I understand the Canberra Class LLC connectors in the LCM1e are connectors and not intended for Long distance travel, but their load carrying capability is still very impressive for their size.
Comparing them to the load carrying capability of the new LCM , the later appears very limited.
They also appear limited to other craft of similar size.
These vessels are close to four times the size of the LLC yet only carry twice its load.
A vessel of this size should have more weight and lane meter capacity.
Making allownce for range and sea keeping they don’t appear a very good return on investment of capital and Human Resources.
LCH yes.
LCM appears not one thing or the other.
As for its build hiccups.
Another question mark.
Cheers S
My initial response is yes and no
I'll start with no.
The 'medium' has two different meanings here. In terms of the LCM-1E, these are LCM-8 sized critters. As you say, perfect for connecting the LHD/LSD to the shore. They don't need any real life support, range or sea-keeping capability. Gosh, even their comms and sensors are limited - no need for nav radar, long range comms, nothing. Army's old LCM-8s are not much better - yes they have a little more independence, but are still limited. Perfectly fine all around.
The medium being delivered in LAND 8710 is a different class of medium. It's able to operate independently of the LHD/LSD, it is required to have better accommodation, better sea-keeping and all the comms and sensors that a ship does. All that extra weight goes to that. We are saying it's a replacement for the LCM-8, but it's like replacing the C-27 with a C-130... wait, sorry, that's majorly unfair to the LCM-8. It can lift more, but it's extra weight and size isn't 100% devoted to that.
Of course the LCH could carry more, with slightly more crew, but it has it's own restrictions. It's not as nimble, more expensive to run, requires more restricted geographical options, the lot. Going all LCH prevents the flexibility of the smaller fleet - the latter critical for the theory of independent operations in an archipelago.
Which leads to the yes...
LAND 8710 is happening. The LCMs certainly. The arguments have been made and had.....
Having said that - what is the point of these ships? They can't replace the genuinely unique capabilities of the LCM-8 which provided riverine and shallower water ops that, physically, neither the LCM nor LCH can do. One of the key advantages of the LCM-8 was that it could go places that were unexpected. It also had a broader range of places it can land - critical across the north, especially in support of the RFSG. The other advantage of the LCM-8 was that it could act as a connector alongside LCM-1Es. Carry as deck cargo for the LSD and you'd improve your ARE/ARG wave size. The LCM cannot do that.
But, I hear you say, lift more stuff! Which is true, but it can't lift enough to be independent. A couple of LCH and LCM can replace HMAS Choules lift capability, but not her helicopter capabilities, her comms, her C2, or her medical capabilities. So....they don't really replace a LSD, let alone a LHD. The idea of independent operations is odd for a military that is meant to be focusing on a fight with the PRC... The LCH especially are the size of an Anzac class. They have the EM signatures to match...which means they are going to be shot at. But they have no defences. The idea that, in a threat environment we are loathe to send DDGs and FFGs forward because of the threat's missile capability - but we will send LCM or LCH is bizarre. And providing a DDG escort (a) defeats the purpose of acting independently, and (b) will frustrate the hell out of the Navy as these things are slower than a merchant ship.
BTW - that speed also slows the advance of the ARG/ARE.... with some rather serious tactical considerations
Again, it's all been argued and won. But there are still massive holes in the CONOPS that really to beg - what is the point of these ships?
www.austal.com
www.defenceconnect.com.au
