Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bluey 006

Member
Like many others I was surprised with the selection of the Luerssen for the OPVs. The lack of a hanger (even for UAV) is interesting given some of the comments from senior Navy over the years, indicating lack of aviation capability on the ACPB was a real failing.

The new OPV's ,however,will have an aviation capability, and the CONOPS obviously did not indicate that a permanently based or extended deployment of a helicopter was a requirement.

A few other things that may have factored in to the decision:

Apparently, Layout is very spacious with plenty of room for expansion and additional equipment, with the stern ramp RHIB launch and recovery system one of the most impressive features.

Basing the future OPV’s will be 80 metres long whereas ACPBs are only 56 metres. The same number of OPV’s will not fit where the ACPB have been berthed in Darwin and Cairns. They will also be too big for the Patrol Boats synchro lifts.

Crewing – always a factor with a small Navy like Australia

The design can carry ASM

It has a good-sized flight deck and whatever aircraft Navy decides to operate it should serve its purpose well.

All this has already been tossed around over the last few days but what really caught my interest was:

When interviewed Austal CEO David Singleton mentioned “the Commonwealth had alluded to other vessels it would be looking to build in the mid-2030s which would extend the program beyond the anticipated 15 years”.

When we consider the new commitment to continuous shipbuilding and have a look at other Luerssen vessels – Corvettes, Light multirole Frigates, Mine warfare vessels, Naval support vessels and factor the Navy’s past behavior, with for example Navantia (same designer of a variety of vessels) you wonder if perhaps it is picking a partner for the long haul, although the existing plan doesn’t indicate a corvette or light frigate, White papers are updated every 5 years or so, shipbuilding programs go on decades. We do know the mine warfare vessels will be replaced.

With the way the world is going, resurgent Russia, assertive China, rouge North Korea etc etc perhaps other over the horizon strategic assessments not available to the public encourage an even greater expansion than we have already had. A solid relationship with a good shipbuilder with a number of designs for small warships (aka Luerssen) might be seen as advantageous, if for example a new fleet of corvette or light frigate needed to be built at short notice due to a deteriorating geopolitical situation.

Some of the other candidates have a variety of designs but maybe the whole portfolio and future portfolio of said designers was considered, even only for a second. Have to wait and see

A LOT!!!! of speculation here and thought bubbles, and I could be way off, but food for thought.
 
Last edited:

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Do we have a name for this new OPV class?

Regards S
No mention as yet for a class name (or names generally), that will come later.

But the last two patrol boat classes, Armidale class and Fremantle class, have both used names from the WWII Bathurst class corvettes.

So plenty of scope to re-use names from the ACPBs and FCPBs and also the unused names from the original Bathurst class.

And lets not forget the names used prior to the FCPBs, the Attack class PBs too.

I can think of a good one, ASSAIL class! (What do you think mate?)
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
No mention as yet for a class name (or names generally), that will come later.

But the last two patrol boat classes, Armidale class and Fremantle class, have both used names from the WWII Bathurst class corvettes.

So plenty of scope to re-use names from the ACPBs and FCPBs and also the unused names from the original Bathurst class.

And lets not forget the names used prior to the FCPBs, the Attack class PBs too.

I can think of a good one, ASSAIL class! (What do you think mate?)
I think they will look at both the Frigate & OPV names at the same time, the only certainty is one of the Frigates will be named Melbourne as it will be the Hobart replacements before it can be used again.
The other names that are available are most of the Rivers.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I think they will look at both the Frigate & OPV names at the same time, the only certainty is one of the Frigates will be named Melbourne as it will be the Hobart replacements before it can be used again.
The other names that are available are most of the Rivers.
RAN ship classes usually follows certain historical naming conventions and practices.

The major fleets units have usually, and continue to be, named after capital cities and more recently secondary cities such as Newcastle and so on.

I would certainly expect that three of the Future Frigates will see the use of the three remaining FFG7 names again, eg, Darwin, Melbourne and Newcastle.

And we will probably also see some of the eight Anzac class frigate names used again for the Future Frigates, Perth comes to mind as an obvious name.

And of course too, there are many other historical names to chose for the remaining Future Frigates.

I'd be surprised if any of the names that have been used on major fleet units would end up as names for the 12 OPV's (I could be wrong), but that's what I think anyway.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Personally I’d like to see Murchison, Shoalhaven, Lachlan, Culgoa, Burdekin, Condamine, Macquarie, Barcoo, Barwon, Derwent, Swan, Torrens and Warrego, but I rather suspect the easier way of repeating country town names yet again will be done. That’d leave you with the remaining capitals Melbourne and Darwin (and possibly Perth) and the Daring, Q and N names, plus possibly Tobruk, Tasmania, ANZAC and Swordsman for the Frigates. Without wishing to offend the citizens of Newcastle, Ballarat or Toowoomba, I’m not sure their towns should have MFUs named after them.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Personally I’d like to see Murchison, Shoalhaven, Lachlan, Culgoa, Burdekin, Condamine, Macquarie, Barcoo, Barwon, Derwent, Swan, Torrens and Warrego, but I rather suspect the easier way of repeating country town names yet again will be done. That’d leave you with the remaining capitals Melbourne and Darwin (and possibly Perth) and the Daring, Q and N names, plus possibly Tobruk, Tasmania, ANZAC and Swordsman for the Frigates. Without wishing to offend the citizens of Newcastle, Ballarat or Toowoomba, I’m not sure their towns should have MFUs named after them.
I get newcastle, its one of Australias major ports and one of the great port cities of the world and the largest coal export port in the world.It also links to hms newcastle. It is also the 7th most populated city in Australia, bigger that Darwin and Hobart combined. It was also shelled by japanese submarines in ww2, and made most of the steel australia used in ww2 and in shipping in general. It has ship yards (forgacs and others) and a long, long tradition with the navy and maritime trade and shipping. HMAS Adelaide is a dive wreck not to far from Newcastle.It is entirely possible a new naval base might be established at Newcastle.

I think inland cities are bit more questionable with no naval/shipping connection. I would also think Parramatta might also get a look.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I get newcastle, its one of Australias major ports and one of the great port cities of the world and the largest coal export port in the world.It also links to hms newcastle. It is also the 7th most populated city in Australia, bigger that Darwin and Hobart combined. It was also shelled by japanese submarines in ww2, and made most of the steel australia used in ww2 and in shipping in general. It has ship yards (forgacs and others) and a long, long tradition with the navy and maritime trade and shipping. HMAS Adelaide is a dive wreck not to far from Newcastle.It is entirely possible a new naval base might be established at Newcastle.

I think inland cities are bit more questionable with no naval/shipping connection. I would also think Parramatta might also get a look.
Agree completely about Newcastle, and it is also the 2nd largest city in NSW, it is anything but a 'town' too.

As for Parramatta, yes it should get a look in (that goes without saying too), the very first ship commissioned into the RAN. A long proud history that should continue too.
 

xhxi558

New Member
Agree completely about Newcastle, and it is also the 2nd largest city in NSW, it is anything but a 'town' too.

As for Parramatta, yes it should get a look in (that goes without saying too), the very first ship commissioned into the RAN. A long proud history that should continue too.
Melbourne, Parramatta, Newcastle, Voyager, Vendetta, Vampire, Tobruk, Darwin and Perth are the names I would choose....however...we will see.

Regardless, I am sure each ship will carry forward a steeped linage.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Melbourne, Parramatta, Newcastle, Voyager, Vendetta, Vampire, Tobruk, Darwin and Perth are the names I would choose....however...we will see.

Regardless, I am sure each ship will carry forward a steeped linage.
Melbourne as lead ship would have to be odds on, then probably Darwin as a State Capital(sort of), Tobruk and ANZAC would have to be in there, after that could be any ones guess.

HMAS Gold Coast(6th largest city) or Surfers Paradise anyone? :D
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Melbourne as lead ship would have to be odds on, then probably Darwin as a State Capital(sort of), Tobruk and ANZAC would have to be in there, after that could be any ones guess.

HMAS Gold Coast(6th largest city) or Surfers Paradise anyone? :D
And your suggestions for Sea 5000 ?

We are talking OPV's taking over from the history and tradition of the PB's
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Like many others I was surprised with the selection of the Luerssen for the OPVs. The lack of a hanger (even for UAV) is interesting given some of the comments from senior Navy over the years, indicating lack of aviation capability on the ACPB was a real failing.

The new OPV's ,however,will have an aviation capability, and the CONOPS obviously did not indicate that a permanently based or extended deployment of a helicopter was a requirement.

A few other things that may have factored in to the decision:

Apparently, Layout is very spacious with plenty of room for expansion and additional equipment, with the stern ramp RHIB launch and recovery system one of the most impressive features.

Basing the future OPV’s will be 80 metres long whereas ACPBs are only 56 metres. The same number of OPV’s will not fit where the ACPB have been berthed in Darwin and Cairns. They will also be too big for the Patrol Boats synchro lifts.

Crewing – always a factor with a small Navy like Australia

The design can carry ASM

It has a good-sized flight deck and whatever aircraft Navy decides to operate it should serve its purpose well.

All this has already been tossed around over the last few days but what really caught my interest was:

When interviewed Austal CEO David Singleton mentioned “the Commonwealth had alluded to other vessels it would be looking to build in the mid-2030s which would extend the program beyond the anticipated 15 years”.
The boats will be based at Cairns, Darwin and Stirling. See Defence video.

SEA 1180 has always included future hulls for MCM and REA (Rapid Environmental Assessment - Hydrographic Survey)
The latter is a much needed capability as Amphibious Ops matures.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Personally I’d like to see Murchison, Shoalhaven, Lachlan, Culgoa, Burdekin, Condamine, Macquarie, Barcoo, Barwon, Derwent, Swan, Torrens and Warrego, but I rather suspect the easier way of repeating country town names yet again will be done. That’d leave you with the remaining capitals Melbourne and Darwin (and possibly Perth) and the Daring, Q and N names, plus possibly Tobruk, Tasmania, ANZAC and Swordsman for the Frigates. Without wishing to offend the citizens of Newcastle, Ballarat or Toowoomba, I’m not sure their towns should have MFUs named after them.
I agree but it would be nice to have the capital city Rivers left for future escorts and Tasmania is a bit odd, the other states would howl foul.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
And your suggestions for Sea 5000 ?

We are talking OPV's taking over from the history and tradition of the PB's
My post was in reply to xhxi558s post and I'm fairly sure he was referring to the Frigates as he gave 9 names, sorry for any confusion.
My money would be on a continuation of major Towns/small cities for the OPVs, Deloraine class perhaps for the Bathurst class Corvette that was the 1st RAN ship to sink a full size enemy Sub.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
No mention as yet for a class name (or names generally), that will come later.

I can think of a good one, ASSAIL class! (What do you think mate?)
I always thought the Attack Class names were a bit left field, I don't think much thought was given as they were built to replace the minor ships, HDMLs , Rescue launches etc. there was no precedence and no history(apart from the RN names).
The PNG names of the Class were much more meaningful.

In Darwin we had ATTACK, ADVANCE and ASSAIL which we in Assail converted to RETREAT, RETARD and ASSAIL, naturally:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top