Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

It's good to see an announcement made in good time to allow construction to start next year.
I had thought that a hanger would be important into the future to allow seagoing UAV deployments but I wouldn't be surprised if some concertina type hanger is factored into the ships in future.

I had thought Lurssen was the outsider but on second thoughts it may be so because Austal or Civmec via the government have designs on becoming a regional player as Brunei, and maybe other navies, gravitate towards Lurssen designs for their future OPVs.

A 40mm gun it is, maybe all those Bofor rounds from the Attacks and Fremantles are still in stock

 

[weegee]

It's good to see an announcement made in good time to allow construction to start next year.
I had thought that a hanger would be important into the future to allow seagoing UAV deployments but I wouldn't be surprised if some concertina type hanger is factored into the ships in future.

I had thought Lurssen was the outsider but on second thoughts it may be so because Austal or Civmec via the government have designs on becoming a regional player as Brunei, and maybe other navies, gravitate towards Lurssen designs for their future OPVs.

A 40mm gun it is, maybe all those Bofor rounds from the Attacks and Fremantles are still in stock

I am a bit surprised that there is not more specific information about the ship? Which model it in fact is even though they keep showing the OPV80, a bit more detail would be appreciated as apposed to just Lurssen has won etc etc

 

[rand0m]

Judging by the press release it's the 80..

It looks like the government loves the oddball choice's, destroyers, subs, now opv.

 

[Redlands18]

I am a bit surprised that there is not more specific information about the ship? Which model it in fact is even though they keep showing the OPV80, a bit more detail would be appreciated as apposed to just Lurssen has won etc etc

At the press conference they said it was the OPV80, said it was 80m long and would be armed with a 40mm gun and only talked about UAVs, nothing about Helos.

 

[oldsig127]

Judging by the press release it's the 80..

It looks like the government loves the oddball choice's, destroyers, subs, now opv.

Interested to note that the Government made the decisions, which makes me curious how the teams evaluating the bids spent their days.

oldsig

 

[John Newman]

Maybe it's time to chill out, take a cold shower, have a 'Bex and a good lie down' (some of us older ones here will know about the 'Bex' reference too!).

Glass half full or glass half empty?

The decision has been made, all of us armchair Admirals have to live with it. And of course none of us armchair Admirals actually got to see the RFI, obviously Lurssen met the terms of the RFI and that's it, all over red rover!

Yes a lot of us are saying, what about a hangar? Maybe their 80m design will or won't have that capability (of sorts), but again, whatever is delivered will presumably meet the terms of the RFI.

Hangar or not, I'm sure (and hopeful) that the ship that is delivered will meet the RFI and will be a significant increase in capability over the ACPB's, will we all agree with the details and requirements of the RFI? Probably not.

For those of us that have seen photos and images from 'Pacific 2017' the Lurssen design showed a 'container' on the open deck with a UAV sticking out of it, and a model of another UAV hovering over the deck.

Maybe Lurssen read (and interpreted) the RFI better than the other two contenders? Who knows! Food for thought maybe?

As to the build process, yes the first two will be built in Adelaide using the ASC facilities before moving to the West.

The build process in the West will include both Austal and Civmec, how that works out, no doubt we will find out shortly how the workload split will happen, maybe one will build modules and the other will perform block consolidation and final assembly (I really don't care as long as the job is done properly).

Anyway, good to see a decision, not necessarily what we were all expecting (me included), but it's done!

 

[weegee]

Maybe it's time to chill out, take a cold shower, have a 'Bex and a good lie down' (some of us older ones here will know about the 'Bex' reference too!).

Glass half full or glass half empty?

The decision has been made, all of us armchair Admirals have to live with it. And of course none of us armchair Admirals actually got to see the RFI, obviously Lurssen met the terms of the RFI and that's it, all over red rover!

Yes a lot of us are saying, what about a hangar? Maybe their 80m design will or won't have that capability (of sorts), but again, whatever is delivered will presumably meet the terms of the RFI.

Hangar or not, I'm sure (and hopeful) that the ship that is delivered will meet the RFI and will be a significant increase in capability over the ACPB's, will we all agree with the details and requirements of the RFI? Probably not.

For those of us that have seen photos and images from 'Pacific 2017' the Lurssen design showed a 'container' on the open deck with a UAV sticking out of it, and a model of another UAV hovering over the deck.

Maybe Lurssen read (and interpreted) the RFI better than the other two contenders? Who knows! Food for thought maybe?

As to the build process, yes the first two will be built in Adelaide using the ASC facilities before moving to the West.

The build process in the West will include both Austal and Civmec, how that works out, no doubt we will find out shortly how the workload split will happen, maybe one will build modules and the other will perform block consolidation and final assembly (I really don't care as long as the job is done properly).

Anyway, good to see a decision, not necessarily what we were all expecting (me included), but it's done!

I agree regardless of which design was picked and for what ever reason, what we will end up with is a giant leap forward when compared to the Armidale's

 

[oldsig127]

New Offshore Patrol Vessels announced - Defence Video Portal

For those who like to see and hear it, the press conference announcement

oldsig

 

[John Newman]

I agree regardless of which design was picked and for what ever reason, what we will end up with is a giant leap forward when compared to the Armidale's

Yep, the decision is what it is.

Putting my 'Armchair Admiral' hat on for a minute, I am disappointed that the design chosen doesn't appear to have an integrated hangar, such as similar 80m designs from Fassmer and Damen for example, but maybe that gives us all a clear message too.

If we go back a few steps (reverse the bus back a few 100m, get out and have a look at the landscape ahead of us), no where in the DWP or DIIP is there any mention whatsoever of a future LUH capability for the RAN (or ADF generally too) in the course of both of those documents.

Yes there are a small number of airframes that have been acquired for HATS to replace the LUH currently in Navy and Army inventory.

But there is no future programme mentioned for an LUH fleet, in a pure utility role, none, zero, zilch!

If there isn't a plan for a fleet of LUH for the RAN/ADF, then why procure a ship with a hangar for a fleet of LUH? Pretty obvious isn't it?

I'm just playing devils advocate here, no LUH, why have a hangar.


Putting my Armchair Admiral hat on again, I do think it is a bit short sighted, if there is an eventual requirement for a much larger UAV, such as Fire Scout, then an OPV with an integrated hangar is good 'future proofing'.

But hey, just my opinion of course, and we all have to live with the umpires decision too!!

 

[Flexson]

Yep, the decision is what it is.

Putting my 'Armchair Admiral' hat on for a minute, I am disappointed that the design chosen doesn't appear to have an integrated hangar, such as similar 80m designs from Fassmer and Damen for example, but maybe that gives us all a clear message too.

If we go back a few steps (reverse the bus back a few 100m, get out and have a look at the landscape ahead of us), no where in the DWP or DIIP is there any mention whatsoever of a future LUH capability for the RAN (or ADF generally too) in the course of both of those documents.

Yes there are a small number of airframes that have been acquired for HATS to replace the LUH currently in Navy and Army inventory.

But there is no future programme mentioned for an LUH fleet, in a pure utility role, none, zero, zilch!

If there isn't a plan for a fleet of LUH for the RAN/ADF, then why procure a ship with a hangar for a fleet of LUH? Pretty obvious isn't it?

I'm just playing devils advocate here, no LUH, why have a hangar.


Putting my Armchair Admiral hat on again, I do think it is a bit short sighted, if there is an eventual requirement for a much larger UAV, such as Fire Scout, then an OPV with an integrated hangar is good 'future proofing'.

But hey, just my opinion of course, and we all have to live with the umpires decision too!!

A hanger is also a very useful asset to have even if you never embark a helicopter. No helicopter embarked and it's basically another multi mission deck.

All uses I've seen for a hanger besides storing a helicopter;
Extra storage space for HADR.
Extra crew accommodation via use of containerized accommodation modules.
Containment space or short term accommodation space for illegal immigrants.
Processing space for mass SOLAS
Sheltered space for conducting clear lower decks or briefings in the tropics or inclement weather.
Sheltered space for PT sessions in inclement weather.
Space for conducting early morning PT sessions when operating in time zones where sun up is after wakey wakey.
Storage and sorting space when receiving large loads of stores alongside.
Sheltered area to conduct training such as weapons drills.
Large open area for contractors to sort and assemble pieces of equipment during EMP's.
Steel Deck BBQ's.
Team and Morale building events such as ships cinema nights and pageants.
Departmental musters.

No doubt there is more slipping my mind right now.

 

[Todjaeger]

Just out of curiosity why were NZ's Protector class never considered? I know they're not a brand new design now but Weren't they built here in what was Tenix? They seem to be around the right size, tonnage and have helo capabilities too?

What has been NZ's experience with them? are they not up to the job?

I suspect their capabilities were not suitable to meet the RFT requirements and that re-working the design was deemed not worthwhile.

Keep in mind that the end result of the Project Protector OPV's did not quite hit the mark. The ice-strengthened hull is workable now, but it puts a tight limit (more than planned) on future growth, otherwise the ice-belt ends up completely submerged and 'normal' hull could come in contact with sea ice.

Unless the RFT included an ice-strengthened hull, I just do not the design as being worthwhile. Even then, IMO there would be better options. There has been some speculation that the RNZN might end up replacing most/all of the Protector fleet early with vessels more suited for purpose.

 

[aussienscale]

As usual a lot of assumptions being made here yet again ! Even if it is just the straight OPV80 with no hangar who cares ?

What you think we should have, or like, or believe will be useful means squat !

It all comes down to the CONOPS, they dictate requirements, those requirements are fed into the RFI/RFT's, based on those requirements, which are drawn up from the CONOPS on how these OPV's will be used. This drives what the designers put forward.

So the winning design best meets the requirements based on the CONOPS which are developed by Navy, based on how they will actually be employed. That is the reality !

Is there political "Interference" ? yeah of course, but that is also part of the game, Navy still drives the requirements that go to Government in the first place.

 

[John Newman]

A hanger is also a very useful asset to have even if you never embark a helicopter. No helicopter embarked and it's basically another multi mission deck.

All uses I've seen for a hanger besides storing a helicopter;
Extra storage space for HADR.
Extra crew accommodation via use of containerized accommodation modules.
Containment space or short term accommodation space for illegal immigrants.
Processing space for mass SOLAS
Sheltered space for conducting clear lower decks or briefings in the tropics or inclement weather.
Sheltered space for PT sessions in inclement weather.
Space for conducting early morning PT sessions when operating in time zones where sun up is after wakey wakey.
Storage and sorting space when receiving large loads of stores alongside.
Sheltered area to conduct training such as weapons drills.
Large open area for contractors to sort and assemble pieces of equipment during EMP's.
Steel Deck BBQ's.
Team and Morale building events such as ships cinema nights and pageants.
Departmental musters.

No doubt there is more slipping my mind right now.

Mate, I don't think many of us are going to disagree that you have a comprehensive list of uses for an integrated hanger (apart from storing what normally goes in a hangar on a ship), not from me anyway.

But, and this is the big BUT, what you, I and many of us here think, doesn't matter one little bit.

If the customer (the Australian Government) want's X, you give them X, you don't go to the trouble of giving them XXXX if they haven't asked for it, or especially if they haven't budgeted for it.

Again, all of us Armchair Admirals can argue the case until the cows come home, but it ain't going to make one tiny bit of difference (just ask the failed OPV contenders too!).

 

[t68]

If we go back a few steps (reverse the bus back a few 100m, get out and have a look at the landscape ahead of us), no where in the DWP or DIIP is there any mention whatsoever of a future LUH capability for the RAN (or ADF generally too) in the course of both of those documents.

Ahh but there is depending on circumstance of the possible 3 billion program in co-junction with Tiger ARH, how many Apache fit in a C17?

Deployable light helicopters

5 .29 In addition to the CH-47F Chinook and MRH-90 Troop lift helicopters (which are used primarily for air lift), a new fleet of light reconnaissance and attack helicopters will be acquired from around 2025 to provide air mobility support optimised for special operations missions . The new helicopters will likely feature some light armament and modern intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and communications capabilities for integration with the joint force . They will be able to be deployed rapidly as a small force element of three to four aircraft and personnel by the Globemaster

But there is no future programme mentioned for an LUH fleet, in a pure utility role, none, zero, zilch!

catch 22 not a utility role but its not impossible for them to do it if needed in the role.

 

[John Newman]

Ahh but there is depending on circumstance of the possible 3 billion program in co-junction with Tiger ARH, how many Apache fit in a C17?


catch 22 not a utility role but its not impossible for them to do it if needed in the role.

Mate, if you can find somewhere in the DWP and DIIP where there is a clear and concise requirement (and a budget allowance), for an LUH fleet for the Navy (and ADF generally), I'll buy you a drink, ok?

I've read both documents enough times to see that an LUH replacement does not exist.

 

[weegee]

I found this on Twitter with a little bit of detail.
Offshore Patrol Vessel announced | Navy Daily

 

[aussienscale]

I found this on Twitter with a little bit of detail.
Offshore Patrol Vessel announced | Navy Daily

Thanks for that. The choice of the 40mm I find interesting, has been discussed in here and the Aus Army thread, and the possible flow on for what is decided between the Boxer and AMV and what they have on their offering ?

Millennium gun anyone ? could tie in with a 40mm offering from Rheinmetall and their Lance turret ?

Anyway just a thought

Cheers

 

[CJR]

40mm for the main armament seems a bit of an odd choice. 25mm, 30mm, 35mm and 76mm would make sense from either already being in Australian service or likely to come in with LAND400. 57mm would make sense both as a weapon fitted to previous versions of the OPV80 design and as a weapon used by several of our allies (see US in particular).

But 40mm? Particularly when it won't be the old Bofors 40mm/L60 type but either the modern 40mm/L70 derivative made by BAE or the Pommy-Frog 40mm CTA. So no savings in dragging ancient ammo out of storage and significant costs added another ammo type to the inventory...

Still, I 'spose there must be some reason...

 

[t68]

Mate, if you can find somewhere in the DWP and DIIP where there is a clear and concise requirement (and a budget allowance), for an LUH fleet for the Navy (and ADF generally), I'll buy you a drink, ok?

I've read both documents enough times to see that an LUH replacement does not exist.

At the end of the day its a moot point anyway, cant be stowed permanently on them.

 

[Redlands18]

Will be interesting to see if they go 40mm secondary guns on the Frigates as well.