Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Morgo

Well-Known Member
More than you might think. Also, it's not illegal to hold dual citizenship. And you can get high level security clearances while holding dual citizenship. Not really an issue.
That's very interesting. I assumed that the same standard that applies to sitting parliamentarians - that they only hold Australian citizenship - would apply to ADF members as well. From a practical point of view I suppose it's fine if the other citizenship is with a 5 eyes nation / NATO member / perhaps Japan.

I presume there are not too many dual Chinese Australian citizens currently serving...
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That's very interesting. I assumed that the same standard that applies to sitting parliamentarians - that they only hold Australian citizenship - would apply to ADF members as well. From a practical point of view I suppose it's fine if the other citizenship is with a 5 eyes nation / NATO member / perhaps Japan.

I presume there are not too many dual Chinese Australian citizens currently serving...
Politicians have to formally waive, not just existing dual nationality, but any right to claim it. Interestingly though, they don't seem to need security clearances, and there is definitely not the same consequences for leaking information that there is for the ADF, APS or industry.

One thing that citizenship does impact is export controls, ITAR etc.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Politicians have to formally waive, not just existing dual nationality, but any right to claim it. Interestingly though, they don't seem to need security clearances, and there is definitely not the same consequences for leaking information that there is for the ADF, APS or industry.

One thing that citizenship does impact is export controls, ITAR etc.
There bloody well should be the same consequences, or worse.

How it’s ok for MPs and Senators to be allowed to stand for office without thorough vetting is beyond me.

Sorry for taking us off topic.
 
Quite, to which I would add the speed (or lack thereof) of our decision making processes which (admittedly) may not always entirely be defence’s fault, although they certainly have capability investment priority committees which decide which capability proposals are put to Government and when…

Case in point being the issue we currently face with our air-launched strike (and to a degree maritime strike) capabilities.

Defence convinced Government to replace our long-ranged strike capability resident in the F-111 with a legacy Hornet / AGM-158A JASSM combo supported by air to air refuellers. Long way back of course and thoroughly discussed, but at least it WAS a plan…

This was then run through until December 2021, until the very last Legacy Hornet flew for the last time. But of course, despite knowing the looming end of this capability, it was only months beforehand that the approval to integrate JASSM and JASSM-ER onto the Super Hornet to replace the legacy Hornet / JASSM was given and it will be years before we see any capability result from that decision, let alone such capabilities on JSF…

Yet ADF and Govt were well and truly aware of the looming retirement of legacy Hornet and by extension JASSM. Why in this deteriorating strategic environment of ours, was such a truly strategic capability allow to atrophy into zero capability?

A distinct lack of urgency is the only real conclusion that I can make...

So it seems again with our naval forces…
would it be not the case that we are stuck with the USN and USAF timetables for weapon integration of US weapons on US platforms I doubt we have the inclination or the capability to do it ourselves.
 
Very quite on that front since DEFMIN Dutton said a couple of weeks ago that the announcement was only a couple of months away. So probably looking mid year, with a Fed Election between now and then a decision could be delayed with a change of Government. We still haven't chosen the Sub design yet, I would find it hard to believe they would put a PWR3 into a Virginia, seems to me it will either be an Astute with a PWR3 Reactor and the US AN/BYG-1 CMS or a minimum change Virginia Blk IV.
I dont think PWR3 will fit in Astute it is too wide. This is the real conundrum I think. We may be looking at an Astute with a US reactor or a Virginia.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
would it be not the case that we are stuck with the USN and USAF timetables for weapon integration of US weapons on US platforms I doubt we have the inclination or the capability to do it ourselves.
We are capable of integrating Missiles on Platforms ourselves, Harpoon and AGM-142 on F-111s, ASRAAM on Classic Hornets, Hellfire on the Tigers, were all done here in Australia.
 
We are capable of integrating Missiles on Platforms ourselves, Harpoon and AGM-142 on F-111s, ASRAAM on Classic Hornets, Hellfire on the Tigers, were all done here in Australia.
yes we had too for those because no one else was planning to but i doubt it is something we will do ahead of the USA if they plan to do it.
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That's very interesting. I assumed that the same standard that applies to sitting parliamentarians - that they only hold Australian citizenship - would apply to ADF members as well. From a practical point of view I suppose it's fine if the other citizenship is with a 5 eyes nation / NATO member / perhaps Japan.
I presume there are not too many dual Chinese Australian citizens currently serving...
The problem is, there is no test for loyalty. Think about it, how can you be 100% certain of a person's loyalty to a country ? You can't. All you can do is try and assess risk and apply accordingly. At least ADF members have to go through various testing regimes & assessments in their career (including getting and maintaining a security clearance). How surprised would you be to know that not one sitting MP holds any sort of government security clearance ? Don't get me started.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
The problem is, there is no test for loyalty. Think about it, how can you be 100% certain of a person's loyalty to a country ? You can't. All you can do is try and assess risk and apply accordingly. At least ADF members have to go through various testing regimes & assessments in their career (including getting and maintaining a security clearance). How surprised would you be to know that not one sitting MP holds any sort of government security clearance ? Don't get me started.
I agree. But certainly holding dual citizenship is a pretty good indicator of some sort of divided loyalties.
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
The elephant is not only in the room, it has a name, AEGIS.

The lead times for the Hunters as well as for any restarted Hobart options is driven by the lead times for the critical systems that can't be replaced by anything else.

The lead times for the OPVs is much less as is the lead time for the ANZAC upgrades, this is because many (not all) systems can be sourced locally or commercially. SAAB do the combat system locally and are already supplying kit derived from existing in service systems for current projects, hence local production can be ramped up. ASC and CIVMEC are building the platforms and can lift the tempo, hire more apprentices etc. and further expand their work forces. BAE are doing the structural work for the ANZAC upgrades, the masts etc. CAE are doing the radars for not only the ANZAC upgrades but the Army's new air defence systems and can ramp up production.

The thing is the OPV is a patrol vessel (its even in its name) not a warship per say, while hull numbers of the ANZACs are fixed at eight and Hobarts at three. We could build more Arafuras more quickly, but they are not warships, we could order more Hunters but theory of constraints the combat systems is the constraint, the platform issues are related to redesign to fit the evolving combat system, realistically there is no way to speed it up.

Assuming the constrain is how many and how soon for AEGIS, plus how many existing hulls do we have, what aren't we constrained on? For one we could probably say upgraded ANZAC combat systems, two, the ability to fabricate hulls, the ability to acquire common ship systems used in ANZAC upgrade and Arafura build, and Hobart upgrade, related systems from the same supplier, systems we could order locally from suppliers who were gearing up to support SEA 1000 and SEA 5000.

Basically we have all we need to build a decent patrol frigate or even a high end GP frigate. To be worth doing it would need to be available before the Hunters, not result in a delay in the Hunters, and it would need to be complementary to The ANZACs and Hobarts, not an alternative to them. So it would need to use the infra structure currently used for other things, i.e. the Arafuras, or not yet used for the Hunters.

Where does the money and where do the crews come from? Well the government has just announced a massive increase in defence spending and defence personnel going forward.
Volodav, if it is given that the majority of systems can be sourced in Australia, which hull would you build for a basic G P Frigate?
I would assume a design already being marketed to reduce delays in construction.
Some with versatility already designed in like Damens Sigma or Crossover perhaps.
 
Last edited:

ddxx

Well-Known Member
I dont think PWR3 will fit in Astute it is too wide. This is the real conundrum I think. We may be looking at an Astute with a US reactor or a Virginia.
From my understanding, even if technically possible attempting to fit a non-native reactor into another submarine hull would be incredibly complex and high risk.

There's simply no logic in Australia trying to go down the path of creating a zombie SSN - the schedule risks and substantially increased complexity make it a non-starter. And that's essentially what would be required if going down the Astute derived pathway.

They're both very capable boats, but I'd be happy to bet it'll be a Virginia as it's the most 'straight forward' of the two options.
 
Do you have a Link to the size difference between a PWR2 and PWR3 Reactors, I can't find anything.

As I understand it PWR3 has been designed for Dreadnought which is much larger than Astute (obviously) and that SSN(R) will be the same beam as Dreadnought to accommodate PWR3. Data is hard to find so I wouldn't put even one pay packet on it but nearly all UK commentary says PWR3 is too big for Astute and no one is commenting the opposite. I hope I am wrong to be honest as I would prefer Astute due too smaller crew lower cost and existing industrial connections with BAe. A Virginia IV would be nice too of course.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Actually its a huge issue for US sourced equipment where ITARs applies
Uhhmm are you sure? ITARS covers the export of US arms and weapons, not the security surrounding them. If that was the case it would have created problems with dual nationals on P-3s, P-8s, E-7As, F-111s etc.

As I understand it PWR3 has been designed for Dreadnought which is much larger than Astute (obviously) and that SSN(R) will be the same beam as Dreadnought to accommodate PWR3. Data is hard to find so I wouldn't put even one pay packet on it but nearly all UK commentary says PWR3 is too big for Astute and no one is commenting the opposite. I hope I am wrong to be honest as I would prefer Astute due too smaller crew lower cost and existing industrial connections with BAe. A Virginia IV would be nice too of course.
The PWR3 is the only powerplant being built for US and RN subs, because PWR2 ceased production ages ago. If you read back through the thread you will see this. And how do you know the physical dimensions of the PWR3 vs the PWR2 because just about everything about those are classified so high that even God doesn't have the appropriate security clearance. So without hard data you are like the rest of us - you know nothing.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Volodav, if it is given that the majority of systems can be sourced in Australia, which hull would you build for a basic G P Frigate?
I would assume a design already being marketed to reduce delays in construction.
Some with versatility already designed in like Damens Sigma or Crossover perhaps.
I'm not wedded to any particular platform, a platform is, after all, basically transportation and life support for the combat system. The RAN is progressively moving into the realms of systems thinking, systems of systems rather than platform centric.

It used to do my head in whenever we introduced new kit that had no commonality with anything else we used, on the basis it was "better value for money" to buy off the shelf than the "gold plate" and "Australianise". Then, with the notable exception of FMS, not long after the capability enters service we start hearing about availability issues, problems getting spares, problems training and retaining enough people etc.

At the end of the day, while designing the Hunter is beyond us, designing a patrol frigate, even a GP frigate, let alone a corvette or OPV is well within the capability of Australian industry, the problem is the lack of political comprehension of the capability. There is not enough time to do this obviously, so something would have to be adapted, but with adequate planning it is achievable.

Does anyone recall the offer of a Legend Class Cutter for what became our OPV program? I can't recall if it was for the Labor program, or the later Coalition one but it was somewhere around the 2010 to 2015 space. The Arafuras, while a massive increase in capability over the previous PBs, are still not warships, or even high endurance patrol vessels. My feeling is there has been a long term need for a patrol frigate or Sloop in the RAN going back to lessons leant in WWII and reaffirmed during the Malayan Emergency, Indonesian Confrontation, Borneo, Vietnam, the Gulf and East Africa anti piracy patrols.

There were the war built River and Bay class frigates that superseded the Sloops and Bathurst class corvettes. The plans for locally designed corvettes that grew into light destroyers and finally into the DDL that was lager and more capable than the FFGs bought instead. The RAN seriously looked at and even provided funding towards the Type 21 Amazon frigate (the RAN version was to have had a strengthened hull and USN combat systems). In the end the only actual patrol frigates we ever acquired were the ANZACs, which before the last ship had even been laid down, the government was already trying to turn into a replacement destroyer.

I do like the Type 31 and the Iver Huitfeld it is based on, I think it could meet out need as a patrol frigate or even a GP frigate, allowing the Arafuras to cascade to other roles, i.e. MCM, hydrography, even as APDs for the light suicide marine force some seem so enamored with ( on a more serious note they would be useful for transporting specialist units for rapid response security and HADR). I am not wedded to a platform, rather to the concept of something militarily useful, that incorporates in service systems, but only if it is never ever used as a replacement for high end combatants.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
would it be not the case that we are stuck with the USN and USAF timetables for weapon integration of US weapons on US platforms I doubt we have the inclination or the capability to do it ourselves.
That is a possibility that occurred to me too.

Except we did it on F-111 with AGM-142 Popeye.

We did it on F/A-18A/B Hornets which have not had AGM-158A JASSM integrated on them in USN or USMC service.

We have done it on EA-18G Growler, integrating AIM-9X Block I, when that capability is not in-service with the USN EA-18G fleet. USN is now looking at following our lead on that capability enhancement as a matter of fact.

It seems from the above, that if it’s important enough, we are prepared to… I would have thought our only air-launched strategic strike capability would have been important to maintain, but seemingly not. Until of course it was and such has now been approved (and then some…)

Other than glacial decision making processes, I can’t say I can see any other reason for the above…
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
That is a possibility that occurred to me too.

Except we did it on F-111 with AGM-142 Popeye.

We did it on F/A-18A/B Hornets which have not had AGM-158A JASSM integrated on them in USN or USMC service.

We have done it on EA-18G Growler, integrating AIM-9X Block I, when that capability is not in-service with the USN EA-18G fleet. USN is now looking at following our lead on that capability enhancement as a matter of fact.

It seems from the above, that if it’s important enough, we are prepared to… I would have thought our only air-launched strategic strike capability would have been important to maintain, but seemingly not. Until of course it was and such has now been approved (and then some…)

Other than glacial decision making processes, I can’t say I can see any other reason for the above…
Playing devil's advocate here, but I suspect F35 with SDB can probably reach to an equal if not better strike radius than Classic Hornet ever could with JASSM. Wouldn't surprise me to find it can do so even more survivably, and service several times the number of aimpoints in the process.

Granted, no substitute for an AGM158 derivative carried by the F35 itself, but food for thought regardless. It would be interesting to know what stands between the F35 and this capability (UAI?), and if we could have overcome it ourselves earlier.
 
Top