I imagine that there are a few Sth Korean vessels that are at nice prices at the moment...
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Okay, thanks Alexsa.
For some reason I thought Ocean Protector was under RAN control, I have just checked and it is definitely Border Force. Thanks for setting me straight, much appreciated.
Regarding my earlier conversation with John Newman - It will be interesting to see if all future ABF vessels are built domestically as it would certainly add to the ship building yards viability. If vessels like Ocean Protector and Ocean Shield are still around at very cheap prices it would certainly cause a lot of hand wringing.
Is there a posability of a localy built version of the Serna 11770 as the LCM1e replacement. Both vessels of of similar size but the Serna has much higher performance as a high speed ship to shore connector.
If so could a scaled down version (if possable) become the new riverine patrol/assult craft. This would provide fast shallow draft craft with a bow ramp to quickly disembark troops, ATVs etc:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
The acquisition cost of both Ocean Shield and Ocean Protector specifically to the Defence budget is what gets me going.
If I remember correctly, in 2010 Ocean Protector was under charter to Border Force, and then in 2012 Ocean Shield was purchased for Navy (for as you said around $140m) and 'owned' by Navy until around the end of 2015 and was then handed over to Border Force to replace Ocean Protector as she came off charter.
But the story doesn't end there....
Then, as was noted in the 2016 DWP and DIPP, defence purchased the 'off lease' Ocean Shield for $130m and now she is also back in service with Border Force.
Two ships purchased out of Defence/Navy budget, now both with the Australian Border Force, and the cost of the two ships, a cost of more than $250m!
Hmmm.... Cost of a 'Bay' class type LSD? Maybe not, but quarter of a Billion would go a long way....
The material available on the AWD Underwater Intedrated combat system has no detail that I have found.
I understand that some sensors are different to the USN but is a sophisticated signal processing system such as the AN/SQQ 89A V 15 included? It would seem to be necessary in order to network the Romeos and P8s et al.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/documents/SQQ-89-brochure.pdf
I understand that some sensors are different to the USN but is a sophisticated signal processing system such as the AN/SQQ 89A V 15 included? It would seem to be necessary in order to network the Romeos and P8s et al.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/documents/SQQ-89-brochure.pdf
The OP is an interesting case study. Civilian manned but operated under the Naval Flag Authority as and Auxillary for Border Protection duties ..... sort of makes your head spin.
Both OP (now) and OS came out of the defence budget but it is not a mechanism I would want to see being used again noting the current NAB process for supplying commercial vessels (noting these are owned by the NAB) ....... that are to support the forces or for use by the forces.
Being 'owned' by a civilian entity does not preclude these vessel being operated as warships or auxiallries noting section 10 of the Navigation Act 2012 ode not require the vessels to be 'owned' by defence or the government. This is evident by the process used to purchase the two new Capes for Navy........ It does give the civilian regulator a few head aches in the transition from civilian operated to 'warship' but this are mainly due to the interjection of lawyers who tend to complicate the process by coming up wiht conflicting advice
........... the sad part is this has all been done before and if they simply shut up it would be done properly (I.e IAW with the law) and quickly.
I hear you ...... the fact is there are a bunch of brand new OSV's now sitting in yards with owners not taking delivery as there is no work. There are even more sitting in Singapore layed up as the owners have no work ...... or have gone broke.
A lot of these are quire new. $130M for OP seems a bit much in this context.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Certainly not a good time for those OSV owners as you said.
Yes well...
Anyway, as I said, when you combine the cost of both OP and OS (all out of the Defence budget), at well more than $250m, that gets me going!
It makes the original $100m that we paid for Choules look like a bargain, a pretty good bargain too (pity there wasn't two available at that time!).
The Bay was a bloody good buy. Sent you a PM just to really brighten your day!
In regards to shipbuilding and WA beyond the 10 OPV's as mentioned there is still the future replacement of the Houn, Leeuwin and Paluma class vessels with some 12 between them so could bump the OPV fleet upto 20 or they may even choose to replace these 12 vessels on a 1 for 1 basis.
Outside of the Navy with Border Force I wouldnt rule them out in looking to acquire some if money could be found.
All in all With the planned OPV's, still to be replaced 12 other ships in the RAN, possible Border force orders, Possible future LCH's there are more then enough minor vessels to sustain a second yard not to mention it beng/becoming a major maintenance/upgrade center for the RAN.
If the WA mafia b*****s about the amount of work likely coming there way I will shoot the bas****s.
Outside of the Navy with Border Force I wouldnt rule them out in looking to acquire some if money could be found.
All in all With the planned OPV's, still to be replaced 12 other ships in the RAN, possible Border force orders, Possible future LCH's there are more then enough minor vessels to sustain a second yard not to mention it beng/becoming a major maintenance/upgrade center for the RAN.
If the WA mafia b*****s about the amount of work likely coming there way I will shoot the bas****s.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Just Google SEA1180 or similar or RAN OPV's, etc, etc.
There is plenty of info out there if you look for it, ok?
Thanks that did seem a bit lazy didn't it?
I found this interesting while reading up... Good potential for AQS-24B mine hunting system in Australia – NG. Has any evidence of this been shown in either proposed projects?
I also found this: Iowa Battleship Littoral Combat Ships. I cannot believe this was even thought up but it was needed to be shared
fftopicThe Damen proposal (or atlas what I believe it is) looks very appealing for the role it is supposed to fill.Offshore Patrol Vessel 1800 Sea Axe. The RHIB ramp looks perfect for special forces, not just for a normal boarding party, and an attack could be mounted using two SF RHIBs and the deployed help or helo's
Supposedly, that was what the UK MoD asked for. :unknown
IIRC there were rumours that Australia was expecting to pay more, & almost bit the hand off the MoD when it named its price. Given the MoD's usual idiocy over money, I can believe it.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes it was a bit lazy .... (as has been said here many times in the past "Google, it's your friend, use it!" and of course, it's always worth the effort to go back through the many many pages of discussions here on DT, you'll probably find most of the answers too).
Anyway.... the contenders for SEA1180.
The three contenders and what would appear to be their reported design offerings:
* Damen - OPV 1800 (possibly also OPV-2 1800 Sea Axe).
* Fassmer - OPV 80
* Lurssen - OPV 80
Dimensions:
* Damen - 83m x 13.7m, 1890t
* Fassmer - 80.06m x 13m, 1850t
* Lurssen - 80m x 13m, 1486t
Aviation facilities:
* Damen - deck and hangar - MRH90 size
* Fassmer - deck and hangar - possibly MRH90 size too?
* Lurssen - deck only, no hangar - possibly MRH90 size?, no hangar.
Core crew (as published):
* Damen - 46 crew - plus ? extra mission crew (can't find numbers)
* Fassmer - 40 crew (have also seen reports of 30 core crew?) - plus 30 extra mission crew
* Lurssen - 40 crew - plus 18 extra mission crew
Mission Bay:
* Damen - 2 mission modules (containers?) - (OPV2 design suggests 3)
* Fassmer - 3 x 20ft containers
* Lurssen - 2 x 20ft containers
Stern ramp:
* Damen - no - (but appears to be included in OPV2 design)
* Fassmer - no - (but reported to be an option)
* Lurssen - yes
Design in service:
* Damen - not that I can find (but not necessarily a black mark again Damen)
* Fassmer - In service with both Chilean and Colombian navies (4), with more being constructed (3)
* Lurssen - In service with Brunei navy, four ships
No point mentioning weapons (or sensors), that will be 'country' specific and I'm not going to hold my breath as to how the OPV's may, or may not, be armed in RAN service, but in general all three designs should easily meet whatever weapons fit the Government decides on.
Yes a bunch of numbers and stats, and so what too (not my call on what gets selected, hey?).
But I must say that 'before' the short list of contenders was announced, I was a fan of the Damen OPV 1800 design, appeared to be the 'right' size ship, with growth potential too, full size aviation facilities (deck and hangar for MRH90 size).
But since then and becoming 'more' familiar with the three shortlisted contenders, I'm leaning more to the Fassmer OPV80, appears to be the right size, smaller core crew (40 vs 46 for Damen), plus the other stats above, and importantly it is also in service, and currently still in production with two other navies.
The Lurssen design appears to be a bit 'light on', smaller displacement (maybe less growth potential?), but importantly no hangar facility.
Not that any of the OPV's will ever regularly have a helicopter embarked, but of course those facilities are there if needed, at least store and operate a UAV and would be useful in a HADR situation too.
If it was my money on the line, it would be the Fassmer offering, followed closely by the Damen design (possibly better aviation facilities) and lastly the Lurssen design (smallest and missing a hangar too).
Anyway, as usual, just my opinion of course too!
PS, here are a few links to view:
https://www.fassmer.de/fileadmin/us...80m-offshore-patrol-vessel-technical-data.pdf
OPV 80 - Lürssen Defence | Lürssen Shipyard - german quality-shipbuilding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrulleros_de_Zona_Marítima
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darussalam-class_offshore_patrol_vessel
Patrol Vessel has 4 diesel engines & 2 controllable pitch propellers
An early and good overview of the ASW system chosen for the AWD is in Janes International Defence Review Dec 2008 article 'Nowhere to Hide: LFAS systems evolve to meet ASW Requirements' - sadly I only have a hard copy. This article states the AWD sonar suite competition was between ITT, Lockheed Martin, Thales and Ultra, with the latter two being the finalists. Thales of course offered its heavy towed UMS 4229 sonar based on those used by RN and French Navies - as fitted to the Type 23 and FREMM. But Ultra based its offer on trials work with the Dutch and Canadian Navies offered an innovative and integrated dual frequency bow sonar (4kHz and 7.5kHz) and a single line array fitted with both low (3.5kHz) and very low frequency(1.8kHz) transmitters combined with a passive array and torpedo detection capability. This single line array will be much easier to deploy and retrieve than current bulky transducers and allows up to 4 frequencies to ensonify different layers via the towed and hull sonars.
In addition the Ultra solution allows integration with multistatic sources using active sonobuoys and helicopter dippers. Ultra had already demonstrated multistatic credentials with the Nimrod MR4 sonar and its predecessor on trials with MR2.
I am sure that DSTO, RAN, Raytheon and ASC must have carefully assessed Ultra's claim and consulted with its Dutch, Canadian and UK counterparts before recommending the Ultra solution.
I recommend you search Ultra websites and you will be able to get some further details.
It will have been up to Raytheon and Kongsberg to adapt the AEGIS combat system interface to share Ultra sonar ASW contacts to mimic the AN/SQQ 89A/AEGIS interface. Kongsberg had done a similar interface for the Norwegian Navantia AEGIS frigates which incidentally had the Thales sonar that lost out on the RAN AWD bid.
The AEGIS systems then acts as the further interface to MH-60R and P-8 via Link Hawklink and Link 16 respectively - though I am not sure if Hawklink is in the AWD baseline which only required an interface to the RAN SH60B . AEGIS Baseline 10 due out in about 2020 is due to have a much improved interface to the MH-60R so maybe RAN should wait till all AWDs are launched and skip AEGIS 9 which largely integrates BMD.
Ocean Force and Ocean Protector are not OSV's, they are offshore construction vessels, with helipad and crane, they're an entirely difference class of ship and quite a bit more expensive.
DOF Subsea AS the company who ordered them is a Norwegian company, these vessels would have been fitted with top shelf equipment and the interior fitout would be well above average, probably the best accommodation of any vessel in Australia govt service by a long shot would be my guess.
Thanks John,
I did do quiet a lot of reading after my previous post and came across may different OPVs and information but you certainly helped. I found it interesting that the Sea Axe OPV wasn't listed as the 'first' option out of the three due to it's multi-mission capability and the growth room it shows. The site says "Damen Technical Cooperation enables you to build your Damen vessel locally, anywhere in the world. We will provide you with a prefabricated shipbuilding kit and can, on request, combine this with expert assistance, training and backup. By using standardised components it is possible to make a custom-built design, fulfilling any specific local requirements. This cost-efficient technique can be applied to the full range of Damen vessels across a wide variety of marine operations." which seems to provide an easy way to build your own ships locally without the hassle, and that may be something that may help the DoD select it.
:
Semantics........ Offshore Construction Vessel also includes MODU based large mobile platforms, large crane platforms and so on...... Which the OP and OS are not.
OSV is a commonly used general term and is relevant in this case noting both OP and OS are also fitted for ROV operations (or were until they stuck spartan accommodation in the ROV hanger) and dive ops. The can also carry cargo for rig support. All this is in addition to the large heave compensated crane.
The ROV facilities and the large heave compensated crane are a wasted capability for us...... for which we paid a premium.
Both are certified as special purpose ships so not all accommodation meets MLC but it s well fitted.
For what they are being used for they are too expensive.
- Status