View Full Version : SEA 1180 Offshore Combatant Vessel
Gubler, A.
29-06-10, 12:13 PM
Invitation to register has gone out for this important project so perhaps it should get its own thread. Statement of Requirement attached.
Seems to be some conflicting requirements in there. Long ranged counter-terrorism or counter piracy operations but mission and (presumably) weapon systems aimed at a "low end" of the warfighting spectrum? One would imagine that a long ranged counter-terrorist/piracy capability would require a fairly substantial anti-surface and CIWS at the least? Afterall Hizbollah is a declared terrorist organisation and they fired a C-802 anti-ship missile at an Israeli "patrol boat" a few years back and hit the crane of it! Hamas reportedly have C-802's now as well... How long before Al Qaida manages to get their hands on some, and the ability to target and employ them?
buglerbilly
29-06-10, 03:26 PM
To an extent it sounds like the Danish FLYVEFISKEN-class but they are only 300 tonnes...........this paper talks about max of 2,000 tonnes but then covers itself with the various Options they want to see.............full or partial modularity, dedicated vessels with capability permanently installed, etc...........20 vessels makes you think they'll go for the smaller tonnages unless someone gives them a size "mix" to suit the deidcated tasking?
Seems to be some conflicting requirements in there. Long ranged counter-terrorism or counter piracy operations but mission and (presumably) weapon systems aimed at a "low end" of the warfighting spectrum? One would imagine that a long ranged counter-terrorist/piracy capability would require a fairly substantial anti-surface and CIWS at the least? Afterall Hizbollah is a declared terrorist organisation and they fired a C-802 anti-ship missile at an Israeli "patrol boat" a few years back and hit the crane of it! Hamas reportedly have C-802's now as well... How long before Al Qaida manages to get their hands on some, and the ability to target and employ them?
To be fair, the C-802's were only able to be launched because the Israeli's left the lebanese radars on-line, thinking that Hez wouldn't have anything that could make use of the targeting data. I can only imagine that moving forward radars of this kind will be more of a priority.
If they had an IIR type seeker though, things could well be different :)
For the capability, wasn't there some kind of LCS-lite posted here a while back?
Yep, the MRV (http://www.austal.com/index.cfm?objectID=DDAD0578-65BF-EBC1-2C1EA1B423C292D9) .
Something to be considered?
Actually, reading the product brochure it almost sounds like it was designed to win SEA 1180.
Gubler, A.
30-06-10, 01:53 AM
Yep, the MRV (http://www.austal.com/index.cfm?objectID=DDAD0578-65BF-EBC1-2C1EA1B423C292D9) .
Something to be considered?
Actually, reading the product brochure it almost sounds like it was designed to win SEA 1180.
It’s a bit of the chicken and the egg... Also in this boat is the original Tenix (now BAE) OPC that was cancelled by the Howard Govt. much to the outrage of the Navy’s force planners. The only fly in the ointment (how many idioms can I get in one post) for the MRC and 1990s OPC for SEA 1180 would have been a Southern Ocean capability but the requirement specifically says the boat won't have to sail below 50 degrees South.
As to fighting capability the SEA 1180 vessel will rely a lot on its unmanned submersibles, boats and aircraft. So it will be further away from Hezi C-802s and the like than legacy vessels doing similar missions. The best defence – even better than offence (another idiom) - is the r squared law (attenuation by distance). Also the requirement does mention the ability to enhance onboard weaponry via the containerised systems which could include long range surface to surface missiles and air defence systems.
Unicorn
03-07-10, 08:11 AM
You would have thought that the Project Protector OPV class might have been in with a chance, local IP, local construction and such. Nope.
I had the chance to look over HMNZS Wellington in Sydney a month or so ago.
The crew liked the nice shiny new toy but were critical of the design, the construction and the detail of the boat.
I don't think that they will be providing any unsolicited testimonials to Transfield / Tenix / BAe Systems anytime soon.
Unicorn
Gubler, A.
03-07-10, 10:00 AM
Well the Protector class OPV design is actually owned by Kvaerner and was only selected for the RNZN because of their deep Southern Ocean (>50 degrees South) requirement. There is a lot of additional steel in the bow, enhanced stability and life support that just isn’t needed in a vessel that will never sail with the penguins. BAES Aus. would be better off evolving their OPC design to a modular, mission deck capable vessel. Whatever advantages there are in scale with a fleet of 20 are not going to be made much better by a fleet of 22.
Gubler, A.
27-07-10, 06:09 AM
Here is the industry presentation slides for SEA 1180. Some interesting stuff there... (Contacts page has been deleted.)
Ah well there's the MRV, literally front and center.
Sorry, but why do these projects take soooo long ... 2021 ..?? At what stage would Austal have the MRV for instance ..?? With computer modeling at the point it is today, all that would be needed is to build the thing..
Gubler, A.
29-07-10, 01:24 AM
Sorry, but why do these projects take soooo long ... 2021 ..?? At what stage would Austal have the MRV for instance ..?? With computer modeling at the point it is today, all that would be needed is to build the thing..
From the earlier stages than this Austal could have gone out and built their MRV and it would be ready for service by NOW. But that was if they were building for a commercial customer or a no-nonsense Government customer. This is the era of post modernism Government where process is king not delivery. But anyway the demand is not for a SEA 1180 today. The Armidales, Huons and hydros all have a lot of life left in them. If you want a corvette patrolling the Australian border then you need to go back in time and no elect the Howard government in '96 because they are the one's that cancelled the OPC project and replaced it with a patrol boat.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.0 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.