Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Aviation training ship?

There has been no mention of a requirement for this kind of ship ... at least not that I am aware of. No ministerial announcement, no asking for tenders ... just an announcement from Janes.

I will believe this when I see it moored at Garden Island.
 
Trackmaster

Trackmaster

Member
hauritz said:
Aviation training ship?

There has been no mention of a requirement for this kind of ship ... at least not that I am aware of. No ministerial announcement, no asking for tenders ... just an announcement from Janes.

I will believe this when I see it moored at Garden Island.
Click to expand...
Going back a couple of years there was mention of this. Talk then about converting an oil support vessel, but publicly, it just faded out.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
hauritz said:
Aviation training ship?

There has been no mention of a requirement for this kind of ship ... at least not that I am aware of. No ministerial announcement, no asking for tenders ... just an announcement from Janes.

I will believe this when I see it moored at Garden Island.
Click to expand...
Its real but as it is a commercial arrangement similar to the tugs and submarine rescue contracts the ship will not be a commissioned RAN asset. It will not be painted grey or have an RAN crew and being a training asset operated on commercial principles there will be no operational capability added to the RAN.

In a nut shell it is not a commissioned RAN Ship so the mainstream doesn't really care about it.
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
hauritz said:
Aviation training ship?

There has been no mention of a requirement for this kind of ship ... at least not that I am aware of. No ministerial announcement, no asking for tenders ... just an announcement from Janes.

I will believe this when I see it moored at Garden Island.
Click to expand...
If I was you I'd be betting someone elses money then...... :)
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
hauritz said:
Aviation training ship?

There has been no mention of a requirement for this kind of ship ... at least not that I am aware of. No ministerial announcement, no asking for tenders ... just an announcement from Janes.

I will believe this when I see it moored at Garden Island.
Click to expand...
Well that's the wording from Janes, my view if they want one it needs to be flexible in its capabilty, something that can be used as hospital/casualty clearing ship able to accomadate troop and equipment etc the jack of all trades master of none philosophy
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I should say although IMO the RAN should be lookin towards OPVs or corvettes history suggests that what they will get will be just another in shore patrol boat but in steel instead of aluminium. It may be similar in size to the ACPB, or even slightly larger but realistically I can not see the government going down the OPV path. I do hope I am wrong because the strategic situation has changed with Australia possessing far greater off shore interests than we once did and there being greater non-state threats to those interests.

I still find it interesting that Australia's post cold war "peace dividend" but pre "war on terror" and current "high operational tempo" navy was envisioned having 8 DDGs and FFGs, 8 Patrol Frigates and 10-12 Corvette sized combatants, yet now we wonder why we are having issues meeting commitments and obligations with 4 FFGs, 8 ANZACs and 14 ACPBs. The numbers just don't add up, the RAN has significantly fewer hulls of lower capability than planned and politicians are surprised they are struggling?

End of the day you get what you pay for and if you don't pay enough, or don't spend your money wisely don't blame the over worked crews and support personnel trying to make it work, don't blame the under supported (through lack of sustainable and consistent orders) industry and don't blame the public service either, they provided their advice, its not their fault if it gets ignored.
 
J

justsomeaussie

Member
alexsa said:
Sorry ........ what. You want to reduce the radar horizon as anti ship missiles are less of a risk to a 100m long OSV (ANZAC being 114m).

I am not a fan of made up vessels as they tend to ignore some engineering realities (but I understand why people indulge), however, your suggestion that the 'down angle' is not required defies logic as a lower radar horizon means less reaction time.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where the OSV is 100m I must of missed that. I was referring to the operational need to detect ASM from an OSV. Seems it would be an impressive trade off to have a higher topweight and presumably ESSM from an OSV, compared to more of the needs of a enhanced patrol vessel and not even a combat focused one.
 
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
justsomeaussie said:
I'm not sure where the OSV is 100m I must of missed that. I was referring to the operational need to detect ASM from an OSV. Seems it would be an impressive trade off to have a higher topweight and presumably ESSM from an OSV, compared to more of the needs of a enhanced patrol vessel and not even a combat focused one.
Click to expand...
My correction ....... OCV, noting I repeated your quote on the subject so this was pretty obviously what the issue was. Given you were talking about CEAFAR my comment holds.
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
alexsa said:
My correction ....... OCV, noting I repeated your quote on the subject so this was pretty obviously what the issue was. Given you were talking about CEAFAR my comment holds.
Click to expand...
I regards to top weight and types of radar for stability would it be correct to say it has more to do with beam of the ship rather than length Say for a vessel being 100m long compared to one being 118 m. Also is it dictated by waterline length or lenght overall?
 
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
t68 said:
I regards to top weight and types of radar for stability would it be correct to say it has more to do with beam of the ship rather than length Say for a vessel being 100m long compared to one being 118 m. Also is it dictated by waterline length or lenght overall?
Click to expand...
Multihull stability is a little more complex than a typical monohull.The relative broad beam gives the vessel a large righting moment (remember the sea saw, the further out the bigger the impact) and can be quite stiff (resistant to rolling with a sharp action). In this regard they are more tolerant of top weight but being too stiff is not a good thing as it has an impact on crew and vessel structure and equipment.

However, multihulls 'generally' have a lower immersed volume given their lower displacement compared to a monohull but cover a bigger footprint in length by beam and the motiion can become quite exciting in a big sea and will impose stresses on the hull.

The other issue is the range of stability. Again 'generally' have a very large righting moment in low angles of heel but this drops off dramatically as you don't get the same impact from buoyancy.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
justsomeaussie said:
I'm not sure where the OSV is 100m I must of missed that. I was referring to the operational need to detect ASM from an OSV. Seems it would be an impressive trade off to have a higher topweight and presumably ESSM from an OSV, compared to more of the needs of a enhanced patrol vessel and not even a combat focused one.
Click to expand...
I do not know whether this is something you have missed, or do not consider important, but having a larger/farther radar horizon has more uses than just advanced warning on an inbound AShM.

The further out the radar horizon, the further out there is the potential for a radar return from a contact, any kind of contact. Whether the contact is an AShM, a SIEV, poacher, lost/damaged/disabled vessel, etc these are all things which a RAN vessel is going to want to detect as soon as possible. Having a capable radar mounted high above the waterline can enable that by pushing back the radar horizon.

Now if the OCV or whatever ends up getting selected, has embarked helicopters, these can help immensely with the potential search volume. However, the OCV's also need to be fitted with the proper systems to receive the contact data which might be coming from the embarked helicopters. There is also the little matter of the helicopters themselves being properly fitted for sea/surface search, and able to relay information to their supporting vessel. Given that there are 24 MH-60R Seahawks on order for the RAN to allow up to 8 deployed... IMO the RAN should be looking at ordering more helicopters for use from any OCV.

-Cheers
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Another reason to look at the MH-60S, cheaper than the MH-60R and perfectly suited to surface warfare (and surveillance), CSAR (not to mention SAR) and other complementary missions that would fit will with minor combatants / OPVs including general utility and transport missions.

A flight deck (and preferably hanger) capable of operating a Romeo or Sierra would easily be able to accommodate a VTOL UAV such as Firescout (MQ-8B or C) or Camcopter S-100 or a smaller helo such as the EC135 or Bell 429.

One thing the ACPB replacement can not do without is an aviation capability of some type and by that I mean something substantial not simply the ability to launch and recover a Scan Eagle. These platforms will need a minimum of a flight deck and refuelling facilities, but once you have done that then you may as well provide the hanger and maintenance facilities. Not a big ask when you look at the multitude of designs available at the moment.
 
weegee

weegee

Active Member
Is there a possibility that a good solution to cover all bases would be dare I say it a mixed fleet? Something along the lines of 6-8 OPVs acting as mother ships perhaps deeper out to sea and then say keep 6-8 of the Armidales in the best condition for closer in to shore and maybe what they were designed for? Just a thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top