Australian Customs

[SteveJH]

Have Customs been acquiring/leasing more ships lately?

There has been a red ship with a large work deck aft tied up alongside the Forgnac's dock in Newcastle for the last little while.

The old name has now been painted over, and there has been a white patch painted on the side with black writting saying "Customs and Border Protection" on it. There is also now a rather makeshift looking Helicopter landing platform positioned forward of the bridge above the bow of the ship and level with the roof of the bridge.

If I can find my Camera I might try take a couple of photos tomorrow.

[buglerbilly]

Sounds like the Oceanic Viking, or a similar Ocean Supply Vessel converted to other purposes............

Are they re-fitting Viking following her sojourn as a Tamil refugee flotel?

[SteveJH]

Sounds like the Oceanic Viking, or a similar Ocean Supply Vessel converted to other purposes............

Are they re-fitting Viking following her sojourn as a Tamil refugee flotel?

Looks nothing like the photo's of Ocean Viking that i've seen online.

Big Raised bow like viking, but only a really short superstructure. Whole aft section of the ship appears to be a big work deck. Hull is fire engine red.

[Gubler, A.]

Oceanic Viking is blue and yellow. This vessel sounds like an utility supply vessel/offshore support vessel. While OV was built as this type of ship it was converted to a cable layer with a superstructure on the work deck. I guess they might be converting this ship into something similar to OV? But I don't recall there bening anything specific in the budget(s) for a new ACBPS support ship.

[JimWH]

It does sound awfully as though they're converting another ship, any chance you've found that camera yet Steve?
It does raise a question though: ACV OV is on a long term lease rather than actually being owned by the Commonwealth. She's proved herself to be an adaptable and useful ship over the past couple of years, and I imagine that in the long-term there should be a discussion about what the best way to secure a ship (or ships) of her capability are.

[Gubler, A.]

I do recall that the OV capability went to tender recently. So this could be the replacement or an enhancement.

[SteveJH]

It does sound awfully as though they're converting another ship, any chance you've found that camera yet Steve?
It does raise a question though: ACV OV is on a long term lease rather than actually being owned by the Commonwealth. She's proved herself to be an adaptable and useful ship over the past couple of years, and I imagine that in the long-term there should be a discussion about what the best way to secure a ship (or ships) of her capability are.

Will head down and take photos in the next hour or two.

Currently working on a report for a case study for Microbiology....

[jacktar]

It is most probably the new Southern Oceans Patrol Vessel in the process of being fitted out.

If so I believe the vessel in question is probably the Skandi Bergen

http://www.dofsubsea.com/?page=7&show=11

NEW SOUTHERN OCEAN PATROL VESSEL

28 April 2010

The Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O’Connor, today announced a new Southern Ocean Maritime Patrol and Response Capability contract has been signed with Australian company, dmaa Seaforce Pty Ltd.

Mr O’Connor said the $157 million contract will see the continuation of the government’s commitment to strengthen Australia’s national security.

“Protecting the integrity of our borders, Economic Exclusion Zone and surrounding maritime environment is a high priority for the Australian Government,” he said.

“We look forward to working closely with Seaforce to further enhance our border protection capabilities in this region.”

Seaforce has been engaged to provide a vessel, crew and all supporting logistics. Norwegian company, DOF Subsea, has provided a vessel under lease, which will undergo modifications in Newcastle (Australia) to meet the capability requirements for Customs and Border Protection patrols.

“The government appreciates the assistance from DOF in securing this state-of-the-art vessel, which has a significant ice capability and meets stringent environmental requirements,” Mr O’Connor said.

The 106 metre long vessel will be named Ocean Protector for the duration of the contract and is expected to be ready for operations in August this year.

[SteveJH]

Does that mean Ocean Viking is gone? Or is this ship to supplement the capability?

Thats the one, except its red.

[Gubler, A.]

Well at least the competition for the ugliest ship in Australia can be resolved now:

[SteveJH]

Nope, That must have been the ship the current one replaced. The one I saw matched the photo through jacktar's link, except painted red.

Heading down now, will probably be back in about an hour and a half. Time for my afternoon walk.

[jacktar]

Its supposed to replace the Oceanic Viking, the lease for which is about due to expire.

[Gubler, A.]

Its still ugly. Though one shudders to think of the kind of surf that needs that sort of forecastle.

[Gubler, A.]

There is a larger Skandi Singapore that is painted red. But red seems to be the Skandi fleet hull colour so the blue Bergen was probably an old picture?

The specs on this ship are quite impressive: Max Displacement: 6,596 tonnes, Deadwight: 4,000 tonnes. Its designed to be ROV mothership. The kind of vessel you want plugging oil head holes in the Gulf of Mexico. And its only three years old and Norway built.

[SteveJH]

Grabbing photos off my camera now. Not sure how good they'll be though, because it was getting dark.

Interestingly, also saw an ANZAC docked over the back further up the harbour, and most of the time I was down there walking, I could hear Jet engines, presumably F/A-18's off the coast since the Airport is a fair way up the coast.

[buglerbilly]

Its still ugly. Though one shudders to think of the kind of surf that needs that sort of forecastle.

Built to North Sea standards so yes the sea can beat over the top of the forecastle. I've been on a Pipe Carrier (longer rear deck) when the water came over the top in extreme conditions in Winter in the Norwegian seas, NOT fun, scared the sh1t out of me and I'm a good sailor.............nobody, that I remember, didn't get sick whether it was thru fear or the pounding seas.

Oh and forgot to say that Clough Engineering here in Perth have 3 or 4 of these vessels in service worldwide. All were built in Norway and all are Dive Support/ROV vessels.............pity they can't do an Engineering project worth a damn but thats another story not worth discussing here.

[SteveJH]

The photo entitled "blah" has had ambient light changed a "bit" seeing as how all that could be seen was the sillouette. My camera is shocking at distance shots, as shown by the frigate photos I took...

[McDethWivFries]

Oh and forgot to say that Clough Engineering here in Perth have 3 or 4 of these vessels in service worldwide. All were built in Norway and all are Dive Support/ROV vessels.............pity they can't do an Engineering project worth a damn but thats another story not worth discussing here.

ah if only i still had the pics of the top floor of 251 after a rather nasty storm went through in early 2000, give you an idea of the sort of 'civil engineering' design skill they have (o;

[buglerbilly]

Austal in box seat to win $350m Customs contract

AAP

June 13, 2011, 8:41 am


The West Australian ©

UPDATE 12.25pm: Shipbuilder Austal has been chosen as preferred tenderer to build eight new patrol boats for Customs and Border Protection.

Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor said the eight new vessels to be constructed under the $350 million contract would significantly boost Customs and Border Protection capability to detect and respond to illegal activity in Australian waters.

Mr O'Connor said the new Cape Class patrol boats would have significantly enhanced surveillance and response capability plus the ability to travel greater distances than the current Bay Class vessels.

"These new vessels will better support our dedicated Customs and Border Protection officers to more readily carry out their important work," he said in a statement.

Mr O'Connor said Austal had manufactured the current eight Customs and Border Protection Bay Class vessels as well as the 14 Armidale class patrol boats in service with the Royal Australian Navy.

The eight new vessels will be named after geographical capes in each Australian State and Territory: Cape St George (ACT), Cape Byron (NSW), Cape Nelson (Victoria), Cape Sorell (Tasmania), Cape Jervis (SA), Cape Leveque (WA), Cape Wessel (NT) and Cape York (Queensland).

"This is an important job retention and job creation opportunity for the Australian shipbuilding industry," he said.

"The tender process was highly competitive showcasing the professional capability and substantial experience of the Australian shipbuilding industry."

Austal chief executive Andrew Bellamy said the contract was strategically important for the company as it was “a key first step in the repositioning of the company’s Henderson facilities and its Australian business as a defence-focused operation”.

Austal shares closed on Friday at $2.73.

[Milne Bay]

Hope this is the right thread for this - if not - mods please move.

Austal wins $330m Customs boat contract

Updated August 12, 2011 15:49:14


West Australian shipbuilder Austal has secured a multi-million-dollar contract to construct the next batch of Customs and Border Protection patrol boats.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard made the announcement today while touring the company's base in Henderson, south of Perth.

The $330 million contract will see eight Cape Class boats replace an ageing fleet.

Ms Gillard says the investment will boost the Western Australian economy.

"This investment will support 500 direct jobs and indirectly will support around 1,000 more," she said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-12/austral-wins-customs-boat-contract/2837022

[ADMk2]

Apparently space and weight has been reserved to fit Typhoon 25mm's on the front of these too...

A 'Coastguard' is a political issue, but Customers seems to be setting itself up as one in all but name. Next we'll be seeing requests for Customs ships with helicopter carrying capability and requests for armed helos etc...

[Unicorn]

Heh, there is a 1:72 scale Armidale hull and there is already discussion about how much modification work will be required for it to be turned into a Cape class.

As for the helo-capable version, in about five years watch for Austal to start pitching such a vessel, to a receptive Customs.

These boats will have a 10-15 year life at most, and development will need to start in about the 2016-7 timeframe.

.

[buglerbilly]

Heh, there is a 1:72 scale Armidale hull and there is already discussion about how much modification work will be required for it to be turned into a Cape class.

As for the helo-capable version, in about five years watch for Austal to start pitching such a vessel, to a receptive Customs.

These boats will have a 10-15 year life at most, and development will need to start in about the 2016-7 timeframe.

.

AUSTAL's already have, of course, a helo-capable Coastguard/Customs-type vessel....................which is also better than our Armidales in my opinion................the MRV

[McFriday]

AUSTAL's already have, of course, a helo-capable Coastguard/Customs-type vessel....................which is also better than our Armidales in my opinion................the MRV



I really like these little ships and what appears to be their inherent flexibility.

A few years ago on either the old T5C or DT, probably the latter, there was a 'wish list' part to a thread and I linked the Austal site for the MRV and proposed that we should have 20 of them for multi-purpose use.

'Alexsa' slammed me for nominating them as they were a totally unsuitable vessel on sea-keeping, economic [manning] and standards [HSV class?] grounds. as he's a naval architect and I am not, I couldn't really argue his points with him.

I, however, remain unconvinced that the MRV concept couldn't be a valuable, very flexible asset to AUS. providing a tier smaller than the frigates yet larger and more flexible than the current patrol boats.

Anyhow, I don't wish to start another 'how would you fund/man them?' circular debate, so I'll leave it there. LOL

Cheers,
Mac

[buglerbilly]

We've had the same discussion here but somewhat different. There is a scenario where these vessels are almost ideal, namely Northern Waters patrol/surveillance/SAR.They are not suitable for Southern Waters/Antarctic waters work not least necause they do not have the robustness required for work there BUT then again NEITHER do the current range of RAN warships and patrol vessels outside of the unique N Sea Supply/ROV Support Vessel type that we lease in very limited numbers.

Personally I'd lie to see us have a class of 3-4 such vessels to actually do the necessary Ocean surveillance, control and interdiction we require for the unique ocean weather conditions we have to the South. This would be a permanent posting for these Oceanic Patrol Vessels.

MRV then becomes the mainstay of Northern Waters patrol and surveillance activities.

Both classes would be heavily reliant on UAV's, both VTOL unamnned helo and MALE types, as well as inherent manned helicopter for both search and attack. The helo would have something like Thales Lightweight Multi-role Missile (LMM)..........air-launched torpedoes? Not sure to be honest, perhaps yes, perhaps no?

Armament for each vessel would be a minimum of a 40mm Bofors either Mk III or IV backed by 25mm &.50cal Sea Typhoon RWS.

Japan would be told to GFTFOH as far as whaling is concerned, full stop...........they wanna complain too loud about it, we go with the Chinese............fuck 'em! I get real pissed off at the complete lack of balls our Pollies show in this matter and I REALLY don't want to hear to that turd Brown whimper on again...............I reach for the baseball bat every time he's on TV.

The existing Armidales get flicked to the Coastguard but also continue with this new programme, we need both classes JUST to meet that need.

My inconsequential mutterings on the matter.............

[McFriday]

Bug,

I was going to type a para by para response but as I agree most strongly with most of your post, I'll only offer this:-

Southern ocean most def. needs what you suggest, stop being half arsed and do it properly.

Never considered MRV for that arena, everywhere else though. ie our north and nearby island nations.

Armament: I'll defer to your greater knowledge of what current arms give the max. flexible sting for the hull size/manning.

Air: If the chopper/uav can be armed, it should be...as above

Radar etc: Surely there are now combat systems available light and compact enough to provide surface and air capabilities beyond just search and navigation that can be fitted?

Personal view, I see no need for commercial whaling and do see a need for sterner measures. I agree about testosterone challenged, genuflecting pollies, which brings us to the baseball bat... I would not risk giving pleasure which the bb may do, perhaps confiscating the personal make up case would hurt more.

Having a Southern Fleet permanently based in, say, Hobart would cause that bird to sing a different tune in support of the ADF, providing the ships were based on the Toyota Prius of course.

Coastguard/Customs: Flick pass=Yes

Cheers,
Mac

[JimWH]

I just can't convince myself that the MRV is what the RAN needs for the OCV requirement. It seems perfectly adequate for the patrol roles envisaged for the program, but it seems to me that launching and recovering USV or UUV would be at best clunky. The mission deck is obviously quite nicely sized for MCM and hydro USV/UUV storage, but any kind of launch and recovery rig is going to less than ideal when compared with a ramp (and I don't see anyway the design can easily be altered to accommodate one).
Ideally what I'd want is something which combines elements of the Austal trimaran experience (ala MRV) and the BMT Vernator concept (http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/?/196/853/1707) which I think had an intrinsically sensible means of handling USV/UUV and RHIBS. Bearing in mind that I don't expect a helicopter to be carried all the time (or probably most of the time) I therefore consider this to be a higher priority than aviation facilities, though clearly the MRV's facilities are head and shoulders above the Vernators. And I reckon it ought to be possible to design something which does both and probably within the scope of the OCV program.

[buglerbilly]

Jim,

You can easily replicate the same ease-of-loading RHIB's etc for the MRV the only thing you need to do is design/install a Stinger, a curved ramp that extends from the rear of the lower deck area of the MRV. The same is done with Self-propelled barges and semi-subs for pipe laying for Oil & Gas, a simple, well-understood system.

The RHIB drives onto the Stinger which then retracts into the lower deck area. You could design it such that you eradicate or greatly limit/modify the need for the overhead gantry the BMT design has.



(Pic via our good friend Unicorn and previously posted in the LCS et al thread)

[buglerbilly]

Actually, looking at that pic again, that looks like a drive-on RHIB ramp in the rear of MRV...............

[JimWH]

It does too. Guess, I've been put in my place then. The pdf on the Austal website shows the volume occupied by that ramp full of machinery, but if they've fixed that then happy days
[Edit: just looked at the pdf again: the ramp was there all along, I was reading it wrong. My bad.]

Okay, guess I'm sold on the basic design, though there are some alterations I'd make:
-I'd strongly consider getting rid of the ro-ro ramp: the RAN has enough lift (LHD, LSD, LCH(R)) without adding another couple of dozen lane metres in the OCV*. This frees up space to add a stinger alongside the ramp and thus allows for the launch and recovery of UUV and USV/RHIB in the optimum fashion
-I'd probably also reconfigure the internal space (as shown on that pdf) with the passenger seating (87) given over to other purposes (e.g. the compartment beside the hanger could be much more gainfully used as storage space for consumables for the chopper).
-These are getting to be quite big ships (compared to their predecessors) which'll be used away from Australia's shores with the potential of engaging with assymetric threats. Therefore I'd be much happier is there was an RWS coverage of the full arc and adequate EO/IR cuing for such weapons. 25mm would be great, but a couple of mini-Typhoon aft would be almost as good.
But all in all I'll actually happily admit that I was wrong and the the MRV actually does look like it should be able to do all the things that the RAN wants the OCV to do.


---------
*Of course the Ro-Ro ramp also helps in reconfiguring the ship between roles... but assuming this even happens with any regularity it'll happen at one of the RAN's bases, and as such I don't think the ramp actually adds enough utility to be worth the valuable fantail space.

[buglerbilly]

Generally, I'd agree with the comments on both the pax space (I'd reduce it to 30+ that would give you enough additional avaiation spares, etc space ) and the Ro-ro ramp but possibly not for all of the class.

IF, they went for a nominal 8 vessel class, I'd be interested to see 3 out of the class equipped per the pic above c/w ramp and pax accom. They'd have the potential to serve as Quick Reaction Interdiction in potential events in the Islands wherever that may be. Basically Pathfinder resources for the follow-on Main Force and/or for Limited Police actions.

However, if deemed unnecessary for even this then I'd be happy to see the ramp et al go...............

[JimWH]

I just can't see the point Bug. The Ro-Ro vessel needs a friendly pier to offload to, and if we've got access to local infrastructure then I can't see why we wouldn't send those two spear-head platoons by Herc or Globemaster. Certainly be a damn sight more fun than sailing for several days without a bunk. Similarly, in the customs/coastguard roll regardless of what ever is happening overseas the ships would still be needed in home waters to do their patrol job.

[McFriday]

Damn heavy rain and multiple power outs, no more attempts at a long post. LOL

Very interesting to see what you two have written.

Don't take offense at my brevity, power may go again.

Agree on changes to pax accom, downplay or discard ro-ro for at least bulk of class, reconfigure available real estate for primary role as flexible long range patrol/mother ship ie. to RHIBs, UAV, ROV for ASW, MCM etc. By long range I'm referring to its persistence, not necessarily far off places.

I re-visited some of Alexas' other comments on the MRV and he was, at one stage, referring to a 300dwt MRV principally being used as a ro-ro, the one we are discussing is the 400dwt iteration of that concept. Gives a bit more flexibility, though I agree with him [and Jim] that as a ro-ro it doesn't have enough value.

Agree that it's major value would be in home waters but with enough flexibilty to emulate the feats of the old 'Bathurst' class corvettes if needed.

Enjoying your posts on this subject.

Cheers,
Mac

[Unicorn]

Role specific fit outs don't work, as when a situation hits, you send the ship with what it's got, not wait for the one fitted out for the job to appear.

Given the 10-15 year lifespan of the vessel, who can say what will be required in 2030?

.

[JimWH]

I have a few problems with that statement Unicorn:
1). The OCV will be replacing decidedly single role ships. All I'm saying is that the ships don't need to hobbled so that rapid changes of mission kit in austere locations can be facilitated (since they'll mostly be operating in Australian waters the ro-ro ramp really doesn't add to much in terms of the rapidness of a role change anyway).
2). Even with instantly interchangeable modules the rate limiting step for Australia will be access to trained and worked up crews: we don't have all that many guys who know how to do MCM/hydro and fewer of them have recently practiced it at a collective level, therefore changing modules won't help unless you've got a crew who knows how to do the job ready to go at a moments notice.
3). The MRV design actually looks like it ought to retain a fairly strong patrol/interception capability regardless of what you put on the mission deck. It has the ability to embark a helicopter (and with better stowage for the helicopter that could be equipped fairly flexibly) and two RHIB on davits (if the mission deck was entirely full of MCM/Hydro kit), so it'd still be more capable in the patrol role than anything which we've used in that role previously.
And just so that I'm sure I've made the point: it's going to be very important that the RAN avoids mission creep with the OCV. They're replacing minor war vessels, and the temptation pimp them out needs to be avoided at all cost. The size of the class really can't afford to go below 20, and the ADF can ill afford to have money pulled out of other programs in order to pay for capabilities on the OCV that aren't absolutely needed. So I'm entirely happy with thinking of them as single use vessels with the ability to be modified at a dockside if needed rather than think of them as intrinsically multi-role ships.

[Gubler, A.]

One of the problems with mission role fitouts is that people think this means you can swing role the ship (or vehicle, or aircraft) to meet demand. This is NEVER a requirement nor a realistic capability. The advantage these kits bring your fleet (of ships, vehicles or aircraft) is the ability to manage availability via a larger fleet. For one the number of kits or modules of a certain capability is going to be limited to the number purchased. There is not going to be some reserve store of MCM modules or whatever to increase the size of the MCM fleet if needed.

What will happen with the SEA 1180 ship is the 20 hulls will cycle through the maintenance, refit system as a single fleet. The modules will have their own, separate cycle of maintenance. Since the mission system needs less maintenance than the vehicle system a smaller number of modules will be needed to sustain the required capability. Also the availability of these capabilities will be higher because the mission system modules can just be moved from available ship to available ship and not need to be put out of action as the ship goes into maintenance to sustain the vehicle system side.

It’s just an efficient way of managing fleet availability. There are also advantages via common training, common crew certification and commonality of systems via one boat type in place of three separate ones.

[JimWH]

That was pretty much my understanding of things Abe. And it goes to my argument that retaining the ro-ro ramp in order to facilitate the swap out of equipment on the mission deck isn't a great idea. Especially when the same space could be used to facilitate deploying UUV in aid of the ships MCM or Hydro roles.