Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Which sort of turns this debate about armament levels on the 12 future OPV's full circle.

Does anyone really believe that the OPV's will have a greater level of firepower above and beyond the ACPB's? I don't.

I would expect to see them fitted with a main 25mm Typhoon mount (or similar, maybe even recycled from the ACPB's) and a couple of 50 cal too, I'd be pretty surprised to see them with a 57mm, let alone a 76mm main gun, just can't see a 76mm happening.

The OPV's will certainly be much more capable ships that the ACPB's, much larger, greater endurance, greater range, etc, but to me that says more about the ACPB's not being up to the job at hand rather than an expectation of a more significantly heavily armed larger OPV and evolving them into OCV's.

At the very sharp teeth end of things, the RAN is going to end up with 12 large AWD's / Frigates (up from 11), and lets not forget the doubling in size of the submarine fleet too.

Do we actually need more 'combat' capable ships? And if the answer is yes, then what would be suitable to increase the combat capabilities of the RAN?

The most obvious answer to me would be to increase the size of the AWD / Frigate fleet beyond the current planned 12.

The next level down would be to introduce a class of Patrol Frigate / LCS type ships, and that would probably mean a class of ships of at least 3000t, be large enough to carry a reasonable amount and variety of armament types (and this is where the potential to 'recycle' equipment from the FFG's and possibly Anzacs could happen).

To me that is still a 'very big if' that is unlikely to happen, my other concern is that such a move could also see a reduction in the larger AWD / Frigate fleet to be able to afford that new capability.

Anyway, just my opinion!!

The elephant in the room is Chinas activities in the South China Sea. This is why twelve submarines and twelve high end surface combatants now (apparently) has bipartisan support. Its the reason regional navies, whose light combatants already had 35-120mm guns and anti ship missiles are now getting, or being replaced by vessels with SHORADs, ASW and MCM systems. Along side regional light combatants the Armidales look either incomplete or as if the are converted pleasure craft.

An OPV with a medium calibre gun in addition to one or more Typhoons (or Mini Typhoons) and various modular systems, that could potentially include SHORAD or a naval point defence missile, will be able to operate throughout our region in anything short of a major conflict while something no better armed ir equiped than an Armidale will not.

There was a perceived need for well armed light combatants (corvettes/sloops/light frigates/FACs) going back to when the last of the Bathursts, Rivers and Bays retired and things have gotten worse not better. The plan when the OPC/Corvette was cancelled was to upgrade all six FFGs with SM-2, ESSM and an advanced new combat system (FFGUP) while also upgrading the ANZACS with AEGIS and SPY-1F, SM-2 as well as ESSM (ANZAC WIP) for fourteen high end combatants, instead of eight tier 1, eight tier 2 and eight to twelve tier 3. While a reduction in numbers this was an increase in capability was capped of with the decision to acquire three or four AWDs to replace the older FFGs.

With so many high end ships and the additional capability the Super Sea Sprites were intended to bring it was thought we could get away with patrol boats instead of corvettes. WIP proved unworkable, FFGUP delivered nowhere new the expected capability, Super Sea Sprite was cancelled and the Armidales have been extremely disappointing meaning we never achieved what was seen as the necessary minimum capability prior to Chinas unexpectedly assertive expansion. I would say the is evey justification in arming the OPVs with something better than a 25mm Typhoon and a couple of 50cals.

 

[Redlands18]

The elephant in the room is Chinas activities in the South China Sea. This is why twelve submarines and twelve high end surface combatants now (apparently) has bipartisan support. Its the reason regional navies, whose light combatants already had 35-120mm guns and anti ship missiles are now getting, or being replaced by vessels with SHORADs, ASW and MCM systems. Along side regional light combatants the Armidales look either incomplete or as if the are converted pleasure craft.

An OPV with a medium calibre gun in addition to one or more Typhoons (or Mini Typhoons) and various modular systems, that could potentially include SHORAD or a naval point defence missile, will be able to operate throughout our region in anything short of a major conflict while something no better armed ir equiped than an Armidale will not.

There was a perceived need for well armed light combatants (corvettes/sloops/light frigates/FACs) going back to when the last of the Bathursts, Rivers and Bays retired and things have gotten worse not better. The plan when the OPC/Corvette was cancelled was to upgrade all six FFGs with SM-2, ESSM and an advanced new combat system (FFGUP) while also upgrading the ANZACS with AEGIS and SPY-1F, SM-2 as well as ESSM (ANZAC WIP) for fourteen high end combatants, instead of eight tier 1, eight tier 2 and eight to twelve tier 3. While a reduction in numbers this was an increase in capability was capped of with the decision to acquire three or four AWDs to replace the older FFGs.

With so many high end ships and the additional capability the Super Sea Sprites were intended to bring it was thought we could get away with patrol boats instead of corvettes. WIP proved unworkable, FFGUP delivered nowhere new the expected capability, Super Sea Sprite was cancelled and the Armidales have been extremely disappointing meaning we never achieved what was seen as the necessary minimum capability prior to Chinas unexpectedly assertive expansion. I would say the is evey justification in arming the OPVs with something better than a 25mm Typhoon and a couple of 50cals.

With the edition of an Aviation capability the OPVs will possess some useful war fighting capability which the Armidales,Fremantles,Attacks never had. But if you don't arm them with at least the ability to stand up to a enemy OPV/OCV or defend itself against a Maritime Helicopter armed with short range ASMs then they are going to be all but useless in a shooting war or dependant on a major fleet unit for defence. Having said all that i have this sinking feeling that John will be proved right.

 

[Volkodav]

With the edition of an Aviation capability the OPVs will possess some useful war fighting capability which the Armidales,Fremantles,Attacks never had. But if you don't arm them with at least the ability to stand up to a enemy OPV/OCV or defend itself against a Maritime Helicopter armed with short range ASMs then they are going to be all but useless in a shooting war or dependant on a major fleet unit for defence. Having said all that i have this sinking feeling that John will be proved right.

We ordered 11 Super Sea Sprites after the cancellation of the corvettes to provide single helicopter flights for the eight ANZACs. Had the corvettes gone ahead the order would likely have been increased to about thirty to provide flights for the ANZACs and corvettes. With twelve new OPVs there is a need to either acquire additional examples of an existing helicopter type, a new type all together, posinly even a helicopter type UCAV, or a mix of additional new and/or existing helicopters and/or UCAVs.

The Sea Axe and similar sized designs can operate MRH90 sized helicopters, making the Romeo viable, which would also make Sierra an option (better suited for the intended role as well as cheaper to acquire, with logistical comparability to the Romeo). A smaller cheaper maritime / naval helicopter such as the Lynx Wildcat, Panther or similar could do, as could a marinised but non naval type (similar to our use of the Squirrel onboard the FFGs), or something like the Firescout or Camcopter. Lots of different options but I do hope it is looked at holistically with other ADF requirements, i.e. a joint fleet of Sierras or Wildcats, plus Firescout for example, providing support for the OPVs, SOF and the rest of the ADF.

 

[King Wally]

Sorry guys but Johns right.

They are going to end up simply more capable ACPB's. The mission scope likely won't change much and they certainly seam unlikely to ever end up in a real combat role. Their purpose would appear to be to free up the REAL combat assets to do their high end job while the OPV does the less glamorous border patrol stuff within the local region.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry guys but Johns right.

They are going to end up simply more capable ACPB's. The mission scope likely won't change much and they certainly seam unlikely to ever end up in a real combat role. Their purpose would appear to be to free up the REAL combat assets to do their high end job while the OPV does the less glamorous border patrol stuff within the local region.

CREF my post ages ago on border force roles

they are going to be basically green/grey roles, they aren't major surface combatamts

 

[vonnoobie]

I'd say its a typo. all the different loading shots add up to way more than 50t

The HADR plans for an event like this include significant material - 50t is only a partial C17 loadout

It is a type, They are off by a whopping 10t.

Australian support to Fiji expands, Media release, 27 Feb 2016, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, The Hon Julie Bishop MP

Makes me wonder why the sent the Canberra when the HMAS Choules would have managed the same. Is the Choules on deployment elsewhere atm?

 

[40 deg south]

Yes, the Canberra and Canterbury will be there for a while rebuilding basic infrastructure to help the locals restart. I believe that Canterbury has been tasked to one of the outer islands hence it clearing a Bunnings depot. This is already been stated as NZs largest HADR Op offshore and I think that it has only just started.

I agree that it will be interesting how this is being reported in Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu and the Cook Islands.

I've seen newspapers and internet forums from Samoa and Tonga in the last week - extensive coverage of the Fiji response and NZ/Aust participation. Also see the various NZDF facebook pages - lots of supportive comments from Fijians both in NZ and elsewhere.

NZ' foreign minister made a lightning visit to Fiji on Monday, taking a leaf out of Julie Bishops playbook in Vanuatu. Given the pretty sour relationship between Fiji and NZ/Aust for the past decade, this will hopefully prove a turning point towards closer ties.

 

[40 deg south]

I

Its being widely reported. But other reports mention its 50 tonnes of equipment, not supplies. Machinery, generators, water storage/purifiers etc. It seems that they aren't that interested in loading Canberra up to the gills with bunnings crap, but use it as a mobile base. We have already deployed 84 tonnes via airlift.

Its presence has been felt.

HMAS Canberra arrives to help in rehabilitation work - Fiji Times Online
HMAS Canberra arrives to rebuild Koro after Cyclone Winston | Fiji One
Fijivillage :: Fiji’s Home on the World Wide Web
https://www.newswire.com.fj/nationa...ssel-hms-canberra-out-to-rebuild-our-islands/

She has a lot of G wagons and trucks so its not like she is just loaded with just containers. She will arrive with everything she needs to distribute. I would imagine they will become a pretty visible presence around Fiji. More importantly they are there to rebuild and reconnect, not just hand out tarps.

Very interesting to see how this is getting reported around the pacific. Tonga, PNG, within Fiji.

Agree that 50 tonnes sounds like a total for only one category of goods, and I doubt would even cover the tonnage of vehicles on board. Certainly wasn't intending to be critical of the RAN, in case anyone took it that way.

It may be that NZ is compensating for our lack of heavy airlift by ramping up the amount of sea freight, even at the cost of delaying departure. Especially since Canterbury is reportedly tasked with work in the northern islands, far away from the warehouses of Suva and Nadi.

 

[StingrayOZ]

To me that is still a 'very big if' that is unlikely to happen, my other concern is that such a move could also see a reduction in the larger AWD / Frigate fleet to be able to afford that new capability.

Anyway, just my opinion!!

I don't think the AWD/Frigate numbers are going anywhere (up or down). I don't ever see Australia really putting more than 12-14 surface combatants. Sustainable builds, weapons, crews, systems, etc. However, if I was looking at replacements of the AWD I would expect them to be bigger (Atago type?)

I don't see a capable OPV ever infringing on a AWD/Frigate and certainly not in a combat role. All that is being suggested is to use existing weapons that currently exist in the RAN inventory, either currently on ships or in storage. Both Damen and Natavia make ships that feature 76mm guns and 76mm guns have been installed on platforms small than the Armidales (Japans Hayabusa-class patrol boat, SK Gumdoksuri-class patrol/SG Fearless-class patrol vessel is slightly larger than a Armidale) that are operated by our allies in our region and the region we wish seek to patrol. Other countries that operate an OPV with a 76mm include Germany, Denmark, Holland, Spain and the US (uses them on cutters) etc. So I don't think this is re-writing capability or doctrine.

While I'm sure what is driving this is that the current patrol boats are just not capable enough I find it hard to believe Australia will never, ever find itself operating in waters along side Singapore, the US, with their OPV's which were seen fit to be so equipped.

If we talk about the region, playing a bigger role in it. Then why not address it. I would imagine Australia could make a very significant contribution to anti piracy in the region in conjunction with Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia around the greatest piracy hotspot in the world that directly affects our shipping. Previously with the Armidales we were really not suited to play a part. If we now have 14-20 2000t OPV's, with potentially more OPV tonnage (and one most capable platforms) than the other nations combined.

Not only that tighter training, operations between Indonesia, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia are going to bring us closer together in other areas.

Or are we going to station them 50km off the Australian coastline to chase North Korean drug ships up and down the NSW/Victoria boarder and greet people smugglers as they tie up at Perth.

Surely the better use is deploy them in areas before they start roaming Australian waters. Working with multinations to solve problems before they end up on our door step. Piracy, terrorism, people smuggling, illegal fishing, etc. If we can help solve some of these problems they in turn solve our problems.

Of course such collaboration won't come instantly, and is not assured, but should be considered.

As we are seeing in Fiji, ships are the physical manifestation of policy and talk. I sometimes think Australia underestimates the affect we can have. The LHD and OPV bring security, order, law throughout the region. Not by directly challenging China (neither ever will), but working with all stakeholders (inc China) to provide the resources to secure it. The OPV's will perhaps be more critical than the LHD's in building relationships with other nations and overall region security.

If they are going to be tasked exactly the same as the Armidales, we might as well just get slightly better Armidales, get rid of the LHD's and can the future frigates. New capability will always open new opportunities.

While China may be very interested in our destroyers, frigates and subs, the rest of the region will be most interested in the OPV's and the LHDs.

 

[Redlands18]

It is a type, They are off by a whopping 10t.

Australian support to Fiji expands, Media release, 27 Feb 2016, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, The Hon Julie Bishop MP

Makes me wonder why the sent the Canberra when the HMAS Choules would have managed the same. Is the Choules on deployment elsewhere atm?

The Canberra was sent because she is currently the ship that is in full operational mode. The Choules would be in refit mode. Adelaide would still be very much in work up mode. The Choules and her crew would be having a well deserved rest at present as we have been down to only 2 Amphibs for the last 4 years.

 

[John Newman]

Sorry guys but Johns right.

They are going to end up simply more capable ACPB's. The mission scope likely won't change much and they certainly seam unlikely to ever end up in a real combat role. Their purpose would appear to be to free up the REAL combat assets to do their high end job while the OPV does the less glamorous border patrol stuff within the local region.

I don't see it so much that I'm right and others are wrong, it's just more about what I see in front of me reading the DWP and DIIP and how I've interpreted it.

The new OPV's are going to be a major leap in capability over the ACPB's, but there is nothing that I can see in either of those two documents, mentioned above, that leads me to a conclusion that there is going to be a significant shift in the roles they will perform as compared to the ACPB's.

And as GF said, "they are going to be basically green/grey roles, they aren't major surface combatants".

Certainly they will have far more range, endurance and posses greater multirole capabilities that the PB's they are replacing, but I don't see anything to indicate that 'combat' is part of their future roles, as appears is currently planned for them.

The DIPP does say:

"The acquisition of a class of patrol vessels with greater capacity than the Armidale Class should enable the destroyer and frigate force to concentrate on higher tempo, higher risk tasks beyond Australia's coastal areas."


The way I read that is they will be more capable with greater endurance, etc, and allow the big dogs (Destroyers and Frigates) to go and do their thing much further afield, it doesn't say anything about arming them to a much higher level than what they are replacing.

Realistically, what would the armament of the OPV's be? Most likely a main gun and a couple of 50 cals and nothing else.

I'd say that the 50 cals were a certainty, the question is about the main gun, 25mm Typhoon (as could be carried over from the ACPB's), a 57mm or 76mm main gun.

If we are talking about Goldilocks and the three bears here, maybe it's a case the 25mm is too light, the 76mm is too heavy and the 57mm is just right.

But I still suspect, initially at least, that the 25mm will be carried over from the ACPB's and if the situation warrants it in the future, then maybe we might see something a bit more capable, a bit more punch.

Anyway, my comments and opinion are based on my interpretation of the DWP and DIIP, not saying I'm right or others are wrong.

Cheers,

 

[Stampede]

Which sort of turns this debate about armament levels on the 12 future OPV's full circle.

Does anyone really believe that the OPV's will have a greater level of firepower above and beyond the ACPB's? I don't.

I would expect to see them fitted with a main 25mm Typhoon mount (or similar, maybe even recycled from the ACPB's) and a couple of 50 cal too, I'd be pretty surprised to see them with a 57mm, let alone a 76mm main gun, just can't see a 76mm happening.

Anyway, just my opinion!!

Thanks John

Looking at the wording in the DWP you may be correct

4.35 The Government will acquire 12 new offshore patrol vessels that will
provide greater reach and endurance than the existing Armidale Class
patrol boat fleet. The new vessels will be capable of undertaking
several different roles including enhanced border protection and patrol
missions over greater distances than is currently possible with the
existing patrol boat fleet, with construction to start in 2018. .

Like Volk I'm all for a larger 76mm gun upfront and all that it brings to the table.
No one wants to take a knife to a gun fight. But a larger cal gun on a ship with a usable flight deck and hanger with a medium sized heliicopter will give so many more options to the ADF and government than just going with a lightly armed patrol vessel. I just can't help but feel this would be a missed opportunity of having a more flexible fleet.
Surely the price difference is not the problem. We are a rich nation that can afford this option. It would be absolute folly not to think bigger than the "Oh let's just replace the Armidales with a bigger boat mind set."...........................The next OPV should be tasked with more than just contabulatory duties.

A dozen new destoyer sized ships are on the horizon and yes who would'nt want more. But this will be an impressive capability compared to the past and I'm sure for a nation of our size an appropriate investment in fleet numbers and systems.
As to the next tier down what's it to be?

80 plus metres of ship with hanger / flight deck and medium gun.

or

70 / 80 metres of ship, small UAV deck and 25mm gun.

Not looking at a corvette,
Not looking at sending an OPV to a gun fight I can't win.
Just trying to get the most out of a new class of ship.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

I don't see it so much that I'm right and others are wrong, it's just more about what I see in front of me reading the DWP and DIIP and how I've interpreted it.

Anyway, my comments and opinion are based on my interpretation of the DWP and DIIP, not saying I'm right or others are wrong.

Cheers,

John

None of us are right or wrong
Were just have a chat about stuff that interests us.

Regrads S

 

[John Newman]

I don't think the AWD/Frigate numbers are going anywhere (up or down). I don't ever see Australia really putting more than 12-14 surface combatants. Sustainable builds, weapons, crews, systems, etc. However, if I was looking at replacements of the AWD I would expect them to be bigger (Atago type?)

I don't see a capable OPV ever infringing on a AWD/Frigate and certainly not in a combat role. All that is being suggested is to use existing weapons that currently exist in the RAN inventory, either currently on ships or in storage. Both Damen and Natavia make ships that feature 76mm guns and 76mm guns have been installed on platforms small than the Armidales (Japans Hayabusa-class patrol boat, SK Gumdoksuri-class patrol/SG Fearless-class patrol vessel is slightly larger than a Armidale) that are operated by our allies in our region and the region we wish seek to patrol. Other countries that operate an OPV with a 76mm include Germany, Denmark, Holland, Spain and the US (uses them on cutters) etc. So I don't think this is re-writing capability or doctrine.

While I'm sure what is driving this is that the current patrol boats are just not capable enough I find it hard to believe Australia will never, ever find itself operating in waters along side Singapore, the US, with their OPV's which were seen fit to be so equipped.

If we talk about the region, playing a bigger role in it. Then why not address it. I would imagine Australia could make a very significant contribution to anti piracy in the region in conjunction with Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia around the greatest piracy hotspot in the world that directly affects our shipping. Previously with the Armidales we were really not suited to play a part. If we now have 14-20 2000t OPV's, with potentially more OPV tonnage (and one most capable platforms) than the other nations combined.

Not only that tighter training, operations between Indonesia, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia are going to bring us closer together in other areas.

Or are we going to station them 50km off the Australian coastline to chase North Korean drug ships up and down the NSW/Victoria boarder and greet people smugglers as they tie up at Perth.

Surely the better use is deploy them in areas before they start roaming Australian waters. Working with multinations to solve problems before they end up on our door step. Piracy, terrorism, people smuggling, illegal fishing, etc. If we can help solve some of these problems they in turn solve our problems.

Of course such collaboration won't come instantly, and is not assured, but should be considered.

As we are seeing in Fiji, ships are the physical manifestation of policy and talk. I sometimes think Australia underestimates the affect we can have. The LHD and OPV bring security, order, law throughout the region. Not by directly challenging China (neither ever will), but working with all stakeholders (inc China) to provide the resources to secure it. The OPV's will perhaps be more critical than the LHD's in building relationships with other nations and overall region security.

If they are going to be tasked exactly the same as the Armidales, we might as well just get slightly better Armidales, get rid of the LHD's and can the future frigates. New capability will always open new opportunities.

While China may be very interested in our destroyers, frigates and subs, the rest of the region will be most interested in the OPV's and the LHDs.

Firstly I wasn't suggesting that a more capable OPV would infringe on the numbers of ADW/Frigates, I was saying that 'if' the Government, in the future, was looking to have more 'combat' capable ships, that the obvious choice would be a larger number of AWD/Frigates.

I then said the next level down might be a class of Patrol Frigate / LCS type ships, and this is where the potential to 'recycle' equipment from the FFG's and possibly Anzacs could happen, (certainly more than just recycling the main gun itself). This is what I was referring to as potentially infringing on the AWD/Frigate numbers, not an 'up armed' OPV fleet, but of course that was a 'what if'.

Back to the OPV's, don't disagree that they could be better armed and have a broader role, it's just that the only 'better' armament for the OPV's that I can realistically see is the main gun.

Yes we could recycle the 76mm from the FFG's (and purchase another half a dozen too), or we could recycle the 25mm Typhoon from the ACPB's and not have to purchase any additional main guns, or they could be equipped with new 57mm too.

But realistically all I can see from what I've read is that the new OPV's will be more capable, not 'combat' capable.

Do I think that is right or wrong? Do I think we should have OCV's instead of OPV's? Well that doesn't really matter, just interpreting what I see the DWP and DIIP is suggesting is all.

Cheers,

 

[John Newman]

John

None of us are right or wrong
Were just have a chat about stuff that interests us.

Regrads S

Mate,

I wasn't the one that said I was right, someone else did.

I was just giving my opinion on my interpretation of the DWP and DIIP, nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing wrong with suggesting what the DWP could have said, or what we think was missing or should have been different or what interests all of us (I can think of a bunch of things that are missing from the DWP too and what could possibly have been).

Cheers,

 

[ASSAIL]

Thanks John

Looking at the wording in the DWP you may be correct

4.35 The Government will acquire 12 new offshore patrol vessels that will
provide greater reach and endurance than the existing Armidale Class
patrol boat fleet. The new vessels will be capable of undertaking
several different roles including enhanced border protection and patrol
missions over greater distances than is currently possible with the
existing patrol boat fleet, with construction to start in 2018. .

Like Volk I'm all for a larger 76mm gun upfront and all that it brings to the table.
No one wants to take a knife to a gun fight. But a larger cal gun on a ship with a usable flight deck and hanger with a medium sized heliicopter will give so many more options to the ADF S

The crux here is "capable of undertaking several different roles...."
What roles? I would hope that they are capable of being deployed on anti piracy patrols, be capable of supporting Special operations, be capable of deploying to the Pacific on policing roles and in expedition type ops, be capable of mopping up after the hot stuff and supporting the fleet train.
To that end I would hope they would be capable of fitting both a larger caliber gun and have the targeting ability or network to deploy their armed aviation assets when required.

In an earlier post I had stated that a small number of OPVs be fitted with the redundant 76mm to relieve the Combattants on anti piracy patrols, in the same way that some of our allies have, such as Spain, although the BAM Metoro is larger but not by much. The remainder should be fitted with the preverbial "for but not with" making weight and space allowances.

However if the "several different roles" relates to hydrographic support, harbour defence or other Coast Guard activities then a Typhoon, 50 cal is more than enough

 

[gf0012-aust]

It is a type, They are off by a whopping 10t.

Australian support to Fiji expands, Media release, 27 Feb 2016, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, The Hon Julie Bishop MP

Makes me wonder why the sent the Canberra when the HMAS Choules would have managed the same. Is the Choules on deployment elsewhere atm?

availability

- choules is in maint, adelaide is still trialling and not "owned" by RAN yet

the tonnage quoted is about specific cargo - it ignores the 3 helos, 750+ personnel, plant, desal, gwagens, trucks etc.....

plus she has a fully functional surgery and can use her bum boats to deliver into difficult areas

on top of which, she is fully decked out as a floating command centre - so can co-ordinate all resources and stay in contact with oz based HQJOC, DFAT, AFP staff

 

[Redlands18]

availability

- choules is in maint, adelaide is still trialling and not "owned" by RAN yet

the tonnage quoted is about specific cargo - it ignores the 3 helos, 750+ personnel, plant, desal, gwagens, trucks etc.....

plus she has a fully functional surgery and can use her bum boats to deliver into difficult areas

on top of which, she is fully decked out as a floating command centre - so can co-ordinate all resources and stay in contact with oz based HQJOC, DFAT, AFP staff

This is why we are spending $3bn on devoloping this capability, so we can put a huge amount of resources into an emergency like this at short notice. Compare this to Australias response to the Tsunami aftermath. With C-17s able to respond in less than a day loaded with 50+ Tons per aircraft and then the Canberra with all the aid she is carrying in just 11 days. This is a massive leap in capability and shows already she is worth every cent.

 

[weegee]

Hi Guys it's been interesting to see what everyone has had to say re the OPV's. I was just wondering from an uneducated defence enthusiast. Will the RAN have a look at the OPV's that NZ are using? They were built by BAE in Williamstown weren't they? What has been their experience with them so far? I think early on they had some issues from memory.

From an outsiders point of view they look like what we are after. They have a flight deck and can accommodate a chopper, they have some armament by ways of a 25mm etc tonnage seems right and they were built here in the first place.

That brings me to my other question too, If the OPV can carry a chopper is they chopper likely to be armed? if so wouldnt that negate some of the need to beef up the OPV's defences?

 

[John Newman]

Hi Guys it's been interesting to see what everyone has had to say re the OPV's. I was just wondering from an uneducated defence enthusiast. Will the RAN have a look at the OPV's that NZ are using? They were built by BAE in Williamstown weren't they? What has been their experience with them so far? I think early on they had some issues from memory.

From an outsiders point of view they look like what we are after. They have a flight deck and can accommodate a chopper, they have some armament by ways of a 25mm etc tonnage seems right and they were built here in the first place.

That brings me to my other question too, If the OPV can carry a chopper is they chopper likely to be armed? if so wouldnt that negate some of the need to beef up the OPV's defences?

Putting aside if the NZ OPV is the appropriate design or not (and there are a number of offerings in this size/class of ships), a number of those designs have a flight deck, but not all have a hangar, that is ok if the flight deck is to be used as a 'lily pad' and an aircraft is not intending to be based on board (which means if it was it would be subject to adverse sea and weather conditions), anyway, the size, layout and dimensions are certainly within the ballpark for the RAN's new OPV's.

If you have a read of the DWP, there is a requirement for the OPV's to operate a UAV, which obviously a hangar would be good for storage and maintenance, but there is no requirement for a helicopter to be regularly based on the OPV's and in general terms there is no project to acquire and equip the OPV's with a helicopter capability, there is no "we are going to purchase a fleet of X number of helicopters to operate off the OPV's".

Will the OPV's have an aviation capability? It would appear so, will the OPV's have a helicopter regularly deployed? It would appear not (and armed or not too).