Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

The issue with inshore patrol in Australia compared to other nations is we have a massive coast line to cover with little in between various port facilities with some not even suitable to supporting such vessels.

No matter which way you go about it vessels in regards to Australia have to have the range, Far more range then other nations requirements for the same roles. With range comes size, hence vessels under 30m are not suitable.

 

[Stock]

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.

I believe KBR and STK Marine also showed strong interest. Not sure if they lodged a bid or not.

 

[Volkodav]

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...

Good point.

Isn't there also a requirement for a class of combat boats that may be useful for this and other roles, i.e. CB90? The USNs new Mk VI PB also comes to mind, a littoral / brown water PB. Such vessels could actually be used as a deployable capability in addition to their BPC role, imagine four or more of them being shipped to the Persian Gulf, East Africa, SW Pacific or even the South China Sea to support allied or UN operations.

 

[Stock]

Good point.

Isn't there also a requirement for a class of combat boats that may be useful for this and other roles, i.e. CB90? The USNs new Mk VI PB also comes to mind, a littoral / brown water PB. Such vessels could actually be used as a deployable capability in addition to their BPC role, imagine four or more of them being shipped to the Persian Gulf, East Africa, SW Pacific or even the South China Sea to support allied or UN operations.

Ph 6 of JP 2048 was meant to acquire a coastal/riverine craft capability but has since dropped off the radar. Requirement still remains I believe.

 

[t68]

Dont the RFA use civilian crews also but are part of the Naval reserve so they can be armed also?

Would also expect that BPF be paramilitary does that effect it I anyway?

 

[Bluey 006]

The problem with that proposal is that there are no intermediate ports

Now before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, a warning: this idea is a little bit out there:

What about Hovercraft for the RFSUs? Some of the mid range Griffon models have ranges/endurance appropriate for this scenario. Solves the port problem, but doesn't solve the fuel problem, and probably not the cheapest way to go about it. That said, Indian Coast Guard for example, use them for surveillance of vulnerable,complex and difficult coastlines like this.

They can cover large distances quickly, deploy foot patrols in difficult areas and/or proceed ashore and camouflage itself to conduct covert surveillance of a suspect area - then commence a hot high speed pursuit of a boat or ship should the need arise.

Anyway back to reality

 

[Stock]

Now before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, a warning: this idea is a little bit out there:

What about Hovercraft for the RFSUs? Some of the mid range Griffon models have ranges/endurance appropriate for this scenario. Solves the port problem, but doesn't solve the fuel problem, and probably not the cheapest way to go about it. That said, Indian Coast Guard for example, use them for surveillance of vulnerable,complex and difficult coastlines like this.

They can cover large distances quickly, deploy foot patrols in difficult areas and/or proceed ashore and camouflage itself to conduct covert surveillance of a suspect area - then commence a hot high speed pursuit of a boat or ship should the need arise.

Anyway back to reality

Being primarily manned by Reservists, not sure the units would have the capabilities, resources and manning to support and maintain them.

They do have a new fleet of patrol craft that have just entered service which appear to be a step up from the Zodiacs. See DTR Feb 2015:

Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2015, Page 1

 

[alexsa]

Dont the RFA use civilian crews also but are part of the Naval reserve so they can be armed also?

Would also expect that BPF be paramilitary does that effect it I anyway?

RFA crews are civilians employed by the MoD. Some may be reserves but it is not a prerequisite nor do I expect the majority would be given they already fill a miliary support roll and. as proved in the Falklands and operations since, can also support miliarty action in theater.

RFA tend to carry a military contingent and the ships are designed to be armed for self defence.

The are a couple of RFA (or ex RFA) posters so perhaps they can provide more precise detail.

With Border protection ..... again no need to be Naval reserve.

 

[alexsa]

Now before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, a warning: this idea is a little bit out there:

What about Hovercraft for the RFSUs? Some of the mid range Griffon models have ranges/endurance appropriate for this scenario. Solves the port problem, but doesn't solve the fuel problem, and probably not the cheapest way to go about it. That said, Indian Coast Guard for example, use them for surveillance of vulnerable,complex and difficult coastlines like this.

They can cover large distances quickly, deploy foot patrols in difficult areas and/or proceed ashore and camouflage itself to conduct covert surveillance of a suspect area - then commence a hot high speed pursuit of a boat or ship should the need arise.

Anyway back to reality

I suspect you find that a hover craft round northern and north west Australia would not be suitable given the nature of the coast and outlying islands, the weather conditions at some times of the year and the sheer cost of operation.

 

[Alf662]

The issue with inshore patrol in Australia compared to other nations is we have a massive coast line to cover with little in between various port facilities with some not even suitable to supporting such vessels.

No matter which way you go about it vessels in regards to Australia have to have the range, Far more range then other nations requirements for the same roles. With range comes size, hence vessels under 30m are not suitable.

The "Attack" class were this size and each replacement has been found wanting in one way or another and we are now at the point of replacing them with OPV/OCV/Corvette style vessels.

I think we would be better of going smaller, much smaller. A mother ship would be required to overcome the range problem. It was not unusual during WW2 for the American PT boats to be based on small islands and still be supported by a mother ship and these little boats certainly punched above their weight.

If such a vessel can fit into a C17 or on to the back of a semi it removes the need for the Navy to always provide the lift. Reminds me of JP2048 phase 6.

 

[rockitten]

If we talk about mother ship or "airlift-able" ships, how about some long rang UAV/airships to do the surveillance role instead?

Just try to think outside the box, so don't get upset, okay?

 

[t68]

If such a vessel can fit into a C17 or on to the back of a semi it removes the need for the Navy to always provide the lift. Reminds me of JP2048 phase 6.

Is that still applicable as I cannot find any reference for JP2048 ph6, I do remember some time ago their was talk of vessels capable of conducting ops in brown and blue water but cannot find anything relating to it now

also HMAS Choules was purchased under JP3030 and not Phase 4C and had an increase in budget from $300–$500m to $1–$2b is that now dead and buried?

In an NZ paper called "the Australian Maritime Industry" July 2014 it has a section on major shipbuilding project over the next decade and it lists JP 2048 Phase 4C, any idea if it is still active?

http://www.commercialmarine.com.au/wp-content/uploads/the-australian-marine-industry-final.pdf

 

[ngatimozart]

If we talk about mother ship or "airlift-able" ships, how about some long rang UAV/airships to do the surveillance role instead?

Just try to think outside the box, so don't get upset, okay?

You were asked to provide some bona fides which you haven't yet. So please do.

Surveillance is one aspect which these would be good at in reasonable weather but they are weather dependent, more so than sea surface vessels, especially the airships. The second point is that if a vessel is to be boarded for any reason it is somewhat difficult to do so from these.

 

[Alf662]

Is that still applicable as I cannot find any reference for JP2048 ph6, I do remember some time ago their was talk of vessels capable of conducting ops in brown and blue water but cannot find anything relating to it now

also HMAS Choules was purchased under JP3030 and not Phase 4C and had an increase in budget from $300–$500m to $1–$2b is that now dead and buried?

In an NZ paper called "the Australian Maritime Industry" July 2014 it has a section on major shipbuilding project over the next decade and it lists JP 2048 Phase 4C, any idea if it is still active?

http://www.commercialmarine.com.au/wp-content/uploads/the-australian-marine-industry-final.pdf

I don't know if JP2048 phase 6 is still active, I suspect it could have been a casualty of the last DWP. I guess if some thing like it was ever going to happen it will be in the next DWP.

When I mentioned mother ship it does not necessarily have to be as big as HMAS Choules. Whilst the ability of a mother ship to actually embark small patrol craft would be nice, other vessels such as the LCHR or OPV/OCV could still do the job if the patrol craft were transported via another means.

I see these small craft as offering additional capabilities in HADR, border security, SAR, as well as improving the ADAS system. An influence squadron could also be generated if required.

They may not have the range but they could offer other capability solutions.

 

[vonnoobie]

The "Attack" class were this size and each replacement has been found wanting in one way or another and we are now at the point of replacing them with OPV/OCV/Corvette style vessels.

I think we would be better of going smaller, much smaller. A mother ship would be required to overcome the range problem. It was not unusual during WW2 for the American PT boats to be based on small islands and still be supported by a mother ship and these little boats certainly punched above their weight.

If such a vessel can fit into a C17 or on to the back of a semi it removes the need for the Navy to always provide the lift. Reminds me of JP2048 phase 6.

The issue with the mother ship concept is that said mother ship usually supports a number of asset's focused on a target within a singular area, Having a mother ship supporting x many vessels over a region thousands of km's long would not fit that. It would have to be constantly traveling back and forth just to resupply said vessels and every chance not be in range to render assistance should it be required...

Yes American PT boats were based on various small islands but they had the benefit of the islands being set up to support such operations, Unless we choose to invest in upgrading/building ports along the Australian coast line then that concept to does not apply to Australia.

In regards to transporting them in C-17's, For what purpose? I'm no expert but I have never heard of the Army needing such capability or the Navy for that matter. In fact if we are looking for such a craft for coastal work that would largely be civilian in nature then why even consider the need for it to be C-17 transportable?

All this aside it is all a wishlist that has little if any actual need for Australia as current civilian/government naval and air asset's seem to be handle the roles quite adequately.

 

[Todjaeger]

[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.)

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

I actually came across a website on coastal cruising in Australia. They actually have a page which discusses fuel stops in the Kimberly. That is where I got some of my info about distances, areas to refuel, etc. It seems that there are some 'fuel dropsites' available, at least with prior arrangement. Whether or not setting them up, and/or maintaining them would be cost effective is another story.

And a handful of posted RAN personnel would find Wyndham's nightlife very exciting, I am sure...

They do have a new fleet of patrol craft that have just entered service which appear to be a step up from the Zodiacs. See DTR Feb 2015:

Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2015, Page 1

The new RPC are similar to what I have in mind, albeit it a bit smaller, and with less 'reach' seaward, only able to go up to 12 n miles offshore.

Of greater concern for me, is that there appears to be no provision to arm the RPC's, beyond what the two-man crew and the embarked five-man patrol carry as small arms. For what I have in mind, the potential for greater firepower is needed, as well as potentially more embarked troops. How many personnel are usually in a naval boarding party?

As for the idea of a 'mothership' that might be workable, again depending on the cost of the overall capability, vs. the cost of other methods to provide the same type capability.

One thing I think would be good, is for the ADF to have some means of delivering larger, armed smallcraft/patrol boats to support ADF missions and personnel in areas with significant littoral waters. The 2007 incident when two RHIB's from HMS Cornwall conducting boarding operations and their 15 personnel were seized by Iran comes to mind. Had the RN had more heavily armed craft, Iran might not have been willing to risk a confrontation. Given where the ADF might be called up to operate, something more robust IMO would be called for. If the craft could also be used to provide more opportunities for training and gaining operational experience, so much the better.

Another important point regarding the presence/deployment of small patrol boats, is that I am not just talking about having them up in the North. Along the West, South, and East Coasts, which agencies are responsible for SAR, patrolling, and interception/searches of suspect vessels? How many assets are available in those areas, and how often are they called upon?

Depending on the answers, then having a few extra patrol boats assigned to different portions of coastal Australia might improve the response time and outcomes for some incidents. Again, no idea whether or not this would be cost effective or not, but something to consider.

 

[Alf662]

The issue with the mother ship concept is that said mother ship usually supports a number of asset's focused on a target within a singular area, Having a mother ship supporting x many vessels over a region thousands of km's long would not fit that. It would have to be constantly traveling back and forth just to resupply said vessels and every chance not be in range to render assistance should it be required...

Yes American PT boats were based on various small islands but they had the benefit of the islands being set up to support such operations, Unless we choose to invest in upgrading/building ports along the Australian coast line then that concept to does not apply to Australia.

In regards to transporting them in C-17's, For what purpose? I'm no expert but I have never heard of the Army needing such capability or the Navy for that matter. In fact if we are looking for such a craft for coastal work that would largely be civilian in nature then why even consider the need for it to be C-17 transportable?

All this aside it is all a wishlist that has little if any actual need for Australia as current civilian/government naval and air asset's seem to be handle the roles quite adequately.

If we are only considering Australia's Northern coastline then a larger patrol boat capability is going to be required, this has already been discussed in previous posts.

If we are going to consider Australia's POE then a different asset may be more appropriate. Consider porous borders, piracy, incursions and civil unrest amongst the island nations to our north then a different approach may be more appropriate, especially if those island nations do not have the capability or resources to do it themselves.

The Malaysians have got serious about securing their porous border in Sabah and are actually going to quite extreme lengths to do so. They are installing a refitted oil rig and building a dedicated support ship, it is a mini version of the US sea basing concept and is certainly some thing that should not be ignored.

PM restructures Esscom to enhance operations -

DEFENSE STUDIES: Nation’s First Forward Sea Base on Schedule in Sabah

Making the vessels C17 transportable means that you can have a presence on the ground in relatively short period of time, if you have to carry them on a ship then that could be weeks. I am alluding to maximising response time and the use of existing capabilities here. The C17 are still a relatively new asset and the ADF are yet to maximise their capability, this is just one additional example of what could be achieved.

I have seen some photographs of a CB90 being loaded into C17 but I have been unable to find them.

 

[ASSAIL]

I actually came across a website on coastal cruising in Australia. They actually have a page which discusses fuel stops in the Kimberly. That is where I got some of my info about distances, areas to refuel, etc. It seems that there are some 'fuel dropsites' available, at least with prior arrangement. Whether or not setting them up, and/or maintaining them would be cost effective is another story.

And a handful of posted RAN personnel would find Wyndham's nightlife very exciting, I am sure...



The new RPC are similar to what I have in mind, albeit it a bit smaller, and with less 'reach' seaward, only able to go up to 12 n miles offshore.

Of greater concern for me, is that there appears to be no provision to arm the RPC's, beyond what the two-man crew and the embarked five-man patrol carry as small arms. For what I have in mind, the potential for greater firepower is needed, as well as potentially more embarked troops. How many personnel are usually in a naval boarding party?

As for the idea of a 'mothership' that might be workable, again depending on the cost of the overall capability, vs. the cost of other methods to provide the same type capability.

One thing I think would be good, is for the ADF to have some means of delivering larger, armed smallcraft/patrol boats to support ADF missions and personnel in areas with significant littoral waters. The 2007 incident when two RHIB's from HMS Cornwall conducting boarding operations and their 15 personnel were seized by Iran comes to mind. Had the RN had more heavily armed craft, Iran might not have been willing to risk a confrontation. Given where the ADF might be called up to operate, something more robust IMO would be called for. If the craft could also be used to provide more opportunities for training and gaining operational experience, so much the better.

Another important point regarding the presence/deployment of small patrol boats, is that I am not just talking about having them up in the North. Along the West, South, and East Coasts, which agencies are responsible for SAR, patrolling, and interception/searches of suspect vessels? How many assets are available in those areas, and how often are they called upon?

Depending on the answers, then having a few extra patrol boats assigned to different portions of coastal Australia might improve the response time and outcomes for some incidents. Again, no idea whether or not this would be cost effective or not, but something to consider.

We really are entering a grey area of cross jurisdictional responsibilities which somewhat confuses the picture.
The original intent was to have some small RAN manned patrol craft along remote coastal areas but this becomes impractical because of lack of support structures.

In the Northern Territory there is a quite well developed programme of Sea Rangers, local people with well equipped small vessels who patrol quite extensive areas around their traditional lands. They have the power to enforce various regulations, execute SAR and provide intelligence to BPF. I'm sure that in times of conflict they could be empowered and armed.
In the major communities there a quite sophisticated Police high speed launches which also provide the functions I've listed.
Before the incursions by asylum seekers became all consuming, Customs also carried out regular patrols in the coastal and littoral areas.

With regards to fuel drops; yes this can be achieved but we are talking about a tens or hundreds of litres for touring yachts and recreational users, not thousands required for constant patrols. There is one major pearling company that runs sophisticated operations in the Kimberley in the Vansitaart Bay, Osborne Islands and Kuri Bay regions (when I was their GM we would occasionally fuel Customs PB's) but that would require some contractual arrangement if used regularly.

The picture is complex. What are the defining limits of the smaller craft tasking and the relationship between BPF and the future OPV's. If the OPV's are equipped with 7 or 11 mtr RHIBs, can they accomplish all that is required? How does BPF tasking fit into this picture?

The current total focus on mid-water border control has confused the littoral defence scene. All our assets have been focused on Christmas Island and Ashmore Reef and not much effort has been devoted to out N & NW coastal area. This will change and the question then becomes what will be the posture then and what assets are needed to accomplish it

One thing remains a constant, large distances and very limited infrastructure.

 

[vonnoobie]

The new RPC are similar to what I have in mind, albeit it a bit smaller, and with less 'reach' seaward, only able to go up to 12 n miles offshore.

Of greater concern for me, is that there appears to be no provision to arm the RPC's, beyond what the two-man crew and the embarked five-man patrol carry as small arms. For what I have in mind, the potential for greater firepower is needed, as well as potentially more embarked troops. How many personnel are usually in a naval boarding party?

They have never been intended to go into a hostile environment and engage in a gun battle, There aim is to insert surveillance personnel and then bug out.

As for the idea of a 'mothership' that might be workable, again depending on the cost of the overall capability, vs. the cost of other methods to provide the same type capability.

Again mother ship concept doesn't work to well as mother ships tend to support a single or limited number of assets in a confined area, For the area we are looking at we would have a acquire multiple mother ships.

One thing I think would be good, is for the ADF to have some means of delivering larger, armed smallcraft/patrol boats to support ADF missions and personnel in areas with significant littoral waters. The 2007 incident when two RHIB's from HMS Cornwall conducting boarding operations and their 15 personnel were seized by Iran comes to mind. Had the RN had more heavily armed craft, Iran might not have been willing to risk a confrontation. Given where the ADF might be called up to operate, something more robust IMO would be called for. If the craft could also be used to provide more opportunities for training and gaining operational experience, so much the better.

Worth while to consider but needs to be careful that you don't try and push a craft rated towards hostile environments into military engagements. They are two vastly different area's so thinking of having the same craft do both wont work.

------------------------------------

In regards to what vessels would be appropriate for the various roles, On the deployed naval view CB90's come to mind having decent speed, armament and troop capacity.

On the civilian front if we are looking at SAR capabilities and such (Which I personally think we should create a Coast Guard for and transfer such roles and those of custom's over to) then the Marine Protector class PB's used by the USCG. Only 27m long, 900nm range, top speed of 25 knots and a 5 day endurance, Seems to fit the bill to me.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Again mother ship concept doesn't work to well as mother ships tend to support a single or limited number of assets in a confined area, For the area we are looking at we would have a acquire multiple mother ships.

mother ship concept is unworkable as the concept is meant to work around the construct of a range ring. eg as analogy replace mother ship with LPH and runners with helos, its about extending the response ring in a given location. eg it would work if you were standing off Dilli, it wouldn't work if you are standing off tasmania and meant to cover all of tasmania

from my ministerial support days I remember that we were advised by defence that australia had carriage and responsibility for monitoring and securing 1/9th of the worlds major oceans and seaways

for that you need range and a degree of overlap - its why you use aircraft running racetracks and why you do the math and pattern management to determine where to best place your sea assets so that are positioned to try and respond to air direction in a timely manner.