Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ManteoRed]

Sorry I'm a little new around here, but I've tried to read most of this gargantuan post over the last few weeks. lol

Anyway, seems the submarine issue is a bit of a hot button topic. Being American, I obviously don't have anymore than a basic knowledge of the Aussie political system/climate. If the numbers being thrown about for the Collins replacement program are accurate, 36 bln?? Thats more than enough to buy a ticket into the SSN fast attack country club.

Is public opinion really so strong against "nuclear anything," that it would scuttle somebody's political career that openly considers it? Depending on what the government requires of it, having a diesel electric model seems to be a serious compromise.

If all they want is to patrol a local EEZ, and the continental approaches then a smaller, possibly off the shelf, or lightly modified diesel electric would be the way to go. Could even purchase a work share program, IE the first of class being built where its bought, and the followups being built in Aussie at ASC or whoever. Cheaper, less risky, provides local work, smaller crew requirements, also provides a boat that can reliably do the mission from above that its tasked with.

If however, the government has any designs on the submarine force being a true deterrent against the Chinese, then nuclear seems to be the only logical course. Transiting into the south china sea or the indian ocean to disrupt Chinese supply lines/lines of communication, while surfaced in a large diesel electric would seem to be, nearly a suicide mission.

Even if they did make it into position, you could strike a target or convoy, but you still need to make your escape. Transiting out of the area even submerged with an AIP system provides a lower speed escape, and still a limited range. When finally forced to surface to recharge, any helicopter carrying escort/patrol would likely notice a new target appearing on there screens.

Now, not to be an American homer or anything, while I love what the Virginia's offer us, and I think you guys could do much worse than to buy a few of them fresh off the assembly line, I'm not sure its the right fit. Its a large investment, with a large crew requirement. And it would also do a lot to upset your Chinese neighbors.

Perhaps one of the French Barracuda class would be a better choice if it could be sold to the Aussie public, and the french offer to sell them? Smaller ships, smaller crews, new builds so new technology, still expensive, but really there's no need for 12 is there? And the Chinese may not be as incensed by it?

 

[ASSAIL]

Impressive 'last job' and a great photo.

The incoming government was committed to getting rid of the carrier from the RAN's order of battle and proceeded to do so with incredible haste regardless of any briefings, pleas, etc they may have received. I am also convinced that inter service rivalry, especially from the RAAF, contributed to an incredible waste of capability along with more than 30 years of expertise.

Tas, If you read para 6 of Daily Orders you can see that we were all confident that the Carrier replacement programme was going ahead and that Melbourne was expected to continue in service until 1985.
I think the failure of the catapalt during that cruise, which resulted in the loss of 2 x A4's, caused the govt to reassess the expenditure. The plan was then to acquire the Invincible from the RN but ....Falkland Islands and we know the rest!
It was only after this that it all became too hard.
AG could probably give you a better timeline as to all the political machinations.

 

[Tasman]

Impressive 'last job' and a great photo.



Tas, If you read para 6 of Daily Orders you can see that we were all confident that the Carrier replacement programme was going ahead and that Melbourne was expected to continue in service until 1985.
I think the failure of the catapalt during that cruise, which resulted in the loss of 2 x A4's, caused the govt to reassess the expenditure. The plan was then to acquire the Invincible from the RN but ....Falkland Islands and we know the rest!
It was only after this that it all became too hard.
AG could probably give you a better timeline as to all the political machinations.

I agree with what you have said. As you would know the transfer of Invincible at a bargain price had been agreed and approval to rename her Australia had been given by the GG. At the time there seemed to be a reluctance by the Minister to commit to VSTOL operations but I am sure that Sea Harriers would eventually have been ordered as it would have been hugely underusing her capability to sail Invincible/Australia with only ASW helos aboard (though that would have been better than what we ended up with). After the Falklands War we had a situation where government seemed to hesitate over the cost of a new built ship and I guess there was reluctance to consider Hermes because of its age. The Opposition was already making it clear that they would not sanction a new carrier if they came to power which was looking increasingly likely. Anyway it is all water under the bridge now but it makes me both sad and angry that we threw away what had taken so much effort to establish.

Let's hope that the new LHDs are fully utilized and that our amphibious capability is not similarly thrown away down the track by some future penny pinching government. At present the 3 services seem to be committed (certainly army and navy) but we do need to develop army aviation assets if their use is to be maximized. I also wonder if at some stage in the future a secondary sea control role might be considered (ie helos for ASW or anti surface warfare). They would also seem ideal for the command role that Manoora and Kanimbla used to perform.

Tas

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The plan was then to acquire the Invincible from the RN but ....Falkland Islands and we know the rest!

The demise of the RAN’s carrier capability can be blamed on over-reaction to the contracted activities of Argentine scrap merchants in South Georgia. These scrap merchants had been contracted to remove the recoverables from an old whaling station but showed up at the end of the contracted period and flew an Argentine flag. While the local Governor was handling the situation London and BA got involved and amped the whole thing up. The Argentinians had planned to invade the Falklands in January 1983 if they hadn’t had a diplomatic breakthrough but because of the South Georgian kafuffle in March 1982 brought forward their invasion to April out of fear the Brits would reinforce the islands. Anyway what this meant for the RAN was the war happened before Australia was to make its first payment for Invincible.

The sale agreement wasn’t signed off until February 25, 1982 and was for A$285m (175m GBP) for the ship and some minor modifications. Payment was to be made in two instalments with the first in mid to late 1982 for 90 GBP followed by a 1983 payment of 85 GBP. The ship would then be delivered in the second half of 1983. A pre delivery refit would be conducted in the UK to hopefully fix the ships high speed vibration problems, add an additional 450 tonnes capacity fuel tanks and replace computers and communications equipment. The sale package also included a 10% offset program and the upgrading of an Olympus industrial engine maintenance facility in Victoria to handle Olympus marine engines.

If the Argentines had invaded the Falklands on schedule Australia would have already made a major payment for the Invincible so whilst it could be used in the Falklands War there is no way it wouldn’t have been transferred afterwards.

 

[Tasman]

If the Argentines had invaded the Falklands on schedule Australia would have already made a major payment for the Invincible so whilst it could be used in the Falklands War there is no way it wouldn’t have been transferred afterwards.

The thing that really pissed me off was the decision to abandon naval fixed wing flying altogether. IMO the Skyhawks and Trackers should have at least been retained for fleet requirements work. It was galling when we had to ask the Kiwis to base ex RAN Skyhawks at Nowrah to provide realistic training for our surface ships. It appeared to me that the government was determined to gut the FAA to such an extent that there would be no possibility of a future government restoring the carrier force. If that was their aim they were extremely successful...

Tas

 

[peterAustralia]

Didnt almost all of the Trackers get burnt down in the early 1980s, they were in a hangar at HMAS Albatross, and a Navy person has some 'issues' and decided to light a little fire. that was the rumour around town (Nowra) in the early 1980s. Also heard they were getting a bit old at that time.

Yes having a carrier, not having one, then soon having two, doent make much sense, no continuation of type. I guess money and political reasons got in the way of things (defence of australia doctrine, thus we dont need a carrier). One would have thought that a 20,000t helicopter carrier would not be percieved as that aggressive, however I assume the experts knew best.

To the new American person.. (sorry cant remember name),, yes Nuclear is not politically an option (government would lose the election). As to need, an unspoken 'neccessity' seems to be to travel to the South China Sea and back and sink ships there, though for some reason this is not talked about pulicly a lot. Off the shelf subs, lack the range to go there and back easily (it is a long way to go), thus the 'neccessity' of a larger sub (more than 4000t, vs 2000t to 2500t that most off the shelf subs seem to be). (How the Oberons coped I will never know). HDW is now proposing a large sub (over 4000t), IMHO they are better at making and designing subs compared to us (just my opinion, not fact)

Take away the 'neccessity' to travel to the South China Sea and back submerged, and off the shelf designs come into play, at a fraction of the cost. The savings in billions of dollars could be spent elsewhere, (other ships, more subs of shorter range, helicopters, planes, tanks, etc etc).

It may be that the long range is truly essential. If that is the case then fair enough, trouble is that the reasons for doing so seem to be kept very quiet because they are not politically correct, took me awhile to work out why this requirement was deemed essential. The new HDW design gives the option of buying a large sub from a proven expert in sub design. It being true that we want to introduce a lot of american technology into out subs, so buying a German sub and filling it with US technology becomes a bit of an issue.

Either way, this has been discussed a lot here, so people are reluctant to go through it all over again just for one new person. It gets kinda complicated, plus I guess the Navy wants this 36 billion dollars spent on it, not to go to the Army or the air force.

 

[Sea Toby]

When you aren't willing to fund the proper maintenance and operations of six submarines, why would any government choose to buy twelve new submarines? Surely AUD 20 billion for six new submarines is much more affordable.

 

[alexsa]

When you aren't willing to fund the proper maintenance and operations of six submarines, why would any government choose to buy twelve new submarines? Surely AUD 20 billion for six new submarines is much more affordable.

Seriously most on this forum thing 12 is too much and this is a political statement of intent which may be as relaible as "there will never be a carbon tax under any government I lead". As such other issue (such as budget surpluses) may impact upon this and I don't think we need to get into a debate about it at this stage.

 

[jeffb]

Either way, this has been discussed a lot here, so people are reluctant to go through it all over again just for one new person. It gets kinda complicated, plus I guess the Navy wants this 36 billion dollars spent on it, not to go to the Army or the air force.

It can't be that hard to work out why the South China Sea is important, the best use of a Defence force is to deter conflict from happening in the first place, the conflicting claims of sovereignty here are long standing and well known. I would hardly say its kept quiet either as ASEAN is currently focused on coming up with a framework to work out all the competing claims diplomatically and in the news quite often.

The nature of Australia's relationship with China isn't quite as adversarial as you make it out to be ManteoRed, conflict of any form would be disastrous for Australia economically.

The issue with nuclear submarines for Australia comes down to a few issues, the lack of any domestic nuclear industry meaning that any nuclear submarine force would have to be serviced/refueled by a foreign nation, crewing requirements, nuclear proliferation in SEA, a complete lack of political will from anyone in Australia to touch anything nuclear, etc. There are performance issues that can be debated as well but they're largely irrelevant as the debate would never seriously get that far.

For me its not just the number of subs that need to be questions but the size and utility as well. Where are we looking at operating? The Indonesian Archipelago, South China & East China Seas can be fairly shallow places to operate, I can't see out subs operating further distances than this routinely. What is the maximum size we can operate effectively in these areas? Where would we likely operate from in the event of an actual conflict?

You could argue AIP and land attack capabilities are nothing more than dead weight, that also requires more added weight to maintain range, an interesting point to consider when the longer range requirements are often mentioned. ManteoRed you might be interested in reading up on the Collins' performance against the USN.

The best use of our subs has always been for intelligence to me, its important to ask whether including other systems are worth the compromise they bring to the platform rather than just including everything available.

The largest question that needs to be answered is always going to be is do we want true independent strategic weight? If not then 12 subs is far too many.

 

[ASSAIL]

Seriously most on this forum thing 12 is too much and this is a political statement of intent which may be as relaible as "there will never be a carbon tax under any government I lead". As such other issue (such as budget surpluses) may impact upon this and I don't think we need to get into a debate about it at this stage.

You're sure on the money there!
Now, after our esteemed leader has misappropriated $130m on the SB purchase, he rubs salt into our wounds by forshadowing that "new equipment purchases" will bear the brunt of cuts in support of the budget surplus.
Our Collins class will be operating until 2050 at this rate! Break out the Hedemora toolkits lads.

Wish deeply, hold the tongue, breath...Craig Thompson, Peter Slipper = sigh.

 

[Volkodav]

You're sure on the money there!
Now, after our esteemed leader has misappropriated $130m on the SB purchase, he rubs salt into our wounds by forshadowing that "new equipment purchases" will bear the brunt of cuts in support of the budget surplus.
Our Collins class will be operating until 2050 at this rate! Break out the Hedemora toolkits lads.

Wish deeply, hold the tongue, breath...Craig Thompson, Peter Slipper = sigh.

I fear PM Abbott will resemble PM Menzies in that he will be all populism and little substance. Defence I am sad to say will be gutted, so will science, manufacturing, education and infrastructure. I am hoping and praying for a change of leadership in Labor, not to get them over the line next election but rather to force the Liberals to dump Abbott for someone more sensible.

There is talk of beaming Carr into a safe lower house seat to become PM, if they are looking at doing that why not bring back the Bomber instead?

 

[Tasman]

Didnt almost all of the Trackers get burnt down in the early 1980s, they were in a hangar at HMAS Albatross, and a Navy person has some 'issues' and decided to light a little fire. that was the rumour around town (Nowra) in the early 1980s. Also heard they were getting a bit old at that time.

All but 3 were destroyed but 16 replacements were acquired from the USN.


Tas

 

[StevoJH]

All but 3 were destroyed but 16 replacements were acquired from the USN.


Tas

And it was in the Mid-1970's, not in the early 1980's.

 

[weegee]

RAN Sub decision just around the corner?

I just read in a paper that Mr Smith has said a sub decision is just around the corner with an announcement to be made shortly. In the article he still mentions the 3 European builders who are presenting designs gees I hope we don't scrimp on this purchase!

What about the Japanese route? I thought not long ago they made a change to their constitution allowing their defence material/designs being able to be exported etc? Wouldn't their subs be something to look at? aren't they the only large conventional subs in the world that match the Collins Class in size and capability?

But at least something seems to be moving in this issue.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I wouldn't be banking on 12 subs.

The prev PM was the driver for 12 - RAN didn't put those numbers up

And without wanting to do a Nostradamus, this Govt is gone, so all major decisions will be up for review by an incoming Govt

 

[t68]

If AusGov don’t want to spend the money on a new design, a revamp of the current design hull as it is a know quantity should be on the cards, using current MOTS US kit derived from Virginia Class submarines, would 4x V12 Cat gen sets fit in the place of the current 3x V18 Hedemora sets. It is only one of the pressing concerns but with additional help from Uncle Sam gen II boats should be better again. Good to see some movement on the issue; just hope they don’t go down European road again.

If they went down Collins MKII and only built 4 using the current hull how soon in theory could building begin and upgrade 2/4 of the least used current boats?
Do we own the IP for Collins hull would Kockums have a case for royalties using the same hull design?

What is the coalition’s line on the Submarines?

 

[gf0012-aust]

If AusGov don’t want to spend the money on a new design, a revamp of the current design hull as it is a know quantity should be on the cards, using current MOTS US kit derived from Virginia Class submarines, would 4x V12 Cat gen sets fit in the place of the current 3x V18 Hedemora sets. It is only one of the pressing concerns but with additional help from Uncle Sam gen II boats should be better again. Good to see some movement on the issue; just hope they don’t go down European road again.

If they went down Collins MKII and only built 4 using the current hull how soon in theory could building begin and upgrade 2/4 of the least used current boats?
Do we own the IP for Collins hull would Kockums have a case for royalties using the same hull design?

What is the coalition’s line on the Submarines?

military assets are commonwealth IP and theres enough fixes and changes in the NVH engineering side alone to defend that situation. let alone the amount of US IP thats been provided.

there is no way in hades that anyone with engineering requisites would propose a re-engine. the qualification, acoustic re-assessments etc would be huge.

 

[Tasman]

I wouldn't be banking on 12 subs.

The prev PM was the driver for 12 - RAN didn't put those numbers up

And without wanting to do a Nostradamus, this Govt is gone, so all major decisions will be up for review by an incoming Govt

My understanding is that the RAN has had 8 as its desired number ever since it returned to submarine operations in the 60s with the 'O' boats. Of course it has never achieved that number...

Tas

 

[weegee]

I wouldn't be banking on 12 subs.

The prev PM was the driver for 12 - RAN didn't put those numbers up

And without wanting to do a Nostradamus, this Govt is gone, so all major decisions will be up for review by an incoming Govt

I always thought that 12 was being optimistic, we do not have a large navy and to man that number of sub would need a massive injection of personal which means more money and we all know the government loves spending that at the moment haha.

 

[StingrayOZ]

All sorts of noises are that Rudd might resurface into a leadership position. Until that happen 12 subs is impossible. Even 8 subs seems unlikely under either government.

At this stage total number isn't an overt issue. As long as the Collins replacement makes it to construction phase at the right time, things will be okay. With 6 subs, we will have capability we have now, which is useful. 8 would put us in a much stronger position, more sustainable industry and we would have more regional ability than we do now.

8 was an option on both the o-boats and Collins with options we didn't take up. 6 however has at least allowed a fairly sustainable number of crews and boats.