Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
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
No, I would not say that I missed it. Going with a smaller vessel, especially a significantly smaller vessel, can easily lead into some of the services issues which have been encountered by the ACPB, and their FCPB predecessors.

Small (displacement and overall dimensions) vessels can get very 'interesting' in high sea states. Going with an all-steel hull should help with some of the service life, but having too small a vessel doing open ocean patrolling, especially if the RAN ends up having to provide more patrols in the Southern Ocean, will prove quite rough on the crew. If one looks at the RCN service of the Kingston-class MCDV, which is a MCM/patrol boat of roughly the same dimensions as the ACPB, but ~three times the displacement, they are noted for being rather 'wet' vessels to serve aboard.

Also, if the patrolling vessel is too small, then encountering some SIEV's could be problematic like they were for some of the ACPB's, where the ACPB did not have sufficient space to even temporarily hold the 'passengers' from the SIEV. In the event the SIEV is in distress, this could have become a very major issue. One must remember that some of the intercepted SIEV's have had hundreds of would-be refugees or immigrants. Even going with an 1,800 tonne vessel is not going to guarantee sufficient capacity, but it would be much more likely. Especially if the helicopter hangar can be re-roled into a housing/containment area when a helicopter is not embarked. Which would likely be often, given that the RAN required 24 MH-60R 'Romeo' helicopters to meet a standing requirement of 8 helicopters available for ops. If all 20 vessels always had embarked helicopters, than would likely require the RAN to increase inventory to 60 helicopters, just for the OPV or OCV. I just do not see that happening. However, hangar space is quite useful aboard ship, even if there is no helicopter. More open space for the crew, which also can be sheltered from the elements and likely has power connections. In a pinch, a command centre could be setup and operated out of an OPV that is offshore supporting a landed force on a peacekeeping or HADR mission.

Just by virtue of having the helipad and hangar facilities, they add significantly to the potential flexibility a particular design has.
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
No, Cairns does not have nearly the number of cyclonic events as the Pilbara coast
I don't mean to challenge you on this, as i don't live there or have local knowledge of that area, and i believe that you do, but I did some research on this the other day when you mentioned it and according to what i found from BOM..

The northwest Australian coastline between Broome and Exmouth is the most cyclone-prone region of the entire Australian coastline, having the highest frequency of coastal crossings as shown below. On average about five tropical cyclones occur during each tropical cyclone season over the warm ocean waters off the northwest coast between 105 and 125°E
Climatology of Tropical Cyclones in Western Australia

On average 4.7 tropical cyclones per year affect the Queensland Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre Area of Responsibility.
Tropical Cyclones in Queensland

Not sure how up to data the data is.

5 vs. 4.7 ? Just curious

Anyway, I respect you knowledge on this...
 

Oberon

Member
I don't mean to challenge you on this, as i don't live there or have local knowledge of that area, and i believe that you do, but I did some research on this the other day when you mentioned it and according to what i found from BOM..

The northwest Australian coastline between Broome and Exmouth is the most cyclone-prone region of the entire Australian coastline, having the highest frequency of coastal crossings as shown below. On average about five tropical cyclones occur during each tropical cyclone season over the warm ocean waters off the northwest coast between 105 and 125°E
Climatology of Tropical Cyclones in Western Australia

On average 4.7 tropical cyclones per year affect the Queensland Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre Area of Responsibility.
Tropical Cyclones in Queensland

Not sure how up to data the data is.

5 vs. 4.7 ? Just curious

Anyway, I respect you knowledge on this...
Would Cairns being protected to an extent by the GBR also have some bearing on this?:confused:
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If you decide to include a Stanflex or like capability in an OPV / OCV then it is prudent to design such a vessel from the keel up with Stanflex as part of the design. It works out far cheaper in the long run. Whilst Stanflex is good, it is not the be all to end all. As noted by Todj it has bespoke dimensions, plus power and fluid requirements that will have to be allowed for. It's most definitely not just a matter of adding things on because there are many variables that have to be taken into account.

Whilst the Damen OPV 2 looks good on paper it has not yet sailed, so one should be cautious. If perchance it is in the mix and short listed, then high end capabilities are not seen to be required. It all depends upon the requirements stipulated for the ACPB replacement and that is an unknown at the moment.

On the other hand, if the RAN is building an OCV then Stanflex could be a system that may meet the requirements of that capability. Then because the OCV is being designed from the keel up, sensors, power generators, weapons etc., can all be factored in from start. That's how it should be done, but the pollies and bean counters will be bound to stuff it up somewhere.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
That's how it should be done, but the pollies and bean counters will be bound to stuff it up somewhere.
Call me a cynic, but I strongly disagree with this last line NG. It implies that a stuff up would happen but once in a programme. Based off historical and my own personal experiences somewhere should instead be, wherever possible.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Call me a cynic, but I strongly disagree with this last line NG. It implies that a stuff up would happen but once in a programme. Based off historical and my own personal experiences somewhere should instead be, wherever possible.
I stand corrected Sir. :)
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
No, I would not say that I missed it. Going with a smaller vessel, especially a significantly smaller vessel, can easily lead into some of the services issues which have been encountered by the ACPB, and their FCPB predecessors.

Small (displacement and overall dimensions) vessels can get very 'interesting' in high sea states. Going with an all-steel hull should help with some of the service life, but having too small a vessel doing open ocean patrolling, especially if the RAN ends up having to provide more patrols in the Southern Ocean, will prove quite rough on the crew. If one looks at the RCN service of the Kingston-class MCDV, which is a MCM/patrol boat of roughly the same dimensions as the ACPB, but ~three times the displacement, they are noted for being rather 'wet' vessels to serve aboard.

Also, if the patrolling vessel is too small, then encountering some SIEV's could be problematic like they were for some of the ACPB's, where the ACPB did not have sufficient space to even temporarily hold the 'passengers' from the SIEV. In the event the SIEV is in distress, this could have become a very major issue. One must remember that some of the intercepted SIEV's have had hundreds of would-be refugees or immigrants. Even going with an 1,800 tonne vessel is not going to guarantee sufficient capacity, but it would be much more likely. Especially if the helicopter hangar can be re-roled into a housing/containment area when a helicopter is not embarked. Which would likely be often, given that the RAN required 24 MH-60R 'Romeo' helicopters to meet a standing requirement of 8 helicopters available for ops. If all 20 vessels always had embarked helicopters, than would likely require the RAN to increase inventory to 60 helicopters, just for the OPV or OCV. I just do not see that happening. However, hangar space is quite useful aboard ship, even if there is no helicopter. More open space for the crew, which also can be sheltered from the elements and likely has power connections. In a pinch, a command centre could be setup and operated out of an OPV that is offshore supporting a landed force on a peacekeeping or HADR mission.

Just by virtue of having the helipad and hangar facilities, they add significantly to the potential flexibility a particular design has.
Not all RAN helos are or need to be at the capability level of an MH-60R...

Also the existing MH-60R numbers are designed to support operational taskings for the present fleet. Future requirements are likely to be quite different, IMHO...
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
To be honest the ADF could probably do with a utility helicopter of some sort, something to replace the Kiowa's and Squirrel's and supplement the MRH90s. Maybe like NZs A109 or possibly EC-135, money no option the MH-60S would be ideal, but a light helicopter would do, perhaps supplemented by a UAV like Firescout.
 
To be honest the ADF could probably do with a utility helicopter of some sort, something to replace the Kiowa's and Squirrel's and supplement the MRH90s. Maybe like NZs A109 or possibly EC-135, money no option the MH-60S would be ideal, but a light helicopter would do, perhaps supplemented by a UAV like Firescout.
The Kiowa's and Squirrels were replaced with 15 x EC-135 T2's for combined RAN & RAA training, no?

I thought this was down to rationalising the types across the fleet.

I think the 24x MH-60R + 7 x MRH is fine for the moment. I also believe Firescout UAV will be within the RAN inventory, over the next 7-10yrs regardless
 

hairyman

Active Member
There is an article in todays "The Age" to the effect that Abbott acted against Defence Department advice when he talked up the possibility of Japan winning the $20 billion submarine contract

High level defence department advise to the government was that it over whelming support for ASC to do the bulk of the work.
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
The 'sea axe' bow OPV range have much greater draft than their predecessors reflecting the designers quest for better sea keeping in heavy seas. The draft is about 6m. I have compared the 96 m versions of both boats in the graphic. The original Damen OPV had about a 3.5 m draft, reflecting it's use more in the littorals. Otherwise the boats seem very similar in general layout.
View attachment 6539
Some questions for the sailors.
How much could the larger draft impare operations in the littorals?

How much is gained in heavy seas with the 'sea axe' bow'? Would they be suitable for use in the Southern Ocean?
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I would have thought the progress on UAV's/UUV and dismounts would mean that draft is less of an issue generally.

I don't understand why standflex is so highly thought of in here being quite small, old and odd for ships of considerably smaller size for systems that are decades older. I would imagine you would get much better capability/value out of having something able to take LCS mission packages. While we may not want or need the LCS packages, I would imagine having something that would at least be size compatible with the LCS packages would be a lot more useful than stanflex.

"They’re generally containerized in fully outfitted ISO 20′ containers that include power and other connections built in per LCS specs. Integrated arrays of weapons, sensors, robotic vehicles, and manned platforms that can be switched in and out depending on the ship’s mission are now called “mission packages.”"
It’s All Package: Littoral Combat Ship’s Mission Modules

MCM/MIW/ASW packages would most likely be of interest. As per the LCS concepts weapons would actually be located on helicopters more than the ships themselves. 20' containers would also be useful for HADR, army support etc. Hangers while compatible with helicopters are more likely to see use with UAV's and as storage.

IMO I would build ~6 larger ships, replacing the survey ships (Leeuwin & Paluma), mine hunters (huon). Sea axe, large ocean going OPV, go chasing whale catchers, blue water survey and patrol etc. Then ~12 smaller ships replacing Armidale ships. Which would still be blue water capable (much more capable than Leeuwin/Paluma/Huon/Armidales) but would be unlikely to be tasked for long term/rough weather patrols.

I would imagine an axe bow would make for both better sea keeping and faster progress. (Froude number). They estimate it will have a 30% reduction in required power for 25kts. Also a 50% improvement in availability in rough seas (not for this ship, but a similar Damen ship). An axe bow (IMO) would be preferable for something you really want to go out into the deep blue stuff on a regular basis covering large distances with a wide variety of seastates.
http://www.marin.nl/upload_mm/7/9/3/1806457914_1999999096_FAST2001-The_effect_of_bowshape.pdf

I would imagine Alexa would be able to be more authoritative.
 

Chauvel

New Member
Surely Australia's fisheries and scientific interests in the Great Southern Ocean and Antarctica require a class of vessels both designed and built for the unique conditions necessarily entailed.......e.g .ice strengthening/long range/endurance??

Chrs

Chauvel
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
I would imagine an axe bow would make for both better sea keeping and faster progress. (Froude number). They estimate it will have a 30% reduction in required power for 25kts. Also a 50% improvement in availability in rough seas (not for this ship, but a similar Damen ship). An axe bow (IMO) would be preferable for something you really want to go out into the deep blue stuff on a regular basis covering large distances with a wide variety of seastates.
http://www.marin.nl/upload_mm/7/9/3/1806457914_1999999096_FAST2001-The_effect_of_bowshape.pdf

I would imagine Alexa would be able to be more authoritative.
Seemingly efficient and better sea keeping in high seas, but at the cost of a deep draft. The design has been used mainly on smaller boats. I wonder if it continues to work as it scales up on larger craft?
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The 'sea axe' bow OPV range have much greater draft than their predecessors reflecting the designers quest for better sea keeping in heavy seas. The draft is about 6m. I have compared the 96 m versions of both boats in the graphic. The original Damen OPV had about a 3.5 m draft, reflecting it's use more in the littorals. Otherwise the boats seem very similar in general layout.
View attachment 6539
Some questions for the sailors.
How much could the larger draft impare operations in the littorals?

How much is gained in heavy seas with the 'sea axe' bow'? Would they be suitable for use in the Southern Ocean?
The 2400 OPV and 1800 OPV are not intended solely for littorials, it is just that the hull form uses a bulbous bow where the sea axe OPV 2 uses the new bow shape intended for better speed for the same installed power. The additional draft is in the bow area where the rest of the ship is much the same....... and this is logical as a deeper overall draft will result in MUCH greater displacement.

A 6m draft means jsut that it is deeper, however, litorial waters and not always very shallow, rahter they are in close proximity to land.

The abiltity of a vessel to operate in the southern ocean will depend on design strength (including deck areas and their ability to absorb heavy seas) stability and, where necessary, ice strengtherning if you wish to go into those waters.
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
The 2400 OPV and 1800 OPV are not intended solely for littorials, it is just that the hull form uses a bulbous bow where the sea axe OPV 2 uses the new bow shape intended for better speed for the same installed power. The additional draft is in the bow area where the rest of the ship is much the same....... and this is logical as a deeper overall draft will result in MUCH greater displacement.

A 6m draft means jsut that it is deeper, however, litorial waters and not always very shallow, rahter they are in close proximity to land.

The abiltity of a vessel to operate in the southern ocean will depend on design strength (including deck areas and their ability to absorb heavy seas) stability and, where necessary, ice strengtherning if you wish to go into those waters.
Thanks.
http://www.hiswasymposium.com/assets/files/pdf/2006/[email protected] which talks about the genesis of the concepts behind the hull design, which are really twofold, the 'englarged ship concept' & the axe shaped bow. It's a not overly technical to read and does tell the story behind the designers thinking.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Not all RAN helos are or need to be at the capability level of an MH-60R...

Also the existing MH-60R numbers are designed to support operational taskings for the present fleet. Future requirements are likely to be quite different, IMHO...
I know AD, ;) You seemed to have missed the gist of what I was posting about. That was in order for the RAN to have a capability of 8 operational MH-60R Seahawks for the fleet, 24 had to be ordered to ensure sufficient numbers available for service. IMO it would be great if the RAN had 60 MH-60R's, assuming of course that the funding was there to maintain and operate them, and that such costs did not come at the expensive of other ADF capabilities. I do not see that happening though.

I don't understand why standflex is so highly thought of in here being quite small, old and odd for ships of considerably smaller size for systems that are decades older. I would imagine you would get much better capability/value out of having something able to take LCS mission packages. While we may not want or need the LCS packages, I would imagine having something that would at least be size compatible with the LCS packages would be a lot more useful than stanflex.


It’s All Package: Littoral Combat Ship’s Mission Modules

MCM/MIW/ASW packages would most likely be of interest. As per the LCS concepts weapons would actually be located on helicopters more than the ships themselves. 20' containers would also be useful for HADR, army support etc. Hangers while compatible with helicopters are more likely to see use with UAV's and as storage.
I readily admit, I have a number of issues regarding LCS mission modules at present. I will get into that later on in my response.

From my POV, I am not quite sure that calling Stanflex modules "small" is really accurate. They can certainly be carried and operated aboard small/compact vessels like the ~450 ton Flyvefisken-class PCFG and the larger ~2,000 ton Knud Rassmussen-class OPV. However, one of the available Stanflex modules is an OTO Melara 76 mm/62 cal Super Rapid gun, complete with a munitions carousel. Another Stanflex module carries a pair of Mk 141 quad Harpoon AShM cannisters. Again, not exactly something I would consider "small". Compact I think might be a better descriptor for them, which can be beneficial aboard vessels were space might be at a premium. Especially if the modules are comparatively easy to swap out. Even if not done so that vessels can be re-roled, the ability to swap specific guns or launchers in/out so that the weapons can undergo maintenance or upgrades which are completely independent of the vessel IMO has merit.

Take one of the RAN's ANZAC-class FFH's with their Mk 45 Mod 2 127 mm/54 cal. gun. If the decision was made to upgrade the FFH guns to the improved Mk 45 Mod 4, which would require changing to the long 62 cal. barrel, as well as some changes to the FCS given the improved performance available with the longer barrel, then the frigate would essentially be out of service until the upgrades were completed, including any requisite testing. Now granted, I doubt a 127 mm gun could be made 'modular' given their ~21 ton weight. However the Mk 75 Mod 0 76 mm/62 cal. Compact gun aboard the FFG would fit in a Stanflex container. In a case like this, if the decision were made to upgrade those guns from the Compact to the Super Rapid version, instead of an FFG being out of service while the gun is upgraded, if they were using modules instead, an in-service module could be inserted, and the one about to commence the upgrade removed.

From my POV, an advantage Stanflex has, is that modules exist and are in active service, and have been for some time. There is minimal developmental risk for the system itself, the only potential risks I see would relate to either developing modules for new and emerging weapons and systems, and/or incorporating the Stanflex architecture into the vessels and systems the RAN like using. Then again, such systems integration happen any time a new design is selected. As it is, examples of modules for several different naval roles already exist.

Some of the issues I have with the LCS mission modules, is that at present they seem to be largely aspirational, and at this point are essentially adapting systems and weapons already in service with the USN into ISO container modules, because the new systems being specifically developed for the mission modules were deemed either failures, or too expensive to overcome the developmental costs to deliver working mission modules. The ASuW mission module is a very good example of this. Instead of getting Netfires with an ~24 mile range, or even the AGM-176 Griffin with ~5 mile range, due to prior difficulties, the mission module is now being developed using a version of the AGM-114L Hellfire, which should provide ~3.5 mile range. About the same, even perhaps a little bit shorter than then effective range of the Mk 110 57 mm gun aboard an LCS. Well short of various available AShM like Sea Skua, never mind some of the larger and/or new AShM like Harpoon, or NSM. The impression I have gotten with why some of mission modules are being developed, is to provide the LCS with more firepower and capability than they currently have available, and that the desired systems and capabilities are still deemed a bridge too far to reach at present. The USN is going with what it think it can get, now, vs. waiting and risking continued development which might very well never deliver.

I do wonder just how much of the overall modular system architecture had/has been set, as that could easily be one of the stumbling blocks, if each new module requires designing new interfaces between the vessel, module, and weapon/sensor system. An area I believe that the Stanflex system had already largely covered, with the only requirements being designing new interfaces between weapons and modules, if/when new weapon modules get designed.

I also do wonder why the US chose to attempt to develop their own modular system, instead of incorporating at least some of what the Danes had already developed and tested. Lastly, I have to wonder just how much the LCS and modular mission systems were the idea/brainchild of USN service members, and how much was dictated to the USN by civilian decision-makers in the Pentagon, and other named buildings in D.C.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I know AD, ;) I also do wonder why the US chose to attempt to develop their own modular system, instead of incorporating at least some of what the Danes had already developed and tested. Lastly, I have to wonder just how much the LCS and modular mission systems were the idea/brainchild of USN service members, and how much was dictated to the USN by civilian decision-makers in the Pentagon, and other named buildings in D.C.
The NIH (not invented here) syndrome bias is alive and well. US defense contractors want to keep it that way, regardless of the extra cost involved.
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
From my POV, an advantage Stanflex has, is that modules exist and are in active service, and have been for some time. There is minimal developmental risk for the system itself, the only potential risks I see would relate to either developing modules for new and emerging weapons and systems, and/or incorporating the Stanflex architecture into the vessels and systems the RAN like using. Then again, such systems integration happen any time a new design is selected. As it is, examples of modules for several different naval roles already exist.
That's the appeal to me. Someone's already done the hard yards, and we know they work. The main risk is the integration, largely a software issue, which, as you point out needs to be done in any case with a new ship. Having a software template already (the pre-existing interface code) even makes development of a new interface for the RAN easier. The interface code is apparently modular, too, and is loaded at the same time as the module is physically installed. Very clever.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The NIH (not invented here) syndrome bias is alive and well. US defense contractors want to keep it that way, regardless of the extra cost involved.
Not sure how accurate that really is, given the amount of US kit are either licensed production, or variants of allied/overseas designs. The LAV which IIRC was originally a Swiss design, the M-240 and M-242 MG's, the 120 mm smoothbore tank gun of the Abrams is/was a Rheinmetal design... The 105 mm rifled tank gun used in the M-60 tank and early production M1 Abrams tanks were from a British design. The Mk 75 76 mm/62 cal. OTObreda naval guns used aboard USN OHP FFG's as well as several of the larger USCG cutter classes are Italian in origin, if not actual production. The list goes on, and on, and on... Which is really part of he reason I do not understand the thinking/decision-making process.

It seems that a decision was made for a modular mission architecture to be developed, at the same time that mission modules were to be getting developed. That or the interface architecturefor each different type of module is unique to that type module. I can easily see how that could cause problems, if there is no set of agreed upon, or mandated, protocols for how subsystems connect and communicate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top