Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Smallish missile, designed for smallish targets. Sounds like it makes sense for an OPV V OPV handbags at 25km catfight but probably not likely to upset any real opponent very muchBecause it makes too much sense!
oldsig
Mark_Evans
Member
Something that can be reloaded while at sea and can still pack a punch. It would provide a missile option without going over the top or weigh very much.
I agree no fantasy fleets here but how far do you add to these vessels before you beyond what we need them for?
I feel there is a culture on DT and within defence that maritime contingency's fall into only one of only two scenario's.
One, that of constabulary duties and the other of high end war fighting against a large first tier Armada.
There appears to me absolutely no consideration to the myriad of maritime contingency's in between these two scenarios and how to deal with them.
While any contingency becomes a whole holistic ADF response, when just talking vessels, we have only two camps; patrol boats and the majors.
There is nothing in the middle ground.
The default of this composition is that we have to second major units to do anything out of reach of a patrol vessels capability.
Moving forward.
The more scenario's the Patrol vessels can deal with, the more the majors will be available to to what they are designed to do.
I'm concerned that three generations of Patrol boats have created a culture and doctrine reflected in the type of vessels purchased not fit to meet the myriad of challenges for the decade ahead.
We are not talking 16 in guns!
Just modest additional improvements to existing vessels to provide more options to government.
Regards S
On the face of it giving an OPV a bit of extra punch to allow them to do more tasks thus freeing up our higher end assets but as @Todjaeger stated in his last post
If you go and add on missiles etc then your ship goes from being of zero threat to a nuisance/potential concern and they will respond in kind to such a situation aiming to sink it so before you even get into range of your little missiles your done for.
OPV's are only armed as much as they are because 99.9999% of the time all they deal with is civilian ships with the odd pirate here and there that if they are well armed have an RPG at best. Start throwing missiles on and nothing else and all we have is the worlds weakest class of Corvette/Missile boat in the world, If we lucky the enemy will pass out from giggling so much.
For combat ships you either go all in or not at all, Half a#$ed measures just become a liability they would require one of the higher end ships to cover at all times.
So it's black or white.
25mm kinetic response or jump up to an Anzac frigate!
Perplexed S
Rock the kasbah
Active Member
I always looked at the armaments on the brochure version of the Arafuras as being defensive
57 mm gun with variable ammo which also included programmable air burst.
4 anti ship missiles
You wouldn't attack with it unless that was the only option you had remaining.
Would at least make someone think twice before having a crack at them.
It should be the minimum we can provide to our service men and women.
57 mm gun with variable ammo which also included programmable air burst.
4 anti ship missiles
You wouldn't attack with it unless that was the only option you had remaining.
Would at least make someone think twice before having a crack at them.
It should be the minimum we can provide to our service men and women.
We can fit a 57mm gun to it, we can even maybe fit a small detachment of ASM's to it but you make the mistake that just because Brunei did so we should, they are a smaller nation with a more limited availability in budget, man power and coastal defence requirements. They worked with what they could do that's it, not because it's the best use of a particular class and various weapons but because that is all they could achieve.
Fact that you in reply to one post thought it made sense to fit an anti tank missile to a naval ship?
... that would be lucky to tickle anything above a fishing trawler.Also you don't take into account sea conditions, more we load up the more unbalanced they become, throw in rough seas and you risk them capsizing. Brunei deals with calmer seas then us
If you want to have more serious armament then you also need a more serious defence capability, better radar, even at minimum a mild ASW capability and all that translates in to a much bigger hull.
Frankly if we could fit anything on them be better off with putting in what ever number of ESSM's we could at least they may aid in defending our fleet assets such as the LHD's and AOR's
John Newman
The Bunker Group
“Talk of new valley of death”? Really?
Where are all these 100s or 1000s of fully trained shipbuilders that are sitting on their bums doing nothing? Where?
Let’s have a look at Osborne projects:
* Collins class - current workforce perform FCD and will shortly start LOTE
* SSN - workforce doesn’t yet exist, has to be built and grown
* Hunter class - workforce being built (block prototyping, etc) but will need to grow substantially for real production which starts 2024.
* OPV - production will start to wind down soon
* DDG upgrade - starts shortly after OPV project ends, I would imagine the OPV workforce will either move/split across to the DDG and Hunter builds.
The existing work force needs to grow for the current and planned projects, where is the valley of death? Where?
Current Henderson projects:
* Patrol Boats - Austal currently building two PB classes, Austal also has commercial projects, PB projects come to an end shortly
* Collins class - ASC perform MCD and other sustainment
* Anzac class - BAE workforce, AMCAP comes to an end shortly, sustainment continues, possibly further upgrades?
* OPV x 10 - Civmec workforce employed up to approx 2030
Projects to start between now and 2030:
* Mine warfare/Hydrographic ships x 8 - based on OPV, likely to be built by Civmec, or in their build hall alongside OPV fleet
* Joint Support Ships x 2 - one to replace Choules, one additional
* Ocean Protector replacement
* Undersea Surveillance Support ships - size and number unknown?
* Forward Support vessel - size/configuration unknown?
* Replacement LHD (LCM-1E) landing craft
* Army watercraft - LCM8, Large Landing Craft (LCH replacements), Riverine Patrol craft
Again I ask, where is this new valley of death? Where are all these trained shipbuilders sitting on their bums?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Sort of yes, and sort of no. For constab roles, minimal armament is typically acceptable since combat is not a prime role for such vessels, being OPV's. For combat operations, one has to keep in mind that there is a spectrum of combat which a vessel could become involved in (and the vessel/crew would not have much choice in which part of the spectrum they would be drawn into) and having only a very limited or narrow coverage of that spectrum would needlessly be risking the loss of both the vessel and crew.
A 57 mm gun with variable/programmable munitions might be able to cover a limited ASuW capability, should provide a decent anti-FAC/FIAC capability, and a limited CIWS. As a CIWS it might be a little better, or perhaps a little worse, than a Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS, in terms of protection from aerial threats.
Now consider the threat enviros where a RAN vessel might be launching AShM at hostile targets. IMO it would be reasonable to believe that if the RAN or ADF is launching AShM (or LACM for that matter) at targets, then there is a decent chance of comparable ordnance being launched at RAN or ADF targets. With that in mind, does a 57 mm with airburst rounds operating in a CIWS mode, and possibly Nulka as well, really sound acceptable protective capabilities? Side note, the radar intended for the Arafura-class OPV might need to be upgraded to permit a 57 mm gun to operate as a CIWS since IIRC the planned radar is a 2D radar only, which would likely limit the ability to target aerial threats.
If an OPV armed with a 57 mm gun and four AShM were to be part of a larger task force, they could operate within the protective umbrella of the overall TF, and thus be able to contribute four AShM to the overall TF capabilities. Lacking any real aerial self-defence capabilities (not even RAM or SeaRAM, etc.) as well as an appropriate radar, the OPV's would be inappropriate for any/all outer radar picket roles and would need to operate within the inner layer of a TF, where the LHD's or AOR would likely be. To drive the point home, this would be so that a ~1,640 tonne vessel with a crew of 40+ could add four AShM to the overall firepower of a RAN taskforce.
Or one could accept that the OPV's were not designed to be, or intended to be used as warships. Instead they were designed to be offshore patrol vessels. One anomaly with the RAN's planned OPV's is that as I understand it, most OPV's have a much simpler sensor/electronics/CMS fitout than is found aboard proper warships like corvettes or frigates. This is part of the reason why there is usually so much of a cost difference between an OPV and the cost of a comparably-sized corvettes. OTOH the Arafura-class OPV's planned for the RAN as to also use the same 9LV CMS that is in widespread use across RAN vessels like the Canberra-class LHD's and the ANZAC-class FFH's, and as I understand it, some 9LV consoles are also to be found aboard the Hobart-class DDG's and will be in the Hunter-class FFG's.
Me being me, I would much rather the RAN have an utilize a proper GP warship for tasks which are above constab roles, in place of attempting to upgrade/upgun a constab vessel in an attempt to make the constab vessel viable for some of the taskings beyond it's current capabilities. A GP warship should be able to perform lower level taskings safely and confidently, while a less all around capable vessel could potentially find itself in a threat situation beyond it's capabilities.
I recently also had occasion to rethink my feelings on the Arafura-class OPV, and my conclusions have once again led to have some disfavour with the design as selected. Specifically the lack of a hangar and the ability to deploy and sustain an embarked helicopter. One of the mentioned potential constab/non-threat roles for the OPV would be in SAR operations. The inability of the design to have and operate a helicopter limits the suitability of the design for SAR operations. An embarked helicopter can provide both an enhanced SA for a search vessel or search area, as well as providing an ability to respond rapidly to finds. While an embarked UAS might be able to match an enhanced SA, I am unaware of any UAS which could potentially hoist survivors aboard, or provide a casevac capability.
Really old news
VRA and Thales sign deal on Spike manufacture - Australian Defence Magazine
Varley Rafael Australia (VRA) and Thales Australia have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to explore future Australian production of the RAFAEL SPIKE family of guided weapons.www.australiandefence.com.au
oldsig
Responding to post #2021 on ADF thread, posted less than a day ago.
Are you trying to tell me you have heard nothing anywhere at all of possible delays in both the Hunter and submarine builds?
I don't know if these delays will eventuate (but you seem to know for a fact that it is impossible) but I was just expressing some concern that the change over from Arafura to Hunter and the start up of the Subs might not be as smooth as planned.
Not once did I say there were thousands of idle workers, but was concerned that possible gaps in the future schedule might cause some problems.
Thanks for the list of ongoing and planned programs, you could have made the same point with a little less sarcasm.
Last edited:
Gryphinator
Active Member
Given some of the responses on here of late I feel everyone should add their CV and more importantly age. Age being important so everyone knows why they are so inflexible with their thinking or so terse. It's an internet forum, not the CO's office...
buffy9
Well-Known Member
It was discussed relatively recently that the program will be back on track by ship four, with the delays not being as significant as ASPI or other media alludes to.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
I think it's worth noting the RN's Type 31 / AH140 timeline: Nov 2019 - Contract Awarded / Signed Sep 2021 - First Steel Cut 2028 - All Five frigates planned to have been delivered. Under nine years from contract award to delivery of all five frigates. With all five planned to be fully...
www.defencetalk.com
The Hobart-class are intended to undergo upgrades between the end of the (Osborne) Arafura build and the ramp up of the Hunter build. This will help avoid worst of situation, which is unavoidable on such a short timeframe due to the time required to make these projects a reality.
I imagine some people on the forum are just sick of hearing about weaponising the OPVs, despite the advise from those with the technical and professional knowledge saying that it isn't worth doing (and in many ways unfeasible).
These vessels are designed for a constabulory mission, though their greater size and endurance also allows flexibility that couldn't be achieved with earlier PBs (vessels that were and still are operating in conditions beyond what they were intended for). They are a far better vessel than what they are replacing, being more suitable for actions across our vast EEZ and with the endurance necessary to assist in monitoring it.
Edit: there are better options beyond arming the OPVs that even goes beyond navy. The funds of redesigning and retrofitting the OPVs (alongside all the work assosciated with procurement) could instead be diverted towards RAAF, which is far more flexible in its ability to employ maritime strike across a region greater in size. They can also do this faster, in greater volume and with greater surprise. Just a thought.
Edit2: Keeping in mind the FSP - funds must be taken from somewhere to afford either.
Last edited:
Rock the kasbah
Active Member
As a non military tax payer it looked like a warship to me
I fully understand I have no idea
But I'm just grabbing at straws here
buffy9
Well-Known Member
Just because something is not fitted for battle doesn't mean it doesn't fulfill an important operational and strategic role.
We are in the situation of possessing an enormous EEZ, in which we must strive to maintain a presence. The RAN assists in this role alongside other agencies (namely ABF) through out commitment under Operation Resolute to Operation Sovereign Borders. This will continue as geography does not change and it is in good practise to keep Navy active in North Australia.
Adding AShM doesn't add anything to this situation unless we go all out and look towards some kind of OCV/KKG in the future, once we know for sure how to actually run a large-scale naval shipbuilding program. The OPVs have been designed for, and are excellent ships, for ensuring maritime security - not warfighting. Slapping hardware onto them with the thought they can contribute to the fleet is something they betrays their original design and which is something that can be better invested elsewhere.
I'm am not a Defence professional like many others on the forum are - so take whatever I say with a grain of salt - but I can see flaws in the idea of arming the OPVs.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
In many respects it is a binary situation, but not the one presented above.
Realistically, it is peacetime duties and wartime duties. Peacetime duties likely really only require a 0.50 cal. M2 HMG, while the wartime duties can require quite an extensive range of potential capabilities.
Certain assets are by design really only appropriate for peacetime duties, whilst certain other assets are always operated as though they were in wartime conditions. It is also worth noting that whilst vessels capable of performing wartime duties are also capable of performing peacetime duties, the same (without requiring extensive modifications) cannot be said about vessels intended for peacetime duties. Having said that though, the costs (both acquisition as well as operating) for a proper warship are significantly higher than a peacetime capability patrol vessel like an OPV, even if the two vessels are of comparable size/displacement. An example of this would be a very rough comparison between the cost of a German K130 Braunschweig-class corvette, at €240 mil. (in 2001) vs. the cost of the RNZN's OPV HMNZS Otago at NZD$110 mil. (in 2010). At current exchange rates but not adjusting for inflation, that €240 mil. would work out to ~NZD$385 mil. OTOH if the more recent contract price for Batch 2 K130 corvettes was used at €400 mil. (in 2017) was used, the price would be more like NZD$640 mil. Basically the costs for an OPV are about a third of what a proper warship of that size would be.
By and large this is why OPV's have come into being. Various nations and naval services have realized that they need patrol capabilities which require large (larger than coastal or inshore) vessels, but are not required for combatant duties and therefore do not need all the features and systems which a proper warship would require in order to function appropriately. By not including many of these features, the cost per vessel is significantly reduced, whilst retaining the size and displacement necessary for the mission endurance, range, and sea keeping needed for the offshore patrolling role.
Where this next leads is really a question. What sort of role(s) does someone envision for the Arafura-class OPV where their current fitout appropriate for constabulary roles is insufficient, but would not expose a vessel to multi-domain threats requiring a range of wartime capabilities?
I ask because a number of people have already covered a number of the issues which would be encountered rendering attempts to improve the combat capabilities of the design difficult at best, with it more often being either impractical or a waste of resources.
Aussie optimist
Member
I am also just an enthusiast. I do however believe that if the government or RAN decide that we need a more potent smaller vessel, we would be better off designing or choosing a better fitting design. Rather than trying to make the Arafura class something that it was never intended to be.
I couldn’t agree more.
So many other things that would deliver more capability cheaper and faster than upgunning the OPVs.
Why are we still talking about this?
Rock the kasbah
Active Member
Well the Australian government chose this puppy as the way to go
The reality is, the RAN needs a new class of economic, modular, GP Frigates to meet both current and expected regional presence commitments in both assuring and strengthening our regional partnerships.
There can be no doubt that Australia is equiped and able to assure regional security in the minds of our neighbours.
You’re not going to send Hobarts, Hunters or Arafuras on such jobs, either due to cost or lack of credible capability and endurance.
The OPVs are OPVs and even if upgunned to their maximum, they’d likely end up both roughly costing and requiring similar personnel as modern GP Frigate designs such as the AH140 etc.
Said economical GP Frigates should be a collaborative and mutually beneficial effort between AU and NZ, which would both meet and solidify the objectives of the existing Closer Defence Relations (CDR) agreement between our two countries.
There can be no doubt that Australia is equiped and able to assure regional security in the minds of our neighbours.
You’re not going to send Hobarts, Hunters or Arafuras on such jobs, either due to cost or lack of credible capability and endurance.
The OPVs are OPVs and even if upgunned to their maximum, they’d likely end up both roughly costing and requiring similar personnel as modern GP Frigate designs such as the AH140 etc.
Said economical GP Frigates should be a collaborative and mutually beneficial effort between AU and NZ, which would both meet and solidify the objectives of the existing Closer Defence Relations (CDR) agreement between our two countries.
Last edited: