THIS IS TOTALLY NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT ANY NAVY SHIP
ACHIEVE 60% OF performance targets AND DECLARED OPERATIONAL.READ Aussie MOD admits in Allegation #15.

How can RSN learn from the news?

20 Allegations against a patrol boats of few years old!!

STATUS OF ARMIDALE CLASS PATROL BOATS--ARMIDALE CLASS PB, ,dd 07.Nov 2007

ARMIDALE CLASS PATROL BOAT FACTS

* Allegation #1: The 14 Armidale Class Patrol Boats (ACPB) are spending more time under repair than on patrol.

Fact: At the time that this article was published, all 12 of the currently commissioned ACPBs were at sea, being employed in various tasks across Northern Australian and in the South-West Pacific.

* Allegation #2: Sailors claim that conditions on the boats are so bad that the navy is losing people because of them.

Fact: ACPB’s are 40% larger than the Fremantle Class Patrol Boats (FCPB) with significantly enhanced habitability. Junior sailors live in 4-berth accommodation with an ensuite and generous amounts of hanging and drawer space. Sailors in the Armidale Class also have access to e-mail and satellite television at sea, and enjoy meals from a well equipped Galley, all improvements on the FCPBs.

* Allegation #3: The entire fleet was tied up last year due to a water/fuel contamination problem.

Fact: Two ACPBs suffered engine defects earlier this year requiring corrective maintenance as a result of fuel contamination. The fleet of ACPBs were put on an operational restriction to allow fuel system checks to be conducted on the remaining ACPBs to determine the existence of any water contamination. No ACPBs have suffered fuel contamination problems in recent months.

* Allegation #4: Constantly blocked toilets.

Fact: Toilets in crew accommodation areas are all of the vacuum suction type and have operated reliably. One common use toilet is a standard gravity type that has performed less than optimally. It has not posed a safety hazard. The ship’s builder has reviewed the design and is trialling a modification. There have been some intermittent problems with a toilet blockage in the Austere Accommodation Compartment. This compartment is not in regular use and is separate from crew accommodation so the system has been isolated while the ship builder develops and implements design changes.

* Allegation #5: Unsecured anchors.

Fact: One vessel was involved in a minor incident involving its anchor; however, the damage was not considered attributable to any design issue. It did not affect the vessel’s operational service. The matter is subject to further investigation.

* Allegation #6: American style power points that require adaptors to be fitted for Australian electrical equipment.

Fact: 115V 60Hz outlets are in the communications room to enable operation of some specific, specialised US-made equipment only. 240V 3 phase power outlets with RCD protection are fitted throughout the ship for all domestic and personal equipment.

* Allegation #7: Inadequate lighting.

Fact: All RAN ships are fitted with red lighting in compartments above the waterline. This ensures that white light does not affect the identification and aspect of a vessel at night. This requirement complies with ‘Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (1972)’ (COLREGS).

* Allegation #8: A lack of training specific to the boat.

Fact: Every new Crew completed a comprehensive 3-month training continuum that included platform specific training delivered by the In-Service Support Contractor, onboard pre-Workup training and familiarisation, and an at-sea mariner skills and mission readiness Workup and evaluation. All new members subsequently joining a Crew are provided with the platform specific training, and all Crews are routinely re-evaluated. Confidence and knowledge with onboard systems will steadily grow as operational experience with these technologically advanced new Patrol Boats is gained. The performance of ACPB Crews on operations to date has not indicated any significant flaws in the training continuum.

* Allegation #9: Over-crowded shore establishments.

Fact: All RAN personnel posted to vessels home-ported in Cairns and Darwin live in off-Base accommodation. Base re-developments at HMAS Cairns and HMAS Coonawarra are underway, and while short-term disruption and inconvenience is acknowledged, the benefits gained will be substantial.

* Allegation #10: The 21-person crews rotate between the boats after a nine-week assignment followed by four weeks’ respite, rather than being posted to a vessel for a two-year billet. This means there is no attachment to any boat.

Fact: Personnel are posted to a crew for an expected duration of between 18 months and three years. Under the Armidale Class multi-crewing regime six Crews rotate between four Boats within a generic Crew duty cycle comprising nine weeks assigned to a Patrol Boat, four weeks unassigned for operational respite, and so on.

Multi-crewing is in its infancy but is already delivering benefits: predictable respite periods; reduced duties in harbour; reduced leave liability; reduced training shortfalls; improved levels of individual readiness; and the opening up of new opportunities for respite such as adventure training, vocational training, and familiarisation with other ADF units such as NORFORCE.

The days of single-crewing Patrol Boats are over; the benefits of multi-crewing far outweigh the perception of a loss of attachment to a particular Boat. In the Fremantle Class, attachment to one Boat meant unpredictable programs all-year round, involvement in all maintenance activity, and keeping harbour duties whenever in port. These issues collectively manifested themselves as severely curtailed leave opportunities and no stable family life. In the Armidale Class all sailors have 16 weeks per annum unassigned to a boat and rigidly programmed for respite.

.

to be continued...

THIS IS TOTALLY NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT ANY NAVY SHIP
ACHIEVE JUST 60% OF performance targets AND DECLARED OPERATIONAL.READ Aussie MOD admits in Allegation #15..

* Allegation #11 – Fitted Plastic Blinds vice Tinted Windows on the Bridge

Fact: Tinted windows would contravene the International COLREGS as they would restrict visibility at night and thereby cause safety issues. Blinds similar to other classes of RAN ships are fitted to minimize glare by day.

* Allegation #12: ‘The fault has not been fully rectified and the accommodation areas on the Armidales remain off limits.’

Fact: The investigation into the HMAS Maitland toxic hazard incident determined that improper operation of the Sewage Treatment Plant, not any technical fault, was the most likely cause. Subsequently, revised operating procedures and training were immediately implemented along with a range of restrictions on entry and use of the austere accommodation compartment. The compartment is completely isolated from normal crew working, accommodation, and recreation areas and this limitation has only a minor impact on capability. Continuous monitoring and weekly reporting of compartment air quality across the fleet since the incident has confirmed the effectiveness of the revised procedures and the probable elimination of the hazard. Earlier this year restrictions were relaxed to allow entry and use of the compartment except as an ‘overflow’ sleeping space. These restrictions and monitoring remain in place until technical feasibility studies into possible design changes are completed and any subsequent configuration changes can be implemented.

* Allegation #13: ‘Despite the seriousness of the incident, it was kept a secret by the Navy.’

Fact: A departmental media release was issued nationally on 30 August 2006 which addressed the incident on HMAS Maitland. The RAN maintains its transparency in reporting incidents as they occur.

* Allegation #14: ‘Both the Navy and COMCARE investigated the gassing incident and recommended ‘configuration’ changes’.

Fact: COMCARE made no such recommendations. The Fleet Commander initiated a separate Inquiry after the initial investigation; that report was consistent with the initial findings but also made further recommendations regarding investigating the technical feasibility of possible configuration changes. Results are awaited.

* Allegation #15: ‘According to the 2007 defence annual report the Armidale boats, which are designed and built to commercial rather than naval operating standards, achieved just 60 per cent of their performance targets for the year.’

Fact: That is correct. Regardless of operating standards these vessels are ‘state-of-the-art’ technology and involve a new operating and support concept which made the task of introducing them into service very complex and demanding. Like any new capability, technical issues associated with their introduction into service arose and are being methodically overcome. Performance targets for this current financial year continue to trend upwards and the Patrol Boat force has been consistently meeting its operational commitments for several months.

* Allegation #16: ‘Sailors serving on the $40 million boats say they are riddled with faults and morale is at rock bottom.’

Fact: The builder and support contractor have a successful program in place to address any latent design and build defects. Defects outstanding have no detrimental impact on capability or safety and are in the process of rectification on a priority basis. Any defect arising that may have a significant impact on capability or safety is immediately addressed. Personnel in the Patrol Boat Force have been working hard for over two years introducing this new capability. It has not been easy but the vast majority of men and women are now realising the benefits of the improved capability, habitability, and predictable respite offered by the Armidale Class and are proud of the successes they are now having on operations.

* Allegation #17: ‘The entire Armidale fleet was tied up last year due to a water/fuel contamination problem.’

Fact: Two ACPBs suffered engine defects earlier this year requiring corrective maintenance as a result of fuel contamination. The fleet of ACPBs were put on an operational restriction to allow fuel system checks to be conducted on the remaining ACPBs to determine the existence of any water contamination. No ACPBs have suffered fuel contamination problems in recent months.

* Allegation #18: ‘The navy defended the Armidales, saying that just one of the 12 now in service was tied up with problems’

Fact: All 13 vessels so far accepted by the Navy are operational. Navy will soon be increasing its level of Patrol Boat commitment to Border Protection Command because of recent force structure and operational training milestones successfully achieved.

* Allegation #19: American style power points that require adaptors to be fitted for Australian electrical equipment.

Fact: 115V 60Hz outlets are in the Communications Room to enable operation of some specific, specialised US-made equipment only. 240V 3 phase power outlets with RCD protection are fitted throughout the ship for all domestic and personal equipment.

* Allegation #20: Constantly blocked toilets.

Fact: Toilets in crew accommodation areas are all of the vacuum suction type and have operated reliably. One common use toilet is a standard gravity type that has performed less than optimally. It has not posed a safety hazard. The ship’s builder has reviewed the design and is trialling a modification. There have been some intermittent problems with a toilet blockage in the Austere Accommodation Compartment. This compartment is not in regular use and is separate from crew accommodation so the system has been isolated while the ship builder develops and implements design changes

2.I am astonished that so many problems in a small boats...

3.old news----Aussie Patrol fleet docked over fuel defect,again



4.read the ship maker's salesman talk

Are you really that stupid?

The article is structured to address the allegations with the facts to show that the allegations are untrue, but you ignore the facts and conclude on the basis of allegations that the boats are problematic. What's wrong with this picture?

Lion, don't take this the wrong way but I'm really curious now. Are your parents blood relatives?

ACHIEVE 60% OF performance targets AND DECLARED OPERATIONAL.
READ Aussie MOD admits in Allegation #15.

Originally posted by Gedanken:

Are you really that stupid?

The article is structured to address the allegations with the facts to show that the allegations are untrue, but you ignore the facts and conclude on the basis of allegations that the boats are problematic. What's wrong with this picture?

Lion, don't take this the wrong way but I'm really curious now. Are your parents blood relatives?

1.Dunt be so mad.I like Aussie like u do,
But what happened really hurt people who love Aussie---
Aussie looks loke defenseless.

Yes ,it is the ''Let us make the records straight'' news release.

I cant agrue with u if the faults claimed true or not.

But what would u say about ''achieved just 60 per cent of their performance targets for the year''.

THIS IS TOTALLY NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT ANY NAVY SHIP
ACHIEVE 60% OF performance targets AND DECLARED OPERATIONAL.

READ Aussie MOD admits in Allegation #15.

2.Damn it!How can just only 60% few years after the boats in services??
u can say Oz MOD is open and admits this fault.
Pl read.There are plenty frank admissions.

u will think SG MINDEF need not admits if there are major problems.

Ok.Ok.pl put in net while u are in JB,by using a new e mail a/c.

I am looking forward any interesting secretes...

one of those brainless idiots with IQ

Originally posted by lionnoisy:

ACHIEVE 60% OF performance targets AND DECLARED OPERATIONAL.
READ Aussie MOD admits in Allegation #15.

1.Dunt be so mad.I like Aussie like u do,
But what happened really hurt people who love Aussie---
Aussie looks loke defenseless.

Yes ,it is the ''Let us make the records straight'' news release.

I cant agrue with u if the faults claimed true or not.

But what would u say about ''achieved just 60 per cent of their performance targets for the year''.

THIS IS TOTALLY NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT ANY NAVY SHIP
ACHIEVE 60% OF performance targets AND DECLARED OPERATIONAL.

READ Aussie MOD admits in Allegation #15.

2.Damn it!How can just only 60% few years after the boats in services??
u can say Oz MOD is open and admits this fault.
Pl read.There are plenty frank admissions.

u will think SG MINDEF need not admits if there are major problems.

Ok.Ok.pl put in net while u are in JB,by using a new e mail a/c.

I am looking forward any interesting secretes...

You really are damn stupid. Do you honestly think that our LRI results are accurate?

Originally posted by lionnoisy:

ACHIEVE 60% OF performance targets AND DECLARED OPERATIONAL.
READ Aussie MOD admits in Allegation #15.

So.... then you admit that out of those 20 allegations, only one of them holds water, while the other 19 are baseless?

And at the very least, they're being upfront about this problem and are taking active steps to control it, with positive results so far: 'Like any new capability, technical issues associated with their introduction into service arose and are being methodically overcome. Performance targets for this current financial year continue to trend upwards and the Patrol Boat force has been consistently meeting its operational commitments for several months.'

So unless Mr noisy lion here has the technical capability to correct these teething problems overnight, then I say that it's not within his place to comment. After all, didn't CIS have teething problems with bullet manufacture in its first few years?

Please lah..... when you say that you love the Aussies while posting all these anti-Aussie threads, you're just fooling yourself, you know?

oh.u are so generous to Aussie.
Why your required standard is so low.

''..built to commercial rather than naval operating standards, achieved just 60 per cent of their performance targets for the year''

1.Commercial rather than naval standards

Wah.U guys cant read this.Wat a xxx!!no wander they can build the boats so far.no wander there are so many problems.

If a commercial boat can replace naval boats,then the navy
around the globe must be stupid to spend so much $$ to build
naval ships.

Is there stealth factors in the boats?i dunt think so.

2.60 per cent of their performance targets for the year'
How many days can all these boats out to sea?

1800 days only?

It was left to the tenderers to meet the 3000 sea day requirement with a reliable patrol boat force rather than a predetermined number of vessels.

3.u are right and so do i
u can say oz navy is very open to admit all these problems.

But in the first place,the problems should not happen.

can u tell me what are so complicated that can only achieve
60% performance targets.The targets too high?

Allegation #15: ‘According to the 2007 defence annual report the Armidale boats, which are designed and built to commercial rather than naval operating standards, achieved just 60 per cent of their performance targets for the year.’

Fact: That is correct. Regardless of operating standards these vessels are ‘state-of-the-art’ technology and involve a new operating and support concept which made the task of introducing them into service very complex and demanding. Like any new capability, technical issues associated with their introduction into service arose and are being methodically overcome. Performance targets for this current financial year continue to trend upwards and the Patrol Boat force has been consistently meeting its operational commitments for several months.

Originally posted by Gedanken:

Are you really that stupid?

The article is structured to address the allegations with the facts to show that the allegations are untrue, but you ignore the facts and conclude on the basis of allegations that the boats are problematic. What's wrong with this picture?

Lion, don't take this the wrong way but I'm really curious now. Are your parents blood relatives?

Forget it Ged. This time even I am pissed when I finally forced myself to read the article - trying to reconcile his comments with the article took plenty of energy, and still now, I am not sure I am thinking straight.

The man has an innate inability to comprehend the stuff he posts.

Article states refutation of allegations, he turns it around.

Woohoo.

Originally posted by chanjyj:

Forget it Ged. This time even I am pissed when I finally forced myself to read the article - trying to reconcile his comments with the article took plenty of energy, and still now, I am not sure I am thinking straight.

I assure you, you're the one thinking straight.

It's Mr noisy lion here who twisted a positive article into a vehicle for his anti-Aussie agenda. Like I pointed out, he has basically admitted that 19 out of the 20 allegations are baseless, and even in that one allegation, positive steps were being taken.

He's just an armchair critic who delights at pointing out flaws of others.... without realising that in the end, some flaws are inevitable and that what really matters is how you rectify them. Any engineer and designer worth his salt would know that some problems are virtually inevitable when you move from the design phase to the production phase. Which is why I say that it's good that the Aussies are at least being upfront with some problems and are actively seeking to solve them.

In the end, what the article says is true.... there will ALWAYS be teething problems every time you adopt new technology. The same is true of the SAF.... I can come up with some of the teething problems we had with some of our newer toys, but then again, since I don't have MINDEF clearance to discuss that on the public domain, I won't be going into them.

Too bad Mr noisy lion here has problems trying to comprehend that.

Lets assume i agree the 19 items are not true.
I just agree that the boat can only achieve 60% of targeted performance.

But 60 % and u guys feel Ok?

I agree that ''some problems are virtually inevitable when you
move from the design phase to the production phase''.

But why so many problems still exist few years after the
first boat was launched in Jan 2005?Good 3 years!!

2.

Look at how strange of the tender awared

ISO the navy give specifications and requirements to ship makers
to give proposals,The navy just wait for proposals.

The outcome is the off the shelf commercial hull for navy operations!!
Thats why now they face so many problems,mates.Pl
read the navy admits this Allegation 15.

This is damn serious.U just pick a off the shelf hull
for navy op.This is the resuils of oz navy dunt has
brains to think what are needed.

Instead of the traditional Defence process of specifying detailed requirements, such as the number of vessels of a particular weight, length and construction, the ACPB tendering strategy followed a 'performance based' model. Thus, the tender sought a patrol boat system to provide 3000 days of operational availability of specified performance, with the capacity to surge to 3600 days to meet operational contingencies in any one year.

Unlike previous patrol boat programs the emphasis was on a capability at sea to meet operational requirements, not on the number of boats purchased. It was left to the tenderers to meet the 3000 sea day requirement with a reliable patrol boat force rather than a predetermined number of vessels.

The cost cover ''logistic support package for the 15-year life of each patrol boat.''

God knows if oz govaman need to pay for all these
un foreseen problems?

Do Top brass of oz navy has brains to figure what they need?
They just like spoon feed?

3.u can read here if the new boats are really so hi tech

4.Poor armaments
''In terms of armament, the ACPB are equipped with a Raphael Typhoon 25mm automated cannon, made in Australia by General Dynamics Land Systems in Adelaide, and two 12.7mm machine guns.''

This is just enough to scare off fishmen and pirates.

Its ok to post threads on potential defects regarding the equipment of any countries' armed forces.

What is disturbing is the continuous stream of such threads directed at the Australians.

*Thread closed