Out of curioisity, where does the information on the Cape class come from?
essentially where has it been decided that the Cape Class have been selected?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
essentially where has it been decided that the Cape Class have been selected?
justsomeaussie
Member
Well that's what CN is talking about isn't it? Replacing the Armidales with some type of continual build seems quite logical. It's in the press releases.
Except for the fact they are accepting tenders from Forgacs, BAE and ASC as well as others in all probability. Also I don't imagine aluminium hulls have the best rep in the RAN right now.
justsomeaussie
Member
Well no one has released a tender yet and aluminium hulls do have a bad rep. Still seems to play into the general banter. Austal needs another build after the Customs boats to keep their yard going. Just like BAE and Forgacs. Since the customs boats finish around 2015 a rolling replacement of the Armidales seems logical. I bet over the next few years there will be some serious investigation in the LCS-2 to see how the aluminium hull holds up as well as the Cape Class.
I haven't heard anything to indicate it is being considered, but a common sense approach would be to procure several MOTS OPVs to supplement the ACPBs. Get these larger more capable (i.e. more seaworthy) ships into the mix and they could be used for the rough stuff that is currently breaking the ACPBs, leaving them to carry out the less demanding stuff they were designed for in the first place. In fact retain all the current PBs in addition to the new OPVs and just use them less often, assign a crew to each and provide the required level of maintenance. More dollars up front but cheaper, long term, than having to replace the PB capability every ten years.
They have to tender for this and there were some very good options during the previous run and the Capc Class tender that deserve serious consideration.
The Capes ahve been modified in a way that is really focused on picking up potential refugees and 'securing' them. Not sure the RAN would wnat the vessels capability to be curtained to a limited scope of operations.
The other issue that may be weighing on minds is we are now in the situation of urgently replacing a platform that was produced between 2004 and 2007. If this is to kick in at the 10 year life this is hardly a stelar performance.
Finally the price tag (project cost) for 8 capes was 350 million........... this is not cheap and noting there will be addition reconfiguration for RAN service in some systems not all the desing cost will be captured by the Cape Class project.
The issue will come down to politics but I would suggest that in a cost and quality race the Cape Class may have some very serious competition.
Nice peice on the LHD's. Very positive for a change.
Exclusive report: Inside HMAS Canberra | Information, Gadgets, Mobile Phones News & Reviews | News.com.au
Also notice they reckon they can carry 1600 troops, each. So expect a fully loaded ship to touch 2000 personnel. Which explains how they think they can get away operating with just 1 ship.
They are going to change the entire ADF. Still with only two hulls, and seemly infinitely useful (will no doubt turn up to nearly every mission the ADF goes). Don't know how it works with upgrades and refirbs and maintence. And with such a positive project (on time and on budget with great capability), wonder what the interest is in a 3rd.
Exclusive report: Inside HMAS Canberra | Information, Gadgets, Mobile Phones News & Reviews | News.com.au
Also notice they reckon they can carry 1600 troops, each. So expect a fully loaded ship to touch 2000 personnel. Which explains how they think they can get away operating with just 1 ship.
They are going to change the entire ADF. Still with only two hulls, and seemly infinitely useful (will no doubt turn up to nearly every mission the ADF goes). Don't know how it works with upgrades and refirbs and maintence. And with such a positive project (on time and on budget with great capability), wonder what the interest is in a 3rd.
Davies has been against local shipbuilding for years because it is "cheaper" to build overseas. Cheaper only if you consider the budget line item and don't take into account the return to government via tax receipts and defrayment of other expenses via the increase in employment such domestic work brings. Complex modelling of local build vs overseas build has demonstrated that it is actually a lot cheaper in whole of government costs to build locally even if the sticker price is 50% more.
The only reason the LHD build was attractive as a part overseas build was because there wasn't the local capacity. And that was only because the Howard government hadn’t authorised the 2 x AOR build that was to precede the 3 x LHD/LSD build in the initial 2000ish naval shipbuilding plan. Therefore creating a ‘valley of death’ in the mid 2000s from which local shipbuilding still hasn’t recovered.
t68
Well-Known Member
I cannot see why they don't use a modified Protector class OPV like HMNZS Otago and Wellington using lessons learned from their build and be able to handle a helicopter up to the size of MRH, they should have a mixed fleet able to cope with the southern ocean and tropical waters up north.
RNZN - OTAGO Specifications
justsomeaussie
Member
SEA1180 has been pushed far to the right so people are dreaming if they think Navy is going to be allocated the funds for an OPV/OCV.
There is a big difference between buying/building several MOTS OPVs to fill what is in reality an OPV role verses designing and building a class of 20 multi-role combatants. Like I said the ACPBs are struggling with the current work load, I.e the original concept is not working, do we waste more money repeating past mistakes or do we try something that would probably work? Then again Smiths seat is in WA so Austal (and the Capes) have a head start.
justsomeaussie
Member
Perhaps you are tackling the problem the wrong way. Was the Armidale debacle a design issue, vessel size, crewing, over worked, maintenance or materiel issue. As usual it's always multiple reasons but with what weight on each. CN has said this year that after allocating more time to the maintenance to the vessels that the availability has gone back up to where it should be. But what caused the maintenance issue? Poor contractors, poor design, poor materials or driving the boat over spec?
Just asking for bigger ships might not actually solve anything. As I've said before when we took an ANZAC to Heard Island, we halved its shelf life. Was that a design issue?
Design appears to play a pretty big part in it. I note that early hulls has some real vibration issues and hull cracking across the class suggest that design and nature of operations may not necessarily be compatible. If you look at the operating life of the Fremantles (which had their issues) they certainly provided good service for the 10m per unit they cost with over 20 years service.
I agree they were smaller and less capabilr but they were hard worked and managed reasonable longevity.
justsomeaussie
Member
That still begs the question of design v maintenance. I've been able to fit my thumb through a crack on an ANZAC, that wasn't a issue of design but one of maintenance. No one questions that the Armidales have been particularly punished and there have been issues with maintenance. I'm just not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water and try to assign blame to one entity. It's easy to assign blame to the al hull but then again Austal and others have been building commercial al vessels for 20 years, why aren't those vessels cracking up?
If you want to blame anyone it's CDG and DMO for poorly defining the operating environment and ensuring that contractual due diligence was met.
Trackmaster
Member
Agreed...a factual piece.
But The Courier-Mail couldn't help themselves in Brisbane. It looks as if they had been told not to call the Canberra an aircraft carrier.
So...in their headline, they called it a battleship!
A lot of the issues I was aware of displayed themselves quite early and were design issues. The high work load has simply added to the problem
justsomeaussie
Member
So if there were issues identified early, why wasn't it picked up during OT&E and rectified for ships 2-14? How did Navy and DMO allow these vessels to be built for years if they were so unfit for purpose?
[Mod edit: Please re-consider your approach in your discussions with a number of others in the forum, across different threads. Less of the sharp elbow approach in your replies, would be appreciated. Many thanks for your patience.]
The main problem with the Armidales IMHO, is that they are condemned by their success as good sea boats for the conditions under which they operate (cf relatively sized vessels). This allows them to proceed at high speed in conditions where they should be slowing down. The Bay class don't have the same problem because they are pigs in a sea and are forced to slow down.
As has been covered before, the Customs skippers are usually more mature and experienced in small boat ops anyway and are usually more sympathetic to the conditions.
I have skippered an Attack in these same conditions (as my monica suggests) and in anything over force 3 we had to slow down to under 10 kts or every crewman would be injured. If you check the latest "Australian Warship" mag p. 52 you will find a photo of HMAS Attack, now "Sikuda", still serving in the Indon Navy.
Not bad for a 5/16 inch steel hull commissioned in 1967.
HMAS Canberra is becoming more and more popular with the media, it's probably not the worst article by Mcphedran, at least it wasn't referred to as an "aircraft carrier" that carries "stealth fighter bombers".
Exclusive report: Inside HMAS Canberra | Information, Gadgets, Mobile Phones News & Reviews | News.com.au
Exclusive report: Inside HMAS Canberra | Information, Gadgets, Mobile Phones News & Reviews | News.com.au
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Perhaps one should take a look at what the ACPB's are being required to do, and then go from there? Or possibly take a look at what the actual FCPB replacement programme had been back in the 90's.
If one looks at a number of the SIEV's over the last decade or so, several (many?) have been unseaworthy and had to have passengers/crew evacuated to Australian assets. AFAIK this has not caused Australian casualties or a loss of vessel, yet...
Even with the Cape-class Customs Vessels being able to handle ~60 SIEV passengers, that means SFA if the SIEV has 3x that number. While an argument could potentially be made that having a smaller capacity but more vessels to cover a single SIEV that IMO is insufficient. In order for greater numbers of smaller capacity vessels to fufill the need, the numbers of vessels on hand needs to be sufficient. If a SIEV is stopped and the people need to be taken off, having additional patrol boats within a day or two transit time will not keep the responding vessel from becoming overloaded.
That suggests some forward thinking so that patrol vessels which might be engaged in SAR ops, as well as intercepting SIEV's, at least have a surge capacity to take on nn additional passengers safely. Also, given the still significant size of the Australia EEZ requiring patrolling, allowing sufficient space to include as much effective methods of conducting volume searches would be sensible. In this case, the ability to operate some sort of naval helicopter and/or UAS with E/O and sea search radar systems.
There is also the matter of what sea states that some patrol assets must be able to operate in. IIRC the contract for the ACPB required sea state 5, yet operational experience has indicated that sometimes RAN patrol assets have to operate in sea state 7... That suggests that at least some RAN assets should be able to operate in sea state 7.
Now we have already seen Gov't interfere with RAN patrol boat replacement planning by cancelling the OPV, forcing the extension of the FCPB and then a hurried replacement since they were shagged. Time will tell if Gov't causes similar problems with the replacement for the Armidale-class, but it seems likely.
-Cheers
- Status