Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
mother ship concept is unworkable as the concept is meant to work around the construct of a range ring. eg as analogy replace mother ship with LPH and runners with helos, its about extending the response ring in a given location. eg it would work if you were standing off Dilli, it wouldn't work if you are standing off tasmania and meant to cover all of tasmania

from my ministerial support days I remember that we were advised by defence that australia had carriage and responsibility for monitoring and securing 1/9th of the worlds major oceans and seaways

for that you need range and a degree of overlap - its why you use aircraft running racetracks and why you do the math and pattern management to determine where to best place your sea assets so that are positioned to try and respond to air direction in a timely manner.
Really good to have you back Gary, your input has been missed.

My take on smaller PBs is that they work best in busier waters in more populated regions where there is plenty of infrastructure and the ability to deploy multiple craft covering a range of missions. Whether they are operated by the RAN, Customs, police or some other agency doesn't really matter, in fact the only reason I could see for the RAN having them is if we decide to develop an expeditionary capability.

For more remote areas larger, more autonomous vessels are the way to go. To start with they have the range and endurance to permit them without having to rely on shore based infrastructure but ideally also large enough to be able launch and support boarding and landing parties. One of the key requirements of the Fremantle class replacements was that they be able to operate two RHIBs and one of the biggest regrets was that a UAV or helicopter capability wasn't specified, this is the stuff of a large vessel, not a small one.

As for a mother ship for EEZ patrol I would rather see a class of OPVs, corvettes or sloops able to operate not just a pair of RHIBs but combat boats or fast interceptor craft launched from a rear ramp and stowed on / in a multi mission deck, rather than a larger vessel with a floodable dock or multiple davits. A combat boat or fast interceptor craft could be small enough for an OPV etc. to operate a pair of but large enough to conduct independent operations away for a couple of days. These boats could deploy up rivers, into shallow deltas, wet season waterways, drop off landing parties, set up OPs etc. extending the reach of the larger combatant. They could even be used in conjunction with the larger vessel to cut off or intercept fleeing illegal fishers or smugglers. Through in a helicopter and the capability increases exponentially, same with UAVs etc.

To me, rather than a dedicated mother ship with multiple PBs you would be better off with a dozen or more OPVs, corvettes, sloops, each with a pair of PBs, combat boats, or interceptors plus helicopter facilities. If you look back in time the the RN then RAN used small (often obsolete) cruisers for the role, primarily because of the lack of supporting infrastructure, this is just returning to how it used to be done.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Agree with gf0012-aust and Volkodav, though I do see the 2,000t max weight as starting to become problematic. Wanting them to be able to hold and support combat boat's is a good thing but they tend to be a lot bigger then the standard RHIB's while mentions of UAV's if we want them to be supporting such operations then I imagine a hanger would also be required to make it more efficient as I cant see them flying a UAV from one location, to be used for a short time, then flown back..
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Agree with gf0012-aust and Volkodav, though I do see the 2,000t max weight as starting to become problematic. Wanting them to be able to hold and support combat boat's is a good thing but they tend to be a lot bigger then the standard RHIB's while mentions of UAV's if we want them to be supporting such operations then I imagine a hanger would also be required to make it more efficient as I cant see them flying a UAV from one location, to be used for a short time, then flown back..
I'm not sure that the 2000t limit (if it survives into the new round of papers) is any real impediment to deploying UAVs. Even the 1800t Damen (and the 1800t Damen Sea Axe) have hangars for an 11 tonne helicopter - MRH90 for example.

They'd only carry two 9m boarding boats and a pair of mission modules but unless we have a defined *need* for combat boats that sounds good to me.

I'll carefully leave out my fantasy fleets preference for the 2400 or similar.

oldsig
 

rockitten

Member
I'm not sure that the 2000t limit (if it survives into the new round of papers) is any real impediment to deploying UAVs. Even the 1800t Damen (and the 1800t Damen Sea Axe) have hangars for an 11 tonne helicopter - MRH90 for example.

They'd only carry two 9m boarding boats and a pair of mission modules but unless we have a defined *need* for combat boats that sounds good to me.

I'll carefully leave out my fantasy fleets preference for the 2400 or similar.

oldsig
May be the real challenge is not how to squeeze a hanger for the helicopter/UAV, but how good/bad the sea keeping performance. A long time ago, some article about the ANZACs mentioned the minimum displacement around Australia for good sea keeping is about 2500 tonne. Don't know how accurate it is.

BTW, how's the Damen 1800/2400 compared with the French floreal class?
 

Jezza

Member
Damen designs could replace a lot of vessels.
The offerings are quite smart looking vessels, OPV 2400 , LST 120
and the sigma series.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
May be the real challenge is not how to squeeze a hanger for the helicopter/UAV, but how good/bad the sea keeping performance. A long time ago, some article about the ANZACs mentioned the minimum displacement around Australia for good sea keeping is about 2500 tonne. Don't know how accurate it is.

BTW, how's the Damen 1800/2400 compared with the French floreal class?
I know nothing about the Floreal except what is publicly available on the net, and no more about the Damen ships than the same, plus some more expert discussion on this thread. However the Damen site says that all versions between 1800tonne and 2600tonne would be operational up to SS6 and survivable up to SS9.

I should have thought that that would comfortably meet the original 2011 ICD for SEA1180 however until the new DCP/White Paper etc have been released we're really only guessing that the requirement might be similar

Too much speculation here, on far too little basis in fact. By myself included. Mea culpa etc.

oldsig
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
BTW, how's the Damen 1800/2400 compared with the French floreal class?
I'm not sure it's wise to measure those respective Damen vessels up against the Floréal, as the closest Damen vessel to it is the 2600 and even then the Floréal has 46.7% larger crew and 85.7% greater range so even using the largest Damen OPV's it is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I'm not sure it's wise to measure those respective Damen vessels up against the Floréal, as the closest Damen vessel to it is the 2600 and even then the Floréal has 46.7% larger crew and 85.7% greater range so even using the largest Damen OPV's it is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

Not to mention that the Floreal is a 25+ year old design which may well need the extra crew because of rather dated systems

oldsig
 

hairyman

Active Member
The Swedish patrol boat CB90 looks great, fast. protected. well armed. But if we were to get any, surely we would have in the last 25 years.
Maybe we could build something based on it but Australianised.
 

Milne Bay

Active Member
The Swedish patrol boat CB90 looks great, fast. protected. well armed. But if we were to get any, surely we would have in the last 25 years.
Maybe we could build something based on it but Australianised.
There must have been some thinking in the past that there would be a requirement for such a vessel. AFAIK one Australian company bought the rights to license build the CB90 - might have been Birdon Marine in Port Macquarie (not sure of that).
Wait for the DWP and see if a requirement emerges
MB
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There must have been some thinking in the past that there would be a requirement for such a vessel. AFAIK one Australian company bought the rights to license build the CB90 - might have been Birdon Marine in Port Macquarie (not sure of that).
Wait for the DWP and see if a requirement emerges
MB
Why are we discussing this boat? I can't think of any useful application for the ADF. If we want 8 troops to get ashore quickly we have LHD's and helos. If we need to take assault action on our remote N & NW coasts we will have OPV's and helos supported by RHIBs.

If we acquired them how will they be supported? by LHD's, by LSD or by some special Army unit/ship?

I absolutely understand why Norway, Sweden and Malaysia have this capability but the ADF?
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Why are we discussing this boat? I can't think of any useful application for the ADF. If we want 8 troops to get ashore quickly we have LHD's and helos. If we need to take assault action on our remote N & NW coasts we will have OPV's and helos supported by RHIBs.

If we acquired them how will they be supported? by LHD's, by LSD or by some special Army unit/ship?

I absolutely understand why Norway, Sweden and Malaysia have this capability but the ADF?
I brought it up. Rather than having small patrol boats I suggested we would be better of equipping the proposed OPVs / corvettes with combat boats or interceptor craft instead of, or in addition to RHIBs. The idea is they can deploy over longer distances, semi-independently if required, than the current RHIBs, enhancing the flexibility and capability of the OPVs.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Why are we discussing this boat? I can't think of any useful application for the ADF. If we want 8 troops to get ashore quickly we have LHD's and helos. If we need to take assault action on our remote N & NW coasts we will have OPV's and helos supported by RHIBs.

If we acquired them how will they be supported? by LHD's, by LSD or by some special Army unit/ship?

I absolutely understand why Norway, Sweden and Malaysia have this capability but the ADF?
There actually is an ADF requirement for a boat such as CB90, but it's not for the reasons listed here. It's as part of the amphibious capability, to insert recon etc with some measure of security, conduct low level raids, protect landing craft when under way, and other similar tasks in support of amphibious landings.

To patrol the North of the continent - not so much.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There actually is an ADF requirement for a boat such as CB90, but it's not for the reasons listed here. It's as part of the amphibious capability, to insert recon etc with some measure of security, conduct low level raids, protect landing craft when under way, and other similar tasks in support of amphibious landings.

To patrol the North of the continent - not so much.
Thanks Raven, I wasn't aware that we were considering this capability. At first glance it seems a gold plated option. Is there a formal proposal to seek such a capability?
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks Raven, I wasn't aware that we were considering this capability. At first glance it seems a gold plated option. Is there a formal proposal to seek such a capability?
I know there is a formal Capability Needs Document for this sort of capability, but I don't think it's gone any further than that. There are many small requirements such as this needed to realise the amphibious capability, but I don't think there's all that much official interest in them at the moment. That might change as practical experience highlights the need, however. I think a CB90-like capability would be a fair way down the list of priorities anyway - there are lots of more fundamental capabilities that would need to be acquired first.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I was just browsing the RAN job opportunities (way too old) and flopped onto a virtual tour of HMAS Collins. If anyone ever doubted the complexity of building a sub they need to view this. In particular, we often talk of the power problem caused by very high domestic load in a conventional sub of this size and even though the boat was alongside, the amount of machinery burning and turning was horrendous. I can imagine what it would be like underway, huge.

Take a minute or two to view the video and begin counting amperage, damn clever these sub builders!

Navy: Submariners - Defence Jobs Australia
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I was just browsing the RAN job opportunities (way too old) and flopped onto a virtual tour of HMAS Collins. If anyone ever doubted the complexity of building a sub they need to view this. In particular, we often talk of the power problem caused by very high domestic load in a conventional sub of this size and even though the boat was alongside, the amount of machinery burning and turning was horrendous. I can imagine what it would be like underway, huge.

Take a minute or two to view the video and begin counting amperage, damn clever these sub builders!

Navy: Submariners - Defence Jobs Australia
I have literally worked in factories with less plant and equipment, therefore lower power consumption than a Collins Class sub. The subs literally need to work to a power budget (also a heat budget) and switch off various systems when other systems are needed so as not to exceed the budjet.
 

Alf662

New Member
Really good to have you back Gary, your input has been missed.

My take on smaller PBs is that they work best in busier waters in more populated regions where there is plenty of infrastructure and the ability to deploy multiple craft covering a range of missions. Whether they are operated by the RAN, Customs, police or some other agency doesn't really matter, in fact the only reason I could see for the RAN having them is if we decide to develop an expeditionary capability.

For more remote areas larger, more autonomous vessels are the way to go. To start with they have the range and endurance to permit them without having to rely on shore based infrastructure but ideally also large enough to be able launch and support boarding and landing parties. One of the key requirements of the Fremantle class replacements was that they be able to operate two RHIBs and one of the biggest regrets was that a UAV or helicopter capability wasn't specified, this is the stuff of a large vessel, not a small one.

As for a mother ship for EEZ patrol I would rather see a class of OPVs, corvettes or sloops able to operate not just a pair of RHIBs but combat boats or fast interceptor craft launched from a rear ramp and stowed on / in a multi mission deck, rather than a larger vessel with a floodable dock or multiple davits. A combat boat or fast interceptor craft could be small enough for an OPV etc. to operate a pair of but large enough to conduct independent operations away for a couple of days. These boats could deploy up rivers, into shallow deltas, wet season waterways, drop off landing parties, set up OPs etc. extending the reach of the larger combatant. They could even be used in conjunction with the larger vessel to cut off or intercept fleeing illegal fishers or smugglers. Through in a helicopter and the capability increases exponentially, same with UAVs etc.

To me, rather than a dedicated mother ship with multiple PBs you would be better off with a dozen or more OPVs, corvettes, sloops, each with a pair of PBs, combat boats, or interceptors plus helicopter facilities. If you look back in time the the RN then RAN used small (often obsolete) cruisers for the role, primarily because of the lack of supporting infrastructure, this is just returning to how it used to be done.
I would agree with every thing you have said here Volkodav. I have seen a number of references to the army wanting some form of amphibious force protection and some of these have been mentioned in recent posts.

Research that I have done indicates that for an OPV/OCV to be able to embark a pair of CB90's the parent vessel needs to be around 4,000 tonnes, which is quite a bit larger than the size indicated in recent media announcements.

If any new combatant that is designed to carry a combat style boat must have a space allocation of around 16 metres if it is to be deployed by davits. That would also allow for a similar sized LCVP to be embarked.

Some of the USV's now coming onto the market are also quite sizable. The Halcyon is one example which is 11.5 metres in length, so it is probably getting a bit to big to launch from a stern ramp: C-Sweep USV

Other USV's in development are:
Atlas Elektronik UK Awarded £13M Contract for Minesweeper USVs | Unmanned Systems Technology

Fleet-Class Common Unmanned Surface Vessel (CUSV) - Naval Technology

US Military to spend $23.9 billion on drones and unmanned systems | RobotEnomics

It is not just about being able to embark a combat style boat that another service has indicated a need for, it is also about being able to embark future USV's as they become available.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Research that I have done indicates that for an OPV/OCV to be able to embark a pair of CB90's the parent vessel needs to be around 4,000 tonnes, which is quite a bit larger than the size indicated in recent media announcements.
It certainly is. In fact, it's DOUBLE the size.

Does anyone here really imagine that Defence, the Government, the Opposition, or the general public would accept a replacement of the ACPBs with ships the size of the ANZAC frigates? Or that the money would be made available?

Fantasy land I'm afraid. Surely there's a thread somewhere for inventing bathtub fleets.

oldsig
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top