iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Did TKMS have a similar system?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The A210 design does incorporate a towed array sonar but, with a large water jet on the centreline, there doesn’t appear to be room to fit a boat launch and recovery system.
TKMS Unveils New MEKO A210 Frigate - Naval News
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
It's a great system for quickly recovering sea boats and RHIBs
Probably not. Seems quite comparable to the Arafuras. Why wouldn’t we just keep building them?
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
They appear to be quite a bit more capable than the Arafura’s with a full strength helicopter deck.
Japan starts production of a new fleet of OPV - Naval News
JMU eyes export opportunities with its OPV design - Naval News
The JMSDF OPV is probably what the Arafura should have been.
Just that little bit larger to operate a medium sized helicopter on the flight deck and accomodate said aircraft in a dedicated hangar. Upgrading to a decent medium cal gun up front would also have provided more options than our current 25mm offering.
But as has been mentioned, the Arafura is in production and would be the easiest option to add numbers to the proposed ridiculously small fleet of six.
The RAN OPV project really is a bastard of a project.
How did we get it so wrong?
20 OCV to 12 to 20 OPV / mcm / survey
Becomes six OPVs
Lots of Capes and no manned MCM ,Survey replacement
Our very multi role future Frigates and unmanned thingy‘s are going to be very, very busy!
Seriously how is that all going to work?
Cheers S
The reference design for the Arafuras - the Darussalam class - included both facilities for a medium helicopter to land (although this is a bit useless without a hanger - so I take your point) and a 57mm gun, as well as 4x SSM.
Would've been nice if we just adopted the "minimal necessary changes" approach.
Arafura - Japan OPV
Length 80m - 95m
Beam 13m - 12m
Weight 1600tons+ - 1900tons+
Max Speed 22knts - 24knts
Range 4,000nm - unknown
Crew 40 - 30
Main Gun 25mm - 30mm
Propulsion system CODAD - CODLAD
Hangar No - Yes
Helicopter/Drone No/Yes - Yes/Yes
Stern ramp Yes/unknown but likely
Containerised mission modules Approx 4(2 on flight deck and 2 below under hatches) - Approx 6+(3+3 on/under the flight deck)
Cost Approx 350 million AUD(in Australia) - Approx 65 million USD(in Japan)
Hard to tell what the back end of the ship actually looks like, they never show it and the design keeps changing but I’m guessing it’s similar too the legend class cutter where you can operate rhibs and containers etc whilst keeping the flight deck free.(something you cannot do on an Arafura)
3D renderings attempted on YouTube etc look fairly close.
Length 80m - 95m
Beam 13m - 12m
Weight 1600tons+ - 1900tons+
Max Speed 22knts - 24knts
Range 4,000nm - unknown
Crew 40 - 30
Main Gun 25mm - 30mm
Propulsion system CODAD - CODLAD
Hangar No - Yes
Helicopter/Drone No/Yes - Yes/Yes
Stern ramp Yes/unknown but likely
Containerised mission modules Approx 4(2 on flight deck and 2 below under hatches) - Approx 6+(3+3 on/under the flight deck)
Cost Approx 350 million AUD(in Australia) - Approx 65 million USD(in Japan)
Hard to tell what the back end of the ship actually looks like, they never show it and the design keeps changing but I’m guessing it’s similar too the legend class cutter where you can operate rhibs and containers etc whilst keeping the flight deck free.(something you cannot do on an Arafura)
3D renderings attempted on YouTube etc look fairly close.
Attachments
Last edited:
Well when you put it like that…..
I know it’s not apples with apples but those relative build costs really are quite shocking.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Given how much we actually know about the OPV design for Japan (not much actually) then we really are not in a good position to compare that to the Arafura-class OPV. We do know that the Arafura-class OPV's are to have at least elements of the 9LV CMS, so that would likely have driven at least some of the cost differences. I would also expect that a Japanese yard might be less expensive for a broadly similar vessel, simply because the Japanese gov't has worked out and stuck to a schedule of regularly placed orders, ensuring continuous build activities at their domestic naval yards. Meanwhile, Australia has been enamoured with build/bust cycles of naval construction, as well as changing build sites between programmes.
Another thing to keep in mind about the pricing, is that the USD$66 mil. per ship price was from 2022 IIRC, which could also have changed quite a bit given how much inflation has occurred recently.
Me being me, I would much prefer that people make a real case for getting more OPV's, before suggesting the next shiny new 'thing' to get in place of or in addition to the current OPV's for the RAN.
Australia does and will continue to need patrol assets, but TBH they really do not add much warfighting capability and therefore I would much prefer to have the RAN and ADF concentrate more upon naval vessels which will contribute to Australian warfighting,
The constabulary function is a national need across land,sea and air.
It must be allocated to a department/ service and in the maritime context,vessels acquired.
For good or bad it falls mainly in the domain of Navy and Border Force.
The basic reality is the nation needs to spend coin and human capital to provide this service.
Today and in the foreseeably future this will not change, so please let’s accept that part of Navy’s budget is for the constabulary role.
It realistically does not take from other stuff!
Conceivably the OPVs and Capes could all go to Border Force and there would be a reduction in Navy staffing and finances because of this transfer.
Like all of the national needs, the Government still has to fund the function and a department to administer it.
So a case for OPVs
Australia is a bloody big island surrounded by massive ocean expanses on three sides with one of the largest island archipelago’s on the other.
We need constabulary vessels in appropriate numbers to provide the range and perseverance for this Maritime challenge.
Capes are fine for part of this role in conjunction with something bigger
The government stated they want 20 OCV then 12 OPVs.
Any other comparable western maritime nation has this sort of mix with a maritime domain much less than ours.
We NEED big off shore constabulary vessels in respectable numbers.
Yet what are we getting, six OPVs.
Whats the price difference between a Cape and a Arafura or something bigger?
Same for staffing and running cost.
Just not a deal breaker for a nation of economic size
It’s chicken feed.
Cutting the OPVs numbers from the original twelve will result yet again another repeat of the past when our increasingly limited number of majors will be seconded to perform constabulary maritime roles at distance.
Add to the pain the manned MCM and Survey vessels which are not to be replaced have at times performed as back up constabulary vessels. Not ideal, but necessary at that point in time.
Navy are just down on vessel numbers over all.
OPVs in the scheme of things are small change for both coin and personal yet offer so much in the range of things they can do.
Cheers S
The number12 for the original OPV program was picked for a reason. That reason is still there, and the need has not got less in the years since, whatever governments may say. And I’m sure if resources were unlimited there would be twelve of them still.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
This. The RAN, ADF and Australia as a whole does not have limitless resources, either in terms of coin, material, personnel, production capacity or time. Therefore, Australia needs to look at and plan what needs to happen to achieve an overall desirable force structure for the RAN and ABF to meet the naval and maritime needs of the country.
With a number of new vessels planned to be built (or already under construction) in Australia over the next 25+/- years for the RAN & ADF covering escorts as well as amphibs, deciding that Australia should also add yet another class of vessel to be acquired looks a bit like wishlisting to me, absent a more concrete understanding of how such a class of vessel would be used, supported and crewed, as well as where the vessels would be homeported and where their patrol areas would be.
This is particularly true given that we have NFI how much the vessels would cost Australia, how well their fitout would mesh with what Australia either already has or is planning on brining into service, where it would be built, etc.
We already are aware that the Japanese OPV plan was for a vessel with a cost estimate of ~USD$66 mil. per vessel, which works out to slightly over a quarter the price Australia was to pay for the Arafura-class OPV's built in Australian yards. That does not mean that Australia could get those OPV's for a comparable price, or that the design itself would have a fitout appropriate for where/how Australia would operate them.
Yes; and we also do not know - or at least, I do not know- how the Japanese cost estimate is constructed. Is it just shipbuilding? Is the cost of GFE included? Is it complete through life costs (unlikely)? Or is it some combination of these? Without knowing that you can’t compare costs. And that is before you even start to consider other potential cost drivers such as complexity of sensor and their management system.
The surface combatant review made it very clear that that an OPV of any type is inefficient (aka expensive) for what the cape class are required to do. It doesn't need a helo or combat system to do its job. It doesn't need to be big. It's just out on patrol dealing with illegal fishing, smuggling and immigration.
For better or worse the government decided that it does not want or need an OPV capability for its constabulary duties. So no to the Arafura and also no to the Japanese OPV.
We will be keeping the capes (and replacing them every 15 years or so with a new fancier model) for the longer term.
Maybe there is a future where the Arafura proves its worth with a capability that the cape class cannot do, with a threat/problem that has yet to emerge, and that is inefficient to do with a frigate (perhaps larger more heavily armed fishing boats operating more remotely in our EEZ, or constabulary support throughout the pacific islands) . If so maybe the Japanese OPV could be considered as a replacement or addition to the Arafura some time many years from now.
Another OPV is in my view off the table for at least a decade.
Last edited:
In regards to a singular owner of all patrol vessels, it already is this in all but name. There is a single command and logistics system for both the ABF vessels and the RAN vessels, and they are tasked for alike missions. They might be painted differently but they do the same job.
I think the main thing holding back merging the RAN patrol fleet with the ABF has more to do with the people than the vessels. It is very hard to terminate or transfer a defence force person out of military employment. There is just no practical means to tell a whole heap of defence force sailors and officers that they no longer wear a military uniform and are now to wear a civilian one. The military doesn't do retrenchments, spin off divisions, or conduct mergers and acquisitions like a civilian business does (or even any other government organisation).
One thing to remember is that patrol boats do not operate on their own. Their job is not to find the illegal fishing boat, smuggler or lost sailor, it's to interdict. They don't actually patrol, that's a misnomer.
The patrol boats work in conjunction with Tritons, P8s and other surveilance systems, including satellites, to identify targets. The patrol boats then get sent to that target.
So the question is, would more Tritons be of better use than more patrol boats or an OPV fleet. I personally think we have more of a requirement for the surveilance function.
Why are the capes preferred over OPV's, probably because the vast majority of the interdictions are in waters that are accessible by capes, for targets that are manageable by capes. It's nearly always a crappy wooden fishing boat.
Maybe this changes is the future and becomes more sinister, but that's what the current workload is.
I will also note that the cost to operate an Arafura is about 2-3 times that of a cape. It has twice the crew, will utilise at least twice the fuel for the same area covered, and has a much higher maintenance cost.
Last edited:
InterestedParty
Active Member
I worked on the Commercial support Program at Amberly in the 80’s when Australia started going it alone with F111 and trying to secure the corporate knowledge of existing staff before they got posted out of 501 Wing. The F111 WSLM in the USAF was going to disappear along with the engineering support and they were also buying as many spares as possible for the F111.
The govt passed legislation allowing staff, officers and NCO’s to transfer to the Public Service immediately, “en masse”. They left the RAAF on Friday and started work as a civilian at their same desk/bench on Monday.
Was that a voluntary transfer or was it directed?
Agree there needs to be a holistic look at the nations constabulary needs and what that looks like including ownership.
Japan’s larger OPV I treat more as an example rather than the specific ship re capability of size.
Principle benefit for myself is a dedicated hangar and flight deck.
Suggest some additional benefits of habitability,weapons and systems options for a vessel ten meters longer than our Arafura’s.
Cheers S