Quite alot of interest on this topic, hence new topic.


UNDERWAY REPLENISHMENT
Underway replenishment has always been recognized as
important, but took a back seat in development until it was
absolutely required. Research indicates that underway
replenishment dates back to the days of sail. Since then,
there have been four major periods in the development of
underway replenishment. The first was at the turn of the
century when coaling-at-sea was investigated. The second
was refueling-at-sea development. The third was underway
replenishment during World War II and the Korean War. The
final period was the late l95Os when the modern underway
replenishment concept was developed.
From the underway replenishment concept came the modern
underway replenishment ships and equipment. Underway
replenishment by these ships has evolved into a highly
efficient and reliable system that can replenish the naval
fleet day or night in all kinds of weather. This
replenishment is accomplished using single-product
replenishment ships (fleet oilers, combat stores ships, and
ammunition ships) and multi-product ships (fast combat
support ships and replenishment oilers). Each ship's
capabilities are taken into account when deciding what type
of ship is going to be used to handle fleet commitments.
There are not enough replenishment ships to handle all
the replenishment requirements that could occur during a
major crisis when much of the fleet would need support.
The Navy is looking at using various merchant tankers and
containerships to aid the Navy replenishment ships in fleet
support.
Underway replenishment has positive direction and
enjoys higher status than the past. New ships are being
built, new equipment is being developed, and new ship types
are being explored to carry underway replenishment into the
future.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...rt/1989/HDD.htm


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/s.../Ms3/sld008.htm

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articl...os_20048290.asp

http://navy.memorieshop.com/Replenishment/Types.html

http://www.summerwings.com/Unreps.htm


Comment:
RSN have no dedicated Replenishment fleet ? It was posted by some Mil. nuts members right??

Perhaps, it using commercial resources...? :blink:

Found a website on Submarine tenders (Replenishment vessels) manned by WW2 veteran.....he have nice stories on the Battle of Midway as well...need some navigation at his site.


http://www.tendertale.com/

My goodness, what primitive method they have UNREP for subs. (< 2000 ERA)

Say! why do we need Replenishment vessel? The immediate zone of our national interests are within reach and i m referring to ASEAN. if anything that will effects our national interest or security outside the ASEAN CIRCLE.GUess the issue will definitely lure american intervention. So just sit, wait N see.

Your statement is right in a way; if RSN's role and operating SCOPE is so limited and sedate!

I strongly disagree, UNREP-capabilities would allow fleets from the Republic Of Singapore Navy to operate on station in the desire "theater of operations" for an indefinite amount of time, without having to "RTB" for critical replenishments (Both Peace-Times And War-Times).

And also, i'm specifically referring to humanitarian-operations (During Crucial Times) in countries as "far-flung" out as Cambodia / Vietnam, Philippines and in East-Timor. Regions..., whose military-aid and supports (From Both RSAF & RSN) could just as well improve the diplomatic-relations bewteen the two nations, for the better (IMHO).


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


~~ Project-ION Phoenix ~~ ~~ Op. IceBerge ~~ ~~ Iowa_BB61 ~~ ~~ xxKuZNeTxx ~~


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

Just checking some links….found this article about RSN made by the Navy League of Australia.

“……….The RSN is the most capable navy in South East Asia. Its potent mix of missile corvettes and submarines, in concert with the surveillance and strike aircraft of the RSAF, can control the waters surrounding Singapore, and allow it to exert control over the length of the Singapore Strait, one of the world's most vital waterways, and further a field.
The addition of the six stealth frigates, and the anticipated replacements for the Challenger class submarines, will allow the RSN to dominate the waters of its direct interest, and to project that power into surrounding seas.
The Delta class frigates will also provide the RSN with the capability to deploy naval power further from home waters, allowing participation in United Nations sanctioned maritime operations such as the Multi-National Interception Force enforcing sanctions against Iraq.
One key weakness in the Singaporean naval order of battle is the lack of support ships. Replenishment vessels would allow the RSN to extend into the South China Sea and to the entrance of the Malacca strait. It is more than likely that a Singaporean acquisition of such replenishment ships would spark unrest in the navies of the region as this would be the key indicator of Singaporean expansion.
With tensions periodically rising and falling between the nations of the region, the powerful RSN will still provide the rulers of their tiny nation state with a versatile and potent arm in support of diplomacy…………….”

Pse click the link to read the complete article

http://navyleag.customer.netspace.net.au/fc_07ros.htm

For MNs who were with us during the recent outing at INDEX 2007deploying Frigates but with Replenish vessel...in fact you can even locate these deployed vessel on the interactive map of RNZN vessels worldwide.
http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/default.htm

http://www.navy.mil.nz/take-a-pic/ships/fr...a-endeavour.htm


You can also read about the RNZN Project Protector
http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/pro...tor/default.htm

We got a lotta civil resources ( NOL fleet etc ) that can be tasked as merchant navy AOEs, there's just the matter of keeping them safe enroute ....

So one of issues would be should logistics in wartime be handled by military vessels only?

Once the supplies get where they are needed, the ways of transferring and distributing is not an issue - fast crafts, LCUs , helos etc , instead of just traditional RAS.

But it would be good to have a dedicated Oiler though....

Yes, we have alot civil resources...but these fellas are good for unloading when receiving vessels is static/moored; even the most armed vessel preferred to be on the move throughtout these replenishment during armed conflict....hence goes what we have as underway replenishment.

However, good thing is that RSN have practised these underway replenishment ex. during the US Navy. (was on the us Navy site sometme back)


I do agree that buying one of these dedicated Replenishment Vessel is not on the top "wish" list....in the meantime they maybe using this vessel (links below) for the suggested purpose. Have have seeing it quite often B) B)

http://www.pbase.com/toonstar/image/23089578

http://www.pbase.com/toonstar/image/23089569

http://www.pbase.com/toonstar/image/23089566


p/s click here to checkout our men in East Timor during UN Peacekeeping mission
http://www.pbase.com/toonstar/root&page=all

My guess,

Its a "2 hop" process, if you're using civvie tankers
Civvie ships will carry supplies from port to a RV point behind the maritime "frontline" ( sorry dunno the correct naval term )

Meet up with LPDs for transfers via fast crafts, LCUs , helos etc , that is in secured waters, so they can be static

Civvie ships returns to port, LPDs sails to Ops area to serve as AOE, does UNREP with fleet

Anyway, if you wanna know more about that vessel Avatar, you can check with CJ - he wrote a book on Operation Flying Eagle :D
Looks like a dry cargo vessel to me

Alvartar is used to train NS men. Used for ferrying supplies for humanitian dispatch.

What we lack is a fast way of transferring fuel. Going alongside is the only way now.

Revisting this thread again.......

Wish we have this underway replenishment capability....

Even PLAN already acquired this capability...hence covering Blue Waters now.

View pixs on PLAN Underway Replenishment capability
http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/special-reports...t_4150202_2.htm

We're sharing with USN.

2009
http://www.clwp.navy.mil/CARAT2009/news/Si...e%20opening.htm

2008
ttp://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2008/February/singapore.htm

Australia also has dedicated fleet replenishment vessels.

I seriously can't make a business case for a dedicated vessel. Its not like RSN has permanent naval bases outside SG. For temporary deployments, it makes sense to leverage on "allied" capabilities. Plus formidable frigate range is sufficient to access most ports for refuel (reducing the need for unrep).

At least for China, it has bases in South China Sea that may require further and sustained deployments plus it has blue water interests. And China can't leverage on "allied" ports for refuel.

At ~350 tons of fuel per formidable frigate. It'd be a very small oiler needed.

I would think upgrading LPDs with limited buddy UNREP capability might be feasible though.

There's not much time....

2x Henry J Kaiser is in the James River Reserve Fleet (Suisun Bay). Properly modified and extended they can be operational asset within a year or max 2.

I wonder if in times of conflict if RSN ships/submarines can ever come back to port for replenishment....

If need to....surplus vessels (ex LST, commercial ships) can be modified for but these "top-ups are stationary" not underway replenishment....Another issue is manning and maintenance need resources...and sustaining it can be a strain.

What is required is a multirole vessels; something like the idea of multirole aircraft...combi air-tanker / troop plane whereas this for the sealift & oiler duties which may already have been realised by RSN??

Yes. Running cost increases with platforms. Not a major concern when survival is at stake? Along with issues pertaining to more long term planning.

Combi platforms nice in concept with their flexible multi-purpose architecture. But these platforms still needs a core function to begin with. I wonder if in conflict whether these multi-function will be realised.

Kaiser class can be much more than oilers. With their fuel capacity and space they can be an alternative to the underground ammunition depot (moveable and harder to detect) plus probably stay on station much longer.

Put on an aerostat...can be a valueable node in the networking scheme of things, during shortlived peacetime. But main function is still replenishment and supplies to expeditionary units during future wartime.

Forecastle is great ground plane for comms and ESM stuff ala Blue Ridge. Hanger can be added...(even some ro-ro lanes)

Needs some cut and paste though.

IMHO if we are in a hurry, then Kaiser is the way to go. 2 years and they can be fully operational.

Edit: In the same vein, our amphibious capacity can be quickly realised with Bay class and RFA Argus.

The first potential customer that came to mind was MY to replace the fire gutted wreck.

What's the biz case to validates having more amph capability beyond the 4 endurance LPDs?

What about Austal's 78m MRC as a potential replacement for the Victorys. They are capable of vertrep and transporting 100 troops at a go. 3000 to 6000nm range. Not bad.

If RSN wanted an unrep oiler, why not just purchase 2nd hand one from any of the commercial shipping company and convert. Probably cheaper and can tailor the size.

Alternative is to enter into tanker lease arrangement with SG commercial firm. They insert all the necessary equipment at RSN cost and then lease to RSN only when needed.

We do have 5 ex-USN County class & 1 Preservance class LSTs berthed at CNB in reserve. Perharps it will be more economical to use one of these since navy NSmen are already trained in these.

Seems Sir Lancelot (Perservance class LST) is no longer with us.

Sir Lancelot

Funny. Why are we not scrapping those ex-Country class LSTs instead?

Maybe for ferrying the Leopards.

I thought we are using them as floating shields for the CNB.

Bro, ....

Do you recall some threads back...a discussion on how to ferry assets to "operational areas"?

Someone pointed out, no way these heavies can be airlift due to the sheer weight, and only one or two can be via the Charles...so I guess these LST can be utilised to those locations (if the time come)...now they serve dual purpose as CNB protection barricade.

Looking at their condition, seems being maintained somewhat.

For Rapid deployment of Expeditionary task force (For Forward Defence) is something else.(maybe another discussion thread)

Video clip of Naval choppers doing underway replenishment shuttling (RAS)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovuk4bEiABY&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG5c-zGWLCo&feature=related

this came to mind...

HMS Campbeltown

Since Mar last year, I have been considering what would be the appropriate size of an replenishment oiler if RSN does choose to have one.

Assuming that
(i) Formidable requires 350 tons per 4000nm.
(ii) Vastgotland/Challenger submarines requires 120 tons (or less).
(iii) Victory class corvettes requires under 100 tons per 4000nm
(iv) Endurance class requires 700-900 tons per 5000nm.

(v) Max range required is until Hawaii (2 x Formidable/Victory range)

6x350 tons = 2100 tons
6x120 tons = 720 tons
6x100 tons = 600 tons
4x900 tons = 3600 tons
Total = 7020 tons (or 3420 tons excluding the endurances)

(vi) Helo ops require 2 tons per sortie @ 3 sorties a day (assuming 6 helo ops) = 36 tons a day (assuming 11 days) = 400 tons

Most of the replenishment oiler classes are far larger (including the medium sized protecteur). Interestingly, there is a class of replenishment vessels that could meet this requirement. That is the rover class replenishment vessel. At 40+ years old, 1 of the vessel was sold to the Indonesian navy in 1992 and 2 more still serve with the British RFA. The rover class is interesting in that it has a fleet speed of 19 knots which can keep up with cruising speeds of current Singapore naval vessels.

I'm not so sure there is a need for a replenishment vessel since several friendly ports fall within the 4000nm range to serve as refuelling stations including guam in the pacific as well as the Australian ports.

However, assuming that the endurances don't need replenishment (since they're not expecting to operate at sea), a smaller requirement is needed. This can be fulfilled by coastal tanker sized vessels. Past coastal sized tankers that have been operated by navies include the German Walchensee class tanker and the British Eddy class tankers. However, these coastal tankers are often slow 6-12 knotters esp at efficient speeds.

The benefit of procuring/converting coastal tankers is that they are fairly cheap (at under US$1m-4m) and there are many on sale at any time.

Example:
http://www.worldoils.com/marketplace/equip...-%206500T%20dwt

http://www.globalchimaks.com/files/TANKERS...WT_FOR_SALE.pdf

Hyundai also currently offers small unrep vessels such as the HDA-3000
http://www.hyundaicorp.com/eng/business/pr...Prod_code=33359

Alternatively, there are a number of Singapore yards capable of constructing a new one esp at such small size.
http://www.presmarine.com/UploadedImg/02-c...t_4500-spec.gif

Considering size, complement, cost etc, I think a small purpose built oiler might not be that far fetched in the future.

Hey Weasel, Thks for the overview, was hoping this topic will arouse some interest.

The RSN found that only the ex-Country class LSTs can sent supplies nearest to beach which are littered with debris will in Aceh.

Its been more than a year since the news was published but just found out that the HMNZS endeavour is due for replacement in 2013 (25 year old)

http://www.navy.mil.nz/know-your-navy/offi...-conversion.htm

http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/endeavour/default.htm

Would be an interesting candidate for am RSN oiler. 50 crew required and already double hulled.

IMHO, if the intention is just to deploy a mobile fuel spigot then I would guess right sizing becomes dominant spec.

Building a hull is really relatively cheap....and if they go PPP with this asset then it should be more a mobile depot/terminal.

If upsize then why not leverage on the displacement and make it a warehouse cum fuel depot?

If it's tall with lots of ground plane ....then electronics can be parked on board (Eg EL/M 2080) and the cost go rocketing up with all the 'jointness' coming in.

I'm no expert but why not start with wet lease of RFA Fort George and then fine tune later local design.

ST has been building platform supply vessels for the oil & gas industry....

http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=119
http://www.stengg.com/upload/5714gM4DFDd9aF032Ig.pdf

Its about 7 times less capacity (2500 DWT). 24 crew & can carry dry cargo ie munitions, water and fuel with a special tank for aviation fuel. Maybe that can be requisitioned. Cost ~S$30+m each newbuild.

Fort George: 130 crew, 16,967 DWT.

http://irishseashipping.com/photofeatures/...eorge120311.htm

Interesting photos of RFA Fort George being stripped of her stores. Dated Mar 2011. Her fate will be known soon. Seems she was also up for bidding which closed last week.

http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_rele....aspx?paid=1678

Notice of Termination of Ropax Contract

Singapore, 19 March 2011 - ST Marine, the marine arm of ST Engineering, has received a notice of termination dated 17 March 2011 (Notice) from Louis Dreyfus Armateurs (LDA) in respect of the shipbuilding contract for the Roll-on/Roll-off Passenger ferry (Ropax) contracted in July 2007 for a contract price (inclusive of variable options) of approximately S$179m. In the Notice, LDA have alleged that there is a delay in the delivery of the Ropax vessel. They further allege that even if the vessel is tendered for delivery there will be deficiency in the deadweight capacity of the Ropax vessel.

The Notice further states that in the event LDA is not entitled to terminate the contract in accordance with the Notice, LDA is fully prepared to continue to fulfill its obligations under the contract but however that it will become entitled in due course to terminate the contract by reason of deficiency in the deadweight capacity.

ST Marine has referred the matter to its legal advisers.

In the event the Notice is valid, ST Marine is required to refund the milestone payments made to ST Marine amounting approximately to S$129m plus interest. LDA has also reserved its right to pursue claims in damages. If liable for damages, ST Marine's position is that under the terms of the contract its total liability for damages is capped at 10% of the contract price.

In the circumstances, the termination of the contract is not expected to have any material impact on the consolidated net tangible assets per share and earnings per share of ST Engineering for the current financial year.

So, we are talking about that ST Marine Ropax fleet support vessel at IMDEX 2009

http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2011/0...rine-ropax.html

its obvious the LDA by right or left is not gonna accept the ship, might as well make them pay for breach of contract and then give the ship to the navy.