Makes sense and Christopher Pyne loves making announcements.
On a different matter back to SEA 1180, have the specs been made public yet?
Any ideas on fit out, armament etc
MB
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
On a different matter back to SEA 1180, have the specs been made public yet?
Any ideas on fit out, armament etc
MB
Ah yes. I can see from this perspective. Some OPV's and patrol boats have an open and exposed rear (see how technical my terms are!) where the rigid hull boats are. Compared to them, the area is covered, not exposed.
I think it was announce 40mm gun, 9lv combat, 1,700t on the Darussalam-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia. But with different fitout and weapons and sensors. I think there was talk about a higher speed diesel being fitted and more electrical capability. Part of me hopes they go with small cea radar, but they will probably get more off the shelf opv level kit.
Given the Darussalam has frenchy missiles I would imagine there is still some scope to drop on harpoons or NSM if you ever wanted it.
Still a hell of a lot more boat than the patrols have ever had. One these of this displaces nearly more than the entire fleet of attack class patrol boats. And it is still armed (in gun) as much as a Bathurst class corvette (even without an Exocet).
The rear has a pretty neat setup, there is a nice image from the fleet review on wiki.
Given the Darussalam has frenchy missiles I would imagine there is still some scope to drop on harpoons or NSM if you ever wanted it.
Still a hell of a lot more boat than the patrols have ever had. One these of this displaces nearly more than the entire fleet of attack class patrol boats. And it is still armed (in gun) as much as a Bathurst class corvette (even without an Exocet).
The rear has a pretty neat setup, there is a nice image from the fleet review on wiki.
Joe Black
Active Member
With a higher power engine and a greater capacity genset, it is not to hard to imagine that the same OPV frame could turn into an OCV / Corvette when and if the needs arise.
As for the radar, looking at the model, it appears the spec only specified navigation radars such as the Kevin Hughes Sharpeye radar. Even if RAN opt to install a Air/Surface search radar, my guess is that the Saab Giraffe AMB will be considered ahead of the CEAFAR as there isn't a rotation model of the CEAFAR radar officially made available. Giraffe 1x would be my next pick if the AMB version is considered excessive for the OPV.
Jack Wyatt
Member
The successful testing of CEC between Hobart and Brisbane has occurred off the SA coast. Confirmation also that CEC will be integrated into the AEGIS combat systems of the future frigates. The lines on the two destroyers are striking!
Australia marks new era of air defence - Defence Connect
Australia marks new era of air defence - Defence Connect
I think it was announce 40mm gun, 9lv combat, 1,700t on the Darussalam-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia. But with different fitout and weapons and sensors. I think there was talk about a higher speed diesel being fitted and more electrical capability. Part of me hopes they go with small cea radar, but they will probably get more off the shelf opv level kit.
Given the Darussalam has frenchy missiles I would imagine there is still some scope to drop on harpoons or NSM if you ever wanted it.
Still a hell of a lot more boat than the patrols have ever had. One these of this displaces nearly more than the entire fleet of attack class patrol boats. And it is still armed (in gun) as much as a Bathurst class corvette (even without an Exocet).
The rear has a pretty neat setup, there is a nice image from the fleet review on wiki.
Hi All
Not sure if others have read the short article in Defence Technology Review re the options for the OPV's main gun.
At the end of the day it's speculative until we have more information.
So while I'm sure we all have our favourite options, we will still just have to wait and see what gun is finally selected..
What ever the outcome, I wonder if the winning weapon system will find favour across the rest of the fleet.
For myself, our current small calibre cannon, in the form of the 25mm bushmaster is already a dated system both in range, calibre and ammunition options.
I can understand commonality across the fleet, and hence some logic it would find itself on the Canberra class and new AWD's.
However I don't see it as the way forward
Hopefully the new OPV's gun can provide the full range of capabilities on one mount.
A true CIWS, to fire support, and also offer all the necessary constabulary requirements.
The range of smart ammunition is a point to the future and maybe part of the answer.
What calibre and gun..............well have the debate.
I would prefer the OPV's to have something that is over kill rather than have the rest of the fleet equipped with something not fit for purpose, if we go forward with one common system.
Cheers
Defence Technology Review : DTR APR 2018, Page 1
Regards S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Where I would be concerned is about what capabilities would be most useful to upgrade, and what real estate would be available for them. A telescopic hangar added to the landing pad looks like it might be fairly easy to achieve. The 40 mm gun mount could likely (it depends on the actual mounting and deck penetration) be changed out for either a smaller or larger gun. Based off the Darussalam-class OPV it might even be possible to mount a pair of twin AShM launchers between the bridge and the stack. Where I get concerned is that while some of the capabilities could potentially be changed or upgraded to make a more combat capable design, it looks as though the overall delivered product would likely have significant capability gaps limiting to deployments.
The lack of an air defence capability (apart from a possible gun-based CIWS) would leave the vessel vulnerable to aerial attacks, and there does not seem much room to fit an air defence system unless it was at the expense of either the helipad, or the 40 mm gun. This would also suggest that upgraded OPV's would be a poor choice to act as a radar picket even if fitted with a comprehensive radar suite since they would really need to be within the air defence umbrella of other vessels. The lack of a permanent hangar, as well as LWT launchers and hull-mounted, VDS and/or towed sonar arrays would also limit the utility for ASW operations, or acting as an ASW picket.
One thing I still do not quite understand is why the 9LV CMS was selected for the OPV, since the sensor fitout for SEA 1180 may not be comprehensive, and even if it ended up getting upgraded, it seems that there would be limited opportunity to kit out a SEA 1180 hull to make use of what sensors might detect.
The gun ultimately isn't going to hold up the project.
My personal favorite would be a Bushmaster mk 44 operating with a super 40mm. This retains a high level of commonality with the m242, maybe commonality with Land 400, might be used to replace the m242 on the AWD's and future frigates.
There is room on the flight deck for containers as shown in the images in the attached story. This is shown as housing a rotary UAV but you could possibly add as packaged CIWS if it was ever desired.
Surprise Sea 1180 OPV tender prompts further questions - Australian Defence Magazine
Question on the type 26
I see it has 48 cells for CAMM, had a look at CAMM on wiki, and it dosn't mention whether they are quad packed?
Also, would those cells be compatible with ESSM? The other 24 strike length cells would give this ship a formidable load out. I am guessing though, to suit RAN,s needs, the 26 would need to be pretty heavily customized. If so, is the Navantia bid more likely?
I see it has 48 cells for CAMM, had a look at CAMM on wiki, and it dosn't mention whether they are quad packed?
Also, would those cells be compatible with ESSM? The other 24 strike length cells would give this ship a formidable load out. I am guessing though, to suit RAN,s needs, the 26 would need to be pretty heavily customized. If so, is the Navantia bid more likely?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
This link discusses missile launcher options for the Type 26 but it is a little dated.
UK Armed Forces Commentary: Vertical Launching Systems and the Type 26
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It depends on the VLS launcher. If the Type 26 Sea Ceptor VLS launcher is a the specifically developed for CAMM/Sea Ceptor, then AFAIK they cannot be quad-packed, and also would not be compatible with ESSM. Part of this is due to the fact that ESSM are hot launch, while CAMM/Sea Ceptor are cold launch. With Sea Ceptor being smaller and cold launch, the VLS & cells can be smaller.
One of the difficulties in assessing the Type 26 design as a candidate for SEA 5000, is that it is difficult to determine how many Sea Ceptor cells can be replaced by Mk 41 VLS cells, and what type of VLS cells those would be (strike, tactical, or self-defence).
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
My interpretation of the models shown so far, is that while there is plenty of space on the helipad, certain capabilities are either not (presently at least) available in an ISO containerized format, or they would be at the expense of other capabilities.
For instance, if another CIWS was able to be containerized and then installed on the helipad, that would like interfere with lily-padding helicopters on the helipad. Similarly, if a telescoping hangar was developed and installed to permit embarked helicopter operations, the space for the telescopic hangar would likely be where containers could currently be fitted.
At present, in order for a missile-based air defence system to be installed, a container which could fit ESSM VLS cells would need to be developed, as well as having the appropriate air search radar and a CWI. That or the RAN would need to add another SAM into the inventory like Sea Ceptor or RAM, and then get the appropriate launcher(s) into service as well. RAM or SeaRAM IMO would be more likely, but those launch mountings would again require appropriate real estate with clear fields of fire to be fitted. If that was not done in place of the 40 mm gun, then that leaves somewhere on the helipad, with any landed helicopter or UAV obstructing the fields of fire.
As glad as I am that the RAN is going to be getting patrol assets which are superior to the Cape-class and ACPB's, I still cannot help thinking that some of the platform specifications are limiting the flexibility of the design for future uses and growth. Not unlike with the RNZN's Protector-class OPV's
Just an observation ..... and noting I don’t have access to a scale model.... based on an 80m LOA, that flight deck is around 30m long. You would still be able to do vertrep and I suspect it could handle light to medium helecopters and UAV even with a container stowed. I will fry to dig out some dimensions
It has been stated clearly from official sources that CAMM could and will be quad-packed into LM's Exls canister, which either comes with a standalone 3-cells self-defence module, or be put inside an individual cell of Mk-41 VLS.
I don't see RAN adopting CAMM. Australia already has extensive stocks and infrastructure based around ESSM, which has more commonality with the US and other relevant allies (japan, Korea etc). I think ESSM is more suitable for the pacific region and Australia anyway. Getting the Americans to update CEC with CAMM? ha.
Then it is worth trying to make an air warfare destroyer out of a Type 26 to begin with. That is really a different project. If the type 26 is loaded up, and sits in the water deep, do you then have enough motive power to push it fast enough. While the MT30 is powerful, is it going to provide the power that two LM2500 are going to provide (+redundancy). The increased width and not being any longer isn't going to help its max speed. It isn't designed for that kind of role. It is a bit bigger, but that bigness doesn't really translate into a better ship for air warfare.
Particularly when the F-5000 has more cells to begin with and could also maybe(since we are already theoretical) drop a 8 or 16 cell self defense launcher on top of what it already has, which then frees up 48 strike length for big stuff. Quad packing CAMM into one of your limited strike VLS is not going to help the situation for the type 26. It is going to take away from your SM-2,SM-6, Land strike, Sm-3 or what ever loadout.
With the type 26 you have what is basically offered. Which is very European, few strike length, which I think is a problem going into the future. Tomahawk/Land strike and Sm-3. Missiles tend to get bigger, to hit targets further away and higher up.
The Type 26/FREMM and the F-5000 are all very different types of ship.
Then it is worth trying to make an air warfare destroyer out of a Type 26 to begin with. That is really a different project. If the type 26 is loaded up, and sits in the water deep, do you then have enough motive power to push it fast enough. While the MT30 is powerful, is it going to provide the power that two LM2500 are going to provide (+redundancy). The increased width and not being any longer isn't going to help its max speed. It isn't designed for that kind of role. It is a bit bigger, but that bigness doesn't really translate into a better ship for air warfare.
Particularly when the F-5000 has more cells to begin with and could also maybe(since we are already theoretical) drop a 8 or 16 cell self defense launcher on top of what it already has, which then frees up 48 strike length for big stuff. Quad packing CAMM into one of your limited strike VLS is not going to help the situation for the type 26. It is going to take away from your SM-2,SM-6, Land strike, Sm-3 or what ever loadout.
With the type 26 you have what is basically offered. Which is very European, few strike length, which I think is a problem going into the future. Tomahawk/Land strike and Sm-3. Missiles tend to get bigger, to hit targets further away and higher up.
The Type 26/FREMM and the F-5000 are all very different types of ship.
Just a few things to think about in regards to your post.
- The T26 has a electric drive while combined with aDiesel alternators and a GT for sprint. I expect the F-5000 will follow the Hobart DDG with shafts connected directly to the gas turbines (and auxiliary engines) via a gear box. In both cases there is redundancy as the DAs and electric motors allow the T26 two alternate propulsion arrangements.
- The T26 is designed with a growth margin at the outset. The F-5000 has had to engine the growth margin from redesign. To say the the F-5000 is ahead in this respect is wrong. We have seen models of the T26 with 32 ‘apparently’ strike length cells. Whether or not it can be increased to 48 (of if this is actually required) is not known but I would conclude that the changes will not submerge the vessel more deeply in the water and slow the vessel down as you suggest.
- The F-5000 may have a growth margin to 64 cells but I suspect this will be at the expense of other desirable facilities such as the second hanger. I like the F-5000 but suspect it is at the limit of its growth margin without significant modification. This may be why the most recent rendering on the video has the superstructure running continuously from the bridge to the top of the hanger. This would provide a lot of longtitudinal and torsional strength.
- The F-5000 may have a bit of an advantage with previous experaince wiht AEGIS but I suspect the combination with SAAB will be a challenge for all of them and the T-26 should theoretically be as good.
Agree and you are right in the sense we really don't know what is offered and what is possible and any speculation would have a extremely low level of confidence. I don't mean to imply my post is authoritative, it isn't. I am wildly speculating, and I appreciate the reality you and others bring.
But with regards to the Type 26:
I don't see it being put forward as having the qualities of destroyer, in that it doesn't at least in the UK build have an extensive number of strike length cells in their build. If they UK is building it with only 24 strike length, it would seem to be quite the modification and risk to up that to 48 or more strike length, as it would to mount mk41 launchers to replace the CAMM launchers. I do think adding of a hypothetical say 24 additional strike length VLS, and the replacement of the CAMM launchers and missiles with hot launching VLS and ESSM would be adding a significant amount of weight. 15 tons for the launcher (8 cell) and say another 13 tons for probably the largest stuff you can stick in there. So another 110 tons in launcher and missiles alone if you want to push it out to something greater than say the F-5000 default configuration. Plus increases in anything else you want to support that change. Plus, any additional ballast to level things. More mass at the front and on top of the superstructure can't be easy to address. I think of all the ships the Type 26 has the largest total growth margin, but I am not convinced that it translates into universal growth across the ship in any and every type of system. Plus this seems like quite a big modification and brings insignificant amounts of risk on a design that isn't exactly risk free. Do the frigates really need 48 (or more) cells anyway? While a type 26 model seems to indicate 32 cells I have less faith in models, as I often see ambiguous or even contradictory models of the same ship. I believe many of these are asperational concepts more than actual representations.
I have concerns about electric drive the way I understand it works on the Type 26. You only have one GT, if that is unavailable then you are left to be quite limited on speed relying on the diesel pool. Isn't there also a significant point of failure with the electrics as we have seen with the Type 45 and other issues on ships like with the transformer on Choules? I can appreciate the elegance and flexibility of the electric drive, but does it win out in all situations?
I would be interested to know your thoughts on which ship you think would be quicker and would support long term operation at high speed. To me the Type 26 would seem to be an ideal ship to focus on ~18-20kt travel with maybe the odd burst of speed now and again. For ASW it looks to be well optimized for that. Is it the sort of ship that could integrate into a USN or USN type fleet in a high threat environment, where movement is more like 30kt. I look to the Japanese and US fleets and what they are designed to operate at.
I also have concerns about the F-5000 growth margins. Particularly in aspects like powertrain and electrical generation but also space in the ship. It has a lot of grampas axe about it. I am interested what the F-5000 actually has in it, but public details are always thin on the ground. I assume its evolved F-105/AWD which would imply a lot of old concept engineering. Big dirty noisy gearboxes. Less big open flexible spaces. The F-5000 website also isn't constant with how the recent video shows the hangar facilities working.
I don't really see an advantage with Aegis in the big scheme of things, but more around the concepts the ships were designed around. They are each designed around different concepts. With the F-5000 it feels like a closer fit to American philosophy, and I would expect the F-105 to do well in the FFG(X) program as a closer fit, but maybe too close to what they have in the Burke. But FREMM and Type 26 are based around different ideas. I see FREMM based around multiple guns rather than missiles, and being designed for the Mediterranean, but has some newer engineering concepts, the Type 26 is more global roaming ship, but one that perhaps has less priority on combined fleet operations and air defense and land strike capability. The Type 31 looks like a global OPV.
These are my views and opinions. I'm being a bit more free about them because we are so close to an announcement. I assume the selection has been made and they are typing press releases and speeches now. In a weeks time not many will be interested in speculating about other aspects of the options available.
I also wonder, if we had a clear sheet design, what that would look like. Not so much as a realistic design, but as a physical manifestation of priorities, doctrine and conops.
One needs to be careful that the rendering one is looking at is of the F5000 and not the F110; the Warren King video shows the area aft of the fore funnel in the F5000 to be much the same as the Hobarts and so far as I know that is the most recent of the Navantia F5000 offering. The F110 has 02 deck continued aft of the bridge to the aft end of the hangar; but it is a very different ship.
I understand that the Type 26 propulsion is CODLOG - Diesel Electric with mechanical connection to the single MT30 for high speed bursts. See following blog description in Think Defence:
Type 26 Global Combat Ship (GCS) - Capabilities - Think Defence
The diesel generator propulsion is from four MTU 20V 4000 diesels with combined output of 12MW, significantly greater than that on the FREMM, and is the same configuration used on the German Type 125 which is said to make up to 20Kt just on the diesel electric alone.
The Type 45 propulsion tried to go to the bleeding edge with two WR-21 gas turbines with Northrop Grumman (NG) recuperators driving generators directly (42MW total) as integrated electric drive. There were two Wartsila diesels for ship hotel load and backup to the gas turbines. But the WR-21/NG system proved unreliable so that is why Royal Navy backed off full integrated electric drive for the Type 26 and went back to CODLOG.
Last edited:
- Status