Gordon Branch
New Member
For one answer to your question refer to http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/exercises/caex/pdf/hawkins.pdf (Pg 42)
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
In peace time operations there would be no real need for the LHD's to have an escort. I don't recall seeing any intention for them to operate in a group as such ?
But it will come down to tasking, training and exercises, so more than likely they would be with other vessels most of the time anyway, which will vary depending on what is happening. It is a new capability for the RAN and the ADF, so any type of exercise or training you can think of they will do, and associated units will be tasked.
Cheers
I can see a need in the RAN for more ships with the ability to act as escorts. An arguement could be made for us to have a number of Corvettes or light Frigates, to assist with escort duties. This would be in addition to the Anzac Frigates and AWD. I would envisage that the Corvettes would have self defence weaponry, such as a 3' gun, anti ship missiles, ESSM, and offensive weapons to consist of an anti submarine fit out. When not involved in escort work, the ships main duty would be anti-subamrine patrol.
Thoughts...
Thoughts...
t68
Well-Known Member
I would not say a corvette maybe more like a general purpose frigate one or NGC (SEA 5000) Lite minus LACM capability.
Not a bad idea, though I think an anti-ship missile capability would be needed too.
Either helo based or through a 2x2 round Harpoon II / II+ setup would do the trick. If this ship is going to escort anything, it needs an ability to fight back, but not necessarily equivalent to that of a full-up frigate.
I am quite fond of the Turkish Milgem corvettes in both concept and execution. Something similar would probably fit the RAN to fill the roles originally intended for the ANZACs before our failure to replace the DDGs and FFGs forced them to step up into roles for which they were not designed.
Well the SEA 1180 boat has a lot of latent capability as an ASW ship (depending on propulsion configuration). Use those modules for a high end acoustic processor, tow a sonar and operate a Seahawk and you have the ASW capability of an AWD.
A lot of anti-ship capability can be provided by the Seahawk as well. Now with Hellfire and easily upgraded with something like Penguin for knocking out enemy frigates. Acquire another squadron of Seahawks and that is a lot of capability to upgrade the SEA 1180s for warfighting.
It’s a lot harder to give them a decent ASMD capability as you have to build in something like CEA FAR, 9LV Mk 4 and appropriate weapons. But maybe a Phalanx, Nulka and a low RCS topside might at least make them survivable under an AWD’s coverage.
justsomeaussie
Member
Currently there is no plans to put helos on the SEA 1180 OCVs only scaneagle like UAVs. Personally I'd prefer an option where we lose the Future Frigate ANZAC Mk2s and have a far more capable SEA1180. That would mean upping to 3000 tons, CEAFAR, 9LV, ESSM and helo capacity but short of a full blown ANZAC capability.
I think technology has matured enough where we don't need an entire frigate where a more nimble corvette would do.
But there is zero to Buckley's chance of this happening.
I think technology has matured enough where we don't need an entire frigate where a more nimble corvette would do.
But there is zero to Buckley's chance of this happening.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I have some reservations about the RAN acquiring corvettes to expand an escort capability. The primary one would be whether such vessels would have sufficient range to prove viable. Many of the better armed corvettes have ranges comparable to that of the ACPB, 2,500 - 3,000 n miles. While that would be sufficient if they operated in and around Australia, that means they are 'local' escorts only. And if properly kitted out for ASW, ASuW and any sort of escort air defence, the corvettes would cost a pretty many for such a limited area of operations.
It depends on what sort of path the OCV's follow. If something like the Knud Rasmussen-class OPV of the Royal Danish Navy is chosen (perhaps slightly larger and with longer range), then StanFlex mission modules can be used. Assuming a proper radar and combat data system fitout (9LV 200 Mk 3 works with them) then Mk 48 Mod 3 or Mk 56 VLS can be containerized with ESSM.
If the OCV is short-changed in terms of what sort of modular capabilities it has, and/or the sensor and electronics fitout is kept minimal, then the best which could likely be achieved would be Sea Phalanx/SeaRAM mountings.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The question would remain though, would a 3,000 ton OCV, even if kitted out with StanFlex and a comprehensive sensor and electronics suite, be capable of independent long-ranged operations? How well would such a vessel be able to operate as part of an allied or multi-national task force?
One of the impressions I have formed is that the Anzac Follow-on Frigate is intended to be a true, GP frigate. Able to perform air defence, ASuW, ASW, NGS and Land Attack missions to a degree. Realistically, the ANZAC-class FFH's have only recently, with significant upgrades, been in a position to perform air self-defence and ASuW. The ASW component has lagged due to the lack of a towed sonar array (and naval helicopter shortage) and they still do not have a land attack capability unless the RAN Harpoon's can take SLAM/SLAM-ER programming. One area where they have been rather good though, is a 6,000 n mile range. While the Hobart-class AWD's are expected to have shorter legs at ~4,500 n miles, I would expect a smaller 3,000 ton OCV-type multi-purpose vessel to have even shorter legs, especially if it had sufficient space/displacement set aside for a heavy weapons loadout.
-Cheers
justsomeaussie
Member
Well regarding SEA1180 I think the RAN will be sticking with Armidale+ patrol boats. Currently we've got 1778 which is a pipe dream to think that Navy will be ready to roll with modular concepts like STANFLEX. STANFLEX is also pretty much dead in the water from a future ships concept. The closest thing around is going to be the UK MHCP. Navy has no idea what modular is at this stage.
I think we'll either see SEA1180 slip left into patrol boats or far right once "modular"
is better understood.
I think we'll either see SEA1180 slip left into patrol boats or far right once "modular"
is better understood.
Well the logical thing would be to design in compatability with the USN LCS Mission Modules. We need sea keeping and range over a high dash speed so we could go for a larger, cheaper, but slower hull, better suited for our area of operations but still able to ship the US Mission Modules.
28+kts would do, look at a 76mm instead of the 57mm (provision for DART, VULCANO). Space and weight for VLS as well as provision for Phalanx and or RAM a hanger for a single large helicopter and possibly also a Firescout. The most important part would likely be an easily scalable and enhancable combat system.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,894
Ok im going to be the realist here and point out the flaw in everyones dreams
The reason we are looking to an Offshore patrol vessel larger then the ACPB is that the requirements have changed then what they were at in 2005 when we commissioned HMAS Armidale.
Right now our role is border security, and for those outside of Australia this now entails a larger role in Suspected Illegal Entry Vessels(SIEV). This can range from a boatload of 12 to 150 and beyond suspected illegal entry persons, and the ACPB is unable to bear the brunt of this mission. My first experience with this was 80 people, and we struggled to contain that many on our small platform with the small crew we have, since then ive had double that. While we have brought an adapt and overcome attitude, we have learnt the limitations of our boats.
The mission can now contain SAR, and if it does it brings an added danger, as some of my colleagues have found out with Siev 36.
Our ranges have been more then was planned, in 2005 it was planned to have a lone ACPB every few months sail to Christmas Island to conduct fisheries patrols. At this point in time, there is now a ACPB at all times at CI and can be supported by a second. The mileage this adds to the boats increases their strain and has lead to issues with the hulls as has been reported.
If we do go with an Armidale+ then we have gone cheap and inefficent. The OPV will need to be large enough to handle monsoonal sea states, and more sea days then what the ACPB was envisioned to conduct. The flight deck requirement is not for a seahawk with missiles, but SAR and medical evacuations primary, and holding large numbers of PII as secondary. Anything else is wishful dreaming.
We have no need for harpoons or any other type of missiles onboard a OPV, but a more advanced radar then what we currently have is a requirment. We need to be able to spot contacts at far greater ranges then we currently can.
The OPV will be a multi mission with packages for survey and mine sweeping, with mine clearence expected to be with a remote vehicle more then utilising the vessel at close range like Huons. This can be conducted if there is more room to store them, which is why we are planning a larger vessel.
We are not building a fleet like singapore with a small attack package, its not what we need! We need a larger vessel to be able to handle a larger role then we planned, and require. Lets get off the track of harpoons, and penquins and keep it more realistic.
As a side note to help clarify my understanding, i currently serve on Armidale Class Patrol Boats.
The reason we are looking to an Offshore patrol vessel larger then the ACPB is that the requirements have changed then what they were at in 2005 when we commissioned HMAS Armidale.
Right now our role is border security, and for those outside of Australia this now entails a larger role in Suspected Illegal Entry Vessels(SIEV). This can range from a boatload of 12 to 150 and beyond suspected illegal entry persons, and the ACPB is unable to bear the brunt of this mission. My first experience with this was 80 people, and we struggled to contain that many on our small platform with the small crew we have, since then ive had double that. While we have brought an adapt and overcome attitude, we have learnt the limitations of our boats.
The mission can now contain SAR, and if it does it brings an added danger, as some of my colleagues have found out with Siev 36.
Our ranges have been more then was planned, in 2005 it was planned to have a lone ACPB every few months sail to Christmas Island to conduct fisheries patrols. At this point in time, there is now a ACPB at all times at CI and can be supported by a second. The mileage this adds to the boats increases their strain and has lead to issues with the hulls as has been reported.
If we do go with an Armidale+ then we have gone cheap and inefficent. The OPV will need to be large enough to handle monsoonal sea states, and more sea days then what the ACPB was envisioned to conduct. The flight deck requirement is not for a seahawk with missiles, but SAR and medical evacuations primary, and holding large numbers of PII as secondary. Anything else is wishful dreaming.
We have no need for harpoons or any other type of missiles onboard a OPV, but a more advanced radar then what we currently have is a requirment. We need to be able to spot contacts at far greater ranges then we currently can.
The OPV will be a multi mission with packages for survey and mine sweeping, with mine clearence expected to be with a remote vehicle more then utilising the vessel at close range like Huons. This can be conducted if there is more room to store them, which is why we are planning a larger vessel.
We are not building a fleet like singapore with a small attack package, its not what we need! We need a larger vessel to be able to handle a larger role then we planned, and require. Lets get off the track of harpoons, and penquins and keep it more realistic.
As a side note to help clarify my understanding, i currently serve on Armidale Class Patrol Boats.
Just check post #9425 on this thread, this is what you could / should have been crewing had the project not been cancelled, the Fremantles extended and then the ACPBs bought in a panic when the Freos started falling apart.
Steel is cheap and air is free, go large, go roomy, but also don't forget the the RAN is too small to afford the luxury of single purpose non-deployable patrol boats. What ever we get to replace the ACPBs should be capable of deployment to the Indian Ocean for counter piracy patrols as well as venturing into the Southern Ocean as required, in addition to what we currently expect of the Armadales.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,896
Won't happen unless there is a massive change in mindset within canberra and russell. Currently sending a frigate to conduct "anti-piracy" is a large risk that at times the navy is unwilling to try. Having been over there, i can say we are nowhere near what NATO and the USN are doing, and more of a sideline act.
Much like the frustration of Army personnel in Afghanistan went through when they couldnt commit to the region and only used SF for offensive operations, ships on deployment are normally used as CTF runners, doing odd jobs while only getting a sniff of anti piracy every once in a while. Whether this is CTF or our own Commanders cause im unsure, but either way we are not involved in the ways people seem to think.
Why do you think that a RAN ship spends 6 months in the MEAO and only manages 1 involvement with anti-piracy, yet a NATO vessel in 4 month rotation can conduct 10+. Considering all the trouble FFGs had to go through to redeploy to the region post FFG-upgrade i doubt any OPV will be there anytime soon.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Have you looked at the Danish Knud Rasmussen-class OPV? In full load displacement, it is comparable to what the OCV seems intended to be. My reservations on it stem from a lack of helicopter hangar (it does have a helipad & refueling capabilities), a listed range of 3,000 n miles, a max speed of ~17 kts, and accommodations for only ~40 people.
The design is apparently ice-strengthened, since the Danes commissioned the class for sovereignty, SAR and EEZ patroling in & around Greenland. They are fitted with two StanFlex container positioned, with room for two additional container slots. The sensor and electronics suite is also comprehensive enough to operate ESSEM via VLS, MU90 torpedoes, of 76 mm naval cannon. The 'stock' armament though is normally just a pair of 12.7 mm HMG's.
While I do not think the design would suit RAN needs 'as is', it certainly could be modified to make it more suitable. The principal areas which I think should be changed are the addition of a helicopter hangar, for if/when the OCV is deployed away from Oz/other RAN assets for extended periods. If/when a helicopter is not embarked, the crew could utilize the hangar space, or it could provide temporary accommodation to people from SIEV's. Additionally, room, space and weight should be set aside for additional embarked personnel, in case the OCV gets tasked with transporting and supporting a mission to a Pacific Island nation. The RAMSI mission comes to mind as example of this, where an ACPB was tasked with supporting land-based personnel. Having a supporting vessel capable of providing NGS if things go very pear-shaped, as well as having a helipad/embarked helicopter and likely better medical facilities would all be to the good. Again, if not used by additional embarked personnel, such facilities could be used as a temporary accommodations & holding area for people from SIEV's. The last thing which I think should be changed in a design for the RAN, would be the inclusion of a modular slot (or two) at the stern, for use in supporting MCM and survey missions, or operation of a towed sonar array.
While I would not expect the main fitout for the RAN would have all OCV's heavily armed with 76 mm cannon, ESSM, etc. Having the option for a few to be fitted out would be good, using a common module pool. The rest could remain with their normal fitouts for patrol, SAR, survey work, etc.
As for modules... I still think StanFlex would be the best way to go. The Danes have experience with their StanFlex modules from the Flyvefisken-class patrol boats, and have gone on to include StanFlex slots in three new classes of vessel, the Iver Huitfeldt-class FFG, the Absalon-class support/command ship, and the already mentioned Knud Rasmussen-class OPV. Given that these classes are all new, with some vessels still under construction or in the process of being commissioned and entering service, I would expect that the Danes plan on using StanFlex or some sort of compatible follow-on module for the next couple of decades at least, so the module technology should remain relevant.
As for using LCS modules from the US... I would hesitate on planning for that. The US still seems to be having trouble with cost and effectiveness for the LCS modules. Plus the ease of swapping modules seems to have gone away significantly, with weeks required alongside now IIRC.
-Cheers
justsomeaussie
Member
I'm a fan of the Knud Rassmussen but some simple figures come in here. How I we pay for 20 such ships? It's almost twice the cost of Amidales. One could argue its overkill for everything but Southen Ocean operations. And how to we dock them? Currently we are almost at capacity.
I'd be interested in hearing thoughts about Austal's MRV80 concept on their website.
I'd be interested in hearing thoughts about Austal's MRV80 concept on their website.
By alone do you mean in the middle of the ocean by itself hunting submarines? If so that’s not how anyone is planning on using an ASW ship.
But as part of a task force providing an ASW screen such a ship could very well be under the air defence umbrella of an AWD. Which with SM6 and AEW&C is more like a light fleet carrier for the bubble of protection it will provide (>100 NM and low level over the horizon). Provide the OCV with some self defence capability to reduce its exposure and handle a leaker or two (like Nulka and Phalanx) and you be able to provide an ASW screen freeing up the SEA 5000 vessels or Anzacs for land attack.
Otherwise if you want 9LV, CEA-FAR, ESSM, etc just like JustSome says you need a 3,000 tonne frigate.
Out of interest, my idea was aimed at a Corvette or light frigate escort class for RAN separate and in addition to the OCV, which is unlikely to have much in the way of combat capability as we all expect.
Tod, RAN ANZAC's have Harpoon Block II, which is able as seen below to undertake land attack missions against fixed and relocatable targets as well as littoral targets.
Harpoon Block II Missile - YouTube
Cheers,
AD
- Status