Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Out of interest below is a video Customs just released of the Cape Clas during sea trials.

Cape St George - YouTube
I spoke to a naval architecht aquaintance today re the Capes. He works for DMS in Darwin supervising the maintenance of the ACPB's and Bays.

He pointed out that many lessons learned from the Armidales have been incorporated especially with regard to the hull cracks. The Capes carry their 01 deck much further aft and are stiffened differently, can't remember the exact details, but Austal hope to have resolved the issue.
Further, he stated that the ACPB hull cracks are managable given sufficient downtime for maintenance.
He couldn't emphasize the difference in maturity of the customs drivers enough though and when the the RAN boats are ordered to go, the go fast. Customs drivers prefer comfort over speed with a consequential improvement in servicability.
Who knows what BPC are asking the respective boats to do to that may either exacerbate or ameliorate the problem?
 

Jhom

New Member
So why do we need such large vessels doing patrol and surveillance?

I'd much prefer a make up of smaller vessels in larger numbers doing the patrol work with 6 or so vessels doing the MW and "combat" work.

Cape St George - YouTube
The spanish armada used to think like that, then they realized that small sized PBs put too much strain on the crews and the equipment, and that having a 30+ knots vessel or a 40+ doesnt really mean anything when your helicopter can triple that speed easily.

Thats the reasoning behind the Meteoro Class, wich are replacing smaller/faster patrol boats.

IMO Australia needs to do the same, get a good number of not so fast and not so combat capable medium sized OPVs, with good range and fuel mileage from where to quickly launch helicopters/UAVs and RHIBs.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The spanish armada used to think like that, then they realized that small sized PBs put too much strain on the crews and the equipment, and that having a 30+ knots vessel or a 40+ doesnt really mean anything when your helicopter can triple that speed easily.

Thats the reasoning behind the Meteoro Class, wich are replacing smaller/faster patrol boats.

IMO Australia needs to do the same, get a good number of not so fast and not so combat capable medium sized OPVs, with good range and fuel mileage from where to quickly launch helicopters/UAVs and RHIBs.
Spot on.

That is the point that many, in particular politicians, don't seem to get; it is about achieving an outcome not how many or what size assets you have. A smaller number of larger, more capable platforms will most likely do the job more reliably and more affordably than a larger number of over worked smaller, less capable platforms. i.e. think of it in terms of operating 3 or 4 larger ships from Darwin instead of 6 or more smaller ones.
Add a helicopter or a UAV, or even just the ability to lily pad a land based helo and you are talking a massive capability increase that no number of aditional conventional PBs could achieve.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The spanish armada used to think like that, then they realized that small sized PBs put too much strain on the crews and the equipment, and that having a 30+ knots vessel or a 40+ doesnt really mean anything when your helicopter can triple that speed easily.

Thats the reasoning behind the Meteoro Class, wich are replacing smaller/faster patrol boats.

IMO Australia needs to do the same, get a good number of not so fast and not so combat capable medium sized OPVs, with good range and fuel mileage from where to quickly launch helicopters/UAVs and RHIBs.
Absolutely!
Anyone who has served in a small 30-50mtr vessel, completed a 3 week patrol in N.Australia in weather conditions which are constantly (in the SE Tradewind belt) at sea state 4 and over, will know that crew effectiveness is almost zero after 48hrs.
The RAN knows this but those spending the $$$ either ignore or forget.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
So why do we need such large vessels doing patrol and surveillance?
In addition to the other points made: So it can stay at sea longer therefore maximising patrol efficiency per hull and crew by having a higher proportion of annual sea time spent in the patrol area than transiting to and from port. By being able to deploy an aviation asset hugely boosting patrol capability.
 
In addition to the other points made: So it can stay at sea longer therefore maximising patrol efficiency per hull and crew by having a higher proportion of annual sea time spent in the patrol area than transiting to and from port. By being able to deploy an aviation asset hugely boosting patrol capability.
So this leaves us with the question, how long is long and how big is big?

The Armidales were design at 3,000+nm and Cape class at 4,000+nm ranges in mind.

What are we talking about here?

People need to be capability focused first before worrying about the platform.

What roles are we expecting to do and for how long.
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It isn't just range. It is crew endurance (larger ships "ride" better, generally), more room for onboard stores like food and spare parts, more room for crew facilities, maintenance on equipment is easier and a larger ship offers more options for upgrades as time goes on.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
So this leaves us with the question, how long is long and how big is big?

The Armidales were design at 3,000+nm and Cape class at 4,000+nm ranges in mind.

What are we talking about here?

People need to be capability focused first before worrying about the platform.

What roles are we expecting to do and for how long.
Well there is a SEA 1180 statement of requirement. The range/endurance requirement is the same as a frigate, LHD or AWD: ie >5,000 NM. While in the SoR this is to enable deployment as part of a task group it also provides a considerable increase in patrol endurance.

SEA 1180 Offshore Combatant Vessel
 

weegee

Active Member
I think people a losing a bit of perspective here. 20 80m plus OCVs have a number of problems:

1. We can't afford anything that large at those numbers
2. We don't have the industry to build or sustain it
3. We don't have the ability to crew anything that big
4. We couldn't even berth them without huge dockside changes

What are they going to be used for 99% of the time. Patrol. Just like the Armidales they primarily be replacing (but still noting MW and droggy). That is if we keep droggy as a military role or just as REA inside of MW.

Because the 20 ships are not just replacing the Armidale patrol boats they are supposed to be a modular mission design replacing the Armidales, the Huon minehunters, and the Paluma & Leeuwin-class servey vessels so that comes to a total of 20 for 20 which means we can also crew them as we are all ready.
Because of the modular design the ships can be used for what's needed when required.
 
Last edited:

King Wally

Active Member
Modern UAV's (like Global Hawk etc) could really compliment many of the patrol objectives for such fleets as well. It may well be that when used in conjunction that you see a need for a different type of vessel to the old days when hordes of Armidale patrol boats had to be everywhere and anywhere.

My gut feel seams to be that it lends itself toward needing a smaller number of larger Corvette type ships with Helo capacity that can (once a threat has been spotted by roving UAV's) swoop in fast with a chopper and action what ever needs to be actioned very efficiently.

Am I on the right line of thinking here?
 

seatmarbella

Banned Member
Wally,

Yes agree, we don't want to see the LHD's wondering around the ocean's all on their own.

But, I think you have taken the 3rd LHD that I mentioned out of context.

What my post was actually suggesting is a 'bulk' buy from Spain.

I also put them in some sort or order too, eg, 20 OCV's, 2 AOR's, a 4th AWD and finally a 3rd LHD.

The reality, especially with what might come up in the Budget and new White Paper is that we will probably see the AOR's happen, and there was talk a few months ago about a 4th AWD.

But I think the real chances of a 3rd LHD are probably pretty low.

It will also be interesting to see if the 20 strong class of OCV's survives the new White Paper and DCP too.
After some commercial and institutional meetings and agreements of differente types, with Navantia, the Spanish Navy, Spanish goverment, it is probably more business with Navantia in form of new ships.

All of what you say are being assesed from the Aor, 20000t, 6000 nm range, 8000 m3 fuel, 2000 m3 jp5, 2-3 helos, and the rest that you say.
But i would pay more attention now in Opv, where Navantia can offer the Bam, 2800 t., 8000 nm range, it comes with many modularity and very wide missions, even can carry towed sonar and have 2 triples torpedos tubes, space for 3 containers with 3 helo uavs with sonobuoyes and depth charges, and the real helicopter, 32 sam in 8 cells launchers and the harpoons, plus electrooptic infrared, lasermeter, with 2 20/25/35 mm guns in one mount.
20 opvs are many, because they are for different purposes, 20 ships can be constructed sharing the work in numbers with Navantia yards. I mean if i can choose sending ship building job to local industries in Australia, i rather ocupe the yards with 10 o 15 opvs, than with one Aor, probably it has a longer run of occupation.

I like the idea of having antisubmarine opvs, that have 2 electric motors for upto 12 knots, to be more silent with the smaller diesels than mains, it becomes cheaper to have a fleet of antisubmarine warfare, if we have to buy an Awd or an Anzac to be antisubmarine then it will be more reduced in units, and working antisubmarine is important long curtains, when you have more antisubmarine units it is easier or better task.

But not just having the 2 hot topics with aor and opv, in relation with Navantia and Spanish relationships, because there is another one with at least 3 meetings apart from the others meetins i said before. 3 meetins in Cartagena, because a few days ago the Australian Embassadora in Spain came to Cartagena to see the S80 submarine jobs. And a few days before that another technician-militar delegation from Australia together with delegations from other countries, came to have a talk and questions to Navantia, that was presenting the S80.

So they can come slowly, one by one, aor, opv, submarine, 4th awd, extra design work for future Anzac, or we can go in great agreement, with measured stages, upto long range stages, so Navantia can programe work and cheaper for Australia.
 

weegee

Active Member
HMAS Choules

Hey guys,

Just wondering if anyone on here has an update on HMAS Choules? I haven't heard anything for a while but the last thing i heard was that she was due back in service around April this year? Does this sound about right or will she still be a while yet?

Also I know we were talking recently about V-22's landing on the LHD's and basically asking if they had too could they? Well I have just been looking at some photos of Choules and wondering if she could land the V-22 any easier as she looks as though she has more free space on her stern? Its all a moot point anyway I know but it would just look so cool having one of those birds land and take off on some of our ships ;)
 

StoresBasher

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hey guys,

Just wondering if anyone on here has an update on HMAS Choules? I haven't heard anything for a while but the last thing i heard was that she was due back in service around April this year? Does this sound about right or will she still be a while yet?
She is due to be at sea very soon, I can't say exactly when due to OPSEC, but don't be surprised to see her sailing through the heads...
 

King Wally

Active Member
Hey guys,

Just wondering if anyone on here has an update on HMAS Choules? I haven't heard anything for a while but the last thing i heard was that she was due back in service around April this year? Does this sound about right or will she still be a while yet?

Also I know we were talking recently about V-22's landing on the LHD's and basically asking if they had too could they? Well I have just been looking at some photos of Choules and wondering if she could land the V-22 any easier as she looks as though she has more free space on her stern? Its all a moot point anyway I know but it would just look so cool having one of those birds land and take off on some of our ships ;)
I'm pretty certain someone could get a nice USMC photo op with a V22 on the back of Choules or the LHD's once they come in. Bottom line though would be that it would be a rare occurance and not something planned for either. Any heavy lift task I guess would go the direction of our Chinooks which mind you are pretty dam capable too.

Seatmarbella mentions ASW a few times above in regards to the OPV's a good possible side role for sure.... and to merge two trains of discussion I actually was interested to know if it would be an additional role the LHD could assist with if it was required due to circumstance... to send her out with other frigates and jam her hanger full of Seahawks to act as a ASW mothership / Helo Carrier. I imagine flooding a region with an additional half a dozen Seahawks would have to make life very hard for an enemy sub? I ask the question as its something I've never heard brought up and infact in many overviews of the LHD I see projected air arms as often not even including a Seahawk at all (obviously these fit outs are focused on troop deployment with MRH/Chinook/ARH mixes). I have this funny feeling I will get shot down for mentioning it as I know its way down the list of suitable uses for the LHD but hey it jumped into my head so I figured I'd mention it.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
After some commercial and institutional meetings and agreements of differente types, with Navantia, the Spanish Navy, Spanish goverment, it is probably more business with Navantia in form of new ships.

All of what you say are being assesed from the Aor, 20000t, 6000 nm range, 8000 m3 fuel, 2000 m3 jp5, 2-3 helos, and the rest that you say.
But i would pay more attention now in Opv, where Navantia can offer the Bam, 2800 t., 8000 nm range, it comes with many modularity and very wide missions, even can carry towed sonar and have 2 triples torpedos tubes, space for 3 containers with 3 helo uavs with sonobuoyes and depth charges, and the real helicopter, 32 sam in 8 cells launchers and the harpoons, plus electrooptic infrared, lasermeter, with 2 20/25/35 mm guns in one mount.
20 opvs are many, because they are for different purposes, 20 ships can be constructed sharing the work in numbers with Navantia yards. I mean if i can choose sending ship building job to local industries in Australia, i rather ocupe the yards with 10 o 15 opvs, than with one Aor, probably it has a longer run of occupation.

I like the idea of having antisubmarine opvs, that have 2 electric motors for upto 12 knots, to be more silent with the smaller diesels than mains, it becomes cheaper to have a fleet of antisubmarine warfare, if we have to buy an Awd or an Anzac to be antisubmarine then it will be more reduced in units, and working antisubmarine is important long curtains, when you have more antisubmarine units it is easier or better task.

But not just having the 2 hot topics with aor and opv, in relation with Navantia and Spanish relationships, because there is another one with at least 3 meetings apart from the others meetins i said before. 3 meetins in Cartagena, because a few days ago the Australian Embassadora in Spain came to Cartagena to see the S80 submarine jobs. And a few days before that another technician-militar delegation from Australia together with delegations from other countries, came to have a talk and questions to Navantia, that was presenting the S80.

So they can come slowly, one by one, aor, opv, submarine, 4th awd, extra design work for future Anzac, or we can go in great agreement, with measured stages, upto long range stages, so Navantia can programe work and cheaper for Australia.
Just adding a link: Buques de Acción Marítima (BAM) Class Patrol Vessels - Naval Technology since seatmarbella can't yet. Naval-Tech has a typo on the beam data and Wikipedi states that it is 14.2m. It does look interesting and somewhat larger than the Protector Class OPVs, being 9m longer, 0.2m wider, a 0.6m greater draught and a 600 tonne heavier displacement. However it offers greater versatility and capability and IMHO would be better value for money than the Protector Class. I too like the idea of it being able to do some ASW work as well. Add Cefar to it?
 
Last edited:

seatmarbella

Banned Member
Just adding a link:... since seatmarbella can't yet. Naval-Tech has a typo on the beam data and Wikipedi states that it is 14.2m. It does look interesting and somewhat larger than the Protector Class OPVs, being 9m longer, 0.2m wider, a 0.6m greater draught and a 600 tonne heavier displacement. However it offers greater versatility and capability and IMHO would be better value for money than the Protector Class. I too like the idea of it being able to do some ASW work as well. Add Cefar to it?
Thanks. It offers a design that can adapt to purposes like command or intelligence collector, the combatant one or with antisubmarine gears both can have esm or ecm even. Cefar to it would be great, sure it can, like they are doing with radar Smart in any of the ships. Defence can be 1 or 2 mounts with 20/25/35 different configs. The combat system Scomba is designed to adapt any radar, like cefar.

The Asw work can be done nowadays with uavs, you could have 5-6 rotary uavs in a BAm, without the normal helo, and hundreds of sonobouyes. You can have 3 containers in the back terrace, below flight deck, and use the crane to move to flight deck, plus another 3 containers in flight deck, and still have the hangar free for dozens of depth charges or torpedoes instead or real helo.
I think navies in general tend to arm little the opvs, at least in peace times.

But maybe the opv is the least interesting one for Australia, from Navantia, having Protector or other proposals. There is more interest in S80 or Aor.
 

Richo99

Active Member
adroit opv

Seems to me like a lot of people are wanting more out of the opvs than is for seen in the stated requirement.

In terms of the patrol task, the adroit opv looks like it might be a countender. Much more sea worthy than an acpb (being 1000t+ and 80m+) hanger for small helo or multiple UAVs, landing for medium helo, fast launch rhibs at stern, and if armed with a 76mm strales gun, can be equipped with dart smart aa ammo and volcano smart ammo for ngs and potentially anti ship missions. Apparently also cheap to buy and cheap to operate. Have read unconfirmed reports it can also carry 2 20ft containers without affecting help ops, though don't know where these are meant to go.

Given that 20 x 2000t fully equipped corvettes is IMHO never going to eventuate, a dozen of these plus retention of the huons and leeuwins might be more viable.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top