Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

hauritz

Well-Known Member
As a side note I wonder whether the British should have kept building conventional submarines, even if these boats were just for foreign sales.The French still do this even though they also only operate SSNs in their own navy, and seem to be quite successful at it.

The Oberon was a very highly regarded submarine. I wouldn’t want to pass judgement on the Upholder class since most of the issues with that boat might have more to do with the poor state of preservation they were in after being withdrawn from service.

Doing this would have allowed the British to retain a bigger submarine manufacturing capability, and of course generate foreign sales. It could have also impacted on Australia’s own submarine project.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
As a side note I wonder whether the British should have kept building conventional submarines, even if these boats were just for foreign sales.The French still do this even though they also only operate SSNs in their own navy, and seem to be quite successful at it.

The Oberon was a very highly regarded submarine. I wouldn’t want to pass judgement on the Upholder class since most of the issues with that boat might have more to do with the poor state of preservation they were in after being withdrawn from service.

Doing this would have allowed the British to retain a bigger submarine manufacturing capability, and of course generate foreign sales. It could have also impacted on Australia’s own submarine project.
France got it so right with the Scorpene design, the right sized export SSK at the right moment, with the only real competitors being the Germans with the Type 212/214/218, throw in AIP systems maturing at the same time. The British had not sold a new sub design since the early 60s, the Upholder had failed to gain a single export order, may have been a different story if Australia had chosen the Upholder instead of the Kokkums 471.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Opinions vary and we will have to disagree on Virginias. I think they are a great SSN but the cost is too high. Hence I think this is a bad decision.

I don't agree with your comment on Barracuda (Attack Class) not starting. The last stage of the functional review had just been completed when the Attack project was cancelled in 2021. It was ready to proceed to the next stage, which would have been detailed design with construction starting 2022/23. There was criticism of slow progress on Attack. Naval Group in 2020 changed their local manager and was catching up to schedule. Lockheed Martin had made good progress on the US combat system design integration. Contrary to some reporting it was also not over budget. Adm Greg Sammut reported that recent progress had been good just before cancellation. In my view the timing of Attack cancellation was chosen because any later and it would have meant abandoning a started D&C contract.

If you check the last official update construction of the Attack Class was due to start 2022/23. Covid might have delayed that a few months but there is no suggestion construction would have started any later than 2023, with some non-official sources suggesting steel for the hull might be first cut in 2024. The Attack project was cancelled just as it was about to gear up and order pre-start components.

I admit to bias on this one because I live in Adelaide and have friends who lost their jobs when Attack was cancelled in 2021. I think that the manner and timing of the Attack Class cancellation was a loss for Adelaide shipbuilding and navy funding. Cancelling FSP (Attack) allowed the government to reduce budgeted funding for FSP construction of $2 billion per year from 2022 onwards. The subsequent May 2022 budget (the last Morrison budget) saw this money withdrawn, with no increase in other naval project funding. The army was given $4 billion in funding for new Abrams tanks. The Abrams project had not been identified as a funded project prior to 2021. So the cancelled sub funding became a financial windfall for an unscheduled army project.

The cost of AUKUS was at that time still unknown, and no funding was allocated except for the Task Force in Canberra. In my view the main winners from AUKUS were consultants in Canberra, not the navy or shipbuilding. The ASC shipyard upgrade in Adelaide was also cancelled with the AUKUS decision. That saw 700 jobs lost with Laing O'Rorke, in addition to the 400 jobs lost with Naval Group in Adelaide. A contract was recently signed to recommence the ASC shipyard upgrade construction. AUKUS effectively delayed that work 2 years.

Now AUKUS has been announced with a huge cost estimate ($260 - $368 billion). Australian sub construction has effectively been delayed ten years, with the start date announced as the "mid 2030s". Most people in Adelaide with any actual experience of sub construction from the Collins build will be retired by then. A new generation of builders will be trained, but the opportunity to transfer experience will have been lost.

I am not opposed to the decision to move to nuclear powered submarines (SSNs). Operationally it makes sense for the RAN given Australia's geography. It is a response to the naval arms race occuring in Asia. I also think that fears of nuclear safety by critics are overblown. Between the US, UK and French navies they have safely put to sea over 200 SSNs in the past 60 years, without a single external radiation leak. The safety record of western SSNs is far better than land based nuclear reactors.

From everything I have read the Virginia and SSN AUKUS will be excellent submarines. Yet I now question the choice. The cost and timing of construction is wrong for the RAN IMO. I think it was decided on political and not technical or security grounds. Shifting from the French Attack (Shortfin Barracuda SSK) to the French SSN (Barracuda) would have reduced delay on construction (detailed design already done), reduced crewing pressures and vastly reduced cost. I do not suggest that the Barracuda SSN is superior to the Virginia or SSN AUKUS. It is only 2/3 the size and half the firepower. Yet it is also half the cost, less risk and less delay. Barracuda SSNs would still be acoustically superior to Chinese and Russian SSNs.

There were some half truths told to justify cutting the French SSN out of the AUKUS choice. It is true that the French SSN needs to be refuelled every ten years. But that is a relatively automated process that can be done in weeks. The infrastructure for it could have been built at ASC for a fraction of the cost of AUKUS (perhaps $2-3 billion). Since the French SSNs run on Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) reactor cores could have been stored locally. The existing medical research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney runs on LEU, and is regularly refuelled here.

Whereas the "sealed unit" claims about the US and UK HEU reactors are false. They require very complex mainenance every ten years including replacement of critical safety and control components that degrade over time from being irradiated. The ten year maintenance cycles of US and UK SSNs take at least six months, sometimes years.

By comparison the latest French SSN has been designed to reduce maintenance. This is an issue that has been given insufficient attention IMO.

There have really been two shifts in AUKUS. First in 2021 we went from "regionally superior" SSK to SSN. Then in 2023 we went from "an SSN" to committing to the most expensive SSN choices possible. When AUKUS was first floated groups like ASPI suggested that going with the UK Astute class might double the whole of life costs of FSP from $90 billion to $130 to $170 billion. Now with a fleet of Virginias and SSN AUKUS (surely a maintenance nightmare to sustain both) the cost has doubled again to $260 to $368 billion. This will have major impacts on the ADF. If the Hunter Class budget is cut back, AUKUS will be why.

So I agree with the shift from SSK to SSN, but I think we have gone much to far in choosing a very challenging SSN to acquire and sustain.

Moderators if you are unhappy with this it can be stricken. I am not criticising people's efforts to deliver AUKUS. I am criticising the political decisions.
Scott, you are forgetting that with AUKUS, the US and UK will base and or rotate Nuke Subs in Australia, and train our personnel on board those subs.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Why would he? Has he mentioned that he will? It’s a great deal for the US, something that he always looks for. I doubt any future President would scuttle the deal unless some huge war was upon them and they needed or were losing subs.
He has a track record for such actions. He's even talked about removing US from NATO when he was POTUS.
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
You are considering the refueling aspect of SSN sustainment and ignoring the reactor maintenance. The latter is a larger job than the former. It is a huge job for HEU powered SSNs. I am concerned that those arguing in favour of Virginias and SSN AUKUS do not understand the extent of work and challenge in SSN reactor maintenance.
Yet the USN, RN and others choose to go down this path.
With all their years of operating Nuc subs in greater numbers than the French, don't you think they would have assessed the pros and cons of each style of reactor.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Yet the USN, RN and others choose to go down this path.
With all their years of operating Nuc subs in greater numbers than the French, don't you think they would have assessed the pros and cons of each style of reactor.
Reactor design certainly would have been considered but the combined industrial capacity of the US and UK wrt submarines was the crucial factor. Common language and the AUKUS agreement’s other benefits are icing on the cake.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Reactor design certainly would have been considered but the combined industrial capacity of the US and UK wrt submarines was the crucial factor. Common language and the AUKUS agreement’s other benefits are icing on the cake.
I could be mistaken, but I believe the comment about the type of reactors (HEU vs. LEU like the French use) used aboard USN and RN subs was reflecting upon the reality that there are ~76 HEU reactors in use by the USN and RN aboard subs, vs. 9 LEU reactors used in French subs.

If this is accurate, then I do agree that it does seem likely that the US and UK have found advantages to utilizing HEU reactors. Had LEU been more advantageous, then I would have expected the US and UK to have transitioned to their utilization.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I could be mistaken, but I believe the comment about the type of reactors (HEU vs. LEU like the French use) used aboard USN and RN subs was reflecting upon the reality that there are ~76 HEU reactors in use by the USN and RN aboard subs, vs. 9 LEU reactors used in French subs.

If this is accurate, then I do agree that it does seem likely that the US and UK have found advantages to utilizing HEU reactors. Had LEU been more advantageous, then I would have expected the US and UK to have transitioned to their utilization.
HEU seem to be preferred for military reactors. I assume Russia prefers them as well. Perhaps one reason the French went with LEU was to reduce the hassle of exporting their SSN technology.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
In regards to the fuel US and UK use HEU of 93.5%, India and Russia HEU above 20% while China and France use LEU below 20%.

As the US/UK want reactors for a the life of ship which requires HEU as LEU for a life of ship approach would become a lot bloody bigger while other nations are happy to do refueling operations.
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Having served and still having mates in uniform, a part of the retention struggle is much more complicated and amusing then you realise...no Deployments.

People join the Military over all ideology to do their job, not war game or politic for promotion...well...most do, i can think of 1 or 2 officers that are there for the previous mention.

Withdrawal from MEAO to "defend our backyard" might sound great to taxpayers and yes, reduce lives at risk...but thats kinda why people joined. If people want a 9-5 job where the greatest danger is spilling their coffee or transport delays, they dont join.

Its a weird and psychological interpretation of the issue for many and each person has different reasons for leaving, but knowing theres no "Dash for cash" or opportunity to utilise your training and skills to remain tied up in Sydney or Rockingham, doesn't motivate people.

Examples of this, the 1999, 2001 and 2003 years were massive booms for recruitment when looking through this cold and calculated. This continued up until 2020s when the MEAO wound down for RAN. 2010s Counter Piracy years were highly desired trips, i had to 'jump ship' and swap billets with a guy to get a trip in.

Right now the USN and RN are currently involved in a new type of warfare with drones and ICBM intercepts. I can tell you, Australian Weapons as well as Operations rooms sailors and officers are wanting in on the action. Yes theres a risk, but thats the job! PWOs want to cut their teeth and prove their ships have got what it takes, learn lessons and take pride in achieving the mission objectives.

If the current and future Governments continue to withdraw from deployments then we will continue to see difficulties in preparing for deployments by reduced retention. The stated claim to "focus on our region" means little to someone looking at their career opportunities. Add in ships available being reduced they kind of see the writing on the wall and reach out to new areas or Defence Industry where they are oddly enough, are short staffed and pay more for Defence experience, security cleared people without the need for Duty or pointless Jervis Bay trips.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Having served and still having mates in uniform, a part of the retention struggle is much more complicated and amusing then you realise...no Deployments.

People join the Military over all ideology to do their job, not war game or politic for promotion...well...most do, i can think of 1 or 2 officers that are there for the previous mention.

Withdrawal from MEAO to "defend our backyard" might sound great to taxpayers and yes, reduce lives at risk...but thats kinda why people joined. If people want a 9-5 job where the greatest danger is spilling their coffee or transport delays, they dont join.

Its a weird and psychological interpretation of the issue for many and each person has different reasons for leaving, but knowing theres no "Dash for cash" or opportunity to utilise your training and skills to remain tied up in Sydney or Rockingham, doesn't motivate people.

Examples of this, the 1999, 2001 and 2003 years were massive booms for recruitment when looking through this cold and calculated. This continued up until 2020s when the MEAO wound down for RAN. 2010s Counter Piracy years were highly desired trips, i had to 'jump ship' and swap billets with a guy to get a trip in.

Right now the USN and RN are currently involved in a new type of warfare with drones and ICBM intercepts. I can tell you, Australian Weapons as well as Operations rooms sailors and officers are wanting in on the action. Yes theres a risk, but thats the job! PWOs want to cut their teeth and prove their ships have got what it takes, learn lessons and take pride in achieving the mission objectives.

If the current and future Governments continue to withdraw from deployments then we will continue to see difficulties in preparing for deployments by reduced retention. The stated claim to "focus on our region" means little to someone looking at their career opportunities. Add in ships available being reduced they kind of see the writing on the wall and reach out to new areas or Defence Industry where they are oddly enough, are short staffed and pay more for Defence experience, security cleared people without the need for Duty or pointless Jervis Bay trips.
You’re totally correct.
Serving “Up Top” in the 60s-80s was a dream, great runs ashore, good Chinese laundry, duty free Noritake and low priced (in cents) 12”LPs from Taiwan. (I’m still using my Noritake China from 54 years ago)
The chance to work professionally with other FESR navies was rewarding and the experience gained immeasurable
Then there were the Vietnam DDG deployments that, while tough, were great professionally and although I thought nothing of it at the time nor for the next 40 years, it gave access to a DVA Gold Card which saves a veteran $thousands on heath services in their senior years,

These deployments were what us young fellas looked forward to, I can’t imagine the boredom of endless days in the East and West Exercise Areas.
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
I could be mistaken, but I believe the comment about the type of reactors (HEU vs. LEU like the French use) used aboard USN and RN subs was reflecting upon the reality that there are ~76 HEU reactors in use by the USN and RN aboard subs, vs. 9 LEU reactors used in French subs.

If this is accurate, then I do agree that it does seem likely that the US and UK have found advantages to utilizing HEU reactors. Had LEU been more advantageous, then I would have expected the US and UK to have transitioned to their utilization.
Spot on. I need to be a bit more clear in future.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
You’re totally correct.
Serving “Up Top” in the 60s-80s was a dream, great runs ashore, good Chinese laundry, duty free Noritake and low priced (in cents) 12”LPs from Taiwan. (I’m still using my Noritake China from 54 years ago)
The chance to work professionally with other FESR navies was rewarding and the experience gained immeasurable
Then there were the Vietnam DDG deployments that, while tough, were great professionally and although I thought nothing of it at the time nor for the next 40 years, it gave access to a DVA Gold Card which saves a veteran $thousands on heath services in their senior years,

These deployments were what us young fellas looked forward to, I can’t imagine the boredom of endless days in the East and West Exercise Areas.
Here, here. We used to dread “weekly running” as it was known - out on Monday morning, all week in the JB exercise area, and back on Friday. With the occasional weekend at anchor in JB before a minefield transit thrown in. We knew it was leading to a deployment up top, or to Pearl, or even around the SW Pacific, so while we hated it, we knew there was a worthwhile outcome at the end. But to do it endlessly, with nothing else on the horizon? What a horrible thought! And it would certainly have led to people pulling the pin.

Of course, the other thing is we didn’t steam around in Defence Watches all the time; on passage we were in cruising watches (stand fast submarines). We only went to Defence Watches when we had to; major exercises, workups, that sort of thing. Again, I would have hated to spend my life in two watches; people become tired, and not enough work gets done to maintain the ship, particularly in the ship husbandry sense, in what is, after all, peace (although we were in the midst of the a Cold War). And to say we were any less ready is nonsense - we got two fully worked up combat and NBC ready ships to the Gulf from a standing start in 1990 in three weeks, including passage time.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
There exists a difference between actions, actually withdrawing from NATO, and warnings to other member states to start fulfilling their obligations or they may withdraw.
That wasn't what Trump did. He mixed up contributions to NATO with national military spending, apparently not understanding that they're different things.
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Here, here. We used to dread “weekly running” as it was known - out on Monday morning, all week in the JB exercise area, and back on Friday. With the occasional weekend at anchor in JB before a minefield transit thrown in. We knew it was leading to a deployment up top, or to Pearl, or even around the SW Pacific, so while we hated it, we knew there was a worthwhile outcome at the end. But to do it endlessly, with nothing else on the horizon? What a horrible thought! And it would certainly have led to people pulling the pin.
I live down in Wollongong these days and commute to Sydney for work.
There are people on weekends who have a desire to spent time in Jervis Bay...like...on purpose?

Fleet Base East South as i call it (Jervis Bay) is still my idea of a boring nightmare. Weekday running to sail around training and DC. I've sailed from Sydney to Brisbane by sailing out of the heads and sailing south because they wanted 3 days training...seriously...I hate the place. You'd get home to Sydney and be duty on the weekend and thats a waste of a full week.
Like you said, it was all in preparation for something.

I regard my Patrol Boat time as the most meaningful of my service as it was Op Resolute into Op Soverign Borders. It was demanding and rewarding with Search and Rescue being a key role. Now without even that, the whole fleet is just...training...and they can't deploy to Sth East Asia to cover "our backyard"
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
That wasn't what Trump did. He mixed up contributions to NATO with national military spending, apparently not understanding that they're different things.
In his second term it will seem like he is using a blender to mix things up. Same applies to a second Biden term but in his case it won’t be intentional. (Maybe not for Trump either).
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Fingers crossed pivoting to our region actually means our ships will constantly be visiting our neighbours. Always a ship or two in and around the South Pacific and always in and around the archipeligoes to the north.

We want our neighbours not just see our navy, we want them to know them and look forward to their arrival.

If we sit back and leave presence and diplomacy to China, we have already lost.
 

StoresBasher

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Having served and still having mates in uniform, a part of the retention struggle is much more complicated and amusing then you realise...no Deployments.

People join the Military over all ideology to do their job, not war game or politic for promotion...well...most do, i can think of 1 or 2 officers that are there for the previous mention.

Withdrawal from MEAO to "defend our backyard" might sound great to taxpayers and yes, reduce lives at risk...but thats kinda why people joined. If people want a 9-5 job where the greatest danger is spilling their coffee or transport delays, they dont join.

Its a weird and psychological interpretation of the issue for many and each person has different reasons for leaving, but knowing theres no "Dash for cash" or opportunity to utilise your training and skills to remain tied up in Sydney or Rockingham, doesn't motivate people.

Examples of this, the 1999, 2001 and 2003 years were massive booms for recruitment when looking through this cold and calculated. This continued up until 2020s when the MEAO wound down for RAN. 2010s Counter Piracy years were highly desired trips, i had to 'jump ship' and swap billets with a guy to get a trip in.

Right now the USN and RN are currently involved in a new type of warfare with drones and ICBM intercepts. I can tell you, Australian Weapons as well as Operations rooms sailors and officers are wanting in on the action. Yes theres a risk, but thats the job! PWOs want to cut their teeth and prove their ships have got what it takes, learn lessons and take pride in achieving the mission objectives.

If the current and future Governments continue to withdraw from deployments then we will continue to see difficulties in preparing for deployments by reduced retention. The stated claim to "focus on our region" means little to someone looking at their career opportunities. Add in ships available being reduced they kind of see the writing on the wall and reach out to new areas or Defence Industry where they are oddly enough, are short staffed and pay more for Defence experience, security cleared people without the need for Duty or pointless Jervis Bay trips.
That is not entirely correct, there are still deployments, RPD for example that would normally entail at least three decent O/S port visits and then we have RIMPAC every two years. Not sure how many vessels we are sending this year, with the tight budget and BLD 195 likely to still be along-side.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The Indo -Pacific series of deployments look like a purposeful engagement with the region involving a significant number of assets.
As a training and political exercise, they would appear to be desirable thing for crew to be apart of and I'd guess the sort of thing people look for in a Navy career.

Cheers S
 
Top