The advantage of providing helo facilities is the ability to operate UAVs down the track. While it is highly unlikely that an RAN OCV or what ever its gets called will operate its own Romeo on a regular basis a pool of Firescouts being made available for BPC in the future is not inconceivable.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
justsomeaussie
Member
Helo facilities like hangar, lights, mounting, cabling and certification are costly in a limited resources budget. I'd want to be pretty confident that they were going to use Romeo's in the future on the OSVs.
That's why I thought simple deck space would be better. OCVs on the other hand make more sense but now have no budget.
Unless you want fitted for but not with, but we all now how that turns out.
How do you expect to use that deck space without lights, tie down points, folding railing and barriers? How do you operate UAVs without certified facilities?
IMO it is cheaper and more effective to do it properly in the first place than it would be to retro fit later. While it is cheaper to leave the facilities out all together the capability provided by helos and / or UAVs would make that a very short sighted decision.
Having "hangers, lights, cabling" etc is no different in cost when building than any other part of the ship, its just differently configured construction.
Retrofitting these facilities adds all sorts of cost and complication.
A simple deck space is useless for anything other than dog watch PT and Clear Lower Deck.
Putting the bar at Romeo's is totally unrealistic apart from a possible refuelling capability, these are not major combat units, as others have said, Firescout in the future or light helos of some description (commercial/MOTS) would be a possibility.
No aviation assets at all is akin to self flagellation and a total waste of resources and effort.
justsomeaussie
Member
I think we have two groups talking about two different projects. One the Armidale replacement perhaps that could be called an OSV and another SEA1180 type vessels as OCV.
I was referring the need for a small deck on the Armidale replacements, not a full blown OCV. If there are similar sized vessels with a complete helo deck and hangar for less than 50m a vessel then let me know.
I was referring the need for a small deck on the Armidale replacements, not a full blown OCV. If there are similar sized vessels with a complete helo deck and hangar for less than 50m a vessel then let me know.
Time and time again the Navy/BPC seniors have wanted a patrol boat with an aviation asset. It doesn’t have to be a Seahawk or even a Seasprite it just needs to be an air mobile eye in the sky. The operational need expressed is to link between a broad area surveillance asset and the patrol boat. The problem being the surveillance asset (satellite, Orion, Dash 8) detects the boat of interest (SIEV, trawler) and then directs the patrol boat to intercept. But without a long endurance surveillance asset (ie a Global Hawk) it then needs to move on with its patrol to get back to base (or spin around the earth in the case of the satellite). What then happens there are no eyes on the target as the patrol boat heads towards its last known location and predicted plot. All too often by the time the patrol boat gets there the target has gone in some other direction and can’t be found. If the patrol boat had a helicopter or UAV it could fly out to the target and fix it and keep it under surveillance until the patrol boat arrives or at least narrow down its plot if it has to return to the patrol boat for fuel.
If the Armidale class PB and its variants can’t carry an aviation asset this is a major flaw in the capability they deliver to BPC. No amount of spin will cover this up. Quote Admiral Chris Ritchie, CN when the Armidale was delivered: “My greatest regret as Chief of Navy was we didn’t get a patrol boat with an aviation capability.”
If the Armidale class PB and its variants can’t carry an aviation asset this is a major flaw in the capability they deliver to BPC. No amount of spin will cover this up. Quote Admiral Chris Ritchie, CN when the Armidale was delivered: “My greatest regret as Chief of Navy was we didn’t get a patrol boat with an aviation capability.”
justsomeaussie
Member
But is that capability now only provided by helos? There has been a lot of work looking at ScanEagle, S-100 Camcopter and Microdrones on board patrol vessels which don't bring the huge overheads that an aviation assets bring.
My understanding is that the overheads associated with a UAV are not that different to a helicopter. You still need people to fly, maintain and handle it, you still need to launch and recover it, it still needs to be stowed somewhere. The only difference is a ship setup to operate helos can also operate UAVs, a setup designed for UAVs only likely could not be used for helos or different types of UAVs.
What is the difference in cost between a helicopter flight deck and facilities (including hanger) verses the same designed for UAVs? I suspect the primary difference would be space and weight, which as we know doesn't cost that much.
What is the difference in cost between a helicopter flight deck and facilities (including hanger) verses the same designed for UAVs? I suspect the primary difference would be space and weight, which as we know doesn't cost that much.
justsomeaussie
Member
Again I would differentiate the argument since we are talking about PBs. If you want fire scout, then it's a whole different ball game.
UAVs like ScanEagle do require signifant infrastructure such as catapult and recovery mechanism (via skyhook in this case) however smaller UAVs don't have to consume as much real estate and can just need a few square meters to land or can even be hand launched and recovered.
The core argument has to be the capability gap. What requirements are needed to improve the capability of the vessel. If its a more persistent surveillance to que vessels into targets then a larger UAV or air asset is going to be needed. If its a more tactical role monitoring boarding operations for safety and security then smaller may suffice.
I'm concerned that we maybe trying to apply larger UAV solutions to smaller vessels simply because its a nice to have. Sure you can put Romeos on the 20 SEA1180 vessels but would the capability increase be worth the cost?
Plenty of smaller UAV provide over an hour of endurance with FMV feeds, telemetry etc.
protoplasm
Active Member
The bigger decision is how much ocean do we want a patrol boat to be able to "see" at any given point in time. Is a circle ~50km in diameter OK, then just put sensors on a mast. If we want a 100km circle, then we'd need a small UAV or two that can fly out ~40km, patrol for a while and come back. If we want more than that then we'd need a bigger UAV with greater range and persistance.
Define the capability that you want, then find a solution that delivers that capability...
Define the capability that you want, then find a solution that delivers that capability...
The other issue is does the CoA or the RAN want to keep on using major fleet units to back up PBs where their endurance and sea keeping are found wanting? An ANZAC or worse and FFG or in future an AWD cost exponentially more to use in BPC support than an appropriately sized OPV would.
Back in the early 2000s everything was being thrown at the problem, Freos, ANZACs, FFGs, MCMVs, survey vessels and amphibs. Helos were on board these ships, Seahawks, Sea Kings and Squirrels. It was serious issue that needed a serious solution. The lesson I could see in the situation was, had the corvette procurement gone ahead as planned in the late 90s the RAN would have had an appropriate deign entering service to handle the problem, smaller and cheaper to procure and operate than a frigate, more capable than a PB. What did we do instead of going back to a corvette or OPV, buy a larger prettier patrol boat. What are we doing now our larger prettier patrol boats have been found wanting?
Back in the early 2000s everything was being thrown at the problem, Freos, ANZACs, FFGs, MCMVs, survey vessels and amphibs. Helos were on board these ships, Seahawks, Sea Kings and Squirrels. It was serious issue that needed a serious solution. The lesson I could see in the situation was, had the corvette procurement gone ahead as planned in the late 90s the RAN would have had an appropriate deign entering service to handle the problem, smaller and cheaper to procure and operate than a frigate, more capable than a PB. What did we do instead of going back to a corvette or OPV, buy a larger prettier patrol boat. What are we doing now our larger prettier patrol boats have been found wanting?
skimmers are vectored - they don't need to have super SA to find non military assets (ie small vessels that aren't necessarily highly reflective due to construction issues etc...)
thats what the CONOPs is for....
Come September and you will find the entire Fleet in the North blockading the known Indon ports of departure, patrolling the 12 mile line and "turning back the boats".
Anything less and the agony will persist.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well that's it in a nutshell, irrespective of whether the boats are turned back the simple fact of the matter is the CoA has not contributed the resources required to address the problem. They have had he time to procure additional hulls and aviation assets on e temporary basis and bring forward more permanent solutions but haven't acted. Instead the defence budget was cut and the existing assets were run into the ground. The current PM and her defence minister are pretty clueless in that they have failed to even give the appearance of doing something, imagine the effect leasing a couple of BAMs would have had on public and even people smugglers perceptions of the governments commitment to stopping the problem.
Last edited by a moderator:
That will be interesting... I know a few PB LTC's who are pretty focussed on making sure that they comply with SOLAS and who won't do anything to jeopardise what they see as international obligations....
the Libs haven't seemed to grasp the fact that they just can't go and direct people to do things that they think are in the national interest, and which will breach obligations under international conventions.
I'm betting that the churn rate for navy personnel in the skimmers will be going up 6 months after blue tie day.....
justsomeaussie
Member
It's probably worth pointing out that more boats and air assets only treat the symptom not the cause. So any government plan has to incorporate working with the countries of origin and staging points as well as a better surveillance and response capacity.
There are always plenty of Sri Lankan news reports of another boat being intercepted on its way to Australia.
There are always plenty of Sri Lankan news reports of another boat being intercepted on its way to Australia.
However, if they aren't in compliance with SOLAS/IMO, they don't have clearance outwards, they are dangerously overloaded, are not adequately provisioned, etc, etc, a case could be made for returning them to their port of origin.
Seek co-operation with TNI AL to jointly patrol.
It seems to me that every possibility has not been pursued with intent and that the Indonesian/govt interprets this as a lack of resolve on our part and is willing to let the status quo continue.
Six hundred deaths justify some tough talking with our closest neighbour.
T0 put the entire fleet out to stop the boats and keep it there for long enough to have an effect, is going to cost a lot of money. One thing I have found with Liberal governments is that they dont like spending money, so I cant see this happening other than continueing as a spin subject.:ar15
Its often a case of perception, is the government being seen to be doing enough. Most of the time its for local consumption but sometimes its for external consumption.
That aside, it does help to have the right tools to do the job, i.e. a mix of OPVs and corvettes or light frigates as well as light helos, UAVs and the ability to lily-pad up to MRH-90s if required, to fill the RANs contribution to BPC. What of PBs well Customs seems a good place for them, but realistically an OPV would be a better fit there too and maybe look at adding a fast SAR type vessel to AMSA to be the first responder for rescue situations with BPC as a back up in a major emergency.
Expensive yes but what is the requirement and are the current assets meeting it? RAN combatants, even minor ones, should be capable of combat, able to remain on station for a reasonable period of time and they should be capable of being deployed in all prevailing conditions in our local waters. To be reliant on vessels that can not meet this minimum is a bad joke and a waste of resources.
That aside, it does help to have the right tools to do the job, i.e. a mix of OPVs and corvettes or light frigates as well as light helos, UAVs and the ability to lily-pad up to MRH-90s if required, to fill the RANs contribution to BPC. What of PBs well Customs seems a good place for them, but realistically an OPV would be a better fit there too and maybe look at adding a fast SAR type vessel to AMSA to be the first responder for rescue situations with BPC as a back up in a major emergency.
Expensive yes but what is the requirement and are the current assets meeting it? RAN combatants, even minor ones, should be capable of combat, able to remain on station for a reasonable period of time and they should be capable of being deployed in all prevailing conditions in our local waters. To be reliant on vessels that can not meet this minimum is a bad joke and a waste of resources.
- Status