Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Raven22]

Well I think pretty much the Navy, Government and the think tanks all agreed that 12 was needed. I'm not sure what more discussion is needed. Nuclear was ruled out by government, so that just leaves the type and place to build the diesels.

My point was rand0m was stating that reducing the buy of submarines would free up money for lots of other projects in the ADF. You rejected this outright because everyone agrees there is a need for 12 submarines. This may be true, but since when has a need for something resulted in it absolutely having to come to pass? My point was that there are lots of other 'requirements' out there that wont be fulfilled. Why should the submarines be sacrosanct?

For instance, reducing the submarine buy by three boats would be enough to pay for the entirety of Land 400. This is a good thing, as the current plan has us operating the same M113s that fought the battle of Long Tan in 1966 out to 2030.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Is it a good thing?

I'll be frank with you. I'd much rather subs than armoured vehicles. Bushmasters have been great in Afghanistan but Abrams won't be leaving Australia anytime soon and we can't even keep the fuel supply chain following them.

So I'm not exactly sure why we would compromise on a force projection capability like 12 subs for better armoured vehicles.

Subs are the number one thing we have for offensive and defensive operations. It's even why nuclear subs were briefly entertained.

 

[Raven22]

Is it a good thing?
T
I'll be frank with you. I'd much rather subs than armoured vehicles. Bushmasters have been great in Afghanistan but Abrams won't be leaving Australia anytime soon and we can't even keep the fuel supply chain following them.

So I'm not exactly sure why we would compromise on a force projection capability like 12 subs for better armoured vehicles.

Subs are the number one thing we have for offensive and defensive operations. It's even why nuclear subs were briefly entertained.

This is the same sub capability that has been reduced to about one working boat over the last few years without the heavens falling? The same capability where the current six boats can't be manned anyway, yet we are supposed to believe that we can magically crew 12?

While I wouldn't expect you to believe anything different to what you've stated, I'm sure you'll be equally not shocked when I disagree. The various government's of the last 14 years have seen the need to deploy tens of thousands of soldiers to various conflicts around the world. I dare say the government of 2030 would also like the option of deploying soldiers to various places in the world, which with current plans they wont be able to do if those places have access to weapons heavier than sharpened pieces of fruit.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Since all the defence articles are classified there are plenty of examples here:

Kokoda Foundation - Archive Kokoda Papers

 

[StingrayOZ]

Is there even money for 12 submarines? No point in saving money you never had.

Remember when Rudds paper came out, it came as a shock, to everyone. Government was giving everyone cheques, crazy times.

Honestly 8 subs is a fairly realistic number. Maybe 8 with a schedule for 12 if required. However, given the amount of development that needs to occur, cutting numbers doesn't save giant jobs of cash as much as you would think. I would also push the build back and spacing it out a bit to try and create a bit more of a sustainable industry.

It is about the whole package for the ADF. If China was actually a militant power and doing lots of naughty things (sinking carriers?), we would be better off cancelling most of the army and buying 24 subs. That isn't happening so we need to create a balanced force for the threats we do have.

Better idea might be to cancel any more fighters stick to the delayed F-35 schedule and save a bucket of money now and in the future. Personally I see the Army and Navy very busy being deployed together in the region (and out of the region). I don't see an immediate air threat that we can't handle with what we have now, and with the F-35's we are getting, we can even participate in international exercises. Freeing up ~6 billion would fix the navy and the army and spend it more on local build. You could get a 3rd LHD (partly paid from DFAT Spain aid), AORs, 4th/5th AWD, armour for the army, helos for everyone,robot planes, troops inboots etc.

In fact you could argue the 4th and 5th AWD replace fighter the aircraft. At least your taking money out to pay for similar related capability.

 

[Raven22]

Since all the defence articles are classified there are plenty of examples here:

That's okay, I'll just read them at work

 

[justsomeaussie]

That's okay, I'll just read them at work

No worries. Typically they just leave them open for everyone. It's called the all encompassing need to know principal. Just jump on your nearest DSN and type in "why do we need 12 subs".

 

[Raven22]

No worries. Typically they just leave them open for everyone. It's called the all encompassing need to know principal. Just jump on your nearest DSN and type in "why do we need 12 subs".

It's all right. I'll just type in the word 'condescension' and I'm sure it will pop right up.

 

[justsomeaussie]

It's all right. I'll just type in the word 'condescension' and I'm sure it will pop right up.

Settle down mate. It was you who needed to bring up "reading them at work" as if other people here arent in similar roles.

What I meant was that is not as if Defence publishes any strategy especially sub strategy online and that a Defence think tank who's written dozens of papers about it would be a good start for people unfamiliar. Papers written by professional analysts in consultation with Navy and Governemnts and unclassified for release.

You claim about what have subs done for us is immediately counted by your own argument of another battalion. What exactly would another battalion have done for national security?

Of course what subs have done will never be published so its a hard argument to back up.

Perhaps worthy to highlight that from a design perspective the Collins is the best diesel sub in the world, it was purely the maintenance contract that cocked it up.

Navy has also said that they don't see recruitment as a big issue for 12 subs so we'll have to take their word for that.

Again all this is in the papers in the link I provided.

 

[t68]

I can see where Raven is coming with the numbers for our submarine service if the ADF had a larger budget it could accommodate most of the service’s needs, but since this current government is sending us hurling towards a fiscal cliff I think it’s prudent to cut back the sub force by two or three boats would I like to see 12 submarine force for the RAN yep does the RAAF need cheaper suitable aircraft for COIN CAS aerial reconnaissance in a low threat environment yep and would I like to see a balanced and better protected equipped force for Plan Beersheba of course.

The RN makes do with 7 SSN admittedly the can stay on station for longer periods than Collins can and are closer to their operational areas. It was discussed some time ago that ideally it requires 5 boats for every one on station to cover everything from maintenance to transit times, but by still having only nine boats if we need to in extreme circumstance we can deploy4/ 5 out of nine for one in one out.

Submarine provides Australia with the means to engage with a foreign power in a way that’s make them question our intensions covertly or overtly. But its boots on the ground that do the majority of the governments dirty work and should have the equipment to maximize their chance of coming home in one piece, if that means 3 less submarine so be it.

 

[justsomeaussie]

If I remember correctly if they go with 12 subs, they last one wouldn't be built till 2045 and immediately after that they start on Collins mark 3. The idea being that its so expensive to turn the workforce on and off that its better to have a rolling build and design so each sub improves on the previous build and then a major upgrade after 12.

The biggest elephant in the room is that 2045 is a long way off and probably longer than we've ever planned for in the future. I would've be surprised if by 2025 we figure out that unmanned subs or some other option will be a far better method and scrap the whole thing.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If I remember correctly if they go with 12 subs, they last one wouldn't be built till 2045 and immediately after that they start on Collins mark 3. The idea being that its so expensive to turn the workforce on and off that its better to have a rolling build and design so each sub improves on the previous build and then a major upgrade after 12.

Which is the only argument for 12 submarines: its good for industry policy. Which is also why the only argument made before the Rudd White Paper for more than 6-8 submarines was by ASC. They (ASC) made a submission to the Strategic Shipbuilding Inquiry that we not only need 12 submarines but we need to only operate them for an 18 year lifetime like Japan so therefore they would be delivering a new submarine every 1.5 years. The only person who listened was K-Rudd who saw this as a great way to sustain the submarine industry for a range of political reasons. Fighting China was a BS reason that enough people were willing to swallow at the publishing of the White Paper. Though the constellation of radar IMGSATs needed to support the submarines and their cruise missiles seems to have been quietly forgotton.

So once again the ADF’s budget takes a hit to meet the non-defence objectives of the Government. Just add Submarines 7-12 to the list: APIN, Hawkei PMV, AF100 frigate, ACPB, 98% of personnel administration policies.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Bushmasters have been great in Afghanistan but Abrams won't be leaving Australia anytime soon and we can't even keep the fuel supply chain following them.

The deployment of tanks overseas is entirely a political question. They would have served very well in Afghanistan just like they did in Vietnam. As to the fuel supply chain that is total BS. If we can fly helicopters on operations then we can drive tanks. The later uses far less fuel.

So I'm not exactly sure why we would compromise on a force projection capability like 12 subs for better armoured vehicles.

Too actually implement effects and save lives while doing so.

Subs are the number one thing we have for offensive and defensive operations. It's even why nuclear subs were briefly entertained.

Maybe in WWII but things are a bit different now. Even with Tomahawk strike weapons the amount of damage a fleet of 12 submarines can inflict is a drop in the ocean compared to the air force. The primary capability of our submarines is intelligence gathering and anti-enemy navy operations. But when it comes to sinking an enemy fleet they are going to be hard pressed to find targets. Unless we find ourselves in a rather unlikely Falklands War scenario.

We need submarines in our force structure but we don’t need twice as many units 1.5-2 times as more capable as the ones we have now.

 

[justsomeaussie]

I've been to Afghanistan and have spoken with the BM drivers who were Abrams crew commanders and all would agree that Afghansitan is great tank country but all knew that Australia simply doesn't have the supply chain to be able support them. That's mostly due to the fact that we don't have any armoured fuel trucks short of a battle mog.

Refuelling a helo and refuelling a fuel guzzling tank is what kept major tank deployments out of Afghanistan.

 

[icelord]

Im navy and im saying we need armour more then we need subs. Did i miss something or have we managed with 2 operational for the last 10 years that we need 8 all of a sudden? To do what exactly, can somebody please tell me what 8 submarines would be needed for. Its not classified, its not strategic, as AG pointed out, its industry reasons. Last i checked ASC did not do the strategic planning for the RAN, or am i wrong?

6 is fine if you have a working maintenance schedule, and an industry that has the right attitude to support it. We struggle to man 6 subs, yet 12 is the right number? Fleet Base West would look fantastic every week, cause you would see 9 subs tied up no matter what, as no one can man the damn things. 12 is BS, has always been BS and serves no strategic value.

I dont know if anyone else noticed, but the last few years the Army has been more essential to operations overseas then the Navy. Ive done Op slipper in the Gulf of Aden before anyone points it out, so im well aware of how "Busy" we are, compared to boots on the ground in Afghanistan we were drunken sailors in a region "without booze".(its a myth, you can buy alcohol in most Middle eastern countries if 150 sailors go looking)

Im big on multi role for the navy, we need to move away from frigates and destroyers towards multi-role. This is why im fascinated by the Danes and their outlook, with Absalon and now Ivar Huitfeldt. When the LPAs and Tobroken were out, we had to look at the option of sending frigates with helos to brisbane for the floods and Japan following the earthquake, i kid you not. This would have been achievable with a vessel like Absalon as it had room for supplies, medical staff and other personnel to send landing parties along the coast and provide support as neccesary. With a FFG or FFH, it wouldnt happen.

As has been mentioned, we have to move away from the mindset of ship Vs ship battles, as modern technology makes it redundant. Country A has a ship that out ranges 70% of country Bs surface fleet, but B has a missile that can breach that range and eliminate As ship. Its a tail end of cold war mania, where 2 sides would battle it out. Now we are looking at more Asymetric warfare, and the threats of smaller, faster attackers. The danger of a rogue nation exists, so we need to accomadate for that, but thats one rogue nation out of all the collapsing economies and natural disasters that will occur over a ships lifetime.

The requirement for OCV is not as pressing as OPV, we need a bigger vessel then the ACPB to deal with our current role in border protection, and the Armidale is well beyond its design capacity. Even 4-6 OPVs now would reduce the burden on ACPB and customs, and be more effective then sending a frigate.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I've been to Afghanistan and have spoken with the BM drivers who were Abrams crew commanders and all would agree that Afghansitan is great tank country but all knew that Australia simply doesn't have the supply chain to be able support them. That's mostly due to the fact that we don't have any armoured fuel trucks short of a battle mog.

With all due respect to your tank commanders they don’t run logistics for the battle group. There is enough fuel in theatre to sustain the kind of tank deployments needed for the tempo of operations. Which is why there are a number of tanks there (20-30?).

Project Paladin provided force protection for all trucks deployed by the ADF in theatre including the Mack trucks used by 1 Armd Regt as Abrams fuellers. If a higher mobility, protected tank fueller was needed for the mission then one could be acquired rapidly and wouldn’t hold up a deployment.

The Army Journal had an article a few years ago outlining what kind of tank deployment and the level of logistics needed. It was not extreme.

Refuelling a helo and refuelling a fuel guzzling tank is what kept major tank deployments out of Afghanistan.

“Major” tank deployments are not needed just a reinforced troop to support the ADF’s level of commitment. The irony is the same anti tank arguments against the Abrams in Afghanistan were used against the Centurion in Vietnam and the Matilda in New Guinea. The later two were proven wrong but the Army had to pay in blood because the Abrams never had the chance to prove itself this time around.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Here is the core concept. Australia is strategically very vulnerable due to its reliance on foreign oil. At any point in time Australia is 30 days away from pretty much anarchy. Sounds dramatic, but a blockage of Singapore harbour means that after a few days or so there is no diesel to refuel the trucks which supply the supermarkets. Once we have a scare we’ll have a rush on the supermarkets and there will be no food left.

You can forget about deploying an army when they can’t even drive to the base because there is no fuel in their car. Fuel for ships and aircraft? You have to be kidding yourselves.

Don’t believe me? Well read this from the former Deputy Chief of Airforce in a study he did for NRMA just released this year:

http://www.mynrma.com.au/media/Fuel_Security_Report.pdf

And there are more like it if you look for them.

So this vulnerability means that our Sea Lines of Communication are critical to Australia even functioning as a country. It means that before we worry about winning a war we have to worry about even being able to deploy. So that means the ability to protect the SLOCs.

As we previously discussed if it turns bad our surface ships won’t be doing much but blocking the SLOCs with their hulls on the bottom of the ocean. That leaves us with subs and to date, the money is on the subs to be able to keep the SLOCs open and keep the trade coming through.

With regards to the numbers as I said earlier the inability to deploy the Collins wasn’t based of the subs themselves but a ridiculous maintenance contract which was imposed on them. Akin to the Armidale’s where if you have a poor maintenance contract you’ll ensure that the vessels are kept in a state where they can’t deploy. CN announced not long ago that after adjusting the Armidale’s maintenance contract that they are putting far more vessels at sea than ever before.

Think of it as a tipping point, that the maintenance needs to be slightly higher than the amount of wear and tear happening on the vessel. Due to the escalated levels of operation the Armidale’s were in, the tipping point was reversed and each vessel slowly got worse, not better.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Here is the core concept. Australia is strategically very vulnerable due to its reliance on foreign oil. At any point in time Australia is 30 days away from pretty much anarchy. Sounds dramatic, but a blockage of Singapore harbour means that after a few days or so there is no diesel to refuel the trucks which supply the supermarkets. Once we have a scare we’ll have a rush on the supermarkets and there will be no food left.

None of this is new. Though I would hazard a suggestion that just because Australia trades fuel prices on the Singapore market does not mean all of our fuel needs come from Singapore. Far from it. Crude oil comes to Australia direct from the outlet.

But the core of the issue is correct. That Australia’s economy is reliant on the global system of trade. The key question you need to explain is how a fleet of 12 Australian submarines makes a difference to maintaining the global system of trade?

 

[justsomeaussie]

None of this is new. Though I would hazard a suggestion that just because Australia trades fuel prices on the Singapore market does not mean all of our fuel needs come from Singapore. Far from it. Crude oil comes to Australia direct from the outlet.

But the core of the issue is correct. That Australia’s economy is reliant on the global system of trade. The key question you need to explain is how a fleet of 12 Australian submarines makes a difference to maintaining the global system of trade?

I'd start with the paper from NRMA and finish with one of the Kokoda papers regarding future submarines.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'd start with the paper from NRMA and finish with one of the Kokoda papers regarding future submarines.

Why? None of them explain why we need 12 submarines.