Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

It's interesting to note how the Damen 1800 fits into an OPV format and many of you are discussing the fitted for but not with requirement we may be looking at. If you peruse the Damen website and look under the corvette section i.e. and OCV type vessel you will see the SIGMA CORVETTE 8313.

Very interesting design but probably heavier on manpower and designed more for speed than endurance. If you do read further down though the engine configuration can be modified to accommodate customers needs.

It has most of everything discussed ie main gun up to 76 mm, secondary gun mounts for eg 25mm. Helipad and hangar. Option for SeaRAM and option for SSMs.

Just a thought.

A bit heavy on the crewing in my personal view, but possibly that could be changed depending on the customer. Global Security have a reasonable write up on the SIGMA series worth the read and it does explain their modular approach which is interesting. Damen state that clients can build in their own shipyards hence there could be a good opportunity for technology transfer, because they apparently have navalised some commercial shipbuilding technologies and practices enabling reduction in build costs and time.

 

[Volkodav]

I have a more holistic view on modular mission systems than just fitting them to the OPVs, I believe we should ensure all future ocean going platforms are compatible with these mission modules enabling rapid reconfiguration of any platform we may send into harms way.

The no brainer modules to have would be CIWS and PDMS (RAM, CAMM, even ESSM), mine warfare, ASW, littoral (rapid fire auto cannon, Hellfire, perhaps Spike ER), hydrographic, special forces support, etc. The bigger the ship the more bays, or perhaps even a specific multimission deck and or bay capable of embarking and operating multiple mission modules.

Our new frigates could swap out ASW torpedoes on one side for a MCM ROV, a RHIBs could give way to ST90E, or Protector USV. Bays in the superstructure could mix and match Millennium Guns or RAM, perhaps Harpoon, NSM, Milas and/or Mk-56 VLS could be interchangeable to beef up capability where required over the baseline outfit. The new AORs could have some bays, primarily for defensive systems but maybe for support systems as well, i.e. MCM, hydrographic survey, special forces or anti swarm boats with the LHDs being refitted with mission bays as well.

We could take it a step further and develop a universal mast capable of rapidly swapping out modular sensor sets. The same mast on the new frigates, AORs and LHDs, potentially even the OPVs, able to be fitted with different sized head with appropriately scaled CAEFAR sets or a SPQ-9B, Vampir etc. Modular control rooms with multifunction consoles and space for additional modular consoles. Space for additional cabinets and these with modular racks. New ships could even be designed to take containerised diesel, or even gt generators to increase the ships power output, if the ship is designed with electric propulsors or even hybrid electric drives on the shafts these generators could even boost the platforms performance.

So many things we could do with just a bit of holistic thinking.

 

[Alf662]

I have a more holistic view on modular mission systems than just fitting them to the OPVs, I believe we should ensure all future ocean going platforms are compatible with these mission modules enabling rapid reconfiguration of any platform we may send into harms way.

The no brainer modules to have would be CIWS and PDMS (RAM, CAMM, even ESSM), mine warfare, ASW, littoral (rapid fire auto cannon, Hellfire, perhaps Spike ER), hydrographic, special forces support, etc. The bigger the ship the more bays, or perhaps even a specific multimission deck and or bay capable of embarking and operating multiple mission modules.

Our new frigates could swap out ASW torpedoes on one side for a MCM ROV, a RHIBs could give way to ST90E, or Protector USV. Bays in the superstructure could mix and match Millennium Guns or RAM, perhaps Harpoon, NSM, Milas and/or Mk-56 VLS could be interchangeable to beef up capability where required over the baseline outfit. The new AORs could have some bays, primarily for defensive systems but maybe for support systems as well, i.e. MCM, hydrographic survey, special forces or anti swarm boats with the LHDs being refitted with mission bays as well.

We could take it a step further and develop a universal mast capable of rapidly swapping out modular sensor sets. The same mast on the new frigates, AORs and LHDs, potentially even the OPVs, able to be fitted with different sized head with appropriately scaled CAEFAR sets or a SPQ-9B, Vampir etc. Modular control rooms with multifunction consoles and space for additional modular consoles. Space for additional cabinets and these with modular racks. New ships could even be designed to take containerised diesel, or even gt generators to increase the ships power output, if the ship is designed with electric propulsors or even hybrid electric drives on the shafts these generators could even boost the platforms performance.

So many things we could do with just a bit of holistic thinking.

Not much has been said about the sensor & communications suite for the OPV's. A CEAFAR mast for the OPV's makes sense, along with appropriate levels of communications gear for situational awareness such as link 11 (if it is still being used), Link 16 & possibly Link 22 if it is still alive. Good situational awareness and communication capability brings a lot of other capabilities into play so only the more simple weapons systems would be required which would mitigate the installation of the more advanced weapons systems such as VLS.

I like the idea of special forces & HADR capabilities, but these are only small ships so they are going to be very limited in what they can actually deliver.

Personally I don't think the OPV's would be able to cater to any craft greater than 11 meters.

 

[swerve]

Yes, using the same sensors (scaled down) as frigates is very sensible in terms of logistics & crew training, & datalinks are of obvious utility.

 

[40 deg south]

A few links from Janes that might be of interest on the uphill side of the Tasman:

Combined Maritime Forces seize weapons shipment off Oman | IHS Jane's 360

HMAS Darwin at work.

French Navy puts second FREMM frigate to the test with inaugural deployment | IHS Jane's 360

If I understand the article correctly, they have done a 5-month deployment before being commissioned. I wonder to what extent RAN will take a look at her with SEA5000 in mind?

MHI delivers Japan's seventh Souryu SSK | IHS Jane's 360

Japanese gov't buys a new Mitsubishi!

 

[40 deg south]

Some of the discussion has been about the fitout, capabilities, and integration issues with various weapon systems. Other parts of the discussion has been about potential concerns with the OPV, since some vessel selections are more limited, or are much more difficult to alter/increase the capability loadout after construction. The current RNZN OPV's being a prime example of such limited.

Please keep in mind (the active Kiwis on here should already know this) that I do not do this to have a go at the RNZN, but to illustrate how much forethought, or the lack of forethought (or possibly deliberate decisions based upon ideology...) can impact options. Like the ACPB's, the Kiwi OPV's are armed with a 25 mm as a main gun, with what appears to be compartment space immediately beneath the mounting. This immediately limits what the 25 mm gun could be upgunned to, or replaced with, since anything requiring deck penetration would require drydocking so the internals could be rearranged. It is also an open question on whether or not the space could be used for a different, non-penetrating gun, since some mountings require differently levels of reinforcement. Looking over the rest of the ship, there also is not really any place open to mount another 25 mm gun (meaning no 360 degree fire arc) or a CIWS. This means the RNZN OPV is sufficiently armed to damage and possibly sink civilian vessels after potentially extended periods of firing, as well as smallcraft which can be kept within the firing arc of the OPV's main gun. One of the other (IMO very big and/or deliberate) oversights is the hangar magazine, or rather, the lack of one. This basically means that while the OPV can have an embarked helicopter, it is essentially unarmed except for small arms which can be brought from other magazines within the ship. This very much limits just how useful an embarked helicopter can be, especially if patrolling in an area where an armed response would be advisable. Due to the lack of a magazine, the armed helicopter response it limited to perhaps a door-mounted MG, instead having options for a gun pod, AShM, Hellfire or other AGM, LWT, depth bombs, etc.

Tod

Very good points. It's worth bearing in mind that the NZ OPV's were very much built down to a price, by a government that concluded we were living in a 'benign strategic environment' (to quote the then-PM). Post-cold-war wishful thinking was at its peak, so the air combat wing was disestablished and a life-extension programme for the P-3Cs didn't bother to include updating their underwater surveillance capabilities.

The OPVs were seen as a cheap way of doing EEZ surveillance and general constabulary work, as well as flying the flag to our nearby Pacific neighbors.'Anti-piracy' was a phrase that hadn't been widely used in over a century, and the spectre of Islamic terrorism hadn't yet emerged.

(Incidentally, rumour has it that the ice strengthening has reduced weight margins to the point where discussion of significant up-gunning is probably irrelevant).

Now they are fully in service, the OPVs appear to do what they were designed for well and cheaply. As regular readers here may know, the just-retired NZ Chief of Navy was an energetic advocate, lobbying the government to sell off two (from 4 hulls) of the much more limited IPVs in order to fund a third OPV.

Australia's OPVs will, perhaps unfortunately, be designed for much more troubled times. That said, many of the fit-out suggestions here stretch the boundaries of what is plausible and affordable. I'd expect a much better sensor and comms fit-out than NZ, a somewhat larger main gun, and a helicopter weapons magazine. Go much beyond that and you are looking at moving into frigate territory.

To me, the point of an OPV is getting more hulls into the water with modest-sized crews to increase the navy's presence and handle low-end tasks, freeing up frigates and more specialised vessels for high-end operations.If OPVs aren't cheap and cheerful, why build them at all?

 

[Volkodav]

Something that needs to be realised when discussing ship types and capabilities is that they are very different these days to what they were in the 90s, let alone the 70s or 50s. If you go back to WWII and look at the roles and capabilities of a (then) modern light cruiser compared to the treat levels, what you have is a vessel not dissimilar in role and size to a modern GP frigate.

What made cruisers different from large destroyers were their fire controls, radars and dual purpose secondary batteries. You can add in command and flag facilities, as well as self sustainment capabilities with articifers and shipwrights etc. but overall a frigate in todays world replaces the light cruiser of WWII while destroyers generally speaking have replaced heavy and large cruisers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Something that needs to be realised when discussing ship types and capabilities is that they are very different these days to what they were in the 90s, let alone the 70s or 50s. If you go back to WWII and look at the roles and capabilities of a (then) modern light cruiser compared to the treat levels, what you have is a vessel not dissimilar in role and size to a modern GP frigate.

What made cruisers different from large destroyers were their fire controls, radars and dual purpose secondary batteries. You can add in command and flag facilities, as well as self sustainment capabilities with articifers and shipwrights etc. but overall a frigate in todays world replaces the light cruiser of WWII while destroyers generally speaking have replaced heavy and large cruisers.

kind of funny when you consider that the battleships ended up as air warfare destroyers in the pacific....

cruisers ended up being air defence - ie air warfare destroyer equivs

todays Arleigh Burkes started off as a baseline cruiser


its a moving feast

 

[Volkodav]

kind of funny when you consider that the battleships ended up as air warfare destroyers in the pacific....

cruisers ended up being air defence - ie air warfare destroyer equivs

todays Arleigh Burkes started off as a baseline cruiser


its a moving feast

With the exception of the term destroyer modern fleets have more in common with the fleets of the 1800s than the 1900s with individual frigates, sloops (think armed OPVs like Meteoro and Holland classes) and corvettes conducting independent operations including trade protection across the globe, while smaller gun boats and torpedo boats (patrol boats and FAC) patrol and defend coastlines. The massed battle fleets, the ships of the line are carrier battle and amphibious groups. Privateers and and raiders with their brigantines and similar small fast, hard to detect ships are the submarines.

 

[oldsig127]

Something that needs to be realised when discussing ship types and capabilities is that they are very different these days to what they were in the 90s, let alone the 70s or 50s. If you go back to WWII and look at the roles and capabilities of a (then) modern light cruiser compared to the treat levels, what you have is a vessel not dissimilar in role and size to a modern GP frigate.
.

HMAS Sydney (II) Standard displacement - 7,200 tons

Future Frigates - ~ 7,000 tonnes

It's a factor that isn't much considered, right down to the impact on berthing facilities vis a vis years ago

oldsig127

 

[gf0012-aust]

With the exception of the term destroyer modern fleets have more in common with the fleets of the 1800s than the 1900s with individual frigates, sloops (think armed OPVs like Meteoro and Holland classes) and corvettes conducting independent operations including trade protection across the globe, while smaller gun boats and torpedo boats (patrol boats and FAC) patrol and defend coastlines. The massed battle fleets, the ships of the line are carrier battle and amphibious groups. Privateers and and raiders with their brigantines and similar small fast, hard to detect ships are the submarines.

yep, people forget that hulls have evolved with the task.

the original destroyers were about 690 tons..... now they/re up to 10000 tonnes
the mission sets started off as torpedo boat killers.... look at them now. they're basically doing ww2 cruiser roles

 

[Volkodav]

kind of funny when you consider that the battleships ended up as air warfare destroyers in the pacific....

cruisers ended up being air defence - ie air warfare destroyer equivs

todays Arleigh Burkes started off as a baseline cruiser


its a moving feast

Exactly, many don't realise just how complex and capable these gun fire control systems could be, even pre radar, Friedman's Anti Aircraft Guns and Gunnery is an eye opener, then there is the big gun fire controls. The battleships were most valuable in air defence but the large (Alaskas) and heavy cruisers weren't far behind, even the RN cruisers with their four twin 4" and predictive fire controls were capable of driving off multiple attacks, often only succumbing after running out of ammunition.

RNZNs Didos were perhaps more capable air defence platforms than anything the RAN had until the Perths and Tartar in the late 60s (though the Darings and Battles were pretty good too, just not cruiser level. An old hand told me years ago that the Perths were more cruiser than destroyer in how we operated them, though he speculated that DLGs, whether modified Counties or USN types would have been better still. Same now, the Hobarts are our new cruisers, they will be good ships but no one can seriously doubt that the G&C Evolved design or a modified Burke wouldn't have been better still.

Interestingly the post war the UK saw light carriers as the true replacement for cruisers in trade protection and sea control; they would be escorted and supported by small cruiser sized Cruiser/Destroyers. The last UK cruiser project was called the Escort Cruiser that they came very close to building as well as new carriers in the early 60s then instead of carriers in the late 60s early 70s, they evolved into Command Cruisers, i.e. the Invincible Class, having started off looking more like the Italian Vittorio Veneto, evolving through something like Garabaldi or Hyuga, into the Invincible we know and love (though there were meant to be six of them, not just three).

The RAN is evolving into a very similar organisation to what it was (or was intended to be) pre WWII. a couple of heavy cruisers/AWDs, several light cruisers/new frigates and an assortment of destroyers and sloops (which were considered slow destroyers in many ways). Very interesting how things come around.

 

[Redlands18]

Exactly, many don't realise just how complex and capable these gun fire control systems could be, even pre radar, Friedman's Anti Aircraft Guns and Gunnery is an eye opener, then there is the big gun fire controls. The battleships were most valuable in air defence but the large (Alaskas) and heavy cruisers weren't far behind, even the RN cruisers with their four twin 4" and predictive fire controls were capable of driving off multiple attacks, often only succumbing after running out of ammunition.

RNZNs Didos were perhaps more capable air defence platforms than anything the RAN had until the Perths and Tartar in the late 60s (though the Darings and Battles were pretty good too, just not cruiser level. An old hand told me years ago that the Perths were more cruiser than destroyer in how we operated them, though he speculated that DLGs, whether modified Counties or USN types would have been better still. Same now, the Hobarts are our new cruisers, they will be good ships but no one can seriously doubt that the G&C Evolved design or a modified Burke wouldn't have been better still.

Interestingly the post war the UK saw light carriers as the true replacement for cruisers in trade protection and sea control; they would be escorted and supported by small cruiser sized Cruiser/Destroyers. The last UK cruiser project was called the Escort Cruiser that they came very close to building as well as new carriers in the early 60s then instead of carriers in the late 60s early 70s, they evolved into Command Cruisers, i.e. the Invincible Class, having started off looking more like the Italian Vittorio Veneto, evolving through something like Garabaldi or Hyuga, into the Invincible we know and love (though there were meant to be six of them, not just three).

The RAN is evolving into a very similar organisation to what it was (or was intended to be) pre WWII. a couple of heavy cruisers/AWDs, several light cruisers/new frigates and an assortment of destroyers and sloops (which were considered slow destroyers in many ways). Very interesting how things come around.

The line between what a Cruiser,Destroyer & Frigate is, has become very blurred. In truth they really are all GP escorts with a leaning towards a strength in one or 2 areas. The AWD will be more than capable of ASW missions and the Future Frigates capable of providing AD to other vessels just not at the ranges a AWD can. And both will have a solid ASuW and fire support capability. The days of the "Torpedo boat Destroyers" and 20kt Frigates set up to hunt Subs are long gone. Like modern combat aircraft the days of a truly specialist escort are gone.

 

[alexsa]

I could be mistaken about others, but I would advocate for Australia buying the rights for licensed production of addional/new Stanflex modules and the relevant interfaces and systems integration. The Danes already seem to have done much of the difficult work, figuring out how to have different systems utilize the same kind of connections and interface. It should be a much easier task for new examples of existing module designs to be produced, and then a perhaps somewhat easier task for Australia to develop new modules based off Australian kit and service needs.

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.

 

[t68]

Australia has yet to achieve a continuous build and will suffer another blackhole before anything else starts. The last chance to avoid that was the AOR program and before that a fourth AWD, neither the current or the previous government applied ink to paper so no work so yet another blackhole that will add cost and risk to the next project.

They could not have built the AOR due to the limitations of Techport as it now stand's, but they could have built 3x flight II Hobarts and quite posably also have in train another capabilty similer to the 90's Offshore Patrol Combatant by transfield and with CEA tech be scalable have similer systems for both.

OPC could become the regional combatant whilst next gen frigate becomes global.

 

[gf0012-aust]

OPC could become the regional combatant whilst next gen frigate becomes global.

the only way that you'd get a common regional combatant would be under a pacific boat model - and that won't work because of local politics.

consider the political differences of our immediate neighbours - let alone the ones on the northern side of the tropic of cancer

malays won't buy singaprean solutions, the indons don't want to spend the money. ET has other immediate priorities, singaporeans prefer israeli fitouts and gear due to their close relationship since independence, brunei, malaysia and indonesia wouldn't touch israeli gear for love of money... etc etc etc

 

[Todjaeger]

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.

My understanding of the Stanflex system used by a number of Danish warships, is that there are cooling, power, and data links at each module socket so that different weapon modules could be plugged into the same socket, depending on mission requirements. Further, IIRC the data connections between the sockets are based off the COTS 100bT Ethernet network standards. Similarly, the control stations aboard the vessels are able to all control the different modules. So a control station which on one mission might be used to control a 76 mm/62 cal. gun, on the next mission might be used to control the Harpoon AShM launcher.

My idea behind the licensed production, would be for both the modules, and the control stations (to allow for a control station to change roles), as well as the interfaces the Danes developed so that the various modules and control stations could 'talk' to the sensors and combat system. The Danes have IMO already done much of the difficult work, which Australia could make use of. There would still need to be some development and integration work depending on the overall combat system and sensor fitout which Australia would use, but it should not be quite as difficult or costly as starting from scratch.

As for ISO containerized systems, I am still not sold on them for combat systems, for a number of reasons. One of the first issues I see as there being sufficient deck space for an ISO containerized weapon to be mounted and have clearance to fire. The Stanflex container is ~3m x 3.5m x 2.5m, while a 20' ISO containerized system would be ~6m x 2.4m x 2.6m. A 6m stretch is a pretty large piece of real estate on a ship's deck, especially if such a container needed to be located somewhere to permit a clear launch area.

One of the other issues I see, is that there do not really seem to be other, containerized weapon systems in service yet.

Also like Volk, I feel that the RAN should start to include space for modules in basically all future RAN vessels. Large warships like the Future Frigate and/or follow-on destroyers, would still have a large amount of fixed weaponry like Strike length Mk 41 VLS cells, a 5"/127mm gun, etc. but also have space/weight available for a few additional modules to be added, depending on what the mission was. To a degree, the RAN already changes the fitout of vessels depending on deployment, with certain vessels fitted with Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS depending on class and deployment area. Also, some of the FFH's are fitted with two twin, or two quad Harpoon AShM launchers, again depending on deployment.

While I do not know how long it takes to add or change the Harpoon launcher on an FFH, I would imagine that it would take more than the ~30 minutes it takes to change a Stanflex container. And then there would be the various connection tests to make sure the launcher is useable, etc. If the RAN had a pool of appropriate modules in the future, a future DDG or FFG could dock and get a module or two of AShM, or ESSM, to supplement the permanently fitted weapons.

Taking the AWD as a base, and deleting the Harpoon launcher and two LWT launchers in favour of a trio of Stanflex mission modules (I am aware that the physical location might require some rearrangement), it would still be possible to have an AWD with the same overall degree of armament using modules. However, if an emphasis was needed on Air Defence, then in place of the Harpoons and LWT's, a trio of Mk 56 6-cell VLS twin-packed with ESSM would be possible. Such a potential missile loadout could be 48 SM-2 and 36 ESSM, or reduce some of the SM-2 in favour of quad-packed ESSM, perhaps 40 SM-2 and 68 ESSM.

Now I freely admit that I do not know if the Stanflex system would be the way to go, I am concerned that the mission modules which are supposed to be under development for the LCS do not seem to be doing well in terms of cost, weight, capability, etc. I do believe that the RAN should start to introduce modules into service, to allow more flexibility in terms of the missions RAN warships can carry out, I am just concerned that what the USN has been working on is not the appropriate route to take.

 

[Stampede]

Tod

Very good points.If OPVs aren't cheap and cheerful, why build them at all?

I like the cheap and cheerful comment.

Your correct............ it's easy to get carried away with OPV expectations.
I suggest many on this forum including myself would like to see the new OPV's have a significantly more capable operational capability than the previous generations of patrol boats.
Done correctly we will hopefully have a vessel that is future proofed to not only perform the traditional constablutary role, but also be an active contributor to some lower end hostilities.
It doesn't need to be a light frigate, but it certainly needs more than a 25mm gun.
Can we achieve this and still be cheap and cheerful, I don't know!

Regards S

 

[ngatimozart]

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.

The Stanflex system uses open source architecture for the consoles in the combat centre so the only limiting factor is the number of consoles. When they role change all they do is uninstall the unrequired software and install the new software. The ISO containers also come in a 10' x 8' footprint as well so that's not really an issue. It's just a matter of extra twist locks being incorporated.

I also agree with Tod and Volk about the need for a greater approach to modular systems in the RAN and I would say the RNZN as well.

 

[ngatimozart]

the only way that you'd get a common regional combatant would be under a pacific boat model - and that won't work because of local politics.

consider the political differences of our immediate neighbours - let alone the ones on the northern side of the tropic of cancer

malays won't buy singaprean solutions, the indons don't want to spend the money. ET has other immediate priorities, singaporeans prefer israeli fitouts and gear due to their close relationship since independence, brunei, malaysia and indonesia wouldn't touch israeli gear for love of money... etc etc etc

And the lot to your east talk the talk but are extremely reticent to spend the money. Short arms - very long pockets. :hitwall