Because this is Australia and it is what we do..."If it aint broken we pretend it is and try to fix it"Can anybody give me a reference on this ? I just can't see why we would even contemplate changing it
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
so we want a ship like the Lewis & Clarks but with more fuel storage?
why not buy a Supply class? its only a slightly larger than a Lewis & Clark.
Displacement: 48,800 long tons (49,600 t)
Crew: 160 civilians, 59 military
177,000 barrels of oil
2,150 tons of ammunition
500 tons of dry stores
and 250 tons of refrigerated stores.
Military Sealift Command -- Fact Sheet
it only has half the dry stores capacity of a L&C but makes up for that with fuel
why not buy a Supply class? its only a slightly larger than a Lewis & Clark.
Displacement: 48,800 long tons (49,600 t)
Crew: 160 civilians, 59 military
177,000 barrels of oil
2,150 tons of ammunition
500 tons of dry stores
and 250 tons of refrigerated stores.
Military Sealift Command -- Fact Sheet
it only has half the dry stores capacity of a L&C but makes up for that with fuel
winnyfield
New Member
They're a bit old. Production line probably has closed.
Production for the Lewis and Clark class is still open and have been designed for 40 years of service. The USN are talking about using the Lewis and Clark T-AKE hull as a base for future aux ships - The US Navy: Charting a Course for TomorrowsFleet - Page 4 | CSBA.
General Dynamics Logistics Support Ship (LSS) (Lewis and Clark T-AKE variant) - Information Dissemination: General Dynamics at IDEX 09
- 5,000 tons of dry cargo,
- 23,000 barrels of fuel,
- accommodate more than 900 people and utilize advanced C4I systems.
Was that the original budget? The first couple cost quite a lot more than that (fair enough - there were design costs loaded on to them), & later ones have been reported at $300 million plus.
We need an oiler. We need more than the L& C (18,000/23,000 oil barrels seems too small). Supply class is more what we should be looking at. While L &C is quite capable, its not designed for the role we really need.
It should be able to resupply two LHD's and required escorts (ours + Allies) plus I assume any land base. Mostly in fuels.
Removal of the RAS off the LHD seems silly because the LHD would make a great mothership for other smaller vessels (LCS, corvettes and Frigates). Given how much we are paying I would have expected all options fitted.
It should be able to resupply two LHD's and required escorts (ours + Allies) plus I assume any land base. Mostly in fuels.
Removal of the RAS off the LHD seems silly because the LHD would make a great mothership for other smaller vessels (LCS, corvettes and Frigates). Given how much we are paying I would have expected all options fitted.
Is she destined for FBW or FBE?
Perhaps this will determine her route
t68
Well-Known Member
Fremantle WA
t68
Well-Known Member
Live Ships Map - AIS - Vessel Traffic and Positions
Certainly looks like it, might be going the long way to get their sea legs with the ship to become more familiar with operating her and hit the ground running leading up to the cyclone season, Ausgov does want to be caught out this time.
A few corrections on ‘data’ posted above:
On price of the Lewis and Clark class the current per unit cost is roughly $513m (USD) per ship. The USN buys them in pairs with an initial $200m lead items contract (engines, etc.) followed by a final build contract which for the last pair (T-AKE 13 and 14) was $826m in March 2010. The contract, build, delivery schedule for a Lewis and Clark class is four years from lead item contract to delivery.
On offload fuel in the Lewis and Clark class it is more than sufficient for RAN needs and higher than HMAS Success and any competitors (Cantabaria and Berlin). There is some confusion because the figures for fuel offload on the internet do not take into account total fuel and range requirements. The MSC has a much higher range requirement for their auxiliaries than the RAN does. The requirement is more than twice the RAN’s at 14,000 NM at 20 knots for the Lewis and Clark class compared to the RAN’s standard 6,000 NM at 20 knots. If you take into account the total fuel load, minus the ship’s own needs at the RAN’s 6,000 NM then the balance left over in the Lewis and Clark class is over or around 10,000 tonnes for offload.
On the Supply class these ships are designed to replenish aircraft carriers. They carry a huge amount of fuel but most of it is JP-4 for the carrier aircraft. The RAN does not need this amount of fuel for ships or aircraft. The fuel offload in the Cantabaria, Berlin and Lewis and Clark is more than sufficient.
On HMAS Sirius it was designed for a RAN life of 15 years. But this was not dependent on hull issues but rather likely replacement and its own resale value. One of the elements of its conversion to a fleet oiler was the ability to remove all the add ons (RAS gear and giant, aft fishing platform) and be able to sell it back into commercial service. If replaced early (as if) it could be sold back into commercial service at a younger age for a better return. Or if needed for longer (more likely) it can serve for much longer but have less resale value. Of course none of this takes into account the overall loss to RAN capability of operating the Sirius via its non-common engine and fuel type, lack of a range of needed replenishment capabilities and general unsuitedness to Navy service.
On price of the Lewis and Clark class the current per unit cost is roughly $513m (USD) per ship. The USN buys them in pairs with an initial $200m lead items contract (engines, etc.) followed by a final build contract which for the last pair (T-AKE 13 and 14) was $826m in March 2010. The contract, build, delivery schedule for a Lewis and Clark class is four years from lead item contract to delivery.
On offload fuel in the Lewis and Clark class it is more than sufficient for RAN needs and higher than HMAS Success and any competitors (Cantabaria and Berlin). There is some confusion because the figures for fuel offload on the internet do not take into account total fuel and range requirements. The MSC has a much higher range requirement for their auxiliaries than the RAN does. The requirement is more than twice the RAN’s at 14,000 NM at 20 knots for the Lewis and Clark class compared to the RAN’s standard 6,000 NM at 20 knots. If you take into account the total fuel load, minus the ship’s own needs at the RAN’s 6,000 NM then the balance left over in the Lewis and Clark class is over or around 10,000 tonnes for offload.
On the Supply class these ships are designed to replenish aircraft carriers. They carry a huge amount of fuel but most of it is JP-4 for the carrier aircraft. The RAN does not need this amount of fuel for ships or aircraft. The fuel offload in the Cantabaria, Berlin and Lewis and Clark is more than sufficient.
On HMAS Sirius it was designed for a RAN life of 15 years. But this was not dependent on hull issues but rather likely replacement and its own resale value. One of the elements of its conversion to a fleet oiler was the ability to remove all the add ons (RAS gear and giant, aft fishing platform) and be able to sell it back into commercial service. If replaced early (as if) it could be sold back into commercial service at a younger age for a better return. Or if needed for longer (more likely) it can serve for much longer but have less resale value. Of course none of this takes into account the overall loss to RAN capability of operating the Sirius via its non-common engine and fuel type, lack of a range of needed replenishment capabilities and general unsuitedness to Navy service.
t68
Well-Known Member
Is that “in pairs” as in built in pairs or one after the other saving on long lead times?
USNS Medgar Evens (T-AKE-13) ship ceremony is for November 12,
General Dynamics NASSCO: Ship Ceremony Information
If that’s built in pairs the line might be closed sooner than we think, any cost saving might not be achieved unless get a move on.
EDIT, more info
Found it the Keel laying ceremony for T-AKE-14 was laid on May 10 2011 and expected to be delivered in late 2012.
http://www.nassco.com/news-center/news-releases/2011/051011.html
The above site goes on a little about saving made during the decade long build of the 14 ships, add another 2 to that list please.
Last edited:
Its "in pairs" as in what I said "buys them in pairs".
While the Lewis and Clark have been contracted in pairs they have been laid down and built around 6 months apart. Yes the 'production' line is about to end but I don't think anyone has expected that the RAN could be part of this run since the Government put back the Success replacement about five years ago. However any new build of Lewis and Clark is likely to cost around the same because savings from 'production lines' in ship building don't really kick in until you start getting the intensity of 10s of units per annum.
If all you need is an oiler then the Fincantieri tankers bought by India should do very nicely. 28000 tons full load, i.e. about 2/3rds of a Lewis & Clark, but cheaper per ton. AFAIK they have no dry stores capacity, though, so they won't do if that's required..
Ah, I see Abe is up to date with the costs. From the USN fact sheet -
"The T-AKE program calls for up to 14 ships and has a budget of more than $6 billion." - and it lists only 12 ships to date.
The insistence on OTS is very limiting, but understandable in terms of risk management.
[edit] On second thoughts, I realise that I don't know the timescale. That could change things. There are other navies out there looking to buy new replenishment ships, & depending on what they buy & when, & how long it is before the RAN needs to make a decision, there could be other OTS designs available for the RAN to consider, e.g. a Korean-built BMT Aegir.
The IOC for the Success replacement is 2020-23. How Success is going to last that long is beyond me. So there is 4-7 years to make a decision. It could be anything even an Australian build of a unique ship type. But this is unlikely. Interestingly this time frame is also when Sirius and Choules will need replacing. Which could make a class of three JSS type ships attractive.
All this discussion about whether Australia should build or purchase its future supply and replenishment ships reminded me of this article I came across this morning:
EDIT: Because of the forum rules of restricting users who has less that 10 post from posting web links here, for those who are interested in reading the article please head to The Diplomat website and look for the article called "Why Australia needs Nuclear Submarines" which was posted on the 8th of November.
In a nutshell, Ross Babbage is advocating that Australia should buy nuclear powered submarines from either USA or the UK as building our own is too much of a security risk given the time and risk involved in this project.
I'm all for giving the Australian ship building industry a chance to participate in the design and construction of submarines but despite of our experiences with the Collin class submarines, our industry expertise in this field is still too much in its infancy (in my view) to take on a project of this magnitude.
As you guys were discussing before, it make more economical sense to purchased vessels from a foreign ship yard where it has quite a few years of experiences in submarine building and the production line is currently operational.
Furthermore, I understand the current government has an anti-nuclear stance but isn't this restricted to nuclear weapons? With the proposal of expanding uranium mining and exporting to countries such as India who are not signatures to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, surely the government's changing nuclear stance gives Ross Babbage's article some merits??
I understand that this was discussed quite a few pages back so if you guys just want to refer me to the previous discussions then feel free.
Also I'm asking for your views from an objective perspective rather than political alignment.
Thanks
EDIT: Because of the forum rules of restricting users who has less that 10 post from posting web links here, for those who are interested in reading the article please head to The Diplomat website and look for the article called "Why Australia needs Nuclear Submarines" which was posted on the 8th of November.
In a nutshell, Ross Babbage is advocating that Australia should buy nuclear powered submarines from either USA or the UK as building our own is too much of a security risk given the time and risk involved in this project.
I'm all for giving the Australian ship building industry a chance to participate in the design and construction of submarines but despite of our experiences with the Collin class submarines, our industry expertise in this field is still too much in its infancy (in my view) to take on a project of this magnitude.
As you guys were discussing before, it make more economical sense to purchased vessels from a foreign ship yard where it has quite a few years of experiences in submarine building and the production line is currently operational.
Furthermore, I understand the current government has an anti-nuclear stance but isn't this restricted to nuclear weapons? With the proposal of expanding uranium mining and exporting to countries such as India who are not signatures to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, surely the government's changing nuclear stance gives Ross Babbage's article some merits??
I understand that this was discussed quite a few pages back so if you guys just want to refer me to the previous discussions then feel free.
Also I'm asking for your views from an objective perspective rather than political alignment.
Thanks
Australia has no nuclear power industry and despite some talk about debating whether to have one or not this hasn’t actually happened yet (the debate). There are also issues of if the US or UK would export their nuclear propulsion technology and if so how we would sustain it. Also the Government (current) has ruled out nuclear propulsion for the Future Submarine (FSM).
There is also a reasonable argument to make that we don’t need nuclear propulsion for the FSM. While our submarines are fleet submarines and operate over similar distances to the USN and RN’s nuclear boats we do different missions. We don’t have the hold at risk mission against threat nuclear submarines or the aircraft carrier ASW escort mission that the USN and RN boats have. These missions require the high sustained underwater power that only nuclear power can provide. We do have a very littoral lurking for intelligence gathering and sea denial mission in which the very quiet nature of a diesel-electric system can come in handy.
Also Australia does have a pretty advanced submarine construction industry and current capacity. There are no shipyards in Australia (since the 1980s and all now defunct) building 10-20,000 tonne (empty) ship hulls needed for AORs and LHDs nor is there a steady requirement to sustain a domestic capability. But we do maintain a reasonably healthy submarine capability. The advantages of building domestically are many even if there is a price increase as long as you aren’t engaging in too much risk.
There is also a reasonable argument to make that we don’t need nuclear propulsion for the FSM. While our submarines are fleet submarines and operate over similar distances to the USN and RN’s nuclear boats we do different missions. We don’t have the hold at risk mission against threat nuclear submarines or the aircraft carrier ASW escort mission that the USN and RN boats have. These missions require the high sustained underwater power that only nuclear power can provide. We do have a very littoral lurking for intelligence gathering and sea denial mission in which the very quiet nature of a diesel-electric system can come in handy.
Also Australia does have a pretty advanced submarine construction industry and current capacity. There are no shipyards in Australia (since the 1980s and all now defunct) building 10-20,000 tonne (empty) ship hulls needed for AORs and LHDs nor is there a steady requirement to sustain a domestic capability. But we do maintain a reasonably healthy submarine capability. The advantages of building domestically are many even if there is a price increase as long as you aren’t engaging in too much risk.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7,077
pointless sailing past South Africa and going north to BIOT when its to far out of the way. i gather the skipping Suez was to avoid GOA, and any issues through there, including being unable to get an escort(there may be legal issues to defending the ship from pirates when its not HMAS yet...
Knowing the Navigator he would want the most scenic route, but also the easiest for him.
Thanks for your reply, Abe (if I can call you that)
As an interested member of the public with no affiliations with the ADF or defence industries, my views on the Australian domestic capabilities to build submarines is largely influence by when I read in the newspapers and certain publications such as The Diplomat, Asia Pacific Defence Reporter, Australian Defence Magazines and Defence Today.
For some reasons I came to the conclusion that our domestic submarine building capabilities are somewhat inadequate for a project of this side by reading articles from some of these publications about internal fighting, budget overblown and technical difficulties associated with the Collin Class submarines.
Coincidentally, after putting up the previous post I came across an article from APDR website (which again I can't post the link) that pretty much support what you were saying. If you (or anyone is interested), it's on the APDR homepage and the article is called "A Total Submarines Capability Package". Although I can't help but be a little critical of it as if it was looking at the whole FSM situation through a rosy tinted glass.
I like the name it gives to the FSM though - "Sons of Collins"
I'm willing to bet money that the replacement comes well before then.
The Choules has only been bought for five years service. At the moment, it is scheduled for disposal before 2017, when it due for a five year re-certification or something. That'll probably change though.
- Status