Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

they've got a steel hull proposal

can't comment further

gf, understand your position on not being able to comment further or in detail.

But, this is getting a big confusing, based on what the Def Min said recently at the ASPI conference, it appeared from what he said that the ACPB's are not being replaced by another class of PB, but instead being replaced by a class of OPV's.

Are you able to comment on if we are talking PB's or OPV's??

Cheers,

 

[ASSAIL]

No sooner I do a post about possible projects for various yards and I wonder over to the defence.gov.au website and come across this:

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Release of the RAND Corporation report

The Government just released a report into the Australian naval ship building industry, "Australia’s Naval Shipbuilding Enterprise – preparing for the 21st century".

Here is a link to the online PDF (294 pages, bit of heavy reading!!!)

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1000/RR1093/RAND_RR1093.pdf

Be interesting to see what the report says and how it lines up with the DWP and DCP when they are released.

Happy reading!!!

I've just spent the afternoon reading the report and although it covers a vast amount of material, much of it does give us confidence in the capabilities of Australian yards, I think there are two most significant conclusions/recommendations and the crux of the report (IMHO) lies at annexD starting on p127. "Exploring the options of OPV's"

In chapter 4 they discuss up to 5 x OPV's to bridge the construction gap after AWD. In the annex they expand this to 10-12, and;

If 10 OPV's were started in 2017 it will sustain the workforce across the gap and will finish early enough not to impede peak production of the Future Frigate beginning in 2020.

Guidelines are given for OPV construction;
1. They must start by 2017,
2. It must be an existing design ( the 90 metre 1,900 ton design (BAE) will have no noticeable cost disadvantage c.f. a smaller 70mtr version)
3. The aim must be to sustain 20%-30% of the future frigate workforce demand.
4. The OPV schedule must be strategic ie taking cognizance of the future frigate progress, and;
5. If the OPVs are to be built in multiple shipyards, the distribution of work must compliment the work allocation of the future frigates.

I know gf is being coy, but my reading is that the OPV seems tailor made for the new BAE model in production it the UK.

I guess the other main conclusion is that surface combatants can be built here and a "drumbeat of 18-24 months which will result in a continuous build well into mid century and beyond.

There is so much more interesting work in the report that I am loathe to pick but believe me, for any parliamentarian with an ounce of credibility in defence matters this is compulsory reading and analysis.

Cheers
Chris

 

[alexsa]

Any word yet on whether the new Pacific patrol boats will incorporate any innovative propulsion technology? One of the things I've noted in the various reports on the current class is the difficulty some nations have in putting them to sea, due to the cost of fuel. If I recall, some nations only manage 30 sea-days a year from their boats. The boats were designed to be simple to maintain, but I wonder if some "fresh" ideas in propulsion tech would be useful - I'm thinking of things like a Flettner rotor or kite-sails - things that won't break the bank, but will allow routine patrol to be done cheaply. Maybe even a shift back to steam - using a lower grade bunker fuel than marine diesel, perhaps something that could be produced as a by-product of say plantation waste.

The Pacific class patrol boats have certainly been doing great deeds in the wake of the Vanuatu cyclone. There are boats from the Solomons & Tonga now helping out, and the Samoan boat was one of the first responders - delivering aid to Tuvalu. Unfortunately, the Vanuatu boat appears to have been damaged in the cyclone.

Some useful background info on renewable energy ship propulsion below. There has been quite a lot of interest in this lately, particularly from the University of the South Pacific in Fiji.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/media/eps/schoolofmechanicalaerospaceandcivilengineering/research/centres/tyndall/newsandevents/pdfs2014/Turning-the-tide--the-need-for-sustainable-sea-transport-in-the-Pacific.pdf
http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_Tech_Brief_RE_for%20Shipping_2015.pdf

These systems are not cheap. The will save fuel on passage but most of the soft sail options are of limited untility for loiter. Sails on cargo ships are not a new idea wiht hard sails trailled on cargo ships in the 90s with limited success. The significant increase in efficiency of slow speed two stroke diesel engines over the last decade, and increase in average ship size, have an impacted on the effectiveness of such systems for larger ships. Most cargo ship operators simply reduced steaming speeds to give a significant reduction in fuel burn.

I don't see these being considered for the PPB project. The limited usage by 'some' operators is due to factors other than fuel.

 

[alexsa]

I've just spent the afternoon reading the report and although it covers a vast amount of material, much of it does give us confidence in the capabilities of Australian yards, I think there are two most significant conclusions/recommendations and the crux of the report (IMHO) lies at annexD starting on p127. "Exploring the options of OPV's"

In chapter 4 they discuss up to 5 x OPV's to bridge the construction gap after AWD. In the annex they expand this to 10-12, and;

If 10 OPV's were started in 2017 it will sustain the workforce across the gap and will finish early enough not to impede peak production of the Future Frigate beginning in 2020.

Guidelines are given for OPV construction;
1. They must start by 2017,
2. It must be an existing design ( the 90 metre 1,900 ton design (BAE) will have no noticeable cost disadvantage c.f. a smaller 70mtr version)
3. The aim must be to sustain 20%-30% of the future frigate workforce demand.
4. The OPV schedule must be strategic ie taking cognizance of the future frigate progress, and;
5. If the OPVs are to be built in multiple shipyards, the distribution of work must compliment the work allocation of the future frigates.

I know gf is being coy, but my reading is that the OPV seems tailor made for the new BAE model in production it the UK.

I guess the other main conclusion is that surface combatants can be built here and a "drumbeat of 18-24 months which will result in a continuous build well into mid century and beyond.

There is so much more interesting work in the report that I am loathe to pick but believe me, for any parliamentarian with an ounce of credibility in defence matters this is compulsory reading and analysis.

Cheers
Chris

It is also pretty close to the Damen 2400 OPV design at 90m in length and capability. Certainly both a very capable platforms for the policing/patrol role and could conduct the anti piracy and drug interdiction roles

 

[rand0m]

Just something I found randomly on the web

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCTPSoaUtwk

 

[Volkodav]

Now they are talking OCV I do hope they incorporate full helicopter facilities, including hanger, because even if they usually never embark one it would add significantly to capability and flexibility of the design. An OCV could be easily designed with a hanger large enough for an MRH90 and maybe even a deck large enough to land and refuel a Chinook, ideal for HADR, while also making it very easy to integrate a UAV capability at a later date. A former Chief of Navy has said the biggest mistake with the Armidale specification was not having aviation / UAV facilities, I hope we don't repeat the mistake.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Now they are talking OCV I do hope they incorporate full helicopter facilities, including hanger, because even if they usually never embark one it would add significantly to capability and flexibility of the design. An OCV could be easily designed with a hanger large enough for an MRH90 and maybe even a deck large enough to land and refuel a Chinook, ideal for HADR, while also making it very easy to integrate a UAV capability at a later date. A former Chief of Navy has said the biggest mistake with the Armidale specification was not having aviation / UAV facilities, I hope we don't repeat the mistake.

it would have to be a fair sized vessel

ie well deck or davits for the rhibs and a landing deck, safety or permanent hanger for rotary or URAC/UAV

 

[Stock]

it would have to be a fair sized vessel

ie well deck or davits for the rhibs and a landing deck, safety or permanent hanger for rotary or URAC/UAV

Would you settle for a deck large enough for an unmanned helo such as the MQ-8C Fire Scout (Bell Jetranger airframe)? Some 3.5m shorter than MRH90 and a lot lighter. Will be weaponised in due course, 12 hours endurance and handy sling load.

Almost certainly a UAV capability will be facilitated in the ACPB replacement/OPV, but what size etc I don't know. ScanEagle has been mentioned and this requires no deck for launch or recovery. Ideal for checking out initial targets of interest without the vessel having to be deploy to that location itself.

An organic UAV surveillance/reconnaissance capability that provides such a force multiplier effect could be a factor in determining how many vessels the RAN ultimately needs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Would you settle for a deck large enough for an unmanned helo such as the MQ-8C Fire Scout (Bell Jetranger airframe)? Some 3.5m shorter than MRH90 and a lot lighter. Will be weaponised in due course, 12 hours endurance and handy sling load.

Almost certainly a UAV capability will be facilitated in the ACPB replacement/OPV, but what size etc I don't know. ScanEagle has been mentioned and this requires no deck for launch or recovery. Ideal for checking out initial targets of interest without the vessel having to be deploy to that location itself.

An organic UAV surveillance/reconnaissance capability that provides such a force multiplier effect could be a factor in determining how many vessels the RAN ultimately needs.

Yep, the UARC reference was about aircraft such as the Fireflys and Yamaha RD's

 

[justsomeaussie]

ScanEagle has been mentioned and this requires no deck for launch or recovery. Ideal for checking out initial targets of interest without the vessel having to be deploy to that location itself.

I'm all for UAVs but Scan Eagle does require considerable amount of space. The catapult launch and the recover systems are very large and chew up a lot of deck space and the comms and power systems also contribute. And does anyone have 8-12 million dollars for it? That's almost a third the cost of the vessel!

On smaller platforms the Navy should be looking at small helo UAVs much like

Camcopter or microdrone

Introduction - Schiebel
UAV / drone solutions for mapping, aerial inspection, unmanned cargo

 

[ASSAIL]

Yep, the UARC reference was about aircraft such as the Fireflys and Yamaha RD's

Is this what we're interested in More Border Patrol Gadgets – ‘R-Bat’ unmanned helicopter « What Happened to the Portcullis?
or something more simple like the agricultural R-MAX?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is this what we're interested in More Border Patrol Gadgets – ‘R-Bat’ unmanned helicopter « What Happened to the Portcullis?
or something more simple like the agricultural R-MAX?

Have long been a supporter of R-MAX and used to crap on about its virtues on StrategyPage almost 10 years ago

as usual, when these things perform they load them up and want to do more - and then start to break open the original capablity when they start to over task and overuse them

I'm of the view that there's a need to pull back from making them the all singing and all dancing bear as much as possible.

I guess I'm more of an R-MAX fan than a Firefly fan for that reason - but I guess it all comes down to what they want the primary task to be

interesting that USG run anti-drug cartel air ops in sth america have basically focussed on sensor and shooter teams rather than combined sensor and shooter platform

 

[Stock]

I'm all for UAVs but Scan Eagle does require considerable amount of space. The catapult launch and the recover systems are very large and chew up a lot of deck space and the comms and power systems also contribute. And does anyone have 8-12 million dollars for it? That's almost a third the cost of the vessel!

On smaller platforms the Navy should be looking at small helo UAVs much like

Camcopter or microdrone

Introduction - Schiebel
UAV / drone solutions for mapping, aerial inspection, unmanned cargo

Not sure I'd agree that ScanEagle's launch and recovery systems are especially large. The catapult launcher seems to take up a deck space of about 4x4m, whilst the Skyhook catch cable recovery system can be mounted on a folding boom and semi-permanently mounted at various locations aft (removing the need for the trailer).

https://vimeo.com/62119955

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY1Y9LBATHo&feature=player_detailpage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73rKSyKfjs8&feature=player_detailpage

ScanEagle also has 4 times the range of the Camcopter S-100 (24hrs vs 6hrs). The latter would require a sizeable and dedicated flight deck area to enable recovery in rough seas.

I'd certainly prefer something like Fire Scout, but if a dedicated flight deck is not sought for the OPVs, a multi-use aft deck area with enough space for both RHIBs and ScanEagle launch/recovery (and stowage of the launcher when not in use) could still enable worthwhile UARC.

 

[ASSAIL]

It is also pretty close to the Damen 2400 OPV design at 90m in length and capability. Certainly both a very capable platforms for the policing/patrol role and could conduct the anti piracy and drug interdiction roles

I'm a great fan of the 2400 but I fear it may be too big at 2,400 tonnes c.f. the Forth/Amazonas class, 1,900. Damens have a 76mm and full aviation capability for a large helo and would be the RR solution however, the RAND report has calculated that 700,000 man/hours per ship is the ideal construction effort to be the gap filler between AWD and FF and I'd guess that they (2400) would exceed that and we would be left with too few hulls to make it worthwhile.

the crew requirements are vastly different, 60 for Damen and 34 for BAE so that will be a killer IMHO

 

[gf0012-aust]

I know gf is being coy, but my reading is that the OPV seems tailor made for the new BAE model in production it the UK.

Nah, not being coy because of privilege, its just that I'm only aware of tid bits and not enough to rabbit on with confidence.

someone else in here is, and I'm taking my cues from how and what they bring to the table as they are far better placed to provide detail

so, they're the ones who may be situationally coy

 

[Volkodav]

I'm a great fan of the 2400 but I fear it may be too big at 2,400 tonnes c.f. the Forth/Amazonas class, 1,900. Damens have a 76mm and full aviation capability for a large helo and would be the RR solution however, the RAND report has calculated that 700,000 man/hours per ship is the ideal construction effort to be the gap filler between AWD and FF and I'd guess that they (2400) would exceed that and we would be left with too few hulls to make it worthwhile.

the crew requirements are vastly different, 60 for Damen and 34 for BAE so that will be a killer IMHO

35 crew for Meteoro (BAM) but that would be too big, not because it couldn't do the job (IMO it would be brilliant) but because there is no way it could use existing defence infrastructure in Darwin. There is also the psychological hump of getting non technical people to believe something so large could be affordable.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Not sure I'd agree that ScanEagle's launch and recovery systems are especially large. The catapult launcher seems to take up a deck space of about 4x4m, whilst the Skyhook catch cable recovery system can be mounted on a folding boom and semi-permanently mounted at various locations aft (removing the need for the trailer).

I’ve seen the plans to put it on the bow of the Armidales and the catapult alone takes up the entire space even once you remove the gun. Then you've got to add the recovery arm and large comms and power stacks, it's hardly modular and it's not simple.

Personally I think smaller is better to the extent where you don’t have to have a trained pilot (whether RAN or contracted) living on board the vessel to fly the things. Can you imagine the immense cost of that from personnel alone?

Simplicity and COTS systems have a value all of their own.

Take Army's lesson of the huge amount of crashes that Scan Eagle and Shadow 200 had in Afghanistan if that happens at sea there is your entire capability gone and an really expensive one at that.

 

[rjtjrt]

35 crew for Meteoro (BAM) but that would be too big, not because it couldn't do the job (IMO it would be brilliant) but because there is no way it could use existing defence infrastructure in Darwin. There is also the psychological hump of getting non technical people to believe something so large could be affordable.

Isn't there discussion currently between Aust and US re berthing facility upgrades at Darwin Port to allow US Navy amphibious ships that are related to the current and increasing rotation of US Marines to NT?
Are berthing facilities the current main constraint?

 

[ASSAIL]

35 crew for Meteoro (BAM) but that would be too big, not because it couldn't do the job (IMO it would be brilliant) but because there is no way it could use existing defence infrastructure in Darwin. There is also the psychological hump of getting non technical people to believe something so large could be affordable.

True but the BAE OPV can fit on the Frances Bay Synchro Lift here in Darwin, depending on weight distribution, the Damen 2400 could only fit if that distribution was perfect because it would be on its limit - 2500 tonnes.

 

[John Newman]

True but the BAE OPV can fit on the Frances Bay Synchro Lift here in Darwin, depending on weight distribution, the Damen 2400 could only fit if that distribution was perfect because it would be on its limit - 2500 tonnes.

Apart from the 2400 (90m, 2400t, 60 crew), Damen also has a number of other offerings, the larger 2600 and two smaller, the 1800 and the 1400, see below:

Damen 1400 (72m):

Ideal Patrol Vessel for marine safety and humanitarian tasks

The 1400 is 72m, a displacement of 1470t and a crew of 35 (download the PDF product sheet for full details).

Damen 1800 (83m):

Patrol Vessel has 4 diesel engines & 2 controllable pitch propellers

The 1800 is 83m, a displacement of 1890t and a crew of 46 (download the PDF product sheet for full details).

By comparison the specs I can find on the BAE OPVs, there are two versions, an 80m and a 90m:

http://www.baesystems.com/product/B..._afrWindowMode=0&_adf.ctrl-state=194c2qt0p2_4

The 90m version is 1800t with a crew of 70 and the 80m version is 1700t and a crew of 36.

That's just two companies offerings, eg BAE and Damen, there are probably a number of other candidates too.


Chris, In regard to the facilities in Darwin (and I suppose Cairns too), it would be reasonable to assume that as part of the Government inducing OPV's to replace the ACBP's, I'd imagine that part of the total project cost would include base and facilities upgrades too (for example, with the recent announcement of two more C-17A's for the RAAF, of the $1B mentioned by the Government, $300m is specifically for the upgrade and expansion of Amberley).

With the ship lift facilities that you mentioned, are they Government or privately owned?

Would it be reasonable to assume that facilities such as ship lift capacity that if Government owned, then the Government would have to potentially throw money at those facilities, or if privately owned, whoever wins the 'maintenance' contract on the OPV's based in the North, would 'possibly' have to invest in it's infrastructure to maintain the OPV's.

Interested to hear what you think.

Cheers,