Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[76mmGuns]

Australia orders two additional Guardian-class patrol boats from Austal

The Australian Government has ordered two additional Guardian-class patrol boats from Austal Australia.

www.navaltoday.com

I just read Aust bought 2 more Guardian class boats from Austal. The articles don't say who it's for though. I know they're being built for the Pacific Island nations, but the way the article is written, it suggests it's for Australia itself. Any ideas?

 

[Milne Bay]

Australia orders two additional Guardian-class patrol boats from Austal

The Australian Government has ordered two additional Guardian-class patrol boats from Austal Australia.

www.navaltoday.com

I just read Aust bought 2 more Guardian class boats from Austal. The articles don't say who it's for though. I know they're being built for the Pacific Island nations, but the way the article is written, it suggests it's for Australia itself. Any ideas?

I didn't get that impression from the article.
It wouldn't surprise me if they are additional boats for our Pacific neighbours, to counter Chinese efforts in the region.
MB

 

[Mikeymike]

I thought this would just be the replacement order for the 2 that have already been damaged beyond economical repair.

I think its Samoa and Tuvalu that have both written one off already due to groundings or cyclone damage.

 

[StevoJH]

I thought this would just be the replacement order for the 2 that have already been damaged beyond economical repair.

I think its Samoa and Tuvalu that have both written one off already due to groundings or cyclone damage.

There was another one sitting on a reef a couple of weeks ago as well, from Fiji. I wonder if that one was salvageable or not.

Navy boat gifted by Australia to Fiji stranded on reef after maiden voyage

A Pacific patrol boat has run aground on its maiden voyage in Fiji, just a few months after it was handed over by the Australian government.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Going Boeing]

I thought this would just be the replacement order for the 2 that have already been damaged beyond economical repair.

I think its Samoa and Tuvalu that have both written one off already due to groundings or cyclone damage.

A third Guardian patrol boat has been damaged following the grounding on a reef of a near new Fijian vessel. It has now been successfully refloated and towed to a nearby island for damage assessment. This article mentions that a stern compartment experienced water ingress so some internal systems may need to be replaced.

 

[Pusser01]

I thought this would just be the replacement order for the 2 that have already been damaged beyond economical repair.

I think its Samoa and Tuvalu that have both written one off already due to groundings or cyclone damage.

The Samoan replacement boat was announced back in Feb 2023, this article indicates these new 2 are for the Tuvalu replacement & an extra boat for Kiribati. Cheers. Two more Guardians for the Pacific - Australian Defence Magazine

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Is it naive to suggest that perhaps our aid to Pacific Island states might need to include a little bit of training for the crews?

 

[Sandson41]

Is it naive to suggest that perhaps our aid to Pacific Island states might need to include a little bit of training for the crews?

Well, there's already a joint security training and maintenance program, so I'd say that's not naive.

Pacific Maritime Security Program | Defence Activities | Defence


TAFE Queensland awarded RAN training contract - Daily Cargo News (thedcn.com.au)

 

[76mmGuns]

I thought this would just be the replacement order for the 2 that have already been damaged beyond economical repair.

I think its Samoa and Tuvalu that have both written one off already due to groundings or cyclone damage.

I missed that, somehow. Thanks

 

[aussienscale]

Is it naive to suggest that perhaps our aid to Pacific Island states might need to include a little bit of training for the crews?

There were early reports when the grounding happened that there was an RAN Officer onboard at the time, but I can't find that reference again. Reports are it has been re-floated and was towed for repairs.

Fiji Recovers Patrol Boat Three Weeks After Grounding on First Patrol

www.starconcord.com.sg

 

[spoz]

Having served in the SW Pacific with the RAN for some years and been a part of several accident investigations the main problem is that the waters are in many cases poorly charted. My time was mostly around PNG, and we had a number of groundings of patrol boats and landing craft. Generally they were minor, but not always; one patrol boat lost both screws on a coral reef; another virtually sank after hitting an uncharted obstruction In the approaches to a major port. She was saved by good damage control and seamanship. The incidents had nothing to do with levels of training which was generally good - in one case the boat had an RAN CO and XO - but with the challenging environment in which they were operating.

For many years the RAN ran regular hydro surveys all around the SW Pacific in an attempt to remedy the problem, but it is of course a vast area and, to coin a phrase, off the major routes our efforts were little more than a drop in the ocean. And even that has been curtailed by a lessening of resources available for hydro.

 

[Pusser01]

For many years the RAN ran regular hydro surveys all around the SW Pacific in an attempt to remedy the problem, but it is of course a vast area and, to coin a phrase, off the major routes our efforts were little more than a drop in the ocean. And even that has been curtailed by a lessening of resources available for hydro.

Noting this, HMAS Melville is currently scheduled to decommission on 8/9/24. Cheers.

 

[hauritz]

So what is the status of the navy’s hydro fleet.

It went from looking for a specialised vessel, to using the Arafura to now nothing at all. It looks like the navy is going to pay off yet another ship without replacement.

While we sit it awe of various governments inability to replace major assets like submarines and frigates we forget their ability to screw up with minor ships as well.

 

[SammyC]

The strategic review advised hydrographic services will be contracted out.

 

[spoz]

Yes it did. But to whom? And at what level of capability and activity? And, if the last set of experiences from outsourcing of particularly defence functions is any guide, who will train the next generation of Droggies?

 

[76mmGuns]

While we sit it awe of various governments inability to replace major assets like submarines and frigates we forget their ability to screw up with minor ships as well.

It's good to know their ability to do that is comprehensive and they don't forget the small stuff

 

[hauritz]

It's good to know their ability to do that is comprehensive and they don't forget the small stuff

Yep the complete failure of just about every administration to deliver actual capability is impressive.

Back in 2009 the Rudd government identified the Chinese threat and came up with an impressive ship building plan to counter it. However he didn’t last long enough to do anything about it and his successor, Gillard, had no interest in implementing anything.

The Abbot administration launched its own white paper but failed to do the one thing it needed to do and that was to order construction of additional AWDs. Life would have been so much easier had we just continued building those things.

Anyway the Turnbull government was left with implementing the 2015 white paper and we know how that turned out. Morrison famously cancelled the French submarine contract but to give him his dues he did play a crucial role in bringing about AUKUS.

Yet another change of government brings us to the present where we have now seen 6 or 7 changes of administration in the 15 years since the 2009 white paper that started it all and we seem to have very little to show for it.

I don’t think the constant changing of administrations has helped.

I have seen so much chopping a changing over that time that I remain sceptical about how much of the latest navy review will actually see the light of day.

 

[Reptilia]

Yep the complete failure of just about every administration to deliver actual capability is impressive.

Back in 2009 the Rudd government identified the Chinese threat and came up with an impressive ship building plan to counter it. However he didn’t last long enough to do anything about it and his successor, Gillard, had no interest in implementing anything.

The Abbot administration launched its own white paper but failed to do the one thing it needed to do and that was to order construction of additional AWDs. Life would have been so much easier had we just continued building those things.

Anyway the Turnbull government was left with implementing the 2015 white paper and we know how that turned out. Morrison famously cancelled the French submarine contract but to give him his dues he did play a crucial role in bringing about AUKUS.

Yet another change of government brings us to the present where we have now seen 6 or 7 changes of administration in the 15 years since the 2009 white paper that started it all and we seem to have very little to show for it.

I don’t think the constant changing of administrations has helped.

I have seen so much chopping a changing over that time that I remain sceptical about how much of the latest navy review will actually see the light of day.

Think the Albanese government have done ok, very interested to see what happens pre election. Lots of new equipment and upgrades in the 2024/2025 period and GPF selection.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yep the complete failure of just about every administration to deliver actual capability is impressive.

Back in 2009 the Rudd government identified the Chinese threat and came up with an impressive ship building plan to counter it. However he didn’t last long enough to do anything about it and his successor, Gillard, had no interest in implementing anything.

The Abbot administration launched its own white paper but failed to do the one thing it needed to do and that was to order construction of additional AWDs. Life would have been so much easier had we just continued building those things.

Anyway the Turnbull government was left with implementing the 2015 white paper and we know how that turned out. Morrison famously cancelled the French submarine contract but to give him his dues he did play a crucial role in bringing about AUKUS.

Yet another change of government brings us to the present where we have now seen 6 or 7 changes of administration in the 15 years since the 2009 white paper that started it all and we seem to have very little to show for it.

I don’t think the constant changing of administrations has helped.

I have seen so much chopping a changing over that time that I remain sceptical about how much of the latest navy review will actually see the light of day.

Australia had an unexercised option for a fourth Hobart-class DDG, but that option expired either in 2008 or 2009, during the Rudd gov't. It would have taken significant effort, as well as whole new contracts and approvals before an Abbott gov't would have been able to order any additional Hobart-class destroyers built. Effectively that ship sailed during the first Rudd gov't.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia had an unexercised option for a fourth Hobart-class DDG, but that option expired either in 2008 or 2009, during the Rudd gov't. It would have taken significant effort, as well as whole new contracts and approvals before an Abbott gov't would have been able to order any additional Hobart-class destroyers built. Effectively that ship sailed during the first Rudd gov't.

I think the option was somewhat possible until possibly after the second election in 2010 before it was deader than disco. 2008 was too soon after the election to really been a viable option and there were other priorities with the global economic crisis. Certainly lobbying basically stopped post 2010, Rudd was out and Gillard was in and no only was it late to start sourcing things, it defence was scaled back, and the project was in all sorts of build related issues. The 3 hobarts were then further ruined as a project with steps to delay the project deliberately to save some money short term, but cost money long term. The Hobart design was quite stagnant by that stage, being a minimum refresh of the F-105, which itself was a min refresh of the F-104. It may have been a 4th Hobart was never possible. Which is the problem if you choose a "proven" design that isn't actively in a continuous build. Really any 4th Hobart was really looking more and more light a flight II type not an original configuration.

As it was the 3 ships are having their aegis systems replaced almost immediately, and the last 2 ships were built with helicopter modifications. So really it was never a +1 option, as to fund/make viable the further updates, more needed to be built, or its just another white elephant.

Which is I think part of the platform selection issue. We don't build/operate/support a single platform in a vacuum. The program should have been 6 Hobarts to replace 6 FFGs. Six hulls would give us reliable sustainable capability. The ecosystem for crewing, logistics, SME support would have been far more sustainable and efficient. It would have been cheaper than what we actually did.

If we had 6 hobarts today in the water, decommissioning Anzacs wouldn't be a crisis, we would have a useful fleet, even with the first 3 hobarts coming out of the water for upgrades.

Which is why I actually hope Tier 2 is actually a bigger number than the minimum. Should really be a least 9.