Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[King Wally]

The Absalon class always came across to me at least as being like the letherman multitool of surface ships. Probably not the best at any particular area but all round very flexible and handy.

As someone mentioned above someone like the NZ Navy could do with that kind of approach, probably less needed for the RAN as we do have some very specialised assets already on the way. LHD/AWD etc.

Sure way into the long term the Anzac replacements could borrow some idea's from it though. That's got to be a while off though in the current climate.

 

[StevoJH]

Changing the subject to the Armidale class replacement.

Personally I'm a fan of the HMS Clyde design, could an OPV based off clyde be built relatively cheaply in Melbourne or Newcastle with the Electronics fits recycled from the Armidales?

Failing that, the Protector class OPV's purchased for New Zealand pack a hanger into a ship not much bigger than Clyde, are they just better packaged or do they pay for the hanger through loss of Stability and sea keeping? I notice looking at images they seem to have a much taller superstructure than clyde.

 

[King Wally]

Changing the subject to the Armidale class replacement.

Personally I'm a fan of the HMS Clyde design, could an OPV based off clyde be built relatively cheaply in Melbourne or Newcastle with the Electronics fits recycled from the Armidales?

Failing that, the Protector class OPV's purchased for New Zealand pack a hanger into a ship not much bigger than Clyde, are they just better packaged or do they pay for the hanger through loss of Stability and sea keeping? I notice looking at images they seem to have a much taller superstructure than clyde.

Both those options certainly sound like a step up from the Armidale's. The Clyde with a helo lillypad and the Protector class taking it a step further with an embarked and hangered helo.

The accountant in me wonders what the cost difference would be to step up to that type of set up and whether we have a hope of getting it past the funding hurdles.

 

[alexsa]

Both those options certainly sound like a step up from the Armidale's. The Clyde with a helo lillypad and the Protector class taking it a step further with an embarked and hangered helo.

The accountant in me wonders what the cost difference would be to step up to that type of set up and whether we have a hope of getting it past the funding hurdles.

It would be interesting. First steel was cut on Project Protector in 2005 and resulted in a largish MRV (9000 tonnes), two OPV and four 55m IPV for 500 mil. Net present value would be higher.


It would be interesting to see what the per unit cost of the OPV with RAN systems would be but it is likely to be a lot more than a 57m PB.

The cost according to (noting I do nnot know how reliable this is)

http://newwars.wordpress.com/warship-costs/

was 62 million USD but based on cost based on 2002 to 2003 ish I think. The Cape Class is 350mill AUD but that includes some support as well

That comes to 43.75mil AUD per unit...... noting this is 2013 costs and includes some support

 

[justsomeaussie]

Changing the subject to the Armidale class replacement.

Personally I'm a fan of the HMS Clyde design, could an OPV based off clyde be built relatively cheaply in Melbourne or Newcastle with the Electronics fits recycled from the Armidales?

Failing that, the Protector class OPV's purchased for New Zealand pack a hanger into a ship not much bigger than Clyde, are they just better packaged or do they pay for the hanger through loss of Stability and sea keeping? I notice looking at images they seem to have a much taller superstructure than clyde.

If you believe the White Paper it said locally built based off a proven design, it doesn't leave many options.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If you believe the White Paper it said locally built based off a proven design, it doesn't leave many options.

Well actually it means almost anything. As in Project Protector where Tenix and the RNZN scouted around the world for their best OPV design to suit requirements before choosing a Canadian design that was in service in Ireland and Mauritius! Proven design and locally built...

Interesting thing about HMS Clyde is her build and spec was managed by the company contracted to provide the ship on station. So as soon as they realised there was a bonus for keeping the ship on station for an extended period of time they upped the gauge of the hull steel and brought the most robust components available. So she can literally spend years in the Falklands with only on-board maintenance. It’s a ship that could basically fight the WWII North Atlantic campaign without a refit. Would be a welcome change for the Navy to have a patrol boat like that.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Would you really think that a replacement Armidale means an 80m vessel? I would of thought that's the starting mark for SEA1180 and since that's off the cards it would be an interesting approach.

 

[hauritz]

Actually I was thinking about how useful an Absolon class ship would have been in recent times and how useful they could be in the coming years.

Three large amphibs isn't really a guarantee that you will always have some amphibious capability when you need it. We have had three amphibs in the past and there have been times when none of them have been available. We are about to ditch the LCH fleet which could further exacerbate the problem.

Having a few flexible support ships could be useful. They would not necessarily have to be as capable as the Absolon.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Would you really think that a replacement Armidale means an 80m vessel? I would of thought that's the starting mark for SEA1180 and since that's off the cards it would be an interesting approach.

How much of SEA 1180 is off the cards? Single ship solution with modular systems for MCM and REA? Or an OPV sized solution for the patrol boat problem. Methinks the two are very different and the benefit of the later still applies even if it just is a plain vanilla single mission patrol vessel.

 

[Todjaeger]

Would you really think that a replacement Armidale means an 80m vessel? I would of thought that's the starting mark for SEA1180 and since that's off the cards it would be an interesting approach.

One of the reasons behind the concept of the OCV is the recognition that patrolling needs to be done in more areas than are appropriate for a lightweight, ~60 m patrol boat.

Take the (IMO wasteful and questionable) purchase of Ocean Shield for instance. Apart from the major fleet units, that is the only vessel appropriate (in terms of range and seakeeping) to patrol Australia's Southern Ocean EEZ claims, as well as Heard Island and the McDonald Islands and the associated EEZ claims there.

When one starts looking at some of the capability needs for RAN patrol assets, one quickly begins to realize that some areas require something larger than what has been available. Like the ability to hold 150+ people taken off a SIEV, without endangering the RAN vessel or crew. The option to lilypad or support helicopter operations, which can be especially useful in BAMS. Increased vessel range can be useful, particularly if the patrol vessel becomes engaged in a long distance FFV chase, or even just to reach a patrol area if operating around Heard & the McDonald Islands... Also the ability to safely operate in high sea states (Sea State 8+ is common around parts of the southern EEZ areas) is AFAIK easier to manage in a larger vessel. It is difficult to design a 60 m vessel which can safely handle a wave height that a quarter of the vessel length. Even more difficult than designing a vessel which would not succumb to such waves is also arranging it so that the crew survives being tossed around the vessel.

Again, looking at the historical interests in RAN patrol assets (i.e. OPV replacement for the FCPB's in the 90's, OCV for ACPB's recently) there seems to have been recognition by the RAN of a need for larger and more capable patrol vessels. Gov't recognition and willingness to fund is another story entirely...

 

[icelord]

Its no surprise how much of a fan of the Danes Absalon. They are a fantastic ship, and the capability it provides over a lone Anzac is beyond belief. The reason i mention this is that when we lost LPAs and Tobruk, the Anzac i was on at the time was placed on standby for brisbane floods as we had a helo, and a FFG was on stand by for Japan following the earthquake.

It basically showed that when our amphib fleet is down, we have a surface fleet that could provide below bare minimal support. While you mention 2 LHDs and Choules, we have seen what happens when we play with our ships and choules last 12mths of operations is an example of the limitations we try to push it beyond. If we break choules, and have a LHD in maintanence and another on deployment, Rimpac, SEAD or our next operations, we have no LCH capability to cover until around 2020 unless someone wakes up to the gap(they talk about air gap, sea gap, but never amphib gap cause its not big and pretty) then a frigate is next to help. Even a pacific island deployment could go with a full medical team and equipment to support the region and enhance our reputation much like Pacific Partnership does now.

Its about maximising our frigates, beyond shooting battles. The danes have used them with a marine unit and larger Rhibs for Anti-piracy in the Gulf of Aden. Having this capability would expand our options for patrols, and increase our value over current patrols where we are low on capability to provide. If we are honest, the chance of a shooting war is minimal at times, and having a vessel that can go beyond wargames and actually provide humanitarian and relief operations would be a major change in our ability and stratergy.

 

[StevoJH]

Its about maximising our frigates, beyond shooting battles. The danes have used them with a marine unit and larger Rhibs for Anti-piracy in the Gulf of Aden. Having this capability would expand our options for patrols, and increase our value over current patrols where we are low on capability to provide. If we are honest, the chance of a shooting war is minimal at times, and having a vessel that can go beyond wargames and actually provide humanitarian and relief operations would be a major change in our ability and stratergy.

I have no problem with that as long as it is not at the expense of capability.

Probably less of an issue when comparing an Absalon to an ANZAC then it is comparing it to an F100, Burke, T26 or T45.

 

[justsomeaussie]

How much of SEA 1180 is off the cards? Single ship solution with modular systems for MCM and REA? Or an OPV sized solution for the patrol boat problem. Methinks the two are very different and the benefit of the later still applies even if it just is a plain vanilla single mission patrol vessel.

I agree that it's not particularly well defined but I think it's a combination of a lack of budget for a 80+ vessel combined with the immaturity of the MCM and REA. SEA1778 will be a key enabler here helping the RAN figure out what modular actually means. Once that's derisked in five years it might be time to revisit it.

I still see a clear distinction between operations in the Southern Ocean and the NW shelf to Christmas Island EEZs. I'm not sure of the need for a large number of vessels that can perform in both areas.

For anyone interested there is a book called "Hooked" all about the Southern Ocean and the Viarsa 1 sea chase.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1594861102/r"]Hooked: Pirates, Poaching, and the Perfect Fish:Amazon:Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510AnQGjV5L.@@AMEPARAM@@510AnQGjV5L[/ame]

 

[ASSAIL]

Its no surprise how much of a fan of the Danes Absalon. They are a fantastic ship, and the capability it provides over a lone Anzac is beyond belief. The reason i mention this is that when we lost LPAs and Tobruk, the Anzac i was on at the time was placed on standby for brisbane floods as we had a helo, and a FFG was on stand by for Japan following the earthquake.

It basically showed that when our amphib fleet is down, we have a surface fleet that could provide below bare minimal support. While you mention 2 LHDs and Choules, we have seen what happens when we play with our ships and choules last 12mths of operations is an example of the limitations we try to push it beyond. If we break choules, and have a LHD in maintanence and another on deployment, Rimpac, SEAD or our next operations, we have no LCH capability to cover until around 2020 unless someone wakes up to the gap(they talk about air gap, sea gap, but never amphib gap cause its not big and pretty) then a frigate is next to help. Even a pacific island deployment could go with a full medical team and equipment to support the region and enhance our reputation much like Pacific Partnership does now.

Its about maximising our frigates, beyond shooting battles. The danes have used them with a marine unit and larger Rhibs for Anti-piracy in the Gulf of Aden. Having this capability would expand our options for patrols, and increase our value over current patrols where we are low on capability to provide. If we are honest, the chance of a shooting war is minimal at times, and having a vessel that can go beyond wargames and actually provide humanitarian and relief operations would be a major change in our ability and stratergy.

The missing link which closes the capability circle is SEA 2048 Phase 5. Part of the stated requirement for that project is to "provide a capability to conduct small scale regional amphibious operations.
Assuming the govt purchases a useful platform and doen't revert to a LCH like for like replacement, we should be able to respond to all those smaller HADR events which are of concern.

 

[Richo99]

OPVs as replacments for ACPBs

I may be preaching to the converted, or I may be way off the mark, but the replacement of the ACPBs with some form of OPV seems a no-brainer to me, both in terms of capability, but also cost.

The small size of the APCBs means 1) they are stretched to work in the harsh conditions sometimes asked of them, which together with questionable maintenance has resulted in premature ageing and 2) they cannot comfortably and safely accommodate a boatload of refugees.

Use of larger more seaworthy vessel would essentially address these issues. They don't need to be particularly high tech ships, just bigger. The sensor and weapons fit could be essentially the same as the ACPBs. The crew could be of similar size to the ACPBs. The addition of a flight deck for lillipadding helos, and also for say an onboard S100 VTOL UAV would add substantially to its patrol capabilities with minimal additional cost.

The cost of say a 1500t Gowind (the OPV not the corvette) (though there are many alternatives) so equipped cannot be huge. Any industry types have an idea of cost vs say a Cape?

But there would also appear to be numerous opportunities for cost savings:

- lower repair / maintenance costs due to actually being able to handle the conditions
- delayed replacement costs (compared to the ACPBs) as premature ageing would not occur
- no need to use high end frigates etc for border protection as is routinely done now
- no need to use highly specialised ships like Leeuwin/Melville to accommodate/ transfer refugees

The cost over the life of a fleet of OPVs cant be that much more than a straight replacement with say Cape CPBs which have the same inherent shortfalls as the ACPBs...

 

[alexsa]

A very rough line extraoplation on costs would see about 10 to 12 Protector class OPV for the cost of 20 modified Cape class (this is very rough). This does not cater for nay increase in running costs.

For 14 replacement patrol boats this come our as 7 to 9 (very spoungy figures) of the Protector class. 8 OPV and 8 Capes would make a capable mix.

 

[hauritz]

A very rough line extraoplation on costs would see about 10 to 12 Protector class OPV for the cost of 20 modified Cape class (this is very rough). This does not cater for nay increase in running costs.

For 14 replacement patrol boats this come our as 7 to 9 (very spoungy figures) of the Protector class. 8 OPV and 8 Capes would make a capable mix.

You could probably adjust those figures more in favour of the Protector class when you take into account the life expectancy of the ship. Based on its predecessor the Capes might only be good for 10 - 15 years. The Protectors might last twice as long.

I choose to have some optimism in that the minister didn't say specifically that the Armidales would be replaced with more patrol boats. What he said was that they were to be replaced early and he then went on to say that the OCV concept wasn't yet mature.

He didn't specifically rule out that larger vessels wouldn't be considered.

In fact all the white paper states is

Government will seek to replace the current Armidale Class patrol boats with a proven vessel to ensure that Defence can continue to provide a patrol capability.

The patrol boat replacement may well be a decision left to a future government anyway.

 

[justsomeaussie]

You could probably adjust those figures more in favour of the Protector class when you take into account the life expectancy of the ship. Based on its predecessor the Capes might only be good for 10 - 15 years. The Protectors might last twice as long.

Well considering the Protector is 1900 tons compared with the Cape/Armidale at 270 tons the running costs are going to be significantly higher on the Protector. Then look at bigger engines and support systems required to push 1900 tons through the water and the costs associated with that over the life of the vessel.

Just factoring in fuel alone might reveal why organisations like Customs chose to go with lighter vessels. Gone are the days when the RAN didn't have to worry about the fuel consumption costs on its vessels.


Edit:

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/...se-high-power-phased-array-radar-development/

Very good news for CEA. Looks like the R&D into AUSPAR finally paid off. All they need to do know is sell it outside of Australia .

 

[John Newman]

Whilst I find the debate very interesting and informative regarding what types of ships the Navy should obtain to replace the ACPB's, I think the big picture question for me is, how much money is to be allocated for this project and what type of replacement will that buy?

The answer to how much (or how little) is allocated should be answered in the next DCP, which is due mid year.

What is known from the recent Defence budget announcement is:

* Early replacement of the Armidale Class patrol boats, acquisition of Hydrographic Survey Vessels, upgrades to Minehunter Coastal vessels and deferral of the Multi Role Offshore Combatant ship

* The replacement of replenishment ships HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius, and

* That Choules would continue in service after the introduction of the LHD's (which I'd read as meaning the proposed Sea Lift Ship project would be pushed a long way off into the distance).

The reason I have listed all of the above is to see how much had been allocated in the previous DCP for those various projects and what will or has changed, the amounts where:

* SEA 1180 - OCV's - $5b-$10b, middle of the band suggested.
* SEA 1654 - AOR's - $1b-$2b, middle of the band suggested.
* JP 2048 Ph 4C - Sea Lift Ship - $1b-2b, middle of the band suggested (this phase was in the 2011 DCP, but had disappeared out of the 2012 DCP).

Those three projects had a range of $7b-14b, the middle is around $10b, still sounds like a lot of money that has been projected to be allocated, so what's likely to happen?

The money allocated for SEA 1180 will probably now be split into three separate projects, upgrade the minehunters, new hydrograph ships (both classes?) and of course the ACPB replacement.

Replacing both Success and Sirius, if they are built or partially built here will probably consume more money that is currently allocated, so where does that extra money come from?

With JP2048 Ph4C disappearing from last year's DCP, that money may still be available to be added to Success and Sirius replacements, or it may have already been absorbed back into the overall budget after last year's cuts.

Or maybe some of the original SEA 1180 allocation may have to be used.

I know these fact and figures may seem a bit boring, but the Defence pie can only be sliced in so many ways and of course the other big announcement was the $3b to be spent on the 12 new Growlers, that has to be found somewhere too.

Getting back to where I started, the question I have, is how much of the original SEA1180 allocation will end up as the ACPB replacement allocation?

Will it be less than a Billion or up to a couple of Billion? That will no doubt be a big factor in what actually replaces the ACPB's.

 

[justsomeaussie]

From how i read it SEA1180 the OCV will be pushed to the right so that money isn't necessarily available for the ACPB replacement. That would say to me there would be a new bucket of money for the ACPB replacement and a second much later bucket for the OCV project.

If there is talk of replacing the Armidales at the ten year mark, perhaps thats means the OCV would be considered for 2025 onwards.

Just adding to your list the requirement was also for them to be locally built on a proven design. So that means it has to be an existing vessel and likely can't include an MRV80 type vessel.