Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

Some good discussion on this subject.

The starting point was the news of six additional CCPB for Navy and the question of manning a common Class of vessel in equal numbers by two different departments.
Is this the best and most efficient and effect approach?
Suggestion of Boarder Force and It's Marine element taking on a Coast guard function and how this would evolve and whether this is appropriate for Australia is an interesting question and probably warrants it's own thread.
As has being stated, there are many types of Coast Guard ,so what would be a good fit for Australia and should we go done this path.
As this is the RAN thread I'll leave it at that.


Regards S

My take (for just what that is worth...) is that purchasing some additional Cape-class patrol boats for the RAN to use/use up, while the Arafura-class OPV's are being constructed does make sense, with caveats.

If memory serves, the construction plan for SEA 1180 should take about a decade, so that last OPV should enter service circa 2030 or 2031. If that is accurate, then the Armidale-class patrol boats would either need to be replaced (which is what seems to be the plan behind purchasing more Cape-class PB's) beforehand, or get overhauled/MLU/SLEP'd. The lead vessel for the Armidale-class, HMAS Armidale entered service back in June 2005 or nearly 15 years ago. Again from memory, the submission for SEA 1444 had a planned service life of ~15 years, which the Armidale-class boats are just about to start hitting, and due to some previously reported design and maintenance issues, coupled with greater operational use and demands than planned for in the tender, there have been a number of issues which negatively impacted their availability for service. Given that the most recently built ACPB will hit 15 years commissioned service in 2023, or about seven years before the last OPV is completed, getting some stopgap replacements seems sensible. I doubt that a 50% of planned service life extension would be an effective solution to cover the gaps between when a number of the ACPB's would no longer be viable for service, and when their planned OPV replacements are available.

While it might end up that both Cape-class PB's and Arafura-class OPV's are kept in RAN service once the OPV production has been completed, I do not see how or why that would be kept up for very long. If new patrol boats were to get ordered now, they would IMO most likely all be in commission within three years, barring problems getting contracts signed and/or fabrication issues. Assuming the design in RAN service would have a similar ~15 year service life, then the last Cape-class PB would need to be replaced by ~2038, or around eight years after the last OPV enters service.

OTOH, any new PB's for the RAN might be gifted/sold to other users once the RAN's OPV replacement is available. Provided the gap in assets for patrolling is covered, then a few PB's purchased to serve over the coming decade seems sensible to me.

 

[ngatimozart]

My take (for just what that is worth...) is that purchasing some additional Cape-class patrol boats for the RAN to use/use up, while the Arafura-class OPV's are being constructed does make sense, with caveats.

If memory serves, the construction plan for SEA 1180 should take about a decade, so that last OPV should enter service circa 2030 or 2031. If that is accurate, then the Armidale-class patrol boats would either need to be replaced (which is what seems to be the plan behind purchasing more Cape-class PB's) beforehand, or get overhauled/MLU/SLEP'd. The lead vessel for the Armidale-class, HMAS Armidale entered service back in June 2005 or nearly 15 years ago. Again from memory, the submission for SEA 1444 had a planned service life of ~15 years, which the Armidale-class boats are just about to start hitting, and due to some previously reported design and maintenance issues, coupled with greater operational use and demands than planned for in the tender, there have been a number of issues which negatively impacted their availability for service. Given that the most recently built ACPB will hit 15 years commissioned service in 2023, or about seven years before the last OPV is completed, getting some stopgap replacements seems sensible. I doubt that a 50% of planned service life extension would be an effective solution to cover the gaps between when a number of the ACPB's would no longer be viable for service, and when their planned OPV replacements are available.

While it might end up that both Cape-class PB's and Arafura-class OPV's are kept in RAN service once the OPV production has been completed, I do not see how or why that would be kept up for very long. If new patrol boats were to get ordered now, they would IMO most likely all be in commission within three years, barring problems getting contracts signed and/or fabrication issues. Assuming the design in RAN service would have a similar ~15 year service life, then the last Cape-class PB would need to be replaced by ~2038, or around eight years after the last OPV enters service.

OTOH, any new PB's for the RAN might be gifted/sold to other users once the RAN's OPV replacement is available. Provided the gap in assets for patrolling is covered, then a few PB's purchased to serve over the coming decade seems sensible to me.

We have some IPV's that we could gift the RAN to help them through this shortage. You know family looking out for family in tough times

 

[Redlands18]

My take (for just what that is worth...) is that purchasing some additional Cape-class patrol boats for the RAN to use/use up, while the Arafura-class OPV's are being constructed does make sense, with caveats.

If memory serves, the construction plan for SEA 1180 should take about a decade, so that last OPV should enter service circa 2030 or 2031. If that is accurate, then the Armidale-class patrol boats would either need to be replaced (which is what seems to be the plan behind purchasing more Cape-class PB's) beforehand, or get overhauled/MLU/SLEP'd. The lead vessel for the Armidale-class, HMAS Armidale entered service back in June 2005 or nearly 15 years ago. Again from memory, the submission for SEA 1444 had a planned service life of ~15 years, which the Armidale-class boats are just about to start hitting, and due to some previously reported design and maintenance issues, coupled with greater operational use and demands than planned for in the tender, there have been a number of issues which negatively impacted their availability for service. Given that the most recently built ACPB will hit 15 years commissioned service in 2023, or about seven years before the last OPV is completed, getting some stopgap replacements seems sensible. I doubt that a 50% of planned service life extension would be an effective solution to cover the gaps between when a number of the ACPB's would no longer be viable for service, and when their planned OPV replacements are available.

While it might end up that both Cape-class PB's and Arafura-class OPV's are kept in RAN service once the OPV production has been completed, I do not see how or why that would be kept up for very long. If new patrol boats were to get ordered now, they would IMO most likely all be in commission within three years, barring problems getting contracts signed and/or fabrication issues. Assuming the design in RAN service would have a similar ~15 year service life, then the last Cape-class PB would need to be replaced by ~2038, or around eight years after the last OPV enters service.

OTOH, any new PB's for the RAN might be gifted/sold to other users once the RAN's OPV replacement is available. Provided the gap in assets for patrolling is covered, then a few PB's purchased to serve over the coming decade seems sensible to me.

Numbers may be an issue too, at this stage we are only getting 12 and though the Arafura’s will be far more capable then previous PB classes, they can’t be in 2 places at one time and all that extra capability means they can cover a lot more Tasks, travel further away from base, stay longer on station etc.

 

[Todjaeger]

Numbers may be an issue too, at this stage we are only getting 12 and though the Arafura’s will be far more capable then previous PB classes, they can’t be in 2 places at one time and all that extra capability means they can cover a lot more Tasks, travel further away from base, stay longer on station etc.

A dozen Arafura-class OPV's to replace what had been 14 ACPB's, which IIRC had replaced 15 FCPB's... Getting two less hulls of significantly greater capability than before is not much of a drop in potential availability. Those two extra ACPB hulls would potentially mean that a single additional ACPB hull might have been available for or already on a deployment vs. a dozen OPV's.

To me, the issue of concern is really that by 2023 all of the ACPB's will have gotten to 15 years in commissioned service and be coming due for decommissioning. I could be mistaken but I believe the Arafura-class OPV build plans would only have delivered something like 3-4 OPV's as replacements by that time.

 

[John Fedup]

Unlike Australia, Canada doesn’t really need maritime border enforcement because of geography and weather. This could become necessary with an ice free Arctic. There would likely be similar political discussion as to which organizations do what (RCN, CCG, RCMP, Fisheries and Oceans, and Customs/Immigration and Border Protection.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

Unlike Australia, Canada doesn’t really need maritime border enforcement because of geography and weather. This could become necessary with an ice free Arctic. There would likely be similar political discussion as to which organizations do what (RCN, CCG, RCMP, Fisheries and Oceans, and Customs/Immigration and Border Protection.

IMO Canada can use more Border Protection rather than less. Especially in todays realities, and COVID-19 knows no borders. Our borders and coast-lines are far too porous as it stands now. Arm our CCG icebreakers and fishery patrol ships, I say! As CSC comes on-line and CPF's are de-commissioned, take the 57mm gun off and put them on our icebreakers & fishery patrol ships to enforce what the CCG does now. Weather has more to do with what the CCG does now more than anything else. We have far too few precious CCG vessels to cover all of Canada's geography. So let's put some teeth into the CCG to deal with Fisheries and Oceans, and Customs/Immigration and Border Protection. Let the CG use HALE drones as they recently wanted to (remember the German Global Hawk that the CCG wanted to buy for fisheries and oceans patrol recently?). As Naval ships become available or are in the area, let them help with vessels in distress as well. Cheers!

 

[Todjaeger]

IMO Canada can use more Border Protection rather than less. Especially in todays realities, and COVID-19 knows no borders. Our borders and coast-lines are far too porous as it stands now. Arm our CCG icebreakers and fishery patrol ships, I say! As CSC comes on-line and CPF's are de-commissioned, take the 57mm gun off and put them on our icebreakers & fishery patrol ships to enforce what the CCG does now. Weather has more to do with what the CCG does now more than anything else. We have far too few precious CCG vessels to cover all of Canada's geography. So let's put some teeth into the CCG to deal with Fisheries and Oceans, and Customs/Immigration and Border Protection. Let the CG use HALE drones as they recently wanted to (remember the German Global Hawk that the CCG wanted to buy for fisheries and oceans patrol recently?). As Naval ships become available or are in the area, let them help with vessels in distress as well. Cheers!

I would like to point out to people that this is the RAN thread. While some discussion of what/how other nations are handling naval and maritime security issues, and how those approaches might or might not work for the RAN and Australia makes sense, this really is not the appropriate venue to advocate for adding capabilities to a non-Australian naval/maritime service.

Just a word to the wise about keeping content On Topic, before one of the grumpier Moderators shows up.

 

[Todjaeger]

We have some IPV's that we could gift the RAN to help them through this shortage. You know family looking out for family in tough times

The "major" issue I see with that, it that would then deny the chance to inject Federal funds into a certain WA boat builder...

From a practical standpoint, if the RNZN was willing to sell all the IPV's to Australia, I would be comfortable with that. The specs for the IPV's are quite similar to that of the ACPB's and I would expect there to be enough service life for them to be kept in service at least until the Arafura-class OPV production run has completed.

 

[oldsig127]

The "major" issue I see with that, it that would then deny the chance to inject Federal funds into a certain WA boat builder...

From a practical standpoint, if the RNZN was willing to sell all the IPV's to Australia, I would be comfortable with that. The specs for the IPV's are quite similar to that of the ACPB's and I would expect there to be enough service life for them to be kept in service at least until the Arafura-class OPV production run has completed.

Bollocks to that. Part of the justification for building ships in Australia is the knock on effect providing jobs for upstream suppliers and an economic boost to the regions where they're built. Buying second hand tat, even from our mates across the dutch, would do nothing for our economy at a time when we need it and saddle us with an orphan type requiring a different spares pool and another training burden. From a practical standpoint, it flies like a blacksmith's anvil I'm afraid

(Edit: Yes, I know ng was joking. I have enough Kiwi relos to know that sense of humour without the winkeys)

oldsig

 

[Todjaeger]

Bollocks to that. Part of the justification for building ships in Australia is the knock on effect providing jobs for upstream suppliers and an economic boost to the regions where they're built. Buying second hand tat, even from our mates across the dutch, would do nothing for our economy at a time when we need it and saddle us with an orphan type requiring a different spares pool and another training burden. From a practical standpoint, it flies like a blacksmith's anvil I'm afraid

(Edit: Yes, I know ng was joking. I have enough Kiwi relos to know that sense of humour without the winkeys)

oldsig

From my POV, injecting funding into Austal does not deliver much of an economic return back to Australia. I could be mistaken, but it was my understanding that Austal had shifted most of their civilian/commercial shipbuilding business out of WA to overseas facilities in the Philippines and Vietnam and that when work does need to be done in WA, at least some of the workforce has been brought in from overseas on temporary work visas.

If it was more about providing Austal with 'top up' orders to keep the WA facilities running with additional/extra gov't orders between commercial builds, with an Australian workforce so that skills are retained nationally as well as going back into the domestic economy, that would be one thing. However, it does seem like the only work currently active in the WA facility is production of steel-hulled Pacific Patrol Boat Replacement Project vessels and a couple of Cape-class patrol boats for Trinidad & Tobago.

Then in turn makes me wonder about Austal's workforce in Henderson, since Austal had built a reputation for designing and fabricating vessels using marine grade aluminium, which as I understand it requires a somewhat different skill set to work with due to having different properties for the types of steel normally used to construct ships.

Ultimately what I would like to avoid is any sort of boom-bust cycles where an Australian workforce builds up capabilities, only to have those capabilities wither once the work has been completed. At the same time, I would like to avoid having the gov't/RAN pay a premium for boats and vessels built in Australian yards, and then have that paid premium not go to developing/sustaining domestic yard workers.

It is also worth noting that should the RAN go ahead with contracting for an additional six Cape-class patrol boats, such a contract would likely be in the range of $190 mil. based off the cost of the two boats the RAN ordered back in 2015. That IMO is not an insignificant amount to be spending, especially for a capability that seems intended to only be a stop gap which should be fully replaced within a decade. If there are better options in terms of cost and capability outputs, I would be open to them.

I do find the notion amusing though, of the RAN possibly operating 2nd hand steel-hulled patrol boats built around the same time as the ACPB, as the stopgap replacement for the ACPB.

 

[ASSAIL]

I do find the notion amusing though, of the RAN possibly operating 2nd hand steel-hulled patrol boats built around the same time as the ACPB, as the stopgap replacement for the ACPB.

We don’t need to revisit the crazy decision to select the ACPBs in lieu of the other steel hulled contenders and as a result we did end up with a fleet of floating anodes
To be fair though, the Armidales did get flogged, operating beyond their design limitations for almost a decade whereas the IPVs should have much time left as they’ve done almost nothing in comparison.

 

[spoz]

It’s a done deal; and they will be built in WA. As previously discussed, these are to replace time expired Armidales as Assail suggested, while the Arafuras are completed.

 

[spoz]

Duplicate post

 

[Volkodav]

It’s a done deal; and they will be built in WA. As previously discussed, these are to replace time expired Armidales as Assail suggested, while the Arafuras are completed.

I'm curious as to which Armidales are time expired. They were all built over a very short period of time, and while there are surprising differences between some earlier hulls verses the latter ones, they are all pretty much of an age and not too far off each other in usage, well for the Darwin based boats anyway.

What is probably intended is for a period of several years for every one Arafura that enters service, one or two Capes will join the fleet leading to a force of Arafuras and Capes, with no Armidales remaining, sooner rather than later. The Capes will then be replaced by the remaining Arafuras.

The whole episode does nothing more than demonstrate that the Armidales are a waste of time effort and money and it would have been cheaper to have built OPV versions of the Tenix Corvette, while delivering greater capability, permitting PB Group to do the whole job by themselves without having to call major fleet units into help. Pork barrelling at its worst, not just wasting money to buy votes in regions, wasting tax payers money to help out a company that invests more in their overseas operations than local ones.

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm curious as to which Armidales are time expired. They were all built over a very short period of time, and while there are surprising differences between some earlier hulls verses the latter ones, they are all pretty much of an age and not too far off each other in usage, well for the Darwin based boats anyway.

What is probably intended is for a period of several years for every one Arafura that enters service, one or two Capes will join the fleet leading to a force of Arafuras and Capes, with no Armidales remaining, sooner rather than later. The Capes will then be replaced by the remaining Arafuras.

The whole episode does nothing more than demonstrate that the Armidales are a waste of time effort and money and it would have been cheaper to have built OPV versions of the Tenix Corvette, while delivering greater capability, permitting PB Group to do the whole job by themselves without having to call major fleet units into help. Pork barrelling at its worst, not just wasting money to buy votes in regions, wasting tax payers money to help out a company that invests more in their overseas operations than local ones.

I have been trying to find the RFI or RFT documents, proposals, or details on the SEA 1444 contract, but I seem to remember that in addition to being able to achieve so many sea-days, normal ops in Sea State 4 and IIRC survive a much higher sea state (7 or 9 IIRC, albeit with damage) and from what I can remember, I had thought that the planned service life of the ACPB hulls was supposed to be something like 15 years. Confirmation of that is what I am seeking when I look for more info on SEA 1444. The basic gist of what I can recall on the ACPB selection along with the support and sustainment contract, was that the requirements to the letter of the contract were indeed met, even if what the RAN really wanted/needed was not.

Also I came across this announcement from 1 May, 2020 confirming a $350 mil. contract to purchase six modified Cape-class PB's for the RAN. I find it interesting that the ABF got eight PB's for the same price as the RAN's six. I also have to wonder if the improvements made for the new construction can/will be backfitted to the existing RAN and ABF Cape-class PB fleets. If not, then the RAN will be operating a split fleet of very similar, but still different patrol boats.

Reading through an another article here, from 30 April, it does seem that the purchase has more to do with keeping the Austal facility and workforce going in Henderson. I do have to wonder though, if the workforce is only ~400, then AusGov is spending nearly $1 mil. per worker to keep them occupied. Yes, I do understand that the spending also supports the Australian supply chain with perhaps triple the Austal work force, that still seems rather inefficient. Particularly since these vessels are to have "more than 65% Australian Industrial Content" that suggests to me, that between the questions regarding Austal bringing in yard workers on work visas and about a third of the vessel content not being Australian, just how much of that $350 mil. is going to benefit Australians or Australia as a whole.

I also had a hypothetical "what if" moment. Does anyone have an idea of what the planned service life is supposed to be for the steel-hulled Pacific Patrol Boat Replacement vessels that Austal is building? If Australia were to find itself needing additional patrolling capabilities, at least for a short period of time (decade or less) then perhaps purchasing some of those patrol boats might be another future option.

 

[spoz]

The cost is, I think, in out turned dollars. The last Border Force Cape Class was delivered 5 years ago, and the FOREX change since that contract was signed has been significant. Further, as with comparing countries costs, the way variou federal departments contract for services, what’s in and what’s out, varies considerably.

The ACPBs were designed for a life of 15 years, so presumably to get some of them to around 20-25 (by the time the last OPV is delivered) would require, or have required, a MLU. It may be that it was a simple cost effectiveness decision, although I don’t suppose we will ever know for sure.

It’s in the back of my mind from some release somewhere that the PPBs have an expected life of 20 years, but I certainly wouldn’t swear to that, and stand by to be corrected!

 

[ASSAIL]

The cost is, I think, in out turned dollars. The last Border Force Cape Class was delivered 5 years ago, and the FOREX change since that contract was signed has been significant. Further, as with comparing countries costs, the way variou federal departments contract for services, what’s in and what’s out, varies considerably.

The ACPBs were designed for a life of 15 years, so presumably to get some of them to around 20-25 (by the time the last OPV is delivered) would require, or have required, a MLU. It may be that it was a simple cost effectiveness decision, although I don’t suppose we will ever know for sure.

It’s in the back of my mind from some release somewhere that the PPBs have an expected life of 20 years, but I certainly wouldn’t swear to that, and stand by to be corrected!

The PPBs should have no problem reaching the 20yr life.
By way of comparison, the 9xAttack Class PBS, (20 of which were built between Nov ‘67 and Feb 69), gifted to Indonesia are listed as active although one has sunk.
These were not heavily built vessels, decks were only 3/16” plate and hulls were 1/4”

Sibarau-classKRI TenggiriPatrol BoatKRI Siliman (848) KRI Sigalu (857) KRI Silea (858) KRI Siribua (859) KRI Siada (862) KRI Sikuda (863) KRI Sigurot (864) KRI Tenggiri (865) AustraliaIn active service. Ex-Attack-class patrol boat of Australia navy. KRI Sibarau (847) sank in December 2017.[9]

 

[StingrayOZ]

Then in turn makes me wonder about Austal's workforce in Henderson, since Austal had built a reputation for designing and fabricating vessels using marine grade aluminium, which as I understand it requires a somewhat different skill set to work with due to having different properties for the types of steel normally used to construct ships.

I think you would find most welders at Austal would be able to weld steel, they probably just previously didn't have much recent experience with it. Its not like a welder with 5 years of marine aluminium welding isn't skilled and doesn't have any transferable skills. Particularly if they are joining a new team with loads of steel experience and under supervision of those familiar with steel construction.

Certainly do hope that work becomes more stable with time. Its not just the primes that get hurt, its supplies that ripple through multiple industries, perhaps at a lesser extent, but still felt.

I wonder if WA might eventually become more of a general user type facility (which it kinda is already). So if work shifts from one prime to another, most of the workforce is transferable. They don't all die on the prime. Or workforce's can stabilize across different types of builds. IMO CivMec/Foracs and Austal shouldn't really be in competition with each other, rather specialize in different areas.

 

[Volkodav]

I think you would find most welders at Austal would be able to weld steel, they probably just previously didn't have much recent experience with it. Its not like a welder with 5 years of marine aluminium welding isn't skilled and doesn't have any transferable skills. Particularly if they are joining a new team with loads of steel experience and under supervision of those familiar with steel construction.

Certainly do hope that work becomes more stable with time. Its not just the primes that get hurt, its supplies that ripple through multiple industries, perhaps at a lesser extent, but still felt.

I wonder if WA might eventually become more of a general user type facility (which it kinda is already). So if work shifts from one prime to another, most of the workforce is transferable. They don't all die on the prime. Or workforce's can stabilize across different types of builds. IMO CivMec/Foracs and Austal shouldn't really be in competition with each other, rather specialize in different areas.

I don't know about now but in 2013, a big enough chunk of the welders at Henderson were here on 457 Visas, a big enough chunk that cultural sensitivity was specifically mentioned in the site inductions. Back then Austal liked to punch them out ahead of time and preserve them, rather than pace the build to match the schedule.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well Austal will be an interesting one to watch what happens. However, if your a welder (or welding related employment) in WA at the moment I would say there is significant amount of work coming online. With their Philippines workforce, Austal has been hedging its bets for a while now.

IMO Civmec is going to be the major ship builder in WA. As a builder and not really a designer, they can partner with any successfully chosen design, based on its design merits. They are big and flexible enough to pretty much run with anything. Its diversified across, civil, mining and marine projects. Same as ASC, government selects the design, then they build them. I quite like the arrangement for the Type 26 builds, I think that will work well.