Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[rockitten]

Buying a Nuclear Shortfin might end up being easier and better than trying to convert it to a diesel-electric sub.

If we go option N, we are most likely source them from poms or the yanks.

The frogs are not really that trustworthy IMHO.

 

[aussienscale]

Actually what is the light displacement of the HMAS Adelaide?

The only figure I have seen is around 27,500 tons full load.

27,500 Tonnes
30,313 Short Tons
27,065 Long Tons

So the Canberra's are about 10,000 Short Tons lighter than an average Wasp Class

We use Tonnes, the US use the Short Ton. Can't say I have seen a "light" displacement listed, not something we generally use, but am sure it would be out there somewhere.

Cheers

 

[hauritz]

If we go option N, we are most likely source them from poms or the yanks.

The frogs are not really that trustworthy IMHO.

Actually I would go one step further and say that the Virginia class would be the only logical choice for Australia if we were in the market for a nuclear sub.

However since the US is currently dealing with there own submarine shortage I can't see them leasing any to Australia.

Even if we willing to buy them the order book seems to be full through to 2032.

The only option for Australia at this stage is conventional subs.

 

[Pusser01]

Historically submarines proved very dangerous. I can't think of any battleships sinking aircraft carriers, but quite a number of carriers were sunk by subs.
QUOTE]

HMS Glorious was sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in April 1940.
That's the only one I can think of.
Cheers

 

[John Fedup]

The nuclear option for Australia would have to be French as the US has no export capacity any time soon as mentioned in an earlier post. The same applies to the UK. Even the French could be hard pressed to up their N-sub production.

 

[Bjclothier1]

Actually I would go one step further and say that the Virginia class would be the only logical choice for Australia if we were in the market for a nuclear sub.

However since the US is currently dealing with there own submarine shortage I can't see them leasing any to Australia.

Even if we willing to buy them the order book seems to be full through to 2032.

The only option for Australia at this stage is conventional subs.

I have seen the idea of leasing Virginia class submarines from the US for a period of time being touted around these articles' comments, and although it would be a very arduous and unlikely process, it is probably the most achievable and sensible idea of those proposed. Whether long term or short it would provide a platform for training, an evaluation of the use and effectiveness of boomers, and a way to finally dip our political feet in the nuclear water.

I also tend to think starting off with a full fleet of a 12 nuclear powered subs would be batting well above our average. No other nation who've relatively recently built nuclear subs for the first time have begun with such generosity and faith in their ability to maintain quite so many. I would much rather see a reevaluation of the current contract with DCNS which dictates 8 shortfin barracudas and 4 nuclear barracudas. All the same except for power source, it would not be as difficult as pursuing a new contract altogether with the UK, US, or France. That way, at least we would have the capability available and at least one boat will be in the water and operational at all times.

I've long been a supporter for nuclear powered submarines for the RAN but I can recognise the kind of baggage such as deal would entail. Best to ease into having the capability now, than have an all or nothing argument every 25 years.

 

[Redlands18]

Historically submarines proved very dangerous. I can't think of any battleships sinking aircraft carriers, but quite a number of carriers were sunk by subs.
QUOTE]

HMS Glorious was sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in April 1940.
That's the only one I can think of.
Cheers

The most famous battle between Carriers and Battleships was the Battle off Sumar between Taffy 3 and Kurita's Fleet including the largest Battleship ever built the Yamato.

 

[oldsig127]

If we go option N

We won't

It isn't and in the foreseeable future is highly unlikely to be even considered. Fantasy fleets aside, there's no political appetite * to fight the majority of the Australian public who are anti or deeply suspicious of nuclear, to buy something that the *great* majority of the public think is a waste of money that could better be spent on free chiropody services.

Maybe at the end of the lives of the new submarines things will have changed enough, but whether manned subs even exist as a thing in 30 years is still unclear; so too whether public demand will require any possible replacement to be fitted with solar or wind power.

Be satisfied that we have a plan which is - so far - being generally supported by both the major parties and stands a chance of producing a worthy Collins replacement.

* Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best (Otto von Bismark)

* Understand that getting the current outcome is probably the best the politicians can manage in the current climate (me, oldsig)

 

[t68]

Defence minister squashes the nuclear option,

Marise Payne pours cold water on Abbott's nuclear sub call

 

[Massive]

Aircraft using advance cruise missiles, torpedoes and sea mines are a much better way to fight naval war. Especially the sea mines....Poseidon aircraft look good to me. If we had to get more of something...

Submarines, MPA, BAMS, maritime strike and land-based ASM fired from HIMARS seem to be the fit with the shift in defence strategy in the 2016 white paper.

Unclear to me what the maritime strike option will be - though imagine it is JSM.

Regards,

Massive

 

[alexsa]

27,500 Tonnes
30,313 Short Tons
27,065 Long Tons

So the Canberra's are about 10,000 Short Tons lighter than an average Wasp Class

We use Tonnes, the US use the Short Ton. Can't say I have seen a "light" displacement listed, not something we generally use, but am sure it would be out there somewhere.

Cheers

I rough terms:


Lightship - weight of ship without stores, fuel, cargo, crew etc
Displacement - actual weight of the water displaced. Where used to describe for tankers and other cargo ships is generally the weight at the summer marks (fully laden)
Gross Tonnage - Internal volume of the vessel. This a complex calculation and is driven by design and gross tonnage can be lowered by having a lower freeboard or 'open spaces' in lieu of deck houses. This is used in maritime regulation to determine requirements.
Net Tonnage - The internal volume of 'enclosed spaces' that carry cargo (holds and tanks). Used for levies and port charges and kept as low as possible by shipper owners (which is why container ships carry the majority of cargo on deck and feeder vessel have relatively low freeboard ..... an issue that5 has result in some criticism of the use of this measure).


Metric Tonnes - Used by the vast majority of merchant mariners 1000kg ..... which is also 1000lts of fresh water (1000 ltrs of salt waters is generally taken as 1025kg based on the assumed density of salt water).
Long Tons - why does any body still used pounds .... sheesh. 2240 lbs
Short Tons - pounds again to add to the confusion, but rounded down - 2000 lbs


So ......
One short ton is 907.185kg
One long ton is 1016.047kg


Noting relationship between water and kg you would wonder why short and long tons still exist. However, both are American measures.

 

[Massive]

Such operations will not necessarily involve a major power but things like Timor need to be considered. Escorts will be at a premium and another three platforms only capable of self defense and limited offence (none really as they rely on the air assets) would leave the three DDG and 6 Future frigates (noting not all will be available) sorely pressed.

The surface fleet looks very much like 3 escort groups of 4 ships (1 AWD, 3 frigates) - if you deploy an escort group with an LHD taskforce that is pretty much it. This would give local sea control - most of the additional ASW support would be provided by P8s I imagine.

I am all for more but the current strategic stance is less focus on surface ships and more on submarine/strategic assets.

On the helicopters - 24 helicopters provides 8 available ship flights - to expand this you would need to make a big investment - I can't see it going beyond 12.

Just my add to the debate rather than a pure response to Alexsa...

Massive

 

[ASSAIL]

We won't

It isn't and in the foreseeable future is highly unlikely to be even considered. Fantasy fleets aside, there's no political appetite * to fight the majority of the Australian public who are anti or deeply suspicious of nuclear, to buy something that the *great* majority of the public think is a waste of money that could better be spent on free chiropody services.

Maybe at the end of the lives of the new submarines things will have changed enough, but whether manned subs even exist as a thing in 30 years is still unclear; so too whether public demand will require any possible replacement to be fitted with solar or wind power.

Be satisfied that we have a plan which is - so far - being generally supported by both the major parties and stands a chance of producing a worthy Collins replacement.

* Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best (Otto von Bismark)

* Understand that getting the current outcome is probably the best the politicians can manage in the current climate (me, oldsig)

Well said and if it wasn't for the Mad Monk (Ex PM Abbot for our non Oz members) trying to create mayhem and venom as revenge against the current PM we would still be accepting the DCNS "regionally superior" Shortfin solution.
The man is a lunatic, once a fanatic solution Soryu advocate and 5 mins later finding anything to create havoc for the current executive.
All of us know that a nuclear option is ideal but most understand that Australia has neither the engineering expertise nor the experienced personnel or infrastructure to allow it. Most importantly there is no electoral appetite for a nuclear submarine.

Marie's Payne's (DEFMIN) interview this am put the leasing option to bed when she stressed the importance of sovereign control of submarines, our major maritime strike asset. We would have virtually no sovereignty over a leased US submarine and as others have posted, the ADF has had major issues this in the past.

 

[oldsig127]

One short ton is 907.185kg
One long ton is 1016.047kg


Noting relationship between water and kg you would wonder why short and long tons still exist. However, both are American measures.

This is wrong. The Imperial or avoirdupois ton is 2240 pounds, or 20 hundredweight, or 160 stone.

Imperial measures were standardised in the 13th century, long before the Yanks decided to "simplify" things by introducing yet another system.

oldsig

 

[ASSAIL]

This is wrong. The Imperial or avoirdupois ton is 2240 pounds, or 20 hundredweight, or 160 stone.

Imperial measures were standardised in the 13th century, long before the Yanks decided to "simplify" things by introducing yet another system.

oldsig

You've been looking at the back page cover of your old classroom exercise book

 

[SpazSinbad]

You've been looking at the back page cover of your old classroom exercise book

Hahah - that is all I know and arevoirdupas that is with some schoolboy Francaisich thrown in. I'll go with the 2,240 pounds anytime. What is it with these Kilometrichipporhinosocows anyway? :goodbad

 

[gf0012-aust]

We won't

It isn't and in the foreseeable future is highly unlikely to be even considered. Fantasy fleets aside, there's no political appetite * to fight the majority of the Australian public who are anti or deeply suspicious of nuclear, to buy something that the *great* majority of the public think is a waste of money that could better be spent on free chiropody services.

Maybe at the end of the lives of the new submarines things will have changed enough, but whether manned subs even exist as a thing in 30 years is still unclear; so too whether public demand will require any possible replacement to be fitted with solar or wind power.

Be satisfied that we have a plan which is - so far - being generally supported by both the major parties and stands a chance of producing a worthy Collins replacement.

* Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best (Otto von Bismark)

* Understand that getting the current outcome is probably the best the politicians can manage in the current climate (me, oldsig)

+2

its only come up as wreckit ralph is trying to do anything to destablise turnbull. he knows full well that navy briefed against nukes in detail.

the man is a loon

 

[gf0012-aust]

and here's todays fun test

spot all the mistakes in the article without spurting your coffee over your keyboard - or snorting soup through your nostrils

Tony Abbott regrets not challenging Australia's 'no-go' mindset on nuclear power - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[Volkodav]

Well said and if it wasn't for the Mad Monk (Ex PM Abbot for our non Oz members) trying to create mayhem and venom as revenge against the current PM we would still be accepting the DCNS "regionally superior" Shortfin solution.
The man is a lunatic, once a fanatic solution Soryu advocate and 5 mins later finding anything to create havoc for the current executive.
All of us know that a nuclear option is ideal but most understand that Australia has neither the engineering expertise nor the experienced personnel or infrastructure to allow it. Most importantly there is no electoral appetite for a nuclear submarine.

Marie's Payne's (DEFMIN) interview this am put the leasing option to bed when she stressed the importance of sovereign control of submarines, our major maritime strike asset. We would have virtually no sovereignty over a leased US submarine and as others have posted, the ADF has had major issues this in the past.

The man is a professional wrecker which too many mistook for leadership, more a guerrilla or terrorist leader than a national leader, let alone a nation builder. He is in his element relating and if possible stopping progress, no matter how severe the consequences.

 

[alexsa]

This is wrong. The Imperial or avoirdupois ton is 2240 pounds, or 20 hundredweight, or 160 stone.

Imperial measures were standardised in the 13th century, long before the Yanks decided to "simplify" things by introducing yet another system.

oldsig

For maritime purposes they still quote long tons for what ever reason. I agree this was an Imperial measurement. Both long and short are based on 20 hundred weights and it is the definition of hundredweight that is different.


However, only the US generally quote long and short tons in shipping circles. The UK merchant marine relies on tonnes (or metric tonnes as defined by the US) as does most of the world. The standard used at IMO is the tonne as well .... hence the comment these are mainly a US feature in so far as ships are concerned.

We should not be surprised as we got IALA system B out to the US as well and look where that is confined to

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/Ccg/In...nofLighthouseAuthoritiesMaritimeBuoyageSystem