RFA Statistics


RFA Statistics



On the first sheet of the RFA performance statistics for 1962/1963, issued within the Fuel Branch at the beginning of July, appears the following comment:-


‘The measure of success is not whether you have a

tough problem, but whether it is the same problem

as last year.’


We are not sure whether we have different problems or whether they are the old ones in new guise, but the following extracts from the statistics may be of general interest.



LEAF class vessels logged up a total of  641,424 miles – an average of 91,652 per ship. PLUMLEAF led the field with 108,814 miles. The average effective time per ship was again 320 days (and 39 minutes to be precise!). PLUMLEAF also achieved 340 effective days, whilst BRAMBLELEAF had 335 and BAYLEAF 334. CHERRYLEAF narrowly missed the target of 330 with 329 days 20 hours and 27 minutes

TIDES averaged 158 days at sea in support of H. M. Ships, and ONLA managed 168 days. Between them they carried out 865 RAS transactions, issuing on average some 65,000 tons of fuel and 1,000 tons of other stores per ship.

The WAVES knocked up a total mileage of 240,225 miles on Fleet support, and a further 77,385 miles on freighting duties. They carried out a total of 612 RAS transactions and issued over 100,000 tons of fuel to H.M. Ships.

The RANGERS averaged 147 days at sea per ship and carried out 399 RAS transactions. EDDYROCK also has an entry under the RAS columns. She carried out 9 transactions and issued 1,331 tons of fuel and 14 ‘other’ tons.

The dry-cargo RAS ships were involved in a total of 638 RAS transactions during the year, issuing a total of some 7,500 tons of Naval, Air, Victualling and Armament Stores. RELIANT headed the list in both mileage and quantity of stores issued.

RFA’s BACCHUS and HEBE, in the part of the year they were in service covered over 70,000 miles at an average speed of over 15 knots, while the ROBERTS managed a little over half this distance in the whole year.

The interpretation and comparison of statistics continues to help and exasperate management. Why, for example , should one ship run father, faster and longer on less bunkers but perform less work, whilst another runs less far, at a slower speed in less effective days, and yet increases her output?


Source: –  RFA Newsletter – September 1963