Yes, the roller door looks to be a new addition, along with many other changes.
Yes, the roller door looks to be a new addition, along with many other changes.
It does look like a garage door is fitted under the bridge. Seems about the height for a forklift accessible space. Perhaps a place for palletised goods out of the weather.
The vessel is large for the payload, however I would view that is more to do with the expected range and sea state that it is designed to do. These add a lot of bulk.
The superstructure will also contain a substantial bunking capacity for troops travelling with the vehicles. All adds to size.
Regarding a helo pad, that is perhaps the most noticable omission from the original Birdon design. But I'm thinking this is a nice to have rather than need to have. Using helos from LCMs substantially increases the operational complexity, and they at most can be utilised as a lilly pad.
If that. They’re really too small for anything other than winching, particularly in any sort of seaway (from the design it looks like they will have considerable motion). I suspect somebody in a position to do so realised that and did something about it. Of course, leaving it off probably also lowered the cost a bit….
Agree the seemingly large crew / service area are for the practicality of comfort and operation over extended periods.
My beef is that for the same crew size you could carry a big load with the LCM some what longer in length.
A missed opportunity!
At this stage they just don’t look like a good return on investment.
Hopefully they throw up some surprises in load capacity and range
Cheers S
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
What will be the role of this new launcher in Australian Army service?
Perhaps for a new medium to long range SAM system?
breakingdefense.com
Perhaps for a new medium to long range SAM system?
Army looks to add third CAML system, Lozano says - Breaking Defense
A request for information will be coming out in the near future, and the service is looking to make some “early selections” in the March to April timeframe for the CAML-light, Lt. Gen. Frank Lozano, PAE for Fires, said.
breakingdefense.com
What will be the role of this new launcher in Australian Army service?
Perhaps for a new medium to long range SAM system?
View attachment 55804View attachment 55805View attachment 55806
Army looks to add third CAML system, Lozano says - Breaking Defense
A request for information will be coming out in the near future, and the service is looking to make some “early selections” in the March to April timeframe for the CAML-light, Lt. Gen. Frank Lozano, PAE for Fires, said.
Short-Medium range, it says longer range or CAML-H(Heavy) won’t be in service until 2029 and beyond.
Last edited:
Project LAND 6504 - Medium Ranged Air Defence tender dropped this week.
In short seeking a mobile medium range AD system with a “focus” on active, terminal ballistic missile defence (in atmosphere) capability.
Will be managed in 3 parts -
CEP 1 - gathering info on systems that meet the high level requirements. Closes 26 November 26.
CEP 2 - down selecting a vendor (or small number of vendors) by end of Q1, 2027.
CEP 3 - developing tender quality data to allow for consideration by Government by the end of Q3 2027 and Government annoucement and contract award Q4, 2027.
Systems will be considered for FMS or DCS acquisition with Letters of Request to be sent in Q1 2027.
The system will be entirely military off the shelf. No developmental activity at all in initial phases with speed to capability the primary requirement (assuming system meets the HLR’s). Planned live fire demonstration of the successful system in Talisman Sabre 2029.
In short seeking a mobile medium range AD system with a “focus” on active, terminal ballistic missile defence (in atmosphere) capability.
Will be managed in 3 parts -
CEP 1 - gathering info on systems that meet the high level requirements. Closes 26 November 26.
CEP 2 - down selecting a vendor (or small number of vendors) by end of Q1, 2027.
CEP 3 - developing tender quality data to allow for consideration by Government by the end of Q3 2027 and Government annoucement and contract award Q4, 2027.
Systems will be considered for FMS or DCS acquisition with Letters of Request to be sent in Q1 2027.
The system will be entirely military off the shelf. No developmental activity at all in initial phases with speed to capability the primary requirement (assuming system meets the HLR’s). Planned live fire demonstration of the successful system in Talisman Sabre 2029.
Attachments
Lolcake
Active Member
Took them long enough
Friday beers... rant on...
I have a problem with the Damen vessels being called LCHs. Every other country in the world calls them LSTs and manufacture even includes it in their designation for the vessle - LST 100. The only reason they've been called CRAFT rather than SHIPS is to decieve ignorant people into believing that they are small enough not to be (appropriately) crewed by the navy.
To call the new vessles replacement for the old Balikpapan LCHs is a bit of a joke really - the roles (and size) are so vastly different. The only reason the Balikpapan LCHs got occasionally tasked with long range trans oceanic missions (which will be standard practice for the lst-100s) was because there was nothing else available to do the job.
The LST-100s will become the defacto replacement for Choules, despite the fact they have no helicopters, no landing craft of any sort, and no ability (other than in a port) to actually land anything other then by direct beaching on one of very few appropriate beaches around the world. Luckily the location of those few beaches is not disclosed to our potential enemies.
And then we arm them with (maybe) a 30mm cannon to defend against... well... everything.
I just don't get it.
And, I'm spent.
Rant off.
I have a problem with the Damen vessels being called LCHs. Every other country in the world calls them LSTs and manufacture even includes it in their designation for the vessle - LST 100. The only reason they've been called CRAFT rather than SHIPS is to decieve ignorant people into believing that they are small enough not to be (appropriately) crewed by the navy.
To call the new vessles replacement for the old Balikpapan LCHs is a bit of a joke really - the roles (and size) are so vastly different. The only reason the Balikpapan LCHs got occasionally tasked with long range trans oceanic missions (which will be standard practice for the lst-100s) was because there was nothing else available to do the job.
The LST-100s will become the defacto replacement for Choules, despite the fact they have no helicopters, no landing craft of any sort, and no ability (other than in a port) to actually land anything other then by direct beaching on one of very few appropriate beaches around the world. Luckily the location of those few beaches is not disclosed to our potential enemies.
And then we arm them with (maybe) a 30mm cannon to defend against... well... everything.
I just don't get it.
And, I'm spent.
Rant off.
Out of interest what would you have preferred to the named “ LCH “
Also do you support the LCM
Cheers S
The new 'lch', is an lst.
The lcm is....well I'm not really sure tbh. I think it has its place, a lot more flexible than the lst, but the capabilities of the chosen design look a bit undercooked.
Maybe the Lst/ Choules replacement should gave been 3-4 light lpd with a couple of (old style) lcms and a helo.
And the balikpapan replacement as per the original birdon/austal design.
The lcm is....well I'm not really sure tbh. I think it has its place, a lot more flexible than the lst, but the capabilities of the chosen design look a bit undercooked.
Maybe the Lst/ Choules replacement should gave been 3-4 light lpd with a couple of (old style) lcms and a helo.
And the balikpapan replacement as per the original birdon/austal design.
Yes the LCH is realistically a LST, which means it’s a big ship and I’m not sure how we go parking and extracting big ships on and off beaches.
Doable, but you would certainly want a permissive environment
With doors fore and aft to access the main heavy vehicle deck, you also need an accomodating wharf / jetty to facilitate loading / unloading this style of vessel.
I’d also would have much preferred four LPDs instead of the eight Damen LSTs.
A well deck for the ships connectors.
True helicopter capability with two spot flight deck and dedicated hangar with full aviation support.
Medium gun upfront and greater load of vehicles and personnel.
A much more flexible vessel for many contingencies.
Re the LCM from Austal, it’s just too small!
It should be able to carry around 170 to 180 t
to justify the expense and crew employed.
Two MBT
Or three IFV
Six Bushmaster. Etc
50 percent bigger with increase range and sea keeping.
No doubt defence have some big picture view to justifying their choices that this armchair general / Admiral doesn’t understand.
My ignorance but also my taxes.
Trust the two projects are more successful than the LCM 2000 concept!
Cheers S
Maybe is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
I’d suggest a couple of 12.7mm guns, flex mounted is the more likely…
Our forces are only meant for permissive environments afterall…
How dare yOu?
This is what “capability at the speed of “relevance” looks like in practice!
(medium ranged air defence and terminal ballistic missile defence has never before been relevant, apparently…)
/sarcasm off
Lolcake
Active Member
Look at the positives. IOC by 2045
Even 3 LPDs would have been a better choice.
8 of these things.....riiggghhhht.....split up, no doubt, which would be thereasoning behind the numbers, a company lift per ship, lift two Bn groups for littoral deployments.....or a company group to gaurd a FIRES unit, which would be vulnerable to SF ops. Im not convinced that these two classes of ships, aee what is really needed for the ADF.