Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Richo99]

Kership OPV 75

Kership is the new commercial entity which has taken over the lower end of the Gowind range of vessels ( which have now been renamed).

Their OPV 75 is slightly larger (75m, 1200t) than appears to be specified for the PB-R but it has a flight deck, UAV hanger, stern launched RHIB & a mission bay for 3 20 ft containers. Whilst this particular design is paper only, its larger stablemate (OPV90...Adroit) is in the water and has had extensive use by the French navy. May be worth considering.

Second link is in French and needs translation...

http://www.kership.com/en/vessels/opv-75
http://meretmarine.com/fr/content/kership-lance-sa-nouvelle-gamme-de-patrouilleurs

 

[peterAustralia]

here is something roughly which I think they are looking at. I think this vessel is 510t, maybe they want something a fraction bigger, maybe same layout on say 700t

OPV60 - Offshore Patrol Vessel - Agencija Alan

 

[peterAustralia]

last one

Lurssen 65 FAC,

Remove some of those weapon systems to save weight, move the superstructure aft a little for better comfort, raise the bow freeboard a little, a more vertical stem for better wave peircing abilities. I think these work out at around 630t

Lürssen Defence | CM 65 - Lürssen corvette

 

[Stock]

In regards to the defence technology review article.

By coincidence I was looking at that Damen 950 OPV in service with the Romanian navy or coast guard. Seems a bit of a jump to go from a 250t vessel to a 950t vessel. There might be an argument to just go to 1500t and add a small helicopter and a telescoping hangar. However on 950t design if a helipad is added aft, and a small unmanned helicopter is added, then the 950t design seems very nice indeed.

If a helicopter drone is not added to the mix then replacing a 265t vessel with a 950t one seems a fraction overkill. Given that a 950t with an unmanned helicopter seems pretty cool. Note that Ecuador has for many years operated a 685t FAC with a Bell jetranger heli though I think they have tried to put too much in a too small a hull

So a 950t vessel with an unmanned helicopter looks a pretty nice option. Modest additions on a larger hull, thus not overly taxing the hull and pushing its limits.

I know no one cares, but a couple years ago I forwarded a sketch on this forum for a 700t steel patrol boat with a helipad aft, based on French Combatte III hull, or alternatively the Turkish Kilic 700t FAC. I drew in an SH60 heli in just for scale and got agro for it (such is life),, though in real life a much smaller heli would be fitted, the SH60 would only be for emergencies, and in no way would be the standard aircraft, I am not daft enough to suggest that a SH60 would be suitable for such a small boat except as a pad to rope down some supplies or a touch and go in calm weather. Should have drawn in a bell 429

The specs on the DTR mag look heaps like the sketch I drew up three years ago... sigh.

Available project budget will probably not allow a boat large enough to have a flight deck. Therefore a design of similar size to the Armidales and with an embarked UAV with a compact launch and recovery system is most likely.

The ScanEagle is a prime candidate for the UAV gig, requiring little launch/recovery infrastructure. Recovery is via a SkyHook catch cable retrieval system that can be deck-mounted on a folding boom.

 

[John Newman]

For those interested, there is an article on the Armidale-class patrol boat replacement project in the latest DTR:

Defence Technology Review : DTR APR 2015, Page 1

The plan on what type of ship is to replace the ACBP's has been a bit of a 'moving feast' since 2009, and will probably still be unknown until the new DWP is published.

We had the 2009 Rudd DWP wanting a class of 20 OCV's (certainly significantly larger ships than the one's being replaced), then by the time of the 2013 Gillard DWP the OCV's has been pushed way off into the distance and a plan to replace the ACPB's with another class of PB's (at that time I think that the Cape Class for Customs was probably seen as 'close' in design to that requirement) and now we will need to wait an see what the 2015 Abbott DWP and DCP contain.

So will it be a PB or will it be back to an OCV or now a OPV?

Well there was one interesting line in the Def Min's speech to the ASPI's 'Future Surface Fleet Conference' at the end of last month, the one line that was mentioned in regard to the ACPB's replacement was this:

"A fleet of Offshore Patrol Vessels to replace the Armidale class patrol boats".


Reading between the lines (or trying to at least!) that sounds like the replacement for the ACPB's won't be another PB 'size' ship, it will probably be a ship more of the size of the original SEA1180 plan, but probably won't be as 'flexible' or 'armed' in the way the OCV's were planned to be.

Anyway, a few more months to go and no doubt all will be revealed!

 

[Stock]

The plan on what type of ship is to replace the ACBP's has been a bit of a 'moving feast' since 2009, and will probably still be unknown until the new DWP is published.

We had the 2009 Rudd DWP wanting a class of 20 OCV's (certainly significantly larger ships than the one's being replaced), then by the time of the 2013 Gillard DWP the OCV's has been pushed way off into the distance and a plan to replace the ACPB's with another class of PB's (at that time I think that the Cape Class for Customs was probably seen as 'close' in design to that requirement) and now we will need to wait an see what the 2015 Abbott DWP and DCP contain.

So will it be a PB or will it be back to an OCV or now a OPV?

Well there was one interesting line in the Def Min's speech to the ASPI's 'Future Surface Fleet Conference' at the end of last month, the one line that was mentioned in regard to the ACPB's replacement was this:

"A fleet of Offshore Patrol Vessels to replace the Armidale class patrol boats".


Reading between the lines (or trying to at least!) that sounds like the replacement for the ACPB's won't be another PB 'size' ship, it will probably be a ship more of the size of the original SEA1180 plan, but probably won't be as 'flexible' or 'armed' in the way the OCV's were planned to be.

Anyway, a few more months to go and no doubt all will be revealed!

That is interesting. A larger vessel would provide greater operational flexibility (longer range, more flexible holds/spaces) and potentially free up the surface combatants to focus on the warfighting end of the mission spectrum, rather than undertaking surveillance patrols or intercepting illegals etc.

I hope a larger OPV - if that's what is sought - does not come at the expense of a reduced number of hulls.

Anyone know what the minimum size an OPV would need to be to enable it to patrol/respond in the Southern Ocean? I recall reading some years ago around 80m was the smallest you'd want to go.

 

[John Newman]

That is interesting. A larger vessel would provide greater operational flexibility (longer range, more flexible holds/spaces) and potentially free up the surface combatants to focus on the warfighting end of the mission spectrum, rather than undertaking surveillance patrols or intercepting illegals etc.

I hope a larger OPV - if that's what is sought - does not come at the expense of a reduced number of hulls.

Anyone know what the minimum size an OPV would need to be to enable it to patrol/respond in the Southern Ocean? I recall reading some years ago around 80m was the smallest you'd want to go.

Will the number of hulls be reduced? Possibly yes, it will come down to capability to do the job, if they are larger ships with greater endurance and range and are able to stay out on patrol longer, then possibly yes.

Don't forget that the original SEA1180 plan was to replace 26 ships of four different classes with a single class of 20.

Southern Ocean? It's not actually the 'size' that matters, it would come down to how far 'south' they may be required to travel and if they are not ice strengthened then size would mean nothing, but again it would all come down to the 'requirement' set by the Government, if there is no plan for them to go that far South, then obviously ice strengthening wouldn't be required.

Edit:

But realistically I can't imagine that they would be tasked with patrolling the Southern Ocean anyway, the replacements for the ACPB's are no doubt going to be based in Darwin and Cairns (both a long long way from the Southern Ocean), if there was a need for a 'patrol' in that area, it would probably be from one of the major fleet units either based in Perth or Sydney.

 

[Stock]

Will the number of hulls be reduced? Possibly yes, it will come down to capability to do the job, if they are larger ships with greater endurance and range and are able to stay out on patrol longer, then possibly yes.

Don't forget that the original SEA1180 plan was to replace 26 ships of four different classes with a single class of 20.

Southern Ocean? It's not actually the 'size' that matters, it would come down to how far 'south' they may be required to travel and if they are not ice strengthened then size would mean nothing, but again it would all come down to the 'requirement' set by the Government, if there is no plan for them to go that far South, then obviously ice strengthening wouldn't be required.

Edit:

But realistically I can't imagine that they would be tasked with patrolling the Southern Ocean anyway, the replacements for the ACPB's are no doubt going to be based in Darwin and Cairns (both a long long way from the Southern Ocean), if there was a need for a 'patrol' in that area, it would probably be from one of the major fleet units either based in Perth or Sydney.

Ack. Going to be a good project to watch then.

 

[ASSAIL]

Will the number of hulls be reduced? Possibly yes, it will come down to capability to do the job, if they are larger ships with greater endurance and range and are able to stay out on patrol longer, then possibly yes.

Don't forget that the original SEA1180 plan was to replace 26 ships of four different classes with a single class of 20.

Southern Ocean? It's not actually the 'size' that matters, it would come down to how far 'south' they may be required to travel and if they are not ice strengthened then size would mean nothing, but again it would all come down to the 'requirement' set by the Government, if there is no plan for them to go that far South, then obviously ice strengthening wouldn't be required.

Edit:

But realistically I can't imagine that they would be tasked with patrolling the Southern Ocean anyway, the replacements for the ACPB's are no doubt going to be based in Darwin and Cairns (both a long long way from the Southern Ocean), if there was a need for a 'patrol' in that area, it would probably be from one of the major fleet units either based in Perth or Sydney.

If you look at the geographical requirements for SEA 1180 in the DCP they will be required to operate down to South 48degs latitude and no further, Ice strengthening is not an issue.

 

[Punta74]

While we are on the subject, is there any further news on the Ice breaker replacement ? Last I heard that P&O dropped out of the tender leaving only DMS.

What designs are being looked at for this ?

I would like to see a John G. Diefenbaker class.

 

[John Newman]

If you look at the geographical requirements for SEA 1180 in the DCP they will be required to operate down to South 48degs latitude and no further, Ice strengthening is not an issue.

Agree with what you are saying about the geographical requirements for SEA1180, I've got a PDF that I downloaded that shows the 'boundaries' and they were:

48 degs South (which I think is just a bit further South than the bottom of the NZ South Island) to 5 degs North and 95 degs East to 180 degs East, a pretty big area too!

But that was for SEA1180, which apart from replacing the ACPB's, was also to replace the mine warfare ships and two classes of Hydrographic ships and that the basing locations were the two in the North and another one in the East for the 20 ships, SEA1180 no longer exists, it was put on the back burner by the 2013 Gillard DWP.

I suppose the question now is, what is going to be the scope of the 'new' SEA XXXX (whatever it is going to be called)? And is it only restricted to replacing the ACPB's and nothing else? Do the ACPB's have a more 'restricted' area of operations (of which I have no idea)?

Again, agree with what you said about SEA1180, but as it doesn't 'exist' anymore, we will probably just have to wait and see what the new Abbott DWP and DCP says.

Cheers,

 

[ASSAIL]

Again, agree with what you said about SEA1180, but as it doesn't 'exist' anymore, we will probably just have to wait and see what the new Abbott DWP and DCP says.

Cheers,

Isn't it simply deferred? I understood it remained extant.

 

[John Newman]

Isn't it simply deferred? I understood it remained extant.

Deferred to when is the question...

Here is the relevant paragraph from the 2013 Gillard DWP (page 84 of the DWP PDF document):

Defence will continue to have the capabilities to conduct patrol, mine-hunting and hydrographic roles. Government decisions on the scope and roles of future vessels will take account of the technological maturity of particular solutions, as well as the remaining life of current vessels. A modular multirole vessel remains a possible longer-term capability outcome, subject to technological maturity and an ability to provide operational flexibility with lower costs of ownership. However, in the shorter-term, 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. Similarly, Government intends to upgrade and extend the existing Mine Hunter Coastal and Survey Motor Launch Hydrographic vessels until the longer-term solution can be delivered.

How I read that is that SEA1180 was pushed way out into the distance, the ACPB's would be replaced with another class of PB's and the Mine warfare and Hydrograph ships would be 'upgraded'.

Let's assume that the Gillard Government had continued, the ACPB's would have been replaced (no doubt somewhere towards the 'end' of this decade) and it would have meant that with the 'usual' service life of those PB's then I would imagine that 'if' SEA1180 was 'revived' then the replacement for the 'replacement' PB's probably wouldn't have happened till the early 2030's.

So here we are to day, Rudd started SEA1180, Gillard 'deferred' it (see above), and now we have to wait and see in 'what form' the Abbott Government will proceed.

Cheers,

 

[Volkodav]

I believe the OCV/OPV is a better value, more capable, option through life, that may actually prove cheaper overall. Being larger, more seaworthy and durable, they would be capable of undertaking longer ranged, longer duration patrols in higher sea states.

Steel is cheap and air is free really does apply in the case of OPV vs PBs as their systems are very similar, if not the same. What you are getting is more space, better habitability and versatility. They require slightly larger crews but this is an advantage in terms of larger engineering departments leading to better ships husbandry and improved training capabilities. Fewer boats conducting longer patrols means fewer crews overall and the potential to get rid of the division system currently in place and return to crews being assigned to a particular ship.

Add in the fact other nations are using their OPVs for international missions they would once have used a frigate for and we are talking even better value for money. Basically every constabulary, UN policing and border protection job they can relieve major combatants in, the more money they save. While equipped to operate helicopters they don't need to embark them, just as PBs not on Op Sovereign Borders don't need carry two boarding parties, or have security teams. They could be operated very economically in PB roles, replace the frigates on border protection duties meaning the RAN is ahead even if they never take on MCMV and hydrographic roles.

 

[Boatteacher]

I believe the OCV/OPV is a better value, more capable, option through life, that may actually prove cheaper overall. Being larger, more seaworthy and durable, they would be capable of undertaking longer ranged, longer duration patrols in higher sea states.

Steel is cheap and air is free really does apply in the case of OPV vs PBs as their systems are very similar, if not the same. What you are getting is more space, better habitability and versatility. They require slightly larger crews but this is an advantage in terms of larger engineering departments leading to better ships husbandry and improved training capabilities. Fewer boats conducting longer patrols means fewer crews overall and the potential to get rid of the division system currently in place and return to crews being assigned to a particular ship.

Add in the fact other nations are using their OPVs for international missions they would once have used a frigate for and we are talking even better value for money. Basically every constabulary, UN policing and border protection job they can relieve major combatants in, the more money they save. While equipped to operate helicopters they don't need to embark them, just as PBs not on Op Sovereign Borders don't need carry two boarding parties, or have security teams. They could be operated very economically in PB roles, replace the frigates on border protection duties meaning the RAN is ahead even if they never take on MCMV and hydrographic roles.

Forgive what might be a dumb question, but in connection with the steel is cheap and air free equation, when you are looking at a PB replacement, isn't the issue of required power and fuel use an important part. These vessels seem to do a lot of km in service.

The speeds I've seen suggest they operate at well above displacement speed, so even the extra displacement speed offered by a longer hull may be of marginal benefit. On the other hand all that extra weight of the cheap steel is not so cheap to push about at planning/ beyond displacement speed.

 

[John Newman]

I believe the OCV/OPV is a better value, more capable, option through life, that may actually prove cheaper overall. Being larger, more seaworthy and durable, they would be capable of undertaking longer ranged, longer duration patrols in higher sea states.

Steel is cheap and air is free really does apply in the case of OPV vs PBs as their systems are very similar, if not the same. What you are getting is more space, better habitability and versatility. They require slightly larger crews but this is an advantage in terms of larger engineering departments leading to better ships husbandry and improved training capabilities. Fewer boats conducting longer patrols means fewer crews overall and the potential to get rid of the division system currently in place and return to crews being assigned to a particular ship.

Add in the fact other nations are using their OPVs for international missions they would once have used a frigate for and we are talking even better value for money. Basically every constabulary, UN policing and border protection job they can relieve major combatants in, the more money they save. While equipped to operate helicopters they don't need to embark them, just as PBs not on Op Sovereign Borders don't need carry two boarding parties, or have security teams. They could be operated very economically in PB roles, replace the frigates on border protection duties meaning the RAN is ahead even if they never take on MCMV and hydrographic roles.

V,

Obviously we have to wait and see what's contained in the new DWP and accompanying DCP, but if what the Def Min recently said in his speech to the ASPI's Future Surface Fleet Conference is to be believed, that a fleet of OPV's is to replace the ACPB's, then that is what appears will happen.

In what 'form' that class of OPV's ends up being (how many, size of ship, capabilities, dollars budgeted, entry to service date, etc), hopefully that will all be outlined and revealed in the upcoming DWP and DCP.

 

[John Newman]

Assail,

Following on from both our comments about SEA1180, and it's 'deferral' to the never never.

The one thing that I thought was rather odd was when the Gillard Government produced their new updated 2013 DWP, there was no accompanying updated Defence Capability Plan, I thought that was strange (the only DCP to be seen was the previous 2012 DCP).

Usually when previous Governments (of either flavour) have produced a new DWP then it is accompanied by a DCP and usually in the in between years they have produced an updated DCP as well.

So when the 2013 DWP was produced and the Government deferred SEA1180 and said they were then going to replace the ACPB's with another class of PB's, there was no way to 'see' the details of what the new plan was or what happened to the old plan.

As I'm sure you would know, it's a pretty simple matter to look at the DCP, look at the project, see the scope of the project, what the budget is, what are the expected dates for the various stages in the project, etc, that way you can get a reasonably clear idea of where that project is heading.

And of course we didn't have a DCP published last year by the Abbott Government in its first year of office, and I'm not really surprised about that because one of their policies when coming into Government was to produce a new DWP, so it was reasonable to expect that they wouldn't publish an update based on a 'previous' Government's DWP that they were intending to no doubt make changes too.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the plan is for the replacement of the ACBP's, I suspect it will be a totally new SEA???? project and the old 1180 (in the form that the Rudd Government proposed and deferred by the Gillard Government) will disappear!!!

 

[ASSAIL]

Assail,

Following on from both our comments about SEA1180, and it's 'deferral' to the never never.[/QUOTE

]

The defence Minister made some comments at the ASPI Surface ship conference a week or so ago which I interpreted as a suggestion that the "valley of death" would be filled with the Pacific PB replacement and a new class of OPV.

On that subject, I recently read the transcript of the Senate Committee inquiry into the AOR replacements and it appears that BAE productivity has improved remarkably during the AWD build whilst ASC and Forgacs has deteriorated. (This is an entire new subject and recommended reading on the aph website. How the Labour Greens dominated committee came to their recommendations is a mystery given the evidence presented but the Deputy chair, Senator Edwards dissenting report seems pretty spot on.)

Putting 2 + 2 together, I would not be surprised to see BAE Williamstown getting an OPV order in the coming DWP and it would probably be a mature design similar to HMS Clyde et al. (A long shot I know but certainly a benefit to all, particularly for the RAN)

Cheers
Chris

 

[Stock]

Assail,

]

The defence Minister made some comments at the ASPI Surface ship conference a week or so ago which I interpreted as a suggestion that the "valley of death" would be filled with the Pacific PB replacement and a new class of OPV.

On that subject, I recently read the transcript of the Senate Committee inquiry into the AOR replacements and it appears that BAE productivity has improved remarkably during the AWD build whilst ASC and Forgacs has deteriorated. (This is an entire new subject and recommended reading on the aph website. How the Labour Greens dominated committee came to their recommendations is a mystery given the evidence presented but the Deputy chair, Senator Edwards dissenting report seems pretty spot on.)

Putting 2 + 2 together, I would not be surprised to see BAE Williamstown getting an OPV order in the coming DWP and it would probably be a mature design similar to HMS Clyde et al. (A long shot I know but certainly a benefit to all, particularly for the RAN)

Cheers
Chris

BAE Systems' newish modified River-class OPV appears a capable and well-proven design (also in service with Brazil and Thailand). Although it's not cheap: costing the Royal Navy 348 million quid (AUD$676 million) for just 3 boats.

Defence Technology Review : DTR SEP 2014, Page 1

How much budget has been allocated to Sea 1179 Phase 2A (Armidale replacements) is anybody's guess. But 10 OPVs (let's say) to replace 14 Armidales - unlikely to get any change out of $1.5 billion based on what the Brits paid for theirs.

 

[ASSAIL]

BAE Systems' newish modified River-class OPV appears a capable and well-proven design (also in service with Brazil and Thailand). Although it's not cheap: costing the Royal Navy 348 million quid (AUD$676 million) for just 3 boats.

Defence Technology Review : DTR SEP 2014, Page 1

How much budget has been allocated to Sea 1179 Phase 2A (Armidale replacements) is anybody's guess. But 10 OPVs (let's say) to replace 14 Armidales - unlikely to get any change out of $1.5 billion based on what the Brits paid for theirs.

Its all about capability, time on task and crew comfort. We won't be replacing the ACPBs on a one for one basis if the platform is upgraded to an OPV.
Crew costs are also relevant. There are currently 21 ACPB crews so if we end up with say 6 OPV replacements (2 on task) there will be manpower savings over the current arrangement because multiple crewing should be dumped as it does nothing to improve care and maintenance of a dedicated platform.

It may well be that further Customs Cape class could supplement the OPV's.

The above scenario satisfies the continued industry concerns over work continuity in Henderson and Williamstown. If work continues on the F105 hull for the future frigates, cost/productivity parity with the DDG 51's will be achieved by hull #5 according to DMO in the Senate committee report I referred earlier and production of modules will continue as at present for some time.