Sounds like Monch are getting the original OCV concept and the current OPV CEP confused. If I recall the OCV was to have been 1500t but the OPV is a different proposal with a different roles.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Maybe, but then why put forward a 1,600t OPV with no hanger. They imply Navy sources.
Looks like they will all have pretty expose rhib alcoves.
At least with Damens sea axe the alcoves look a bit more protected.
What's the big deal with the RHIB storage? Every PB so far has had them on deck and as far as I know there have been no complaints. The vast majority of patrols will be in the north and the few patrols down to 48deg S seem adequately served by both the Fassmer and Damen proposals. Chile has no problem with Fassmer in their latitudes.
The stated requirements from the CoA differ from the desired requirements from the RAN so there is undoubtedly an incentive to add what features they can, or at least the potential to incorporate them later, without blowing the budget or becoming uncompetitive. Damen has more experience in meeting RAN requirements than the other two so it is interesting that they appear to be offering more capable and flexible designs than the other two.
I still think there are a lot of people on this thread thinking the Navy wants a lot more out of the OPV than they do. The OPV will replace the capability currently provided by the patrol boats, nothing more. It is not supposed to be a combatant, not supposed to be armed for anything other than constabulary work and not supposed to be deployed independently far from home. The Navy originally looked at something like a corvette, but Government shook their head at that and all that is required is a bigger patrol boat.
That is why you hear whispers of Navy frowning on bids including extras like armaments, and bidders looking st ships well below the theoretical 2000 tonne max - the cheapest solution that meets he requirements will be chosen. The Navy wants a bigger and better patrol boat, not a small surface combatant.
That is why you hear whispers of Navy frowning on bids including extras like armaments, and bidders looking st ships well below the theoretical 2000 tonne max - the cheapest solution that meets he requirements will be chosen. The Navy wants a bigger and better patrol boat, not a small surface combatant.
Well the navy want a combat system, something bigger than a 25mm (35-40 but may 57mm), they need helicopter and UAV facilities, improved boat handling facilities are also a must. This isn't from my imagination, this is from the SPO, the boat drivers and people on the bid. They are actually asking for, and expect to get more than just a bigger patrol boat.
That said, none of the designs, while all more capable and versatile than many (including me) seriously expected, are anywhere near as capable as the proposed OCV, let alone the Corvette / OPC or the mid to late 90s, or for that matter any of the corvettes being built for many other navies.
Whilst I agree there are some wishing for more than is possible you are wrong to suggest that the OPVs are a like for like replacement capability.
To quote the DWP, "they will provide greater reach and endurance. Will be capable or undertaking several different roles including enhanced border protection and patrol missions over greater distances than are currently possible"
To quote the IIP, "with enhanced range and endurance to improve support to operations further afield, particularly across maritime SE Asia and the S Pacific."
"Support to operations further afield" can be interpreted a number of ways but I would certainly not discount them supporting contested ops as part of a larger TF and therefore to be given greater lethality than the ACPBs.
Austal Pushes Big Missiles For Small Ships: LCS & VLS « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary.
The proposals look great for the US Navy.
The proposals look great for the US Navy.
All of the extra capability talked about for the OPVs is simply to make them better at their current roles, not to give them new roles. The deficiencies of the ACPB is well known, and the OPVs are designed to remedy this with a much larger ship. But that's it - there will be no medium guns, no CIWS, no SAMs, no SSMs etc. Navy made an argument for that, and got shot down by government.
I certainly would. The OPVs may be used in a constabulary role further afield, but they certainly won't be going anywhere someone might shoot at them. Not by design, anyway.
The USN would be crazy to try and turn either the Austal or Lockheed LCS into a frigate.
If they don't want to go to the trouble of designing a new warship they should look at an existing European design. In fact it could be very convenient for Australia if they did that.
I entirely agree with that, but it surely doesn't exclude a ship which is designed from the outset to allow the buyer to choose between (for example) a 30mm, 57mm, 76mm main gun being purchased with the 30mm but nevertheless having space and weight margins to support a larger weapon at some future time when circumstance may conspire to allow it and necessity supply the funds to make the change?
Similarly a hangar doesn't mean there has to be a Seahawk parked in it, and space for possible mission modules doesn't mean them being filled with anything at all.
So the OPV is delivered with a 25mm and two 50cal and that insubstantial thing, flexibility.
It also occurs that as the combat system is specified as 9LV someone is thinking further ahead than chasing beche de mer poachers with a 25mm gun
oldsig
I suppose I should have further defined "contested". Obviously not a major operation but there are plenty of lesser contests in which they would be useful such as a repeat of ET or a nastier Solomans, Bougainville insurgency etc. these are situations where a slightly more capable OPV could operate without the support of a Frigate and could still be a useful tool.
I would like to see them capable enough to take on the current anti piracy role in the Indian Ocean and free up the frigates to continue TG ops.
This would Require them to be capable of embarking a rotary asset for and extended period.
t68
Well-Known Member
They can always turn to the Legend class, which was put forward by Ingalls as a National Patrol Frigate/Offshore Combat Vessel
Fair comment.
The interesting topic for discussion is what sort of flexibility will be retained for a future upgrade path. May never be fully utilised but they will be big shops (4-5x larger patrol boat) with a lot of potential expansion space.
The move to include a combat system suggests that there is a desire to retain that upgrade path.
Regards,
Massive
Why? The baseline design is $200m plus more expensive per hull, 15-20 knots slower, twice the crew, same gun, no intermediate auto cannons, no missiles, no mission modules, helicopter facilities only suitable for smaller types. Fix these issues and you will likely be talking twice the cost of LCS for something that is no more capable but still less flexible.
It seems quite bizarre to me that the general internet consensus is that the LCS should be a more combat capable frigate to complement the USNs DDGs while Australia's SEA1180 OPV should be nothing more than a patrol boat on steroids. People are completely missing the point that the capability gap that needs to be filled in the USN and RAN is survivable expeditionary MCM, littoral ASW, hydrographic survey, special forces support, anti swarm boat, counter piracy and maritime counter insurgency. The LCS should be replaced by a cut and bob tied DDG and instead of a MOTS OPV (let alone an OCV or OPC) the RAN should get a supersized Armidale.
t68
Well-Known Member
Was under the impression that the USN wanted to move away from aluminum hulls and was a directs responce to apost about designing another combat as a more direct replacement for the OHP's.
Ingalls have already stated a few years ago that the could be fitted with either SPY-1or Cefar radar, also they are built to military and USN damage control standards. As for the price knowing the US they will build 30t hulls which would decrease the price per hull lower than the nine ordered for the USCG
Fit AEGIS to a Legend class high endurance cutter and it becomes a $1.7-2 billion dollar cutter pretending to be a frigate instead of a $735 million one. The USN has almost 100 AEGIS ships, they don't need a compromised frigate that costs almost as much as a new destroyer, what they need is a globally deployable combatant that can look after its self in low threat environments and complement the capabilities of the high end ships in high threat environments. Irrespective of the patrol combatant they also need a self deployable, more survivable replacement for vulnerable legacy types filling MCM, inshore ASW, special forces support, patrol etc.
The independence class are Aluminium but the Freedom class are steel hull with alloy superstructure.
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree with what you are saying about fitting AEGIS wasn't my idea just repeating what Ingalls put out many moons ago, but it appears they are still trying like this link put out in January 17
Huntington Ingalls Has a New Frigate that Could Give the U.S. Navy Some Impressive Capabilities | The National Interest Blog
And this one I imagine with no date that I can see it would be around 2012ish
https://m.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2014-04/its-time-sea-control-frigate
And referring to AEGIS,
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/13/the-phantom-frigate/
- Status