Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

What is the RAN's range/speed requirement,

6,000 NM at 18 knots. It’s the range speed requirement for every contemporary ship requirement.

Not that I think T-AKE vs Cantabria a sensible comparison, one is twice the loaded displacement of the other and their cargo fuel:solid ratio is very different.

Ahh they are ships that do the same thing. Sure one is bigger than the other but that hardly rules out comparing them. The Lewis & Clark can carry a lot more dry cargo but that doesn’t mean it has to. Those storage rooms can be empty most of the time and provide additional capability when needed. Which would kind of be now for the RAN if one had been purchased to replace Westralia. The Lewis & Clark would provide an emergency amphibious lift capability in place of the Kanimbla class so the RAN would not need to use Aurora Australias, Ocean Guardian, Canterbury and Ocean Shield.

 

[Vanguard]

Such a vessel would also have probably reduced the C-17 order as we could have done bulk shipping missions through Pakistan, when it was open, as the British and Americans did/do to support Afghanistan taking up another capacity void.

Personally my belief is that we should loan/buy (cheaply if possible) the ex RFA Fort George, twenty years old it’s still got life in it and has the helicopter carrying capacity that Navy wants, proven reliability in Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Iraq and elsewhere. It can also take the CIWS allowing it to go up to the Gulf and elsewhere if desperately required.

 

[the road runner]

Personally my belief is that we should loan/buy (cheaply if possible) the ex RFA Fort George, twenty years old it’s still got life in it and has the helicopter carrying capacity that Navy wants

She is not a double hulled ship,and has high manning costs.Probably not the best choice for the Future of the RAN.

RFA Fort George arrives for Decommissioning - Liverpool | Demotix.com

 

[Vanguard]

Strange could have sworn the double-hulling was part of the recent refits they just went through. Crew wise though its not greatly larger than the Success, less in terms of the ship itself, the increase is in aviation support which is a needed capacity and could be moved over from the Choules if they took the hangar down.

In terms of the long term future a new build would of course be needed, proabably in line with another nation's program to get a proven design as was done last time, but its probably not a financial option for the navy, or more correctly the government, at this point in time. Success is, as far as I understand it, unlikely to see any real service again so its the choice between no capacity and something that can be used.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Strange could have sworn the double-hulling was part of the recent refits they just went through.

Nope single hulled and Fort Victoria will not stay in commission long. As soon as the MARS ships arrive she will go. MARS probably is the easiest out for the RAN for AORs if the Spanish want to keep Cantabria. It is their only double hull AOR and they will not have the money for a replacement anytime soon. We could probably even buy one (or two) of the UK MARS tankers under contract with Daewoo. The Brits have more cuts coming.

 

[Anixtu]

Nope single hulled and Fort Victoria will not stay in commission long. As soon as the MARS ships arrive she will go.

The as yet unordered, untendered, somewhere in the future, still in the vapourware stage MARS Solid Support ships, not the MARS Fleet Tankers on order from Daewoo.

MARS probably is the easiest out for the RAN for AORs if the Spanish want to keep Cantabria. It is their only double hull AOR and they will not have the money for a replacement anytime soon. We could probably even buy one (or two) of the UK MARS tankers under contract with Daewoo. The Brits have more cuts coming.

I don't see how an AO design can meet a requirement for an AOR. MARS FT does not have significant cargo dry stores or ammunition capacity. BMT does offer AOR concepts in the same Aegir family, but they are as much vapourware as MARS SS.

 

[Vanguard]

Likelihood is that in operational terms the MARS ships will replace the Fort classes although they will remain in commission. Presently one Rover is allocated to FOST with the other and the Orangeleaf doing non-direct naval support work such as refuelling Gibraltar and other offshore locations, although both replenished the fleet in Libya which as far as I am aware is the closest they have got in recent years and that was due to their proximity. Otherwise they are refuelling and supporting the Caribbean ship and the South Atlantic ship whilst the Forts are usually in the Gulf or with the carriers (Response Task Group or whatever it is called now).

My guess is that one of the new MARS ships will take over FOST and will also serve as the class trainer for the RFA whilst the other three will be divided around the Response Group and Gulf alongside the Waves. One of the Forts will probably go in the meantime I agree however that would be dependent on the ships at the time as they have all just been upgraded to a degree so it would be a waste to decommission them as quickly, the political climate will be more prevalent though as that is looking towards 2015 where at this stage almost anything could happen.

On the MARS availability I was referring to the batch two vessels not these initial assets which obviously do not fulfil Australia’s required role. Realistically the Fort George would lose the fuel capability but at least makes up for it in having the large hangar and troop carrying capability which the MARS do lack and Australia requires probably more than the tanker, they are surviving without Success after all.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The as yet unordered, untendered, somewhere in the future, still in the vapourware stage MARS Solid Support ships, not the MARS Fleet Tankers on order from Daewoo.

Back to the vapour room with you:

Government To Spend £452m On Four New Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tankers | Royal Navy

I don't see how an AO design can meet a requirement for an AOR. MARS FT does not have significant cargo dry stores or ammunition capacity. BMT does offer AOR concepts in the same Aegir family, but they are as much vapourware as MARS SS.

I don’t think you understand what is driving RAN requirements at the moment. They are sea worthy ship and double hull for international law compliance. Everything else is negotiable.

 

[Anixtu]

Likelihood is that in operational terms the MARS ships will replace the Fort classes although they will remain in commission. Presently one Rover is allocated to FOST with the other and the Orangeleaf doing non-direct naval support work such as refuelling Gibraltar and other offshore locations, although both replenished the fleet in Libya which as far as I am aware is the closest they have got in recent years and that was due to their proximity. Otherwise they are refuelling and supporting the Caribbean ship and the South Atlantic ship whilst the Forts are usually in the Gulf or with the carriers (Response Task Group or whatever it is called now).

My guess is that one of the new MARS ships will take over FOST and will also serve as the class trainer for the RFA whilst the other three will be divided around the Response Group and Gulf alongside the Waves...

I don't know where you are getting your info from, but it's way off.

The MARS FT ships cannot replace the Forts operationally, and are not intended to. The two Fort AFSH are purely dry stores ships, MARS FT are tankers, it just doesn't go. Fort Victoria has been operating as a counter-piracy platform since she went east, MARS FT doesn't have the aviation, boat or personnel capacity to take over that operational role either.

Orangeleaf is FOST tanker at present, the Rovers take turn-about on APT(S) and relieving Orangeleaf (Gold is down south at the moment, Black is in refit) This is likely to continue until MARS FT enters service. We don't send single-hulled tankers to the Caribbean and haven't for many years and apart from Fort Vic we won't send any to the Persian Gulf or vicinity either (last one was Bayleaf which returned to in early 2011). I haven't heard of an RFA doing a freighting run since Oakleaf decommissioned, we charter Maersk for that. All RFA tankers are primarily replenishment units.

Waves will be rotated between APT(N) and AGRT until MARS FT arrives.

One Fort is usually assigned to RFTG, one bobbing about elsewhere and recently one has been at extended readiness. Apart from Fort Vic's counter-piracy deployment they tend not to be East of Suez as singletons.

As MARS FT arrive I expect them to start by relieving the pressure on the Waves with FOST and APT(S) being the last tasks they take over from the SHTs.

SDSR 2015 is an undiscovered country.

 

[Anixtu]

Back to the vapour room with you:

Government To Spend £452m On Four New Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tankers | Royal Navy

I don't even have to open that link to know you haven't understood. MARS as a programme has two elements: Fleet Tanker (FT) which is the four ships ordered from Daewoo, and Solid Support (a merger of Fleet Solid Support and Joint Sea Based Logistics ship requirements, though I suspect many of the JSBL characteristics have been lost). Your link refers to the order for FT. Solid Support is vapourware.

FT is to replace tankers of the Rover and Leaf classes. SS is to replace the Forts.

I don’t think you understand what is driving RAN requirements at the moment. They are sea worthy ship and double hull for international law compliance. Everything else is negotiable.

I certainly don't. Dry stores and ammunition replenishment capacity is not required?

 

[StevoJH]

I certainly don't. Dry stores and ammunition replenishment capacity is not required?

Sure it is, but how *much* is required?

Remember the RAN's deployments tend to be much smaller than RN deployments, and the RAN doesnt plan on operating a fleet of aircraft carriers that on a warfooting can tear through a *massive* amount ammunition, spares and fuel.

 

[Anixtu]

Sure it is, but how *much* is required?

If the requirement is for *any* dry/ammunition capability MARS FT as it stands is not the solution. Any theoretical dry stores capacity on MARS FT is similar to that of the Wave class AOs: eight 20ft containers on deck and a small, unrefrigerated, non-magazine hold. The reality of the Waves is that the container deck is used for a few containers and some other junk, all for internal stores purposes, and the small dry cargo hold is also used for internal stores purposes. You could ditch some of the internal stores if you had to make room for issuable stuff, but then it naturally impacts self-sustainment and has not to my knowledge been done for any operation so far.

If you want something similar to MARS FT but with actual dry stores capacity BMT offers Aegir based AORs broadly equivalent to the Durance class in size and capacity. Since no-one has ordered one yet they exist only as an outline design with some details no-doubt being transferable from MARS FT as it is developed and that isn't quite the same thing in development or production cost terms as stealing a couple of MARS FT off the production line or tacking a couple more onto the order.

 

[Volkodav]

Nope single hulled and Fort Victoria will not stay in commission long. As soon as the MARS ships arrive she will go. MARS probably is the easiest out for the RAN for AORs if the Spanish want to keep Cantabria. It is their only double hull AOR and they will not have the money for a replacement anytime soon. We could probably even buy one (or two) of the UK MARS tankers under contract with Daewoo. The Brits have more cuts coming.

We could always send them to Singapore for double hulling along the lines of Success. With the RANs track record in buying and converting old ships there shouldn't be any problem at all, we would just need to set aside insufficient budget and then blow it by a factor of ten and then fail to order a suitable replacement in sufficient time to avoid a capability gap down the track.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I don't even have to open that link to know you haven't understood.

LOL. Speaking of understanding a good step for you is to realise that since I was the person who raised MARS I was the one establishing the context of MARS. Which was of course for the tanker element which has been contracted. And of course in the original post I actually mentioned Daewoo. So gawd knows what planet you were on to start ranting about the other MARS as vapourware.

When these ships – the ones contracted at Daewoo – enter service RFA Fort Victoria will decommission. It doesn’t have anything to do with the RN’s original plans for replacing their tankers and stores ships but the reality of the contemporary British navy. So back away from being a goon tonight as nothing you have said has contributed anything to this discussion re MARS, RFA Fort Victoria and the RAN.

 

[ADMk2]

I'd imagine that UAV's wouldn't be out of the question though. The question is what sort of UAV's could we operate? Possibly the Boeing scan eagle?

Not out of the question by any means, but an armed UAV that can take on any significant amount of CAS work, yet can also take off and land on an LHD will be a LONG way off, I'd suggest...

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

If the Westralia and Success replacement had gone ahead as planned then a Lewis & Clark was almost a shoe in. The Navy was certainly very interested in this design and the hot production run from NASCCO in early to mid 2000s. BTW the Lewis & Clark carries enough fuel as is for the AOR role though its tabulated data may not indicate this because of the difference between USN and RAN standards for sea range.

I would have thought that a Lewis and Clark-class design would need some modifications to suit a RAN AOR, although it needn't be extensive. Do you know how flexible the design is, has NASCCO been offering a modified design?

More fuel. I would have hoped for more fuel off-load than the Lewis and Clark-class is capable of because the RAN will require more fuel in future, both F-76 (naval distillate) and JP-5 (aviation fuel). Without knowing the internal layout of the Lewis and Clark-class, there may be some scope to re-arrange, extend or add fuel tanks.
Command & Hospital Facilities and additional accommodation. In USN service the Lewis and Clark-class has no requirement for these additional facilities because it is single, and very narrowly, roled. With additional ADF requirements/roles, a RAN Lewis and Clark-class AOR would need additional accommodation.
Once again without knowing the internal layout, some stores deck space could be re-purposed for these facilities without requiring a major re-design.

 

[Anixtu]

When these ships – the ones contracted at Daewoo – enter service RFA Fort Victoria will decommission. It doesn’t have anything to do with the RN’s original plans for replacing their tankers and stores ships but the reality of the contemporary British navy.

The problem with this statement is that it does not reflect official policy and appears to be based on your opinion rather than any hard evidence, unless you can provide a reference for a plan to decommission Fort Victoria prior to her replacement at least being laid down or even before mid-2017 when the last MARS FT is due to be delivered.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I would have thought that a Lewis and Clark-class design would need some modifications to suit a RAN AOR, although it needn't be extensive. Do you know how flexible the design is, has NASCCO been offering a modified design?

Sure and I did mention it and any other AOR out there would need tailoring. In the case of the Lewis & Clark it has heavy fuel engines and no doubt the RAN would want to ‘stay’ standard on F-76 (of course with the exception of Sirius which needs lots of exceptions). But since Lewis & Clark uses diesel electric propulsion this would not be a very difficult to change out the generators.

As for fuel the Lewis & Clark as built has 8,000 cz of fuel tanks thanks to its 30 days at 20 knots endurance requirement. The RAN would probably want a bit more but not more than a 20-30% increase. Since there is ample room in a Lewis & Clark above and below deck there would be no problem fitting all the extras the RAN would need. For example she is provided with commercial standards of accommodation so could easily carry many more defence personnel at high for defence standards of accommodation. 25,000 tonne empty ship is actually bigger than the LHD so there is no problem with fitting stuff onboard. Plus they are pretty much the best in the world for transferring stuff to other ships underway.

 

[Anixtu]

In the case of the Lewis & Clark it has heavy fuel engines and no doubt the RAN would want to ‘stay’ standard on F-76 (of course with the exception of Sirius which needs lots of exceptions). But since Lewis & Clark uses diesel electric propulsion this would not be a very difficult to change out the generators.

Whatever the design origin of T-AKE's engines, they run on F-76 - or at an outside chance MGO as MSC has looked at procuring cheaper bunkers - so there would be no need to change the machinery fit on that basis. Running your fleet on a single fuel type is one of the cornerstones of modern naval logistics.

 

[mankyle]

LHD HMAS Adelaide launch video.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2t0EREepIA&feature=related"]ALHD "Adelaide" Launching Botadura Navantia Ferrol 04/07/2012 - YouTube[/nomedia]