Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus

Cootamundra said:
Fair point, and in today's environment there is not much need for another OPV. The Armidales will do for now no doubt, hell, if Bomber Beasley ever got in they'd get transferred to the new Coast Guard and then the RAN would need to fight for recruits with Australia's newest service :)
Click to expand...

The Armidales have been specifically designed to operate at higher sea states and to stay at sea longer than the Fremantle class patrol boats, to alleviate the problems of using frigates in these roles, as much as possible.

I think matters like the lengthy sea chase of the Panamanian fishing boat to South Africa will always require a true larger Naval vessel to engage in those types of operations, however...
 
While Australia doesn't have any OPVs in the works, the Aussies did look them over not to long ago when Malaysia bought theirs from Germany instead. To help win the contract Australia was thinking in terms of building several to replace the Freemantles instead of the Armidales. For a long while many thought New Zealand purchased those 80 meter Tenix designed ships instead of the Canadian designed third generation Irish OPVs.

The problem with the Armidales is their range is approximately 3,000 nautical miles whereas the New Zealand OPVs have a range of 6,000 nautical miles. Heard Island is a long distance away from the west coast of Australia. A 22-24 knot OPV would be very welcomed there, and could replace a more expensive 28 knot frigate for fishery protection and to observe sovereignty. Keep in mind the French station one of their OPVs at Reunion along with another in New Caledonia.

Plus the Armidales are limited to operations in sea state 6. OPVs can operate in sea state 8. While several maybe too many, a few OPVs would benefit Australia's navy much more than a dedicated coast guard.
 
Last edited:
Sea Toby said:
While Australia doesn't have any OPVs in the works, the Aussies did look them over not to long ago when Malaysia bought theirs from Germany instead. To help win the contract Australia was thinking in terms of building several to replace the Freemantles instead of the Armidales. For a long while many thought New Zealand purchased those 80 meter Tenix designed ships instead of the Canadian designed third generation Irish OPVs.

The problem with the Armidales is their range is approximately 3,000 nautical miles whereas the New Zealand OPVs have a range of 6,000 nautical miles. Heard Island is a long distance away from the west coast of Australia. A 22-24 knot OPV would be very welcomed there, and could replace a more expensive 28 knot frigate for fishery protection and to observe sovereignty. Keep in mind the French station one of their OPVs at Reunion along with another in New Caledonia.

Plus the Armidales are limited to operations in sea state 6. OPVs can operate in sea state 8. While several maybe too many, a few OPVs would benefit Australia's navy much more than a dedicated coast guard.
Click to expand...

I basically agree with this sentiment, although I would go one step further than an OPV....I think the idea of an Armidale class Patrol v/l being able to successfully maintain a presence in the Southern Ocean, is wishful thinking at best. An OHP class FFG has a hard time of it, let alone a patrol boat. A larger vessel with helicopter capacity is more feasible, as once the swell gets up a common freighter doing 15 knots could out run an Armidale.

That is to say, for example: if you have a 6 meter swell with a period of 15 seconds at force 1 a smaller boat will be struggling, where as the larger v/l will plow along.

You have to remember that the biggest killer at sea is fatigue and the little Armidale crew will be fatigued beyond their limits in very quick time, while pursuing a fishing v/l in Antarctic waters.

my 2 cents
 
Last edited:
I think a force of LCS (based on the Austal design). It does not have to have all the expensive 'bells and whistles' of the USN design, but would allow for a force of embarked troops, vehicles, cargo as well as the general patrol duties around Australia. I think Austal has a smaller design as well around the 80m mark. The only question I have is around the sea keeping ability of a trimaran in the Southern Ocean.
 
Whiskyjack said:
I think a force of LCS (based on the Austal design). It does not have to have all the expensive 'bells and whistles' of the USN design, but would allow for a force of embarked troops, vehicles, cargo as well as the general patrol duties around Australia. I think Austal has a smaller design as well around the 80m mark. The only question I have is around the sea keeping ability of a trimaran in the Southern Ocean.
Click to expand...

A favorite design for me, is the Stolkraft as far as creating the most sea keeping ability for the size goes... Its a dynamic lift tri hull with a cat stern....

I would also expect the Tri hull Austal design/ LCS, to have relatively good sea keeping abilities as well.

3 hulls are better than 2 which is better than 1, so long as your design philosophy is to obtain maximum reserve buoyancy. Speed should not be a part of the equation when looking for endurance in the Southern Ocean.

I would expect the LCS design to have a lot of trouble in a TRS, if she attempted to run across the wind. It would probably make it out of the storm, but you may as well run her up on the beach and cut it up as the torsion stresses in a multihull attempting that sort of course are large and structrally damaging. But again 3 hulls reduces the amount of stress that 2 hulls would experience...

The compromise for speed and endurance is the SWATH design (Small water plane area, tripple hull (in this case))...You get your reserve buoyancy, plus you get the weather deck up and away from the water. The torsion stresses are less (or "dampened" might be a better word) because the hull is already submerged and its the most efficient full displacement design out there at the moment.

All of which Austal should have the where-with-all to do.

Make the craft large and stable enough so the helicopter's performance constraints are the limiting factor (not the ship's) to VTOL operations and you have a winner.

got to go

cheers


The Wooki
 
Whiskyjack said:
I think a force of LCS (based on the Austal design). It does not have to have all the expensive 'bells and whistles' of the USN design, but would allow for a force of embarked troops, vehicles, cargo as well as the general patrol duties around Australia. I think Austal has a smaller design as well around the 80m mark. The only question I have is around the sea keeping ability of a trimaran in the Southern Ocean.
Click to expand...

If you want all weather capability forget the LCS hull. Platfroms like the Rolls Royce product based on North Sea Off shore vessels are desing for this sort of play ground noting that even 'normal' warships would occasionally fear to tread in these waters.

In so far as Customs are concerned there are some limitations to chartering such tonnage as these are commecial vessls. So apart from the cost of the charter and the fact the vessels is not totally suited to the job there is the issue of compliance with relevant international conventions and associated costs. This is not such an issue for 'government ships'. It will be interesting to see if Customs look at purchasing (and customising - no pun intended) a platform or building one designed for the task.

I am not an insider but from what I have read there is nothing in the current capability plan for the RAN to get an OPV. A bit of pity really as I don't think the Armadale wil last very long if it is run in sea state 6.

Cheers
Alexsa
 
alexsa said:
If you want all weather capability forget the LCS hull. Platfroms like the Rolls Royce product based on North Sea Off shore vessels are desing for this sort of play ground noting that even 'normal' warships would occasionally fear to tread in these waters.
Click to expand...
Website OR at least name for searching?Thanks
 
seantheaussie said:
Website OR at least name for searching?Thanks
Click to expand...

Sorry about that. Try

http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/product/design/opvnaval.jsp

This is just one desing out there and other off shore builders ahve similar products. Designs of this type can also support a helo deck capable of supporting NH-90 size helicopters. They are not the cheapest option but provide a platform that has great seakeeping qualities, a good turn of speed, great bollard pull for rescue and salvage work (or the ability to tow in arrested FFVs) and a high degree of automation (reduced crew). All perfect for the southern ocean and OPV work.

Cheers
Alexsa
 
I'm sure anyone could surf the worldwide web and find more examples of OPVs. New Zealand had 21 different bidders for their Project Protector programme. After the Irish OPV visisted Singapore when the Kiwis gave it a good looking over, Tenix included it in its bid since its OPV was outshined by the Irish OPV. Another factor that influenced the Kiwis was when they observed the Ben My Chree in Isle of Man Packet Steamship service, its design was visible whereas the scaled down Dutch Enforcer design was not. There isn't nothing like looking a new car with your eyes and kicking its tire with your feet at the new car salesroom versus looking at the drawings on a sheet of paper.

Therefore the visit of a new Aegis Arleigh Burke class destroyer, and more than likely a visit to the new Spanish Aegis frigates. One thing is for certain a scaled down Burke will have to be a very sound design as there is a risk in purchasing something on paper versus seeing the real thing live such as the Spanish ship.
 
Sea Toby said:
I'm sure anyone could surf the worldwide web and find more examples of OPVs. New Zealand had 21 different bidders for their Project Protector programme. After the Irish OPV visisted Singapore when the Kiwis gave it a good looking over, Tenix included it in its bid since its OPV was outshined by the Irish OPV. Another factor that influenced the Kiwis was when they observed the Ben My Chree in Isle of Man Packet Steamship service, its design was visible whereas the scaled down Dutch Enforcer design was not. There isn't nothing like looking a new car with your eyes and kicking its tire with your feet at the new car salesroom versus looking at the drawings on a sheet of paper.

Therefore the visit of a new Aegis Arleigh Burke class destroyer, and more than likely a visit to the new Spanish Aegis frigates. One thing is for certain a scaled down Burke will have to be a very sound design as there is a risk in purchasing something on paper versus seeing the real thing live such as the Spanish ship.
Click to expand...

There is a risk with a paper design as opposed to an in-service design, but it comes back to the capability versus risk argument. There's no doubt whatsoever that the "Baby Burke" will be far more capable than the F-105 (Australianised version of F-100 frigate).

On top of this, I believe that the Spanish frigate operates a "smaller" AEGIS system than Arleigh Burke class (or bigger) vessels. Australia has already contracted for and ordered the "full size" system, so this would tend to indicate that there is a very slight chance that the Spanish Frigate will get up at this point. It is only a legal technicality that means the Spanish frigate is even still in the competition at this point...
 
Aussie Digger said:
On top of this, I believe that the Spanish frigate operates a "smaller" AEGIS system than Arleigh Burke class (or bigger) vessels. Australia has already contracted for and ordered the "full size" system, so this would tend to indicate that there is a very slight chance that the Spanish Frigate will get up at this point. It is only a legal technicality that means the Spanish frigate is even still in the competition at this point...
Click to expand...
You are probably thinking of the Norwegian frigate, not the armada frigate.
 
Awd

I think that the SPY-1F is incapable of BMD. I was under the impression that's according to globalsecurity.org that the Spanish F-100 is fitted with the lower powered SPY-1F.
 
Aegis in F-100's is SPY-1D, like in Burke's. The only difference is two SPG-62 illuminators vs. three in the US Navy vessels. In fact, Aegis arrays are situated taller in a F-100 than in a Burke.
 
I would like to hope that by the time it comes to build these ships cea-far/auspar technology will have advanced enough such that spy-x
is no longer necessary and a leaner, meaner aussie version is used. However i suspect that might be rather wishful thinking.

http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/8-104.htm

"....
Interestingly, the Anzac fleet will boast more advanced active phased array radar systems than the new air warfare destroyers, whose venerable Aegis combat system includes a passive SPY-1 radar system. RF expert Fred Haddock points out that SPY-1 uses a below decks TWT-based RF source and the RF energy is piped using waveguides to the four fixed arrays where it is distributed across them to computer controlled RF switches that establish and control the required RF radiation patterns.
This method results in considerable loss of radiated power due to waveguide losses.
He says active systems generate RF at the antenna in a multitude of solid state transmit/receive elements under computer control, the number of elements being a function of the performance requirements of the radar. This method of generating RF power is much more efficient and the radar is much more immune to battle damage than one having a complex waveguide configuration.
Perhaps we shall see SPY-1 eventually replaced by an S-band radar with family links to the Australia-United States AUSPAR development....."




cheers
rb
 
There's some talk that the AWD's might carry CEA's continuous wave illuminators (CEA-MOUNT) in order to provide the guidance for the ESSM and SM-2 missiles (if it ends up carrying SM-2), so there should be abit of work for CEA in the coming years, beside the ANZAC upgrades...

Info on CEA's products can be found here:

http://www.cea.com.au/products/products.html
 
alexsa said:
...Designs of this type can also support a helo deck capable of supporting NH-90 size helicopters....
Click to expand...
I basically agree with most of what you are saying Alex, but have to draw the line with that one. The GM is too large to operate a helo from the OPV shown in a high sea state, let alone in the Southern Ocean. Too risky as your blades are going to touch the deck even if you wre using a Hughes 500 class.

BUT, if you used a VTOL UAV, you might get away with it.

Cheers


W
 
Wooki said:
I basically agree with most of what you are saying Alex, but have to draw the line with that one. The GM is too large to operate a helo from the OPV shown in a high sea state, let alone in the Southern Ocean. Too risky as your blades are going to touch the deck even if you wre using a Hughes 500 class.

BUT, if you used a VTOL UAV, you might get away with it.

Cheers


W
Click to expand...

On the UT desing shown that is likely to be the cast but there are others about which claim to be able to do it. RR have put out a subsequent design wiht a helo deck but no hanger (not a great deal of use in the OPV role). I have been meaning to find a link to some of the other offshore based OPV designs but have not done it to date. Modern Off shore vessels are pretty large vessels and have a deck width in excess of that of an FFG which means they can support fairly large helos provided the vessel is stable enough to operate them.

At the end of the day operating perameters are going to be governed by the vessels dynamic stability including issues such as dimishing stability with deck edge immersion (an issue for the low freebaord working deck aft on off shore vessels) but offshore vessel such as dive support vessel manage it so I expect it could be done on a support hull. Proof will be when someone provides the data I guess.
 
I just read somwhere that the South Koreans are also building Gibbs & Cox designed ASWs, yet theirs will be around 10000tons, instead of ours at 6000. The reason stated was somthing to do with the type of engines being used and their requirements for large double stacks. Why are they chosing a heavier engine? Is it better, and if so why arent we getting them? Or is another issue of expence? :confused:
 
abramsteve said:
I just read somwhere that the South Koreans are also building Gibbs & Cox designed ASWs, yet theirs will be around 10000tons, instead of ours at 6000. The reason stated was somthing to do with the type of engines being used and their requirements for large double stacks. Why are they chosing a heavier engine? Is it better, and if so why arent we getting them? Or is another issue of expence? :confused:
Click to expand...

Who said anything about the G&C Australian AWD design being 6000 tons?


cheers


W
 
Wooki said:
Who said anything about the G&C Australian AWD design being 6000 tons?


cheers


W
Click to expand...

I've got the draft specs for the original AWD submission and the design comes in at 5875 metric tonnes.

6875 tons (metric) is equal to 7,578.39 tons (US short)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top