Ja WorsleyThat’s ok ELP, but I’d prefer to use these in a warrior role (Which is being developed for the USMC and USCG).
Ja WorsleyAmazing, the pics show Howard’s cockiness but he was right wasn’t he- the thing did fly!
I always dream that one day she’ll fly again but reality is that she never will, too bad. I wonder if we could make a replica and fly that instead.
As a side note, if it were built today with todays tech, I wonder how it would be- the engines on the original look a lot like the old Dart Turbo props but you’d be more inclined to use the PT-6 wouldn’t you?
Sorry side tracked- Again mate well done!!!
Ja WorsleyOfficials have confirmed that the OPV Otago is already around 100 tons overweight and thus in trouble when it comes to performance, sea keeping, ice strengthened sections being lower in the water than planned etc.
I’d hazard the guess that all available margins have been blown and there is nothing left to add bigger guns, radars etc.
Pred: mate the Kiwi’s aren’t sure what they want and are doing what we Aussies did with the SH-2G’s, keep adding and changing the specs for use in service, is it any wonder why the design isn’t meeting service specs- look at what’s just happened to Canterbury, there is more proof.
Just looking deeper into the OPV side of this and, Steve’s comments notwithstanding, its a very interesting design!. There are some deliciously detailed blueprints on the Aker website of the PV85 general arrangement.
Jonesy you sly dog, where do you think I came up with the idea for this topic 😉
Whilst I dont know about OTO guns and VLS fitting this design, looking at the capabilities on offer, I’d say it offers remarkable potential as a low-end ASW corvette for the many navies now considering solutions to neighbour states SSK capabilities.
And this is what I was thinking mate- you’re starting to think like me- STOP IT :p
The aft working deck, on the OPV, looks viable to be reconfigured to fit a Thales CAPTAS Nano active towed array on the centreline and an STWS-2 launcher on each beam. The vessel has plenty of spaces convertible to an ASW ops room and the ability to operate a chopper up to FLynx size is an obvious advantage. There appears to be plenty of space to expand the avcat bunkerage aboard though a couple of the 6 berth accomodation spaces on 1deck would likely have to make way for an air ordnance magazine and hoist. Converting the remaining 4 berth rooms to 6 berth should deal with any accom issues.
The Nano is the perfect choice here, but I was thinking of the new generation small VDS that the USN is working on now- the advantage here being the capability to go below the layer where most subs actually operate. Having said that, the Nano would be better for littoral combat situations like what we have in and around Indonesia- so really it becomes a case of pros and cons on both sides! The Lynx you mention was actually in competition with the SH-2G for the RNZN (at the same time as we had ours, the idea was that we needed these for ops off the Anzacs, since the S-70B-2’s were too big, later proved wrong). As for the berths, there seems to be a shift these days away from 6 berth accomidation, apparently this goes along the lines of offering a bit more privacy to the crew (they need to impliment this all the way back in Recruit school if they want to offer this in the fleet- sorry side nopte there from personal experience).
Above water weapons I’d keep common with the upgunned IPV to be honest. Mk110 forward for surface and, limited, anti-air/missile duties and a modest fit of NSM launchers on the weather deck aft of the bridge, displacing the SATCOM dome, should suffice. Any one of a number of commercially available 3D air/surf search sets would fit and a lightweight director plus ESM/offboard decoy fit would round it out.
Commonality with the rest of the fleet would be logistically better in any situation- I totally agree. The 56mm gun would be much better on the OPV and with new long distance shots being developed, would give roughly the same distance in fire support as a 76mm gun would without the LRP’s Speaking of the electronics fit, CEA-FAR and CEA-Span would be ideal here and add a Nulka decoy system- bang you have an effective fighting vessel.
Increases in total weight would actually be marginal and mostly at maindeck level meaning that stability should not be much affected. Removal of the ice strengthening, for those customers not requiring it, is likely to bring the hull very close being in line with the current manufacturers spec. For those requiring it the design would probably benefit from an extra 5m in the length and a couple of metres on the beam, plus a modest upgrade in engine power to keep the performance curve.
Again thinking like me- remove the ice strengthening. These vessels would then easily be sold to various small nations wishing to upgrade their naval arm such as Phillipines, Keyna, heck even Papua New Guinea might be interested in a couple!
Certainly possible. On a new ship though? And how many case studies of successful naval ship hull plugs are there? Better to work with more generous margins up front, and pay for the priviledge.
Some companies actually have done case studies on hull plugs, I know that Austral and Incat have and Meko work on a similar principle.
Austral advertise various vessels with anything up to a 10m plug, if it works then go for it, use the extra space for better equipment or simply just more room.
Sounds like a Braunschweig class corvette.
Certainly would be a good competitor to this vessel!
Ja WorsleyJonesy: Thanks mate, yes this is a theoretical and one possed on a what if country X desided that they liked these vessels but wanted a bit more fire power on them.
I like the idea of the 56mm, I can’t believe I didn’t think of that. I was thinking of placing it just forward of the 25mm system as it stands now, but just on 1 deck, with the 25mm placed behind and above it on 01 deck.
At least you are understanding the scope of this exercise mate.
I understand the Fitted for- but not with concept, but tbh mate I have never been a fan of it.
Ja WorsleySorry you are right mate.
Ja WorsleyIt does indeed look like a Seahawk. This looks like the proposal put forward to the RAN by the British team for the Australian AWD- a design that was rejected as it hadn’t been built nor tested when we selected the winner- having said that, look how fast the Type 45’s are coming on line now! This would explain the Seahawk aft.
Ja WorsleySouth Korea does indeed present a very attractive option as does Italy with knowing how to do it, but if a contract went out, I wonder if South Korea would be the cheapest (something the Indians take highly in negotiations). I’m thinking that we might actually see a surprise like Indonesia offering to build the ship.
Indonesia have recently built four large LPD’s of their own and they have come into service with very few problems considering this is the first time they have built ships of this size.
I fully acknowledge South Korea and their efforts done with Dokdo, but again I stress my point, India doesn’t want to spend money but does want all the big toys!
As for Russia’s arm twisting, I can see that the delays are going to come to a head soon and India will either pull out and sue for compensation (good luck getting money out of them, they don’t have any) or take the ship as is and finish it off themselves (similar to what China has done with their carrier). It is rather interesting to see how the political field is being played here between the two countries, yet I can’t understand why India keeps going back for more (why does a woman stay with her husband if he beats her)?
Another thought just hit me, with the current economic problems, would the US jump in and and crack the Indian market with offering to build these vessels in the US or even have a US company set up in India and build them there, also throw in a but of funding under FMS in order to get the Indians to can the Gorshkov deal and buy US equipment? We know the US is keen as mustard to get a foot hold in India, who knows, perhaps some old USMC Harriers could find their way to the IN ranks as well!
Ja WorsleyThanks, tiddles, it was a good read. Post #207 in that thread was really an answer to what I was looking for as far as what their current status is and what was still wrong with them.
Logan Hartke
Hey Logan,
I wasn’t going to jump in on this because I have been over it so many times before, but this is actually a new question so I will. Basically there is nothing wrong with them as they are- having said that, I must stress that that is on the perspective of bringing them back to the standard three person crew, or dumbing down the automation in the avionics used for this project.
During manual flight ops they still work and perform great, it’s just that some boffin in Russell saw a pic of a single crewed Ka-32 flying with the pilot sitting ouut the back door waving his head off and thought, dam we should have something like that! Considering the work it was going to do, two person crew allowed the SH-2G(A) to have a max pax aboard for VBSS ops (Visual Board Search and Seizure). In the standard 3 crew role, the SH-2 can carry 7 fully armed crew for VBSS, in the planned two person crew, the number jumped to 12 (would have been rather cramped in there too).
Basically if you dumb down the avionics involved but retain the two person crew, then you should have a half decent machine. Throw the old three person crew back in and you have a great machine, only problem is- who’s going to want a half finished job? You have to pay to either finish the job and dumb down the avionics or pay to pull all the advanced stuff out and put the old stuff back in, not going to happen either way.
My understanding was that at at least one point in the program, there was a revision (read toughening) of the required flight-safety standards the aircraft had to meet… which required a major re-work of the flight-control software, etc… so it was not all Kaman’s fault… hence the awarding of the aircraft to Kaman without their having to re-fund Australia for funds already paid.
You have it half right mate, yes there was a change in the program intentions (well several really- the brass wanted maximum effect with minimal expenditure). But the fault doesn’t all lay in the RAN.
24 months after gaining the contract signature, Kaman walked off the project without even giving notice that the project was too difficult for them to handle. Several companies then put their hands up to have a go in succession with the last being CSC computer solutions of Australia (a major local group who are hq’ed where I live). They tried but the system requirements were just that complex that even the boffins here couldn’t do it (these included former big wigs from IBM, Microsoft and Olivetti, so that gives you an idea of how complex the requirement was)!
The fact of the matter remained, Kaman walked out without any explination and as such they should have been penalised for it!
The crux of the issue here isn’t the machine- this would have happened if we had of gone for the Lynx or even the Panther (the other two contenders in the competition). The main thing is that basically Kaman did the dodgy used car sales man act on us, promised us bang for our buck, but delivered us a fizz and moved on before the ink was dry.
Ja WorsleyThe LCS’s are way too expensive for the level of capability they provide, though the very low number of crew required is a plus.
The LCS designs are interesting but yes they are too much for Customs to use, mainly because these systems are designed to be multi purpose- perhaps a design based on the LCS but in a fixed role might prove to be more lucrative!
no we aren’t the US. don’t want to be, as we already have a coast guard it,s just voluntary. the US isn,t the only other country to have a coast guard.
it may encouage people to enlist in the coast guard but don’t want to join the navy.
No you are right mate, there are Coast Guards in other countries- Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines, Japan, heck even Iceland has a Coast Guard as does Norway.
As for the AVCG, I wouldn’t put too much hope in them, they hold no policing powers, don’t have any decent boats and nothing ocean going. Basically they are just like the school yard dobbers- always running up to the teacher at telling them who did what to who!
Ja Worsleyso far I have Wasp, Invincible, Cavour, Juan Carlos I, Principe de Asturias, Garibald, Chakri Naruebet and Viraat.
Mistral, Ocean, Dokdo and HyÅ«ga might yet make it as a “could be” category. USS America maybe too but info on her seems very sketchy. The ‘official’ pics show it as just a Wasp with no well deck. Even the radars seem in line with Wasp.
I take it if you are mentioning the Juan Carlos I, that you’ll also include the Canberra and Adelaide? The rhoumors still persist down here that these vessels will have an organic air group of fixed wing fighters.
Ja WorsleyWonder if Peru could use them.
I know the Phillipines would use them but their financial position is very weak atm.
The only other two choices I can see are Argentina (who have been looking for some time at the M2K’s, to replace their older MIII’s and Neshers/Daggers), and African countries like Kenya or even Tunisia (doubt that anyone would send them to Nigeria due to the scams that are going on there).
Ja Worsley[QUOTE=marage1;1317542]pass the Anzac’s as well. replace these with AWD’s. Replace Armidales with LCS-2’s.
Mean while back on Earth!
I’d like to an aussie coast guard to take over from customs and navy in patrolling our waters, freeing up these services to do their other jobs.
Never going to happen, we are not the US.
Austal has a couple of interesting designs for OPC , one of which the LCS is based on (I think).
Yeah mate LCS-2 USS Independence is a trimaran based on an Austral design. With Austral gaining a win on the LCS contract, they set up an American office.
Ja WorsleySpeaking of revivals, considering it was Pakistan who wanted them in the first place- wonder if they would revive the original deal of offering to buy them- would give them a great chance to retire some of their older Mirage III’s (some which they bought from us that were used up anyway).
Failling that, wonder if Brazil would be interested in some more F.2000 😉
Ja WorsleyThanks for the info. I was searching for info on whether SAMs had been added. By Simbad I take it you mean a crewed twin Mistral launcher? Why oh why oh why not at least Sadral??? And why not some of those radar guided single Bofors 40mm mounts that only Brazil seems to use?
Yes a Simbad system is a Crewed version of an Army Mistral system. The reasons for choosing this system is because they are a secondary system used for close in air defence. They are back up to the two Crotale systems on board the vessel. For more info on the Sao Paulo
Where abouts are the Simbad fitted?, I’ll update the relevant graphic.
They are fitted on the sponsons the forward port quarter holding the Simbad and the first Crotale and the aft starboard quarter one holding the other Crotale and Simbad system. The other two corners holding just the Simbads (this coming off the top of my head- will call a friend in Brazil to confirm). I can confirm though that the 100mm guns are no longer on the vessel.
Re the Rafale, it’ll be great when France does chose to deploy them in a truly multirole mode – as far as my research could ascertain only 3 strike equipped Rafales have so far actually been deployed and the Super Etendard is likely to remain as the ship’s strike platform for a couple of years due to costs. Now I agree, and I believe I commented to the effect that, France could deploy a much more potent all-Rafale multi-role air wing on the CDG at short notice if the need arose. Presumably more Rafales with strike capability enabled will deploy next time she sails (imminently?).
F2 and F3 standard Raf’s have been coming on strength for some time now, a recent deployment of Raf to the US has seen the MN keep up their carrier qualifications for the pilots as well as test that these planes can and do meet MN standards. The plan has been to retire the SEM’s around 2012 with the CdG (and PA2, if they ever pull their finger out) with an all Raf combat element, how ever- having said that, the problems that they have had in the development program of the Raf in it’s different versions has lead me to thinking that the SEM’s will soldier on till at the latest 2020 (lets face it, they can’t last any longer after that- it would be like having an Alize onboard CdG today :p
Re Kuznetsov max air wing, if you combined the hanger and deck storage you could certainly carry many more than the current typical air wings. As I showed Su-33 actually folds up quite small, and MiG-29K is a possibility. However, I can’t see a max air wing being deployed for some years due to airframe availability, cost, need and aircrew training needs.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Russian Federation Navy did not opt for any Mig-29K fighters and as such only India will be the sole customer of this vairent of the Fulcrum. Having said that, Could a new and improved version become a possibility should the Russians decided that the Flankers are getting to big and expencive to operate? Could is also be said that if they go for the Mig’s then a single seat version of the Su-25 could also follow suite?
Also, re the Argentinean deployments, I was aware of them but they don’t count as ‘typical’. Part of the basis for my comparison was Typical situations, not the maximum feasible or future fit – hence I didn’t go into great lengths about many of the things people have “corrected” me about. And also why I haven’t tried “defending” my analysis very much. 😀
Sorry if my corrections have offended you- I don’t mean to discredit the work you have put into such a massive task.
Ja WorsleyActually mate I hadn’t heard that, but it does go without saying that all new ships do suffer teething problems. As for being over weight and this halving their service lives, this is interesting, I can’t see the justification for this claim. Do you have a link to this article?
Sign In
