Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I understand that, but I have to question the logic behind taking away what is essentially a naval function from the....uhhh....navy.

Battlefield helo transfer from raaf to army is a relevant example, but should we then transfer c27s? C130s? C17s? I think there is a limit as to what is logical, and I think the LC-Ms are on one side, and the 4000t LSTs (not LCHs) are a country mile on the other side.
For whatever reason, RAN wasn’t interested in replacing it’s Balikpapan Class and yet Army needed the support of such a capability. Government directed that we would pivot to a substantially greater littoral maneuver capability and Army is stepping up to provide it.

Perhaps it’s as simple as Army can manning-wise and RAN can’t?

But I am sure like any new capability, a crawl, walk, run approach will be employed while the capability is worked up.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
I have no doubt the Army is capable of building the skills to operate the LST100s, but my experiance was, that to progress your career ,we had to leave the maritime stream which defied common sense in building capability.
Maybe with the number of new vessels coming on board, the Army wont have the luxury to move staff on from the maritime stream.
The non-Corps postings are intended to develop a wider appreciation of other Corps and systems. It is meant to develop selected personnel for higher promotion. If the individual wants to stay in the trade stream then that is fine. But that will also limit their potential promotion. After doing non-Corps postings there is nothing stopping the individuals return to their trade stream.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
I understand that, but I have to question the logic behind taking away what is essentially a naval function from the....uhhh....navy.

Battlefield helo transfer from raaf to army is a relevant example, but should we then transfer c27s? C130s? C17s? I think there is a limit as to what is logical, and I think the LC-Ms are on one side, and the 4000t LSTs (not LCHs) are a country mile on the other side.
The transfer of the troop lift helicopters from RAAF to Army (UH-1s as CH-47Cs had been retired) also saw the transfer of fixed wing AAvn roles to RAAF (the Pilatus Turbo Porters were retired). The helicopters due to their shorter range etc were located much closer to forces requiring their capabilities so it made sense for them to be operated by that service. It is also the reason why the Navy helicopters are not RAAF.
 

Richo99

Active Member
The transfer of the troop lift helicopters from RAAF to Army (UH-1s as CH-47Cs had been retired) also saw the transfer of fixed wing AAvn roles to RAAF (the Pilatus Turbo Porters were retired). The helicopters due to their shorter range etc were located much closer to forces requiring their capabilities so it made sense for them to be operated by that service. It is also the reason why the Navy helicopters are not RAAF.
Exactly what I was saying....there is a line, and helos and lt fw were on one side of the line
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
Exactly what I was saying....there is a line, and helos and lt fw were on one side of the line
The Balikpapen LCHs were originally procured for and operated by Army. The decision, similar to the later helicopter one, was that Navy should operate them moved the capability but not the need. For Army the LCMs and LCHs were maritime versions of the Unimog and Mack trucks. They were intended to move material and personnel as part of a battle plan from either Divisional or Brigade HQs.
If Army is now better placed to man these new vessels, and develop the CONOPS and TTPs, then so be it. Navy can still influence that development but don't need to provide it. Also Navy might just be the Safety regulation authority just like RAAF is for all aircraft (including Army and Navy helicopters).
 

Underway

Active Member
They can easily be crewed by navy pers, but come under operational joint command during operations or the Army budget. Land label just indicated that the Army are paying for them as its a capability they need not a capability the navy needs.
 

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
Just catching up with this decision and from the point of view of the specification and capabilities of the Damen LST 100 there seems a lot to like. They have a helicopter deck, crane, 4000nm range and 15 knot speed so could have many uses in peace and war. With the crane able to lift landing craft (and drones) in and out of water, they could be used for lots of missions - Damen lists mine warfare. So eight of these should be really useful.

For all those reasons though, surely these should count as auxiliary warships and be commanded by naval officers. In fact, wouldn’t these make ideal early commands to make it easier for navy officers and sailors to work their way up in developing command experience?

I have never been in the military and understand that there are always turf wars over who controls what. But surely this is obviously a ship. The new LCM is effectively the size of the old LCH, and the new LCH is the size of the old LST. In fact, that is exactly what these are called in the Damen catalogue.
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
Just catching up with this decision and from the point of view of the specification and capabilities of the Damen LST 100 there seems a lot to like. They have a helicopter deck, crane, 4000nm range and 15 knot speed so could have many uses in peace and war. With the crane able to lift landing craft (and drones) in and out of water, they could be used for lots of missions - Damen lists mine warfare. So eight of these should be really useful.

For all those reasons though, surely these should count as auxiliary warships and be commanded by naval officers. In fact, wouldn’t these make ideal early commands to make it easier for navy officers and sailors to work their way up in developing command experience?

I have never been in the military and understand that there are always turf wars over who controls what. But surely this is obviously a ship. The new LCM is effectively the size of the old LCH, and the new LCH is the size of the old LST. In fact, that is exactly what these are called in the Damen catalogue.

Good but 100 vs 120 design…
-4,000 nm vs 8,000nm range (might be a mistake on the webpage, also states 4,500nm)
-15 vs 16 knt max speed
-2 small craft spots vs 4 (huge difference when you factor in drones)
-18 crew vs 22
-Troops 234 vs 336
-Roro space 575m sq vs 750m sq
-Cargo deck 440m sq vs 650m sq

Maybe because the 120 has never been built and the 100 has? or does it exceed 5,000 ton?
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Good but 100 vs 120 design…
-4,000 nm vs 8,000nm range (might be a mistake on the webpage, also states 4,500nm)
-15 vs 16 knt max speed
-2 small craft spots vs 4 (huge difference when you factor in drones)
-18 crew vs 22
-Troops 234 vs 336
-Roro space 575m sq vs 750m sq
-Cargo deck 440m sq vs 650m sq

Maybe because the 120 has never been built and the 100 has? or does it exceed 5,000 ton?
With the new fires brigade, and water transport expansion, we couldn't fill the 120 with 300+ troops.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
For whatever reason, RAN wasn’t interested in replacing it’s Balikpapan Class and yet Army needed the support of such a capability. Government directed that we would pivot to a substantially greater littoral maneuver capability and Army is stepping up to provide it.

Perhaps it’s as simple as Army can manning-wise and RAN can’t?

But I am sure like any new capability, a crawl, walk, run approach will be employed while the capability is worked up.
And arguably it will be a less intense learning curve than it was for army aviation.

It wasn't just taking on the Blackhawks, it was absorbing the much more complex chinooks, skipping several generations going from Kiowa to Tiger, and then making the abomination of a hangar queen, the MRH 90 work.

Army used to operate their own ships, as well as large landing craft, the skills are there, they just need to be expanded.

Navy are going to be flatout crewing the new combatants, it's not like the 70s when plans for corvettes, fast frigates and light destroyers fell over so the LCHs were needed just to provide enough command billets for navy to maintain through put of seaman officers.
 

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
The basic specifications are detailed in this article and it looks like a very suitable vessel. One interesting spec that I noticed is that the ramps have a 70t rating. The new Abrams M1A2 SepV3 are said to weigh 66t at full load but some articles claim as much as 73 tonnes - it wouldn’t surprise me if the new ADF vessels have strengthened ramps.

M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams puts in maiden Australian appearance - Asian Military Review

There’s no details about the bow mounted gun as it’s obviously a selection to be made by the ADF (GoTD) but an obvious choice would be the same 30mm gun that will be fitted to the Hunter class frigates.
 

Wombat000

Well-Known Member
The question of self defence armament is interesting, especially as I can envision these potentially infiltrating littoral areas for operations reasons.

the historical precedent to this that comes immediately to mind would be WW2 Japanese (supply) barges, and them being gunned down by aircraft once found.

perhaps their armament should be a CIWS variant?
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
The question of self defence armament is interesting, especially as I can envision these potentially infiltrating littoral areas for operations reasons.

the historical precedent to this that comes immediately to mind would be WW2 Japanese (supply) barges, and them being gunned down by aircraft once found.

perhaps their armament should be a CIWS variant?
I just can't imagine these craft operating in hostile areas without escort protection. I would have thought they would be moving equipment mostly within safe areas (i.e friendly territory) and within sea lanes that have frigate, mine clearance and aircraft overwatch.

With our small quantity of army mobile equipment, we couldn't afford to loose an LCH fully laden. Imagine loosing 10% of our tank fleet in one hit.

Perhaps they might be exposed to small craft raiders/drones or shore ambush attacks, so perhaps 25mm typhoon/bushmaster type weapons systems that other small boats have for basic force protection.

It's a big step up to a Phalanx or seaRAM, and we don't seem to have enough of these for the combat ships, let alone support craft.

And we were incapable of fitting a decent gun to the Arafuras, so can't see why there would be more success here.
 

Richo99

Active Member
And we were incapable of fitting a decent gun to the Arafuras, so can't see why there would be more success here.
...or even one Phalanx to either LHD, despite a ready pool of weapons, a formal program, 5+ years of elapsed time, and a far greater consequence if the shtf...

Regardless, I believe that any warship with even the slightest chance of being within 200km of a hostile AShM and carrying 100s of troops should have at least a ciws. In the broader scheme of things, I can't imagine it's a great expense.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I just can't imagine these craft operating in hostile areas without escort protection. I would have thought they would be moving equipment mostly within safe areas (i.e friendly territory) and within sea lanes that have frigate, mine clearance and aircraft overwatch.

With our small quantity of army mobile equipment, we couldn't afford to loose an LCH fully laden. Imagine loosing 10% of our tank fleet in one hit.

Perhaps they might be exposed to small craft raiders/drones or shore ambush attacks, so perhaps 25mm typhoon/bushmaster type weapons systems that other small boats have for basic force protection.

It's a big step up to a Phalanx or seaRAM, and we don't seem to have enough of these for the combat ships, let alone support craft.

And we were incapable of fitting a decent gun to the Arafuras, so can't see why there would be more success here.
Hence the GP Frigate program.

What would also be good is some sort of drone carrier / helicopter carrier.

Basically the majors and subs, working with the RAAF providing overwatch, while the GPFs and drone carriers sanitise the tactical space allowing the amphibs access.
 
Top