Indeed you raise some interesting points, I broadly agree with you.Firstly I wasn't suggesting that a more capable OPV would infringe on the numbers of ADW/Frigates, I was saying that 'if' the Government, in the future, was looking to have more 'combat' capable ships, that the obvious choice would be a larger number of AWD/Frigates.
I then said the next level down might be a class of Patrol Frigate / LCS type ships, and this is where the potential to 'recycle' equipment from the FFG's and possibly Anzacs could happen, (certainly more than just recycling the main gun itself). This is what I was referring to as potentially infringing on the AWD/Frigate numbers, not an 'up armed' OPV fleet, but of course that was a 'what if'.
Back to the OPV's, don't disagree that they could be better armed and have a broader role, it's just that the only 'better' armament for the OPV's that I can realistically see is the main gun.
Yes we could recycle the 76mm from the FFG's (and purchase another half a dozen too), or we could recycle the 25mm Typhoon from the ACPB's and not have to purchase any additional main guns, or they could be equipped with new 57mm too.
But realistically all I can see from what I've read is that the new OPV's will be more capable, not 'combat' capable.
Do I think that is right or wrong? Do I think we should have OCV's instead of OPV's? Well that doesn't really matter, just interpreting what I see the DWP and DIIP is suggesting is all.
Cheers,
I don't see the combatant number rising from 12 in real terms. That number has been pretty constant for a long time. Surface combatants have significant crewing loads (unlike subs) so for us to operate 14-18 would be a big change. Arguably we would be better off going for a larger more capable ship than more ships. We would also need more docking and support structures to operate this many. If we wanted more capability, I would argue ditch Meko and the F-105, go straight to the Burkes (or Atago or Sejong the Great), for similar crewing, you get arguably a much more capable ship. IMO It would only be if we were already at the largest ship size (or at large scale war) would we consider upping the number of combatants.The larger ships could handle over 128+ VLS, even more powerful radars.
Australia has plenty of potential to "upgun" what we have and what we are planning.Going for a maximum VLS load out with what we have, and aim to acquire the most capable missiles in terms of SM-6, Tomahawk, SM-3, LRASM. I assume we may be able to fit more VLS to the AWD/Future frigate by way of removing the harpoon launchers and other compromises. An AWD/Frigate loaded with the most advanced munitions would be very credible. Limited really by the budget, but would still be cheaper than additional ships. Remembering there are very few navies that actually operate 12 new "Aegis class"(if that is a thing) ships, let alone have all the latest sharp sticks on board. In terms of hi tech Combat ship tonnage, the planned RAN is right up there.
I can understand the argument, I would assume we would at least be looking at reusing the 25mm guns on the bulk of the fleet 6-8 ships. 25mm gun and 2x .50cal.
Again, we already have them. The Spanish BAM, has a 76mm gun, 2 x 25mm guns and 2 x.50 cal guns. Also interestingly they intend to support Antarctic research from this vessel (ice strengthened!?). I guess we will see what happens with sea1180.
I wouldn't be so sure about re-cycling anything off the ANZACs. I heard renewed chatter about giving them away(!), with weapon systems (we maybe keep the missiles). Perhaps 2 to Indonesia, with an option to buy more (I would imagine NZ would get a look in too maybe even the Philippines or Malaysia). While we may not be able to increase front line ship numbers, we can give some of our older stuff to "friendly" nations.This instantly starts a close defence relationship between Australian and these other nations. Running modern common equipment light years ahead of what they currently have, literally 40-50 years from the future.
As you can see Australia could play a very vital role in the region. If the current 8 Anzacs find new homes within the region, 20 OPV's (eventually?), 12x 7000t front line ships with 12 new super subs (with life extended Collins hanging around until we are there). That significantly changes the region.Your basically doubling Australia's current capability and you end up with 20 more front line surface combatants in the region. If the region needs to respond to a crisis, a formidable multinational task force can be put together with common/compatible equipment.
We don't have to turn the OPV's into combatants (IMO). But they should be region leading OPV's. The OPV other nations OPV's turn to something that adds real capability to a mixed party. Part of that is fitting something decent to the front in line with what everyone else already has, at least to some. Again IMO. If required we might need to help free up the regions OPV for missions elsewhere.
We must stop concreting old radars and weapons onto Spectacle Island and start looking around. The time for dicking around has ended. Japan is not working with Australia on submarines, because it would make a nice trade deal. Australia should be doing the same with other nations in our region. Who can we help and how.We have to think about the bigger picture.
Personally I think the 76mm is the least controversial issue being raise here. If we aren't using them, we should give them away to someone who is.
BTW I am just discussing the issues, I find others opinions and posts very informative and useful.
Last edited: