Absolutely, but still operated by civilian crew under her certification. Troop ships are a different animal and reflect the use they have in time of war.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Anixtu
New Member
I'll have to give you SOLAS, I don't have a copy available.
I think we're really just arguing about your application of the term "commercial" to a non-commercial government entity as opposed to the more encompassing "Merchant".
Where is "troopship" defined? I've not seen a definition before and I'd quite like to.
The first specific reference to 'naval auxiliary' in UNCLOS reads like an "exemption to some degree" to me. Perhaps I should have said "exempt from their provisions" rather than "exempt", which I can see might have been interpreted as meaning a blanket exemption.
Bay class are all certified as passenger ships, as the LSLs were before them. The remainder are certified as cargo ships but carry embarked military personnel in excess of the 12 passengers at the MoD's whim with an occasional reference to a safety case. I've sailed on every class of RFA in service and none of them are SPS.
I think we're really just arguing about your application of the term "commercial" to a non-commercial government entity as opposed to the more encompassing "Merchant".
Where is "troopship" defined? I've not seen a definition before and I'd quite like to.
if i were to guess, i'd have to say they'll probably end up with the 112m Catamaran Incat should be finishing soon.
112 Metre Wave Piercing Catamaran
HMAS Jervis Bay 3 anyone?
112 Metre Wave Piercing Catamaran
HMAS Jervis Bay 3 anyone?
No it does not provide a blanket exemption. What UNCLOS does is provide the legal frame work covering warships, ships owned and operated by the government as well as other vessels.
Did you read the application of article 236. It only covers the preservation of the marine environment and is really only applicable to the high seas. It allows warships and ships owned and operated by the government the right of sovierign jurisdiction given their diplomatic status. I note you missed the important second part to this:
I also note you did not look at the status of such ships in territorial waters and I would point to article 19.(2).h where all ships, including warships, are not permitted to commit any act of willful pollution.
In short in so far as blanket exemption is concerned this is nonsense. I suspect you simply did a word search and have extrapolated your blanket exemption from that.
Passenger ships, yep looked tham up and found this
Better option that SPS as it means the person carried do not have to be associated with the fucntion of the ship and makes them better for disaster relief. However, this again relates to 'trading' certification. I note the comment with regards to "merchant" but Just what do you think the term Merchant applies to.
If you don't like the term commercial then accept cargo ship........ but the Bay class are still subject to non-military certification and is under the jurisdiction of the civilain regulator.
Ships can be declared troop ships by the flag state. It absolves them from the requirement to comply with the requirements of SOLAS for the numbers they carry in this role.
Anixtu
New Member
I mentioned "blanket exemption" to state that was specifically not what I meant.
There is a story that the application of passenger ship standards to British troopships dates back to the Victorian era when an influential figure discovered that substandard vessels were being employed as troopships and demanded that the British Army enjoy the comforts of properly certified passenger ships. But maybe it is just a story.
A nice basic definition of merchant, but not sufficiently nuanced for the maritime environment. If you'd like to look at a basic definition of "commercial" or "commerce" you'll see it doesn't apply to government vessels either. If we have a Royal Navy and a Merchant Navy, under what heading do we place all those government vessels on non-commercial service, of which there are many?
An example of a commercial vessel operated on behalf of a government would be one of the Point class strategic ROROs. Operated by a commercial company on a money-making basis.
RFAs on the other hand are simply not "commercial vessels". Registered Merchant vessels, subject (with caveats) to Merchant shipping laws yes, commercial vessels no.
I suspect not. This vessel has a max DWT of 1450 tonnes in 'reduced operating conditions (i.e slower and better weather). Thw DWT is the mass of all fuel. stores, cargo, crew, food, water, belongings etc. Max DWT is actually just 950 tonnes of which about 284 tonnes is fuel, water and liquids at max load.
It will burn fuel at a prodigious rate at 30 knsot let alone 36 which (where your dead weight is down to just 600 tonnes) means your speed range is not great. If you are going to operate at economic speed (18 knots0then you are better off looking at a medium speed coaster as yous will get about 8000 DWT tonnes on the same length and it will be cheaper to operate.
It is sea state restricted and needs a port to discharge.
It has no facilties for prolonged deployments (as this is a pure short range RO-PAX) and is really only suitable for short hops.
And here is the clanger. if it is to be civilian operated it can only operate under HSC certification which means:
1. it needs a permit to operate on defined routes
2. it must operate within 4 hours of a safe haven at operational speed when in the PAX mode.
3. it must operate within 8 hours of a safe haven at operational speed as a pure cargo ship.
RFA are certified under civilain rules..... pure and simple. They are not free of the jursidciation of the civilian regulator and they are not excluded from SOLAS.... as you suggested.
Call it what you like but they are not released from responsibility in the same manner warship are and the carry cargo ship or passenger ship certification (as you point out) which relates to trading certification. commercial certification is an accepted term for civilain certifaction.
Twist it any way you like.
If the UK government were to alter their legisaltion and explicately exclude the RFA from civlian jurisdiction then it could step outside SOLAS but they would be "ships of war" or "naval ships" (depending on your legisaltion) even if not commissioned. For clarity - Naval ships need not be armed vessels but can be auxillaries.
The OTS catamarans BTW lack any means of getting cargo and vehicles off the ship without a handy RO-RO port. So their utility for amphibious operations is limited. They have very nice shallow draft for getting into small regional ports but still port landings are by their very definition not amphibious ops. While the offshore resupply vessels like the Windermere may look crazy they have heavy lift cranes and station keeping capability which offers them some offload a LCM and some cargo offshore.
Anixtu
New Member
I think the author on GlobalSecurity is confusing Class 1 with Class I. Class I is an MCA term. The MCA divides merchant vessels into a whole slew of classes as listed in the fire protection regulations for large ships and small ships. Bays hold passenger ship safety certificates for operation both as Class I and Class II, though operationally they routinely breach the regulations applicable to those classes. Which certificate applies depends on the number of passengers carried as MES are only authorised for Class II operations. LSLs were Class I but used to be reclassed Class VII when they were either too decrepit to meet Class I requirements or when they were used for explosives dumping runs.
Could a sister to Canterbury be on the cards? It could be fitted out in Australia as per Canterbury in about the right timeframe.
She may not be perfect, but you do get the opportunity to learn from the current Canterbury's configuration mistakes and have commonality with Canterbury herself who can be trained on in the meantime to get everyone up-to-speed before it arrives
Being essentially a Civilian ferry to start with, a civilian crew should be able to cope with such a ship, and all of the military mods are designed and known quantities.
Thanks for that, certainly a can of worms
appreciate the reply, evern though at best it is all hypotheticalBy that I mean the potential Australian situation, not your reply lol
Last edited:
During his speach, he announced we are getting a new ship based on the Windermere
http://www.hallinmarine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Windermere-Rev-11-10-web.pdf
Such a ship will also be important to operate the new submarine resuce system after the amphibious holiday. While the RAN has the support of the DMS boats for the Remora the new system is likely to be much bigger and heavier requiring a dedicated ship. Also having it soverign owned allows the Govt. to avoid any issues which may arise with using contracted DMS boats like trying to rescue a downed submarine in a conflict zone.
Sounds like a very smart move by the government.
Will this take the place of the proposed third transport ship from the Defence Capability Plan, or will it be an added capacity - with the additional transport ship to come later?
the sub recovery vessel is a separate ship, its not a transport
Thanks GF.
I presume that the ship to be acquired is not the Windemere but a sister ship that is building at the moment. Is it similar sized? Bigger? Different?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7,400
needs subs at sea to require a submarine rescue system....
- Status