Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I have yet to see any detail on manning requirements, but I personally think the sensible option would be small watercraft operated by Army and larger individual landing craft manned by RAN crews.
Do you think they would have a permanent Army Detachment like the Canberra’s?
Apologies in advance for the change of subject.

I'm confused by land 8710, from what I understand this covers the LCM8 and LARC-V but does this cover the LCH (Balikpapan-class)? If so is the Army or Navy going to operate them? Is there any details on requirements for replacements
Thanks in advance
I’m at a complete loss as to what they are going to replace the LARC-Vs with. The LCH replacement will come later, suggest they want to get the LCM-8 replacement bedded down first. Doubt the Army would have the expertise to operate a ship of this size, so as to wether it ends up in RAN or ARA service, the Navy is going to have to be heavily involved getting this capability to FOC.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Agree, what does the ADF really want.
Speculation only, but I'd guess Navantia had a bit more of an idea than just a " best Guess".
Await the RFT and final outcome with interest.

Regards S

PS - not too fussed as to which Company / design wins, provided its fit for purpose and delivered on time.
I would like to see this as somewhat a priority project.
Also a few interesting "options/concepts" for the Malaysian MRSS project, including an adaptation from Damen of the Enforcer design, thinking there is a lot more sitting in the background than most realise, multi role ships or joint support ships are on a lot of radars !

Cheers


 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I’m at a complete loss as to what they are going to replace the LARC-Vs with.
Not sure if we should move this discussion to the Army thread..
But DTR mentioned the Americans are apparently looking at this fearsome machine.. I can see it rolling up as the first stage of an amphibious landing.


1614080953228.png


The US did a complete SLEP rebuild of its LARC-V, new trans, new engine, the works. IMO that would seem to be a fairly appropriate fit.. Or just effectively new builds those hulls are getting ancient.

The Terrex ICV is originally amphibious, I imagine could have a bed stuck on the back. The Iveco Super AV would be another obvious platform to look at. They don't need to be heavily armored, but some resistance against light arms would seem reasonable.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Not sure if we should move this discussion to the Army thread..
But DTR mentioned the Americans are apparently looking at this fearsome machine.. I can see it rolling up as the first stage of an amphibious landing.


View attachment 48022


The US did a complete SLEP rebuild of its LARC-V, new trans, new engine, the works. IMO that would seem to be a fairly appropriate fit.. Or just effectively new builds those hulls are getting ancient.

The Terrex ICV is originally amphibious, I imagine could have a bed stuck on the back. The Iveco Super AV would be another obvious platform to look at. They don't need to be heavily armored, but some resistance against light arms would seem reasonable.
Probably the best LARC-V replacement would be brand new LARC-V-NG, fitted with modern Diesel Engines, Transmissions, running Gear, fitted for carrying Modules with a Cab armoured at least against 12.7mm, unfortunately Australia’s low numbers would probably make it too expensive.
 

Toptob

Active Member
Not sure if we should move this discussion to the Army thread..
But DTR mentioned the Americans are apparently looking at this fearsome machine.. I can see it rolling up as the first stage of an amphibious landing.
Yeah okay... It doesn't look very intimidating like that. But who knows, maybe a smart looking camo paint job would help!?! But it does look like a cool vehicle, I would want one if I had a super-yacht or something... drive it right up the beach. It doesn't look like that bad of a replacement to me anyway.

Also a few interesting "options/concepts" for the Malaysian MRSS project, including an adaptation from Damen of the Enforcer design, thinking there is a lot more sitting in the background than most realise, multi role ships or joint support ships are on a lot of radars !

I think you're right! Whether it's moving personnel and materiel around or disaster relief, most navies would be interested in acquiring, renewing or expanding their amphibious capabilities. And especially for smaller navies it would be nice to also add RAS capabilities to their fleet. But depending on the operational tempo putting both eggs in one basket can have it's downsides. The Dutch navy found that out, which was one of the reasons why they made their new supply ship a priority. But they operate a lot over long distances and with many different allies and RAS is a valuable capability within NATO.

But aside from that, with the future moving toward UAV and USV operations ships like these could become motherships for drone swarms. Or at least a testbed to explore future strategies and operations like that.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Fair warning - my thoughts on watercraft and amphib keep getting shot down :D But, my 3 thoughts only....

I think the answer to the LARC-V is a hovercraft - but CASG didn't agree. While the LARC-V offers a niche capability, it's arguments for replacement normally boil down to 'we have to replace it otherwise we wouldn't need it'. You want to cross the shore via a means that a LCM-esque platform can't? LARC can do that - so can a hovercraft. But nooooo..... Not helped by the fact there are so few options, because the niche isn't very big. Ironically, the biggest users of the niche ability isn't the ADF.....

Anything bigger than a LCM should be crewed by RAN. Especially if it has to go beyond 12 nm. There are literally no disadvantages (beyond CO 10 FSB doesn't get more platforms in their yard) and it makes everything safer, more useful and more resilient. It also allows opportunities for sailors and junior officers - imagine making an LCH command a CPOs? Or a LEUT? Think of what that would do for the skills and attributes of the personnel across the fleet. Seamanship is learnt in the boats, isn't it?

Delete the riverine patrol vessel. Would you run ASLAV's along formed roads only in a modern war? That's what a riverine patrol vessel is.

Not sure if we should move this discussion to the Army thread..
But DTR mentioned the Americans are apparently looking at this fearsome machine.. I can see it rolling up as the first stage of an amphibious landing.
I have no idea what we would do with this. Note a LARC-V carries 5 ton of cargo, so it can't do that.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Fair warning - my thoughts on watercraft and amphib keep getting shot down :D But, my 3 thoughts only....

I think the answer to the LARC-V is a hovercraft - but CASG didn't agree. While the LARC-V offers a niche capability, it's arguments for replacement normally boil down to 'we have to replace it otherwise we wouldn't need it'. You want to cross the shore via a means that a LCM-esque platform can't? LARC can do that - so can a hovercraft. But nooooo..... Not helped by the fact there are so few options, because the niche isn't very big. Ironically, the biggest users of the niche ability isn't the ADF.....

Anything bigger than a LCM should be crewed by RAN. Especially if it has to go beyond 12 nm. There are literally no disadvantages (beyond CO 10 FSB doesn't get more platforms in their yard) and it makes everything safer, more useful and more resilient. It also allows opportunities for sailors and junior officers - imagine making an LCH command a CPOs? Or a LEUT? Think of what that would do for the skills and attributes of the personnel across the fleet. Seamanship is learnt in the boats, isn't it?

Delete the riverine patrol vessel. Would you run ASLAV's along formed roads only in a modern war? That's what a riverine patrol vessel is.



I have no idea what we would do with this. Note a LARC-V carries 5 ton of cargo, so it can't do that.
How much enthusiasm is there in the RAN for a new LCH
Fair warning - my thoughts on watercraft and amphib keep getting shot down :D But, my 3 thoughts only....

I think the answer to the LARC-V is a hovercraft - but CASG didn't agree. While the LARC-V offers a niche capability, it's arguments for replacement normally boil down to 'we have to replace it otherwise we wouldn't need it'. You want to cross the shore via a means that a LCM-esque platform can't? LARC can do that - so can a hovercraft. But nooooo..... Not helped by the fact there are so few options, because the niche isn't very big. Ironically, the biggest users of the niche ability isn't the ADF.....

Anything bigger than a LCM should be crewed by RAN. Especially if it has to go beyond 12 nm. There are literally no disadvantages (beyond CO 10 FSB doesn't get more platforms in their yard) and it makes everything safer, more useful and more resilient. It also allows opportunities for sailors and junior officers - imagine making an LCH command a CPOs? Or a LEUT? Think of what that would do for the skills and attributes of the personnel across the fleet. Seamanship is learnt in the boats, isn't it?

Delete the riverine patrol vessel. Would you run ASLAV's along formed roads only in a modern war? That's what a riverine patrol vessel is.



I have no idea what we would do with this. Note a LARC-V carries 5 ton of cargo, so it can't do that.
I’m finding the reasoning behind the Riverine Patrol Vessels a real head scratcher. How does the Army intend to deploy them at any sort of useful range away from base? The CB-90 for instance is 20t and has a cruising range of about 300nm, so you are going to have to use other assets to deploy them to the Waterways you are operating in. So minimum would be the LCH replacement using a Crane to lift them on and off, you wouldn’t want to have to rely on having one of the Big Amphibs available to deploy them.
Air Transport is not really operationally viable either, for a number of reasons, including having a Air Strip within reasonable distance of a suitable Boat Ramp, and you would need a Tank Transporter to move a Boat weighing 20 odd tons.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I had a look at the Gibbs Amphibian videos, looks like lots of fun.
But not a lot of places to hide if anyone starts shooting
Maybe there is a place for something like that. But replacing the LARC-V, no way? Maybe something for the specials? possibly deployable from their riverine patrol craft for stealthier amphibious insertion. If you made it electric, it could have no significant noise/IR signature, and be able to quickly move in from the horizon to several kilometers inland. A small insertion, through a small mangrove creek, onto land, with lots of cover. Small wheels though..

The UK has their smaller hovercraft and perhaps that is a better way to augment the capability. Hovercrafts are as noisey as fuck (not in anyway stealthy, with huge noise and spray) , terrible in windy conditions or rough conditions, there is plenty of terrain which is difficult for them. They are really fast, and some terrain which is almost impassible with other amphibious vehicles. They can carry 5 or 10t.

The LARC-V is good at what is used for. Resupply, scouting, assisting in prepping for landings, seebee stuff etc. This is vitally important in amphibious operations.

While you can resupply via helicopter, you can't really explore the tidal surf zone of a potential landing zone with it. A boat can't drive over a sandbar, but a LARC, no isssue at all, checking depths and conditions. A LARC doesn't need to travel at 30 knots, or 120kmph on land. It just needs to be good in that odd zone between water and land. So in the end I think you end up with the LARC for that role. It doesn't need to be heavily armored and isn't designed to carry troops into battle. But if you want to remove logs or debris from an area LARC is great for that kind of work, vital work, in that tidal zone.

The Antarctic program uses them as well, Macquarie island is basically inaccessible without them. There is one usually permanently stationed there. They previously contracted the Army for resupply but now they have their own capability. The device is reliable enough and easy enough to maintain they keep on over winter. Its a great example of how difficult many locations are without port facilities. Landing craft can't land directly at Macquarie island. See the image below.

1614125150553.png
Macquarie Island - readily accessible by LARC only.

1614125852163.png
Typical pacific island, with rocky coast, and fringing coral reef.

They are also very useful in the pacific around smaller islands, where even a tinny may be impossible to land as its fringed by reefs and rocks sometimes extending a hundred meters or more. Such islands may not be the focus of an amphibious landing but may be key strategic points, communication, observation posts, etc.

With many rocky features around the beaches, landing craft just can't get in there. It is also extremely shallow even at high tides. You need a narrow, maneuverable, amphibious, truck. This is common in the many volcanic islands around the pacific.

Also more recently, the LARCs proved the fastest, safest way to evacuate people in the fires. More than helicopters, LCM, RHIBs etc. Smoke made air operations dangerous and difficult. Aviation assets were also doing other duties.

Civilian facilities are often based around boat trailer sized capabilities. They were able to drive directly to evacuation centres and where people had gathered, and move people directly. No unloading/reloading. No moving people to an appropriately clear airfield (impossible because of fires/smoke). When shit hits the fan its often the oldest and simplest equipment and solutions that work the most effective.


I think the LARC-V is genuinely useful.

We should have a 100 of the dam things. Then sell/gift them to pacific nations and others who are still operating the 50-60 year old lugs.
 
Last edited:

cdxbow

Active Member
I had a look at the Gibbs Amphibian videos, looks like lots of fun.
But not a lot of places to hide if anyone starts shooting


No, but they are fast. SAR (and rich boys toys) seem to be the main market they are pitching for, but it's likely people will find many uses for them if they truly work as advertised. For a ship operating In austere locations like the Pacific I could see they could be very, very useful. Perhaps they will become the 21st century version of the Pinnace, with the added benefit of wheels. Gibbs is a Kiwi and has been developing vehicles for more than a decade, but so far the concept is yet to take off. I couldn't find any comments/reviews regarding off road performance, but both road and water performance was described as 'snappy & responsive'.

Can I have one too?
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Apologies in advance for the change of subject.

I'm confused by land 8710, from what I understand this covers the LCM8 and LARC-V but does this cover the LCH (Balikpapan-class)? If so is the Army or Navy going to operate them? Is there any details on requirements for replacements?

Thanks in advance
This was discussed briefly in the Army thread at the time of the press release announcement.

See the attached one page PDF from the 2020 Defence Strategic Update:


The PDF is a summary of ‘Naval Shipbuilding’ projects. On the right hand side is a timeline and budget for all of the projects.

You’ll notice there are ‘blue’ and ‘green’ coloured projects, eg, Navy and Army projects.

Near the bottom of the list is three ‘green/army’ projects:

* Future Army Watercraft - $600m-$800m
* Large Army Landing Craft - $800m-$1.2b
* Riverine Patrol Craft - $60m-$90m

The first project, now started, is the LCM-8 and LARC-V project, the second project, starting 2025, appears to be the LCH replacement project, the last project, Riverine Patrol Craft, starts in the late 2020s.

Cheers,

Edit:

A potential LARC-V replacement?

 
Last edited:

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I’m at a complete loss as to what they are going to replace the LARC-Vs with.
If the GKN Aquatrack was still being made I wonder if it could be a contender for the LARC-V replacement, cheers.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Hopefully not yet posted before...

Sky News host Peta Credlin says if Australia is serious about standing up to its “superpower bullies” then it needs submarines which are just as capable as theirs. Australia currently has a multi-billion-dollar contract with a French manufacturer to convert 12 nuclear submarines to normal diesel engine submarines which are not expected to be ready until around 2035.

I do not think that the new DCNS-designed Shortfin Barracuda will be an inferior class of conventional submarines, but if Australia ordered the original nuclear-powered Barracuda/Suffren class design, the construction process will certainly be faster and maybe also more cost-effective.

I have no knowledge about nuclear propulsion, let alone about Australia's nuclear capabilities and know-how, but maybe it was a better plan to let DCNS build the first of 12 submarines and the others in Australia (with the reactor shipped from France ofcourse).

Btw, does Australia has nuclear powerplants?
Edit: the answer is no.
 
Last edited:

DDG38

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Hopefully not yet posted before...
Sky News host Peta Credlin says if Australia is serious about standing up to its “superpower bullies” then it needs submarines which are just as capable as theirs. Australia currently has a multi-billion-dollar contract with a French manufacturer to convert 12 nuclear submarines to normal diesel engine submarines which are not expected to be ready until around 2035.
ill continue later...
Ah yes, renowned Defence expert and rational intelligent debater Peta Credlin. That noise you heard was my eyes rolling out of my skull. It's very evident there is a concerted campaign now against this project from elements on the right. Someone somewhere missed out on getting on the contract gravy train. It's hard for such complex projects to get established and underway when a noisy media camp are continuously baying against it from well funded podiums.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Ah yes, renowned Defence expert and rational intelligent debater Peta Credlin. That noise you heard was my eyes rolling out of my skull. It's very evident there is a concerted campaign now against this project from elements on the right. Someone somewhere missed out on getting on the contract gravy train. It's hard for such complex projects to get established and underway when a noisy media camp are continuously baying against it from well funded podiums.
Peta Credlin Does not have a clue about indiscretion ratio. The Collins are one of the most capable conventional submarines now and the LOTE programme will simply enhance this. This report is nonsense.

France do offer a low enrichment reactor which would be the best if we were go down that path. BUT ...... unless there is bipartisan support it does not have a hope in hades of getting up. We certainly have the facilities to house low enriched rods (the OPAL reactor uses low enriched fuel and has storage facilities as well as transport arrangements in place) but has no facilities that could be used to refuel an SSN nor do we have the facilities to enrich rods in house (meaning rods would need to be produced overseas and transported here). Even fuelling facilities will take time and I doubt they could be developed for hull 1 to 3 or 4.

I can imagine the NIMBY response if the government suggested we have nuclear fuelling facilities. Lets fact it we cannot get agreement on storage of our own nuclear waste which is produced as a result of our research reactor (OPAL) and cyclotrons, Xray heads, pipe cameras etc. Much of this is medical waste. Political parties will make this into an election issue .... and that will end that.

None of the COTS conventional submarines meet the specific Australian needs so the Attack Class is the only real option on the current time frame. Killing the project will simply push the time frame out.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Ah yes, renowned Defence expert and rational intelligent debater Peta Credlin. That noise you heard was my eyes rolling out of my skull. It's very evident there is a concerted campaign now against this project from elements on the right. Someone somewhere missed out on getting on the contract gravy train. It's hard for such complex projects to get established and underway when a noisy media camp are continuously baying against it from well funded podiums.
Yes, Peta Credlin was Tony Abbot's co-Prime Minister (or acted that way), and equally annoyed that Australia didn't choose Rupert Murdoch's Captain's Pick. News Ltd has used Credlin to try to discredit the project ever since. Clearly Murdoch or one of his mates had a business connection with Japan that was upset. She has no credibility on Defence whatsoever (as @DDG38 intimates)

oldsig
 
Last edited:
Top