Submarines

[gf0012-aust]

It is possible, but I think that the best way would be to plug the sub with an insert. I've been involved with those subs when they were being built.
You would't want to extend the sail as that would alter ship balance and its centre of gravity.

They were designed to be a fleet submarine - primarily to be able to travel with the US Fleet if required (thats a legacy of the old days where we were worried about going to war with the communists).

So the subs were designed to go "gunned up" and be able to use future weapons systems. The next 6 of the group were going to be considered for VL's, but that design stage was always a bit "furry".

The other problem is that VL's in a deep ocean going sub would definitely upset our neighbours, which we also don't want to do.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes it's high time we went from fitted for but not with, to completely fitted with plenty in storage if you ask me...

 

[gf0012-aust]

yep, we should be adopting our Meko/ANZAC design posture...

 

[Aussie Digger]

As in now upgrading the platforms and actually equipping them with some weapons?

 

[gf0012-aust]

the anzacs/mekos were designed to have modular weapons loads, plug in, plug out etc...

I would definitely be building in the capability to deploy at short notice with the right weapons mix.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I agree with the philosophy but they then go on to deploy the ships as they are into war zones without the chance to fit the required weapons systems. Look at the unseemly scramble to fit the DDG destroyer and FFG Frigate with SOME type of CIWS during Gulf War 1. The government through the experience of actually deploying to war and other operations are starting to realise that once the shooting starts you have to use what you've got. If what you've got isn't good enough there's not enough time to do anything about it. Hence the new Harpoon Block 2's, 2 new type's of air defence capabilities (probably Phalanx and a point air defence system such as Mistral or Ram 16), new torpedo's and the upgrading of the fire control system, radar, sonar etc on the Anzac's, which for so long has been unnecessary because thanks to Mr DIBB and his magical crystal ball, we'll have 10 years to get ready for a war.

 

[gf0012-aust]

the systems should have been in dry storage, you can't just buy them a week before you need it - thats a moronic thing to do,

as it is we are lucky in the fact that we have allies who are prepared to donate systems at short notice, but thats unacceptable in the current climate.

The ESSM has been successfully fired (before the US managed to get theirs up and running), the dutch test fired theirs approx 2 weeks ago.

I don't think its as dire as 10 years as we can project at speed and at short notice quite quickly. But the stuff ups of the prev govt haven't helped. We also know from recent experience that the US will supply a logistics requirement to us immediately without going through the normal decision making processes, plus we have US and Singaporean military bases and facilities that we could take advantage of.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes I saw that the US provided all the LGB's we dropped in GW2, at "mates rates" of course... The 10 year thing was a dig at Paul Dibb the Strategist for the Hawke government who came up with the idea that Australia's strategic situation was so benign that we would have 10 years (or so) notice before we would need to deploy to war and that we could maintain forces at a minimum level of capability ( and thus expend very little money on them) and build from there as needed. Unfortunately the real world dropped in on Dibb's theory and we had to deploy our largest force since Vietnam into East Timor with very short notice. It's lucky that the US decided to support us logistically because we couldn't have done it without them. So much for self reliance. I guess that term means we don't need any outside help to run our forces down to such a state that we can't support 5000 combat troops in the field, even if we can find that number at short notice...

 

[Aussie Digger]

As to the systems for the ship, they should have been fitted from the start. I read a story about the design phase of the Anzac's. Civilian's in the Defence department wanted to exchange the Mk45 5 inch gun for the same gun as on the FFG's (76mm). This would have saved us $300 million by their reckoning. Of course it would have made the ships almost completely useless for any sort of modern warfare and have left them less well armed than US coast guard ships, but hey we would have saved a bit of money!!! Of course 5 inch friday would never have happened and the Royal Marines would have had a much tougher fight for Um Qasar, but such things in war don't necessarily seem that important to the civilians in the defence department. Fancy actually having to use a RAN Frigate in a real shooting war?

 

[gf0012-aust]

its a good thing we actually don't want to wage war on anyone, kind of makes me laugh when the perception is that we are war ready, war mongers etc.. nothing could be further from the truth. we spend more time telling our neighbours on why we are buying equipment than actually working out what we will buy...

the ADF is usually compared in size and mission flexibility to the USMC - wish we had their money... lol

/thread hijack off

returning to subs.

we know that the subs work as we have given a few US CVN's a fright. so its a good thing we have the skillset history - thank god we had Oberons, it gave us the best conventional sub in the world to learn the craft.. looks like it paid off.

my apols web.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hmm, maybe I should have started a new thread, I got a bit carried away back there, sorry. Yeah a friend of mine (that I haven't spoke to for years) is a submariner, on HMAS Rankin I believe although I could be wrong. How much would an insert for the fleet cost anyway? $1 billion plus the cost of the equipment? Maybe our air Warfare destroyers might get some tomahawks?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'd much prefer to have another 6 subs made up. The new 6 could be VLS tomohawked. The original 6 are specwarrie capable as well, so rather than chop them it would make sense to go for a new build set.

I also think we should try and get the Kiwis in on it and start co-crewing, otherwise they are going to lose their navy fighting skills as well.

Toms should be included in the new Aegis units - but they won't for political reasons. The other advantage of Toms is that if there is ever a point where we reconsider our nuclear warfare capability - and that is at this stage a non event and unlikely to happen within the next 10 years - then Violet Sun-WS199 variable yield thermo nukes could be fitted to them.

Unless neighbourhood relationships deteriorated so massively we would not look at joining the nuke weapons club. we'll just keep on producing nuke energy. The other interesting thing is that the French offered us a nuclear power plant to replace Lucas Heights, I think the preference is to go with an Argentinian model though.

Subs are more important than frigates when you look at the SLOC issue for us.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Unfortunately due to the "problems" with the Collins, I think it'll be a long long time before we get new ones, plus 6 more would seriously distort our fleet structure. Our surface fleet (major combatants) is only 11 strong at the moment and is only going to be 12 strong at full strength. Submarines are very useful for Int gathering and "high end" conflicts, but less so at the lower end of the spectrum. Not to mention the lack of strike capabilty of our subs (not including the Special forces delivery capability). Additional major surface combatants is what our Navy really requires to improve our combat capability. The Air warfare destroyers need to be an adjunct to our current fleet, not a replacement for the FFG's. It won't happen though, just watch.

 

[gf0012-aust]

mate, I wasn't being practical, just being a dreamer - I just think we should have stayed committed to the initial idea of 6+6 subs.

The US was prepared to give us 4x Kidds, then 4x Ticonderogas, then 3x Arleigh Burkes, my view is that we should have taken their offer up at some point. Instead we'll end up with a smaller spanish aegis solution..

:idea2

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't have a problem with 6+6 subs, but I'd hate to see that happen at the expense of the surface fleet. We'd never take up the Kidd or Ticonderoga class though. We couldn't man them. I've heard the main reason we're laying up 2 FFG's and 2x Huon minehunters is mainly because of manning problems. The Navy out of the 3 services seems to have the greatest difficulties with manning. I wonder why? Probably those "crossing the line ceremonies"... :eek

 

[gf0012-aust]

well, we are already looking at running blue and gold crews on the armidale class, so there is a revolution on the way already...

the F100's will get the nod I think for the very reasons you stated, smaller crews.

Personally I think that the purchasing of (so many) tanks was impractical in light of what we need at the fleet level.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The problem is with the defence budget. It simply won't stretch as much as the Government would like it too. They either have to have lower expectations of the capabilities of the ADF, or throw in more money. They simply cannot have their cake and eat it too. One day things will come unstuck...

 

[Awang se]

Australia as an Island nation should emphasize more on it's fleet development. U don't want to wait for the enemy to actually land on your shore before u decide to stop them right? U have to do it far away. Australia have been gifted with a geographical advantages by being an Island country. That much simplified most problems face by the country with land frontier. I see that what Australia really need is more on Air Force and Naval Forces. Submarines will be the most formidable assets against enemy fleet. A well place and capable subs can greatly disrupt the enemy operations. The Primary target is obviously Troop carrying ships and Aviation ships.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Indeed Awang, our Air and Naval forces have received the greatest proportion of our defence forces for about the last 25 years or so, precisely for this very reason. Our basic defence strategy is to defeat an enemy in the "air-sea" gap to our north before they ever got near Australia. If any forces did make it past our air and naval forces, they would hopefully be so decimated that our motley light infantry army (which except for 1 understrength airmobile brigade was conveniently located several thousand kilometres to the south of where an enemy might land!!!) and supported by an understrength "mechanised brigade" and now an understrength motorised brigade as well, could clean them up... This description of the army might sound harsh, but it's perfectly if simply sums up our army. Fortunately now our Government seems to be recognising that the Army is completely unsuitable for it's intended role and is beginning to do something about it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

that should have been greatest proportion of our defence forces 'budget'. Sorry about the typing mistakes...