John Newman
The Bunker Group
Hi mate, yes well I suppose we are both going to agree to disagree on this one!While 20 OPV/OCV concept would be great, a lot has changed since the 2009 white paper when SEA 1180 was envisioned. Even the 2013 hinted that this wasn't going to happen this cycle.
Don't get me wrong John, your thoughts about the crewing etc certainly hold weight but i don't see 20x OPV/OCV (2000 ton vessels) happening at the moment (hopefully I am wrong).
As I have previously stated (in my wish list) as it stands, my preference is to consolidate the four ship classes into two classes of multi-role ships as a potential staged process towards an eventual 20+ OCV minor warfare fleet.
9 x Multi-Mission Offshore Combatant Vessel [OCV] * - (replaces Armidale class, Huon class, Leeuwin class, Paluma class and adds additional capability)
(Based on Damen OPV-2 1800/2400 or BMT Venator)
Builder: Local build by ASC or BAE utilizing the Damen Technical Cooperation system
Aviation: 1x Panther AS 565SB ( or similar) + RQ-21A
Role: Multi mission offshore vessel* (long range EEZ border patrol, ASW,SAR, SUW, Special Forces support, Mine Warfare, Hydrographic survey etc)
Displacement: 1800-2400 tonnes
Initial operating capacity: 2018-2023
*Ability for a minimum of two or three containerised mission modules
12 x Multi Role Littoral Vessels [MRLV]* - (replaces Armidale class, Huon class, Leeuwin class, Paluma class and adds additional capability) – Local build
(Austral MRV 80)
Displacement: 400 tonnes
UAV: 2 x Schiebel Camcopter S-100 or 1 x Panther AS 565SB ( or similar)
Builder: Austral Ships & General Dynamics
Role: Multi mission vessel* (EEZ, SAR, fisheries patrols, counter terrorism/drug/piracy, hydrographic surveys, MCM, pollution control etc)
Initial operating capacity: 2019-2026
*Ability for one or two containerised mission modules
This enhances capability by including some OCV/OPV that can perform long range ocean going patrol and mine warfare tasks of an expeditionary nature in support of major task groups. It also gives us enough ships to support general littoral tasks like border patrol, hydrographic survey and local mine warfare that don't require a 2000t ship.
A 9 x OCV (steel hull) and 12 x MRLV (aluminum) gives us 21 vessels to replace 26 vessels and a high degree of flexibility. Remembering the rule of thirds, this means at the very least we would have 3 x OCV and 4 x MRLV available (7-8 ships) vs the 20 x OCV which under the same principle gives at the very least (6-7 ships). Consider a major operation that required 2 x OCVs to support a task group, under the 20 x OCV model then we only have x4 for all border patrol tasks. Under the 9/12 x OCV/MRLV Model we have x5, which isn't enough but allows for greater coverage. Yes the OCV are more capable but they can't be everywhere at once.
Then there is costs, aluminium ships are usually cheaper to build and yes there are plenty of arguments both ways about the costs benefit of single class/ larger common crews vs multiple classes but majority of them smaller cheaper aluminium ships with smaller crews, none of us can do the financial modelling in an open forum like this so I won't go on to much about that here.
The proposed MRLV (MRV 80) will be significantly more capable than the ACPB with a range not too far off the OCV but they aren't suitable for blue water operations which is why we have the OCV. On the other hand 2000 ton OCV is overkill for many of the tasks required by our minor vessels force, ie: MCM in our homeland harbours etc (yes ROV change the game a bit but still).
This model also splits the builds between Austral for MRV 80 and either ASC or BAE (depending on what else is in the Christmas basket) for the OCV. Delivering some work to multiple locations ( until such time as the "BIG" major combatant decisions can be made).
As others have stated the OCV shouldn't be up gunned to "Light frigate" status (that gives the government an excuse to reduce frigate numbers), but it should IMHO have significant anti-submarine capabilities (perhaps SeaRAM also) in addition to the other assigned roles (MCM,Survey etc).
I also like the idea that a mixed minor warfare fleet could operate as integrated "pods" (1 x OCV/OPV + 2 MRLV + MALE UAV) providing a layered solution in key areas (North West Australia for example) providing almost complete coverage over the zone
Everyone has their own opinions suppose...whatever happens, I hope we get more capability at an acceptable cost.
...for me the elephant in the room at the moment is the future submarines, their cost, which option is chosen, numbers built and where they are built impacts everything else, and until a decision is final!! on those, everything else is up in the air.
Just to recap what I was suggesting, my suggestion is based around what I believed to be the goals of SEA1180 which was to replace the 26 hulls of four different classes into a singe multi role class of 20 hulls.
My pick would be a class of 20 ships based on the Damen OPV-2 design, 80+m, 1800t-2000t range, all steel construction, the basic design includes the ability to land, house and operate an MRH-90 sized aircraft (not that I would ever expect these ships to be regularly operating such an aircraft, but I would expect that an appropriate UAV was regularly available for use), basic armament (1 x Typhoon, 2 x Mini Typhoon mounts), same 'core' crew size, plus the ability to accommodate any additional mission specialist crew too, appropriate number of containerised mission modules to cover Mine Warfare and Hydrographic work and any other specialist modules (other than ASW) too.
Ordering a class of 20 identical ships, identical basic armament, sensor, machinery, etc, etc, should delivery a pretty reasonable cost and ongoing sustainment benefit too, plus of course the ability of any of the 20 hulls to be 'hot swapped' into another role at any given time with only the addition of the appropriate specialist mission crew and modules.
On the other hand you are suggesting two different classes, one of 12 and one of 9, to perform (according to the details in your list above) what appears to me almost 'identical' roles (almost seem like to me you are suggesting a USN type LCS1 and LCS2 solution, two different classes performing overlapping roles).
But the biggie that I noticed is that you are adding and ASW capability to both classes of ships and adding a Panther helicopter too, (and you think a single class of 20 steel hulled ships is going to be expensive, wow!!!).
This ASW capability that you have mentioned, how is that actually going to be achieved? Obviously there is the appropriately armed Panther helicopter you mentioned, but are you also saying that the appropriate ASW sensor be fitted to each and everyone of the 21 ships, or are you proposing a number of ASW mission modules? And of course each of the ships would have to be fitted with the appropriate weapons magazines for those ASW weapons too, all seems to be getting rather expensive to me.
As far as an aviation capability, yes the ships should have the facilities (as for example is part of the OPV-2 basic design), but I seriously doubt that they will regular have an embarked helicopter, especially an ASW capable helicopter. As a side note there probably is a need for an increased number of new 'utility' helicopters for use by the Army and Navy, so probably an additional purchase of EC-135's might be an appropriate way to go, apart from the basic training role they will soon perform for Navy and Army, but they could also replace the utility role provided by the Kiowa and Squirrels in their respective services (single type, more cost effective perhaps?).
You are also saying that you see your solution as a 'potential staged process towards an eventual 20+ OCV minor warfare fleet', but it's not really staged is it? Staged to me would be one class follows the other over time, but your suggested IOC dates, eg, 2018-2023 (for one class) and 2019-2026 (for the other class), is actually overlapping big time, the 'total' build runs between 2019 to 2026, I don't see how that is a 'staged' process.
I don't disagree that there will probably need to be two production lines to achieve enough hulls in service to at least replace all 14 ACBP's within a reasonable time frame (from memory there were 6 ACPB's commissioned in the same year, two years running!), so yes multiple production lines are probably a necessity, it could be that if all the same class of ship (as I'm proposing), you could have two production lines running side by side at Techport, or one at Techport and a second at Williamstown for example.
Anyway, just my opinion of course, just like yours too (and I do respect that too!).
What's the old saying about opinions? "Opinions are like ar$eholes, everybody's got one!!"
Cheers,