John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Lurassen is also a very successful mega yacht builder. Having an Australian operation would help them serve the booming Asian market. Besides, I think they running out of Russian billionaires.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
That's it, I am barracking for the SeaAxe 1800. In combination with the advance hull form (if that is what is offered) at least it has a decent sized hanger ..... and I am a bit of the fan of the Knotch for the boats.
Not sure a lilypad is really future proofed even for UAVs
http://products.damen.com/-/media/P...ure_Damen_Offshore_Patrol_Vessels_04_2015.PDF
Luckily for the RAN I'm not in any way involved in the choice, but of the three options this one is the least desirable in my opinion for the simple absence of a hangar, fixed or retractable.
We shall no doubt be able to guess some of what was most prized in the tender evaluation only when a winner is announced, and even then not be terribly sure due to commercial confidence vis a vis comparative pricing etc.
oldsig
I got the Damen information from this site which had the following Damen tender press release:
Damen Shipyards Group Submits Tender for Australian OPV
militaryword
New Member
Would it be more poor design work, or poor quality-control during construction?As the LCMs were designed specifically to work from the two LPA's and presumably the designers knew that they would be craned on and off the ships it beggars belief that this wouldn't have been 'built in' to the design. There was an excuse for not designing them for the Abrams as they were not in the ADF 'shopping list' at that time.
I expect answers will be sought by the ADF but it would be pure speculation for me to suggest where things might have gone wrong. The failure of the LCMs may actually get the ADF off the hook as they won't have to explain to the media why their newest LCMs can't carry their newest tanks!
Cheers
-Cheers
What a pathetic and lazy pitch, I could have thrown a rock in any direction and come up with a better design.
No hanger is an obvious.
What is fassmer likely to submit?
Fassmer have some interesting options ... although I suspect they will end up offering the OPV80.
https://www.fassmer.de/fileadmin/us...80m-offshore-patrol-vessel-technical-data.pdf
Although by they may want to push the somewhat more capable Fassmer OPV 2020
https://www.fassmer.de/fileadmin/us...ssmer-opv2020-navy-vessels-technical-data.pdf
So they might get a few workers that are willing to risk there careers for extra money on a gamble they Canadians will actually go ahead with the program as advertised, by the time they start we will have acquired most of the personnel in the RCN and RCAF
I was thinking the same thing. By the time Canada gets to the point where it is ready to start building frigates Australia's own frigate program will be in full swing.So they might get a few workers that are willing to risk there careers for extra money on a gamble they Canadians will actually go ahead with the program as advertised, by the time they start we will have acquired most of the personnel in the RCN and RCAF
Does anyone else have the feeling that the RAN will have to acquire more RHIB's to deal with the number of possible RHIB's on each proposal being higher than 2 RHIB's on each ship. Could this be an issue for the RAN or will it simply operate less RHIB's on the ships? Also would the ADF float the idea of purchasing more SF RHIB's to base on the OPV's if possible depending on the selected design.
On a side note the Faster OPV 2020 would be a very good asset for the RAN and appear's to have sufficient growth margins. But what use would LNG tanks have? Pardon my naiveness.
On a side note the Faster OPV 2020 would be a very good asset for the RAN and appear's to have sufficient growth margins. But what use would LNG tanks have? Pardon my naiveness.
Its dual fuel with the diesels able to run on LNG as well. The trouble with Fassmer is their tie up with Austal, a yard with no experience in building steel ships and a track record of delivering poor quality and design on or ahead of schedule and within budget.Does anyone else have the feeling that the RAN will have to acquire more RHIB's to deal with the number of possible RHIB's on each proposal being higher than 2 RHIB's on each ship. Could this be an issue for the RAN or will it simply operate less RHIB's on the ships? Also would the ADF float the idea of purchasing more SF RHIB's to base on the OPV's if possible depending on the selected design.
On a side note the Faster OPV 2020 would be a very good asset for the RAN and appear's to have sufficient growth margins. But what use would LNG tanks have? Pardon my naiveness.
Austal, Great opportunity for some one to buy out and completely replace management. Has all the right locations and capabilities, But crappy people in charge apperantly unwilling to listen to any advice that has been given to them.
All of you guys have brought up some really excellent points regarding the OPV choices here. I had previously read as much information as possible on all of the contenders appropriate offerings, and came to similar conclusions but a couple of things were brought up here that I still hadn’t considered, such as the sea axe Damen being more difficult to fit into those difficult northern tidal conditions. Thanks again DefTalk for a good read and reminding me that reading all you can doesn’t mean you know all you can.
Still, common sense and government decision making are two different beasts and I suspect few will be truly happy with the eventual outcome!
In my humble, unqualified, opinion is does seem like a decent hangar is the main game changing improvement over current capability that ought to be given very high priority. I would not expect that an actual manned helicopter would be deployed very much and you probably wouldn’t want it to be. I would hope that, given all the RAN’s toying around with small VTOL and cat launched fixed wing UAV’s recently, that the future OPV hangar might be adorned with multiple examples of one or more of these platforms.
The ability to launch several, low flying cost, persistent airframes to provide short bursts (several days at a time maybe?) worth of 24 hour, long range aerial surveillance would seem to tie in beautifully with the entire Jericho/ADF/Networking drive and make every OPV vastly more efficient and effective at policing any given sized patch of ocean.
Further down the track there are the small unmanned surface vehicles that further enhance this concept. I note that the Damen sea-axe OPV has two stern hatches that allow lowering of containerised equipment and vehicles directly in to the water and a slipway that further facilitates this.
Advantage seems to be with Damen and Fassmer. Fassmer and the Austal hate, Damen and quirky bow. I suppose politics will probably be the real decider. It will be interesting to see how and what they eventually present as a viable platform. Sure would be nice to see that Damen sea-axe with a slightly stunted type version of the bow. I’m sure there’s an in-between bow design that could suit northern ports and still provide some of those sea keeping advantages.
Regards,
Law
Still, common sense and government decision making are two different beasts and I suspect few will be truly happy with the eventual outcome!
In my humble, unqualified, opinion is does seem like a decent hangar is the main game changing improvement over current capability that ought to be given very high priority. I would not expect that an actual manned helicopter would be deployed very much and you probably wouldn’t want it to be. I would hope that, given all the RAN’s toying around with small VTOL and cat launched fixed wing UAV’s recently, that the future OPV hangar might be adorned with multiple examples of one or more of these platforms.
The ability to launch several, low flying cost, persistent airframes to provide short bursts (several days at a time maybe?) worth of 24 hour, long range aerial surveillance would seem to tie in beautifully with the entire Jericho/ADF/Networking drive and make every OPV vastly more efficient and effective at policing any given sized patch of ocean.
Further down the track there are the small unmanned surface vehicles that further enhance this concept. I note that the Damen sea-axe OPV has two stern hatches that allow lowering of containerised equipment and vehicles directly in to the water and a slipway that further facilitates this.
Advantage seems to be with Damen and Fassmer. Fassmer and the Austal hate, Damen and quirky bow. I suppose politics will probably be the real decider. It will be interesting to see how and what they eventually present as a viable platform. Sure would be nice to see that Damen sea-axe with a slightly stunted type version of the bow. I’m sure there’s an in-between bow design that could suit northern ports and still provide some of those sea keeping advantages.
Regards,
Law
I would wait until its clear what exactly Lurrsen is putting forward. Saying based off Darussalam-class might mean anything and they are just trying to push RAN familiarity (it was out here for the fleet review for example), that is certainly how it reads. I can't imagine they a putting forward a proposal with no hanger. That would be insane. But apparently it is based off the OPV 80 concept (not even the 85 or 90).
The Damen 1800 sea axe would have everything I would be looking for:
* Hanger for UAV/Heliopters
* Big enough to have decent flex space
* Able to handle rough seas and make good speed in open ocean conditions, suitable for southern ocean to the south china seas.
* Fast, for pursuit or transits or to keep distance between threats.
* Some ability to be upgunned support larger and more capable systems.
It would allow Australia to project power over a very wide area. They could go to the Gulf, they could do southern patrols, keeping an eye on Japanese whalers, chinese fishing fleets and seashepard as well as southern rescues.
But apparently everyone was told to submit proposals of 1,500t. So everyone is probably submitting the boring stuff that exists at 1,400-1,500t. <80m.No hangers, no guns, no missiles, minimal flex space, minimal crewing, not really suitable for deep blue water patrols, minimal endurance, minimal speed, etc.
Wait, I thought requirements were sub 80m or 2,000t - when did this change?
Damen 1400 still fits the bill, less speed, range and a hanger too small for MRH though.
Crazy stuff, what's the basis of 1500t limit?
The Fassmer 2020 is vapourware
- it has not progressed to even basic design (it is a concept),
- It uses an innovative LNG fuel system (which needs a LOT more volume for the same range) which is very complex, expensive and not supported by the current logistical stream
- It would be very high risk
So I doubt that is an option
Yes I have seen that, I was trying to get the summer draft of the enlarged ship and sea Axe versions of the 1800 to figure out how much the forefoot added. There are a few metres in it.
Where did you get the information that everyone was told to submit proposals of 1400 to 1500 tonnes???
I probably should have phrased that to be less official than it was, it was an attempt at being flippant.
Euronaval 2016: OPV Survey - Mönch Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
"The Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) will look at various platform designs to deliver a multirole combatant class with a displacement of 1,500t, and featuring a common hull, propulsion and support systems, a flight deck for embarking a helicopter or UAV, and self-defence weapon systems, as well as ISR sensors and networking capabilities. With the new class of OCVs, it is suggested that the project will be able to generate long-term savings in operating and training costs by rationalising the four in-service ship classes into one capable class. However, Navy sources warn of too much functionality to the basic ship that may affect its cost, weight, and size and would have a negative influence on the original intention to create a small vessel, which can be easily adapted for different roles."
So it may be things like hangers, decent radars, useful guns, increased flexibility and advantages for seakeeping (sea axe) are seen as negatives.
Maybe some of the forum speculation was a bit optimistic.
The problem Damen has is the 1400 is pretty light on (although still has a telescopic hanger, which is still better than no hanger), but the 1800 might seen as viable.
Both the regular Damen and the Fassmer designs look look like pretty exposed rhib alcoves (and the fassmer whole rear is open) given the issues nz had with Canterbury, thought that seakeeping would rate pretty highly.
- Status