Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Takao said:

Neither I, nor my mine-warfare co-worker, are particularly sold on metal hulls for mine hunters. But then again, the whole trade has been paid off so much over recent times (buy the USN too), it would be nice to see some re-investment there....

Just not metal

Click to expand...

The navy will still be using fibreglass vessels for Mine Hunting. It is just that they will be unmanned. Steber is building 5 of these boats.

Defence Connect

These boats will be 38 feet long (11.5 meters) long. When I look at the OPVs spec I see that it can deploy a single 10.5 meter sea boat from the stern. So it appears that an unmodified OPV might not be big enough to operate these boats.

Takao said:

Neither I, nor my mine-warfare co-worker, are particularly sold on metal hulls for mine hunters. But then again, the whole trade has been paid off so much over recent times (buy the USN too), it would be nice to see some re-investment there....

Just not metal

Click to expand...

Any idea what the smallest sized hull for a MCM vessel is, and still be able to effectively deploy divers, ROV's, and mine sweeps? I have an idea kicking around in my head but lack some basic info to know if it would be possibly worthwhile, or more the province of unicorns and rainbow farts...

Todjaeger said:

Any idea what the smallest sized hull for a MCM vessel is, and still be able to effectively deploy divers, ROV's, and mine sweeps? I have an idea kicking around in my head but lack some basic info to know if it would be possibly worthwhile, or more the province of unicorns and rainbow farts...

Click to expand...

The Belgium and Dutch have come up with an MCM mothership in the 90 meter 3000 ton range.

Damen unveiled the design of its MCM Vessel candidate for the Belgian-Dutch Requirement - Naval News

This is what the Future Belgian & Dutch MCM Motherships will Look Like - Naval News

It just happens to be based on the same hull form as the Sycamore.

Todjaeger said:

Any idea what the smallest sized hull for a MCM vessel is, and still be able to effectively deploy divers, ROV's, and mine sweeps? I have an idea kicking around in my head but lack some basic info to know if it would be possibly worthwhile, or more the province of unicorns and rainbow farts...

Click to expand...

Well, the Bays were 31 metres and they were effective enough as close inshore hunters - their problems were related to sea keeping and transit speeds. Most of what seem to be pretty satisfactory general hunters are in the 50 metre range and about 5-700 tons; that’s the size of the Sandowns Huons etc. if you’re after deploying reasonable size USVs you’re going to need something bigger, though.

There is an excellent photo of the Luerssen boss, Jens Nielsen and a very well advanced hull of an Arafura OPV in the Osborne building shed in the Australian today.
I’m unable to copy and post, can someone smarter than me post it please?

ASSAIL said:

There is an excellent photo of the Luerssen boss, Jens Nielsen and a very well advanced hull of an Arafura OPV in the Osborne building shed in the Australian today.
I’m unable to copy and post, can someone smarter than me post it please?

Click to expand...

With modern technology and MCM practices, does a MCM mother ship actually have to go near a minefield?

The RNZN Littoral Warfare Unit, can work out of containers and be fully self sufficient, hence they're platform agnostic. Their divers also jump out of the back of USMC CH-53 helos at very low speed about 6 - 10ft above the water. and that maybe an option with the NH90.

With the advent of UUVs & USVs it should be possible for any reasonaby sized fleet vessel, with an appropriate mission bay, to operate as the mother ship for a MCM mission etc. It should be able to stand off and deploy ROVs as required, only sending personnel if and when required.

hauritz said:

Click to expand...

Nice image,

Is anyone concerned about the ability for the OPV's to perform in coastal/reef areas with such large drafts, considering the Armidale's possessed a much smaller draft?

- Or will the deeper draft issues be negated by the fact that they will be operated further out from shores than the Armidale's...

I'll take any opinions.

T

hauritz said:

Click to expand...

Thanks

Hazdog said:

Nice image,

Is anyone concerned about the ability for the OPV's to perform in coastal/reef areas with such large drafts, considering the Armidale's possessed a much smaller draft?

- Or will the deeper draft issues be negated by the fact that they will be operated further out from shores than the Armidale's...

I'll take any opinions.

Click to expand...

This is a non issue.
There are very few areas where around the north and north west coast where shallow waters constrain surveillance or patrol operations.
Judging from that pic draft for the OPVs will be around 3-4mtrs, as most small commercial vessels operating in the area are similar I see no problem. In any case, if boarding or pursuit was needed in even shallower areas the RHIBs can be used.

The latest edition of the The Navy Newspaper has an article about a RAN task group heading off for a four month exercise to South East Asia.
Given the large number of ships deployed, and the number of large exercises and deployments already this year such as IPE19;I'm wondering is this a particularly high tempo year for the RAN?
I must say that given the size of our fleet, such consistency of deployment and as a consequence availability of ships, is most impressive.
I don't recall such sized task groups regularly heading overseas in the 80's and 90's.
Can anyone confirm or comment on this perceived trend.

Regards S

The full load draft is 4 metres, as Assail suggested. That’s (obviously) the forward end of the hull, the stern section is getting along in the other bay of that building. Still a lot to be done, though!

On TG deployments, I was on one led by the last Hobart in ‘86 that had four DEs, and a couple of Fremantles for part of the time; and in Melbourne for one in 80 with or thereabouts with a DDG, a couple of DEs, a couple of Kiwis and Supply, so we’ve certainly done similar in the past although maybe not for some time.

spoz said:

The full load draft is 4 metres, as Assail suggested. That’s (obviously) the forward end of the hull, the stern section is getting along in the other bay of that building. Still a lot to be done, though!

On TG deployments, I was on one led by the last Hobart in ‘86 that had four DEs, and a couple of Fremantles for part of the time; and in Melbourne for one in 80 with or thereabouts with a DDG, a couple of DEs, a couple of Kiwis and Supply, so we’ve certainly done similar in the past although maybe not for some time.

Click to expand...

We were both on that 1980 deployment Spoz and a good one it was.
TG deployments withered with the decommissioning of Melbourne, CVS21 and we became a frigate navy where single ship deployments were the norm, that period between 1982 and roughly the next 20 years was the nadir for the RAN and that delinquency was only ended by the huge reality check of the E Timor crisis. Thereafter governments accepted the responsibility, at least in theory, for adequately resourcing the RAN despite some notable hiccups.

ngatimozart said:

With modern technology and MCM practices, does a MCM mother ship actually have to go near a minefield?

The RNZN Littoral Warfare Unit, can work out of containers and be fully self sufficient, hence they're platform agnostic. Their divers also jump out of the back of USMC CH-53 helos at very low speed about 6 - 10ft above the water. and that maybe an option with the NH90.

With the advent of UUVs & USVs it should be possible for any reasonaby sized fleet vessel, with an appropriate mission bay, to operate as the mother ship for a MCM mission etc. It should be able to stand off and deploy ROVs as required, only sending personnel if and when required.

Click to expand...

I think the answer that the USN and RAN want is "no", but based on practical reality and how technology is maturing, I think the answer is "yes". And that also seems the way that European navies are going too. I can speak for the detail of HMNZS Matataua, but it doesn't strike me that it provides an MCM capability across all aspects of maritime areas. With only divers, there is no real way to clear at any reasonable field in any reasonable time (beyond a port where there is significant advantages and support).

I think in the future UUV and USV will become more prevalent, but noting that all options (including modules) now utilise influence sweeping (with a long % of success ad an unknown % against modern, smart mines) they just cannot do the job without accepting significant amount of risks to the capital / transport ships moving through that area. Many of the sweepers can only take one, maybe two, strikes before they are destroyed as opposed to a crewed solution that can place charges manually, allowing more resilience and time on station. In addition, we haven't proven that these linkages work in an actually congested EMS - hence why the optical fibre link between ROV and ship is guaranteed. On top of that, to have the sensors you need to penetrate all types of water conditions can't really be loaded on a single platform - especially one that needs to go against modern mines.

I think it comes down to a higher HQ that has ignored the problem (watching PWOs interact in Canberra is - entertaining) that has left room for glossy brochures to take advantage of our thought that technology can fix everything. It may be that the next-generation of MCM after next are significantly uncrewed and modules work - but I think that when we critically look at what UUV and USV can actually do, we will be disappointed. I honestly think that you will see the Huon Class replacements be the missing link - starting as crewed vessels that do the job and morphing through becoming a TG leader of MCM modules to being a mothership for assets. But that'll take at least a decade or two.

hauritz said:

Click to expand...

Is this what the Arafura Class will actually look like?


Trireme - Wikipedia

hauritz said:

It wouldn't be the first time the RAN came up with a dud solution to the MCM problem.

Bay-class minehunter - Wikipedia

Australia has spent a long time trying to find affordable solutions for carrying out MCM operations. Hopefully this time they get it right.

Click to expand...

So are you actually going to expand on this or just quote a Wiki article ? This is exactly why the thread was locked in the first place !

hauritz said:

It wouldn't be the first time the RAN came up with a dud solution to the MCM problem.

Bay-class minehunter - Wikipedia

Australia has spent a long time trying to find affordable solutions for carrying out MCM operations. Hopefully this time they get it right.

Click to expand...

@hauritz You have been around here long enough to know that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. You had better take to heart the warning about improving the quality of posts or you will suffer the consequences, because the well of Moderator patience has run dry.

EDIT: Your future on here is being discussed by the Moderators because you are already on a final warning.