Improvement on some facilties and arrangements but not increase in capability in real terms. Still a 57m partol boat but optimised for collecting people at sea.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Improvement in terms of maintainability, durability and therefore likely in cost of ownership. Would still love to see larger steel hulls used. Maybe a mix of combat capable corvettes and ice strengthened OPVs
I think regardless of what they are built of, they will have to be bigger. Both have fairly limited capability to move people, they seem more suitable to intercept a fishing boat crew, rather than a fishing boat with 150 people on board.
I don't think they really need to be combat capable corvettes, perhaps upgradeable to handle RPG's and the like for anti piracy. It would be more suitable to have Phalanx rather than harpoons.
Trying to improve either the Capes or the ACPB's for comprehensive offshore patrolling is like trying to polish a t...d. Neither vessel is suitable for OCV tasks nor capable of minor combat although granted that the Capes are capable of constabulary ops but even the 56 mtr Tenix steel hulled proposition (Philippines Coast Guard) would have been a better and longer lasting constable.
Until the govt. accepts that an aviation capable OCV is the only suitable option for our northern approaches, we will continue to fiddle and waste valuable resources.
Maybe this proposition should be referred to the new govt's. Audit Commission
John Newman
The Bunker Group
One thing I've wondered, is it practical (or is there a clear need and justification), for both a PB and an OCV fleet? Does it have to be one or the other?Trying to improve either the Capes or the ACPB's for comprehensive offshore patrolling is like trying to polish a t...d. Neither vessel is suitable for OCV tasks nor capable of minor combat although granted that the Capes are capable of constabulary ops but even the 56 mtr Tenix steel hulled proposition (Philippines Coast Guard) would have been a better and longer lasting constable.
Until the govt. accepts that an aviation capable OCV is the only suitable option for our northern approaches, we will continue to fiddle and waste valuable resources.
Maybe this proposition should be referred to the new govt's. Audit Commission
For the ACPB's there appears to be the slow down of illegal boat entries in the last month or so (lets hope it keeps trending that way) which may also take some of the work load off the PB fleet and allow them to operate more economically in their various roles, other than being a taxi service, and make the issue of replacing them not so urgent, or are they just too 'stuffed' and need replacing now regardless?
I wonder if there is time for Government to take a breath between now and when the next DWP is due, and look more closely at what is best, could it be that yes a new fleet of PB's is required and also at the same time a new fleet of OCV's is also required to perform different roles.
I also sometimes wonder if there was a larger common 'pool' of PB's (Cape Class for example) that could be both operated by Customs and Navy, for different purposes, would that cover the PB end of the spectrum.
And in between the PB fleet and the Destroyer/Frigate fleet was a class of OCV's too.
Is it practical to have both classes of ships available for service?
I was wondering if it would be practical to use one hull for both and adopt something like the Danish StanFlex approach? There would be economies there. I am some what biased with regard to the StanFlex
John,
The role of the RAN PB force has always been constabulary one from the Attack class onwards, they all have been extremely limited in their war fighting capability.
To describe any of the three classes as anything other than glorified Fairmile/HDML's is being generous.
I believe that their greatest contribution to the RAN has been as training platforms, giving confidence to junior officers in command and senior sailors in responsible, independent roles.
Customs were new to the constabulary role and with the commissioning of the Bay class 15+ years ago there became a duplication of effort which has continued to grow and I believe it is probably the time for Customs to become the sole constabulary force and let the RAN evolve into the OCV type platforms.
If the govt. wishes to grow that force with further Cape class ships ultimately replacing the ACPB's they should be Customs manned.
So, to your specifics; Is there a justification for the RAN to operate PB's and OCV's? - definitely not IMHO.
Are the ACPB's totally knackered?, I suspect not and with more time available to sustain them they should be able to complete life of type at a reduced tempo.
Following to your next query, should the RAN acquire more PB's no?, see above.
There is absolutely no justification for a common pool. If necessary, remove the Typhoon and hand all the ACPB's to Customs because if the SHTF all the PB's would be commissioned into the RAN to carry out those harbour and coastal defence roles similar to the role played by the Fairmiles in WW2.
With the RAN relieved of the manning requirements for the PB's it would become an easier and cheaper transition to a useful offshore capability.
All this IMHO off course.
Regards
Chris
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Chris, thanks for your thoughtful answer, that's what I was looking for, just to expand on a couple of your points:
The benefits you mentioned about the PB's being a good training platform are exactly the comments that I've read numerous times before, if the Navy was able to move away from a PB fleet to a much larger, more sophisticated and complex OCV fleet, such as has been proposed for SEA 1180, would that create a 'training gap' at the bottom end? I'm not suggesting this is a determining factor in PB or OCV, just wondering if you see that as an issue that would need addressing in some way or not?
The next point is the Customs v Navy overlapping constabulary role you mentioned for example, the possibility of removing the Typhoons from the ACPB's and handing them over to Customs, and if the SHTF as you said, those vessels would probably be commissioned back into the Navy during that period.
Which brings up another question, if the roles of Customs and Navy are separate at that end, and the role of Customs is expanded, should the Custom vessels be armed with more capable weapons, such as Typhoon, anyway? Which also means that they don't have to be refitted with more capable weapons if the SHTF, or is there as I assume possibly legal implications in having the Customs vessels armed to that level?
There are no legal implications in any civilian law enforcement agency operating heavier armament,should the requirement exist to do so, there are most certainly policy and regulatory differences however.
As ACS already operates 7.62mm GPMG's and 12.7mm HMG's I don't think a 25mm gun would be an issue if there were a legitimate requirement for them, but there would be a cost factor in maintaining and training for the use of a 25mm stabilised and EO/IR guided Typhoon gun system that I think ACS would be hard-pressed to justify in 'domestic' operations.
If they were to deploy to a higher threat area as the US Coast Guard often does that might change but I can't honestly see why such would be necessary for our Customs Operations. If small arms and 12.7mm HMG's aren't sufficient, is the task really suited to Customs or Navy?
I don't think that the "training" issue matters. The ACPB's are all commanded by LCDR's in most cases. This is a big leap from say, the Attacks which were mostly commanded by mid seniority LEUT's. I would imagine that the OCV's would also be commanded by LCDR"s, In summary not much change from present. Besides, there will continue to be training opportunities in the LCH replacements and for very junior officers, the LCM's in the LHD's. (My first command was an old LCM 6 carried in HMAS Sydney which worked flat out in Vung Tau on 4 consecutive trips)
It would be a total waste of resources for Customs vessels to be armed with anything other than their current small arms and LMG's. As long as the vessel design was flexible enough to up arm in a conflict the status quo is fine.
Chris
The beauty of the Typhoon / EOD is its extreme accuracy and thermal imager, not to forget its recording (for evidence) capability. A single 25mm round can disable the propulsion of even quite large craft while also ensuring (and proving after the fact) that no personnel were endangered by the act of firing.
The beauty of the Typhoon is that it can be fitted with little effort provided there is space as there is no deck penetration involved. It makes it the perfect candidate for "fitted for but not with". I had a good look at Cape St George alongside yesterday and there is ample space ahead of the wheelhouse once that tiny pipe mast is removed.
Have you googled maps of the Hyundai and Daewoo Korean shipyards? They are huge, revealing the large trained work force building ships. Then when you google maps the Adelaide shipyard, the truth is revealed how small the shipyard and its trained work force is.
Outside of warships and large cruise ships, the Europeans have given up the ghost in building many types of ships, and can't compete economically without resorting to having much of the ships they build in Eastern European shipyards where labor is cheaper. Stena LInes, the largest ferry firm of the world, has resorted to a Russian yard to build the ships while fitting out their ferries in Norway. Google Stena Trader and Traveler, now the Marine Atlantic's Cabot Strait ferries Blue Puttees and Highlanders.
While politicians wiggle for any pork barrel they can get screened as a jobs program, shipyard jobs are only temporary jobs unless the government has a long term plan to maintain the jobs. The government needs to put the horse in front of the cart, not the cart before the horse. Unfortunately most governments plan only to the next election.
This has totally de-railed the Canadian thread but...You seem to have all the answers for naval shipbuilding and they seem to revolve around the size of the shipyard.
Seeing you're so keen to Google Earth or Maps, do yourself a favour and check out the size of BIW Maine. Possibly a bit smaller than Techport and yet those enterprising Yankees can turn out one of the worlds newest and most complicated 14,000 ton naval
ships on cost and on time.
Can you just accept that different countries have different priorities that require unique solutions for their shipbuilding enterprises and their strategic industries. For you to simply call them pork-barrelling fails to recognize this and causes insult.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
(Not wanting to de-rail this thread anymore than it is, this discussion would be better over in the RAN thread, anyway apologies to the Mods, but.....)
Rather than just Google Techport in Adelaide, have a look at this (I also put this up on the RAN thread a few days ago):
Australia
I think this paints a pretty good picture of Techport as it is today building the AWD's and maintaining the Collins fleet, and where it can potentially go into the future if enough work is sent its way, eg, 12 Future Submarines, 8 Future Frigates, 1 Replenishment Ship (if the ASC/BMT bid is accepted to build 2 in SK and the 3rd completely in Adelaide).
It also shows the growth potential of the yard for the longer term, potentially it also has the capacity to also build replacements for Choules and the LHD's too when their time comes due.
And even if the cost of building in Adelaide attracts a premium, even a significant premium, I'd rather see that money circulate around the Australian economy many times over, than a one-off smaller payment to an overseas yard where the money is lost to the economy for good.
Tech Port, specifically the ASC yard has been modelled in BIWs upgraded yard. From the start of the project many senior BIW people were integrated into the team holding actual positions providing their experience and know how to the build. They helped to mentor and groom locals for senior roles as they rotated through Adelaide and back onto projects such as DDG 1000 and even the replacement SSBN (EB rather than BIW). there are also Canadians, Brits, Spanish, Germans, Swedes, Dutch and others with decades of experience. There were people from DDG 51 design phase as well as build, Type 45, ANZAC and Type 123, others from Astute, QE, to name a few.
ASCs CEO is an ex RR nuclear sub bloke, a board member is Ex BIW and an USN Admiral. There are senior marine surveyors and classing societies contacted in to fill critical functions. People who have worked on major successful projects overseas.
All of this is before you get to the Australians, some of whom have worked on naval ship building projects for decades. They have witnessed first hand the waste caused by poor political decision making resulting in highly skilled teams being built up and dispersed over and over again at stupid expense. There are the new generation, people who have been praise by the US and other experts for the quality of their work, the world standard welders and fitters, talented engineers and project managers, technicians technical officers who leave many engineers for dead. People who will filter out into the sustainment side of the industry and replace the dead wood. People who will eventually (so long as politics doesn't kill the industry again) fix the remaining construction and sustainment problems cause by poor planning and funding on the part of the government. People who will provide the foundation to design future generations of warships for the RAN rather than just building compromised and adapted overseas designs.
Sermon over and more importantly hijack over
There is more talent and knowledge in Adelaide working on the AWD than any other place I can think of, the only thing missing is an indigenous design worthy of their talents and abilities.
t68
Well-Known Member
That’s a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, if the Koreans are so efficient and are able to save the purchasing nation time and money then why is the US Military builds all its ships in the US.
Take the new Montford Point class MLP is based on an oil tanker hull why with all the US budgetary problems did you not build it in Korea would have saved money in the short term. As has been noted here and elsewhere the MLP cost you more to build it homegrown but it gives you a sustainable ship building program which filters thru the US economy, if Australian politics looked at a US 30 years shipbuilding plan Australia could also sustain a viable shipbuilding capability that’s why SA Techport could have a future.
'Shipbuilding Is a Priority' | U.S. Naval Institute
So you are using Google Maps and I presume images from Google Earth to determine the quantity and quality of the workforce. I'd sure like to see your argument and methodology for that.
Lets see, the imagery in Google Earth has a resolution of 50cm which, IIRC, is the highest resolution under US law, available for commercial satellite imagery used in the public arena. So that gives it a horizontal accuracy of around 1m at best because we only presume they've accounted for distortion. It's been georeferenced so we base our distortion assumption on that. They don't state what the vertical accuracy is, or how they obtained the vertical data, nor have they stated the reference datum. Now the imagery they use is captured on the very narrow band of visible light, which excludes a lot of processing and analysis that could've been done to obtain further information. It most certainly excludes imagery in the near IR and IR wave lengths and the X-Ray wave length so it can't really tell us much. You could count the cars in the parking lot over a reasonable period of time. That would give you an indication that x number of people worked there but then that is still n = x + y with n being the total number of the workforce and n and y still unknown values. Because n number of people work there you can presume that some will be trained but you don't know how many and to what ability. The imagery also doesn't tell you the quality of their work because the resolution is not high enough.
So I can, with great certainity, state that no truth or truthes have been revealed as you claim.
- Status