The South Africans have put out a request for information to shipbuilders in several countries, & are expected to put out a request for quotations soon. Talk is of 8 OPVs & 6 IPVs, to be built in S. African yards. Gowind & the Navantia Avante design have been mentioned.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Blas de Lezo
Member
BAM P-43 'Relámpago' (Avante 3000) based in The Canary Islands is on it´s way to join the anti -piracy Atalanta op. Once she finishes the mission she is to return to base via the cape of Good Hope..............its a long way to return that way
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmycHYSr-_g"]Navantia: Pruebas de mar del BAM P-43 'Relámpago' H264 - YouTube[/nomedia]
Avante is a family of ship designs ,some commissioned by Venezuela and Spain, some just designs, they go from 300T to close to 3000T, from combatants to patrol to...... be decided by the customer.
Some of them incorporate the capacity to be fitted with VLS and harpoon canisters
Avante 2400 and 1400 With Venezuela
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUUFhTTkmsU"]Navantia: Avante 2400 - YouTube[/nomedia]
Regards.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,443
Waved to mate on the wharf who i hadnt seen in 18months while they refuelled in a day, then sailed on to CI. The cost of using Melville and Leeuin is cheaper then having an Anzac off CI, which is pathetic as Anzacs are perfect for long haul and interception, then over FFGs and especially Hydros. The govt just does not want to blow the budget anymore on this. Would reduce the abuse the ACPBs are copping atm, and more to follow. Hanger and flight deck would allow Illegals to be held onboard for long haul rather then the Qtr deck of an ACPB. Im still trying to work out how they managed 200+ 2 weeks ago on board, we struggle with the numbers we've been getting.
Have to obide by the letter of the contract. All maintanence must be logged in the computer system, and no deviations are allowed. Technical sailors are unable to assist most contracted work, and no modifications for efficency are permitted. Any adjustments or reccommendations for parts of the boats must be submitted to DMS and require their approval, which is not alway forthcoming. This was recently pointed out to FC and DMS CEO who came across as proactive, but his manager for DMS ACPB seemed more...hmm, unaccomdating with any issues brought forward.
Also learnt that what DMS and Austal regard as Available, and what we in defence regard it as, ie ready for sea, are very different.
When RAN have no control over the boats, and the dangers this leads to, we care less about the condition even if we could do something about it. No RAN personnel are permitted to even paint an ACPB, so that does nothing for how it looks.
Its already in the mix, and looks set to be cut with little budget for a smart and critical part of survellance. It would be cheaper then P3C and Dash 8 flights, and give COs more information for SAR and patrols.
justsomeaussie
Member
I feel for the position that the crews are in, but the problem is still with the navy, they provided the advice to CDG and DMO about what they wanted and needed for for the ships and for maintenance. To scream blue murder about a commercial company working inside their contract just passes the buck. There are a lot of parties to blame here, but at the end of the day, the DMO signed off on the procurement and support contracts for the vessels and the DMO didn't do that without Navy's tick.
On another topic, I'm hearing a lot about the Schiebel Camcopter S-100s as a suitable maritime UAV for SEA1180, what are people's thoughts on a UAV of this size?
On another topic, I'm hearing a lot about the Schiebel Camcopter S-100s as a suitable maritime UAV for SEA1180, what are people's thoughts on a UAV of this size?
[/QUOTE]justsomeaussie;250974[QUOTE said:
DMO did what the government of the day wanted. That is very different from what Navy required and, as always happens, the serving members are left to deal with the inherent problems caused by political expediency.
I believe observers have every right to to blame agencies other than the service.
justsomeaussie
Member
You can appreciate though that DMO isn’t filled with faceless public servants all just ripping off the public and doing the worst for the ADF. There are large amounts of Defence staff in DMO to provide the advice and guidance on what their service needs. Of course the politicians tick what they want to pay for at the end of the chain but they do so based on the guidance given to the by Defence. So while its maybe easy to blame DMO, it was RAN officers working in DMO who provided the advice and guidance.
Here is an analogy put to me a while back
There was a car manufacturer called Auscar. Auscar makes vehicles for a variety different terrains at a variety of different prices. One day Auscar was approached by a company called Wavy. Wavy wanted cars to support its service to its customers. Wavy wanted a run about car, mostly to and from work with the occasional meeting with a customer but never very far. Wavy asked Auscar to build it a fleet of cars that met the needs of its customers. Because Wavy didn't want to spend much money Auscar ended up building a fleet of small sedans. Wavy didn’t want to maintain the car itself as it didn’t have enough trained staff, so it engaged Tired Mobile Services (TMS) to perform the maintenance and warranty.
It didn’t take long for Wavy’s customers to change and soon they lived very far away in very rough terrain. Soon Wavy was driving its small sedans on 4WD tracks through the bush and scrub. During the servicing schedule Wavy would bring its cars into TMS only to find that TMS couldn’t fix all that was wrong with them. All the rough driving had cracked the chassis, worn out the shocks and have scratched the paint work till there was almost none left. TMS only had a small period where Wavy would allow its cars to be brought into service so TMS only did the most important jobs just to keep the cars on the road.
In the end Wavy ended up with its whole fleet of cars hardly serviceable, they were just being held together. Wavy blamed TMS and Auscar, because it was obviously a design fault and an inability to fix problems according to them.
One day Wavy will realise that if it wants to go 4WDriving in its cars it should buy a 4WD.
Here is an analogy put to me a while back
There was a car manufacturer called Auscar. Auscar makes vehicles for a variety different terrains at a variety of different prices. One day Auscar was approached by a company called Wavy. Wavy wanted cars to support its service to its customers. Wavy wanted a run about car, mostly to and from work with the occasional meeting with a customer but never very far. Wavy asked Auscar to build it a fleet of cars that met the needs of its customers. Because Wavy didn't want to spend much money Auscar ended up building a fleet of small sedans. Wavy didn’t want to maintain the car itself as it didn’t have enough trained staff, so it engaged Tired Mobile Services (TMS) to perform the maintenance and warranty.
It didn’t take long for Wavy’s customers to change and soon they lived very far away in very rough terrain. Soon Wavy was driving its small sedans on 4WD tracks through the bush and scrub. During the servicing schedule Wavy would bring its cars into TMS only to find that TMS couldn’t fix all that was wrong with them. All the rough driving had cracked the chassis, worn out the shocks and have scratched the paint work till there was almost none left. TMS only had a small period where Wavy would allow its cars to be brought into service so TMS only did the most important jobs just to keep the cars on the road.
In the end Wavy ended up with its whole fleet of cars hardly serviceable, they were just being held together. Wavy blamed TMS and Auscar, because it was obviously a design fault and an inability to fix problems according to them.
One day Wavy will realise that if it wants to go 4WDriving in its cars it should buy a 4WD.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,447
One of 4 viable options, although the aim is for a UAV to operate off all fleet units ASAP(within a tiny tiny budget,seriously we spend more on tea cups then the program) and that includes ACPB.
The top of the list for a unit that ticks all the right boxes is the scaneagle. The group behind the S-100 offer have been asked to make modifications to allow more advanced cameras and other equipment onboard, but weight limitations are slowing it down.
Clearly the Tuna hunting Scan Eagle is the clear front runner for an eye in the sky, in service now UAV. But come SEA 1180 and 10 years down the track the Navy could be in a position to buy something better and more capable.
The biggest problem for Scan Eagle and naval operations is its low speed and engine power. Top speed is only 75 knots and cruising speed 60 knots. Camcopter (and Fire Scout) can speed at 120 knots and cruise at 100 knots (110 knots for FS).
Why is this important? Ocean winds. 60 knots is fine for over watch of a road convoy or Tuna spotting. But try going over the horizon to track a target boat into a head wind of 20 knots. The Scan Eagle won’t get there that much quicker than the mothership. If there is a gale and 40 knot winds well don’t even bother launching the UAV.
Go back only a few years and that was exactly what the DDL project was all about!
The service isn’t entirely guiltless. They are the ones that rolled over and took it. The Howard Government didn’t want aluminium hulled boats with a civil maintenance contract to replace the Fremantles. They just wanted to get away with only spending ~$400m for the build. The Navy could have fought harder to have the OPV funding restored and its operating budget funded to provide proper in house mainteance. Also at this same time SEA 1654 was downgraded from two new build AORs to a single converted oil tanker and we all know how that ended up. But the Navy let themselves be screwed over on patrol and maritime support without rocking the boat so as to keep the big ticket future programs (AWD, LHD, ASMD). The defence leadership maintains its ethic of silence and governments correspondingly treat them like punching bags. Can you imagine any other publically funded element taking so much abuse without even a whimper?
Back then remember the operational tempo would have been much less wouldn't it? Weren't we receiving bugger all SIEV's back then - so maybe this was (at the time) the easiest hit to take to ensure they got most of the big toys. I suppose you could also make a case that it would be simpler also to have to crash build program of OPV's if required if the aluminum cans didn't work out.
I was having similar thoughts. Even if the possibility existed that the aluminium patrol boats would be thrashed and totally stuffed before their time, they are such workhorses that they would have to be replaced. The big toys would have been well into production or delivered by then. I am guessing that this was a tradeoff Navy was prepared to make.
justsomeaussie
Member
The problem always occurs though were the current old guard in the navy grow up around capital ships fighting a Russian fleet. All the drivers wanted big ships and big weapons. This pushes us down a road where we don’t have the money to do the actual work our navy does i.e. protecting our boarders. It’s all well and good shooting a couple of guns and doing interdiction in the gulf from an ANZAC but it’s hardly our area of interest when we’ve got problems at home (don’t get me started on medals for landlocked countries).
We've spent so much money on the AWD and LHDs that nothing is left to give us real OCVs with teeth. We’ve got another billion coming out of defence next year the purse strings are going to be tighter than ever but until that old guard realises that we aren’t in the cold war and small ships can have some formidable weapons we are going to be fighting the same battle all over again.
We've spent so much money on the AWD and LHDs that nothing is left to give us real OCVs with teeth. We’ve got another billion coming out of defence next year the purse strings are going to be tighter than ever but until that old guard realises that we aren’t in the cold war and small ships can have some formidable weapons we are going to be fighting the same battle all over again.
There continues to be confusion as to what DMO does in procurement.
The Service wanting the capability is involved with defining what it is they want, that is through the Capability Manager (not DMO). The capability is defined by the CONOPS which the specific Service contributes to and approves - and in a lot of instances is a tri-service involvement (Amphibs being a case in point)
Once the service gets it through the CM and Govt blesses it, then DMO acts as the Project Manager for the CM
At NO point, are the services not involved in project definition, project involvement, and capability selection.
These sentiments are straight out of the "Defence of Australia Policy" formalized in the Dibb Report of 1986http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence-of-Australia-policy As this was the prevailing defence thought bubble after the Vietnam war and began to get airtime during the mid 1970's, most of the current ADF leadership were still at school so hardly yearning to race around chasing Soviet submarines (that was my job!)
East Timor discredited the policy and we have been playing catch up ever since so, you are the either stuck in the Dibb era or wishing for it to return with your criticism of the AWD's/LHD's, both needed for limited power projection and force protection.
We do need smaller more capable OCV/Corvette style ships and have needed them ever since the demise of the Bathurst class corvettes cut in the 50's In that we agree.
justsomeaussie
Member
Well to declair my hand, I was just at a formal dinner and had the blessing/curse of sitting with Paul Dibb and again it was brought up but actually supported by a number of other unnamed members at the table.
I believe it’s called Stockholm Syndrome…
But the SEA 1444 and 1654 decisions where not an issue of funding AWDs and LHDs over the OPV and AOR as the money spend for these programs was 5-10 years apart. So it’s not a case of lets pay for AWDs and LHDs rather than OPVs and AORs.
But rather why didn’t the Navy leadership raise hell to get back the billion dollars it needed in 2004-10 to pay for a proper Fremantles and Westralia replacement. Didn’t want to rock the boat? No longer had the culture of standing up to Government? Unsympathetic defence minister (it was Peter Reith after all)? Take your pick.
Tee_Centre_10
Member
There are missions and activities that the ADF does every day to support Australia's defence/national interests.
It seems that often it is these activities/capabilities that are run down or not invested in to pay for the big items that people like to be photographed in front of.
And yet it is rarely these big items that garners the most media/public attention. It is all those every day things that sits in the newspapers, usually because in some measure the ADF has been found, whether rightly or wrongly, wanting.
I don't think the argument has to be about Dibb or the DoA concept. It is about investing properly in what the ADF does every day before going after the big items. Often it is those every day activities the high end capabilities are founded on.
I don't count the AWDs or LHDs, as I think they were/are needed, and the issues with the LPHs shows that the LHDs didn't come soon enough.
The most recent example I think would be the Growlers. I think it is a great force multiplying capability, one that the RAAF should have. But should it have come before the AOR replacement, or perhaps fast-tracking the OCV, or a higher investment in supporting services, or any other number of small but vital service capabilities and projects?
It seems that often it is these activities/capabilities that are run down or not invested in to pay for the big items that people like to be photographed in front of.
And yet it is rarely these big items that garners the most media/public attention. It is all those every day things that sits in the newspapers, usually because in some measure the ADF has been found, whether rightly or wrongly, wanting.
I don't think the argument has to be about Dibb or the DoA concept. It is about investing properly in what the ADF does every day before going after the big items. Often it is those every day activities the high end capabilities are founded on.
I don't count the AWDs or LHDs, as I think they were/are needed, and the issues with the LPHs shows that the LHDs didn't come soon enough.
The most recent example I think would be the Growlers. I think it is a great force multiplying capability, one that the RAAF should have. But should it have come before the AOR replacement, or perhaps fast-tracking the OCV, or a higher investment in supporting services, or any other number of small but vital service capabilities and projects?
From memory the ACBPs were rushed into service because of the huge number of SIEVs and the fact that the shagged Freos, supported by recommisioned Huons, customs Bays and even some leased vessels couldn't cope. In fact Too broken and the LPHs were operating a full time ferry service shipping people to off shore processing with ANZACs and FFGs joining the border protection mission, remember it was HMAS Adelaide at the center of the "children overboard" affair. There were also detention centres popping up all over the country as well as off shore. Unless I am greatly mistaken we were actually pumping far more resourses into addressing a bigger problem
peterAustralia
Member
A fraction off topic- my apologies in advance
Does everyone know that Indonesia launched some of their new 63m carbon fibre trimarans for the Navy earlier this week. The boats are real, there is a YouTube video of one being launched the other day, it can be found in the Indonesia Green water Navy thread.
Here is a military model
Photo: North Sea X3K trimaran - Indonesian Hot Rod
I cant tell if that is a photoshop image or a real image or not, however the boats are real, as the YouTube video of the launching shows
here is the Youtube link of the lauching
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3QSKZp4EP4"]PELUNCURAN PERDANA KRI KLEWANG (TRIMARAN) 31-8-12. - YouTube[/nomedia]
seems a low tech launching method, lots of people and big rollers (no joke)
There is also a coast guard version, looks nice (better IMHO than the military one)
North Sea Boats - 63m Offshore Patrol Vessel Catamaran
a bigger one of these (coast guard model) for our customs might be nice (nice colours,,, that is important), better than grey
Does everyone know that Indonesia launched some of their new 63m carbon fibre trimarans for the Navy earlier this week. The boats are real, there is a YouTube video of one being launched the other day, it can be found in the Indonesia Green water Navy thread.
Here is a military model
Photo: North Sea X3K trimaran - Indonesian Hot Rod
I cant tell if that is a photoshop image or a real image or not, however the boats are real, as the YouTube video of the launching shows
here is the Youtube link of the lauching
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3QSKZp4EP4"]PELUNCURAN PERDANA KRI KLEWANG (TRIMARAN) 31-8-12. - YouTube[/nomedia]
seems a low tech launching method, lots of people and big rollers (no joke)
There is also a coast guard version, looks nice (better IMHO than the military one)
North Sea Boats - 63m Offshore Patrol Vessel Catamaran
a bigger one of these (coast guard model) for our customs might be nice (nice colours,,, that is important), better than grey
- Status