Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Um, what is south is all the exercise areas in which the Navy does its thing. While that is certainly not an impossibility it would add a number of hours between the home port and the place you want to be when you are at sea in normal situations in peacetime. It also means probably a passage either on the surface or snorting so as to be able to do it in a reasonable time. That has the potential to be both uncomfortable for the troops and exposes the boat to a risk that is potentially avoidable, as it would have to cross the traffic coming out of Port Jackson, Botany Bay and Port Kembla - and one of the major causes of peacetime submarine loss is collision. Not a biggy, but a thought.

As you have noted, the Gong is now almost part of Sydney but what that particularly means is that it is possible to live in the Illawarra and work in Sydney, something which is not really possible from Newcastle. That would be good from the point of view of spouse employment, and also for those people who flop back and forth between submarines and general service.

However, either solution could certainly be made to work if the will is there to do so.

Employment prospects aren't impossible in Newcastle. Its still a city of ~350,000, its almost as big as canberra, just a bit limited if your partner is a coal miner as that is a shrinking industry.
If you locate yourself in the north most part of Sydney, hornsby, berowra, Brooklyn, you do do a dual commute, one partner heading north, one heading south. The M1 has also been upgraded and the new north connex tunnel will make transportation much better. Even from FBE its only a 2 hr drive to Newcastle, its not impossible territory. RAN recruitment will easily be able to attract those in the greater Sydney region. Those with family in the region would still be able to have easy and frequent contact.

IMO it makes a bit more strategic sense to have the base above the major city you are trying to protect. While there is more traffic up north, its hardly packed, its not the straits of Malacca. Or even Sydney harbor.

Transit time, particularly with the attacks is unlikely to be huge 10-20 hrs from Newcastle to Gong with the new Attacks. War time, might be more important. Maybe more important with allied subs. We could host Japanese subs for example, perhaps US/French/UK SSN. Newcastle has also been angling for some nuclear power, so I don't imagine theres any barrier there to hosting nuclear subs. Bombshell call as Nationals back Hunter nuclear reactor

The airport IMO is pretty key. building up a two ocean capability will be tricky to start with. Having a large airport with a tower and RAAF base would mean things like submarine rescue equipment, flying crews, if needed etc would just be easier. Shell-harbor has an airport, but not as big or as good, no tower etc. I also think the CIVMEC connection would also be and easy fit.

But really both Woolongong and Newcastle are ideal sub sites. The subs don't have to be based in Sydney harbor (although they can easily come in and it will be great to see them as a regular feature again).

Antarctica is going to be more of a RAAF thing. I look forward to the RAAF basing a fighter squadron on the continent, as well a A330 and C17 around the new fully paved runway.

 

[Stampede]

Interesting concept .... but Station Pier is spoken for as a working berth .... as a most remaining berths in cities due to the mad desire to build marina’s and flats on any waterfront space that comes available.

Victorian Ports Corporation - Melbourne

VPCM is a Victorian government statutory authority, responsible for the state-retained business and activities resulting from the lease of the Port of Melbourne.

www.vicports.vic.gov.au

There are proposals that may seen an expansion of facilities at Westernport near Crib Point (HMAS Cerberus) but this would only provide a visit capacity for large ships at best as there are no maintenance facilities. Williamstown have facilities (or had) but the future of the Williamstown is still not confirmed by current state planning document ....

https://www.portofmelbourne.com/wp-content/uploads/PoM-2050-PDS-Draft-for-Consultation.pdf

Yep water front space is very desirable.
Williamstown is very expensive and suggest her days of building things painted grey are over.

Regardless of permanent basing, I am curious about HMAS Ceberus. I'm familiar with the peninsular but have not being to the base.
I'd suggest the water is very shallow and suggest some dredging would be required.

What is the largest vessel one can dock at the base. I think the odd patrol boat has called in, but could envisage it as a useful locality to put up a visiting destroyer sized vessel as a stop over.
Certainly close to Flinders gunnery range.

Thoughts

Regards S

 

[DDG38]

Regardless of permanent basing, I am curious about HMAS Ceberus. I'm familiar with the peninsular but have not being to the base.
I'd suggest the water is very shallow and suggest some dredging would be required.
What is the largest vessel one can dock at the base. I think the odd patrol boat has called in, but could envisage it as a useful locality to put up a visiting destroyer sized vessel as a stop over.
Certainly close to Flinders gunnery range.

Way too shallow, and what would HMAS Cerberus provide that the port of Melbourne can't ? Literally just around the corner. Anyway Cerberus has it's hands full being the main training base for the RAN and the current berthing facilities for work boats, yachts etc is in use for the seamanship trades.

 

[Richo99]

Alternatively, with respect to the future Attacks, is it at all feasible to adapt Waterhen for sub operations, or is it too small/shallow/constrained ?

A quote from 2018 SMH; "The (2011) review by Commander D.L. Stevens, obtained under FOI by South Australian Senator Rex Patrick of the Centre Alliance party, lists as the three top options the present Fleet Base East at Garden Island, HMAS Waterhen at Balls Head Bay, and Cockatoo Island.

Fairfax Media understands Cockatoo Island however is not regarded as a likely prospect within the navy."

I have no knowledge of the admittedly quite dated report other than this reference, and presumably it was written with Collins in mind, but if Waterhen has considered one of the top 3 options back then, why not now? Any def pros shed any light?

Reason for edit: date correction

 

[DDG38]

A quote from 2020 SMH; "The (2011) review by Commander D.L. Stevens, obtained under FOI by South Australian Senator Rex Patrick of the Centre Alliance party, lists as the three top options the present Fleet Base East at Garden Island, HMAS Waterhen at Balls Head Bay, and Cockatoo Island.
Fairfax Media understands Cockatoo Island however is not regarded as a likely prospect within the navy."
I have no knowledge of the admittedly quite dated report other than this reference, and presumably it was written with Collins in mind, but if Waterhen has considered one of the top 3 options back then, why not now? Any def pros shed any light?

Very rough, off the top of my head guess, but there's only 2 wharves at Waterhen, and they would only be about 150m or so long. 1 Attack class is almost 100m. So that's 4 boats max, barring MCMs/Sycamore/Young Endeavour using berthing space. Then there's the infrastructure required in an already crowded base which is essentially 3 big sheds. Anything is possible but I'm thinking it would require some serious investment to make it suitable for subops.

 

[vonnoobie]

To be fair any location will require serious investment to build up an East coast submarine capacity. Not exactly much in the way of suitable locations with spare capacity to use. That being said what size force would an East coast submarine fleet be? If we base it off the rule of 4 then it could be 4 boats or if based off rule of 3 could be 6 boats. Would we want our future submarine fleet once fully built up (upto 12 boats though a number would be in short to Long term maintenance) to be split 50/50 or would we want 2/1 split between Stirling and the east? Might not seem much but is actually a big increase statistically.

 

[Todjaeger]

To be fair any location will require serious investment to build up an East coast submarine capacity. Not exactly much in the way of suitable locations with spare capacity to use. That being said what size force would an East coast submarine fleet be? If we base it off the rule of 4 then it could be 4 boats or if based off rule of 3 could be 6 boats. Would we want our future submarine fleet once fully built up (upto 12 boats though a number would be in short to Long term maintenance) to be split 50/50 or would we want 2/1 split between Stirling and the east? Might not seem much but is actually a big increase statistically.

Unless the RAN's plans have changed, there are only ever going to be eight Attack-class subs in RAN service at a time. While 12 are to be built (in batches of four IIRC) as the final batch is being built, the first batch should be getting sequentially decommissioned. Of course the plans and security outlook can change, planning on wharf space for eight as opposed to a dozen subs can make a difference.

 

[vonnoobie]

Unless the RAN's plans have changed, there are only ever going to be eight Attack-class subs in RAN service at a time. While 12 are to be built (in batches of four IIRC) as the final batch is being built, the first batch should be getting sequentially decommissioned. Of course the plans and security outlook can change, planning on wharf space for eight as opposed to a dozen subs can make a difference.

I know a lot of people a lot smarter then I on here have said as such in regards to the number of boats but still can't quite wrap my head around it when first boat meant to be in the water around early 2030's and last around 2055 with a drumbeat of around every 2? Years. Unless we are greatly decreasing the service life of the boats numbers just don't add up. We end up with a service life per a boat of 14-15 years if all 12 are built through to 2055.

 

[Todjaeger]

I know a lot of people a lot smarter then I on here have said as such in regards to the number of boats but still can't quite wrap my head around it when first boat meant to be in the water around early 2030's and last around 2055 with a drumbeat of around every 2? Years. Unless we are greatly decreasing the service life of the boats numbers just don't add up. We end up with a service life per a boat of 14-15 years if all 12 are built through to 2055.

By those numbers, the first batch of Attack-class subs would be ~17 years old/in commission when their sequential replacement should be commissioned. I suspect (but do not know) that the RAN has been looking at Japan's sub building programmes , were Japan tends to keep a sub in service for ~18 years before replacement. IMO there is merit in following a similar sort of cycle, as earlier replacement (as opposed to waiting 25 - 35 year service life) can avoid the need for a MLU which in many cases is very time consuming, cost/resource intensive to the often to the point where an MLU can cost half the original cost of vessel. Given a choice between having an upgraded sub following an MLU, and having a new sub design incorporating improvements in design and systems, I would generally prefer a new sub design. Especially if the sub and warship construction drumbeat is such that the workforce is sustained and able to build ongoing batches of various classes. Over long periods of type such a construction scheme could end up costing less overall, while delivering better product than start/stop construction of vessels to last 30+ years in service.

 

[vonnoobie]

By those numbers, the first batch of Attack-class subs would be ~17 years old/in commission when their sequential replacement should be commissioned. I suspect (but do not know) that the RAN has been looking at Japan's sub building programmes , were Japan tends to keep a sub in service for ~18 years before replacement. IMO there is merit in following a similar sort of cycle, as earlier replacement (as opposed to waiting 25 - 35 year service life) can avoid the need for a MLU which in many cases is very time consuming, cost/resource intensive to the often to the point where an MLU can cost half the original cost of vessel. Given a choice between having an upgraded sub following an MLU, and having a new sub design incorporating improvements in design and systems, I would generally prefer a new sub design. Especially if the sub and warship construction drumbeat is such that the workforce is sustained and able to build ongoing batches of various classes. Over long periods of type such a construction scheme could end up costing less overall, while delivering better product than start/stop construction of vessels to last 30+ years in service.

Which fits in with what some of us where thinking years ago. Based on a past report that I have been trying to find but no luck yet (link was placed in here years back) about efficient life cycles with ships being around 21 years and submarines 16-18 years and skipping any MLU seems the RAN is heading that way. From my recollection of the reports findings it costs little to no more and is some times cheaper both in acquisitions and sustainment but will also improve lifetime fleet availability. Does get me wondering if we will go the Japanese way and eventually end up with a dedicated training submarine ie: using boat 1 once boat 9 commissioned mind you that option is at least 27 years away.

 

[alexsa]

Way too shallow, and what would HMAS Cerberus provide that the port of Melbourne can't ? Literally just around the corner. Anyway Cerberus has it's hands full being the main training base for the RAN and the current berthing facilities for work boats, yachts etc is in use for the seamanship trades.

Just to be clear folks ... I was talking about the port of Hastings facilities at Crib point (not Cerberus itself) and other locations ... these are deep water in some cases handling bulk liquids and steel product. They are still limited.

Facilities — Port Of Hastings

Facilities

www.portofhastings.com

There are moves to expand the facilities in Hastings with a hydrogen export project mooted.

However, as I said, if these are expanded then they would still be only good for visits.

 

[Depot Dog]

And your problem is? I believe that @Todjaeger actually makes very valid points. And @vonnoobie adds to them. No matter where the RAN vessels are based the PLAN can loft explosive bricks at them from at least 100 nm, so your argument is rather pointless in this day and age, unless you plan on basing the fleet alongside at Alice Springs.

Whilst I agree moving the base is expensive and building hardened shelters in my opinion is ridiculous. I travel to Sydney often. If I finish early I often go to a Woolloomooloo for a coffee and watch the naval activity. Given the cost and importance of those naval assets the flimsy fence protecting them needs improvement.
I don't know the fine detail of the base security plan and there maybe secret lasers popping out to destroy attackers. According to many news reports a couple of years ago, when a terrorist cell planned to attack army bases. Defense did upgrade base defenses. FBE to me as a observer still looks venerable. A bigger stronger fence would be nice. Jim's fencing could quote!!
Todjaeger response is valid. Yes I agree placing any naval base requires consideration of a number of factors. Many bases in Australia are close to major population centers but isolated too. Examples FBW is close to Mandurah, Williamstown is close to Newcastle, Victoria Barracks with a big wall is close to Melbourne. My point is I don't know the solution but I do think more thought should go into the protection of these ships when moored in FBE
Regards DD

 

[t68]

Whilst I agree moving the base is expensive and building hardened shelters in my opinion is ridiculous. I travel to Sydney often. If I finish early I often go to a Woolloomooloo for a coffee and watch the naval activity. Given the cost and importance of those naval assets the flimsy fence protecting them needs improvement.
I don't know the fine detail of the base security plan and there maybe secret lasers popping out to destroy attackers. According to many news reports a couple of years ago, when a terrorist cell planned to attack army bases. Defense did upgrade base defenses. FBE to me as a observer still looks venerable. A bigger stronger fence would be nice. Jim's fencing could quote!!
Todjaeger response is valid. Yes I agree placing any naval base requires consideration of a number of factors. Many bases in Australia are close to major population centers but isolated too. Examples FBW is close to Mandurah, Williamstown is close to Newcastle, Victoria Barracks with a big wall is close to Melbourne. My point is I don't know the solution but I do think more thought should go into the protection of these ships when moored in FBE
Regards DD

I think it depends on the intent of the attacker if they either want mass casualties or cripple the fleet. FBE is pretty exposed either way just look at the USS Cole incident

 

[alexsa]

I think it depends on the intent of the attacker if they either want mass casualties or cripple the fleet. FBE is pretty exposed either way just look at the USS Cole incident

I think we need to apply some common sense here as this is an unreasonable comparison noting where the Cole incident occurred. For a point of comparison, would you expect an incident like the USS Cole attack to occur in Pearl Harbour? Major fleet base and lots of tourist and private vessels ... pretty similar to every major port in Australia except those dedicated to bulk ore and bulk liquids in isolated locations.

If you don't think an attack on a ship is unlikely in Pearl Harbour then the same rules apply to Sydney.

The situation in Aden, Yemen (where there were active terrorist groups and the material to undertake such an attack) was significantly different to a vessel being berthed in home base covered by a capable intelligence service working on its own ground.

If you believe this is a risk it exists for Sydney then it would be Australia wide. As such naval vessels should not berth in any port in Australia unless the security of that port is under the control of defence or a government body. Fleet open days should be banned and the fleet should be on constant state of alert even in port.

Frankly if a terrorist organisation does exist in Australia that has this capability I would be more worried about shopping malls, political institutions and air ports because killing a lot of civilians will have a dramatic effect on public moral.

Bases such as FBE and FBW are set up to provide support to the fleet. This means maintenance and logistic support as well as facilities for crew. It also means access to crew training facilities such as the crew tactical trainers and the bridge simulators as this allows skills to be hone prior to going to sea.

This limits your options. I agree with some that Port Kembla and Newcastle may be attractive for the Submarines. Cockatoo Island would appear be a great option, 'if' it could be reactivated, to be collocate the Attack Class with its maintenance and support facilities and is 'away' from the public. However, I don't believe this has a snow balls hope in hell from a practical and political perspective.

 

[ngatimozart]

Whilst I agree moving the base is expensive and building hardened shelters in my opinion is ridiculous. I travel to Sydney often. If I finish early I often go to a Woolloomooloo for a coffee and watch the naval activity. Given the cost and importance of those naval assets the flimsy fence protecting them needs improvement.
I don't know the fine detail of the base security plan and there maybe secret lasers popping out to destroy attackers. According to many news reports a couple of years ago, when a terrorist cell planned to attack army bases. Defense did upgrade base defenses. FBE to me as a observer still looks venerable. A bigger stronger fence would be nice. Jim's fencing could quote!!
Todjaeger response is valid. Yes I agree placing any naval base requires consideration of a number of factors. Many bases in Australia are close to major population centers but isolated too. Examples FBW is close to Mandurah, Williamstown is close to Newcastle, Victoria Barracks with a big wall is close to Melbourne. My point is I don't know the solution but I do think more thought should go into the protection of these ships when moored in FBE
Regards DD

If the situation changed the base security would be upgraded to meet that situation. All ADF will have their security set for the current threat levels, what ever they are at the time. Not being a member, nor having ever been a member of the ADF, I can't speak to their policies. However having been a member of NZDF I can state that our base security policies were set by what ever the threat level was. The responses to the threat levels as always are OPSEC. Contrary to popular belief we haven't let loose the nymphomaniac carnivorous sheep yet.

 

[vonnoobie]

Point of consideration, if their was a terrorist network in Australia what are they more likely to strike at, FBE either land or water or against one of the cruise ships or even ferries? Historically they love the bigger casualties and will be far more casualties with a strike against any civilian target then FBE.

 

[DDG38]

alexsa has already covered my response, so the only thing I'll add is that the RAN has very robust, hard learned force protection responses drilled into every ship's company and routinely exercised. If you saw some of the "protective" measures used in foreign ports that I've seen you would think FBE is a fortress. Rest assured that people way above our pay grade and clearance level are constantly monitoring the threat level and have gamed many attack scenarios on ADF bases around Australia.
Oh yeah, and if you think the fence around FBE is flimsy, try driving your car into it and see who comes off worse.

 

[Depot Dog]

Thank you for your responses. I have no doubt that people are monitoring and preparing threat levels. However during my time in the RAAF it was more reactive not proactive. Budgetary restraint and common sense means you do what's appropriate in self defense. Remember 3 Nuff Nuts tried to attack Holsworthy army base in 2009. Trio sentenced to 18 years' jail over terror plot No offence but I wouldn't of thought that base as a terrorist target. This means it could happen but I think the odds of me winning the lotto are better.
My point is we cannot be complacent. But if the Navy guys tell me everything is okay I'll sleep sounder tonight

 

[DDG38]

My point is we cannot be complacent. But if the Navy guys tell me everything is okay I'll sleep sounder tonight

Good to know the junior service knows it's place.

 

[Morgo]

It may be beneficial to co-locate the submarine base and a new cruise ship facility together in the same port. Providing water traffic cover for submarines.

Melbourne unfortunately is not ideal for submarines, the ocean topography around Melbourne is much like the city, flat, and shallow (oh!). Tassy used to be physically connected and the waters are fairly shallow for hundreds of kms. Darwin has the same problem but worse, it would be impossible to base subs there either. Brisbane and up north queensland has the same problem. The barrier reef used to be the Australian coast line just ~10,000 years ago.

The rugged coast lines of Woolongong, Sydney and Newcastle mean hugely deep waters which are ideal for submarines to slip into. Even the edge of the shelf is 100-300ft deep. There is also a lot of interesting things happening with currents and thermoclines.
View attachment 47603

Newcastle would be my pick because:
Its a bit further out of Sydney, Woolongong is basically already consumed by Sydney.

• RAAF base Williamtown is located nearby
• CIVMEC already have the Foracs yard there (two actually one for civilian and the tomago yard), where we built Sydney ferries, Tobrok etc. Although a land swap etc might be more appropriate if a large base was to be assembled there are options. CIVMEC can then run the lower level sub maintenance stuff on both coasts.
• Newcastle is probably better setup for cruise ship transition, and city expansion, they have that wacky battery powered tram/train thing in the city now.
• Newcastle has an airport and good rail links. The airport could operate P8's for example for ASW training.
• Newcastle will be completely devastated by switching off the multiple coal power stations (earing and Vales point) and coal mines in the area. Job prospects are bleak while Woolongong people can probably commute to south Sydney, Newcastle that is a huge ask (although some do it).
• Newcastle has lots of affordable real estate, Woolongong is expensive now. Newcastle is a delightful place to live, with beaches and a younger demographic.
• Its still a few hours further north. This has multiple benefits:
  • It can also blend into marine traffic coming in and out of Sydney and ports further south. If you go south of Sydney, you loose traffic, particularly global traffic.
  • A few hours drive north doesn't sound like a lot, but travelling at ~5kts by submarine its a thing. Everything they need to do is in the north.
  • If your heading south, you are then just building something next to JB.
• Already bigger port

Newcastle just seems like an easy fit IMO.

Is a lack of deep water access likely to be a problem for submarines operating out of Lombrum when the new base is complete? The Bismarck Sea is relatively shallow isn't it? I had assumed that one of the major reasons for the upgrade was to reduce transit times to and from the SCS and the central pacific for the Attacks. Otherwise its a long cruise back to FBE and a consequent reduction in availability.

I've also assumed similar use for subs based at FBW for Christmas Is. or Cocos / Keeling. This is very convenient when we want to influence the traffic through the Sunda & Malacca straits, or to deter action against the north west shelf. No shortage of deep water in the Indian Ocean though.

Or do I have the wrong end of the stick?
@Morgo

Can I ask that you please at least do some cursory research before making suggestions .... I have made this point in the past noting this topic has been covered on this thread in the past.

Neither Christmas Island nor Cocos Keeling Islands have any real port facilities. This information can be ascertained by a simple search ...

Christmas Island Port Christmas Island | Sea Ports | SeaRates

Get information on Christmas Island Port, Christmas Island when you search online at SeaRates. Learn more about Christmas Island sea port coordinates, port sizes, port codes & more.

www.searates.com

Logistics Group - Cocos Islands Cooperative Society Ltd

Providers of Stevedoring, Marine Services, Airport Operations, and Freight Management services on the Cocos Keeling Islands.

www.cocoscoop.cc

Neither has a Wharf at such nor any maintenance and storing facilities that would suit the RAN. Cargo work at Christmas Island occurs under a gantry with the vessel secured to buoys. It is very exposed.

There are only anchorages at Cocos Keeling with cargo for the islands population moved ashore by barge.

Alexsa