Any chance of a link to those articles? Thanks.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The_Wrecker
New Member
I tried to add the link for you but unfortunately I haven't yet reached 10 posts...lol
Try Googling NAVALTODAY.com and you will find it.
I guess the first ship to get the new treatment will be HMAS Anzac which is currently under refit. By the looks of the photos posted earlier on the thread, she's a little devoid of paint at the moment.
Time to get back on topic folks 
Its been an enlightening diversion though
Its been an enlightening diversion though
Long term members will remember that this site has long flagged the issue and benefits of teaming up with the Japanese, and its been apparent over the last few years that the shift was getting some currency wrt subs
well, the Japanese have now been approached about teaming up for SLE opportunities re Collins and Snr staff from Japan have toured ASC recently
well, the Japanese have now been approached about teaming up for SLE opportunities re Collins and Snr staff from Japan have toured ASC recently
I have read several times that, had the Cold War became a shooting war, the RAN and the RNZN would form an anti submarine task force based around HMAS Melbourne.
Is there any imformation or articles available on this formation?
I would like to know about its composition, tactics, armament and expected areas of deployment.
Most WW3 writing, both fiction and nonfiction, deals almost exclusively with the European land war and the north atlantic.
Is there any imformation or articles available on this formation?
I would like to know about its composition, tactics, armament and expected areas of deployment.
Most WW3 writing, both fiction and nonfiction, deals almost exclusively with the European land war and the north atlantic.
the road runner
Active Member
The Minister for Defence David Johnson talks about Japanese help re drive train on the ASPI website.
The Question is posed to him at the 35 minute mark on the below link.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYhU6jwDMYU"]Minister for Defence David Johnston speaks to ASPI, 3 December 2013 - YouTube[/nomedia]
Well it depends on when in the Cold War you are talking about. The first ten years are well covered in "A Critical Vulnerability" by David Stevens. Which you can download from the net and I've linked it to in this thread maybe 2-3 times over the past 5 years.
After this time period (1955-65) the main agency for regional WWIII fighting was the FESR (Far East Strategic Reserve) a UK run, Singapore based joint fleet. Then the VietNam War saw a massive increase in the US presence for ten years.
The principal focus for Australia in this planning was South East Asia. Keeping the lines of communication open through the region from west to east.
t68
Well-Known Member
It’s funny you should say that GF as I came across this paper the other day, it’s interesting as it shows that Australia could well in fact be able to cope with nuclear submarines without a dedicated nuclear industry.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/australia/files/could-australias-future-submarines-be-nuclear-powered
Aside from the politics of the issue according to this paper if the RAN were to invest in nuclear powered submarine it does have other benefits to the wider technological advancement in the nuclear medicine field and I quote,
“It should be noted that there is a significant global shortage of nuclear regulatory personnel and that there are significant challenges in developing this capability, although some already exists in Australia to support the OPAL research and medical isotope reactor. In practice, the primary training ground for many potential recruits into nuclear safety inspectorates is a nuclear submarine engineering force. The existing nuclear regulatory bodies in Australia would benefit in the long run from the use of SSNs by the Royal Australian Navy”
Also in the with the current climate of funding the future submarine a MOTS nuclear submarine is apparently comparable with building an evolved Collins or clean sheet design and with less risk involved and would still be reliant on overseas interest to maintain the capability whether it’s a SSG or SSN
” The Australian Government will need to expand its submarine workforce and expertise significantly, regardless of whether it pursues either a MOTS nuclear-powered submarine or modifies a conventional submarine to meet the Future Submarine requirements”
“Whatever the decision on nuclear-powered versus diesel-electric submarines, Australia will need to develop its local skills and infrastructure in order to meet its Future Submarine requirements. This will require considerable investment, foresight and early action. To support a nuclear-powered option, Australia may be able to initially rely on its allied partners, based locally or offshore, until it was able develop its own nuclear capability for servicing and maintaining the submarine reactors. However, the remainder of the workforce required to build or assemble the non-propulsion aspects of a MOTS nuclear-powered submarine is considerable. Australia will need several thousand skilled workers in place in order to build or assemble the next generation of submarines, and a few hundred more ongoing personnel for the operation and maintenance of the submarine fleet.”
“Australia would also need to develop nuclear regulatory skills in order to safely manage and operate a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines based at Australian ports. Australia does, however, already have substantial experience and expertise in relation to regulating and monitoring the activities of the uranium industry, the operation of Australia’s nuclear research reactor and from nuclear-propulsion naval vessels entering Australian waters that may require protection of the public and environment from any harmful effects of radiation.”
When John Howard was PM he had an agenda for nuclear power stations for base load power, if he was still PM do you think nuclear power would be on the radar for the RAN?
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Assuming for the moment that the political climate in this country allowed the Government to be in a position to have the nuclear option on the table, would we actually go down that path?
If the choice did come down to the US Virginia class or an evolved Collins that was equipped with US combat systems and also with Japanese propulsion systems for example, and the evolved Collins met and exceeded the requirements, would a nuclear boat be an automatic selection?
This is not a 'this vs that' question, more about if both choices were on the table what would be more appropriate for the job that Navy needs to do and the environment that it intends to operate them.
Does it necessarily follow just because we could take the nuclear option that it would be appropriate to do so?
If the choice did come down to the US Virginia class or an evolved Collins that was equipped with US combat systems and also with Japanese propulsion systems for example, and the evolved Collins met and exceeded the requirements, would a nuclear boat be an automatic selection?
This is not a 'this vs that' question, more about if both choices were on the table what would be more appropriate for the job that Navy needs to do and the environment that it intends to operate them.
Does it necessarily follow just because we could take the nuclear option that it would be appropriate to do so?
Its kind of another how long is an absolute piece of string.
eg all things being equal, nuke power gives you the theoretical issue of cruising the world forever while the rest of the world suffers from the zombie apocolypse
the delimiter is actually far more basic - ie onboard food and whether the fitout stays sympathetic to the mission set. eg, if your job is ISR then you can stay out till your food runs out - if your job is to sink, harass, cripple, choke, dislocate, then your primary role stops once your weapons run out - at that point your secondary role probably defaults to primary
even with the US nukes its about food and vittles rather than absolute staying out at sea just because you can etc.....
if there were no constraints, then for me, superficially, nuke power (as opposed to nuke weapons) is preferred over conventional
the oft repeated mantra has been about conventionals being able to be quieter than nukes - but the Virginias - and certainly Seawolf class put a lie to that mantra
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Thanks GF, your last paragraph was probably the main thing I was thinking of, and that was that convention boats were quieter than nuclear boats and it was probably the case at least until the Seawolf's and Virginia's came along.Its kind of another how long is an absolute piece of string.
eg all things being equal, nuke power gives you the theoretical issue of cruising the world forever while the rest of the world suffers from the zombie apocolypse
the delimiter is actually far more basic - ie onboard food and whether the fitout stays sympathetic to the mission set. eg, if your job is ISR then you can stay out till your food runs out - if your job is to sink, harass, cripple, choke, dislocate, then your primary role stops once your weapons run out - at that point your secondary role probably defaults to primary
even with the US nukes its about food and vittles rather than absolute staying out at sea just because you can etc.....
if there were no constraints, then for me, superficially, nuke power (as opposed to nuke weapons) is preferred over conventional
the oft repeated mantra has been about conventionals being able to be quieter than nukes - but the Virginias - and certainly Seawolf class put a lie to that mantra
In my limited understanding of these things, I've been able understand that nukes certainly have longer legs than a conventional boat (sort of like a marathon runner compared to a 100m sprinter!), but of course they are still limited by food and crew endurance capabilities too.
On the flip side it had been my understanding that a conventional boat might have the edge in ISR operations, especially in littoral waters, due to them being able to operate very quietly for example.
Realistically, even if the political climate in this Country started to change in the near future (if it did, it will probably be a rather long and slow change too), I certainly don't see a time soon that Nukes could be put on the table, maybe we might see a chance of that happening when the 'Grandson' of Collins is being planned for in 20 years or so.
I've often wonder, with distances that our current and future conventional boats have to travel (being based at FBW) before they start a mission, if it would be a good idea to have basing facilities in the North so that they could resupply without having to return to FBW, or indeed that a submarine tender is built that could forward deploy to Darwin or Cocos Islands for example.
We have aerial tankers to refuel the air force, we have resupply at sea for the surface fleet, why not a submarine tender for the subs too.
that's not too far away from a new reality........
re prev, it's too difficult to make simple comparisons without context, and getting into context is risky business no matter common knowledge some may think it is
put it this way, in recent times, in waters prev seen as the hunting domain of conventionals, US nukes have been able to tailgate multiple conventionals without them being aware - they were able to broadcast due to concerns about a pending disaster and both conventionals had no idea that they were there.
I suspect that the USN would have still pulled that off if they'd been in a large modern conventional due to training training training....
The submarine problem is a whole lot more than buying them from the UK or the US. For starters does Australia have the capability today to process the fuel? To dispose of the fuel? To operate the nuclear power plant safely? Frankly, you have to have a nuclear power industry to do all of the above and with much expenses than buying a submarine. Then there are the political realities, Australia will want to build their subs in Australia.
I can build a wagon with four wheels. But I can't build an automobile. We are talking in the similar terms with nuclear submarines. Where are the teachers and trainers of safe nuclear power plant operations? Australia needs to take the baby steps before running into nuclear power. And that takes time. lots of it, and lots of money.
I can build a wagon with four wheels. But I can't build an automobile. We are talking in the similar terms with nuclear submarines. Where are the teachers and trainers of safe nuclear power plant operations? Australia needs to take the baby steps before running into nuclear power. And that takes time. lots of it, and lots of money.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Well that is interesting ...... it just seemed like common sense to me, but as we know common sense is a pretty rare commodity!
I Googled the distance by sea from Fremantle to Darwin and it's 2259nm (or 4183km), a submarine tender based in the North that could resupply fuel, weapons and other supplies would certainly appear to make a huge difference to how long a conventional sub could potential stay on patrol in our areas of interest.
And yes, I understand your point about comparisons and context, still it was interesting what you said about the Nuke boats tailgating the Conventional boats.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Obviously a whole lot of things have to happen in Australia before we are in a position to operate nuclear submarines.
But if you are referring to the exchange of posts between GF and myself, I think you are missing the point that we were discussing.
It wasn't a specific conversation about what was required to successfully operate and maintain nuclear submarines, I think those conversations have been covered many times over here in the past.
My original question was in regard to, 'if' the political climate allowed the Government to have the nuclear option on the table, would a nuke be appropriate and the right choice (over the proposed evolved Collins) taking into consideration the task the Navy has for its subs and the environment that they would be operated in, in other words, suitability for the task.
Australia was well on the way to designing a nuke force in the late 60's, early 70's. Both Germany and Aust decided not to under pressure from the US and both joined NPT as a result of the US committing to protect us both under their own nuke umbrella. There was a really strong cohort of RAAF snr officers and govt exec who saw the F-111 as being bomb ready - and it was one of the considerations for procurement.
The punchline is could Aust support a nuke program with all it entails - yes
would Aust travel that road? No, its political suicide, and the party with the greatest capacity to make it happen doesn't want a bar of it due to public angst and 5th estate friction.
Ocean1Curse
Member
I am neither a nuclear engineer, nor am I a marine engineer. But is any one aware of Lockheed martins, skunk works r&d team leader Steven Jurzetsons announcement of plans to produce a High beta fusion reactor the size of a mini copper. Grid ready in ten years?. The plans call for a 100 mega watts. The longest fusion reaction I've heard of is thirty seconds. But in that thirty seconds the plasma stream was in the order of 100 million degrees. Pretty good if you ask me. I know it's a theoretical design with at least a decade of r&d in front of it. But the potential should surly be considered with, conventional or fission power plant. The later being the least desirable.
Any way. Just thought I would throw this in the future sub debate.
Ps. Three more post till I can post links.
Any way. Just thought I would throw this in the future sub debate.
Ps. Three more post till I can post links.
Fixed it for you, the linked doc implied that the US/UK boats are by and large comparable on price (maybe a smidge more for a US boat, probably more for Block V+) so why buy a UK boat when you've got a superbly well managed SSN program delivering boats ahead of schedule, boats which have a CCS which was used as a base for the current Collins' class CCS upgrade IIRC, boats which are used by a service which AFAIK has very close ties with the RAN.
The UK used to run them into the fifties or early sixties, at which point the climate of opinion shifted to indicate that they'd likely be gone in the first few days of war. With perhaps less possibility of everything going instant sunshine if it kicked off, forward based tenders would probably make sense for long range SSK ops. We just sent a Trafalgar off on an 8k grand tour which presumably needed replenishment at sea or in port to keep folk fed and in mars bars (no Brit SSN can function in the absence of mars bars and kit kats, it's a known limitation)
- Status