Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[the road runner]

If such a person is advocating against subs in the future ADF, I would be forced to question their motives and/or expertise.

All the "Paper" reports from APDR,ASPI ,ASC,HDW ect all seem to favour their ideas for a future sub.I guess when we are talking about a 16-36 billion project,agendas come to the fore.

Edit.@ASSAIL i for one disagree with him.Australia dose not have the population to be the Pacific police.We cannot even find enough police to staff local stations.What dose he mean by "irregular warfare equipment"? Vegemite?

Regards

 

[ASSAIL]

His arguement was that the defence budget is fixed at 2% GDP and within that, allocation must be made to acquire the forces needed to cary out the policy/strategy ennunciated in the 2009 White Paper (which he sees as seriously flawed)
Therefore, spending 35% of available funds on subs and strike fighters which, according to him, cannot be used in irregular warfare of the type experienced throughout the last decade and into the forseeable future, is a disproportionate allocation. He suggests fewer subs and fewer jets and more on policing/stabilization and irregular warfare equipment?

SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM - If you want peace, prepare for war (with thanks to 5th century military philosopher Vegetius in his Epitoma Rei Militaris and Mitch Hinde)

 

[ASSAIL]

His arguement was that the defence budget is fixed at 2% GDP and within that, allocation must be made to acquire the forces needed to cary out the policy/strategy ennunciated in the 2009 White Paper (which he sees as seriously flawed)
Therefore, spending 35% of available funds on subs and strike fighters which, according to him, cannot be used in irregular warfare of the type experienced throughout the last decade and into the forseeable future, is a disproportionate allocation. He suggests fewer subs and fewer jets and more on policing/stabilization and irregular warfare equipment?

SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM - If you want peace, prepare for war (with thanks to 5th century military philosopher Vegetius in his Epitoma Rei Militaris and Mitch Hinde)

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

Further to the Tobruk and Success questions put to DefMin by the Canberra Times, we have more questions and responses.
The response is very long so a read through would be beneficial.

 

[icelord]

His arguement was that the defence budget is fixed at 2% GDP and within that, allocation must be made to acquire the forces needed to cary out the policy/strategy ennunciated in the 2009 White Paper (which he sees as seriously flawed)
Therefore, spending 35% of available funds on subs and strike fighters which, according to him, cannot be used in irregular warfare of the type experienced throughout the last decade and into the forseeable future, is a disproportionate allocation. He suggests fewer subs and fewer jets and more on policing/stabilization and irregular warfare equipment?

Should be at 3% as per rise promised by current govt. but thats not important as we're aiming for surplus budget regardless of the costs to the nation.
As mentioned subs are best for launching spec ops or intel gathering to prevent wars(when they sail they do this) so without reading his presentation, i would hope hes more talking about the demand for 12 subs being useless, as 6-8 would be more financially viable and better manning wise.
Any chance of a link to his presentation

SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM - If you want peace, prepare for war (with thanks to 5th century military philosopher Vegetius in his Epitoma Rei Militaris and Mitch Hinde)

Dibbys unofficially motto! till war happens, then they can see with just pissed up the preperation:drunk1

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

Success is due back to sea in June, and operational after evaluations in July.
Recent money spent on Success:

• Double hulling: $17.8m
• Maintenance Period (Jun-Nov): $13.8m
• Propulsion Alignment (Dec-Apr): $4.1m budgeted

Success reaches end of type in 2017, and to extend her use by 5 years would cost "just in excess of $20m".

High-speed cat was investigated and rejected as it would require port infrastructure and unloading facilities.

Interesting note: Defence asked at the time of the Largs Bay purchase whether a second Bay-class would become available for them to purchase and the UK MoD said no. I don't think a second Bay has been laid-up in the UK?

Seems to be a lot of splitting hairs by the reporter on what is or isn't an amphibious assault ship and what is and what isn't a HADR ship.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

Should be at 3% as per rise promised by current govt. but thats not important as we're aiming for surplus budget regardless of the costs to the nation.

They didn't promise 3% of GDP (that would increase the current budget by fairly hefty 50%, or some $13 billion), they promised to increase the budget by 3% per year so that there wouldn't be a decrease in funding due to inflation.
That is what happened in NZ. They froze the defence budget, but due to inflation there was less money available available year on year to the NZMoD.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

The arguments along Dupont's thinking is that in a future scenario of war with a superpower Orangeland, Australia would:

• Go to war alongside the US (in which case 100 F-35s and 12 FuSubs would be of marginal importance and of niche/symbolic value),
• Go to war alone without the US (in which case 100 F-35s and 12 FuSubs would be of marginal importance alone against a superpower and of little value),

There is some merit to the thinking that such funding could be channelled to capabilities far more likely to be needed and used over the coming decades without significantly weakening Australia's national defence or commitments.

I am dubious at the 12 FuSubs. Do I think they would be a powerful deterrent and of great value? Undoubtedly. But given the issues the RAN has had in maintaining 6 crews (with some mitigating circumstances) I would have serious thoughts about committing to 12.
I'm also dubious about 100 F-35s. Not so much about suitability or capability, but that I can see there are advanced UCAVs just around the corner (15-20 years). It might be that we'll see a reduced manned F-35 buy post-2020 and more interest in UCAV developments. Perhaps a mixed fleet of 60-ish F-35 and 60-ish UCAVs? Such UCAVs might even have the all aspect stealth that APA craves.

 

[icelord]

Success is due back to sea in June, and operational after evaluations in July.
Recent money spent on Success:

• Double hulling: $17.8m
• Maintenance Period (Jun-Nov): $13.8m
• Propulsion Alignment (Dec-Apr): $4.1m budgeted

Success reaches end of type in 2017, and to extend her use by 5 years would cost "just in excess of $20m".

High-speed cat was investigated and rejected as it would require port infrastructure and unloading facilities.

Interesting note: Defence asked at the time of the Largs Bay purchase whether a second Bay-class would become available for them to purchase and the UK MoD said no. I don't think a second Bay has been laid-up in the UK?

Seems to be a lot of splitting hairs by the reporter on what is or isn't an amphibious assault ship and what is and what isn't a HADR ship.

add a few weeks to that ever changing date for success to sail, her original date had her at sea next week, and even when she does sail, shes not expected in the water next year.
The very reason the high speed cat was rejected is the very reason we cannot understand the purchase of HMAS Skandi Bergden. Current USN cats have a crane aft for unloading, as well as a ramp for vehicles which, SB does not have.
It was dreaming to think the poms were offloading another bay, one was pure luck the 2nd would be day dreaming.

Further to the Tobruk and Success questions put to DefMin by the Canberra Times, we have more questions and responses.
The response is very long so a read through would be beneficial.

Ive already commented on my amusement of the boss going into bat for his boss, much to our dismay...

They didn't promise 3% of GDP (that would increase the current budget by fairly hefty 50%, or some $13 billion), they promised to increase the budget by 3% per year so that there wouldn't be a decrease in funding due to inflation.
That is what happened in NZ. They froze the defence budget, but due to inflation there was less money available available year on year to the NZMoD.

My misunderstanding, although this could be part of the problem as why 1 kiwi Anzac is tied up with min. manning, and 3/4 IPVs are crewed and utilised, if not for the OPVs RNZN would be doing very little sea time this year.

 

[ASSAIL]

As mentioned subs are best for launching spec ops or intel gathering to prevent wars(when they sail they do this) so without reading his presentation, i would hope hes more talking about the demand for 12 subs being useless, as 6-8 would be more financially viable and better manning wise.
Any chance of a link to his presentation

Just watched the Lowy Institute lecture on the APAC channel (cable) this am.

We all understand the role played by subs, he was advocating a reduction in expenditure for them. Whether that be by reducing the number to 9 units or buying/leasing other than Aus built units.
I subsequently read his cv at Wiki and he seems to be a very influential figure in defence/strategic policy. He has been on the Foriegn Affairs and Defence Advisory Council (?) not sure of the terminology here or when he served on it. He also has been the Foriegn Affairs advisor to Jose Ramos Horta - TL and seems to be highly regarded.

I personally would not like to see the number of submarines reduced other than by leasing or buying SSN's which wont happen.

 

[Volkodav]

Just watched the Lowy Institute lecture on the APAC channel (cable) this am.

We all understand the role played by subs, he was advocating a reduction in expenditure for them. Whether that be by reducing the number to 9 units or buying/leasing other than Aus built units.
I subsequently read his cv at Wiki and he seems to be a very influential figure in defence/strategic policy. He has been on the Foriegn Affairs and Defence Advisory Council (?) not sure of the terminology here or when he served on it. He also has been the Foriegn Affairs advisor to Jose Ramos Horta - TL and seems to be highly regarded.

I personally would not like to see the number of submarines reduced other than by leasing or buying SSN's which wont happen.

With subs a key issue is the lack of critical mass in both numbers of hulls as well as the trained and experienced crews to operate them. If you don't have enough hulls you will have availability issues which impacts training, morale and retention. If you don’t have a large enough pool of competent submariners you will be limited in how many hulls you can operate i.e. availability which flows on to training, morale and retention.

On top of this if you have a hostile media and a government determined to gain political mileage from their predecessors reported stuff ups the pool of suitable applicants will shrink, again affecting crewing and availability.

If you have a government whose answer to the crewing issue is to withdraw active hulls from service and lay them up effectively reducing the class from 5 in service, 1 in extended docking to 4 in service, 1 in extended docking and 1 in mothballs you end up with availability issues as outlined above. When you decide to increase the scope of an already commenced extended docking to bring forward upgrades you end up with 3 hulls in service, 2 in extended dockings, 1 in mothballs.

Now what do you think happens when you decide to take a hull that has already had an extended docking to incorporate upgrades concurrently being fitted to the 2 hull currently receiving their extended dockings while another hull remains in mothballs? That’s right you end up with only 2 hulls in service for an extended period of time. Now what happens when each of these hulls requires their regular along side maintenance? Ah huh, 1 or 0 hulls in service.

Queue media and political outrage against everyone involved in the project who had no say in the decision to make 4, instead of only 1 hull unavailable for an extended period of time.

Rant over!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I personally would not like to see the number of submarines reduced other than by leasing or buying SSN's which wont happen.

I don’t think we need more than eight submarines. Not in this day and age. The money would be much better spent on a more flexible military tool.

And I will publish the 6,000-8,000 words needed to provide a proper argument backing up those three sentences later this year!

 

[Todjaeger]

I don’t think we need more than eight submarines. Not in this day and age. The money would be much better spent on a more flexible military tool.

And I will publish the 6,000-8,000 words needed to provide a proper argument backing up those three sentences later this year!

I would think nine would be a better number, given what appears to be the ratio between training, (normal) maintenance and operational cycles. Plus a slightly larger number would provide a greater critical mass to sustain design, maintainance and modification work.

-Cheers

 

[kato]

given what appears to be the ratio

Said ratio is 1:2 (factor 3) for surface ships, but 1:3 (factor 4) for submarines.

 

[Volkodav]

I don’t think we need more than eight submarines. Not in this day and age. The money would be much better spent on a more flexible military tool.

And I will publish the 6,000-8,000 words needed to provide a proper argument backing up those three sentences later this year!

More flexible military tool? Mmmm.....let me guess, you could probably buy a pair of light carriers and a couple of squadrons of F-35Bs for the cost of 4 submarines.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

More flexible military tool? Mmmm.....let me guess, you could probably buy a pair of light carriers and a couple of squadrons of F-35Bs for the cost of 4 submarines.

Probably buy them but crew them? And don't forget in order to make the subs strategic strike platforms the white paper requires an Australian spy sat capability. Which costs a cool billion a year to sustain.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Probably buy them but crew them? And don't forget in order to make the subs strategic strike platforms the white paper requires an Australian spy sat capability. Which costs a cool billion a year to sustain.

I'm curious do you believe the Spy Sat capability is something that could be cooperatively developed/operated with the US for example as the WGS constellation is or due the obvious sensitive nature performed purely in within ADF? I imagine a billion or so would only be for 1-2 satellites?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm curious do you believe the Spy Sat capability is something that could be cooperatively developed/operated with the US for example as the WGS constellation is or due the obvious sensitive nature performed purely in within ADF? I imagine a billion or so would only be for 1-2 satellites?

Spy sats are available off the shelf. IAI are market leaders with their lightweight family of optical and radar imaging units. Five units is about a minimum constellation for LEO units and they last about five years each. So a new unit per annum is the going deal and with launch cost this is about a billion dollars. More if you buy a full size unit.

 

[ASSAIL]

I don’t think we need more than eight submarines. Not in this day and age. The money would be much better spent on a more flexible military tool.

And I will publish the 6,000-8,000 words needed to provide a proper argument backing up those three sentences later this year!

I look forward to the words.

Your reasoning is certainly in line with Alan Dupont however, I can't really form an opinion until I see your words and consider the alternative.

I don't agree with the alternatives proposed by Dupont as I believe we need to maintain a full complimentary warfighting capability with the US.

Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

Probably buy them but crew them? And don't forget in order to make the subs strategic strike platforms the white paper requires an Australian spy sat capability. Which costs a cool billion a year to sustain.

Not if we just sponge off the yanks. Or use Google Earth or whatever other "dodgy brothers" way can be found...