Also my understanding, the capabilities to be in the modules and mix n match as required but with a non negotiable helo capability whether that be lilypad (not too useful) or hangar.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10,922
Basically running track or bigger indoor gym and storage facility...unless they build something like Stirling with landing pad and hanger for Flight crew to be based out of here in Darwin or use Robertson barracks Helo facilities, and dedicated helos such as bell 429 for operations. While not constantly utilised, having the capability would be beneficial in emergencys where we currently have to sail at max speed through whatever weather conditions to get medivac persons to shore, another reason the ACPBs are getting damaged. Utilising them would also reduce our dependance on Customs flights for patrols as they can not always pick up the smallers Sievs sneaking in, a problem that happens often.
At this point in time, i doubt MCM and Hydro are top of the priorities list for minor war vessels, considering most are on Op Resoloute with the ACPBs. If the budget wording is correct, ACPB replacements will be brought forward, and MCM would have to either hold out, or hope they can add on with minimal issues, otherwise a delay will be most likely. MCM and Hydro vessels would be better off being similar, and leaving a OPV to be different class with different requirements. 3 vessels into one platform will cost more in the short term, and the current budgets have been about the short term.
With regards the Bays and Capes, customs are currently are unable to patrol Christmas Island as the bay is inadequite for range, speed and sea going compared to ACPB especially in wet season. This is where the Armidales are being drained the most as we have to sail out there nearly every rotation. Bays are left to Ashmore and closer to shore lines, as Cape class will allow the ACPB burden to be lifted for CI, as well as Ocean Protector and Triton which has to fill in whatever gaps from Navy.
Right now bays are beyond any scope in which they were designed, the customs orignal misson was shore lines in the North from Port Hedland to Cape york to patrol fisheries, which ACPB did any other jobs and the occasional CI trip. Now its wherever, whenever and both customs and the navy have the attitude of 'getting the job done'. It does not matter what the weather is like, sea state is or how long its been out, theres a job to do, and we have to do it otherwise people die and we have seen this time and time again, by getting better vessels then the last, the chances of reaching sinking vessels in time increases, and the death rate(hopefully) decreases. For you at home, this may not be in your frame of mind, but for us on the line...its a regular hazard we have to think about.
Having done both CI and Ashmore in an Attack I fully appreciate and support your sentiments, as I posted to Justsomeausie, both the ACPB's and Bays and probably Capes are not up to this type of environment and operational tempo. Not only do the boats suffer but also it drains the hell out of the crews.
Keep up the good fight Mate
Keep up the good fight Mate
Last edited by a moderator:
govt can't expect skimmers designed for green and grey water to keep on wandering out into what if effectively deep blue
something breaks in the end as they can do it now and then, but tempo will kill them
the indian ocean was killing the OHP's - let alone smaller vessels
the thing that the political types and general public continually miss is steel is cheap and air is free. It does cost more, individually, to build and operate larger vessels but not that much more. Factor in that these larger vessels are individually more capable, versatile and durable, meaning you need fewer to deliver the same level of capability, they can do things that smaller vessels cant and they will last longer or require less extensive work to last the same length of time.
Talking specifically on PBs the simple truth is they are not suited to undertake the duties they have currently bee assigned, send them out in sea state 5 they will break, or at best wear out quicker. An OPV is larger, more durable and more capable and would be able to carry out the current taskings without the help of an ANZAC on station as currently required by the ACPBs.
Talking specifically on PBs the simple truth is they are not suited to undertake the duties they have currently bee assigned, send them out in sea state 5 they will break, or at best wear out quicker. An OPV is larger, more durable and more capable and would be able to carry out the current taskings without the help of an ANZAC on station as currently required by the ACPBs.
Well hull fatigue shouldn't be as much of a problem when you upscale, but you'll likely have increased quantity/capacity requirements and associated manning increases for various HM&E systems to support the size increase. I'd be interested to see a trade study on the tradeoffs, but when you look at it with total lifecycle costs, I'm not convinced it's that easy.
Same goes for the capability piece. When you can't really quantify the scope of what you extra capability you want it to bring to the table, it's hard to say that the extra size is worth it.
Size gives space for the potential to put in more systems in the future, but future system requirements needs to be accounted for in the initial design of the power and other engineering support systems (cooling) or you will be looking at a potentially very costly redesign down the line.
You can of course do that, but then you have the perception of buying a lot of capability that will never be put to any functional use...in the US at least, there are very specific rules that prevent us from adding capability that has no other use than "potential."
weegee
Active Member
V-22 Osprey
Hey Guys,
I know we have spoken about the possibility of Ospreys operating or lillypading of our Canberra's. Allot of people seemed to be of the opinion that they would be too large to operate seriously or even put in the hanger etc.
Well I came accross this article 100 Export Orders Expected for V-22 | Defense News | defensenews.com talking about potential exports etc but it specifically mentions that the Ospreys have been operating of the Japanese Hyuga helicopter carriers? not only operating off them they have been putting them down in their hangers when the Ospreys fold their wings. Aren't the Hyuga's a lot smaller than the Canberra's? So if they fit on them surely we could get say four Ospreys 2 for each LHD? I know probably never going to happen but personally I think they are just the coolest aircraft haha
Hey Guys,
I know we have spoken about the possibility of Ospreys operating or lillypading of our Canberra's. Allot of people seemed to be of the opinion that they would be too large to operate seriously or even put in the hanger etc.
Well I came accross this article 100 Export Orders Expected for V-22 | Defense News | defensenews.com talking about potential exports etc but it specifically mentions that the Ospreys have been operating of the Japanese Hyuga helicopter carriers? not only operating off them they have been putting them down in their hangers when the Ospreys fold their wings. Aren't the Hyuga's a lot smaller than the Canberra's? So if they fit on them surely we could get say four Ospreys 2 for each LHD? I know probably never going to happen but personally I think they are just the coolest aircraft haha
Last edited:
Its about whether the capability is relevant
Its also not just about whether you can land but whether the asset can be stored and maintained on that platform
sure they can do ad-hoc involvement, but are they a suitable choice?
I'd suggest that in an australian context the chooks and blackhawk/seahawks are far better choices.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
The one area I haven't seen discussed about the ACPB replacement is what might happen if there is a change of Government in three months time, as currently appears likely to happen.
Up until 6 weeks ago when the new White Paper was released, the general public, like myself at least, were of the understanding that SEA1180 was proceeding as planned, eg, 20 OCV's to replace 4 classes of 26 vessels.
And as we now know, the current Government changed all of that and has pushed SEA1180 (in the form that it was before the new White Paper) far off into the distance to be revisited at a later date.
I would assume that it would very very unlikely that between now and the election that the Government would have released tenders, made a selection and even more unlikely that a contact will have been signed, in fact we haven't even seen the updated DCP yet to see a time frame or a budget allowance for the ACPB replacement.
Obviously I have no idea what the Opposition's position is on this particular project, but one of their major policy planks is 'border security' and also, as I understand it, they have said they will produce a new White Paper too within 12 months.
If the current Government is re-elected, then it's pretty clear that the ACPB's will be replaced with similar, or if the Opposition is elected, we may see a change, who knows.
Anyway, will be interesting to see which way this goes.
Up until 6 weeks ago when the new White Paper was released, the general public, like myself at least, were of the understanding that SEA1180 was proceeding as planned, eg, 20 OCV's to replace 4 classes of 26 vessels.
And as we now know, the current Government changed all of that and has pushed SEA1180 (in the form that it was before the new White Paper) far off into the distance to be revisited at a later date.
I would assume that it would very very unlikely that between now and the election that the Government would have released tenders, made a selection and even more unlikely that a contact will have been signed, in fact we haven't even seen the updated DCP yet to see a time frame or a budget allowance for the ACPB replacement.
Obviously I have no idea what the Opposition's position is on this particular project, but one of their major policy planks is 'border security' and also, as I understand it, they have said they will produce a new White Paper too within 12 months.
If the current Government is re-elected, then it's pretty clear that the ACPB's will be replaced with similar, or if the Opposition is elected, we may see a change, who knows.
Anyway, will be interesting to see which way this goes.
A key increase in capability associated with upsizing would be the ability to operate effectively, for extended periods in higher sea states without damaging the vessel of fatiguing or even injuring the crew. Even if every other factor remained the same, i.e. role, equipment etc. that would be a worth while capability and potential cost saving.
justsomeaussie
Member
You are underestimating through life costs associated with larger vessels, not just in terms of maintenance but more simply fuel. Total Cost of Ownership is the latest buzzword and people have really started to pay attention in the last 5 years with the long term costs of keeping vessels operational.
It's not a simple as bigger boats solving the problems, if the government can't afford the sustainment contract a lesser vessel will be chosen.
Total cost of ownership includes life of type, replacement cost and R&M. Considering that a larger hull would have only marginal increases in crew size you can discount crew costs. The others are significant as experience shows that the ACPB will struggle to go past 10 years.
A naval standard 2,000 tonner similar to the RN Rivers can be expected to serve beyond 30 years
John Newman
The Bunker Group
On the subject of SEA1180 as it was proposed to be up until the recent new White Paper, I've sometime wondered if there is still a place for ACPB sized boats in the fleet?
Having read the many posts on the pros and cons of ACPB size boats v OCV's (of possibly 80-90m and up to 2000t), it is certainly clear as to why OCV's are far more desirable to have in the fleet and there is no need for me to repeat all the pros associated with them here.
Probably the only 'pro' that I've ever read here regarding smaller ACPB size boats is that they are also very useful training grounds for junior officers and crews.
If that is true, is moving to a much larger OCV type ship (if SEA1180 had proceeded as it was) going to create a training gap or problem at the bottom end for at least the reason I mentioned above and possibly other reasons too?
If there are clear reasons why Navy needs both OCV's and PB's maybe the solution to that would have been to have a larger fleet of PB's of a common design used by both Customs and Navy, say around 14 boats across the two services, and a fleet of 12-14 OCV's at the other end.
I'm not advocating that this should be the case, but I'm just wondering if there is a valid need or case to be made for both types to be in RAN service.
Interested to hear what the Def Pro's have to think about my question.
Having read the many posts on the pros and cons of ACPB size boats v OCV's (of possibly 80-90m and up to 2000t), it is certainly clear as to why OCV's are far more desirable to have in the fleet and there is no need for me to repeat all the pros associated with them here.
Probably the only 'pro' that I've ever read here regarding smaller ACPB size boats is that they are also very useful training grounds for junior officers and crews.
If that is true, is moving to a much larger OCV type ship (if SEA1180 had proceeded as it was) going to create a training gap or problem at the bottom end for at least the reason I mentioned above and possibly other reasons too?
If there are clear reasons why Navy needs both OCV's and PB's maybe the solution to that would have been to have a larger fleet of PB's of a common design used by both Customs and Navy, say around 14 boats across the two services, and a fleet of 12-14 OCV's at the other end.
I'm not advocating that this should be the case, but I'm just wondering if there is a valid need or case to be made for both types to be in RAN service.
Interested to hear what the Def Pro's have to think about my question.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10,935
There are a few people looking for "other options". This can be postings to Majors(which are rare with changes to posting locality meaning less interstate moves), Customs positions, NT Police is always popular for navy around here, and a few are taking up jobs with contractors. Mate started few weeks ago with one company and has done more work on ACPB engines in those few weeks then his whole career up here, and gets paid something called "overtime" and "penalty rates"...no idea what it is, but sounds awesome.
The off rotation part helps alot in the short term, people can plan a little better in terms of holidays, and events during their weeks off, but its when they miss kids birthdays while on rotation, unable to take leave for their own wedding planned 2 years before they posted here(not even kidding, took a few strong letters and discharge form to release a guy) that people begin to be drained and retention becomes harder. The short notice sailing and constant changes to program also fail to help.
Like any job keeping people can be hard, and the retention bonuses thrown around are what keeps people for few years, but you cannot do that forever.
Some of the UT designs provide a 20000nm range with a max speed (in crap weather) of over 20 knots. They are also helo capable. The range offers persistence as the ship does not need to return to base for fuel. They are big buggers as well will the ability to tow, deploy small craft from an aft notch with door and pick up over 200 "survivors".
One of the designs was being marketed with the intention of leaving them at sea and conducting crew change by Helicopter as the ship is designed based on an OSV intended for long haul log duration operations.
In noting this many of the mooted designs appear to be a bit light on in so far as the ability to take a Seahawk but there are certainly attractions about a vessel that can remain on station for over sixty days in the CI NT sea space and are big enough (and constructed well enough) not to have to run for cover.
So essentially an economy of scale ? just not in the usual way we usually speak of it.
Not sure about fly in fly out at sea though
justsomeaussie
Member
I'm not convinced we need a helo capacity for every OSV though. Helos on vessels bring huge requirements and are a massive manning burden. I'd prefer 16 vessels with a deck of some kind to land in an emergency and to launch UAVs off and 4-6 larger vessels with a dedicated helo capacity including hangar,maintenance crews etc.
Sure it would be a nice to have capability but the costs would be astronomical.
Secondly can anyone confirm that Scan Eagle requiring a licensed pilot to fly? I remember reading an article about USN Destroyers employing civilian contractors to live on the vessels and fly them.
Sure it would be a nice to have capability but the costs would be astronomical.
Secondly can anyone confirm that Scan Eagle requiring a licensed pilot to fly? I remember reading an article about USN Destroyers employing civilian contractors to live on the vessels and fly them.
The DoD contracting model is completely diff to Aust. They have real embeds where as Aust uses contractors on an on-demand basis and can't be used in a contracted capacity in a combat environment
although I suspect that this model will be under review once Sept 14 comes around.... along with Huawei decisions etc... (considering that a former DefMIn has prostituted himself and seems to have forgotten his primary obligations of National interest outweigh commercial motivation)
So we need a helo capacity then ? You cant just have a deck space just in case, and if a helo was landing in an emergency you sure as hell would want to have proper facilities to handle the situation. Just becuase an OSV may or may not have the helo facilities does not mean they will have the permanent crew. It would be on an as needed basis depending on operational requirments.
Even if you had this "space" for a UAV you still need the proper facilities and space for maint, fuelling etc
- Status