Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Joe Black]

Either way its a very impressive design, I particularly like the multi mission bay and RHIB arrangements (which I assume could be easily adapted for fast interceptor craft or a CB90 type craft ). The space for containers and the hatches for deploying VDS, ROVs etc. ranks this design closer to the 2010 DWP OCV. The 26kt speed, medium gun (what is it, a LO 57 or 76mm or a shielded 25-40mm?) and extensive aviation facilities makes it look more like the 1996 OPC/corvette, just add RAM/SeaRAM / Seaceptor or Phalanx and the harpoons from the ANZACs and you have a nifty little, if not combatant, at least deployable MCM/Hydro/SOF/Marine platform, a virtual mini LCS for not very much outlay at all.

Totally agree, one could almost think that the Sea Axe OPV2 will fit Sea 1180 like a glove. I particularly like the RHIB arrangment and the multi mission bridge. Throw in a Kelvin Hughes Sharpeye, a good EO, a 76mm OTO gun and a pair of Typhoon Mk38, you've got one of the best OPV in the world.

 

[Redlands18]

Totally agree, one could almost think that the Sea Axe OPV2 will fit Sea 1180 like a glove. I particularly like the RHIB arrangment and the multi mission bridge. Throw in a Kelvin Hughes Sharpeye, a good EO, a 76mm OTO gun and a pair of Typhoon Mk38, you've got one of the best OPV in the world.

Doesn't Australia have some 76mm guns in storage, if these ships could accept a gun of that size. Would give them some decent firepower without a huge outlay and there not doing anything else.

 

[Volkodav]

Doesn't Australia have some 76mm guns in storage, if these ships could accept a gun of that size. Would give them some decent firepower without a huge outlay and there not doing anything else.

That's a barrow I've been pushing for a while, we should have a pool of six 76mm and four 8 cell Mk-41. If we are smart, once we start retiring the ANZACs there will be eight shipsets of 8 cell Mk-41, Harpoon, CEA radar masts, Vampir plus numerous other up-to-date and upgradable, systems that only need a suitable hull. Many probably don't recall but initially the ANZACs weren't intended to have torpedo tubes but the units from the retired River class DE/frigates were pulled through.

While there would be no point fitting refurbished high end systems to an aluminium tinnie, a capable, versatile platform like the Sea Axe is probably a completely different matter. And what about that hanger, that's better than the AWD has.

 

[Redlands18]

That's a barrow I've been pushing for a while, we should have a pool of six 76mm and four 8 cell Mk-41. If we are smart, once we start retiring the ANZACs there will be eight shipsets of 8 cell Mk-41, Harpoon, CEA radar masts, Vampir plus numerous other up-to-date and upgradable, systems that only need a suitable hull. Many probably don't recall but initially the ANZACs weren't intended to have torpedo tubes but the units from the retired River class DE/frigates were pulled through.

While there would be no point fitting refurbished high end systems to an aluminium tinnie, a capable, versatile platform like the Sea Axe is probably a completely different matter. And what about that hanger, that's better than the AWD has.

I wonder if the Americans would have a few 76mm guns in storage taken off OHP Frigates we could pick up. The 76 would at least give the OPVs some level of self defence against minor threats. I know they are not really meant to operate in war zones but you never know what the future may bring. I think it would make a good allround weapon system on a ship this size without turning into a OCV.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Doesn't Australia have some 76mm guns in storage, if these ships could accept a gun of that size. Would give them some decent firepower without a huge outlay and there not doing anything else.

We had six, I assume the guns would still be in reasonable condition. I assume all the rest would get the 25mm gun. While not a big fan of over arming the OPV's (I think this is really a class that should be fitted for but not with), I think reactivation of the 76mm would be quite useful. With a wide range of ammunition available for this calibre, offering significant power, range suitable for a range of missions.

The only other thing which may be useful would be space for something like Phalanx CIWS. With an anti surface model, able to handle mortars, shells, RPG's, drones etc. Pirates have RPG's, surface swarms, drones could well be be the issue for ships like this (even unarmed ones). Being part of a pool, most of the time these wouldn't be fitted with them, so cost is essentially zero. It is also a defensive limited range weapon, so in line with a OPV concept. Im not sure if the Damen design has Phalanx space, I would assume not.

That would be it. I wouldn't seek ESSM/Searam, harpoon or anything else really. An armed helo is going to be a lot more useful, and for anything else it shouldn't be anything the 76mm or 25mm can't handle or deter.

I do think the Damen design with its large multi mission bay/space would be a good fit. 25-26 kt tops speed would be very desirable. It would be hard to think of a weakness or short coming. Except perhaps building 20 of them instead of 14.

 

[Milne Bay]

We had six, I assume the guns would still be in reasonable condition. I assume all the rest would get the 25mm gun. While not a big fan of over arming the OPV's (I think this is really a class that should be fitted for but not with), I think reactivation of the 76mm would be quite useful. With a wide range of ammunition available for this calibre, offering significant power, range suitable for a range of missions.

The only other thing which may be useful would be space for something like Phalanx CIWS. With an anti surface model, able to handle mortars, shells, RPG's, drones etc. Pirates have RPG's, surface swarms, drones could well be be the issue for ships like this (even unarmed ones). Being part of a pool, most of the time these wouldn't be fitted with them, so cost is essentially zero. It is also a defensive limited range weapon, so in line with a OPV concept. Im not sure if the Damen design has Phalanx space, I would assume not.

That would be it. I wouldn't seek ESSM/Searam, harpoon or anything else really. An armed helo is going to be a lot more useful, and for anything else it shouldn't be anything the 76mm or 25mm can't handle or deter.

I do think the Damen design with its large multi mission bay/space would be a good fit. 25-26 kt tops speed would be very desirable. It would be hard to think of a weakness or short coming. Except perhaps building 20 of them instead of 14.

If the class is to have a 76mm gun then it will probably need to be across the whole 14 as there is the through deck design to take into account. This is probably also true of the possible 57mm gun. This would not be an issue with the 25mm or 35mm fitting, as they are deck mounted with no below decks magazine AFAIK.
MB

 

[rossfrb_1]

Regarding the possible re-use of RAN 76mm cannons on a new platform.
This presumes that they are of a model that would still be useful or easily upgradeable.
Wiki says that some of these RAN FFG-7s entered service in the early 1980s which would mean their hardware fitout would have been already settled on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Sydney_(FFG_03)

Wiki also reports that the OTO Melara 76mm in essentially its current iteration (Super Rapid) was developed in the 1980s, which means its entry into service was later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_76_mm

The point I am trying to make is whether the 76mm cannons that the RAN have are of a current or dated model.
If anyone has any information about that I'd be interested to read it.
rb

 

[Volkodav]

If the class is to have a 76mm gun then it will probably need to be across the whole 14 as there is the through deck design to take into account. This is probably also true of the possible 57mm gun. This would not be an issue with the 25mm or 35mm fitting, as they are deck mounted with no below decks magazine AFAIK.
MB

There still needs to be a magazine and in the case of the Armidales it is actually below the gun mount. It makes sense to arrange things like this as the last thing you want to do is have to lug boxes of not light ammunition about the ship in a seaway.

 

[Milne Bay]

There still needs to be a magazine and in the case of the Armidales it is actually below the gun mount. It makes sense to arrange things like this as the last thing you want to do is have to lug boxes of not light ammunition about the ship in a seaway.

True, but I think that incorporating a 76mm into the class will need to be considered in terms of structural design, more than say the Typhoons will.
As to the RAN 76's, I remember reading somewhere that Oto Melara was offering an upgrade package to the current iteration for all previous models.
MB

 

[rjtjrt]

In what circumstance would RAN ever use a 76mm gun on an OPV?

 

[Redlands18]

True, but I think that incorporating a 76mm into the class will need to be considered in terms of structural design, more than say the Typhoons will.
As to the RAN 76's, I remember reading somewhere that Oto Melara was offering an upgrade package to the current iteration for all previous models.
MB

Would certainly be far more useful to the ADF sitting on a ship than sitting in a shed somewhere. Unless you want to put them on the AORs or retrofit them to the Canberras i don't see much point to leaving them lying around a shed attracting dust. They are too useful a weapon system to let go to waste.

 

[Redlands18]

In what circumstance would RAN ever use a 76mm gun on an OPV?

Gives them some degree of self defence against OCVs and armed Naval Helicopters which is a growing threat. The RAN will only have 12 major surface combatants to use in any conflict and would need to fall back on the OPVs in a lot of circumstances
The best example of this is the Bathurst class Mine Sweepers in WW2. Most of them ended up being used as poorly armed Corvettes.

 

[Volkodav]

In what circumstance would RAN ever use a 76mm gun on an OPV?

Any they so desired.

Most OPVs are designed with 57 or 76mm guns and unless the purchasing government prioritizes cost over capability and flexibility, most gave them.

The calibre is in service, we gave sufficient mounts available for half the proposed fleet. We manufacture ammunition for it and I believe have a licence additional mounts (or at least did have). There are also modern precision guided munitions that the mount can (l believe) be upgraded to fire, to greatly improve its AA, CIWS and terminal accuracy capability, making any vessel so equipped far nor effective and survivable.

Lots of plusses, limited minuses and it fits with what other Navies are doing.

 

[Volkodav]

Gives them some degree of self defence against OCVs and armed Naval Helicopters which is a growing threat. The RAN will only have 12 major surface combatants to use in any conflict and would need to fall back on the OPVs in a lot of circumstances
The best example of this is the Bathurst class Mine Sweepers in WW2. Most of them ended up being used as poorly armed Corvettes.

The Bathursts were actually designed as seaward defence vessels but termed mine sweepers for operational security. Convoy escort and ASW was always part of their design brief. Something better would have been great but they were useful and effective and mush better than the alternative, that was nothing (or more to the point, a design with no combat power at all because it was seen as unnecessary).

 

[Alf662]

Either way its a very impressive design, I particularly like the multi mission bay and RHIB arrangements (which I assume could be easily adapted for fast interceptor craft or a CB90 type craft ). The space for containers and the hatches for deploying VDS, ROVs etc. ranks this design closer to the 2010 DWP OCV. The 26kt speed, medium gun (what is it, a LO 57 or 76mm or a shielded 25-40mm?) and extensive aviation facilities makes it look more like the 1996 OPC/corvette, just add RAM/SeaRAM / Seaceptor or Phalanx and the harpoons from the ANZACs and you have a nifty little, if not combatant, at least deployable MCM/Hydro/SOF/Marine platform, a virtual mini LCS for not very much outlay at all.

The 1800 Sea Axe is designed for two 9 meter RHIB's and any modifications to go larger would introduce huge modification costs.

I love the CB90 style boats and where you are coming from, but I think their physical size would make them impractical in this particular application.

Having said that it does open up a whole lot of other issues. The DWP DIIP allocates army $200M - $300M for a range of small boats, some of these need to be capable of off loading small vehicles (I think quad bikes were quoted). From a capability point of view it would be advantageous to maximize the number of Navy vessels that could carry the smaller vessels (eg small landing craft).

So if their is a problem it would be maximizing the number of Navy assets that could operate many of these new craft with out imposing huge modification costs. The cheapest way to go is not to modify them at all (use standard Navy RHIB's) with a view to operating army assets from the larger amphibious ships, this is some thing that I feel would be a big mistake as it reduces overall capability and flexibility.

In short: How far should Navy go to provide alternate sea lift and support capabilities to new Army Riverine assets?

 

[Redlands18]

The 1800 Sea Axe is designed for two 9 meter RHIB's and any modifications to go larger would introduce huge modification costs.

I love the CB90 style boats and where you are coming from, but I think their physical size would make them impractical in this particular application.

Having said that it does open up a whole lot of other issues. The DWP DIIP allocates army $200M - $300M for a range of small boats, some of these need to be capable of off loading small vehicles (I think quad bikes were quoted). From a capability point of view it would be advantageous to maximize the number of Navy vessels that could carry the smaller vessels (eg small landing craft).

So if their is a problem it would be maximizing the number of Navy assets that could operate many of these new craft with out imposing huge modification costs. The cheapest way to go is not to modify them at all (use standard Navy RHIB's) with a view to operating army assets from the larger amphibious ships, this is some thing that I feel would be a big mistake as it reduces overall capability and flexibility.

In short: How far should Navy go to provide alternate sea lift and support capabilities to new Army Riverine assets?

If this is the way the ADF is looking at going with the OPV having the ability to support a landing/raiding party allied with a Vtol UAV then a medium calbre gun is almost a given. The ability to protect itself against low level threats and provide fire support could be mission critical. It is going to be very interesting to see what comes out of this program and we won't have long to wait if first steel is going to be cut in 2018. A contract will nearly have to be signed off this year.

 

[Volkodav]

If this is the way the ADF is looking at going with the OPV having the ability to support a landing/raiding party allied with a Vtol UAV then a medium calbre gun is almost a given. The ability to protect itself against low level threats and provide fire support could be mission critical. It is going to be very interesting to see what comes out of this program and we won't have long to wait if first steel is going to be cut in 2018. A contract will nearly have to be signed off this year.

Agreed the Sea Axe is designed with the 11m RHIB in mind but there are MOTS arrangements of similar configuration that can launch and recover both large RHIBs and fast interceptor craft. Some fast interceptor craft are basically covered in RHIBs while others are more akin to combat boats. It comes down to what is desirable, affordable and achievable, a combat boat may be too much of a stretch but a fast interceptor craft, able to operate independently for a day or so could be possible, as could a Protector USV.

Then again would the ability to put a landing party, supported by an ATV ashore be a bad thing? Stretching things further, how hard would it be to configure the multi mission bay into a dock capable of recovering a variety of craft? Have an overhead gantry crane to lift the craft onto cradles pr even to lift different cradles into the bay to recover different craft.

 

[Redlands18]

The 1800 Sea Axe is designed for two 9 meter RHIB's and any modifications to go larger would introduce huge modification costs.

I love the CB90 style boats and where you are coming from, but I think their physical size would make them impractical in this particular application.

Having said that it does open up a whole lot of other issues. The DWP DIIP allocates army $200M - $300M for a range of small boats, some of these need to be capable of off loading small vehicles (I think quad bikes were quoted). From a capability point of view it would be advantageous to maximize the number of Navy vessels that could carry the smaller vessels (eg small landing craft).

So if their is a problem it would be maximizing the number of Navy assets that could operate many of these new craft with out imposing huge modification costs. The cheapest way to go is not to modify them at all (use standard Navy RHIB's) with a view to operating army assets from the larger amphibious ships, this is some thing that I feel would be a big mistake as it reduces overall capability and flexibility.

In short: How far should Navy go to provide alternate sea lift and support capabilities to new Army Riverine assets?

It's somewhat confusing about what the plan is to deploy the Riverine boats away from home base, yes you carry them into theatre using the Phat ships but if you want to deploy them any sort of distance accross open ocean once in theatre you can't really use the Phat ships. The best ship for this sort of mission would be a LPH but we don't have them any more or any for the forseable future. The other choice would be the OPVs.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Lots of plusses, limited minuses and it fits with what other Navies are doing.

Its quite a flexible size. Volcano(40Km) and Dart(anti aircraft) PFF (anti missile). Offers a useful 8km accurate range which may be useful for Naval gunfire support. IMO its probably more useful than the 57mm on the LCS and coast guard (which they are trying to develop guided rounds for).

Given these are designed to be ocean going, I'm not sure a 25mm round will suffice.

If your trying to stop/dispose of say a 4000t (or say 100,000+ t) vessel then Im not sure a 25mm round across its bow or even towards its engine will have much affect.

Australia has previously taken out a illegal shipping vessel with a harpoon (Pong Su 3700t) from a F-111, so I guess while not likely it is possible.I would imagine a 76mm at the water line would be cheaper.

 

[Alf662]

It's somewhat confusing about what the plan is to deploy the Riverine boats away from home base, yes you carry them into theatre using the Phat ships but if you want to deploy them any sort of distance accross open ocean once in theatre you can't really use the Phat ships. The best ship for this sort of mission would be a LPH but we don't have them any more or any for the forseable future. The other choice would be the OPVs.

To be honest I was disappointed with the demise of the LCH(R) and I am concerned that we will be focusing on having all of our eggs in three large egg baskets.

Any new army riverine capability is going to have size limitations. If they are to big the only way to transport them would be by three navy amphibious ships, so transport by land and air would also be desirable. This puts a size limitation of around 16 meters LOA, an unloaded weight around 16 tonnes and a maximum weight of around 25 tonnes.

Stowage of vessels of this size on an 80 meter OPV is going to be challenging, especially in the mission bay underneath the flight deck.

The cheapest solution I can think of is to fit the OPV with a 25 tonne crane and use the flight deck or hangar for stowage. It is cheap, simple and opens up a lot of other options.