Use of Frigates for Interception/Fisheries patrols

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just wondering what the general consensus about using MFU's for fisheries/illegal immergrant patrols was. An idea floating around my ship is to possibly lease another couple of vessels similar to the Oceanic Viking. This vessel is leased by the Austrlalian Customs & used for Southern Ocean fisheries patrols around Heard/MacQuarrie Islands. If another 2 were potenially leased with either a navy or army boarding party onboard, it would maintain 2 on station down South & off Christmas Island at one time.
Any thoughts?
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Whether a frigate or OPV ship is used, civilian fishery and/or customs officials need to be a part of a boarding party. You'll notice that the new New Zealand OPVs have space for 4 civilian officials. No navy in the world wants to bind any of its crew to courtrooms in the future involving fishery or customs issues, that's why they like civilian officials on boarding parties. Simply put, police forces are great doing police work, and military forces are great doing military work, not vice a versa.

I would welcome more OPVs doing fishery protection and custom duties which will free up frigates for military duties. Since Australia has chosen to give its fishery and customs a patrol vessel, it wouldn't hurt to increase this force with a few more vessels. However, a good fishery protection offshore vessel should have at least a top speed of 20 knots. Inshore patrol vessels should have even higher speeds. I'm not sure whether this newly leased vessel being used has the required speed to be effective. Does anyone know its top speed?

New Zealand's new OPVs and IPVs have the required speed. The MRVs top sustained speed of 19 knots comes very close to effective.
 

Cootamundra

New Member
Pusser01 said:
Just wondering what the general consensus about using MFU's for fisheries/illegal immergrant patrols was. An idea floating around my ship is to possibly lease another couple of vessels similar to the Oceanic Viking. This vessel is leased by the Austrlalian Customs & used for Southern Ocean fisheries patrols around Heard/MacQuarrie Islands. If another 2 were potenially leased with either a navy or army boarding party onboard, it would maintain 2 on station down South & off Christmas Island at one time.
Any thoughts?
Is this the "Puss" from Strat Page? If so you'll see a few familiar handles round DT!

I'm in agreement with you, although my real preference would be for the FedGov to purchase 2-3 OPC from Austal. They could be part of the extended Customs fleet, 2-3 of these, the smaller inshore patrol craft and the Oceanic Viking. Austal as you well know being over in Perth have some reat kit and by putting it in Customs colours we could avoid some of the military redunancy overheads that we typically see in larger naval vessels. A Navy boarding party on each of these would make plenty of sense, each detachment could be part of a RAN CT/boarding type team.
 

Jtimes2

New Member
I believe the Posse Comitatus act means only the USCG performs fisheries protection inside our territorial waters. I know California has a big problem with trawlers out of Mexico, and Alaska with trawlers from Russia, China, and Japan. Outside this; (assuming it isn't in another countries EEZ) the USN can prosecute any maritime violation by any vessel of any flag; as can other navies. Generally, waters inside 3NM are considered state/county jurisdiction; waters beyond that USCG.

An interesting note; the USCG squadron flying MH-68's (out of NAS Jacksonville) is the only American law enforcement authority with blanket permission to use air-to-ground weaponry. They have a special cannon pod that targets the engine IR signature of drugrunners and fish poachers. Photo: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/AC_HITRON_MH68_7.jpg

Variety of fishery protection ships:
The Ukranians adapted their last remaining Soviet hand-me-down Pauk for this role. Trawlers operating illegally from the Caucasian nations and Russia cause a lot of economic harm to Ukraine and Turkey. Photo: http://static.flickr.com/57/159135081_d92cfcc70c_o.jpg

The Mexican Uribe class is a purpose-built fisheries/oilfield protection ship. It has a 20mm gun and helipad for a Bo105 helicopter. The Mexicans built six, they cancelled another eight to save $ for the Knox frigates. Photo: http://static.flickr.com/50/153442040_041adfd248_o.jpg

One of my fave warship classes; the USN/USCG's Cherokee. Originally tugs built at the end of WWII; most were sold abroad. They're easy to maintain, cheap to operate, and have superhuman seakeeping qualities. Despite their apparent unsuitability, many navies converted them into fishery cutters armed with anything from 3" to 20mm guns. During the Reagan era, the USCG followed suit and converted some. One of the Argentine Cherokees was damaged by a RN Sea Skua missile in 1982. As a personal note, when I was in the navy my sub took out the leadship USCGC Cherokee in a SINKEX. We hit it with a UGM-84 Harpoon that went straight through and detonated on the far side of her hull. If I ever get a scanner I'll post a pic. Anyways here's a Cherokee class: Photo: http://static.flickr.com/77/159116111_77ca4d731c_o.jpg

The "Cadillac" of of fisheries protection ships are the ten Indian Sukanya class. Other than the light armament (one 20mm) they're basically frigates. This is the type of fishery patrol ship that's really needed for Pusser01's scenario, with the speed, range, seakeeping, helo hangar, comms, and sensors to prosecute poachers. Photo: http://static.flickr.com/50/159116112_1a46b3107e_o.jpg

The Estonian Admiral Pitka (ex-Danish Besketteryn) is a similar first-rate fisheries cutter. Photo: http://static.flickr.com/62/159116113_cb8d5dc5af_o.jpg

And let's not forget the fisheries protection "great-granddaddy" :) the Pakistani MSA (coast guard) Nazim (ex-USS Wiltsie). Although greatly downgraded from her naval FRAM fit; after the Taiwanese retired Shen Yang last December; she's the last Gearing class in service in any manner, anywhere. Photo:http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/navy/images/nazim.jpg

Excellent topic!!!!!!!
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Last edited:
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I think it's a horses for Courses situation. I'd rather have Customs/Fisheries/AFP/Immigration officers directly involved in these types of operations, because they have to be resolved in Civilian Law Courts, something which I really don't think the ADF is equipped to handle...

OTH there may be occasions such as the MV Pong Su where the maritime interception will be beyond civilian capabilities...
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
New armed patrol vessel to join Customs fleet

http://www.tisn.gov.au/agd/WWW/just...New_Armed_Patrol_Vessel_to_Join_Customs_Fleet

It looks as though that the Aust Government may be increasing the number of Customs vessels afterall. IMO is has to be cheaper than continuing to use a frigate to do laps off Xmas Island or NT acting as a patrol boat.
Concur with AD though, in certain circumstances eg Drug Busts etc, the use of frigate could possibly be a beter option.

In regards to Sea Toby's question about speed, armament etc. Oceanic Viking is currently armed with two .50cal. Not sure if she can get up to 20kts, but have tracked her doing 17.
Here is a link to show what she looks like.
Cheers
http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=5506
Sorry about the duplication, still learning. Would appreciate if one of the moderators could erase the previous two posts. Thanks

Mod edit: Sorted. Cheers - AD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Pusser01 said:
http://www.tisn.gov.au/agd/WWW/justiceministerHome.nsf/Page/Media_Releases_2006_2nd_Quarter_11_May_2006_-_New_Armed_Patrol_Vessel_to_Join_Customs_Fleet

It looks as though that the Aust Government may be increasing the number of Customs vessels afterall. IMO is has to be cheaper than continuing to use a frigate to do laps off Xmas Island or NT acting as a patrol boat.
Concur with AD though, in certain circumstances eg Drug Busts etc, the use of frigate could possibly be a beter option.

In regards to Sea Toby's question about speed, armament etc. Oceanic Viking is currently armed with two .50cal. Not sure if she can get up to 20kts, but have tracked her doing 17.
Here is a link to show what she looks like.
Cheers
http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=5506
Sorry about the duplication, still learning. Would appreciate if one of the moderators could erase the previous two posts. Thanks

Mod edit: Sorted. Cheers - AD.
I'm pretty sure she's got 2x MAG-58 7.62mm General purpose machine guns as well, as I seem to recall seeing Customs officers training on said weapons. Could be on another boat though I suppose?
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
Aussie Digger said:
I'm pretty sure she's got 2x MAG-58 7.62mm General purpose machine guns as well, as I seem to recall seeing Customs officers training on said weapons. Could be on another boat though I suppose?
The 8 Bay class patrol boats of the Customs Service have been fitted with 2 x Mag 58's. Unsure about Oceanic Viking though.
PS Thx for the edit AD:)
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sea Toby said:
Whether a frigate or OPV ship is used, civilian fishery and/or customs officials need to be a part of a boarding party. You'll notice that the new New Zealand OPVs have space for 4 civilian officials. No navy in the world wants to bind any of its crew to courtrooms in the future involving fishery or customs issues, that's why they like civilian officials on boarding parties. Simply put, police forces are great doing police work, and military forces are great doing military work, not vice a versa.
Sorry, from my own experiance this is fundamentally incorrect. Naval officers can be, and are appointed to act as officers under a number of pieces of Australian legislation in respect of such roles.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
When hundreds of your young naval officers are confined to courtrooms such as the Americans would have in Miami, Florida, when their ships were stationed in Norfolk, Virginia, maybe Australia will rethink its policy and use civilians or coast guard personnel. Around a third of the naval officers would have had to leave their ship while stationed abroad, resulting in long expensive airline flights and hotel bills. At any given time a third of the US fleet is deployed abroad, some of the officers would have have already been discharged from the navy by the time of the trial. Its one mess after another for prosecuting attorneys, having to fly to Norfolk or San Diego for dispositions. I understand this is not the case with the Australian fleet. Australia doesn't have a coast guard, if they did they wouldn't want military personnel involved in civilian courts either.

LIke I said above, its better to use police forces for police work, and military forces for military work. Whether Australia agrees or disagrees is another story.
 
Last edited:

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sea Toby said:
When hundreds of your young naval officers are confined to courtrooms such as the Americans would have in Miami, Florida, when their ships were stationed in Norfolk, Virginia, maybe Australia will rethink its policy and use civilians or coast guard personnel. Around a third of the naval officers would have had to leave their ship while stationed abroad, resulting in long expensive airline flights and hotel bills. At any given time a third of the US fleet is deployed abroad, some of the officers would have have already been discharged from the navy by the time of the trial. Its one mess after another for prosecuting attorneys, having to fly to Norfolk or San Diego for dispositions. I understand this is not the case with the Australian fleet. Australia doesn't have a coast guard, if they did they wouldn't want military personnel involved in civilian courts either.

LIke I said above, its better to use police forces for police work, and military forces for military work. Whether Australia agrees or disagrees is another story.
They have been doing this for years. It has not involved the officers being tied up in court in the manner described.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
alexsa said:
They have been doing this for years. It has not involved the officers being tied up in court in the manner described.
This is because they have no role in the evidence gathering or prosecution roles. In fisheries/immigration patrols etc to date, RAN has been operating the boats and officers from those agencies and Customs/AFP have been conducting the investigation of the offences.

I repeat that ADF in general is not trained to or experienced in handling civilian court processes. ADF's own legal processes are still a joke (hence the on-going review of the military justice system) and are not universally known as "Kangaroo Courts" for nothing.

When a CO with no formal legal training is appointed as Judge, a commissioned officer with no legal training is appointed as prosecutor and another officer appointed as "counsel", you should start to understand why I say, that, "ADF is not trained or experienced in handling civilian court processes".

As to the policing role, even Brigadier Michael SLATER admitted publicly only yesterday that police are better suited to the type of work currently found in East Timor, with Army better at providing firepower and "presence". Immigration and fisheries work is no different.
 

perfectgeneral

New Member
VTs River Class

Sea Toby said:
Whether a frigate or OPV ship is used, civilian fishery and/or customs officials need to be a part of a boarding party. You'll notice that the new New Zealand OPVs have space for 4 civilian officials. No navy in the world wants to bind any of its crew to courtrooms in the future involving fishery or customs issues, that's why they like civilian officials on boarding parties. Simply put, police forces are great doing police work, and military forces are great doing military work, not vice a versa.

I would welcome more OPVs doing fishery protection and custom duties which will free up frigates for military duties. Since Australia has chosen to give its fishery and customs a patrol vessel, it wouldn't hurt to increase this force with a few more vessels. However, a good fishery protection offshore vessel should have at least a top speed of 20 knots. Inshore patrol vessels should have even higher speeds. I'm not sure whether this newly leased vessel being used has the required speed to be effective. Does anyone know its top speed?

New Zealand's new OPVs and IPVs have the required speed. The MRVs top sustained speed of 19 knots comes very close to effective.
The River Class OPV that the RN lease from Vosper Thornycroft Shipbuilding seem to fit your needs. They reach 20knots and 7800nm at 12knots. VT are happy to adapt the design to suit you.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/river_class/
 

Padman

New Member
How about using frigates to protect whales the anti-frigate but pro-whale NZ Green Party wants the RNZN to do. The OPVs will be better suited to this, but is it really a worthy use of scarce navy resources?:rolleyes:
 

KH-12

Member
Padman said:
How about using frigates to protect whales the anti-frigate but pro-whale NZ Green Party wants the RNZN to do. The OPVs will be better suited to this, but is it really a worthy use of scarce navy resources?:rolleyes:
Would a submarine with an artificial tail not be more appropriate:D

Are they proposing putting a frigate between a whale and a harpoon gun ? sounds like a fairly provocative move to make.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
KH-12 said:
Are they proposing putting a frigate between a whale and a harpoon gun ? sounds like a fairly provocative move to make.
Interesting concept - such an act would cause a bit of a kerfuffle unless:

  • it was NZ EEZ waters
  • it was a declared zone
  • it was internationally recognised as a declared zone
otherwise it would be an invitation for the host vessels nation to
  • legitimately call for armed protection
  • be deemed a piratical act (depending on the strength of the intervention), if not an act of war.
in fact whoever suggested it at a political level is either new in govt or a complete and unqualified congenital idiot. They obviously don't work in the Diplomatic Corp. ;)
 
Last edited:

Big-E

Banned Member
KH-12 said:
Are they proposing putting a frigate between a whale and a harpoon gun ? sounds like a fairly provocative move to make.
Why would anyone still hunt whales unless they are indian tribes? Are they primative countries doing the hunting?
 
Top