Unfortunately the OPV 2020 is probably not being considered. I think they are pushing the much more vanilla OPV 80
The Fassmer design seems to be the low cost/ low risk option. It is in service elsewhere and they have proven ability for local builds (such as Chile and Columbia).
Only reference I can find is this
Hi John
Yes, the surface combatant term is indeed the ONLY thing that is right about this naval project for the RCN. It is a cluster, just like the RCAF's effort to replace their legacy Hornets.
Yes they are all surface combatants, but so is an Armidale Class Patrol Boat with its 25mm Bushmaster gun. While the lines are blurred I think the classification's still give a better reference to potential capabilty. But I see you point when you see the but try labeling something SCASW where the JPN definition of a Destroyer with Hyuga or the UK with Type 26 lots of confusion.
The final selection is anyone's guess. I suspect this project has more to do with the politics of workshare, more so than the other shipbuilding projects at hand.
Noting new in that sadly. No information on the number of cells and SSM outfit. The message is the same as it was about 12 months ago.
Still quite a nice design, I like the flexibility in the mission bay, it is really a next gen feature on these type of multirole ships. With VLS, while we don't know for sure how many it will have, it seems very likely that it will be able to meet say a requirement of 48 VLS. I just wonder how many are strike length. Future missiles are likely to grow in size (range?) and capability, so extending in length is I think reasonable growth path. Also gives you a bit more flexibility with displacement growth margins that can be used else where. I think it will be be able to handle 48 VLS strike, but I would like to see them clarify that. Certainly a design to watch for the future.
I am just surprised they didn't put forward a hanger arrangement in the first place. Even if its just for UAV's or as flexible space. I would see that as essential for future patrol type missions, eez enforcement, search and rescue, heck even HDAR etc. Bread and butter stuff. Drones are very common today, even in civilian uses. Given the others have at least a telescopic arrangement that doesn't compromise in anyway it would seem to be a bit of a design miss for the biggest and most modern aviation operator in South East Asia/Oceania.
The current issue of Canadian defence review has an article suggesting Canada should supplement the AOPS fleet with 6-12 OPV for the Atlantic and Pacific as the AOPS at a maximum speed of 17 knots are only suitable for the Arctic. The article further suggests that 12 of these vessels could be built and delivered by 2024 for about 1.2 billion in foreign yards. As Canadian yards are at capacity now this is politically possible in theory. Weapons would add another 3 billion.
Thanks Stingray
Thanks for that, interesting indeed. Just a guess, but assuming that ASC would be responsible for the steel hull and major integration work/block consolidation and Austal would do the Aluminium/Superstructure components ?
Read a new's article on it and seems Austal want's to move into also steel ships so not so sure if they invision aluminum sections on the ship to source out to Austal.
Regardless of who teams up with who (and we have seen that lately for the OPV project too), my understanding was that when the Naval Shipbuilding Plan was announced recently that large ships will be built in SA and the small ships in WA, and we wouldn't be seeing a repeat of block work being distributed around the country as per the AWD project.
From memory they are all full steel ships .... no Al superstructure.