RAN RAS vessels
- Thread starter Todjaeger
- Start date
Its been three days with no answers. Before they bought the used Sirius and converted her, Australia was interested in either the Italian or Dutch new replenishment ships. By the time the Success is discarded, the French will also have a new replenishment ship program underway, considering their Durance class will be reaching the end of their service lives too. I would think one of these three classes will most likely be the successor to the Success.
Frankly I am of the opinion that replenishment ships aren't necessary unless a navy is operating a carrier of some sort. Replenishment oilers are cheaper and easier to run, but aren't as efficient as replenishment ships, notice the Sirius is a replenishment oiler.
Of course, with Australia building LHDs, small carriers, it would be wise to have one for each LHD.
Frankly I am of the opinion that replenishment ships aren't necessary unless a navy is operating a carrier of some sort. Replenishment oilers are cheaper and easier to run, but aren't as efficient as replenishment ships, notice the Sirius is a replenishment oiler.
Of course, with Australia building LHDs, small carriers, it would be wise to have one for each LHD.
Sirrius was commissioned on Sept 16, 2 hours after Westralia was decommissioned. She is currently undergoing trials off WA. Success is expected to serve until at least 2015. The aim is to probably replace her with another vessel capable of replenishing stores aswell as fuel at sea like Success. Sirrius is only capable of replenishing liquids & what ever stores that can be carried by vertrep off her flightdeck.
Cheers
Cheers
Maybe you are confused about what I meant. Using American classification, a couple of ships only need a replenishment oiler tagging along, AOR. A carrier battle group or a fleet of more than a few ships needs a replenishment ship tagging along, AOE. While an AOR appears as an upgraded oiler and supplies oil and some supplies, an AOE don't appear as an oiler and supplies much more supplies.
I classify the Sirius as a replenishment oiler, and the Success as a replenishment ship. I hope I have cleared this up.
I classify the Sirius as a replenishment oiler, and the Success as a replenishment ship. I hope I have cleared this up.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
Did more searching for info on the Sirius. So far it seems pretty sparse.
Basically it looks like the ship is around 37,000-38,000 tons and is double-hulled. One figure I read was 37,000 dwt, which would put it around 4,000 dwt more than Westralia. It also is supposed to be approximately 176m, so it's about 5m more than Westralia. On the other hand, if that figure includes the helicopter platform mounted on the stern, that doesn't add to interior volume. For an image of that click here.
http://www.shipconstructor.com/ourcustomers/projects/other/platformdesign.html
What I would be curious to learn (and I might just need to see the newest Jane's Fighting Ships, not sure) is what the expected capacity is. The Westralia could carry 20,000 tons dieso, 3,000 tons aviation fuel and 1,500 tons water.
Another thing I wonder about is the crew size. From the RAN site, the Sirius is projected to have a crew of 55 compared to 90 in Westralia. From Jane's where I had info on Westralia & Success, the Westralia crew was 61, with 9 spare berths. If someone could enlighten me on the following I'd appreciate it. The Durance-class HMAS Success has a listed compliment of 205 (25 officers) compared to 61 (or 90) in the larger Westralia. Could someone explain why the Success crew is 2-3 times larger?:unknown
-Cheers
Basically it looks like the ship is around 37,000-38,000 tons and is double-hulled. One figure I read was 37,000 dwt, which would put it around 4,000 dwt more than Westralia. It also is supposed to be approximately 176m, so it's about 5m more than Westralia. On the other hand, if that figure includes the helicopter platform mounted on the stern, that doesn't add to interior volume. For an image of that click here.
http://www.shipconstructor.com/ourcustomers/projects/other/platformdesign.html
What I would be curious to learn (and I might just need to see the newest Jane's Fighting Ships, not sure) is what the expected capacity is. The Westralia could carry 20,000 tons dieso, 3,000 tons aviation fuel and 1,500 tons water.
Another thing I wonder about is the crew size. From the RAN site, the Sirius is projected to have a crew of 55 compared to 90 in Westralia. From Jane's where I had info on Westralia & Success, the Westralia crew was 61, with 9 spare berths. If someone could enlighten me on the following I'd appreciate it. The Durance-class HMAS Success has a listed compliment of 205 (25 officers) compared to 61 (or 90) in the larger Westralia. Could someone explain why the Success crew is 2-3 times larger?:unknown
-Cheers
Nope not used. It was bought new from the yard during fitting out. It was then given to Teekay to operate for a while until DMO were ready to let the contract for conversion.
Very ugly conversion as well. I am wondering how the back verander will cope if the vessel is pooped. My peers all seemed to think it would have been better if they extended the entire stern structure and plated it in.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8
Are you referring to the heli landing platform, the one I included the link for?
I would've thought that it would be fitted during construction so that any water accumulation on it would just drain through, since there is no underlying structure. Or is the concern more for having a mass protruding from the stern raising the center of gravity?
-Cheers
Yes, that is the monstorsity I was referring to. Drainage is not an issue, it is the slamming effect under the flat structure of both the extended poop and the flight deck itself which is a worry.
This is not a 'very big ship' in Merchant Marine terms and it entierly likley it will take a large stern sea (get pooped) in its life ...... should be interesting.
The whole stucture is going to be a corrosion problem as well due to lack of easy access, extending the stern and plating in would have limited the impact of both issues.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10
Having looked at the proposal for the Canadian Joint Support Ship, I was wondering what people's thoughts would be on the RAN or RNZN accquiring one, or a vessel of similiar flexibility. It seems to a replenishment ship that can refuel, re-arm and re-supply, as well as engage in some limited equipment/vehicle lift.
Would such as vessel have a place? Would the LHDs provide all the needed lift capacity? Or would the compromises needed to add in v/l reduce the replenishment/tanker capacity past acceptable limits?
-Cheers
Would such as vessel have a place? Would the LHDs provide all the needed lift capacity? Or would the compromises needed to add in v/l reduce the replenishment/tanker capacity past acceptable limits?
-Cheers
knightrider4
Active Member
Joint Support Vessel
I'm reasonably sure that the RAN was originally looking at such a vessel but budgetary restraints led to the purchase of a commercial tanker instead which was modified for military use. However they may revisit that option in the future.
I'm reasonably sure that the RAN was originally looking at such a vessel but budgetary restraints led to the purchase of a commercial tanker instead which was modified for military use. However they may revisit that option in the future.
The Sirius will always be a support tanker and not a combat support ship (same as Westralia) so the commercial option was fine (pretty good value really). The combat support capability is provided by Success and a project exists to replace her.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I don't think a lack of budget was the primary factor in the Sirius purchase (based on the civilian vessel) but rather an extent need to replace Westralia with a similar capability as quickly as possible. The funds that were to be spent on a full "mil-spec" underway replenishment vessel, that weren't needed for the cheaper option chosen, have been dedicated towards Success's replacement according to Defmin HILL, at the time this was announced.
Hopefully this is so and a more capable replacement for Success can be acquired, to further boost our capabilities...
This is a bit of guesswork but I wonder if Success currently carries such a comparatively large crew. It used to be equipped with up to 3x40mm Bofors guns and at one stage was also fitted with 2 Phalanx CIWS. The last time it visited Hobart no armament was fitted, apart from 0.50 cal MG positions. The fact that it is more than just an oiler and regularly embarks a Sea King helo for vertrep would also account for additional crew being required.
alexsa is probably best placed to correct me on this, but I also thought that there was a speed of international compliance issue - so rebirthing an existing commercial asset was the most expeditious way to achieve compliance within a short timeframe.
My understanding is that Westralia no longer complied with international regulations as she was a single bottomed tanker so it is true that it was necessary to replace her in a short timeframe. Mind you, with a bit more forward planning and budgetary support from the Defence Department it would surely have been possible to have replaced Westralia with a purpose built replenishment ship rather than being forced to make what seems like a stopgap decision. I suppose, however, that the RAN didn't want to push any additional programs that might have jeopardised funding for the AWD and LHD programs.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #17
From what I understand, you are partially correct. Due to international agreements, oiler are being changed over to double hull, as opposed to single hull vessels. I believe there is an exemption for military vessels, but the RAN I think decided not to exercise that due to Westralia approaching the end of service life anyway. That and the fire didn't help either.My understanding is that Westralia no longer complied with international regulations as she was a single bottomed tanker so it is true that it was necessary to replace her in a short timeframe. Mind you, with a bit more forward planning and budgetary support from the Defence Department it would surely have been possible to have replaced Westralia with a purpose built replenishment ship rather than being forced to make what seems like a stopgap decision. I suppose, however, that the RAN didn't want to push any additional programs that might have jeopardised funding for the AWD and LHD programs.
Regarding a purpose built AOR, that is in the plans for the RAN, but that has been scheduled for around 2020, roughly when the Sirius is approaching end of service. Incidentally, Australia has owned Sirius for some time, but had been leasing out as a commercial tanker, the MV Delos IIRC, until the retirement of Westralia. So it isn't exactly a stopgap measure.
What I'm curious about is what form the replacement to the Durance-class HMAS Success will be.
-Cheers
But there in itself is a catch-22. Again Alex could confirm, but I was under the distinct impression that some Port Authorities were mumbling about excluding mil-vessels if they didn't comply.Todjaeger said:
To use a far fetched but remotely possible example. The City of San Francisco is having a turbid and turgid relationship with the USN. You can imagine if it really deteriorated and SF decided to try and decline entry or decline mooring to non compliant military vessels.
At PACNAV 2002 I met US Harbour authorities who were seriously looking at technology that forced vessels to revert to electric motors once they hit harbour waters.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #19
Yes, that is the other shoe dropping. Not unlike issues the RAAF has had with the 707s. Being older models with old engines, waivers were required when operating, particularly overseas, due to the excess noise the old engines made. That was IIRC one of the considerations made in the purchase of the A330 MRTT.
A nation might not be able to force the issue in terms of single vs. double hull, but could certainly say "You can't dock here, you're not welcome." Anyway, Sirius will make that a moot point for the RAN. Now the Endeavour for the RNZN is a different story.
-Cheers
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Ah the good news it that the Greens and friends can harldy be upset about spending money on a new replacement, I think funding will come through quick smart when its time to make the switch.