Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

My 2 cents.. I think traditional AIP is on the way out as lithium ion AIP is on the way in, in a big way. Lithium offers heaps of potential benefits. It can adjust its output very easily, be recharged (and can be recharged quickly), huge discharge surge capability, holds its energy for long periods compared to traditional AIP, low maintenance, no moving parts. All very obvious stuff. But will rewrite snorting and impact on effective ConOps.

The Japanese already have a pretty extensive history with AIP and would have considered all available AIP systems (they would have licenced anything they wanted, they are obviously very familiar with fuel cells/reformers, toyota manufactures fuel cell powered cars with 120kw FC stacks). They are going with lithium and binning the previous AIP setup.I think that speaks pretty large amount. If the Japanese engineer to take advantage of the benefits of Lithium it could be a real game changer, they intend to use more than an after thought.

I think its something we should look at. But it would seem silly to force the Japanese to include it when they have deleted it from their own subs (which had AIP) and then when with a newer technology. I don't know but this sounds like German and French suggestions. If you had to force Japan, they would put forward the stirling engines, which we all know are inferior to German fuel cells, so the logical outcome is a big red cross for the Japanese, even if they have an overall superior solution.

The Japanese are a generation ahead in Li-on in subs (IMO).Kokuryū is in the water now. You have nearly a year of operational data from a real submarine in the water now. Thats first gen right there done and dusted in a 4000t sub operating in the SCS, not being talked about, or constructed or prototype or testing, but being replaced or improved on the design!.

IMO this is exactly where having operated subs of this size and this type of mission profile I would be looking very hard at the Japanese. By looking I mean not blinking.

As mentioned, in high demand applications lithium can be 3 times more effective than lead acid other times <1.2. So to get the most you want lithium where it can do the most good and for systems to be designed to take advantage of that, not just wedged into an existing setup to say its there. Its not just about energy density, its more complicated than that. (but energy density is certainly a German AIP strength, they aren't lying, but if you were ignorant you could easily assume the Germans have the clear technological edge with out delving deeper). The Japanese of course, say, well they say nothing. Anything that is said, is a massive understatement or contains so little information most westerners might disregard it completely.

Which is also a reason I reckon to not rush the Japanese. Do it properly. Collins is a hell of a boat now, and with life left, we don't have to jump immediately.

It reads (IMO) that Peter has been swayed by Rex Patricks (well written) article and the Germans and the French, while the Japanese, as per normal, say absolutely nothing. It seems like a fair comment, consider AIP, and we probably should if purely from an academic point, maybe thats what hes saying. But I wouldn't tie it up with the selection of the boats. We care about the overall capability, not focused of the theoretical performance of one aspect which is quite possibly going to be made obsolete.

The reason the Japanese are saying nothing I would imagine is that many people seem to indicate what they have is mind blowing, and they don't want to talk publicly about anything they are doing in detail (or even broad brush strokes). On top of being a culture that isn't overtly talkative, and limited military sales experience, may seem like they have nothing to say which is not true.

The Germans are running a massive publicity program, playing the smart tight strategic game, pushing the numbers and their advantage in certain technologies, the French have already started making wild claims detached from reality with passion and flair, screw the cost and risk, 6 engines! Biggest! Nuclear secrets! Americas best friend, ever!. Both have sent political and media people to their yards overseas.

If nothing else this is giving the Japanese the first real taste of international military sales.

The Japanese proposal is more complicated than just replacing the AIP with lithium batteries. That is not what the Japanese are offering the RAN (but many expected them to, OTS, overseas build and all that). They are offering a bigger sub than what has AIP currently or than what Japan intends to operate themselves. That (IMO) is huge. Public domain doesn't reveal much more than that. They aren't offering just an OTS solution (but it is very low risk and based on a OTS solution). Japan is designing a unique and capable solution for Australia.

Which is the problem for the French and Germans. They really don't know what they are fighting against. But the Germans have quite a strong AIP fuel cell so no doubt they will hammer that to anyone who will listen, and no one will contest their AIP fuel cell capability.

Its reasons like this you need level heads in the PM and Defence positions that aren't going to make wild statements or interfere.

I've put both these links up before:

Japan Times
Japan steps up bid for Australia sub contract; willing to share secret stealth tech | The Japan Times

Pacific 2015
Japan's Government and Industry Held an Industry Briefing on Soryu Submarine at PACIFIC 2015


Firstly, as I understand it, Japan is planning from the 11th Soryu onwards, to replace AIP with Li-ion batteries, that means that at least two of the Soryu class with that modification will be in the water by 2020 and 2021.

Secondly, the Japan Times article talks of a 'stretch' in the Soryu hull for Australia of 6 to 8 metres, obviously more Li-ion battery space and presumably more fuel too.

And lastly the Pacific 2015 article gives a little further insight to what Japan is offering Australia with a 'cut away' of what this all might look like.

One would reasonably assume that Japan is a fair way along with the updated design of the basic Soryu to take Li-ion batteries for the 11th and 12th units to commission in that 2020-21 period.

Obviously again, the next step is to work in that '6 to 8 metre' stretch and of course all the other 'Australian' specific mods, including the combat system.

2030 doesn't seem that far away really does it??

 

[Redlands18]

My 2 cents.. I think traditional AIP is on the way out as lithium ion AIP is on the way in, in a big way. Lithium offers heaps of potential benefits. It can adjust its output very easily, be recharged (and can be recharged quickly), huge discharge surge capability, holds its energy for long periods compared to traditional AIP, low maintenance, no moving parts. All very obvious stuff. But will rewrite snorting and impact on effective ConOps.

The Japanese already have a pretty extensive history with AIP and would have considered all available AIP systems (they would have licenced anything they wanted, they are obviously very familiar with fuel cells/reformers, toyota manufactures fuel cell powered cars with 120kw FC stacks). They are going with lithium and binning the previous AIP setup.I think that speaks pretty large amount. If the Japanese engineer to take advantage of the benefits of Lithium it could be a real game changer, they intend to use more than an after thought.

I think its something we should look at. But it would seem silly to force the Japanese to include it when they have deleted it from their own subs (which had AIP) and then when with a newer technology. I don't know but this sounds like German and French suggestions. If you had to force Japan, they would put forward the stirling engines, which we all know are inferior to German fuel cells, so the logical outcome is a big red cross for the Japanese, even if they have an overall superior solution.

The Japanese are a generation ahead in Li-on in subs (IMO).Kokuryū is in the water now. You have nearly a year of operational data from a real submarine in the water now. Thats first gen right there done and dusted in a 4000t sub operating in the SCS, not being talked about, or constructed or prototype or testing, but being replaced or improved on the design!.

IMO this is exactly where having operated subs of this size and this type of mission profile I would be looking very hard at the Japanese. By looking I mean not blinking.

As mentioned, in high demand applications lithium can be 3 times more effective than lead acid other times <1.2. So to get the most you want lithium where it can do the most good and for systems to be designed to take advantage of that, not just wedged into an existing setup to say its there. Its not just about energy density, its more complicated than that. (but energy density is certainly a German AIP strength, they aren't lying, but if you were ignorant you could easily assume the Germans have the clear technological edge with out delving deeper). The Japanese of course, say, well they say nothing. Anything that is said, is a massive understatement or contains so little information most westerners might disregard it completely.

Which is also a reason I reckon to not rush the Japanese. Do it properly. Collins is a hell of a boat now, and with life left, we don't have to jump immediately.

It reads (IMO) that Peter has been swayed by Rex Patricks (well written) article and the Germans and the French, while the Japanese, as per normal, say absolutely nothing. It seems like a fair comment, consider AIP, and we probably should if purely from an academic point, maybe thats what hes saying. But I wouldn't tie it up with the selection of the boats. We care about the overall capability, not focused of the theoretical performance of one aspect which is quite possibly going to be made obsolete.

The reason the Japanese are saying nothing I would imagine is that many people seem to indicate what they have is mind blowing, and they don't want to talk publicly about anything they are doing in detail (or even broad brush strokes). On top of being a culture that isn't overtly talkative, and limited military sales experience, may seem like they have nothing to say which is not true.

The Germans are running a massive publicity program, playing the smart tight strategic game, pushing the numbers and their advantage in certain technologies, the French have already started making wild claims detached from reality with passion and flair, screw the cost and risk, 6 engines! Biggest! Nuclear secrets! Americas best friend, ever!. Both have sent political and media people to their yards overseas.

If nothing else this is giving the Japanese the first real taste of international military sales.

The Japanese proposal is more complicated than just replacing the AIP with lithium batteries. That is not what the Japanese are offering the RAN (but many expected them to, OTS, overseas build and all that). They are offering a bigger sub than what has AIP currently or than what Japan intends to operate themselves. That (IMO) is huge. Public domain doesn't reveal much more than that. They aren't offering just an OTS solution (but it is very low risk and based on a OTS solution). Japan is designing a unique and capable solution for Australia.

Which is the problem for the French and Germans. They really don't know what they are fighting against. But the Germans have quite a strong AIP fuel cell so no doubt they will hammer that to anyone who will listen, and no one will contest their AIP fuel cell capability.

Its reasons like this you need level heads in the PM and Defence positions that aren't going to make wild statements or interfere.

It's the biggest Naval export deal in history. The traditional exporters France And Germany are going to throw everything they have at this program to win it, not as sure about the Japanese but only because they are not so reliant on export orders.

 

[Volkodav]

good operator, a golden mile ahead of the prev

On the previous, considering his track record of running interference and being a stalking horse for Abbott I can't help but wonder at his level of involvement in the current carry on. Interesting that Johnstons come out of the woodwork, he was so totally blinkered and biased against ASC as well as being sickeningly parochial in favour of WA that many found Andrews to be a breath of fresh air. Frightening huh?

 

[gf0012-aust]

On the previous, considering his track record of running interference and being a stalking horse for Abbott I can't help but wonder at his level of involvement in the current carry on. Interesting that Johnstons come out of the woodwork, he was so totally blinkered and biased against ASC as well as being sickeningly parochial in favour of WA that many found Andrews to be a breath of fresh air. Frightening huh?

A few of my overseas colleagues were finding it imteresting that Austal were crowing about capability when the forensic evidence leaves a bit to be desired.....

when companies want to crow about their build capability they also need to be able to brag about the vessels availability and unscheduled maint data rates.

for a company that really was worth extolling, I think they've lost qualitative edge over the last 10 years.

and to top it off they had that idiot state treasurer boffing every other state so as to make cheap mileage.

absolute halfwit

 

[Todjaeger]

The Americans have gone way off course in naming their carriers, who is Carl Vinson and John C Stennis? Lets hope Australia doesn't go down that path. I do not want to see the HMAS Kevin Rudd commissioned, just because he released the original DWP that recommended 12 subs, thank you.

AND

Vinson & Stennis were segregationist southern politicians. They were both pretty nasty pieces of work, especially Stennis, who as a prosecutor fought hard for the death penalty for some black men whose convictions were entirely based on confessions which had been tortured out of them, there being no other real evidence - in full knowledge of how the confessions had been obtained.

The US navy should be ashamed of those names.

Not to take things too OT, as this is the RAN thread, but...

Keep in mind that in the US, there is a bit of a different interaction between politicians, gov't and the military than in other nations. This leads to the influence of certain political positions having more (or less...) influence than others with respect to defence matters.

Rep. Vinson for instance had served in the US House of Representatives for a considerable period (1914 - 1965) and in that time served on various House committees, among them the Naval Affairs Committee, and the Armed Services Committee. In the period just after the start of the Great Depression (1929-1932 ish) the US gov't had basically stopped placing orders for new naval vessels to replace major units. Not unlike the 'Valley of Death' which current Australian Naval shipbuilding has encountered with recent gov'ts not placing orders for new vessels, despite it being known that ships were going to come up for replacement. From ~1934-1940 Rep. Vinson sponsored or co-sponsored bills to rebuild the USN, adding new vessels and/or replacing obsolete ones. This in turn left the USN in a better position that it would likely have been once WWII started and the US became involved.

Sen. Stennis was also a long-serving member of Congress, sitting in the Senate from 1947-1989 and 12 years of that time he was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is one of the most influential posts especially with respect to military and defence matters.

Now I freely admit, I do not particularly like the notion of the US naming vessels after politicians (including US presidents) but that has become current practice. There has been a suggestion on the notion that vessels named after people should only be done after the person is deceased and preferably for a 30 year period. Having said that, while I do not like Bush the Younger having a carrier named after his living ex-president father Bush the Elder, as least Bush the Elder in addition to being a former Commander-in-Chief, was a WWII USN veteran and naval aviator who had been shot down in the Pacific.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It's the biggest Naval export deal in history. The traditional exporters France And Germany are going to throw everything they have at this program to win it, not as sure about the Japanese but only because they are not so reliant on export orders.

There is more at stake for the Japanese than anything or anyone else. It directly affects their security and prosperity. If Australia's sub program is a walking disaster, it more likely to impact Japan more than any nation other than Australia.

In terms of countries worried about China, Japan probably has the greatest concerns. Of all the countries China worries about Japan is right up there. China over took Japans economy in 2010. In terms of Navy and airpower, lets just say they are credible forces. Japan is now the 2nd biggest economy in the region. There is territory directly disputed between the two countries. They are both geographically very close. Both have tensions previously and currently through the region. There is a deep and complex dislike in historical terms that other nations don't really have to deal with. There isn't a whole lot of shared mutual benefit going on between the two (other than trade).

France and Germany would like the deal, but they aren't facing an existential threat from a shared concern. I'm sure many have concerns who France would actually back in such a situation and how helpful they would be.

 

[Redlands18]

There is more at stake for the Japanese than anything or anyone else. It directly affects their security and prosperity. If Australia's sub program is a walking disaster, it more likely to impact Japan more than any nation other than Australia.

In terms of countries worried about China, Japan probably has the greatest concerns. Of all the countries China worries about Japan is right up there. China over took Japans economy in 2010. In terms of Navy and airpower, lets just say they are credible forces. Japan is now the 2nd biggest economy in the region. There is territory directly disputed between the two countries. They are both geographically very close. Both have tensions previously and currently through the region. There is a deep and complex dislike in historical terms that other nations don't really have to deal with. There isn't a whole lot of shared mutual benefit going on between the two (other than trade).

France and Germany would like the deal, but they aren't facing an existential threat from a shared concern. I'm sure many have concerns who France would actually back in such a situation and how helpful they would be.

Even at the time we brought the Collins class the thought of Australia buying Japanese military equipment would have many veterans and people who lived through WW2 screaming blue murder, especially in the RSL. It would have made a SSK purchase impossible. I remember plenty of older generations from my youth who would never have brought a Japanese car.

Thanks Stingray, i can imagine how much the Europeans would love to get their hands on this project from a pure business point of view but i wasn't so sure about the Japanese, you have cleared that up somewhat.

Japan and South Korea should make natural allies but the historic hatred makes that almost impossible.

 

[gf0012-aust]

There is more at stake for the Japanese than anything or anyone else. It directly affects their security and prosperity. If Australia's sub program is a walking disaster, it more likely to impact Japan more than any nation other than Australia.

In terms of countries worried about China, Japan probably has the greatest concerns. Of all the countries China worries about Japan is right up there. China over took Japans economy in 2010. In terms of Navy and airpower, lets just say they are credible forces. Japan is now the 2nd biggest economy in the region. There is territory directly disputed between the two countries. They are both geographically very close. Both have tensions previously and currently through the region. There is a deep and complex dislike in historical terms that other nations don't really have to deal with. There isn't a whole lot of shared mutual benefit going on between the two (other than trade).

plus a gazillion

france and germany have no strategic investment in the region

for them this is just a box flogging exercise

unfortunately some of the local politicians forget this as well - especially when all they worry about is state investment

 

[Stampede]

There is more at stake for the Japanese than anything or anyone else. It directly affects their security and prosperity. If Australia's sub program is a walking disaster, it more likely to impact Japan more than any nation other than Australia.

France and Germany would like the deal, but they aren't facing an existential threat from a shared concern. I'm sure many have concerns who France would actually back in such a situation and how helpful they would be.

Yes

This is a very interesting and complex part of the world.

S

 

[hauritz]

Just a quick bit of math.

If the Collins subs serve for 30 years they will withdraw from service between 2026 to 2032. If they can extend to 35 years they will go from 2031 to 2037.

If the new subs don't enter service until 2032 and are delivered at a rate of one every two years then the fleet could drop to a single boat (if the Collins' are withdrawn after 30 years)... or maybe as many as 3 or 4 if the Collins' can soldier on until the late 2030s.

If you are to believe the DWP then this could be a serious capability gap at a time when more than half the world's submarines will be operating in this region.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If you are to believe the DWP then this could be a serious capability gap at a time when more than half the world's submarines will be operating in this region.

The shift to the PACRIM has occurred on the last 5 years - over half the worlds subs are already in the region

Successive govts have phuqued up sub acquisition in preference to base party politics

If they'd listened to everyone one in 2007 and stopped screwing the RAN over cheap poltical point scoring we wouldn't be in this pickle

and the subs can go out to those dates as they are low hours

when govts put ships into maint and kill training to save costs it has the effect of lowering sea time. thats the one saving grace thats happened

 

[rockitten]

The shift to the PACRIM has occurred on the last 5 years - over half the worlds subs are already in the region

Successive govts have phuqued up sub acquisition in preference to base party politics

If they'd listened to everyone one in 2007 and stopped screwing the RAN over cheap poltical point scoring we wouldn't be in this pickle

and the subs can go out to those dates as they are low hours

when govts put ships into maint and kill training to save costs it has the effect of lowering sea time. thats the one saving grace thats happened

I just wish the Collins can soldier on for delay(s) in the replacement submarine's construction. It may or may not happens, but some buffer for project set-backs is always welcomed.

If my memory serves me correctly, during the RGR regime, there was mentions about buying a few MOTS European SSK as stop gap. So put the political impossibility aside, in stead of Collins life extension, will it be worth for every buck if our navy lend least a few Viginia class as stop gap? Or, it is still cheaper to use the Collins life extension as a worm-up for the crews in ASC?

 

[vonnoobie]

I just wish the Collins can soldier on for delay(s) in the replacement submarine's construction. It may or may not happens, but some buffer for project set-backs is always welcomed.

If my memory serves me correctly, during the RGR regime, there was mentions about buying a few MOTS European SSK as stop gap. So put the political impossibility aside, in stead of Collins life extension, will it be worth for every buck if our navy lend least a few Viginia class as stop gap? Or, it is still cheaper to use the Collins life extension as a worm-up for the crews in ASC?

There is a big difference between getting a hand full of SSK's and getting some SSN's. There may have been a mention of SSK's and the reason for that us because Australia has zero need for SSN's, Even getting them temporarily would not be in our interest as they require much larger crews trained very differently.

For SSN's we would need different crew training with more bodies over all, a different support network to sustain the boats, and an ally that has them to spare, Seeing as you specifically mentioned the Virginia class well quite simply the US cant spare them, They are retiring the LA class faster then they can build the Virginia's and that they plan to build them near continuously through to the 2040's.

If Australia is to acquire some form of stop gap measure then chances are they will give first glance towards which ever nation has won the contract Japan, We dont know who it could be Japan but time will tell, Wont it Japan . If such a requirement is found then using boats from that nation could allow our crews to get better acquainted with the tech and operations while allowing our shipyard workers to get a bit more first hand experience with them outside of the parent country.

 

[hairyman]

I would like to return to the gun calibre for OPV briefly. I note it has been all either 25mm or 57mm or 75mm. I note our new armoured vehicles for the Army are considering turrets with 30mm or 35mm weapons. If this is the case, why should'nt the Navy upgrade their weaponry too?

 

[Volkodav]

There is a big difference between getting a hand full of SSK's and getting some SSN's. There may have been a mention of SSK's and the reason for that us because Australia has zero need for SSN's, Even getting them temporarily would not be in our interest as they require much larger crews trained very differently.

For SSN's we would need different crew training with more bodies over all, a different support network to sustain the boats, and an ally that has them to spare, Seeing as you specifically mentioned the Virginia class well quite simply the US cant spare them, They are retiring the LA class faster then they can build the Virginia's and that they plan to build them near continuously through to the 2040's.

If Australia is to acquire some form of stop gap measure then chances are they will give first glance towards which ever nation has won the contract Japan, We dont know who it could be Japan but time will tell, Wont it Japan . If such a requirement is found then using boats from that nation could allow our crews to get better acquainted with the tech and operations while allowing our shipyard workers to get a bit more first hand experience with them outside of the parent country.

It was determined back in 2012/13 that the Collins class is structurally sound and perfectly capable of being extended through another FCD or full cycle, which is eight years (up from six) . Each boat was designed to receive a Full Cycle Docking every six years, four over thirty years, that interval was increased to eight years a while back so each boat has effectively already gained a cumulative six years each without the proposed additional FCD being scheduled. What we are actually looking at is Collins potentially serving anywhere up to 2032 or even potentially 2040.
This is not that exceptional when you look at the ages of many foreign fleets and aided in no small part by the fact that the class is being maintained by the yard that built them. The fact that ASC are now the design authority and they have finally been allowed to cut the hulls for better access and greater efficiency during FCD has made not only keeping them going but also keeping them at the top of their game much easier.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would like to return to the gun calibre for OPV briefly. I note it has been all either 25mm or 57mm or 75mm. I note our new armoured vehicles for the Army are considering turrets with 30mm or 35mm weapons. If this is the case, why should'nt the Navy upgrade their weaponry too?

Part of the decision should revolve around uses for the gun, part around the capabilities of the gun, and part around the round(s). Me being me, I would scrap the 25 mm gun as any sort of 'main gun' given their very limited uses against close ranged surface targets or very (very...) slow aerial targets.

If the desire is for a non-penetrating deck gun, especially if can be operated with a pool of guns, then I would select a 35 mm Millenium Gun which can be used as a CIWS vs. surface and aerial targets.

If larger, deck-penetrating options are available, then I would go with a 76mm/62 cal. gun since they can perform a fairly wide range of roles using different available rounds. I would skip right over the 57 mm mounting since it is too large for some things, but not large enough for others.

 

[ADMk2]

I would like to return to the gun calibre for OPV briefly. I note it has been all either 25mm or 57mm or 75mm. I note our new armoured vehicles for the Army are considering turrets with 30mm or 35mm weapons. If this is the case, why should'nt the Navy upgrade their weaponry too?

As that 35mm gun is a Bushmaster III gat, developed from the 25mm Bushmaster, I'd say there is a fair likelyhood it could be integrated on existing mounts, along with appropriate ammunition feed upgrades. So if we invest in local production of 35mm ammunition as we did 25mm back in the day, I'd say it's a likely proposition...

In saying that, I'd personally like these OPV's to be capable of a bit more stringent 'combat operations' than what we have with the Armidale Class and so I'd agree with the choice of a 76mm gun being added to them, along with an appropriate FCS and combat system.

IMHO these vessels should adopt the 'fitted for but not with' policy in relation to combat systems and in the event of a more serious strategic environment should have the capability to mount a reasonable air and torpedo self defence capability, along with the 76mm gun and perhaps a deck mounted ASM capability without major modification.

I can see no great funding issue with positioning these ships in a similar role to the USN's LCS class and with the USN's move to bring LCS up to a 'street fighter' type level of capability with a basic SAM, gun and ASM capability, along with the specific mission modules for the various roles they undertake, I think that is the model we should look at with these vessels.

Purely personal opinion - I like the OPV 2600 Sea Axe design from Damen...

 

[Todjaeger]

As that 35mm gun is a Bushmaster III gat, developed from the 25mm Bushmaster, I'd say there is a fair likelyhood it could be integrated on existing mounts, along with appropriate ammunition feed upgrades. So if we invest in local production of 35mm ammunition as we did 25mm back in the day, I'd say it's a likely proposition...

In saying that, I'd personally like these OPV's to be capable of a bit more stringent 'combat operations' than what we have with the Armidale Class and so I'd agree with the choice of a 76mm gun being added to them, along with an appropriate FCS and combat system.

IMHO these vessels should adopt the 'fitted for but not with' policy in relation to combat systems and in the event of a more serious strategic environment should have the capability to mount a reasonable air and torpedo self defence capability, along with the 76mm gun and perhaps a deck mounted ASM capability without major modification.

I can see no great funding issue with positioning these ships in a similar role to the USN's LCS class and with the USN's move to bring LCS up to a 'street fighter' type level of capability with a basic SAM, gun and ASM capability, along with the specific mission modules for the various roles they undertake, I think that is the model we should look at with these vessels.

Purely personal opinion - I like the OPV 2600 Sea Axe design from Damen...

Me being me, I would prefer the RAN avoid any variants of the Bushmaster guns for anything other than secondary or tertiary guns to defend vs. smallcraft. The combination of ROF, range, weight of shot, etc. are all much too limited IMO.

As for the notion of fitted for, but not with, it has potential IMO though there are risks that the costs to be effective could be too high, and/or the fitted systems to be too limited to be useful. I quite like the notion there being options of limited self-defence vs. aerial and sub-surface threats. I could some utility in a RAN OPV-type vessel being able to have modules added quickly so that the vessel could act as an escort/screen for a support vessel in areas of low threat, and/or act as an ASW platform.

With that in mind, I could see the 'high' end of the fit out looking like this:

helipad and hangar, complete with magazine to support an armed naval helicopter (missing in the RNZN OPV's)

76 mm/62 cal. main gun either permanently fitted, or modular like the Stanflex gun mounting

1-4 35 mm Millenium Gun mountings for CIWS

LWT launcher(s) and/or towed sonar array

space for MCM gear and operations

Some sort of SAM system, with a preference either for ESSM like from Mk 56 VLS, or a SeaCeptor box launcher array.

All of these features might not be onboard, depending on situation and operational requirements, but having them available could provide a vessel with flexibility to operate somewhat outside the umbrella of friendly warships.

 

[hauritz]

Me being me, I would prefer the RAN avoid any variants of the Bushmaster guns for anything other than secondary or tertiary guns to defend vs. smallcraft. The combination of ROF, range, weight of shot, etc. are all much too limited IMO.

As for the notion of fitted for, but not with, it has potential IMO though there are risks that the costs to be effective could be too high, and/or the fitted systems to be too limited to be useful. I quite like the notion there being options of limited self-defence vs. aerial and sub-surface threats. I could some utility in a RAN OPV-type vessel being able to have modules added quickly so that the vessel could act as an escort/screen for a support vessel in areas of low threat, and/or act as an ASW platform.

With that in mind, I could see the 'high' end of the fit out looking like this:

helipad and hangar, complete with magazine to support an armed naval helicopter (missing in the RNZN OPV's)

76 mm/62 cal. main gun either permanently fitted, or modular like the Stanflex gun mounting

1-4 35 mm Millenium Gun mountings for CIWS

LWT launcher(s) and/or towed sonar array

space for MCM gear and operations

Some sort of SAM system, with a preference either for ESSM like from Mk 56 VLS, or a SeaCeptor box launcher array.

All of these features might not be onboard, depending on situation and operational requirements, but having them available could provide a vessel with flexibility to operate somewhat outside the umbrella of friendly warships.

The OPV could be the perfect ship to conduct anti-piracy, counter-terrorism and anti-smuggling tasks in far off parts of the globe. They would certainly be cheaper than sending a frigate or destroyer. Given that they may find themselves operating off the coasts of some fairly unfriendly countries I think you could be justified in giving this ship at least a basic CIWS and a reasonable main gun.

It could be worth looking at the British experience with the River Class OPV which has been criticised for lacking a medium caliber gun and hanger.

 

[ADMk2]

Me being me, I would prefer the RAN avoid any variants of the Bushmaster guns for anything other than secondary or tertiary guns to defend vs. smallcraft. The combination of ROF, range, weight of shot, etc. are all much too limited IMO.

As for the notion of fitted for, but not with, it has potential IMO though there are risks that the costs to be effective could be too high, and/or the fitted systems to be too limited to be useful. I quite like the notion there being options of limited self-defence vs. aerial and sub-surface threats. I could some utility in a RAN OPV-type vessel being able to have modules added quickly so that the vessel could act as an escort/screen for a support vessel in areas of low threat, and/or act as an ASW platform.

With that in mind, I could see the 'high' end of the fit out looking like this:

helipad and hangar, complete with magazine to support an armed naval helicopter (missing in the RNZN OPV's)

76 mm/62 cal. main gun either permanently fitted, or modular like the Stanflex gun mounting

1-4 35 mm Millenium Gun mountings for CIWS

LWT launcher(s) and/or towed sonar array

space for MCM gear and operations

Some sort of SAM system, with a preference either for ESSM like from Mk 56 VLS, or a SeaCeptor box launcher array.

All of these features might not be onboard, depending on situation and operational requirements, but having them available could provide a vessel with flexibility to operate somewhat outside the umbrella of friendly warships.

Problem with ESSM is you need the radar and the fire control directors and what not. Sea Ceptor alleviates this somewhat, but you still need a fairly expensive VLS system. They aren't bolt on or bolt off type systems nor are they particularly cheap.

I was thinking more along the lines of RAM Block II launcher or similar. Cost is the issue here. I think every major Australian warship should have a CIWS capability, but up to 4 Millenium guns is a bit over the top when even the AWD's will only be equipped with a single Phalanx Block 1B...

RAM isn't the be all and end all of defensive systems, but it is credible and for a ship of this class, probably all it really needs.

With a 76mm gun, a pair of 25-35mm light guns, a RAM launcher and a bolt on / off ASM system, along with MCM etc mission modules as needed, these ships would be very useful and actually earn their title of 'minor war vessels'.