Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

Wasn't working on the 15th Sept, mind you we would have called the guys in White Coats to come and collect you if you had made that prediction.

Mate, how do you know that I didn’t predict that? How do you know that I didn’t give my crystal ball a big rub prior to the 15th?

Maybe I didn’t want to steal the PMs thunder on the day of the announcement! Ha ha!

FIGJAM

PS, for those that don’t know what FIGJAM means:

“F**k I’m Great, Just Ask Me”

 

[John Newman]

I’ve just given my trusty crystal ball another rub, and it’s come up with another bit of news.

But this time it’s an Army helicopter prediction (have a look in the Australian Army Thread).

 

[vonnoobie]

LAND 8710 Phase1 to replace Armys olds LCM-8 is an opportunity.
My concern is they will get some in shore coastal craft that's too small to deploy beyond our shores and yet not sized to be compatible with the LHD's.
Navantias 25 Metre Craft has merit particularly as a future replacement for the in service LCM-1e.
However I feel Army want something bigger.
If so, go much bigger and do justice to the project.
Something along Austals Light Amphibious Warship design looks about right.
The LCH replacement vessel we never replaced and should of yonks ago.
Basic and agricultural has a place
The size of the vessel should in our medium sized defence force be a Navy ship.
Not sure Army will be happy with that outcome.

Regards S

There are or have been plans to replace both the LCM-8 & Balikpapan class LCH. Replacing the LCM-8 with an LST is tantamount to replacing the Balikpapan class with an Endurance class LPD.

The LCM and LCH perform two entirely different but complementary roles, and as such the replacement of both should reflect as such.

The army likes and wants to replace the LCM-8 because of how useful it is, they aren't reliant on the navy parking around all the time to provide them coastal and river mobility for there assets something an LST would be useless for.

Going back to 2009 the original criteria for the Balikpapan replacement was for 6 heavy landing craft to also provide in theatre mobility for the ADF in support of our other amphibious assets ie: the Canberra class concentrating on particular spots and the LCH moving supplies, equipment and personnel around the various locations.

From a military and HADR perspective it would limit our operational movement. Fewer spots we can reach, fewer spots we can land at, etc etc

 

[Stampede]

There are or have been plans to replace both the LCM-8 & Balikpapan class LCH. Replacing the LCM-8 with an LST is tantamount to replacing the Balikpapan class with an Endurance class LPD.

The LCM and LCH perform two entirely different but complementary roles, and as such the replacement of both should reflect as such.

The army likes and wants to replace the LCM-8 because of how useful it is, they aren't reliant on the navy parking around all the time to provide them coastal and river mobility for there assets something an LST would be useless for.

Going back to 2009 the original criteria for the Balikpapan replacement was for 6 heavy landing craft to also provide in theatre mobility for the ADF in support of our other amphibious assets ie: the Canberra class concentrating on particular spots and the LCH moving supplies, equipment and personnel around the various locations.

From a military and HADR perspective it would limit our operational movement. Fewer spots we can reach, fewer spots we can land at, etc etc

Don't disagree with the need.
I get the feeling this area is a bit tired up in knots.
Will be good to see final the outcome.

Sure Navantias 25m offering for both Army and a LCM-1e replacement for Navy
2 or 3 much larger LCH replacements for logistic work around the coast and in the broader region.

Regards S

 

[Redlands18]

Don't disagree with the need.
I get the feeling this area is a bit tired up in knots.
Will be good to see final the outcome.

Sure Navantias 25m offering for both Army and a LCM-1e replacement for Navy
2 or 3 much larger LCH replacements for logistic work around the coast and in the broader region.

Regards S

The LCM-1E is actually operated by the Army, its one of the reasons why the Army has a 60 man detachment on each of the LHDs. The LCM-1Es are the ship to shore connectors for the LHDs, there ability to operate independently is restricted by the lack of any Crew facilities. The LCM-8 is used mainly for independent operations, that means being able to sail several 100ks from the nearest port, up rivers that a 2000t LST would never be able to, stay in one place for up to a week and sail home again. So what the Army wants is a Vessel with decent Sea Keeping and range, decent Crew facilities, decent storage facilities, a decent work area under cover. Even an improvement in carrying capacity would take 2nd fiddle to those improvements. Being able to fit into a LHD is possibly not a requirement.

 

[Stampede]

This just came up on the ABC web site

US reveals plan to sell Australia 12 military helicopters in $1.3b deal

The Royal Australian Navy is set to dump its troubled fleet of European-made MRH 90 Taipan helicopters, replacing them with 12 US-made Seahawks in a deal worth around $1.3 billion.

www.abc.net.au

Nothing really new but confirms the news in another media outlet.

 

[spoz]

Thé LCM1-Es are Navy craft LHD Landing Craft (LLC) | Royal Australian Navy, flying the white ensign.

 

[Stampede]

The LCM-1E is actually operated by the Army, its one of the reasons why the Army has a 60 man detachment on each of the LHDs. The LCM-1Es are the ship to shore connectors for the LHDs, there ability to operate independently is restricted by the lack of any Crew facilities. The LCM-8 is used mainly for independent operations, that means being able to sail several 100ks from the nearest port, up rivers that a 2000t LST would never be able to, stay in one place for up to a week and sail home again. So what the Army wants is a Vessel with decent Sea Keeping and range, decent Crew facilities, decent storage facilities, a decent work area under cover. Even an improvement in carrying capacity would take 2nd fiddle to those improvements. Being able to fit into a LHD is possibly not a requirement.

Thanks Redlands I forgot the LLC were Army crewed.
Certainly the old LCM-8 were modified for limited extend voyages which the in service LCM-1e are not. The later are just connectors.

I guess I want my cake and eat it to.

While Army have a need and it should be accommodated, it should also fit within the big ADF lego set with all things being compatible with each other.
The LCM-8 was purchased in a different era and were modified ( Australianised ) later in life.
This was an era before having LHD's



Regards S

 

[Flexson]

LCM-1E (LLC) are not army crewed. About all the SAD (Ships army detachment) do is drive vehicles on and off and lash them down. The maintenance and operating is done by Navy. One of the positions offered to me last year was CPOMT LLC Squadron Waterhen.

On a side note there was a very interesting colloboration between Army and Navy concerning LLC's taking place on Sydney Harbour on Wednesday... I'm waiting to see if it makes the media.

 

[Stampede]

LCM-1E (LLC) are not army crewed. About all the SAD (Ships army detachment) do is drive vehicles on and off and lash them down. The maintenance and operating is done by Navy. One of the positions offered to me last year was CPOMT LLC Squadron Waterhen.

On a side note there was a very interesting colloboration between Army and Navy concerning LLC's taking place on Sydney Harbour on Wednesday... I'm waiting to see if it makes the media.

Thanks for the correction.


Regards S

 

[Redlands18]

My apologies i stand corrected on the LCM-1Es

 

[DDG38]

(anyone who knows anything about astro photography will know how hard it is to get a decent shot of the Milky Way on land, so this is pretty impressive work by LSIS Sittichai Sakonpoonpol)
HMAS Sirius underway during Indo-Pacific Endeavour 21. Image Source - ADF Image Library

 

[Massive]

They may go with something like LST120 type boats, a riverine craft etc. In that case the Army and the ARG might reconfigure. Also there are several LAND projects that will have tremendous impact on the ARG concepts. Land 400 and related. This will see any ARG grow massively in weight, size and what not

Yes. Definitely inadequate to deliver the ARG as previously conceived.

Personally I don't see the ARG being a realistic capability in anything other than an environment as benign as East Timor.

It may well become smaller and more focussed.

I also think that without a carrier capability (and not a small carrier, a carrier with the ability to operate at a reasonable sortie rate) any ARG is very much constrained as to the environment in which it can operate.

Regards,

Massive

 

[StingrayOZ]

ARG availability is also an issue. We tried several times to exercise the ARG, and several times it was thwarted for several reasons. It comes down to two big ships being the key part of the operation, and if one of those ships isn't available, Choules has very different capabilities and there is no way to make up for that loss. Even with careful planning the whole thing is very fragile. Even forming the expanded ARU/E can become fragile.

Army is a lot more modern than it used to be, more mechanized and more networked. Its certainly bulkier and heavier. Aslavs and M113's won't be with us forever and the LARCV has had its day too.


Source pintrest

The items require pretty much a complete rethink. Its not just a little bit heavier, they are multiple times as massive. Way more capable. Its the right choice, but it pretty much blows apart the original ARG, and the ships we have were designed around smaller vehicles like ASLAV and M113's. While the heavy deck can handle them, you then need connectors, is that deck area big enough for what you want? Can smaller ships do more of what we want? Are they the connectors?

Do JSS make sense, when you are cutting down the lift to 70% that of Choules? Does that scale? Or does it make it useless?

IMO bigger platforms are the go. 3 LHD's provides 3 full sized docks, and 3 fullsized heavy decks. If you make the landing craft bigger, it can hurt your connector delivery rate, so having another full sized dock addresses that. We need bigger landing craft from the LHD's. Is the army likely to use bigger heavier equipment in the future? We also gain superior deck space. With 3 ships deployment flexibility and resilience.

Then complement this with some sort of LST of say 4-6 ships. ~2000t.
The basic elements would be 1 LHD, 2 LST. We could scale amphibious ops down to a LST, and up to a hail mary surge everything.

But like I said, I think its a bit early to select this kind of detail yet. Army needs to know what its going to look like. Realistically we are talking only about regional amphibious capability, we won't be landing in Europe or Africa, or north Asia. While amphibious capability is important, it may be that the LHD are going to shift a bit, in that they may swing into ASW or other important roles. With a decent fleet of LST's, and 3 LHD's, you could swing them around and rotate training and operations etc. You could split elements, mix up what you want.

 

[vonnoobie]

Do JSS make sense, when you are cutting down the lift to 70% that of Choules? Does that scale? Or does it make it useless?

Just curious but how did you work out to 70% of the lift? From my understanding the Choules has circa 1,200 lane meters while the JSS has 2,000 lane meters. I do understand that the Choules can accomodate more personnel then the JSS so just not sure how you worked out the 70% figure,

 

[John Newman]

Naval News article regarding the Navantia JSS concept design from 2019:

PACIFIC 2019: Navantia Australia Unveils Joint Support Ship Design - Naval News

At PACIFIC 2019, the naval defense exposition held last week in Sydney, Australia, Navantia Australia, the local branch of Spanish shipbuilding group Navantia, unveiled a new Joint Support Ship (JSS) design for both the domestic and export market.

www.navalnews.com

Specifically this paragraph:

“Navantia Australia’s JSS design combines 70% of the load capacity of HMAS Choules LPD and 70% of the fuel capacity of the now decommissioned HMAS Success AOR. The Melbourne-based design team used the Galicia-class LPD as a base and came up with the JSS fulfilling the requirements.”

The JSS design concept being put forward by Navantia is obviously a compromise to allow for two roles (LPD and AOR) from a single hull ship with the approx overall dimensions of HMAS Choules.

But....

Because the project calls for two JSS, that 70% figure can be multiplied by two, eg, two ship gives 140% load capacity of Choules and 140% fuel capacity of Success.

Cheers,

 

[oldsig127]

The JSS design concept being put forward by Navantia is obviously a compromise to allow for two roles (LPD and AOR) from a single hull ship with the approx overall dimensions of HMAS Choules.

But....

Because the project calls for two JSS, that 70% figure can be multiplied by two, eg, two ship gives 140% load capacity of Choules and 140% fuel capacity of Success.

Cheers,

Assuming we choose the Navantia paper JSS. That's not a very strong basis to draw any conclusions about what a futureARE or ARG can transport

oldsi

 

[John Newman]

Assuming we choose the Navantia paper JSS. That's not a very strong basis to draw any conclusions about what a futureARE or ARG can transport

oldsi

I know we can’t draw any conclusions as yet, which is why I referred to the Navantia JSS as a design ‘concept’.

Though it is interesting that the overall dimensions of their design concept is almost identical to Choules.

At the other end of the size spectrum is of course Karel Doorman:

HNLMS Karel Doorman (A833) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

At the end of the day, depending on the final requirement, either ship design could be scaled up or down.

Cheers,

 

[Gryphinator]

I remember one of the defpro's (kinda cryptically) saying a couple of days back some big news about WA shipyards. Maybe a JSS announcement soon?

 

[Stampede]

ARG availability is also an issue. We tried several times to exercise the ARG, and several times it was thwarted for several reasons. It comes down to two big ships being the key part of the operation, and if one of those ships isn't available, Choules has very different capabilities and there is no way to make up for that loss. Even with careful planning the whole thing is very fragile. Even forming the expanded ARU/E can become fragile.

Army is a lot more modern than it used to be, more mechanized and more networked. Its certainly bulkier and heavier. Aslavs and M113's won't be with us forever and the LARCV has had its day too.
View attachment 48589
View attachment 48590
Source pintrest

The items require pretty much a complete rethink. Its not just a little bit heavier, they are multiple times as massive. Way more capable. Its the right choice, but it pretty much blows apart the original ARG, and the ships we have were designed around smaller vehicles like ASLAV and M113's. While the heavy deck can handle them, you then need connectors, is that deck area big enough for what you want? Can smaller ships do more of what we want? Are they the connectors?

Do JSS make sense, when you are cutting down the lift to 70% that of Choules? Does that scale? Or does it make it useless?

IMO bigger platforms are the go. 3 LHD's provides 3 full sized docks, and 3 fullsized heavy decks. If you make the landing craft bigger, it can hurt your connector delivery rate, so having another full sized dock addresses that. We need bigger landing craft from the LHD's. Is the army likely to use bigger heavier equipment in the future? We also gain superior deck space. With 3 ships deployment flexibility and resilience.

Then complement this with some sort of LST of say 4-6 ships. ~2000t.
The basic elements would be 1 LHD, 2 LST. We could scale amphibious ops down to a LST, and up to a hail mary surge everything.

But like I said, I think its a bit early to select this kind of detail yet. Army needs to know what its going to look like. Realistically we are talking only about regional amphibious capability, we won't be landing in Europe or Africa, or north Asia. While amphibious capability is important, it may be that the LHD are going to shift a bit, in that they may swing into ASW or other important roles. With a decent fleet of LST's, and 3 LHD's, you could swing them around and rotate training and operations etc. You could split elements, mix up what you want.

I can tell you Army will look like
It'll look similar to the last 4 decades and probably similar to the next four.
Not dissimilar number of tank / Cav Sqns and Inf Regiments.
Sure we'll mix and match what we call them and who has what vehicles, but those vehicles WILL get heavier.
We have always known that.

Apologies if this is flippant and negative, but it does my head in when we talk Maritime logistics for the Army.

The ARG whatever was always going to be lets pretend with only three amphibious vessels.
Ship availability and conflicting tasking was always going to be a challenge with three amphibious ships available at the right time and place.

So what do we get?
Easy answer is more vessels.

Maybe we look at tonnage to move as the starting point.

Then decide if its a few additional larger vessels or a greater number of smaller vessels.


Regards S