Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

The Brunei version has mounted a Mk110 57mm and I believe the flight deck is large enough to install a concertina style/temporary hanger.

So if the RAN version has a similar structure to the Brunei version then the option to upgun if needed in the future could be there.

Any thoughts on the idea of a 'mini-LPD'?

The idea first occurred to me when I read about one of the patrol boats, an ACPB I believe, that was deployed to support ADF and AFP personnel. IIRC it was to the Solomons as part of Operation Anode. From what I recall, part of the reason behind having a RAN vessel was to assist personnel getting around between the islands. Having a somewhat larger vessel that could act as a sort of 'mothership' for RHIB's and LCP's, as well as having facilities to support and operate a helicopter, an infirmary, C4ISR facilities, etc. seems like it might have been useful.

 

[John Newman]

Light frigates are ideal for many of our neighbours, think Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and others in the SE Asian archiapelagos. In this situation, range and endurance are limited, pirate activity is rife and growing and SLOC are concentrated into very small geographic areas and little Bluewater Naval activity is possible, its dangerous for major combatants exposed in these scenarios.
The USN has approached this problem by building the LCS fleet and should the RAN be tasked away from the current amphibious role it may be beneficial to consider light and agile littoral warfare units. In the meantime it makes more sense to forge ever closer ties to our allies to the north who are well equipped for that task

A bit of sanity, thank you.

No criticism of anyone here, we are all entitled to our two cents worth, but....

I think we are all too focused on staring at "the dot" on the wall, maybe it's time to take a step back and look at "all the dots" on the wall (back the bus up, get out and look at the view!).

We can all argue until the cows come home that the OPV's are not as highly armed as some would like, they are not OCV's they are OPV's, big fat patrol boats, but also far more capable than has been in the past, but that's their job.

No one nation in our region, or wider region, will possess all the possible combination of capabilities, no one nation has the budget for such things to happen.

So what is the solution?

We work closely with our friends, near and far, and we provide what each of us can provide, for the betterment of all.

I don't really care if our OPV's are not highly armed, as long as they are fit for purpose, other friends and neighbours in our region, or wider region, can fill those coalition roles with more highly armed OCV's.

We can certainly provide "high level" capabilities, advanced submarines, AWD's, large capable Frigates, LHD's, AOR's, etc, some of our other friends can also provide those high level capabilities too (US, Japan, South Korea for example).

There others in the middle (these are countries that their 'best' equipment is a highly armed OCV), there are others at the bottom end (for example the nations that we are building the 21 Pacific Patrol Boat Replacements for).


To me it's like a big jigsaw puzzle, some pieces are bigger than others, some have more pieces to play with that others, but if we can all fit our pieces of the jigsaw together, then we all win.

Anyway, just my opinion of course too.

Cheers,

 

[vonnoobie]

Agreed John, In any casy the ADF as a whole is only so large, If we start trying to do everything then we will be unable to do anything. You specialise your self and be 'Great' in a few skills, Rather then being 'ok' in a lot of skills.

I'd love for our OPV's to be armed for at least an escort role (ESSM's etc) but to do that requires more money, more time, more risk oh and let's not forget extra personnel to man these systems .. Unless any one can pull them out of thin air then it is a mute point, You would be acquiring ships that would result in an even greater strain on personnel actually weakoning the Navy as a whole rather then strengthening it. 12 Fully crewed ships are far more usefull then 24 partially manned ships.

 

[Todjaeger]

Agreed John, In any casy the ADF as a whole is only so large, If we start trying to do everything then we will be unable to do anything. You specialise your self and be 'Great' in a few skills, Rather then being 'ok' in a lot of skills.

I'd love for our OPV's to be armed for at least an escort role (ESSM's etc) but to do that requires more money, more time, more risk oh and let's not forget extra personnel to man these systems .. Unless any one can pull them out of thin air then it is a mute point, You would be acquiring ships that would result in an even greater strain on personnel actually weakoning the Navy as a whole rather then strengthening it. 12 Fully crewed ships are far more usefull then 24 partially manned ships.

A potential alternative though, would be to select specific pieces of kit which could cover more roles.

As an example, if the OPV were to be armed with the OTO Melara DARDO Fast Forty (twin 40 mm/L70 gun) mount, that would provide all the capabilities of the Mk 4 Bofors, and a (better) CIWS capability. By virtue of having twin guns with a higher ROF and a larger internal magazine, the potential weight of shot could get into the ranges achieved by other systems.

One thing I do thing the ADF needs to consider is a rationalization of munitions calibres, at least within the individual services. Right now there are three different small calibres gun types in service with the RAN with different munitions, parts, and mechanisms. Given that they have similar roles and capabilities, it would seem sensible to reduce the types to simplify logistics and support across the fleet. Going with a 40 mm gun for the OPV's would exacerbate the potential logistics issues, unless there was movement to adopt that calibre across the fleet.

 

[Stampede]

Agreed John, In any casy the ADF as a whole is only so large, If we start trying to do everything then we will be unable to do anything. You specialise your self and be 'Great' in a few skills, Rather then being 'ok' in a lot of skills.

I'd love for our OPV's to be armed for at least an escort role (ESSM's etc) but to do that requires more money, more time, more risk oh and let's not forget extra personnel to man these systems .. Unless any one can pull them out of thin air then it is a mute point, You would be acquiring ships that would result in an even greater strain on personnel actually weakoning the Navy as a whole rather then strengthening it. 12 Fully crewed ships are far more usefull then 24 partially manned ships.

A Question

What would be the cost difference between the purchase of a 57mm as compared to 40mm chosen for the OPV........... Gun / Rounds / crew requirements.
I would speculate there would not be too great a difference in cost but can see some greater options of deployability.

I do however like the 40mm, but for it's limitation in the.anti missile role.( I can't see us getting a DARDO CIWS.).
So maybe the 57mm has merit as it has more clout, future proof's the ship armament and can still do the constabulary stuff from day one.
Without introducing SAM's, ASM's and Torpedoes, this may just be worth considering.
Currently the 57mm is fitted on Brunei's Darussalam-class so there is no design work just a commitment to up gun now not later!

We can even still call it an OPV.


Regards S

 

[Todjaeger]

A Question

What would be the cost difference between the purchase of a 57mm as compared to 40mm chosen for the OPV........... Gun / Rounds / crew requirements.
I would speculate there would not be too great a difference in cost but can see some greater options of deployability.

I do however like the 40mm, but for it's limitation in the.anti missile role.( I can't see us getting a DARDO CIWS.).
So maybe the 57mm has merit as it has more clout, future proof's the ship armament and can still do the constabulary stuff from day one.
Without introducing SAM's, ASM's and Torpedoes, this may just be worth considering.
Currently the 57mm is fitted on Brunei's Darussalam-class so there is no design work just a commitment to up gun now not later!

We can even still call it an OPV.


Regards S

Another alternative would be the 35 mm Rheinmetall Millennium Gun which has single shot and CIWS modes. It is also non-deck penetrating which could be a potential issue, especially if a non-penetrating version of the Mk 4 was desired.

I do tend to agree that it is unlikely the DARDO CIWS version would be selected.

Does anyone have a realistic idea what yet another gun and munition type would be getting brought into RAN service?

 

[John Newman]

A potential alternative though, would be to select specific pieces of kit which could cover more roles.

As an example, if the OPV were to be armed with the OTO Melara DARDO Fast Forty (twin 40 mm/L70 gun) mount, that would provide all the capabilities of the Mk 4 Bofors, and a (better) CIWS capability. By virtue of having twin guns with a higher ROF and a larger internal magazine, the potential weight of shot could get into the ranges achieved by other systems.

One thing I do thing the ADF needs to consider is a rationalization of munitions calibres, at least within the individual services. Right now there are three different small calibres gun types in service with the RAN with different munitions, parts, and mechanisms. Given that they have similar roles and capabilities, it would seem sensible to reduce the types to simplify logistics and support across the fleet. Going with a 40 mm gun for the OPV's would exacerbate the potential logistics issues, unless there was movement to adopt that calibre across the fleet.

Tod,

I wouldn't disagree with you at all, I think it would be very smart to look at all the possible options available (within the bounds of what is reasonably required), yes certainly there might well be better choices that don't come with a significant cost overhead (both in dollar terms and manpower terms). Agree completely.

Its when the general discussion here turns to turning the OPVs (big fat patrol boats), into highly armed, and highly manned, OCVs, that my eyes start to glaze over, my mind drifts off and I start humming "Smoke On The Water" to myself (showing my age there!).

But seriously, I agree, a discussion on smart armament options is good, its a pity that when Governments announce a new capability, eg the OPV's, there isn't a bit more details as to the 'why' a certain thing has been selected and 'why' it will be armed or equipped in a certain way.

I suppose the reality is, the average mug punter in the street wouldn't have a clue, and wouldn't care, the media could easily say the Navy is getting a new fleet of battleships and the public wouldn't know the difference (ignorance is bliss!).

 

[aussienscale]

But seriously, I agree, a discussion on smart armament options is good, its a pity that when Governments announce a new capability, eg the OPV's, there isn't a bit more details as to the 'why' a certain thing has been selected and 'why' it will be armed or equipped in a certain way.

The other thing to think about is, does the 40mm tie in with Land 400 ? I know the AMV is being offered with 40mm, and pretty sure I had read that the Boxer with the Lance turret can be adapted with a 40mm option as well ? But can't find again where I had read that.

Raven may be able to confirm that option ?

Cheers

 

[John Newman]

The other thing to think about is, does the 40mm tie in with Land 400 ? I know the AMV is being offered with 40mm, and pretty sure I had read that the Boxer with the Lance turret can be adapted with a 40mm option as well ? But can't find again where I had read that.

Raven may be able to confirm that option ?

Cheers

And that may well be one of the 'why' reasons a 40mm gun has been chosen for the OPV's.

And it may well be why both of the German designs for the OPV completion were offering a 40mm main gun too.

 

[Todjaeger]

Tod,

I wouldn't disagree with you at all, I think it would be very smart to look at all the possible options available (within the bounds of what is reasonably required), yes certainly there might well be better choices that don't come with a significant cost overhead (both in dollar terms and manpower terms). Agree completely.

Its when the general discussion here turns to turning the OPVs (big fat patrol boats), into highly armed, and highly manned, OCVs, that my eyes start to glaze over, my mind drifts off and I start humming "Smoke On The Water" to myself (showing my age there!).

But seriously, I agree, a discussion on smart armament options is good, its a pity that when Governments announce a new capability, eg the OPV's, there isn't a bit more details as to the 'why' a certain thing has been selected and 'why' it will be armed or equipped in a certain way.

I suppose the reality is, the average mug punter in the street wouldn't have a clue, and wouldn't care, the media could easily say the Navy is getting a new fleet of battleships and the public wouldn't know the difference (ignorance is bliss!).

I agree, in the near term the OPV's should remain OPV's and be a step (or several steps) up from the patrol boats they are replacing in terms of capabilities.

What I think would be sensible, at least to a degree, is for enough flexibility to be left in the selected OPV design for additional capabilities and roles to be added in the future if needed. Given the location of Australia and the widespread area of Oz responsibility (1/9th of the world's oceans IIRC) having an 'upgunned' OPV that has a more robust self-defence capability might very well be a wise course. In some respects I would argue a fitted for, but not with attitude like on the ANZAC-class FFH. A key difference though would be that the RAN would really rather not ever fit an OPV 'with' but wishes to retain the option to do so.

As an aside, can anyone tell why the RAN has three different small calibre weapons in service? I get the why for the Mk 15 Phalax, but I do not understand why the Huon-class MHC was then fitted with a 30 mm gun mount instead of the Bofors 40 mm/L60 in use aboard the FCPB's. Then when the ACPB's were brought into service, why either 40 mm or 30 mm guns were not selected and instead a 25 mm gun was.

The other thing to think about is, does the 40mm tie in with Land 400 ? I know the AMV is being offered with 40mm, and pretty sure I had read that the Boxer with the Lance turret can be adapted with a 40mm option as well ? But can't find again where I had read that.

Raven may be able to confirm that option ?

Cheers

It is possible the ADF might be attempting commonality for munitions with Land 400, but I do not honestly see a real value to the RAN in doing so. It could give the RAN some parts and munitions in common with Army, but there would still be units across the RAN using different guns, parts and munitions. Apart from at a factory production level, I doubt Army and the RAN would store munitions together to be drawn upon by the different services from a central depot.

I am really uncertain of the reasoning behind the weapon selection, but I cannot help feeling like I am missing pieces of a puzzle.

 

[ADMk2]

And those ships that spend their displacement on armaments don’t have the long range, good habitability, aviation facilities, ease of use of RHIBs, and flexible spaces that our OPVs will have, because they are the characteristics that are actually useful for the role. It’s apples and oranges.

I’m not quite sure if that is the experience of those innumerable navies that operate these types of vessels, but one thing we certainly are not investing in is improved aviation capabilities for these OPV’s, we are getting a landing pad and some basic C&C capability for helicopter operations. That is not an improvement over most similar designs...

By this logic, every army truck would be armed like a tank, and every C-17 would be armed with AAMs. If, in a proper shooting war an enemy happens upon a lone OPV, then that is the fates of war. It’s no different to if an enemy attacks a resupply convoy, or attacks an air to air refuelling aircraft, or finds an AOR alone transiting back for resupply. It is a poor argument for turning an OPV into a surface combatant.

Nonsense. I have never argued these be some sort of defacto major surface combatant, but to many it’s a very worthwhile argument for arming the OPV’s with a credible self-defence capability, just as our C-17A’s actually have with LACIRM, their counter-measure dispenser suites, EWSP capability and so forth. C-17A’s just like the OPV’s are not expected to engage in direct combat, yet they are given every possible protection, unlike the similarly priced OPV’s...

Btw those ‘hapless’ AOR’s of ours are to be equipped with Phalanx CIWS and a reasonable anti-surface gunnery capability, plus I suspect in time a torpedo decoy system and possibly a hard-kill system as well.

Yet another major class in RAN should have nothing but a solitary, short ranged, un-guided gun as it’s sole naval armament?

Why would we equip a ship for a role that the Navy has absolutely no intent in using them for? Was there ever a time when the armament of the Amidales was a limiting factor? Why then would the heavier armament of a the OPV then be a limiting factor? Everyone seems to be assuming the OPVs will be used in a role that the Navy have no intent in using them. They are simply bigger and better patrol boats, the very thing everyone on this board has been arguing for for years.

Because the Armidales (and we) have been fortunate enough to be allowed to play around with under-armed and ill-equipped (and designed) vessels in a time of relative strategic calm. You call them patrol boats. But Navy doesn’t, they call them minor WAR vessels...Whatever RAN’s peacetime intent for these vessels may be, that will change should we be faced with a war we haven’t chosen to participate in and in what fashion and deliberately under-equipping them is next to criminal in my opinion. If the powers that be, can’t articulate a solid rationale for why they need reasonably armed and protected warships in a time of such a rapidly declining strategic environment, then they would appear to have little reason for being employed within their current positions.

If you want more surface combatants, than argue for more surface combatants. Just don’t try to turn an OPV into a combat vessel.

Again, I’m not. I am advocating that these ships should have an improved self-defence capability just like virtually every single OTHER operator does, because when we are operating them at the longer ranges we apparently need to do so, they will be at increased risk under this deteroriating strategic environment we find ourselves in.

 

[Volkodav]

A thought strikes me, just look at the armour kits available on all the LAND 121 vehicles, also what about the Bushmasters, none of these could seriously be considered front line AFVs but they are being protected and armed as required to permit them to survive in hostile environments. The self defence systems of the Armys helicopters and the RAAFs transports would put strike aircraft of the 90s to shame, yet about half the RANs surface combatants are currently pretty much defenceless and less survivable than the vessels they replaced, let alone than the ships that the RAN was meant to be getting.

With the Lurssens the RAN is getting what should have been the minimum required as a Fremantle replacement but still nowhere near what was determined would be necessary in a rapidly evolving and booming region back in the 90s. Today things have moved along even more than anticipated back then and we have far less than was desired.

A bit of a reality check, the post cold war fleet of 16-17 major combatants was shrunk to 14 (including modernising instead of replacing the first four FFGs and delaying the replacement of the DDGs) as it was determined that a missile armed, helicopter equipped corvette was a higher priority to follow on to the ANZACs. Not a big risk as there were highly capable surplus USN combatants available (Kidds, early Ticonderogas), as well as the prospect of ordering a couple of new Burkes from the US if things heated up and they were needed before the OPCs were completed and the FFG replacements came on line in the 2010s. What happened was the FFG upgrade went ahead, as did the Super Sea Sprite, but not the corvettes that was the reason behind these two troubled programs. Instead the RAN got a glorified pleasure craft that was structurally inferior to the boats it replaced.

Ironically one of the reason that the corvette was seen as an issue was it would require the RAN train more Warfare Officers. Now we have the situation that many of our most experienced boat drivers aren't warfare officers because there weren't the opportunities to train as such, and they will be unable to command the OPVs whose CO's need that qualification, doh. That's right, the OPV COs need to be qualified PWOs, which a great many of the current and former PB drivers aren't.

The RAN is definitely moving in the right direction but the sad truth is there were an awful lot of dumb political decisions that wasted lots of time and money, far more in fact than had the original plans been followed through. It could be called hindsight but considering there was a deliberate move away from an industry plan and force structure, not to different from what we are now moving towards today, a couple of decades and several governments later, shows its not hindsight, rather that the head sheds had it right in the first place and the tail to teeth / economic rationalists (on both sides of politics), had their heads up their backsides.

 

[ADMk2]

A thought strikes me, just look at the armour kits available on all the LAND 121 vehicles, also what about the Bushmasters, none of these could seriously be considered front line AFVs but they are being protected and armed as required to permit them to survive in hostile environments. The self defence systems of the Armys helicopters and the RAAFs transports would put strike aircraft of the 90s to shame, yet about half the RANs surface combatants are currently pretty much defenceless and less survivable than the vessels they replaced, let alone than the ships that the RAN was meant to be getting.

With the Lurssens the RAN is getting what should have been the minimum required as a Fremantle replacement but still nowhere near what was determined would be necessary in a rapidly evolving and booming region back in the 90s. Today things have moved along even more than anticipated back then and we have far less than was desired.

A bit of a reality check, the post cold war fleet of 16-17 major combatants was shrunk to 14 (including modernising instead of replacing the first four FFGs and delaying the replacement of the DDGs) as it was determined that a missile armed, helicopter equipped corvette was a higher priority to follow on to the ANZACs. Not a big risk as there were highly capable surplus USN combatants available (Kidds, early Ticonderogas), as well as the prospect of ordering a couple of new Burkes from the US if things heated up and they were needed before the OPCs were completed and the FFG replacements came on line in the 2010s. What happened was the FFG upgrade went ahead, as did the Super Sea Sprite, but not the corvettes that was the reason behind these two troubled programs. Instead the RAN got a glorified pleasure craft that was structurally inferior to the boats it replaced.

Ironically one of the reason that the corvette was seen as an issue was it would require the RAN train more Warfare Officers. Now we have the situation that many of our most experienced boat drivers aren't warfare officers because there weren't the opportunities to train as such, and they will be unable to command the OPVs whose CO's need that qualification, doh. That's right, the OPV COs need to be qualified PWOs, which a great many of the current and former PB drivers aren't.

The RAN is definitely moving in the right direction but the sad truth is there were an awful lot of dumb political decisions that wasted lots of time and money, far more in fact than had the original plans been followed through. It could be called hindsight but considering there was a deliberate move away from an industry plan and force structure, not to different from what we are now moving towards today, a couple of decades and several governments later, shows its not hindsight, rather that the head sheds had it right in the first place and the tail to teeth / economic rationalists (on both sides of politics), had their heads up their backsides.

My thoughts exactly. I’m not sure exactly what issue putting a RAM Block II missile launcher or a 35mm Millenium gun on these vessels would cause, that would be improved by simply going instead with a solitary 40mm / L70 except a small additional cost per ship, but what would result is a ship that at least has a chance of surviving a military attack.

Such force protection measures as you have outlined are extremely important for almost every platform in the ADF, but seemingly not for more than half of RAN’s surface fleet (if you throw in the Minehunters and HMAS Choules in as well) and now the OPV Class, for some unfathomable reason...

 

[Todjaeger]

My thoughts exactly. I’m not sure exactly what issue putting a RAM Block II missile launcher or a 35mm Millenium gun on these vessels would cause, that would be improved by simply going instead with a solitary 40mm / L70 except a small additional cost per ship, but what would result is a ship that at least has a chance of surviving a military attack.

Such force protection measures as you have outlined are extremely important for almost every platform in the ADF, but seemingly not for more than half of RAN’s surface fleet (if you throw in the Minehunters and HMAS Choules in as well) and now the OPV Class, for some unfathomable reason...

One of the other things which puzzles me is why the OPV's are to get what I understand to be a version of the 9LV combat data system, unless there was to be the flexibility for greater future armament.

One of the reasons why OPV's have been making an appearance in various navies in the last couple of decades is because they can provide an effective patrol (vs. combat) capability at a reasonable price, especially for distant stations.

They accomplish this by being designed and built differently than proper frigates or large corvettes. The hull does not typically have the damage control features of a warship, or the armament. What is often overlooked however is the comms, sensor and electronics fitout of an OPV vs. a corvette or frigate. People often forget that the sensors and electronics aboard a warship can be a third to half the total cost of the vessel, which is why OPV's typically have a much more basic comms, sensor and data system fitout.

If the 9LV is included, then it would be fitting the same combat data system as used aboard the ANZAC-class FFH's and the Canberra-class LHD's. That seems to be a bit overkill, rather than a necessary capacity, at least if the OPV's are expected to complete their service lives armed and operating 'just' as OPV's.

I have another interesting thought to ponder. Given the widespread utilization of the 25 mm Bushmaster across the ADF, first in the ASLAV and then in the RAN on Typhoon mountings... Just how much efficiency and economy of scale was achieved by both services adopting the same gun and munitions? IMO unless the advantages proved to be significant, it would be better for the different services to determine what best meets their respective service's specific needs.

 

[oldsig127]

The other thing to think about is, does the 40mm tie in with Land 400 ? I know the AMV is being offered with 40mm, and pretty sure I had read that the Boxer with the Lance turret can be adapted with a 40mm option as well ? But can't find again where I had read that.

Raven may be able to confirm that option ?

Cheers

Well, I posted it about two pages back, so wherever you read it, so had I.

Agree with JN too by the way; we are often seduced into playing imaginary fleets with heavier armed and/or cooler ships than the Navy had sought, with (in most cases) no idea what they wanted, or why. It beggars belief that Defence would have just decided on 40mm gun without *any* consideration of *any* of the things seen as reasons against it. Sure, Defence purchasing make some puzzling decisions at times, but I doubt is something like that wasn't carefully considered with actual knowledge supporting the decision, rather than internet hearsay


oldsig

 

[Todjaeger]

Well, I posted it about two pages back, so wherever you read it, so had I.

Agree with JN too by the way; we are often seduced into playing imaginary fleets with heavier armed and/or cooler ships than the Navy had sought, with (in most cases) no idea what they wanted, or why. It beggars belief that Defence would have just decided on 40mm gun without *any* consideration of *any* of the things seen as reasons against it. Sure, Defence purchasing make some puzzling decisions at times, but I doubt is something like that wasn't carefully considered with actual knowledge supporting the decision, rather than internet hearsay


oldsig

I would certainly hope Defence put thought into what type of gun before selecting it. It is just very puzzling for there to be so little consistency in the small calibre selection of the RAN.

There is clearly a reason behind the changes, but just what is that reason? Is it the size/weight of the mounting? The performance of the gun itself? The capabilities of the munitions? If there was an apparent move across the RAN to utilize the same small calibre gun (if not mounting) throughout the fleet the rationale would be much more clear. As it stands now, it looks like the only small calibre gun & munitions stock which has been retired from RAN service in the last 20 years is the 40 mm/L60 Bofors with the 40 mm x 311 mm round. At the same time, two new and entirely different small calibre gun, mounting, and munition types have entered RAN service.

As I mentioned previously, it feels like I am looking at a puzzle with pieces missing, and therefore cannot make out what the picture is supposed to be.

 

[ADMk2]

I would certainly hope Defence put thought into what type of gun before selecting it. It is just very puzzling for there to be so little consistency in the small calibre selection of the RAN.

There is clearly a reason behind the changes, but just what is that reason? Is it the size/weight of the mounting? The performance of the gun itself? The capabilities of the munitions? If there was an apparent move across the RAN to utilize the same small calibre gun (if not mounting) throughout the fleet the rationale would be much more clear. As it stands now, it looks like the only small calibre gun & munitions stock which has been retired from RAN service in the last 20 years is the 40 mm/L60 Bofors with the 40 mm x 311 mm round. At the same time, two new and entirely different small calibre gun, mounting, and munition types have entered RAN service.

As I mentioned previously, it feels like I am looking at a puzzle with pieces missing, and therefore cannot make out what the picture is supposed to be.

It seems to me that they went with the gun that was already integrated onto the platform. We know that all bidders offered a range of capability options with these boats, including various specc’d aviation facilities, armament and hull designs, but given what they appear to have chosen, it seems they went with a bog stock version at the lowest end of capability, without much interest in what it was armed with, beyond the basic package already integrated onto that platform.

As an example, look at the mid-section of the in-service design we chose. It looks a bit different to what we will have, without too much intrusion on the capability we are getting.

 

[Todjaeger]

It seems to me that they went with the gun that was already integrated onto the platform. We know that all bidders offered a range of capability options with these boats, including various specc’d aviation facilities, armament and hull designs, but given what they appear to have chosen, it seems they went with a bog stock version at the lowest end of capability, without much interest in what it was armed with, beyond the basic package already integrated onto that platform.

As an example, look at the mid-section of the in-service design we chose. It looks a bit different to what we will have, without too much intrusion on the capability we are getting.

If the justification for going with the Mk 40 40 mm/L70 gun is that it has already been integrated into the vessel design, as opposed to either having a different, more capable gun or an existing gun in RAN use integrated... That IMO is borderline stupid.

Just how difficult, expensive and risky do people really believe it would be for Typhoon mounts with the M242 Bushmaster 25 mm gun to be included in the design? While this would not be what I would want the OPV's to have as a main weapon it would at least have the advantage of being familiar to the RAN and ADF since it is already in widespread use. Heck, Typhoon mounts could be taken off existing RAN ships and patrol boats and refurbished for installation on the OPV's as they near completion instead of entirely new mounts, guns and munition stocks needing to be purchased.

 

[ADMk2]

If the justification for going with the Mk 40 40 mm/L70 gun is that it has already been integrated into the vessel design, as opposed to either having a different, more capable gun or an existing gun in RAN use integrated... That IMO is borderline stupid.

Just how difficult, expensive and risky do people really believe it would be for Typhoon mounts with the M242 Bushmaster 25 mm gun to be included in the design? While this would not be what I would want the OPV's to have as a main weapon it would at least have the advantage of being familiar to the RAN and ADF since it is already in widespread use. Heck, Typhoon mounts could be taken off existing RAN ships and patrol boats and refurbished for installation on the OPV's as they near completion instead of entirely new mounts, guns and munition stocks needing to be purchased.

I suppose it depends on cost. If it were cheaper to acquire the already integrated 40mm guns, plus support and munitions, then to integrate a new system onto this platfom and still have to pay to support this system and provide munitions, then I can see why they went with this weapon. Not as it’s sole naval weapon capability mind you, but rather with the existing integrated capability.

There may be a plan to carry the 25mm guns from the Armidales across to the Future frigates or other vessels such as the new support ships, that has not yet been revealed.

 

[ASSAIL]

If the justification for going with the Mk 40 40 mm/L70 gun is that it has already been integrated into the vessel design, as opposed to either having a different, more capable gun or an existing gun in RAN use integrated... That IMO is borderline stupid.

Just how difficult, expensive and risky do people really believe it would be for Typhoon mounts with the M242 Bushmaster 25 mm gun to be included in the design? While this would not be what I would want the OPV's to have as a main weapon it would at least have the advantage of being familiar to the RAN and ADF since it is already in widespread use. Heck, Typhoon mounts could be taken off existing RAN ships and patrol boats and refurbished for installation on the OPV's as they near completion instead of entirely new mounts, guns and munition stocks needing to be purchased.

It can't have been integrated because we have chosen 9LV for the CMS so that work still has to be done. If we'd chosen the Typhoons that may have made sense.
It remains a mystery until all is revealed.