Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mankyle

Member
Nice stop motion video composed of various static photos taken in interals during the building process of the ALHD 2 HMAS Adelaide in yard number 3 in the Ferrol shipyard.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4ASYpT5HFk&feature=related"]Montaje en grada del LHD Adelaide - YouTube[/nomedia]
 
icelord

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Anixtu said:
I certainly don't. Dry stores and ammunition replenishment capacity is not required?
Click to expand...
Ive never seen nor heard of an RAN ship do a ammunition at sea with success or sirius, or any other replenishment vessel in the last 5 years, and do i expect to do so. All RAN vessels do an ammunition for years supply, and only top up if conducting operations(MEAO, SEADetc) and any extra systems test, ie combat systems trials.

Since Sirius and success cannot deploy operationally in any context other then war, and even then thats debatable, dry stores is not a concern of the Australian station. Refuelling is the only thing we would require, although a small allowance for stores does come in handy during excercises with foreign navies, namely USN as they do a lot more time at sea then us, but 9/10 they have their own replenishment vessel within the region they operate.

Noting how big a lewis & clarke is, that can be scratched off any ideas. its a waste of space if we have something that big, for a navy our size. Its bad enough having issues with success, but noting the size of a L&C it would be harder for maintaining as we struggle with out vessels as is, with adding 30% size to our largest now. our priority and requirement is fuel, and the L&C is mostly stores variants, as they have 3 heavy jackstay points to two refuel probes. The RAN is moving away from jackstays and more towards helo resupply as its a more simple operation. Ive been part of 3 HJ and they were only conducted for annual requirment, or lack of helo.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
icelord said:
Ive never seen nor heard of an RAN ship do a ammunition at sea with success or sirius, or any other replenishment vessel in the last 5 years, and do i expect to do so. All RAN vessels do an ammunition for years supply, and only top up if conducting operations(MEAO, SEADetc) and any extra systems test, ie combat systems trials.

Since Sirius and success cannot deploy operationally in any context other then war, and even then thats debatable, dry stores is not a concern of the Australian station. Refuelling is the only thing we would require, although a small allowance for stores does come in handy during excercises with foreign navies, namely USN as they do a lot more time at sea then us, but 9/10 they have their own replenishment vessel within the region they operate.

Noting how big a lewis & clarke is, that can be scratched off any ideas. its a waste of space if we have something that big, for a navy our size. Its bad enough having issues with success, but noting the size of a L&C it would be harder for maintaining as we struggle with out vessels as is, with adding 30% size to our largest now. our priority and requirement is fuel, and the L&C is mostly stores variants, as they have 3 heavy jackstay points to two refuel probes. The RAN is moving away from jackstays and more towards helo resupply as its a more simple operation. Ive been part of 3 HJ and they were only conducted for annual requirment, or lack of helo.
Click to expand...
Heard a not so funny about Sirius. Apparently on a Christmas standdown the crew switched everything off, shut up the ship and went on leave. Everything includes the bunker heaters for her non-standard heavy fuel oil. Whoops
 
T

Tee_Centre_10

Member
Volkodav said:
Heard a not so funny about Sirius. Apparently on a Christmas standdown the crew switched everything off, shut up the ship and went on leave. Everything includes the bunker heaters for her non-standard heavy fuel oil. Whoops
Click to expand...
Does it make me a bad person that I laughed?
Then I had a small schadenfreude moment at the thought of the amount of yelling NOT being directed at myself.
Then I felt shame at my response and a tiny bit of sympathy for the imagined trials of that switch flicker.
Then I felt weary at the thought of all that yelling and work that had to be done, followed by the happiness that came with the realisation that I didn't have to do any of it.

Thank you Volkodav for the emotional roller-coaster.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Volkodav said:
Heard a not so funny about Sirius. Apparently on a Christmas standdown the crew switched everything off, shut up the ship and went on leave. Everything includes the bunker heaters for her non-standard heavy fuel oil. Whoops
Click to expand...
See thats what happens when you leave things to stokers. If it had been a seaman detailed to make sure then the bunker heaters would not have been switched off ..... hehe
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ngatimozart said:
See thats what happens when you leave things to stokers. If it had been a seaman detailed to make sure then the bunker heaters would not have been switched off ..... hehe
Click to expand...
You have to ask though, what the F is the RAN doing operating a ship that burns bitumen in the first place! This is the 21st century they may as well have bought one using coal. Yes I know its commercial standard etc etc but really this is meant to be a millitary ship.
 
Anixtu

Anixtu

New Member
The type of engine Sirius is fitted with (B&W 6S50MC 2-stroke slow speed direct drive?) is normally capable of running on diesel (in commercial service usually a heavier grade than F-76), in particular for occasions when the engine is to be allowed to cool, but there are other reasons that I'm not so familiar with (improved response when manoeuvring is one). I know of other 2-stroke slow speed direct drive engines that run on nothing but F-76 despite having been designed for and originally run on HFO. Is anyone aware of a reason why Sirius cannot/has not been converted to F-76?
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Anixtu said:
The type of engine Sirius is fitted with (B&W 6S50MC 2-stroke slow speed direct drive?) is normally capable of running on diesel (in commercial service usually a heavier grade than F-76), in particular for occasions when the engine is to be allowed to cool, but there are other reasons that I'm not so familiar with (improved response when manoeuvring is one). I know of other 2-stroke slow speed direct drive engines that run on nothing but F-76 despite having been designed for and originally run on HFO. Is anyone aware of a reason why Sirius cannot/has not been converted to F-76?
Click to expand...
Cost?

Its the only reason I can see for it, and when you look at the fact that the RAN needed an AO or AOR rather than an extremely limited strategic oiler (which is what I have heard Sirius descibed as) cost pretty much says it all.
 
icelord

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The spokeswoman responded to the Spanish newspaper's speculation about a commercial opportunity, saying: "Cantabria's deployment will provide a unique opportunity for Defence to undertake an assessment of the capability offered by Cantabria as Defence considers the replacement for the ageing HMAS Success and Sirius at the end of this decade."
Click to expand...
Get FU################################ end of the decade!
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
StoresBasher said:
Australians subsidise Spanish combat ship | Perth Now

No surprise at all, did anyone really think this was a freebie?
Click to expand...
So not only is the RAN budget used to supplement Customs at a later date, but quite possibly the Spanish Navy as well, would not be so bad if it was supplementary funding one way of getting capability on the cheap. I bet those posted to her will be thankful of a working holiday courtesy of the RAN.

Does this mean HMAS Success will be operational by the time Cantabria returns home?
 
icelord

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
StoresBasher said:
Yeah my thoughts exactly :D
My crystal ball would say that the Cantabria might even stay with us a lot longer...
Click to expand...
The talk i had originally was that it was orignally a purchase not a loan as spain was that desperate for cash, but i guess they worked out they could wriggle more money out of us, and keep the armada happy with 10months in exotic australia and sydney for a posting. Knowing these idiots, i wouldnt be surprised if they paid over $86million for 10months, as thats how much has "officially" gone into success repairs(i say official as i understand its more) and anyone who looks at the price of a new MARS or Cantabria even would shake their heads at the waste of money for maintaining that rust bucket.
They would also be doing RAN routines, which would mean very few weekends at sea, as we sail monday, home friday for weekend at the footy, and visiting most ports around the country with a MFU...im sure the women in each port would be devistated by a spanish sailor in town:D
Im just now wondering if they will be taking part in Talisman Sabre as its on mid next year as well as a few other major Exercises, and i gather they will be the spanish contribution the Centenial Naval review, with perhaps a AWD or LHD just for good measure...:rolleyes:
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I can't help but wonder how much in total has been spent on:
• Sirius (all up),
• the modifications and subsequent repairs to Success,
• the cost of working around the limitations of both ships,
• the subsidy to bring out Cantabria.

Could it be possible that we could have actually replaced Westralia with a locally constructed, purpose built, double hulled, fully MARPOL compliant AO/AOR/AOE in the early naughties AND followed her immediately with another to replace Success for less?

Could this work have been used to up skill Australian ship building prior to the start of the AWD and LHD projects?

Could all of this actually saved us sufficient expense and introduced efficiencies to have permitted full local construction of three LHDs to follow the AO(R/E)s as well as to build a fourth AWD to replace the remaining Adelaide’s one for one?
 
P

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Volkodav said:
I can't help but wonder how much in total has been spent on:
• Sirius (all up),
• the modifications and subsequent repairs to Success,
• the cost of working around the limitations of both ships,
• the subsidy to bring out Cantabria.

Could it be possible that we could have actually replaced Westralia with a locally constructed, purpose built, double hulled, fully MARPOL compliant AO/AOR/AOE in the early naughties AND followed her immediately with another to replace Success for less?

Could this work have been used to up skill Australian ship building prior to the start of the AWD and LHD projects?

Could all of this actually saved us sufficient expense and introduced efficiencies to have permitted full local construction of three LHDs to follow the AO(R/E)s as well as to build a fourth AWD to replace the remaining Adelaide’s one for one?
Click to expand...
Honestly I don't think we should have spent the money to repair Rusty after the '98 fire. I seem to remember the yanks offered the RAN a Henry J Kaiser which I reckon could have tied us over for a while.
Cheers
 
icelord

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
StoresBasher said:
Now you are being funny...
Click to expand...
i didnt want to double post at the time, but i did laugh at the question...not for being a prick or anything, but because the optimist in me says no
Honestly I don't think we should have spent the money to repair Rusty after the '98 fire. I seem to remember the yanks offered the RAN a Henry J Kaiser which I reckon could have tied us over for a while.
Click to expand...
much like the Flight I Burkes we were offered would have avoided an FFG upgrade and lead us into a Flight IIA build program, making the RAN one of the most capable navies in the world and with LHD program could make as stronger then the tinboat navy we are atm, with over half the fleet in an engineering crisis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top