Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[OldTex]

In this case this ship is parted out, and improves the rest of the entire Anzac fleet. Which is still the back bone of the navy with 7 ships. With the anzacs, there weren't really any batches, everything was spec and acquired at once, so it is basically set in time from ~1989. Think back to 1989 and how long ago it was, how many local companies that were around then are long gone now. Things like switches, electrical panels, plumbing bits, mechanical services etc, all from 1989, government contract 1989. While bits and pieces have been modernized, they probably make up less than 15% of the entire ships systems. Now there is a huge quantity of bits on that ship that can be raided for the other ships. They will be tearing things out of that ship ASAP.

Exactly what the RN is doing with the Type 23s. At least 1 and probably even 2 of the retired Duke class have been robbed for parts to keep the rest of the ships going until they can be replaced with the Type 26s and Type 31s. (Now where have I heard of that as a solution to fleet size and manpower problems?????)

 

[StevoJH]

What with this whole "Country A is retiring platform X", "We (Country B) need that, can we have it for free? We don't care that you might have a use for the parts or be able to create value from those parts."

Is this a result of all the old kit that has been handed over to Ukraine over the last few years, or has this always been a thing? Because recently it seems like people have been taking offense when told "no". Thinking specifically of the MRH-90 here, but the comment on the previous page by the poster from the Philippines appears to express a similar line of reasoning with regards to disposal of old equipment.

 

[John Fedup]

I guess gifting old kit provides some political capital with the receiver but is it worth, don’t know. The other option is to pretend old kit is actually useful until no country would want it free or not. I can think of a country that uses this option.

 

[koxinga]

What with this whole "Country A is retiring platform X", "We (Country B) need that, can we have it for free? We don't care that you might have a use for the parts or be able to create value from those parts."

Is this a result of all the old kit that has been handed over to Ukraine over the last few years, or has this always been a thing? Because recently it seems like people have been taking offense when told "no". Thinking specifically of the MRH-90 here, but the comment on the previous page by the poster from the Philippines appears to express a similar line of reasoning with regards to disposal of old equipment.

I'm not from the Philippines, but I am a keen watcher of ASEAN military trends. It's peculiar to the Philippines because their defense budget are low. Even in their funded procurement, their decisions has been shown to sway when "freebies" are offered. (E.g free ex ROKN patrol corvettes, other than low acquisition cost were the reasons why S.Korea made inroads with PN modernisation).

To your question, it is a largely ignorance but also desperation. They see Australia as a "rich" country for a start, and they have been very very behind on their modernisation.

 

[DDG38]

"USS Mobile, JS Akebono, HMAS Warramunga, BRP Antonio Luna and BRP Valentine Diaz sail in formation during a multilateral maritime cooperative activity between Australia, the United States, Japan and the Philippines off the coast within the Philippines Exclusive Economic Zone." Image Source : ADF Image Library

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Some interesting announcements about AUKUS today that might strengthen the prospects of future SSN construction.

First Japan is definitely interested in joining AUKUS, subject to Japan resolving information security issues to meet AUKUS standards.

Japan is set to join AUKUS – it won’t be the last country to do so

Japan is the world’s fourth-biggest economy, yet only the ninth-biggest defence spender. As China’s military build-up continues, that is beginning to change.

www.smh.com.au

Secondly Canada is now also considering it for the first time. SSNs would obviously be useful to Canada for operations under Arctic Ice. Canada has a huge area of northern waters to patrol.

Canada exploring possibility of joining AUKUS alliance, Trudeau says - National | Globalnews.ca

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says conversations are underway on possibly joining the second phase of AUKUS, a U.S.-led alliance with the United Kingdom and Australia.

globalnews.ca

From Australia's viewpoint I think this is good news. Japan has a large and high quality ship and sub building industry and an existing nuclear industry. Canada also has a domestic nuclear industry (limited shipbuilding). Sharing AUKUS design costs three ways might help relieve pressure on the RAN budget in future.

 

[StingrayOZ]

From Australia's viewpoint I think this is good news. Japan has a large and high quality ship and sub building industry and an existing nuclear industry. Canada also has a domestic nuclear industry (limited shipbuilding). Sharing AUKUS design costs three ways might help relieve pressure on the RAN budget in future.

I'm not sure Canada solves AUKUS's submarine problem. Japan has a very, very large industrial base. But Nuclear submarines is not what they are interested in. But Japan could totally make stuff. And some stuff could be common across Japanese subs and AUKUS subs particularly going forward. Weapons, sensors, combat systems are all getting much more expensive to develop independently. Japan already merged their ABM program with the US and with SM-3. I can see real sensible things about letting japan in at another level into the aukus technology group. Japan has standing forces arrangements with all three already. Arguably they are already pretty much there.

Historically, Canada starting a program to acquire something is an almost certain to blow out costs and timeframes. The Canada class submarines is a case in point.

Canada-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

IMO Canada has to do some soul searching to see how they actually see the world. I'm not sure they see it the same way as AUKUS. I think they see it more like NATO.

 

[John Fedup]

I'm not sure Canada solves AUKUS's submarine problem. Japan has a very, very large industrial base. But Nuclear submarines is not what they are interested in. But Japan could totally make stuff. And some stuff could be common across Japanese subs and AUKUS subs particularly going forward. Weapons, sensors, combat systems are all getting much more expensive to develop independently. Japan already merged their ABM program with the US and with SM-3. I can see real sensible things about letting japan in at another level into the aukus technology group. Japan has standing forces arrangements with all three already. Arguably they are already pretty much there.

Historically, Canada starting a program to acquire something is an almost certain to blow out costs and timeframes. The Canada class submarines is a case in point.

Canada-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

IMO Canada has to do some soul searching to see how they actually see the world. I'm not sure they see it the same way as AUKUS. I think they see it more like NATO.

The probability of SSNs for Canada is just about zero IMHO and SSKs in a meaningful number just about the same. As for the Canadian view of the world, geography will look after national defence just like the budget will look after itself. Welcome to junior's world.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The probability of SSNs for Canada is just about zero IMHO and SSKs in a meaningful just about the same. As for the Canadian view of the world, geography will look after national defence just like the budget will look after itself. Welcome to junior's world.

Part of the issue is why Canada wants SSNs. To assert its sovereignty over the artic region, which is in conflict with US policy about freedom of navigation.

Also Canada doesn't see itself in the Pacific the same way as Australia and the US.
Other nations don't see Canada like Australia. Japan didn't rush to have a standing forces agreement with Canada, like it did with Australia.

Australia is very much, make a decision and others will join us type nation. Canada is not out their deploying troops independent of any organisation, treaty, alliance, joint mission in an uninvited way. They just see the world different. They aren't alone. Its the way NATO nations generally see the world.

These subs aren't about Australia securing Bass Strait or its Antarctic waters. Australia's sovereignty isn't threatened, its about propping up US supremacy. And 3 or 6 or 8 or 12 subs isn't enough, but Australia independently committing is. Australia can make that if the US was deadlocked, or confused, or focused elsewhere. Then the decision for the US would be to leave its greatest and most loyal and oldest ally (and probably a few more newer ones) out to die as it faces impossible odds, to defend America's interests, or unify and go forward with them. America wouldn't be making those decisions unilaterally, and realistically either would Australia.

Senior US diplomat lets the AUKUS cat out of the bag

US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell has spelt out publicly the expectations Washington has of Australia to fight alongside it in the Taiwan straits.

www.afr.com

The Australian request is also causing huge issues for the Americans, as they already have a backlog of repair and build work for subs.

8 SSN isn't enough to make China baulk. That's only 2-3 deployed subs. But being able to galvanise US (and arguably all its allies) politically to a military commitment. That is. Totally. Everybody knows it. Including the US and China, and Japan and Korea.

So Canada in AUKUS, or Canada getting subs isn't the same thing. Its not NATO.

AUKUS only has the UK in it because Boris Johnson didn't want the UK completely left out of such an arrangement, and fair enough, because Australia has a similar relationship with the UK, and if Australia commits and leads, the UK would no doubt support and follow. UK also wants to be in the same pool as the US on subs and technology sharing.

Its not specifically just about nuclear Subs, and how they are used but they make a huge part of why it exists. IMO.

 

[hauritz]

Pretty obvious that Australia has militarily committed itself fighting along side the US in any regional war. Really it just comes down to the size of the commitment. Wouldn't surprise me if it was formalised in the near future.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

John Blaxland at ANU wrote an article on the potential advantages of AUkUS and need for it for Canada. Geographically they are in a similar situation to Australia. He then goes on to explain that joining AUKUS for a joint production partnership on SSNs might be mutually beneficial for both countries.
Adobe Acrobat

Interestingly Blaxland explains on page 9 why SSKs will become obsolete soon for those using them on long voyages. It was similar to my recent post hypothesising how satellites might do it, but not involving chemical detection. It seens modern satellites combined with AI processing of the images is now detailed enough to detect the wake from a submarine periscope on the ocean surface. An AIP submarine can avoid this by staying underwater for several weeks. But then it does not have the range to suit Indo-Pacific patrol distances.

 

[John Fedup]

John Blaxland at ANU wrote an article on the potential advantages of AUkUS and needsfo n iqfor CanadalGeographically they are in a similar situation to Australia. He then goes on to explain that joining AUKUS for a joint production partnership on SSNs might be mutually beneficial for both countries.
Adobe Acrobat

Interestingly Blaxland explains on page 9 why SSKs will become obsolete soon for those using them on long voyages. It was similar to my recent post hypothesising how sate might do it, but not involving chemical detection. It seens modern satellites combined with AI processing of the images is now detailed enough to detect the wake from a submarine periscope on the ocean surface. An AIP submarine can avoid this by staying underwater for several weeks. But then it does not have the range to suit Indo-Pacific patrol distances.

@Scott Elaurant An interesting read Scott. The case for SSNs for Canada is indeed reasonable. However, I see two obstacles. The main one is the industrial capacity, another 6-12 SSNs added to the existing requirements together with SSBN needs for the USN and RN means a long queue for the RCN. Although Australia and the UK might want Canada in AUKUS, the US may not. Some claim the US didn't want Canada in the SSN game in the 1980s which is why Mulroney gave up on Canada pursuing this option. Perhaps the current global situation has altered their view.

The article's other suggestions are quite worthwhile and should be acted on.

 

[H_K]

Blaxland explains on page 9 why SSKs will become obsolete soon for those using them on long voyages. It was similar to my recent post hypothesising how satellites might do it, but not involving chemical detection. It seens modern satellites combined with AI processing of the images is now detailed enough to detect the wake from a submarine periscope on the ocean surface. An AIP submarine can avoid this by staying underwater for several weeks. But then it does not have the range to suit Indo-Pacific patrol distances.

He doesn’t seem to have any particular technical expertise to be making those claims. I’m skeptical that satellite detection of periscope or snorkel wakes is practical in real life… like other « magic bullet » technologies there are too many imponderables… sea state, cloud cover, background noise (whales, small vessels etc), revisit rate etc.

So even if the satellite technology worked as advertised, on a clear day in calm waters, I wouldn’t be surprised if an SSK could cruise across the Pacific completely undetected, taking advantage of night time, clouds, intervals between satellite passes etc, retracting their snorkel only for a few minutes when needed (since satellite orbits are very predictable).

 

[SD67]

I see the quote from Trudeau relates to "second phase of AUKUS", which I guess means Pillar 2 in UK-speak. That's not actually subs but a bunch of follow on tech

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9842/

"Within pillar 2 are several workstreams covering areas such as artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles and quantum technologies. "

Shapps was asked this in Parliament last month, "is Canada joining Pillar 2", response was "nothing to announce yet but..."

 

[Stampede]

He doesn’t seem to have any particular technical expertise to be making those claims. I’m skeptical that satellite detection of periscope or snorkel wakes is practical in real life… like other « magic bullet » technologies there are too many imponderables… sea state, cloud cover, background noise (whales, small vessels etc), revisit rate etc.

So even if the satellite technology worked as advertised, on a clear day in calm waters, I wouldn’t be surprised if an SSK could cruise across the Pacific completely undetected, taking advantage of night time, clouds, intervals between satellite passes etc, retracting their snorkel only for a few minutes when needed (since satellite orbits are very predictable).

The thing about conventional submarines is that maritime nations keep building them: including three nations with SSNs in China, Russia and India.
While I get they have limitations compared to a vessel with nuclear propulsion, I'd suggest they also have attributes, hence their continued relevance going forward.

Cheers S

 

[John Fedup]

I see the quote from Trudeau relates to "second phase of AUKUS", which I guess means Pillar 2 in UK-speak. That's not actually subs but a bunch of follow on tech

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9842/

"Within pillar 2 are several workstreams covering areas such as artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles and quantum technologies. "

Shapps was asked this in Parliament last month, "is Canada joining Pillar 2", response was "nothing to announce yet but..."

Trudeau has made a number of off the cuff remarks about defence lately. One was that SSNs might need to considered or in pollie speak "explored". Links are in some recent posts in the RCN thread. Pillar 2 is likely being discussed behind closed doors.

 

[Armchair]

The thing about conventional submarines is that maritime nations keep building them: including three nations with SSNs in China, Russia and India.
While I get they have limitations compared to a vessel with nuclear propulsion, I'd suggest they also have attributes, hence their continued relevance going forward.

Cheers S

The strategic circumstances are that the RAN wishes to be able to operate submarines (far from port) in areas that the PLA seeks to be able to deny access to hostile surface vessels. A Conventional submarine is a cost effective way to help meet an anti-access requirement (and threaten other submarines) so you would expect the PLAN to keep acquiring them.

 

[Armchair]

He doesn’t seem to have any particular technical expertise to be making those claims. I’m skeptical that satellite detection of periscope or snorkel wakes is practical in real life… like other « magic bullet » technologies there are too many imponderables… sea state, cloud cover, background noise (whales, small vessels etc), revisit rate etc.

So even if the satellite technology worked as advertised, on a clear day in calm waters, I wouldn’t be surprised if an SSK could cruise across the Pacific completely undetected, taking advantage of night time, clouds, intervals between satellite passes etc, retracting their snorkel only for a few minutes when needed (since satellite orbits are very predictable).

On the satellite pass issue China has geostationary (i.e., and therefore persistent) optical sensing satellites including this one launched late last year.

No Place to Hide: A Look into China’s Geosynchronous Surveillance Capabilities

In December 2023, China launched a new optical surveillance satellite, called Yaogan-41, that may allow it to keep watch around the clock on the entire Indo-Pacific region from geostationary orbit.

www.csis.org

.
Sure it is still a technical challenge to detect snorkel wake but the SSK cruising across the Pacific has no way of knowing if the people with the satellites have solved it.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

The thing about conventional submarines is that maritime nations keep building them: including three nations with SSNs in China, Russia and India.
While I get they have limitations compared to a vessel with nuclear propulsion, I'd suggest they also have attributes, hence their continued relevance going forward.

I don't think anyone is arguing that SSKs still have their uses, on short range missions where they don't need to snort.
The debate is whether or not SSKs can still safely be used for long range missions, which is what Australia uses them for.

 

[76mmGuns]

The thing about conventional submarines is that maritime nations keep building them: including three nations with SSNs in China, Russia and India.
While I get they have limitations compared to a vessel with nuclear propulsion, I'd suggest they also have attributes, hence their continued relevance going forward.

Cheers S

They certainly do, and if we, Australia, weren't so big and so far away from regions, they'd be fine for us too. I mean, look at Indonesia- it's wider than Australia, but it's right next to many nations, and being a bunch of islands means many bases and shorter transits.