I'm grateful for your knowledge of what is or isn't intended of the OPVs. I've looked and looked and still can't find how the OPVs will be armed or unarmed.
Can you give us an URL, or at least a quote?
oldsig127
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Can you give us an URL, or at least a quote?
oldsig127
I understand the concept of land based anti-ship missiles I just don't see the justification for them when ship and air launch versions of the same weapons are so much more capable and flexible. Acquiring a separate land based weapon seems a strange choice when we have trained crews on naval patrol vessels with about the same combat power as a single ASLAV, its not just that shore based ASvM are ness flexible than those fitted to ships, its the fact that we will be investing billions of our limited defence dollars into ships that have no warfighting capability what so ever.
By all means have additional land based missiles but not before actually arming what will form half our surface combatant fleet.
By all means have additional land based missiles but not before actually arming what will form half our surface combatant fleet.
there's the rub - CONOPs. green, grey or blue water.?
each option means different platform and force modelling
do we really want OPV's fighting in the blue where they need to be living under the umbrella of a CEC system to have a chance of survival?
.....and if thats the case then they actually are an erosion against that TF own survival if things go pear shaped as resources better used to defend major platforms have to also protect thin skimmers
plus all task forces are not equal - so what is an OPV doing swanning around the edges of your "atypical" TF construct?
you then end up with the argument that defacto RANR (otherwise known as borderforces navy
) should get the OPV's and that big navy gets frigates instead/philosophical debate off
Is there some value in land based anti-ship missiles, as enemy will not know if an objective they are approaching has or does not have them as part of defence?
Quite simple an OPV is an offshore patrol vessel that may or may not be lightly armed, if it was to have anything more than a light or medium gun or two, or navigation or weather radars, it would be called something else. For example the French Floreal class are the closest thing I can think of to a more than lightly armed OPV and it is called a frigate.
The base 737 is an airliner but when you fit it out as an AEW&C, MPA, or SIGINT platform it becomes one of them and is referred to as such. Same with the M-113, its and APC but fit a Scorpion turret its an MRV, fit it out as a mortar carrier, fitters vehicle etc, guess what, it is no longer an APC. In both world wars once you fitted combatant level armament to a merchant ship it became a merchant cruiser, if you fitted a flight deck it became an escort carrier, landing craft and troop decks it became a LSI, and was no long whatever it was originally designed to be.
If you fit antishipping missiles and the appropriate combat system to an OPV it is no longer an OPV but an OCV, OPC, LCV, corvette, sloop, frigate etc. If you need a URL to understand that I think you have issues.
As for the OPVs themselves they could be anything between a glorified patrol boat, Ocean Shield, a BAM or any of a multitude of designs classified as OPVs. The could be anything from several hundred tonnes to several thousand, they could be unarmed, have a couple of GPMGs, a 25mm or similar cannon or even a 57mm or 76mm naval gun and still be an OPV. However the second you start fitting high end weaponary they become something else, perhaps a poorly thoughtout, highly compromised something else but not longer an OPV.
Bluey 006
Member
Now, that I think about it land based anti-shipping missiles would be quite useful as part of containment or blockade operations. Surprised me though that such a capability is stipulated in a white paper given the identified level of attack is quite low. I would expect that Land based anti-ship missiles are the sort of thing you hastily put together when attack is imminent. If it comes as part of the JSM investment - bonus.
That said, I think that compared to other white papers this one does demonstrate a much deeper level of thought about how to actual win wars in our region. Also,seems to hint at a desire to take the war to the enemy.
That said, I think that compared to other white papers this one does demonstrate a much deeper level of thought about how to actual win wars in our region. Also,seems to hint at a desire to take the war to the enemy.
there's a whole pile of countries that have landbased AShM's guarding critical points.
Thats the first alternative mod that happened to the Styx missile
The maritime anti ship missile and deployable anti-ship missile capability has a budget of 4-5 billion dollars....this seems a phenomenal amount given the budget for 3AWDs is 9 billion.....is this due to cofunding the NSM with Norway or is there some other reason for the huge $$$$$$ ?
First things first, Do we even know for a fact how the OPV's will be armed? So far all that has been mentioned is the purchasing cost's (No mention if they include life time costs) of $3 - $4 billion, At $250 - $330 million a piece that is still a price large enough that it may allow for them to be armed when you consider the HMAS Perth came in around that $300m mark in todays dollar amounts.
As for the ASM's well they in the most simple respect's will make a wonderful force multiplier.
As for the ASM's well they in the most simple respect's will make a wonderful force multiplier.
Astonishing. A few hours ago I asked you to explain how you *knew* just how the OPVs would be armed and got well ignored.
Apparently YOU don't know. None of us do yet, which was my point. Much o this speculation, while fun, is out there in la la land
oldsig127
Since when was an OPV a surface combatant?
By this same logic, we should be putting tank guns on ASLAVs and expecting them to engage in close combat. But that's a dumb idea, because that's not their job, they're not designed to do it and they are needed to do other things. The whole, 'if your problem is a nail - use a hammer, not a screwdriver' thing.
You are always criticising every procurement decision in recent history for over-complicating matters and not meeting capability requirements, and now you want to turn off the shelf patrol vessels into surface combatants to fill a capability need that doesn't exist. Seems strange.
can we avoid slipping into wally world as long as possible....
otherwise it will be a long series of night and days....
otherwise it will be a long series of night and days....
Exactly, OPVs are an improvement over patrol boats but are not combatants and cannot be deployed in harms way at time of conflict. However I would suggest the price difference between a class of OPVs and a class of light frigates than fore fill a peace time patrol role, would be less than that of acquiring a meaningful land based antishipping missile capability.there's the rub - CONOPs. green, grey or blue water.?
each option means different platform and force modelling
do we really want OPV's fighting in the blue where they need to be living under the umbrella of a CEC system to have a chance of survival?
.....and if thats the case then they actually are an erosion against that TF own survival if things go pear shaped as resources better used to defend major platforms have to also protect thin skimmers
plus all task forces are not equal - so what is an OPV doing swanning around the edges of your "atypical" TF construct?
you then end up with the argument that defacto RANR (otherwise known as borderforces navy
/philosophical debate off
The obvious caveat on this would be that the antishipping capability is, in actual fact, only one role of a versatile multirole system. That is the missile itself also has a land attack capability, while the launcher, or at least components of the overall integrated system have CRAM, SHORAD, GBAD etc. i.e. if it is packaged with something else desirable that we are already getting, then why not.
It just seems ridiculous to me that land based anti ship capability is rated higher than superior air and sea options that would complement existing procurements.
You should actually check your facts before trying to 'catch' some one out because you just come across as a bit of a d*** when you do.
You have replied to me once (#17566) in the last 24 hours, 7 hours ago actually and while it was in part related to the OPV's it had nothing to do with there armament but rather the actual build date schedule
vonnoobie
USCG calls theirs "cutters"
they've had a cutter attached to one of the ME TF's in a grey water role
right, 2nd warning
everyone play nice. there's no need for people to go off the rails and get snippy with each other
I don't care who started it etc....
grip it up and keep it under control
everyone play nice. there's no need for people to go off the rails and get snippy with each other
I don't care who started it etc....
grip it up and keep it under control
can't really comment unless I knew what idiot sheet had been constructed to get it blessed in the first place
and I suspect that it wouldn't be up for discussion then anyway due to the nature of the material
sometimes you just have to take the money and the capability and run
As an RAAC officer, veteran and expert on armoured warfare would you support, or rather question, a proposed acquisition of containerised, or worse, fixed fortress guns consisting of perfectly serviceable tank and other AFV turrets, requiring trained crews?
Besides I don't criticise every procurement, I often ask, I question, I listen and I ask and question again, but not criticise. When I criticise is when I see the same mistake being made over and over again, or when something is obviously so wrong it shouldn't have, or shouldn't be, happening.
Right now I am asking about and questioning a capability that none of our major allies possess, that as far as I can see has come completely out of left field. I'm sorry if I am not able to instantly absorb and understand why we are planning to acquire a capability that to my knowledge has never been seriously suggested for the ADF before. It may not be in your make up to analyse (or in my case over analyse) but then again that's why you do what you do and I did what I did.
My resume is basically a list of things I questioned and found to be wrong, then fixed. Not everything I questioned was wrong, but fixing the stuff that was worth the effort. I know I give you the irrits, I often do that to a lot of people and have had project directors asking "who the f..... is ..... and who does he think he is questioning how I do my job?" followed not long after by the higher up who assigned me to fix the problem laughing about it and telling the PD to pull his head in and do his job properly and stop costing the project $........ a month by doing things his way. I also designers and product engineers who change things to save a buck by demonstrating that their "cost down" has actually directly increased warranty and support costs exponentially. Once I even proved a product improvement, intended to improve durability in harsh climates was not only totally unnecessary, but had reduced reliability to such a degree that support costs exceeded our profit margin and almost cost that and all future contracts in that industry.
Likely you and most others are completely unimpressed by that but I don't care, its how I think, its how I work, its what I do and who I am. If you don't like it ignore me, but having a dig, knocking and criticising me wont stop me doing it. I am not always right, but then who is? If my posting style bothers you that much maybe you should have a Bex and a lie down.
Edit
Whoops forgot, of course any RAN OPV will likely be referred to as a combatant because the Armadales are rated as minor surface combatants and I know them as well as you know a Bushmaster.
CREF Prev
all subsequent duplexing can be done via PM rather than in here.
anything beyond this point will be chopped now that its been made clear....
all subsequent duplexing can be done via PM rather than in here.
anything beyond this point will be chopped now that its been made clear....
- Status