Goknub
My reading of ship size as well.
All in all a positive future for the RAN if the DWP is as good as the article in The Australian. We know what should on happened re orders / shipbuilding.
Lets look to the future.
Regards S
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
My reading of ship size as well.
All in all a positive future for the RAN if the DWP is as good as the article in The Australian. We know what should on happened re orders / shipbuilding.
Lets look to the future.
Regards S
Scouring the internet there is no actual mention of a cradle like system being required so resorted to google pictures and did find a few of them inside various well decks and could not see any indication of any cradle like system so I'd hazard a guess that no the LCM-1E's dont need the cradle system.
With water jet propulsion I imagine the hull would pretty much lack any protruding part's on the bottom thus allowing them to sit down flat but that is just a guess.
In regard's to the LCVP's, I can see were the popularity is coming from as it gives a larger beach landing capability over a standard RHIB while not being so large that it takes up a massive area. What I'd like to know is if the crane system used on ship's to lower/raise the LCVP's could also be used for other boats such as the Swedish CB90's?
On the LCH front, Well if they want to be moving the same number of vehicles and account for the increased size and weight of the future fleet of armored vehicles then at the bare minimum it need's a 360t capacity, Possibly as high as 500t with similar if not greater range.
With water jet propulsion I imagine the hull would pretty much lack any protruding part's on the bottom thus allowing them to sit down flat but that is just a guess.
In regard's to the LCVP's, I can see were the popularity is coming from as it gives a larger beach landing capability over a standard RHIB while not being so large that it takes up a massive area. What I'd like to know is if the crane system used on ship's to lower/raise the LCVP's could also be used for other boats such as the Swedish CB90's?
On the LCH front, Well if they want to be moving the same number of vehicles and account for the increased size and weight of the future fleet of armored vehicles then at the bare minimum it need's a 360t capacity, Possibly as high as 500t with similar if not greater range.
It struck me as a reference to size as well but considering there are currently 640t 72m Visby and 2400t, 99m MILGEM class corvettes, it really isn't that informative.
There is a possibility these vessels could be designed "for but not with" a more war like combat system, the precedent being the Fremantle class PBs. Many don't realise that the Freos were designed to be fitted with an Oto Melara 76mm gun and anti ship missiles (probably Harpoon), if it can be done for a PB / FAC, why not an OPV / Corvette.
Also I read something quite interesting a while ago that made the very valid point that frigates are the modern day equivalents to cruisers in terms of role and capabilities (well actually they are significantly more flexible and capable). Looking at it like that you realise that what is missing is the modern day equivalent of destroyers and frigates, i.e. the less capable, less robust, but much more affordable warships to cover the anti-surface and ASW with limited air defence roles. This is the corvette, light frigate, LCS, with reasonable but not high end or specialised ASW, a decent anti-ship missile and reasonably capable point, or even local air defence and anti-missile capability. Hull sonar / ASW torpedos, Harpoon or similar, medium calibre gun, CIWS and/or RAM/CAMM/ESSM with CEAFAR.
Look at how the corvettes, sloops and frigates of WWII covered or were adapted to coastal patrol and defence, convoy escort, offensive and defensive ASW, mine sweeping, hydrographic and oceanographic survey and you can see the similarity with the often proposed and sometimes executed corvette / OPC / OCV. This is how I see these not so small combatants, the frigates are the new light or fleet cruisers, destroyers are the heavy cruisers or even armoured or battle cruisers, and the new flexible and adaptable corvettes are the frigates and destroyers that complimented and supported the big ships.
I believe we were short sighted when we didn't fit one of Bill & Ben's 70 tonne cranes to Choules. It would have allowed so much extra flexibility for not a lot of cost. There is still a fair bit of life left in the LCM8's as all have been re-engined and not all have been flogged to death.
Actually I think these would all be very wrong for the RAN and what we want. We don't want or need a fully armed corvette. OPV/OCV/2000t patrol ship. Visbys also had major issues with their design and construction and have no hanger. Given there is a big argument that aluminium and possibly some steel designs requirements of a regular steel hull (ice strengthening, sea-axe) aren't strong enough, going back to a composite hull like the huons seems like a big step back.
Plus do we really want missile corvettes?
I can see 3 basic classes off what we want, which can be based off the same hull.
1) Combat or Heavy Patrol - Maybe 0-6 ships Something you could operate independently off North Africa, Asia, middle east and fend off non-state based militants/pirates
2) Patrol - 10-16 ships
3) Survey/mine - 3-6 Ships
Given that these are big enough to operate a helo then something flying and launching hellfires should be fine. Anything else it could use a much cheaper and always ready gun for. There is nothing wrong with 76mm and 25mm.
Flexson
Active Member
I myself haven't seen an LCM-8 or photo of one completely high and dry, no doubt it has been done, its just one of the Army operators I had a chat with about them said it was not an ideal situation or a good idea due to the rudder and shafting arrangements.
LCM1-E Do not need a cradle.
Craning LCM-8 was dificcult very good conditions needed, even just out from Townsville harbour we have had to wait a few days or try and find more sheltered areas around the coast or magnetic island.
LCVP are excellent little boats but are a little out dated when compared to boats like CB90. T5 and T6 Will be going from Tobruk to Choules, Choules is already operating Success's old LCVP T7.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Just came across this on the ASPI site (only just been published), haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I thought It might be an interesting read for all, especially with all the amphibious ship discussions lately:
https://www.aspi.org.au/publication...warfare/Beyond_2017_amphibious_capability.pdf
Cheers,
https://www.aspi.org.au/publication...warfare/Beyond_2017_amphibious_capability.pdf
Cheers,
So don't have a single class that can do a bit of everything but rather having a single hull fitted out to perform particular roles, Makes more sense and far safer program wise though I still wouldn't rule out a system similar to the Danish StanFlex modules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex
Not saying a composite hull is the way to go for the OPV / corvette but I should point out that far from being a structurally weak solution it is actually just about the strongest and you also don't need to worry about corrosion or fatigue. The issue it has is cost and disposal, i.e. about the only way to get rid of the hull at the end of life is to cut it up and bury it in land fill.
I also disagree on the want and need for a fully armed corvettes. Ever since the RAN retired the last of their war built corvettes and frigates there has been a recognized gap between the RANs major fleet units and patrol boats they have desired to fill. In WWII there were the Fairmile D HDMLs (Harbour Defence Motor Launch) as well as the Bathurst class corvettes which were actually designed seaward defence vessels rather than mine sweepers pressed into escort and patrol work. As these were retired the RANs Ton class mine sweepers had to step up, in particular during the Indonesian Confrontation, this was when the Attack class PBs were developed and a class of corvette planned.
The corvettes evolved, first with the addition of a helicopter, which in turn necessitated improved self defence, in the late 60s that meant Tartar and what had been a gun armed patrol vessel intended to support and free up destroyers and frigates had become the DDL light destroyer, basically a guided missile frigate, in its own right. There was still a need but scope creep had derailed the project meaning the RAN not only missed out on their corvettes but also additional high end destroyers as a simpler, less capable, Light Destroyer or FFGs, evolved from the DDL project, were procured instead. Interestingly in the late 70s it had been intended to procure a class of six gun / missile armed FAC derivatives of the Fremantle class PBs which would have to a degree filled the corvette mission but these did not proceed for cost reasons.
Since then there has been the OPC / Transfield 81m corvette (cancelled in 1996) and more recently the OCV, indefinitely deferred in 2013. To me this clearly shows there is an identified requirement otherwise it wouldn't keep reappearing, only to be cancelled and smaller less capable vessels bought instead.
Now we could build a class of OPVs which would be a massive improvement over the preceding patrol boats and able to relieve frigates in some capacities, they would still lack any real combat capability. While more durable and more effective than patrol boats they would be completely incapable of defending themselves at all meaning in any conflict they would have to be able to operate under a defensive umbrella provided by our limited number of major combatants (or allied vessels) or be left at home, they would be less effective and versatile than smaller missile armed craft used in our region. Basically once there was any degree of threat at all they would have to be left at home leaving or very limited number of major combatants to try and do everything on their own.
If we reuse the weapons, sensors and combat system from the ASMD upgraded ANZACs we could, for limited outlay, grant the RAN an additional eight warships able to do everything an OPV is intended to, even in higher threat scenarios. Instead of having to be left home, or defended, they would be able to operate independently or even add to the combat power of our major combatants. Remember, as with the cancelled DDL of the 1970s, once you add a multirole helicopter, worth tens of millions of dollars, you really need to ensure the ship can defend itself.
I would want to read the white paper before jumping to conclusions ... but it is possible that the article was referring to an actual corvette.
The original plans were for Australia to build a class of Offshore Combatant Vessels (OCV) as opposed to an Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV)
I am sure that the usage of the terminology was quite deliberate. It is possible that a corvette might better match the requirements than an OPV.
The original plans were for Australia to build a class of Offshore Combatant Vessels (OCV) as opposed to an Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV)
I am sure that the usage of the terminology was quite deliberate. It is possible that a corvette might better match the requirements than an OPV.
Johnston did mention fast frigates in addition to the AWDs and ANZAC replacements, I assumed it was pork barrelling for Austal with him attempting to justify a squadron of Independence class LCS. Looking at it in hindsight it may actually be an ADF interest in the LCS concept as the deferred OCVs were basically a slow, weak LCS lite and now the USN has refined and proven the concept and other nations, i.e. Singapore, are developing their own versions of the concept there could be wider ranging support.
If you are going to build a class of medium sized combatants and it wont cost that much more, why not at least fit them for but not with, or even better,reuse / pull through proven, already paid for systems from surplus platforms. With modern technology it is conceivable that a vessel with the capability of an ASMD ANZAC and the operating costs of a 1990s OPV could be built reasonably affordably.
That's a good find John and it gives me comfort that the intellectual effort required to promote competence in Amphibious Warfare has been gaining pace within the "purple" sphere. I only hope that the ADF will come to similar conclusions.
There needs to be a generational change in our Force posture and I look forward to that and the DWP with hope.
The Army will have to make the biggest adjustment and will need more enabling elements to meet these ARE/ARG commitments so let's hope they are funded.
The one worrying sentiment, expressed by General Morrison, is that he hopes the Army will not go down the cultural path of thinking that the RAN and RAAF are simply there to act as chariots to take them into the battle. Their commitment to permanent amphibious doctrine must be paramount.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes it was interesting that the word 'corvette' was used (assuming it wasn't the reporter throwing that word in??), and obviously until we actually get to see the DWP, DCP and the Naval Shipbuilding Plan, then of course we are all continuing to speculate, and obviously what I'm going to say is more speculation too!!
But let's look at what we do know (or have reasonably guessed from various statements, reported or published):
* A class of OPV's to replace the ACPB's, as stated a while ago by the current Def Min, at the very least this probably means a class of 10-12 ships, is this the start of 'reviving' the SEA1180 project? Who knows if the Government will go as far as the original 2009 Rudd DWP and also replace the mine warfare and hydrographic fleets with 20 hulls in total (that is still open to speculation), but I think I'd be on pretty firm ground to suggest that the ACPB's will be replaced with 10-12 OPV's that I'd reasonably suggest probably won't carry 'significant' armament either, probably Typhoon and maybe a couple of Mini Typhoon.
The previous Def Min Johnston was, as V mentioned, a big fan of the Austal LCS ships, has this interest carried over to the current Def Min and will there be something in the new DWP? Again who knows, but if it has, possibly the 'corvette' talk could be a pointer in that direction.
It's interesting that about a month ago when a number of us here were putting up a 'wish list', I put one up too and asked the question 'is there a place for a capability that will sit between the AWD/Frigates at the top and the OPV's at the bottom?', and I threw up the Austal LCS ships using recycled armaments/systems from the FFG's and eventually the retired Anzacs too, (yes I know Aluminium bad, Steel good!), but I thought if there was a need for such a capability (and the Government wanting to also throw Austal a 'bone' with it's new Naval Shipbuilding Plan), is it a possible option for the Government?
* From the RAND report, the suggestion that the Government could order four (4) OPV's to be built during the six years from the commissioning of the last AWD in around 2020 and the first Future Frigate in 2026. Which in a way is very similar to the situation in the UK where the Government there has ordered three (3) OPV's as a 'gap filler' between the completion of the Carriers and the start of the Type 26 Frigates.
But I have wondered if the Government does proceed with a class of 'four' OPV's (as suggested by RAND), would they be an orphan class? What would their role be? Would they just be the start of a larger class?, eg the first four OPV's that are replacing the ACPB's.
Could those four ships (if proceeded with), be a class of more capable OPV's and be more like an OCV/Corvette/LCS type class of ship?
Again, all speculation on my behalf, but looking at the statements of late and the previous Def Min too, then maybe there is going to be a new class of ships that sit in between the AWD/Frigates and the OPV's!!
Anyway, looking forward to the DWP being released soon, then we can all stop speculating!!!
Muar River
Member
It's nice to speculate but I thought the intention was to have something similar to a Damen OPV design such as the Axe Bow 1800m with good handling, seakeeping, gun, hangar and a speed of 26knots.
To me, the important issue is to up the number of major surface combatants - 12 frigates plus the AWDs.
To me, the important issue is to up the number of major surface combatants - 12 frigates plus the AWDs.
Bluey 006
Active Member
Just a thought
It could go the other way, similar principle but in reverse. An Austral mini-LCS or MRV patrol boat solution (maybe up to 800-1200 tonne) that they call an OPV as the patrol boat replacements (the new DefMin visited Austral last month), and a 2nd class of steel hulled 4-6 up gunned OPV that they call Corvettes (1800-2600 tonnes) that are much more heavily armed to fill the void between Frigate and OPV, and keep other yards going until the frigates and submarines are kicked off.
Lets just hope they aren't setting up for a reduction of frigate numbers.
When the white paper due?
Joe Black
Active Member
More editorial piece on the Sea1000 and Option J:
Can Japan Win Australia’s Submarine Contract? | The Diplomat
I do think that the sub selection may not necessary come as the result of the DWP or from the competitive tender. It could just be made based on political situation.
Can Japan Win Australia’s Submarine Contract? | The Diplomat
I do think that the sub selection may not necessary come as the result of the DWP or from the competitive tender. It could just be made based on political situation.
Don't you think that is a little bit patronising? There is nothing new in that ASPI report. It is essentially identical to the Australian Amphibious Concept developed by the ADF. In fact, I'm pretty sure entire paragraphs and diagrams are lifted directly from ADF documents. The 'ASPI' conclusions you are so generously validating IS the current ADF plan. What do you think all those staff officers do all day?
Well, just wonder, does any news/rumors about 2nd RAR wants some AAV-7 in the Land400?
I do not expect something as fancy as LCAC, but a total absent of any interest in IFV/AFV Specialised for amphibious warfare still surprised me.
by the way, does steel hull really suitable for mine hunting/sweeping warfare? If not, may be we really need some aluminium hulled LCS in our fleet.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Bluey mate, now your speculating too! Ha, ha! (Where's the DWP when you need it!)
But yes, anything is 'possible', but not necessarily 'probable', and that applies to both our comments too.
As far as a 'reduction of frigate numbers', yes anything is possible, but I really think that if the Government is actually going to produce a Naval Shipbuilding Plan that has any hope of creating a 'continuous' build program, then reducing the number of Frigate hulls would basically wipe that plan out completely, in fact I think there is more chance of an additional hull(s).
In all honestly too, I think a 'continuous' build program will be almost near impossible to achieve, yes I'm sure that the aim of the program will be to have a far more 'sustainable' or 'near continuous' Naval Shipbuilding program, but to achieve a 'continuous' program, I fear, will have a negative impact on the Navy itself, despite the potential good outcome for industry, I don't think it will be 'win win' it will be 'win loose'.
So why do I say that?
If you look at the Future Frigate programme (that currently), is planned to get the first hull commissioned in 2026 to coincide with the retirement of Anzac herself, yes that is certainly achievable, but by the time you get to the 'fourth' new hull it could be a different story.
To make sense of what I'm saying, the RAND report was talking about the 'drumbeat' of when a ship is commissioned, there is a drumbeat of 1 or 1.5 or 2 (eg, every 12 months, every 18 months and every 24 months), they are suggesting a drumbeat of '2'.
If you look at the production of the 10 Anzac Frigates (including the two NZ ships), they were commissioned over an 11 year period, just a fraction over a 'drumbeat of 1'.
So what you say?
If you look at the commissioning dates of the 8 Australian Anzac ships they were, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, if you look at a '30 year lifespan' then they should be decommissioned in 2026, 2028, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035 and 2036.
If you follow the RAND suggestion of a drumbeat of '2', the commissioning dates for the eight (8) replacements will be 2026, 2028, 2030, 2032, 2034, 2036, 2038 and 2040.
By following that production schedule you will have the first four hulls replaced 'one for one' without any reduction in availability, but after that everything gets out of 'sync' and the last of the Anzac replacements actually get commissioned 'four' years after the last Anzac retires!!
If such a building program with a drumbeat of 2 was followed, the Government has basically two options, either retire hulls on time (and end up with a capability gap) or spend extra dollars on extending the life of the existing ships so there is no capability gap, it's one or the other.
Again you say, so what? What has that go to do with a 'continuous' build program?
So if the Government actually sticks to a minimum of 8 Future Frigates replacing the 8 Anzac Frigates, then the last 'Future Frigate' will be commissioned in 2040 (drumbeat of 2), but the first of the AWD's that was commissioned in 2017 is not due to be replaced till 2047!
So here we are again, another 6 or 7 year gap between production of major fleet units as it is now (the last AWD in around 2020 and the first Future Frigate in 2026), all we would be doing is moving this 'Valley of Death' forward 30 years and not resolving the problem.
So what's the solution to fill that 6 or 7 year gap?
Simple! Add another two or three hulls to the Future Frigate program and commission those additional hulls in 2042, 2044 and 2046, but of course that all comes at a significant dollar cost too!
All of the above is what I have extrapolated out of the RAND report and a couple of ASPI reports too.
So yes at the end of the day if the RAN ended up with 15 major fleet units (Destroyers and Frigates), and if they stayed in commission for 30 years and replacements were produced (in the one yard) every two years then a 'continuous' build program is technically possible.
(And yes I haven't mentioned the Collins, ACPB, Mine Warfare, Hydrographic and LCH replacements, because those programs will be 'concurrent' with the Future Frigates and not 'consecutive' replacements and don't exactly 'extend' Naval Shipbuilding in this country).
So yes on the surface, a drumbeat of 2, and extra hulls, can potentially make for a 'continuous' build program, but there is still a number of questions, big questions.
What is the extra cost of stretching out build programs (from 12mths or 18mtns to 24mths) that would obviously add extra manpower and other costs to producing a ship? The issue of a previous class of ships that 'should' be retired every 12mths or so and stretching that out to 24mths which potentially means either a significant capability gap of up to 4 years or spending the extra dollars in maintaining old hulls for that period too.
Lots of questions that I don't have all the answers too!!
Cheers,
I didn't mean it to be. I haven't seen or heard any PR on how the ARE/ARG's fit into the Beersheba organisation, I really don't know where to look and because its a work in progress I had assumed that the ASPI stuff was new.
Please excuse my ignorance.
- Status