Hey remember we didn't need to replace them, they were perfectly good enough to serve until 2015 or there abouts with a life extension, or at least thats what I recall being said when their replacement, a dozen full blown corvettes were cancelled in 1996. "Tampa incident", "Children overboard", "we choose who comes into our country!" etc. and they suddenly need to be replaced, cue a stretched Customs Bay Class PB, support by DMS and Bobs your uncle (or should that be idol).
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Anixtu
New Member
Can you expand on this at all wrt differences in the way the ship is being used/run?
Basically imagine a brand new rental car returned with bald tyres, burnt out clutch, no oil, wrong fuel and accident damage.
They cut up a number of the Fremantles in Darwin at DSRE.
Lucky for me, I picked up an AQUAMET 22 main shaft for peanuts, had it turned down and its now fitted to my 61 yr old harbour cruiser chugging around at 4 kts! I think it will outlive the boat
The thing that indicated to me that we hadn't improved our thinking was when I was onboard being informed that Sea Training Group were still expecting Choules to meet standard times for DC exercises.
There are a number of CO's out there that tell their young bridge watch keeping officers to 'drive it like you stole it.'
Its a bit of a catch 22 isn't it, run the ships hard and drill the crews to be prepared for anything but break the ship in the process, reducing sea days and training opportunities and damaging moral. Me thinks we need more simulators/simulation, that don't involve potentially breaking the ship, to cover the more extreme stuff and only hammer the ships when we need to for operational reason.
Machines have a finite life and the harder you work them the shorter that life is. It seems Greg Tunny (former CEO at ASC) had a point when he suggested we should be replacing hulls at 12 to 20 year intervals instead of undertaking extensive (and expensive) mid life updates, just align hull life with combat system life and replace both at the same time.
I was reading a a story in the Australian regards the transformer problems experienced by the Choules and came acoss this bit.
From my own conversations with an ex-navy person and from what I am reading here I am beginning to have my doubts.
As a tax payer I am concerned that a near new ship is laid up after less than a year's service, that our Armidale PBs are already starting to crack up, that ships like the Success, Tobruk and a big hunk of our submarine fleet is near unservicable.
In the same article the navy claimed the ship was doing 13 knots when the transformer blew. This was with in the normal speed range.
From my own conversations with an ex-navy person and from what I am reading here I am beginning to have my doubts.
As a tax payer I am concerned that a near new ship is laid up after less than a year's service, that our Armidale PBs are already starting to crack up, that ships like the Success, Tobruk and a big hunk of our submarine fleet is near unservicable.
If this is the case then I'm appalled on two counts. Firstly, that any CO could be so irresponsible and stupid and have no concept or training on basic engineering and secondly, that the EO and Chief Tiff would not have the balls to head straight to the bridge and tell the CO the consequences of his stupidity.
I'm not sure I would like to be the in the CO's shoes when the Fleet Engineer marches into the Admiral's office to report on the particular CO's conduct.
Alternatively, have we emasculated the Engineering branch so much that this no longer happens?
t68
Well-Known Member
That would make perfect sense if information from past post’s on the subject are correct, that if midlife upgrades cost just as much as new ship, I am sure countries like the PN would jump at the chance to get such ship when they come on the market.
Why not go down the path that AG suggestion before and have a 1 or 2 dedicated navy shipyard no boom bust cycle. But that would mean that funding would have to be maintained year in year out.
Re Choules - I think we need to realise that this a completely new propulsion system that is unknown to the RAN generally and lessons are being learned the hard way. Having said that, ship's staff must have learnt something from the RFA engineers and Chief Officer who helped the ship transit from the UK.
Success & Tobruk - Like the LPA's, both these ship are beyond their economical life and the govt can and do blame the Navy but the buck stops squarely at the Defmin/govt's desk for not replacing them earlier. Unfortunately, thats not the way the electorate sees it.
Subs - Too much has already been said but Chief of Navy recently stated that we have nearly trained our 4th crew ready to deploy and that all subs will soon have the updated combat system.
However, your comment re taxpayer is valid although not too much taxpayer money finds its way to defence lately
Last edited by a moderator:
On the subject of hull life ...
The bay class patrol boats ... on which the Armidale class was based ... is going to be replaced by Customs from next year after less than 15 years service life.
Even this is longer than Customs intended keeping these boats. They were only expecting about 10 years out of it.
Why would the navy be expected to get 20-25 years service life out of a vessel that was clearly only designed for a short life?
From what I am reading the Armidales will probably not last that long anyway.
The bay class patrol boats ... on which the Armidale class was based ... is going to be replaced by Customs from next year after less than 15 years service life.
Even this is longer than Customs intended keeping these boats. They were only expecting about 10 years out of it.
Why would the navy be expected to get 20-25 years service life out of a vessel that was clearly only designed for a short life?
From what I am reading the Armidales will probably not last that long anyway.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,293
Had no intention of 25years. They are to be replaced with a OPV which is going for to turn 3 classes of boats into one. Huon, SML and Armidales are all set to be replaced with a slightly larger vessel, with huons set to be replaced starting 2015, then going through to 2022 for all armidales.
The issue, as Austal have pointed out, is that the ACPB was not designed to be in seas higher then Sea State 6. But with emergency call outs being in any weather, they have had to sail and be exposed to these conditions on more then one condition and this wears down the hull. HMAS Armidale was conducting a rescue by my crew in SS6 when she experienced alot of problems, and now its state is on record. At no point were they meant to hold 50+ Illegal immigrants onboard, as Austere was designed for 12-15 illegal fisherman crew. There was no planning for this type of work, and so we may need to bring forward the ACPB replacements at the same time as Huons, which are also in a poor state.
The issue will be customs are getting similar boats(they changed the paint colour i believe, so its not the same!) to ACPB, and they may need to be called upon for Immigrants just as much as navy. At the moment they tend to fob them off to ACV Triton or navy and try to stick with Foreign fisherman, who are still operating in the North but not getting any focus so are flourishing with minimal policing.
Anixtu
New Member
That is common in the RFA too. Bay class are difficult to break that way, unlike traditional slow or medium-speed diesel powered ships.
LOL like this????
peterAustralia
Member
Firstly the taxi patrol ship picture was really funny. Secondly, does anyone think that 270t or so is the ideal size for our patrol boats. Example, the navy of Ecquador has the Esmerelda class, 690t full load, has 4 excocet, 8 cell albatross SAM, two triple torpedo tubes, 76mm gun, twin 40mm guns, bow sonar and helicopopter pad.
Now obviously that is too much equipment on board
Scale is back to a heli pad, a 76mm forward, and 2 RHIB, and you should be able to get down to 600t full load easily. Advantages (compared to Armidale class) are a bigger hull that can handle larger sea states, more space onboard, simple proven technology, should be much longer hull life too. These ships in the Ecquadorian navy have been going for 30 years, and are still going. (true they may not get the use that Australian boats get). I think this is a better way to go than 1800t or so ships the Navy wants which I am certain will cost a small fortune.
here is the link
Esmeralda class - Helicopter Database
after the cape class patrol boats fall apart, I think we should build something like this, but remove all those missiles, torpedos, sonars, extra radars etc. I think they would be cost effective to build and very cost effective to run
Now obviously that is too much equipment on board
Scale is back to a heli pad, a 76mm forward, and 2 RHIB, and you should be able to get down to 600t full load easily. Advantages (compared to Armidale class) are a bigger hull that can handle larger sea states, more space onboard, simple proven technology, should be much longer hull life too. These ships in the Ecquadorian navy have been going for 30 years, and are still going. (true they may not get the use that Australian boats get). I think this is a better way to go than 1800t or so ships the Navy wants which I am certain will cost a small fortune.
here is the link
Esmeralda class - Helicopter Database
after the cape class patrol boats fall apart, I think we should build something like this, but remove all those missiles, torpedos, sonars, extra radars etc. I think they would be cost effective to build and very cost effective to run
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
What sea state is that helicopter deck functional up to and what size helicopter can it take? In RAN service the deck probably has to be big enough for a Seahawk or MRH-90 to land even if they don't fit in the hanger.
I'd be going something the size of the NZ OPV's even if they leave off the ice strengthening and possibly add on a larger gun.
I'd be going something the size of the NZ OPV's even if they leave off the ice strengthening and possibly add on a larger gun.
Wouldn't it be in the RANs interest to leave the ice strenghtening in? I was just thinking that at some stage the RAN may find itself operating in Antarctic waters protect Australian interests much like the RNZN which has the capability too now. I'm just looking at the future and when the Antarctic Treaty lapses, possibly even before as resources become increasingly more scarce. IIRC a few years back the RNZN sent an ANZAC FFH down that way - I believe the voyage was somewhat interesting.
Australia has tried doing patrol boats on the cheap and failed miserably.
The Armidales aren't even 10 years old and are already cracking up. The fact that they have 3 crews for every 2 boats is a pretty good indication of the sort of work load they have to get through.
I wouldn't try to go the cost cutting route again. It just doesn't work.
I think that 2000+ ton ships with steel hulls built to military specs is the best way to go.
The Armidales aren't even 10 years old and are already cracking up. The fact that they have 3 crews for every 2 boats is a pretty good indication of the sort of work load they have to get through.
I wouldn't try to go the cost cutting route again. It just doesn't work.
I think that 2000+ ton ships with steel hulls built to military specs is the best way to go.
peterAustralia
Member
The NZ OPV, at 1900t look nice. The trouble is that knowing our Navy they will add this and that. Replacing a 270t boat with a 1900t ship, is going to be expensive.
A few 1900t OPVs maybe (3 or 4) could be ok, but to replace the amidale class, and then to replace the Cape class when they start to crack up again, what are you going to use. Bigger ships are nice, but a ship can only be in one place at one time. For the same money smaller boats allow you to be in more than one place at the same time, as you can get more of them
The Ecuador boats (minus all those missiles) are not as good as larger boats, but I bet my bottom dollar they will be cheaper to run, this class is going now for 30 years and still going strong. These boats can go at 36knots, not bad. Yes the small size means that they could only operate a heli occasionally, but that is better than nothing. It may need to be strenghtened (the heli deck) so that a SH60 can land and drop off a few things, before flying away, but there seems a lot of deckspace there, plus getting rid of the SAM gives some more clearance, plus remove the aft gun, and it could go aft a few more feet.
I know this is getting into opinion... I think this,, someone else thinks that..
It looks as though we are going to get 1900t OPVs which are going to be very expensive (I have zero doubt about this), and the lower teir will be the customs boats (customs patrol boats replace Navy patrol boats), which will last 10 or so years, and then need replacing. I am just saying that the lower teir could (should) be 600t boats, with more space, better seakeeping, better comfort, longer hull life, a heli pad that could be used occasionally (dropping off special forces, dropping off supplies, parts, picking up sick or injured crew) , the downside of a deck is a little more weight (no moving parts). Getting rid of all those torpedos, missiles, sonars, radars will save a huge amount of weight and cost.
A few 1900t OPVs maybe (3 or 4) could be ok, but to replace the amidale class, and then to replace the Cape class when they start to crack up again, what are you going to use. Bigger ships are nice, but a ship can only be in one place at one time. For the same money smaller boats allow you to be in more than one place at the same time, as you can get more of them
The Ecuador boats (minus all those missiles) are not as good as larger boats, but I bet my bottom dollar they will be cheaper to run, this class is going now for 30 years and still going strong. These boats can go at 36knots, not bad. Yes the small size means that they could only operate a heli occasionally, but that is better than nothing. It may need to be strenghtened (the heli deck) so that a SH60 can land and drop off a few things, before flying away, but there seems a lot of deckspace there, plus getting rid of the SAM gives some more clearance, plus remove the aft gun, and it could go aft a few more feet.
I know this is getting into opinion... I think this,, someone else thinks that..
It looks as though we are going to get 1900t OPVs which are going to be very expensive (I have zero doubt about this), and the lower teir will be the customs boats (customs patrol boats replace Navy patrol boats), which will last 10 or so years, and then need replacing. I am just saying that the lower teir could (should) be 600t boats, with more space, better seakeeping, better comfort, longer hull life, a heli pad that could be used occasionally (dropping off special forces, dropping off supplies, parts, picking up sick or injured crew) , the downside of a deck is a little more weight (no moving parts). Getting rid of all those torpedos, missiles, sonars, radars will save a huge amount of weight and cost.
- Status