Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

jeffb

Member
Surely there are better ways to address recruitment than compromising overall submarine operations in that way? Rotating crews half way through a deployment just sounds terrible.

There was alot of discussion around the middle of last year about recruitment. My memory is alittle hazy but most of it centred on wages & housing as well as some discussion around expanding overseas recruitment. All that money you would spend on rotating crews could just be spent on the sailors themselves.

Perhaps its also time to look at the overall structure of the ADF as its obvious that the Iraq war has done significant damage to the perception of it to the general public. What would be the consequences of re-branding the ADF as a self-defence force, focusing on our immediate region and traditional allies while guaranteeing to recruits they won't have to take part in a conflict like Iraq. Its an interesting idea with some flaws.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Perhaps its also time to look at the overall structure of the ADF as its obvious that the Iraq war has done significant damage to the perception of it to the general public. What would be the consequences of re-branding the ADF as a self-defence force, focusing on our immediate region and traditional allies while guaranteeing to recruits they won't have to take part in a conflict like Iraq. Its an interesting idea with some flaws.
I'd say there are some pretty large flaws. Contrary to popular belief, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a huge boon to recruitment. There are far, far more people trying to sign up to the combat arms to serve overseas than can be trained. The Army currently has ~1000 combat soldiers over entitlement on the books, waiting times for IET courses at Pucka and Singo average around 6 months, and good-quality recruits are being turned away in their droves.

It's got to the point that the Army no longer actively spends money to attract recruits to the combat arms anymore. Every ad you see on TV is trying to attract new Bottle Repair Engineers or other critical support trades.

Now, I don't know how any of that is going to help or hinder recruitment for the Navy, who after all doesn't have to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan anyway.
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The fact a helicopter has not been selected yet is an issue for the AWD project as neither design fits the baseline F-104 hanger. It is interesting also that the ANZACs use RAST and the AWDs will use ASSIST, I don't know but this may have roll on effects for the ocnfiguration of the helicopters, i.e. require a split fleet specifically configured for each of the systems.

I have heard that an MRH-90 has been landed on an ANZAC and rolled into the hanger in Sydney Harbour but haven't seen anything stating this.

Thanks for the info on the stretched ANZAC Abe, I didn't know much about it. Also on the OPC, I heard one of the issues was the RAN wasn't sure where they would get the extra PWO's they would need from but this may be a furphy.
Parramatta had it in the hanger at the end of last year...by all reports, Frigging tight squeeze...:rolleyes:

MRH-90 was taken on manoora to play off Tassie for few weeks in rough weather, i recall the crews eagerness to go "storm chasing" just to test the helo in Roughers...:laugh

Having seen a Fast rope while on rotation this year, i can say there was little time in planning for the op(less then 2 hours) and boat insertion was less favourable for the size of the vessel and the height of its waist. When picking up the boarding team there was issue with getting ladders to them to climb down, and getting in the vessel(which turned out to be a refugee boat) required large amount of FOD which is a major worry for any pilot.

Having spoken to our birdies, they list 2 hours as 'cocaine timing'...in other words, you need to be pinging to get it out that fast.
 

SASWanabe

Member
I'd say there are some pretty large flaws. Contrary to popular belief, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a huge boon to recruitment. There are far, far more people trying to sign up to the combat arms to serve overseas than can be trained. The Army currently has ~1000 combat soldiers over entitlement on the books, waiting times for IET courses at Pucka and Singo average around 6 months, and good-quality recruits are being turned away in their droves.

It's got to the point that the Army no longer actively spends money to attract recruits to the combat arms anymore. Every ad you see on TV is trying to attract new Bottle Repair Engineers or other critical support trades.

Now, I don't know how any of that is going to help or hinder recruitment for the Navy, who after all doesn't have to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan anyway.
tell me about it, i was told last week i have to wait 2 months before i can even do my medical/psyc assessment...
 

jeffb

Member
I'd say there are some pretty large flaws. Contrary to popular belief, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a huge boon to recruitment. There are far, far more people trying to sign up to the combat arms to serve overseas than can be trained. The Army currently has ~1000 combat soldiers over entitlement on the books, waiting times for IET courses at Pucka and Singo average around 6 months, and good-quality recruits are being turned away in their droves.

It's got to the point that the Army no longer actively spends money to attract recruits to the combat arms anymore. Every ad you see on TV is trying to attract new Bottle Repair Engineers or other critical support trades.

Now, I don't know how any of that is going to help or hinder recruitment for the Navy, who after all doesn't have to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan anyway.
I think you might be confusing some issues here, the ADF has always been a good way for unskilled people to gain skills and we're just coming out of the biggest global crisis in something like 70 years. It should be no surprise that at the moment the largely unskilled paces in the ADF are easily filled, this will probably never change under these circumstances. The problem lies with the technically positions, the positions that require skilled people or long term commitments, etc.

Will the ADF be able to keep up those recruitment figures as the GFC fully ends and we move into the next mining boom?

While Afghanistan might be a positive for the ADF, Iraq is not.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think you might be confusing some issues here, the ADF has always been a good way for unskilled people to gain skills and we're just coming out of the biggest global crisis in something like 70 years. It should be no surprise that at the moment the largely unskilled paces in the ADF are easily filled, this will probably never change under these circumstances. The problem lies with the technically positions, the positions that require skilled people or long term commitments, etc.

I'm not confusing any issue. You stated the war in Iraq was bad for recruitment. I said that on the contrary it was good for recruitment, as every 17 year old recruit wanted to join up and be the first on their block to shoot a smooftie.

Will the ADF be able to keep up those recruitment figures as the GFC fully ends and we move into the next mining boom?
Probably, at least in the Army. The Army was exceeding most recruitment targets before the GFC hit, and that was when the Army was growing by 4000 soldiers and had a very high separation rate. With the growth over and the separation rate stabilised, recruitment targets should continue to be met in the non-critical trades.

I don't pretend to know anything about Navy recruitment though (except that it might go up of they get rid of the white shorts, long socks and sodomy).

While Afghanistan might be a positive for the ADF, Iraq is not.
Why?
 

jeffb

Member
You really need me to explain the differences between Afghanistan and Iraq?

The fact is people signed up with good intentions to serve their country after 9/11, not to invade Iraq just because America didn't like them. Iraq was a huge betrayal of the Australian publics trust in our armed forces and the government of the day. The biggest factor right now is the economy. There's not much more to it than that other than what I've already posted.

(And curiously none of this would be any different under any different ADF structure, the flaws I was referring to were more with regards to how it would impact the way we currently support our allies, peace-keeping, etc.)
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
You really need me to explain the differences between Afghanistan and Iraq?

The fact is people signed up with good intentions to serve their country after 9/11, not to invade Iraq just because America didn't like them.
Have you ever even met a soldier? I've seen a squadron worth of soldiers cheer like the won the lotto when they found out they were deploying to Iraq. I've seen soldiers in tears and threatening self harm because they weren't going. Huge numbers of experienced corporals were discharging after the withdrawal from Iraq in 2008 because deployments were drying up and they didn't want to go back to a boring peacetime Army. Soldiers would support an invasion of the moon if it meant they got to deploy, do their job and get a few medals (and tens of thousands of dollars of tax free cash).

You've got a very skewed idea of the ADF if you think that the war in Iraq was anything but outrageously popular with the soldiers, sailors and airmen that make up the force.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
You've got a very skewed idea of the ADF if you think that the war in Iraq was anything but outrageously popular with the soldiers, sailors and airmen that make up the force.
Its all fun and games until the guy next to you gets shot/wounded right?

Seriously, when havent soldiers and young people been excited about a chance for conflict/excitment etc?

Did you go over at some point (to either or both?)
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
You really need me to explain the differences between Afghanistan and Iraq?

The fact is people signed up with good intentions to serve their country after 9/11, not to invade Iraq just because America didn't like them. Iraq was a huge betrayal of the Australian publics trust in our armed forces and the government of the day. The biggest factor right now is the economy. There's not much more to it than that other than what I've already posted.

(And curiously none of this would be any different under any different ADF structure, the flaws I was referring to were more with regards to how it would impact the way we currently support our allies, peace-keeping, etc.)

I think you've got a screwed up perception f the Australian public if you think that they don't support the Digs who did those missions or that the Australian public as a whole, as opposed to the bleeding hearts types who think there shouldn't be ANY war, think the world is a worse place now that Sadsam and his cronies are gone, AQI has been fought to extinction and Iraq is a significantly better off place than it was 3-4 years ago...

Anyway this is not the thread nor board for a political discussion on Iraq or anything else...
 

LancasterBomber

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Surely there are better ways to address recruitment than compromising overall submarine operations in that way? Rotating crews half way through a deployment just sounds terrible.

There was alot of discussion around the middle of last year about recruitment. My memory is alittle hazy but most of it centred on wages & housing as well as some discussion around expanding overseas recruitment. All that money you would spend on rotating crews could just be spent on the sailors themselves.

Perhaps its also time to look at the overall structure of the ADF as its obvious that the Iraq war has done significant damage to the perception of it to the general public. What would be the consequences of re-branding the ADF as a self-defence force, focusing on our immediate region and traditional allies while guaranteeing to recruits they won't have to take part in a conflict like Iraq. Its an interesting idea with some flaws.
The US Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs would not authorise Australia making broad sweeping changes to doctrine in such a manner. It could fundamentally shift the balance of power in the pacific. It is not a decision we can make. Our US Alliance supersedes our sovereignty in certain respects particularly when it comes to the blanket protective coverage the USN Pacific fleet affords us. The Australian public carries a sense of delusion at times with regard to our independence (or lack there of).

We are a valuable ally precisely because when it is our turn to eat shit we face up to the task. The minute we shape up to permanently deploy a passive 'coastal defence' doctrine is the second we will have the technological carpet pulled out from under us by the US.

The US is not a charity organisation. They arent about to give us all their gucci kit so we can prance around doing nothing much and ignoring the 'tough issues' in our region. They foster a deeper relationship with us precisely to allow them to leverage our assets within our region by leaning on our Government.

We all understand the score. It is what it is. And to be honest right now it has played into our hands beautifully. The anxiety within the USN Admiralty with regard to the 'tempo' in the pacific has clarified in their mind the usefulness of a greater 'diversity' in deployable strategic assets. Particularly assets with tactical uniqueness and local knowledge. We have never had better access and we will exploit this opportunity for Sea 1000 (towards a mutual gain no less).

As for sustainment we are building nicely. It is complex training elite submariners. A lot of guys try and fail. We dont train 'average' submariners. We aren't mentally 'flimsy' skimmers....It is what it is. We will get there. We are well aware of the level of business investment in the pipelines and the likely labour market pressures into 2011-12. We are better placed now to defend the gains we have made in personnel over the past few years. We are growing as a parent Navy. We still have a way to go ofcourse.

Look when we talk about 12 I think some people just dont get it at all. Mostly people outside the loop but even a few in the puss of the skimmer variety. When we talk of 12 it is a shift from being a Navy that merely operates a submarine fleet to a Navy that understands, lives and breathes our submarine force. It is a number that reflects much more than a new platform it is about a commitment to a capability indefinitely. It is about an industry. It is about sustainable networks. It is an industrial eco-system we choose to build, nurture and encourage to thrive in perpetuity. That is what 12 is. It is a statement of intent as much as it is the likely number of the fleet.

Understand we wont ever see 12 units until well into this century. And we wont ever actually see 12 in service at one time. We dont make long term decisions about the security of our sovereignty based on short term bottle necks in labour markets.

I could go on and on but thats probably enough gibber jabber from me for now at least!!! :)
 

rip

New Member
The US Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs would not authorise Australia making broad sweeping changes to doctrine in such a manner. It could fundamentally shift the balance of power in the pacific. It is not a decision we can make. Our US Alliance supersedes our sovereignty in certain respects particularly when it comes to the blanket protective coverage the USN Pacific fleet affords us. The Australian public carries a sense of delusion at times with regard to our independence (or lack there of).

We are a valuable ally precisely because when it is our turn to eat shit we face up to the task. The minute we shape up to permanently deploy a passive 'coastal defence' doctrine is the second we will have the technological carpet pulled out from under us by the US.

The US is not a charity organisation. They arent about to give us all their gucci kit so we can prance around doing nothing much and ignoring the 'tough issues' in our region. They foster a deeper relationship with us precisely to allow them to leverage our assets within our region by leaning on our Government.

We all understand the score. It is what it is. And to be honest right now it has played into our hands beautifully. The anxiety within the USN Admiralty with regard to the 'tempo' in the pacific has clarified in their mind the usefulness of a greater 'diversity' in deployable strategic assets. Particularly assets with tactical uniqueness and local knowledge. We have never had better access and we will exploit this opportunity for Sea 1000 (towards a mutual gain no less).

As for sustainment we are building nicely. It is complex training elite submariners. A lot of guys try and fail. We dont train 'average' submariners. We aren't mentally 'flimsy' skimmers....It is what it is. We will get there. We are well aware of the level of business investment in the pipelines and the likely labour market pressures into 2011-12. We are better placed now to defend the gains we have made in personnel over the past few years. We are growing as a parent Navy. We still have a way to go ofcourse.

Look when we talk about 12 I think some people just dont get it at all. Mostly people outside the loop but even a few in the puss of the skimmer variety. When we talk of 12 it is a shift from being a Navy that merely operates a submarine fleet to a Navy that understands, lives and breathes our submarine force. It is a number that reflects much more than a new platform it is about a commitment to a capability indefinitely. It is about an industry. It is about sustainable networks. It is an industrial eco-system we choose to build, nurture and encourage to thrive in perpetuity. That is what 12 is. It is a statement of intent as much as it is the likely number of the fleet.

Understand we wont ever see 12 units until well into this century. And we wont ever actually see 12 in service at one time. We dont make long term decisions about the security of our sovereignty based on short term bottle necks in labour markets.

I could go on and on but thats probably enough gibber jabber from me for now at least!!! :)
As an American and not an Australian I can say that Australia has been a very good ally to the US for a very long time and we trust you more than anyone else but I don’t think that you guys would eat shit from anybody. That doesn’t sound like any Australian I have ever met.

Here are the cold facts Australia lives in a crowded unstable quickly changing area of the world while it has a low population for its size and resources. That is not our fault. If you had a population of a hundred million or more you might still want the same close association you currently have with us, I would hope so, but wouldn’t necessarily have to have it to secure you future as you chose to pursue it.

As for maning your Subs, if you pay them enough money thay will come, they always do.
 

Jaimito

Banned Member
I put more serious effort on subs:
-Collins 20000 km range, 60 days.
-Scorpene 8500 nm range, 45-50 days.
-S80 similar diesel range to Scorpene plus Aip, 50-60 days.
Range in general, surface, snorkel, just to get an approx. idea.

If Ran wanted to have overglobe sub intelligence capacity it couldnt do it with size given to Collins anyway, because those 6000 or 7000 kms more kms of range, and those 10 or 15 more days it is not that much if you want to have an independent mission far away, how far, let´s say an interesting intelligence scenario, the north coast of Russia, imagine Ran agrees with Usa to cooperate knowing Russian fleet or sub activities and facilities in Russia´s north coast. Then we see in the map as 12000 kms of coast, divide in two sectors, which end in the coast of Norway, where we have an interesting refuelling zone of 2000 squared kms, and the other sector ends in Alaska where there is another 2000 squared kms zone to refuel, just below the Alaskan corner. If Ran deploys a sub to the 6000 kms Russian coast sector, that ends in Alaska, they can be kept permanently patrolling and listening in that sector provided they refuel and change crew easily discretly in those 2000 squared kms, the crew can be sent by airplane to Alaska where picked up by the refueller ship.

A good ship to refuel the subs would be in the 10000 t. size with:
-4000 t. of fuel for own use and autonomy and to refuel the subs.
-place for supplies.
-even for weapons or sonoboyes for the sub to deploy them round interesting facilites.
-giving an endurance of like 45000 kms and give the refuel to the sub.
-dress up of cargo ship, ie no showing the pipes for the refuel etc..
-with 4 hidden 20 mm basic optronic Ciws able to shot down missiles, modern Ciws tech.
-manned by 50 sailors (it´s a simple ship).
-these data are making the half of the newest Spanish fleet refueller ship.
This ship can reach in:
-2 weeks the refuelling zone for the Ran sub controlling the east 6000 kms russian coast sector.
-3-4 weeks the refuelling zone in front of Norwegian coast.

All is much simpler if the zones to gain intelligence are Chinese, Indian or East Pacific Russian coast, in these the 2000 kms refuelling zone is just like a week or 2 for the refuelling ship from Australia, and so the sub can continue quickly and shortly to the action zone with new crew, just like being away 2 or 3 days to refuel safely in the middle of nowhere.

So having this refuelling ships refief the Ran from looking at bigger and more expensive and more risky subs, with any sub the Ran will have they will be able to gain intelligence in any part of the world, in peace times, and also in wartimes because those 2000 squared kms touch waters that are either allied to Australia waters, or are in the middle of the ocean where hundreds of ships have routes, or are national of some country waters which are very difficult to control for any 3rd nation involved in any conflict. And take into account that the contact between the sub and the refueller ship is going to be just a few hours, to refuell, supplies, crew and etc. In a few hours both are gone.

Edit: and even houseport the refueller ship in any port in the world and send both crews (ship and new crew for sub) by airplane to take the ship and go to the contact point. In this case in Irish port for being refuelling each 30-45-60 days the sub in the 2000 squared kms zone in fron of Norway.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I . If Ran deploys a sub to the 6000 kms Russian coast sector, that ends in Alaska, they can be kept permanently patrolling and listening in that sector provided they refuel and change crew easily discretly in those 2000 squared kms, the crew can be sent by airplane to Alaska where picked up by the refueller ship......

....... And take into account that the contact between the sub and the refueller ship is going to be just a few hours, to refuell, supplies, crew and etc. In a few hours both are gone.

Edit: and even houseport the refueller ship in any port in the world and send both crews (ship and new crew for sub) by airplane to take the ship and go to the contact point. In this case in Irish port for being refuelling each 30-45-60 days the sub in the 2000 squared kms zone in fron of Norway.
Okay, in all but a full shooting war LRIT and AIS will need to be transmitting on the ship as all commecial ships are required to transmit under SOLAS. If you ship is pretending to be commercial and they are not transmitting then these are the ships that people like Border Protection Command tend to have a look at.

I admire your keeness but ship design is not as simple as you think and shipyards do tend to leak when ships are built for the military. I doubt the existance of such a ship would be a secret for long. "Raider' type operations in the modern information environement (even from the commercial perspective would be quite challenging and short lived.
 

jeffb

Member
overglobe sub intelligence capacity
Why would the RAN try to operate some global sub intelligence network? Why would they operate off the north coast of Russia? There is virtually nothing the RAN can gain from this. The RAN's focus is our region, more specifically the new subs are being designed with China in mind.

Going back to your crewing concerns, the reality is that the ADF has already outlined how they plan to tackle the problem. There's a lot of different random ideas that can be thrown around regarding the issue, and sure there's not much to talk about at the moment, but given the plans the ADF has laid out they will more than likely be successful. After all we're talking about what 600-800 men, that's not a huge number given our current population let alone projected population.

The bigger, more advanced subs are needed to counter growing numbers of surface ships in our region not to operate some global soviet sub tracking network.
 

Jaimito

Banned Member
Okay, in all but a full shooting war LRIT and AIS will need to be transmitting on the ship as all commecial ships are required to transmit under SOLAS. If you ship is pretending to be commercial and they are not transmitting then these are the ships that people like Border Protection Command tend to have a look at.

I admire your keeness but ship design is not as simple as you think and shipyards do tend to leak when ships are built for the military. I doubt the existance of such a ship would be a secret for long. "Raider' type operations in the modern information environement (even from the commercial perspective would be quite challenging and short lived.
Once the yard is building a small o medium sized tanker everyones knows is a tanker, ok. But the tanker was for Vancouver´s virtually based company in Canada, who then sold it to who? I don´t remember who bought it...etc, and ends up in Australian or nearby port but repainted and dressed up as liquid cargo or cargo and with extramilitar equipment well hidden (just comms portable hardware and removable Ciws). Wrt to comms, maybe the contact point is preagreed so they is no need for advanced comms.
10000 t. tankers calls attention but maybe 5000 t. with 25000 kms range, which was ordered to a yard as a multipurpose logistical vessel for a private company..

And in any case the top secret info leaks, and it doesn´t matter if they know that you refuel subs anywhere, they need to know what ship is the refueller, for once out of port for deployment track it, which should not be easy via their subs, spy ships.. in the worst case they know the ship, a couple of escorts with their asw helos can give a curtain of anonimity so the ship is not followed and once launched they have the anonimity of the ocean and the endurance for not visiting any port.

Edit: the thing is many commercial cargo ships have good fuel tonnage and are not tankers so there might be margin to ask a yard for a proper cargo ship but use it as a smaller tanker etc..
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Once the yard is building a small o medium sized tanker everyones knows is a tanker, ok. But the tanker was for Vancouver´s virtually based company in Canada, who then sold it to who? I don´t remember who bought it...etc, and ends up in Australian or nearby port but repainted and dressed up and with extramilitar equipment well hidden (just comms portable hardware and removable Ciws). Wrt to comms, maybe the contact point is preagreed so they is no need for advanced comms.
10000 t. tankers calls attention but maybe 5000 t. with 25000 kms range, which was ordered to a yard as a multipurpose logistical vessel for a private company..

And in any case the top secret info leaks, and it doesn´t matter if they know that you refuel subs anywhere, they need to know what ship is the refueller, for once out of port for deployment track it, which should not be easy via their subs, spy ships.. in the worst case they know the ship, a couple of escorts with their asw helos can give a curtain of anonimity so the ship is not followed and once launched they have the anonimity of the ocean and the endurance for not visiting any port.
Umm... No. Many civilian vessels, particularly vessels with highly valuable and/or dangerous cargoes are equipped with transponders. Which means the position of a vessel would be known, by any group (not even nation, merchant shipping groups or businesses could potentially do so) can track the tanker. Which means that if the tanker drops anchor or speed out in the middle of nowhere, it can be a safe bet that the 'secret refueling at sea' was occurring, which can be inspected by any surface, submarine or aircraft in the vicinity.

In short, it really is not a feasible plan. It just ignores too many reality factors with respect to how commercial shipping functions, international treaties, and the capabilities of governments/navies to find and track contacts.

-Cheers
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I put more serious effort on subs:
-Collins 20000 km range, 60 days.
-Scorpene 8500 nm range, 45-50 days.
-S80 similar diesel range to Scorpene plus Aip, 50-60 days.
Range in general, surface, snorkel, just to get an approx. idea.

If Ran wanted to have overglobe sub intelligence capacity it couldnt do it with size given to Collins anyway, because those 6000 or 7000 kms more kms of range, and those 10 or 15 more days it is not that much if you want to have an independent mission far away, how far, let´s say an interesting intelligence scenario, the north coast of Russia, imagine Ran agrees with Usa to cooperate knowing Russian fleet or sub activities and facilities in Russia´s north coast. Then we see in the map as 12000 kms of coast, divide in two sectors, which end in the coast of Norway, where we have an interesting refuelling zone of 2000 squared kms, and the other sector ends in Alaska where there is another 2000 squared kms zone to refuel, just below the Alaskan corner. If Ran deploys a sub to the 6000 kms Russian coast sector, that ends in Alaska, they can be kept permanently patrolling and listening in that sector provided they refuel and change crew easily discretly in those 2000 squared kms, the crew can be sent by airplane to Alaska where picked up by the refueller ship.

A good ship to refuel the subs would be in the 10000 t. size with:
-4000 t. of fuel for own use and autonomy and to refuel the subs.
-place for supplies.
-even for weapons or sonoboyes for the sub to deploy them round interesting facilites.
-giving an endurance of like 45000 kms and give the refuel to the sub.
-dress up of cargo ship, ie no showing the pipes for the refuel etc..
-with 4 hidden 20 mm basic optronic Ciws able to shot down missiles, modern Ciws tech.
-manned by 50 sailors (it´s a simple ship).
-these data are making the half of the newest Spanish fleet refueller ship.
This ship can reach in:
-2 weeks the refuelling zone for the Ran sub controlling the east 6000 kms russian coast sector.
-3-4 weeks the refuelling zone in front of Norwegian coast.

All is much simpler if the zones to gain intelligence are Chinese, Indian or East Pacific Russian coast, in these the 2000 kms refuelling zone is just like a week or 2 for the refuelling ship from Australia, and so the sub can continue quickly and shortly to the action zone with new crew, just like being away 2 or 3 days to refuel safely in the middle of nowhere.

So having this refuelling ships refief the Ran from looking at bigger and more expensive and more risky subs, with any sub the Ran will have they will be able to gain intelligence in any part of the world, in peace times, and also in wartimes because those 2000 squared kms touch waters that are either allied to Australia waters, or are in the middle of the ocean where hundreds of ships have routes, or are national of some country waters which are very difficult to control for any 3rd nation involved in any conflict. And take into account that the contact between the sub and the refueller ship is going to be just a few hours, to refuell, supplies, crew and etc. In a few hours both are gone.

Edit: and even houseport the refueller ship in any port in the world and send both crews (ship and new crew for sub) by airplane to take the ship and go to the contact point. In this case in Irish port for being refuelling each 30-45-60 days the sub in the 2000 squared kms zone in fron of Norway.
Japan is expanding their sub fleet and one would assume they would have a pretty good handle on operations in these waters. Even if our assistance was requested in this area we would / could forward deploy our subs to an established USN base in the required region.

South China Sea is a far more likely area of deployment for RAN subs from Australian bases. The ability to maintain a presence in areas of interest in the southern hemisphere is the key reason behind the planned increase in RAN sub numbers to 12, conventional subs take time to deploy and subs in general require greater time in maintenance / sustainment than surface vessels.

Numbers are needed to ensure hulls on station, size is needed for duration on station, generally speaking the larger the submarine the fewer hulls (over a required minimum) we need and the more hulls we have the smaller (over a required minimum) each needs to be. The minimums are dictated by discretion rate, distance to station, required pay load and crew endurance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top