Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Lets hope he gets good military advice and not political horse$hit.

my main concern is that this govt appears to have a higher focus on what Industry says rather than look at the fact that its the governance process which has been fundamentally responsible for delaying projects - and unfort both sides of Govt fail in wanting to accept the fact that its the way that the multi pass process has to be implemented via navigation of the various steering and oversight groups which blows things out.

the reality is that the number of projects which can go through the mandated available review slots is 50% higher than whats avail - so you automatically have delays. The Divisions don't control the governance process but they pay the end price as far as public visibility is concerned - and ultimately the end user pays in the end.

its a bit rich blaming DMO, CDG etc when they inherit the process and have no capacity to change it. Progs like RPDE have no care and responsibility beyond providing an initial "give me this because I need it" but the funds to sustain and maintain then have to come out of someone elses hide. - and guess who gets grumpy then.....

 

[ASSAIL]

ASW solutions:
-lots of SSGs
-smaller number of SSN
-Light carriers with Merlin
-Towed array/VDS/Helo on frigate / destroyer
-P-8 and
-HALE, i.e. persistent surveillance against snorting subs
-sea floor sensor arrays
-intelligence gathering

Make sure what ever we get for any planned littoral capability can as a minimum use the ASW outfit being developed by the USN for their LCS. Don't give a proverbial about 40kt but anything over 25kt and enough size to take the USN kit ASW kit, including the Romeo, would be a very smart way to go, not for the ANZAC replacement but for the ACPB replacement.

Your proposition would be fine if you want to hunt submarines in Australia's littoral moat but falls well short if you need ASW protection in the Western Pacific or Indian oceans.

ASW is an aggressive posture, play purely defensive and the game is lost.
Its something the RAN/RAAF were very good at in the CVS hunter killer group days.
To answer the question, which platform is best? ASW is an holistic game and is played by all platforms. That's why anti submarine exercises are called CASEX, COMBINED anti sub exercises.

Chris

 

[Volkodav]

Your proposition would be fine if you want to hunt submarines in Australia's littoral moat but falls well short if you need ASW protection in the Western Pacific or Indian oceans.

ASW is an aggressive posture, play purely defensive and the game is lost.
Its something the RAN/RAAF were very good at in the CVS hunter killer group days.
To answer the question, which platform is best? ASW is an holistic game and is played by all platforms. That's why anti submarine exercises are called CASEX, COMBINED anti sub exercises.

Chris

Thats why I listed light carriers with Merlins and frigates / destroyers with towed arrays or VDS and helos, as well as the P-8 and HALE.

My reference to the LCS which Johnston seems so keen on was to suggest only do it if it replaces the current PBs not ANZACs and if we do go for a LCS type, forget the extra speed and ensure you have ASW (by means of LCS modular systems), including a helo.

 

[weegee]

Hey guys any news on when Canberra heads out for some sea trials? It was to head out in December wasn't she? If can't be long now? I know the harbour trials went ok.

 

[StoresBasher]

Hey guys any news on when Canberra heads out for some sea trials? It was to head out in December wasn't she? If can't be long now? I know the harbour trials went ok.

Lets just say she is running a little behind schedule at the moment, everything is moving to the right.

 

[weegee]

Lets just say she is running a little behind schedule at the moment, everything is moving to the right.

Uh oh that sounds ominous!
I hope nothing serious? The program ( on the surface anyway) looked like it was going well and close to schedule.

 

[Volkodav]

The sea denial approach is only useful for defending the continent of Australia from invasion. It is of little use to defend the maritime lines of communication by which trade enters and leaves Australia or contributing to mutal defence in the region (South East Asia) or around the world. In historical terms the sea denial navy would have been useful from March 1942 to November 1942. At all other times in Australian history the expeditionary navy would have been far more useful. There is also a good argument to make that an expeditionary navy would actually be better at defending the continent of Australia from invasion than the sea denial navy.

The whole point of the Hugh White, Paul Dibb, aka Defence of Australia, viewpoint is to structure the ADF so it is incapable of expeditionary operations. This harks back to political opposition to the VietNam War and the Hawke Government’s opportunism in the 1980s to try and sit out the end of the Cold War. Using defence policy to force the government of the day into a political bind is far from appropriate in my opinion and opportunistically sitting out the crises of the world has proven to date a hopeless wish for Australia. As an advanced democratic nation and one dependent on global trade for our wealth we are forced to be a player in the security affairs of the world. Anything else is naïve and wishful thinking.

Well Jellicoes proposed RAN with two Battle Cruiser centric Fleet Units supported by carriers as well as land based bombers and fighters would have been greatly appreciated in 1942. Unfortunately, while not pacifist Australia's between the wars governments were still cheap.

 

[ASSAIL]

Well Jellicoes proposed RAN with two Battle Cruiser centric Fleet Units supported by carriers as well as land based bombers and fighters would have been greatly appreciated in 1942. Unfortunately, while not pacifist Australia's between the wars governments were still cheap.

They weren't cheap, they were broke thanks in no small part by the mother countries demand for us to pay back the cost of every piece of military equipment, including ammunition, that the Australians used during WW1.
Thanks for helping, don't mind the 60,000 dead and another 10,000 dying from injuries, just pay us back for using our "stuff"

 

[Volkodav]

They weren't cheap, they were broke thanks in no small part by the mother countries demand for us to pay back the cost of every piece of military equipment, including ammunition, that the Australians used during WW1.
Thanks for helping, don't mind the 60,000 dead and another 10,000 dying from injuries, just pay us back for using our "stuff"

True, also at the same time as the UK was demanding blood from stone from the Dominions they themselves had suspended payments to the US on their own war debts.

The Lang Government in NSW opposed continuing repayments during the Great Depression but were removed from office by conservative elements effectively averting a right wing coup. We had it all in Australia between the wars, Communists, Ultra Nationalists and Loyalists who put the "Mother Country" before the need to provide for our own veterans and their children.

It is ironic that Jellicoes plan involved the transfer of much equipment from the RN (free of charge) as well as proposing local production of combat aircraft in Australia, not so much for the defence of Australia but to enable Australia to better defend British interests in the region. It is also interesting that post WWI the AIF was not allowed to bring their vehicles, thousands of trucks, armoured cars and other equipment back with them but that we ended up paying for it anyway.

This is where the US is a better friend, they appreciate the support and are generous rather than demanding.

 

[Trackmaster]

Uh oh that sounds ominous!
I hope nothing serious? The program ( on the surface anyway) looked like it was going well and close to schedule.

I am going to sound like a very cynical person....but I hope it is not Williamstown chickens coming home to roost.

 

[Volkodav]

I am going to sound like a very cynical person....but I hope it is not Williamstown chickens coming home to roost.

One of the issues Australian ship building has is Australian Governments and the general public seem to expect them to be able to deliver worlds best practice first time every time in spite of the totally schizophrenic build schedules and valleys of death with no orders for years they are expected to work in.

Had the ANZACs been followed by the planned corvettes and then by DDG and FFG replacements we would have seen much better results. Instead the corvettes were cancelled and (eventually) two thirds of the tier 1 combatant force retired without replacement. Nine destroyers and frigates are to be replaced with three more capable ships bought at great expense, in part because of the ship building holiday following the ANZACs has made it to expensive to buy more ships but also because the transfer of resources from the "tail to the teeth" in the various defence efficiency drives has gutted the RANs engineering and logistics specialities .

 

[alexsa]

True, also at the same time as the UK was demanding blood from stone from the Dominions they themselves had suspended payments to the US on their own war debts.

The Lang Government in NSW opposed continuing repayments during the Great Depression but were removed from office by conservative elements effectively averting a right wing coup. We had it all in Australia between the wars, Communists, Ultra Nationalists and Loyalists who put the "Mother Country" before the need to provide for our own veterans and their children.

It is ironic that Jellicoes plan involved the transfer of much equipment from the RN (free of charge) as well as proposing local production of combat aircraft in Australia, not so much for the defence of Australia but to enable Australia to better defend British interests in the region. It is also interesting that post WWI the AIF was not allowed to bring their vehicles, thousands of trucks, armoured cars and other equipment back with them but that we ended up paying for it anyway.

This is where the US is a better friend, they appreciate the support and are generous rather than demanding.

Not really. THe UK only finished paying off WWII lend lease (with some extra thrown in for Korea) in the last decade. US industry did very well out of the UK while being provided the fruits of developement from the UK (i.e Merlin engines and centimentric radar as an example) which ws manufactured and sold back to the UK with no IP considerations.

Given the funds sunk inot Europe after WWII without any requirement to repay this could be construed as very shoddy treatment of an ally who kept the door open to Europe at great cost.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well Jellicoes proposed RAN with two Battle Cruiser centric Fleet Units supported by carriers as well as land based bombers and fighters would have been greatly appreciated in 1942. Unfortunately, while not pacifist Australia's between the wars governments were still cheap.

They never could have been acquired. Australia was under the umbrella of the UK in the Washington and London Naval Treaties. The UK did not have spare tonnage under these treaties for Australia, or the UK, to acquire additional capital units.

Considering Australia’s financial and industrial position we were very well prepared on the land and on the sea for WWII. People note the failings but rarely note the great successes. Our ordnance production for land use was quite impressive and would have made mincemeat of any Japanese invasion if the other domains (air and sea) were not brought into play. At sea we had the very successful Bathurst class Local Defence Vessel (LDV), renamed the Australian Mine Sweeper (AMS) as a subterfuge to try and hide their primary ASW role, plus additional production of ASSW frigates and merchant ships. While warship production (destroyer, cruiser, etc) production was low during the war that can be blamed on the 1920s “Valley of Death” brought about by the Government decision to build the new heavy cruisers in the UK. The heavy cruisers proposed to build at Codock in the 1920s may have cost more but they would have been better suited to the RAN’s needs (more powerful) and laid the groundwork for further warship production in the 1930s and 40s.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19763.0.html
See here for the specs of the Codock heavy cruiser(s) proposals.

The area of Australia’s military preparation for WWII that was the most messed up by decision making was in aviation. The actions of Menzies and Bruce in the 1930s were actually criminal in their betrayal of Australian interests to those of the UK in the development of the local aircraft industry (commercial airlines and local production). All of which plus plenty other bad decisions resulted in a RAAF in 1941 that lacked the kind of depth, national independence and combat capability it could easily have had and was required to defeat a Japanese attack. Dr Peter Ewer’s excellent book “Wounded Eagle” is required reading to understand this history.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

They weren't cheap, they were broke thanks in no small part by the mother countries demand for us to pay back the cost of every piece of military equipment, including ammunition, that the Australians used during WW1.
Thanks for helping, don't mind the 60,000 dead and another 10,000 dying from injuries, just pay us back for using our "stuff"

Well they had to pay for it all in the first place and without the benefit of delaying payment over the years and afterwards. The financial sacrifices made by the UK of GB in WWI and WWII were immense. They effectively paid for the defeat of the German imperialists twice over (and also paid for the defeat of Napoleon 100 years before). In 40 years they went from by far the world’s richest country to a very poor one.

The main beneficiary of all this money was the USA. The industrial development of America before WWI had been in the main paid for by the UK. The British basically owned most of American industry. But this all had to be liquidated and the cash handed over to the USG to buy munitions to run WWI. Then the same thing had to be repeated all over again in WWII until the UK ran out of money and then the Americans stepped in to provide the material for free.

Australia can be proud of the financial and industrial role we played in WWI and WWII being in there from the beginning and paying for more than our fair share. Which is more than some other countries can say including that rather conspicuous one that spends a lot of time talking about how they won the war even though they only joined in after the principal enemy had been defeated in the field and was in retreat.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

True, also at the same time as the UK was demanding blood from stone from the Dominions they themselves had suspended payments to the US on their own war debts.

Which is why they wanted the money to pay for the purchasing of the war material from the USA in the first place.

The Lang Government in NSW opposed continuing repayments during the Great Depression but were removed from office by conservative elements effectively averting a right wing coup. We had it all in Australia between the wars, Communists, Ultra Nationalists and Loyalists who put the "Mother Country" before the need to provide for our own veterans and their children.

Lang’s repudiation of loans was not about right vs left but sanity vs insanity. Nationalisation is short term gain for long term pain and would have caused greater harm to Australian workers than paying the money back. Look at countries like Egypt to see what life is like as a developing economy without foreign investment.

It is ironic that Jellicoes plan involved the transfer of much equipment from the RN (free of charge)

So Australia would have had to pay for their crew and upkeep between the wars only for them to sail off to the Med in WWII and Churchill refuse to release them when the Japanese attacked?

as well as proposing local production of combat aircraft in Australia, not so much for the defence of Australia but to enable Australia to better defend British interests in the region.

That was the same plan that built hundreds of Beauforts in Australia at huge duplication of resources when we could have just paid CAC to build far more combat effective US tech fighters and light bombers.

It is also interesting that post WWI the AIF was not allowed to bring their vehicles, thousands of trucks, armoured cars and other equipment back with them but that we ended up paying for it anyway.

Shipping isn’t free.

This is where the US is a better friend, they appreciate the support and are generous rather than demanding.

I’m not so sure about that. The US may appear to be a better friend because we’ve needed them in better times for them than when we’ve needed the UK and also we had mutual aims. But they didn’t give a damn for our interests and that of our colony in PNG when they handed West Papua over to the Indonesians in ’62.

Don’t get me wrong the US is a better friend for us today than anyone else and the UK has shown some terrible behaviour in the 60s and 70s around the world. But the UK was better to Australia in WWI and WWII than I think we give them credit for.

 

[Volkodav]

A colleague who is a history buff suggested to me that the US was quite pleased to see the end of the Dutch, French and British empires as a result of WWII. He even stated that it was a primary aim of the US pre war.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A colleague who is a history buff suggested to me that the US was quite pleased to see the end of the Dutch, French and British empires as a result of WWII. He even stated that it was a primary aim of the US pre war.

FDR made it clear early during the war they weren't fighting for the (British) Empire. However by the end of the war they realised that if they didn't support the British, French and Dutch going back into the empire business they would get Soviet client states in their place. So they did provide support to the reestablishment of the empires. Not that the British needed their help but the French and Dutch did.

 

[ASSAIL]

But the UK was better to Australia in WWI and WWII than I think we give them credit for.

The unbridled jingoism apparent within our fledgling nation during WW1 is understandable and the 1st AIF paid a terrible price for it. I don't think we owe the Empire anything, in fact it took a Militia/civil engineer General John Monash to bring some sanity into the way the British leadership, conducted the land war.

Churchill's strategic imperatives did not include consideration of Australia. His disasters in Greece, Crete (against the advice of his military), and Singapore cost 20,000 Australian casualties killed or captured.
His defining strategy was the preservation of the Empire without compromise.
Therefor we Australians can be grateful for the heritage but we owe them nothing.
As an aside, MacArthur was just as single minded and simply regarded us as a doormat to the Philippines.

Those World War lessons should be well remembered and are just as relevant today and are the very reason why our independence must be valued and our forces prepared to act that way even though we have a continued role in as a global citizen.

Chris

 

[gf0012-aust]

Given the funds sunk inot Europe after WWII without any requirement to repay this could be construed as very shoddy treatment of an ally who kept the door open to Europe at great cost.

If you want a depressing read on how Roosevelt screwed Churchill then have a read of Churchill 1940-1945 under friendly Fire by Walter Reid

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The unbridled jingoism apparent within our fledgling nation during WW1 is understandable and the 1st AIF paid a terrible price for it. I don't think we owe the Empire anything, in fact it took a Militia/civil engineer General John Monash to bring some sanity into the way the British leadership, conducted the land war.

WWI wasn’t just fought by Australia for jingo it was fought to stop the German Empire from taking over the world. It would have been an economic and security disaster for Australia if the Germans had won WWI. The true stakes of WWI are better explained by Merv Bendle than I:

https://www.google.com.au/#q=Keating's+Remembrance+Day+speech+echoed+Leninist+nihilism

Churchill's strategic imperatives did not include consideration of Australia. His disasters in Greece, Crete (against the advice of his military), and Singapore cost 20,000 Australian casualties killed or captured.

Greece and Crete were strategic blunders only if one doesn’t consider what would have happened if the British hadn’t fought for them. Turkey might have entered the war on the German side or as a part ally to the Germans like the Soviet Union was at that time. This would have been the worst possible outcome at the time for the anti-German fight. Malaya and Singapore were lost because of bad theatre command on the first day of the war not because of anything Churchill did or didn’t do.

His defining strategy was the preservation of the Empire without compromise.

No it was to defeat the Germans. The greatest threat to the world at that time. While extremely unpleasant for Australia the Japanese were rightly a secondary war and within that war the SWP (New Guinea area) was a secondary theatre.

The ‘Bloody Shambles’ of resisting the Japanese onslaught was a combination of poor high command leadership from the British and Americans (Brooke-Popham and Macarthur) and poor defence management by Australia.

The perception of WWI and WWII and Australia as victims of Britain is an unfortunate by-product of the developing of distinct Australian identity and nationalism.