Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[justsomeaussie]

Putting equipment aside the concept of speciality crewing is gaining momentum. Essentially keeping a core ship’s crew to maintain and drive the vessel and fly in your specialists from wherever they are located. Similar to what I understand RANTEWWS do on ANZACs.

This keeps all the specialists co-located for better training and retention and keeps a common ship’s crew so they can actually own something and look after it. Still would likely have to double crew single vessels however simply due to availability.

Customs have been using fly in fly out for their entire crew for some time now and since the Bay class are 6 years older than the Armidales and in far far better condition says to me that there is something wrong with the maintenance (via DMS and crew) rather than a design problem.

 

[ASSAIL]

Customs have been using fly in fly out for their entire crew for some time now and since the Bay class are 6 years older than the Armidales and in far far better condition says to me that there is something wrong with the maintenance (via DMS and crew) rather than a design problem

.

There is no difference between maintenance of the Bay class customs PB's and the Armidales.
DMS has the long term contract for both, customs supported from Cairns and the latter from DNB.

DMS was given a 15 yr through life, fixed cost, performance based support contract in 2003 for the ACPB's. A similar contract was awarded to DMS for the Bays in 2005 and this will follow on to the Capes when they start commissioning late this year, early next year.

From the govts point of view this has been successful.

From the RAN's perspective, it has been a disaster because it has made naval engineering redundant and removed any crew involvement, pride and satisfaction from ownership of their ship (multiple crewing also contributes but on a lesser scale from what I have been told).

There has been a programme of docking and class surveys by DNV at 5 yr intervals when engine changeouts usually occur and I think these have now all been completed.
These periods are used to bring all the boats up to the current baseline mods which I assume are those of the last commissioned ship, HMAS Glenelg.
If they stay in commission beyond 15 yrs - 2018 one assumes the contract will be extended.

I can only hope that the OCV's will return engineering skills and responsibilities back to the RAN where they belong.

 

[justsomeaussie]

There is no difference between maintenance of the Bay class customs PB's and the Armidales.

.

The only difference is that the older group is functioning well and going to sea and the newer group is 80% alongside and can't leave home.

Something has gone horribly wrong to get us to this point.

 

[ASSAIL]

The only difference is that the older group is functioning well and going to sea and the newer group is 80% alongside and can't leave home.

Something has gone horribly wrong to get us to this point.

I pass HMAS Coonawarra to seaward every night and apart from a short period in July when there were well reported "9 out of 14 in catchup maintenance" issues, things are as normal with 3 or 4 alongside most of the time.

Two points, the ACPB's are now patrolling as far as Cocos, something the customs boats don't do, and;
secondly, the custons boats are not a political football and their routine maintenance issues are not reported. It is also worthy to note that the customs crews are generally older and more experienced than their RAN counterparts, they are mostly ex pussers and they stay in boats, thus gaining further experience throughout their service. This has the effect of minimizing the user errors that cause some of the issues.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Well only having two Armidales in the water when a couple of months back was quite concerning. I too have seen the Bay and Armidales in the last couple of mouths. It was apparent to everyone that even basic ship keeping on the Armidales isn't being maintained. While the Bay crews are "posted" to the boats for much longer they don't live with them like the Armidale crews do.

The Bay's have been to Cocos but I agree that the Armidales have been flogged a lot harder.

For me I'd just like to see the RAN own up and admit that they've caused their own issue. Binning your naval engineers, flogging your vessels outside of spec, then blaming DMS and Austal for the ship availability isn't going to solve the problem.
Skippers have some level of responsibility for letting basic ship keeping skills slide.

 

[ASSAIL]

Mea culpa! Bay class customs boats are patrolling Cocos as witnessed by Hervey Bay's intercept at Nth Keeling yesterday.
The minute you make assumptions you get found outhwell
The other comments stand

Cheers

 

[hauritz]

If we are using Huon class minesweepers and Leeuwin hydrographic survey ships as patrol boats, surely this tells us we dont have enough patrol boats? Based on this, how many should we have?

I was thinking further on how many boats we should have.

The Armidales have 21 crews for 14 boats. This means that the boats get used pretty solidly. I would think at least 21 boats would be the requirement ... not including other vessels that get pressed into service.

Then of course you probably need larger patrol vessels for the Southern Oceans. I believe that one or two of the RANs frigates have suffered hull buckling as a result of operating in those waters so you need a fairly substantial ship for those conditions. Probably two or three in fact.

You also need at least a few larger vessels to operate in Australia's north. These would cover for the patrol boats during heavy weather (imagine conducting a rescue mission during a cyclone) and as well as patrolling right out to the limits of Australia's EEZ. Also having a few ships big enough to operate helicopters would be useful. You would once again need a minimum of two or three ships for that ... preferably a lot more.

I would also look at buying a few UAVs, both ship launched and land based.

I think this would be achievable with a little political will ... but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Milne Bay]

I think this would be achievable with a little political will ... but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Excuse my mirth ...... hardy ha ha ...........
There is not a chance in hell of the exiting (sorry - existing) government allocating money to a project like this - They have skinned Defence as it is, and if on the off chance that anything resembling this proposal were to be implemented, it would be at the expense of something else in Defence.
As to Opposition Defence Policy - what policy ..................?
I am not saying that this suggestion is a bad idea - just that the notion of political will in relation to Defence is somewhat laughable ATM.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Excuse my mirth ...... hardy ha ha ...........
There is not a chance in hell of the exiting (sorry - existing) government allocating money to a project like this - They have skinned Defence as it is, and if on the off chance that anything resembling this proposal were to be implemented, it would be at the expense of something else in Defence.
As to Opposition Defence Policy - what policy ..................?
I am not saying that this suggestion is a bad idea - just that the notion of political will in relation to Defence is somewhat laughable ATM.

Well a lot of this was presented under Rudd, and the current regime is doing all it can to discredit anything attached to that guy. The opposition has no interest in following down this path either.

What will no doubt happen is they(either lib/lab) will launch an enquiry to see what we should do (much like the Super Hornet thing). Which will take 5 years to complete. Which will then come up with a similar answer. But 5 years later and no commitment to building anything...

Im pretty sure the WP asked for 20 of such vessels. Given the build/time frame after the 20th your probably looking at a new build for the 21st?

In regards to southern work. I honestly think we need 2 more ships like Aurora Australis. 4000t icebreaking capability. 3 helos, 120 Passengers etc. Would be extremely useful in southern patrols, fishery, but also as domestic emergency response sealift etc.

 

[justsomeaussie]

In regards to southern work. I honestly think we need 2 more ships like Aurora Australis. 4000t icebreaking capability. 3 helos, 120 Passengers etc. Would be extremely useful in southern patrols, fishery, but also as domestic emergency response sealift etc.

I second this. I've been to the southern ocean and it's ugly. RAN is kidding itself it I thinks it needs to patrol that area with PB/OCVs. It was bad enough for ANZACs. Leave that up to customs.

 

[Todjaeger]

Well only having two Armidales in the water when a couple of months back was quite concerning. I too have seen the Bay and Armidales in the last couple of mouths. It was apparent to everyone that even basic ship keeping on the Armidales isn't being maintained. While the Bay crews are "posted" to the boats for much longer they don't live with them like the Armidale crews do.

The Bay's have been to Cocos but I agree that the Armidales have been flogged a lot harder.

For me I'd just like to see the RAN own up and admit that they've caused their own issue. Binning your naval engineers, flogging your vessels outside of spec, then blaming DMS and Austal for the ship availability isn't going to solve the problem.
Skippers have some level of responsibility for letting basic ship keeping skills slide.

A few things which keep coming to mind any time people start getting into some of the problems the Armidale-class patrol boats have been having.

One of the first, and possibly the most crucial, was who/what decision-making authority decided to have SEA 1444 follow an acquisition programme different from defence norms, in that instead of the RAN/Defence deciding the number of vessels required, the manufacturer did, as well as provide 15 years of maintenance and support. Relating to that, is who/where was the decision made about the sea conditions that the ACPB's would be operating in?

The ACPB is supposed to be able to conduct all ops in conditions up to the top end of Sea State 4, with the ability to conduct surveillance ops in Sea State 5. From other reading it is suggested (but not confirmed) that the ACPB is designed to be survivable in conditions up to Sea State 9. I readily admit I have my doubts about that one...

Realistically though, how often have the ACPB's been required to operate beyond Sea State 4? And along those same lines, how often have the Bay-class ACV's been called upon to operate past design parameters?

From my reading of the programme specs, it was expected that the ACPB's would provide 1,800 ship-days for BPC functions p.a. and that Austal anticipated that 12 vessels would suffice to meet that and a 3,000 ship-day p.a. service life, for 15 years. What is the realistic Sea State that the Bay-class operates in, and what is the service expectation from both the Bay-class and upcoming Cape-class ACV fleets?

I suppose what I am getting at, is that the RAN seems to have service requirements which really require an OPV-type vessel, instead of something designed for Sea State 4. If due to Gov't involvement, the programme was tailored for a Sea State 4 vessel, but Gov't still had higher expectations from the RAN...

Similarly with respect to maintenance. With having three crews for every two vessels, how much time is allotted for routine maintenance, when something is not broken or about to break? Looking at the original programme service requirement, the original 12 patrol boat fleet would need to spend ~68% of the time at sea, in order to meet the ship-day requirements. Given that generally three of a piece of kit are required to maintain a constant presence, with the other two either in maintenance, or in a training/workup/return cycle, getting double that amount of service seems... ambitious.

Also, what is the division between what RAN personnel can/are allowed to maintain, and what is the manufacturer's responsibility? The fact that the programme is outside the norm for how Defence conducts and acquisition, as well as the apparent tendency for Defence/Gov't to ship mainenance to private contractors for "cost savings" makes me think that Gov't would prefer that Navy be the end-users, without the responsibility or capability to maintain vessels. If that is the case, then that is short-sighted, since if Navy (or anywhere else in Defence) needs something fixed immediately, particularly in dangerous and/or remote conditions, private contractors need to be brought in, which will cost extra, if they can be induced to go, etc.

-Cheers

EDIT: Looking at the Customs Factsheet for the Bay-class ACV, it mentions an "annual fleet target of 2,400 patrol days". I find that curious, since that would require the fleet to be patrolling over 80% of the time. Other things I find curious is that the Bay-class, which first entered service in early 1999 was originally expected to be replaced in 2010. Another would be that the ACPB is is ~18 m longer than the Bay-class it is based off of, yet only displace ~40 additional tons.

Additionally, when I mentioned maintenance, I was speaking of the Austal/DMS tender.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Just in terms of terminology it is DMS (Home) that is responsible for the maintenance of the Armidales not Austal.

 

[ASSAIL]

Just in terms of terminology it is DMS (Home) that is responsible for the maintenance of the Armidales not Austal.

The crux of the issue discussed over the last day is just that.
Navy engineers have been emasculated by this arrangement, to the point where they do nothing except push buttons and effect minor running repairs and change light bulbs. Even if they want to become involved they can't.
Its a bastard arrangement which has done untold damage to junior engineers who are just experiencing their first chance to undertake some real engineering responsibility. These chances, which are a fantastic training base for future deployment throughout the fleet, have been denied.

 

[Gordon Branch]

Going on the information I have the Armidale Class boats are 140 tonnes (give or take) larger than the Bay Class boats; Not 40 tonnes. (270 v 134)

I must say that seems a lot more reasonable given the dimensions of each boat.

Edit: I can see you are getting you information on the Bay Class from the Bay Class Fact Sheet which does, in fact state, the Gross Tonnage of a Bay is 240 tonnes. I find that a little hard to believe.

 

[peterAustralia]

Bay class are about 38m and 134
Cape class are about 58m and from memory around 270t

58/38 is about 1.5. Normally you use the cube law when scaling up a design. In this case the square rule seems to apply. Seems that the Cape class are a little longer and sleeker for a given length, whereas the Bay class are a little more boxy.

You know what I am going to say... bring on simple 600t steel patrol boats, cheap to make, durable, no missiles and all that, can handle larger sea states, more space on board, more comfort, more space for spares,,, plus you can add a heli deck aft for vertical replenishment, or one of those little Schiebel camcopter thingies

link for the schiebel camcopter
Schiebel Camcopter S-100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Marc 1]

Would any experts care to comment on the following:

Are we flogging the ACPB's simply patrolling empty ocean? Or are they working their propshafts off dashing from pickup to pickup? What if a solution isn't more boats on the water with a limited surveillance capability - but more and or more capable aviation assets (thinking BAMS etc) so the patrol boats weren't out there criss crossing empty ocean, but evenly spaced cruising at conservative speeds (thereby saving wear and tear etc) in certain patrol orbits ready to respond - a Combat Sea Patrol (instead of CAP over a carrier) if you will.

A little similar to the infantry analogy, you cannot beat boots on the ground, so I acknowledge you will always need manned boats at sea, BUT can we not increase the effectiveness of the fleet by utilising more avaition assets (aerostats, UAV's Manned surveillance assets etc)?

Just a lateral thiought.

 

[hauritz]

I absolutely think that other solutions should be looked at.

UAVs immediately come to mind.

Perhaps this is a case where a fast cat could be part of the solution.

The UAV spots the problem, and a fast cat is sent to investigate.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You know what I am going to say... bring on simple 600t steel patrol boats, cheap to make, durable, no missiles and all that, can handle larger sea states, more space on board, more comfort, more space for spares,,, plus you can add a heli deck aft for vertical replenishment, or one of those little Schiebel camcopter thingies

That’s pretty much a description of the SEA 1180 boat except ~2,000 tonnes rather than 600 and can carry a light utility helicopter that can move people as well as track suspect boats. It will also be able to stay out at sea for weeks more than a big, medium or small sized patrol boat.

Which is what upgrading from boat to corvette sized is all about. You need something small if you are going in and out of inlets and don’t have a helicopter that can do this for you. But with small size means you are limited for the time you can stay at sea. Which means less time on patrol and less presence for an equal number of boat hulls at sea.

 

[Todjaeger]

I absolutely think that other solutions should be looked at.

UAVs immediately come to mind.

Perhaps this is a case where a fast cat could be part of the solution.

The UAV spots the problem, and a fast cat is sent to investigate.

It is hard to say really. Part of it, is that we do not know just what sort/degree of broad area surveillance Australia has, and how effective and integrated it is.

Take the RF radar feeds from JORN and SECAR. Those should both serve as extensive radar pickets, but are they effective in determining potential EEZ violations, or SIEVs? I can how they could be useful, OTOH they could also end up providing too many contacts.

Any contacts detected could then potentially be investigated by RAAF, RAN or Customs aviation assets, depending on where the contact was and who had assets nearby. I do think that having more aviation assets, be they manned or unmanned, could certainly help.

Not so sure though about attempting to position fast cats for a response. AFAIK, fast cats like those built by Austal or Incat are built to HSC standards, which means they need to remain within 8 -12 hours of a port. Depending on where the intercept point was to be, there might not be a port within the required travel time.

Something which I do find a bit bothersome, is the amount of money and resources which Gov't seems willing to direct or divert to the BPC mission, and in a manner which provides little capability for much else.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

Which is what upgrading from boat to corvette sized is all about. You need something small if you are going in and out of inlets and don’t have a helicopter that can do this for you. But with small size means you are limited for the time you can stay at sea. Which means less time on patrol and less presence for an equal number of boat hulls at sea.

Something which I have been wondering about, would be viability of an OCV/OPV scale vessel (85 - 100 m, 2,000+ t displacement) which had a small well dock and/or deck crane suitable for deploying CB90 or small landing craft. In addition of course to a helipad and hangar arrangement.

This could allow the OCV to act as a sort of "mini-me" mothership for smallcraft, with a naval helicopter to provide aerial surveillance and potentially eyeball suspect vessels. If a boarding was required, then either the CB90-type vessel or RHIB's could be used. By the same token, if there were several contacts, or a closer look inside restricted waters was required, then the CB90 would be available. Further, I suspect having an OCV with helicopter and its own patrol boat would be quite helpful in future local interventions. IIRC an ACPB operated at one point in support of RAMSI, but a larger vessel which could provide an actual sickbay and helipad, and the potential to land personnel where needed, could IMO accomplish.

-Cheers