As we are doing comms/combart installation in OZ, you'd assume that they will be loaded onto Blue Marlin and sent to Williamstown ? Are there any other options for fitout?
HMAS Supply & Stalwart ?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
HMAS Supply & Stalwart ?
Unfounded assumption, or do you have a quote somewhere?
Everything I have seen says that .....
"Supplied by" and "fitted by" are not necessarily the same thing
oldsig
Yeah more assumption (based on LHD experience). Though reading into whats been printed it does sound like its simply supplied.
Good news, I had been concerned, considering how much work our cousins across the Tasman did on the platform side of their ANZACs that we were repeating the old mistake of upgrading mission systems while running the ship into the ground.
The ANZACs are a good basic platform that is probably more than a little over loaded now so these upgrades should substantially improve performance, i.e. I assume the propulsion upgrade will be similar to NZs which should both increase cruising speed on diesels, while reducing fuel burn. They will undoubtedly be addressing obsolescence issues and hopefully can reduce top weight, permitting the removal of some ballast.
I look forward to hearing more on what they are doing in this process.
One final point, BAE is basically the old Tenix/Transfield, the prime and builder of the ANZAC class, look at what they have been able to do with them in terms of upgrades and modernisations compared to what happened with the FFGUP. A perfect example of the competitive advantage the builder has maintaining, sustaining and upgrading the ships they built. Sort of makes you wonder where the RAN would be today had Tenix been awarded FFGUP instead of ADI.
Muar River
Member
Well written. BAE, the RAN and the Government should be commended for the upgrade programme on the ANZACs. Interesting that Perth, the youngest of all the ANZACs, is again lead ship to be upgraded.
Muar River
Member
It's good news the delivery dates of both ships have been brought forward. The RAN appears to have developed a good working relationship with Navantia. It is a bonus the design has successfully served a number of navies and importantly, is a fast ship, being 3 to 4 knots faster than the Aegir.
t68
Well-Known Member
Good news on the oiler front, but was wondering is HMAS Surius that unsuited to the RAN come the mid 2020 she would only have been commissioned for 20 years, could she be used as a training ship and backup?
Surely after 20 she would be good enought for another 15/20 after all Success will be 40 or so years old when she is paid off, just a thought.
Surely after 20 she would be good enought for another 15/20 after all Success will be 40 or so years old when she is paid off, just a thought.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
HMAS Sirius was launched in 2004 as MV Delos and operated as a commercial tanker for ~18 months, prior to being modified and commissioned into the RAN as HMAS Sirius.
Key consideration here is that the vessel design and construction is that of a commercial tanker, not a naval vessel. Modifications were done to bring Sirius up to naval standards (for at least some things) but I suspect the damage control would not be to the same degree.
Perhaps Alexsa could comment on this, but AFAIK the marine diesel engine was designed to burn standard commercial/civilian diesel, which is not the same type as used by naval vessels. IIRC naval vessels use a higher quality of diesel, which means that the replenishment bunkerage Sirius carries is different from what she uses for propulsion.
Having a purpose built tanker would be much better IMO than keeping a commercial tanker turned fleet oiler in service. If there is any useful service life once a replacement is in service, decommission Sirius and sell or lease her back into commercial service.
Thanks for that Tod, I would just add that buying this ship in 2004 contributed to the shipbuilding black hole that has proven to be the root cause of the majority of problems encountered in AWD and LHD. There were requirements for new support ships but the government of the day, despite a booming economy and the ANZAC project winding down, decided to buy a completely unsuitable COTS tanker instead of a suitable fleet tanker that could easily have served thirty years.
Building a suitable naval design locally would ha preserved the very skills and experience found lacking on AWD and LHD. The required upgrade to infrastructure at Williamstown, or elsewhere, to permit consolidation and launch of such a large ship would have made full local construction of the LHDs possible. The block work involved could have kept other yards working and built them up ready to support AWD and LHD. Building a suitable new ship would have made building a second one, instead of double hulling Success a more sensible and affordable option.
And not to mention the two AOR's that have just been ordered from Navantia.
It certainly illustrates how short term cost savings can have huge flow affects.
Hopefully the government (of both persuasions) have learnt some thing and make appropriate investments in a timely manner so that the next two big hulled vessels (X2 Choules replacement or additional AOR) can be built domestically. If this is done when it comes around to replacing the LHD's most of the required infrastructure should already be in place.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I had been under the impression that part of the reason behind the COTS purchase of MV Delos in 2004 was the recognition in 2003 that HMAS Westralia was going to no longer be fit for service in the near future. This was due to MARPOL requirements, as well as Westralia being nearly 30 years old. The other part of it was that a proper fleet oiler was to be ordered in 2005 once it was determined what specs were required, and but that a dedicated AOR would not be able to be ordered and commissioned into service by 2005 when Westralia really needed to be decommissioned.
Sirius (I had thought) was to be a stop-gap solution, only to be in service for a few years while proper replenishment vessels were ordered and constructed. The reality of course has been quite different. With HMAS Success getting a somewhat less than successful double-hull to meet MARPOL requirements (IIRC no Australian yard wanted to be involved due to the likelihood of programme risk) and Sirius being kept in service, the order for proper replenishment vessels has been postponed a decade...
Flexson
Active Member
I was thinking Swordsman and Stalwart. S class destroyers along with Success Tasmania and Tattoo. Supply is such a wimpy name no one would want to be posted to that. Apologies if I offend any former Supply sailors
Carries on the name of the third HMS Supply. You should look up her significance to the founding of Australia. First ship to sail in to Port Jackson under Arthur Phillip, and later with HMS Sirius one of the only two ships available to the new colony. After Sirius was wrecked, the *only* shipI was thinking Swordsman and Stalwart. S class destroyers along with Success Tasmania and Tattoo. Supply is such a wimpy name no one would want to be posted to that. Apologies if I offend any former Supply sailors
(edit:correct typo)
Still later she was followed by the sixth HMS Supply as part of the colony's naval forces. It's a name absolutely entwined with the naval history of modern Australia
Of course, traditions like that don't mean a damn any more.
oldsig127
(On naming, the Singapore Navy has the best ones all tied up. Looks like an RN list from the heyday of the Empire)
You beat me to it, the Smallest ship in the First Fleet, when the colony was starving in early 1790, she went to Batavia to get food and returned.
It may seem odd today but this tiny ship of only 170 tons and 20 mtrs, sailed from Portsmouth to Syney, to Norfolk Island and back several times, to Batavia and back to Sydney and then returned to Portsmouth all in the space of 3 years.
Second, as a member of the RAN Fleet who regularly "used" the tanker HMAS Supply then yes, I am offended that a suggestion has been made that the name is "wimpy"
Flexson, know your history, you may not agree with the name but don't belittle it.
Flexson
Active Member
Apologies. Its just a conversation that came up in the seniors mess once about not having aggressive or 'cool' names anymore but other countries still do and a wish to bring back names like Vampire, Vendetta and Voyager.
I loved the old style RN names - but couldn't work out the odd ones like HMS Truculent (RIP to her crew), it just didn't have the same cachet as Invincible, or one of the greek gods.
I agree the entire Leander fleet both cruisers and frigates had names which were quite noble and befitting a ship of war. The RN had 400 year history of such names but are they suitable for a contemporary RAN?
Certainly the names which are steeped in our short history are and should be kept alive but there are also a stock of Australian names that have been used and are not current; the Rivers, Bays for example, those not being used in the MHCs, certainly enough to use for out OPVs Condamine, Murchison, Culgoa, Shoalhaven, Lachlan, Macquarie, Burdekin, Barwon and Barcoo, maybe Swan Derwent and Torrens which rounds out to the 12 we need,
This leaves the old RN names used in the RAN free to use on the frigate replacements, the Vs Qs and Ns for instance.
The only caveat I would place on names is let's not get the politicians involved so they can push their latest populist theme.
To me the OPVs are probably closest in concept to the Bathurst class corvettes so why not continued to use those names as we have for the last two classes of patrol boats. For the new frigates, if we really are going for a continuous build, then it would make sense to build them in batches of three to four before evolving and updating the design. Do this and there is ready justification to name each group separately, i.e. the first three could be the Vs, the next the Ns, followed by the Qs, then Ss. City names would be saved for the inevitably increasing numbers of large combat and multirole ships, LHDs but I also see additional helicopter carriers as a when not if and the eventual Choules replacements could easily be small LHDs, LHAs or enhanced LPDs (think a San Antonio with 9lv CEAFAR and a VLS with SM-6/ESSM.
I might have missed some recent new's or i'm miss interpreting what people are saying (or something in between) but there is starting to appear talk of 2 or more ship's replacing the Choules...
Has something changed or are we just being hopeful of something neither the RAN or Government (to my knowledge) has given any indication of?
Regards, vonnoobie
From my recollection the Choules is to be replaced in the late 2020's with an undefined ship but to date only a ship as in singular, not multiple.
Has something changed or are we just being hopeful of something neither the RAN or Government (to my knowledge) has given any indication of?
Regards, vonnoobie
- Status