Missing the point, PBs do nothing that can't be done on other minor vessels. PBs also do nothing to develop engineering officers or principle warfare officers.
It's not a dumb question. I think Volks might have an idea.
Technically only 6 Anzac's have crew at the moment. Anzac & Parramatta both don't have crews allocated, Anzac's old crew have moved to Ballarat in preparation for her undocking early next year.
At that means what in the Australian context? The OPV 80 is still not a large vessel and the additional range will come at the cost of something else. The other thing is …. What is the speed of advance noting the average speed of MFU tends to be at lease 18 knots. The current OPV 80 is rated at 12-14 knots to achieve its maximum range.About us - NVL Group - The DNA of shipbuilding | NVL
NVL Group consistently provides tailored, smart and cost-effective naval solutions, keeping navies mission-ready worldwide.nvl.de
They have OPV80, OPV90 and now OPV85?
opv80 range now 6,000nm?
You miss an important point, where have trained crews for these boats. LOTE tend to be expensive but when you get to the point a LOTE is the only intermediate option it means you have left it too late and it is expensive for the increased life of the vessel. However, it will be undertaken during a full cycle docking which means we can retain capability while the AUKUS project grinds along.
These are vessel built to the HSC Code. The have operating limitations given the hull design and hull material and operating speed dramatically reduce in high sea states. Above that and tunnel slam and other interactions with the sea will cause damage.Volkadav, If Austal becomes the major build partner in wa. Do you think we may see the return of the ocv program as a tier 2? Or atleast an updated version. (20 were to be built at that time to cover many classes). I think it’s called the Austal MRV 80 now but they also had a 90m variant too with more range.
People may not like it given how wel the LCS program went but it was versatile, was relatively inexpensive when compared to other offerings and had a very low crew requirement of 40-60 with accomodation for around 80. If austal does expands to 1200 people, they could probably produce 2 a year like the Capes in the current shed.
Ceafar, 16 VLS, 2x quad SSM, 1 helicopter, 1 drone, main gun, remote weapons, mass decoys, mission bay underneath flight deck carrying a few vehicles or small containers, 2 rhibs, CIWS or ram etc etc. Had 2 range listings of 4,500nm at 12 knts or 6,000nm at 12knts, max speed 26-28knts or with different propulsion up to 32+ knts. 90m version more range perhaps?
Austal Multi-Role Vessel
About this delivery The Austal Multi-Role Vessel can provide offshore and littoral war fighting roles, border protection tasks, long range counter-terrorism and counter piracy operations, support to special forces and missions in support of security and stability in the immediate neighbourhood...www.austal.com
Pic from another site, taken from an austal pdf, 80m corvette combatant.
No. IRT boats, you're making a fairly large assumption that people will come running to serve on SSNs. Let's say that actually happens, they still have to pass submarine training and qualify. It's an incredibly unique and dangerous operating environment and it's not for everybody.
Thanks. So I note that the Anzacs hve an official compliment of 177 and the Navantia Alfa 3000 has a compliment of “60+32”. I assume that means that for the crew of one Anzac you could crew roughly 2 light firgattes or corvettes like the Alfa 3000/Tasman.
Not necessarily.
www.abc.net.au
I'd say the whole AWD 'F100 vs Arleigh Burke' decision was a big reason why 'the navy removed a requirement for "value for money" from the tender process.' But that's just my opinion
Previously secret report raises doubts about $45 billion Defence program
The navy removed a requirement for "value for money" from the tender process for its $45 billion future frigate program, with previously secret documents also revealing the Department of Defence selected a controversial British warship design despite being aware of potential risks.
I am curious as to how they define value for money.
When you look at the apparent ability to significantly upgrade the offensive power of the Type 26 versus the other contenders it looks like pretty good value for money. Conversely look at the ANZAC, originally seen as too large and too capable for its role, it is now too small, and too limited.
Australia has been pumping hundreds of millions into CEA Technologies for over a decade
www.theguardian.com
Gibbs and Cox unveil Australian Light Frigate - Naval News
In mentioning Gibbs & Cox, the Australian Light frigate is a nice design.
Leidos who acquired Gbbs & Cox in 2021 is increasing its Australian foot print in other defence related areas. Defence minister Richard Marles said acquisition interest in Austal by some private equity firms would need to meet stringent National Security tests:
‘National asset’: Austal sale faces likely security test, Marles warns
Hanwha is also looking at getting the US shipbuilding assets of Austal
Meet the $42 billion mystery Korean in Austal’s data room
Leidos would also surely meet any National Security test if they bought Austal.
Purely “Food for thought” only but any buyer would then be a determining factor for a tier 2 vessel.
Will be interesting to watch this space in 2024!
Someone is clearly pushing politically and with the media against the T26. Can you help me understand? The image i created in my mind is the next one.Previously secret report raises doubts about $45 billion Defence program
The navy removed a requirement for "value for money" from the tender process for its $45 billion future frigate program, with previously secret documents also revealing the Department of Defence selected a controversial British warship design despite being aware of potential risks.
I am curious as to how they define value for money.
When you look at the apparent ability to significantly upgrade the offensive power of the Type 26 versus the other contenders it looks like pretty good value for money. Conversely look at the ANZAC, originally seen as too large and too capable for its role, it is now too small, and too limited.
