Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by icelord, Feb 13, 2007.

Share This Page

  1. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    An interesting development from the West today. Lurssen has chosen Civmec for the major role in building the OPVs. They are redeveloping their facility at Henderson and will be the final assembler of the ships.
    Despite government direction that Austal will be involved it remains unclear what that actual involvement will be.

    Civmec snares key patrol vessel role over rival AustalP
     
    Trackmaster likes this.
  2. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,955
    Likes Received:
    78
    Location:
    Sydney
    Not surprised, it seemed odd when they made the announcement and "everyone is a winner". Civmecs WA facility seems quite impressive. Not just for the OPV but also perhaps supporting the future frigates. I imagine if ASC/techport drops the ball, and someone was looking for a competitive yard to pass work off to, Civmec would be waiting in the wings with the WA mafia. All tooled up and with OPV builds underway. Blocks could come out of there (?), or maybe even final ship assembly (??). A bit of stick to keep things on track.

    Government can't afford a major clusterfork, there needs to be options.

    Also balancing the subs and frigates could be tricky, timing might need to be adjusted due to technical or strategic needs.
    I only see Austal picking up peicemeal stuff. I imagine they will be pestering around all ship builds looking for something bower bird style.

    Given the current strategic outlook, I see only tremendous pressure on all defence projects to get them up and running ASAP and looking at expansion for the future.
     
  3. aussienscale

    aussienscale Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,721
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    Northern Rivers, NSW
    No not the case at all, and I did state that he is capable of the role, along with no doubt others as well, and said he is possibly deserving. My opinion is what is written, don't presume to know what I am thinking because you want to be anal about a few written words as usual, not my concern how you have taken it.
     
  4. 76mmGuns

    76mmGuns Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2018
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Asia
    Speaking of the OPV80, does anyone know why the 3 options all have large rectangular spaces/windows in the rear25-35% of the ship? Doesn't that mean water floods the rear when it's a higher sea state, and everything is likely to rust faster?
     
  5. oldsig127

    oldsig127 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Mission deck I should think. To provide accessible covered space for specialised equipment, containerised or otherwise, boats and crew.

    oldsig
     
  6. spoz

    spoz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    Osborne, SA
    The area under the flight deck? That's the upper deck, OldSig suggested it's the "mission deck" for a bunch of activities including boat launching down the stern ramp, container stowage, berthing etc. Many ships are designed that way; a higher forecastle with a break down to what in a merchant ship is called the main deck and in a warship is usually1 deck. Effectively, in the Lurssen design the flight deck is built over that; and it looks a bit more enclosed than they often do. One of the advantages over a flush deck is that it decreases hull weight; but reduced height to the sea surface and a relatively protected work area can also be useful things. Normally you only take significant water inboard in very heavy seas; and it's no more prone to rust than any other upper deck surface. You may notice that there are freeing ports at deck level to clear water which does find its way inboard. If you have a look at a pre ASMD ANZAC, and many other warship classes and ships designed to take helicopters such Coast Guard Cutters you'll see the same design of the space under the flight deck.
     
    oldsig127 likes this.
  7. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,492
    Likes Received:
    163
    Location:
    Australia
    A couple of issues:
    1. This structure would provide significant strength to the hull in both the support of the flight deck as well as the longtitudinal strength of the hull as a whole.
    2. It protects the gear on the freeboard deck from the direct impact of the sea, The structure breaks up the wave.
    3. The structure restricts the flow of water onto the deck unless you are silly enough to get pooped.
    4. Plating up adds weight. If the ship does not need a greater buoyant volume then this is a weight saving.
     
  8. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,955
    Likes Received:
    78
    Location:
    Sydney
  9. Milne Bay

    Milne Bay Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    433
    Likes Received:
    20
    Makes sense and Christopher Pyne loves making announcements.
    On a different matter back to SEA 1180, have the specs been made public yet?
    Any ideas on fit out, armament etc
    MB
     
  10. 76mmGuns

    76mmGuns Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2018
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Asia
    Ah yes. I can see from this perspective. Some OPV's and patrol boats have an open and exposed rear (see how technical my terms are!) where the rigid hull boats are. Compared to them, the area is covered, not exposed.
     
  11. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,955
    Likes Received:
    78
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think it was announce 40mm gun, 9lv combat, 1,700t on the Darussalam-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia. But with different fitout and weapons and sensors. I think there was talk about a higher speed diesel being fitted and more electrical capability. Part of me hopes they go with small cea radar, but they will probably get more off the shelf opv level kit.

    Given the Darussalam has frenchy missiles I would imagine there is still some scope to drop on harpoons or NSM if you ever wanted it.

    Still a hell of a lot more boat than the patrols have ever had. One these of this displaces nearly more than the entire fleet of attack class patrol boats. And it is still armed (in gun) as much as a Bathurst class corvette (even without an Exocet).

    The rear has a pretty neat setup, there is a nice image from the fleet review on wiki.
    [​IMG]
     
    Joe Black and Milne Bay like this.
  12. Joe Black

    Joe Black Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    23
    With a higher power engine and a greater capacity genset, it is not to hard to imagine that the same OPV frame could turn into an OCV / Corvette when and if the needs arise.

    As for the radar, looking at the model, it appears the spec only specified navigation radars such as the Kevin Hughes Sharpeye radar. Even if RAN opt to install a Air/Surface search radar, my guess is that the Saab Giraffe AMB will be considered ahead of the CEAFAR as there isn't a rotation model of the CEAFAR radar officially made available. Giraffe 1x would be my next pick if the AMB version is considered excessive for the OPV.
     
  13. Jack Wyatt

    Jack Wyatt Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2018
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Sydney
    The successful testing of CEC between Hobart and Brisbane has occurred off the SA coast. Confirmation also that CEC will be integrated into the AEGIS combat systems of the future frigates. The lines on the two destroyers are striking!

    Australia marks new era of air defence - Defence Connect
     
    Blas de Lezo and ngatimozart like this.
  14. Stampede

    Stampede Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Melbourne

    Hi All

    Not sure if others have read the short article in Defence Technology Review re the options for the OPV's main gun.
    At the end of the day it's speculative until we have more information.
    So while I'm sure we all have our favourite options, we will still just have to wait and see what gun is finally selected..
    What ever the outcome, I wonder if the winning weapon system will find favour across the rest of the fleet.
    For myself, our current small calibre cannon, in the form of the 25mm bushmaster is already a dated system both in range, calibre and ammunition options.
    I can understand commonality across the fleet, and hence some logic it would find itself on the Canberra class and new AWD's.
    However I don't see it as the way forward
    Hopefully the new OPV's gun can provide the full range of capabilities on one mount.
    A true CIWS, to fire support, and also offer all the necessary constabulary requirements.

    The range of smart ammunition is a point to the future and maybe part of the answer.
    What calibre and gun..............well have the debate.

    I would prefer the OPV's to have something that is over kill rather than have the rest of the fleet equipped with something not fit for purpose, if we go forward with one common system.


    Cheers

    Defence Technology Review : DTR APR 2018, Page 1


    Regards S
     
  15. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,496
    Likes Received:
    301
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    Where I would be concerned is about what capabilities would be most useful to upgrade, and what real estate would be available for them. A telescopic hangar added to the landing pad looks like it might be fairly easy to achieve. The 40 mm gun mount could likely (it depends on the actual mounting and deck penetration) be changed out for either a smaller or larger gun. Based off the Darussalam-class OPV it might even be possible to mount a pair of twin AShM launchers between the bridge and the stack. Where I get concerned is that while some of the capabilities could potentially be changed or upgraded to make a more combat capable design, it looks as though the overall delivered product would likely have significant capability gaps limiting to deployments.

    The lack of an air defence capability (apart from a possible gun-based CIWS) would leave the vessel vulnerable to aerial attacks, and there does not seem much room to fit an air defence system unless it was at the expense of either the helipad, or the 40 mm gun. This would also suggest that upgraded OPV's would be a poor choice to act as a radar picket even if fitted with a comprehensive radar suite since they would really need to be within the air defence umbrella of other vessels. The lack of a permanent hangar, as well as LWT launchers and hull-mounted, VDS and/or towed sonar arrays would also limit the utility for ASW operations, or acting as an ASW picket.

    One thing I still do not quite understand is why the 9LV CMS was selected for the OPV, since the sensor fitout for SEA 1180 may not be comprehensive, and even if it ended up getting upgraded, it seems that there would be limited opportunity to kit out a SEA 1180 hull to make use of what sensors might detect.
     
  16. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,955
    Likes Received:
    78
    Location:
    Sydney
    The gun ultimately isn't going to hold up the project.

    My personal favorite would be a Bushmaster mk 44 operating with a super 40mm. This retains a high level of commonality with the m242, maybe commonality with Land 400, might be used to replace the m242 on the AWD's and future frigates.
     
  17. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,492
    Likes Received:
    163
    Location:
    Australia
    There is room on the flight deck for containers as shown in the images in the attached story. This is shown as housing a rotary UAV but you could possibly add as packaged CIWS if it was ever desired.


    [​IMG]

    Surprise Sea 1180 OPV tender prompts further questions - Australian Defence Magazine
     
  18. old faithful

    old faithful Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,186
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Darwin Australia
    Question on the type 26
    I see it has 48 cells for CAMM, had a look at CAMM on wiki, and it dosn't mention whether they are quad packed?
    Also, would those cells be compatible with ESSM? The other 24 strike length cells would give this ship a formidable load out. I am guessing though, to suit RAN,s needs, the 26 would need to be pretty heavily customized. If so, is the Navantia bid more likely?
     
  19. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,139
    Likes Received:
    108
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto

    This link discusses missile launcher options for the Type 26 but it is a little dated.

    UK Armed Forces Commentary: Vertical Launching Systems and the Type 26
     
    old faithful likes this.
  20. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,496
    Likes Received:
    301
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    It depends on the VLS launcher. If the Type 26 Sea Ceptor VLS launcher is a the specifically developed for CAMM/Sea Ceptor, then AFAIK they cannot be quad-packed, and also would not be compatible with ESSM. Part of this is due to the fact that ESSM are hot launch, while CAMM/Sea Ceptor are cold launch. With Sea Ceptor being smaller and cold launch, the VLS & cells can be smaller.

    One of the difficulties in assessing the Type 26 design as a candidate for SEA 5000, is that it is difficult to determine how many Sea Ceptor cells can be replaced by Mk 41 VLS cells, and what type of VLS cells those would be (strike, tactical, or self-defence).
     
    old faithful likes this.