OPV's for Australia?

[Whiskyjack]

We do need littoral combat capability. We also need high level anti-air, anti-surface and anti-submarine capability. LCS is going to be severley deficient in the S2A and S2S roles and would not be a good replacement for our ANZAC and FFG frigates.

I am not sure that is necessarily correct. There is no reason why ESSM cannot be fitted to the LCS for anti-air, with the CEA-FAR (?) Phased array, which would provide better coverage on the top of a trimaran hull. For Littoral warfare the NLOS-LS would seem ideal. And why cannot Harpoon be added?

Crew would be less as well.

The only downside would be cost. But if the Crew id less and running costs also then it may pay for itself in through life cost savings.

Plus using local design and technology would be a plus for Australian industry.

 

[alexsa]

I've said this before with regard to "Australian OPVs", but I'll say it again. What you need is an air capable platform and the OPV you describe has too large a GM to operate VTOLs in a high sea state that is normally encountered between Australia and Antarctica.

I am a little perplexed as to what basis you make this claim. I use the UT design ony as an example of the type of vessel sutiable for these waters and have seen no evidence to suggest that these vessel have poor stability in respect of helo operations. In fact a lot of offshore support vessels (on whcih OPV's such as the UT design are based) are helo capable and operate in the North Sea in conditions as severe as those in the Southern Ocean.

By too large a GM (Metacentric height) I am assuming you are suggesting the vessel is too stiff and will whip around. The minimum GM of the vessel must always be wihtin the IMO critera but the actual GM is depended on both the design and operational variables (such as fuel and water loads). If the design itself was going to be too stiff it is fairly simply to pull this down by adding top weight to increase the roll period. GM should not be exmained in isolation as it is only and indiation of the ships 'initial' stability' when inclined. It is as important to look at the area of the GZ curve which provides information on the vessels righting lever at various angles of heel.

The issue of dynamic stability and diminishing stability is a greater problem for these type of vessels as it can cause an uneven response/motion with deck edge immersion combined with increasing buoyancy at the bow. However, this is again an issue the can be compesated for in the vessel configuration.

Cheers
Alexsa

 

[alexsa]

Well I can buy the money argument. . . but LCS has great speed, sea keeping, helicopter capability, it can land them in sea state 5. She can fill many roles, Minesweeper, ASW ship and speacial forces support. They can retire the frigates and patrol ships with one vessel therefore cutting overall costs. If any country needs a ship for littoral operations it's Australia.

Compared to a North Sea offshore vessel

Speed: yes (but dependent on sea state)
Sea keeping: No (sea state 5 is nothing to write home about)
Cost for cability in the Australian context: No sorry I cannot buy that arguement as it would appear to be an expensive compromise that fits the US model, but not ours, noting the will still have the DD(X) mine sweepers and patrol ships (USCG) that would would look at getting rid of.

 

[Sea Toby]

Asutralia has just recently purchased Anzac class frigates, and unlike America is not looking to replace their new frigates with LCS. Likewise, America will soon finish building Arleigh Burke class destroyers, and are not looking to replace their new destroyers with LCS. America is building LCS to replace its ageing frigates, with less sea denial capability and with more littoral capability, something Australia frankly doesn't need. The sea lanes have and are Australia's defence focus.

The new LCS ships America is building will costs if recent reports are confirmed around $300 million American. They are slightly more expensive than Australia's Anzac class frigates. However, a Akker Finnyard designed and Tenix build New Zealand ice strengthened OPV, of 1600 tons displacement, along with a hangar for a helicopter, and with good seakeeping capabilities would complement the Australian Navy significantly in the Southern Ocean versus illegal fishing threats, at a cost significantly less than either an LCS or Anzac. I figure New Zealands OPV costs are around $40-50 million American, not $250-300 million American.

Four or five could be built and operated for less than one LCS or Anzac, providing Australia with more surface ships, although technically I wouldn't class an OPV as a warship.

 

[Big-E]

Asutralia has just recently purchased Anzac class frigates, and unlike America is not looking to replace their new frigates with LCS. Likewise, America will soon finish building Arleigh Burke class destroyers, and are not looking to replace their new destroyers with LCS. America is building LCS to replace its ageing frigates, with less sea denial capability and with more littoral capability, something Australia frankly doesn't need. The sea lanes have and are Australia's defence focus.

Why would you make the comparison of replacing frigates with LCS and then compare destroyers with LCS? That is absurd. I bought the financial argument days ago. They just don't have the money for start-up.

The new LCS ships America is building will costs if recent reports are confirmed around $300 million American. They are slightly more expensive than Australia's Anzac class frigates. However, a Akker Finnyard designed and Tenix build New Zealand ice strengthened OPV, of 1600 tons displacement, along with a hangar for a helicopter, and with good seakeeping capabilities would complement the Australian Navy significantly in the Southern Ocean versus illegal fishing threats, at a cost significantly less than either an LCS or Anzac. I figure New Zealands OPV costs are around $40-50 million American, not $250-300 million American.

If the RAN wants to play Coast Guard that's fine. You make it look like I was proposing LCS to replace only the OPV. The proposal was to have an all purpose ship to replace mine-sweepers, frigates and OPVs. If they did so the cost would be greatly reduced in manpower, maintenance and enhance littoral combat capabilities. Considering everything the RAN has to face is in littoral waters it only makes sense. The LCS would work in tandem with the SEA 4000 Aegis destroyers which are much more capable than their outdated frigates. Pulling all these capabilities, getting rid of frigates, minesweepers and OPVs will mean more money to build more SEA 4000s. The US has come to the realization that frigates have no place in the fleet for air-defense and should be left to the destroyers. LCS can be operated far more cheaply than there frigates, think long term costs.

Four or five could be built and operated for less than one LCS or Anzac, providing Australia with more surface ships, although technically I wouldn't class an OPV as a warship.

I doubt the operational costs are x5 of LCS considering crew, refit and maintenance. Like you said its not a warship, its for playing Coast Guard.


[Admin Edit: Please separate your replies from the posts you quote!]

 

[Aussie Digger]

The arguments for the LCS make good sense for the USN. It needs to replace it's FFG fleet. Australia does not. Nor do we need to replace the ANZAC frigates, the last of which is not yet even in operational service, or the Huon Class Mine Hunters, of which the oldest is only around 7 years old.

To purchase and crew a new fleet of warships, we would need to retire our ENTIRE fleet of surface combatants, somehow find the funds to replace 12 major surface combatants (most of which are less than 5 years old) plus 6 Huon Class minehunters. This decision would also have to cancel all the TLS contracts signed for these vessels which would no doubt cost the Commonwealth heavily in penalties.

All for the dubious benefit of introducing a class of vessel into RAN service, which provides less overall capability than any of the vessels it's replacing.

USN doesn't need a new frigate. It has over 60 AB Class Destroyers, it's looking to acquire new DD(X) class destroyers and 27 Ticonderoga Class crusiers,. It has ALL the surface capacity it could ever need. It would gain little by adding new frigates.

The RAN however DOES not have this sort of capability and even our new AWD project will only provide 3 vessels. With a fleet this small, there will rarely be more than 2 vessels operational at any one time.

How are we supposed to operate a surface combatant fleet? LCS "may" be able to be fitted with ESSM, but this has not been included in either of the designs rolled out so far. The 57mm gun is significantly less capable than either the 76mm gun on the FFG's and the 127mm gun on the ANZAC class. RAM provides a limited self defence capacity, it does not provide a "control of the air" capability.

ANZAC frigates already operate 127mm guns, ESSM, Harpoon II ASM's (plus the advanced Harpoon weapon control system), and 4x 0.50cal HMG's, fitted with "Mini-Typhoon" targetting systems, MU-90 torpedo's, and within the year should have a helo, armed with Penguin anti-shoip missiles and MU-90 torpedo's.

The CEA-FAR phased array radar and CEA-Mount continuous wave illuminator have been already been confirmed as part of their upgrade program. Additional Mk 41 VLS launchers and ESSM missiles, and a second layer of SAM capability with either Mistral or RAM are likely to be approved shortly.

FFG's are currently undergoing their upgrade and will be soon equipped with SM-2, ESSM, Harpoon II, a 76mm super rapid gun, Phalanx CIWS, 4x 0.50cal HMG's (plus "mini-typhoon") and MU-90.

LCS really doesn't quite stack up and meet RAN's needs if you ask me. Accepting LCS would virtually eliminate any ability to operate where AWD's aren't present. Replacing the ANZAC's and FFG's would eliminate the majority of RAN's anti-surface, anti-air, ASMD and anti-sub capability.

All we would get in replacement, is a patrol capability, a limited surface/land attack capability and a limited self-defence capability for the majority of our surface combatants. Something the RAN is hardly likely to be willing to give up...

Here's a diagram of the LCS's proposed capabilities. There's very little there, that ANZAC's don't already have, or already possesses greater or greater planned capabilities:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/images/LCS_7.jpg

 

[Big-E]

USN doesn't need a new frigate. It has over 60 AB Class Destroyers, it's looking to acquire new DD(X) class destroyers and 27 Ticonderoga Class crusiers,.

27 more Ticonderogas? I don't think so!!! The last cruiser built was CG-73 Port Royal in 94'. USN is going with CG(X), until then the DDG-51s will fill the role.

As far as everything else I agree totally with you AD. I just thought it might be an interesting concept. If the Aussies wanted such a capability they are smart enough to know how to get it without wasting billions. I just don't like someone posting after me and making it look like I don't know WTF i'm talking about when they twist my words to make me look retarded. I mean you ST!

 

[Aussie Digger]

27 more Ticonderogas? I don't think so!!! The last cruiser built was CG-73 Port Royal in 94'. USN is going with CG(X), until then the DDG-51s will fill the role.

As far as everything else I agree totally with you AD. I just thought it might be an interesting concept. If the Aussies wanted such a capability they are smart enough to know how to get it without wasting billions. I just don't like someone posting after me and making it look like I don't know WTF i'm talking about when they twist my words to make me look retarded. I mean you ST!

I actually meant to include the 27 Ticonderoga's along the with the AB's, I'm aware that they won't be purchasing any more...

Is the USN still pursuing the CG(X)? I thought that had been a victim of "funding"...

 

[alexsa]

27 more Ticonderogas? I don't think so!!! The last cruiser built was CG-73 Port Royal in 94'. USN is going with CG(X), until then the DDG-51s will fill the role.

As far as everything else I agree totally with you AD. I just thought it might be an interesting concept. If the Aussies wanted such a capability they are smart enough to know how to get it without wasting billions. I just don't like someone posting after me and making it look like I don't know WTF i'm talking about when they twist my words to make me look retarded. I mean you ST!

I think you have misread the response. It is not 27 more .... rather the 27 they have.

AD is quite right in his comments: why spend 300 million for RAM, a 57mm gun a very good helo capability and a "potential' multirole capbilty (the gear has to be purchased and fitted) for a patrol vessel. The LCS would struggle in the southern ocean. I will go back to my orignal point; range, seakeeping and air capability makes a good OPV (lets not confuse this with Corvette or FAC). The RNZN vessel has this, however, I do like the UT design given the range and capability but there is a lot to be said for harmonisation.

And before I get screamed at for the sea keeping comment both LCS contenders are high speel lightweight hulls. The Austal design is very innovative but is still not something that you would drive through sea state 6+ at above 20 knots. More to the point this vessel would look to its own survival (as would many ships) above sea state 8. The UT is designed to play in these conditions as that is a requiment for North Sea support vessel, I understand the NZ OPV has similar ability.

If Australia wishes to protect it southern ocean why risk a 300 million dollar (fragile) vessel when you can buy a realtively cheap, long range, study vesel wirh a towage and rescue capacity.

300 million (one LCS) would do a lot to providing more capability to all our ANZAC frigates than one LCS could provide in the Australain context. But 100 million for thre OPV wouel provide unparralled boarder protection in the Southern Ocean with an Armadale size crew (not counting the air crew).

 

[Big-E]

I actually meant to include the 27 Ticonderoga's along the with the AB's, I'm aware that they won't be purchasing any more...

Is the USN still pursuing the CG(X)? I thought that had been a victim of "funding"...

LOL, I knew that had to be a typo, you know too much about everything to make that mis-hap.

As far as CG(X) she is slated to come into the fleet in FY11. The decision has been made to cut DDG-1000 procurement to one ship a year until the introduction of CG(X). Those in the DoD feel that DD(X) cost too much for it to be the mainstay of the fleet like DDG-51s have been b/c they really don't have much more capability than the ABs. The $716 million for advanced procurement and 1.1 billion for advanced development will make the Zumwalts a test bed for CG(X). The catch here is that DoD isn't to sure about how cost effective these ships will be b/c they just keep getting heavier and heavier hence the reduction of procurement from 16-24 to 8 ships. They are going to do everything they can to make CG(X) as cheap as possible while having more capabilities than DD(X). Just don't be suprised if you see CG(X)s tonnage decrease by a few thousand.

 

[Wooki]

I am a little perplexed as to what basis you make this claim.

You shouldn't be as you sound like you've worked offshore. I'm not disagreeing with the OPV concept. I think it is a good idea. But the type of vessel to use is the question.

By too large a GM (Metacentric height) I am assuming you are suggesting the vessel is too stiff and will whip around.

YES and I worked on research that confirmed or brought those IMO standards into place. Especially for Rig tenders and Fishing V/Ls. We found that you actually needed a very large GM for the v/l to remain seaworthy, but the downside of this was (in certain situations) harmonic oscilation would cause the v/l to capsize after a series of roll periods.

So we are talking the same thing. Since those days I have also seen US Tuna Fishing companies go under because they couldn't pay the insurance for "wrongful death" suits caused in helo accidents. The Tuna fishermen would use a small helo for spotting and several times (ie more than once) the helo's blade would touch the deck upon landing and kill someone. All this while landing in relatively low seastates and on one occasion seastate 3.

Not a good thing.

My other beef with the "rig tender" based design is that it would be too slow to effect a quick intercept having roughly the same speed as the quarry. Any chase it would perform would be one of attrition where the illegal fisherman's crew would give up because of fatigue. And that means it depends upon the size of the crew and could lead too a 2 or 3 week pursuit. You either need size, an air operational capacity to effect air intercept or a new hull concept that can travel at speed in rough seas and heavy swells. BTW, By size an AWD would be too small.

If you go with a displaced multihull design, you will get better performance and be able to safely run with the sea to launch and recover the helo, unlike a mono hull would be able to do (Again because of the danger of capsizing). Whether it serves any purpose of being able to lauch a helo in force 10, or not is another thing, because it might simply get blown away. Ala Wellington Pilots in New Zealand.

In other words, the Southern Ocean problem is helo operations in high sea states. You need a fast and powerful helo to do that (on top of a flat platform on a lumpy sea). I would suggest the much maligned V-22, as it will have the speed and power to make some sort of headway in very high winds so it can remain useful in higher seastates.

Large helos like that would also eliminate the rig tender concept, through sheer size.

Conversely from this defense related topic, you can go the other way and start making Rig Tenders multi hull v/ls and break the nasty focsle accommodation with wet working deck on a monohull design cycle.

Just because we have been working that design for years and become comfortable with it, does not mean that it is the best design for the job. It just means we have been making do with what we have. I would not extrapolate that design into other arenas without some serious thought.

Cheers


W