Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[rockitten]

I don't see the point in buying a licence as many of the packages are just the weapons or 'attachments' (I.e. A VLS system or canister SSM package) with ports for plugging into the combat system. Given many of the the OPV platforms use a 20' ISO container foot print in their mission spaces building packages (including control stations for things like towed array) based on this foot print would make sense.

No matter which way we go there will need to be some level of integration with the combat system and this is where much of the cost will go.

I wonder, instead of go for Danish Stanflex system, how about go for the modules USN designed for LCS?

Better inter-operative with our allies, better logistic support, and we can tap into the yanks' upgrades.

That doesn't mean we should adopt LCS as our OPV (although it seems suitable for the corvettes), but "buy Europe" just seems too likely end-up into another "Tiger ARH" story.

 

[Volkodav]

I wonder, instead of go for Danish Stanflex system, how about go for the modules USN designed for LCS?

Better inter-operative with our allies, better logistic support, and we can tap into the yanks' upgrades.

That doesn't mean we should adopt LCS as our OPV (although it seems suitable for the corvettes), but "buy Europe" just seems too likely end-up into another "Tiger ARH" story.

Stanflex is basically a physical interface between predominantly US FMS sourced equipment and the ship that permitted the Danes to design a single platform to fill attack, patrol, ASW and mine warfare. Contrary to popular belief my understanding is the system has not so much been used to switch individual vessels from role to role but rather to make refits and upgrades easier, ships only changing role to cover vessels in refit etc.

 

[vonnoobie]

I wonder, instead of go for Danish Stanflex system, how about go for the modules USN designed for LCS?

Better inter-operative with our allies, better logistic support, and we can tap into the yanks' upgrades.

That doesn't mean we should adopt LCS as our OPV (although it seems suitable for the corvettes), but "buy Europe" just seems too likely end-up into another "Tiger ARH" story.

If we did go for modular systems that in this case it would be a reverse, rather the the European stuff being all talk and no substance it would be the US systems that are all talk and no substance.

The European (specifically Danish) system has been around since 1985, thats of 30 years of continuous use and refinement of the system compared to the US system that is more limited and still having bug's sorted out (and likely to occur for some time considering how badly they stuff up the procurement process), The European option can be intermixed with various differing modules that fill 12 differing tasks compared to the US option that to date is only designed to have 1 fitted to fill a particular task (At least that is how I understand it, Correct me if I'm wrong).

Rather then taking an existing proven system such as StanFlex the US decided to build something from scratch and it has come back to bite them on the a**. let's not join then in that pursuit considering these ships are meant to be in production from 2018 leaving far too little time to ascertain which way the US modules will go.

----------------

In regards to replacing fixed systems with modules fully or not, Even the Danes dont fully replace them. The Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate has 2 x fixed 76mm guns (Though the ring on the forward mount is made to take a US Mk 45 5inch) and 4 x fixed Mk 41 VLS systems (providing up to 32 x SM-2's), providing 4 module locations on the missile deck (roughly the center of the ship) with 2 slightly forward of the Mk 41's and 2 more flanking the Mk 41's.

Actually the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate's are one hell of a class, What would it take to make them more suitable to ASW role? 10% faster speed then the Anzac, 50% greater range at same speed, near identical crew complements, Only draw back is its single hanger.

 

[rockitten]

If
Rather then taking an existing proven system such as StanFlex the US decided to build something from scratch and it has come back to bite them on the a**. let's not join then in that pursuit considering these ships are meant to be in production from 2018 leaving far too little time to ascertain which way the US modules will go.

----------------

In regards to replacing fixed systems with modules fully or not, Even the Danes dont fully replace them. The Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate has 2 x fixed 76mm guns (Though the ring on the forward mount is made to take a US Mk 45 5inch) and 4 x fixed Mk 41 VLS systems (providing up to 32 x SM-2's), providing 4 module locations on the missile deck (roughly the center of the ship) with 2 slightly forward of the Mk 41's and 2 more flanking the Mk 41's.

Actually the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate's are one hell of a class, What would it take to make them more suitable to ASW role? 10% faster speed then the Anzac, 50% greater range at same speed, near identical crew complements, Only draw back is its single hanger.

If my memory served me correctly, StanFlex was once considered for LCS's mission modile but the idea was dropped because it's configuration and size (too small) are not suitable for some mission modules. One of them is the towed sonar array.

And that's the dilemma: StanFlex is already available but our navy will have to pay the premiums to develop our own modules (if needed), LCS's mission module is much more "beta" but may have goodies that we want but can't fit into a standard StanFlex.

But you mentioned hanger, if we see the sea-hawk/UAV as "mission module", may be we just bought more helicopter then. If the chopper carries ASMs, it is a surface module, if it carriers a mini gun +hellfire, it can fight against small boats, if USN really commissioned the mine sweeping gear, the SH can even becomes a mine hunter.

 

[swerve]

Stanflex ... permitted the Danes to design a single platform to fill attack, patrol, ASW and mine warfare. Contrary to popular belief my understanding is the system has not so much been used to switch individual vessels from role to role but rather to make refits and upgrades easier, ships only changing role to cover vessels in refit etc.

It adds flexibility. If, for example, a ship is in repair or refit, modules aboard are available for other vessels. If a piece of equipment in a module needs a major repair, it can be unshipped, another module (from a ship in repair or refit or a spare) slotted in & the ship resume normal duties with everything working, while the repair is done ashore - & the module is then available for other ships. It can reduce ship down time.

 

[hauritz]

If

Actually the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate's are one hell of a class, What would it take to make them more suitable to ASW role? 10% faster speed then the Anzac, 50% greater range at same speed, near identical crew complements, Only draw back is its single hanger.

I have always liked the way that the Danes have done things.

The Iver Huitfeldt-class also outshines the Hobart class in many ways.

I am a fan of the Knud Rasmussen-class patrol vessel as well. Just look at what they can pack onto a 1700 ton patrol ship using stanflex mission modules.

1 × 76 mm Gun Mk M/85 LvSa
2 × 12,7 mm Heavy Machine Gun M/01 LvSa
RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile surface-to-air missiles
MU90 Impact ASW-torpedo

Not only that but they can do it with 18 crew members.

The only problems are that it a little slow (17 knots) and it lacks a hanger.

 

[ASSAIL]

I am a fan of the Knud Rasmussen-class patrol vessel as well. Just look at what they can pack onto a 1700 ton patrol ship using stanflex mission modules.

1 × 76 mm Gun Mk M/85 LvSa
2 × 12,7 mm Heavy Machine Gun M/01 LvSa
RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile surface-to-air missiles
MU90 Impact ASW-torpedo

Not only that but they can do it with 18 crew members.

The only problems are that it a little slow (17 knots) and it lacks a hanger.

They don't carry all those extra modules with 18 crew, they have up to 40 extra bunks!
They are single screw, almost a necessity if you operate in sea ice in Greenland waters and so for their environment and CONOPS they work.
However, if you think they are suitable for Sea 1180, they aren't.

 

[vonnoobie]

They don't carry all those extra modules with 18 crew, they have up to 40 extra bunks!
They are single screw, almost a necessity if you operate in sea ice in Greenland waters and so for their environment and CONOPS they work.
However, if you think they are suitable for Sea 1180, they aren't.

Out of curiosity what are the bare bone essentions of Sea 1180? While the lack of hanger does make the Knud's a less valuable candidate I don't think that would be the sole reason why you say they are not suitable and am curious why they arent exactly.

In all honestly I have to wonder (pending more accurate info) if there is any single class of OPV/OCV that meets our requirements (Which is bloody annoying considering how many classes are out there).

 

[MickB]

The Damen 1800 Sea Axe looks good for the OPV role. Would like to see it armed with the 76 mm, for its range and versatility.

If not the 76 then perhaps it could be armed with a marinised version of the weapon that arms the army's Land 400 IFVs. Most likely 35 or 40 mm in size.
Ease of supply of spares and ammo with future upgrades of both being rolled out through both services. This will prevent an orphan class of weapon within the ADF, like the Huon's 30mm.

The OPV should be 'fitted for but not with' CIWS. The future frigate would, I hope, have a more modern longer ranged point defence system. (SEA Ram,Millennium Gun, Sea Ceptor etc). Leaving the current Phalanx pool to be shared between the minor warships as needed.

An out of the box replacement for the survey ships, MCMs and LCHs could be the LST 120. If during construction the rear area of the tank deck was fitted with additional power and data outlets it could function in a similar manner to the mission deck on the LCS.

The LST 120 has a Helo deck, multiple boat davits, a 25 ton side crane and the rear ramp. All of these would enable it to carry and deploy a wide varity of Helos, UAVs, UUVs, small boats and towed sensor pods.

A pool of both survey and MCM mission modules could then be deployed as required. Even with the mission module aboard the LST would still retain a good part of its cargo and troop lift capacity. The shallow draft of the LST would be an advantage to the MCM and Survey vessels

A single class of 10 to 12 LST 120s could replace 4 classes of 18 vessels.
6 x LCHs, 6 x Huon MCM, 4 x Paluma Survey, 2 x Leeuwin Survey.

In light of the DWP an additional role for the LST could be to transport and deploy the army's new combat boats. Depending on the size of the boats selected these could be launched via davit and/or cradles keep on the tank deck. The LSTs have plenty of accomadation for both boat crews and embarked troops. (An even more out there idea is to purchase 3 LSTs for the army, which along with the combat boats could restart water transport.)

The LST could be equipped with the armament and fcs from the ACPBs as they are retired. Also be 'fitted for but not with CIWS'. (see above)

I like idea of the Damen Crossover and would like to see how it would compare to other contenders as the future frigate. Could take a card from the German submarine bid and set Australia up as the Crossover build/repair hub for the Asia-Pacific region.

 

[John Newman]

Out of curiosity what are the bare bone essentions of Sea 1180? While the lack of hanger does make the Knud's a less valuable candidate I don't think that would be the sole reason why you say they are not suitable and am curious why they arent exactly.

In all honestly I have to wonder (pending more accurate info) if there is any single class of OPV/OCV that meets our requirements (Which is bloody annoying considering how many classes are out there).

Therein lies the problem, there is very little in the public domain about the specific requirements of SEA 1180 ships (as was planned or as is planned).

Going back (to what I remember from the 2009 DWP), was that SEA 1180 was to be a class of 20 ships that would replace 26 ships of four difference classes (and we all know that), back then they did use the term OCV, today the term OPV is used.

There was mention of a fleet of 20 ships of 'around' 2000t, those ships would have the potential to embark a helicopter or a UAV and that there would be 'modular' systems to undertake Mine Warfare and Hydrographic duties, and that the capability would ensure that the 'major' warships would be freed up for more demanding operations.

Roll seven (7) years on to the 2016 DWP, the only thing that we know for certain is that the 12 proposed OPV's will replace the 14 (now 13) ACPB's.

The current DWP and DIIP say that the ships will be 70-80m (which still means a ship of about 2000t without saying so), and those documents also continue to talk about the ability to operate a UAV, underwater and surface vehicles and operate larger sea boats than the current ACPB's, (which, in my opinion, still leaves the door open for an expanded class to eventually fill the MCM and possibly Hydrographic roles).

So unless anyone else here has any specific information (that is in the public domain), then the best guess, and it's just a guess, is that we will see a class of 70-80m ships, 1800-2000t, have an aviation capability for at least UAV's (a flight deck and hopefully a hangar to store and service said UAV), and a 'multi-role' capability, possibly with a 'mission' deck below the flight deck for example.

Nothing I've seen in the public domain suggest a specific level of armament, not a 25mm gun or a 76mm gun, or any of the other armaments that have been the discussion here for many pages.

General terms? Yes. Specific terms? No.

Just have to wait to see what eventually gets announced!!

 

[ASSAIL]

Out of curiosity what are the bare bone essentions of Sea 1180? While the lack of hanger does make the Knud's a less valuable candidate I don't think that would be the sole reason why you say they are not suitable and am curious why they arent exactly.

In all honestly I have to wonder (pending more accurate info) if there is any single class of OPV/OCV that meets our requirements (Which is bloody annoying considering how many classes are out there).

They are ice strengthened for sea ice and they are single shaft with a max speed of 17 kts. The engineering changes required to give them another shaft and extra speed are huge, big enough to fail them as a MOTS candidate, which is required by the CEP.

It's akin to saying we want a Lebanese cucumber so we'll buy a zucchini and add a bit so it looks like a cucumber.

 

[vonnoobie]

They are ice strengthened for sea ice and they are single shaft with a max speed of 17 kts. The engineering changes required to give them another shaft and extra speed are huge, big enough to fail them as a MOTS candidate, which is required by the CEP.

It's akin to saying we want a Lebanese cucumber so we'll buy a zucchini and add a bit so it looks like a cucumber.

Fair enough and thank you.

Would it be fair to say that any OPV we get would have to have similar range and speed capabilities to the ACPB's? along with other noted requirements.

In short:
- 3,000nm range at 12 knots
- 25 knot speed
- helo pad at minimum, Hanger prefered
- room to allow for modulation (is that even a word?) in the future
- 70 - 80 meter's (Though I imagine within reason you could go outside thise figure ie: 65 - 85 meter's)
- Equal or better endurance
- Similar base line crew size

I'm guessing that is about as best as we can guess for the public domain?

 

[John Newman]

They are ice strengthened for sea ice and they are single shaft with a max speed of 17 kts. The engineering changes required to give them another shaft and extra speed are huge, big enough to fail them as a MOTS candidate, which is required by the CEP.

It's akin to saying we want a Lebanese cucumber so we'll buy a zucchini and add a bit so it looks like a cucumber.

Like you, I much prefer a Leb Cucumber (was cutting up some right now to go into a nice 'multi role' Mango Salad!), haven't bought a Zucchini for as long as I can remember, far less uses for a Zucchini! In my opinion.

I wonder if they serve Leb Cucumbers in the galley of the Damen OPV2 1800??

 

[oldsig127]

Therein lies the problem, there is very little in the public domain about the specific requirements of SEA 1180 ships (as was planned or as is planned).

My memory is failing badly, but I DO remember this link being posted here three times by myself and at least twice by others.

It's the Initial Capability Description for SEA1180 dated July 2011

How much relevance it has to SEA1180 as it is now envisioned, I do not know, but it gives quite a good rundown on "as was planned" and is a very interesting read

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=bf32c3ce-39e7-4463-835a-0ff69404cc7a

oldsig127

 

[John Newman]

My memory is failing badly, but I DO remember this link being posted here three times by myself and at least twice by others.

It's the Initial Capability Description for SEA1180 dated July 2011

How much relevance it has to SEA1180 as it is now envisioned, I do not know, but it gives quite a good rundown on "as was planned" and is a very interesting read

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=bf32c3ce-39e7-4463-835a-0ff69404cc7a

oldsig127

Thanks mate,

Have seen that before, every time you Google 'SEA 1180' that PDF comes up in the list, whilst it is a broad document that goes into a bit of detail as what was proposed back then, it still isn't particularly specific regarding the actually ship itself.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It's akin to saying we want a Lebanese cucumber so we'll buy a zucchini and add a bit so it looks like a cucumber.

or painting a carrot yellow and passing it off as a parsnip

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks mate,

Have seen that before, every time you Google 'SEA 1180' that PDF comes up in the list, whilst it is a broad document that goes into a bit of detail as what was proposed back then, it still isn't particularly specific regarding the actually ship itself.

that's the problem though with all the public project docs - they describe the notional platform - but out of a security necessity they won't go into the absolutes of the CONOPs which is used to ultimately help people do the acquisition assessment etc...

its the CONOPs which ultimately determines whats selected - the representational platform derived from project docs can be virtually meaningless

to add confusion to the mix some of the other critical assessment vectors is that of things like australian industry capability, strategic selection implications, political intervention (no matter how vague and oblique)

eg look at the broad range of platforms that got offered up for AWD - or even phatships.

the dangerzone is when we end up with companies box flogging their wares which can sometimes not even get remotely close to the requirements.

then we end up with carrots painted yellow and sold to us as parsnips......or Assails cucumbers packaged up as zucchinis

 

[oldsig127]

Thanks mate,

Have seen that before, every time you Google 'SEA 1180' that PDF comes up in the list, whilst it is a broad document that goes into a bit of detail as what was proposed back then, it still isn't particularly specific regarding the actually ship itself.

True, though there's a good bit that can be read between the lines by considering the tasks that are (or were) required to be met, even if the MCM and Hydro tasks are eliminated, plus other gems like that they'll not be used south of (approximately) the latitude of Invercargil, so ice strengthening won't be a requirement.

The very last paragraph before Ray Griggs signature is informative too. I wonder if they're still likely to leave it open to a "mixed class of variants"? Phalanx is noted as an option, as is "embark and operate" a helicopter, presumably as opposed to lily padding which is hardly "embarking"

We shall see, and there are as others have noted a LOT of vessels in that size range operating as OPVs, OCVs or "corvettes", some of which are almost certainly far too much ship, and some of which look nice but come from countries we'd probably be wise to avoid dealing with

oldsig

 

[John Newman]

that's the problem though with all the public project docs - they describe the notional platform - but out of a security necessity they won't go into the absolutes of the CONOPs which is used to ultimately help people do the acquisition assessment etc...

its the CONOPs which ultimately determines whats selected - the representational platform derived from project docs can be virtually meaningless

to add confusion to the mix some of the other critical assessment vectors is that of things like australian industry capability, strategic selection implications, political intervention (no matter how vague and oblique)

eg look at the broad range of platforms that got offered up for AWD - or even phatships.

the dangerzone is when we end up with companies box flogging their wares which can sometimes not even get remotely close to the requirements.

then we end up with carrots painted yellow and sold to us as parsnips......or Assails cucumbers packaged up as zucchinis

All very true.

But for example (in most instances), when an aviation platform is mentioned, the information in the public domain is bit more black and white, the selection of an F-35 gives us an F-35, the selection of a P-8A gives us a P-8A and so on, but of course that still doesn't give us all the specific capabilities of said platform.

On second thoughts, both those platforms are going to have capabilities that will never be announced in public domain documents either, maybe it's just a case that people 'assume' they have a better understanding of what is being acquired and not what its capabilities really are!!!

Anyway....., what's worse that a Parsnip painted yellow to look like a Carrot? A Choko painted to look like a Mango!!!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Anyway....., what's worse that a Parsnip painted yellow to look like a Carrot? A Choko painted to look like a Mango!!!

I had lunch with a few RAAFies today - 4 different uniforms at the table. one poor bastard looked like an occidental who'd been drafted into the PLAN