Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

There seems to be an assumption that the Lussen hull can be all things to all requirements related to MCM and survey as well as being an OPV. There is no evidence this is the case and the intergrated investment plan does not suggest the OPV will also cover the MCM and survey role.

This does not mean it will not but there is no evidence to say it will be suitable .... and even if it was suitable it wouel need to be modified from the base design.

Alexsa

I certainly make no assumption that the Lurssen hull is all things to all requirements.
Its a flexible platform that does many things with all the compromises that come with this approach.
The Huon Class are not to be upgraded and there is suggestion that three larger vessels would be built sooner rather than later for MCM and Survey duties.
Little information is available in the public forum for this acquisition and with the dynamics and spending regarding the pandemic seemingly all over the place,we certainly live in most unusual times regarding government spending.
I'd speculate these three vessels will still be built, both out of necessity regarding the earlier retirement of the Huon Class and also as a boost to the Naval building sector.
My personal opinion is that we will not get too specialised a platform for both roles, but rather a modified Arafura with some bolt on kit over and above what can be carried within their flexi spaces..........................I hope I'm wrong, as I feel MCM is a undervalued part of a balanced RAN.

Arafura Class OPV | Royal Australian Navy

Maybe MCM at distance from the operating vessel is the way forward and if it is, I trust we invest in good quantities of the underwater systems to do justice to this domain.

If this is so then 15 rather than 12 OPV's may not be a bad thing

Looking forward to some Government clarity regarding this field.

Regards S

 

[swerve]

I remember that Kim Beazley was pushing the idea of combining that various border protection forces into a coast guard. Combining the various constabulary forces under a single banner could be more efficient. It could also free up manpower for the navy.
The downside is that the extra money for this would have to come from somewhere and the ADF wouldn't want it coming out of their budget.

Why would it cost more money? There'd be initial integration costs, but then it should be possible to make savings by eliminating overlaps, & as long as that's done right (a big if, I know) it should cost less in the medium to long term.

 

[Beam]

Why would it cost more money? There'd be initial integration costs, but then it should be possible to make savings by eliminating overlaps, & as long as that's done right (a big if, I know) it should cost less in the medium to long term.

I think that creation of a coast guard went out the window when the ABF was formed by combining the Customs, AQIS and immigration depts. I would think an additional force would be seen as a backward step in the rationalisation process the govt undertook. It would likely get determined resistance from certain interests in the fed public service.

 

[ASSAIL]

The biggest hurdle to joint manning RAN/ABF will be the different conditions of service between the two.
Discipline, pay and rosters are the big ones in fact many ABF personnel are ex Navy and would be reluctant to give up the relatively relaxed life they have become accustomed to.
The other stark difference, and I generalise here, is the age difference between the two. Most ABF crews are much older than the RAN crews, eg in my time on PBS the average age was 19 obviously screwed by the large number of junior sailors and the few Seniors. I was 26 as CO, the oldest on board.

What happens to the Ship’s Company When the boats are tasked on “military” missions? Do they remove the ABF component and draft in replacements? Hardly a recipe for an efficient well drilled cohort.

I think the current arrangements are the best compromise and forcing integration would cause unnecessary conflict.

 

[Volkodav]

Why would it cost more money? There'd be initial integration costs, but then it should be possible to make savings by eliminating overlaps, & as long as that's done right (a big if, I know) it should cost less in the medium to long term.

It was a political thing, a separate coastguard, two additional infantry battalions and in interim replacement for the F-111 were cornerstones of the oppositions defence policy going into the election due end of 2001. They all happened eventually, because they were necessary, but in different forms to that proposed by the opposition, Border Force being the most convoluted as the government had made a very big deal about a coast guard being an unnecessary, expensive and ineffective duplication of perfectly adequate existing capability.

We now have an unnecessary, expensive and ineffective government department that was created to oversee and coordinate the bits and bobs arrangements that we have instead of a Coast Guard.

 

[Volkodav]

The biggest hurdle to joint manning RAN/ABF will be the different conditions of service between the two.
Discipline, pay and rosters are the big ones in fact many ABF personnel are ex Navy and would be reluctant to give up the relatively relaxed life they have become accustomed to.
The other stark difference, and I generalise here, is the age difference between the two. Most ABF crews are much older than the RAN crews, eg in my time on PBS the average age was 19 obviously screwed by the large number of junior sailors and the few Seniors. I was 26 as CO, the oldest on board.

What happens to the Ship’s Company When the boats are tasked on “military” missions? Do they remove the ABF component and draft in replacements? Hardly a recipe for an efficient well drilled cohort.

I think the current arrangements are the best compromise and forcing integration would cause unnecessary conflict.

Joint manning would be a huge pain and best avoided altogether. By all means get ex RAN in on reserve days or even short term appointments, but best to keep uniformed public service separate from RAN. A coast guard would be different as it could be a service in its own right and maybe even share a lot of training with the RAN but have its own rank structure and career path rather than APS style lateral entry where you need to apply for promotions like you are applying for a new job, rather than doing courses, building experience and being promoted.

 

[Stampede]

The biggest hurdle to joint manning RAN/ABF will be the different conditions of service between the two.
Discipline, pay and rosters are the big ones in fact many ABF personnel are ex Navy and would be reluctant to give up the relatively relaxed life they have become accustomed to.
The other stark difference, and I generalise here, is the age difference between the two. Most ABF crews are much older than the RAN crews, eg in my time on PBS the average age was 19 obviously screwed by the large number of junior sailors and the few Seniors. I was 26 as CO, the oldest on board.

What happens to the Ship’s Company When the boats are tasked on “military” missions? Do they remove the ABF component and draft in replacements? Hardly a recipe for an efficient well drilled cohort.

I think the current arrangements are the best compromise and forcing integration would cause unnecessary conflict.

Thanks ASSAIL

Appreciate the feed back.
Certainly many challenges and I would of hoped with some wishful thinking some opportunities.
I see Boarder Force as it looks today as very much in it's infancy.
Maybe in time it will develop into a true coast guard with the structure and expectations that come with it and hopefully this many alleviate some of the challenges you mentioned.
An attribute you allude to was the age difference, which by default I read as experience.
I could envisage a young military commander profiting by the experience of a long term Boarder force officer in that challenging constabulary role where non military personal may be the preferred solution or at least a knowledgeable voice.
As to the well drilled cohort, well that is a good point.
If the mission set is same old, same old, than the crew what ever the uniform will be that cohort of expertise.
Swing to a more robust military mission then it is a Navy crew only.
Not such a challenge for the major fleet units, but as I'm often told our patrol boat / OPV force is for Constabulary duties only.
But one should always keep an eye out for the what and when, if things get regional nasty and we call upon patrol vessels to perform in roles not originally intended.



Thanks again


Regards S

 

[hauritz]

Why would it cost more money? There'd be initial integration costs, but then it should be possible to make savings by eliminating overlaps, & as long as that's done right (a big if, I know) it should cost less in the medium to long term.

I should have expressed myself better.

The costs I am thinking of are the potential loss of patrol vessels by the navy. The main task of the patrol boats and OPVs will be constabulary and really those vessels should most probably go to a coast guard.

I am not sure how the navy would feel about handing over a dozen or so ships to a Coast Guard. There is no guarantee that the navy would get more frigates, destroyers or other ships to replace these vessels.

 

[ASSAIL]

I should have expressed myself better.

The costs I am thinking of are the potential loss of patrol vessels by the navy. The main task of the patrol boats and OPVs will be constabulary and really those vessels should most probably go to a coast guard.

I am not sure how the navy would feel about handing over a dozen or so ships to a Coast Guard. There is no guarantee that the navy would get more frigates, destroyers or other ships to replace these vessels.

The main tasks for the patrol force is “currently” constabulary but that won’t hold true in a conflict.
Are you suggesting that they never undertake war fighting duties? If that were the case I might agree but you only have to look at the Bathurst Class corvettes (smaller than the Arafura) and the Fairmiles and HDMLs roles during the Pacific war, they were the workhorses of the RAN and undertook a huge variety of essential duties.
Further, in peacetime these ships provide an important training platform for young Surface Warfare officers and relatively young engineering rates. They are given huge responsibilities early in their careers which is invaluable as they progress to larger ships.

 

[Volkodav]

The main tasks for the patrol force is “currently” constabulary but that won’t hold true in a conflict.
Are you suggesting that they never undertake war fighting duties? If that were the case I might agree but you only have to look at the Bathurst Class corvettes (smaller than the Arafura) and the Fairmiles and HDMLs roles during the Pacific war, they were the workhorses of the RAN and undertook a huge variety of essential duties.
Further, in peacetime these ships provide an important training platform for young Surface Warfare officers and relatively young engineering rates. They are given huge responsibilities early in their careers which is invaluable as they progress to larger ships.

The Armidales are basically Charge qualified Artificer factories. They are a great training asset but then again, a superior platform such as the Arafuras will be even better.

 

[hauritz]

The main tasks for the patrol force is “currently” constabulary but that won’t hold true in a conflict.
Are you suggesting that they never undertake war fighting duties? If that were the case I might agree but you only have to look at the Bathurst Class corvettes (smaller than the Arafura) and the Fairmiles and HDMLs roles during the Pacific war, they were the workhorses of the RAN and undertook a huge variety of essential duties.
Further, in peacetime these ships provide an important training platform for young Surface Warfare officers and relatively young engineering rates. They are given huge responsibilities early in their careers which is invaluable as they progress to larger ships.

There are many good reasons why the navy would want to retain ships the size and capability of the Arafura's but if you are going to establish a Coast Guard then it would be expected to take over the constabulary role. The whole purpose of having a separate Coast Guard would be to improve efficiencies and get rid of duplication.

I could see an argument for the navy retaining some of the Arafura's for MCM and training purposes. In the event of a major conflict, I could see coast guard ships being commandeered by the navy. But unless the government would be willing to provide more funding for the navy I can see it losing a good number of ships to any future coast guard.

 

[alexsa]

There are many good reasons why the navy would want to retain ships the size and capability of the Arafura's but if you are going to establish a Coast Guard then it would be expected to take over the constabulary role. The whole purpose of having a separate Coast Guard would be to improve efficiencies and get rid of duplication.

I could see an argument for the navy retaining some of the Arafura's for MCM and training purposes. In the event of a major conflict, I could see coast guard ships being commandeered by the navy. But unless the government would be willing to provide more funding for the navy I can see it losing a good number of ships to any future coast guard.

Except that the Arafura are being fitted with systems (particularly the CMS) that are designed to integrate with other warships and would faciliate the use of UAV and UAS. I suspect getting a coast guard designed for constabulary work up to speed on these systems would be a waste and you would restrict the versatility of roles the the OPV. If we were going to go with a coast guard the protector and shield (noting protector is an ADV operated by civilian crew witht border force folk onboard) and the patrol boats and support craft wouel appear to be sufficient.

The little understood element of this is the border force vessels are all under civilian (as in commercial) certification where as the warships are not. If the Coast Guard is going to follow the Border Force model then .... trust me .... that transition will be extremely difficult if the OPV is to be transferred.

 

[spoz]

....The whole purpose of having a separate Coast Guard would be to improve efficiencies and get rid of duplication.....

... But unless the government would be willing to provide more funding for the navy I can see it losing a good number of ships to any future coast guard.

If you have a coastguard, you have duplication - duplication of administrative functions (establishment and maintenance of officer and sailor career paths, standards, etc) and training structures, plus a duplication of oversight activities and the like and a diversion of already short resources. Plus you have a coordination issue because both Navy and Coast Guard ships will both be out there. Currently we have a single, sea going uniformed service with uniform training and regulatory regimes; a coast guard would fracture that.

Border force does not, to my knowledge, have all that capability; it relies on recruiting already qualified personnel and using AMSA rules for ship management. In that environment the current situation where there are Border Force ships armed with .50 cals but without the Navy's regulatory framework to manage that capability scares the hell out of me. It is NOT like a policeman with a pistol; or even a SWAT Team (by whatever name you want to call them).

The loss of ships and funding and the potential for a lack of unity of command and coordination at critical moments is why Navy has traditionally opposed the whole concept.

 

[hairyman]

If the Arafura based mine warfare vessels go ahead, how many would the RAN need? I take it more than the three being considered now.

 

[hauritz]

It hasn't been confirmed that it will be a variant of the Arafura used for the mine warfare role.

I know the Dutch and Beguims were pushing the MCM mothership concept at Pacific 2019.

Naval Group demonstrates new mine warfare solution at Pacific

ECA Group and Naval Group have showcased at PACIFIC 2019 their joint solution for stand-off Mines Counter Measures (MCM) that has been purchased by both Belgium and the Netherlands. Presenting to jour

www.defenceconnect.com.au

It is hard to know how many ships would be needed as the mine-hunting equipment itself would seem to be modular. Pretty much any ship that has enough space could operate as a mother ship.

 

[Underway]

If you have a coastguard, you have duplication - duplication of administrative functions (establishment and maintenance of officer and sailor career paths, standards, etc) and training structures, plus a duplication of oversight activities and the like and a diversion of already short resources. Plus you have a coordination issue because both Navy and Coast Guard ships will both be out there.

It depends on what you want to use the Coast Guard for. There are many flavours of Coast Guard out there in the world. Not all need to be modeled on the US "fifth line of defense". Canadian Coast guard, for example, specializes in SAR, Aids to Navigation, Cartography, Icebreaking services, the supply of isolated communities, among other things. They are not constabulary in nature. Those powers are held by the RCMP, Fisheries and Oceans, and Customs and Immigration. The RCN is the heavy hitter for constabulary, but is not allowed to arrest civilians. For that they embark one of the previously listed officers. This eliminates duplication for the most part as the RCN isn't going to be providing icebreaking or navigational services.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

It depends on what you want to use the Coast Guard for. There are many flavours of Coast Guard out there in the world. Not all need to be modeled on the US "fifth line of defense". Canadian Coast guard, for example, specializes in SAR, Aids to Navigation, Cartography, Icebreaking services, the supply of isolated communities, among other things. They are not constabulary in nature. Those powers are held by the RCMP, Fisheries and Oceans, and Customs and Immigration. The RCN is the heavy hitter for constabulary, but is not allowed to arrest civilians. For that they embark one of the previously listed officers. This eliminates duplication for the most part as the RCN isn't going to be providing icebreaking or navigational services.

Spot on Underway! I did not realize that AU did not have a "dedicated" Coast Guard as we in Canada do. The US CG has a much more aggressive stance when it comes to maritime surveillance as compared to CCG. If AU is contemplating some sort of CG fleet, I would suggest modeling it after the Canadian experience and not the US. Too much duplication there to be sure.

 

[Todjaeger]

Spot on Underway! I did not realize that AU did not have a "dedicated" Coast Guard as we in Canada do. The US CG has a much more aggressive stance when it comes to maritime surveillance as compared to CCG. If AU is contemplating some sort of CG fleet, I would suggest modeling it after the Canadian experience and not the US. Too much duplication there to be sure.

The current assets in Australia which might be used to constitute a Coast Guard are really not like the CCG at all, as the Australian Border Force is a security/law enforcement agency with a marine component. The lack of constabulary authority in the CCG would not mesh well with an enlarged/expanded Australian Border Protection Force marine unit, if Australia were to decide to follow the route Canada did.

What I would suggest people do, who are considering or arguing for Australia to form a 'Coast Guard' of one sort of another, would be to look, really look, at the size and roles of the various Coast Guards they are contemplating as models for Australia. Then look at what department, agency or organizations currently fulfill those roles in Australia, as well as what kind of demand there is in Australia for those specific roles.

After all, what works for one country might very well be completely inappropriate for another. Not to mention how the various national services came into being is different, largely as a result of the different nations having encountered different issues and needs which had to be met.

 

[Stampede]

The current assets in Australia which might be used to constitute a Coast Guard are really not like the CCG at all, as the Australian Border Force is a security/law enforcement agency with a marine component. The lack of constabulary authority in the CCG would not mesh well with an enlarged/expanded Australian Border Protection Force marine unit, if Australia were to decide to follow the route Canada did.

What I would suggest people do, who are considering or arguing for Australia to form a 'Coast Guard' of one sort of another, would be to look, really look, at the size and roles of the various Coast Guards they are contemplating as models for Australia. Then look at what department, agency or organizations currently fulfill those roles in Australia, as well as what kind of demand there is in Australia for those specific roles.

After all, what works for one country might very well be completely inappropriate for another. Not to mention how the various national services came into being is different, largely as a result of the different nations having encountered different issues and needs which had to be met.

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

 

[Redlands18]

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

The interesting thing about the 6 new Capes is, what will their long term future be? Will the RAN operate a fleet of 12 Arafura’s and 6 Capes together or will these 6 be transferred to Border Force to replace their Capes? Once the Arafura’s are all in service.