Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Fedup]

I think that’s the most poorly executed confined waters towing evolution I’ve ever seen.
The tow was rigged for open waters!
The reaction time from the tug was abysmal, there should have been a tug aft as well to control the yaw and I’m not sure if the ship was capable of being steered, apparently not so planning and execution terrible.

Pretty bad, the towing contractor with a really low bid perhaps?

 

[Blas de Lezo]

The Navantia video shows colours a bit better, different light.

Difficult to tell in the pic, but just wondering if the ship is painted the new Haze Grey or the old paint scheme.


Regards S

 

[thatsamguy]

The Navantia video shows colours a bit better, different light.

Do we have any idea why the smoke stacks are so much higher on the Supply class compared to Cantabria? I'd noticed them in the launch video, but it seems more noticeable here.

 

[aussienscale]

Do we have any idea why the smoke stacks are so much higher on the Supply class compared to Cantabria? I'd noticed them in the launch video, but it seems more noticeable here.

Had not noticed, will have to look into that and see if I can find anything, but I do know we changed the funnel arrangement on the Hobart class for better airflow over the flight deck, could be a similar reason for flight ops ?

Vaguely remember some chat about this in the past

Cheers

 

[DDG38]

The Navantia video shows colours a bit better, different light.

Is it just me, or has the pennant number been painted in a different font ? The letter in particular looks, I don't know, thicker ? Just looks a bit off. Could be just my eyes.
Definitely painted in the new haze grey scheme, which I think is much better than the old grey/green for a fleet colour.

 

[spoz]

That might be because since 1969 (from memory) it has been the RAN practice to drop the flag superior "A" and use part of the type designation "O" for "Oiler" or "OR" for "Replenishment" in small letters before the number on tankers. Choules, LHDs and the hydros OTH have the flag superior painted up (although it's a small "A" for the hydros), while of course the DDG/FFHs, Armidales and Huon (whose flag superiors are D, F, P and M respectively) have nothing.

Prior to about 1969 everybody had their flag superior in large letters, eg HMAS Vendetta had "D08" painted up (in the RN position and black paint before about 65, white paint and the USN position after that). It changed to plain "08" in '69 or so. So the painting of Supply (and, presumably, Stalwart) are departures from recent practices or a return to earlier practice, depending on you point of view. I wonder if the combatants will get theirs back at some point as the wheel turns further?

So we're not used to seeing the large "A" although there is a photo of the real battle tanker wearing an A in her Wikipedia entry, here: File:HMAS Supply Brisbane 1967.JPG - Wikipedia. Interestingly, there are also photos is existence of her wearing "AO195" in dark colours and the RN pennant number location. Not sure when that would have been, although before 65 I imagine.

Who said we had to be consistent, anyway?

 

[Flexson]

That might be because since 1969 (from memory) it has been the RAN practice to drop the flag superior "A" and use part of the type designation "O" for "Oiler" or "OR" for "Replenishment" in small letters before the number on tankers. Choules, LHDs and the hydros OTH have the flag superior painted up (although it's a small "A" for the hydros), while of course the DDG/FFHs, Armidales and Huon (whose flag superiors are D, F, P and M respectively) have nothing.

Prior to about 1969 everybody had their flag superior in large letters, eg HMAS Vendetta had "D08" painted up (in the RN position and black paint before about 65, white paint and the USN position after that). It changed to plain "08" in '69 or so. So the painting of Supply (and, presumably, Stalwart) are departures from recent practices or a return to earlier practice, depending on you point of view. I wonder if the combatants will get theirs back at some point as the wheel turns further?

So we're not used to seeing the large "A" although there is a photo of the real battle tanker wearing an A in her Wikipedia entry, here: File:HMAS Supply Brisbane 1967.JPG - Wikipedia. Interestingly, there are also photos is existence of her wearing "AO195" in dark colours and the RN pennant number location. Not sure when that would have been, although before 65 I imagine.

Who said we had to be consistent, anyway?

She also carried o195 (small O) at one point. The 3 different versions can be seen by scrolling through the pictures on the navy.gov.au website HMAS Supply (I) | Royal Australian Navy

And no we certainly don't have to be consistent. We went to all the trouble of making sure Canberra, Adelaide, Hobart, Brisbane and Supply carry the numbers (not letters) of their most recent predecessors and then used Success's 304 for Nuship Stalwart instead of the previous Stalwart's 215.....

 

[DDG38]

That might be because since 1969 (from memory) it has been the RAN practice to drop the flag superior "A" and use part of the type designation "O" for "Oiler" or "OR" for "Replenishment" in small letters before the number on tankers. Choules, LHDs and the hydros OTH have the flag superior painted up (although it's a small "A" for the hydros), while of course the DDG/FFHs, Armidales and Huon (whose flag superiors are D, F, P and M respectively) have nothing.
Who said we had to be consistent, anyway?

I'm well aware of the history of pennant number usage in the fleet, my remark was more about the font size, but now I've seen a few more photos I think was just the angle I was initially viewing it. However I do note that the number on the stern is the same size as the hull number (which is also further aft in line with the bridge as opposed to being near the anchor). Doesn't make a difference to how she'll be used, just an observation in how fleet is stipulating where the numbers are and their visibility. Anyway, here's to successful sea trials and a safe trip to Stirling.

 

[spoz]

I sometimes wonder if it's a deliberate decision to make such a change, or is the result of contractual wording somewhere which isn't completely explicit. I agree that on the counter (rather than quarter) and positioning of the main pennant do seem strange. They are however broadly in line with Spanish Armada practice, albeit a different colour...... If Fleet don't like it I suppose they will repaint it when they get to WA - not sure if it's Stirling or Henderson that the final fit out will be done.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Sea trials completed.....

First Supply-class AOR for Royal Australian Navy completes sea trials

The first of two Supply-class auxiliary oiler replenishment (AOR) ships on order for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has completed sea acceptance trails, Spanish...

www.janes.com

Pretty bad, the towing contractor with a really low bid perhaps?

Maybe it was the first day on their new job...

 

[Antipode]

Hello friends

Spanish Armada's BAC Cantabria and future RAN's AOR Supply performed a replenishment at sea (RAS) maneuver while docked at Ferrol, Galicia. Spanish BAC Patiño and future AOR Stalwart star as well in this remarkable shot.

(Photo and news source: Spanish newspaper "La Voz de Galicia")

Salud!

 

[ASSAIL]

Hello friends

Spanish Armada's BAC Cantabria and future RAN's AOR Supply performed a replenishment at sea (RAS) maneuver while docked at Ferrol, Galicia. Spanish BAC Patiño and future AOR Stalwart star as well in this remarkable shot.
View attachment 47592
(Photo and news source: Spanish newspaper "La Voz de Galicia")

Salud!

What a great shot of the Ferol Armada facility.
Those having to use FBE should be extremely jealous over the space available.
Still...if we kicked all the knobs out of Wooloomooloo Bay and flattened the wharf shed......

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Hello friends

Spanish Armada's BAC Cantabria and future RAN's AOR Supply performed a replenishment at sea (RAS) maneuver while docked at Ferrol, Galicia. Spanish BAC Patiño and future AOR Stalwart star as well in this remarkable shot.
View attachment 47592
(Photo and news source: Spanish newspaper "La Voz de Galicia")

Salud!

Perfect shot to compare the AOR Supply with the Cantabria class.
Thanks for sharing!

 

[Stampede]

Hello friends

Spanish Armada's BAC Cantabria and future RAN's AOR Supply performed a replenishment at sea (RAS) maneuver while docked at Ferrol, Galicia. Spanish BAC Patiño and future AOR Stalwart star as well in this remarkable shot.
View attachment 47592
(Photo and news source: Spanish newspaper "La Voz de Galicia")

Salud!

Always intrigues me the variation of markings on helicopter flight decks.
Case in point the Cantabria and Supply.
I'm sure there is a logic to it.
Can certainly see the colour difference of the two ships..

Great pic



Regards s

 

[pussertas]

VC for Lt Cmdr. Robert Rankin.

Now that 'Teddy' Sheen has been awarded the VC after a 80 year wait it's time to look at a VC for Lt. Cmdr. Rankin.

Like Sheen the RAN thought his actions so noteworthy they named a Collins Class submarine after him.

 

[buffy9]

Just a quickie on the Hunter-class if it pleases anyone.

I've noticed in various media that the Hunter-class is only fitted for one RHIB on the port side when the mission bay amidship is excluded, though the starboard side lacks any such facilities. I understand the mission bay can be utilised to store a larger number of more capable RHIB, though the mission bay may not always be available due to different requirements (unmanned systems, second helicopter, etc). I figured a second RHIB would be strongly sought after - especially if there is a capsized RHIB or SOLAS situation, whereby a whole ship response would then be required (and which may be insufficient depending on the situation). Is a second RHIB just not that needed, or is it expected that the RHIBs of other supporting vessels may be able to fulfil such a rescue role?

A second question would be what facilities might be present in place of tender facilities? It seems strange to remove the additional capacity of a RHIB when the intended mission bay may not always house additional tenders.

Apologies if this is has been discussed before, have not been keeping up with the project (in all countries) as well as I would like.

EDIT: A quick video of a model highlighting what I mean.

EDIT2: Kept trying to find some further info, found the link below which has a useful top down view of the rear of the ship - including the mission bay. Cheers Spoz for the reply, I figured this may be the case but it still seemed strange to forego a second boat space even with the mission bay.

The Type 26 frigate mission bay. Part 1 – design and development | Navy Lookout

www.savetheroyalnavy.org

 

[ASSAIL]

APDR has reported on the completion of SeaTrials for NUSHIP Supply

NUSHIP Supply successfully completes sea acceptance trials - APDR

NUSHIP Supply, the lead ship for the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN) new Supply Class Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (AOR) ships, successfully completed its Sea Acceptance Trials in Ferrol, Spain. The sea trials lasted three days and two nights and included testing of the RHIB davit and a...

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

 

[t68]

What a great shot of the Ferol Armada facility.
Those having to use FBE should be extremely jealous over the space available.
Still...if we kicked all the knobs out of Wooloomooloo Bay and flattened the wharf shed......

A better idea would be expanding the new western airport so everything moves out there lock stock and barrel and redevelop KSA into a joint RAN/RAAF base turn over GI to cruise ship berthing


Just waiting for a beating from the old salts

 

[spoz]

Just a quickie on the Hunter-class if it pleases anyone.

I've noticed in various media that the Hunter-class is only fitted for one RHIB on the port side when the mission bay amidship is excluded, though the starboard side lacks any such facilities. I understand the mission bay can be utilised to store a larger number of more capable RHIB, though the mission bay may not always be available due to different requirements (unmanned systems, second helicopter, etc). I figured a second RHIB would be strongly sought after - especially if there is a capsized RHIB or SOLAS situation, whereby a whole ship response would then be required (and which may be insufficient depending on the situation). Is a second RHIB just not that needed, or is it expected that the RHIBs of other supporting vessels may be able to fulfil such a rescue role?

A second question would be what facilities might be present in place of tender facilities? It seems strange to remove the additional capacity of a RHIB when the intended mission bay may not always house additional tenders.

Apologies if this is has been discussed before, have not been keeping up with the project (in all countries) as well as I would like.

EDIT: A quick video of a model highlighting what I mean.

There certainly seems to be room in the mission bay to simultaneously embark a second helo, a couple of boats and probably a container or two as well. The sea boat on the port side should probably be seen just as that; a first response capability with, I would think, at least one other boat always being carried in the mission bay.

On moving GI - the cost would, to say the least, be astronomical. CCD alone has been estimated at $3 billion to replace. Plus Botany Bay is a very busy commercial port with some of the largest container facilities in Australia, and of course the oil discharge and storage facilities at Kurnell. And crab fast jets in the middle of Sydney? You think you have noise issues now....It’s also been done to death.

 

[Redlands18]

A better idea would be expanding the new western airport so everything moves out there lock stock and barrel and redevelop KSA into a joint RAN/RAAF base turn over GI to cruise ship berthing


Just waiting for a beating from the old salts

Be careful Mate they might just decide to Keel Haul you for that comment