It will be interesting to see how much equipment has to be swapped out of the AWD Baseline to satisfy changing obligations and requirements that are always being updated. There were actually certification issues related to this sort of thing between ships one two and three.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
This is probably a silly question, and it would totally mess with the fore-aft weight distribution.
But could you "chop off" the design of the F-105 above bridge level where the Spy-1D emitters are and put a tower there as per the ASMD upgrade to the Anzac's?
That plus a TAS (if not fitted already) could be sufficient? Or would it be less expensive to just go the full Aegis fitout (at something like $700 Million/ship)?
But could you "chop off" the design of the F-105 above bridge level where the Spy-1D emitters are and put a tower there as per the ASMD upgrade to the Anzac's?
That plus a TAS (if not fitted already) could be sufficient? Or would it be less expensive to just go the full Aegis fitout (at something like $700 Million/ship)?
it would still require a recert.... not cheap
About 78million AUD
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
But probably much less expensive then putting Aegis in any FFG derivative, and I see no reason for that weird looking 'hat' other then adding weight if SPY-1D is not fitted to the ship.
Jezza
Member
Get the kiwis on board for the third ship.
Regarding the Damon *helocopter training ship*.
Is there a chance that the RAN could aquire more as OPV,s? Or is it going to be a one off?
would NZ consider one as their 3rd OPV?
Is there a chance that the RAN could aquire more as OPV,s? Or is it going to be a one off?
would NZ consider one as their 3rd OPV?
You'd have to be real quick then, because the Kiwi RFI went out last year and an announcement is due soon. The RFI was looking at a ship around the roughly 18K tonne mark too.
Rheinhardt
New Member
What is wrong with the Anzac class frigates, I know they aren't that glamorous or anything but on paper they seem fairly decent in the low-end frigate role, upto 2 MK41 VLS, provision for 1+ CIWS, forward and towed sonar arrays, torpedo tubes, helicopter facilities, good range >10,000KM. Oldest one is about 20 years old, of course they will need replacing, and they should start thinking of that now, but OPVS armed with 50Cal machine guns seems like a downgrade to me...
And those AWD don't withstand the litmus test at all, they cost 1.5Bn each (there are cheaper alternatives for large VLS Air-Defence ships), will comprise the area-air-defence segment of the australian navy, using the rule of thirds gives us one ship on station at any point in time, and it is to defend approximately 10,000KM of coastline (ignoring the southern coastline). It is absolutely ridiculous, beyond absurd.
Lets be reasonable what Australia needs is large numbers of reasonably priced, affordable frigates in a high-low spectrum (similar to UK navy, or USA air-force), to defend the vast territories of australia, and it needs this before it talks about trying to build us cruiser style look-a-likes. I don't see what place OPVs have in a proper navy, when your typical lower-spectrum frigate i.e. TF-100, Meko-CSL or even a Absalon support ship, all suitable for an LCS role are already capable of peforming everything your OPV can and more. Additionally aerial platforms i.e. UAVs (zephyr or global hawk) are far more suited for the survailance role, and floatplanes/tiltrotors can perform rescue missions from very far away, and far faster than some slow OPV.
And those AWD don't withstand the litmus test at all, they cost 1.5Bn each (there are cheaper alternatives for large VLS Air-Defence ships), will comprise the area-air-defence segment of the australian navy, using the rule of thirds gives us one ship on station at any point in time, and it is to defend approximately 10,000KM of coastline (ignoring the southern coastline). It is absolutely ridiculous, beyond absurd.
Lets be reasonable what Australia needs is large numbers of reasonably priced, affordable frigates in a high-low spectrum (similar to UK navy, or USA air-force), to defend the vast territories of australia, and it needs this before it talks about trying to build us cruiser style look-a-likes. I don't see what place OPVs have in a proper navy, when your typical lower-spectrum frigate i.e. TF-100, Meko-CSL or even a Absalon support ship, all suitable for an LCS role are already capable of peforming everything your OPV can and more. Additionally aerial platforms i.e. UAVs (zephyr or global hawk) are far more suited for the survailance role, and floatplanes/tiltrotors can perform rescue missions from very far away, and far faster than some slow OPV.
the concerned
Active Member
I'm just asking what are these opv's supposed to do because if your main duties are searching the vast waters for illegal immigrants then why not instead forget the patrol boats and transfer over to a coastguard and build vessels similar to the US cutters .
I don't know where to start with this. However, in the liteny of issue I have with you post the most critical failing is the fact you miss the Sea Lines of Communication Issues. The AWD are not there to defend the coast as a standing patrol as you suggest, rather, they defend the foce projection Australia may wish to apply to any situation.
For this purpose they are very well suited but I won't get into the debate on other options.
The ANZAC with the ASMD update will also provide a potent escort and it is the capability that should be the absolute minimum base line for any future frigates. Again these are not 'cruisers' rather the minimum capability in the modern world to provide a GP figate with enhanced land attack and ASW capability in order to protect a task force and project power.
Low end ........ not sure what you mean here but it wouel be hoped the the OCV concept may result in a vessel with a light frigate capability (if it survives the White paper)
The OPV - patrol boat requirements is only for policing duties and missile systesm are overkill in such roles but a bigger more capable vessel is certainly something many would like to see.
Finally some additional issues with fact. The ANZAC frigate....
- Cannot carry two 8 cell Mk41's due to top weight issues
- Cannot carry a CIWS (or even 1) due to top weight issues
- They have, however, been given a very good ASMD capability by virtue of the modifications made to HMAS Perth.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
As Ngati has pointed out, NZ put out an RFI last year, and a decision is hopefully not too far off.
Given Aust and NZ are buying new navy tankers at the same time, it would be foolish not to look at a joint purchase that could drive down the price across all three units. But it would be only feasible if NZ and Australia have roughly the same requirements. Ngati posted the specs from NZ's RFI last year, which I'll post below.
Is there an equivalent for Australia? Can anyone guess at a time-frame for an Australian decision?
Note that this is the NZ Navy's wish list - I'd be surprised if they don't have to make a few compromises to fit within budget.
Commonality with other Navantia-built equipment will also be a factor for Australia to consider, but doesn't feature at all for NZ.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Try looking at the cost and fitout of an OPV, and then the cost and fitout of some of the larger USCG ocean-going medium/high endurance cutters.
The cutters tend to have a price tag approaching that of, and sometimes exceeding, frigates. Some of them are also approximately the same size as frigates, have similar crew reqs, etc. Yet they do not typically have the same combat capabilities (ASuW, ASW, AAD, etc).
The whole premise behind OPV's is that for some areas, a large, ocean-going vessel is required to patrol, yet the vessel's exposure to high threat environments will be minimal so comprehensive sensor suites and armament fit outs are not required. After all, sensors, electronics, and weaponry cost money, why have a big spend if it is not needed. Just like the question of why use a frigate when a big patrol vessel is really what is needed.
-Cheers
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
I agree with the bulk of your comment, but RNZN would be surprised to learn that ANZAC can't carry a CIWS.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
New Zealand studying possibility of third OPV - IHS Jane's 360
OF
The suggestion of a third OPV came completely out of left field in the Janes article above, and isn't signaled in any previous defence planning document. Given the govt has already committed to a new tanker/supplies ship and a 'littoral warfare support vessel', on the face of it an additional OPV seems a very long shot.
On the other hand, the Kiwi ANZACs are undergoing a mid-life upgrade in Canada between 2016 and 2020, giving us a one-frigate navy. Perhaps the govt doesn't think existing commitments can be met without an additional vessel?
If there is no change of government at the September election, a new Defence White Paper will be released in 2015. Until then, I doubt we'll hear much more about the possible extra OPV.
I am still intrigued by the RAN Damen purchase - it seems an odd move if it is just going to be a stand-alone platform.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Japan, Australia to finalise submarine deal, strengthen military ties | Firstpost
I have no idea of how credible it is, but the linked Agence France-Presse article suggests an Australia-Japan deal involving submarine technology is closer than we might think.
I'll leave the Aussies here to comment of the plausibility of it.
I have no idea of how credible it is, but the linked Agence France-Presse article suggests an Australia-Japan deal involving submarine technology is closer than we might think.
I'll leave the Aussies here to comment of the plausibility of it.
Alexsa has already pointed you to some incorrect assumptions made in your post however, you have not tried to match platforms and capabilities with the operating concepts of the ADF. Many on this forum do the same.
There's no point in any country simply choosing capabilities because either they can afford them or because they are the flavour of the month.
The ADF has produced a strategic (unclassified version) document https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/FMOC_2025_Unclassified.pdf
that outlines the "Future Maritime Operating Concept 2025" or FMOC 2025 which clearly outlines the ADF's strategic position for the next decade or so.
If you go to the end of the doc , from page 18 onwards you can see the required "Force Enablers" and you will see that your plentiful cheapo units don't have the required capabilities to contribute. In fact the RAN, with 3 AWD's, 2 LHD's and 8 future frigates will barely fulfill the required capability.
I'm not trying to lecture but many (including defence ministers) lose sight of the ADF's strategic objective when they advocate various platforms or capabilities.
Cheers
Yours can ..... the RAN version, after modification including Harpoon are on the limit if they try. I understand the fitting of the CIWS adds some significant operating limitations.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Fair point, Alexsa.
I did think of making some disclaimer about the topweight of the ships being affected by other equipment choices but foolishly didn't bother.
Post the LockMart Canada upgrade, it will be interesting to compare the transtasman ANZACs as a case study in divergence from a common base.
- Status