ADF General discussion thread

[Takao]

Story time, this was looked at recently...

Initially it was for an RFA to be created. It wasn't a copy-paste of the Royal Navy's support element, the AORs and LHDs were kept with the RAN for instance. It consisted of the second-line CSS and amphib/sea lift ships - so things like a 'super AOR' that would connect between the fleet and Australia and a bunch of sea lift. The latter would mainly be RO/RO, but also ships that could carry additional LCM's, an LST and some bulk shipping. Basically enough to make a full Bde and supplies be able o be lifted in one hit when combined with the ARG.

That (obviously) didn't get traction. Mainly because of RAN workforce concerns.

Second version was a Government funded merchant marine. This killed the fleet support units and provided only the sealift. We didn't need an over the beach capability, but still wanted to lift a Bde and stores. For this we accepted that it would never turn a profit, but the ships would operate along trade routes normally. Basically a government funded STUFT fleet. The sweetener was industry/small business focus for an LNP government and a boost to the MUA for an ALP government. We figured either wouldn't appeal to the other side, but odds were it was going to be ALP so that would have been an 'easy' sell.

That didn't get traction. I won't go into details why, but they were related to function, not make-up

Finally, we got the improved sea lift capability in. The theory is to permanently book space across a variety of flagged ships so that we have what we need. How that looks in reality I don't know - but hopefully it mitigates our small amphib capability.

But gosh. It'd be nice for there to be more Aussie shipping out there....

 

[ADMk2]

Story time, this was looked at recently...

Initially it was for an RFA to be created. It wasn't a copy-paste of the Royal Navy's support element, the AORs and LHDs were kept with the RAN for instance. It consisted of the second-line CSS and amphib/sea lift ships - so things like a 'super AOR' that would connect between the fleet and Australia and a bunch of sea lift. The latter would mainly be RO/RO, but also ships that could carry additional LCM's, an LST and some bulk shipping. Basically enough to make a full Bde and supplies be able o be lifted in one hit when combined with the ARG.

That (obviously) didn't get traction. Mainly because of RAN workforce concerns.

Second version was a Government funded merchant marine. This killed the fleet support units and provided only the sealift. We didn't need an over the beach capability, but still wanted to lift a Bde and stores. For this we accepted that it would never turn a profit, but the ships would operate along trade routes normally. Basically a government funded STUFT fleet. The sweetener was industry/small business focus for an LNP government and a boost to the MUA for an ALP government. We figured either wouldn't appeal to the other side, but odds were it was going to be ALP so that would have been an 'easy' sell.

That didn't get traction. I won't go into details why, but they were related to function, not make-up

Finally, we got the improved sea lift capability in. The theory is to permanently book space across a variety of flagged ships so that we have what we need. How that looks in reality I don't know - but hopefully it mitigates our small amphib capability.

But gosh. It'd be nice for there to be more Aussie shipping out there....

Somewhat similar to the old heavy airlift method of booking Antonovs perhaps? I hope not given we subsequently realised we actually needed heavy airlift ourselves, but if it is a “learning” stepping-stone to teach the Government/s I guess…

 

[ngatimozart]

Interesting concept. Could even add in the roraty launcher used on the B52. Air Force B-52 Bombers Getting Major Bomb Launcher Upgrade opening the option to carry AGM -85 Cruise missile https://www.boeing.com/history/products/agm-86b-c-air-launched-cruise-missile.page Given our ranges and the cost to support the 737 being low, when considered I think this is a very suitable option for Australia and smarter than a B21 purchase. I think it would make sense to add these as stand alone vs additional P8s and stand them up for a more dedicated strike role.

Time to get off the fantasy wagon. How about a little reality eh.

 

[Owly]

Story time, this was looked at recently...

Initially it was for an RFA to be created. It wasn't a copy-paste of the Royal Navy's support element, the AORs and LHDs were kept with the RAN for instance. It consisted of the second-line CSS and amphib/sea lift ships - so things like a 'super AOR' that would connect between the fleet and Australia and a bunch of sea lift. The latter would mainly be RO/RO, but also ships that could carry additional LCM's, an LST and some bulk shipping. Basically enough to make a full Bde and supplies be able o be lifted in one hit when combined with the ARG.

That (obviously) didn't get traction. Mainly because of RAN workforce concerns.

Second version was a Government funded merchant marine. This killed the fleet support units and provided only the sealift. We didn't need an over the beach capability, but still wanted to lift a Bde and stores. For this we accepted that it would never turn a profit, but the ships would operate along trade routes normally. Basically a government funded STUFT fleet. The sweetener was industry/small business focus for an LNP government and a boost to the MUA for an ALP government. We figured either wouldn't appeal to the other side, but odds were it was going to be ALP so that would have been an 'easy' sell.

That didn't get traction. I won't go into details why, but they were related to function, not make-up

Finally, we got the improved sea lift capability in. The theory is to permanently book space across a variety of flagged ships so that we have what we need. How that looks in reality I don't know - but hopefully it mitigates our small amphib capability.

But gosh. It'd be nice for there to be more Aussie shipping out there....

AFAIK The last profitable coastal east coast roro ( Tasmania and NW Aussie aside) was the MV Darwin Trader - ECAust to Darwin , there would still a viable market but you would have to be very brave to stump up the capital to restart it !

 

[vonnoobie]

We don't exactly need more RORO, between the 2 Toll ships and 2 Spirit of Tasmania ships there is 8,928 lane metres not counting ships from searoad. What is needed is container ships to both supply deployed forces and ensure an ability for us to import needed resources/equipment.

Compared to the operating costs of trucking there are several routes along the east coast and even across to Perth that could economically field multiple ships cheaper then road freight though longer delivery times if we can stop the maritime union buggering it up.

 

[alexsa]

AFAIK The last profitable coastal east coast roro ( Tasmania and NW Aussie aside) was the MV Darwin Trader - ECAust to Darwin , there would still a viable market but you would have to be very brave to stump up the capital to restart it !

Except the Darwin Trader is Cyprus flag. A quick look at Marine Traffic is useful for this stuff. There are other coastal routes using barges and small container/general cargo vessels. Sea Swift on the Queensland Torres run as an example.

There are significant vessels operating on the Bass Strait run with TT lines (two large RO PAX with two replacements to be built), Sea Road (Two RO RO vessels, One a new build LGF code vessel - one more new build planned) and Toll (Two new RO-RO vessels). A quick look at any web site with Bass Strait and cargo in it will give you the details. Basically this is a well supported and profitable run and is operated solely by Australian flag vessels. That does make sense when you consider the circumstances.

Just a Mod request ..... please can we please do just a modicum of research before posting. It adds a lot more when factual information is provided. Sometimes it is hard to find .... but in this case that is not the true.

 

[alexsa]

We don't exactly need more RORO, between the 2 Toll ships and 2 Spirit of Tasmania ships there is 8,928 lane metres not counting ships from searoad. What is needed is container ships to both supply deployed forces and ensure an ability for us to import needed resources/equipment.

Compared to the operating costs of trucking there are several routes along the east coast and even across to Perth that could economically field multiple ships cheaper then road freight though longer delivery times if we can stop the maritime union buggering it up.

Careful here... those ships are essential for the Tasmanian economy and taking them off the run will be a significant challenge.

Careful on container ships too. Many are not geared which will limit their utility is less developed ports (basically is the place does not have a crane it is a waste of time). RO-RO vessels can carry containers and oversized cargo on dedicated trailers (called Mafi's) that can be discharged using ships equipment. For a RO-RO you need a wharf deep enough and a ramp that can be used without shore based facilities (that rules out the Bass Strait vessels by the way).

Something like the geared Grimaldi RO-RO vessels may work provide you can move containers once you discharge them.

Roro mafi cargo - Bing video

 

[Bob53]

Time to get off the fantasy wagon. How about a little reality eh.

Not exactly fantasy boss. Just a comment on the previous post. Nothing in it other than adding to the commentary on the potential for that platform. Any idea that the P8 could be adopted to another purpose will go no where unless the US picks it up. It’s just a thought bubble from the War Room at this stage. I’m fully aware of that but my comment was along the line of the initial discussion

 

[ngatimozart]

Not exactly fantasy boss. Just a comment on the previous post. Nothing in it other than adding to the commentary on the potential for that platform. Any idea that the P8 could be adopted to another purpose will go no where unless the US picks it up. It’s just a thought bubble from the War Room at this stage. I’m fully aware of that but my comment was along the line of the initial discussion

The reason I said that it is fantasy is there is a vast difference between the size of the B-52 bomb bay and that of the P-8A. If you managed to fit the rotary launcher in it there would be stuff all room for anything else. It's short and not necessarily that deep by all accounts. That was stated a few years ago and IIRC it's smaller than the P-3 bomb bay. That's the one failing of the P-8A. WRT the AGM-86, is still in service and being manufactured. More to the point would it survive in the modern IADS environment?

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.

 

[John Fedup]

RB-8s and P-8s are derived from 737-800s which Boeing continues to build to complete its outstanding P-8 orders. Boeing will not want to bother with this line without additional follow on orders so for a RB-8 to happen, it must happen soon.

 

[vonnoobie]

Careful here... those ships are essential for the Tasmanian economy and taking them off the run will be a significant challenge.

Careful on container ships too. Many are not geared which will limit their utility is less developed ports (basically is the place does not have a crane it is a waste of time). RO-RO vessels can carry containers and oversized cargo on dedicated trailers (called Mafi's) that can be discharged using ships equipment. For a RO-RO you need a wharf deep enough and a ramp that can be used without shore based facilities (that rules out the Bass Strait vessels by the way).

Something like the geared Grimaldi RO-RO vessels may work provide you can move containers once you discharge them.

Roro mafi cargo - Bing video

Actually in the Australian coastal trade concept any container ships depending on route and demand would be from 500 TEU through to 2,500 TEU for the heavier routes, Going larger and you start limiting it to the main ports which cuts down on coastal shipping benefits. Yes accordingto wiki (Sorry) about 60% of 1,500 - 2,500 TEU ships are geared.

Yes those ships are essential but realistically does the Tasmanian economly actually require a RO/RO or could they make due with container ships? Except for the ability to drive a truck straight on and then off cutting down on time for deliveries I dont see any actual need for Tasmania having to have RO/RO when the same cargo could be loaded onto a container ship and transported at marginally more time.

Not saying get rid of the RO/RO for Tasmania but rather in a time of need we could keep them going with a few feeder sized ships able to transport the same amount of cargo and potentially more freeing up the RO/RO vessels for use else where.

 

[ASSAIL]

Actually in the Australian coastal trade concept any container ships depending on route and demand would be from 500 TEU through to 2,500 TEU for the heavier routes, Going larger and you start limiting it to the main ports which cuts down on coastal shipping benefits. Yes accordingto wiki (Sorry) about 60% of 1,500 - 2,500 TEU ships are geared.

Yes those ships are essential but realistically does the Tasmanian economly actually require a RO/RO or could they make due with container ships? Except for the ability to drive a truck straight on and then off cutting down on time for deliveries I dont see any actual need for Tasmania having to have RO/RO when the same cargo could be loaded onto a container ship and transported at marginally more time.

Not saying get rid of the RO/RO for Tasmania but rather in a time of need we could keep them going with a few feeder sized ships able to transport the same amount of cargo and potentially more freeing up the RO/RO vessels for use else where.

You understate the efficiency of RO/RO cf container handling.
The additional port costs are significant and the time delays inhibiting.
The are some small coastal barges who carry their own container forklift to handle the boxes on remote barge landings but for high volume regular use RO/RO is a no brainer, load in the warehouse unload at destination, no intermediate handling or delay.

 

[vonnoobie]

You understate the efficiency of RO/RO cf container handling.
The additional port costs are significant and the time delays inhibiting.
The are some small coastal barges who carry their own container forklift to handle the boxes on remote barge landings but for high volume regular use RO/RO is a no brainer, load in the warehouse unload at destination, no intermediate handling or delay.

In speed the RORO very good but they also have a much higher Capex which means higher costs. A 2015 bass strait shipping report by Tasmania (will find and link the source) had domestic trade going from Hobart to devenport then onto Melbourne at $1,403 a TEU with over $900 of that just for shipping across the bass strait with the rest covering road haulage, port fees etc. For the record prices ranged from $600 high volume standard TEU through to $1,800 low volume refrigerated TEU.

Compared to Capex and opex of a feeder sized ship the RORO will always be the more expensive option.

-----------------------

As promised Tasmanian state report (partial) on Bass Strait shipping
https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/...formation_Paper_3_-_Tasmanian_sea_freight.pdf

 

[Owly]

Except the Darwin Trader is Cyprus flag. A quick look at Marine Traffic is useful for this stuff. There are other coastal routes using barges and small container/general cargo vessels. Sea Swift on the Queensland Torres run as an example.

There are significant vessels operating on the Bass Strait run with TT lines (two large RO PAX with two replacements to be built), Sea Road (Two RO RO vessels, One a new build LGF code vessel - one more new build planned) and Toll (Two new RO-RO vessels). A quick look at any web site with Bass Strait and cargo in it will give you the details. Basically this is a well supported and profitable run and is operated solely by Australian flag vessels. That does make sense when you consider the circumstances.

Just a Mod request ..... please can we please do just a modicum of research before posting. It adds a lot more when factual information is provided. Sometimes it is hard to find .... but in this case that is not the true.

Sorry didnt realise those pesky French had named another vessel ‘Darwin Trader’ , I was referring to the original RORO in the ‘80’s - that was similar to the other ANL RORO traders that called Mort Bay in Sydney

Then you should be more specific and this confusion would not occur.

Again do research --- The current vessel is called the ANL Darwin Trader because CGA-CGM own ANL. The Darwin Trader you refer to was built in 1970 and left ANL service in 1998. She was a container - bulk carrier not a RO-RO. The trade this vessel serviced no-long exists. Can we please get back to reality.

DARWIN TRADER | DARWIN TRADER Australian Owners: Australian … | Flickr

 

[ngatimozart]

Sorry didnt realise those pesky French had named another vessel ‘Darwin Trader’ , I was referring to the original RORO in the ‘80’s - that was similar to the other ANL RORO traders that called Mort Bay in Sydney

A Moderator asked you to do some research. It pays to follow a Moderator's guidance. I know this is pendantic but Cyprus isn't French but has a Greek Cypriot ethic group occupying one part of the island and a Turkish Cypriot group occupying the remainder. There is a hard fortified border between the two after the Turkish invasion of 1974.

 

[vonnoobie]

Except the Darwin Trader is Cyprus flag. A quick look at Marine Traffic is useful for this stuff. There are other coastal routes using barges and small container/general cargo vessels. Sea Swift on the Queensland Torres run as an example.

There are significant vessels operating on the Bass Strait run with TT lines (two large RO PAX with two replacements to be built), Sea Road (Two RO RO vessels, One a new build LGF code vessel - one more new build planned) and Toll (Two new RO-RO vessels). A quick look at any web site with Bass Strait and cargo in it will give you the details. Basically this is a well supported and profitable run and is operated solely by Australian flag vessels. That does make sense when you consider the circumstances.

Just a Mod request ..... please can we please do just a modicum of research before posting. It adds a lot more when factual information is provided. Sometimes it is hard to find .... but in this case that is not the true.

Having taken a look at the Sea Swift fleet its bloody big. and a lot of it is what we could potentially use for an LCT.

Fleet Archives - SEA SWIFT

14 different Landing craft on the larger side of things, 4 other ships various sizes and and 10 barges and tugs. Going into the fantasy this is the ideal company and fleet to have set up as an auxilary fleet. Doesnt have the larger ships to support brigade sized forces but company/battalion or extra landing/manouverability for a brigade around island area's its ideal though I imagine would need ships closer to our spec and I dont see that being allowed with out some political squable or even some other company whinging.

 

[alexsa]

In speed the RORO very good but they also have a much higher Capex which means higher costs. A 2015 bass strait shipping report by Tasmania (will find and link the source) had domestic trade going from Hobart to devenport then onto Melbourne at $1,403 a TEU with over $900 of that just for shipping across the bass strait with the rest covering road haulage, port fees etc. For the record prices ranged from $600 high volume standard TEU through to $1,800 low volume refrigerated TEU.

Compared to Capex and opex of a feeder sized ship the RORO will always be the more expensive option.

-----------------------

As promised Tasmanian state report (partial) on Bass Strait shipping
https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/...formation_Paper_3_-_Tasmanian_sea_freight.pdf

You miss the critical issue here and that is speed of transit (chilled goods by road etc), the fact that the semi's loaded head straight onto the national highway without the need to:

• unload the container(s),
• move (them) to the transfer yard,
• Load it on the ship with a shore crane or shipboard crane,
• Unload at the other end ... move to the transfer yard
• load it on a truck and off you go ............. a day or so later.

This involves a lot of unnecessary moves (with associated cost as each container move is charged for) and means you are using two vehicles to complete the same journey and have a much slower transition time with on load and off load. Unloading RO-RO cargo is very quick despite the additional cost of the vessel. This makes RO-RO vessel a cost effective option for short sea transfer which why it is employed in this role. It gest goods to market quickly.

Mod request - again research. Have a look at Europe and the shear volume of RO-RO vessels servicing short sea runs. There is a very good reason the RO-RO option is used. To suggest that it would be cheaper to use a container vessel is flawed and the link you provide does not support that conclusion.

 

[alexsa]

Having taken a look at the Sea Swift fleet its bloody big. and a lot of it is what we could potentially use for an LCT.

Fleet Archives - SEA SWIFT

14 different Landing craft on the larger side of things, 4 other ships various sizes and and 10 barges and tugs. Going into the fantasy this is the ideal company and fleet to have set up as an auxilary fleet. Doesnt have the larger ships to support brigade sized forces but company/battalion or extra landing/manouverability for a brigade around island area's its ideal though I imagine would need ships closer to our spec and I dont see that being allowed with out some political squable or even some other company whinging.

Sea Swift is actually owned by a Singapore entity. Its ships are slow and are essential for the trades they operate on. I think the Queensland government will squabble.

Seaswift is owned by QIC which is a Queensland government entity. None of its ships are certified for international trade and are covered by domestic survey standards. The carrying capacity of most of the vessels is low as they have to be small to service the areas the go into. The other issue to be aware of is deck strength. Things like an M1 (and even the CRV) may challenge some of these vessels.

QIC Global Infrastructure enters agreement to acquire Sea Swift | QIC

The fact is that these vessels could only support operations close to Australia. Most would be of limited utility if you want to head into the pacific but they suit the operations of Sea Swift.

 

[vonnoobie]

You miss the critical issue here and that is speed of transit (chilled goods by road etc), the fact that the semi's loaded head straight onto the national highway without the need to:

• unload the container(s),
• move (them) to the transfer yard,
• Load it on the ship with a shore crane or shipboard crane,
• Unload at the other end ... move to the transfer yard
• load it on a truck and off you go ............. a day or so later.

This involves a lot of unnecessary moves (with associated cost as each container move is charged for) and means you are using two vehicles to complete the same journey and have a much slower transition time with on load and off load. Unloading RO-RO cargo is very quick despite the additional cost of the vessel. This makes RO-RO vessel a cost effective option for short sea transfer which why it is employed in this role. It gest goods to market quickly.

Mod request - again research. Have a look at Europe and the shear volume of RO-RO vessels servicing short sea runs. There is a very good reason the RO-RO option is used. To suggest that it would be cheaper to use a container vessel is flawed and the link you provide does not support that conclusion.

And I have been looking at Europe and while I cant find anything giving any firm or close to firm numbers what snippits I cant find does not indicate in any way shape or form that RORO in europe is the be all end all, Some routes have more RORO, Some less, But at the same time there apopear to be just as many feeder sized container ships operating coastal and short sea routes.

Yes time involved is more, But when you could be saving $400 (guesstimate I admit) on a container that is a savings to a business and their would be plenty of goods (probably the bulk) that the world wouldnt notice took 1 extra day. The view that the cargo has to be on the road that very second to arrive asap is flawed.

On the other hand your point about using two vehicle to complete the same journey, Counter argument could be your arent having a vehicle sitting around on a ship for an entire day not doing a damn thing.

In any case if anyone has any sources and/or links to sea trade in Europe to give us an idea of what a developed economy has their coastal trade fleet make up like between RORO and container I think that would be a huge help to all to give us a better idea.

 

[Todjaeger]

And I have been looking at Europe and while I cant find anything giving any firm or close to firm numbers what snippits I cant find does not indicate in any way shape or form that RORO in europe is the be all end all, Some routes have more RORO, Some less, But at the same time there apopear to be just as many feeder sized container ships operating coastal and short sea routes.

Yes time involved is more, But when you could be saving $400 (guesstimate I admit) on a container that is a savings to a business and their would be plenty of goods (probably the bulk) that the world wouldnt notice took 1 extra day. The view that the cargo has to be on the road that very second to arrive asap is flawed.

On the other hand your point about using two vehicle to complete the same journey, Counter argument could be your arent having a vehicle sitting around on a ship for an entire day not doing a damn thing.

In any case if anyone has any sources and/or links to sea trade in Europe to give us an idea of what a developed economy has their coastal trade fleet make up like between RORO and container I think that would be a huge help to all to give us a better idea.

Just a quick question, and not related to the ADF topic. How familiar are you with the JIT concept?