Navy 'Time Bomb' Patrol Boats too Busy for Repairs World Naval Ships Forums Archive

Naval History by Country :

ROYAL
NAVY

US
NAVY

GERMAN
NAVY

FRENCH
NAVY

*VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT ART SPECIAL OFFERS ON ONE PAGE HERE*
NAVAL ART	AVIATION ART	MILITARY ART	SPORT ART

ALWAYS GREAT OFFERS :

20% FURTHER PRICE REDUCTIONS ON HUNDREDS OF LIMITED EDITION ART PRINTS

BUY ONE GET ONE HALF PRICE ON THOUSANDS OF PAINTINGS AND PRINTS

FOR MORE OFFERS SIGN UP TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Navy 'Time Bomb' Patrol Boats too Busy for Repairs World Naval Ships Forums Archive

Navy 'Time Bomb' Patrol Boats too Busy for Repairs

Posts 1 to 19

By Ian McPhedran, Defence Writer From: The Daily Telegraph August 16, 2012 [B]A HIGH-level investigation into the navy's overworked Armidale Class patrol boat fleet will label the vessels "ticking time bombs". [/B] The Darwin based patrol boats - running virtually around the clock on boat people interception duties - will have their operational lifespans cut by five-years. The boats are routinely put to sea with so-called "urgent deficiency faults" that have not been fixed. "In the past they would have been repaired before the vessel was allowed to put to sea," a source said. According to navy insiders, the inquiry by retired Major-General Greg Melick found the Australian-made vessels were riddled with faults including an on-going risk from gassing, structural aluminium cracks, engine problems, davits failing and power problems. The most serious issues continue to involve gas and toxic waste hazards more than six years after a senior sailor almost died after being gassed inside the so-called Austere compartment on a patrol boat. The Daily Telegraph has been told of a raft of occupational health and safety incident reports from the fleet documenting dozens of toxic gas incidents during 2010 and 2011. Former chief petty officer Kurt Mackenzie was rendered an invalid and unable to work by the incident on board HMAS Maitland. Regards John

John: I understand the various structural, engineering and equipment problems, but am puzzled by the [B][I]"gas and toxic waste hazards?"[/I][/B] Can you elaborate? Tim

Hi Tim, Sorry as I can not give you an answer I have just reported what was in the paper. Maybe another member may be able to help you as I am not ex navy and sick to death of seeing our defence force going from hero to zero as the saying goes. Regards John

Thanks John - I share your feelings as our national media also have the same tendencies when reporting on defence issues. Cheers Tim

The gas hazard was a result of engine fumes being sucked into the compartments, this happened just after they were commissioned and rectification work for this issues was carried out at the time!

[QUOTE=bbragg2;10041208]The gas hazard was a result of engine fumes being sucked into the compartments, this happened just after they were commissioned and rectification work for this issues was carried out at the time![/QUOTE] Thanks bbragg2: Love the way the media portrays it as though that particular problem still exists! Never let the facts get in the way of a good story I guess! Tim

Excusing all ranks, There is currently a patrol boat up north that is on restricted duties. She is currently suffering "structural" defects that limit her ability to operate in sea state 4 or above. She is being kept in service to help train crews ect. the estimated time of repair will be about december when she enters a routine maintenance period. Given the amount of work the boats do I wonder why it is necessary to keep a boat working when it has a defect like it does. Are all the slip yards full? Is there more to the defects than we are being told?

Some items from a Newspaper article in 2009: THE navy's Armidale class patrol boats were put to sea with design defects, missing operating procedures and inadequate training that caused an accident in which four sailors were almost killed. A secret report into the gassing of the crew aboard HMAS Maitland has raised more questions about the 16-strong fleet of Armidale patrol boats, twice recalled to port for emergency repairs since they were commissioned in 2005. The $28 million boats, dubbed "Armifail" by frustrated sailors, have been dogged by problems including fuel contamination, engine trouble, blocked toilets, lack of personal storage, inadequate lighting and overcrowding. Four sailors on training exercises aboard the Maitland off Darwin in August 2006 were gassed with hydrogen sulphide, commonly known as rotten egg gas, and possibly carbon monoxide, after a leak in the ship's sewerage system. A secret report into the accident, obtained by The Weekend Australian, found effluent had not been properly treated aboard the ship and that 615 litres of sewage was stored in holding tanks for three days because there was no equipment to take the discharge in port. This caused a build-up of the toxic gases, which leaked into the 21-crew ship's spare accommodation area -- normally used to hold rescued asylum-seekers -- after a valve failed when the sewage was being pumped out at sea. The investigation found the location of air vents and sewage discharge lines did not meet specifications despite the ship being approved for duty. At the time of the accident, the boat had "no coherent" sewage management plan and no environmental plan, and investigators found crew training inadequate

[QUOTE=bbragg2;10041312]Some items from a Newspaper article in 2009: [QUOTE]The $28 million boats, dubbed "Armifail" by frustrated sailors, have been dogged by problems including fuel contamination, engine trouble, blocked toilets, lack of personal storage, inadequate lighting and overcrowding. [/QUOTE] All the problems reported were "first of class" issues and have been dealt with for some time now. Your quote was from 3 yrs ago discussing issues from 6 yrs ago! More pressing is the emergence of structural cracking in some hulls but this is not surprising as all the boats have been flogged to death on border protection duties. These are multi crewed boats so there is little time in port for defect rectification. There is no problem with refit space, Darwin Naval Base has a total of 12 boatpark bays and 2 in-shed berths for ships out of water. The real problem is caused by a govt which has stripped $5.4 billion from the defence budget over the forward estimates which leaves sfa for sustainment across the entire RAN! However to reply to your above; the fuel contamination and engine problems are linked and old news caused by condensation in the fuel tanks arising from operating in areas with very high seawater surface temperatures (32 deg C for 6 months of the year) and inedequate insulation in the aluminium tasnks. this has been rectified from about hull #5 IIRC. As for complaints about habitability, pure bs. I have been on these boats and was amazed at the standard of accommodation. Jnr sailors are in 4 x berth cabins and the messes are the best I have seen in small ships, particularly when compared with the standards of the two previous classes (Attacks and Fremantles) Old news is just that, the current issue is the hull cracking and how this will be managed over the life of type.

[QUOTE=ASSAIL;10041324][QUOTE=bbragg2;10041312]Some items from a Newspaper article in 2009: All the problems reported were "first of class" issues and have been dealt with for some time now. Your quote was from 3 yrs ago discussing issues from 6 yrs ago! More pressing is the emergence of structural cracking in some hulls but this is not surprising as all the boats have been flogged to death on border protection duties. These are multi crewed boats so there is little time in port for defect rectification. There is no problem with refit space, Darwin Naval Base has a total of 12 boatpark bays and 2 in-shed berths for ships out of water. The real problem is caused by a govt which has stripped $5.4 billion from the defence budget over the forward estimates which leaves sfa for sustainment across the entire RAN! However to reply to your above; the fuel contamination and engine problems are linked and old news caused by condensation in the fuel tanks arising from operating in areas with very high seawater surface temperatures (32 deg C for 6 months of the year) and inedequate insulation in the aluminium tasnks. this has been rectified from about hull #5 IIRC. As for complaints about habitability, pure bs. I have been on these boats and was amazed at the standard of accommodation. Jnr sailors are in 4 x berth cabins and the messes are the best I have seen in small ships, particularly when compared with the standards of the two previous classes (Attacks and Fremantles) Old news is just that, the current issue is the hull cracking and how this will be managed over the life of type.[/QUOTE] Its good to see that someone is telling it like it actually is, rather than quote from old reports that are obviously no longer relevant, which begs the question: Why are so many contributors prepared to bag the Navy, on every occasion the press gives them some excuse to do so ? OK our "border protection" ships need maintenance, Assail and others have explained why this is so, why go ahead and bag the ships themselves, and the people who run them ? The same has happened to HMAS Choules recently, so she broke down! so what ? I have many years of experience working with machinery, and no matter how good it is, and how well maintained, the bloody things breakdown when you least want them to, its a fact of life ! This is particularly true of machinery in its first year or so of its life in areas that the original design did not cater for !, I do respect the views expressed on this forum, and have followed many postings with great interest, but can we at least face the real problems, rather than drag up spurious reports from the press, especially when, and I think we all agree with this, they never let the truth or the facts, get in the way of a good story ! Bro Palmer

I wasn't bagging the Navy, I was pointing out this class has had problems from day 1. Who certified these as being fit for purpose at the time? Bit like the ist 4 Huon class all passed as suitable when they weren't. Some one finally had the guts to not accept the last 2 until defects were rectified! Why didn't this happen with this class!!

For completeness sake here is a link to the Chief of Navy's response to the original (16 Aug 2012) article. [url]http://www.navy.gov.au/On_The_Record:_Chief_of_Navy%27s_letter_to_News_Limited_regarding_Patrol_Boats_article[/url]

[QUOTE=GordonBranch;10041659]For completeness sake here is a link to the Chief of Navy's response to the original (16 Aug 2012) article. [url]http://www.navy.gov.au/On_The_Record:_Chief_of_Navy%27s_letter_to_News_Limited_regarding_Patrol_Boats_article[/url][/QUOTE] Thanks Gordon, always great to hear the real story from Chief of Navy himself. I always beware media reports since 'a senior Navy spokesman' turned out to be a Junior Seaman on his first trip to sea !! Brian

It is all to easy to go off on one with just minimum info or old and outdated info. For those of us with a love of ships we know them for the complex beasts that they are. Some faults and failures are to be expected wether the vessel is new or old and the men afloat deal with them as best they can. The fact is the press love to blow these things out of all proportion and tend to be less than objective as a fault that is just a fault is far less newsworthy than a conspiracy or coverup. As such such news reports should be taken with a great deal of scepticism and I would hope that members would withold judgement until all the facts are known.

[QUOTE=Blaydon;10042166]It is all to easy to go off on one with just minimum info or old and outdated info. For those of us with a love of ships we know them for the complex beasts that they are. Some faults and failures are to be expected wether the vessel is new or old and the men afloat deal with them as best they can. [B][I]The fact is the press love to blow these things out of all proportion [/I][/B]and tend to be less than objective as a fault that is just a fault is far less newsworthy than a conspiracy or coverup. As such such news reports should be taken with a great deal of scepticism and I would hope that members would withold judgement until all the facts are known.[/QUOTE] Couldn't agree more ... I have always found the Canadian media to be very sensational and less that objective when addressing military matters ... and from the wide variety of posts on this site it would appear that the "fourth estate" in other countries is no different ... never let the facts get in the way of a good story! Tim

[QUOTE=Blaydon;10042166]It is all to easy to go off on one with just minimum info or old and outdated info. For those of us with a love of ships we know them for the complex beasts that they are. Some faults and failures are to be expected wether the vessel is new or old and the men afloat deal with them as best they can. [/QUOTE] Kinda what the NZ press have done with alot of the NZ equipment... while Yes Canturbury has had some serious issues, once fully sorted she will be a valiable asset... same with the OPVs and IPVs thought the IPVs are only settling teething issues which happens with all new ships. The media only report half the story ussually don't have all the facts... (ie snow issue with the new NH90 which has already been addressed (as far as I know) yet the public still see it as a waste of money buying something does work etc etc etc when in reality it is a minor issue and easily fixed, classed as a teething problem which happens on any new project... Thats the way I see it anyway.

I think far too much deference is paid to the media these days. They quote " The public have a right to know". We all know that the media and public know little if anything about the Defence Force and are bound to get it wrong anyway. . With defence matters a media report is issued . Any further details should be 'classified information' until such time as Defence issue more information. Media will drag up some info ... that should be answered as 'no comment'. There is no reason to say further. I will always remember 'A senior naval spokesman' was really a trainee on his first trip to sea. The ship was not 'lucky to survive the storm', it was only Force 5-6. Yes the ship was 30 years old. But it was not 'almost sinking' Ever since then I have little repect for the media. Brian

[QUOTE=Old Salt;10043118]I think far too much deference is paid to the media these days. They quote " The public have a right to know". [/QUOTE] Totally agree... there are times when the public don't need to know... or have the right the need to know... there are too many cases where the media blow everything out of proportion...

The problem with the press is the need for "breaking news" to create sensationalism and ratings. When it comes to military news, there are few reporters and even fewer editorial writers who understand the reasons for the existence of the military, its ethos, its structure, its methods, and equipment requirements, training requirements, logistics, etc. It is one of the most complex activities in the world. So when they "investigate" problems, they focus on a narrow issue or event without knowing the context of the issue. Unfortunately, the military leadership is very reluctant to disclose weaknesses and thus the mistrust is fuelled rather than abated. In the end the real victim is the taxpayer who knows not whom to believe and whether he or she has received value for their tax payments. Brian

Everything we obtain for this site is shown on the site, we do not have any more photos, crew lists or further information on any of the ships.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE. ALL IMAGES DISPLAYED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW, AND ARE OWNED BY CRANSTON FINE ARTS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS. NO REPRODUCTION OR COPYING ALLOWED ON OTHER WEBSITES, BOOKS OR ARTICLES WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENT.

Contact Details
Shipping Info
Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy

Sign Up To Our Newsletter!

Stay up to date with all our latest offers, deals and events as well as new releases and exclusive subscriber content!

This website is owned by Cranston Fine Arts. Torwood House, Torwoodhill Road, Rhu, Helensburgh, Scotland, G848LE

Contact: Tel: (+44) (0) 1436 820269. Email: cranstonorders -at- outlook.com

Return to Home Page