Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[seaspear]

I was looking at the speculated pictures of future littoral ships on page 26 of this article and noticed the increased size of heavy lift ships, is there any news to suggest its more than speculation at this stage?
2021 journal.pdf (ract.org.au)

 

[Redlands18]

I was looking at the speculated pictures of future littoral ships on page 26 of this article and noticed the increased size of heavy lift ships, is there any news to suggest its more than speculation at this stage?
2021 journal.pdf (ract.org.au)

LSV 90 - Landing Ship Logistics LSV 80 - Damen
The size given there is 76x10x16m(height not draught), as a comparison the Damen LSL80 is 80x14x2.7-3m(draught), deadweight is 350-550t (got no idea what displacement range that would have). The Balikpapan class where around 500t full load. The 2020 Defence Update called for LMV-H up to 2000t displacement. There is no indication yet that the LMV-H won't proceed but it's not due for several more years yet, the LMV-M and LMV-A having first priority, and so they should, the LCM-8 and LARC-Vs are the same vintage as the M-113s.
The LMV-H are going to be fairly considerable vessels.

 

[Stampede]

I was looking at the speculated pictures of future littoral ships on page 26 of this article and noticed the increased size of heavy lift ships, is there any news to suggest its more than speculation at this stage?
2021 journal.pdf (ract.org.au)

I'd be confident this will all go ahead.
The LARC-V and LCM -8 have been solid workhorses for the ADF for decades.
This capability is still needed and should be replaced.
Cannot see this been delayed and expect a selected winner this year with first vessels IOC in 2026.

I hope the Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Medium (LMV-M) is not a missed opportunity.
Given these vessels are to big to be carried within the docking wells of the LHD's and Choules then size is not really a restraint, but for the need to be of a certain size to operate within the littoral environment.
I think judging by the contenders they are looking at around 1200 nautical miles for range and around 35m to 40m in length which I feel is realistically limiting for their intended operating environment.
My understanding is there are a lot of civilian landing / supply craft Like the “Bhagwan Mover operating and serving in the North and West that are just a bit bigger than these contenders.

https://www.bhagwanmarine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Vessel-Spec-Sheet-Bhagwan-Mover.pdf

Around 50 meters and 2500 Nautical miles would seem more appropriate for cargo capacity and range.
Should still be able to mate to the back of a LHD. ( Hopefully )
This size appears to hit the sweet spot of realistically serving the Australian coastline and also been able to visit regional off shore islands and Territories; something the intended designs maybe challenged with do to their size.

As to a landing ship heavy, this one is a mystery.
When is a vessel to big to park and extract it's self from a beach.
Is this the approach for a big logistic ship into the future.
If not
Do we want something for just port to port transport.
If independence of port facilities are needed, does it need connectors for Army's heavy equipment and therefore a docking well.
How big does that look.
Are we now straying into the Joint Support Ship territory.

I would of preferred combining the Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel -Medium and Heavy into the one class.


Navy could then get the big ships it needs for ADF combined operations.
Still begs the question as to what that would look like, but that's realistically for a different thread.


Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

I'd be confident this will all go ahead.
The LARC-V and LCM -8 have been solid workhorses for the ADF for decades.
This capability is still needed and should be replaced.
Cannot see this been delayed and expect a selected winner this year with first vessels IOC in 2026.

I hope the Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Medium (LMV-M) is not a missed opportunity.
Given these vessels are to big to be carried within the docking wells of the LHD's and Choules then size is not really a restraint, but for the need to be of a certain size to operate within the littoral environment.
I think judging by the contenders they are looking at around 1200 nautical miles for range and around 35m to 40m in length which I feel is realistically limiting for their intended operating environment.
My understanding is there are a lot of civilian landing / supply craft Like the “Bhagwan Mover operating and serving in the North and West that are just a bit bigger than these contenders.

https://www.bhagwanmarine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Vessel-Spec-Sheet-Bhagwan-Mover.pdf

Around 50 meters and 2500 Nautical miles would seem more appropriate for cargo capacity and range.
Should still be able to mate to the back of a LHD. ( Hopefully )
This size appears to hit the sweet spot of realistically serving the Australian coastline and also been able to visit regional off shore islands and Territories; something the intended designs maybe challenged with do to their size.


Cheers S

The LMV-M is not an easy project to come up with the right design. I don't think the Army is looking for a dramatic increase in load carrying capability, I suspect it is far more about better Sea Keeping better speed, range and endurance, better living and working conditions for the crew and passengers, much better power storage and possibly even fitting RCWS' on them. A vessel like the Bhagwan is flat bottomed, has poor speed (9kt operational), not great sea keeping, they are built for Brown water ops between islands. We need something that can cruise in the open ocean around 15kt, with a reasonable load, can comfortably cover the range between Top End/PNG/Solomons population centres and then enter river systems.

 

[Stampede]

The LMV-M is not an easy project to come up with the right design. I don't think the Army is looking for a dramatic increase in load carrying capability, I suspect it is far more about better Sea Keeping better speed, range and endurance, better living and working conditions for the crew and passengers, much better power storage and possibly even fitting RCWS' on them. A vessel like the Bhagwan is flat bottomed, has poor speed (9kt operational), not great sea keeping, they are built for Brown water ops between islands. We need something that can cruise in the open ocean around 15kt, with a reasonable load, can comfortably cover the range between Top End/PNG/Solomons population centres and then enter river systems.

Thanks
Thinking more a concept of size rather than the particular vessel.

The US Runnymede Class would may of being a better example.

Runnymede-class large landing craft - Wikipedia

Still feel 100% larger than the LCM-8 rather than 50% would be appropriate.

Civmec and Serco have the OBOE landing Craft that is some 40M in length and claim it easily covers the range requirements.

We wait and see.

What ever the outcome it will be an improvement over the old LCM-8.

Trust they are built in the numbers intended


Cheers S

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Back in Jul 2021, when I guess the "Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Medium" was the "Independent Landing Craft " I posted these links to Navantia Australia's fact sheets in the RAN thread (and linked in this thread)

Kodal-class Independent Landing Craft:
Kodal 75S, 25m with bow ramp: https://navantia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/KODAL75S.pdf
Kodal 90DT, 35m drive through: https://navantia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/KODAL90DT.pdf
Kodal 90S 35m with bow ramp: https://navantia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/KODAL90S.pdf

Then in May 2022 naval News reported on business team ups for the "Independent Littoral Maneuver Vessel (ILMV)"

Contractors Team Up for Australian Landing Craft Requirement - Naval News

The competition for Australia’s new Independent Littoral Maneuver Vessel (ILMV) known as Land 8710 Phase 1A heated up during INDO PACIFIC 2022, with several competitors showcasing their designs and concepts to replace the Army’s ancient fleet of LCM-8s.

www.navalnews.com

And I just found this Navantia Australia's page for the Kodal Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Medium
Unfortunately I can't link a fact sheet, only download the pdf and can't post that here But I can grab an image of the first page of the brochure and some additional art (and some data from the fact sheet

Main Characteristics
Length Overall 39m ; Maximum beam 10.8m ; Design draft 1.4m ; Design displacement 334t ; Speed (Full load SS4) 15kn ; Speed (Light load SS1) 20kn ; Range (Full load SS4) 500nm ; Range (Light load SS1) 1700nm ; Cargo capacity 80t ; Gross tonnage 240gt

Can't wait to see what the boat is called next year

 

[Stampede]

Back in Jul 2021, when I guess the "Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Medium" was the "Independent Landing Craft " I posted these links to Navantia Australia's fact sheets in the RAN thread (and linked in this thread)

Then in May 2022 naval News reported on business team ups for the "Independent Littoral Maneuver Vessel (ILMV)"

Contractors Team Up for Australian Landing Craft Requirement - Naval News

The competition for Australia’s new Independent Littoral Maneuver Vessel (ILMV) known as Land 8710 Phase 1A heated up during INDO PACIFIC 2022, with several competitors showcasing their designs and concepts to replace the Army’s ancient fleet of LCM-8s.

www.navalnews.com

And I just found this Navantia Australia's page for the Kodal Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Medium
Unfortunately I can't link a fact sheet, only download the pdf and can't post that here But I can grab an image of the first page of the brochure and some additional art (and some data from the fact sheet

Can't wait to see what the boat is called next year

Thanks again for the images and fact sheets.
I've enjoyed looking at these and the other those of the other three competitors.
Certainly a variety of vessel shapes to meet the LMV-M requirements.

It will be an interesting outcome

Cheers S

 

[SwingShift]

The marked helipad looks very close to a range of aerials and the vessels bridge in this Navantia LMV M rendering. Similar clear area scale to width of the armour. Perhaps a UAV pad rather than manned heli, or a very gutsy pilot on final descent on a rocking sea with aerials and steal coming towards the rotars.

Can't wait to see what the boat is called next year
[/QUOTE]

 

[Redlands18]

Thanks
Thinking more a concept of size rather than the particular vessel.

The US Runnymede Class would may of being a better example.

Runnymede-class large landing craft - Wikipedia

Still feel 100% larger than the LCM-8 rather than 50% would be appropriate.

Civmec and Serco have the OBOE landing Craft that is some 40M in length and claim it easily covers the range requirements.

We wait and see.

What ever the outcome it will be an improvement over the old LCM-8.

Trust they are built in the numbers intended


Cheers S

Land Project 8710 – Phase 1 Army Littoral Manoeuvre.pdf
Runnymede would almost certainly too big to operate in many of the Northern Australian Riverine systems. The vessels need to be highly manoeuvrable, operate in shallow water as well have good speed and range.

The marked helipad looks very close to a range of aerials and the vessels bridge in this Navantia LMV M rendering. Similar clear area scale to width of the armour. Perhaps a UAV pad rather than manned heli, or a very gutsy pilot on final descent on a rocking sea with aerials and steal coming towards the rotars.

Can't wait to see what the boat is called next year

Lilli padding S-100s would be the only real use for the landing pad and you would after to take down port side antenna to do that

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Land Project 8710 – Phase 1 Army Littoral Manoeuvre.pdf
Runnymede would almost certainly too big to operate in many of the Northern Australian Riverine systems. The vessels need to be highly manoeuvrable, operate in shallow water as well have good speed and range.

Lilli padding S-100s would be the only real use for the landing pad and you would after to take down port side antenna to do that

One of the images on the second page of the brochure/fact sheet shows a S-100 type UAV on the landing spot

 

[Stampede]

Land Project 8710 – Phase 1 Army Littoral Manoeuvre.pdf
Runnymede would almost certainly too big to operate in many of the Northern Australian Riverine systems. The vessels need to be highly manoeuvrable, operate in shallow water as well have good speed and range.

Lilli padding S-100s would be the only real use for the landing pad and you would after to take down port side antenna to do that

Yep a balancing act of accessibility, range and cargo size.

Hoping this project is on time and delivers the number of craft intended.

Cheers S

 

[alexsa]

Yep a balancing act of accessibility, range and cargo size.

Hoping this project is on time and delivers the number of craft intended.

Cheers S

That actually looks like a VERTREP symbol. Basically dropping off an underslung load or winching in and out.

It is not intended for landing.

 

[OldTex]

I was looking at the speculated pictures of future littoral ships on page 26 of this article and noticed the increased size of heavy lift ships, is there any news to suggest its more than speculation at this stage?
2021 journal.pdf (ract.org.au)

I would suggest that the article in the Corps journal written for the Corps is more about internal issue management, specifically retention and the future of specific ECNs (that is Employment Category Number which is the 'trade'). It is also an ambit claim to the ADF staff that the LMV-H should be crewed by Army water transport soldiers. Obviously the RAN will have a counter claim positioning RAN as the operators of these future vessels based on the previous operation of the LCHs. All of this will have to be decided in the future as part of the relevant project, or at least as part of a FSR preferrably before the project is commenced.

 

[Bob53]

A short article on Aussie HIMARS purchase. Australian Army to receive first of its 20 HIMARS in 2025 | Defense News February 2023 Global Security army industry | Defense Security global news industry army year 2023 | Archive News year

 

[Bob53]

Interesting article in the Drive about possible ground launched AARGM-ER. Navy To Test Ground-Launched Version Of New Radar-Busting Missile

 

[Takao]

I would suggest that the article in the Corps journal written for the Corps is more about internal issue management, specifically retention and the future of specific ECNs (that is Employment Category Number which is the 'trade'). It is also an ambit claim to the ADF staff that the LMV-H should be crewed by Army water transport soldiers. Obviously the RAN will have a counter claim positioning RAN as the operators of these future vessels based on the previous operation of the LCHs. All of this will have to be decided in the future as part of the relevant project, or at least as part of a FSR preferrably before the project is commenced.

This Army loggie officer thinks that all the water transport should belong to the RAN. What better way of growing seamanship skills than LS in charge of LCM-M, POs in charge of LCM-H with LEUT and CPO to manage the Tp (Division?)? All up you get seaworthiness being integral and pre-built in, you get an absolute brilliant school of seamanship that will help on all Fleet platforms and you have a sailor/junior officer cadre that speaks Army fluently and will be ideal for LHD/LSD postings. What better person to negotiate between the Armoured OC and the LHD LCDR than a CPO who has grown up with LCM-Ms and LCM-Hs?

Also frees up RACT to focus on land materiel distribution, something that we know has been degraded.

 

[ngatimozart]

This Army loggie officer thinks that all the water transport should belong to the RAN. What better way of growing seamanship skills than LS in charge of LCM-M, POs in charge of LCM-H with LEUT and CPO to manage the Tp (Division?)? All up you get seaworthiness being integral and pre-built in, you get an absolute brilliant school of seamanship that will help on all Fleet platforms and you have a sailor/junior officer cadre that speaks Army fluently and will be ideal for LHD/LSD postings. What better person to negotiate between the Armoured OC and the LHD LCDR than a CPO who has grown up with LCM-Ms and LCM-Hs?

Also frees up RACT to focus on land materiel distribution, something that we know has been degraded.

Whoever thought a Rupert could think logically.

Actually a good idea and would work out well for the RAN equivalent of the Seaman Combat Specialist Branch. A CPO SCS or a WO SCS growing up amongst such a setting would be ideal and having Snotty's and junior officers (JO) involved as well would bode well for the future. Actually it should be part of a Snotty's training; a month at sea in one and it should be compulsory for all Navy JOs.

 

[Volkodav]

Before jointness there was probably good reason for each service to cover off specialist capabilities that they couldn't trust others to provide or support, now perhaps not so much.

There is perhaps justification for joint capabilities in some areas where, bi or even tri service personnel could serve in a given capability, in particular in technical areas.

 

[Tbone]

Could someone detail what long range mobile launcher and strike missile is available now that the army could acquire for long range.. and I mean longe range strike from Australia shores?
I understand HIMARs can go out to 500km and NSM to 250km
But what system is currently available for order that can reach 1000 plus that could strike out to the island chains to our north and coral sea islands?
I feel this is what the army should be focusing on as a new capability that and merging as a marine style force.

 

[Unric]

First Land-Based Tomahawk And SM-6 Launcher Delivered To Army

The Typhon Weapon System will give the Army its first ground-based medium-range missile strike capability in decades.

www.thedrive.com

Tomahawk should do the job but is a bit long in the tooth. LRASM I believe has been tested with mk 41 but not sure if fully integrated - but would be a better long term solution in my opinion.