Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

M

Meriv90

Active Member
spoz said:
It’s worth remembering that most of the tonnage built in Korea for export are merchant ships, or ships adapted from mer ships such as tankers. They are high in tonnage and low in technology density. Europe tends to build warships, cruise ships and mega yachts which have much higher technology density than tankers, container ships or bulk carriers. While Japan can build both, it has not yet exported warships - and certainly has not built in another country - nor has Korea done that. Both Meko (Anzacs) and Navantia (Hobarts) have done that; and in Australia. In my view, that considerably levels the playing field.

I no longer have any insight into the process but on the grapevine I hear that it is a very tough competition. I wouldn’t write anybody off just yet.

So that it’s clear I’m not pushing an agenda, I might add that my favourite would be an FFM - if the language issue can be dealt with.
Click to expand...
IMHO another good point of choosing the Japanese is that being the first export, launch client, you can obtain more favorable conditions.

Don't know if it has sense, but I would request Mitsubishi to move some civilian workloads to Australia in order to counterbalance the low quantity of ships you can order until your population/GDP grow further. Similar to what Fincantieri was offering.
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Redlands18 said:
I have posted on the Army thread the August issue of DTR (currently free) which contains an interview with MAJGEN Vagg, Head of Army Capability and it goes into Land 8710 in some detail, worth the read. The LST120 is a lot bigger than the Army is looking at.
Click to expand...
Interesting article. He is talking of ships with a cargo capacity of about 500 tons and a displacement of about 3000. That is roughly 10 times the size of the LCH, which displaced about 320 tons. It’s around the same displacement as a Type 12 frigate was. Tobruk was about 3300 standard; or a bit over 5700 full load. So they are much closer to Tobruk than an LCH. At that size it will be at least a LCDR’s drive if they are sensible, and a Major if they are not. Looking at what he said about the threat environment, although he waffled a bit, it suggests they recognise the need for a reasonable self defence capability (think Atlantic Conveyor in the South Atlantic as what you don’t want to have happen).
 
J

JBRobbo

Member
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
JBRobbo said:

A little more information on the selected landing craft - medium as well as the designs presumably being offered by Birdon for the next phases of Land 8710, specifically the 80m 'H-260/ancillary surface connector - heavy' (also being evaluated by the USMC) and their own take on a LARC-V type 'amphibious vehicle - logistics'.
Click to expand...
The range is looking a more impressive number than what was previously suggested

Cheers S
 
S

SammyC

Well-Known Member
JBRobbo said:

A little more information on the selected landing craft - medium as well as the designs presumably being offered by Birdon for the next phases of Land 8710, specifically the 80m 'H-260/ancillary surface connector - heavy' (also being evaluated by the USMC) and their own take on a LARC-V type 'amphibious vehicle - logistics'.
Click to expand...
The H260 looks to have an inside edge for the LCH project. Specifications seem to be close to the requirement and it has a relationship with the anointed builder Austal. The US seems to like it as well.

Looks like it has some ocean going bones in its design (high freeboard and plenty of bow bouyancy) so should be able to cope with temperamental blue water conditions.

It is a little on the slow side though at 12 knots. I wonder if there is a bigger engine option.

To provoke a bit of thought.

I could well see a 32 cell Mk41 fitting in the vehicle deck between the flight pad and the bridge. Plenty of undercover space up forward for the controls, and good side protection from sea conditions. Could even fit a dozen NSMs down the back. 32 TLAMs and 12 NSMs plus their holders and controls is well within the payload capacity. Hopefully it could handle some top weight.

Nice small crew if we start with an optionally staffed configuration. Perhaps we keep making them once Land 8710 is finished in an LOCSV format.
 
Last edited:
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
SammyC said:
The H260 looks to have an inside edge for the LCH project. Specifications seem to be close to the requirement and it has a relationship with the anointed builder Austal. The US seems to like it as well.

Looks like it has some ocean going bones in its design (high freeboard and plenty of bow bouyancy) so should be able to cope with temperamental blue water conditions.

It is a little on the slow side though at 12 knots. I wonder if there is a bigger engine option.

To provoke a bit of thought.

I could well see a 32 cell Mk41 fitting in the vehicle deck between the flight pad and the bridge. Plenty of undercover space up forward for the controls, and good side protection from sea conditions. Could even fit a dozen NSMs down the back. 32 TLAMs and 12 NSMs plus their holders and controls is well within the payload capacity. Hopefully it could handle some top weight.

Nice small crew if we start with an optionally staffed configuration. Perhaps we keep making them once Land 8710 is finished in an LOCSV format.
Click to expand...
Interesting thoughts, Sammy. We really have to start thinking outside the box because we don't have much time if it all goes to ***t and a hot war starts.
Look at the ingenuity in Ukraine. Not everything has to look like a cruise liner. As long as it works and works effectively that's all that matters. It doesn't need to be pretty, just able to kick ***e!
 
M

MickB

Well-Known Member
SammyC said:
The H260 looks to have an inside edge for the LCH project. Specifications seem to be close to the requirement and it has a relationship with the anointed builder Austal. The US seems to like it as well.

Looks like it has some ocean going bones in its design (high freeboard and plenty of bow bouyancy) so should be able to cope with temperamental blue water conditions.

It is a little on the slow side though at 12 knots. I wonder if there is a bigger engine option.

To provoke a bit of thought.

I could well see a 32 cell Mk41 fitting in the vehicle deck between the flight pad and the bridge. Plenty of undercover space up forward for the controls, and good side protection from sea conditions. Could even fit a dozen NSMs down the back. 32 TLAMs and 12 NSMs plus their holders and controls is well within the payload capacity. Hopefully it could handle some top weight.

Nice small crew if we start with an optionally staffed configuration. Perhaps we keep making them once Land 8710 is finished in an LOCSV format.
Click to expand...
It may be able to carry the launchers but you leave out how you would handle the targeting.
Which radar and CMS would need to be fitted?
At what cost?
Does the ship have the space and power to operate such systems?

Even if capable of being fitted with virtual CEC it seems a little slow to operate alongside a MFU to provide targeting.
 
S

SammyC

Well-Known Member
MickB said:
It may be able to carry the launchers but you leave out how you would handle the targeting.
Which radar and CMS would need to be fitted?
At what cost?
Does the ship have the space and power to operate such systems?

Even if capable of being fitted with virtual CEC it seems a little slow to operate alongside a MFU to provide targeting.
Click to expand...
Media releases to date indicate the LOSCV will utilise the Virtual Aegis and CEC pack for full remote fire control from an MFU. This is the new miniturised system and the Americans fit all of this into a single sea container along with its cooling and security requirements for the LOSV prototype program. It would go comfortably up front on the cargo deck. Otherwise all it needs is the CEC antenna, which is small and would be mounted on the bridge roof as high as possible.

No combat radar, no 9LV, no operator. Just the Mk41 and the virtual Aegis/CEC.

The CEC antenna is line of sight, so if it is mounted high enough it can easily be able to operate 30-50km from its parent MFU.

A 32 cell MK41 consumes about 100kW, adding all the other stuff, perhaps 250kW. That's a small generator. The H260 would have its own inbuilt power, so possibly a small increase in capacity might be needed. Else it could fit a containerised genset on the aft deck, but that's a bit messier.

The vessel speed is a limitation. 12 kts would not work for a surface task group. I would have thought this needs to be able to at least cruise at 18kts. One would think there are some larger engine options, and perhaps some hull design improvements (a beaching hull is not shaped for efficiency) that could obtain this.
 
D

devo99

Well-Known Member
Is there any public source that explicitly states that the Adelaide-class received tactical length Mk41 and not self defence length? I’ve encountered some confusion about it online.
 
Last edited:
R

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
With the H260, who’s building the prototype for the U.S and AUS?
If the birdon LCH design is the one chosen, assuming Birdon and builder will complete the LCM prototype soon and then move onto a LCH prototype?, 25/26 prototype? and late 28 for first delivery by austal/civmec?
 
S

SammyC

Well-Known Member
Reptilia said:
With the H260, who’s building the prototype for the U.S and AUS?
If the birdon LCH design is the one chosen, assuming Birdon and builder will complete the LCM prototype soon and then move onto a LCH prototype?, 25/26 prototype? and late 28 for first delivery by austal/civmec?
Click to expand...
I'm not actually sure that a physical H260 prototype is being built for the USMC. The media says it is being used to evaluate missions it might be used for, under the guidance of the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory. I'm thinking this is more of a desktop exercise. Of note Birdon have their own (albeit small) yard in Alabama that could build something of this size with some upgrades.

The USN/MC FY25 budget states the first build contract for a landing ship medium (their term for our landing craft heavy equivalent) in FY25 (March 25 for contract award to be specific) and delivery in 2029. There is a request for proposal out for the first six LSMs at the moment. So we should know their direction shortly. They are looking at an eventual hull cost of US$150m. I would have thought we give serious consideration of their design.

Personally I'm not sure why the USMC doesn't just buy more of the Frank S Besson class, which seem to meet all their needs, particularly the Kuroda variant. They seem to be reinventing the wheel. Maybe I'm missing something here.

In regards to the Australian program, my understanding is that the LCMs will be built in the existing Austal halls. The LCH project will be conducted as a JV with Civmec in their yard. There does not appear to be any indication of the design the JV intends to present to the government. Pat Conroy's media release states delivery of the first LCH by 2028, two years after the first LCM. That kind of delivery schedule would mean that a construction contract would need to be issued in the next 12 months, probably about the same time as the US LSM program. Hopefully we will see something soon.
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I would have thought 12 knots a bit slow. Routing speed is normally 15 knots, and fast routing speed 18 knots. You would want your ships to be able to keep up with an Adelaide and Canberra, and remain with the coverage of their escorts I would have thought. And you wouldn’t want them to slow down to 12 as it would considerably increase their exposure.
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
devo99 said:
Is there any public source that explicitly states that the Adelaide-class received tactical length Mk41 and not self defence length? I’ve encountered some confusion about it online.
Click to expand...
Are our LHD's getting Mk.41? Are was getting confused thinking they were our long gone FFGs.
 
D

devo99

Well-Known Member
iambuzzard said:
Are our LHD's getting Mk.41? Are was getting confused thinking they were our long gone FFGs.
Click to expand...
I’m talking about the Adelaide-class FFGs. The LHDs are not getting Mk41.
I’m pretty certain that the FFGs got tactical length Mk41 modules but there’s people who like to have an actual source for information.
 
OldTex

OldTex

Well-Known Member
SammyC said:
Media releases to date indicate the LOSCV will utilise the Virtual Aegis and CEC pack for full remote fire control from an MFU. This is the new miniturised system and the Americans fit all of this into a single sea container along with its cooling and security requirements for the LOSV prototype program. It would go comfortably up front on the cargo deck. Otherwise all it needs is the CEC antenna, which is small and would be mounted on the bridge roof as high as possible.

No combat radar, no 9LV, no operator. Just the Mk41 and the virtual Aegis/CEC.

The CEC antenna is line of sight, so if it is mounted high enough it can easily be able to operate 30-50km from its parent MFU.

A 32 cell MK41 consumes about 100kW, adding all the other stuff, perhaps 250kW. That's a small generator. The H260 would have its own inbuilt power, so possibly a small increase in capacity might be needed. Else it could fit a containerised genset on the aft deck, but that's a bit messier.

The vessel speed is a limitation. 12 kts would not work for a surface task group. I would have thought this needs to be able to at least cruise at 18kts. One would think there are some larger engine options, and perhaps some hull design improvements (a beaching hull is not shaped for efficiency) that could obtain this.
Click to expand...
Using the Birdon H260 hull form as the basis for a LOCSV would not be ideal. The Birdon hull form is intended for at least limited beaching. A better hull form on which to base the LOCSV would be the Fast Supply Vessels used to support offshore rigs. These have already formed the basis for the MUSV and the LUSV trialled by the USN. While they do have limitations, with possibly range being a significant one, these can be addressed or mitigated. This hull form is designed for much higher speed than the H260 hull form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top