Not a subject I’ve seen discussed on here in the past but an interesting one….not least to chart the development of the concept of the modular ‘second-line’ minor war vessel. SEA1180 being projected to replace MCMW, Hydroggie and Patrol tasked vessels. An MHPC you might say…hmmm…wonder where that term has cropped up before?!.
RAN have apparently now downselected three yards to compete for SEA1180…..Lurssen, Fassmer and Damen. Eliminating in the process, amongst others, Navantia, who they’ve obviously been working closely with on amphib and AWD projects, and the local-ish ST Marine outfit. Some interesting comparisons result from the downselect as all three have very recent experience designing, and facilitating a build phase of, modern OPV hulls.
The requirements for SEA1180 add further curiosity to the pot:
….and the extra curiosity?. The vessels that this type will replace currently operate from the RAN’s northern basing centred on, as I understand it, two shallow draught harbours 2.5m at deepest.
So….Lurssen have recent success with the PV80 and have a larger stablemate advertised….
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245427[/ATTACH]
….Fassmer have commercial success with OPV80 and similarly have the much internet-admired OPV90…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245428[/ATTACH]
….and Damen have a few designs in scope with Vietnam being a recent recipient…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245430[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245429[/ATTACH]
….all of which seem to offer some or all of the capabilities desired, at around the right kind of tonnage and with varying degrees of seakeeping (the latter being a point to note given a patrol area incorporating some pointedly inhospitable waters down south!). Most seem to have a draught in the 3-4m range though which is going to make parking difficult in some towns!.
Interested in what the board makes of the challenges facing SEA1180….which design of the above (or others) is favoured and why and whether 80-90m and 2000tons is considered enough to actually do the jobs asked or, instead, is simply too big to be practical given harbour limitations?.
By: aussienscale - 21st April 2016 at 10:26
Interesting. I thought the project had actually moved back towards the original requirement since the ‘lack of technical maturity’ statement….hence the downselect of those three yards?.
The trajectory after that, probably accurate at-the-time, statement seemed to suggest, as you say, a mildly warmed over Armidale (or similar) to gap fill until something that actually fit 1180 directly could be programmed in. This selection seems to bypass that though it seems?.
The PPB I thought was a curious decision. The Damen design that was eliminated still looks the superior one to me…the Austal design looks quite modest, likely a good one to stand up a steel-working capability for a yard, I’m not so sure that getting Austal additional manufacturing capability should have been the primary selection criteria though!?.
It has been an ever changing project, 2 Governments, 5 Prime Ministers (Kevin Rudd twice) so a lot of changes to keep up with.
While I do believe the Damen to be the best option, the political climate at the moment is fragile, so your guess would be as good as mine or anyone else’s !!
Yes a Damen design has been selected and being built as a helicopter training ship, it will not be a commissioned ship in the RAN, it will be civilian manned and operated. But having said that you would hope/assume that it will have the upper hand.
The Austal decision is purely a political one, I have spoken to many about this, both former serving, current serving, and they are also at a loss 🙁
Talk on this has been pretty quiet at the moment, most attention seems to be on the imminent decision and announcement of the Sea 1000 CEP winner, National Security Council has been meeting over the last few days, and recommendations are said to be going to Cabinet at the moment for final decision.
Cheers
By: alexz - 20th April 2016 at 15:32
The damen design will still see Australian service as the helicopter training vessel.
I think it is a wise decision to omit mcm and survey from the requirements. Trying to cram too much capability into a single ship design would only increase the cost while having to accept bigger compromises compared to a separate design for mcm + survey.
By: Jonesy - 20th April 2016 at 10:16
Interesting. I thought the project had actually moved back towards the original requirement since the ‘lack of technical maturity’ statement….hence the downselect of those three yards?.
The trajectory after that, probably accurate at-the-time, statement seemed to suggest, as you say, a mildly warmed over Armidale (or similar) to gap fill until something that actually fit 1180 directly could be programmed in. This selection seems to bypass that though it seems?.
The PPB I thought was a curious decision. The Damen design that was eliminated still looks the superior one to me…the Austal design looks quite modest, likely a good one to stand up a steel-working capability for a yard, I’m not so sure that getting Austal additional manufacturing capability should have been the primary selection criteria though!?.
By: aussienscale - 20th April 2016 at 03:38
A lot of that requirement has now changed as of the release of the White Paper, the MCM and Hydro components are no longer required as per below quotes from the paper
4.35 The Government will acquire 12 new offshore patrol vessels that will
provide greater reach and endurance than the existing Armidale Class
patrol boat fleet. The new vessels will be capable of undertaking
several different roles including enhanced border protection and patrol
missions over greater distances than is currently possible with the
existing patrol boat fleet, with construction to start in 2018. All 12
offshore patrol vessels will be delivered by 2030. The Armidale Class
will be supplemented by additional patrol craft as required until they
are replaced by the offshore patrol vessels, to ensure there is no gap in
Navy’s border protection capability.
and
4.36 The mine countermeasures and military hydrography capability will
be updated to support the future force. The life of four of the current
Huon Class mine hunters will be extended while new technologies are
developed to counter the threat of maritime mines. Defence will seek
to replace the hydrographic capability with an efficient combination
of military and commercial hydrographic and oceanographic survey
capabilities.
Funding has also been put aside to upgrade Darwin to be ready for the new OPV’s, but I do share you concerns on the draught, it will certainly be a limiting factor regionally and around the country.
Whilst I am not privvy to the actual CONOPS for the new OPV, I really can’t see them heading into southern waters.
Would be interested in your opinion on Austal getting the build for the PPB’s, Will be a steep learning curve for them using steel for a change, lets hope they don’t repeat the mistakes of the Armidale Class !!
Cheers
Sign In
April 20, 2016 at 12:58 am