Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

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,

Indeed you raise some interesting points, I broadly agree with you.

I don't see the combatant number rising from 12 in real terms. That number has been pretty constant for a long time. Surface combatants have significant crewing loads (unlike subs) so for us to operate 14-18 would be a big change. Arguably we would be better off going for a larger more capable ship than more ships. We would also need more docking and support structures to operate this many. If we wanted more capability, I would argue ditch Meko and the F-105, go straight to the Burkes (or Atago or Sejong the Great), for similar crewing, you get arguably a much more capable ship. IMO It would only be if we were already at the largest ship size (or at large scale war) would we consider upping the number of combatants.The larger ships could handle over 128+ VLS, even more powerful radars.

Australia has plenty of potential to "upgun" what we have and what we are planning.Going for a maximum VLS load out with what we have, and aim to acquire the most capable missiles in terms of SM-6, Tomahawk, SM-3, LRASM. I assume we may be able to fit more VLS to the AWD/Future frigate by way of removing the harpoon launchers and other compromises. An AWD/Frigate loaded with the most advanced munitions would be very credible. Limited really by the budget, but would still be cheaper than additional ships. Remembering there are very few navies that actually operate 12 new "Aegis class"(if that is a thing) ships, let alone have all the latest sharp sticks on board. In terms of hi tech Combat ship tonnage, the planned RAN is right up there.

I can understand the argument, I would assume we would at least be looking at reusing the 25mm guns on the bulk of the fleet 6-8 ships. 25mm gun and 2x .50cal.

Again, we already have them. The Spanish BAM, has a 76mm gun, 2 x 25mm guns and 2 x.50 cal guns. Also interestingly they intend to support Antarctic research from this vessel (ice strengthened!?). I guess we will see what happens with sea1180.

I wouldn't be so sure about re-cycling anything off the ANZACs. I heard renewed chatter about giving them away(!), with weapon systems (we maybe keep the missiles). Perhaps 2 to Indonesia, with an option to buy more (I would imagine NZ would get a look in too maybe even the Philippines or Malaysia). While we may not be able to increase front line ship numbers, we can give some of our older stuff to "friendly" nations.This instantly starts a close defence relationship between Australian and these other nations. Running modern common equipment light years ahead of what they currently have, literally 40-50 years from the future.

As you can see Australia could play a very vital role in the region. If the current 8 Anzacs find new homes within the region, 20 OPV's (eventually?), 12x 7000t front line ships with 12 new super subs (with life extended Collins hanging around until we are there). That significantly changes the region.Your basically doubling Australia's current capability and you end up with 20 more front line surface combatants in the region. If the region needs to respond to a crisis, a formidable multinational task force can be put together with common/compatible equipment.

We don't have to turn the OPV's into combatants (IMO). But they should be region leading OPV's. The OPV other nations OPV's turn to something that adds real capability to a mixed party. Part of that is fitting something decent to the front in line with what everyone else already has, at least to some. Again IMO. If required we might need to help free up the regions OPV for missions elsewhere.

We must stop concreting old radars and weapons onto Spectacle Island and start looking around. The time for dicking around has ended. Japan is not working with Australia on submarines, because it would make a nice trade deal. Australia should be doing the same with other nations in our region. Who can we help and how.We have to think about the bigger picture.

Personally I think the 76mm is the least controversial issue being raise here. If we aren't using them, we should give them away to someone who is.

BTW I am just discussing the issues, I find others opinions and posts very informative and useful.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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.

The other thing is that the majority of people just see one big phatship as a manifestation of capability - the reality is that although that ship physically projects an advance in national capability - there is a whole pile of other stuff which has also happened in parallel which is amplifying that ability.

the phatship happens to be the biggest widget that the media can focus on and the easiest representation of that which can be sound bitten.

that ship sailed within 3 days of the request from fiji - loaded up and without any hiccups

the planning behind that is pretty extraordinary when you compare how we did things in the past - we can thank Cosgrove and the post ET analysis which underpinned the enormous amount of goodwill that he was able to use with the Fed Govt of the day post ET.

 

[John Newman]

Indeed you raise some interesting points, I broadly agree with you.

I don't see the combatant number rising from 12 in real terms. That number has been pretty constant for a long time. Surface combatants have significant crewing loads (unlike subs) so for us to operate 14-18 would be a big change. Arguably we would be better off going for a larger more capable ship than more ships. We would also need more docking and support structures to operate this many. If we wanted more capability, I would argue ditch Meko and the F-105, go straight to the Burkes (or Atago or Sejong the Great), for similar crewing, you get arguably a much more capable ship. IMO It would only be if we were already at the largest ship size (or at large scale war) would we consider upping the number of combatants.The larger ships could handle over 128+ VLS, even more powerful radars.

Australia has plenty of potential to "upgun" what we have and what we are planning.Going for a maximum VLS load out with what we have, and aim to acquire the most capable missiles in terms of SM-6, Tomahawk, SM-3, LRASM. I assume we may be able to fit more VLS to the AWD/Future frigate by way of removing the harpoon launchers and other compromises. An AWD/Frigate loaded with the most advanced munitions would be very credible. Limited really by the budget, but would still be cheaper than additional ships. Remembering there are very few navies that actually operate 12 new "Aegis class"(if that is a thing) ships, let alone have all the latest sharp sticks on board. In terms of hi tech Combat ship tonnage, the planned RAN is right up there.

I can understand the argument, I would assume we would at least be looking at reusing the 25mm guns on the bulk of the fleet 6-8 ships. 25mm gun and 2x .50cal.

Again, we already have them. The Spanish BAM, has a 76mm gun, 2 x 25mm guns and 2 x.50 cal guns. Also interestingly they intend to support Antarctic research from this vessel (ice strengthened!?). I guess we will see what happens with sea1180.

I wouldn't be so sure about re-cycling anything off the ANZACs. I heard renewed chatter about giving them away(!), with weapon systems (we maybe keep the missiles). Perhaps 2 to Indonesia, with an option to buy more (I would imagine NZ would get a look in too maybe even the Philippines or Malaysia). While we may not be able to increase front line ship numbers, we can give some of our older stuff to "friendly" nations.This instantly starts a close defence relationship between Australian and these other nations. Running modern common equipment light years ahead of what they currently have, literally 40-50 years from the future.

As you can see Australia could play a very vital role in the region. If the current 8 Anzacs find new homes within the region, 20 OPV's (eventually?), 12x 7000t front line ships with 12 new super subs (with life extended Collins hanging around until we are there). That significantly changes the region.Your basically doubling Australia's current capability and you end up with 20 more front line surface combatants in the region. If the region needs to respond to a crisis, a formidable multinational task force can be put together with common/compatible equipment.

We don't have to turn the OPV's into combatants (IMO). But they should be region leading OPV's. The OPV other nations OPV's turn to something that adds real capability to a mixed party. Part of that is fitting something decent to the front in line with what everyone else already has, at least to some. Again IMO. If required we might need to help free up the regions OPV for missions elsewhere.

We must stop concreting old radars and weapons onto Spectacle Island and start looking around. The time for dicking around has ended. Japan is not working with Australia on submarines, because it would make a nice trade deal. Australia should be doing the same with other nations in our region. Who can we help and how.We have to think about the bigger picture.

Personally I think the 76mm is the least controversial issue being raise here. If we aren't using them, we should give them away to someone who is.

BTW I am just discussing the issues, I find others opinions and posts very informative and useful.

Mate, I liked your edit to your post, "make happier and friendlier", very good, ha ha!!

Again, agree with your points too, but as I said, just making my points and observations based on what the DWP and DIIP say, regardless of if I actually agree with those documents 100% or not.

As to the Anzacs, yes think there is a reasonable possibility that we could end up donating them to our 'friends' (he says grinding his teeth about giving away stuff for free), not to say that many, or most of those nations mentioned, haven't accepted or operated other nations 'hand me downs' (thinking of all the UK frigates that found new homes around the world in the past as an example).

But yes when you look at the 'big' picture in our region of interest, the appropriate donation, and ongoing use, of ships such as the Anzacs will take a load off us in terms of collective regional defence and cooperation.

Turning back to the OPV's, yes let's have them as 'regional leading' OPV's, but I suppose what does that actually mean? In they way they are flexible in their capabilities and how well they are operated? Or how well they are armed and ensuring they are appropriately armed for their particular role too?

In some respects if we do end up 'donating' the 8 Anzacs to our regional neighbours, wouldn't that in itself mean that there are more 'combat capable' ships in our region and that our new fleet of 12 OPV's don't have to be as highly combat capable too? As long as they are capable enough for the role they are given?

As for the 'big end of town' lets hope that the AWD's and Future Frigates get all the appropriate armaments that you suggest, the latest 'sharp sticks', SM-6, SM-3, LRASM, TLAM, etc.

I do wonder about the number of VLS on the AWD F-105 based ships and if the Future Frigates are based on the same hull, is their scope to increase further than the current 48 strike length VLS systems? You mention removing Harpoon, the problem there is, yes you can remove Harpoon from the decking, but it's what's underneath, you can't just insert another, say 16, strike length VLS if there isn't the space below to fit them without a major redesign of the ships layout.

One of the reasons I like the idea of the Meko A-400 is that the design allows for 64 strike length VLS (even though I understand the offering to the RAN is 48), we might not need 64 from day one, but if what I've read is true, then that particular ships has the capacity to grow it's strike length VLS by 16 per ship (or 144 over the class of nine over their life time).

Getting back to the OPV's, looking forward to the announcement of the design selected, and especially seeing what the actual configuration of the ships are!!

Cheers,

 

[alexsa]

Modern sighting systems such as EOD/EOS used with 25mm Typhoon also permits hot engines to be specifically targeted and potentially disabled with a single round through its center of mass. Still the danger of fire but this is minimized with a single round, it also (hopefully) permits personnel to be identified by heat signature, further preventing collateral damage.

If you are shooting a large slow speed diesel there will always be a risk of fire given the fuel injection system and the pressures it runs at. Exploding she'll will increase that risk.

Noting that where you are shooting at a merchant vessel there is always a risk of fire ....... You would have to assume that if you are shooting at them and aiming for the engine room you are essentially expecting casualties.

My point was you don't need a 57 or 78mm to stop a merchant ship ..... However, if you wanted to do it quickly the larger caliber round is going to do it.

 

[hauritz]

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?

BAE is currently building a number of new OPVs for the RN. Ships that I am not entirely sure that the RN even wants.

Who knows ... perhaps if Australia decided to go with something like the River class it could either buy, or lease, a couple of those ships from the Brits to fill in until the new ships started entering service.

 

[ngatimozart]

BAE is currently building a number of new OPVs for the RN. Ships that I am not entirely sure that the RN even wants.

Who knows ... perhaps if Australia decided to go with something like the River class it could either buy, or lease, a couple of those ships from the Brits to fill in until the new ships started entering service.

The River class don't look bad, but they don't have hangars which is a pity. I think that a hangar is a necessity in this part of the world regardless of whether you are in the hot end of the region or the cold end. IMHO a lease maybe a better option if there is an urgent requirement for OPVs before the Australian ones are built.

 

[ADMk2]

I do wonder about the number of VLS on the AWD F-105 based ships and if the Future Frigates are based on the same hull, is their scope to increase further than the current 48 strike length VLS systems? You mention removing Harpoon, the problem there is, yes you can remove Harpoon from the decking, but it's what's underneath, you can't just insert another, say 16, strike length VLS if there isn't the space below to fit them without a major redesign of the ships layout.

You may not be able to add extra strike length cells, but not all missiles (ie: ESSM) require strike length VLS cells and get by perfectly well with Tactical Length cells, however current plans see us loading ESSM into our precious few strike length cells...

It could be possible to free up to as many as 16x cells if room could be found ala - FFG-UP for tactical length VLS cells...

 

[Redlands18]

Mate, I liked your edit to your post, "make happier and friendlier", very good, ha ha!!

Again, agree with your points too, but as I said, just making my points and observations based on what the DWP and DIIP say, regardless of if I actually agree with those documents 100% or not.

As to the Anzacs, yes think there is a reasonable possibility that we could end up donating them to our 'friends' (he says grinding his teeth about giving away stuff for free), not to say that many, or most of those nations mentioned, haven't accepted or operated other nations 'hand me downs' (thinking of all the UK frigates that found new homes around the world in the past as an example).

But yes when you look at the 'big' picture in our region of interest, the appropriate donation, and ongoing use, of ships such as the Anzacs will take a load off us in terms of collective regional defence and cooperation.

Turning back to the OPV's, yes let's have them as 'regional leading' OPV's, but I suppose what does that actually mean? In they way they are flexible in their capabilities and how well they are operated? Or how well they are armed and ensuring they are appropriately armed for their particular role too?

In some respects if we do end up 'donating' the 8 Anzacs to our regional neighbours, wouldn't that in itself mean that there are more 'combat capable' ships in our region and that our new fleet of 12 OPV's don't have to be as highly combat capable too? As long as they are capable enough for the role they are given?

Cheers,

The Anzac will be 30yo when she is replaced by the "Melbourne*" in the mid 20s and with the promise of a continuous build, the later Anzacs could be a bit long in the tooth by the time they are replaced but there are a few poorer Navies that would take them ie : the Phillipines. The Kiwis would probably strip a couple for spare parts.

* my fearless prediction for 1st of class.

 

[Flexson]

The Anzac will be 30yo when she is replaced by the "Melbourne*" in the mid 20s and with the promise of a continuous build, the later Anzacs could be a bit long in the tooth by the time they are replaced but there are a few poorer Navies that would take them ie : the Phillipines. The Kiwis would probably strip a couple for spare parts.
* my fearless prediction for 1st of class.

Well considering the first Tobruk was a Destroyer and her sister was Anzac II and now
Anzac has had a class of ship (makes sense since NZ bought into the build) I'd like to see the Sea 5000 frigate named the Tobruk class. Although as a Tobruk II sailor and the grandson of a Rat of Tobruk I'm probably biased.

 

[Redlands18]

Well considering the first Tobruk was a Destroyer and her sister was Anzac II and now
Anzac has had a class of ship (makes sense since NZ bought into the build) I'd like to see the Sea 5000 frigate named the Tobruk class. Although as a Tobruk II sailor and the grandson of a Rat of Tobruk I'm probably biased.

Melbourne is the only one of the major names not accounted for at present (except Australia) and it was always basically a given that a 4th AWD would be named Melbourne. I think Tobruk will pop up pretty quickly again if not a FF than one of the AORs. Darwin & Newcastle will probably be early build FFs and i expect Anzac for a later FF. Other names we may see are Manoora,Kanimbla & River names. The OPVs i would expect the tradition of small city names to continue.

I would not complain about the Tobruk class but Melbourne would have to be the strong favourite and as a ex member of the Tobruk crew you are allowed to be biased and it's totally expected as I'm sure the many Navy members of this site would agree. I wouldn't actually mind seeing the Tobruk or one of the FFGs preserved at the Maritime Museam.

 

[Volkodav]

Well considering the first Tobruk was a Destroyer and her sister was Anzac II and now
Anzac has had a class of ship (makes sense since NZ bought into the build) I'd like to see the Sea 5000 frigate named the Tobruk class. Although as a Tobruk II sailor and the grandson of a Rat of Tobruk I'm probably biased.

Success, Stalwart, Swordsman and Tasmania were also former RAN destroyers and what about Waterhen? I could understand not using Voyager, although we have reused Canberra after her loss in dubious circumstances, but why not Vampire and Vendetta? The Attack class had pretty cool names too.

 

[swerve]

You may not be able to add extra strike length cells, but not all missiles (ie: ESSM) require strike length VLS cells and get by perfectly well with Tactical Length cells, however current plans see us loading ESSM into our precious few strike length cells...

It could be possible to free up to as many as 16x cells if room could be found ala - FFG-UP for tactical length VLS cells...

Tactical length? ESSM fits in the 1.5 metre shorter & much lighter self defence length.

 

[Redlands18]

Success, Stalwart, Swordsman and Tasmania were also former RAN destroyers and what about Waterhen? I could understand not using Voyager, although we have reused Canberra after her loss in dubious circumstances, but why not Vampire and Vendetta? The Attack class had pretty cool names too.

HAMS Waterhen is currently in use, it's the Naval Hospital at Mosman and dive trg centre i think. The State names have never been used other than the Tasmania and i would be surprised if they started now. The habit of using names starting with the same letter which is very much a RN tradition ie : Daring and Astute classes, seems to have dissapeared from The RAN.

I was somewhat surprised with some of the names used for the Anzacs, thought it would have seen Vampire,Vendetta and some of the River names used. Names of ships that are war losses are used with Sydney(2) & Perth(1) of course both war losses as well as Canberra and of course Armidale was given ist of class honours for her heroic actions in ww2.The 7 big city names have always had priority use for major fleet units and The Hobart class Sydney will actually be the 5th ship to bear the most decorated name in the RAN. The Canberra name was of course given the honour of being used by the USN after her loss at Salvo Isl. I'm not sure about using the name Vampire as she still exists though decommissioned, maybe a Current or former member of the RAN can help us out with that question.

Stalwart,Westralia,Supply would have to be leading contenders for the AORs as traditional names for auxiliaries. Australia of course would be kept for any future capital unit, so unlikely to be used again. The river names could be used for the OPVs as a honour to the many vessels with river names that had long careers in the RAN. The Torrens,Derwent,or Swan class would certainly be appropriate but are traditionally Frigate names so maybe not, might start getting people thinking they should at least be Corvettes.

 

[t68]

Success, Stalwart, Swordsman and Tasmania were also former RAN destroyers and what about Waterhen? I could understand not using Voyager, although we have reused Canberra after her loss in dubious circumstances, but why not Vampire and Vendetta? The Attack class had pretty cool names too.

Actually I would like to see the next gen frigate the Voyager class and Voyager first of class, I think it's an appropriate rememberance, along with Frank E Evenss as part the class. Not being Navy would that be superstitious?

 

[hauritz]

Actually I would like to see the next gen frigate the Voyager class and Voyager first of class, I think it's an appropriate rememberance, along with Frank E Evenss as part the class. Not being Navy would that be superstitious?

If the navy were really superstitious they would never name another ship HMAS Melbourne.

In fact they would never name a ship after Perth, Sydney, or Canberra.

 

[John Newman]

Talking of names that haven't been used for a while, here's some below:

* Bataan - Tribal Class Destroyer (sister of Arunta and Warramunga)

* Napier, Nepal (ex Norseman), Nestor, Nizam - N Class Destroyers (the other N Class, Norman, is currently one of the Huon Class Minehunters).

* Quadrant, Quality, Queenborough, Quiberon, Quickmatch - Q Class Destroyers (later converted to anti-submarine frigates).

* Vampire, Vendetta Voyager, Duchess - Daring Class Destroyers (already mentioned).

* Barcoo, Barwon, Lachlan, Macquarie - River Class Frigates (some other names of that class are currently in use for the Huon Class Minehunters).

* Condamine, Culgoa, Murchison, Shoalhaven - Bay Class Frigates

* Warrego - Grimsby Class Sloop (sisters were, Yarra, Parramatta and Swan).


Anyway, there's some examples of currently unused names.

 

[ASSAIL]

HAMS Waterhen is currently in use, it's the Naval Hospital at Mosman and dive trg centre i think. The State names have never been used other than the Tasmania and i would be surprised if they started now. The habit of using names starting with the same letter which is very much a RN tradition ie : Daring and Astute classes, seems to have dissapeared from The RAN.
.

Waterhen is the Minor War Vessel base in Sydney, home port to the MHCs and spare Landing craft.
HMAS Penguin is the Hydrographic school, Diving school and medical facility at Balmoral

As for naming vessels beginning with the same letter, as you say an RN tradition, we have many Australian naming traditions which should be used although there is nothing wrong with celebrating significant RAN ships with British names which have served in the past.

 

[Redlands18]

If the navy were really superstitious they would never name another ship HMAS Melbourne.

In fact they would never name a ship after Perth, Sydney, or Canberra.

I really don't know where it comes from about not naming ships after ones that have sunk. The RN is not afraid to use them ie : Ark Royal,Eagle,Hermes or the USN ie : Lexington,Yorktown,Wasp. The FFG Melbourne has had a fine incident free career in cluding numerous trips to the gulf. The Sydneys have continued to serve the RAN with great distinction. Sydney (3) in both Korea And Vietnam, Sydney (4) on many trips to the gulf. The DDG Perth saw service in Vietnam and the current Perth in the gulf. The former FFG Canberra saw service in the gulf.

 

[Volkodav]

Talking of names that haven't been used for a while, here's some below:

* Bataan - Tribal Class Destroyer (sister of Arunta and Warramunga)

* Napier, Nepal (ex Norseman), Nestor, Nizam - N Class Destroyers (the other N Class, Norman, is currently one of the Huon Class Minehunters).

* Quadrant, Quality, Queenborough, Quiberon, Quickmatch - Q Class Destroyers (later converted to anti-submarine frigates).

* Vampire, Vendetta Voyager, Duchess - Daring Class Destroyers (already mentioned).

* Barcoo, Barwon, Lachlan, Macquarie - River Class Frigates (some other names of that class are currently in use for the Huon Class Minehunters).

* Condamine, Culgoa, Murchison, Shoalhaven - Bay Class Frigates

* Warrego - Grimsby Class Sloop (sisters were, Yarra, Parramatta and Swan).


Anyway, there's some examples of currently unused names.

Also Psyche and Pioneer, turn of the century protected cruisers, also HMAS Encounter a slightly more modern protected cruiser, that served with the RAN during WWI. Then there was also HMAS Protector, a large gunboat, that served with the colonial navy in South Australia during the 1880s, reclassified as a cruiser and serving with the RAN in WWI and II.

 

[Redlands18]

Talking of names that haven't been used for a while, here's some below:

* Bataan - Tribal Class Destroyer (sister of Arunta and Warramunga)

* Napier, Nepal (ex Norseman), Nestor, Nizam - N Class Destroyers (the other N Class, Norman, is currently one of the Huon Class Minehunters).

* Quadrant, Quality, Queenborough, Quiberon, Quickmatch - Q Class Destroyers (later converted to anti-submarine frigates).

* Vampire, Vendetta Voyager, Duchess - Daring Class Destroyers (already mentioned).

* Barcoo, Barwon, Lachlan, Macquarie - River Class Frigates (some other names of that class are currently in use for the Huon Class Minehunters).

* Condamine, Culgoa, Murchison, Shoalhaven - Bay Class Frigates

* Warrego - Grimsby Class Sloop (sisters were, Yarra, Parramatta and Swan).


Anyway, there's some examples of currently unused names.

I have always been puzzled by the naming of some of the Anzacs, seems a bit all over the place. The first 5 are traditional escort names, then 2 minor city names and a major fleet unit name. Seemed a good chance to use historic names like Baatan, Vendetta, Voyager or River names. The river names have been used twice as a group with great distinction i would like to see us go back there with the OPVs.