Impression of the OPV for RNLN

2D 3D view

The issue is that a camera gives no depth of vision, its a 2D image when manouvering alongside a wharf really needs a 3d appreciation

Looking at the image of the mast above, it could well be that it provides some kind of 3D FX. All the sensors are doubled, exactly what’s needed to get stereoscopic images.

regs,
gTg

EDIT: looking again at the pics it seems as there are even triple fits of the sensors per box…

If one can fit car’s with proximity warning devices for parking purposes, why not warships?

Interestng thought, I wonder if it has been trialled?

Unicorn

If one can fit car’s with proximity warning devices for parking purposes, why not warships?

Why is this a problem on a modern ship? I would really think that a video camera/monitor would suffice during maneuvering in port?

I was responding to Ja’s comment.

The issue is that a camera gives no depth of vision, its a 2D image when manouvering alongside a wharf really needs a 3d appreciation

Unicorn

See attached some pictures that I found on a Dutch naval board.

If I connect that to an article in IDR of November, where the CEO Arno Peels is interviewed:

“The next step is the introduction of a rather revolutionary new above-water warfare sensor suite based on non-rotating radar technology installed in a highly integrated mast module,” Peels says. “The SMART-S Mk 2 was to a significant extent based on re-use of existing modules. The innovation that we’re now planning is continuing this approach in the integrated mast programme. The key sensors to be included in this single-mast package will be the new SMILE radar for medium-range volume search, the new SEASTAR radar for surface search and the new Gatekeeper electro-optical camera suite. The last is designed to provide 360TH situational awareness against asymmetrical threats.”

Now the contents of the mast becomes a little bit clear: two type of radars plus IR and TV… all non rotating!

The first of class OPV for the RNLN is planned for 2009-2010.
Length around 100 meters, and 3000 tons

This OPV looks a lot like the Falcon class corvette on p 6 of http://www.iv-groep.nl/en/docs/bro-nevesbu-en.pdf and on page 24 of http://www.iv-groep.nl/en/docs/ivormatie.2005.1.en.pdf
The Falcon Class Corvette is a joint design of Iv-Nevesbu and Merwede Shipyard in the Netherlands

vision aft is also somewhat constrained

I think it’s less constraint than on any other ship of it’s class!
they have a kind of panoramic view as far as I understand, Day&night with TV and IR.

and the new Gatekeeper electro-optical camera suite. The last is designed to provide 360TH situational awareness against asymmetrical threats

Looks to me that a number of those units are integrated in the mast.

The system can be integrated in new ships’ designs and be retrofitted to existing ships. As Gatekeeper is a non-rotating surveillance system, it is particularly suitable to be positioned in an integrated sensor mast.

Source:
http://www.thales-naval.com/naval/activities/radar-sys/surveillance/products/gatekeeper.htm

That was an easy Google!

But has anyone found anything on SMILE and SEASTAR?

new SMILE radar for medium-range volume search, the new SEASTAR radar for surface search

….the position of the funnels means that vision aft is also somewhat constrained on the Project Protector OPVs.

Why is this a problem on a modern ship? I would really think that a video camera/monitor would suffice during maneuvering in port?

A side or waterline exhaust might be a better choice here, however may be more complicated and add costs. Not sure the kind of sea states the vessels are expected to encounter would add a further constraint?

The design shows some similarity with the Malaysian Meko 100 OPVs, albeit with different underwater lines and greater displacement (twice). The Meko looks larger though for some reason. The Protector OPVs are also much smaller displacement but is supposedly suitably modified for southern ocean operations. I would have thought the type of offshore industry derived Rolls Royce design vessels operated by Norway (and in future Iceland) would have been ideal?!

Ja, you mentioned the bow thrusters in relation to adverse weather and sea states (and crew comfort). I have never heard of the thruster being used in that relation, with the exception of station keeping. Any more insight on that?

No real difference between this and the RNZN’s new OPVs, the position of the funnels means that vision aft is also somewhat constrained on the Project Protector OPVs.

Unicorn

Ja: I agree with you on the funnels. But blocking the view of the bridge is not the only reason. Also the effect on sensor performance (exhaust gasses are ionised and therefor have a negative effect on radar emissions) and the IR-signature are reasons why I don’t like the funnels there. Horizontal exhausts, like on the Braunschweig-class, is a much better solution! This also gives extra space on the topdecks.

Pred is right on the MLG-27. That is the secondary gun that is visible on the AI’s. It is the most likely candidate for the selection of a remote-controlled machinegun.

The ramp is meant for an interceptor craft which wil be a further developed version of the 50kt Super-RHIB’s used Netherlands Antilles & Aruban Coast Guard (see picture). The aft boat on the port side is also an interceptor craft. The RNLN wants both types of lauching a boat because a ramp is faster, but a crane can be used during higher SS’s.

These interceptor craft are meant for compensating the lack of speed of the OPV’s. It is reported that the maximum speed of the OPV’s will not exceed 22kts. The interceptor craft are also very useful in the main mission of the OPV: Maritime Interdiction Operations.

The large crane on the starboard side is meant for larger loads. It is reported that the OPV’s will have at least reserved space for 2 TEU containers and other material. This is meant for disaster relief or other secondary missions of the OPV.

Rumors say that the Oto Melara will be bought from Denmark which has a lot surplus 76mm of the old Willemoes-class FAC’s. It is also known that the Netherlands has shown interest in the Davide/DART anti missile system for the 76mm of the M-frigates and then probably also the OPV’s.

The OPV’s will not get a goalkeeper. It will not even be fitted for… That announced the MinDef earlier in 2006. It is also a fact that RNLN has a shortage of Goalkeeper since the 2 M’s to Chile were sold with the GK inclusive. Because the OPV is a low-threat ship priority is given to the frontline ships as the LCF’s, LPD’s and AOR’s. There isn’t a possibility to buy new GK’s because production has seized apparently after the last GK for S-Korea in 2002.

The design doesn’t look too capable,but I think it is better than most people feared. It is a tailor-made design for the RNLN and it has some growth-margin for the future to make it capable of doing medium threat missions also.

The crew is 50 men and women and there is accomodation for 40 more (boarding teams, LEDET’s etc.)

Including a NH-90 with lightweight torpedoes and (soon) ASM’s (maybe NSM?!), chafflaunchers and the DART/Davide system I think it is a very capable platform.

The estimated dimensions:

100m x 16m x 4,5m
3200ton

2 5MW diesels, Diesel Electric propulsion with (obviously with D/E) FP-props.
Max. speed: 22 knots

Crew: 50
Accomodation:90

1 76mm gun incl. Davide CIWS
1 27mm MLG-27
2-4 .50 MG
2 Interceptor craft
1 RHIB (MOB-crash boat)
1 NH-90 NFH /w Mk46 and ASM’s

and including the advanced sensor suite.

The stearn ramp does indeed (upon a second look) seem to have a boat in it, here I was thinking it was a new VDS. But a VDS on a ship this size, what was I thinking :rolleyes:

The crane on the Stbd side is of a bigger tear weight thus it’s use is not for deployment of RHIB’s but something else, ammo does make sence but i can’t help thinking that there is another reason for it, i can also see that it’s in a handy position to helpo with the helo engine changes, so that’s handy, but again the crane is of a higher weight rating and thus has another purpose.

As for the fleetwide standardisation of guns, I thought they had settled on the Goal Keeper since the dutch help produce it, is there something I have missed?

Well getting back to the Dutch OPV, not sure that I like this design at all, there is a really limited view aft from the bridge due to the side mounted funnels.

Don’t like where the SAM launcher is, means you can’t have flight ops at the same time as firing SAM’s (Or is that the secondary gun (CIWS)?

The crane is in a really bad position on the starboard side there, what’s the go with that?

VDS on a ship this size would indicate that it would have an ASW role as well [..]

The bridge does have limited field of vision, agreed, between funnels and superstructure. I reckon the launcher on the hangar is in fact a remote weapon station of 20-30mm calibre. The RNLN has not yet selected one for fleetwide retrofit but neighbouring Germany is in the process of fitting the Rheinmetall MLG 27. Altogether it looks like there will be 2 cranes for deploying RIB type boats mounted on both sides of the hangar, and a 3rd RIB deployed via the stern ramp. Not sure I see a VDS, unless you meant the aft ramp?!

Well getting back to the Dutch OPV, not sure that I like this design at all, there is a really limited view aft from the bridge due to the side mounted funnels.

I would raise the brigde one level thus giving me a better view aft.

Don’t like where the SAM launcher is, means you can’t have flight ops at the same time as firing SAM’s (Or is that the secondary gun (CIWS)?

The crane is in a really bad position on the starboard side there, what’s the go with that?

VDS on a ship this size would indicate that it would have an ASW role as well but then if it does that would bump it up to a Frigate not a Corvette, the 3D Air Search Radar would also belie a Frigate as opposed to a Corvette but one could then argue that the Singaporean Navy’s Victory class is a frigate as well except that these do lack the SAM’s.

My underastanding is that a frigate has these where as the Corvette has either, not both (ASW roles- ASuW roles or Anti Air roles, not all three in one frame).

The crew comfort level looks high, the bow thruster would help with that especially in the choppy North Sea. Can’t tell if they are varrible pitch props or not, I hope they are.

Kinda looks like Austral has had a hand in this design, especially considering the Armidale class Patrol boats in RAN service now and the Bay Class patrol vessels of our Customs service. A final comparrison would be to look at the new Patrol boats of the Yemeni Navy which were also built by Austral.

On the whole, I give this design a pass, wouldn’t want to serve on one but should be ok to do the job. I expect them to have a 15 year life in service before they become to cramped in their role.

Yes, the newer vessel have that look.

Are you sure? They don’t look like trawlers to me.

http://www.lch78.net/forum/40.jpg

Dammit, you’re right. Bit of a disconnect between brain & fingers. I was thinking of the new ones building, KV Barentshav and KV Sortland. Hulls designed by Sandvik, IIRC.

Well, Norway & Denmark have OPVs over 3000 tons which are definitely OPVs, not frigates.

Yes, the largest OPV in the Norwegian Coast Guard is KV Svalbard at 6,500t.

http://www.jan-mayen.no/nyhet/nyhet2004/2004-08_aug/kvsvalbard3.jpg

They have hulls strong enough for icebreaking, for Arctic patrol, & are relatively slow, being designed for good seakeeping & long patrol range rather than speed, e.g. the Norwegian Nordkapp is based on a deep-sea trawler hull.

Are you sure? They don’t look like trawlers to me.

http://www.lch78.net/forum/40.jpg

Well, Norway & Denmark have OPVs over 3000 tons which are definitely OPVs, not frigates. They have hulls strong enough for icebreaking, for Arctic patrol, & are relatively slow, being designed for good seakeeping & long patrol range rather than speed, e.g. the Norwegian Nordkapp is based on a deep-sea trawler hull. They’re also lightly armed – but can have extra weapons fitted very quickly, expecially the Danish stanflex Thetis-class. At that point, with the extra weapons, I think they become slow frigates 😀

Doesn’t the OPV designation date from the creation of 200NM economic exclusion zones? It would seem that shipbuilders adopted the term “Offshore Patrol Vessel” as a way of marketing lightly armed patrol vessels without the political stigma of using a warship designation, like “frigate” or “corvette.”

The term OPV is meaningless to a nation that has a long tradition of purpose built patrol vessels. For instance, the USCG will continue to use the term “cutter,” which dates from an era in which the primary function of a coast guard was the collection of customs revenue. The French refer to lightly armed Floreal, LaFayette and A69 frigates as “Avisos,” the same term used in the colonial era, which better armed surface combatants like the FREMM will be called “fregates.”

3000 tonnes for a OPV ? That’s quite…err, big, isn’t it ? What distinguish this vessel from a “real” frigate ? Is this a question of weapon integration ? :confused:

Well, Norway & Denmark have OPVs over 3000 tons which are definitely OPVs, not frigates. They have hulls strong enough for icebreaking, for Arctic patrol, & are relatively slow, being designed for good seakeeping & long patrol range rather than speed, e.g. the Norwegian Nordkapp is based on a deep-sea trawler hull. They’re also lightly armed – but can have extra weapons fitted very quickly, expecially the Danish stanflex Thetis-class. At that point, with the extra weapons, I think they become slow frigates 😀

3000 tonnes for a OPV ? That’s quite…err, big, isn’t it ? What distinguish this vessel from a “real” frigate ? Is this a question of weapon integration ? :confused:
________
Ford Prefect History

Not sure if I understand you correctly.
2-M’s will stay
The 6 sold M’s will be replaced by 4 OPV

I understand fully that the OPV order is meant to keep the Dutch shipbuilding industry alive, and that sale of M-class units is meant to raise fund for the newbuilding.

I was under the impression that the 4 unit OPV order had gone in favor of Schlede and the Sigma class design?

It stood to reason that only left the two remaining M-class frigates to be replaced?