Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[riksavage]

Looking to the future, specifically the PRC's SSN expansion programme, can the Aussies afford not to go nuclear?

SSN vs SSK in deep water has to be a one sided engagement. Submerged speeds alone will give a modern SSN a severe advantage over a much slower SSK. unless the latter is waiting in ambush for the SSN to pass through known sea lanes/choke points . If Aus has to deploy Subs for long periods to protect it's sea lanes against an SSN threat, will a large conventional Collin's II have the endurance and range to allow for long enough deployments in deep water? A modern SSN can remain on patrol for four months + (longer in austere conditions). Plus a sub is vulnerable whilst in port, longer deployments reduce port down-times. One way I would mitigate Australias subs is to attack the supporting Naval base and severely impact turn around times. Basically grandslam the sub-pens as they did in WWII.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If Aus has to deploy Subs for long periods to protect it's sea lanes against an SSN threat, will a large conventional Collin's II have the endurance and range to allow for long enough deployments in deep water?

Chasing SSNs in the deep sea lanes with other SSNs is nothing more than a Tom Clancy scenario (actually I think he never wrote anything like that). Apart from hold at risk for peacetime deploying SSNs the attack submarine role in the counter SS/SSN/SSGN strategy of the Cold War was to take advantage of the Soviet Union’s geostrategic handicap to interdict their submarines as they attempt to deploy into the deep sea lanes. The same strategy would apply against China who has the same type of geostrategic handicap.

Plus a sub is vulnerable whilst in port, longer deployments reduce port down-times. One way I would mitigate Australias subs is to attack the supporting Naval base and severely impact turn around times. Basically grandslam the sub-pens as they did in WWII.

Which is why the RAN exclusively uses long range SS/SSG which are based in the Perth area or Sydney and in WWII the USN used the same bases (with Brisbane replacing Sydney). Germany because of inherent geostrategic handicaps had to base their submarines in easy bombing distance of the Great Britian. Who is going to monster these Australian bases with anything short of general all out nuclear warfare?

Apart from basing security these Australian bases provide operational stealth. A submarine goes to sea from the Perth area and it could turn up a few weeks later anywhere from Aden to Vladivostok. A submarine goes to sea from Hamburg and it has no where else to go but past the Orkney’s or Faroes in a few days. Stealth is everything to submarines and the best form of it is no one knowing you’re nearby. The uselessness of the Argentine Type 209 SSK in the Falklands was thanks to its operational box being disclosed to the UK via communications intelligence.

 

[riksavage]

Whilst I concur with you observations. 20-30 years down the line Australia my be seen by the PRC as a potential Korea/Mongolia (pre-WWII Japan context). Future living space/ source of guaranteed natural resources, grain, beef etc. The best way of securing this is through economic blackmail, and short of an all out invasion you could achieve this through blockade following the successful removal of any indigenous Naval threat, then hamper or threaten merchant marine operators outside the range of RAAF land based assets. Assuming that the balance of power in the Pacifc has moved and the US is no longer king of the hill.

If I was a PRC strategic planner I wouldn't waste my resources hunting Aus SSK's (SSG's), I would simply remove Perth's ability to sustain submarine operations either through fifth column / ISS elements supported by the indigenous Chinese community or through the use of sub launched long range missiles (20 years in the future these will be field by most, if not all the PRC's sub fleet). WA submarine facilities are not Hinan Island (no underground hardened shelters capable of supporting and servicing submarines). Aus sub's with no home port would have to relocate to an allied port complete with the necessary supporting infrastructure (Japan, Guam maybe). Purely hypothetical, but there is always more than one way to skin a cat, go for the single point (port) of failure.

PS. Never been a fan of Tom Clancy

 

[gf0012-aust]

Aust doesn't have SSK's and has not had an SSK since the Oberons were modified.

Collins are SSG;s

"Son of Collins" will be an SSG

 

[aussienscale]

Minister for Defence Media Release

In a media release today Stephen Smith has announced his visit to NZ for Defence Talks with his NZ counterpart

"I will depart Australia later today for New Zealand to participate in the annual Australia-New Zealand Defence Ministers’ Talks with New Zealand Defence Minister Dr Wayne Mapp on Thursday in Wellington.

The Australia-New Zealand Defence Ministers’ Talks are the principal forum for Australian and New Zealand Defence Ministers to discuss strategic, defence and security interests of common concern.

Australia and New Zealand’s contemporary security cooperation, including important contributions to missions in East Timor, the Solomon Islands and Afghanistan, underlines the enduring importance of our bilateral defence relationship.

This will be my first visit to New Zealand as Minister for Defence, and my second meeting with Dr Mapp following our meeting at the ASEAN-Plus Defence Ministers’ Meeting in Hanoi in October last year.

In August 2009, Australia and New Zealand jointly announced a range of practical measures to enhance Australia – New Zealand defence cooperation, including the establishment of a joint Rapid Reaction Force for regional contingencies and the strengthening of an ANZAC airlift capability.

Dr Mapp and I will discuss progress in these initiatives, as well other existing and prospective areas of defence cooperation between Australia and New Zealand. I will raise formally with Dr Mapp at our meeting the prospect of greater cooperation between Australia and New Zealand in the use of amphibious lift vessels for regional disaster relief and humanitarian assistance.

The Defence Ministers’ Talks will be preceded by the Australia – New Zealand Consultative Committee (ANZCC) meeting between the Chiefs of Defence Force and Defence Secretaries from both countries.

The last Australia-New Zealand Defence Ministers’ Talks were hosted by then Defence Minister Senator John Faulkner in Sydney in September 2009.

Australia and New Zealand share a legacy of defence cooperation dating back to the ANZAC landings at Gallipoli in 1915"


Of note is the acknowledement that they will discuss the cooperation of Aust and NZ in the use of Amphibious Lift Vessels for disaster and humanitarian relief throughout the region

A new one to me is the discussion of a Joint Rapid Reaction Force for regional contingencies ! This is the first I have heard of this, have I missed something ?

Would be interested to hear what this may be and what form it could possibly take with the upcoming LHD's and talk of the potential buy/lease of the Largs Bay ?

Also of note was the possibility of strenghtening of an ANZAC airlift capability

Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

20-30 years down the line Australia my be seen by the PRC as a potential Korea/Mongolia (pre-WWII Japan context). Future living space/ source of guaranteed natural resources, grain, beef etc.

While I think this is extremely unlikely any such strategic policy is behest by immense geographic and economic problems. China is separated from Australia by a lot of the world and would need to basically invade and occupy south east Asia and the western Pacific to ensure access to Australia for your plan. This didn’t work out so well when the Japanese tried it and China would have a far harder time. It would probably be easier for China to invade and occupy central Asia and Russia to the Urals than it would Australia.

The best way of securing this is through economic blackmail, and short of an all out invasion you could achieve this through blockade following the successful removal of any indigenous Naval threat, then hamper or threaten merchant marine operators outside the range of RAAF land based assets.

I don’t know of many countries that were willing to capitulate to slave status via economic blockade. China would need an immense navy to control access to Australia, fight off the rest of the world and then blockade Australia. Since such a scenario would involve total war concepts we would just nuke the crap out of them in response. Much easier to nuke China than it is Australia.

Assuming that the balance of power in the Pacifc has moved and the US is no longer king of the hill.

That will never happen vis a via China. Extrapolating China’s economic growth into infinity is a big mistake. China lacks a huge range of things to have their population as economically productive per capita or ½ per capita as America.

If I was a PRC strategic planner I wouldn't waste my resources hunting Aus SSK's (SSG's), I would simply remove Perth's ability to sustain submarine operations either through fifth column / ISS elements supported by the indigenous Chinese community or through the use of sub launched long range missiles (20 years in the future these will be field by most, if not all the PRC's sub fleet).

LOL.

WA submarine facilities are not Hinan Island (no underground hardened shelters capable of supporting and servicing submarines). Aus sub's with no home port would have to relocate to an allied port complete with the necessary supporting infrastructure (Japan, Guam maybe).

Even more LOL.

Purely hypothetical, but there is always more than one way to skin a cat, go for the single point (port) of failure.

PS. Never been a fan of Tom Clancy

Actually skinning cats is quite hard and there is only one, two or three ways to do it. The same applies to military strategy in the real world. Fiction writers can have all sorts of cool but fanciful things but that is usually because they don’t know what they are writing about.

None of the previous post takes into account fundamental economic and geostrategic obstacles China has to aggressive war with the rest of the world. Plus of course the most important reason: why?

 

[riksavage]

Why? Why has anyone gone to war, government policy by other means, no one knows what the geopolitical situation will be like in 20-30 years time. Australia represents a huge land mass with a small population defended by a small military (relative to say the PLA). In 20-30 years the US may no-longer be the leading power in the region. We could end up in a very similar situation to pre-WWII, where Japan was forced (hunger for raw materials) to take an expansionist approach against its neighbors. For China to reach the same living standards as the US they will basically need to suck-up an immense proportion of the worlds dwindling reserves/resources - Australia's iron ore deposits, O&G reserves off WA & the NW etc. make for a tidy prize.

Reference 'LOL' concerning attacking Perth Naval bases. What do yo think is easier: One: hunting down 6-12 modern SSG's, which could be anywhere in the Pacific Ocean (needle in a haystack), or Two: attack the non target-hardened submarine base (hope at lease two subs may be in port), which we already have an infinite number of satellite photo's of, which can't be moved and which represents a single critical point of failure. I know where I would waste my resources and planning efforts - LOL. Why do you think the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor rather than waste their efforts in piecemeal strikes against the US fleet once at sea. They were unlucky the carriers where out on exercise, had they waited the US would have been in deep sh*t.

Remove a nations ability to service and maintain its military and you have them by the b*lls.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Why? Why has anyone gone to war, government policy by other means, no one knows what the geopolitical situation will be like in 20-30 years time.

One thing is for certain. No one has ever gone to war with someone after investing hundreds of billions of dollars of their cash in them. Here is all my money, OK now I will invade you… Ahh freezing of assets, damn I didn’t think of that.

Australia represents a huge land mass with a small population defended by a small military (relative to say the PLA).

So too is Antarctica. Why don’t they invade that? Australia may look big to you on a map but it’s the same way Libya looks big. Most of Australian is uninhabitable and if anyone was stupid enough to invade the wide north west expanse of this country they would be throwing their army way.

We could end up in a very similar situation to pre-WWII, where Japan was forced (hunger for raw materials) to take an expansionist approach against its neighbors.

The Japanese economy before WWII was the most perverse peacetime economy the world had ever seen. It’s hardly applicable to anything in the world. Plus things are a bit different now (in case you haven’t noticed). China can not afford any disruption to global trade and sustain its economy. Starting WWIII is the craziest idea they could ever do.

We Australia's iron ore deposits, O&G reserves off WA & the NW etc. make for a tidy prize.

But just like the big fluffy bear at the carnival really hard to win and very hard to hold onto if you do.

The idea of China invading Australia in this world without some kind of immense global upheaval is just ridiculous to the extreme. I must have been delusional even to respond to the post.

 

[riksavage]

China invading Aus today is I agree far fetched and falls in the realms of a cheap airport novel, however Australia and it's immediate environs does represent one giant sand box full of everything from, gold, diamonds, liquid natural gas, coal to bauxite. Plus unlike Antarctica you have the infrastructure in place to get it out of the ground and ship it to embarkation points.

I've travelled to and from the PRC since 1997, and spent time talking to a number of HK/Beijing based academics. One common thread is that they will never suffer the shame of another Elgin (Summer Palace fame), or Nanjng Massacre. They see this as their Century when the Middle Kingdom returns to its rightful place at the centre of the earth driving commerce, intellectual thought and providing strategic leadership (Asia-Pac).

To drive this dream they will have to absorb the vast majority of the worlds resources, their desire for US levels of wealth is obvious everywhere you go from Shanghai to Shenzhen. I recently visited a very large chain of retail outlets in Southern China, which turned over 2.5 times that of the US equivalent. This growing hunger for everything shiny will need to be fed, we are only just seeing the tip of the iceberg,

Whether you or I like it they will through politically correct means or foul ensure that the resources are available to continue this unprecedented growth. Whilst this may appear benign today, in 20-30 years time I doubt it will be quite such a friendly process. China doesn't need to invade Aus, it can make life so uncomfortable through economic pressure they will be able to write their own terms and conditions.

 

[jeffb]

Resources will goto the same place they always have, to the highest dollar. That will be exactly the same in 20-30 years.

 

[jack412]

For China to reach the same living standards as the US they will basically need to suck-up an immense proportion of the worlds dwindling reserves/resources - Australia's iron ore deposits, O&G reserves off WA & the NW etc. make for a tidy prize.

its easier and cheaper to buy companies or form new companies in australia, than to go to war with aussies for minerals
if usa moves over, gives china a chair at the table and china plays nice, i cant see any problems
but, i bet that doesnt happen easily

 

[RubiconNZ]

Ship Design Question

Would anybody mind telling me about the Bow of the Juan Carlos it is not something I have seen before, not the least on a military vessel are they stabilisers on either side of the bulbous forefoot? What are they called and what purpose does it serve, thanks in advance.

Rob

I have reached my attachment limit so a link to the naval tech website is below
Juan Carlos Bow

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Would anybody mind telling me about the Bow of the Juan Carlos it is not something I have seen before, not the least on a military vessel are they stabilisers on either side of the bulbous forefoot? What are they called and what purpose does it serve, thanks in advance.

Rob

I have reached my attachment limit so a link to the naval tech website is below
Juan Carlos Bow

They are temporary structures to support the bow during the launching process. They will be removed once the ship is floating. I guess Navantia painted them in line with the rest of the hull so they wouldn't stand out.

 

[RubiconNZ]

They are temporary structures to support the bow during the launching process. They will be removed once the ship is floating. I guess Navantia painted them in line with the rest of the hull so they wouldn't stand out.

Thanks, not as mysterious as I though, thanks I guess they didn't want to wreck the photo op.

 

[mankyle]

Well, you are taking about WWIII against China, the destruction of the civilized world as we know it and fairly grim prospects

Starting with the big ships:
The Canberras are big assed LHDs and they project a good sized force far and away
But usually you won't have need to do that. With only a couple armoured vehicles, 15 or 20 trucks, containerized cargo and two to three helicopters an average support mission to tonga, Fiji or anywhere in the Micronesia.
A medium size Ro/Ro (better with well deck) such a Bay class, Rotterdamm class or Galicia Class should provide that capability with a net lower cost.
The tobruk and the Balikpapans are not in a good shape, and for these kind of missions an smaller ship would be better than having to send one of the LHDs. You don't need to kill flies with guns.

Combat Force
Now we are talking about 3-4 AWDs, 8 FFHs and 4 FFGs to be retired when the AWDs start getting into service.

The AWDs will have AEGIS plus two illuminators. The illuminators for the long distance targets and the own AEGIS for the targets in short range. The only weak point of the AWDs is their ASW capability, but if Australia adds VLS ASROCs that would offset partially that disadvantage. Nowadays, only the US Navy, the Japanese Kaijo Jietai and the ROK Navy with their blue shark ASROC use this technology, and the MK41s of the AWDs are the long ones, with the capability of launching everything: Seasparrow, ESSM, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, VLS-ASROC and Tomahawk.

The ANZACs, when they receive CEAFAR/AUSPAR will be, theoretically, in the first league. With the Mk25 canisters that allow quad-packing the ESSMs in the Mk41 VLS. With the capabilities the AUSPAR/CEAFAR gives, redundant Fire Control Channels will be available.
If we add Link 11 and Link 16 that means that a TG with an AWD and 2 FFHs can put in the air a lot of ESSMs all linked in a combat net.
The fourth AWD would be very advisable anyway.

Submarine force
There are many factors to be reckoned. OZ is a very, very big place, and the distances are very big too. Therefore we need a good range, so for that we need either a tender in station that can ressuply the subs or that the subs themselves can stay for a long long time.
That means bigger fuel bunkerage in the subs or go to the nuke boats (SSNs). Politically, saying Nuclear and Submarine in the same phrase is not a good idea unless you are the US, Russia, or China, but most left wing politicians start suffering diarrhoea when the hear those two words together.
Regardless of the type of engine (nuclear or conventional + AIP) that means a bigger submarine, in the league of the Japanese Soryus.
Remember that submarines are "area denial weapons". You put a submarine somewhere and inmediately that area becomes "enemy territory". With the size of Australia 12 submarines could be a good number. Submarines, when armed with SLCMs can become also power projection tools. And Australia is and must be the country who keep the south pacific stable.

There are many other issues, such as inshore/offshore patrols, ressuply ships.... but this post is already too boring and long

 

[Todjaeger]

1) Continue on as is. This is probably the most likely and least useful for Australia. Australia is on a course where the naval and air power of Australia is second tier to everyone in the region, with no truly strategic capabilities that give the nation significant influence to the political events between other powers. I do wonder if this will ultimately be the course taken by Australia over the next decade, even as it is the most likely course.

Remember, to have strategic influence, Australia would need to have strategic capacity not only to influence China, but also the United States. The plan today never gives Australia enough capacity in force to influence either. As a stakeholder, that might not be in Australia's best interest.

I have to ask, given the expectation for Australia end up as second tier within the region, how large is the region, and whom else is in it?

As things stand now, within the ASEAN/Oceania/S. Pacific areas, Australia is on top IMO, alongside Singapore yet without the dispersal of forces which is necessary due to the very limited area of Singapore.

On the international stage, Australia is a Middle Power. An advanced, moderately developed nation or large area but comparatively small population (IIRC lowest overall population density for a nation in the world). With that in mind, Australia would be hard pressed to position itself sufficiently (again, IMO) to have a great deal of strength vs. a Great Power, just on the basis of what is requried for a nation to be a great power. The other part of that though, is that the nearest Great Powers are in Asia, and they are themselves still several thousand km's away.

And now, for something completely different...

Has anyone heard any sort of whisper about what the class names for the Follow-on Frigate to replace the Anzac-class FFH and the replacement sub for the Collins-class SSG are? It is just a little thing, but I am getting a little tired of calling them the 'Anzac II' or 'Collins II/Son of Collins'. Just wondering.

-Cheers

 

[aussienscale]

And now, for something completely different...

Has anyone heard any sort of whisper about what the class names for the Follow-on Frigate to replace the Anzac-class FFH and the replacement sub for the Collins-class SSG are? It is just a little thing, but I am getting a little tired of calling them the 'Anzac II' or 'Collins II/Son of Collins'. Just wondering.

-Cheers

Generally you would find the names would not be chosen until at least the type of vessell has been decided and numbers to boot, no doubt some ideas being thrown around in Navy Office but nothing firm as yet that I am aware of (other here may know otherwise) normally the name of the class is the same as the first ship/sub
IE: Hobart Class AWD first ship HMAS Hobart, Canberra Class LHD first ship HMAS Canberra etc so until then im afraid its still "Son of"

 

[dave_kiwi]

/shakes fist

:hitwall
Dammit, you guys are supposed to be asking us for help!

Anyway.. so I am guessing the MH-60Rs are going to be Navy as they are a Sea Hawk variant or.....?

Just saw this:

Clearnet News

quote:

The sharing of the HMNZS Canterbury between New Zealand the Australia will cover for a shortfall in Australian military capability.

The deal was announced today by Defence Minister Wayne Mapp and his Australian counterpart Stephen Smith.

From NZ GOV site:

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/annual-meeting-anzac-defence-ministers


:rotfl - now about those missile carrying naval helicopters .....

It seems the Joint ANZAC discussions / force have taken a few steps in the right direction.

Another thought crosses my mind: Possible talks re the RN Bay ain't going well ?????

 

[jeffb]

Another thought crosses my mind: Possible talks re the RN Bay ain't going well ?????

No not at all. It doesn't matter if the talks are going good or bad, there is a capability gap created by the state of the RAN's amphibious ships that needs to be covered somehow immediately. They have chosen to do that with the Canterbury.

Filling the gap long term is a completely separate matter.

Also, while there is very little information available at the moment about the joint force, you have to wonder just how viable it is when the NZDF can only spare 2 people for it. It seems nothing more than a goodwill gesture at this point by the ADF so they can use NZ's ship with little long term commitment but I guess we'll have to wait to see the actual details.

 

[RubiconNZ]

No not at all. It doesn't matter if the talks are going good or bad, there is a capability gap created by the state of the RAN's amphibious ships that needs to be covered somehow immediately. They have chosen to do that with the Canterbury.

Filling the gap long term is a completely separate matter.

Also, while there is very little information available at the moment about the joint force, you have to wonder just how viable it is when the NZDF can only spare 2 people for it. It seems nothing more than a goodwill gesture at this point by the ADF so they can use NZ's ship with little long term commitment but I guess we'll have to wait to see the actual details.

Two people are being posted two Brisbane home of the 7th Brigade & the Deployable JFQ or 1st Div HQ in old speak, two people for a HQ familiarization or joint planning or something similar is the obvious starting point, joint training is to begin later in the year.