Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

RichardIC · Post by **RichardIC** » 25 Jan 2021, 20:20

Ok, this is the second time these have been referred to by 1SL (6:11), the first being his Christmas/New Year video. Meanwhile no mention of the Multi-Role Research Vessel touted in the Nov 19 PM's announcement.

So it appears the plan may have changed. Or not. Who knows?

Maybe the Integrated Review will shed some light.

SKB · Post by **SKB** » 25 Jan 2021, 20:34

To replace Echo class or reinforce them? *shrug*

Post by **Repulse** » 25 Jan 2021, 22:12

The global role of the two Echos is still there. I hope this is a signal of a small fleet, especially with a degree of strengthen hull for artic operations there is an argument for 1/2 dozen, to complement the other UUV/USV capabilities of the planned T26/T31/T32 platforms.

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 26 Jan 2021, 04:39

Repulse wrote:to complement the other UUV/USV capabilities of the planned T26/T31/T32 platforms.

Let's also remember - until we get any of the new 'researh' ships - that the secondary role for the Echos is a command function for MCM fleets
- with the rumoured demise of the dedicated two MCM classes of vessels, that command role might even be elevated. Even if the actual 'worker bees' are to be launched from other vessels

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 26 Jan 2021, 09:05

And an update from Downunder popped up:

Mercator wrote: a new hydrographic capability,” Minister Reynolds said.

“These vessels will help Navy navigate more confidently throughout the region, and safely clear minefields with the use of autonomous technologies.”

If you don't use other vessels to launch the remote/ autonomous worker bees, then our 2 is nowhere near enough. Australia planning 8.

AndyC · Post by **AndyC** » 26 Jan 2021, 09:46

Most likely a replacement for Scott.

Pseudo · Post by **Pseudo** » 26 Jan 2021, 10:26

Do I hear anyone whispering the words Type 32?

RichardIC · Post by **RichardIC** » 26 Jan 2021, 10:36

AndyC wrote:Most likely a replacement for Scott.

Pseudo wrote:Do I hear anyone whispering the words Type 32?

This seems to be separate from Type 32 and Navy Lookout indicated they are indeed a replacement for Scott. But no citation.

https://www.navylookout.com/a-year-in-r ... y-in-2020/

Two hydrographic vessels will be purchased to replace HMS Scott, but with additional capabilities to monitor and protect undersea cables.

Tempest414 · Post by **Tempest414** » 26 Jan 2021, 10:39

For me the little nugget was shipping to support future RM at around 6.20 in

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 26 Jan 2021, 10:42

Oohh... a multi-role frigate!

@Mercator had picked up that the ozzie thing will be of OPV shape; don't know from where as the article linked on that thread didn't say so
- nevertheless, great minds think alike

Of course Scott is a rather massive thing; does anyone know why exactly? Ie. will those reasons persist into the future
- the closest benchmark might be the Yantar, the lead vessel of project 22010 with a displacement of 5200 tons... undersea cables and all that

Mercator · Post by **Mercator** » 27 Jan 2021, 23:51

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Oohh... a multi-role frigate!

@Mercator had picked up that the ozzie thing will be of OPV shape; don't know from where as the article linked on that thread didn't say so...

"My second announcement is that the Government has made a decision to build a variant of the offshore patrol vessel for the new Mine Countermeasures and also our new Hydrographic vessels. This commitment boosts our election commitment from three vessels now to eight. And this is an investment, an additional investment, of up to $5 billion in the build..."
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/min ... al-base-wa

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 28 Jan 2021, 05:24

Thx, interesting.

24 (local) bns over two decades just into naval weapons, more to follow in announcements for land based ones.

And that the Anzacs will be the first to get them; is there space after the ESSM upgrade?

Also, l-w torps. The 'euro'-torp is already quite old, so will this be the one from Saab? Which would mean attention being paid to engaging in the littoral(s)

RichardIC · Post by **RichardIC** » 10 Mar 2021, 15:31

The threat to world’s communications backbone – the vulnerability of undersea cables

https://www.navylookout.com/the-threat- ... ea-cables/

Poiuytrewq · Post by **Poiuytrewq** » 20 Mar 2021, 22:29

A few snippets here:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... -russians/

"Due in service by 2024, the Multi Role Ocean Surveillance ship (MROSS) will help protect critical national infrastructure such as undersea cables which carry trillions of dollars of financial transfers each day and transmit 97 per cent of the world’s global communications.

The MROSS is likely to operate a towed-array sonar cable and underwater drones to search for submarines interfering with sea-bed cables."

In service by 2024?

Seems a tad ambitious.....

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 20 Mar 2021, 22:49

Poiuytrewq wrote: In service by 2024?

Seems a tad ambitious.....

Moon pools and any such are now std in ship building. And not many off-shore support vessels are being ordered, so... it is really just down to getting the kit to put onto these ships

Poiuytrewq · Post by **Poiuytrewq** » 20 Mar 2021, 23:00

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Moon pools and any such are now std in ship building. And not many off-shore support vessels are being ordered, so... it is really just down to getting the kit to put onto these ships

A conversion would be entirely possible in that time frame but from ordering to commissioning in 3 years for a purpose built vessel seems tight.

RRS Sir David Attenborough took 4 years from first steel cut to handing over.

Caribbean · Post by **Caribbean** » 20 Mar 2021, 23:05

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote: In service by 2024?

Seems a tad ambitious.....
Moon pools and any such are now std in ship building. And not many off-shore support vessels are being ordered, so... it is really just down to getting the kit to put onto these ships

Yes - for this time-frame, it's likely to be an existing design with minor changes for the specifc role. My money would be on a follow-on order for an RRS-type hull (or two), with some changes to allow for towed arrays and additional off-board systems and the lab space being re-purposed for control consoles for the same off-board systems. Not sure what they'll use the 5000t hold for, but I'm sure they can put it to good use (probaly not VLS silos, but that would be amusing).

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 21 Mar 2021, 07:54

Poiuytrewq wrote: RRS Sir David Attenborough took 4 years from first steel cut to handing over.

In that time you could have (and fit out) a dozen of these:
The 7000dwt Edda Fjord, which reports said cost NOK340 million, is 98.2m long and 22m wide and is well equipped for ocean and deep water service.

The above was my first stab at the likely design, and if there is any veracity to the 'reports' about the Swire Offshore vessel coming in (as a stop-gap?) then it would not be far off:
PACIFIC CONSTRUCTOR
Length overall: 115.40 mLength between P.P.: 108.25 mBreadth:22.00 Gross tonnage:7888

Post by **Repulse** » 21 Mar 2021, 08:28

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56472655

“Staffed by 15” - I assume they mean crewed. Question would be is this a RN, RFA or Serco (outsourced) ship. Given the sensitive nature of the role and kit, would assume RN.

15 is too few for a RRS Sir David Attenborough type ship (28 crew), closer to a SD Victoria / SD Northern River type ship.

Also, assume they will be going for a 3 section system.

jedibeeftrix · Post by **jedibeeftrix** » 21 Mar 2021, 09:01

please can I have my Ulstein SX119 now at last?

https://www.google.com/search?q=offshor ... kjOn5mYB5M

Poiuytrewq · Post by **Poiuytrewq** » 21 Mar 2021, 09:11

jedibeeftrix wrote:please can I have my Ulstein SX119 now at last?

https://www.google.com/search?q=offshor ... kjOn5mYB5M

Why not have two?

"Multi role research vessels"

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 21 Mar 2021, 09:17

Repulse wrote:15 is too few for a RRS Sir David Attenborough type ship (28 crew), closer to a SD Victoria / SD Northern River type ship.

Indeed, and looking further into what was happening in the OSV (construction) market in the decade that abruptly ended with Covid, traditional OSVs were finally leaving fleets after 30 -45 years of service, and smaller numbers of more advanced vessels were needed as offshore drilling and production shifts to increasingly deeper water.With the offshore standstill OSV fleets are oversupplied, but a lot of construction (and design, ehhm: Rolls Royce) capacity continues to exist.
Deepwater-capable vessel designs have pioneered i.a. significant automation, flexibility of use, and redundant dynamic positioning systems.

For the deep sea cable operation/repair tech does exist, but I would expect a lot of Red Stamps on the spec of the kit that will be designed for/ fitted in these future vessels.

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 21 Mar 2021, 09:23

jedibeeftrix wrote:please can I have my Ulstein SX119 now at last?

https://www.google.com/search?q=offshor ... kjOn5mYB5M

The Kiwis were faster to the grey paint pot https://ostensjo.no/content/uploads/201 ... ington.jpg

hovematlot · Post by **hovematlot** » 21 Mar 2021, 15:05

Just paint SD North River grey. Rename her HMS Challenger. Enhance her underwater capabilities. Job done.

RichardIC · Post by **RichardIC** » 21 Mar 2021, 17:05

The Sunday Times is also running the story but says the project is to be fast-tracked with expressions of interest sought "within weeks".

It's ambiguous about numbers and about the 15 crew (sorry not got a link - I borrowed one of those foldy things that leaves ink on your fingers).

Some time ago BMT were working on this. Advertised primarily for submarine rescue. But essentially something to carry and operate offboard submersibles and reach stuff at the bottom of the sea, with the obligatory reconfigurable mission bay

Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships

Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships