By doing so with deployable (ie: standoff) mine counter-measures systems and platforms.
Using something like this:
Double Eagle SAROV
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Using something like this:
Double Eagle SAROV
Not to forget that Germanys minehunters are constructed from non-magnetic steel. The general idea is to use stand off platforms, both surface and underwater to extend the sensor range as well as to conduct sweeps and individual disposal. Helicopter based systems are also a possibility.
The ideal would be for a modular system that could be deployed, not only by the OCVs but also, by the LHDs, LCH(R) and ANZAC replacements as required.
justsomeaussie
Member
Th concepts around the OCV are still very undeveloped. Navy knows it wants "modular" but can't describe what modular is. Lots of eyes are on both of the LCS builds to see how their modular concept performs, but so far it isn't going great.
Another concept is to split the hulls into two types, one for Minehunting launching UUV remotely and also performing REA, the other and majority of vessels for coast guard plus type roles.
Mostly the problems come down to a lot of things you bolt onto hulls are very modular.
I don't see modular as containerised systems that can be C-130 ed on and off a ship in a few hours. That seems insane to attempt, are they still intending to do that with the LCS?
I was thinking a more reasonable modular share a basic hull, propulsion, radar, defences, countermeasures, hanger facilities etc. A Shared flexible platform. Or it may be composed of two or more types of OTS vessel types like the National Security Cutter, Type 26 etc.
2000t makes it bigger/as big than any of the vessels its replacing (depending on what is being replaced) so inefficiencies and compromises should still result in a reasonably** capable hull.
** which may be aluminium (and the limitations with that), and multihulled.
I was thinking a more reasonable modular share a basic hull, propulsion, radar, defences, countermeasures, hanger facilities etc. A Shared flexible platform. Or it may be composed of two or more types of OTS vessel types like the National Security Cutter, Type 26 etc.
2000t makes it bigger/as big than any of the vessels its replacing (depending on what is being replaced) so inefficiencies and compromises should still result in a reasonably** capable hull.
** which may be aluminium (and the limitations with that), and multihulled.
Gordon Branch
New Member
It is only my feeling and I can't prove it but I always thought the idea for a small/medium multi-purpose war ship occurred at the same time the BMT Venator was postulated. There appeared in my mind a strong link between BMT's ship and the RAN's requirements. See BMT Defence Services - BMT Venator
Although a little background check of BMT's and the Australian Department of Defence's sites show the requirement for Project Sea 1180 appeared in the 2009 Defence Capability Plan after a paper, describing the Venator concept, was presented at the Pacific 2008 conference in Sydney,
In fact if you a look at several of BMT's designs they look like they have been designed with the RAN in mind.
JP 2048 Ph 5 LCH Replacement = Caimen 200 BMT Defence Services - Fast Landing Craft Tank Caimen-200 (Design DS703)
Sea 1000 Collins Replacement = Vidar 36 BMT Defence Services - Vidar-36 - BMT's large capable conventional submarine design
Sea 1180 MHC, ACPB, Hydro Ship Replacement = Venator
Sea 1654 Ph 3 Maritime Operational Support = Aegir BMT Defence Services - Aegir - a family of naval fleet support ship designs
Or maybe the requirements are so basic every warship design house can't help but design ships that look like they were drawn up for Australia.
Just thinking.
justsomeaussie
Member
I agree with you but some things just can't be containerised like a hull mounted sonars.
I like the concept, a RORO container tailored vessel where you can easily swap in and out shipping container modules like hospital/surgeries and accommodation.
Unfortunately it seems that the more advanced offensivd systems don't appear to be very modular at the moment.
I like the concept, a RORO container tailored vessel where you can easily swap in and out shipping container modules like hospital/surgeries and accommodation.
Unfortunately it seems that the more advanced offensivd systems don't appear to be very modular at the moment.
Why is it insane to attempt? The Danes have been doing it successfully for many years.
justsomeaussie
Member
Are you suggesting ESSM, harpoon and MU90s were in consideration for a 2000 ton OCV?
Also when you say modules and can be swapped in an out, what time of timeframe are we talking here?
No, I was not suggesting them for a particular ship, but making a general point.
The Danes can (& do) swap modules in hours. All that's needed is a wharf with a big enough crane, & some tools which can easily be carried on the ship. Of course, the ship needs to have all the connections in place, & systems onboard that the module is integrated with.
One type of module is a control unit for ROVs & drone mine-hunters. There's also a SIGINT/ELINT module.
I don't know why the USN has cocked it up, because I've not looked at their proposed modules & systems, but going by history, I'd guess they were over-ambitious. STANFLEX is successful at least in part because it doesn't try to make anything swappable that's part of the core.
The small Danish navy has a stock of over 100 modules.
The Danes can (& do) swap modules in hours. All that's needed is a wharf with a big enough crane, & some tools which can easily be carried on the ship. Of course, the ship needs to have all the connections in place, & systems onboard that the module is integrated with.
One type of module is a control unit for ROVs & drone mine-hunters. There's also a SIGINT/ELINT module.
I don't know why the USN has cocked it up, because I've not looked at their proposed modules & systems, but going by history, I'd guess they were over-ambitious. STANFLEX is successful at least in part because it doesn't try to make anything swappable that's part of the core.
The small Danish navy has a stock of over 100 modules.
The Danes have done it quite well and while they don't tend to chop and change modules from ship to ship all that often it does increase flexibility in so much as modules required for a particular mission can be removed from a ship in need of refit or repair and fitted to another better able to deploy in the required time frame.
I had forgotten about the ESSM modules on Absalon, a very good idea. Apply this to an OCV type vessel, they obviously wouldn't need ESSM for border protection, hydrographic, oceanographic and training (including MCM training) missions, but would be very useful for a ship conducting UN sponsored missions, say embargo enforcement against Iran, North Korea etc. or even a re-run of an East Timor senario.
I had forgotten about the ESSM modules on Absalon, a very good idea. Apply this to an OCV type vessel, they obviously wouldn't need ESSM for border protection, hydrographic, oceanographic and training (including MCM training) missions, but would be very useful for a ship conducting UN sponsored missions, say embargo enforcement against Iran, North Korea etc. or even a re-run of an East Timor senario.
Looking at the operational history of Australia's Huon class it is easy to see why the navy wants something with a little more flexibility.
According to wikipedia two of them are in reserve and it sounds as though they are unlikely to ever become fully operational again. Another two are working as patrol boats.
I get the impression that they are not entirely suitable for use as patrol boats and that they don't get much use in their primary role. A bit of a wasted asset really.
The Leeuwin class also supplement their primary role of hydrographic survey ships by occasionally carrying out patrol duties.
According to wikipedia two of them are in reserve and it sounds as though they are unlikely to ever become fully operational again. Another two are working as patrol boats.
I get the impression that they are not entirely suitable for use as patrol boats and that they don't get much use in their primary role. A bit of a wasted asset really.
The Leeuwin class also supplement their primary role of hydrographic survey ships by occasionally carrying out patrol duties.
In theory yes, in practice...who knows. The estimated time needed to switch a module has gone from a few days to a few weeks. I wouldn't be surprised to see some news in a year or so saying that the modules are now effectively welded in place.
Well I think it gets back to how much modularity you really need. The answer is enough to be useful without being too much of a compromise. It doesn't have to be a lego where you can turn anything into anything else. Really how often do you really want to reconfigure a ship completely in a few hours?
We certainly need flexible platforms. If there was hull commonality then every ship becomes valuable as a basic training platform for essentially any other ship. An all ships would have enough flexible space to pick up refugees/rescues or do the basics. All of which are going to be better at that stuff than a fibreglass mine hunter or a couple of survey ships. With much of the speciality of survey/mine hunters becoming dismounted a common hull that can support dismounts (UUV/UAV etc) would seem to make a lot of sense.
The Austal MRV (for random example) seemed to have a big flexible area that could be used as a hospital, troop/equipment movement, refugee handling,SAS insertion/collection, could also be fitted with army or policing C&C, RHIB etc, UUV/UAV support possibly.. And still have a helo pad with hanger facilities for a reasonable helo. None of which can be done by any of the ships we have currently.
Tee_Centre_10
Member
Because they are so slow, every time they need to go somewhere they are basically run near top speed to make planned arrival times, which were often...ambitious. More pushing of machinery and people. I hope this has changed in recent years, but I doubt it.
The Huons are not terrible or completely unsuitable for patrol work, they are just not designed for it. They have slow transit speeds, they don't have the RHIB capability that the ACPBs do, and they don't have the facilities to accommodate lots of extra people. For some missions these aren't handicaps.
That is what makes the OCV so interesting. Role change doesn't need to take days, several weeks or months would usually be more realistic and still be very useful.
Need more OCV-MH? Add the MH modules and a MH team and work up the capability for deployment. Has the requirement lessened, but now you need more OCV-PBs? Remove the MH modules, add BPC modules and boarding or UAV teams. Has one of your OCV-Hy been damaged or is planned to go through a long maintenance? Convert a OCV that can be spared.
And with all these changes, most of the crew is independent of the role and is trained on a common platform.
The only issue I might have with the concept is about maintaining the MH and hydrographic capabilities. Just because politicians and the public are hysterical about asylum seekers or any other issue, the temptation to satisfy short-term goals and convert most of the specialist OCVs to the BPC role should be resisted. That would be a good way to lose all those specialist people and knowledge.
Occaisionally? It seems like there has been a Leeuwin operating from Darwin for most of this year.
Icelord could give you a more detailed observation.
Cheers
I have always been a fan of a lot of the BMT ideas, one I really liked the look of was not even looked at, and we went for the LCM-1E instead from Spain. Dont get me wrong, the LCM-1E is a pretty good piece of kit, its just too slow
BMT Defence Services - FLC: Caimen-90 Fast
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mreQYZ9p8uI"]Tri-bow monohull Fast Landing Craft (FLC) from BMT - YouTube[/nomedia]
At least one of their designs is coming to life, with the Aegir
Cheers
t68
Well-Known Member
If Houn and Hawkesbury are taking turns on border security along with Leeuwin and Melville when not on hydro work, you can see a minimum of 4 ships short for tasking, 14 boats in the ACPB fleet so in theory we need 18 at the minimum from where I stand.
Once the SIEV bots stop or slow down that they might not have the need for the extra then so it’s all got to do with operational tempo at the moment.
I get the impression that it isn't a case of "how many do we need" as much as "how many can we afford"
The US Coastguard is responsible for protecting around about the same amount of coastline as Australia. It has 244 cutters, 1850 boats, 204 aircraft and over 40,000 personnel to do the job.
- Status