Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
One report I have read made reference to 5000 additional troops.
With these extra assets, will 5000 be enough to crew and maintain 1 extra frigate, 6 more subs, extra crew on the opv, s, HIMARS, Land based AshM, 16AD, s new systems, RAAF, s new assets?
This white paper has been fully costed and thought through, but I think 5000 is not going to be enough accross the board, maybe that figure is for Army alone? It did say 5000 extra troops.
It's not actually 5,000 troops, There will be 4,800 new positions however only 2,500 will be for new recruits, Up to 2,300 will be from reallocation's.

As to if it's enough I cant say, I have seen news articles in the past about personal complaining about having nothing to do so if that is that case could also be a matter of making better use of what we already have.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The Damen 1400 is only rated for a 6 tonne helicopter and I think it has a telescopic hangar, the Damen 1800 is rated at 11 tonne and is rated for an NH90, the 1800 Seaxe version has a larger hanger and can accommodate an NH90 and a UAV.

Ideal if deck and hanger could accomodate NH90 sized helicopter with vessel sized accordingly.
Again the flight deck may only be used as a lilly pad with the hanger used for storage.
Important to get it right the first time and not regret at a later stage adding a bit of extra length. An extra 10 metres of ship should not cost that much in the greater scheme of things. After all it's not the expensive stuff like weapons and sensors.
Extra lenghth good for range and sea keeping as well.

Regards S
 

Beam

Member
The Damen 1400 is only rated for a 6 tonne helicopter and I think it has a telescopic hangar, the Damen 1800 is rated at 11 tonne and is rated for an NH90, the 1800 Seaxe version has a larger hanger and can accommodate an NH90 and a UAV.


Ideal if deck and hanger could accomodate NH90 sized helicopter with vessel sized accordingly.
Again the flight deck may only be used as a lilly pad with the hanger used for storage.
Important to get it right the first time and not regret at a later stage adding a bit of extra length. An extra 10 metres of ship should not cost that much in the greater scheme of things. After all it's not the expensive stuff like weapons and sensors.
Extra lenghth good for range and sea keeping as well.

Regards S
What About Damen's Sigma Corvette series, eg their Sigma 8313. It has similar crewing numbers to the 1800 OPV but is much better armed.

Sorry, can't post links yet, but is on their site.
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
On the OPVs:

If we went for a fleet of the same design but different sizes how would that effect the build? (tooling, Jigs etc). Shouldn't effect training to much as same systems etc

Nothing to indicate this but....

For example:

9 x Damen OPV-2 1800 or Damen OPV-2 1400
(bulk of EEZ patrol work)
2 x Damen OPV-2 2400 (as required)
1 x Damen OPV- 2 2600 ( which as required could support the LHD with Mine countermeasures,hydrographic survey and general security while on long range deployment)

Also:

Isn't the Austral MRV 80 meters in length?
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Pretty much what I was thinking and considering the .
G day Volk

The OPV is not just a new ship, it's in my opinion a new capability.
We very much need to move away from the Attack / Fremantle / Armidale class era of constabulary duties performed within these former ships limits of size and range.
A well sized OPV will be able to do the regular policing role and alot more new opportunities across the defence picture if size and weight are provided.
While not trying to turn it into a gunned up corvette or light patrol frigate. A medium cal gun with flight deck, hanger and mission bay provides a lot of scope for alot of missions not accomodated by the patrol boat era.
Just the type of capability a large island with big oceans has needed for some time.


Regards S
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
What About Damen's Sigma Corvette series, eg their Sigma 8313. It has similar crewing numbers to the 1800 OPV but is much better armed.

Sorry, can't post links yet, but is on their site.
The Government is planning to replace the ACPB's with OPV's not OCV's, that's P for Patrol, not C for Combat!

You start turning a fleet of OPV's into better armed OCV's and the cost goes through the roof, and if that meant talking dollars away from say, cutting the 9th Future Frigate, then I really don't think that's a good idea.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Oil and natural gas platforms are a secondary role if at all and there is no mention of them actually being stationed on board of them, That was media crap jumping the gun.
it wasn't media crap - it came from an area closely infomed

what the media did with it still doesn't detract


Not saying they wont be stationed on board them but i'd imagine under such a scenario we are already in a major war which does have a credible threat to mainland Australia, but not before.
---- combat capability scenarios, repeat.... wash.... rinse
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
2nd time I've had to ask this

Check your posts as soon as done - some are still coming up all over the shop through incorrect use of quoting

 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
On the OPVs:

If we went for a fleet of the same design but different sizes how would that effect the build? (tooling, Jigs etc). Shouldn't effect training to much as same systems etc

Nothing to indicate this but....

For example:

9 x Damen OPV-2 1800 or Damen OPV-2 1400
(bulk of EEZ patrol work)
2 x Damen OPV-2 2400 (as required)
1 x Damen OPV- 2 2600 ( which as required could support the LHD with Mine countermeasures,hydrographic survey and general security while on long range deployment)

Also:

Isn't the Austral MRV 80 meters in length?
Bluey, mate!

The ink has only just dried on the DWP and now you want to re-write it!

Can't really see a mixed fleet of OPV's (as suggested above), can't see the benefit, and of course there would no doubt be the extra cost too.

12 larger longer ranging OPV's for the 14 (now 13) ACPB's, is a pretty good start.

That's not to say that at some stage in the future that a few more couldn't be ordered to cover the eventual retirement of the MCM force, but that's probably not till well into the 2030's.
 

Beam

Member
The Government is planning to replace the ACPB's with OPV's not OCV's, that's P for Patrol, not C for Combat!

You start turning a fleet of OPV's into better armed OCV's and the cost goes through the roof, and if that meant talking dollars away from say, cutting the 9th Future Frigate, then I really don't think that's a good idea.
Yeah I realise that, but what about a "for but not with" initial buy, even if the w/s are not costed for, it would give us some options in the near future if everything starts to go pear shaped... After all, is that not the thrust of this DWP?

Also, the DefMin in her recent address called them "OCV's" - Slip of the Tongue?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Also, the DefMin in her recent address called them "OCV's" - Slip of the Tongue?
OCV's were SEA 1180

same bloke different haircut as the OPV's have similar tasking profile and will be the same vessels more or less
 

Alf662

New Member
Future of Garden Island?

I just noticed this little gem from the DWP:

Quote:
4.70
Beyond 2025, the Defence estate footprint will need to be further
developed to accommodate our new high technology capabilities
and ensure that Defence is appropriately postured for future strategic
requirements and the implications of climate change .

This will involve developing new bases, wharves, airfields and training and weapons
testing ranges. It will also include considering the long-term future
of some Defence bases, such as Garden Island in Sydney Harbour,
as issues such as urban development, encroachment and capacity
constraints within existing infrastructure affect the ADF’s ability to safely
and effectively execute its mission.


This would make the developers and cruise ship operators very happy. A can of worms comes easily to mind!
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
Bluey, mate!

The ink has only just dried on the DWP and now you want to re-write it!

Can't really see a mixed fleet of OPV's (as suggested above), can't see the benefit, and of course there would no doubt be the extra cost too.

12 larger longer ranging OPV's for the 14 (now 13) ACPB's, is a pretty good start.

That's not to say that at some stage in the future that a few more couldn't be ordered to cover the eventual retirement of the MCM force, but that's probably not till well into the 2030's.
Not at all trying to rewrite the white paper, overall think it’s pretty good - just examining some tangent ideas - after all this white paper plays out over 20 years, nothing is concrete atm

Well, the benefit of of mixed size fleet of the same design is that the larger 2400 & 2600 have the range and endurance to support an LHD task group in addition to their border patrol role. Their presence as part of a task group adds an extra layer of defence. Also, given how similar (or identical) the systems would be between 1800 - 2400/2600 the transition or progression of sailors across the vessels and associated training burden - is not out of reach. The bulk of the grunt EEZ work is done by the 1800 or 1400 which would have slightly lower operating costs than a full fleet of 2400/2600 for example

yes agreed, 14 ACPB to 12 OPV is more than welcome -
 

Alf662

New Member
Upgrade of Canberra's Landing Craft

I recently posted about an upgrade to the Canberra's Landing Craft, here are the details from the "At a Glance" overview:

Quote:
Amphibious Capability
Australia’s strengthened amphibious capability centres around our new Canberra Class amphibious ships, which will provide the ADF with an unprecedented capability to conduct a wide range of operations in the maritime environment. These amphibious ships will enable the ADF to land a sizeable force of personnel and equipment across a broad spectrum of operations. The Canberra Class ships’ on‐board hospital and their ability to operate without wharves or port infrastructure will be a major asset in support of both domestic and international disaster recovery missions. Over time, the capability of the ships will be enhanced to better support joint command and control, including upgrades to communications and intelligence systems and semi‐autonomous self defence capabilities. In the longer term, we will replace the ships’ landing craft used to transport people and equipment from ship to shore. Together with our logistics support ship, HMAS Choules, the amphibious ships will provide scalable and flexible options for amphibious operations and sea lift.


A number of posts have referred to additional manpower. actual details are spread throughout the White Paper, but here are the details for land combat & amphibious warfare:

Quote:
People
Around 700 additional ADF positions will be allocated to 2025‐26 to support our strengthened land combat and amphibious warfare capabilities.
 

InterestedParty

Active Member
Promotion paths for future junior naval officers

I am fascinated by the new DWP and the discussion that has followed
I have no military experience but with the departure of the APCBs what would be the promotion path for a naval officer without a 300 tonne patrol boat to cut his or her teeth on
Apart from various utility boats the smallest vessel is going to be a 1200 tonne OPV, quite a responsibility
It must be an exciting time for those contemplating entering the ADF academy
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Not at all trying to rewrite the white paper, overall think it’s pretty good - just examining some tangent ideas - after all this white paper plays out over 20 years, nothing is concrete atm

Well, the benefit of of mixed size fleet of the same design is that the larger 2400 & 2600 have the range and endurance to support an LHD task group in addition to their border patrol role. Their presence as part of a task group adds an extra layer of defence. Also, given how similar (or identical) the systems would be between 1800 - 2400/2600 the transition or progression of sailors across the vessels and associated training burden - is not out of reach. The bulk of the grunt EEZ work is done by the 1800 or 1400 which would have slightly lower operating costs than a full fleet of 2400/2600 for example

yes agreed, 14 ACPB to 12 OPV is more than welcome -

Let's go back to the original scope of SEA 1180 in the 2009 DWP, it was to procure a class of 20 'identical' ships to replace 26 ships of four separate classes. The only differences would be by using various mission modules to achieve the task required of this class of ships.

The basic spec for these ships was to be 'up to' 2000t and to potentially have the ability to embark a helicopter or UAV's. A ship of similar capability to match that spec would be for example (but not limited to), the Damen OPV 1800, which is 83m and 1890t (according to the spec sheet) and has an aviation capability too.


Roll forward four years to the 2013 DWP, the Gillard Government put SEA 1180, as proposed in the 2009 DWP on the back burner. The plan was to replace the 14 ACPB's with another class of PB's (sooner rather than later), possible candidate could have been a version of the Cape Class PB's for example. The MCM and Hydrographic ships would have their lives extended until a longer term solution could be delivered.


Roll forward a bit further to now, the 2016 DWP, and we have a situation somewhere in between (say 2/3rds) the way of the original plan, 12 OPV's to replace the 14 ACPB's, (pretty good result in my opinion), the MCM's will be upgraded to operate until the 2030's (and who knows, the various 'remote' systems of the future may mean that some additional OPV's could end up being ordered too, the Government keeps talking about 'continuous' shipbuilding, etc). And lastly the Hydrographic fleet, the DWP says that a 'mixed' solution of Military and Commercial capabilities (whatever that means?) will replace the Hydro fleet, and they talk about 'modular' systems, could also point to some RAN ship having that modular system, (more of the same OPV's?), who knows?

Anyway, so much for the history of where we've been and where we are now over the last three DWP's.


So back to the here and now, I still don't understand why you would want to change a single class of 12 ships into 12 ships of three different classes?

Having a mixed fleet of 12 ships (to replace one class) is going in the complete opposite direction of the original SEA 1180 of having one class of 20 to replace four classes of 26 ships.

You said: "given how similar (or identical) the systems would be between 1800 - 2400/2600 the transition or progression of sailors across the vessels and associated training burden - is not out of reach"

But having had a look at the specs of the 1800, 2400 and 2600, shows that they have different main engines and auxiliary power generation equipment for example, and that's only the very very thin edge of the wedge.

Instead of '12 of everything' we would now be talking 'nine of this, two of another, and one of another', what is the cost of all of that??

If the Government is saying that currently we are going to have a class of 12 identical OPV's operating at one end of the spectrum and at the other end of the spectrum, the big guns (the AWD's and Frigates), well I'm satisfied with that to have that distinction between their various roles.

But if sometime in the future, say in the next five years, we end up with an update of the DWP or IIP (as may well happen), then if there is a need for a capability that sits somewhere in the middle, then maybe then it's time to look at a new or different class of ships to fill that potential void.

It might be called a Patrol Frigate or a Littoral Combat Ship (and not suggesting any designs if such a requirement was to appear), let's address it then and there.

At the very least it might be worth recovering and storing the various weapons and sensors from the FFG's and eventually Anzac's for potential future use (that's if the cost of recovering, storing and eventually refurbishing that equipment was worth the effort).

As you said, nothing is set in concrete, all true, but I don't think we have to start inventing new OPV roles above and beyond what is currently planned.

Cheers,
 
Last edited:

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
With the training equipment available to the Navy today such as advanced simulators, better coms, access to far more information, a young officer will be better trained to handle a bigger ship. The new OPVs will be a long way ahead of even the Armidales and light years ahead of the Fremantles, far friendlier for basic ship handling.

I would suspect if you took someone who had to handle the old Carrier Melbourne onto the bridge of the Canberra, his jaw would drop when he saw how much easier it is to maneuver and how much more information he has at hand.
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I would suspect if you took someone who had to handle the old Carrier Melbourne onto the bridge of the Canberra, his jaw would drop when he saw how much easier it is to maneuver and how much more information he has at hand.
put them on the bridge of a modern cruise ship and they would go into shock - let alone a naval vessel
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Yeah I realise that, but what about a "for but not with" initial buy, even if the w/s are not costed for, it would give us some options in the near future if everything starts to go pear shaped... After all, is that not the thrust of this DWP?

Also, the DefMin in her recent address called them "OCV's" - Slip of the Tongue?
There are some significant issues with a 'fitted for but not with' type vessel. In order for a vessel to have a useful fitout, and/when it does need to be kitted 'with' whatever it was fitted for, it needs to have the appropriate/relevant sensors.

A significant portion of the high cost for a modern warship has to due to with the sensors, comms and supporting electronics systems. While it would be nice if the future OPV's could be fitted with better sensors and electronics, so that something like the Stanflex or other containerized mission modules could be fitted if/when needed... I would have reservations about doing so if that caused a significant per-ship cost increase.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top