Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Goknub]

If we're going the OPV route I'd like to see something more focused towards HADR. Small crew but maximise cargo and troop capacity as far as possible.

What we lack is a good intra-theatre island-hopper. I would like to see the potential of combining the LCH-replacement and OPV requirement into a single larger vessel.

I believe that would have more use than a "pure" OPV. This would help justify a larger build considering purple HADR-focused assets seem to be flavour of the month.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If we're going the OPV route I'd like to see something more focused towards HADR. Small crew but maximise cargo and troop capacity as far as possible.

Its what RAAF focus on when they end up in front of Central Agencies for the capability reviews - and thats why they have less grief than the other services when it comes to getting gear through govt

 

[StingrayOZ]

What we lack is a good intra-theatre island-hopper. I would like to see the potential of combining the LCH-replacement and OPV requirement into a single larger vessel.

I definitely think it need some landing capability, but I still think they are two different vessels (certainly with overlap). Something that can deploy a truck, light earth moving equipment or a LARC. Also be able to deploy a UUV. Etc

The LCH will have to be able to land tanks, and aslavs. A proper landing ship.

If the OPV could be fitted with a JHSV type ramp. It could unload at austere piers, at sea, to another OPV, to and from the LHD or a JHSV type ship. Etc.

But I am unsure if something like that could be fitted to a OPV (particularly the ones discussed here). But that kind of capability would be extremely useful. Being able to insert, resupply or withdraw a light force. Obvious HADR. It wouldn't have to do everything all at once. The hanger could be re purposed for what ever is required.

 

[ASSAIL]

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,

HMAS Coonawarra synchrolift is limited to 500 tonnes but more importantly the shed, transfer bay and boat park will not fit a 90 mtr ship. The limiting length for those facilities is probably around 65mtrs IIRC and the site is too restricted to change without huge expense.

The commercial synchro is owned by the Paspaley Pearling Company (I was the ex GM) and trades as Pearl Marine. It is a 2,500 tonne lift but that assumes a weight distribution curve that sits plumb and evenly across its length and from memory I think its a 60 mtr platform where overhang is not possible on the shore side of the lift meaning a 30 mtr overhang on the seaward end. Provided that there is relatively little weight on the overhang that's no problem.
The yard has completed many Fremantle Class refits in the past and as the offshore work has contracted, there should be some spare capacity.

There are no other suitable facilities in Darwin and the cheapest docking option may be to resurrect the old floating dock at FBE if its still around but it would mean that the OPV's must sail out of Darwin to avoid cyclones.

Cairns poses no such problem, a large capacity patent slipway (ex NQEA) is still operating IIRC.

 

[Goknub]

The Lurssen OPV looks like something that could be a good HADR prioritised design.

The existing 80m design weights in at 1,625t and more importantly has a rear ramp. This is currently for zodiacs but should have little problem with LARCs.

The 85m/90m has a nice hangar for storage too. A RAN design would ideally add room for an LCVP, either through the stern or from davits.

It's a mature MOTS design as well.

----------
Brunei's Darussalam class 80m version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7dnP14VU5Y

Lurssen OPV 85/90 (page 3)
ISSUU - Special Report – Next Generation Naval Vessel Technology by The Magazine Production Company

----------edit

Fessmer already have a number of designs that focus on this.

http://www.fassmer.de/shipbuilding/naval-vessels/

There are plenty of good options out there, hopefully the govt will do the right thing.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Otago/Wellington have demonstrated the versatility in the region, but people shouldn't be under any illusions about how much HADR can be achieved with a limited crew size. There isn't the depth of crewing on an OPV to be able to turn out a watch and send them ashore for assistance.

 

[ngatimozart]

Otago/Wellington have demonstrated the versatility in the region, but people shouldn't be under any illusions about how much HADR can be achieved with a limited crew size. There isn't the depth of crewing on an OPV to be able to turn out a watch and send them ashore for assistance.

Yes, however for HADR you can put an extra 30 odd bods on the Protector Class OPV who can go ashore etc., to undertake HADR. Also if the ship is not steaming at the time and is anchored an anchor watch is basically three or four people releasing the rest of the crew for other taskings as required.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Yes, however for HADR you can put an extra 30 odd bods on the Protector Class OPV who can go ashore etc., to undertake HADR. Also if the ship is not steaming at the time and is anchored an anchor watch is basically three or four people releasing the rest of the crew for other taskings as required.

That's true, but there isn't the depth or breadth of trades aboard ship that there once was. You simply don't have half a dozen electricians aboard, or half a dozen boiler men etc.

 

[Volkodav]

That's true, but there isn't the depth or breadth of trades aboard ship that there once was. You simply don't have half a dozen electricians aboard, or half a dozen boiler men etc.

For HADR you would simply embark what you needed from defence or civilian agencies, the key is having the space for them and their equipment. For the big stuff you would have the LCH(R), Choules and the Canberra's, but it would still be useful to be able to deploy a medical and / or engineering team, and more importantly a helicopter (preferably an MRH90) on an OPV. This would never be a primary role, just an extremely valuable secondary one, so long as the compromises required weren't too great.

Extremely valid points from Assail, very major upgrades would be required to HMAS Coonawarra to permit the operation and support of a number of OPVs. To be honest though, if we want the US to pivot to the region we should be providing the sort of facilities they need, were they need them, let alone the fact we struggle to support the RANs current requirements up north, let alone their future needs.

Part of the issue with the Armidales was they treated them as individual boats rather than a homogenous class. Expansion, or replacement, of facilities in Darwin so all work on the boats could have been done there would have permitted a competent, trained workforce to be grown locally, that could have provided much more efficient, higher quality, support for the RAN, resulting in greater availability, fewer surprises and hopefully better value for money. Expand the facilities for corvettes / OPVs / OCVs, or even USN LCS, or RAN frigates and it would become even more sustainable. Done intelligently, such a facility would be profitable and would attract USN, regional naval and even commercial work.

 

[ngatimozart]

That's true, but there isn't the depth or breadth of trades aboard ship that there once was. You simply don't have half a dozen electricians aboard, or half a dozen boiler men etc.

As V said it's about the extras you take with you, however when a ship is alongside or at anchor for any length of time the watch status changes from steaming watches to in port watches which means that a crew members watch goes from four hours (stand fast the dog watches) to 24 hours. Hence for an in port watch on an OPV you would probably have an Officer Of the Day (Officer or maybe Senior Rate), a Duty Senior Rate (Senior Rate or maybe Leading Hand), a Quartermaster, possibly Quartermasters assistant, one or two technical rates being usually a stoker or a greenie, and a Chef / Cook. That way the off watch crew get all night in. In a HADR situation your crew would not be on leave or training but ashore working with only a minimum crew onboard to keep the ship ticking over. The IPVs did this when the RENA went down and on one other occasion when fighting a fire ashore in the North Island. Navy have done this for years, if not centuries. If the crew are needed urgently for a crash run you can call them back aboard quickly. Been there done that.

 

[alexsa]

The Lurssen OPV looks like something that could be a good HADR prioritised design.

The existing 80m design weights in at 1,625t and more importantly has a rear ramp. This is currently for zodiacs but should have little problem with LARCs.

The 85m/90m has a nice hangar for storage too. A RAN design would ideally add room for an LCVP, either through the stern or from davits.

It's a mature MOTS design as well.

----------
Brunei's Darussalam class 80m version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7dnP14VU5Y

Lurssen OPV 85/90 (page 3)
ISSUU - Special Report – Next Generation Naval Vessel Technology by The Magazine Production Company

----------edit

Fessmer already have a number of designs that focus on this.

Naval Vessels - Fassmer Shipbuilding Company

There are plenty of good options out there, hopefully the govt will do the right thing.

Why do you assume there would be 'little problem with LARC". A RHIB, even a big one at 8m, is a minnow in weight and height compared to a LARC. An LCVP poses even greater issues noting the RHIB uses its own power and a lined ramp for recovery where a stern knotch/recovery area is used. Getting a LCVP up there would require winching and transfer arrangments so the stern door (it is not a ramp) is clear.. This means you need more height than the height of the LCVP plus cradles....... end of the day the flight deck would need to be higher and you are starting to look at mods that significnatly change the stability and dynamics of the design.

It is furstrating to see constant suggestions that you can retro fit this that the other thing to a vessel...... this is rubbish. If you want to turn it into an LCH .... just buy the LSH100 or LSH120 and leave the OPV as a flexible design that can do patrol really well (piracy, drug interdiction, towing, pollution response and fisheries) and has a very useful HADR capability.

Sorry but the constant suggestions that a vesel can do things with 'simple' modifications is irritating and ignores the not insignificant structural and stability issues such ideas pose.

 

[John Newman]

Why do you assume there would be 'little problem with LARC". A RHIB, even a big one at 8m, is a minnow in weight and height compared to a LARC. An LCVP poses even greater issues noting the RHIB uses its own power and a lined ramp for recovery where a stern knotch/recovery area is used. Getting a LCVP up there would require winching and transfer arrangments so the stern door (it is not a ramp) is clear.. This means you need more height than the height of the LCVP plus cradles....... end of the day the flight deck would need to be higher and you are starting to look at mods that significnatly change the stability and dynamics of the design.

It is furstrating to see constant suggestions that you can retro fit this that the other thing to a vessel...... this is rubbish. If you want to turn it into an LCH .... just buy the LSH100 or LSH120 and leave the OPV as a flexible design that can do patrol really well (piracy, drug interdiction, towing, pollution response and fisheries) and has a very useful HADR capability.

Sorry but the constant suggestions that a vesel can do things with 'simple' modifications is irritating and ignores the not insignificant structural and stability issues such ideas pose.

Agree, I think that when it comes to an OPV and an LCH then it's a case of 'horses for courses'.

Sure when it come to an OPV 'type' ship there is certainly the possibility of having a design that can be a MRV as proposed by SEA1180, that the ship could perform three different roles, with the appropriate mission modules, eg, patrol, hyrographic and mine warfare, but at this stage and with the 'speed' the Government appears to want to act, trying to create a 'hybrid' ship that is both an OPV and an LCH is probably a bridge too far.

My two picks for separate OPV and LCH(R) are both Damen designs, the OPV design is the 'OPV 1800':

Patrol Vessel has 4 diesel engines & 2 controllable pitch propellers

Basic specs are, length of 83m, displacement of 1890t, crew of 46, one of the other important 'features' of the design is the aviation facilities, as designed there is ability to land, operate, refuel and house a helicopter of either MRH-90 or Sea King size (obviously that would also mean that a Blackhawk or Seahawk size aircraft would also be able to use those facilities too).

All in all, considering the overall size of the ship, 83m, a pretty impressive capability (if you click on the link above and download the product sheet PDF you will see the full details).


For the LCH(R) role, it's the 'LST 100':

Landing Ship Transport 100

Again another impressive design (in my opinion anyway!), basic specs are, 100m length, 1000-1300t, basic crew of 18, accommodation for another 235 troops/EMF, helicopter landing pad with the capacity to operate a medium sized helicopter (no hangar), ability to beach itself, bow and stern ramps, enclosed main deck and upper deck and numerous options too (again download the PDF product sheet for full details).

So there you go! Problem solved!




PS, on a 'lighter note', if the PM or Def Min read DT, here's an open letter to both of them:

"Dear Tony and Kevin,

Hope you are both well, as is well known you guys are putting the finishing touches to the new DWP, if you have a look above, I've found the solution to both the OPV's and the LCH(R), pretty neat designs don't you think? (and no I don't work for Damen, ok? But I'd be happy to pick up a 10% 'referral' fee if you do select these designs!)

Anyway guys, if you pick both designs (and in reasonable numbers too of course!), it will be both good for the Australian Naval shipbuilding Industry and the RAN too, of course!!

If you pick up on my suggestions then I'll probably vote for you again in the next election, sound like a 'fair' deal?

Not that I'd be likely to vote for the other side (especially the 'watermelons', you know the one's that are Green on the outside and Red on the inside?, I'm sure you know who I mean, or that Jackie somebody either, ok?).

Anyway, Tony and Kevin, thanks for listening, look forward to seeing the OPV 1800 and the LST 100 coming to an RAN naval base soon!

Would it be too much to ask if one of them is named after me?? Not that I've served, but I had one Grandfather involved in the Boer War, one was an original Anzac at Gallipoli, my father and uncles were all WWII veterans, anyway if there is a 'spare' name to be used, send me a message and we can talk soon, ok?

Cheers,

John N"

 

[Goknub]

The thought behind adding additional roles is more just to see what else can be gained from a larger hull, "little problem" was a poor choice of words.

Playing devil's advocate, what will an 1,800t OPV achieve that isn't already being achieved by a 300t IPV?

At this point we've "stopped the boats" and seem to be on top of the illegal fishing threat. If the Armidales are being over-worked that would suggest an increased fleet of 18 or 20 would be a better solution, the new hulls being pooled as "spares" so those being used can be rotated offline and given longer maintenance.

Building new IPVs with steel and/or doubling the weight to 600t could reduce fatigue issues and allow for the quantity required to cover many areas simultaneously.

Building and sustaining a larger OPV will impact the rest of the ADF and cost capability somewhere else. Is it worth that cost to introduce what seems to be more a "nice to have" than a "must have"?

 

[Milne Bay]

The thought behind adding additional roles is more just to see what else can be gained from a larger hull, "little problem" was a poor choice of words.

Playing devil's advocate, what will an 1,800t OPV achieve that isn't already being achieved by a 300t IPV?

At this point we've "stopped the boats" and seem to be on top of the illegal fishing threat. If the Armidales are being over-worked that would suggest an increased fleet of 18 or 20 would be a better solution, the new hulls being pooled as "spares" so those being used can be rotated offline and given longer maintenance.

Building new IPVs with steel and/or doubling the weight to 600t could reduce fatigue issues and allow for the quantity required to cover many areas simultaneously.

Building and sustaining a larger OPV will impact the rest of the ADF and cost capability somewhere else. Is it worth that cost to introduce what seems to be more a "nice to have" than a "must have"?

Yes, this is most likely correct.
Except that the replacements have been named as OPV's and that is what has prompted the responses.
MB

 

[ASSAIL]

Playing devil's advocate, what will an 1,800t OPV achieve that isn't already being achieved by a 300t IPV?

The ships work offshore, sometimes 2,000 miles offshore. They need endurance, meaning food storage, they need an aviation capability, they need spare quarters for asylum seekers, the need comfort in a seaway so the crew can remain on task and be useful.
An IPV can't meet those requirements and couldn't undertake anti piracy patrols an ocean away.
The RNZN's IPV's haven't been a raging success and would have trouble doing half of the above, as would the 3 previous classes of RAN PB's

 

[ngatimozart]

The thought behind adding additional roles is more just to see what else can be gained from a larger hull, "little problem" was a poor choice of words.

Playing devil's advocate, what will an 1,800t OPV achieve that isn't already being achieved by a 300t IPV?

Think about it. An IPV is an Inshore Patrol Vessel hence it's designed for littoral or inshore waters not deep sea work. The OPV on the other hand is an Off Shore Patrol Vessel, has a range of maybe 6000 nautical miles can handle maybe 10m seas which no IPV will safely handle. I'd rather do the deep blue stuff in an OPV than an IPV.

I was on a 27m 105 tonne Moa Class Inshore Patrol Craft 100 miles off the West Coast of NZs South Island in the middle of winter which is not nice. The IPCs were rated for 4m seas and 40 knots of wind. Anything bigger than that we were supposed to be alongside or in shelter. The Tasman Sea in the middle of winter can get somewhat excitable and we had 5m seas on occasion and 50 knots of wind with 60+ knot gusts. No where to shelter so we rode it out continuing monitoring FFVs and boarding them when it was safe to do so. The Moa class had a tendency to roll on wet grass so the ride wasn't that comfortable either. The fish used to get well fed on those trips

At this point we've "stopped the boats" and seem to be on top of the illegal fishing threat. If the Armidales are being over-worked that would suggest an increased fleet of 18 or 20 would be a better solution, the new hulls being pooled as "spares" so those being used can be rotated offline and given longer maintenance.
Building new IPVs with steel and/or doubling the weight to 600t could reduce fatigue issues and allow for the quantity required to cover many areas simultaneously.

Building and sustaining a larger OPV will impact the rest of the ADF and cost capability somewhere else. Is it worth that cost to introduce what seems to be more a "nice to have" than a "must have"?

Shipbuilding and the sailing thereof is a science and an art, not necessarily in that order either. It's not a simple matter of adding more weight and doing a Tim the Tool man by adding more power. You actually have to know what you are doing, especially on warships, because of the inherent dangers. Some of these are obvious and many aren't. It is highly complex and involves the integration of many, many systems that all have to work together. The failure of just one part of one system can be catastrophic.

Maybe you should stick to critiquing a subject that you have some knowledge about. Assail will have forgotten more about seamanship and naval knowledge than I or any other on here will have ever known. Therefore he actually knows what he is talking about. I firmly suggest that you read and learn from what he posts.

 

[Goknub]

"Combat" roles like anti-piracy are best left to the frigates I believe. Not because they are needed, they are clearly vastly over-powered, but because it gives them an additional justification to the public and politicians for their existence.

There is a risk their number could be reduced if their active roles are seen to be replaced by cheaper OPVs. I would prefer a larger combat fleet than a larger patrol fleet if it came to that trade-off.

The FFGs bring the aviation support that the IPVs lack and seem to have done quite well conducting the longer range patrolling.

The ability to transport asylum seekers and evacuate personnel post disaster (ie HADR) is a good justification for an OPV. How much this influences the design is what I am interested in.

 

[Zero Alpha]

All due respect Ngati, but the Moa class were outperformed by almost anything that floated. If you're feeling nostalgic though, there are a couple of sale for around the $250K mark.

 

[Jezza]

Agree, I think that when it comes to an OPV and an LCH then it's a case of 'horses for courses'.

Sure when it come to an OPV 'type' ship there is certainly the possibility of having a design that can be a MRV as proposed by SEA1180, that the ship could perform three different roles, with the appropriate mission modules, eg, patrol, hyrographic and mine warfare, but at this stage and with the 'speed' the Government appears to want to act, trying to create a 'hybrid' ship that is both an OPV and an LCH is probably a bridge too far.

My two picks for separate OPV and LCH(R) are both Damen designs, the OPV design is the 'OPV 1800':

Patrol Vessel has 4 diesel engines & 2 controllable pitch propellers

Basic specs are, length of 83m, displacement of 1890t, crew of 46, one of the other important 'features' of the design is the aviation facilities, as designed there is ability to land, operate, refuel and house a helicopter of either MRH-90 or Sea King size (obviously that would also mean that a Blackhawk or Seahawk size aircraft would also be able to use those facilities too).

All in all, considering the overall size of the ship, 83m, a pretty impressive capability (if you click on the link above and download the product sheet PDF you will see the full details).


For the LCH(R) role, it's the 'LST 100':

Landing Ship Transport 100

Again another impressive design (in my opinion anyway!), basic specs are, 100m length, 1000-1300t, basic crew of 18, accommodation for another 235 troops/EMF, helicopter landing pad with the capacity to operate a medium sized helicopter (no hangar), ability to beach itself, bow and stern ramps, enclosed main deck and upper deck and numerous options too (again download the PDF product sheet for full details).

So there you go! Problem solved!




PS, on a 'lighter note', if the PM or Def Min read DT, here's an open letter to both of them:

"Dear Tony and Kevin,

Hope you are both well, as is well known you guys are putting the finishing touches to the new DWP, if you have a look above, I've found the solution to both the OPV's and the LCH(R), pretty neat designs don't you think? (and no I don't work for Damen, ok? But I'd be happy to pick up a 10% 'referral' fee if you do select these designs!)

Anyway guys, if you pick both designs (and in reasonable numbers too of course!), it will be both good for the Australian Naval shipbuilding Industry and the RAN too, of course!!

If you pick up on my suggestions then I'll probably vote for you again in the next election, sound like a 'fair' deal?

Not that I'd be likely to vote for the other side (especially the 'watermelons', you know the one's that are Green on the outside and Red on the inside?, I'm sure you know who I mean, or that Jackie somebody either, ok?).

Anyway, Tony and Kevin, thanks for listening, look forward to seeing the OPV 1800 and the LST 100 coming to an RAN naval base soon!

Would it be too much to ask if one of them is named after me?? Not that I've served, but I had one Grandfather involved in the Boer War, one was an original Anzac at Gallipoli, my father and uncles were all WWII veterans, anyway if there is a 'spare' name to be used, send me a message and we can talk soon, ok?

Cheers,

John N"

Damen have a great design here. And in various sizes.
Nice Video of the LST 120
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCTPSoaUtwk

 

[Stock]

The ships work offshore, sometimes 2,000 miles offshore. They need endurance, meaning food storage, they need an aviation capability, they need spare quarters for asylum seekers, the need comfort in a seaway so the crew can remain on task and be useful.
An IPV can't meet those requirements and couldn't undertake anti piracy patrols an ocean away.
The RNZN's IPV's haven't been a raging success and would have trouble doing half of the above, as would the 3 previous classes of RAN PB's

Acknowledging the enhanced capabilities and mission flexibility that a helo brings and given that an MRH90 would be embarked on as needed basis and not organic to the vessel, I'm interested to learn what design and cost implications a helo flight deck has on OPV design and build.

Also, is a hangar desirable/necessary for the OPVs?

As we know very little of what capabilities and specs are sought in the OPVs, I do wonder if omission of a helo flight deck and/or hangar might be a candidate cost-cutting measure for a cash-strapped Defence budget.