Philippine Navy

sorry my point being that for the money I.E. 200 million dollars any new frigate they buy will be little more than a toothless show pony. You are right when you say that a OPV is not a war fighting ship in the toe to toe sense. However I feel what 8 high end OPV’s would bring to the PN over 2 low end Frigate is more eyes and ears and a bigger presence. In my dig around the web it looks like the PN is looking for 2 new Frigates and more 2 second hand which makes no sense in as mach as they will have to operate 2 types it would make more sense in my mind to buy 4 or 5 second hand OHP class with the 400 million and then buy as many new OPV’s with the money you were going to send on the second hand frigates.

Tempest

So what are the pros and cons well the cons are that the Oaxaca�s loose 8-10 knots on the frigates and have little to no offensive capability and also loose 25nm radar range pros they can have 8 hulls in the water instead of 2 they have better range and could be given a offensive capability by helicopter or in a upgrade program latter

You have to be careful here not to blur two different things together. A primary warfighter will be a very different proposition than a patrol hull. The OPV is not a replacement for a frigate…in the concepts outlined above the replacement for the frigate is a FAC(M) flotilla. A warfighting function with a warfighting function…this was why HK quickly enquired what role a slow, unsuitable, OPV platform had in the picture….and why I said ‘its running away!’.

Many of the differences between the OPV and the frigate (especially the new breed of FFL’s coming out of western yards) are difficult to discern from just reading spec sheets. Things like single versus duplicated engine rooms…isolated/rafted machinery installations…NBC citadels are the kinds of considerations that are designed into a warfighter and economied out of a cheap OPV. There is, of course, nothing wrong with the latter…Mexico needed to design an OPV to its requirements and ‘surviving in an NBC environment’ cannot have been high up on that list. To keep this in context of the thread I cant imagine that the PN would be all that concerned about it either. The difference does need to be marked though. An engine room fire if you have a single space can, for example, stop a ship dead in the water…if you’re an OPV you let command know that your patrol area is going to take longer to cover. If you’re a warfighter screening an HVU then maybe your entire operational timetable is now in jeopardy…thats when you realize you picked the wrong economies!.

This before we get to the operational concerns of losing the speed between FF and OPV. For the frigate speed means principally two things – relocation and running-away!. If you need to get ahead of the line of advance on an opfor SSK to set up an intercept you need speed. Likewise if that SSK realises what you are up to and fires a 40knt torpedo at you from 5 miles off you want to be able to get to 30knts on the same heading and keep it there so the bloody thing hasnt caught up at the end of its run!. The OPV though isnt in the business of getting torpedoes shot at it….it is optimised for 70% economical transit speeds….20% slow speeds on Ops – launching, recovering small boats etc and 10% on the ‘sprint’ trying to chase down. This reflecting the mundane nature of its job and providing the justification for engines that offer high fuel economy and reliability over those with ludicrously high outputs. These kind of things show why two hulls that are similar in size and equipment fit can vary significantly in cost. 110m CODAD GP light frigate for US$450mn pushes that a bit though!

When we look at ships capabilities and costs we see that frigates are a waist of time in 2’s and 3’s and that the money can be better spent. I will pick on a few Corvette – Frigate types that can be got for around the 400 million dollars

1) Khareef Class 100m speed 28Kn crew 100 range 4500nm cost 223 million dollars each
Armament 1 76mm -2 30mm -12 Mica VL- 8 Exocet -1 helicopter- Smart-S 3D radar range 120nm

2) Incheon Class 114m speed 30kn crew 145 range 4500nm cost 232 million dollars each Armament 127mm -1 20mm phalanx – 21 RAM-116 – 8 SSM700k – 4 Hyunmoo-3 missiles – 6 torpedoes – 1 Helicopter – Smart –S 3D radar range 120nm

3) Ada class 100m speed 30kn crew 95 range 3500nm cost 260 million dollars each Armament 1 76mm – 2 12.7mm – 21 RAM-116 – 8 Harpoon – 6 torpedoes – 1 helicopter – Smart-S 3D radar range 120nm

As we can see all these ship will cost more than the budget so something will have to go armament or radar if we now look at say the Oaxaca class OPV as I would have it configured which is not that much removed from the Mexican ships

Oaxaca Class 86m speed 20kn + crew 77+40 Marines range 5500nm cost 50 million dollars each Armament 1 76mm – 2 25mm – 21 RAM-116 – 1 helicopter – Scanter 4100 2D radar range 95nm and a Selex NA-30 fire control system
So what are the pros and cons well the cons are that the Oaxaca’s loose 8-10 knots on the frigates and have little to no offensive capability and also loose 25nm radar range pros they can have 8 hulls in the water instead of 2 they have better range and could be given a offensive capability by helicopter or in a upgrade program latter

Probably a better point of comparison IMHO would be the Turkish MILGEMs. Hulls 8-16 will cost $300-350 million each.

That’s pretty much the same ballpark once you factor in differences in hull size (+500 tons), equipment fit (CAPTAS, Mica VL vs. RAM), economies of scale, design & tech transfer costs etc. Certainly the Philippines won’t be getting more than basic light frigates on that budget!

I was looking at this just the other day… figured it might be interesting to compare to LCS, given the USN’s recent announcement that they’re looking at frigates again.

The only official figure I found is 9 billion ringgit, which indeed comes out to about $450 million per hull. That doesn’t sound inordinately expensive though. The equipment fit is quite high end (Smart S radar, Captas 2 sonar etc).

Yeah thats the figure I found too. Still looks pretty steep to me to be honest…when you consider that the Lekiu’s (effectively also a 110m-ish CODAD FFL) came in at about US$285mn per hull and that was just a 2 ship build!. Obviously that was in 1993 and things cost a bit more now and, of course, I take your point that some of the kit on the new Malaysian ships will be high-end…then again though SMART-S Mk2 isnt Herakles…CAPTAS2 isnt CAPTAS4 and VL Mica isnt Aster!. Its all good kit but not the really high end expensive stuff is it?.

Certainly puts the Philippines task, to pick up 2 new build frigates for US$400mn, into context doesnt it?!!

Nothing there that LCS can’t have a module set made for (even the 8xHarpoon class ASM & tactical VLS for 32 ESSM-class missile – 4xMk41 would do). Even the same 57mm gun and 2xtwin 30mm set that everyone criticizes as inadequate.

A bit more survivable hull, twice the crew, and a lot slower.

Indeed, the Malaysian Gowind basically is LCS without the speed requirement.

This makes for an interesting comparison of trade-offs. In return for a 12-knot loss in sprint speed, you get:

IMHO a slightly enlarged Gowind (in order to fit a double hangar) would make for a very good paper benchmark for the future LCS Flight II “frigate”.

Nothing there that LCS can’t have a module set made for (even the 8xHarpoon class ASM & tactical VLS for 32 ESSM-class missile – 4xMk41 would do). Even the same 57mm gun and 2xtwin 30mm set that everyone criticizes as inadequate.

A bit more survivable hull, twice the crew, and a lot slower.

Edit: One quick question HK just wondering if you knew much about the Malaysian Gowind deal?. I was reading something like they were going to be shelling out nearly $400mn a unit for what is essentially a fairly ordinary FFL design?. Did someone get the numbers wrong on that do you know?.

I was looking at this just the other day… figured it might be interesting to compare to LCS, given the USN’s recent announcement that they’re looking at frigates again.

The only official figure I found is 9 billion ringgit, which indeed comes out to about $450 million per hull. That doesn’t sound inordinately expensive though. The equipment fit is quite high end (Smart S radar, Captas 2 sonar etc).

Fully agree that sea denial is the right approach given the PN’s limited ressources. Not sure though how large, vulnerable helicopter-capable OPVs fit into that strategy.

Sub-warfighting primarily. MSO, sovereignty patrol, SAR, anti-piracy, some defence diplomacy and the usual peacetime taskings. Still going to be the main job that the PN handles and needs to keep on doing/do better at given its geography and disposition. Eliminate everything current corvette sized and above, save the WHECs, and put the Oaxaca type hulls in and efficiency and mission effectiveness has to climb significantly. In support of the sea denial strategy its a stand-off flight deck for a radar chopper…ESM/Scanter/STRALES gives it a measure of antimissile capability but principle defence would be a hasty retreat from the combatant forces whilst staying within chopper radius. Chopper cues up the FAC(M) flotilla or positions them for the ambush.

I’m a fan of unconventional small designs, so I’d suggest a bunch of small, high-endurance, drone-capable trimaran patrol boats for the coast guard/lightly armed patrol mission. Something like the Ocean Eagle would do the job and most importantly would put fewer eggs into the same basket than an OPV.

For me I see the PN OPV mission as including verification and interdiction efforts in areas like Scarborough Reef and the Spratleys. For me the ability to embark an EMF up to, say, platoon strength and with the ability to land them in substantial fast boats would be something I’d look for. If, as it appears, the Mexican designs have the space for deploying Sb90E type LCP’s or the Thor multihulls that, again to my mind, looks like a useful capability to have. In very treacherous shoal waters sending a pair of Thors over to inspect an island with a reinforced infantry squad in one Thor. A second on overwatch in Force Protection configuration with a 40mm AGL or LW25 Trackfire mount and the ship stood off 10,000yds or so with the 76mm trained out then you have a fairly well covered inspection team. Thats even if you have no aviation assets aboard today!. Obviously the same applies to situations like MSO in the Gulf or antipiracy off Aden!. The Ocean Eagle, while 100% sexier, just doesnt look to offer the same kind of presence and capability set.

For the FAC(M) role, Hayabusa sticks out like a sore thumb (signature reduction not a forte of Japanese naval designers, it seems!). I would much prefer the well-proven Skjold or possibly even CMN’s big-brother to the Ocean Eagle (Combattante SWAO 53)… if the latter can fit SSMs ahead of its flight deck. Or even a mix of both designs.

Yep got to say I had looked hard at Skjold (as I did the Rasmussen OPV’s instead of the Oaxaca) and I”ve got to say I’d expect either/both to do an excellent job as both are superb designs…both in individual unit capability and quality likely better than the designs I’d opted for. I simply think they’re too expensive….or rather the Japanese and Mexican offerings appear to be cheaper and both appear to be up to the job. Naturally the cost is pure guesswork on my part but its the best guess I’ve got based on public source material and an idea that the Mexicans would just love to get into the ship export business and Japan could well be served by the enhancement of the PN’s combat potential!. In both cases the hull numbers are, to me, more interesting than absolute capabilities.

In terms of the Hyabusa’s signature I’m not sure thats actually an issue of great concern its a tradeoff though…larger number of less capable boats against fewer better ones. As stated, for this case, i like the regional link and the design simplicity. If the PLAN jump in with carrier battlegroups and heavy bombers then PN is on best efforts anyway. The idea would be sea denial against a more modest force…not the whole South Sea Fleet. If the opfor has only chopper radar and the locals can coordinate a multi axis attack with a couple of flotillas of FACs from shoal or congested waters then range and opfor targeting challenges work in the FACs favour higher signature or not!.

Edit: One quick question HK just wondering if you knew much about the Malaysian Gowind deal?. I was reading something like they were going to be shelling out nearly $400mn a unit for what is essentially a fairly ordinary FFL design?. Did someone get the numbers wrong on that do you know?.

Fully agree that sea denial is the right approach given the PN’s limited ressources. Not sure though how large, vulnerable helicopter-capable OPVs fit into that strategy.

I’m a fan of unconventional small designs, so I’d suggest a bunch of small, high-endurance, drone-capable trimaran patrol boats for the coast guard/lightly armed patrol mission. Something like the Ocean Eagle would do the job and most importantly would put fewer eggs into the same basket than an OPV.

Ocean Eagle 43 (3 on order for Mozambique)
www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1225

For the FAC(M) role, Hayabusa sticks out like a sore thumb (signature reduction not a forte of Japanese naval designers, it seems!). I would much prefer the well-proven Skjold or possibly even CMN’s big-brother to the Ocean Eagle (Combattante SWAO 53)… if the latter can fit SSMs ahead of its flight deck. Or even a mix of both designs.

Combattante SWAO 53
www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/world-naval-forces/west-european-navies-vessels-ships-equipment/french-navy-marine-nationale-vessels-ships-equipment/patrol-vessels/660-combattante-swao-53-stealth-ship-concept-cmn-constructions-mecaniques-de-normandie-vtol-uav-datasheet-pictures-photos-video-specifications.html

Thats not exactly the way I read it Tempest. There are some fairly big foreign yards leveraging the cheap workforce in the Phillipines…amongst them Nanjin (S.Korean) and Keppel (S’porean) these are well able to build any surface unit up to aircraft carriers!. There are also a few, developing, indigenous yards like HSI that look almost perfectly set up to build this kind of simple 80-90m circa 2000ton OPV.

So the facilities, for a govt. order, are there regardless and you could only assume would be inordinately happy to have a crack at, say, a 6 hull order for an Oaxaca based design or a Damen 9014…hulls with obvious export potential…especially if they can team up with the designer and offer them at a price leveraging their low cost-base. The potential benefits of such a deal I think would obviate the kind of future work guarantees that we see demanded by Euro yards that know they offer a premium product when most customers pockets seem to be pushing them to make do with the more basic options!. While I dont believe that local yards would necessarily need guaranteed future naval orders, if you look at the wider mission delivery profile of the PN, it does seem that potential exists for further hull builds if a willingness to have a second look at current proposals were to occur…however unlikely that may be.

There is an active requirement, reportedly funded to the tune of 18bn Peso, for two new-build frigates seemingly as principle warfighting platforms. ASW capability I’ve seen suggested as well as contemporary anitair and surface capability. SK has apparently offered Incheon-class hulls or some derivation and Navantia has supposedly put forward an FFL design. The sense in this eludes me completely.

By my adept use of google I make that budget out at about US$400mn. Effectively the cost of a single FREMM-type comprehensive principle warfighter as far as I last checked. Two modern multirole frigates at the kind of money budgeted would seem unlikely. This budget range would appear to bracket hulls like the Milgem, perhaps some variants of Meko A class, and, possibly, some of the OPV-to-FFL nearly-frigate designs that European yards are turning out. The capabilities being modest.

If we conclude that the primary duty of the PN, that of patrol and surveillance of its territory and wider EEZ, is readily addressable from ‘cheap’ foreign OPV designs license built cheaply in local yards we can move on to address the ‘dragon’ in the room…so to speak. Combat potential.

What does the Philippines Navy need to deliver as a warfighter. As an island state with neighbouring parties contesting maritime resources, and no financial means to establish and maintain positive sea control, the goal must be sea denial. The opponent must know that the PN is watching and is capable of taking significant punitive action. To this end the question must be ‘which capabilities are important against which capabilities are deliverable’. Transport is fairly well covered with the new LPD’s and various LST and LCM platforms so exploring that any further is valueless.

Defensive ASW is a game requiring many various platforms and sensors with high levels of C3 integration and sophistication. The Philippines looks nowhere near possessing the platforms or proficiencies to play the ASW game against an outfit who could put a meaningful, volume, sub threat in front of them. Fortunately for the PN its principally the Chinese who may seek to present that sub threat and the USN has great interest in the everyday business of the PLAN sub force. ASW in blue water or littorals, in any meaningful sense, has to be a long way off for the PN. Perhaps the PhAF may wish to get into the prosecution-to-kill phase with MPA’s but it would be from USN cueing…outside the scope of things here.

Fleet AAW is also going to be tricky to deliver on the budget. US$400mn doesnt buy you much of a single contemporary AAW ship let alone two. IF its cheap a system like Sea Ceptor/FLAADS may be able to provide something approaching an area AAW envelope without the need for Aegis/SPY, EMPAR or a similar hi-end MFR. A couple of 8-cell modules embarking 64 missiles total wouldnt seem unreasonable ship impact on an FFL hull and would promise a fair level of local area air defence…much depends on the approaching threat as to whether that represents a valuable capability set though?.

Lastly of course there is surface warfare. As noted earlier this is complicated owing to the nature of the environment. Shoal waters, island archipelago’s, considerable fishing and mercantile traffic etc all adds up to a difficult surface plot for both attacker and defender.

Its possibly counter-intuitive, certainly those who’ve read my jibberings on here over the years would recognise I’ve been very critical of the solution I’d advocate, but it could well be that this is an environment that the traditional FAC(M) could really offer value.

This is, of course, contingent on two factors:
(1) that the new OPV force would all be aviation capable and
(2) the weapons/combat system selection on the FAC(M) is very specifically selected to match the environment.

My view here is that a couple of active flotilla’s of Hyabusa class FAC(M) outfitted with NSM and, if affordable, STRALES (in place of SSM-1B and 76SR) would offer more, in specific sea denial terms, than a pair of new build frigates. The quoted value I’ve seen for Hyabusa being given as Y9bn for the 6 units deployed by the Japanese…the assumption being that figure is just hull/machinery build less weapons/sensors. 9Bn yen being a surprisingly small amount for Japanese units that, while simple, seem quite well equipped.

Pulling this back to Jinan’s post about upgrades to the Hamiltons…it would be the two systems on the Hyabusa class ships I’d pull through onto the WHECs for a warfighting upgrade concept. Mk75 forward landed in favour of STRALES and a pair of quad cell NSM launchers on the quarterdeck firing over each beam. Jobs a good’un!.

I think the 400 million dollars would be better spent on 8 to 10 80 to 90m OPV’s as you say the Oaxaca Class is a good place to start. For me I would change the Scanter 2001 for a 4100 and the Selex NA-25 for a NA-30 remove the twin 50 cal’s from the flanks and fit two 25mm cannons plus replace the 30mm on top of the hangar with a 21 cell RAM unit I feel this would give the ship better eyes and ears and a better defensive capability in what is a higher threat region and I feel the changes could be made at the same time as keeping the cost below 50 million dollars if you want to give this ship a better anti-ship capability embark a helicopter capable of carrying out anti-shipping

When we look at what Frigates are on offer for the money at best they will get 2 or 3 hulls and I don’t think this will do them any good 8 to 10 Oaxaca’s hulls as laid out above would make very good multi-role patrol ships and would allow for better planning with in a allied plan

I see and respect your point of view but every country (Malaysia, China, Vietnam, Taiwan) in the region deploys long range anti-ship missiles. The Philippines will need to match this capability if they ever want to create a credible deterrence and be able to defend their EEZ.

Indeed the ability to reach out is significant I’d not disagree with that. Range can be achieved by slinging a light AShM on the side of a chopper and taking the ultimate in targeting logic (lad/lass with the firing trigger) right up to ‘terminal phase’ seeker acquisition of course. The other way to do it, where RoE may be challenging, is with a very smart missile. NSM is that for my money. Range and high confidence discrimination come with the system.

VT Halter Marine delivers the last Ambassador MK.III to Egypt this year. The Philippines should really apply for a FMS loan and sign a contract for this craft. All the tooling and the knowledgeable workforce is already in place and they would be able to start on the Philippines order right after the Egyptian order has been completed. The Ambassador MK.III is armed with 8 Harpoons so this would be a huge step up in capability and would give the Philippines a credible deterrence and the ability to defend the EEZ. I am a huge fan of the Hyabusa Class but I doubt Japan will start exporting military equipment within the next 5 years.

Nothing wrong with the Ambassadors from what I can see and the point you make about the FMS is of course a very valid one. As noted though there is budget allegedly made available (for the frigates) that could be reallocated and there is some small amount of sense in sourcing platforms from regional partners with, perhaps, a common view of the opposition. Reinforcing defence ties with Japan in my view could be healthy for the Philippines. Again I’m not a fan of active-radar missiles in these waters so Harpoon would not be my first choice here, whichever type of FAC were selected, though the warhead size and land-attack option could be a very useful side capability of the system.

For me Hyabusa would win on the simplicity and apparent low cost of the design. Hull numbers will count. Really only the hull and machinery necessarily need to be Japanese sourced and, perhaps, even some license building in Philippine yards could figure in to that. I’m not sure then that Japans self-imposed policy restriction on military exports would be triggered by such a sale. Certainly enough ambiguity exists to allow a sale….similar to the French export of the unarmed Lafayettes to Taiwan in some ways. The Philippines could fairly easily select their own weapon and sensor package as a separate deal with the requisite manufacturers…further to that they could carry through weapon and sensor elements to create commonality across WHEC, OPV and FAC fleets and streamline logistics and support elements and maximise volume cost savings.

Lastly of course there is surface warfare. As noted earlier this is complicated owing to the nature of the environment. Shoal waters, island archipelago’s, considerable fishing and mercantile traffic etc all adds up to a difficult surface plot for both attacker and defender.

I see and respect your point of view but every country (Malaysia, China, Vietnam, Taiwan) in the region deploys long range anti-ship missiles. The Philippines will need to match this capability if they ever want to create a credible deterrence and be able to defend their EEZ.

My view here is that a couple of active flotilla’s of Hyabusa class FAC(M) outfitted with NSM and, if affordable, STRALES (in place of SSM-1B and 76SR) would offer more, in specific sea denial terms, than a pair of new build frigates.

VT Halter Marine delivers the last Ambassador MK.III to Egypt this year. The Philippines should really apply for a FMS loan and sign a contract for this craft. All the tooling and the knowledgeable workforce is already in place and they would be able to start on the Philippines order right after the Egyptian order has been completed. The Ambassador MK.III is armed with 8 Harpoons so this would be a huge step up in capability and would give the Philippines a credible deterrence and the ability to defend the EEZ. I am a huge fan of the Hyabusa Class but I doubt Japan will start exporting military equipment within the next 5 years.

I think you are right in what you are saying an indigenous ship building yard is the way ahead but for that to work it will need the commitment of the Philippines Government and MOD to something like 15 -20 ships over as many years and at first the backing and support of someone like fassmer – BAE Systems (this could be anyone) I also think they should look to build something like a very simple MHPC based on a 80 or 90 meter OPV hull able to conduct helicopter operations or carry up to 4 full 20 foot containers on the heli pad for offboard ops

Thats not exactly the way I read it Tempest. There are some fairly big foreign yards leveraging the cheap workforce in the Phillipines…amongst them Nanjin (S.Korean) and Keppel (S’porean) these are well able to build any surface unit up to aircraft carriers!. There are also a few, developing, indigenous yards like HSI that look almost perfectly set up to build this kind of simple 80-90m circa 2000ton OPV.

So the facilities, for a govt. order, are there regardless and you could only assume would be inordinately happy to have a crack at, say, a 6 hull order for an Oaxaca based design or a Damen 9014…hulls with obvious export potential…especially if they can team up with the designer and offer them at a price leveraging their low cost-base. The potential benefits of such a deal I think would obviate the kind of future work guarantees that we see demanded by Euro yards that know they offer a premium product when most customers pockets seem to be pushing them to make do with the more basic options!. While I dont believe that local yards would necessarily need guaranteed future naval orders, if you look at the wider mission delivery profile of the PN, it does seem that potential exists for further hull builds if a willingness to have a second look at current proposals were to occur…however unlikely that may be.

There is an active requirement, reportedly funded to the tune of 18bn Peso, for two new-build frigates seemingly as principle warfighting platforms. ASW capability I’ve seen suggested as well as contemporary anitair and surface capability. SK has apparently offered Incheon-class hulls or some derivation and Navantia has supposedly put forward an FFL design. The sense in this eludes me completely.

By my adept use of google I make that budget out at about US$400mn. Effectively the cost of a single FREMM-type comprehensive principle warfighter as far as I last checked. Two modern multirole frigates at the kind of money budgeted would seem unlikely. This budget range would appear to bracket hulls like the Milgem, perhaps some variants of Meko A class, and, possibly, some of the OPV-to-FFL nearly-frigate designs that European yards are turning out. The capabilities being modest.

If we conclude that the primary duty of the PN, that of patrol and surveillance of its territory and wider EEZ, is readily addressable from ‘cheap’ foreign OPV designs license built cheaply in local yards we can move on to address the ‘dragon’ in the room…so to speak. Combat potential.

What does the Philippines Navy need to deliver as a warfighter. As an island state with neighbouring parties contesting maritime resources, and no financial means to establish and maintain positive sea control, the goal must be sea denial. The opponent must know that the PN is watching and is capable of taking significant punitive action. To this end the question must be ‘which capabilities are important against which capabilities are deliverable’. Transport is fairly well covered with the new LPD’s and various LST and LCM platforms so exploring that any further is valueless.

Defensive ASW is a game requiring many various platforms and sensors with high levels of C3 integration and sophistication. The Philippines looks nowhere near possessing the platforms or proficiencies to play the ASW game against an outfit who could put a meaningful, volume, sub threat in front of them. Fortunately for the PN its principally the Chinese who may seek to present that sub threat and the USN has great interest in the everyday business of the PLAN sub force. ASW in blue water or littorals, in any meaningful sense, has to be a long way off for the PN. Perhaps the PhAF may wish to get into the prosecution-to-kill phase with MPA’s but it would be from USN cueing…outside the scope of things here.

Fleet AAW is also going to be tricky to deliver on the budget. US$400mn doesnt buy you much of a single contemporary AAW ship let alone two. IF its cheap a system like Sea Ceptor/FLAADS may be able to provide something approaching an area AAW envelope without the need for Aegis/SPY, EMPAR or a similar hi-end MFR. A couple of 8-cell modules embarking 64 missiles total wouldnt seem unreasonable ship impact on an FFL hull and would promise a fair level of local area air defence…much depends on the approaching threat as to whether that represents a valuable capability set though?.

Lastly of course there is surface warfare. As noted earlier this is complicated owing to the nature of the environment. Shoal waters, island archipelago’s, considerable fishing and mercantile traffic etc all adds up to a difficult surface plot for both attacker and defender.

Its possibly counter-intuitive, certainly those who’ve read my jibberings on here over the years would recognise I’ve been very critical of the solution I’d advocate, but it could well be that this is an environment that the traditional FAC(M) could really offer value.

This is, of course, contingent on two factors:
(1) that the new OPV force would all be aviation capable and
(2) the weapons/combat system selection on the FAC(M) is very specifically selected to match the environment.

My view here is that a couple of active flotilla’s of Hyabusa class FAC(M) outfitted with NSM and, if affordable, STRALES (in place of SSM-1B and 76SR) would offer more, in specific sea denial terms, than a pair of new build frigates. The quoted value I’ve seen for Hyabusa being given as Y9bn for the 6 units deployed by the Japanese…the assumption being that figure is just hull/machinery build less weapons/sensors. 9Bn yen being a surprisingly small amount for Japanese units that, while simple, seem quite well equipped.

Pulling this back to Jinan’s post about upgrades to the Hamiltons…it would be the two systems on the Hyabusa class ships I’d pull through onto the WHECs for a warfighting upgrade concept. Mk75 forward landed in favour of STRALES and a pair of quad cell NSM launchers on the quarterdeck firing over each beam. Jobs a good’un!.

Not sure really there Nelson…not seeing what that design actually gives you?. Couple of 5.5-7m RHIBs, a low mounted radar, and a missile fit on a unit with no ability to defeat even a modest counter-threat. Doing a bit of digging on SEA1180 and the MRV80 it appears that the concept has been well explored and has a measure of popular support with the local defence enthusiast community at least!. The link to the in-country Austal facility, as you mention, is well noted.

SEA1180 seems to have taken an odd path, I’m assuming due to the relative lack of maturity of offboard MCM etc, morphing into a MRV/modular requirement long term and an interim Armidale replacement?. At face value there seems to be a common (beween Aus and the Phillipines) need for high endurance patrol function at lowest cost…and the 2013 White Paper appears to suggest their interim hull will be of an established design. Perhaps an opportunity for the Philippines to jump in on a bigger order?.

Looking round the region what is there in terms of developed and deployed hulls as a start point?. The Damen 9014 that the Vietnamese just built maybe…could be a bit on the large side though?. The Kiwi’s seem less than impressed with their STX designed hulls and I’m not sure that the Armidales themselves are a great starting point for anything new?. Interesting developments in the region to come it seems?!

I think you are right in what you are saying an indigenous ship building yard is the way ahead but for that to work it will need the commitment of the Philippines Government and MOD to something like 15 -20 ships over as many years and at first the backing and support of someone like fassmer – BAE Systems (this could be anyone) I also think they should look to build something like a very simple MHPC based on a 80 or 90 meter OPV hull able to conduct helicopter operations or carry up to 4 full 20 foot containers on the heli pad for offboard ops

Can the Austal facility in the Philippines handle anything over 60 meters? I did not think so but I could be mistaken.

Actually that might be somewhat awkward….its not the length though. Where it that simple then they have a two bay facility so its just a case of building a fore and aft module and joining them outside the hall….might’ve actually worked well that as much of the fitting out could have been done ahead of final assembly. The slip can, apparently, handle 80m and 1000 tonnes at the site so launching wouldnt have been an issue either.

The problem would look to be in the beam…Austal show a moulded beam of 21m for the MRV…Cebu state their build bays are 20m wide. Perhaps they could build in four 20x21m modules and join them up outside….same advantage in fitout would apply. Making sure 4 modules line up precisely is, naturally, a more challenging and riskier proposition than two though. Think I’d still favour trying to get Austal US to build 4-6 and try for some FMS funding off the back of it. If successful, I’d look to an indigenous yard, like HSI, to build a similar number of Oaxaca’s locally funded.

Doing a bit of digging on SEA1180 and the MRV80 it appears that the concept has been well explored and has a measure of popular support with the local defence enthusiast community at least!. The link to the in-country Austal facility, as you mention, is well noted.

Can the Austal facility in the Philippines handle anything over 60 meters? I did not think so but I could be mistaken.

Not sure really there Nelson…not seeing what that design actually gives you?. Couple of 5.5-7m RHIBs, a low mounted radar, and a missile fit on a unit with no ability to defeat even a modest counter-threat. Doing a bit of digging on SEA1180 and the MRV80 it appears that the concept has been well explored and has a measure of popular support with the local defence enthusiast community at least!. The link to the in-country Austal facility, as you mention, is well noted.

SEA1180 seems to have taken an odd path, I’m assuming due to the relative lack of maturity of offboard MCM etc, morphing into a MRV/modular requirement long term and an interim Armidale replacement?. At face value there seems to be a common (beween Aus and the Phillipines) need for high endurance patrol function at lowest cost…and the 2013 White Paper appears to suggest their interim hull will be of an established design. Perhaps an opportunity for the Philippines to jump in on a bigger order?.

Looking round the region what is there in terms of developed and deployed hulls as a start point?. The Damen 9014 that the Vietnamese just built maybe…could be a bit on the large side though?. The Kiwi’s seem less than impressed with their STX designed hulls and I’m not sure that the Armidales themselves are a great starting point for anything new?. Interesting developments in the region to come it seems?!

Since Austal owns a shipyard in the Philippines maybe we can see something like this;

[ATTACH=CONFIG]225780[/ATTACH]

Length: 59 meters
Weapons: Two forward facing Penguin missile launchers on the sunken-in “A” position, One 30mm cannon “B” position, & Two 12.7mm heavy machine guns.
Speed: 25 knots
Range: 4,000 nautical miles
Endurance: 28 days
Crew: 25

Source: http://www.shipbucket.com/ Artist = Rowdy36

I agree on both points and when I say I would like to see 4 WHEC’s in the fleet this is for 2 reasons at this time they need a handful of newer cheap ships that are capable of conducting the 3 main tasks as I see them in the op and I feel with four comes real flexibility with at least one ship of the class at sea all year round on patrol this also gives the fleet the ability to conduct Ex’s and relief missions at home and in region at a lower operational rate per ship it is interesting to note that this class of ship can produce 10,000 US gal’s of fresh water in 24 hrs and hold 17,000 gal’s or between the 4 ship 1.5 million litres in 24 hrs given that the Philippines is hit all the time by typhoons this is a much needed capability along side the ability to conduct helo op’s in support of operations

Its a good point Tempest – disaster assistance roles take on a much greater significance when you take a battering like the Philippines seem to with grim regularity. To that end though, whilst the qualities you note above are indeed laudable and undoubtedly lifesaving, should a future patrol hull look to have more capability in that regard?. They’re clearly looking to add maritime lift with the pair of Makassars that theyve ordered from Indonesia. When you take the fresh water example you mentioned and look at the capability of something like the containerised specialist system like Waterpod (http://www.adedgetech.com/waterpod.html) you’ve got a 20ft container doing 400gpm so in 25 minutes its put out more than the ship can do in 24hrs. Thats not to say the ships capability is valueless…far from it, but, is there more wisdom in buying a few of those containers and similar other types and a patrol ship able to transport them and do a proper job than it is to rely on the more modest capabilities?.

Here I’m looking at something like Austals MRV platform. Something that, while the duty Makassar is dealing with the geographical focus of recovery ops, could leapfrog out and deploy resources to smaller settlements/islands, but, do so without diminishing its duties as a patrol platform in its own right?. Cost would be a key factor of course (unless Austal could fudge something with its US business to leverage FMS money!?) but a three-diesel machinery fit in a hull sporting a Scanter41xx/LIROD sensor package plus a 3P/antimissile capable for’d mount, a Mk38mod2 on each beam all backed with an ESM/Nulka fit doesnt appear colossally extravagant in terms of the real cost items in a hull and, if it extends the functionality of the Makassar, would be be worth a little additional spend?.