Anychance they will use this launch ceremony to deliver the DWP or Ship building plan ?
Just noticed a video someone uploaded a few days ago showing recent footage of Hobart.. She's ready to go !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arT---fkFNg
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Just noticed a video someone uploaded a few days ago showing recent footage of Hobart.. She's ready to go !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arT---fkFNg
Joe Black
Active Member
Damen's 2nd Generation OPV
More info on Damen OPV 2...
This would be the perfect OPV for RAN!
Damen introduces the new "2nd Generation OPV" to meet demand for multi-mission platforms
More info on Damen OPV 2...
This would be the perfect OPV for RAN!
Damen introduces the new "2nd Generation OPV" to meet demand for multi-mission platforms
Great to see Hobart nearly up and running. I am hopeful, after the pain, these ships are worth it all and prove themselves in operations.
OPV-2 looks like a great option for the RAN with pretty much everything you would want on that type of ship, the greater detail seems to confirm the well laid out design. Hopefully the RAN runs with it with sufficient numbers. These look ideal for long range patrol, policing, counter-x missions, search, recovery etc. A significant number of these would make the RAN a much more effective navy with a longer reach into areas where its needed (ie further than 200 NM off shore). These should replace everything under the size of a frigate (survey, patrol, mine hunter etc) in the long term.
These look like very seaworthy ships. Sea axe bow, steel, protected recovery of RHIB, hanger that can take a full size helo and a UAV. I can imagine these being popular with several types of navies in the region.
That would free up the Anzac replacements to be a real frigate (F-100 based or similar?). Or at least mean they won't have to have mission bays, docks, unrealistic aviation capability etc.
OPV-2 looks like a great option for the RAN with pretty much everything you would want on that type of ship, the greater detail seems to confirm the well laid out design. Hopefully the RAN runs with it with sufficient numbers. These look ideal for long range patrol, policing, counter-x missions, search, recovery etc. A significant number of these would make the RAN a much more effective navy with a longer reach into areas where its needed (ie further than 200 NM off shore). These should replace everything under the size of a frigate (survey, patrol, mine hunter etc) in the long term.
These look like very seaworthy ships. Sea axe bow, steel, protected recovery of RHIB, hanger that can take a full size helo and a UAV. I can imagine these being popular with several types of navies in the region.
That would free up the Anzac replacements to be a real frigate (F-100 based or similar?). Or at least mean they won't have to have mission bays, docks, unrealistic aviation capability etc.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Looks like the right sort of boat, steel, flexible mission wise with good sea keeping. Hope they can take some stanflex modules.
Does anyone have any idea of the cost of the different sizes?
Which size will the RAN likely to select?
Does the sea axe bow increase the draft?
Last edited:
I like the ramp setup in the Legend class cutters where the RHIB and Fast Interceptor Craft each have their own cradle that is lowered down the ramp to launch and recover their respective boat. With the ramp accessing a multi-mission deck a variety of RHIBs, CBs, FICs, unmanned craft and even small landing craft could be carried and launched.
What Stanfels modules are you thinking of? If they relate to survey, pollution response, assistance and storage, no issue but a standard 20 ISO container can be used for this.
If you are suggesting weapons modules then there are a few issues:
- There are only a limited number in existance so these wouel have to be new builds
- The ship already has space an weight for guns up to 76mm and autocannons so what is the point altering the design to take a stanflex module.
- If you are looking at the VLS or harpoon moduesl thne jsut where to you intend cutting stucture out of the design to fit these, particularly that harpoon to simply be mounted on the top deck provided there is scope in the design for the topweight (I have some doubts wihtout significnat redesign)
- If you are looking at VLS then not only are you going to have to muck around wiht structure you are also power upgrades and sapce and weight for fire control. Again we are looking at a not insignificant redesign. If an AAW self defence capability is desired then maybe SeaRAM is your options but the weight issues remain.
I am not saying that the basic design could not be dtreached to make a useful ASW escort, however, it will be a NEW DESIGN and that will cost. If you want an OPV then just build the OPV as mucking about with a design based on another proven design is simply going absorb the money and reduce the number of hulls.
The critical ability of this vessel will be to improve deep water patroi and undertake polcing functions that really do not need a MFU and assocaited costs. Trying to turn an OPV into a MFU sort of defeats that purpose.
Sorry for the rant but the endless suggestion that you can simply strap stuff on a ship without significant changes is just irritating. As a case in point, as soon as you add additional systems (say CEAFAR) and FC your power requirements will grow dramically. This thne effect the generation capacity, power managements and machinery space arrangements. It also effects topweight ....... so it becomes quite a significant design change.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
As you point out the Danes already have developed a number of mission modules that use the stanflex format, so the major appeal of them is that they have been sorted out and actually work and can be used straight away. The constant reinventing the wheel seems to me to be a constant problem in defence.
These current stanflex modules would seem to suitable at least in principle for an OCV:
- Crane
- Oceanography
- Anti-pollution
- Survey
-Storage
-SIGINT/ELINT
-MCM Command and control equipment to operate MSF and MRD class drone minehunters and Double Eagle ROVs
If needed the OCV could be used in an ASW role if push came to shove by the addition of a further 2 Danish modules:
- ASW Launchers for MU90 Impact torpedoes 4
- VDS Thales Underwater Systems TSM 2640 Salmon variable-depth active/passive sonar
It may be that none of these are suitable for RAN use, but they could provide a good starting point for development of RAN specific modules. I really would like to see space for at least 3 stanflex modules, perhaps 2 aft near the waterline and one forward.
I don't think a monohull of this size is going to cope well a CEA radars, VLS, missiles etc, nor did I think I suggested it my post.
NO you did not say what you wanted, you just said Stanflex hence the question and most of what you suggest in the low order can be cater for with 20 foot ISO spots without having to use Satnflex modules...... so what is the point on hankering for Stanflex here. Not sure where you plan to fit a crane without compromising other operations.
As for ASW you still need processing capability and you are still going to have to develop the models noting the Danes are hardly likely to hand over any of theirs and we need to harmonise our systems. For the 18' TT you are going need structural modification to allow them to fire over the side.
So added to the cost of the OPV we now have module development and fit out and design change. As I said if we wanted 4 of these to be an ASW escort better to design this in for a batch and modify the design as system to do it. I don't think the money is there and the main need for these vessels is patrol an policing.
My point is that the design, as it is, is not designed for Stanflex and I do not see why we would muck about with it if you just want an OPV.
Most of these could be adapted via the multiple 20ft container spaces/the mission deck. I don't see how not having stanflex is disadvantage. There is far more space available to perform these tasks than with a stanflex module.
These OPV's don't have to be loaded with missiles the idea is that they can free up other ships to perform that role. With UAV and helicopters they don't need more than that.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
It was a listing of current modules in use.
I haven't seen the latest Damen design yet so I don't know if there is or isn't space for a crane, but I can imagine there are situations where a crane might be desirable.
Also the stanflex system provides a bit more than just a storage container, it includes specifications for electrical and other connections, as well as weight/space specifications.
True, but the Danes do it manage it on some very small ships.
I think the Danes would be very happy to have others use their modules, not just because they could sell them and make money, rather they would like to have a much larger navy share the develop with them.
Given the Danes have already got working the sorts of modules the RAN could probably use, why wouldn't you try to use them first? You are going to have to develop modules anyway (eg MCM), so why not provide the ability to use an already working system, which if it meets your requirements will require no development and thus be cheaper and less risky.
It can't be such a big burden to incorporate stanflex modules - the Flyvefisken Class at 450 tons carry 4. Some Danish ships have had them retrofitted, and all recent ships have had them built in. So I don't really think adding them would break the bank nor compromise the design. But it does give you a lot of additional capability that can be added relatively easily. Separating the systems (as much as practical) from the platforms by using modules has been one of the keys to the relatively small Danish Navy packing a decent punch.
Last edited:
The Stanflex is an odd size at 2.5m x 3.0m by 3.5m. The are designed to be used on a open deck that allows over the side or over the stern deployment for ASW or MCM. The base Damen 2400 uses a standard 20 foot ISO. In addition the flexibility of the Damen design is based on a very large flight deck and a multi use deck under the flight deck. The only open space is behind the bridge and on the focsle unless you want to cut holes in the flight deck.
If modules were to be developed then they should be ISO sized and use gear the RAN have in inventory ....... not Stanflex. Stanfelx is a very specific item of kit used by the Danes on ships equipped to take them and there only a limited number of them.
It is quite pointless for us to use "Stanflex" if they require modification to the ship if the desired capability can be build into a 20 foot ISO the ships designed to take.
Is there any suggestion from Defence/RAN that the OPVs would take on any roles additional to patrol/policing? Apart from the Minister's one liner in March I have found none, but I may have missed it.
Does anyone know if the multi-mission common hull concept raised under Sea 1180 even still lives? Is it about to be revived?
Bluey 006
Active Member
That is true, but wouldn't forward deployment of an OPV/OCV allow for sustained patrol coverage and longer presence (increased number of at sea days in key areas) - especially in areas of interest quite a distance from our shores - i.e: Christmas island,Cocos Island or Norfolk Island (deployed from Sydney), or areas outside our EEZ but still within our area of interest say for example the Solomon Islands or Nauru.
Armidale class, Huon class, Leeuwin class, and Paluma class from around 25 vessels to 16-20 vessels of two classes - one large one small.With a standardized space for common mission modules
6-8 x Multi-Mission Offshore Combatant Vessel [OCV] **
(Replaces Armidale class, Huon class, Leeuwin class, Paluma class and adds additional capability)
(Potentially based on Damen OPV-2 1800)
Builder: Local build by ASC utilizing the Damen Technical Cooperation system
Aviation: 1 x MH-60R + Boeing Scan eagle
Role: Multi mission offshore vessel* (long range EEZ border patrol, ASW,SAR, SUW, Special Forces support, Mine Warfare, Hydrographic survey etc)
Displacement: 1890 tonnes
10 -12 x Multi-Role Patrol Vessels [MRPV]
(Replaces Armidale class, Huon class, Leeuwin class, Paluma class and adds additional capability) – Local build
(Perhaps a scaled down version of Austral MRV 80)
Displacement: 340-400 tonnes
Aviation: 1 or 2 x Schiebel Camcopter S-100
Builder: Austral Ships & General Dynamics
Role: Multi mission vessel* (EEZ, SAR, fisheries patrols, counter terrorism/drug/piracy, Hydrographic surveys, MCM, pollution control etc)
Personally I am hoping to see like to see the fleet plan to look something like after the White Paper. Balanced and with plenty of work for all the ship builders. Before everyone gets their knickers in a knot I know it certainly needs some tweaking on the IOCs, schedule and builders of particular vessels. A lot of which is dependent on the outcome of SEA 1000
A fleet like this could simultaneously conduct two amphibious operations, have major fleet units deployed elsewhere (i.e middle east or north Asia) and conduct EEZ & Homeland security tasks
3 x Hobart Class AWD (replaces FFGs)
(Based on the F-100)
Builder: AWD Alliance (DMO, ASC and Raytheon Australia)
Displacement: 7,000 tonnes
Aviation: 1 x MH-60R
UAV: Fixed wing
Role: Air warfare destroyer with multi-role capabilities
Initial Operating Capacity: 2016
9 x ANZAC Global Combat Ship* (replaces ANZAC FFH and FFGs)
(Based on Type 26)
Builder: BAE Australia + Local subcontractors – Local build
Displacement: 6000 tonnes
UAV/USV: TBC
Aviation: 1 x MH-60R + 1 x NH-90 (NFH) or 2 x MH-60R
Role: ASW/GP frigate with multi-role capabilities
Initial Operating Capacity: 2023-2029
*11 build in total with 2 x ANZAC Global Combat ships for NZ
6-8 x Multi-Mission Offshore Combatant Vessel [OCV] ** - (replaces Armidale class, Huon class, Leeuwin class, Paluma class and adds additional capability)
(Potentially based on Damen OPV-2 1800)
Builder: TBC - potentially local build by ASC utilizing the Damen Technical Cooperation system
Aviation: 1 x MH-60R + Boeing Scan eagle
Role: Multi mission offshore vessel* (long range EEZ border patrol, ASW,SAR, SUW, Special Forces support, Mine Warfare, Hydrographic survey etc)
Displacement: 1890 tonnes
Initial operating capacity: 2022-2026
Ability for a minimum of three containerized mission modules
** Option for two more
10 - 12 x Multi Role Patrol Vessels [MRPV]* - (replaces Armidale class, Huon class, Leeuwin class, Paluma class and adds additional capability) – Local build
(Scaled down version of Austral MRV 80)
Displacement: 340-400 tonnes
UAV: 2 x Schiebel Camcopter S-100
Builder: Austral Ships & General Dynamics
Role: Multi mission vessel* (EEZ, SAR, fisheries patrols, counter terrorism/drug/piracy, hydrographic surveys, MCM, pollution control etc)
Initial operating capacity: 2018-2023
*Ability for one or two containerized mission modules
9 x Future submarines (with an option for 3 more)
Displacement: 4200- 5000 tonnes
Builder: DMO + local and International partner (TBC) – Hybrid build
Role: Anti-surface warfare (ASuW), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), ISTAR, Land attack, Special Forces insertion, mine laying, UUV deployment
Range: 15,000nmi +
Initial operating capacity: 2028-2030
2 x Canberra class (replaces HMAS Tobruk and HMAS Kanimbla)
Builder: BAE Systems Australia
Displacement: 27,100 tonnes
Role: Amphibious assault ship
UAV: Multiple platforms
Initial Operating Capacity: 2016
1 x Strategic Support Ship (Enhanced capability – Contributes to enhancements in Replenishment, Amphibious operations and transport)
(Karel Doorman-class or similar)
Displacement: 28,000 tonnes
Builder: BAE Systems Australia + Local subcontractors - Local Fit out
Role: Multi-function support ship
Initial operating capacity: 2023
1 x Strategic Sealift Ship (to replace HMAS Choules)
(Galicia-class LPD or similar)
Displacement: 13,900 Tonnes
Role: Amphibious transports
Builder: ASC+ Local subcontractors - Local Fit out
Initial operating capacity: 2029
1-2 x Fleet Replenishment Vessels (to replace HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius)
Displacement: 22,000- 32,000 Tonnes (full load)
Builder: TBC* - Local Fit out
Role: Multi-product replenishment
Initial operating capacity: 2020
*Build to commercial standards
1-2 x High Speed Support Vessels (enhanced capability based on the usefulness of HMAS Jervis bay during INTERFET)
(Based on the Spearhead-class)
Displacement: 1,650 tonnes
Builder: Austral – Local build
Range: 1550 nmi
Role: Multi-function support ship (rapid transit, transport and deployment, Ambitious support, multi-product replenishment, rapid humanitarian support, Special Forces support, MCM, USV Mother Ships)
Initial operating capacity: 2028-2030
Others will no doubt have different views...
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I sometimes get the feeling that the patrol boat replacements are triggering a forest/trees-type event.
If it is determined that OPV's are what the RAN wants/needs, then OPV-type designs should be selected, hopefully with sufficient space/weight to allow future inclusions in terms of kit. Having space and weight available to take shipping containers which could either be used to actually transport supplies to smaller ports, and/or provide some additional capabilities appropriate for minor naval vessels would be good. This might be things like hydrography, MCM, pollution control, etc.
If a more combat-oriented vessel, like SEA 1180's OCV, was deemed appropriate, then a higher end modular system like Stanflex would IMO be appropriate. People need to keep in mind that for the various classes of RoDN vessels which use Stanflex modules, the base vessels have quite comprehensive sensor and combat data system fitouts. Such fitouts are a significant driver behind warship costs, and they also increase the overall required displacement (mass and volume) because they require weight in specific areas, additional generator capacity for peak loads, additional fuel bunkerage to generate more power, etc.
Taking an OPV and turning it into something like a corvette or light frigate can, without a doubt, certainly be done. Can it be done efficiently, cost effectively, and would it really be appropriate or needed? Those are questions which IMO should be asked?
Pretty much the only modular weapons mounting that I feel would be appropriate for an OPV would be space, weight, and hookups for Phalanx, Typhoon, SeaRAM, and/or Millenium Gun-type weapons, which could then be sourced from a pool of such weapons, depending on mission requirements.
If it is determined that OPV's are what the RAN wants/needs, then OPV-type designs should be selected, hopefully with sufficient space/weight to allow future inclusions in terms of kit. Having space and weight available to take shipping containers which could either be used to actually transport supplies to smaller ports, and/or provide some additional capabilities appropriate for minor naval vessels would be good. This might be things like hydrography, MCM, pollution control, etc.
If a more combat-oriented vessel, like SEA 1180's OCV, was deemed appropriate, then a higher end modular system like Stanflex would IMO be appropriate. People need to keep in mind that for the various classes of RoDN vessels which use Stanflex modules, the base vessels have quite comprehensive sensor and combat data system fitouts. Such fitouts are a significant driver behind warship costs, and they also increase the overall required displacement (mass and volume) because they require weight in specific areas, additional generator capacity for peak loads, additional fuel bunkerage to generate more power, etc.
Taking an OPV and turning it into something like a corvette or light frigate can, without a doubt, certainly be done. Can it be done efficiently, cost effectively, and would it really be appropriate or needed? Those are questions which IMO should be asked?
Pretty much the only modular weapons mounting that I feel would be appropriate for an OPV would be space, weight, and hookups for Phalanx, Typhoon, SeaRAM, and/or Millenium Gun-type weapons, which could then be sourced from a pool of such weapons, depending on mission requirements.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Agreed.
What I like about the new Damen OPV-2's is that the 'basic' design appears to be more than flexible enough (without spending buckets of 'redesign' $'s), to not only fulfil the replacement of the ACPB's with a longer ranging, more flexible and more capable OPV, but also appears to potentially be a suitable ship design for the MRV envisaged by SEA1180 in the 2009 DWP.
Maybe initially order 10 as the replacements for the ACPB's and at a later date a follow on order of another 10 to be the eventual replacements for the mine warfare and hydrographic ships, for a fleet total of 20 (this would align with the original objective of SEA1180 as proposed in the 2009 DWP).
The next issue is obviously 'size', what is the appropriate size of the OPV fleet? According to Damen the OPV-2's come in four sizes, 75m (1400t), 85m (1800t), 95m (2400t) and 103m (2600t).
Maybe we can have 'one size' fits all? With for example the 85m/1800t version, certainly a lot larger and more capable that the ACPB's, but also small enough to obtain in reasonable numbers too. Another consideration is the size of the 'ship lift' and maintenance facilities in Darwin (back in post #14958, page 998 of this thread), I asked ASSAIL about the facilities in Darwin, he said:
So unless the Government or private industry (if they won the maintenance contract for example), is able/prepared to significantly increase the maintenance/lift facilities in Darwin, then it appears to me that the 85m/1800t version is probably the maximum that the current facilities could comfortably handle.
Obviously we don't know yet what the 2015 DWP contains, other than the Def Min stating recently that an OPV will replace the ACPB's, or how large (or small) the budget allowance will be for the ACPB replacement. According to the last published DCP (the 2012 DCP), the 'original' SEA1180 project had a budget allowance of between $5B to $10B, with the final projected cost in the 'middle' of the band, eg, around $7.5B.
Still a lot of outstanding questions that will no doubt become much more clearer once the new DWP is released!!!!
Cheers,
Bluey 006
Active Member
Seems everyone likes the Damen OPV-2
That said, I wonder if we really need an 1800 tonne ship equipped with full size helicopter (and the associated operating costs) for many the littoral roles the ACPB and mine warfare/hydrographic ships perform.
Don't misinterpret what I am saying, I think we absolutely need an OPV (and the Damen looks the goods) but 20 of them? and on the same token we also need enough hulls to cover our vast area (so it isn't as if you can reduce the total hull numbers much). That's why I believe we need two classes (larger OPV multi-role and a smaller multi-role).....Two classes replacing four classes is still a consolidation
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It really depends on whether or not the patrol, hydrographic survey, and MCM roles have or are going to be combined, and to what degree.
As I understand it, one of the major issues that has been occurring with MCM vessels, is that what makes them so good at their MCM mission, is slow speeds, shallow draught, and small overall size allowing access to shallow waters to clear chokepoints. Unfortunately those characteristics also tend to make blue water transits difficult, due to a vessel's handling in open water, and the slow max speed making long voyages literally slow going affairs. The also exacerbates the issue that areas threatened by sea mines might be a very long way off from where MCM forces are stationed. With the ability to include ROV's and other MCM dismounts and modular units, there has been somewhat less need for dedicated vessels and more traditional/capable vessels can have some MCM capability.
There is also the matter of possibly replacing the hydrographic survey capabilities, between MCM and hydrographic survey, that is a dozen vessels. Add in the ACPB, the total then becomes 26 vessels to cover three different roles. Something that has also been found is that in a number of instances, the ACPB was found to be insufficient. This insufficiency was variable depending on the incident circumstances, but could be issues with operating in open waters well away from ports for prolonged periods, or in some instances just being too small to safely have everyone from a SIEV aboard safely.
When everything gets boiled down, if the RAN/Gov't opts for a common hull to cover several different roles, there still needs to be a certain minimum number of hulls in the water for each of the required roles, plus whatever is undergoing maintenance and/or training. Even allowing for the sharing of some more specialized equipment between vessels depending on taskings, 20 hulls would reliably allow ~7 vessels available for operations, with the rest in a training or maintenance cycle, some of which could be made available for an operational surge.
Trying to reduce the numbers much below 20 would further reduce what is reliably available at any given moment, and result in some roles not being available if/when needed at a moments notice.
Bluey 006
Active Member
Yer agreed...you missed a bit of what I wrote? if you look at my post again, you'll see that i was saying the same thing...essentially. You can’t reduce the number of hulls much; hence two classes might work better …
#See the full post below#
Seems everyone likes the Damen OPV-2
That said, I wonder if we really need an 1800 tonne ship equipped with full size helicopter (and the associated operating costs) for many the littoral roles the ACPB and mine warfare/hydrographic ships perform.
Don't misinterpret what I am saying, I think we absolutely need an OPV (and the Damen looks the goods) but 20 of them? and on the same token we also need enough hulls to cover our vast area (so it isn't as if you can reduce the total hull numbers much). That's why I believe we need two classes (larger OPV multi-role and a smaller multi-role).....Two classes replacing four classes is still a consolidation
John Newman
The Bunker Group
What the??
Who said anything about the 1800 (or any other size of the Damen OPV's 'having' to be 'fully' equipped with an MRH-90 helicopter all the time? I certainly didn't.
The 'basic' design has an 'inbuilt' capability to not only land and house an MRH-90 helicopter and also a UAV of Scan Eagle size/capability, but who say's that they have to be 'fully' loaded for each and every mission??
The simple point I made was that the OPV-2 design has those 'inbuilt' capabilities, is that not a good thing? Isn't it a good thing that 'if' sometime in the future the OPV's (in whatever of the proposed SEA1180 roles they may eventually fill) has the 'inbuilt' capabilities to be expanded when necessary?
Who cares if the hangar is vacant for 99% of the time (probably will have a Scan Eagle type UAV most of the time), but again who cares if there is no MRH-90 or equivalent permanently deployed, what I do care about is that 'if' and I repeat 'if' that capability was required at sometime in the future then at least the 'basic' design of the OPV can actually accommodate it.
And what is wrong with a class of 20 OPV's? Is that not the basis of SEA1180? And why do we have to have two different sizes of ships within that class too?
Wasn't the whole reasoning of project SEA1180 to find a solution that could replace twenty six (26) hulls' of four different classes with the 'one' multi role ship??
No, Cairns does not have nearly the number of cyclonic events as the Pilbara coast
- Status