OPV's for Australia?
- Thread starter alexsa
- Start date
Yes, the Danish Thetis class has twice the displacement of the New Zealand OPV, these ships are serving in the large Greenland EEZ area. The Thetis will go 9,000 nautical miles at 15 knots, the New Zealand OPV 6,000 nautical miles at 16 knots. Unlike the New Zealand OPV, the Danish Thetis class has weight and space saved for other weapons systems that have not yet been installed. While the New Zealand ship cannot be upgraded to a frigate, the Thetis can weapon systems wise, but it will never go faster than an OPV, only 21 knots tops. Of course, by the time you paid for and finished the upgrade, you'll be better off with an Anzac class frigate.
Not this time. The Thetis was designed with the rough and tough North Atlantic in mind, not the Adriatic or Mediterrean. Sorry to disappoint!
However, I am not convinced Australia needs a 3600 ton OPV, while a 1600 ton New Zealand OPV will do.
If Australia were to build some, I would suggest 4, 2 on each coasts.
However, I am not convinced Australia needs a 3600 ton OPV, while a 1600 ton New Zealand OPV will do.
If Australia were to build some, I would suggest 4, 2 on each coasts.
The Thetis class of ocean patrol vessels have a double-skinned hull divided by ten bulkheads into watertight compartments. The basic hull shape corresponds to that of a high-speed trawler. There are no bilge keels, but stabilisation is achieved by a combination of fin stabilisers from Blohm and Voss and a controlled passive tank system supplied by Intering.
They are ice-strengthened and are able to proceed through 80cm of solid ice. The hull has an icebreaking bow and stem lines suitable for operations in ice with only one propeller. To minimise ice formation on the superstructure, all winches, capstans, etc. are placed under deck
It appears to me they have better seakeeping than most ships. How many ships do you know of have controlled passive tank systems?
They are ice-strengthened and are able to proceed through 80cm of solid ice. The hull has an icebreaking bow and stem lines suitable for operations in ice with only one propeller. To minimise ice formation on the superstructure, all winches, capstans, etc. are placed under deck
It appears to me they have better seakeeping than most ships. How many ships do you know of have controlled passive tank systems?
One issue I have with OPV's is there apparent lack of speed. Helicopter operations offset this, but I wonder how important speed is for an OPV given that many merchant ships have speeds in excess of 25kts. Is the standard 20-22kts suitable for counter terrorism operations at sea.
Only really high end merchant ships go for the high speeds, the average merchant ship and trawler would be below 20 knots I would think. Fuel and engines cost money, only put in what you need! I think a trawler with a 30+ knot speed would attract a lot of attention!!Rocco_NZ said:
High Altitude UAVs, the likes of Global Hawk, Mariner etc, to patrol and vector in the OPV, use of tactical UAVs from the OPV to observe 'wrong doing', board, search and seize from the OPV.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #30
Generally speaking merchant vessel are capable of sub 20 knot speeds with 18 knosts being the high end for general cargo, dry bulk and tankers. most wil do 15 knots or less. Some examples of recent vessel show this trend:Whiskyjack said:
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/pioneer/
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/scot/
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/alexander/
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/star-osakana/
Reefer ships tend to operate at higher speed but it is the liner container trade where you will more commonly see ships capable of 20 knots or more
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/safmarine/
Passenger vessels and RO-RO ferries tend to be at the higher end as well. fishing vessel do not generally do anyware near 20 knots and many wouel be hard pressed to make 15. the Odd man out would be the Purse Seiner vessels, given the nature of their operations these vessel have been know to be cpable of exceeding 20 knots in some cases.
Considering the New Zealand OPVs cost in the vicinity of A$ 70-80 million, we'll use $80 million each, four would run up to $320 million. Notice the Anzacs cost around A$ 500 million each, and the new AWDs will run over A$ 1 billion each. The cost analysis should leave one with the impression of an OPVs combat capacity.
I've said this before with regard to "Australian OPVs", but I'll say it again. What you need is an air capable platform and the OPV you describe has too large a GM to operate VTOLs in a high sea state that is normally encountered between Australia and Antarctica.alexsa said:
Air operations is the most important aspect of this v/l, (apart from actually being a v/l and having persistance) so you are either going to have to reinvent the VTOL and use ducted props (www.unmannedaircraft.com there's a thing called the HOVTOL there that looks promising) or go with a more stable platform like a trimaran.
The other part of the soln is (if you are going to stick with the rig tender model) fitting it out with Voith Schneider drives so the stern can track the helo as it trys to land and takeoff. That should allow you to operate in a higher sea state then you would normally be able to.
Now if you apply all those 3 suggestions (trimaran, ducted rotor'd VTOL UAV and VS drives) you would have a fantastic OPV. Oh and it would have the legs to actually catch an illegal fisherman in days rather than weeks.
...And no, I imagine it wouldn't look like an LCS but have the reserve buoyancy and endurance to take on the Southern Ocean for long periods of time. Something that the AWD (for example) won't be able to do without structural fatigue to cutsey things called ballast tanks and wot not.
cheers
w
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Many reasons. 1. We don't have the money available. 2. We don't have the personnel available. 3. We don't have any need for an LCS.Big-E said:
What we could do with, and has been explained at length throughout this thread, is a fleet of ships, that are capable of operating in high sea states, have outstanding range and speed, excellent seakeeping and helicopter operating capability, and the ability to perform warfighting functions, at a higher level than that of the Armidale class patrol boats, but lower than that of a frigate (in order to keep costs down).
The LCS doesn't meet these requirements, being designed for an entirely different mission.
Well I can buy the money argument. . . but LCS has great speed, sea keeping, helicopter capability, it can land them in sea state 5. She can fill many roles, Minesweeper, ASW ship and speacial forces support. They can retire the frigates and patrol ships with one vessel therefore cutting overall costs. If any country needs a ship for littoral operations it's Australia.Aussie Digger said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
We do need littoral combat capability. We also need high level anti-air, anti-surface and anti-submarine capability. LCS is going to be severley deficient in the S2A and S2S roles and would not be a good replacement for our ANZAC and FFG frigates.Big-E said:
If you are going to be fighting Indonesian terrorists then you need it. You don't need frigates when you have SEA 4000 AEGIS Destroyers. The FFGs you have now are just as obsolete as ours, hence the decom. LCS can replace roles of mineweepers, frigates and patrol craft. If you retire those vessels you can afford LCS.Aussie Digger said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Our FFG's aren't as obsolete as America's. For one thing our 4 remaining FFG's are newer, having been built in Australia later than the USN ones, and of better materials. The 1st vessel (HMAS Sydney) has just undergone a MAJOR upgrade, equipping it with ESSM and Harpoon Block II. It has a new combat system, upgraded radars and a new IRST system and vastly improved "habitability" for the crew and is undergoing final trials. The 2nd vessel (HMAS Newcastle) is undergoing the same upgrades as we speak.Big-E said:If you are going to be fighting Indonesian terrorists then you need it. You don't need frigates when you have SEA 4000 AEGIS Destroyers. The FFGs you have now are just as obsolete as ours, hence the decom. LCS can replace roles of mineweepers, frigates and patrol craft. If you retire those vessels you can afford LCS.
It retains it's 76mm gun, but has an improved fire control system for this gun, it retains it's Phalanx CIWS, but also has new "mini-typhoon" guns to improve it's assymetric (or terrorist fighting if you like) capability. Long range SM-2 Block IIIA missiles are to replace it's existing SM-1 missiles in the next 2 years. It's torpedo system is to be upgraded with the new MU-90 torpedo over the next couple of years and it's Seahawk helo is about to undergo a major midlife extension and upgrade.
As you can see, it is in every way a major enhancement over the USN FFG's. It is the most capable surface vessel we have at present (we also have ANZAC class vessels remember) and I'm sure you'd agree it's combat capability is significantly higher than the LCS will ever be.
I agree. Australia is a maritime nation and needs all its warships to keep its sea lanes open. And I agree a few of the New Zealand Tenix built OPVs, although with an upgraded gun such as the soon to be discarded 76-mm ones from the FFGs would be ideal to patrol the southern approaches to Australia. Doing so would free up any frigates from such duty, and more than likely 4 OPVs could be purchased for the price of one frigate.Two of the FFGs have or will soon be decommissioned, there are four more which will be discarded when the AWDs become available.