Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

While 20 OPV/OCV concept would be great, a lot has changed since the 2009 white paper when SEA 1180 was envisioned. Even the 2013 hinted that this wasn't going to happen this cycle.

Don't get me wrong John, your thoughts about the crewing etc certainly hold weight but i don't see 20x OPV/OCV (2000 ton vessels) happening at the moment (hopefully I am wrong).


As I have previously stated (in my wish list) as it stands, my preference is to consolidate the four ship classes into two classes of multi-role ships as a potential staged process towards an eventual 20+ OCV minor warfare fleet.

9 x Multi-Mission Offshore Combatant Vessel [OCV] * - (replaces Armidale class, Huon class, Leeuwin class, Paluma class and adds additional capability)
(Based on Damen OPV-2 1800/2400 or BMT Venator)
Builder: Local build by ASC or BAE utilizing the Damen Technical Cooperation system
Aviation: 1x Panther AS 565SB ( or similar) + RQ-21A
Role: Multi mission offshore vessel* (long range EEZ border patrol, ASW,SAR, SUW, Special Forces support, Mine Warfare, Hydrographic survey etc)
Displacement: 1800-2400 tonnes
Initial operating capacity: 2018-2023

*Ability for a minimum of two or three containerised mission modules


12 x Multi Role Littoral Vessels [MRLV]* - (replaces Armidale class, Huon class, Leeuwin class, Paluma class and adds additional capability) – Local build
(Austral MRV 80)
Displacement: 400 tonnes
UAV: 2 x Schiebel Camcopter S-100 or 1 x Panther AS 565SB ( or similar)
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: 2019-2026

*Ability for one or two containerised mission modules

This enhances capability by including some OCV/OPV that can perform long range ocean going patrol and mine warfare tasks of an expeditionary nature in support of major task groups. It also gives us enough ships to support general littoral tasks like border patrol, hydrographic survey and local mine warfare that don't require a 2000t ship.

A 9 x OCV (steel hull) and 12 x MRLV (aluminum) gives us 21 vessels to replace 26 vessels and a high degree of flexibility. Remembering the rule of thirds, this means at the very least we would have 3 x OCV and 4 x MRLV available (7-8 ships) vs the 20 x OCV which under the same principle gives at the very least (6-7 ships). Consider a major operation that required 2 x OCVs to support a task group, under the 20 x OCV model then we only have x4 for all border patrol tasks. Under the 9/12 x OCV/MRLV Model we have x5, which isn't enough but allows for greater coverage. Yes the OCV are more capable but they can't be everywhere at once.

Then there is costs, aluminium ships are usually cheaper to build and yes there are plenty of arguments both ways about the costs benefit of single class/ larger common crews vs multiple classes but majority of them smaller cheaper aluminium ships with smaller crews, none of us can do the financial modelling in an open forum like this so I won't go on to much about that here.

The proposed MRLV (MRV 80) will be significantly more capable than the ACPB with a range not too far off the OCV but they aren't suitable for blue water operations which is why we have the OCV. On the other hand 2000 ton OCV is overkill for many of the tasks required by our minor vessels force, ie: MCM in our homeland harbours etc (yes ROV change the game a bit but still).

This model also splits the builds between Austral for MRV 80 and either ASC or BAE (depending on what else is in the Christmas basket) for the OCV. Delivering some work to multiple locations ( until such time as the "BIG" major combatant decisions can be made).

As others have stated the OCV shouldn't be up gunned to "Light frigate" status (that gives the government an excuse to reduce frigate numbers), but it should IMHO have significant anti-submarine capabilities (perhaps SeaRAM also) in addition to the other assigned roles (MCM,Survey etc).

I also like the idea that a mixed minor warfare fleet could operate as integrated "pods" (1 x OCV/OPV + 2 MRLV + MALE UAV) providing a layered solution in key areas (North West Australia for example) providing almost complete coverage over the zone


Everyone has their own opinions suppose...whatever happens, I hope we get more capability at an acceptable cost.

...for me the elephant in the room at the moment is the future submarines, their cost, which option is chosen, numbers built and where they are built impacts everything else, and until a decision is final!! on those, everything else is up in the air.

Hi mate, yes well I suppose we are both going to agree to disagree on this one!

Just to recap what I was suggesting, my suggestion is based around what I believed to be the goals of SEA1180 which was to replace the 26 hulls of four different classes into a singe multi role class of 20 hulls.

My pick would be a class of 20 ships based on the Damen OPV-2 design, 80+m, 1800t-2000t range, all steel construction, the basic design includes the ability to land, house and operate an MRH-90 sized aircraft (not that I would ever expect these ships to be regularly operating such an aircraft, but I would expect that an appropriate UAV was regularly available for use), basic armament (1 x Typhoon, 2 x Mini Typhoon mounts), same 'core' crew size, plus the ability to accommodate any additional mission specialist crew too, appropriate number of containerised mission modules to cover Mine Warfare and Hydrographic work and any other specialist modules (other than ASW) too.

Ordering a class of 20 identical ships, identical basic armament, sensor, machinery, etc, etc, should delivery a pretty reasonable cost and ongoing sustainment benefit too, plus of course the ability of any of the 20 hulls to be 'hot swapped' into another role at any given time with only the addition of the appropriate specialist mission crew and modules.

On the other hand you are suggesting two different classes, one of 12 and one of 9, to perform (according to the details in your list above) what appears to me almost 'identical' roles (almost seem like to me you are suggesting a USN type LCS1 and LCS2 solution, two different classes performing overlapping roles).

But the biggie that I noticed is that you are adding and ASW capability to both classes of ships and adding a Panther helicopter too, (and you think a single class of 20 steel hulled ships is going to be expensive, wow!!!).

This ASW capability that you have mentioned, how is that actually going to be achieved? Obviously there is the appropriately armed Panther helicopter you mentioned, but are you also saying that the appropriate ASW sensor be fitted to each and everyone of the 21 ships, or are you proposing a number of ASW mission modules? And of course each of the ships would have to be fitted with the appropriate weapons magazines for those ASW weapons too, all seems to be getting rather expensive to me.

As far as an aviation capability, yes the ships should have the facilities (as for example is part of the OPV-2 basic design), but I seriously doubt that they will regular have an embarked helicopter, especially an ASW capable helicopter. As a side note there probably is a need for an increased number of new 'utility' helicopters for use by the Army and Navy, so probably an additional purchase of EC-135's might be an appropriate way to go, apart from the basic training role they will soon perform for Navy and Army, but they could also replace the utility role provided by the Kiowa and Squirrels in their respective services (single type, more cost effective perhaps?).

You are also saying that you see your solution as a 'potential staged process towards an eventual 20+ OCV minor warfare fleet', but it's not really staged is it? Staged to me would be one class follows the other over time, but your suggested IOC dates, eg, 2018-2023 (for one class) and 2019-2026 (for the other class), is actually overlapping big time, the 'total' build runs between 2019 to 2026, I don't see how that is a 'staged' process.

I don't disagree that there will probably need to be two production lines to achieve enough hulls in service to at least replace all 14 ACBP's within a reasonable time frame (from memory there were 6 ACPB's commissioned in the same year, two years running!), so yes multiple production lines are probably a necessity, it could be that if all the same class of ship (as I'm proposing), you could have two production lines running side by side at Techport, or one at Techport and a second at Williamstown for example.

Anyway, just my opinion of course, just like yours too (and I do respect that too!).

What's the old saying about opinions? "Opinions are like ar$eholes, everybody's got one!!"

Cheers,

 

[alexsa]

Hi John

Where is that like button when you want it. I will add to your list the fact that MRV80 is a bit more than 400 tonnes ..... and being aluminium quite expensive compared to the 2400 or 1800 sea axe designs.

The Damen huls have a useful mulit-mission area that could provide useful mission modules in ISO containers ..... quite a fan of this option.

Certainly even if a proportion were built as slighlty (note I said .... slightly not some far fetched attempt to turn them into a full blown frigate) up gunned version the use of common hull and equipment would be essential in providing cost effective ownership.

 

[Bluey 006]

Hi mate, yes well I suppose we are both going to agree to disagree on this one!

Just to recap what I was suggesting, my suggestion is based around what I believed to be the goals of SEA1180 which was to replace the 26 hulls of four different classes into a singe multi role class of 20 hulls.

My pick would be a class of 20 ships based on the Damen OPV-2 design, 80+m, 1800t-2000t range, all steel construction, the basic design includes the ability to land, house and operate an MRH-90 sized aircraft (not that I would ever expect these ships to be regularly operating such an aircraft, but I would expect that an appropriate UAV was regularly available for use), basic armament (1 x Typhoon, 2 x Mini Typhoon mounts), same 'core' crew size, plus the ability to accommodate any additional mission specialist crew too, appropriate number of containerised mission modules to cover Mine Warfare and Hydrographic work and any other specialist modules (other than ASW) too.

Ordering a class of 20 identical ships, identical basic armament, sensor, machinery, etc, etc, should delivery a pretty reasonable cost and ongoing sustainment benefit too, plus of course the ability of any of the 20 hulls to be 'hot swapped' into another role at any given time with only the addition of the appropriate specialist mission crew and modules.

On the other hand you are suggesting two different classes, one of 12 and one of 9, to perform (according to the details in your list above) what appears to me almost 'identical' roles (almost seem like to me you are suggesting a USN type LCS1 and LCS2 solution, two different classes performing overlapping roles).

But the biggie that I noticed is that you are adding and ASW capability to both classes of ships and adding a Panther helicopter too, (and you think a single class of 20 steel hulled ships is going to be expensive, wow!!!).

This ASW capability that you have mentioned, how is that actually going to be achieved? Obviously there is the appropriately armed Panther helicopter you mentioned, but are you also saying that the appropriate ASW sensor be fitted to each and everyone of the 21 ships, or are you proposing a number of ASW mission modules? And of course each of the ships would have to be fitted with the appropriate weapons magazines for those ASW weapons too, all seems to be getting rather expensive to me.

As far as an aviation capability, yes the ships should have the facilities (as for example is part of the OPV-2 basic design), but I seriously doubt that they will regular have an embarked helicopter, especially an ASW capable helicopter. As a side note there probably is a need for an increased number of new 'utility' helicopters for use by the Army and Navy, so probably an additional purchase of EC-135's might be an appropriate way to go, apart from the basic training role they will soon perform for Navy and Army, but they could also replace the utility role provided by the Kiowa and Squirrels in their respective services (single type, more cost effective perhaps?).

You are also saying that you see your solution as a 'potential staged process towards an eventual 20+ OCV minor warfare fleet', but it's not really staged is it? Staged to me would be one class follows the other over time, but your suggested IOC dates, eg, 2018-2023 (for one class) and 2019-2026 (for the other class), is actually overlapping big time, the 'total' build runs between 2019 to 2026, I don't see how that is a 'staged' process.

I don't disagree that there will probably need to be two production lines to achieve enough hulls in service to at least replace all 14 ACBP's within a reasonable time frame (from memory there were 6 ACPB's commissioned in the same year, two years running!), so yes multiple production lines are probably a necessity, it could be that if all the same class of ship (as I'm proposing), you could have two production lines running side by side at Techport, or one at Techport and a second at Williamstown for example.

Anyway, just my opinion of course, just like yours too (and I do respect that too!).

What's the old saying about opinions? "Opinions are like ar$eholes, everybody's got one!!"

Cheers,

As I said 20 x OPVs would be fantastic but if the budget is there but my fear is they will come at the expense of something else, frigates perhaps, or they’ll reduce the number significantly (say 12), which leaves us with very few hulls “always” available. Yes we do need an OPV but I am also not convinced that we need 1890t (Damen OPV-2 1800) ships for many of the roles required by our minor warfare force (yes we need some but not 20).

Yes! the 9 OCV and 12 MRLV do perform similar roles, but as a layered solution. OCV taking care of blue water, offshore and expeditionary roles and the MRLV responsible for littoral and inshore missions, which delivers an effective A2/AD solution to our border protection.

The ASW would be in the form of mission modules and the helicopter. Which might not necessarily be embarked all the time. As for the Panther well, I suggested that because it is significantly cheaper to buy and operate than a MH-60 or MRH-90 (which are TTH variant and limited use for any combat oriented tasks) but still capable. The actual helicopter could be any “light” helicopter (some of which are very reasonably priced) or even a VTUAV (although manned would be my preference). If we have enough MH-60s or training/utility helicopter replacements (if they can be appropriately equipped), great use those. In my view, with a lightly armed (with missiles, guns or torpedos) helicopter on board the OPV it becomes an OCV, and its capability and flexibility is significantly increased. As I said, A lot depends on the Submarines if we get 12 we may not need to consider ASW on these vessels but if god forbid the number gets reduced to say 8 then to tackle the hordes of submarines that political and military circles tell us are the biggest threat in our region (and rightly so), we may need ASW on our minor warfare vessels.

Sure we have the frigates and AWD, but at best only 5 of these will be available at any one time, and of those 5, it is safe to assume 1-2 of those will be deployed further afield on global operations or exercises a lot of the time.

If the OPV has mine warfare and hydrographic survey modules it surely will need a towed sonar or hull sonar of some kind, so the facilities are there for ASW module fit (ASM towed sonar for example) with weapons coming from the helicopter.

What I mean by staged process is this build cycle we get 9 x OPVs and 12 x MRV ( ensuring we get the 20+ hulls we need) then when it comes time to replace these vessels in 15-30 years and our population is bigger, and hopefully the financial circumstances are better we go to 20+ fleet of large OPV/OCV.

Also, it seems the government is looking to provide work to all the major shipbuilders. Under the 9/12 model Austral gets 12 MRVs and BAE or ASC (or both) gets 9 OPVs to keep the lights on until the frigates or submarines flow in, and a proper continuous build program is established.

You suggested 6 x LCS for this purpose i.e: Austral’s piece of the pie. Really? How does the LCS fit into our ORBAT without sacrificing something else? I’ll take the T26, Meko 400 or Evolved AWD over the LCS thanks.

Of course a lot depends on the other pieces of the puzzle, Submarines and Frigates – if for example we go for the TKMS Type 216 built in collaboration with ASC @ Techport for example, then the game changes significantly. Once the AWD are finished then it’s almost time to start tooling up for the Subs etc or we build a 4th AWD or flight II AWD , it all impacts the build program.

From what I can tell the DSTO is still working on SEA1179 Phase 2A Patrol Boat Replacement (PB-R) as high priority project, this coupled with the fact government ministers have talked about OPVs – these two points suggest to me that it could be mixed fleet.

Any way as discussed, everyone has their opinions and points of view. It’s a free country, all we can really do is wait for the White paper, then after that another election comes – who knows what that could bring.


Whatever happens, I wouldn’t want to lose major fleet units or miss out on the 9th frigate, or three submarines for a large fleet of OPVs, and we also need 20+ minor warfare vessels (whatever form they come in) with more capabilities than the ones we have now. If that all happens however the bean counters balance make it all work is fine with me.

Cheerio

 

[alexsa]

As I said 20 x OPVs would be fantastic but if the budget is there but my fear is they will come at the expense of something else, frigates perhaps, or they’ll reduce the number significantly (say 12), which leaves us with very few hulls “always” available. Yes we do need an OPV but I am also not convinced that we need 1890t (Damen OPV-2 1800) ships for many of the roles required by our minor warfare force (yes we need some but not 20).

Yes! the 9 OCV and 12 MRLV do perform similar roles, but as a layered solution. OCV taking care of blue water, offshore and expeditionary roles and the MRLV responsible for littoral and inshore missions, which delivers an effective A2/AD solution to our border protection.

The ASW would be in the form of mission modules and the helicopter. Which might not necessarily be embarked all the time. As for the Panther well, I suggested that because it is significantly cheaper to buy and operate than a MH-60 or MRH-90 (which are TTH variant and limited use for any combat oriented tasks) but still capable. The actual helicopter could be any “light” helicopter (some of which are very reasonably priced) or even a VTUAV (although manned would be my preference). If we have enough MH-60s or training/utility helicopter replacements (if they can be appropriately equipped), great use those. In my view, with a lightly armed (with missiles, guns or torpedos) helicopter on board the OPV it becomes an OCV, and its capability and flexibility is significantly increased. As I said, A lot depends on the Submarines if we get 12 we may not need to consider ASW on these vessels but if god forbid the number gets reduced to say 8 then to tackle the hordes of submarines that political and military circles tell us are the biggest threat in our region (and rightly so), we may need ASW on our minor warfare vessels.

Sure we have the frigates and AWD, but at best only 5 of these will be available at any one time, and of those 5, it is safe to assume 1-2 of those will be deployed further afield on global operations or exercises a lot of the time.

If the OPV has mine warfare and hydrographic survey modules it surely will need a towed sonar or hull sonar of some kind, so the facilities are there for ASW module fit (ASM towed sonar for example) with weapons coming from the helicopter.

What I mean by staged process is this build cycle we get 9 x OPVs and 12 x MRV ( ensuring we get the 20+ hulls we need) then when it comes time to replace these vessels in 15-30 years and our population is bigger, and hopefully the financial circumstances are better we go to 20+ fleet of large OPV/OCV.

Also, it seems the government is looking to provide work to all the major shipbuilders. Under the 9/12 model Austral gets 12 MRVs and BAE or ASC (or both) gets 9 OPVs to keep the lights on until the frigates or submarines flow in, and a proper continuous build program is established.

You suggested 6 x LCS for this purpose i.e: Austral’s piece of the pie. Really? How does the LCS fit into our ORBAT without sacrificing something else? I’ll take the T26, Meko 400 or Evolved AWD over the LCS thanks.

Of course a lot depends on the other pieces of the puzzle, Submarines and Frigates – if for example we go for the TKMS Type 216 built in collaboration with ASC @ Techport for example, then the game changes significantly. Once the AWD are finished then it’s almost time to start tooling up for the Subs etc or we build a 4th AWD or flight II AWD , it all impacts the build program.

From what I can tell the DSTO is still working on SEA1179 Phase 2A Patrol Boat Replacement (PB-R) as high priority project, this coupled with the fact government ministers have talked about OPVs – these two points suggest to me that it could be mixed fleet.

Any way as discussed, everyone has their opinions and points of view. It’s a free country, all we can really do is wait for the White paper, then after that another election comes – who knows what that could bring.


Whatever happens, I wouldn’t want to lose major fleet units or miss out on the 9th frigate, or three submarines for a large fleet of OPVs, and we also need 20+ minor warfare vessels (whatever form they come in) with more capabilities than the ones we have now. If that all happens however the bean counters balance make it all work is fine with me.

Cheerio

A few things

• The MRV80 (with a deadweight of 400 tonnes - not displacement) is likely to cost more than a Damen 2400 OPV ... so what is the point.
• THe MRV80 is not exactly equipped for over the stern deployment of boats, towed array or any other equipment in the same manner as the Damen 2400. Its multirole deck is carried quite high due to the multi hull design, very usefu for the ramp but has less utility in other roles as it lacks the wet notch with the ramp sitting above the water line (and immediately behind one of the props); and
• The 93m Damen product can ope/rate in worse conditions that the MRV80 which is limited by is HSC derived design.

On this basis you appear to be suggest a mix of vessels that will cost more both to build an own and with limitations on the operations of one class.

 

[vonnoobie]

A few things

• The MRV80 (with a deadweight of 400 tonnes - not displacement) is likely to cost more than a Damen 2400 OPV ... so what is the point.
• THe MRV80 is not exactly equipped for over the stern deployment of boats, towed array or any other equipment in the same manner as the Damen 2400. Its multirole deck is carried quite high due to the multi hull design, very usefu for the ramp but has less utility in other roles as it lacks the wet notch with the ramp sitting above the water line (and immediately behind one of the props); and
• The 93m Damen product can ope/rate in worse conditions that the MRV80 which is limited by is HSC derived design.

On this basis you appear to be suggest a mix of vessels that will cost more both to build an own and with limitations on the operations of one class.

You mention a few times that the MRV 80 will be more expensive then the Damen 2400 OPV, On what do you base this?

What is the actual cost for a Damen 2400 OPV?

While no MRV 80's have been built vessel's close in size and mission are currently under construction for the RN of Oman. 2 x 72.5m HSSV's (High speed support vessel) coming in at around 320t deadweight each, for $124.9 million delivered. Two vessel's very close in size to the MRV 80 designed, built and delivered for a little over $60 million each.. A higher production run could decrease those costs further so Im finding it hard to see how they are too expensive.

Should also ask on what do you base that the MRV 80 wont be able to operate in conditions similar to the Damen 2400 because of the HSC design? I personnaly have not read anything of an aluminum vessel not being able to handle rough sea's, What I have read is that Catamaran vessel's have a higher role rate, The MRV 80 being a trimaran design would not suffer this issue and in fact could have less roll then a mono hull vessel (Such as the Damen 2400)

 

[SASWanabe]

While no MRV 80's have been built vessel's close in size and mission are currently under construction for the RN of Oman. 2 x 72.5m HSSV's (High speed support vessel) coming in at around 320t deadweight each, for $124.9 million delivered. Two vessel's very close in size to the MRV 80 designed, built and delivered for a little over $60 million each.. A higher production run could decrease those costs further so Im finding it hard to see how they are too expensive.

Or you could buy an Independence Class LCS (more appropriate a comparison as its a trimaran like the MRV-80) at 800 tonnes deadweight for 4-500mil.

We could say half the size, Half the cost? but as we all know the metalwork of a ship is a small part of the cost so would probably be 3-400 mil per MRV-80. (not counting the premium for building in Aus.)

The Aviation training ship being built in Vietnam is an OPV-2400 but i have not been able to find a cost for just the ship itself.

Of merit in the conversation on OPVs are the Holland class (Damen design) 4 (3,700t) ships for 150mil US each.

But none of the above really matters because we don't know what each would cost from an Aussie yard.

*Rant Over*

P.S if we could build 20 Hollands for 150mil each i think we should go for it :.

 

[ngatimozart]

A thing about OPVs that you might want to consider. Aluminium is all well and good but you do have to consider where the RAN may well be required to operate in the next 40 years. Australia has a territorial claim in Antarctica, just like NZ. At the present point in time all claims are held in abeyance because of the Antarctic Treaty. But that treaty has no time limit and countries can withdraw from it if they so desire. The mining moratorium expires in 2048 which is 33 years hence. There is estimated to be 50 billion barrels of oil under the Ross and Weddell Seas which is a real boon for NZ. That's just the known hydrocarbons. Then there are all the other minerals, plus the fresh water reserves.

As time passes with increased consumption because of a larger middle class worldwide and the effects of anthropogenic initiated global warming, resources like this will become scarcer and more attractive to nation - states and non state actors such as corporations and some criminal groups. This means that there will be competition and conflict accessing these virgin resources. Therefore I believe that some States and non state actors will abrogate the current treaty and its associated agreements in order to secure as much of these resources as they can for themselves. There is just to many resources and too much wealth to ignore in a world of diminishing natural resources. Already we see it with the tooth fish piracy down there.

In order for Australia to protect its Antarctic interests and claims it will have to be able to monitor, patrol and police the waters of its claim. In order for it to do so, it must have vessels capable of handling the conditions of the Southern Ocean below 60°S. This is where its OPVs would come in. Hence they do need to be around the 2,500 tonne displacement and Ice Class 1A build. That means steel in order to meet the IMO 2018 Arctic and Antarctic regulations (IIRC) regarding the ice class construction. The RNZN is in throes of learning to operate OPVs down there. IIRC they have done three summers in the Ross Sea. They also took an ANZAC frigate down there once and I gather that they aren't to keen to repeat that because it did suffer damage due to heavy seas.

Therefore when you are designing your OPVs and determining the specs I would strongly suggest thinking about where the RAN will be actually required to operate. Don't just assume that it will not operate any further south than 45°S.

 

[vonnoobie]

Or you could buy an Independence Class LCS (more appropriate a comparison as its a trimaran like the MRV-80) at 800 tonnes deadweight for 4-500mil.

We could say half the size, Half the cost? but as we all know the metalwork of a ship is a small part of the cost so would probably be 3-400 mil per MRV-80. (not counting the premium for building in Aus.)

The Aviation training ship being built in Vietnam is an OPV-2400 but i have not been able to find a cost for just the ship itself.

Of merit in the conversation on OPVs are the Holland class (Damen design) 4 (3,700t) ships for 150mil US each.

But none of the above really matters because we don't know what each would cost from an Aussie yard.

*Rant Over*

P.S if we could build 20 Hollands for 150mil each i think we should go for it :.

*Counter Rant *

How is the LCS closer to the MRV 80 then the HSSV?

-The HSSV is 80% of the MRV 80's deadweight, The LCS is 200%.
-The HSSV is 90% the length of the MRV 80, The LCS is 159.25%

As to saying 3-400 million per an MRV 80, How do you get to that fantasy number when the ship closest in size and capability to it only costs $62.45 million complete??

You also forget that the cost of the LCS includes weapons systems that most on this forum would consider overkill for it's role.

*Counter Rant Over*

Have a nice day =)

 

[Stock]

A thing about OPVs that you might want to consider. Aluminium is all well and good but you do have to consider where the RAN may well be required to operate in the next 40 years. Australia has a territorial claim in Antarctica, just like NZ. At the present point in time all claims are held in abeyance because of the Antarctic Treaty. But that treaty has no time limit and countries can withdraw from it if they so desire. The mining moratorium expires in 2048 which is 33 years hence. There is estimated to be 50 billion barrels of oil under the Ross and Weddell Seas which is a real boon for NZ. That's just the known hydrocarbons. Then there are all the other minerals, plus the fresh water reserves.

As time passes with increased consumption because of a larger middle class worldwide and the effects of anthropogenic initiated global warming, resources like this will become scarcer and more attractive to nation - states and non state actors such as corporations and some criminal groups. This means that there will be competition and conflict accessing these virgin resources. Therefore I believe that some States and non state actors will abrogate the current treaty and its associated agreements in order to secure as much of these resources as they can for themselves. There is just to many resources and too much wealth to ignore in a world of diminishing natural resources. Already we see it with the tooth fish piracy down there.

In order for Australia to protect its Antarctic interests and claims it will have to be able to monitor, patrol and police the waters of its claim. In order for it to do so, it must have vessels capable of handling the conditions of the Southern Ocean below 60°S. This is where its OPVs would come in. Hence they do need to be around the 2,500 tonne displacement and Ice Class 1A build. That means steel in order to meet the IMO 2018 Arctic and Antarctic regulations (IIRC) regarding the ice class construction. The RNZN is in throes of learning to operate OPVs down there. IIRC they have done three summers in the Ross Sea. They also took an ANZAC frigate down there once and I gather that they aren't to keen to repeat that because it did suffer damage due to heavy seas.

Therefore when you are designing your OPVs and determining the specs I would strongly suggest thinking about where the RAN will be actually required to operate. Don't just assume that it will not operate any further south than 45°S.

Sounds pretty logical to me. The RAN however, as at 2011, had no requirement for the then Sea 1180 OCV (now OPV) to operate in the Southern Ocean below 48 deg south (Sub-Antarctic boundary in the Southern Ocean).

Not sure how often we send frigates into the Southern Ocean but the OPVs - at an expected 80-90m and approx. 2000t displacement - should be capable of making the occasional voyage down south as and when required IMO.

 

[vonnoobie]

A thing about OPVs that you might want to consider. Aluminium is all well and good but you do have to consider where the RAN may well be required to operate in the next 40 years. Australia has a territorial claim in Antarctica, just like NZ. At the present point in time all claims are held in abeyance because of the Antarctic Treaty. But that treaty has no time limit and countries can withdraw from it if they so desire. The mining moratorium expires in 2048 which is 33 years hence. There is estimated to be 50 billion barrels of oil under the Ross and Weddell Seas which is a real boon for NZ. That's just the known hydrocarbons. Then there are all the other minerals, plus the fresh water reserves.

As time passes with increased consumption because of a larger middle class worldwide and the effects of anthropogenic initiated global warming, resources like this will become scarcer and more attractive to nation - states and non state actors such as corporations and some criminal groups. This means that there will be competition and conflict accessing these virgin resources. Therefore I believe that some States and non state actors will abrogate the current treaty and its associated agreements in order to secure as much of these resources as they can for themselves. There is just to many resources and too much wealth to ignore in a world of diminishing natural resources. Already we see it with the tooth fish piracy down there.

In order for Australia to protect its Antarctic interests and claims it will have to be able to monitor, patrol and police the waters of its claim. In order for it to do so, it must have vessels capable of handling the conditions of the Southern Ocean below 60°S. This is where its OPVs would come in. Hence they do need to be around the 2,500 tonne displacement and Ice Class 1A build. That means steel in order to meet the IMO 2018 Arctic and Antarctic regulations (IIRC) regarding the ice class construction. The RNZN is in throes of learning to operate OPVs down there. IIRC they have done three summers in the Ross Sea. They also took an ANZAC frigate down there once and I gather that they aren't to keen to repeat that because it did suffer damage due to heavy seas.

Therefore when you are designing your OPVs and determining the specs I would strongly suggest thinking about where the RAN will be actually required to operate. Don't just assume that it will not operate any further south than 45°S.

If we want to make them 1A build then quite simply none of the vessel's mentioned meet the requirements and none of the cheap vessels will be cheap any more once you take into account all the extra work and requirements to meet those standards.

Building 20 odd OPV's to ice class 1A standard for which maybe a couple will operate down there on rare occasions. It's just add's unneeded costs and risks to the program when building a couple of dedicated ships would be the cheaper, safer and more logical option.

It isn't going to turn into some shooting war down there, Those nations that have claims dont over lap Australia's or NZ's, And those that reserve the right to a claim are quite simply too far away to sustain such an operation which is literally right in our back yard.

 

[SASWanabe]

How is the LCS closer to the MRV 80 then the HSSV?

I can play the percentage game too :

the MRV-80 and LCS have 150% the number of hulls the HSSV has, (3 vs 2) Which pretty much makes them (MRV+LCS) somewhat scaleable to each other whereas MRV+HSSV is an apples to oranges comparison.

The HSSV also doesn't have a hangar unlike the MRV or LCS.

Anyway its not worth arguing over i wont bring it up again.


P.S For anyone who is interested but hasn't found these themselves Austals' Datasheets.-

MRV-80

HSSV

LCS

 

[Bluey 006]

I can play the percentage game too :

the MRV-80 and LCS have 150% the number of hulls the HSSV has, (3 vs 2) Which pretty much makes them (MRV+LCS) somewhat scaleable to each other whereas MRV+HSSV is an apples to oranges comparison.

The HSSV also doesn't have a hangar unlike the MRV or LCS.

Anyway its not worth arguing over i wont bring it up again.


P.S For anyone who is interested but hasn't found these themselves Austals' Datasheets.-

MRV-80

HSSV

LCS

As a point of comparison -

Link...This is a little bigger that the MRV and a trimaran and it went for around 95m i think , then you have to factor in being built to Milspec and required systems which are added costs, smaller size and extended build reduces cost also, so I dunno at a wild guess 120-200m maybe.

Then again The Helicopter Aircrew Training System (HATS) cost close to $1 Billion which included 15 Airbus Helicopter EC-135 twin-engine ‘glass cockpit’ training helicopters; three full-motion Thales EC 135 Flight Simulators and the new sea-going training vessel (Damen OPV2 2400).

200 million of that was new facilities, and on the commercial market the EC-135 goes for around 4.5m (so about 65-90m for 15) + the the simulators and no doubt other integrated elements (potentially maintenance too), then the OPV 2 (which was built in Vietnam, because Australian ship builders simply could not provide a “viable tender that would meet budget and time frame”) - I dunno its hard to work out what the OPV 2 element cost, on basic calculations, seems significant though.

All that said, if we can get the OPV2 at a reasonable cost built locally, cheaper than a smaller lighter Austral solution - by all means get the 20 x OPV2. As John originally said there are costs advantages and reduced through life training/ sustainment costs of single type, if these out way the lower costs of initial procurement and lower life fuel costs of an aluminium ship.Then it is a no brainier. There are lots of other economic variables involved also.

As long as we get the numbers and capability, and don't lose anything - i am not fussed.

Ultimately though for all the rhetoric about capability, its costs and economics that decide our many of our platform choices and numbers.

Guess we'll find out in a few months.

Whats next on the discussion agenda? We haven't argued about subs for a while? Any takers?

 

[SASWanabe]

Whats next on the discussion agenda? We haven't argued about subs for a while? Any takers?

We haven't had the "Aircraft carrier for the RAN" argument even longer.

my gut instinct is that you wouldn't get an MRV 80 for any less than 250mil dont ask me to quantify it but thats my own personal opinion.

Add to that, that trimarans have so many downsides compared to a monohull i just cant support buying any.

 

[rockitten]

Whats next on the discussion agenda? We haven't argued about subs for a while? Any takers?

How about this?

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/28623351/wa-lobbies-for-warships/

WA is now challenging the "divine right" of build them on east coast and is now bidding not just the surface combatants, but may also the submarines.

A FBW version for my "1 yard builds all" idea?

 

[Volkodav]

Ok the simple fact is aluminium has been a very expensive and largely unsuccessful material as far as the RAN is concerned, the cracking and repair solutions that needed to be developed to fix it in the FFGs was bad enough, the LCM 2000s were an unmitigated disaster and the ACPBs were an absolute maintenance nightmare. In commercial operations the trade offs can be accommodated and aluminium hulled vessels can be operated very successfully. This also applies, to a degree, to the Customs Marine Unit vessels as well, which are operated by civilian certified crews operating in accordance with civilian commercial practices.

Naval vessels are different, they are pushed harder, they need to be, they do have to operate in conditions that a commercial operator would actually be negligent to go out in, they do need to meet operational requirements no matter what. There are times that naval vessels will be deployed in full knowledge that it will actually damage and reduce the life of the vessel, think saving people in distress (not just refugees but stranded yachtsmen and ill or injured Antarctic personnel), time that needed maintenance has to be delayed to meet operational requirements. This is the reality that aluminium hulled vessels are just not as suitable or as economic an option as a conventional steel hull. Interestingly a steel hulled version of the Armidale was apparently offered by DMS but aluminium was selected by the government as modelling showed it would have a lower fuel burn that would offset the higher material and construction costs, the trouble is the modelling didn't show the sad reality that major hull restoration work would be required at almost every major docking, or that severe structural cracking would result from long ocean deployments to Christmas Island etc. Long story short steel (and GRP for that matter) hulled vessels are more durable and will last longer than aluminium ones.

There is a saying, "steel is cheap and air is free", it is actually true. I am not saying it would cost about the same to build a 7000t hull as a 400t hull, that's just stupid, what I am saying is when building a 1500t OPV it would cost very little extra to build a 2000t or even a 4000t vessel with the same basic systems and including a multi-mission deck, a helicopter flight deck and even a hanger. Look at what we have in service or storage that could be affordably be refurbished and fitted to such a vessel, fourteen 25mm Typhoon systems from the ACPBs, six 76mm Oto Melara Mk-75s, six self defence length eight cell Mk-41 VLS to start and then there are the systems on the ANZACs already pre-packed in MEKO modular installations, eight ship sets of Mk-45 5" guns, eight cell Mk-41 VLS, triple torpedo tubes, the recently fitted ASMD improvements, as well as much of the scalable and upgradeable SAAB combat system. There is also sixteen propulsion diesels (that NZ has demonstrated can be extensively ungraded through the use of a bolt on kit) and no less than 20 LM2500 gas turbines (assuming those from Adelaide and Canberra were retained). Add all this stuff together and we have a pretty impressive saving if it can be used, the thing is to be able to use any of it the hull has to be large enough to fit it.

We could quite literally have a basic OPV design with diesel propulsion, that has a flight deck, hanger and adjoining multi-mission deck and one or two 25mm Typhoons that also has provision to be upgraded to a OCV with a 76mm gun, Phalanx (and or RAM) and an eight cell Mk-41 with an enhanced combat system. There could conceivably be an evolved version sharing many common systems with the OPV/OCV that has a longer hull and a CODOG/CODAG/CODLAG propulsion, sonar and ASMD mast pulled through from the ANZACs along with the torpedo tubes, 5" gun and VLS. I'm not picking any particular design as there are many flexible / scaleable options on the global market, just pointing out that there are families of vessels that scale to fill OPV, corvette and frigate missions.

As to not up gunning an OCV and calling it a light frigate because it may reduce frigate numbers, easy fix, lets just call our 7000t light cruiser sized frigates what they really are, destroyers. We have actually don it already, the F-100 is a frigate and we are calling our version a destroyer, just do the same with the new ships, especially if they are getting land attack cruise missiles, AUSPAR and SM-6.

At the end of the day a balanced surface group shouldn't be that hard or expensive to develop.

12 destroyers (preferably two batches of six)
8 light frigates
6 corvettes
7 OCVs

Personally I would love to add some DDHs to the mix but I know I am dreaming, there would just be too much political resistance to the idea. Ideally there would be a minimum of three but preferably five groups, each consisting of a Hyuga or Izumo type DDH, an AEGIS AWD and a DDG-1000 (or successor) that would be reinforced by light frigates, corvettes and even OCVs as required for particular assignments. These groups would be supported by three AORs and would escort the LHDs, especially if carrying an ARG.

The beauty of the light frigates is they could effectively escort the AORs and conduct virtually all the current missions of the RAN ANZACs, while the corvettes could supplement them in UN counter piracy deployments etc.

 

[rockitten]

So the public wants F-35B for the LPD and nuclear sub, it seems the defence white paper will be a really interesting one......

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

The issue of whether Australia should operate nuclear-powered submarines was raised repeatedly during public consultations with the expert panel advising the Abbot*t government on its defence white paper.

Defence Minister Kevin Andrews released in Perth yesterday a report on public attitudes compiled by the panel headed by the head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute think tank, Peter Jennings.

Mr Jennings told The Australian the question most frequently asked by those concerned about the capability of the Australian Defence Force was why the navy was not to get nuclear-powered submarines.

Others argued that if the navy were not to have nuclear submar*ines then the government should explain why they were not appropriate for Australia, he said.

And while there was strong support for the defence alliance with the US many argued that the government had to much more clearly explain the reasons for ADF missions and their progress.

The defence white paper is due to be released next month.

“The capability suggestion most often made in the public meetings and included in many submissions was for the acquis*ition of nuclear-propelled sub*marines, particularly the Virginia class of the US Navy, whether by outright purchase or through a leasing arrangement,” said the report, Guarding against uncertainty: Australian attitudes to defence.

Some suggested that even if Australia were committed to a conventional submarine to replace* the Collins class, work should begin soon on the *infrastructure to support a *nuclear-powered submarine by mid-century. “The potential operational advantages of nuclear propulsion were emphasised repeatedly, while some felt that a more comprehensive justification for any decision not to acquire *nuclear-powered submarines needs to be provided to the public,” the report said.

The second capability proposal made repeatedly was for the purchase of more than 20 of the F35B short-takeoff, vertical-landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter.

The government has 72 of the standard versions of the fighter-bomber on order. A number of those who made submissions *argued that the navy’s new landing ships should be modified to *operate the STOVL aircraft.

“This recommendation was usually made in the context of providing close air support to forces ashore, but there were a few proponents of the employment of the Canberra class as small aircraft carriers, focused on an F35B air group, rather than as part of an amphibious force,” the report said.

There was also wide interest in the use of unmanned aircraft and submarines.

The panel recommended that the government develop a defence industry policy statement with a clear path to implementation.

“A statement that makes modest but realisable undertakings is preferable to one that makes big but generalised promises,” it said.

Mr Andrews said the report revealed a clear need to raise public awareness of roles and missions, how Defence performed those tasks and the policy rationale behind them. “The government ... will work with Defence to address these concerns.”

 

[John Fedup]

@rockitten...I have followed the Australian sub replacement program with much interest. I was under the impression that Australians would not support nuclear subs (can't access the newspaper article).

Given the budget numbers being thrown around for a Collins replacement, perhaps 8 Virginias could be a better solution than 12+ whatever diesel electrics which have yet to be configured and modified to Australian requirements with no even semi-firm cost estimates. Current price of a Virginia is about $2.6 billion US. Does a nuke boat ease the one third rule somewhat (1 training but available on short notice, one on patrol, one under refit). Albeit a Virginia is expensive but it seems to be a proven product.

 

[alexsa]

*Counter Rant *

How is the LCS closer to the MRV 80 then the HSSV?

-The HSSV is 80% of the MRV 80's deadweight, The LCS is 200%.
-The HSSV is 90% the length of the MRV 80, The LCS is 159.25%

As to saying 3-400 million per an MRV 80, How do you get to that fantasy number when the ship closest in size and capability to it only costs $62.45 million complete??

You also forget that the cost of the LCS includes weapons systems that most on this forum would consider overkill for it's role.

*Counter Rant Over*

Have a nice day =)

Aluminium construction cost more .than mild steel ... sorry that is a simple. I have some exposure to hulls built (overseas) based on the 2400 hull form and even if you could build the MRV80 at the same cost as the smaller vessel your mention (which is doubtful) it is going to be cheaper. The cost escalation will come with systems but both vessels would be subject to this.

Finally, and I have spoken about this at length, light weight multihulls built to structures developed for HSC are less robust than mild steel and the hull form brings in a range of sea state limitations because of the vessel structure and design ....... things like tunnel slam are a huge issue.

Suggest you do some reading. If you look at the High Speed Craft code (which is was most vessels built by Austal are based) you will see that there are a range of operating limitations (including a requirement to have declared routes) placed on commercially operated HSC to allow for reductions in structure and structural fire protection.

There are some really impressive HSC vessel about but the are built for a particular type of market and operation. They are also not very tolerate to weight increases as this impacts on their prime role ..... high speed short range (meaning hours rather than days as the vessel have to be within 4 hours of a safe haven when carrying PAX) operations as a PAX or RO-PAX vessel.

LCS is built for a particular US need and would also work well for other navies where they forma part of an integrated system that supports them. I suspect this may work well for the US ........ however ........ with a rescue region covering one tenth of the worlds surface our patrol vessel will need to operate alone and in crappy conditions ....... mild steel, size, seakeeping and range will matter.

 

[Stock]

Ok the simple fact is aluminium has been a very expensive and largely unsuccessful material as far as the RAN is concerned, the cracking and repair solutions that needed to be developed to fix it in the FFGs was bad enough, the LCM 2000s were an unmitigated disaster and the ACPBs were an absolute maintenance nightmare. In commercial operations the trade offs can be accommodated and aluminium hulled vessels can be operated very successfully. This also applies, to a degree, to the Customs Marine Unit vessels as well, which are operated by civilian certified crews operating in accordance with civilian commercial practices.

Naval vessels are different, they are pushed harder, they need to be, they do have to operate in conditions that a commercial operator would actually be negligent to go out in, they do need to meet operational requirements no matter what. There are times that naval vessels will be deployed in full knowledge that it will actually damage and reduce the life of the vessel, think saving people in distress (not just refugees but stranded yachtsmen and ill or injured Antarctic personnel), time that needed maintenance has to be delayed to meet operational requirements. This is the reality that aluminium hulled vessels are just not as suitable or as economic an option as a conventional steel hull. Interestingly a steel hulled version of the Armidale was apparently offered by DMS but aluminium was selected by the government as modelling showed it would have a lower fuel burn that would offset the higher material and construction costs, the trouble is the modelling didn't show the sad reality that major hull restoration work would be required at almost every major docking, or that severe structural cracking would result from long ocean deployments to Christmas Island etc. Long story short steel (and GRP for that matter) hulled vessels are more durable and will last longer than aluminium ones.

There is a saying, "steel is cheap and air is free", it is actually true. I am not saying it would cost about the same to build a 7000t hull as a 400t hull, that's just stupid, what I am saying is when building a 1500t OPV it would cost very little extra to build a 2000t or even a 4000t vessel with the same basic systems and including a multi-mission deck, a helicopter flight deck and even a hanger. Look at what we have in service or storage that could be affordably be refurbished and fitted to such a vessel, fourteen 25mm Typhoon systems from the ACPBs, six 76mm Oto Melara Mk-75s, six self defence length eight cell Mk-41 VLS to start and then there are the systems on the ANZACs already pre-packed in MEKO modular installations, eight ship sets of Mk-45 5" guns, eight cell Mk-41 VLS, triple torpedo tubes, the recently fitted ASMD improvements, as well as much of the scalable and upgradeable SAAB combat system. There is also sixteen propulsion diesels (that NZ has demonstrated can be extensively ungraded through the use of a bolt on kit) and no less than 20 LM2500 gas turbines (assuming those from Adelaide and Canberra were retained). Add all this stuff together and we have a pretty impressive saving if it can be used, the thing is to be able to use any of it the hull has to be large enough to fit it.

We could quite literally have a basic OPV design with diesel propulsion, that has a flight deck, hanger and adjoining multi-mission deck and one or two 25mm Typhoons that also has provision to be upgraded to a OCV with a 76mm gun, Phalanx (and or RAM) and an eight cell Mk-41 with an enhanced combat system. There could conceivably be an evolved version sharing many common systems with the OPV/OCV that has a longer hull and a CODOG/CODAG/CODLAG propulsion, sonar and ASMD mast pulled through from the ANZACs along with the torpedo tubes, 5" gun and VLS. I'm not picking any particular design as there are many flexible / scaleable options on the global market, just pointing out that there are families of vessels that scale to fill OPV, corvette and frigate missions.

As to not up gunning an OCV and calling it a light frigate because it may reduce frigate numbers, easy fix, lets just call our 7000t light cruiser sized frigates what they really are, destroyers. We have actually don it already, the F-100 is a frigate and we are calling our version a destroyer, just do the same with the new ships, especially if they are getting land attack cruise missiles, AUSPAR and SM-6.

At the end of the day a balanced surface group shouldn't be that hard or expensive to develop.

12 destroyers (preferably two batches of six)
8 light frigates
6 corvettes
7 OCVs

Personally I would love to add some DDHs to the mix but I know I am dreaming, there would just be too much political resistance to the idea. Ideally there would be a minimum of three but preferably five groups, each consisting of a Hyuga or Izumo type DDH, an AEGIS AWD and a DDG-1000 (or successor) that would be reinforced by light frigates, corvettes and even OCVs as required for particular assignments. These groups would be supported by three AORs and would escort the LHDs, especially if carrying an ARG.

The beauty of the light frigates is they could effectively escort the AORs and conduct virtually all the current missions of the RAN ANZACs, while the corvettes could supplement them in UN counter piracy deployments etc.

Nice insights into aluminium. As Austal does not rely on orders from the ADF for its survival, I doubt whether aluminium will even be an option for the OPVs.

Most OPV designs in the 1500-2500 tonne category are all steel and feature a flight deck and hangar as standard. So it may actually cost more to have the hangar removed from a design than to retain it.

CONOPS and cost will be the key determinants of the level of warfighting capability the OPVs might have. Re-use of surplus kit is an interesting prospect but I have trouble seeing CoA accepting any risk involved in essentially being the supplier of such systems - they much prefer to have others meet warranty obligations!

The initial exception to that would be the 25mm Typhoons, which would have very low barrel wear rates. The weapon itself could very well be re-utilised for the OPVs, although the mount and sensor package would need updating to the latest Typhoon standard/model/configuration. Unsure what spending life on the deck of the ACPB has done to their overall condition though.

Cannot see the RAN requesting anything larger than a 25-30mm gun for the OPVs; I'm expecting to be completely underwhelmed by the OPVs armament suite. Not something I agree with as even changing up to a 40mm or 57mm deck gun gives added options and more flexible offensive/defensive capabilities at a modicum of cost and not much risk, even if only for a portion of the fleet.

 

[Volkodav]

The ADF has always reused equipment, the Bofors on the Fremantles were rebuilt 1940s guns on a new ADI mount, the torpedo tubes on most of the ANZACs were from the River class DEs / frigates, with the exception of the new units ordered for the AWDs the RANs Phalanx are part of a pool, that is being refurbished, including those from the FFGs and LPAs (Kanimbla and Manoora were each delivered with one fitted). It makes sense when you think about it and is also quite common overseas, i.e. the Mk-13 GMLS on the French Jean Bart DDGs were refurbished units from 1950s vintage destroyers that were converted to DDGs in the 1960s. So realistically there is no reason why we couldn't do the same with existing systems, in particular the eight cell Mk-41 VLS of which there are twelve.

Actually on the French upgrade of older gun destroyers, one of the reasons Tartar was the RANs prefered system as well as why there were only three DDGs and that they were built overseas (a fourth was very seriously considered) was that we planned to convert both the Daring and Battle class destroyers to DDGs. Competing systems such as Sea Slug and Terrier were to large to retrofit to such small ships and it was assumed our yards would be too busy with conversion work to build new ships. These were not the only reasons but they were up there, as a force of eight or nine DDGs was seen as vital at the time.