As i said we should count the importance of: fleet-australian territory defence, special operations, asw capacity of an awd compared to asw capacitty of a sub, probably it is better defensivle the ship because it has a bigger sonar (?), some torpedos and the helo. Subs points more in ofensive things, it counts more for that i mean for defensive asw.
And if the cost the same, awd=big sub price..., but anyway that role done by the awd can be done by any new frigate, but what i say is if you buy awd instead sub you have the same or more defenssive capability, less ofensive of some type, but for example awd has the tactom and the helo, plus all the rest of things as we just commented in other posts.
:lol3Government makes the decisions, but let me get this right, you want to sacrifice submarine numbers to improve anti-submarine warfare capabilities?
Don't our submarines have some anti-submarine capability?
I am not referring to any problem that exist, someone said "if in case of problems..".
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
meat_helmet
New Member
Hi all, I'm new here and by no means an expert, but I thought I would weigh in with my 2 cents.
Having 8-9 SSGs running around is going to be able to alot of damage to any fleet, and will do more damage than having less SSGs and more AWDs. But more importantly it is a big deterrent for any force. Any aggressor would know their fleet could run into up to 9 heavy weight SSGs.
I agree 5 Hobarts and 10 Collins II would be a more well rounded force for most countries, however, Australia is an island, and a continent no less. Any aggressor wanting to seriously attack australia and even land forces here would have to attack by sea. And this is why I think they are looking to acquire 12 subs.
Having 8-9 SSGs running around is going to be able to alot of damage to any fleet, and will do more damage than having less SSGs and more AWDs. But more importantly it is a big deterrent for any force. Any aggressor would know their fleet could run into up to 9 heavy weight SSGs.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,403
WOW! We're struggling to convince government for 4 AWDs and people are now saying 5...lets stick to 4 before people think we are being greedy. See what happens when you ask for 12 submarines, people think theres money to divert to other things, which is why im thinking 12 was thrown out in the first place. you can knock it back to say...8 and still say its enough to "defend the realm" and divert for either PR or politcal purposes the 'cash' for the other 4 to different projects(more then likely non-defence related) in saying this, i see the subs as being a budget cutting measure in the future for any government...in other words, i have no faith in 12:rel
Dont listen to him meat helmet he is a skimmer - you know what they are like!!
Get ready for the skimmers to whine at us for the next decade as the cuts hit to make room for the sub budget. I have ear buds already purchased hehe
Having said that we couldnt of picked a worse time to 'tighten the defence budget to pay for hardware'. Nothing will piss off personnel more....
Enter the next mining boom.....here.
Result: Disastrous exit of good people. We need to be really really focused on how we treat our grunts in the west this time round.
I still think we need to be discussing east coast basing of subs to at least try to stem the flow of dolphins to the mining booms in the north west.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,405
bahahaha, its so much better when submariners go deep, means they shut up for few weeks...Dont listen to him meat helmet he is a skimmer - you know what they are like!!
Get ready for the skimmers to whine at us for the next decade as the cuts hit to make room for the sub budget. I have ear buds already purchased hehe
Having said that we couldnt of picked a worse time to 'tighten the defence budget to pay for hardware'. Nothing will piss off personnel more....
Enter the next mining boom.....here.
Result: Disastrous exit of good people. We need to be really really focused on how we treat our grunts in the west this time round.
I still think we need to be discussing east coast basing of subs to at least try to stem the flow of dolphins to the mining booms in the north west.
Ive been saying all along, we need to consider east coast basing of subs. The only problem is where, anyone who had a peak at FBE last few weekends would have noticed, awful lot of double and triple parking going on just to get everyone over here for FCP. With the size of ships we are getting here in the future, going to be very cramped, and only the west wall to my knowledge can take Subs for shore power etc.
After much research (at least 10 or 15 minutes!) I propose Bowen Island. This places the sub base effectively in the cradle of the navy (Creswell).bahahaha, its so much better when submariners go deep, means they shut up for few weeks...
Ive been saying all along, we need to consider east coast basing of subs. The only problem is where, anyone who had a peak at FBE last few weekends would have noticed, awful lot of double and triple parking going on just to get everyone over here for FCP. With the size of ships we are getting here in the future, going to be very cramped, and only the west wall to my knowledge can take Subs for shore power etc.
Interesting I was reading here and I did not know that it had previously been identified as a good site for a nuclear power station (the region).
Bowen Island would be perfect (at a glance). No idea if there are critical or endangered species or other environmental issues or if the oceanographic contours are appropriate but I like the look of it. How much would it cost us to develop it into the heart and soul of our sub branch?
Bowen Island Sub Base East (SBE):
Google Maps
Agree. 12 was put forward as a fairytail - "Australia wins global lottery" scenario. It allows future governments space to appear responsible, cut the numbers proposed in the white paper and still end up with more subs than we do now. An ambit claim in other words...
We need east and west coast basing. 6 subs we are struggling to crew from WA. We should prep an east base to operate the subs out of. There are many reasons for a sub base on the east, one is crewing, then you have ASW training for eastern ships, fleets, Hawaii operations with partnered nations, dealing and inserting forces in the pacific, listening and survelance in the pacific, operating up to 12 subs out of 1 base sounds optomisitic anyway etc.
4 AWD is what we really need. The subs are a seperate issue, that total numbers can be decided quite late, like 2030.
We need 4 AWD. Its going to be a long time before ANZAC II is functional and in service, not to mention my previous points about CEC etc. This issue is going to bite us earlier than the others. With out adiquate escorts (you need more than 1) 2 billion in LHD's will be sitting around for 15 years doing nothing.
4 AWD is what we really need. The subs are a seperate issue, that total numbers can be decided quite late, like 2030.
We need 4 AWD. Its going to be a long time before ANZAC II is functional and in service, not to mention my previous points about CEC etc. This issue is going to bite us earlier than the others. With out adiquate escorts (you need more than 1) 2 billion in LHD's will be sitting around for 15 years doing nothing.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,409
Found this out from a commander who evaluated the area. The northern part of Jervis bay behind beecroft range was scouted as a new base for the RAN in the late 90s, The reason they didnt get the go ahead was because of some...seaweed...thats rare and native to the area. well thats the excuse, personnally like the rest of the fleet id rather not move out of sydney to middle of nowhere, that and to create a new base, and move the current one, would cost more then a new Eastern Fleet. You'll find its hard to build a base in JB as the whole area is environmentally protected.
Id consider Newcastle as an option outside of sydney for a sub base, as it has potential. Newcastle up near the old BHP site is still underdeveloped and room to fit subs easy with a basin spinning area.
The "evalluation" was in the early 90s and was really a number of option studies for a variety of facilities. The northern part of the Bay was mostly looked at for the EO depot (one interesting idea had it well inland with resupply to ships being done by air cushion vehicles). There were a number of possibilities for the fleet base of which one (quickly dismissed) was on the northern side but most were centred around Captain's Point (Creswell, in other words). And the (nominated) environmental issue was the sea grass beds.
However, the whole of JB was effectively ruled out , and almost certainly would be again if anyone was to try to set up there, because of mutliple environmental issues - Bowen has a little (formerly fairy) penguin colony for example. And moving FBE was in any case almost certainly unrealisable even if there had been a desire to do so. I can't remember what the cost estimates were but figures in the billions without even taking into account CCD ring bells.
Newcastle was also examined; it had a lot of good points but IIRC there was an issue with the entrance, which may have been the depth over the bar at low water. And of course there was still the matter of cost. Gladstone in QLD may also have figured in the mix, but I can't actually remember.
Thanks. Appreciate you finding that out.
Well I would kick all of RAN out of Sydney and do a deal with the govt that we vacate and rezone commerical and/or residential with all proceeds returning to RAN to allow us to build again in Newcastle or anywhere where we can structure our facilities to fit our expected force growth in the coming 100 years. The game is up in Sydney harbour at some point isn't it? At least to some degree?Icelord said:
That probably wont happen so I was looking at the bases in Sydney which I could "pick off" first. HMAS Penguin would be my target. It doesnt appear particularly strategic from a harbour defence perspective but the commerical value of the land would be very tidy. It probably wouldn't be very popular but our national security is better served by having a sub base in the east than to have our medical admin (amongst other things) stationed on so much land in a suburb of Sydney like Mosman.
If we could get a $400m return for it (no idea what $/m(2) it would yield but could be hefty) that would be a good war chest to start on the development of an exclusive sub base (no skimmers allowed
)We would then need to disperse the roles currently undertaken at Penguin across the other bases in Sydney (royal pain in the arse) or give them $20-30m of the budget to build a new purpose built facility west of Sydney on unused crown land.
There are probably better strategies for funding a new sub base though. Like the govt stop spending money on dodgy home insulation for one...gee whiz!
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,412
Get rid of Peniquin?!? are you mad, where else can you say "ive gotta go to penquin for med docs" and drive towards maroubra or bondi....Thanks. Appreciate you finding that out.
Well I would kick all of RAN out of Sydney and do a deal with the govt that we vacate and rezone commerical and/or residential with all proceeds returning to RAN to allow us to build again in Newcastle or anywhere where we can structure our facilities to fit our expected force growth in the coming 100 years. The game is up in Sydney harbour at some point isn't it? At least to some degree?
That probably wont happen so I was looking at the bases in Sydney which I could "pick off" first. HMAS Penguin would be my target. It doesnt appear particularly strategic from a harbour defence perspective but the commerical value of the land would be very tidy. It probably wouldn't be very popular but our national security is better served by having a sub base in the east than to have our medical admin (amongst other things) stationed on so much land in a suburb of Sydney like Mosman.
If we could get a $400m return for it (no idea what $/m(2) it would yield but could be hefty) that would be a good war chest to start on the development of an exclusive sub base (no skimmers allowed
We would then need to disperse the roles currently undertaken at Penguin across the other bases in Sydney (royal pain in the arse) or give them $20-30m of the budget to build a new purpose built facility west of Sydney on unused crown land.
There are probably better strategies for funding a new sub base though. Like the govt stop spending money on dodgy home insulation for one...gee whiz!
Plus as far as posting, its like a holiday camp out there.It would be a great loss to those who like to get paid but do FA in a job and can scam it well...which NEVER happens in the RAN:dodgyNewcastle as FBE has many drawbacks, small narrow channel, high commercial traffic zone, little expansion room, few berths for ships, and distance from rail line for public transport. Location wise, good for families etc, and being originally from the hunter, i could bail home for mummys cooking everynight
But it comes back to inability to get around, only advantage is dry dock already there, but it has a high civilian use. Gotta remember, the RAN would need another dry dock, anyone who sees GI Docks use, would notice it gets kinda busy there very often.
Plus the most valueable land would be HMAS Watson, but we are not selling that...seen the piss bar? best views in the country!
Gladstone?!? Yeah pass
FINE! im going to build my own base, and its gunna be really cool, and your not allowed!:gunno skimmers allowed
meat_helmet
New Member
Unfortunately, I highly doubt that could ever happen at Penguin. First off, the current northern shore is far too shallow [and would be extremely unpopular because of balmoral beach]. Then around the point and the Eastern shore I think it is all counted as National Park, but more importantly there is a large network of tunnels and fortifications dating back to the 1800s - all of which would be protected by heritige laws.Thanks. Appreciate you finding that out.
Well I would kick all of RAN out of Sydney and do a deal with the govt that we vacate and rezone commerical and/or residential with all proceeds returning to RAN to allow us to build again in Newcastle or anywhere where we can structure our facilities to fit our expected force growth in the coming 100 years. The game is up in Sydney harbour at some point isn't it? At least to some degree?
That probably wont happen so I was looking at the bases in Sydney which I could "pick off" first. HMAS Penguin would be my target. It doesnt appear particularly strategic from a harbour defence perspective but the commerical value of the land would be very tidy. It probably wouldn't be very popular but our national security is better served by having a sub base in the east than to have our medical admin (amongst other things) stationed on so much land in a suburb of Sydney like Mosman.
If we could get a $400m return for it (no idea what $/m(2) it would yield but could be hefty) that would be a good war chest to start on the development of an exclusive sub base (no skimmers allowed
We would then need to disperse the roles currently undertaken at Penguin across the other bases in Sydney (royal pain in the arse) or give them $20-30m of the budget to build a new purpose built facility west of Sydney on unused crown land.
There are probably better strategies for funding a new sub base though. Like the govt stop spending money on dodgy home insulation for one...gee whiz!
There used to be a few army bases up on this point until about 8 years ago, and have since sold all the land off to residential development or turned it into public parks. I only know this cause I live around there
I would welcome it, but it would be a political nightmare I would think.Aside from reopening HMAS Platypus [which is highly unlikely as it has been sold off to the Federation Trust] I think an extension of HMAS Waterhen could be an option. There isnt a whole lot of room to expand, however, the southern boundary could be extened along the bay. There are the remains of what i think was an old coal dock, and there are still a couple of ships docked here [in very bad shape though]. I think they could pretty easily get at least 500m of length out of it. There are regularly small-med sized tankers docking at the BP station opposite it, so it may be deep enough for it.
Would that be enough for an Eastern Base though?
EDIT: Looking at it a second time though, it seems far too small actually, and there would be little chance for a drydock.
Nope. It is a horrible harbour that offers absolutely no protection from the Swells coming across the Tasman. Having an Ammo wharf there is stupid enough, lets not add to the problem by moving anything there permanently.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,416
Agree. Its hard enough at times, even with Tugs to come alongside Eden, but to then have subs which, under tug power, are harded to control in a good area, means Eden is not even worth consideration. May as well look towards Westernport down south if your going Eden Way.
Yeah I agree too. I'm a dog's breakfast of a military strategist but I would of thought it was too far south to be 'ideal' (Creswell is bad enough). I am happy to consider any and all options though.
In a somewhat pathetic admission I have been scouring the east coast on google maps on my Saturday.....:crazy
Even if we identify a suitable site strategically/logistically the probability of running into vested interest groups (environmental or social) on the east coast is so high. Which in turn makes it a political hot potato.
Even if our impact 'signature' on seabed 'grass' in jervis bay was deemed environmentally acceptable we would still attract the 'chain yourself to the trees' crowd. :nutkick
You almost need to proactively engage the coastal scientific community and lay the challenge at their feet 'i.e We have a need to develop a modest naval base for our subs that have the following hydrographic characteristics yet doesn't pose an unacceptable threat to the local habitat.'. Start with the most environmentally feasible sites (reducing political risk) and then work back from there taking into account strategic and logistical issues to select our site.
I'm just a grunt so I hope someone way up the food chain is at least considering this issue (or revisiting it from years gone by).
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Saw a pair of ANZAC's at the Dock in Newy tonight when I was on my evening walk.
ANZAC and I think one of the Kiwi ones. No pennant number and a lighter shade of grey. Also no harpoon tubes.
Noticed that ANZAC only had two harpoon launch tubes as well, thought they normally had a pair each side?
Edit: I'm guessing it was Te Mana unless Te Kaha has received the newer "Stealth" casing for her 5".
ANZAC and I think one of the Kiwi ones. No pennant number and a lighter shade of grey. Also no harpoon tubes.
Noticed that ANZAC only had two harpoon launch tubes as well, thought they normally had a pair each side?
Edit: I'm guessing it was Te Mana unless Te Kaha has received the newer "Stealth" casing for her 5".
Last edited:
Let me post my white paper, not the handrolling one, i start with the amount saved with awd´s for the f105 design, for the spanish i think it was 700 mill euro with all the modern aegis and spy stuff, i suppose the burkes should be at least at 850 mill euro, so by 3 like 450 mill euro, that gives enough for, for example, 2 galicias with the best capacities and improvements like sonar hulls etc, now we can design two fleets, for the east and for the west, for example, with minimun each 1 awd, some more frigates say 2, 2 collins, 1 lhd and one galizia and oilers etc, here at least we have two big hull sonars and 2 subs sonars for the 4 cardinal points of the fleet (minimum that, plus the 2 frigates). Now, we have 24 sh 3 sikorski fully antisubmarine-surface-land capable helos, 1 for the awd, 4 for the galicia, 2 for the frigates, so we are left with 5 for the lhd, or 3 in the galizia and 6 for the lhd. Then continuing with the aircrafts, we can carry the "light" vehicles of the lhd in the galizias (33 tanks probably abrahams or/and 170 light vehicles, so most or all the space of the lhd is for aircraft, helos and jets, now there is plenty of space in this deck and hanger and flight deck for for example: 3 chinooks, the 6 sh 3, 4 tigers, and the with of f35b is 10,6 mts, and the harriers 9,2 mts, and we talked about the parking places before, so we can imagine...:smooth it was 32 aircrafts with 3 helos spots free and the light load deck with vehicles instead of aircrafts, jeje.
What about the subs budget, it was 12 subs for big size so for example 600 mill euro, and if they choose a cheaper sub, the money margin for transfering the money for aircrafts from subs, they could have easily f35bs. But maybe it gives more change some f35a´s for b´s, use them as a´s in land and when need fleets task use the in b´s...
Now the deployement amphibious operations capacities of each fleet is impressive, 8 lcme´s per wave for the beach, that is 800 tonnes of vehicles, for example 48 hummers, or 8 abrahams and motorbikes etc plus the supercats etc.
Also each fleet could be divided in two mini fleets, one with the lhd, and other with the galizia, so four fleets for the australian territory! With 8 collins we could have 2 collins in each of these 4 fleets, and with 4 awds etc...
Let me say that the spanish program on the fuel cells for the s80 submarine is very important, i mean fuell cells and aip of course, they are testing different solutions for a long time ago, different batteries, from utc (usa) or from other companies, spanish, from netherlands i think as well, they are testing different processing techniques, top research, also joinned with programs of top energetic big spanihs international companies. Navantia is waiting for the aip things to evolute, for having better aip.
Also i have to point out that the scorpenes are design owned 50 % between navantia and french dcns, a bit more of building in france, but navantia has this experience as full partner in design and rights. But the s80 is other program with a big maturity of some years 3000 people working on them, different to scorpene.
Cheers.
What about the subs budget, it was 12 subs for big size so for example 600 mill euro, and if they choose a cheaper sub, the money margin for transfering the money for aircrafts from subs, they could have easily f35bs. But maybe it gives more change some f35a´s for b´s, use them as a´s in land and when need fleets task use the in b´s...
Now the deployement amphibious operations capacities of each fleet is impressive, 8 lcme´s per wave for the beach, that is 800 tonnes of vehicles, for example 48 hummers, or 8 abrahams and motorbikes etc plus the supercats etc.
Also each fleet could be divided in two mini fleets, one with the lhd, and other with the galizia, so four fleets for the australian territory! With 8 collins we could have 2 collins in each of these 4 fleets, and with 4 awds etc...
Let me say that the spanish program on the fuel cells for the s80 submarine is very important, i mean fuell cells and aip of course, they are testing different solutions for a long time ago, different batteries, from utc (usa) or from other companies, spanish, from netherlands i think as well, they are testing different processing techniques, top research, also joinned with programs of top energetic big spanihs international companies. Navantia is waiting for the aip things to evolute, for having better aip.
Also i have to point out that the scorpenes are design owned 50 % between navantia and french dcns, a bit more of building in france, but navantia has this experience as full partner in design and rights. But the s80 is other program with a big maturity of some years 3000 people working on them, different to scorpene.
Cheers.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
RAN's ANZAC's don't always carry the full complement of Harpoon tubes openly. No need really and they are just exposed to the weather the entire time if they are...
- Status