Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Tasman]

Yes but Australia, since it was basically starting from zero, would have been able to build up to the Treaty limits because the RAN was a separate navy. Shame it wasn't able to afford it.

Actually the RAN was included in the RN quotas by both the Washington and subsequent London Treaties so any ships Australia acquired counted in the British totals.

Tas

 

[ASSAIL]

There is no rational need to defend the north west shelf (NWS) area because there is no threat. There is a need to enhance policing of the NWS and the ADF has a role in this. But planning to base fighters and offensive assets to engage in nearby combat in the NWS is as ridiculous as is basing such assets in Darwin to refight WWII. The Army Presence In the North (APIN) is a huge cost in monies and efficiency to the ADF for no strategic gain. It does however boost the NT economy by 25% and one can imagine the same $$$ are in the eyes of politicians in relation to the NWS. However using the ADF as their own private regional pioneer corps by the Government is extremely bad defence policy.

The latest argument that regional basing of forces aides in disaster response is just as misguided. Facilities and lines of communication assist in disaster response; a nearby permanent base is usually a drain on these capabilities not a boost. Nor do these facilities require the base to exist.

While moving half of the submarine fleet back to the east is a good idea that Brisbane is being proposed just shows this whole thing is motivated by vote buying. Brisbane was a great submarine base in WWII but would be a disastrous submarine base in the 21st century. Because submarines have changed and in WWII they rarely submerged and now they rarely sail on the surface and the half day surfaced transit to get out to sea from Ports of Brisbane before you can dive would not be a good idea.

There is no threat now but surely defence planning is about forecasting contingencies and the contributors to this forum discuss these and how to deal with them.
You state that there is no strategic gain in basing defence assets in the N & NW. Dr Carlo Klopp suggests differently in an article "Strategic Importance of the Indian Ocean" published in "Defence Today" Vol 9 December 2011.
In this article he states:
"Defence planning drifted into a comfort zone where minimal force structure and infrastructure, geared around Indonesia's capabilities, became the norm. This thinking remains deeply embedded in the psyches of a greay many of our Canberra bureaucrats........................The essential starting point in basing infrastructure planning must be a comprehensive and appropriate upgrade of ADF bases across the NW............................the Navy will need a FOB for submarine replenishment in the Pilbara...............a similar facility in the Cocos Islands would be valuable".

I don't know of Dr Klopp's standing as a defence strategist is nor do I know what yours is. I did think the article was thought provoking and I also value your contributions to this forum.

The whole point of my previous post was to comment on the misconception by the Force Posture Review that there were any number of commercial ports in the NW that could easily accommodate forward basing of large naval assets.
Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

Are there any really deep water ports up north that would be suitable for submarines? Platypus might still get a look in, still sitting there doing nothing (too hazardous? cover the whole thing in concrete ala WWII sub pen). Busy deep water harbour easier to recruit, large surface base over the harbour etc. As a regular base I would have thought nice deep cool waters would be favourable right next to a resilient population centre.

An interesting document.

I wonder if the OCV would be advantagous to be low draft ships?

 

[SASWanabe]

There is no threat now but surely defence planning is about forecasting contingencies and the contributors to this forum discuss these and how to deal with them.
You state that there is no strategic gain in basing defence assets in the N & NW. Dr Carlo Klopp suggests differently in an article "Strategic Importance of the Indian Ocean" published in "Defence Today" Vol 9 December 2011.
In this article he states:
"Defence planning drifted into a comfort zone where minimal force structure and infrastructure, geared around Indonesia's capabilities, became the norm. This thinking remains deeply embedded in the psyches of a greay many of our Canberra bureaucrats........................The essential starting point in basing infrastructure planning must be a comprehensive and appropriate upgrade of ADF bases across the NW............................the Navy will need a FOB for submarine replenishment in the Pilbara...............a similar facility in the Cocos Islands would be valuable".

I don't know of Dr Klopp's standing as a defence strategist is nor do I know what yours is. I did think the article was thought provoking and I also value your contributions to this forum.

The whole point of my previous post was to comment on the misconception by the Force Posture Review that there were any number of commercial ports in the NW that could easily accommodate forward basing of large naval assets.
Cheers

there is no nice way to say this, so ill say it the mean way. Dr Carlo Kopp is an idiot.

i have read many of his articles and their all Full of BS like how the F-35 will be outclassed in every respect by an SU-30. or how an F-22 is the only plane that can fullfil Australias needs. im amazed he isnt advocating us buying B2 bombers.

 

[Raven22]

There is no threat now but surely defence planning is about forecasting contingencies and the contributors to this forum discuss these and how to deal with them.

The analogy I like to use when discussing this is the fire brigade. To defend against bushfires we don't build fire stations in the middle of the bush. We build them in towns where there is a functioning community and the firefighters live. When the threat of a bushfire is imminent, the fire brigade deploys forward from their nice comfy fire stations to fight the bushfire.

To defend the North West Shelf is no different. We don't need forces permanently stationed there, we just need the ability to deploy forward if the threat requires it.

 

[phreeky]

The Army Presence In the North (APIN) is a huge cost in monies and efficiency to the ADF for no strategic gain. It does however boost the NT economy by 25% and one can imagine the same $$$ are in the eyes of politicians in relation to the NWS. However using the ADF as their own private regional pioneer corps by the Government is extremely bad defence policy.

Easier access to training areas? Reduced housing costs?

While moving half of the submarine fleet back to the east is a good idea that Brisbane is being proposed just shows this whole thing is motivated by vote buying. Brisbane was a great submarine base in WWII but would be a disastrous submarine base in the 21st century. Because submarines have changed and in WWII they rarely submerged and now they rarely sail on the surface and the half day surfaced transit to get out to sea from Ports of Brisbane before you can dive would not be a good idea.

So you're saying it's much further to deep water from Brisbane than Sydney or Perth, for example? I didn't realise that.

 

[ngatimozart]

there is no nice way to say this, so ill say it the mean way. Dr Carlo Kopp is an idiot.

i have read many of his articles and their all Full of BS like how the F-35 will be outclassed in every respect by an SU-30. or how an F-22 is the only plane that can fullfil Australias needs. im amazed he isnt advocating us buying B2 bombers.

Not nice. You shouldn't insult idiots.

 

[Todjaeger]

there is no nice way to say this, so ill say it the mean way. Dr Carlo Kopp is an idiot.

i have read many of his articles and their all Full of BS like how the F-35 will be outclassed in every respect by an SU-30. or how an F-22 is the only plane that can fullfil Australias needs. im amazed he isnt advocating us buying B2 bombers.

To my understanding, Dr. Kopp is an intelligent man and within his field (celluar communications) is an expert.

Having said that, with respect to his POV and credentials regarding defence, kit, force structure and strategy/logistics, he is blinded by his own POV and ideology to the point of illogic.

 

[Todjaeger]

To defend the North West Shelf is no different. We don't need forces permanently stationed there, we just need the ability to deploy forward if the threat requires it.

It might (emphasis MIGHT) make some sense to expand some of the coastal civilian ports to allow RAN vessels to operate from them, or seek refuge in the even of ship board accident or a storm. If that were to happen, establishing a small RAN caretaker detachment to maintain the port facility could make sense.

What I have in mind is something akin to a RAN version of the RAAF 'bare bones' bases Scherger, Learmonth and Curtin.

-Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

Not nice. You shouldn't insult idiots.

The analogy I like to use when discussing this is the fire brigade. To defend against bushfires we don't build fire stations in the middle of the bush. We build them in towns where there is a functioning community and the firefighters live. When the threat of a bushfire is imminent, the fire brigade deploys forward from their nice comfy fire stations to fight the bushfire.

To defend the North West Shelf is no different. We don't need forces permanently stationed there, we just need the ability to deploy forward if the threat requires it.

I certainly don't advocate having permanent forces spread all over the NW but we have almost got it right. More than half our army is located in the North of the country where it should be, the RAAF deploys P3's on rotation and should probably deploy more transport aircraft on rotation. The RAAF bases at Learmonth,Curtain and Scherger should probably be brought to operational status more often than they now are (as mentioned in the posture review). The Navy needs to rotate larger ships through the area more frequently to test logistics.

To take your analogy further, if the fire stations are a long way from the fire, the trucks will need more water and fuel, the crews will need more food and if the fire stays alight, they will need to be at the fire for a long time! Having a planned and well resourced FOB is a good strategy.

 

[Raven22]

Easier access to training areas? Reduced housing costs?

What easier access to training areas? You can't use the training areas half of the year because of the wet season. Last year Mt Bundy wasn't open until June/July for training. Every year half of 1 Bde travels 3000km down to Cultana in South Australia to conduct training.

There's no reduced housing costs either. The average cost of a house in Darwin is greater than all capital cities except Sydney and Canberra. Darwin is also the most expensive city in Australia in which to rent. Moreover, any cheaper housing would be negated by the extra pay, allowances and travelling costs for being so far away from everything else.

 

[John Newman]

There is no rational need to defend the north west shelf (NWS) area because there is no threat. There is a need to enhance policing of the NWS and the ADF has a role in this. But planning to base fighters and offensive assets to engage in nearby combat in the NWS is as ridiculous as is basing such assets in Darwin to refight WWII. The Army Presence In the North (APIN) is a huge cost in monies and efficiency to the ADF for no strategic gain. It does however boost the NT economy by 25% and one can imagine the same $$$ are in the eyes of politicians in relation to the NWS. However using the ADF as their own private regional pioneer corps by the Government is extremely bad defence policy.

The latest argument that regional basing of forces aides in disaster response is just as misguided. Facilities and lines of communication assist in disaster response; a nearby permanent base is usually a drain on these capabilities not a boost. Nor do these facilities require the base to exist.

While moving half of the submarine fleet back to the east is a good idea that Brisbane is being proposed just shows this whole thing is motivated by vote buying. Brisbane was a great submarine base in WWII but would be a disastrous submarine base in the 21st century. Because submarines have changed and in WWII they rarely submerged and now they rarely sail on the surface and the half day surfaced transit to get out to sea from Ports of Brisbane before you can dive would not be a good idea.

Firstly, in regard to the Force Posture Review, which covers all of the arms of the ADF, is it possible to start a new thread that covers this issue/discussion as a whole?

Its not specific to the RAN, RAAF or Army alone, but the ADF as a whole.

As this is only a progress report and the full report will be handed down in a few months, Im sure this debate will have a lot comments and posts for a long time to come.


Getting back to AG's comments, I agree.

I think, on the one hand, its great to have all the bases, and bare base facilites built up to a point that in an "emergency" that the assets that are normally based in the "south" can be relocated if needed, and if there was an "emergency" surely there would be plenty of notice to relocate/reposition, true?

The next issue is when the final Force Posture Report is handed down, and if the Government accepts all the recommendations, how is it going to be paid for?

If the report says that it will cost $XXBillions, is the Government going to supplement the budget for X number of years to achieve it, or "rob" the money from the services to pay for the new and upgraded bases/facilities?

If the Government doesn't suppliement the def budget, which it probably wont, we will end up with all theses great fully equipped bases and facilities, but no money left to actually fill them with the Ships, Aircraft and men to use them!

 

[alexsa]

It is a misconception that Commercial ports in the NW can be easily accessed. Most are owned by the resource companies and they are almost always at capacity.
Let me summarise;
Exmouth - Not suitable for frigate size ship but MWV's could access the marina and store and bunker
Karratha/Port Hedland - Despite continuing redevelopments of both ports there is no spare capacity and there are always 50+ bulkers anchore off awaiting loading berths' think Newcastle and Hay Point.
Broome - No capacity for warships. The single wharf is at max utilisation with Offshore support ships.
Derby - Tidal berth with dangerous transit through King Sound.
Darwin - The defence funded RORO facility at Fort Hill Wharf has not been maintained by either defence or the Darwin Port Corp and as it was srplus to DPC's requirements it has been sold late last year. This was the same facility used by defence to load HMAS JERVIS BAY during INTERFET.!

Bang on, and if you look at the resourse based projects in the North and NW this will not improve. Commercial interests are building all the new capability and only build for their own needs. They will not give up capacity for defence.

[* Expand the bases in Darwin and Cairns to accommodate the larger OCVs and LCH replacements.
* Amphibious mounting facilities for the LHDs are on track in Townsville.
* There are no such facilities in Brisbane (and seemingly not planned) and that in Darwin is inadequate. It seems that the plan to load the LHDs in Darwin include loading and embarkation conducted by watercraft (WTF???) and no roll-on roll-off capability planned. So that discussion that took place some months back about the East Arm Wharf was a bit off.

The Darwin Port is certainly capable of berthing larger naval vessels as it does not suffer from the over utilization cf the privately owned ports however, as you say, the lack of a RORO is a disgrace as this could have been prevented only 3 months ago if someone in defence had been on the ball.

Don't hold your breath on Darwin as propose projects in Joseph Bonaparte guld and that area are likely to suck up capacity. Agree the loss of fort hill was a travesty as it is not really suitable for the commercial world givne the move to east arm but it would have made a useful military berth.

 

[phreeky]

What easier access to training areas? You can't use the training areas half of the year because of the wet season. Last year Mt Bundy wasn't open until June/July for training. Every year half of 1 Bde travels 3000km down to Cultana in South Australia to conduct training.

The wet season is very rarely half of the year.

There's no reduced housing costs either. The average cost of a house in Darwin is greater than all capital cities except Sydney and Canberra. Darwin is also the most expensive city in Australia in which to rent. Moreover, any cheaper housing would be negated by the extra pay, allowances and travelling costs for being so far away from everything else.

That's ignoring that shifting those people to another city will shift the housing costs. The greater demand inherently means that the cost will follow them. edit: Also worth noting that the Darwin price is probably more to do with the large government worker base in Darwin compared to places like Sydney, and therefore less of a recent drop in prices. Averaged over time I doubt it's anything like it is at present.

FYI I purposely put a question mark at the end of each as I'm genuinely not sure. I wasn't stating them as fact, they simply seemed like likely possibilities to me.

 

[alexsa]

That's ignoring that shifting those people to another city will shift the housing costs. The greater demand inherently means that the cost will follow them. edit: Also worth noting that the Darwin price is probably more to do with the large government worker base in Darwin compared to places like Sydney, and therefore less of a recent drop in prices. Averaged over time I doubt it's anything like it is at present.me.

At any remote locations where the resource sector has an influance and you will find spiralling costs. This will not change. Darwin is very expensive due to the cost of building and demand and neither is set to reduce, in fact prices have increased rapidly where major centers have been flat or slow.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There is no threat now but surely defence planning is about forecasting contingencies and the contributors to this forum discuss these and how to deal with them.

Sure but it takes a lot less time to build an airfield than it does to develop offensive military capability. Further because of the geostrategic region any battle in Australian territory would ever be from a contiguous entity or one that fights its way through South East Asia. If the later then obviously it’s better for us to fight in the region rather than on our doorstep. If the former there would be plenty of warning time as one of our neighbours develops the capability to attack into Australia’s territory.

You state that there is no strategic gain in basing defence assets in the N & NW. Dr Carlo Klopp suggests differently in an article "Strategic Importance of the Indian Ocean" published in "Defence Today" Vol 9 December 2011.
In this article he states:
"Defence planning drifted into a comfort zone where minimal force structure and infrastructure, geared around Indonesia's capabilities, became the norm. This thinking remains deeply embedded in the psyches of a greay many of our Canberra bureaucrats........................The essential starting point in basing infrastructure planning must be a comprehensive and appropriate upgrade of ADF bases across the NW............................the Navy will need a FOB for submarine replenishment in the Pilbara...............a similar facility in the Cocos Islands would be valuable".

Well I haven’t read the article and you haven’t quoted anything from it which includes an argument for why we need to defend this regional area? Other than an implication that we need to face stronger force than a neighbour has?

Also there is a considerable failing in that one paragraph in understanding submarine capability. If we were fighting in the NWS-Java area the last thing we would want is a local submarine base. It would be vulnerable to attack and every time the submarines use the base would telegraph their operations to the enemy. Far better to have them transit of a week from a secure and isolated base so the enemy does not know when and where they are. That’s basic submarine operations 101.

I don't know of Dr Klopp's standing as a defence strategist is nor do I know what yours is. I did think the article was thought provoking and I also value your contributions to this forum.

“Standing” is for fools and tarts. If Clausewitz himself was telling me Australia needed to build fortifications across our northern shore I would laugh him out the room.

 

[phreeky]

At any remote locations where the resource sector has an influance and you will find spiralling costs. This will not change. Darwin is very expensive due to the cost of building and demand and neither is set to reduce, in fact prices have increased rapidly where major centers have been flat or slow.

Sorry to sound harsh but making long term defence decisions based on short term real estate market fluctuations/predictions borders on crazy IMO. These are long term decisions, and it was a VERY short time ago (i.e. 3yr) where Darwin house prices were way lower than Sydney. If prices continue in this direction over the long term then fair enough, but you'd be a bold man to claim to reliably predict the global economic factors that influence such matters.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It might (emphasis MIGHT) make some sense to expand some of the coastal civilian ports to allow RAN vessels to operate from them, or seek refuge in the even of ship board accident or a storm. If that were to happen, establishing a small RAN caretaker detachment to maintain the port facility could make sense.

What I have in mind is something akin to a RAN version of the RAAF 'bare bones' bases Scherger, Learmonth and Curtin.

What we need is improved facilities for policing and in particular the ADF’s role within this domain. So a proper patrol boat base in the NWS with eight or so ACPBs based there wouldn’t go astray. They might not have much to do but the level of funds (hundreds of billions, if not trillions) going into infrastructure for this region demands some kind of presence. The cost to the nation would probably be offset via lower insurance premiums.

All we need is one boat load of Somalis to go an extra mile (3,000 NM and they are currently doing 1,000 NM raids) and it would cost us billions. Of course this is a long way from needing submarine pens and military airfields.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sorry to sound harsh but making long term defence decisions based on short term real estate market fluctuations/predictions borders on crazy IMO. These are long term decisions, and it was a VERY short time ago (i.e. 3yr) where Darwin house prices were way lower than Sydney. If prices continue in this direction over the long term then fair enough, but you'd be a bold man to claim to reliably predict the global economic factors that influence such matters.

Darwin costs are not short term. They are built into the place because of its isolation and climate. It costs the Army a lot more to have a Brigade in Darwin than the same in Brisbane or Adelaide. This includes a lot more direct outlay and a lot more indirect via loss of training and higher turnover rates. These things are all well known and costed and the like. Just like the NT Government’s reliance on the military presence to boost their bottom line to something a bit more sustainable.

 

[phreeky]

Darwin costs are not short term. They are built into the place because of its isolation and climate. It costs the Army a lot more to have a Brigade in Darwin than the same in Brisbane or Adelaide. This includes a lot more direct outlay and a lot more indirect via loss of training and higher turnover rates. These things are all well known and costed and the like. Just like the NT Government’s reliance on the military presence to boost their bottom line to something a bit more sustainable.

I'm not arguing that all of Darwin's costs are short term. But real estate is certainly itself yet to prove a long term problem and can hardly be used as an argument against Darwin at this stage.