Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[weegee]

Excuse my ignorance guys but what i understand about the SEA1800 or OPV program is something similar to what our cousins across the ditch have in their large Protector class? If so why could we not emulate a design like that considering it is an existing design that could be modified to allow for the modular systems we want (maybe?), just under 2000Kg has a hanger and spot for a chopper sounds like what everyone seems to be asking for.

Secondly why does it seem (in this case anyway and HMNZS Canterbury) that our cousins have had the for thought to get something like this before us? They have a tiny defence budget compared to Australia (no offence intended) yet they seem to get the type of equipment we want before us? Just curious.

 

[ASSAIL]

Exercise Kakadu 12

scusi for butting in and not replying to you weegee but that would take lots of time and effort!
However, one of the more interesting ships currently alongside in Darwin for the uncoming exercise is the Royal Brunei Navy OPV Darulaman. I watched her berth a couple of night ago and could'nt help marvel at the simplicity and wish what could have been if we were targetting a low end OPV when the ACPB's were being considered.
Most of you are aware of the convoluted construction history as Brunei changed horses and capability mid stream but these, built by Lurssen Werft, have a huge flight deck (no hanger) and a very nice Bofors 57mm and look very much the type of ship that could be operated effectively by smaller countries
Pacific Sentinel: Brunei: KDB Darulaman sail off to participate (in) Kakadu 2012 in Darwin, Australia

 

[Todjaeger]

Excuse my ignorance guys but what i understand about the SEA1800 or OPV program is something similar to what our cousins across the ditch have in their large Protector class? If so why could we not emulate a design like that considering it is an existing design that could be modified to allow for the modular systems we want (maybe?), just under 2000Kg has a hanger and spot for a chopper sounds like what everyone seems to be asking for.

Secondly why does it seem (in this case anyway and HMNZS Canterbury) that our cousins have had the for thought to get something like this before us? They have a tiny defence budget compared to Australia (no offence intended) yet they seem to get the type of equipment we want before us? Just curious.

Not quite like that, IMO at least.

There are a number of OPV-type vessels in service with a number of different nations. AFAIK, the original plan for the Fremantle-class patrol boat replacement was supposed to be a joint OPV programme with Malaysia which was supposed start at some point in the 1990's, to enable to FCPB's to be replaced circa 1998. Unfortunately Malaysia dropped out of the joint project, when then scuttled the RAN's expected replacement. This forced the Fremantle-class to be kept in service, and the resulting costs and service issues then led to a new patrol boat programme to be hurried through, with the resulting Armidale-class patrol boats. Had things gone according to what/how the RAN wanted them to, a number of OPV's would already have been in RAN service for about 15-20 years now.

The other potential problem is that the RNZN Protector-class OPV's, while decent as an ocean-going patrol vessel, they are really in no shape to operate in threatened maritime environments. According to the DWP, the RAN wants OCV's, or ocean-going combat vessels. Not necessarily something as combat capable and oriented as a frigate or heavily armed corvette, but likely something with more capability than just engaging unarmed vessels and/or small arms equipped FAC.

So far it has been supposition on the part of many, but it would seem that having either a common hullform to support several different types of vessels (oceanographic/survey, MCM, patrol/littoral warfare...) or having appropriate modules to support such ops would seem to be the desired goal. While many would like to see the RNZN have that, it does not seem like, at least any time soon.

As for the Canterbury... One must remember that was an initial acquisition to provide the NZDF with an introductory amphibious capability, and it was apparently also function as a "patrol vessel". The closest counterparts to Canterbury in RAN service would be either HMAS Choules, Too-broken, or now the upcoming Canberra-class LHD's. The principal difference between the vessels at this point is that Canterbury is in RNZN service at this point, while the RAN vessels are being worked on either due to age, or the fact that there was a major equipment failure prior to the supply chain being established.

-Cheers

 

[justsomeaussie]

Would any experts care to comment on the following:

Are we flogging the ACPB's simply patrolling empty ocean? Or are they working their propshafts off dashing from pickup to pickup? What if a solution isn't more boats on the water with a limited surveillance capability - but more and or more capable aviation assets (thinking BAMS etc) so the patrol boats weren't out there criss crossing empty ocean, but evenly spaced cruising at conservative speeds (thereby saving wear and tear etc) in certain patrol orbits ready to respond - a Combat Sea Patrol (instead of CAP over a carrier) if you will.

A little similar to the infantry analogy, you cannot beat boots on the ground, so I acknowledge you will always need manned boats at sea, BUT can we not increase the effectiveness of the fleet by utilising more avaition assets (aerostats, UAV's Manned surveillance assets etc)?

Just a lateral thiought.

The problem is the size that needs to be covered is immense. We are talking about 11 million nautical miles of EEZ. ttp://www.ga.gov.au/image_cache/GA3746.pdf

That’s incredibly hard for anyone to patrol.

There are multiple intelligence sources pushing the patrol vessels to targets. However, the targets are typically, small and wooden making them very hard to detect. So while it’s easy to say just use UAV’s to cover the area, the cost of having things flying for extended periods is great and operational need to do it (at the moment) is low.

So that the moment we are looking at a combination of solutions. P3 and intelligence feeds providing queuing to the patrol boats doing that actual interdiction work before things get close. The radar horizon on the patrol boats means that they have a tiny surveillance area.

It’s a quite complicated problem. If we’ve learnt anything from Afghanistan from UAV’s its that while they are a huge combat multiplier, you can’t beat boots on the ground. You are always going to have to interdict at some point. So it’s about combining the two tools in the best way possible.

 

[weegee]

Not quite like that, IMO at least.

There are a number of OPV-type vessels in service with a number of different nations. AFAIK, the original plan for the Fremantle-class patrol boat replacement was supposed to be a joint OPV programme with Malaysia which was supposed start at some point in the 1990's, to enable to FCPB's to be replaced circa 1998. Unfortunately Malaysia dropped out of the joint project, when then scuttled the RAN's expected replacement. This forced the Fremantle-class to be kept in service, and the resulting costs and service issues then led to a new patrol boat programme to be hurried through, with the resulting Armidale-class patrol boats. Had things gone according to what/how the RAN wanted them to, a number of OPV's would already have been in RAN service for about 15-20 years now.

The other potential problem is that the RNZN Protector-class OPV's, while decent as an ocean-going patrol vessel, they are really in no shape to operate in threatened maritime environments. According to the DWP, the RAN wants OCV's, or ocean-going combat vessels. Not necessarily something as combat capable and oriented as a frigate or heavily armed corvette, but likely something with more capability than just engaging unarmed vessels and/or small arms equipped FAC.

So far it has been supposition on the part of many, but it would seem that having either a common hullform to support several different types of vessels (oceanographic/survey, MCM, patrol/littoral warfare...) or having appropriate modules to support such ops would seem to be the desired goal. While many would like to see the RNZN have that, it does not seem like, at least any time soon.

As for the Canterbury... One must remember that was an initial acquisition to provide the NZDF with an introductory amphibious capability, and it was apparently also function as a "patrol vessel". The closest counterparts to Canterbury in RAN service would be either HMAS Choules, Too-broken, or now the upcoming Canberra-class LHD's. The principal difference between the vessels at this point is that Canterbury is in RNZN service at this point, while the RAN vessels are being worked on either due to age, or the fact that there was a major equipment failure prior to the supply chain being established.

-Cheers

Thanks Todj that all makes a lot of sense when presented like that I didn't realise the limitations of the Protector class. So when we were looking at doing this before with Malaysia those designs/ideas would be now obsolete? due to the equipment requirements obviously technology has changed allot since then.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks Todj that all makes a lot of sense when presented like that I didn't realise the limitations of the Protector class. So when we were looking at doing this before with Malaysia those designs/ideas would be now obsolete? due to the equipment requirements obviously technology has changed allot since then.

No problem. It is not so much that the Protector-class has problems, for a OPV with an ice-strengthened hull it is fine. However, given the vessel layout, any options or attempts to expand the naval capabilities would be expensive, time consuming, and require significant work altering the layout of the vessel, quarters, passageways, etc.

The three changes which would IMO be required to make the Protector-class more capable and survivable in threatened environs would be as follows:

1. Upgrade the main cannon to something more than a 25 mm Bushmaster
2. Add one or more 20+ mm cannon to aft arcs of vessel
3. Magazine for helicopter weaponry in hangar

All of these would require some fairly significant time in dock to rework the vessel layout.

As for what the RAN was planning for the OPV and whether that would be obsolete or not... I do not know, since I am uncertain just how far along the programme had gotten. If things had gotten far enough along for the RAN to start looking at designs which would have been available at the time, then perhaps. OTOH though, if the programme had commenced as expected, then the first OPV of the programme to enter RAN service would likely have been commissioned some time in the early to mid-1990's. Assuming the vessels were designed with a roughly thirty year service life, then the RAN would be looking to begin replacement of the OPV's with something starting in the early to mid-2020's. Right around the time that people are now expecting the OCV's to start entering service...

-Cheers

 

[StevoJH]

For people wondering about the 1990's Transfield OPV/Corvette, I found this just before:
Page 10: http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-Navy-Vol_58_Part2-1996.pdf

Better scan here: RAN Transfield OPV in The Commonwealth Navies Forum

 

[weegee]

For people wondering about the 1990's Transfield OPV/Corvette, I found this just before:
Page 10: http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-Navy-Vol_58_Part2-1996.pdf

Better scan here: RAN Transfield OPV in The Commonwealth Navies Forum

OOO I like that!!!! it above everything just looks plain cool!!!! haha

 

[Abraham Gubler]

OOO I like that!!!! it above everything just looks plain cool!!!! haha

Well you can thank John Howard for there not being a bunch of these sailing around in RAN green-gray at the moment. Of course it was Paul Keating’s fault the Malaysians didn’t buy them but that in no way meant the RAN didn’t want them. It was Howard’s government that slashed the budget for the Fremantle replacement.

However they would not have been built with ESSM and Harpoon as fitted. These were just potential weapons for the international market. They like the Anzacs weren't supposed to carry Harpoons as the anti-ship capability would be provided by the Seasprite helicopter with Penguin. ESSM and combat system would be an upgrade option for a high intensity war in the same way the Fremantles were meant to be upgraded with a 76mm gun in place of the 40mm Bofors.

But with 6,000 NM in 20 days of range, 100 bunks, frigate standards of survivability and stability, D36 steel hull and a flight deck for up to Sea King and a hangar for up to Seasprite not to mention a 57mm or 76mm gun they would be far superior to the Armidales. An additional 16 Seasprites were on option to provide helos for these ships. If they had gone ahead it might have provided the political impetus to weather the Seasprite introduction delays. If so the RAN could have 8-10 out of 12 corvettes and two squadrons of 12 Seasprites each in service today with 2-4 more corvettes in final stages of construction.

 

[recce.k1]

Re: the Transfield/Tenix OPV, some 10 years ago now when the NZG at that time announced the RNZN would be getting OPV's and Tenix won the contract I had wondered whether the Tenix 80m OPV would be chosen (hard to know back then because the NZG didn't release much, if any detail publically, hence trawling thru the Tenix site to see what was on offer. In the end the first publically released pics in about 2004 of the Tenix OPV design for the RNZN was a view from the stern, which seemed very similar to the 80m design, but it turned out that Tenix offered a different design in the end).

Anyway I digress, if one trawls the wayback machine site here's the Tenix 80m OPV:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041218050018/http://www.tenix.com.au/PDFLibrary/41.pdf

80m Offshore Patrol Vessel

What interested me about the design was what it could pack in, and looking at the placement of the 6x 12.7mm/25mm secondary guns I would have thought it would have been an ideal setup for today's contemporary anti-piracy/anti-FIAC patrolling work. Be interested to hear what the defpros think etc.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Re: the Transfield/Tenix OPV, some 10 years ago now when the NZG at that time announced the RNZN would be getting OPV's and Tenix won the contract I had wondered whether the Tenix 80m OPV would be chosen (hard to know back then because the NZG didn't release much, if any detail publically, hence trawling thru the Tenix site to see what was on offer. In the end the first publically released pics in about 2004 of the Tenix OPV design for the RNZN was a view from the stern, which seemed very similar to the 80m design, but it turned out that Tenix offered a different design in the end).

The Transfield OPV was designed with a lot of guidance from the RAN and customised for “up top” that is operating in the north of Australia and amongst the South East Asian archipelago. The Kiwis wanted a corvette that could go down into the Southern Ocean and Antarctic regions. So then Tenix acquired the design rights from the Norwegians (from memory) for a corvette they had built for the Irish. So it has better seakeeping capability in heavy seas and an ice strengthened bow. But it wouldn’t be as good as the Australian design for operating in tropical waters.

 

[justsomeaussie]

The Navy isn't going down this road at all. They are simply looking at patrol boat plus, definitely nothing launching missiles. Simply 20, 2000 ton vessels with a gun, some surveillance systems the ability to conduct mine hunting one some of the vessels and a platform for launching and retrieving UAVs. Anything more is purely a pipe dream, the cost would be astronomical.

The operational need to perform interdiction and security operations in our oil and gas regions. We aren’t going to be sending these things up against any other navies.

Only pirates arrrgh..

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Navy isn't going down this road at all. They are simply looking at patrol boat plus, definitely nothing launching missiles. Simply 20, 2000 ton vessels with a gun, some surveillance systems the ability to conduct mine hunting one some of the vessels and a platform for launching and retrieving UAVs. Anything more is purely a pipe dream, the cost would be astronomical.

There were no plans to build the OPC for the RAN with missile launchers, ASW torpedos, HMS, TIR, CMS, etc. They are shown drawn in on these pictures because they were export options and most of the potential customers for these ships were Asian and Middle Eastern navies who would want such weapon fit outs. At best for the RAN they were potential refit options if Indonesia decided they wanted Darwin as their 28th province. If the OPC had been built for the RAN they would be lucky to have anything more than a 25mm Typhoon gun.

What interested me about the design was what it could pack in, and looking at the placement of the 6x 12.7mm/25mm secondary guns I would have thought it would have been an ideal setup for today's contemporary anti-piracy/anti-FIAC patrolling work. Be interested to hear what the defpros think etc.

It is just an artist’s rendering. The picture shows the OPC with ASW torpedo tubes and the Anzac class weren’t even going to get those (until they were recycled from the DEs and DDGs). As to the positioning of the ‘secondary’ guns they are reliant on other weapons. For example there is a 35mm Millennium gun above the hangar so the aft pair of 12.7mm HMGs are moved forward to where the RHIB davits would normally be so they can be operated while the 35mm gun is firing. Any RAN OPC would probably just have a single 25mm Typhoon forward and a pair of 12.7mm HMGs at the bridge and another pair above the hangar. Maybe a medium calibre gun (57mm or 76mm) would be located forward or a second Typhoon gun but it’s unlikely. The real firepower of such a ship would be held in the Seasprite helicopter it could carry and operate.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Abe what do you think about a 70m80m LCS Independence type design? Like here
http://www.austal.com/Resources/Deliveries/4a74c8d1-9ece-4ea8-8693-bcf8493e31cf/mrv-80-data-sheets-sml.pdf
By the time we get around to 1180 Austal should have made enough for it to be competitively priced. Just need to at some UUV capability and it looks

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abe what do you think about a 70m80m LCS Independence type design? Like here

By the time we get around to 1180 Austal should have made enough for it to be competitively priced. Just need to at some UUV capability and it looks

It’s clearly been designed for SEA 1180 and a wall sized poster (~2m high) of its deck plan has been in CDG for years now… However there are serious concerns about aluminium hulls for long term viability and the trimaran for stability in high sea states. I don’t see the MRV offering anything uniquely crucial compared to a steel hull monohull for SEA 1180. Therefore it isn’t worth the risk IMHO.

 

[ASSAIL]

It’s clearly been designed for SEA 1180 and a wall sized poster (~2m high) of its deck plan has been in CDG for years now… However there are serious concerns about aluminium hulls for long term viability and the trimaran for stability in high sea states. I don’t see the MRV offering anything uniquely crucial compared to a steel hull monohull for SEA 1180. Therefore it isn’t worth the risk IMHO.

I couldn't agree more strongly. The closest equivalent I can think of for longevity were the wartime River Class. Diamantina served from 1945 - 1980, 35 years. That's what you get from a steel hull of approx 2,000 tons (Diamantina was 2100 t).
If the Fremantles had been replaced with a steel OPV as discussed they would not need to be replaced until 2030 thus saving defence/govts a bucketful of money.
Gawd save us from politicians and fad designs!

 

[the road runner]

Sounds like a dumb down version of the OPC Tenix/Transfield design is just what Navy needs. Maybe with a UAV helicopter to fly off it instead of a manned(sea sprite/sea hawk)helicopter?

 

[Vanguard]

Considering that the Protector design is still in production; the Brits are building two, maybe three, more of a newer (I believe enlarged) variant for the Irish Naval Service. I would say that an Australian variant would be the logical choice, in times like these I think that Australia really wants to be going with a proven design, local shipyards are likely to make enough mistakes as it is so we might as well go with something they are reasonably used to building, and that has been proven in service. Otherwise the British/Thai/Brazilian BAE series would be another potential option meeting similar criteria, although this has not been proven yet with a hangar I would imagine BAE made preparations to include on if a client requested.

Or as a third option, literally off the top of my head, the South African Navy I believe are building a modular fleet of OPVs including some outfitted as hydrographical survey vessels, similar to what the Spanish are trying with the BAM, that could be another option which would very likely be cheaper.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Considering that the Protector design is still in production; the Brits are building two, maybe three, more of a newer (I believe enlarged) variant for the Irish Naval Service. I would say that an Australian variant would be the logical choice, in times like these I think that Australia really wants to be going with a proven design, local shipyards are likely to make enough mistakes as it is so we might as well go with something they are reasonably used to building, and that has been proven in service. Otherwise the British/Thai/Brazilian BAE series would be another potential option meeting similar criteria, although this has not been proven yet with a hangar I would imagine BAE made preparations to include on if a client requested.

Proven designs are less important for shipbuilders as a proven design to in service capability. Tenix didn’t exactly cover themselves with glory building the proven design Otago class in the first place. That being said the STX Canada (was owned by Norwegians before) class of OPVs are more than viable offers for SEA 1180.

http://www.stxmarine.net/pdf/PV85-br-web.pdf

 

[Volkodav]

I think that Australia really wants to be going with a proven design, local shipyards are likely to make enough mistakes as it is so we might as well go with something they are reasonably used to building, and that has been proven in service.

Or as a third option, literally off the top of my head, the South African Navy I believe are building a modular fleet of OPVs including some outfitted as hydrographical survey vessels, similar to what the Spanish are trying with the BAM, that could be another option which would very likely be cheaper.

So basically every nation bar Australia is capable of building warships? Or could it possibly be that the average Joe is falling for the crap sprouted by our media and political class. The biggest issue I have with Australia and Australians is that we are a country of knockers who seem to love criticising and pulling down everything we achieve.

Time and time again we aim too high and don't quite get there but rather than step back and say "hey that was a bit silly to assume that we could do better at our first shot than somewhere else that has been doing it for years" we give up and walk away losing all the hard won experience and skill. Our political class, the mass media, bogan brigade, greenies, the blue rinse fascists and the inner-city Troughers (thanks Abe, love that term) agree on one thing and one thing alone, that we as a nation are incapable of doing anything complex and should give up immediately rather than learning from experience and doing better next time. The only interest they have in nation building projects is it gives them something to whinge about. The only thing they share besides hating and knocking “doers” is the fact that most of them are completely, pathetically, almost comically lacking in any form of technical knowledge or skill that would make them useful outside of their sheltered, subsidised, environments and yet we let them set the tone and steer the nation.