Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

t68

Well-Known Member
Since the Independent Landing Craft and LARC-V replacement were brought up here are links to Navantia Australia's fact sheets on prospective offerings.
Three "Kodal-class" ILC variants, one 25m (can fit in RAN LHD welldeck) & two 35m, and the "Platypus" LARC-V replacement
I've repeatedly filled out their annoying information blocks to open the PDFs so you won't have to (plus I wanted to download them too...)

Kodal-class Independent Landing Craft:
Kodal 75S, 25m with bow ramp: https://navantia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/KODAL75S.pdf
Kodal 90DT, 35m drive through: https://navantia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/KODAL90DT.pdf
Kodal 90S 35m with bow ramp: https://navantia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/KODAL90S.pdf


Platypus Amphibious Vehicle: https://navantia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/PLATYPUS.pdf
(not a lot of specific information)

From my untrained eye in Amphibious operations whilst I do like the offerings from Navantia it just seems to me that they are offering less than what we had I know wiki is not a great source but the Kodal 90s only has a payload of 90t whereas the Balikpapan Class had a payload of 180t

It seems to me the 75s is a better replacement for the current LCM1-E but here is whether it may be better to go back to the future build 8 improved Balikpapan Class and either 2/3 modified Newports or Round Table least they would be better than the long ocean voyage if need than the Balikpapan as i heard they were pretty hard on pers for long ocean going voyagers

South Korea built a variant called Cheon Wang Bong class

If the idea is for something that can move say a troop of MBT to the shore line in numbers plus other materiel Frank S Besson Class?
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
From my untrained eye in Amphibious operations whilst I do like the offerings from Navantia it just seems to me that they are offering less than what we had I know wiki is not a great source but the Kodal 90s only has a payload of 90t whereas the Balikpapan Class had a payload of 180t

It seems to me the 75s is a better replacement for the current LCM1-E but here is whether it may be better to go back to the future build 8 improved Balikpapan Class and either 2/3 modified Newports or Round Table least they would be better than the long ocean voyage if need than the Balikpapan as i heard they were pretty hard on pers for long ocean going voyagers

South Korea built a variant called Cheon Wang Bong class

If the idea is for something that can move say a troop of MBT to the shore line in numbers plus other materiel Frank S Besson Class?
You're going to have to explain how the 90S & 90DT equates to "offering less than what we had" The 35m "Independent Landing Craft" are not targeted as a replacement the Balikpapan-class. Their purpose is to address the LCM-8 replacement requirement.
And yes, the 25m 75S is obviously meant as a replacement for the LCM-1E. It's dimensions make that awfully clear.

The Cheon Wang Bong-class is an LST in name alone. It has no capability to put equipment over the beach independently. It carries LCM. It has no bow ramp like the Newports or Round Tables. It is more akin to the Kanimbla-class, after the forward ramp was removed and the bow sealed. Or Singapore's Endurance-class LPD/LST
https://flic.kr/p/pYKtzw
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Since the Independent Landing Craft and LARC-V replacement were brought up here are links to Navantia Australia's fact sheets on prospective offerings.
Three "Kodal-class" ILC variants, one 25m (can fit in RAN LHD welldeck) & two 35m, and the "Platypus" LARC-V replacement
I've repeatedly filled out their annoying information blocks to open the PDFs so you won't have to (plus I wanted to download them too...)

Kodal-class Independent Landing Craft:
Kodal 75S, 25m with bow ramp: https://navantia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/KODAL75S.pdf
Kodal 90DT, 35m drive through: https://navantia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/KODAL90DT.pdf
Kodal 90S 35m with bow ramp: https://navantia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/KODAL90S.pdf


Platypus Amphibious Vehicle: https://navantia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/PLATYPUS.pdf
(not a lot of specific information)
I feel your pain and did the same thing. I forgot to save the bloody things and decided that was for another day. I understand that the LCM do not use the drive through capability on the LHD now so the aft wheelhouse looks like the more flexible option.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
You're going to have to explain how the 90S & 90DT equates to "offering less than what we had" The 35m "Independent Landing Craft" are not targeted as a replacement the Balikpapan-class. Their purpose is to address the LCM-8 replacement requirement.
And yes, the 25m 75S is obviously meant as a replacement for the LCM-1E. It's dimensions make that awfully clear.

The Cheon Wang Bong-class is an LST in name alone. It has no capability to put equipment over the beach independently. It carries LCM. It has no bow ramp like the Newports or Round Tables. It is more akin to the Kanimbla-class, after the forward ramp was removed and the bow sealed. Or Singapore's Endurance-class LPD/LST
https://flic.kr/p/pYKtzw

Ahh forgot about the RACT water transport LCM-8, but one also must remember the original idea of the Balikpapan were for the Army employment before they were transferred to the RAN
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
You're going to have to explain how the 90S & 90DT equates to "offering less than what we had" The 35m "Independent Landing Craft" are not targeted as a replacement the Balikpapan-class. Their purpose is to address the LCM-8 replacement requirement.
And yes, the 25m 75S is obviously meant as a replacement for the LCM-1E. It's dimensions make that awfully clear.

The Cheon Wang Bong-class is an LST in name alone. It has no capability to put equipment over the beach independently. It carries LCM. It has no bow ramp like the Newports or Round Tables. It is more akin to the Kanimbla-class, after the forward ramp was removed and the bow sealed. Or Singapore's Endurance-class LPD/LST
https://flic.kr/p/pYKtzw
The LCH capability is due to be replaced later in the Decade under phase 2 with a Vessel of up to 2000t.
The 90S and 90DT both offer a unloaded Top Speed of over 20kts, a range of 1100nm, Accomodation for 9 personal, Shower, Toilet and the 90S even has Mess facilities, that is a massive improvement over the LCM-8.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The LCH capability is due to be replaced later in the Decade under phase 2 with a Vessel of up to 2000t.
The 90S and 90DT both offer a unloaded Top Speed of over 20kts, a range of 1100nm, Accomodation for 9 personal, Shower, Toilet and the 90S even has Mess facilities, that is a massive improvement over the LCM-8.
Is the LCM-8 replacement to be used solely within Australian northern coastal waters or it to be deployed Overseas?
If the later, then at what distance?

Cheers

Regards S
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member

Stampede

Well-Known Member

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks for the post and Vid.

Do you know how the LCM-8 made its way to Bougainville.
Transported by Tobruk, or under its own steam ?


Regards S
After my time but I would assume they were taken by Tobruk.
LCM8s are coastal craft, we’ll really ship shore transporters, some modified to include very basic accommodation however, they don’t have adequate storage to sustain them for longer than a few days. They are dreadful in anything over Sea State, I’ll be kind, 3.
They seas around Bougainville and between the islands, New Britain, New Ireland, Trobriands etc are deep ocean, over 5,000mtrs and during strong winds, particularly during the NW season they can become quite severe.
There sadly have been a number of tragedies there over the years.
So no, I wouldn’t let an LCM8 venture offshore further than VHF range (12-15nms) if it was my call.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
After my time but I would assume they were taken by Tobruk.
LCM8s are coastal craft, we’ll really ship shore transporters, some modified to include very basic accommodation however, they don’t have adequate storage to sustain them for longer than a few days. They are dreadful in anything over Sea State, I’ll be kind, 3.
They seas around Bougainville and between the islands, New Britain, New Ireland, Trobriands etc are deep ocean, over 5,000mtrs and during strong winds, particularly during the NW season they can become quite severe.
There sadly have been a number of tragedies there over the years.
So no, I wouldn’t let an LCM8 venture offshore further than VHF range (12-15nms) if it was my call.
Could also have been deployed on Manoora and Kanimbla as both were involved at different times in Bougainville. I do remember hearing something about one of them having to sail back to Australia on its own from Bougainville but can’t find any reference to it.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Certainly early on Tobruk took them; not sure about the later entertainments.

If one did have to self redeploy, you could island hop - Buka, the Green Islands, Pinipel, Ambitle, New Ireland, north coast of New Britain, Umboi, north coast of New Guinea near Finschhafen, Lae and so on. Longest ocean passage out of sight of land to Moresby you would have to take, and about the most exposed, would be the 90 nm or so between Buka and the Greens. If you picked your weather you could probably do it safely enough, possibly escorted by an LCH or something. It would take quite a long time and wouldn't be much fun, but it could be done.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Certainly early on Tobruk took them; not sure about the later entertainments.

If one did have to self redeploy, you could island hop - Buka, the Green Islands, Pinipel, Ambitle, New Ireland, north coast of New Britain, Umboi, north coast of New Guinea near Finschhafen, Lae and so on. Longest ocean passage out of sight of land to Moresby you would have to take, and about the most exposed, would be the 90 nm or so between Buka and the Greens. If you picked your weather you could probably do it safely enough, possibly escorted by an LCH or something. It would take quite a long time and wouldn't be much fun, but it could be done.
I suspect that the Army is looking more at that sort of scenario with the replacement, more then increasing its load carrying capacity, endurance over quantity.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I suspect that the Army is looking more at that sort of scenario with the replacement, more then increasing its load carrying capacity, endurance over quantity.
Thanks all for the feed back

Trying not to bore everyone with the LCM 8 conversation yet still puzzled as to its future replacement.

A lot of feed back as to the LCM 8's limitations re open ocean transit.
In fact both recently and in the past re chatting about the LCH, issues of "comfort" aboard often come up.
An issue exacerbated on the much smaller LCM 8.

I'm tying to understand what the sweet spot is of Army's need for the "next" LCM8.

From what I understand the LCM 8 was really just a connector back in the day for ship to shore movement of goods and personnel.
It was later modified in Australia to give a very modest overnight capacity for extended operations.

It's a compromised craft made to do the best it can for a job it was not designed for.

We now have a clean slate.
Do we need another small craft?

Does Army just want a small coastal hugger "independent" of Navy.
If so, what is it for and what are it's expectations?

Some have mentioned the larger Navantia sizes and I'm sure there a dramatic improvement over the LCM 8, but these are still much smaller than the LCH. As has being mentioned, these are really just a good old fashioned maritime truck, but still bloody awful to sail in.

Is this what they want?

Again, we have a clean slate that presents an opportunity to be bold and not just replicate the past.

Regards S
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
"Independent" of Navy is fine, but in the past, pre JOC admittedly, it nearly resulted in some very nasty blues on blue. Hopefully that wouldn't happen now, but you do need to know how to avoid it. And, if you are training people to operate in the off shore environment in this day of Jointery one should I think expect they wear blue suits and are all trained, and held, to the same standard. Bashing around the riverine, estaurine or near littoral (the inter tidal zone and a short distance off shore), it's probably more appropriate to use those in green; the threats will after all be those with which they are familiar, and which navy normally only deals with in a force protection sense.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Thanks all for the feed back

Trying not to bore everyone with the LCM 8 conversation yet still puzzled as to its future replacement.

A lot of feed back as to the LCM 8's limitations re open ocean transit.
In fact both recently and in the past re chatting about the LCH, issues of "comfort" aboard often come up.
An issue exacerbated on the much smaller LCM 8.

I'm tying to understand what the sweet spot is of Army's need for the "next" LCM8.

From what I understand the LCM 8 was really just a connector back in the day for ship to shore movement of goods and personnel.
It was later modified in Australia to give a very modest overnight capacity for extended operations.

It's a compromised craft made to do the best it can for a job it was not designed for.

We now have a clean slate.
Do we need another small craft?

Does Army just want a small coastal hugger "independent" of Navy.
If so, what is it for and what are it's expectations?

Some have mentioned the larger Navantia sizes and I'm sure there a dramatic improvement over the LCM 8, but these are still much smaller than the LCH. As has being mentioned, these are really just a good old fashioned maritime truck, but still bloody awful to sail in.

Is this what they want?

Again, we have a clean slate that presents an opportunity to be bold and not just replicate the past.

Regards S
Back in the early 90s when i was still in the Army we spent 2 weeks doing some Infrastructure work on Townshend Island in Shoalwater Bay, we were taken out to the Island on a LCM-8, i think this is a typical LCM-8 job, i see it very much as an important Work Horse especially in Peace Time and in deployments such as Bougainville, probably not as useful in a major conflict.

Like everything they have Pros and Cons, they can be operated in greater numbers with a standard crew of 1 NCO and a couple of Privates, they can go a lot of places a LCH/LCM can’t but forget about long open Ocean transits.

Australia has a massive Coastline with a lot of small Rivers, the ability to deploy small Landing Craft up into these places is something the Army has been doing for Decades and has come to fully appreciate the utility of a LCT in these Rivers and Coastal areas, they would also appreciate the limitations the LCM-8 has in open water and a move towards a replacement that will have better Seakeeping, speed Range and onboard facilities.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
"Independent" of Navy is fine, but in the past, pre JOC admittedly, it nearly resulted in some very nasty blues on blue. Hopefully that wouldn't happen now, but you do need to know how to avoid it. And, if you are training people to operate in the off shore environment in this day of Jointery one should I think expect they wear blue suits and are all trained, and held, to the same standard. Bashing around the riverine, estaurine or near littoral (the inter tidal zone and a short distance off shore), it's probably more appropriate to use those in green; the threats will after all be those with which they are familiar, and which navy normally only deals with in a force protection sense.
When they get to phase 2 and the LCH replacement, its going to be interesting to see how they do Crewing, the Army certainly doesn’t have the knowhow needed to operate them independently. We may see a truly joint crew under Naval Command at least at first.
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
AFR first to the line announcing a delay to the Hunter program (article sourced via Defence news account) :

Government consents to delay in $44b frigate program

The start of construction of the navy’s $44 billion new fleet of frigates is poised to be pushed back for up to 18 months after the Morrison government agreed to delay the project because of issues with the design.
Work building the first frigate may not start in Adelaide until 2024, after senior ministers approved the delay last week. The move comes as the Auditor-General on Tuesday flagged a potential audit into the project this financial year.
Defence Department officials had foreshadowed at Senate estimates in May that the project was facing hurdles because of coronavirus-related disruptions and continuing design issues.
Australia’s Hunter-class frigates are based on the Type 26 frigate that British defence giant BAE Systems is designing and building for the Royal Navy.
However, the changes mandated by the Australian government, including a US combat system and Australian-made radar, are causing headaches for designers and making the warship heavier than expected.
The Australian Financial Review revealed last year that design changes had resulted in the frigate being longer than the 150 metres initially planned, although BAE insists the frigate will still meet the navy’s performance requirements.
A major issue is that the 8200-tonne vessel has a weight margin for growth of just 270 tonnes, or 3.3 per cent.
The Defence Department’s first assistant secretary for ships, Sheryl Lutz, told estimates in May that bureaucrats were examining whether starting construction on the first frigate by the end of 2022 as planned posed a “higher risk” by the end of 2022 and would present options to the government.
Multiple defence sources said the project was staring at an 18-month delay, with one source saying cabinet’s national security committee had acknowledged the need to push back the construction date.
A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Peter Dutton declined to comment but a senior government source said Australia continued to deal with delays flowing on from the British program.
A BAE Australia spokeswoman said questions about government decision-making processes were best left for government.
“The Hunter class frigate program is making strong progress towards the delivery of a superior anti-submarine warfare capability for the Royal Australian Navy,” she said.
“Prototyping commenced in December 2020 as planned, two major design milestones are expected to occur this year and the program is exceeding its Australian contract expenditure targets, with contracts continuing to be placed with Australian industry.”
Opposition defence industry spokesman Matt Keogh said the delay was concerning.
“Further delays of this project demonstrate how the government is mismanaging contracts all over the defence industry, once again putting jobs at risk in the shipbuilding enterprise,” he said.
Independent South Australian senator Rex Patrick said there had been warnings for some time that the program was behind schedule.
“This is a typical situation that occurs when you go down the path of procuring something where the design is not finished,” he said.
The first of the nine frigates is meant to be finished by 2029 and in service in 2031.
As well as the problem with the frigates, Defence and French shipbuilder Naval Group have been at loggerheads over the $90 billion future submarine program on a host of issues, including opportunities for local suppliers. Naval Group has a September deadline to produce an acceptable offer for the Commonwealth for the next phase of the contract.
The Canadian government is also adapting the Type 26 for its navy but the project there has also suffered from delays and the price tag for its 15 ships has jumped significantly to a now estimated $C77 billion ($82 billion).
Andrew Tillett writes on politics, foreign affairs, defence and security from the Canberra press gallery. Connect with Andrew on Facebook and Twitter. Email Andrew at [email protected]
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Disappointing if unsurprising news.

I worry that Australia's weakspot is definitely in the period between now and 2030. We have limited, aging platforms, with limited growth, going into a period of instability, where its possible they will be challenged by a power with greater than peer capabilities.

Obviously the money spent upgrading Anzacs and Collins and Hobart is well spent.

Can't be good to have ASC not completing a ship for 10 years. While refits and life extensions are activity, its still not the same as the meat of a proper build program.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Would it not be practical to build another AWD in the interim?
Simple answer; No.

Longer answer is that another AWD, configured as the existing ones are currently, is not possible as some of the components and systems are now out of production, whilst others have long production lead-times. The effective cut off to construct a fourth Hobart-class DDG would have required that the order be placed (all contracts signed, etc.) as a follow-on to the three vessels ordered and built would likely have required the order be placed some time between the end of 2010 and possibly as late as early 2015. The lead time for the SPY-1D arrays and the Aegis CMS was ~four years.

At this point, a modified Hobart-class DDG could be designed and then ordered, but IMO that would likely take enough time so that there would be no advantage over sticking to continuing the work on the Hunter-class FFG design.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top