Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Exactly mate, and if it does come, that will be as a result of the evolution of our CONOPS as our experience and capability matures with Amphib Ops, that will drive the need and resulting requirements, which then drives any potential procurement.
I do think we will get the capability, but when and what it will look like ? but I just can't see it being at the expense of the IFV's
Cheers
Army's needs are army needs. Amphibious craft typically are way more limited and specialised.
It might be useful to have something complimenting the LARC for pre landings and scouting etc. But that may only be for a dozen or so vehicles.
No need to compromise the hundreds of land400.
Then you might want some sort of specialised craft to deploy these in some of those roles.
It might be useful to have something complimenting the LARC for pre landings and scouting etc. But that may only be for a dozen or so vehicles.
No need to compromise the hundreds of land400.
Then you might want some sort of specialised craft to deploy these in some of those roles.
t68
Well-Known Member
Well unfortunately that's exactly how we have to do it at the moment, as shown in ex over the last couple of years. we have no other choice if we want to land over the beach. Its also strange that I have not seen any photo's or video of M113AS4 beach landing,
A tail of two beach landings Tailsman Saber 17
No way am I saying the way the Americans do it is the correct way forward for Australia, but it shows exactly how limited our options are.
And how the Koreans & Americans land
And the Royal Marines
t68
Well-Known Member
I agree I think in the next decade the ADF will have to make a hard choice on amphibious operations, and expand it to a permanent capability maybe a Amphibious Infantry Brigade something based on the Spanish perhaps?
Spanish Marine Infantry Brigade
- Headquarter Battalion, with 1x Headquarter, 1x Signals, 1x Military Intelligence, Battlefield Surveillance & Electronic Warfare and 1x Reconnaissance & Target Acquisition Company
- 1st Landing Battalion, with 1x HQ & Service, 3x Naval Fusiliers and 1x Weapons Company
- 2nd Landing Battalion, with 1x HQ & Service, 3x Naval Fusiliers and 1x Weapons Company
- 3rd Mechanized Landing Battalion, with 1x HQ & Service, 2x Mechanized (Piranha III8x8), 1x (Tank M60 Patton) and 1x Weapons Company
- Amphibious Mobility Group, with 1x HQ & Service, 1x Engineer, 1x Amphibious Assault Vehicle, 1x Anti-Tank (TOW) and 1x Boat Company
- Artillery Landing Group, with 1x HQ & Service, 2x Field Artillery (105 Mod 56), 1x Self-propelled Artillery (155mm M109A2), 1x Air-Defense Artillery Battery (Mistral) and 1x Fire Support Coordination and Control Company
- Combat Service Support Group, with 1x HQ & Service, 1x Transport, 1x Medical, 1x Supply, 1x Maintenance Company and 1x Beach Organization & Movement Company
In the Land 400 ph3 RFP there was a RFP for up to 50 protected amphibious vehicles. This is in addition to the IFVs.
There is an article on this in the September 2018 issue of DTR magazine
Defence Technology Review : DTR SEP 2018, Page 1
Different videos of deployments seem to show different philosophies in the deployment of troops onto the beach e.g. from a trot to a hard run ,and even the troops kneeling on the beach in one video facing towards the armour coming ashore to another where they were facing towards inland for threats
t68
Well-Known Member
Gobbing off fair dinkum, I suggest you look at the current requirements for the ADF are they testing an Amphibious Assault Vehicle for land 400?
So far in Australian armoured troop carry vehicles have had the capacity for an amphibious vehicle is to swim not surf, M113 had the capability to which they lost in the upgrade, its not a priority at the moment. Land 400 has prioritised capability of protection, lethality and mobility over Amphibiosity . The Australian Army is no longer built a light infantry force nor is it heavy force either. Terrex 3 was submitted for evaluation for phase 2 which lost out to boxer Terrex 2 was not put up for Land 400 which did have ability to swim in the surf, but wasn't submitted because Army had prioritised protection, lethality and mobility.
We have all acknowledged that the ADF will most likely not land on a contested beach, but we need the capability to move over a beach if port infrastructure is not available. Currently if all three vessels are used the ADF will have the capacity to move and land 18 land 400 vehicles on the LLC in low sea states (higher if replaced by MSVL) plus another 140 troops on LCVP, and if we are pushing all 3 ships into a landing the shit has really hit the fan.
Yet I stand by the earlier claim, that in an Australian context that landing craft LLC(MSLV)+LCVP will get troops and equipment to the beach faster than an AAV, but the less protected AAV will have more simultaneously. Every one likes to compare to the USMC, but we are not the USMC. Until the ADF increases our Amphibiosity into something like a brigade level permanent capability I suggest an AAV is of low priority, just like the F35B on the LHD.
Australia may support a coalition beach landing where mixed land fleet may comprise hosting the ability but we wont be going along to the beach in Australian AAV's anytime soon.
It is interesting that no one has picked up that Greece is interested in the last two Adelaide Class.
Greece shows interest in buying RAN FFGs - Australian Defence Magazine
Quote: Greece is currently looking to expand its naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean as tensions with Turkey grow over regional natural gas exploration. Cyprus has granted drilling rights to a number of foreign companies, with ExxonMobil expected to shortly begin drilling in Cyprus’ Exclusive Economic Zone – a move Turkey has warned against.
It seems necessity is the mother of invention.
Greek reports state that the two vessels are on the market as a pair for $180m and that they have between 10-15 years of useful life left in them.
Greece shows interest in buying RAN FFGs - Australian Defence Magazine
Quote: Greece is currently looking to expand its naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean as tensions with Turkey grow over regional natural gas exploration. Cyprus has granted drilling rights to a number of foreign companies, with ExxonMobil expected to shortly begin drilling in Cyprus’ Exclusive Economic Zone – a move Turkey has warned against.
It seems necessity is the mother of invention.
Greek reports state that the two vessels are on the market as a pair for $180m and that they have between 10-15 years of useful life left in them.
Is that good bye or Buy !!!!!
Maybe we should keep them.
It will be some years till both the Hunters and to an extent the Arafura class are in service; so a fleet of thirteen Destroyers / Frigates in the early 2020's may be a prudent sized force compared to the current plan of eleven.
Will provide a greater range of options to government as we transition to our new ships.
You can do a lot more with an FFG than a Armidale.
Regards S
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
They could even keep the name Melbourne which is supposed to have the 2nd largest population of Greek decent in the world.
Would probably be a good buy for Greece and being a NATO Member should not have to many problems with US Eqpt transfers.
Flexson
Active Member
Sure lets keep them, so they can be anchored around the east side of GI or put up on a hardstand somewhere and sit there not used because WE CAN'T MAN THEM. May as well get some cash for them if we can.
It takes a long time to build up a Frigate crew to an operational level of capability. Years and not months so it is not simply a question of recruiting more now to operate them soon as the solution. Also sustaining and training 3 very different surface combatants and with design preparations for a 4th (Hunter Class) puts on an additional strain as experienced capability leaders / instructors at NCO and staff level are drawn away into new projects.
Selling them to NATO allies who need them urgently is the best solution if one looks at it holistically with respect to the "Western Alliance" and the maritime security of the eastern Med SLOC. By selling the FFG-7's the RAN can sustain higher levels of competency with respect to the Hobarts and upgraded ANZAC's.
It is hard to find a solution, if you think the RAN hasn’t been trying to recruit to fill its existing manpower gaps you would be mistaken. Both recruiting and retention have been huge issues for some years, unfortunately without achieving any great improvement in the situation.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
That would require more personnel. If the RAN has already been facing crew shortages, going to a double-crewed system would be the opposite of what is needed. A double-crewed system like the Blue/Gold crews which the USN has used works when the number of available personnel are double (or more) what the vessels available require for crewing.
The RAN has had excess vessels when compared with the numbers of available personnel, which is part of the reason why so many RAN vessels have been put into some sort of 'extended readiness' at one point or another.
I do think it would be good for the size of the RAN to expand, both in terms of personnel and surface/sub warships, but that will take a considerable amount of time to achieve, barring a major war breaking out.
- Status