Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by icelord, Feb 13, 2007.

Share This Page

  1. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,535
    Likes Received:
    323
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    Would there be a significant issue in altering the size or quantity of specific fuels carried, if the total space and volume/displacement utilized for fuel bunkerage was left fundamentally the same?

    As an example, reducing the amount of JP5 carried/or spaced for aboard the RAN LHD's from 800 tonnes to perhaps 400 tonnes, while increasing the quantity of fuel suitable for Army vehicles by 400 tonnes.
     
    aussienscale likes this.
  2. spoz

    spoz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    Osborne, SA
    In general term, provided they were all high flashpoint fuels, then the tankage can be interchangeable although if you were going from F76 to F44 you would probably want to do a tank clean. However, not all tanks are necessarily easily interconnected, and of course the distribution system is somewhat function specific. Any Diesel engine can run on F76, btw, so most Army can use that. Carriage of low flashpoint fuels (eg ULP or land based aviation fuels) is not permitted in warships other than in easily ditched upper deck stowages.

    Afraid I’m not sure of LHD specifics wrt their tankage arrangements.
     
  3. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,535
    Likes Received:
    323
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    I was thinking less in terms of changing the fuel stores between deployments, and more about where or how the ADF could have specified different bunkerage requirements than Spain without triggering significant design issues.
     
  4. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,527
    Likes Received:
    211
    Location:
    Australia
    It comes down to delivery pipework. Fiddling with pipe work is not a small issue. If you were going to add fueling arrangements for vehicles (noting 400 tonnes is quite a bit) then you need to factor that into the process as well as you would need a delivery arrangement from these tanks to the vehicle decks including pumps and hoses.

    You would be unlikely to mix fuels either so tanks would not be interchangeable. Finally reducing the aviation fuel would also reduce your ability to support rotary wing which seems to detract from the prime purpose of the LHD even in its current role.
     
  5. spoz

    spoz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    Osborne, SA
    F44 which is below standard for aviation use is often dropped into F76 tanks where it makes perfectly good ship propulsion fuel. Ships can use ADO (which is of course normal diesel) or MGO, which is similar, as well as F76 whose advantage is being a cut (rather than cracked) fuel, so more certainly of higher quality with a longer life, and in having fuserium inhibitor added. It’s more expensive than ADO but the difference might not be as important as versatility, particularly if the fuel is being transported into a different climate.

    While I don’t know the LHDs’ arrangements, I would not be surprised to find that cargo vehicles are fuelled from the ship’s general stocks - after all, a hundred cz is a lot of fuel for land vehicles but not much for a large ship.

    In fact there have been attempts over the years, not particularly successful to get to a single fuel - where either ships and land vehicles use aviation fuels or aircraft use diesel. While a desirable state of affairs if achieved, there have been various problems with doing this (cost, quality, availability and others) but it is possible, and might be tried again.
     
  6. Mark_Evans

    Mark_Evans New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Adelaide
    First two are composite, third is steel -found this on usni. Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002).
    Navy’s Steel Deckhouse Decision for Final Zumwalt is a Blow to HII - USNI News
    The composite design was initially required to meet weight requirements. Subsequent to the award of DDG-1000 and 1001 superstructures, sufficient weight removal allowed for the opportunity to provide a steel superstructure, which is a less costly alternative,” NAVSEA officials said in a Monday statement to USNI News.
     
  7. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,342
    Likes Received:
    146
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Wonder what the cost saving was going with steel? Don’t think it would have put much of a dent in the 4 billion price tag.
     
  8. Mark_Evans

    Mark_Evans New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Adelaide
    yes. It would have been interesting to see the cost difference but from the report it looked like they were forced to go composite on the first two ships to keep the weight down. Must be a significant saving as i would have thought commonality across the ships would be desired.
    Probably less important now that there are only 3 instead of a fleet of 32 as originally planned.
    Now if they can only sort out the rounds for the main guns or finally get that railgun developed and installed.
     
  9. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,538
    Likes Received:
    505
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    Back to the RAN, the Defmin has called out Andrew Greene, ABC Defence reporter for releasing news saying the SEA 1000 project is billions over budget and well behind on schedule.
    On Sky this am Minister Pyne denied those facts stating that he had not been contacted by the reporter for comment and that he hoped to have the agreement signed ‘soon’.
    He had also discussed the project with President Macron during the G20 meeting in Buenos Aires last week and been assured that all was well despite the delay in signing.
    Time spent in sorting issues such as transfer of IP, commercial risk mitigation and schedule risk is more important than maintaining an arbitrary timeline and the negotiators should be supported not condemned IMHO.
     
  10. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,527
    Likes Received:
    211
    Location:
    Australia
    Well at least this is longer than 30 seconds and has some pomp about it .... but it came from Navantia .... seriously our DoD PR is bloody poor

     
    ngatimozart and PeterM like this.
  11. PeterM

    PeterM Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    16
    I find the lack of Defence PR quite unusual. Given the current political climate and where we are in the election cycle, I wonder if this may be at least partially due to not wanting to highlight that these ships are not being built in Australia. They have certainly been quick to advertise the opportunity for Australian industry and jobs around defence projects like the Submarines, Frigates, OPVs, Land400 etc.
     
    ngatimozart likes this.
  12. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,014
    Likes Received:
    123
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think Peter is right, its not a local build, and election is close. However, it is pleasing to see build projects seeing a lot of success, even overseas ones. It shouldn't be that way, we have more local work than we have yards operating at the moment, and these are the type of ship it is probably best to build overseas (certainly none of our yards are setup to build something like this). No one complains that we aren't building A330's or C17's here. We have a big plan for sustainable local builds, no ones job is at risk.

    I sure there are some countries perhaps thinking maybe the should have gone with a Navantia build. I predict this should be a fairly painless acquisition for the RAN, particularly with all the experience they have from Cantabria being in Australia and operating with us for so long. Designed to work with the LHD and the AWD, and will be fine with the Hunters and other fleet units. I guess AORs aren't the sexiest piece of kit.

    I quite like the updates on the Australian Icebreaker. I think we should adopt that kind of update on future ship builds.
    Icebreaker construction updates

    2019 will be a busy year for commissioning of big ships.

    The issue with the submarines shows how hard these type of projects are, even when its not another political party doing the attacking and its just the media and we haven't even started building them yet.
     
  13. hauritz

    hauritz Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    78
    I wonder if it would be possible ... or I guess even desirable ... to work out some sort of ongoing shipbuilding program with larger hulled ships. Similar to the build programs being put in place for the OPVs, frigates and new subs. The RAN might require as many as 7 large ships (2 X LHD, 1 X LPD, 2 X AOR, I X HADR, 1 X logistics/tanker). You could also add a few medium sized ships operated by customs, the CSIRO and other government run agencies to that list as well. That would work out at around one new ship every 3 years ... that sounds like it could be doable.
     
  14. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Would require a dry dock and / or ship lift capable of taking a ship of say 300 - 350 m length and 50 - 60 m beam with a displacement up to say 35,000 tonnes. Leaves room for some expansion. Big question though - is there the political will for such a project?
     
  15. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,195
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    NSW

    of course not, we saw what they would do when they had the pot of gold for pink batts and school sheds
     
  16. Jack Wyatt

    Jack Wyatt Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Sydney
  17. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,195
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    NSW
    Apologies for going into politics

    I admit some of the spending was directed to good use like the increase for pensioners, but as a whole they spent to much and sent the government broke by spending all the surplus then borrowing money to pay for it, who can remember Julia Gillards and and imaginary John

     
  18. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,527
    Likes Received:
    211
    Location:
    Australia
    Why would it require a dry dock of 350m with a width of 50 to 60m. And if you are going for this then why only 35000 tonnes???. 350m gives you a very high gross tonnage (displacement is different but it will still be signifincant) an order of magnitude above 35000 tonnes. It is also more than 100m longer than the LHD.

    What your are proposing is 4m longer than the Garden Island Captain Cook Dock ..... and 5 to 15m wider. It really is massive overkill and would be prohibitively expensive.

    Nonting the Navy does have the Captain Cook dock for maintenance you do not necessarily need a dock to build ships and a building way cheaper and more flexible. Tongue in cheek I would suggest you reopen Cockatoo Dock but you don’t have a hope in hell of that happening. I am not sure there is the space for a building way at Osborne.

    All our current infrastructure (baring CC Dock) relies on hard stand construction and this will continue for the Future Frigates and submarines. The synchro lift arrangement are generally topped out at 25000 tonnes but it is feasible from and engineering stand point to got to 60000 tonnes. Personally I would stay away from go above 25000 tonnes until some one else has given it a shot. However a 25000 tonne capacity would allow for a vessel of LHD size in ‘light load’ configuration (largely complete but fit out occurs alongside). It would need to be about 250m long.

    Floating docks can also be used for transfer to hard stand so could also be used for launch..... but that would mean moving large hull construction to Henderson (and making significant changes to the hard stand capacity).
     
  19. spoz

    spoz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    Osborne, SA
    Plus the LHDs are supposed to have a life until the 2050s, and two of the tankers are brand new so should last to the late 2050s or even the early 2060s. That leaves an LSD replacement, the third “ logistic ship” and the HADR vessel, if the last is not just political posturing, in the next 25 years at least; then you need four at about the same time. Not much of a continuous build program!
     
  20. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Mea culpa then. I was going off the top of my head at the time and trying to remember the longest ship length and allowing for future proofing because such a facility would have a long lifespan.
    Thanks.