John Newman
The Bunker Group
Which sort of goes back full circle to my earlier post, is this just a 'thought bubble' by the Poles?
Last edited by a moderator:
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Which sort of goes back full circle to my earlier post, is this just a 'thought bubble' by the Poles?
Have the OPVs been scaled back from combatants, or is the Navy simply continuing with their plan to replace patrol boats with bigger patrol boats (OPVs)? You won't find any Navy documents calling them combatants - all that is Internet speculation.
The poles tend not to have thought bubbles...
I suspect that the discussion started off as 2 tin cans with some string between them. someone said "cat" and the other person heard "mellifluous"Ah fair point, Guess the government calling them OCV's was a lesson in stupidity.
Actually tracked this down on navy.com.au, An article from 2010 discussing them from the Navy/DoD point of view and stating explicitly that while called combatants that they would be neither armed to the level of major surface combatants while also being unlikely to have the same level of protection as them.
Semaphore: May 2010 | Royal Australian Navy
It is 7 years old but probably the clearest official peice of info to clarify what the OCV's will be.
No need to sell an entire ship, The part's off of them would suite the Poles just as well if not better stored in a warehouse then sitting in a ship rusting away dockside. Parts left on a spares ship are exposed to the elements, those left in a warehouse less so thus cheaper to look after and longer life span in them.
Still get our dive wrecks.
But that is just a hypothetical atm.
The Phillippines straight out would not be able to maintain them. At the moment they have there hands full with the 3 hamilton class cutters they got from the US and while they call them Frigates there armament is no greater then a cutter and what upgrades they have recieved have required US support because they couldn't do it.
In my view and I could be wrong but if they cant handle installing M242 Bushmaster chain guns (they actually had the USCG come and do it for them) then I dont see how they could handle fielding and maintaining an actual combatant with advanced communications, radar, weapons etc
All that excludes the politics in the Phillippines atm, There President is a man no one wants to be standing next to selling warships too, Less so when he has been cozing up to China and our military has concernes about China.
In our region of the world Malaysia maybe, Pakistan if stripped down to bare ships but beyond that there is no one else that we are close enough to or would actually want them. Poland is a logical choice.
The poles seems to have hoped that the RAN ships would save them from spending money upgrading the FFG's (well one of them) they currently have until they can get some new frigates built.
I don't know why they would go for that when the Bremen frigates would be coming available. Which would not be a bad fit and obviously German support would make a lot of sense and similar ships were sold to Greece and UAE.
I would rather see the FFG/Anzacs go to Malaysia or Indonesia (or NZ).
I don't know why they would go for that when the Bremen frigates would be coming available. Which would not be a bad fit and obviously German support would make a lot of sense and similar ships were sold to Greece and UAE.
I would rather see the FFG/Anzacs go to Malaysia or Indonesia (or NZ).
Ok a bit of background information is required here, patrol boats, even the Armidales, are combatants. They are "minor" warfare vessels, i.e. while frigates and destroyers are "majors".
All the OPV designs the RAN are looking at have combat systems and a larger gun than 25mm is required. These ships will be for all intents and purposes, as capable as the originally proposed OCVs because the OCV concept was nothing more than a sexed up OPV with the save (or less) capability than OPVs being acquired by other navies around the world.
Back on the gun, the larger calibre will most likely be a 35 or 40mm and most likely turreted, but a RWS is still a possibility, as is a 57mm though probably the least likely option. Like I said, they will be combatants, not because this is a new requirement, but because that's what the RANs PBs have always been, the OPVs will just be bigger, more durable, longer ranged and more flexible, i.e. better able to do the job the CoA has tasked them.
All the OPV designs the RAN are looking at have combat systems and a larger gun than 25mm is required. These ships will be for all intents and purposes, as capable as the originally proposed OCVs because the OCV concept was nothing more than a sexed up OPV with the save (or less) capability than OPVs being acquired by other navies around the world.
Back on the gun, the larger calibre will most likely be a 35 or 40mm and most likely turreted, but a RWS is still a possibility, as is a 57mm though probably the least likely option. Like I said, they will be combatants, not because this is a new requirement, but because that's what the RANs PBs have always been, the OPVs will just be bigger, more durable, longer ranged and more flexible, i.e. better able to do the job the CoA has tasked them.
The role of the minor combatant may well become even more important over the next 20 years.
Australia regularly sends its Anzac frigates on piracy patrol off countries such as Somalia. If sending an Anzac frigate on patrol in that region is overkill then sending a 7000 ton Destroyer or frigate would be totally ridiculous.
Closer to home ... if tensions continue to ramp up in this region even OPVs would need adequate air defence and perhaps anti-sub capability when they patrol Australia's northern approaches.
Australia regularly sends its Anzac frigates on piracy patrol off countries such as Somalia. If sending an Anzac frigate on patrol in that region is overkill then sending a 7000 ton Destroyer or frigate would be totally ridiculous.
Closer to home ... if tensions continue to ramp up in this region even OPVs would need adequate air defence and perhaps anti-sub capability when they patrol Australia's northern approaches.
t68
Well-Known Member
I believe once China established a fully functioning airbase in the reclaimed islands in the SCS dynamics will change significantly, RAAF may be forced into increasing our longer ranged enablers such as KC30A, E7A, P8. Posabile forward operating bases in Asia will be at much more risk. I also wonder if could affect force planning for the future submarine (increase more than 12)
Personally I would like to see them stripped of their gear and disposed of. Alternative to that put 05 and 06 in storage for a bit and then have them either stripped of their gear and disposed of, or on sold, when all DDG's are in service.
According to Australian Defence Magazine the SEA 5000 RFT has been released:
RFT out for Future Frigates
I saw no reference to Crew size in the link? Or have I missed something?
Sorry Asail - I have not worked out how to originate new post (not sure I have that privilege yet) so went back to last SEA 5000 post to continue the thread of this program. The full Hazdog post I used to reply was about the SEA competitions so my response continued it general theme.
You can start new post no probs. Just click on the REPLY button to the left of the page numbers above the Quick Reply box at the bottom of the page.
The release of the RFT explains why the three contenders have been so active recently. BAE finally seems to be getting into the act of selling its Type 26 design.
Royal Navy talks up Type 26 Frigate
The type 26 just sounds so much better than the other contenders ... on paper.
It promises to be the best ASW platform, carries an impressive missile loadout, lowest crew requirements, best helicopter facilities, greater mission flexibility and much more ... on paper.
Being a paper ship will be its biggest problem of course ... but I still see it as being considerably less risky than Australia's submarine program.
Royal Navy talks up Type 26 Frigate
The type 26 just sounds so much better than the other contenders ... on paper.
It promises to be the best ASW platform, carries an impressive missile loadout, lowest crew requirements, best helicopter facilities, greater mission flexibility and much more ... on paper.
Being a paper ship will be its biggest problem of course ... but I still see it as being considerably less risky than Australia's submarine program.
I like a lot about the T26 but .... sorry ....... impressive missile Load out, on what model? ..... We don't even know for sure how many cells it will carry! Until we have the bid it is all speculation. Same goes for FREMM. The F105 derivative is the only one to go firm on the minimum proposed cells
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Some hear think the Type 26 is the RCN's preferred choice for the CSC program. The RAN frigate replacement is estimated at $35 billion wherea the CSC was $26 billion ( for 15 ships!). As our two currencies are roughly equal this is a good example of just how screwed up our procurement process is, they have no idea on cost. The same thing is why our JSS project morphed into 2 Berlin class AORs. Australia, regardless of which design is selected, will be far closer to the mark than Canada ever will be.
Baseline GCS has three 8 cell Mk41 VLS forward of the bridge adjacent to CAMS launcher. For RAN configuration the CAMS would be swapped out for additional MK41 cells. So at least 24 ESSM up to much more, depending on RAN requirements. The Lauchers are strike length too, so take all compatible missiles including, if required, future land attack and BMD weapons. Mk41 is FMS/GFE so there needs to be alignment between design and what the configuration ends up being.
- Status