Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

105's on an OPV?

why would an OPV need a weapon designed for bombardment as a NGFS solution. it's not even close to meeting requirements?

the mission statement for the OPV is about green and grey water operations, none of the combat vignettes for the OPV's remotely approach a maritime GFS role

if an OPV is going into contested space then its not going to be operating on its own - and other assets are better placed to undertake a GFS role anyway

I can't see any tactical construct where that kind of capability would be warranted

its the wrong weapon system without a relevant FCS on the wrong platform for an ill defined requirement....

 

[vonnoobie]

Talk on the army site of the Hawkeye 105mm weapon system as a mobile fire support weapon for the ARG.

Would such a system,( light weight, soft recoil, no deck penetration, comparitivly long range and heavy shell) be a good armament for the future OPVs.
Would this use require the development of an auto loader.

if I'm following you correctly your thinking something along the line of a typhoon weapons system? Sounds like an interesting idea though I don't see it being of any use unless we are invading a location that would require extensive bombardment.. Which based on the last few decades is not a likely situation.

I'd imagine if space is available on the OPV's for such a system that they would prefer it be used for defensive weapons rather then offensive considering the greater threat from missiles and/or fast attack craft/boats.

 

[ngatimozart]

Talk on the army site of the Hawkeye 105mm weapon system as a mobile fire support weapon for the ARG.

Would such a system,( light weight, soft recoil, no deck penetration, comparitivly long range and heavy shell) be a good armament for the future OPVs.
Would this use require the development of an auto loader.

Why would you want to do something like that? As GF has said if an OPV got into a situation where something like that was needed, then far better platforms in service to perform that tasking. It has to be horses for courses and you ain't going to run a draught horse in the Melbourne Cup are you?

 

[ngatimozart]

if I'm following you correctly your thinking something along the line of a typhoon weapons system? Sounds like an interesting idea though I don't see it being of any use unless we are invading a location that would require extensive bombardment.. Which based on the last few decades is not a likely situation.

I'd imagine if space is available on the OPV's for such a system that they would prefer it be used for defensive weapons rather then offensive considering the greater threat from missiles and/or fast attack craft/boats.

Why would it be any use as a defensive weapon in the modern world? It would need extensive modification for use as a naval weapon. There are far better and more capable weapons systems available for this sort of mission. I strongly suggest that you do some reading and research. Mrs Google is a very good tool.

 

[gf0012-aust]

at the risk of stating the obvious .... the conops for the platorm determines what its weapons fit should be....

OPV's don't do GFS or shore bombardment beyond what's organic to their fitout.

as grey/green water assets there is nothing remotely within driving range which would require them to undertake that mission set.

an uncontrolled (FCS free) 105 sitting on a hull bouncing up and down in the water would be placing shots with a CEP of 500m+ which is a good recipe for taking out everything but the notional target.

 

[Todjaeger]

at the risk of stating the obvious .... the conops for the platorm determines what its weapons fit should be....

OPV's don't do GFS or shore bombardment beyond what's organic to their fitout.

as grey/green water assets there is nothing remotely within driving range which would require them to undertake that mission set.

an uncontrolled (FCS free) 105 sitting on a hull bouncing up and down in the water would be placing shots with a CEP of 500m+ which is a good recipe for taking out everything but the notional target.

To reiterate a post which I had made, but was killed by my browser before it could make it to the site.

Perhaps it would be better for people to hold off making suggestions or 'wish-lists' of kit, until the DWP and/or the DCP are out.

Until we know better whether Gov't is leaning towards patrol boats, OPV's, OCV's, and/or corvettes (Australian Minesweepers, d*mn it!) we really have very little idea on what sort of conops and security assumptions are being made.

By way of example, any sort of medium-calibre naval gun is complete overkill, if the patrol asset is only ever going to be tasked with fisheries, EEZ and SIEV patrolling and interception. OTOH if in addition to constabulary roles, the vessel might be called upon to clear mines, patrol in areas where FAC might be operating, and/or infiltrate/exfiltrate ADF and allied personnel and provide combat support to personnel ashore, then something like the OTO Melara (or is it OTO Breda now, I can no longer keep track) 76mm/62cal. gun might very well be appropriate.

Unfortunately, lacking the context which the DWP and DCP might provide, the discussion devolves into people making wish-lists of their favourite kit.

 

[vonnoobie]

Why would it be any use as a defensive weapon in the modern world? It would need extensive modification for use as a naval weapon. There are far better and more capable weapons systems available for this sort of mission. I strongly suggest that you do some reading and research. Mrs Google is a very good tool.

I think you misunderstood my post, To clarify I viewed the 105 as an offensive system (bombarding land based targets), and that instead of having space used up by the 105 they would prefer defensive systems (ie: Typhoon mount + 25mm+ gun).

 

[Bonza]

To reiterate a post which I had made, but was killed by my browser before it could make it to the site.

Perhaps it would be better for people to hold off making suggestions or 'wish-lists' of kit, until the DWP and/or the DCP are out.

Until we know better whether Gov't is leaning towards patrol boats, OPV's, OCV's, and/or corvettes (Australian Minesweepers, d*mn it!) we really have very little idea on what sort of conops and security assumptions are being made.

By way of example, any sort of medium-calibre naval gun is complete overkill, if the patrol asset is only ever going to be tasked with fisheries, EEZ and SIEV patrolling and interception. OTOH if in addition to constabulary roles, the vessel might be called upon to clear mines, patrol in areas where FAC might be operating, and/or infiltrate/exfiltrate ADF and allied personnel and provide combat support to personnel ashore, then something like the OTO Melara (or is it OTO Breda now, I can no longer keep track) 76mm/62cal. gun might very well be appropriate.

Unfortunately, lacking the context which the DWP and DCP might provide, the discussion devolves into people making wish-lists of their favourite kit.

Agree completely, and I want to see this wish-list type commentary absent from this thread as lately it's been full of it. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, but rather making giant handfuls of assumptions in order to crowbar a personally appreciated platform into the discussion regardless of relevance.

If the quality doesn't improve then the thread and those who insist on diluting it will be put on holiday. I hope this proves unnecessary.

 

[aussienscale]

Cmon guys please !! Your talking about putting a 105mm non marinised, non stabilised system with no FCS !! The Mk45 on the AWD's is 127mm and your talking about putting a 105mm on an OPV?

As GF has said, CONOPS does not support this, never has, never will.

We are talking an OCV/OPV as a next step up from the PB's, and a multi role vessel at that to cover for Hydro, MCM etc as well. My best bet would be at best something along the lines of the 57mm Mk 110 with 3P Ammo at the best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtOgY8L3Jy0

But this dream list/wish list/speculation is getting beyond a joke, its not long until the DCP & DWP, then we can discuss the hell out of what is in there !!

Until then I would suggest everyone cools it down, because the mods will close this down until then, and for the true and proper discussion that is happening in between the lines also gets shut down, which is not fair on those of us who are doing the right thing.

Restraint gentlemen, restraint !!

Cheers

P.S. Sorry Bonza, was working on my reply and got taken away, then saw your reply to the thread

 

[John Newman]

Cmon guys please !! Your talking about putting a 105mm non marinised, non stabilised system with no FCS !! The Mk45 on the AWD's is 127mm and your talking about putting a 105mm on an OPV?

As GF has said, CONOPS does not support this, never has, never will.

We are talking an OCV/OPV as a next step up from the PB's, and a multi role vessel at that to cover for Hydro, MCM etc as well. My best bet would be at best something along the lines of the 57mm Mk 110 with 3P Ammo at the best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtOgY8L3Jy0

But this dream list/wish list/speculation is getting beyond a joke, its not long until the DCP & DWP, then we can discuss the hell out of what is in there !!

Until then I would suggest everyone cools it down, because the mods will close this down until then, and for the true and proper discussion that is happening in between the lines also gets shut down, which is not fair on those of us who are doing the right thing.

Restraint gentlemen, restraint !!

Cheers

P.S. Sorry Bonza, was working on my reply and got taken away, then saw your reply to the thread

Agree with all the points GF, NG, Tod, Bonza and aussienscale have made.

Seriously guys, it's time to lift the level of commentary in this thread, big time.

The RAN thread is the probably the most active (actually it IS the most active) thread here on DT, and in the past until recently, it has apart from having a large 'quantity' of input, it has also had a very high level of 'quality' input too, at the moment the quantity has next to zero quality.

The last thing I want to see is that a number of people here are put on a 'holiday' for a while (as Bonza mentioned), but if things don't improve there is the potential for not only an enforced holiday for some, but the potential for the RAN thread to be put on a holiday too (at least until the DWP and DCP are announced).

Anyway guys, back to a reasonable level of reality, hey??

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Damen 2400 design states its able to take up to 76mm. I wouldn't be surprised if you would have to be in that sort of weight class. 76mm isn't a small gun. I would imagine many/most OPV designs were not made with that or larger type gun in mind.

IMO I would think the 1400 design is more on the cost/price/crewing for the OCV/OPV role for the RAN.

 

[Volkodav]

I enjoyed reading both contributions. Would it have made more sense just to build 12 AWDs in four groups of three with incremental improvements to each which could be incorporated into the earlier ships during normal refits? Surely the savings through economies of scale would have offset some of the costs incurred with the programme start-up (and safeguarded jobs)?

The problems with so many AWDs is the expense of the actual combat system, the major components of which, AEGIS and SPY, are fully imported and currently about US$250m each.

http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2015/DDG-51-NAVY-PROC-FY2015.pdf
On page seven of eight.

I picked AEGIS as many other systems would also be used on a non- AEGIS ship.

 

[SASWanabe]

The Damen 2400 design states its able to take up to 76mm. I wouldn't be surprised if you would have to be in that sort of weight class. 76mm isn't a small gun. I would imagine many/most OPV designs were not made with that or larger type gun in mind.

You would be amazed how small of a ship can fit a 76mm gun.

All jokes aside im a fan of most of Damens' designs.

 

[Volkodav]

Boy have things been busy in here in the last couple of days, lots of different ideas and concepts, some informative and other far off the mark.

Just some points that may be of interest.

The RN worked on a version of the 17pdr tank gun as an armament option for coastal forces but it was a fully stabilised and automatically loaded, so basically as heavy and complex as an Oto Melara 76mm.

There was also another program to adapt a Centurion tank turret, with a 105mm gun, for use by minor warfare vessels.

Fremantle class PBs were originally fitted with 81mm mortars.

The Armidales were originally contracted for 15 years but were intended to be capable of serving much longer as service extensions were part of the original requirement, no one intended them to be in such bad condition barely halfway through the originally contracted period.

Each Armidale has required extensive structural work to address corrosion, fatigue and microbiological attack that was never anticipated or budgeted for. As the ACPBs are aluminium this extra work is far more expensive than it would be on a steel hulled vessels, assuming that is steel hulled vessels would actually need the work at all.

AMOS and NEMO automatic 120mm mortars have both been fitted to combat boats and light craft so may be an option for NGS if that were a requirement for the RAN.

Oto Melara have developed a Vulcano guided round for their 76mm gun that is very suitable for precision NGS.

And lastly I have just noticed Windows 10 has a new auto correct feature that keeps second guessing me and changing what I've typed!

 

[vonnoobie]

In regards to the 76mm and ship size (No, Im not advocating that we have to get it) it has been fitted to a lot of ships, going as small as the Sa'ar 3 class missile boat in Israel which is smaller then the ACPB.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In regards to the 76mm and ship size (No, Im not advocating that we have to get it) it has been fitted to a lot of ships, going as small as the Sa'ar 3 class missile boat in Israel which is smaller then the ACPB.

the over arching issue for any platform is its conops

bolting a first aid kit and a camping tent onto a prawn trawler doesn't make it a hospital ship

 

[PeterM]

With the future frigates and offshore combat vessels recently announced, are we likely to need additional maritime helicopters?

 

[hauritz]

With the future frigates and offshore combat vessels recently announced, are we likely to need additional maritime helicopters?

I am not sure we have enough helicopters for our current fleet ... Particularly after the Adelaide enters service next year.

Perhaps we could get additional EC135s for the OPV.

 

[PeterM]

I am not sure we have enough helicopters for our current fleet ... Particularly after the Adelaide enters service next year.

That was my general impression as well.

When are the 16 S-70B-2 Seahawks due for replacement? from memory I believe they date from 1988/1989.

 

[ngatimozart]

With the future frigates and offshore combat vessels recently announced, are we likely to need additional maritime helicopters?

Well with regard to the frigates, if a one for one replacement is presumed, no. If the OPVs CONOPS require them to put to sea with a helo regularly then extra helos would be needed. The capability level of these may not be anywhere as advanced as the Romeo sensor and weapons wise, hence another lighter type may be looked at. One thing to note with this though is that a wheeled type would be preferable to a skid type undercarriage due to the stress of landing on the airframes and the ease and safety of handling on the flight deck and in the hangar.