Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

As the number of OPV's increases the number of air frames may be insufficient and the assets on hand get worked harder than originally intended. This scenario could create a requirement for a modest increase in both types of helicopters to help cover operational requirements.

I wouldn't imagine the OPV would always be deployed with a UAV and a full sized helo. Its not like we are going to have 20 additional heli capable OPV tomorrow, with each of them requiring it. I would imagine with the OPV, UAV's will be the most desired. Really I see the OPV's using the UAV nearly all the time, but have capacity to operate a manned helicopter if required.

God, I hope not. The idea of proliferating classes just so that we can try one of these and two of those and a soupcon of something else is anathema to anyone trying to provide trained crews, spare parts, sustainment and so on. If there *must* be a low mix vessel, let customs/border force/fisheries own and operate it.

Agreed. The OPV's should replace the six or so existing classes with one class. As we have seen, sometimes it may be required that a ship is retasked with anothers duties, having the same hull means that its pretty straight forward to do that. Unlike trying to turn a Huon into a patrol ship or a survey ship. In the end you will most likely save money and have a more capable fleet with just one class.

 

[vonnoobie]

I agree with this Vonnoobie, but with the proposed OPV's of SEA1180 (IIRC) we will have between 10 and 20 additional hulls capable of carrying either MRH90 or Seahawks as well as any UAV's.

As the number of OPV's increases the number of air frames may be insufficient and the assets on hand get worked harder than originally intended. This scenario could create a requirement for a modest increase in both types of helicopters to help cover operational requirements.

That is assuming they will be carrying anything that large, Most OPV's carry light helo's if at all.

One should also take into time acquisition time line, Depending on numbers ordered (Anywhere between 10 and 20) and build rate we could be looking at said OPV being introduced over a 15 to 30 year time frame, Useless to think of buying extra Seahawks today if they would then just sit for years waiting for the OPV's to be commissioned.

We really need to wait until we find out what the end OPV/OCV will be before debating extra Seahawks.

 

[Alf662]

That is assuming they will be carrying anything that large, Most OPV's carry light helo's if at all.

One should also take into time acquisition time line, Depending on numbers ordered (Anywhere between 10 and 20) and build rate we could be looking at said OPV being introduced over a 15 to 30 year time frame, Useless to think of buying extra Seahawks today if they would then just sit for years waiting for the OPV's to be commissioned.

We really need to wait until we find out what the end OPV/OCV will be before debating extra Seahawks.

Vonnoobie / Stingray, I was not advocating purchasing more Seahawks or MRH90's now, but I was questioning air frame numbers for further down the track once the OPV's start being commissioned.

I agree that UAV's would be the norm for OPV operations and that they have the capability to embark a manned helicopter.

All of the training and sustaining infrastructure is currently getting put in place and if another two or three air frames were required 10 - 15 years down the track it is not going to be a big deal (unless the production line stops).

I did not want to go to deep into this subject due to the release of the upcoming white paper.

 

[hairyman]

I always assumed that the LHD's would have anti-submarine helicopters aboard, otherwise they are going to require escorts for the job they are quite capable of doing themselves.

 

[oldsig127]

I always assumed that the LHD's would have anti-submarine helicopters aboard, otherwise they are going to require escorts for the job they are quite capable of doing themselves.

You can rest assured that the LHDs will never do anything half so stupid as try to be their own escort. Four 25mm cannons do not a defensive armament make. And an LHD is not an antisubmarine asset.

oldsig

 

[ASSAIL]

I always assumed that the LHD's would have anti-submarine helicopters aboard, otherwise they are going to require escorts for the job they are quite capable of doing themselves.

The LHDs won't go anywhere in a hot situation without escorts and that includes capabilities against air, surface and subsurface threats. You simply can't choose which threat you'll prepare for.
The defence forces in our region have closed/are closing the technology gap and advantage that the ADF has enjoyed in the past so if an ARG is required to deploy it will do so with the best multi threat defences available.

The only tasks they are capable of going it alone on are flag waving and HADR

 

[Raven22]

I always assumed that the LHD's would have anti-submarine helicopters aboard, otherwise they are going to require escorts for the job they are quite capable of doing themselves.

As has been said, the LHDs will always be escorted (even for benign scenarios with no threat, Navy has said it will always be escorted), so there is no need for the LHDs to embark Romeos. And while they could do it themselves if absolutely needed, doing so would take away from their ability to d their primary job - being LHDs.

Embarking Romeos would mean an extra airframe type that needs to be supported, impacting personnel numbers, spare parts stores etc. It would take up space in the hanger, meaning less space for other airframes (or light vehicles and other stores, not the hanger deck is also the light vehicle deck). It would impact deck cycles (noting the deck can only really be open for flight ops around 12 hours a day, otherwise the deck crew becomes fatigued. Keeping the Romeos on the escorts provides far more flexibility as online times can be rotated). Even simply embarking the weapons and other equipment would be in impost - storing torpedoes and hellfires etc.

Letting the escorts doing the escorting and the LHDs doing the LHDing means we get the best holistic capability for the amphib force.

Turning the LHDs into pseudo ASW/sea control carriers might be a latent possibility, but it would come at the expense of having a ready amphib capability. It would require a deliberate decision to be made at the very top (government level, basically) and it would take a long time (probably years) for the Navy to train up to a level of capability worthy of the investment of so much resources.

 

[t68]

Agreed. The OPV's should replace the six or so existing classes with one class. As we have seen, sometimes it may be required that a ship is retasked with anothers duties, having the same hull means that its pretty straight forward to do that. Unlike trying to turn a Huon into a patrol ship or a survey ship. In the end you will most likely save money and have a more capable fleet with just one class.

I do see the logic in it, but I do have one problem the Huon Class MHC are unique in that they have a hull designed for more extensive shock resistance and low magnetic signature being in such close proximity to mines. One would tend to think that the hull would be more suited than just a run of the mill OPV when in the MCMV role.

 

[vonnoobie]

I wouldn't say that the Seahawk has been ruled out from the standard compliment, Defence has not gone and stated that they wont be used aboard ship as standard but rather has gone and taken the time to evaluate there use on the ships.

They may not be permanent but they could very well be a common asset embarked on them.

As it is they would be unlikely to ever house a full compliment of helo's even just in the hanger (8 spots for medium sized aircraft), So there wont be a lack of room for the Seahawk's.

 

[oldsig127]

I do see the logic in it, but I do have one problem the Huon Class MHC are unique in that they have a hull designed for more extensive shock resistance and low magnetic signature being in such close proximity to mines. One would tend to think that the hull would be more suited than just a run of the mill OPV when in the MCMV role.

Something to bear in mind - mine hunting is increasingly being conducted remotely by vessels which use computing power and technology to stay away from danger, rather than wooden or grp hulls to reduce risk.

Even the USN is doing this, using the LCS (there's a lengthy video on youtube which is worth watching). And the LCS is hardly a traditional minesweeper/hunter or in any other way run of the mill.

I'd imagine that this is the model suggested by Navy when the earlier White Paper and DCP led to the first mooting of an OPV class of this nature.

oldsig

 

[Alf662]

Something to bear in mind - mine hunting is increasingly being conducted remotely by vessels which use computing power and technology to stay away from danger, rather than wooden or grp hulls to reduce risk.

Even the USN is doing this, using the LCS (there's a lengthy video on youtube which is worth watching). And the LCS is hardly a traditional minesweeper/hunter or in any other way run of the mill.

I'd imagine that this is the model suggested by Navy when the earlier White Paper and DCP led to the first mooting of an OPV class of this nature.

oldsig

Just found these power point presentations which give a bit more background information as to where things are headed with AUV, ASV & AAV:

http://aaus.org.au/webdev/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Pacific-2015-CAPT-Whittaker.pdf

http://aaus.org.au/webdev/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/AAUS15_RADM-Mark-Campbell-RAN-AAUS-2015.pdf

 

[alexsa]

I'd wager that 24 is a good amount, It is a 50% increase over past numbers (16). I don't think there has ever been an issue embarking a single Seahawk per a ship before so I don't see it being an issue going into the Hobarts and future frigates, Allowing 1 per each frigate and destroyer still leaves 12 for training and use on the Choules and LHD's.

Number's wise we are going to be in a better spot then ever before so I don't see any real issue. Did use to be that we had 16 to operate from 14 ships with aviation capacity for 20, Into the future we will have 24 to operate from 12 frigates/destroyers with aviation capacity of 21 at best.

Actually not really. If we look at the S2G and S70 then it is 11 and 16 (27 in all). There was a lot of interest by some in the Super Lynx in liue of the S-2G but that is now water under the bridge.

Some of the S-70s are quite low hours so one may speculate that some may live on as is the case of some of the Blackhawks. Time and money will tell.

 

[vonnoobie]

Actually not really. If we look at the S2G and S70 then it is 11 and 16 (27 in all). There was a lot of interest by some in the Super Lynx in liue of the S-2G but that is now water under the bridge.

Some of the S-70s are quite low hours so one may speculate that some may live on as is the case of some of the Blackhawks. Time and money will tell.

Not sure how much we should really consider the S2G's considering they never ended up being used for there intended roles nor did we acquire the OPV's that they had been intended to be used off of.

Really it all comes down to "Did we have a lack of airframes amongst the Anzac's and Adelaides?", if they were stretched then the extra airframes may only be filling the gap, if they weren't stretched then they are quite literally the cream on top.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Something to bear in mind - mine hunting is increasingly being conducted remotely by vessels which use computing power and technology to stay away from danger, rather than wooden or grp hulls to reduce risk.

I'd imagine that this is the model suggested by Navy when the earlier White Paper and DCP led to the first mooting of an OPV class of this nature.

I think in the future you really need to start to look at manned platforms being launch platforms for unmanned vehicles. Certainly now you don't need the sensors on the actual platform for mine hunting. That's like driving a "Pookie" over a mine field to find them.

Which is why a ship with a flexible deck, about to tow, deploy retrieve multiple uav's, UUV's etc is a lot more useful than what it would be even 5-10 years ago.

 

[alexsa]

Not sure how much we should really consider the S2G's considering they never ended up being used for there intended roles nor did we acquire the OPV's that they had been intended to be used off of.

Really it all comes down to "Did we have a lack of airframes amongst the Anzac's and Adelaides?", if they were stretched then the extra airframes may only be filling the gap, if they weren't stretched then they are quite literally the cream on top.

We never filled all the slots and we never operated all vessels at once with a number in 'restricted availability". If we were to surge capacity in times of crisis I suspect we would be short.

Essentially you are basing your argument on peace time operations which may not be the optimum situation if things turn to custard

 

[vonnoobie]

We never filled all the slots and we never operated all vessels at once with a number in 'restricted availability". If we were to surge capacity in times of crisis I suspect we would be short.

Essentially you are basing your argument on peace time operations which may not be the optimum situation if things turn to custard

I see your point, I guess only time will tell in what other asset's we acquire (UAV's).

 

[oldsig127]

I think in the future you really need to start to look at manned platforms being launch platforms for unmanned vehicles. Certainly now you don't need the sensors on the actual platform for mine hunting. That's like driving a "Pookie" over a mine field to find them.

Which is why a ship with a flexible deck, about to tow, deploy retrieve multiple uav's, UUV's etc is a lot more useful than what it would be even 5-10 years ago.

Errr, yes. Well that's exactly what I said, and why GRP and wooden minehunters/sweepers are obsolescent.

oldsig127

 

[StingrayOZ]

Errr, yes. Well that's exactly what I said, and why GRP and wooden minehunters/sweepers are obsolescent.

oldsig127

Sorry, I was writing in support/elaborating of your previous post in reply to T68. My quoting you doesn't make that clear, there were some words I missed out to explain that. My bad.

In response to the general discussion, I do believe that we shouldn't be overtly focused on manned helicopters for the OPV's IMO, UAV are better suited to these platforms. I would say it is far more likely they will deploy with UAV's, and its entirely probable that many will never see a manned helicopter other than for specific training/qualification.

Which is another reason to keep them all the same design.

For a fraction of the cost of owning one or two more manned airframes you could fit out a whole fleet of UAV's and operate them at a much higher tempo and get a lot more capability (Freeing up your manned platforms). While these ships are bigger than previous ones, they will be limited in aviation stores/maintenance, so a UAV which has much lighter demands and can operate for much longer periods is a much better fit. Save money/more capability.

 

[Joe Black]

Statuses of the CEP for SEA 5000 and SEA 1180?

Hi all,

We hear about the SEA 5000 (Future Frigates) and SEA 1180 (OPVs) are going through the CEP as well. Does anyone know what are their statuses?

 

[Muar River]

Hi all,

We hear about the SEA 5000 (Future Frigates) and SEA 1180 (OPVs) are going through the CEP as well. Does anyone know what are their statuses?

I don't however the latest Navy League Magazine had a photo of the Royal Navy frigate and the view expressed that the reduction to 8 of the order in the UK would diminish the chances of this frigate winning the RAN contract.

The magazine included two nice photos of the models of the FREMM and German A400 frigates.