referring to a straight commercial build (hence the NSCV links) as I could not find any other relevant information for a military application.

To put it another way, with respect to a landing craft that meets all of the Navy's size load and speed requirements for the LHD's is not an easy engineering solution. The basic design of the traditional landing craft has changed little since the 1940's but the requirements have changed.

Other solutions have been produced (LCAC, LCAT, PACSCAT) but all have their pro's and con's. I agree that the LCM1e is being used at it's limit and a decision may have been made fairly early to bite the bullet and fix the problem, unfortunately this appears to have been at the expense of the LCH replacement project in the short to medium term.

As previously discussed, I thoroughly agree that we need some LCH replacements or LST's. I think we will need another Fiji or East Timor to make the point.

 

[alexsa]

Thank you for your feed back and insight Alexsa, always much appreciated.

I was referring to a straight commercial build (hence the NSCV links) as I could not find any other relevant information for a military application.

To put it another way, with respect to a landing craft that meets all of the Navy's size load and speed requirements for the LHD's is not an easy engineering solution. The basic design of the traditional landing craft has changed little since the 1940's but the requirements have changed.

Other solutions have been produced (LCAC, LCAT, PACSCAT) but all have their pro's and con's. I agree that the LCM1e is being used at it's limit and a decision may have been made fairly early to bite the bullet and fix the problem, unfortunately this appears to have been at the expense of the LCH replacement project in the short to medium term.

As previously discussed, I thoroughly agree that we need some LCH replacements or LST's. I think we will need another Fiji or East Timor to make the point.

All noted but it is worth noting that NSCV is a domestic standard that is not necessarily applicable to commercial ship operating beyond the Australian EEZ. Agree on the LST issue but fear that horse has bolted for the time being.

 

[vonnoobie]

The BMT Caiman 90 may actually fill the requirement. There was earlier mention that with it's layout it wouldnt be able to transfer large vehicles onto a landing craft parked behind it however that is a non starter as the LCM-1E can only transfer a maximum of 12 tons in such a fashion.

One query I have.. How would mexefloats perform off of the LHD's?

 

[Milne Bay]

A couple of links I found regarding the LCM2000s:

LCM2000 Watercraft

And this one:

LCM 2000 Watercraft for Charter - Unused- Worldoils Oil, gas and offshore equipment marketplace

One of the LCM2000 has been moored at Birdon Marine (Port Macquarie NSW) for well over a year, and it has recently been joined by a second.
Originally I thought that the first was acting as a testbed for a possible Birdon design as they also manufacture the Army watercraft and may be wanting to break into other markets.
However, not so sure now that the second has showed up
MB

 

[Stampede]

Agree that this is not easy as an additional 8m is a lot on a vessel this size and the issue is longtitudinal strength (structure has to carry through) with respect to bending and sheer forces, racking and stablility. It seems the LCM1E are marginal with the Abrams based on RAN operating metrics but fine for everything else.

If the Abrams are to be carried in more diverse conditions then an improved design wouel be a better (lower risk) option.

Thanks Alexsa

Fair comment re strength of ship and LCM to support longer / heavier load.
While I appreciate I'm making lots of lay man assumptions it's always good to get feedback from those that know.
Hoping not to cross over to the fantasy fleet forum.


Regards S

 

[Stampede]

Yeah 'cut n shut' always sounds good in theory, but I'm sure it's far more complex than that (adding a plug of a few metres if it was the solution), in the long run it's probably going to be simpler to just build a fleet of new LCMs from scratch (third time lucky perhaps??).

As to the LCMs and LCH, it would be nice to have both, have to have an LCM type vessel for the two LHD's and Choules (that pretty obvious), but it appears that the project to replace the LCH fleet 'has gone to God', disappeared when the DIIP was published.

Whilst yes the RAN's amphibious capability is massively increased from what it was just a few short years ago (Bill, Ben, Tobruk and the 6 LCH gone, replaced by the two LHD's, Choules and their respective landing craft, LCMs and Mexeflotes), I can't help but think there is a gap between the top and bottom ends.

Whilst in the past the LPA's, Tobruk and the 6 LCH could all operate independently of each other (appropriate ship for the appropriate job), today yes the LHD's and Choules can operate independently of each other, but I can't see the LCM's and Mexeflotes in operation without their respective 'mother ships' in attendance, which comes back to the question of the 'missing' LCH capability from the DIIP.

And talking of the DIIP, doesn't matter how many times I read (and re-read it), I still find the language a bit confusing regarding the possible 'third AOR or additional logistic support ship, similar to Choules in the late 2020s' and later on it also talks, when Choules is mentioned, 'The Integrated Investment Program also provides for the replacement of this logistics support ship around 2030'.


On the one had that can be read that the RAN might end up with 3 x AORs, plus Choules (and eventually her replacement), or 2 x AORs and 2 x logistics supports ships, one new and one as the replacement for Choules.

But where I find it more confusing is that in the actual 'budget allocations' there is an allocation of $1b-$2b, in the 2024-30 time period for that possible third AOR or additional logistics ship, but there is no budget allocation for the eventual Choules replacement in 2030, even though the 'wording' of the DIIP suggests that Choules will be replaced around 2030.

Confused? I am!!!

Yes John

I concur I'm confused to.
Suggest that when replacement projects ( or lack of ) get pushed out to the horizon it all becomes a bit of guess work.
We will just have to wait and see what eventuates


Regads S