Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

See below:



All your answers are out there, just got to Google it!

Thanks John

Damen have an impressive web site with lots of tempting Naval offerings.
Trust the RAN's OPV's are at the bigger, and not the smalller end of size listed.

Full hanger and flight deck should be a must have.
Hanger may only be used as a mission bay or for the ships BBQ, but at least its there for when we have to ramp things up!
Good for UAV, for sure
Separate mission bay under flight deck for underwater and surface vehicles.
As to armament, yes the OPV is mainly for constablatory duties but add a medium calibre gun and you have alot more options than a 25mm bushmaster.
After so many years waiting for a ship of this size I trust the cheap steel / air's free analagy is recognised and we finally get a vessel that is future proofed in size and capable of upgrade if circumstance dictates.
2018 is not to far away for start of build.
Will watch this project with interest.

Regards S.

Ps Will be interesting to see what infrastucture needs the larger OPV's place on the northern ports.

 

[Nick underscore]

Ocean Protector is to be operated as a Naval Auxiliary under the Naval Flag Administration so this is another first as well.

Thanks for the answers (and Gf)

Both of the OSV's (Protector & Shield) are essentially purple assets? Does Shield operate the same manning mix, or purely ABF personnel?

Can't help but think this recent outright purchase of Protector was related to the comfirmed submarine fleet number (I.e. 12). They could prove to be very useful (but ugly) x-support ships.

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Thanks for the answers (and Gf)

Both of the OSV's (Protector & Shield) are essentially purple assets? Does Shield operate the same manning mix, or purely ABF personnel?

Can't help but think this recent outright purchase of Protector was related to the comfirmed submarine fleet number (I.e. 12). They could prove to be very useful (but ugly) x-support ships.

Cheers

OS will be a border force asset eventually but is currently commerically operated (essentially OS is a taxi for border force RHIBs, albeit one with 50 cal MGs). Crew are civilians belonging to a commercial operator with embarked border force personnel for compliance and enforcement.

OP is a Navy asset as a naval auxiliary and is operated under Naval control and 'flag state'. In other words it is not subject to the rules applicable to trading vessels. This vessels will be manned by a mix of civilian, navy and border force personnel.

Both these vessels are somewhat bigger than the proposed OPV's in tonnage being ex dive and dive/ROV support vessels.

These vessels would not normally be employed or Submarine Rescue as two purpose built 'commercial' vessels operated by DMS are in the process of being delivered.

 

[Volkodav]

Thanks John

Damen have an impressive web site with lots of tempting Naval offerings.
Trust the RAN's OPV's are at the bigger, and not the smalller end of size listed.

Full hanger and flight deck should be a must have.
Hanger may only be used as a mission bay or for the ships BBQ, but at least its there for when we have to ramp things up!
Good for UAV, for sure
Separate mission bay under flight deck for underwater and surface vehicles.
As to armament, yes the OPV is mainly for constablatory duties but add a medium calibre gun and you have alot more options than a 25mm bushmaster.
After so many years waiting for a ship of this size I trust the cheap steel / air's free analagy is recognised and we finally get a vessel that is future proofed in size and capable of upgrade if circumstance dictates.
2018 is not to far away for start of build.
Will watch this project with interest.

Regards S.

Ps Will be interesting to see what infrastucture needs the larger OPV's place on the northern ports.

Pretty much what I was thinking and considering the ANZACs started out as a 2000ton Patrol Frigate in the Dibb Report, with limited self defence air defence and 76mm gun, that ended up almost twice the size with ESSM, ASW torpedoes and a 5" gun it wouldn't surprise me if they grow. This is especially due to the mention of capabilities that may require a multi mission deck and perhaps even a stern launch arrangement for UAV, UUV and what sounds suspiciously like a fast interceptor craft.

Experience, especially such limited designs as the Armidales, have shown, that extra size and durability is never amiss. The ability to integrate MOTS and COTS capabilities that were not initially seen as necessary or may not even have been available at the time can be the difference between platform being able complete its planned service life or having to be replaced, which could spell the end for another, desirable, but lower priority, capability.

Another thought on the land based anti-ship missiles, they could even potentially turn out to be a modular, containerized system, similar to a STANFLEX or LCS Mission Module. If so they could easily be RAN or even RANR and designed / tasked in a similar was to the old COOP (Craft Of OPportunity) mine countermeasures capability and able to deploy from shore or suitably modified vessels as required.

 

[ASSAIL]

I would not get too caught up on 80m be a drop dead length that cannot be exceeded. There are a number of lengths used for ships. For commercial vessels there is

• "measured length" or "load line length" which is used for application of conventions and actually less than the length overall.
• "length overall' (LOA) which is just that and includes any fitted device hanging off either end
• "waterline length"
• "length between perpendiculars" ..... and so forth

Noting the measured length generally excludes bow and stern flare then it is possible that a few additional meters may not be an issue.

for your reading pleasure.....

http://www.mar.ist.utl.pt/mventura/projecto-navios-i/en/sd-1.2.2-load_lines.pdf
http://www.pfri.uniri.hr/~bknez/Ship’s measurement.pdf

The standards Damen 1800 is 83m LOA which would be a measured length under 80m.

Would love to see the relationship between Measured length, length PP, LOA and length WL in a Sea axe and an X bow. The normal conventions/relationships must be all about face.

 

[John Newman]

Would love to see the relationship between Measured length, length PP, LOA and length WL in a Sea axe and an X bow. The normal conventions/relationships must be all about face.

Talking of Sea Axe designs, the Cairns based bid for the Pacific Patrol Boat Replacement is based on a Damen Sea Axe design, see below:

Pacific Patrol Boat bid contention down to WA and QLD

Would be nice to see the 'big sister', Damen OPV 1800 Sea Axe, end up as the RAN's OPV!!

 

[John Newman]

One of the future projects, the so called, "additional replenishment ship or logistics support vessel", I wonder if the thinking on this is a ship that might be a combination of both those roles, not just one or the other?

An obvious choice would appear to be something along the lines of the Netherlands, Karel Doorman:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Karel_Doorman_(A833)


Anyway, long time off yet, but will be interesting to see if the ship mentioned in the DWP is one or the other, or a combination of both!

 

[Alf662]

Thanks John

Damen have an impressive web site with lots of tempting Naval offerings.
Trust the RAN's OPV's are at the bigger, and not the smalller end of size listed.

Full hanger and flight deck should be a must have.
Hanger may only be used as a mission bay or for the ships BBQ, but at least its there for when we have to ramp things up!
Good for UAV, for sure
Separate mission bay under flight deck for underwater and surface vehicles.
As to armament, yes the OPV is mainly for constablatory duties but add a medium calibre gun and you have alot more options than a 25mm bushmaster.
After so many years waiting for a ship of this size I trust the cheap steel / air's free analagy is recognised and we finally get a vessel that is future proofed in size and capable of upgrade if circumstance dictates.
2018 is not to far away for start of build.
Will watch this project with interest.

Regards S.

Ps Will be interesting to see what infrastucture needs the larger OPV's place on the northern ports.

The Damen 1400 is only rated for a 6 tonne helicopter and I think it has a telescopic hangar, the Damen 1800 is rated at 11 tonne and is rated for an NH90, the 1800 Seaxe version has a larger hanger and can accommodate an NH90 and a UAV.

I have attached a link that gives a comparison of the Damen OPV range, it does not include the Sea axe version: http://products.damen.com/~/media/P...sel/DAMEN_Offshore_Patrol_Vessel_Leaflet.ashx

 

[Alf662]

One of the future projects, the so called, "additional replenishment ship or logistics support vessel", I wonder if the thinking on this is a ship that might be a combination of both those roles, not just one or the other?

An obvious choice would appear to be something along the lines of the Netherlands, Karel Doorman:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Karel_Doorman_(A833)


Anyway, long time off yet, but will be interesting to see if the ship mentioned in the DWP is one or the other, or a combination of both!

Another option is the Damen LSV19000: Logistic Support Vessel Supporter 19000

The White Paper stated that the Canberra's LCM1e's were to be replaced, and the army's LCM8's were to be assessed for repleacement. Does this raise the possibility that the army will inherit the LCM1e's. The army is also getting a Riverine capability.

These new Army capabilities need to be taken into account for sea lift purposes, especially if the Canberra class change to a different type of ship to shore connector.

 

[alexsa]

Would love to see the relationship between Measured length, length PP, LOA and length WL in a Sea axe and an X bow. The normal conventions/relationships must be all about face.

Forward perpendicular would be the same for all lengths so the reduction compared to the LOA would be quite a lower.

 

[Nick underscore]

OS will be a border force asset eventually but is currently commerically operated (essentially OS is a taxi for border force RHIBs, albeit one with 50 cal MGs). Crew are civilians belonging to a commercial operator with embarked border force personnel for compliance and enforcement.

OP is a Navy asset as a naval auxiliary and is operated under Naval control and 'flag state'. In other words it is not subject to the rules applicable to trading vessels. This vessels will be manned by a mix of civilian, navy and border force personnel.

Both these vessels are somewhat bigger than the proposed OPV's in tonnage being ex dive and dive/ROV support vessels.

These vessels would not normally be employed or Submarine Rescue as two purpose built 'commercial' vessels operated by DMS are in the process of being delivered.

Thanks for the answer. So will OP be they employed in similar role for border protection, if so why the difference?

I must have missed that - GoA has already purchased (awaiting delivery) specialised rescue vessels. Commercially built, but RAN manned or commercial/ US specialists?

 

[hauritz]

Another option is the Damen LSV19000: Logistic Support Vessel Supporter 19000

The White Paper stated that the Canberra's LCM1e's were to be replaced, and the army's LCM8's were to be assessed for repleacement. Does this raise the possibility that the army will inherit the LCM1e's. The army is also getting a Riverine capability.

These new Army capabilities need to be taken into account for sea lift purposes, especially if the Canberra class change to a different type of ship to shore connector.

The wording of the whitepaper is pretty vague.

"A third replenishment or additional logistics vessel will follow in the late 2020s"

From that it could be a third replenishment ship or some sort of RORO ship that will kind of replace the LCH or something akin to Canada's JSS.

It could be a modified Cantabria or Aegir 18A, or something like the General Frank S. Besson. It might even be a new build bay class.

It does surprise me that they haven't really defined what role this ship would be required to fill given the amount of time they have spent writing and refining this document.

 

[Nick underscore]

Another option is the Damen LSV19000: Logistic Support Vessel Supporter 19000

The White Paper stated that the Canberra's LCM1e's were to be replaced, and the army's LCM8's were to be assessed for repleacement. Does this raise the possibility that the army will inherit the LCM1e's. The army is also getting a Riverine capability.

These new Army capabilities need to be taken into account for sea lift purposes, especially if the Canberra class change to a different type of ship to shore connector.

Very nice design. Could fit the role. Damien seem to be on the mark. OPV, the SLV (LCH) and this LSV design.

 

[StingrayOZ]

An obvious choice would appear to be something along the lines of the Netherlands, Karel Doorman:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Karel_Doorman_(A833)

Its quite a nice ship, but its not really that cheap, seems to have a large crew and while flexible isn't overtly so.

For 400 million euros and 150 crew you could almost get another LHD. Which has similar aviation fuel capabilities, some what less marine diesel storage.

I think its more likely to be a Aegir 18A or Cantribria.

 

[vonnoobie]

The wording of the whitepaper is pretty vague.

"A third replenishment or additional logistics vessel will follow in the late 2020s"

From that it could be a third replenishment ship or some sort of RORO ship that will kind of replace the LCH or something akin to Canada's JSS.

It could be a modified Cantabria or Aegir 18A, or something like the General Frank S. Besson. It might even be a new build bay class.

It does surprise me that they haven't really defined what role this ship would be required to fill given the amount of time they have spent writing and refining this document.

And as stated in the DWP it could also be a vessel similar to the HMAS Choules, Which just makes it all the more confusing as that opens up pretty much all the AOR's and LPD's along with everything in between

I'm thinking that is one of the aspects they really want to nail down seeing as they have such a broad range of what could fit the role it does make me wonder if that has just slipped through the cracks. Most items on the DWP can be fairly well defined as to what they want but with this one you dont have a bloody clue what its actual role will be so really has no reason being on the DWP until they do.

 

[old faithful]

One report I have read made reference to 5000 additional troops.
With these extra assets, will 5000 be enough to crew and maintain 1 extra frigate, 6 more subs, extra crew on the opv, s, HIMARS, Land based AshM, 16AD, s new systems, RAAF, s new assets?
This white paper has been fully costed and thought through, but I think 5000 is not going to be enough accross the board, maybe that figure is for Army alone? It did say 5000 extra troops.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Seeing as its in the RAN section I'd have to say it's almost a garauntee that RAN personnel will be the ones to operate them, Though they are most likely to be operated off of the LHD's and Choules in organisation with the Army.

These are truck mounted systems - which is also curious as the chat is also about them being mounted as self protection artifacts on some of "our" oil rigs.

as govt doesn't "own" the oil rigs I'm more than curious to see what the CONOPs was to get these across the line.

There are also better ways to defend those assets

I'm not confident that they will survive past 2 terms of Govt

 

[vonnoobie]

Its quite a nice ship, but its not really that cheap, seems to have a large crew and while flexible isn't overtly so.

For 400 million euros and 150 crew you could almost get another LHD. Which has similar aviation fuel capabilities, some what less marine diesel storage.

I think its more likely to be a Aegir 18A or Cantribria.

It all depends what the budget is and with the $1 - $2 billion they have allocated you could say $500m - $1b in acquisition costs (give or take).

In regards to your figures they did seem a bit off so I did some double checking, current exchange rates are not far off from historical average's so I'll add an extra 10% to bring it up to par, From the 363 million euro build cost allowing for exchange rate (plus 10%) would make it $607.5m AUD, When you consider a bulk buy for 2 LHD's cost us $3 billion and would likely cost more ordering a single vessel then on the financial view point no chance in hell of almost getting another LHD. On the crew figures the core ship crew of the Doorman is 150, while the Canberra class has 293 RAN personnel then no.

Im actually like the Doorman as it is the one ship that actually fits nicely into the very poor wording around it in the DWP. Fingers crossed that the Dutch run into financial troubles and we can buy it up (The longer we wait the more idiot pollies we get).

 

[John Newman]

Its quite a nice ship, but its not really that cheap, seems to have a large crew and while flexible isn't overtly so.

For 400 million euros and 150 crew you could almost get another LHD. Which has similar aviation fuel capabilities, some what less marine diesel storage.

I think its more likely to be a Aegir 18A or Cantribria.

Hi Mate, not saying that we should purchase a ship of the same type, but more thinking of the type of ship that could fit what the IIP was suggesting, eg, an "additional replenishment ship or logistics support vessel", if it turns out to be one or the other, then the above could probably be both, depends on the focus I suppose, either more on the replenishment side or the logistics support side.

As far as budget, the IIP is suggesting a range of $1B-$2B for that capability in the 2024-2030 time frame.

Separately in the IIP, it also says that Choules will be replaced around 2030 too:

"3.28 The Integrated Investment Program also provides for the replacement of this logistics support ship around 2030, as HMAS Choules has demonstrated the benefits of this type of vessel in extending the reach of the ADF and enhancing our capacity to deploy larger and better‑equipped forces. HMAS Choules, together with the two Canberra Class amphibious ships, will provide scalable and flexible options for greater capacity sea lift and amphibious operations. A third replenishment ship or additional logistics support ship will be considered in the late 2020s."


Certainly going to be some big 'tonnage' in the RAN by 2030, 2 x LHD, 2 x AOR, 1 x Choules (or her replacement) and the 1 x additional replenishment or logistics support ship!

 

[vonnoobie]

These are truck mounted systems - which is also curious as the chat is also about them being mounted as self protection artifacts on some of "our" oil rigs.

as govt doesn't "own" the oil rigs I'm more than curious to see what the CONOPs was to get these across the line.

There are also better ways to defend those assets

I'm not confident that they will survive past 2 terms of Govt

Deployable anti-ship missiles
4.34 Defence will acquire a new deployable land-based anti-ship missile
system from the mid-2020s. This new capability to engage ships from
land will enhance sea control and force protection for ADF deployments.
It could also contribute to protecting vital offshore assets such as oil and
natural gas platforms.

Oil and natural gas platforms are a secondary role if at all and there is no mention of them actually being stationed on board of them, That was media crap jumping the gun.

Not saying they wont be stationed on board them but i'd imagine under such a scenario we are already in a major war which does have a credible threat to mainland Australia, but not before.