OPV's for Australia?

[alexsa]

Many threads have discussed the RNZV OPV's being provided under project protector. While many have seen these as a poor warship I hold the view that a robust OPV with good sea keepgin and long range has a place in a Navy where patrols are to be carried out over long distances and in difficult condiitons. There has been some discusiion on the capability and weapons for such ships.

The RR UT design below has a range of up to 20000 nm at 16 knots and can perform a range of partol and rescue functions in very difficult conditions. It can operate a medium size helo but is not equiped wiht a hanger, however, it does not appear that this is not an option given the design.

http://www.rina.org.uk/rfiles/warship/News0306.pdf



Depsite the fact this vessel is not equipped with a comprehensive weapons fit it would appear to be of a type that would be very useful to the RAN rather than using an FFG or ANZAC or, worse still, an Armidale in the southern ocean. It also makes more sense than the charter of the Oceanic Viking by Customs and provides a more credible emergency towage capability than the AMSA emergency towage vessel being purchased for the reef area.

So is there a likelihood Australia will purchase such a vessel which IMHO would provide much needed capability in addition to current vessels and replace a pretty mediocre capbility provided by the customs vessel.

 

[Sea Toby]

At the present time no, in the future after the AWDs and LHDs have been built maybe. I wouldn't add another different gun mount, I would go with either the 5 inch (127-mm) gun mount of the Anzacs and AWDs, or with a Bushmaster gun mount (25-mm) of the Armidales. By this time the FFGs 3 inch (75-mm)would be out of service.

The RR UT design is 92 meters in length in comparison to New Zealand's OPVs 85 meters. I would prefer a helicopter hangar. The range of 20,000 nautical miles at 16 knots is impressive, maybe too impressive for the ship's crew. The picture I saw at the above link, it appears this ship's hull resembles a tanker's.

I do agree wasting an Anzac for fishery protection or consuming an Armidale is not wise in the Southern Ocean. Considering Australia is losing a ship in the long run, from 4 FFGs and 8 Anzacs (12 surface ships) to 3 AWDs and 8 Anzacs (11 surface ships), adding an OPV or two would help with the fleet numbers cheaply. By the time the last Anzac was built, Australia was trimming two of its once 6 FFGs.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

The RNZN OPV would be ideal for the RAN southern patrol, same helo facilities as the Anzacs, good range and ice protection, low crewing, plenty of berths for trainees, reuse the 76mm from the Adelaides, as they will only ever be used to fire across the bows, hardly worth spending 10s of millions on new cannon, the OPV was designed for the 76, we just swapped for for the 25mm so the funds could be used for the IPV.

The RR UT527 is an interesting vessel, a hanger would be easy to intergrate using a telescopic model, as used on the Canadian patrol vessels (and the Bart Roberts), by relocating the 2 cranes on the narrow section of flight deck. What an incredible range for a vessel that can also attain 20 knots +. Wonder what is carried in the slot at the rear, narrow for a decent sized RIH. Interestingly, the similar UT517 has a range of 6000nm at 14 kts. Big difference.

http://www.dexigner.com/forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=5786

Some other designs, can a commercial type ship be gorgous, god, I so want the MP82 as the Endeavour replacement., and the UT512/515 to replace the Manawanui

http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/product/design/opvnaval.jsp

 

[alexsa]

I wouldn't add another different gun mount, I would go with either the 5 inch (127-mm) gun mount of the Anzacs and AWDs, or with a Bushmaster gun mount (25-mm) of the Armidales. By this time the FFGs 3 inch (75-mm)would be out of service..

To be honest the complexity of a 5 inch gun and the fire control system would be a lot of top weight for no improvment in the primary roll. This weight would be best used for a hanger. The 25mm typhoon mount is fine for OPV work, one each side (i.e. out of breaking sea) along with some HMGs would be a good option .

The RR UT design is 92 meters in length in comparison to New Zealand's OPVs 85 meters. I would prefer a helicopter hangar. The range of 20,000 nautical miles at 16 knots is impressive, maybe too impressive for the ship's crew. The picture I saw at the above link, it appears this ship's hull resembles a tanker's..

Most tanker have the block coefficient of a brick. This ship is based on a North sea offshore support vessel and has a reasonalby fine water line. They are highly automated, operted with limit crew for their size (lots of room for extra berths) and can operate in most weather conditons.

The RR UT527 is an interesting vessel, a hanger would be easy to intergrate using a telescopic model, as used on the Canadian patrol vessels (and the Bart Roberts), by relocating the 2 cranes on the narrow section of flight deck. What an incredible range for a vessel that can also attain 20 knots +. Wonder what is carried in the slot at the rear, narrow for a decent sized RIH..

The slot is normally to allow the vessel to handle heavy towing gear and could also be utilised ot lauch other craft. It is a hell of a capable vessel in the OPV/Coast guard/rescue role. It would be nice to assests like this given to JOPC and operated by the RAN, although they are a bit pressed for man power at present. Thanks for the extra links.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Many threads have discussed the RNZV OPV's being provided under project protector. While many have seen these as a poor warship I hold the view that a robust OPV with good sea keepgin and long range has a place in a Navy where patrols are to be carried out over long distances and in difficult condiitons.

That's a bit like saying a rake makes a poor shovel. They were never designed to be warships. The main 'weapon' of these vessels is the spare berths - plenty of space for boarding teams. Maritime interdiction operations in the Pacific are not sexy. They're simple a matter of putting in hours and hours of old-school, traditional boarding and searching operations. The closest these ships will probably get to a conflict situation is searching fishing boats for small arms smugglers off an island like Bouganville. For that task a 25mm gun is perfectly capable. IF all else fails, the SH-2 is capable of employing its weapons just as easily from an OPV as a frigate.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I agree with Rocco, island nations have a lot of natural resources in their EEZs, that are not threatened by well armed hostile forces, but rather foreign fishing vessels, and criminals that traffic in drugs and people. You do not need a Frigate or Destroyer for this type of policing. Much more sense (including budget) to have an OPV providing the policing in these areas, and freeing up the heavier stuff for the Sea Lanes that are under a more direct military threat.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

I agree with Rocco, island nations have a lot of natural resources in their EEZs, that are not threatened by well armed hostile forces, but rather foreign fishing vessels, and criminals that traffic in drugs and people. You do not need a Frigate or Destroyer for this type of policing. Much more sense (including budget) to have an OPV providing the policing in these areas, and freeing up the heavier stuff for the Sea Lanes that are under a more direct military threat.

Not only that, but if you look at Timor and Bouganville, the main threat to peace is from weapons smuggled in and given/sold to agitators. An OPV can stop smuggling just as easily as a frigate can. And at around 1/5 of the price, more ships can be purchased for much better coverage.

 

[alexsa]

That's a bit like saying a rake makes a poor shovel. They were never designed to be warships. The main 'weapon' of these vessels is the spare berths - plenty of space for boarding teams. Maritime interdiction operations in the Pacific are not sexy. They're simple a matter of putting in hours and hours of old-school, traditional boarding and searching operations. The closest these ships will probably get to a conflict situation is searching fishing boats for small arms smugglers off an island like Bouganville. For that task a 25mm gun is perfectly capable. IF all else fails, the SH-2 is capable of employing its weapons just as easily from an OPV as a frigate.

No arguements. The reason I made the comment is that many commentaters look at OPV's (such as the NZ vessels) and immdiately start to try and turn them into frigates.

The vessels being looked at a a very good design for partolling the EEZ, undertaking rescue work and providing assistance inthe event of martime emergencies. They are not meant to tough it out in a full blown conflict and as such the 25mm and HMG are all it really needs. As you said an SH-2 can provide more than adequate fire support for the type of mission these ship undertake.

I think Australia could use vessels like these particularly given their range and on station capability.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

No arguements. The reason I made the comment is that many commentaters look at OPV's (such as the NZ vessels) and immdiately start to try and turn them into frigates.

This board certainly has its fair share too. Take a simple, fit for use design and try and cram as much firepower in to the hull in attmept to create a pocket battleship!

 

[Sea Dog]

OPV is just a glorified name for a coast guard vessel, that performs the duties of a coast guard. This is a job best suited for a law enforcement type of agency, not for a military organization. Nevertheless, some nations do not have the luxury of raising a coast guard to perform the EEZ/PIRACE/Patrol mission and are then forced to use its overextended navies to carry out such duties.

The goal of a navy like Australia in constructing an OPV is to be able to construct a unit that is affordable and can perform the OPV's mission in an economical manner, but that in times of crisis can be quickly modified (in less than 14 days) to a more capable warship. The NZ unit cannot be added to any credible naval task force-it's just a plain ol' basic coast guard boat camouflaged in gray-and ought to be ignored as an option.

One possible option for the AUS Navy may just be something more in line with the Italian Navy's NUPA or NUMC vessels. The NUPA is more in line with the OPV mission yet maintains an OTO 76mm and 2x25mm along with a hangar, and rescue gear such as powerful firefighting pumps. The NUMC takes it a few steps further into the naval combat arena by adding much more capable combat systems, more powerful engines, and with a vastly reduced RCS. Both units are capable of adding a small SAM system (i.e. SIMBAD).

It seems that the Australian's relationship with the Italian naval industry in the HUON-class MHC's was a positive one. Maybe they will explore a growth in such a relationship.

NUPA:
http://www.people.com.cn/mediafile/200407/27/F2004072708193600000.jpg
http://www.aiad.it/upload/aziende/azienda_89/NUPA.jpg

NUMC:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/i/italiannavy21/Comandanti.htm
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/commandante/

 

[Rocco_NZ]

OPV is just a glorified name for a coast guard vessel, that performs the duties of a coast guard. This is a job best suited for a law enforcement type of agency, not for a military organization. Nevertheless, some nations do not have the luxury of raising a coast guard to perform the EEZ/PIRACE/Patrol mission and are then forced to use its overextended navies to carry out such duties.

The goal of a navy like Australia in constructing an OPV is to be able to construct a unit that is affordable and can perform the OPV's mission in an economical manner, but that in times of crisis can be quickly modified (in less than 14 days) to a more capable warship. The NZ unit cannot be added to any credible naval task force-it's just a plain ol' basic coast guard boat camouflaged in gray-and ought to be ignored as an option.

That's an interesting opinion, but I'm not sure it is reflects the situation. Any navy structures its fleet to cover the spectrum of operations tasked to it. At one extreme we have the CGs of the USN, at the other we have inshore patrol and safety type vessels operated by people like Fiji, Tonga, etc. The various items of equipment used around the world are a reflection on the sort of threat they excpect to encounter.

In the Asia Pacific, Australia operates in the spectrum borderd by the AWD at one end and the Armidale at the other. New Zealand operates from the medium frigate spectrum through to inshore patrol vessels.

In this day and age, and particurlarly in the Pacific, sub-national level threats tend to predominate. Countering these operations requires large numbers of ships operating close to shore. In that sort of situation, what is better to have in RPG range of smugglers - a billion dollar destroyer that can suffer a mission kill from a hit to the hundred million dollar phased array radar, or a OPV that can carry a very large boarding party and can be replaced for less than the cost of the radar on a DDG?

Chest-beating bravado is all very well, but on the business end of naval policy people recognise that resource are limited and assets have to be optimised to meet the most likley scenario.

 

[seantheaussie]

The NUPA is more in line with the OPV mission yet maintains an OTO 76mm and 2x25mm along with a hangar, and rescue gear such as powerful firefighting pumps.

Any OPV I built would have my navy's equal most powerful shore bombardment gun, not a 76mm. OPVs are designed with 2 of a shore bombardment vessels most critical attributes
-low cost
-low manpower
you might as well ad the third attribute.
Hell would freeze over before I sent an AEGIS class vessel on NGFS.

 

[alexsa]

OPV is just a glorified name for a coast guard vessel, that performs the duties of a coast guard. This is a job best suited for a law enforcement type of agency, not for a military organization. Nevertheless, some nations do not have the luxury of raising a coast guard to perform the EEZ/PIRACE/Patrol mission and are then forced to use its overextended navies to carry out such duties.

As you say some countries do not ahve the luxuary of a seperate coast guard however australia has set up the Joint Offshore Protection Command (JOPC) which uses navy, Customs and fisheries assets and is run by a naval officer. the addition of an OPV taht has long legs and cna operating in the souther ocean would be very suited to their operations rather thatn a mini warship.

The goal of a navy like Australia in constructing an OPV is to be able to construct a unit that is affordable and can perform the OPV's mission in an economical manner, but that in times of crisis can be quickly modified (in less than 14 days) to a more capable warship. The NZ unit cannot be added to any credible naval task force-it's just a plain ol' basic coast guard boat camouflaged in gray-and ought to be ignored as an option.

Why? We have a need to be able conduct EEZ, rescue and inderdiction work in the southern ocean. The prime platform capability for this role is range, seakeeping and a vessel capable of extended operations. The type of ship you are suggesting is a compromise that is not a very good warship and lacks the capabilites ot be a high endurance OPV. To add to this as soon as you start adding the sytem you add to cost. This sort of OPV can be operated with a crew not much larger than the Armidale (except the air wing will add to numbers) and is not prohibitively expensive.

If Australia was to buy an OPV I would rather avoid the expens of tryng to turn a patrol vessel into a combat vessel as that money could be used to make the platfroms we are operating or putting into service more effective.

 

[Sea Dog]

The type of ship you are suggesting is a compromise that is not a very good warship and lacks the capabilites ot be a high endurance OPV.

Endurance of an OPV is bunk if all you're doing is running around looking for someone in the big ocean-like Nelson looking for Villeneuve

Searching and tracking the contacts is the job of more efficient plataforms such as patrol a/c and helos. An OPV just needs to get to the desired contact fast, and with a capable boarding party. That is why the requirement of long range for OPV's should take a second seat (unless all you're going to do is BS fishery patrolling).

 

[Sea Dog]

In that sort of situation, what is better to have in RPG range of smugglers - a billion dollar destroyer that can suffer a mission kill from a hit to the hundred million dollar phased array radar, or a OPV that can carry a very large boarding party and can be replaced for less than the cost of the radar on a DDG?

Which is a better option? The best option is having onboard a skipper who does not get caught with his d*ck in the wind because he failed to accurately assess the tactical situation and threats at hand.

 

[alexsa]

Endurance of an OPV is bunk if all you're doing is running around looking for someone in the big ocean-like Nelson looking for Villeneuve

Searching and tracking the contacts is the job of more efficient plataforms such as patrol a/c and helos. An OPV just needs to get to the desired contact fast, and with a capable boarding party. That is why the requirement of long range for OPV's should take a second seat (unless all you're going to do is BS fishery patrolling).

Bunk, you are kidding I hope. The Australian Rescue coordiantion area is just under 53 million square miles of ocean.

http://www.amsa.gov.au/Search%5Fand%5FRescue/

Our EEZ is not much smaller. Firstly land based helecopters will not get out there they need to be carried. Even extremely capable assests like the AP-3C cannot provide continous coverage in the deep southern ocean and would very soon run out of airframe hours if they tried. This is the rason the Global hawk is being examined.

The rules of hot pursuit require continous contact to be maintain in order to board and take action. It will days for a war ship to get down there (if one is on the southern coast) and if you are in a hurry there will not be much left in the tank when you get there. The italian vessel you looked at only had a range of 4500nm at 18 knots. for this vessel to go flat out in rough weather it would mean:

1. it is likley to be very low on fuel and unable to pursue should the other guy not play ball and stop. You just can't shoot them up and if the weather does not permit a boarding you need to maintain contact; and
2. You are probabley going to knock your vessel around a bit.

If you loose contact you cannot take action under UNCLOS even if you are certain you have the same vessel. You just have to look at the long chase of the Patagonean Tooth fish poeachers to look at the duration requried for hot pursuit, that chase ended of south Africa.

To be effective in those areas you need to be on task and have the capability to respond to tasking from other assests and to search the area yourself as well as condcut your own rescue and seizure operations. This is the reason the OPV needs to be helo capable. This is the reason customs have chartered the MV Oceanic Viking which does precisely although it is not entirley suited to the role.

The idea of dash pursuit ofter helo locations may work for countries with small coast lines and limited EEZ but is nonsese in the Australian context.

 

[Sea Dog]

Bunk, you are kidding I hope. The Australian Rescue coordiantion area is just under 53 million square miles of ocean.

http://www.amsa.gov.au/Search%5Fand%5FRescue/

Our EEZ is not much smaller. Firstly land based helecopters will not get out there they need to be carried. Even extremely capable assests like the AP-3C cannot provide continous coverage in the deep southern ocean and would very soon run out of airframe hours if they tried. This is the rason the Global hawk is being examined.

The rules of hot pursuit require continous contact to be maintain in order to board and take action. It will days for a war ship to get down there (if one is on the southern coast) and if you are in a hurry there will not be much left in the tank when you get there. The italian vessel you looked at only had a range of 4500nm at 18 knots. for this vessel to go flat out in rough weather it would mean:

1. it is likley to be very low on fuel and unable to pursue should the other guy not play ball and stop. You just can't shoot them up and if the weather does not permit a boarding you need to maintain contact; and
2. You are probabley going to knock your vessel around a bit.

If you loose contact you cannot take action under UNCLOS even if you are certain you have the same vessel. You just have to look at the long chase of the Patagonean Tooth fish poeachers to look at the duration requried for hot pursuit, that chase ended of south Africa.

To be effective in those areas you need to be on task and have the capability to respond to tasking from other assests and to search the area yourself as well as condcut your own rescue and seizure operations. This is the reason the OPV needs to be helo capable. This is the reason customs have chartered the MV Oceanic Viking which does precisely although it is not entirley suited to the role.

The idea of dash pursuit ofter helo locations may work for countries with small coast lines and limited EEZ but is nonsese in the Australian context.

53 million sq miles that ought to be patrolled by air.

A vessel's line of sight is roughly 7 miles, radar will add about 15-30 miles to that (less if the boat is small or the sea state is not cooperating). That is why the search has to be performed by an aircraft--who have a radar coverage of almost 200nm (depending on the altitude of course) and can quickly move from contact to contact to identify. An a/c can search an area in one single patrol mission that will take an OPV to do in weeks, let me repeat that, WEEKS!

BTW, vessels stop immediately if ordered to by a navy ONLY if you have good ROE's and laws to back you up. Whenever my ships ordered a vessel to stop (by that time we had the ok from the State Dept) they stopped. If they failed to stop, within a few minutes they would get a salvo of either .50 or 25mm across the bow, and that usually took care of that. Four times, vessels ignored the salvo.......this was quickly followed by hits on the hull/engine.

They always stopped after that!

I once put a 5in in front of a cargo carrier running the UN blockade of Iraq in 1990. One round splashing 100yd in front and that baby came to a full stop!

p.s. The Italian vessel that I showed you has a 4500 nm range at 18, which is comparable to that of an FFG in a much smaller/cheaper hull. Yet it still retains the option to quickly upgrade to a more lethal unit, if the necessary contingency arises, which is an option that a conventional OPV will never have. Don't forget that range dramatically increases if you slow down to endurance/patrol speeds (5-7kts).

 

[Sea Toby]

The Italian NUPA and NUMC are similar, the former intended for fisheries and anti-sumuggling patrol, the latter intended as a minor combatant. The NUPA cost US$ 70 million each, the NUMC cost US$104 million each, as compared to the New Zealand OPVs cost of US$ 40-45 million each. The slightly smaller Irish Roisins similar to New Zealand's OPVs cost US $34 million each. Why such a huge difference in price? The superstructure of both types of the Italian ships have composite materials, while the NUMC units have Kevlar and GRP ballistic protection around the bridge, and carbon fiber to shield against electromagneitc interference, not to mention a fire control system for the 76-mm (3-inch) gun: ANS command system with NA-25 gun control. These items were not included into the New Zealand ships. The NUPA will have room and weight provided for the 76-mm gun, but it will not be fitted on completion. Like the New Zealand ships, neither have any significant air defense or ASW capabiliites. Nor do they have similar range, being built for the Mediterrean Sea, the range for the NUPA units is 3300 nautical miles at 17 knots, the range for the NUMC units is 3500 nautical miles at 15 knots, whereas the New Zealand OPVs will have a range of 6,000 nautical miles at 16 knots.

Frankly, the New Zealand OPVs have better range, and better seakeeping qualities, being designed for the North Sea and the Pacific, whereas the Italian ships were designed for the Mediterrean. Any attempt to fit on the New Zealand OPVs larger gun mounts, harpoon missiles, torpedo tubes, short range surface to air missiles and their expensive combat weapons control systems would only overload the ships, but would also shorten their range considerably besides adding so much to their costs an Anzac frigate would be a better buy.

While they are excellent patrol vessels, any attempts to make them a frigate will only reduce their range and make them top-heavy, giving them poor seakeeping, but also increase their price to the price of a frigate. There is a reason why navies want frigates instead of corvettes.

The Italian navy also operates corvettes, built in the late 1980s, 8 ships of the Minerva class. Of similar size to the New Zealand OPVs, and equipped with the 76-mm gun, 8-round Albatros SAM with 8 Aspide missiles, 2 triple torpedo tubes, but without a helicopter hangar or deck, along with a combat data weapons system. Their range is only 3800 nautical miles at 18 knots, just a bit more than half the range of the New Zealand OPVs. They also cost over twice as much as the newer NUPA and NUMC programs.

I've read that one of the reasons why many New Zealanders were opposed to the Anzac class program was its price. Yes, New Zealand could have purchased a cheaper frigate, maybe 10 percent less in cost, but New Zealand would not have had any industrial offsets whatsover. The fact that New Zealand built so many modules for all 10 Anzac class frigates allowed New Zealand to break even on the outgoing bank account, as much money came into the country as went out.

 

[alexsa]

53 million sq miles that ought to be patrolled by air.

A vessel's line of sight is roughly 7 miles, radar will add about 15-30 miles to that (less if the boat is small or the sea state is not cooperating). That is why the search has to be performed by an aircraft--who have a radar coverage of almost 200nm (depending on the altitude of course) and can quickly move from contact to contact to identify. An a/c can search an area in one single patrol mission that will take an OPV to do in weeks, let me repeat that, WEEKS!

No arguemnt with the range or coverage issues, the area is partrolled by air but you are missing one very important point: the aircraft cannot conduct seizure operations as that must be done by a surface craft, or helcopter from a surface craft, in the waters we are discussing. This is one of the reason I consider helo capability to be vital for both search and seizure functions

The Australian EEZ and continential shelf is not confined to the Australian coast line (which by the way is not briming with helecopter bases or ports) but covers Maquarie Island off Antartica, the coral sea territories, Cocos Keeling and Christmas Island, Lord howe Island and Norfolk island as well as other reef and island grousp of NW Australia not to mention our interests in waters off Antartica itself. Have a look at the attached link.

http://www.ga.gov.au/image_cache/GA3746.pdf

The ranges are such that where an aircraft finds a vessel out here it will be demand intesive operations over a number of days to track it while waiting for a vessel to arrive. To give and example of the distance involved the distance from Perth to Melbourne is about 1400nm, just getting between the two ports would take 3.5 days for your Italian vessel at ecnomical cruising. Do it at 27 knots the tank will be jsut about empty. Range is everything, the abiltiyt to respond to inteelegdnc and provide persistant patrols over a period in distant waters without support is also pretty important in the australina context.

BTW, vessels stop immediately if ordered to by a navy ONLY if you have good ROE's and laws to back you up. Whenever my ships ordered a vessel to stop (by that time we had the ok from the State Dept) they stopped. If they failed to stop, within a few minutes they would get a salvo of either .50 or 25mm across the bow, and that usually took care of that. Four times, vessels ignored the salvo.......this was quickly followed by hits on the hull/engine.

They always stopped after that!

I once put a 5in in front of a cargo carrier running the UN blockade of Iraq in 1990. One round splashing 100yd in front and that baby came to a full stop!.

No arguement that effective ROE and political support are vital but there is a signfianct differnce in imposing international sanctions in a choak point compared to patrolling an EEZ where vessel have a presumed right of innocent passage. The reason the vessel chartered by Customs, the MV Oceanic Viking, is now armed is to provide an imputus to stop. However, you have to prove they were in breach of the law.

p.s. The Italian vessel that I showed you has a 4500 nm range at 18, which is comparable to that of an FFG in a much smaller/cheaper hull. Yet it still retains the option to quickly upgrade to a more lethal unit, if the necessary contingency arises, which is an option that a conventional OPV will never have. Don't forget that range dramatically increases if you slow down to endurance/patrol speeds (5-7kts).

The italian vessel, even if gunned up, is a short range vessel that would require protection from others in a task group in a fully fledged conflict and would have limited offencive cpability compared to that that could be fitted to the ANZAC if the additional cost of aquistion over an above a pure OPV was spent on them. Why bother!

I also think my arguement is validated by the fact that services such as the RN and USCG are spending money of new long range helo capable OPV's whihc are not the first word in combat vessels. They can provide persistant coverage of distant waters effectively.

 

[Sea Toby]

The Italian Minerva class corvettes are quite capable of ruling the Adriatic Sea, are useful near the Italian coast, but they are short legged when entering the Mediterrean and the Atlantic. They are of not much use in the broad confines of the Pacific and the Tasman/Coral Sea. This is why New Zealand and Australia have acquired ships with long range in mind.