Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StevoJH]

I don't want to be accused of apostasy on this but should there be a significant delay between end of life of the conventional submarines prior to acquiring the submarines under AUKUS should we reconsider the B-1 bomber

They are 40 year old platforms, will they even have fatigue life left?

Better to focus on accelerating the procurement of SSN-AUKUS as much as possible, consider building the First of Class simultaneously with the first UK sub being built at Barrow.

 

[StevoJH]

On the SLOC issue, I don't agree with this because it ignores how difficult a full blockade would be to do to a country like Australia with its large number of ports and their geographical dispersal. Blockading vessels would need to operate continuously in many locations thousands of kms from home and it would be a very difficult and demanding exercise for any country including China. Yes they could disrupt, but complete blockade over a continuous period at all ports would be very difficult if not impossible. In any case protecting SLOC is not an argument for SSN's and is best undertaken by surface combatants. How does an SSN protect a convoy from air/missile attack?

How many Chinese ships visit those ports per week let alone per year?

Australia has two active Mine Hunters, and they have a maximum speed of 14 knots, how long is it going to take to clear each port let alone transit from there to the next one?

And that's assuming that the Mine Hunters don't get sunk or damaged by some sort of smart mine or XLUUV.

 

[Bob53]

Again, my impression, but it struck me that despite Australian desires for 'local content' and involvement, France/Naval Group was not all that interested in a collaboration, but rather wished to be a vendor building and selling a solution. Had it been for Australian versions of the Suffren-class SSN, I suspect that France/Naval Group would have required that these be built in France.

If one looks at the Brazilian Navy, they started a submarine upgrade and replacement programme at least as far back as early 2008 which was to see the then existing Brazilian Type 209 subs upgraded by LockMart, which would then be replaced by four Scorpene-class subs from France. The delivery of the lead sub was planned for 2017 but I believe it as not delivered until 2018. However, part of the whole programme was also for Brazil to develop a SSN with assistance from France. As of 2013, the expectation was that the lead Brazilian SSN would commission in 2023, but AFAIK that has not happened. If this happened with Brazil, then I tend to think Australia would have run into similar if not worse issues, especially if there were the added issues involving US defence tech and IP.

My understanding was 5 years in there was next to no movement on Australian manufacturers being contracted.

 

[Takao]

On the SLOC issue, I don't agree with this because it ignores how difficult a full blockade would be to do to a country like Australia with its large number of ports and their geographical dispersal. Blockading vessels would need to operate continuously in many locations thousands of kms from home and it would be a very difficult and demanding exercise for any country including China. Yes they could disrupt, but complete blockade over a continuous period at all ports would be very difficult if not impossible.

I would be careful making that assumption.

We have many ports, including some big ones like Port Headland that is one of the largest ports in the southern hemisphere.

When you look at what ports can take containerised cargo, which is how most imports come in, there's only really five that count. And Of those five, #1 (Melbourne) and #2 (Sydney) are each bigger than #3, #4 and #5 combined. Lose either one and a significant chunk of our import capacity is reduced for a while. Furthermore, piling into Adelaide or Fremantle (esp the latter) complicates the internal distribution when ashore.

A complete blockade is probably not possible; but a significant one? One that knocks out Sydney or Melbourne? That's feasible. Especially with modern undersea weapons.

 

[seaspear]

They are 40 year old platforms, will they even have fatigue life left?

Better to focus on accelerating the procurement of SSN-AUKUS as much as possible, consider building the First of Class simultaneously with the first UK sub being built at Barrow.

Present timelines for the first build AUKUS submarine in late 2030s, The b-21 bomber is priced at the cost of 3 f-35 aircraft and could fill the gap left by the ageing Collins class not take up further of the f-35s

https://www.asa.gov.au/aukus/australias-nuclear-powered-submarines

Present submarines have concerns so taking for granted how many of them will be effective in ten years might be speculative

The Australian Navy has been left with just one fully operational submarine

The Australian Navy has been left with just one fully operational submarine as the rest of its aging Collins-class fleet undergoes urgent repairs or await upgrades. Defence sources have confirmed to the ABC two of the Collins submarines are currently stationed in Adelaide, where there are delays...

www.abc.net.au

 

[Todjaeger]

Present timelines for the first build AUKUS submarine in late 2030s, The b-21 bomber is priced at the cost of 3 f-35 aircraft and could fill the gap left by the ageing Collins class not take up further of the f-35s

https://www.asa.gov.au/aukus/australias-nuclear-powered-submarines

Present submarines have concerns so taking for granted how many of them will be effective in ten years might be speculative

The Australian Navy has been left with just one fully operational submarine

The Australian Navy has been left with just one fully operational submarine as the rest of its aging Collins-class fleet undergoes urgent repairs or await upgrades. Defence sources have confirmed to the ABC two of the Collins submarines are currently stationed in Adelaide, where there are delays...

www.abc.net.au

One of the problems of course is that aircraft and submarines are very much dissimilar pieces of kit and therefore provide very different capability sets.
Ignoring any likely or even potential issues with Australia trying to purchase strategic bombers from the US, these aircraft cannot perform some (possibly even most) of the ISR functions that RAN subs do. Aircraft just do not have the ability quietly lurk in an area for days or possibly weeks at a time. Nor could the be used to land and/or retrieve people covertly. There are likely other capability differences that are just not coming to mind at present.

 

[swerve]

How many Chinese ships visit those ports per week let alone per year?

Australia has two active Mine Hunters, and they have a maximum speed of 14 knots, how long is it going to take to clear each port let alone transit from there to the next one?

And that's assuming that the Mine Hunters don't get sunk or damaged by some sort of smart mine or XLUUV.

Major ports could have local mine clearance, not needing ships. There are now unmanned mine hunting & clearance systems, controlled from shore (standard cargo container with all the bits in). I think that for critical infrastructure it'd be well worth investing in some.

 

[seaspear]

One of the problems of course is that aircraft and submarines are very much dissimilar pieces of kit and therefore provide very different capability sets.
Ignoring any likely or even potential issues with Australia trying to purchase strategic bombers from the US, these aircraft cannot perform some (possibly even most) of the ISR functions that RAN subs do. Aircraft just do not have the ability quietly lurk in an area for days or possibly weeks at a time. Nor could the be used to land and/or retrieve people covertly. There are likely other capability differences that are just not coming to mind at present.

I would agree their roles are quite different of course but submarines have a deterence ability for an opponent in not knowing where they are which is somewhat negated if believed they are mostly in for repairs ,a long range stealth bomber has its own deterrent ,perhaps not in mines but the ability to reciprocate quickly any attack

Northrop Says It’s ‘Premature’ For Australia to Buy the B-21—But Maybe Later

Australia has ruled out buying the B-21 for now, but Northrop CEO Kathy Warden said it could happen later, when the bomber is more mature.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[StingrayOZ]

Present timelines for the first build AUKUS submarine in late 2030s, The b-21 bomber is priced at the cost of 3 f-35 aircraft and could fill the gap left by the ageing Collins class not take up further of the f-35s
https://www.asa.gov.au/aukus/australias-nuclear-powered-submarines Present submarines have concerns so taking for granted how many of them will be effective in ten years might be speculative

I have some issues with the B-21 replacing submarines.

While the B21 is schedule to come into US service fairly quickly, I'm not aware of any plane program that has met overtly ambitious FOC timeframes. I think F-111, B1, F-35 etc...

• The USAF isn't the USN. AFAIK the USAF isn't particularly interested in using the B21 as an antishipping platform. While people may simply ignore that. I would point out the F-15 is 52 years old, still in production, still being purchased, and isn't integrated and cannot fire LRASM and was deemed to expensive and complicated to attempt it. Japan scraps plan to obtain U.S.-made anti-ship missiles for F-15
• The B21 isn't a sensor platform. It is designed around other platforms finding things. Its primary purpose is to take out stationary land targets. Do we have the entire kill chain to make that work?
• Do we also think we can push in front of the USAF for planes? The US wants to decommission B1 and B2s so very very badly. They need to. B-1, B-2 to Retire More than a Decade Sooner than Expected; Budget Saga Continues; A-10s to Get New Wings | Air & Space Forces Magazine
• Subs and planes are different platforms. Even with the B21, you would still need air superiority to allow it to function for its mission.
• Its range may not make it suitable for basing in Australia. It wasn't designed for that kind of mission.

Im not against looking at air strike capability and platforms, and that may include B21. But it's not a submarine. This is a RAN thread.. Probably we can afford to keep B1 and B2 and B21 talk to the RAAF thread. Because even if we got the B21, I can absolutely say, the RAN would not be operating them.

 

[downunderblue]

I would be careful making that assumption.

We have many ports, including some big ones like Port Headland that is one of the largest ports in the southern hemisphere.

When you look at what ports can take containerised cargo, which is how most imports come in, there's only really five that count. And Of those five, #1 (Melbourne) and #2 (Sydney) are each bigger than #3, #4 and #5 combined. Lose either one and a significant chunk of our import capacity is reduced for a while. Furthermore, piling into Adelaide or Fremantle (esp the latter) complicates the internal distribution when ashore.

A complete blockade is probably not possible; but a significant one? One that knocks out Sydney or Melbourne? That's feasible. Especially with modern undersea weapons.

Completely agree. We'd be struggling big time due to the expansive distance we have to cover. Too few surface combatants, but we know that.

We're just too small on a massive landmass. It all comes back to that age old question about our big brother and where we fit in with them/ how they see us in their NS policy. Curtin's disagreements with Churchill in 1942 are a reminder that they are not new concerns nor specific to some guy in the White House. Yes we need to do more for ourselves but it's taking too long to turn the ship around and their doesn't seem to be any great urgency politically.

Do you ever feel we are saying the same things over and over ... maybe using different words, but the themes are the same.

 

[downunderblue]

I have some issues with the B-21 replacing submarines.

While the B21 is schedule to come into US service fairly quickly, I'm not aware of any plane program that has met overtly ambitious FOC timeframes. I think F-111, B1, F-35 etc...

• The USAF isn't the USN. AFAIK the USAF isn't particularly interested in using the B21 as an antishipping platform. While people may simply ignore that. I would point out the F-15 is 52 years old, still in production, still being purchased, and isn't integrated and cannot fire LRASM and was deemed to expensive and complicated to attempt it. Japan scraps plan to obtain U.S.-made anti-ship missiles for F-15
• The B21 isn't a sensor platform. It is designed around other platforms finding things. Its primary purpose is to take out stationary land targets. Do we have the entire kill chain to make that work?
• Do we also think we can push in front of the USAF for planes? The US wants to decommission B1 and B2s so very very badly. They need to. B-1, B-2 to Retire More than a Decade Sooner than Expected; Budget Saga Continues; A-10s to Get New Wings | Air & Space Forces Magazine
• Subs and planes are different platforms. Even with the B21, you would still need air superiority to allow it to function for its mission.
• Its range may not make it suitable for basing in Australia. It wasn't designed for that kind of mission.

Im not against looking at air strike capability and platforms, and that may include B21. But it's not a submarine. This is a RAN thread.. Probably we can afford to keep B1 and B2 and B21 talk to the RAAF thread. Because even if we got the B21, I can absolutely say, the RAN would not be operating them.

Agree. For me the primary objective is to deter conflict, and that can be best effected by sea denial, not strike/ land attack.

Long range strike is a secondary mission for the SSN's and can be more sustainably affected by RAAF platform. Long term we should have a long range asset because we lost so much losing the F-111 and the tyranny of distance here is a problem best mitigated by long range air platforms.

The SSN's are relevant because they are an area where their is a technical advantage still which magnifies their deterant effect. In terms of sea denial they are the apex predators of the ocean and place doubt in an adversary. That's the main mission IMO here and why the SSN's are so important.

In my mind the perfect example here is HMS Conqueror. If she was know to be patrolling around the Falklands earlier I contest that the Argentine Fleet may have not sailed in the first place. Watching the Fleet disperse after the ARA General Belgrano sank was a message for me sent way too late, but a reiteration/ reminder to all war planners to fear the SSN. We need more fear to deter conflict happening in the first place.