Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[peterAustralia]

I know that Customs is getting eight Bay class. My understanding is that they are to replace the earlier 38m customs vessels. Thus the number of vessels will not increase. That is my understanding, please forgive me if that understanding is innacurate.

Eight ships does not seem a lot to me, around one for every 1000km of coastline say. Given a few would be in service at any one time, perhaps there is a gap or 2 remaining. I know customs also has some small boats, but I think there more for around harbours and stuff.

20 or 30 ships, I go from memory, I knew it was a rounded off figure. My apologies that my memory is imperfect.

My understanding is that the Navy seems to be getting out of the patrol boat game, and moving into OPVs. As capable as these ships will no doubt be, I would humbly suggest that they still obey the laws of physics as well as I know them, and as such can only be in one place at one time.

I am not opposed to OPVs. My point is that there are times when 2 smaller boats is more useful than one larger boat. There are many many tasks where a patrol boat by itself is sufficient.


I appreciate being informed that what was on the TV two days ago is old news. My reason for asking was that I was not aware of any announcement in the last few days and just wanted to clarify that. This has now been done so and I am grateful for the clarification.

The other point, is that when the Navy knows that the optimum lifespan of one of their replenishment ships is coming soon, is there some reason why they just dont order one with plenty of time to spare so as to organise a smooth transition. Might the issue possibly come down to money?

I was looking in dollar terms of what Australias defence budget is. It is around 24 billion dollars annually. Russia, our great cold war potential threat is around 2.5 times as much. Yes I know a dollar in Russia goes further than a dollar here. My point is that Australia's defence budget is not miniscule, in dollar terms it is approximatly tenth in the world. Given that the Navy might be able to afford a few more patrol boats.

It may not be the proper view, but I still cant see a 2000t ship being cheaper to buy and operate compared to a 270t patrol boat. Given that I do accept that the larger ship has more endurance, can stay at sea for longer, and can operate a helicopter. I do accept that the larger ship can operate for longer in the patrol zone. However in very rough terms the price of a helicopeter for an OPV is starting to get up there with a patrol boat, not quite there, but reasonably close.

 

[Todjaeger]

I know that Customs is getting eight Bay class. My understanding is that they are to replace the earlier 38m customs vessels. Thus the number of vessels will not increase. That is my understanding, please forgive me if that understanding is innacurate.

Actually Bay-class Customs Vessels are already in service. In fact, the Armidale-class Patrol Boats are based off the Bay-class. Instead, Customs/BPC is planning on replacing them with Cape-class Patrol Boats, which are about the same size as the Armidale-class Patrol Boats. What I am uncertain of is whether the Cape-class is based off the Bay-class or the Armidale-class.

Eight ships does not seem a lot to me, around one for every 1000km of coastline say. Given a few would be in service at any one time, perhaps there is a gap or 2 remaining. I know customs also has some small boats, but I think there more for around harbours and stuff.

A few things need to be remembered when contemplating RAN/BPC Patrol Boat ops. The first is that while Austal is indeed expert in building vessels out of marine aluminum, such vessels have significant limitations both in areas of operation and service life. The second is that the armament of these vessels is only useful against other small vessels and is unsuitable for use vs. ship, shore or aerial targets. The third is that while these vessels can patrol a large volume of water across northern Australia, OTHR and/or MPA can cover a significantly greater volume and do so much faster.

20 or 30 ships, I go from memory, I knew it was a rounded off figure. My apologies that my memory is imperfect.

My understanding is that the Navy seems to be getting out of the patrol boat game, and moving into OPVs. As capable as these ships will no doubt be, I would humbly suggest that they still obey the laws of physics as well as I know them, and as such can only be in one place at one time.

I am not opposed to OPVs. My point is that there are times when 2 smaller boats is more useful than one larger boat. There are many many tasks where a patrol boat by itself is sufficient.

Again, if one is looking for vessels which can only safely operate along the North Shelf, and/or "island hop" through the archipelagoes to the north, and only able to engage what amounts to unarmed vessels, then purchasing more Bay/Armidale/Cape class Patrol Boats would make sense.

I appreciate being informed that what was on the TV two days ago is old news. My reason for asking was that I was not aware of any announcement in the last few days and just wanted to clarify that. This has now been done so and I am grateful for the clarification.

The other point, is that when the Navy knows that the optimum lifespan of one of their replenishment ships is coming soon, is there some reason why they just dont order one with plenty of time to spare so as to organise a smooth transition. Might the issue possibly come down to money?

It is not just money, but also political interference. Take HMAS unSuccessful, which was a single-hulled replenishment vessel. Being single-hulled, she was not MARPOL compliant, but being a naval vessel she was exempt. Therefore she could have been kept in comission as a single-hulled replenishment vessel until the expected replacement time of ~2018-2020 IIRC. Due to political promises made to the Greens IIRC, the decision was made by Gov't to have her modified into a double-hull despite the risks to the vessel. It is also worth noting that the various Australian yards which could have attempted the modification declined to do so. In short, it appears that Gov't made a decision against domestic industrial advice (and I suspect RAN advice as well) which effectively has rendered a RAN vessel unservicable, and not to meet Australian treaty obligations or in the national interest, but to meet domestic political promises in the Gov't of the day's interest.

I was looking in dollar terms of what Australias defence budget is. It is around 24 billion dollars annually. Russia, our great cold war potential threat is around 2.5 times as much. Yes I know a dollar in Russia goes further than a dollar here. My point is that Australia's defence budget is not miniscule, in dollar terms it is approximatly tenth in the world. Given that the Navy might be able to afford a few more patrol boats.

It may not be the proper view, but I still cant see a 2000t ship being cheaper to buy and operate compared to a 270t patrol boat. Given that I do accept that the larger ship has more endurance, can stay at sea for longer, and can operate a helicopter. I do accept that the larger ship can operate for longer in the patrol zone. However in very rough terms the price of a helicopeter for an OPV is starting to get up there with a patrol boat, not quite there, but reasonably close.

It is not just about whether the RAN can afford more patrol boats or not, it is whether the capabilities these patrol boats have meet RAN needs or not. The reality is that these patrol boats are really only useful around northern Australia or in some of the island chains to the north and only for illegal immigration, smuggling and fishing enforcement, and perhaps environmental protection.

If the RAN needs to conduct patrols of some of the farther flung Australian possessions (Heard and MacDonald Islands) or pursue a suspect fishing vessel across open ocean, any of the above patrol boats are not up to the task. Similarly, if the ADF needs to either transport personnel to or from an island, or provide support to ground forces, a larger vessel with a helipad and perhaps larger gun could do so much more.

Remember, the idea is for the RAN to start replacing the minor warships with OCV's Ocean-going Combat Vessels, not OPV's.

-Cheers

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

...or pursue a suspect fishing vessel across open ocean...

Reading this had me thinking about the Southern Supporter's great Indian Ocean jaunt to South Africa in 2003.

What if Customs had their own OCV-type vessels instead of their current practice of leasing converted fishing/support vessels?
Perhaps an embarked helicopter type for long patrols, or the ability to be more forceful in pulling over vessels than using stern words over the radio accompanied by disapproving tuts and a boys-will-be-boys waggled finger, or even (and I can feel the rush of adrenaline) a top speed faster than an asthmatic South American fishing vessel! Golly, I feel almost giddy.

If a sufficiently lengthy contract is awarded, any prospective bidder wouldn't baulk at providing a purpose built vessel for the role, because the cost of the vessel would be depreciated over the life of the contract. The Oceanic Viking[*] lease was 6 years. Not much incentive to supply more than a converted vessel. I note that the Surveillance Australia contract to supply Coastwatch aircraft was for 15 years.

The contract could even specify the type of vessel to satisfy the requirements (such as the same class as the RAN OCV). I imagine there was such a contract requirement that resulted in the Seahorse Mercator, as there was a requirement to train personnel to run the Pacific-class PBs.


* I see that Wikipedia says that the Oceanic Viking can do a remarkable 37kts. Amazing what those Norwegians can do with their 9000t offshore support vessels, and all on only 8000kW. Eidesvik Shipping (the owners) and P&O (the operators) seem to think its top speed is a more pedestrian 17kts, but what would they know?

 

[ASSAIL]

[

It is not just about whether the RAN can afford more patrol boats or not, it is whether the capabilities these patrol boats have meet RAN needs or not. The reality is that these patrol boats are really only useful around northern Australia or in some of the island chains to the north and only for illegal immigration, smuggling and fishing enforcement, and perhaps environmental protection.

If the RAN needs to conduct patrols of some of the farther flung Australian possessions (Heard and MacDonald Islands) or pursue a suspect fishing vessel across open ocean, any of the above patrol boats are not up to the task. Similarly, if the ADF needs to either transport personnel to or from an island, or provide support to ground forces, a larger vessel with a helipad and perhaps larger gun could do so much more.

Which again raises the question of the authenticity of the requirement to procure a common hull. IMHO greater economies can be obtained by procuring 2 x hull types. A mix can be used in the North for BPC with "Flotilla leaders" which are air capable and the larger OCV variants deployed to cooler climes. The utility of the WWII HDML's and Fairmiles in that conflict should not be forgotten.

Remember, the idea is for the RAN to start replacing the minor warships with OCV's Ocean-going Combat Vessels, not OPV's.

If this is official policy then the above mix can be achieved by increasing the hull numbers for Customs in BPC and moving all the RAN to combat capable vessels but let this be categorically stated.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Which again raises the question of the authenticity of the requirement to procure a common hull.

Does it? People inventing requirements based on some simple arguments does not automatically invalidate the RAN’s own requirements. The RAN wanted to replace the Fremantles with a 1,000-2,000 tonne corvette. Changes in MCM and hydrographic technology mean these ships use offboard UVs more than onboard effects so don’t need to be so small (they actually need to be bigger).

IMHO greater economies can be obtained by procuring 2 x hull types. A mix can be used in the North for BPC with "Flotilla leaders" which are air capable and the larger OCV variants deployed to cooler climes. The utility of the WWII HDML's and Fairmiles in that conflict should not be forgotten.

The Fairmiles and HDMLs were used for inshore littoral operations because the Navy didn’t have helicopters. It’s far more effective to send a chopper over inlets, swamps, rivers, etc than a little boat. Especially as the little boat has limited endurance, requires a supporting infrastructure and is highly vulnerable.

The nature of ocean patrolling has changed as well. The patrol boats are not the surveillance asset but the response asset. Aircraft, helicopters and satellites provide the cueing for the patrol boats to go check out. Being able to stay at sea longer and carry more offboard sensors makes a lot more sense than having a larger number of little boats scouring the sea for stuff.

This all smacks to me of trying to judge one of the contemporary systems by yesterdays network.

 

[ASSAIL]

[

QUOTE=Abraham Gubler;241232]Does it? People inventing requirements based on some simple arguments does not automatically invalidate the RAN’s own requirements. The RAN wanted to replace the Fremantles with a 1,000-2,000 tonne corvette. Changes in MCM and hydrographic technology mean these ships use offboard UVs more than onboard effects so don’t need to be so small (they actually need to be bigger).

There is no invention, the tasking requirement for patrol forces in BPC are , hours per unit, number of units.
I have no argument with MCM and Hydro hulls, agree, with todays SOP's they need to be large.
BTW the RAN has always needed Minor War Vessel commands to give early command experience to junior executive officers see your comments re LCH's)

The Fairmiles and HDMLs were used for inshore littoral operations because the Navy didn’t have helicopters. It’s far more effective to send a chopper over inlets, swamps, rivers, etc than a little boat. Especially as the little boat has limited endurance, requires a supporting infrastructure and is highly vulnerable.

We already have little helicopters and small aircraft working with Coastwatch, they still need to be backed up by surface responaes. In my proposed model more helicopters would be provided by the OCV's supporting the smaller ships.

The nature of ocean patrolling has changed as well. The patrol boats are not the surveillance asset but the response asset. Aircraft, helicopters and satellites provide the cueing for the patrol boats to go check out. Being able to stay at sea longer and carry more offboard sensors makes a lot more sense than having a larger number of little boats scouring the sea for stuff.

I have only one counterpoint to this statement whist generallyagreeing ; using a fully trained and capable surface combat ship is wasted in both manpower and capability prosecuting border protection. This function is better suited to Customs PB's or less capable PB's

This all smacks to me of trying to judge one of the contemporary systems by yesterdays network.

[/QUOTE]

You have expressed an OPINION, I have expressed an OPINION, this is the wonder of this forum.
My opinion is based on 2 years (a long time ago but the problem is the same) as a Patrol boat Commander and 20 years at sea on the Arnhem Land and Kimberley coasts experiencing the remoteness, the weather and the geography. This does not make me any more correct in my views than you are, it just gives me one!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There is no invention, the tasking requirement for patrol forces in BPC are , hours per unit, number of units.

Based on an understanding of that unit’s capability. If an aviation capable corvette was to be included in the mix the tasking requirements would change. No one in BPC is going to think they are going to get the same patrol footprint from an FFH as they would an APCB. And the OPC would provide a patrol capability far closer to the FFH than to an APCB.

BTW the RAN has always needed Minor War Vessel commands to give early command experience to junior executive officers see your comments re LCH's.

Again that’s a changing dynamic. The RAN doesn’t put many (if any) Lieutenants in command of patrol boats anymore. AFAIK they are all at Lt.Cdr. level and the acquisition of command experience is more closely integrated with operations on the major surface combatants.

I have only one counterpoint to this statement whist generallyagreeing ; using a fully trained and capable surface combat ship is wasted in both manpower and capability prosecuting border protection. This function is better suited to Customs PB's or less capable PB's

Because the SEA 1180 OPC is not a surface combat ship. Certainly not in what the Navy is planning and they could for more in this regard than the various hopes and interests of enthusiasts. While bigger and all that the idea is that this OPC will be crewed by something similar to the patrol boat. The difference is it can stay at sea much longer, carry an aviation capability of some sort and take on many more passengers and extra gear if needed.

You have expressed an OPINION, I have expressed an OPINION, this is the wonder of this forum.
My opinion is based on 2 years (a long time ago but the problem is the same) as a Patrol boat Commander and 20 years at sea on the Arnhem Land and Kimberley coasts experiencing the remoteness, the weather and the geography. This does not make me any more correct in my views than you are, it just gives me one!

To be honest I’m not really expressing an opinion. I’m reporting on what the Navy wants to do and why. When one has a Chief of Navy, a Commander of Border Protection Command and a manager of the company that provides the aerial surveillance capability to the Commonwealth all expressing the same opinion and why about the need for an aviation capable patrol boat then really one should take notice. Especially since the currency of THEIR opinions is within the past five or so years.

 

[ASSAIL]

Based on an understanding of that unit’s capability. If an aviation capable corvette was to be included in the mix the tasking requirements would change. No one in BPC is going to think they are going to get the same patrol footprint from an FFH as they would an APCB. And the OPC would provide a patrol capability far closer to the FFH than to an APCB.



Again that’s a changing dynamic. The RAN doesn’t put many (if any) Lieutenants in command of patrol boats anymore. AFAIK they are all at Lt.Cdr. level and the acquisition of command experience is more closely integrated with operations on the major surface combatants.



Because the SEA 1180 OPC is not a surface combat ship. Certainly not in what the Navy is planning and they could for more in this regard than the various hopes and interests of enthusiasts. While bigger and all that the idea is that this OPC will be crewed by something similar to the patrol boat. The difference is it can stay at sea much longer, carry an aviation capability of some sort and take on many more passengers and extra gear if needed.



To be honest I’m not really expressing an opinion. I’m reporting on what the Navy wants to do and why. When one has a Chief of Navy, a Commander of Border Protection Command and a manager of the company that provides the aerial surveillance capability to the Commonwealth all expressing the same opinion and why about the need for an aviation capable patrol boat then really one should take notice. Especially since the currency of THEIR opinions is within the past five or so years.

A fruitful exchange, thanks.................I look forward to the final results of SEA 1180

 

[icelord]

Again that’s a changing dynamic. The RAN doesn’t put many (if any) Lieutenants in command of patrol boats anymore. AFAIK they are all at Lt.Cdr. level and the acquisition of command experience is more closely integrated with operations on the major surface combatants.
.

Last check there was about 3, one being female. All are required to be PWOn and have lotta major experience to get the command, thankfully its a posting well deserved not a given.

 

[alexsa]

Actually Bay-class Customs Vessels are already in service. In fact, the Armidale-class Patrol Boats are based off the Bay-class. Instead, Customs/BPC is planning on replacing them with Cape-class Patrol Boats, which are about the same size as the Armidale-class Patrol Boats. What I am uncertain of is whether the Cape-class is based off the Bay-class or the Armidale-class.

Cape class is based on the Armadale. Armadale were a growth path from lessons learnt (or not learnt in some cases) from the Bay but is a very different unit.

In both cases a good steel hull option was offered but did not get up for a number of reasons. Austal do have advantages in that they have an operating prodcution base where other proponents had to build production capacity. This being said some of the other designs had real advantages. Design similar to teh steel hull stx offering:

http://www.stxmarine.net/pdf/PV55-br-web.pdf


cheers

 

[alexsa]

. The difference is it can stay at sea much longer, carry an aviation capability of some sort and take on many more passengers and extra gear if needed.

.

Bang on even if we focus just on border protection as it is a common operating method for ACPC patrols is often to sink the SEIV after taking the passengers on board. The reason for this is the SEIV are often consider unseaworthy and this allows passangers to be consilidated on other vessels and teh ACPB can continue patrolling.

Given the size of the vessels, even with Triton our there, they are gagging on the lack of carrying capacity. If you look at the plans for the Cape class boats you will see an accomodation area midships on the main deck for 50 'passengers' in secure accomodation. this recognises the need to pick these people up and house them but ............ if the current rate continues this woule also be stretched.

http://www.austal.com/Resources/Deliveries/7ebab93a-7d00-486e-92af-abe350840971/austal-ccpb.pdf

Bigger is good for a very wide variety of reasons.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Don’t get me wrong about the importance of smaller boats but I think the changing dynamic has made the need for smaller boats more offensive than defensive. Because the AMIS provides a lot of situational awareness and airborne patrol (manned or unmanned) a better alternative for patrol coverage the bigger boats are better for border security. But if you want to start poking around someone else’s backwaters you either want a full flight naval warfare helicopter which needs a frigate with a high level ASMD to support it or a lower profile small patrol boat. This is where something the size of the Attack class (the Armidale is quite a big boat) would come in handy. In my opinion.

 

[Volkodav]

Don’t get me wrong about the importance of smaller boats but I think the changing dynamic has made the need for smaller boats more offensive than defensive. Because the AMIS provides a lot of situational awareness and airborne patrol (manned or unmanned) a better alternative for patrol coverage the bigger boats are better for border security. But if you want to start poking around someone else’s backwaters you either want a full flight naval warfare helicopter which needs a frigate with a high level ASMD to support it or a lower profile small patrol boat. This is where something the size of the Attack class (the Armidale is quite a big boat) would come in handy. In my opinion.

Well the Pacific patrol boats will need to be replaced at some point, maybe a number of hulls could be acquired by the RAN at the same time and used for this role as well as for supporting Special Forces Command, Clearance Divers etc.

 

[ASSAIL]

Cape class is based on the Armadale. Armadale were a growth path from lessons learnt (or not learnt in some cases) from the Bay but is a very different unit.

In both cases a good steel hull option was offered but did not get up for a number of reasons. Austal do have advantages in that they have an operating prodcution base where other proponents had to build production capacity. This being said some of the other designs had real advantages. Design similar to teh steel hull stx offering:

http://www.stxmarine.net/pdf/PV55-b...tp://www.phillipinenavy.tripod.com/navy5.html

Sorry folks the link wont play, I'll try again

www.flickr.com/photos/mcgutib/3333375720/

 

[peterAustralia]

Gee a lot of acronyms

BCP = border protection command
APBC = australian patrol boat xxx (command?)
OPC = offshore patrol craft
ACPB= australian customs patrol boat
SIEV = suspected illegal entry vessel
FFH = ,,, i dont know = a frigate or something
AMIS = i dont know
HDML = i dont know - a ww2 patrol boat?
OCV = offshore combatant vessel
ASMD = anti ship missile defence

My job is making the paint for colorbond steel (r&d). Yes we have acronyms there, but defence is way way worse. I know I can be chewed out for not knowing all these acronyms. Out of courtesy I will refrain from mentioning the acronyms we use for analysis of the paint chemisty for the paint for colorbond steel (my humble job) . Is it just me that does not know what all the above acronyms are?

I would like to stress that I think it is appropiate to express an opinion. That opinion may not be shared by all and the great majority of people may have a different opinion, however I would like to think it is ok to express an opinion, provided it is reasonable and it is clear that what is being stated is opinion. A reasonable opinion might be a modest number of small patrol boats for Australia is a prudent measure and likely to be cost effective. You might have a different opinion, anyone is free to disagree, it is just what one person thinks. An unreasonable opinion might be we need to introduce slavery (common practice for about 3800 of the last 4000 years or recorded history)

A little opinion from me, before I bow out

I recall the attacks of Mumbai that originated in Pakistan, people who did this came via small boat. India's response was to build a considerable number of small patrol boats. I know an attack likeMumbai is unlikely in Australia, however terrorists might try something else, how about introducing foot and mouth disease, biological terrorism. Yes an aircraft can detect a small boat, but can it interdict a small boat. Should a similar event to Mumbai happen here, though one hopes if something did happen it would be on a much much smaller scale, then there would be a public outcry for large numbers of patrol boats.

Small boats can maintain a presence around oil rigs, gas installations, iron ore ports, come to the assistance of vessels in distress, stopping SIEVs, getting people out of the water when their boat starts to sink, make routine checks on commercial vessels to ensure that they are complying with legal requirements. Small patrol boats can search yachts and fishing vessels for illegal items, drugs, guns etc. Perhaps some others in this thread can explain the useful things patrol boats have been doing.

The armidale class from the Navy and Cape class for Customs seem very similar, do perhaps there are some savings that can be had by supporting similar ships in terms of maintenance.

The capital cost of the Armidale class patrol boat is available publicly, any idea in very rough terms of the ongoing and support costs for these ships? I assume that information would not be exceptionally sensitive.

The little I read was that the Armidale class was built out of aluminium as it is lighter, and the lighter hull allows for longer range. Also possibly the latitudes where these boats spend most of their time have generally less severe sea states than higher latitudes. New Zealand has similar patrol boats, but built of steel, possibly they were built of steel to give higher hull life in the larger seas found that far south.

The PV55 link was interesting, I guess a small spot forward for lowering of stores and people from helicopter might be a useful feature for quite modest downside. Be interesting to know how much it might be used. Yes I realise that this is a projected design, and have not been built as yet

according to the links, cape class PB range > 4000nm at 12knots
PV55 range = approx 3000nm at 12 knots

 

[peterAustralia]

thanks for the link for the Phillipines coast guard craft

My subjective opinion is that it looks a bit clunky, and has a high center or gravity (opinion not fact). I am sure the metaceter value is fine. Range is only given at 2000nm. Possibly more range could be obtained if desired.

A few weeks ago there was a sinking of a $100m luxury motor yacht in the mediterranean (no fatalities). There was a discussion on a couple of forums including Dashew' forum that this motor yacht that sank had a high center of gravity, (it was several decks high and had a beam of around 9.8m from memory)

For those that dont know Dashew make fast economical luxury motor cruisers. Their boats tend to have a low center of gravity and do long ocean crossings. According to them a low center of gravity is desirable, gives a positive righting moment at greater angles of heel. Possibly they are biased and are advocating there own style of boat which has a low center of gravity.

I must admit that a little helicopter platform would be a very useful item, the Filipino craft was a bit over 500t. If you read the comments section in the link that was provided they say that the Phillipines coast guard, for ships under 1000t are banned from going out to sea in sea states over 4. (according to the comments section at least, I have no first hand knowledge)

moving on.. over at sinodefenceforum, there is a new Chinese SAR vessel. Looks around 350t. It is a trimaran layout. It has space aft for a helicopter platfrom. The theory is that the small outriggers provide minimal drag and allow for the main hull to be longer and narrower, thus reducing drag, upside is greater range and speed. The downside of this new Chinese ship is that it is ugly. It could be a contender for uglyships.com (yes there is such a website.. and there are some exceptionally ugly ships there)

 

[uuname]

ACPB= australian customs patrol boat

Armidale Class Patrol Boat

FFH = ,,, i dont know = a frigate or something

Anzac class frigate. FFG is Adelaide class.

 

[SASWanabe]

moving on.. over at sinodefenceforum, there is a new Chinese SAR vessel. Looks around 350t. It is a trimaran layout. It has space aft for a helicopter platfrom. The theory is that the small outriggers provide minimal drag and allow for the main hull to be longer and narrower, thus reducing drag, upside is greater range and speed. The downside of this new Chinese ship is that it is ugly. It could be a contender for uglyships.com (yes there is such a website.. and there are some exceptionally ugly ships there)

me thinks someone didnt take the time to google the RV Triton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that was mentioned earlier...

Triton has been around longer than the ACPBs and there is a reason they arnt trimarans.

P.S

HDML = Harbour defence motor launch
AMIS= Australian Maritime Identification System

 

[StevoJH]

Triton has also been under contract/charter to BPC as the ACV Triton since 2007.

Given both that and possible availability of the DERA data to the Australian Government, if the Trimaran design had been considered beneficial I would have thought that the Cape class would have been designed to a Trimaran design (possibly based on the Austal MRV).

With an expected service life of 15 years the first ACPB's will require replacement from around 2020, which means the replacement program (OCV - SEA 1180) will need to produce a design finalised enough to start construction no later then around 2017.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Triton has also been under contract/charter to BPC as the ACV Triton since 2007.

and it has a lousy reputation