The just in time issue around international trade where if something goes wrong the entire system can come crashing down? I have a basic understanding of it.
The evergreen trying to do a drift down the Suez canal is a perfect example of that
The evergreen trying to do a drift down the Suez canal is a perfect example of that
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,462
With JIT, is really is more a matter of not if, but when, something goes wrong. Also typically the system does not come crashing down, but rather comes to a grinding halt, likely with additional impacts (ripple effect) when the JIT system resumes operation.
JIT is used for more than just international trade. I have no idea how much it is used domestically within Australia, but I could certainly see a number of industries making use of it for a number of different reasons. With that in mind, it would probably be rather difficult, not to mention expensive and unpopular, to try and force a number of economic sectors to change their shipping, receiving and inventory routines.
That is something to keep in the back of one's mind whenever suggestions are made about Australia using/acquiring STUFT.
Oh I understand that though I personally don't think it applies to bass strait at the very least. If it's an issue in Port well that can effect any ship regardless of it being container, bulker, oiler or RORO, if it's an issue with the ship well a container ship isn't any more likely to breakdown then a RORO.
As it is excluding the TT Line ships every RORO operating that region is a mix use RORO/container ship so delivery times will hardly differ (except for what can be driven off straight away) nor will any potential risks.
To me it appears as a case of "we have always done it this way why change it".
Anyway I have made my view known and it's starting to move away from the ADF somewhat so how about agree to disagree? And let's get back on track for this thread.
Cheers.
No it is a cost issue. Every container move costs. The RO-RO run out of dedicated terminals belonging to each of the shipping lines. These are designed for rapid on load and off load and are independent of the container terminals. A container terminal can get containers off ships at a sustainable rate of around 25 TEU and hour (noting the need to shift and move hatches). This is not directly to the delivery trucks but to the yard and than placed on the truck. RO-RO discharge will occur in a matter or hours and will be much quicker than using container cranes and the process of running the cargo through the yard . Finally transport document and weight declaration is simpler .... this is not a minor issue.
RO-RO traffic out of the UK is significant and is operated under similar voyage durations and operating cycles as the bass Strait run. The report linked below is a bit dated but it gives you an idea.
Roll-on roll-off international freight statistics: Notes and Definitions (publishing.service.gov.uk)
The Bass Strait trade is not using RO-RO vessel because of a lack of imagination.... the investment made in these ships reflects their utility. From this comment
To me it appears as a case of "we have always done it this way why change it".
You appear to indicate you know better! unless you can prove the there is no loss in efficiency by moving to container vessels I suggest you drop this.
To add to Alexsa's comment, regardless of whether it's a military or commercial organisation, double or triple handling of containers or other cargo is to be avoided where possible because it not only creates extra costs in the handling and storage, but it creates delays in delivery especially if it's time critical. Moving containers off ship into storage, out of storage then onto the end user or the next line of intermodal transport involves between 2 - 4 extra lifts. This all takes time and time is something that is not always available.
So those posters who think that they know better and treat this as a joke should wake their ideas up because some on here including myself have worked in the industry either in the shipping or in the freight forwarding industry. We just might know what we are talking about.
So those posters who think that they know better and treat this as a joke should wake their ideas up because some on here including myself have worked in the industry either in the shipping or in the freight forwarding industry. We just might know what we are talking about.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
I find this an interesting discussion as I have had some involvement in discussions regarding the Tasmanian freight task (more in terms of public policy, and, for example, TT-Line's future). I'd be interested in getting a better understanding of the differences of opinion here because it's not so clear. I don't proclaim to have any industry expertise. If it continues (possibly in another thread), could those in the know think about maybe explaining it more in layman's terms?
(As an aside, what's with the mod notes? No one was being rude or obnoxious. Or have comments that were objectionable been deleted? Just not clear where it all came from.)
Certainly no one was rude but ongoing suggestions without support on the utility of RO-RO ships being unnecessary for a particular trade (on the basis they can be released to defence) adds noting to the conversation. The notes were made suggesting a bit of research and justification of the claims.
In this case the intervention was making the point that these assets are essential for Tasmania's economy and are used for an economic and practical reasons.
Suggestions that the use of RO-RO tonnage may be 'based on habit' ignore the significant investment in RO-RO capability over the last decade including the replacement of both Toll vessels with new and larger tonnage, the replacement of the Searoad vessel with IGF compliant RO-RO tonnage and the intention to replace the TT line vessels with new larger vessels. A number of folk have tried to explain the economics of how this works but the responses simply suggest that container tonnage is better without making a supportable case.
If someone can show me a case for using Container vessels on this trade and how that is more cost effective I am happy to listen. Have been a regulator in this industry I would be most impressed if they can make such a case. Until that time can we agree that removing RO-RO tonnage from Tasmania would have significant economic consequences and move on.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
Well I'm certainly not going to argue with you. The vessels we have (and are getting) are critical to our economy. There has been investment not only in the ships actually but also in the ports to help make it more efficient to get the containers on rail. (Not that our railway is the best, but it still moves a lot of freight.)
If by container vessels the meaning was they'd be much bigger, well that would have consequences for the ports too, wouldn't it? Not sure if much bigger ships are even needed. Most of Tasmania's freight - excluding bulk minerals, woodchips, logs - go through Melbourne using what I've seen described as a hub and spoke model.
I know this is already very off topic, but talking to a friend who works for Toll, it's interesting they had some real teething issues with their new ships. Seem to have them worked out now, but there were times they were leaving containers on the ships for two or three crossings because of delays in loading and unloading. There was some media reporting too, I recall. Straightened out now, from the sounds, but I imagine these things happen?
(I still don't see the reason for the angst. Maybe it's because I'm rather used to encountering views on the internet from people who seem to think they know more than I about subjects in which they really don't. That happens in some fields. But, yeah, I think it's better just to patiently explain why you're right and they're wrong, rather than just, like, asserting you are.)
Having some experience in the freight forwarding field, I wrote what I wrote because people don't always understand the consequences of the extra handling that is required if a container or general cargo has to be double or triple handle etc. In the freight / cargo business the old adage of time is money is very true.
With each container lift a cost is generated and if that container has to be transshipped to a holding or storage yard then there is the transhipment cost and the yard storage cost. That isn't cheap. So the object of the exercise is to get the container from the point of departure to the destination in the best possible time with the least amount of handling as possible. A quick note about handling of containers and general freight. Generally that's when the most damage occurs. The second highest cause of damage is the failure to secure them properly to vehicles, trailers, wagons, or ships.
I have seen truckies forget to lock the twist locks. Have also seen them forget to unlock the twist locks so that when we've gone to lift the container we've taken the trailer with us. Boy the trucky moves quick then. I have seen containers dropped from height, pushed off rail wagons and speared through the side, when they landed on a steel guard for a trackside power supply..Seen containers damaged after a derailment with the wagon sitting on top of them.
So there's a whole side of it that people don't see or really understand. Then you have all the dangerous goods regulations with the maritime, road and rail regulations differing depending upon where you are. However the maritime ones are consistent internationally from memory. For example a surprising number of household grocery items are classified as dangerous goods as soon as you start freighting them. For example, from memory, hairspray cannot be transported in the same container as matches or cigarette lighters. Doesn't matter if it's one can of hairspray and one plastic disposable cigarette lighter. Then there a containers that have to be transported with at least one container between them and containers containing food or another dangerous goods.
As you can see it's not as simple as people may think.
InterestedParty
Active Member
Sorry for asking a basic question but when a container and trailer go on the RORO ship how does the trailer get back to the point of origin
A reminder of what this thread is about, please take discussions about floating targets to the general maritime thread guys. 
"Royal Australian Air Force Flying Officer Kristian Henderson, Australian Army Captain Samuel O’Neal and Royal Australian Navy Leading Seaman Medic Erika Birkefeld stand together onboard HMAS Canberra, during Exercise Talisman Sabre 2021." Image Source
"Royal Australian Air Force Flying Officer Kristian Henderson, Australian Army Captain Samuel O’Neal and Royal Australian Navy Leading Seaman Medic Erika Birkefeld stand together onboard HMAS Canberra, during Exercise Talisman Sabre 2021." Image Source
Return journey with a container on it. Depends on the trucking company.
ngatimozart said
Having said all that there is value in investigating the the concept of the RB-8A. There may be a case for the RAAF taking the project on, like it did with the E-7A Wedgetail because most of the heavy lifting has already been done with the development of the P-8A. Mounting 360° AESA fighter radars and other sensors on the aircraft and finding room for weapons. The USAF would probably take to long, create to many issues and extra costs.
[/QUOTE]
https://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2009/april/ts_sf03.pdf
Cant find any reference to any possible RB8A variant for the USAF, but the USN appear to be making serious inquiries regarding a replacement for the EP3 Aeries intelligence aircraft and Boeing have come up with a design. The requirement for the USN is for up to 26 aircraft unsure as to what the status of this is at the moment. The RAAF may be interested in this concept but the current requirements for the RAAF look like being filled by the MQ4C Triton and the MC55 when they are delivered.
I would suggest that any USAF requirement would be based around a larger aircraft such as the 767 The link is dated 2009 so the EP3 replacement could already be flying as the EP8A but I can not find any reference that it is.
Having said all that there is value in investigating the the concept of the RB-8A. There may be a case for the RAAF taking the project on, like it did with the E-7A Wedgetail because most of the heavy lifting has already been done with the development of the P-8A. Mounting 360° AESA fighter radars and other sensors on the aircraft and finding room for weapons. The USAF would probably take to long, create to many issues and extra costs.
[/QUOTE]
https://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2009/april/ts_sf03.pdf
Cant find any reference to any possible RB8A variant for the USAF, but the USN appear to be making serious inquiries regarding a replacement for the EP3 Aeries intelligence aircraft and Boeing have come up with a design. The requirement for the USN is for up to 26 aircraft unsure as to what the status of this is at the moment. The RAAF may be interested in this concept but the current requirements for the RAAF look like being filled by the MQ4C Triton and the MC55 when they are delivered.
I would suggest that any USAF requirement would be based around a larger aircraft such as the 767 The link is dated 2009 so the EP3 replacement could already be flying as the EP8A but I can not find any reference that it is.
t68
Well-Known Member
I agree RP/RO has immense benefits have been on both the SOT/Toll RO/RO accompanied with the vehicle, very attractive with time sensitive freight. It must be very attractive to Toll as well if I remember correctly the put a hull plug in to increase capacity
Gone are the days of DAS (government transport and storage) one of the few things that John Howard annoyed me with by selling it off
t68
Well-Known Member
@NG said
“For example, from memory, hairspray cannot be transported in the same container as matches or cigarette lighters.”
Can certainly relate to that happening when working for Government, with a load of EO from DEOH (NSW)to FBW(WA) all the way over with a crate of waterproof matches.
Which was funny as the convoy supervisor told me to go back to the depot as someone has stuffed up, was just about to go when I said you sure can I look at the load manifest. Sure enough it stood out like a sore them “ there’s me big load” not even 20kg. Only down side it was a rough trip there and back with no weight on. But I didn’t complain to much
“For example, from memory, hairspray cannot be transported in the same container as matches or cigarette lighters.”
Can certainly relate to that happening when working for Government, with a load of EO from DEOH (NSW)to FBW(WA) all the way over with a crate of waterproof matches.
Which was funny as the convoy supervisor told me to go back to the depot as someone has stuffed up, was just about to go when I said you sure can I look at the load manifest. Sure enough it stood out like a sore them “ there’s me big load” not even 20kg. Only down side it was a rough trip there and back with no weight on. But I didn’t complain to much
t68
Well-Known Member
It’s generally a transshipment , local driver delivers to Melbourne port or wherever, Burnie or Devonport local diver picks up delivers to port the return MT or loaded
Same thing we had with rail out of ADL fuel tankers loaded on to rail wagon for delivery to Alice Springs then local driver delivers fuel to wherever then loads back onto train MT for return
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
I apologize, there is nothing in my post concerning freight.
Marcus Helyer at ASPI had a series of articles looking at the F35 power projection abilities, Projecting power with the F-35 (part 2): going further | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au) looks at the use of tankers and makes somewhat depressing account of why it's very, very hard to maintain a presence much beyond 1000km with the air assets we have. The later parts talk about off shore basing and F35B. It convinced me of 2 things. RMAF Butterworth is vital to the RAAF and we need other, longer ranged means of maritime strike. The Tomahawk option,
Assuming the CoA obtains a substantial fleet of Maritime strike tomahawks, we could very quickly have an extended range of sea denial around the continent that would look something like this (red circles). I have given the MST a range of 1500 miles, which might be unders a bit.
With 3 platoons located somewhere on the East and West coasts and the third in Darwin (red circles), the map shows we get pretty good coverage of the adjacent seas, A battery on Christmas island (green circle left) can reach the Straights, which could be very important. A battery on Manus ((green circle right) pushes the coverage further north. The blue coloured sea encompasses 1000km from the shore for comparison. The launches would all be mobile and able to operate anywhere along the coast. Organization of a missile regiment to provide his sort of coverage could look like this.
3 'continental' (East, West, Darwin) platoons
2 expeditionary platoons
1 training/testing/development platoon
It would add significant new capability to the ADF for modest cost and it could be done easily within the magic 5 years. Obtaining the JSM for our F35 is another project of modest cost and low risk that can be done quickly. Together both would increase our maritime strike capabilities many fold over our current 300 Harpoons. It would also give the ADF time to sort out LRASM and if the RAN needs NSM as a harpoon replacement.
Marcus Helyer at ASPI had a series of articles looking at the F35 power projection abilities, Projecting power with the F-35 (part 2): going further | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au) looks at the use of tankers and makes somewhat depressing account of why it's very, very hard to maintain a presence much beyond 1000km with the air assets we have. The later parts talk about off shore basing and F35B. It convinced me of 2 things. RMAF Butterworth is vital to the RAAF and we need other, longer ranged means of maritime strike. The Tomahawk option,
Assuming the CoA obtains a substantial fleet of Maritime strike tomahawks, we could very quickly have an extended range of sea denial around the continent that would look something like this (red circles). I have given the MST a range of 1500 miles, which might be unders a bit.
With 3 platoons located somewhere on the East and West coasts and the third in Darwin (red circles), the map shows we get pretty good coverage of the adjacent seas, A battery on Christmas island (green circle left) can reach the Straights, which could be very important. A battery on Manus ((green circle right) pushes the coverage further north. The blue coloured sea encompasses 1000km from the shore for comparison. The launches would all be mobile and able to operate anywhere along the coast. Organization of a missile regiment to provide his sort of coverage could look like this.
3 'continental' (East, West, Darwin) platoons
2 expeditionary platoons
1 training/testing/development platoon
It would add significant new capability to the ADF for modest cost and it could be done easily within the magic 5 years. Obtaining the JSM for our F35 is another project of modest cost and low risk that can be done quickly. Together both would increase our maritime strike capabilities many fold over our current 300 Harpoons. It would also give the ADF time to sort out LRASM and if the RAN needs NSM as a harpoon replacement.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree although if I am to play devil's advocate, the massive range of the MST introduces a corresponding targeting challenge against maritime targets - those missiles are going to need regular targeting updates over a lengthy flight to find their quarry. For PLAN vessels equipped with the HHQ-9 (ie. everything above FFG class), your ISR platform of choice may turn out to be... the F35.
That said it is probably worth noting the difference between say, sustaining a BARCAP at some distance from the Australian coast, and conducting a strike mission. You'll obviously reach further with the latter by dispensing with the need for sustained loiter.
That said it is probably worth noting the difference between say, sustaining a BARCAP at some distance from the Australian coast, and conducting a strike mission. You'll obviously reach further with the latter by dispensing with the need for sustained loiter.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Of course. The further away you are the harder it gets. We are pretty well supplied for surveillance platforms already, P8, tritons and other UAV, along with naval and satellite data, I'm sure the Loyal Wingmans first implemented capability is surveillance, it has a range of 3700 km so we should be able to get eyes on just about anything with range.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
True, although I wonder about the survivability of P8 or Triton in the face of the HHQ-9, especially the forthcoming C model that could be reasonably expected to reach out past ~300km. Not such an issue for an LO jet but a big one for a lumbering ISR aircraft. That said, your point on Loyal Wingman is a good one - the question is will it arrive in the vaunted 5 year timeframe?