another key punchline..... it is designed as part of a larger system that works together to make a capability.
another key punchline..... it is designed as part of a larger system that works together to make a capability.
you have to consider that the selling point for the 90's was also the issue of dual use - so the manufacturer only has to make the pitch that the asset can also be used for HADR/lift/transport and it starts to tick other evaluation boxesTheoretically perhaps. I've never seen them with pallets loaded but that's certainly not to say they don't. Maybe the NZDF does this. All evidence of load carrying by ADF MRH90s is underslung.
I don't think the ramp is designed for heavy loading. I don't think the floor is either. You could Merlo/telescopic fork some loads through the side door or the rear. All terrain jacks (pocket lift?) might also be able to do the rear ramp, but it looks pretty delicate. I would imagine most heavy loads would be underslung as it would be quicker and easier.Theoretically perhaps. I've never seen them with pallets loaded but that's certainly not to say they don't. Maybe the NZDF does this. All evidence of load carrying by ADF MRH90s is underslung.
Begs the question though: how would you get a heavy pallet up the ramp if you can't get the loader/forklift under the tail and into the ramp opening? A pallet jack would not work - great for flat ground but up a ramp not so. Same for offloading.
Not saying it cannot be done but would be interesting to find out how exactly.
Interesting that you bring that up, I've been thinking about that too, but from a different direction.Here is a question I have been mulling over for some time.
Would there be value in the RAN/RANR having a flotilla of small, armed inshore patrol boats in the patrol boat<30m size range? I am thinking of essentially modern equivalents of the various WWII-era ML designs. The mission set I would see these fulfilling would be to patrol along the Oz coast, particularly in some of the more remote littoral areas where shallow draught vessels would be required. What I am not sure of, is whether there would be enough required taskings (EEZ, SIEV interception, SAR, etc) which would occur in such areas to justify another patrol asset, especially one of this type.
In terms of overall vessel design, I would specify a rugged, yet simple design using parts and machinery readily available in commercial/civilian ports in Australia, so that the vessels could operate and be based out of ports all along the coast of Australia. In terms of vessel performance, I have in mind a max speed of ~18 kts, with a cruising speed perhaps in the 10 - 12 kts range. Basically something that would be just a little bit faster than vessels which the ML (or whatever it would be called) might be called upon to intercept/board. However, the range should IMO be less than 1,000 n miles, with vessels normally expected to remain in 'their' respective areas, and that the normal mission duration would only be 2-3 days.
Now if those requirements could also be made to work for a replacement to the Pacific Patrol Boat, so much the better.
The question still remains though, would such a type of vessel be worthwhile in Australian service, or a waste of resources?
Essentially you are looking at a mission of the sort of vessel that the Pacific Patrol boat project will provide (up to 40m LOA).Here is a question I have been mulling over for some time.
Would there be value in the RAN/RANR having a flotilla of small, armed inshore patrol boats in the patrol boat<30m size range? I am thinking of essentially modern equivalents of the various WWII-era ML designs. The mission set I would see these fulfilling would be to patrol along the Oz coast, particularly in some of the more remote littoral areas where shallow draught vessels would be required. What I am not sure of, is whether there would be enough required taskings (EEZ, SIEV interception, SAR, etc) which would occur in such areas to justify another patrol asset, especially one of this type.
In terms of overall vessel design, I would specify a rugged, yet simple design using parts and machinery readily available in commercial/civilian ports in Australia, so that the vessels could operate and be based out of ports all along the coast of Australia. In terms of vessel performance, I have in mind a max speed of ~18 kts, with a cruising speed perhaps in the 10 - 12 kts range. Basically something that would be just a little bit faster than vessels which the ML (or whatever it would be called) might be called upon to intercept/board. However, the range should IMO be less than 1,000 n miles, with vessels normally expected to remain in 'their' respective areas, and that the normal mission duration would only be 2-3 days.
Now if those requirements could also be made to work for a replacement to the Pacific Patrol Boat, so much the better.
The question still remains though, would such a type of vessel be worthwhile in Australian service, or a waste of resources?
I support John's proposition that the inshore patrol work be delegated to Border Force.Here is a question I have been mulling over for some time.
Would there be value in the RAN/RANR having a flotilla of small, armed inshore patrol boats in the patrol boat<30m size range? I am thinking of essentially modern equivalents of the various WWII-era ML designs. The mission set I would see these fulfilling would be to patrol along the Oz coast, particularly in some of the more remote littoral areas where shallow draught vessels would be required. What I am not sure of, is whether there would be enough required taskings (EEZ, SIEV interception, SAR, etc) which would occur in such areas to justify another patrol asset, especially one of this type.
In terms of overall vessel design, I would specify a rugged, yet simple design using parts and machinery readily available in commercial/civilian ports in Australia, so that the vessels could operate and be based out of ports all along the coast of Australia. In terms of vessel performance, I have in mind a max speed of ~18 kts, with a cruising speed perhaps in the 10 - 12 kts range. Basically something that would be just a little bit faster than vessels which the ML (or whatever it would be called) might be called upon to intercept/board. However, the range should IMO be less than 1,000 n miles, with vessels normally expected to remain in 'their' respective areas, and that the normal mission duration would only be 2-3 days.
Now if those requirements could also be made to work for a replacement to the Pacific Patrol Boat, so much the better.
The question still remains though, would such a type of vessel be worthwhile in Australian service, or a waste of resources?
The Island class is a solid piece of kit and were very good at what they did. The problem for border force is crewing and qualifications of those crew. Border force vessels are under civilian certification (aka cargo ships) not the Naval Flag Authority. This means then need appropriate STCW qualifications for the nature of operations and size of ship. I think manning the CCPB is a challenge at just over 500 gt so additional vessels, even though these vessels are less than 3000 gt, may pose issues.I support John's proposition that the inshore patrol work be delegated to Border Force.
The design of any small vessel smaller than the current 40-50 mtrs LOA becomes extremely problematical with regards to seakeeping and endurance and when you mandate a speed requirement of 18kts it becomes impossible.
To effectively patrol the coast from say Thursday Island to Broome (nearly 2,00nms if you include the Gulf) and from Broome to NW Cape another 500 nms you need endurance which includes enough fresh and dry stores fuel and crew respite. I mention crew because our experience from the Attack class shows that in any weather above Force 3, say 12 kts, crew fatigue would render the patrol totally ineffective beyond 48 hours when all would be totally knackered.
Fuelling option between Darwin and TI are limited to Gove and then only if fuel was available in the quantity required(currently limited to 5,00 ltrs each fuelling) so a vessel with only 20,000ltrs bunkers such as the Attack Class was limited to conducting the entire patrol at 12 kts on one engine. Any pursuit beyond a couple of hours was impossible.
In the normal sea conditions, short interval swell, a 30mtr hull seemed beautifully designed to fall off every crest and slam into the following trough creating havoc on board, speeding up to avoid that frequency only used fuel you didn't have and risked dramatic structural damage.
So, back to the best design IMV would be a 50 mtr displacement hull with at least 90,000 ltrs fuel and max speed limited to about 15 kts. This would be perfectly adequate to conduct the kinds of patrol envisaged, would provide a long range comfortable vessel and be most economical to operate.
In fact there is a perfect example of a slightly larger but perfectly suitable ship from our recent past that would fit the bill if modernised and that would be the Island Class patrol vessels of the RN's Fishery protection Squadron. Built by Hall Russell in Aberdeen, they operated in foul conditions both in the Cod Wars and the North sea and one, the Steve Irwin is still operation in foul conditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island-class_patrol_vessel
Yes, last week, the Australian mentioned that the DWP probably won't be available until late October or November.Is the DWP delayed again????
Australia’s Pending Defense White Paper | The Diplomat
And talking of the Pacific Patrol Boat project, I was wondering how many builders will tender for the project. So far we know that BAE is not tendering for the project, but a couple of the smaller shipbuilders have so far put their hands up.Essentially you are looking at a mission of the sort of vessel that the Pacific Patrol boat project will provide (up to 40m LOA).
These will be cheap steel hull vessels built around commercial off the shelf systems used on commercial vessels intended to be easy to maintain ........ provided they select the right builder!
I wanted to make a clarification here, because for what I have in mind, a design like the Island-class is overkill. Please keep in mind that I do not know if what I am thinking of would be operationally viable, never mind the implementation and/or operational costs.I support John's proposition that the inshore patrol work be delegated to Border Force.
The design of any small vessel smaller than the current 40-50 mtrs LOA becomes extremely problematical with regards to seakeeping and endurance and when you mandate a speed requirement of 18kts it becomes impossible.
To effectively patrol the coast from say Thursday Island to Broome (nearly 2,00nms if you include the Gulf) and from Broome to NW Cape another 500 nms you need endurance which includes enough fresh and dry stores fuel and crew respite. I mention crew because our experience from the Attack class shows that in any weather above Force 3, say 12 kts, crew fatigue would render the patrol totally ineffective beyond 48 hours when all would be totally knackered.
Fuelling option between Darwin and TI are limited to Gove and then only if fuel was available in the quantity required(currently limited to 5,00 ltrs each fuelling) so a vessel with only 20,000ltrs bunkers such as the Attack Class was limited to conducting the entire patrol at 12 kts on one engine. Any pursuit beyond a couple of hours was impossible.
In the normal sea conditions, short interval swell, a 30mtr hull seemed beautifully designed to fall off every crest and slam into the following trough creating havoc on board, speeding up to avoid that frequency only used fuel you didn't have and risked dramatic structural damage.
So, back to the best design IMV would be a 50 mtr displacement hull with at least 90,000 ltrs fuel and max speed limited to about 15 kts. This would be perfectly adequate to conduct the kinds of patrol envisaged, would provide a long range comfortable vessel and be most economical to operate.
In fact there is a perfect example of a slightly larger but perfectly suitable ship from our recent past that would fit the bill if modernised and that would be the Island Class patrol vessels of the RN's Fishery protection Squadron. Built by Hall Russell in Aberdeen, they operated in foul conditions both in the Cod Wars and the North sea and one, the Steve Irwin is still operation in foul conditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island-class_patrol_vessel
Any idea on how much of the coastline, and out to the horizon the RFSU's can cover? Or places to look to get an idea on the degree of coverage?It's worth pointing out that the RFSUs have significant capability to patrol close to shore in the North of the country. It would be worth checking how often (or not) they are tasked before deciding if a new patrol boat capability is required.
We are treading dangerously close to the good ideas fairy being let loose again...
Tenders are closed and who actually tendered is quite cloely guarded. There are a number of tenders. Forgacs and Thales have indicated they wil bid in the press. You would expect Austal would but there is no formal announcement in the press.And talking of the Pacific Patrol Boat project, I was wondering how many builders will tender for the project. So far we know that BAE is not tendering for the project, but a couple of the smaller shipbuilders have so far put their hands up.
Incat teaming with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and Haywards Steel (some links below):
Tasmanian consortium launches bid to build $600m worth of Pacific patrol boats - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Incat Home
Shipyard - Haywards Steel
Another one is South Australian based 'Adelaide Ship Construction International' (see the links below):
SA shipbuilder ASCI bids for Pacific patrol boat contract worth more than $1 billion - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Adelaide Ship Construction International |
Other than the two above, I haven't seen any other news about who would (or could) tender for the PPB project.
So who else could be in a position to tender?
I was wondering if Austal might put forward a 'steel' version of one of their patrol boats? Some examples below:
Patrol Boats :: Defence Products :: Products And Services :: En :: Austal
Could that be a way of Austal proving that it could build in steel? and if when the OPV tender is released and 'if' steel was specified, well this could be a way of proving that they can build in steel too, just a thought?
NQEA Pty Ltd
The other one I could think of was NQEA, has (or should I say had) a history with the Fremantle Class PB's, etc, but of course they don't appear to have built anything for quite a while and I don't know if they still have the 'capabilities' to be able to again.
Alexsa or Assail, do either of you two have any other suggestions of who else might be capable of participating in the bid??
So who should win the tender? Well I wouldn't have a clue, but from a purely 'political' point of view, awarding the contract to the Tasmanian consortium would be a very smart political move.
Around $600m in construction and around another $1.2B in ongoing support for the life of the program would be a 'massive' boost to the Tasmanian economy.
Not saying Tasmania should win it, but as I said from the 'political' point of view, around $1.8B worth of work to Tasmania would show that the Federal Government is prepared to 'spread the love around', and not just to the mainland States, when it comes to giving each State it's slice of the Naval Shipbuilding plan!
The problem with that proposal is that there are no intermediate ports. Wyndham is entirely unsuitable, 10mtr tides, long transit up the Ord river to get to the town, one berth used mostly by cattle ships and a tiny town with almost zero support available (if you like living in a salt flat with temperatures constantly in the mid 30's..you get the picture.)In terms of scope or range of operations, I am thinking along the lines of one of these "motor launches" being based in Wyndham, which would be responsible for the inshore patrolling of an area from Kullumburu Mission to Darwin, which should be ~400 n miles. The whole area of the coast, from Broome to Thursday Island could of course be patrolled, but this would be done using several vessels to cover different sectors of the coast. Wherever possible (depending on what local ports could be used) I would have these "Motor Launches" cover a section of coast 400 - 500 n miles in length.
There are a number of barge landings covering the Arnhem Land coast and the gulf coast, these help bring cargo to remote communities but no other useable infrastructure. On the Kimberley coast from Darwin to Broome, apart from Wyndham, there are no coastal ports. The is a remote airfield at Truscott (near C. Bougainville ) used by offshore re-suppliers and pearlers but no berth and no fuel.
The only answer is to either mothership for small launches or use larger vessels
Yes there are some issues but Customs ships already have armed personnel and IIRC the Bays carried a pair of 7.6mm LMGs which is all that is required for the suggested operation.As for shifting the mission more onto the BPF, I have some reservations about that. As Alexsa mentioned, their vessels are technically considered civilian cargo ships. Arming them gets... questionable? Also I would have concerns about the BPF personnel forgetting that they are not the RAN, when it does not suit them.
Further, the Island class were commercially built ships with their genesis in deep sea fishing vessels so cheap to build and operate with equipment readily sourced and understood. Manning was always going to be problematic when BPF went from 38mtr Bays to the larger Capes and there seems to have been little appreciation or planning to accommodate the changeover. Consequently commercial crewing requirements will need to be met whatever hull is chosen, its just that in this geographical reality,you need substantial hulls to complete the tasks.
QUOTE]
There is also the Singaporean ST Marine and Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) joint bid:Tenders are closed and who actually tendered is quite cloely guarded. There are a number of tenders. Forgacs and Thales have indicated they wil bid in the press. You would expect Austal would but there is no formal announcement in the press.
Thanks mate!Tenders are closed and who actually tendered is quite cloely guarded. There are a number of tenders. Forgacs and Thales have indicated they wil bid in the press. You would expect Austal would but there is no formal announcement in the press.