Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

With a 76mm gun, a pair of 25-35mm light guns, a RAM launcher and a bolt on / off ASM system, along with MCM etc mission modules as needed, these ships would be very useful and actually earn their title of 'minor war vessels'.

I think the Phalanx is an easier sell simply because we already have them and would meet the minimum requirements. I think its surface model is probably more suitable for a OPV than RAM. Really it doesn't matter, if space, weight and power is allocated, then SeaRAM or Phalanx (or nothing or some future system) could go in depending on what we have. I would imagine if we ever wanted to move these ships on (continuous build etc) then having the ability to mount something defensive like that I think would be a big plus.

I think it all comes down to a credible OPV. Australia has and will operate in some pretty high threat environments (Gulf, Asia etc). We won't always be able to handle situations with strong language and a Austyre. Having systems like 76mm, CIWS, 2 or 3 .50cal, a hanger with an armed helo, flex deck (and the stuff we can operate or put on the flex deck) means we can offer a full range to any OPV mission, right up to the high end. Other countries are more likely to see benefit in us being there with equipment like that. We can train, lead, support others in the region. The cost for these are very minimal per ship because you don't need the radars and other systems (power for the radar, top weight for the radar and missile launchers etc) for these other systems.

For me ESSM makes it a corvette/Frigate. If you need that kind of system to be there, don't muck around, put one giant frigate in there. It might be the OPV operates near the Frigate for that type of cover. OPV's should be able to fend off pirates,

For a lot of the other weaponry I would place it on the helicopter. Hellfires, Hydras, stingers, light weight torpedoes(MD500), 30mm. There is talk about the army getting AH-6's little birds Certainly all the other navy/army helos other than Chinooks will fit. I would assume something like the Zulus could at least lilly pad off them. If you ever wanted something with a bit more offensive teeth that could provide it and launch it from a fast agile platform. Then your not locking up defence money and equipment on a platform that is just an OPV. Those assets can be shifted (even hot environments) instantly to where ever they are needed.

Purely personal opinion - I like the OPV 2600 Sea Axe design from Damen...

Can you get the 2600 with the sea axe bow?In a perfect world I think they would be ideal. It seems that the sea axe is quite popular with the smaller ships, but I guess they assume that larger ships it less of an issue. But for an Australian OPV I personally would go for something able to handle big weather. Seastate 9 stuff. The Damen design is likely to be faster, and handle those massive seas.

The BAM I think is also quite good. If we ever wanted some thing could be a corvette the BAM design could be more suited to that. But even as a OPV it seems quite appealing.

The real question is how much and what do we have in the kitty. I have a feeling we will be limited to <2000t which will kill dreams of the larger Damen designs and the even larger Navantia BAM designs.

I also wonder if Ice strengthening will be an aspect we will look at.

 

[ADMk2]

I think the Phalanx is an easier sell simply because we already have them and would meet the minimum requirements. I think its surface model is probably more suitable for a OPV than RAM. Really it doesn't matter, if space, weight and power is allocated, then SeaRAM or Phalanx (or nothing or some future system) could go in depending on what we have. I would imagine if we ever wanted to move these ships on (continuous build etc) then having the ability to mount something defensive like that I think would be a big plus.

I tend to lean the other way. I think Phalanx (or Millenium guns for that matter) are perfectly fine as part of a layered defence, but if you are contemplating them as a sole air defence weapon system, even for a lower tier vessel, I think that's where their shortcomings become obvious and the systems perhaps become marginal at best. If you have a 76/62 gun already then it is likely that adding something like DART would be the easier solution than including a CIWS, but something like RAM gives you an entirely different level of capability.

I'm not wedded to the idea of RAM however, I am aware RAN seriously considered the French SIMBAD twin launcher for the ANZAC upgrade before deciding on the CEAFAR based solution. But I do think a semi-portable missile solution is the better option for an OPV class vessel (ie: the launchers and weapons are pooled, not permanently affixed to the vessels).

For a lot of the other weaponry I would place it on the helicopter. Hellfires, Hydras, stingers, light weight torpedoes(MD500), 30mm. There is talk about the army getting AH-6's little birds Certainly all the other navy/army helos other than Chinooks will fit. I would assume something like the Zulus could at least lilly pad off them. If you ever wanted something with a bit more offensive teeth that could provide it and launch it from a fast agile platform. Then your not locking up defence money and equipment on a platform that is just an OPV. Those assets can be shifted (even hot environments) instantly to where ever they are needed.

Agreed, though I'm not sure the ADF is as keen on AH-1Z's as many here might think. They were bid for the original AIR-87 project and IIRC were not short-listed...

If Army is to get rid of Tiger as seems likely, I think AH-64E will be the winner. I think that is what Army truly wanted in the first place (in the -D model anyway).

Can you get the 2600 with the sea axe bow?In a perfect world I think they would be ideal. It seems that the sea axe is quite popular with the smaller ships, but I guess they assume that larger ships it less of an issue. But for an Australian OPV I personally would go for something able to handle big weather. Seastate 9 stuff. The Damen design is likely to be faster, and handle those massive seas.

My mistake. Seems the Sea Axe is only available at present for the Damen 1800 OPV design. I thought it available across the range of Damen products...

 

[vonnoobie]

Rather then looking purely at cost in the aspect of CIWS systems we need to look purely at what threats are in what environments and act accordingly, pointless to get the cheap Phalanx if current missile development will make it useless (Not saying that is the case, Just giving a rough idea as to where I'm coming from). Seeing as we do want flexibility I'm guessing the only factor that could be agreed on is that it can't be a through deck system (Unless we adopt the StanFlex modules and build something into them).

--------------
A little off topic but with the StandFlex modules would a radar system be able to be built around one? (ie: Smallest possible version of CeaFar).
--------------

It all comes down in the end to which one is the most effective at the job.

Personally I like SeaRAM, 35mm Millennium and the Mk 29 ESSM launcher.. Too bad we cant have them all

 

[Redlands18]

My mistake. Seems the Sea Axe is only available at present for the Damen 1800 OPV design. I thought it available across the range of Damen products...

The 1800 seems to be the largest vessel Damen is offering for the Sea Axe range. Why would they not use it for larger vessels, maybe a concern about using this design for extended blue water use. The only other ships they are offering it with are the "Fast Crew Supplier" ships all of which are far smaller.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Rather then looking purely at cost in the aspect of CIWS systems we need to look purely at what threats are in what environments and act accordingly, pointless to get the cheap Phalanx if current missile development will make it useless (Not saying that is the case, Just giving a rough idea as to where I'm coming from). Seeing as we do want flexibility I'm guessing the only factor that could be agreed on is that it can't be a through deck system (Unless we adopt the StanFlex modules and build something into them).

--------------
A little off topic but with the StandFlex modules would a radar system be able to be built around one? (ie: Smallest possible version of CeaFar).
--------------

It all comes down in the end to which one is the most effective at the job.

Personally I like SeaRAM, 35mm Millennium and the Mk 29 ESSM launcher.. Too bad we cant have them all

its about the basics of layered defence - and it also needs to take into consideration the conops and ROE's of the vessels mounting such weapons

there's an onion layer of response options - and each weapon has threat considerations built in

eg Phalanx is a tertiary defence weapon in multiple "at sea" events, not only against air, but against skimming weapons

Phalanx is a supporting primary defence weapon when standing off in the brown, or green (eg against harbour fast movers such as boghammers, rhibs etc...)

at a certain range missiles can't depress unless all aspect, whereas after Stark, Phalanx were reporogrammed with a lower engagement angle. (literally a software update)

consideration has to be given for locale and threat matrix

 

[ADMk2]

its about the basics of layered defence - and it also needs to take into consideration the conops and ROE's of the vessels mounting such weapons

there's an onion layer of response options - and each weapon has threat considerations built in

eg Phalanx is a tertiary defence weapon in multiple "at sea" events, not only against air, but against skimming weapons

Phalanx is a supporting primary defence weapon when standing off in the brown, or green (eg against harbour fast movers such as boghammers, rhibs etc...)

at a certain range missiles can't depress unless all aspect, whereas after Stark, Phalanx were reporogrammed with a lower engagement angle. (literally a software update)

consideration has to be given for locale and threat matrix

I would assume that lower engagement angle is launcher based? The gun itself doesn't move...

SeaRam. (C)

 

[StingrayOZ]

The 1800 seems to be the largest vessel Damen is offering for the Sea Axe range. Why would they not use it for larger vessels, maybe a concern about using this design for extended blue water use. The only other ships they are offering it with are the "Fast Crew Supplier" ships all of which are far smaller.

I would assume it more to do with the size of the vessel and how much benefit your going to get out of it. Obviously for smaller boats and ships seakeeping can be a very big issue. I doubt you would see a sea axe on a carrier or a bulk carrier/container ship, it would be inappropriate for those type of ships to travel that way.

I would imagine there is a limit to the weight/cost benefit as you increase in size. I would also imagine many nations/services who want a 2000t would like to think of them being big enough not to have to worry about such design features that are a particular concern for small ships.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I would assume that lower engagement angle is launcher based? The gun itself doesn't move...

SeaRam. (C)

yep, remapped max depression angle. same mount, but for missiles the maps can't engage beyond a certain point no matter how much depression is mapped into that mount

 

[TheRealist]

All this talk of ESSM's, multiple Millennium guns and ASM's for the OPV's is complete nonsense.

The realist in me tells me the most we can expect is a 57/76mm gun plus one or two 25mm's. At a stretch we might get a Phalanx/Searam.

 

[ASSAIL]

All this talk of ESSM's, multiple Millennium guns and ASM's for the OPV's is complete nonsense.

The realist in me tells me the most we can expect is a 57/76mm gun plus one or two 25mm's. At a stretch we might get a Phalanx/Searam.

It will depend on what othe roles are written into the OPV CONOPS (apart from border protection) and they will be armed accordingly.

 

[gf0012-aust]

All this talk of ESSM's, multiple Millennium guns and ASM's for the OPV's is complete nonsense.

The realist in me tells me the most we can expect is a 57/76mm gun plus one or two 25mm's. At a stretch we might get a Phalanx/Searam.

Some of the discussion is general about weapons capability - not necessarily whether they can go on an OPV - so I think you'll find that the more experienced members will inject the capability and integration discussions into the mix so that new or less experienced members can appreciate the difficulties etc.....

so, some of that discussion is necessary as when people talk about upgunning the platform they need to understand the limitations inherent to that platform - integration just isn't always possible

ultimately, the conops drives the platform selection decision - and then what weapons systems navy want onboard to fulfill and meet that capability objective

 

[ADMk2]

All this talk of ESSM's, multiple Millennium guns and ASM's for the OPV's is complete nonsense.

The realist in me tells me the most we can expect is a 57/76mm gun plus one or two 25mm's. At a stretch we might get a Phalanx/Searam.

A land based anti-ship missile capability would have been laughed at prior to the 25th of February too (publicly at least).

As I have pointed out, I expect a small medium calibre gun and small arms, will be all that arms the OPV, as they do the Armidales.

However it is my opinion that these vessels SHOULD be better armed. A medium gun, a pair of 25-35mm cannons, small arms and an armed helicopter / UAV should be the minimum spec of any 'warship' we operate.

Fitted for but not with, the higher end systems, of course...

 

[StingrayOZ]

so, some of that discussion is necessary as when people talk about upgunning the platform they need to understand the limitations inherent to that platform - integration just isn't always possible

I do wonder if that the case with a sea axe bow and a 76mm gun. Which may be why sea axes aren't offered on the larger Damen designs, it would perhaps be at the cost (of capability) of mounting a gun at the bow. I would imagine anything mounted up front is going to get a pounding in rough seas. Makes me look at the Zumwalt's (which is wave piercing) gun mounts and think about some of the designs and technology used. Then again the 57mm is on a wave piercing design (and quite exposed) and doesn't seem to have any special protection.

The OPV market is quite dynamic and is littered with various systems and designs (and sizes). I guess it remains to be seen what RAN will want and what will get selected.

 

[ASSAIL]

I do wonder if that the case with a sea axe bow and a 76mm gun. Which may be why sea axes aren't offered on the larger Damen designs, it would perhaps be at the cost (of capability) of mounting a gun at the bow. I would imagine anything mounted up front is going to get a pounding in rough seas. Makes me look at the Zumwalt's (which is wave piercing) gun mounts and think about some of the designs and technology used. Then again the 57mm is on a wave piercing design (and quite exposed) and doesn't seem to have any special protection.

The OPV market is quite dynamic and is littered with various systems and designs (and sizes). I guess it remains to be seen what RAN will want and what will get selected.

I see no problem with mounting a 76mm on a Damen 1800 Sea Axe bow, in fact the promo brochures seem to have one. One of the sea axe advantages is that it reduces "pounding" ie lowers g forces when sailing into sea. The ship is large enough with the plenty of buoyancy aft so that the extra weight of a heavier weapon simply needs to be compensated by trim (more ballast aft)

As far as Zumalt goes, if you saw her under water surfaces, she is not radically different from other fine entry warships. The most radical differences are from the waterline up.

 

[alexsa]

Rather then looking purely at cost in the aspect of CIWS systems we need to look purely at what threats are in what environments and act accordingly, pointless to get the cheap Phalanx if current missile development will make it useless (Not saying that is the case, Just giving a rough idea as to where I'm coming from). Seeing as we do want flexibility I'm guessing the only factor that could be agreed on is that it can't be a through deck system (Unless we adopt the StanFlex modules and build something into them).

--------------
A little off topic but with the StandFlex modules would a radar system be able to be built around one? (ie: Smallest possible version of CeaFar).
--------------

It all comes down in the end to which one is the most effective at the job.

Personally I like SeaRAM, 35mm Millennium and the Mk 29 ESSM launcher.. Too bad we cant have them all

I know I hark on about this but STAN modules are not in series production and there are a limited number in existence........ I think the owner want to keep them too.

This does not stop using other packages to have a modular system but it won't necessarily be 'STAN'.

The other issue is you need to space, 'clear air' to house them and infrastructure to operate them. No point having modularised radar and SAMs if there is no deck space suitable and the systems cannot be plugged into the vessel combats system ..... Meaning you need a combat system.

If you have a combination of 57 or 76 mm guns plus 25 to 35mm secondaries then perhaps all you need is seaRAN to give you a more capable point defence against SSM's and air (if needed at all). At least this will not compromise the vessels primary function and can be fitted if needed.

The issue is a vessel of 1800 to 2000 tonnes has limited growth margin and if the infrastructure is added to support a miriade of plug in packages you may use then this is going to be chewed up.

Just advocating again that that you cannot always turn a purpose designed OPV into a light frigate.

I like the Damen OPV products but they are just that ..... OPV's. The Navantia Advante series can grow to be multirole corvettes but at a cost.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Just advocating again that that you cannot always turn a purpose designed OPV into a light frigate.

I like the Damen OPV products but they are just that ..... OPV's. The Navantia Advante series can grow to be multirole corvettes but at a cost.

I wonder, at some point someone officially started referring to them as corvettes. The original term in Rudds paper was OCV which sounds more capable than OPV in the combat area.

If think continue to escalate regionally during the selection process I suppose it could be possible we end up with more of a Corvette.

Certainly around the region a number of navies have improved OPV to be more like a corvette. However, many of these lack the high end capabilities of the current or future RAN.

Other than guns, I would hope they are fitted for (and not with) with a range of counter measures (possibly even Nulka), EW and jamming systems (which the Chinese have used extensively).

Fitting even half of these systems could blow out the cost to double or triple the original OPV brief. Money that could go into the AWD/Frigates or Subs or somewhere else in the ADF. I would imagine many designs would struggle to deal with the weight and power loads required.

At least with Phalanx we already have them, are fairly cheap to add to the pool (~<$4m) and apart from needing some empty space they would cost essentially nothing to allow them to be fitted later. The can perform multiple roles on an OPV and have benefits some missile systems don't have particularly up and close.

If (a big if) we ever wanted the OPV's to start performing Freedom of Navigation in the SCS then I think seaRAM could be thrown into the mix.While expensive ($1m a missile? is that right) if it frees up a AWD or Frigate to be where they are more usefully deployed then it could be justified. But $1m a missile, we could be loading Tomahawks or SM-2/SM-6 instead(at half the number), putting that money to better use. Even with seaRAM, is it a suitable ship to be patrolling in that environment?

And if we are thinking of going down this road then I would imagine the Navantia Advante are a better base to build that off.

 

[Volkodav]

I am not sure if the Damen OPVs, including Sea axe have the same level of modularity as Sigma but I wouldn't be surprised if they did, i.e. standardisation carried down to compartment and passageway dimensions. I believe (and could be wrong on this) that compartment size (height, length and width) were based on ISO container sizes and multiples thereof while passageways were half width. This literally enabled them to rearrange the internal layout as required for specific contracts, increasing length and width by these set intervals as needed.

Much modern equipment is or can be containerised, further simplifying the design and build. Then there is the combat system with much again available in ISO sized container packages, while weapon systems simply required a suitable, structurally sound foundation with standardized power, cooling, and control wiring ports to hook up whatever is required.

 

[swerve]

How remarkably sensible.

 

[alexsa]

I wonder, at some point someone officially started referring to them as corvettes. The original term in Rudds paper was OCV which sounds more capable than OPV in the combat area.

If think continue to escalate regionally during the selection process I suppose it could be possible we end up with more of a Corvette.

Certainly around the region a number of navies have improved OPV to be more like a corvette. However, many of these lack the high end capabilities of the current or future RAN.

Other than guns, I would hope they are fitted for (and not with) with a range of counter measures (possibly even Nulka), EW and jamming systems (which the Chinese have used extensively).

Fitting even half of these systems could blow out the cost to double or triple the original OPV brief. Money that could go into the AWD/Frigates or Subs or somewhere else in the ADF. I would imagine many designs would struggle to deal with the weight and power loads required.

At least with Phalanx we already have them, are fairly cheap to add to the pool (~<$4m) and apart from needing some empty space they would cost essentially nothing to allow them to be fitted later. The can perform multiple roles on an OPV and have benefits some missile systems don't have particularly up and close.

If (a big if) we ever wanted the OPV's to start performing Freedom of Navigation in the SCS then I think seaRAM could be thrown into the mix.While expensive ($1m a missile? is that right) if it frees up a AWD or Frigate to be where they are more usefully deployed then it could be justified. But $1m a missile, we could be loading Tomahawks or SM-2/SM-6 instead(at half the number), putting that money to better use. Even with seaRAM, is it a suitable ship to be patrolling in that environment?

And if we are thinking of going down this road then I would imagine the Navantia Advante are a better base to build that off.

I would agree with your last. The Damen is a great OPV but the design is not built around a weapons system beyond a 76mm, two auto cannons and maybe CIWS. Certainly the mission bay may support towed array however as the mission bay is below the flight deck it is not going to be useful for SSM or SAM's.

The Advante (well some models) are designed around space and weight for VLS and canister SSMs. I suspect it will be a much more expensive option but if 'upgunniing' is part of the intent then perhaps this is the better option.

However, if they are only intended to be and OPV then the capable Damen product is worth looking at. It really depends what you want and the CONOPS.

If (and I and not saying it is the case) they are still looking at 20 hulls in the long run then 8 vessels such as the Advante or other 'light frigate/corvette' designs may be and option for the latter and the first 12 can be just a very capable OPV.

It's all down the the intended operations of the vessel and the Damen product is certainly more than capable of anti drug, anti piracy and policing functions.

Not sure RAM is 1m a missile but others would be better informed.

 

[Stampede]

Not sure RAM is 1m a missile but others would be better informed.

Just to add to the OPV discussion.
While we all have our own thoughts as to what the sensor / weapon fit out of the OPV should be.
Maybe some consideration could also be given to providing extra passenger accomodation over and above that which is necesary for ships crew and aviation support staff.
New Zealands Protector class OPV have some 30 extra bunks which I'm sure would be of benefit on many tasks
.Accommodation for a platoon sized group of around 40 PAX at ships standards with decent sized mission bay for boats and cargo I'm sure would be of great benefit to many taskings. Could be very useful for smaller HADR operations at one end to small force insertion tasks at the other. Maybe there is scope for small commando sized operations within the limits of the ships weapons systems or under the protective umbella of a larger task force.

What ever the tasking,extra accomodation and mission bay will be a big step up from the smaller patrol boat era.
We may find the new OPV undertaking some of the lighter logistical work of the retired LCH.
Yes, they are different types of vessels. However we are building a new and different navy with new fleet assets. It will be interesting to see as to how both the fleet, and how we go about business evolves.

Just a thought
S