Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

not entirely sure on this but I'm trying to find it, I remember some high ranking official was agreeable to Australia getting nuclear powered submarines it was around the same time that they would have no problems with RAAF having F22 Raptor, cant remember who it was and position.

it was Robert Gates - (I was there) and it was only about US attitude to RAAF getting F-22 if they asked for it. RAAF made it clear that they didn't need and/or want F-22

The nuke sub discussions that came up in 2007 were only enthusiastically supported by US industry and were rapidly dismissed as a non starter due to SecDef/SecNav/State issues

 

[t68]

Not sure if wires are crossed, or I have miss read your post, but that was my point, talk about stating the obvious between the subs, apples and oranges

sorry I miss read the intension of your post, I had taken it the other way around. but my head hurts a little bit this morning think I had too many after work drinks last night

 

[oldsig127]

Twenty years? At my age (77) I might be thinking of forty years ago and calling twenty. At any case I am thinking of the time when we had F111 aircraft and they were considered state of the art.

Nup. Forty years ago *I* was in, and in that immediate post Vietnam era, nothing, but nothing, was forthcoming that we didn't already have - and then on short rations.

The Pigs were ordered in 1963 by the way - almost 55 years ago though not actually accepted until 1973.

oldsig

 

[hairyman]

In 2007 Kevin Rudd said we needed 12 submarines to replace the six Collins.
Now ten years on, the way other regional navies are expanding their sub fleets, will 12 be enough?

 

[Ananda]

If I recall correctly there is a treaty precluding the export of nuclear subs, hence why Indias were leased and other interested nations developed conventional builds to work towards local construction (India, Argentina, Brazil). I could be wrong but believe the still born Canadian project was for local build too.

Interesting, but isn't Brazil SSN project got tech support from France ? Is this means you can't directly provide wholly build SSN for export, but you can give the tech to build SSN ?

The way Russian do by leasing SSN to India is quite a way around..considering India if not mistaken can used the leased SSN on any defense need, should situation comes around.

 

[oldsig127]

In 2007 Kevin Rudd said we needed 12 submarines to replace the six Collins.
Now ten years on, the way other regional navies are expanding their sub fleets, will 12 be enough?

We certainly pay the senior Sirs and the Defence Department Mandarins enough for them to have looked ahead. Maybe, just maybe, they aren't all so stupid as to have missed that, and the requirement for 12 flow from their advice?

oldsig

 

[t68]

We certainly pay the senior Sirs and the Defence Department Mandarins enough for them to have looked ahead. Maybe, just maybe, they aren't all so stupid as to have missed that, and the requirement for 12 flow from their advice?

oldsig

But wasn't 12 just a magical figure from K Rudd never believing he would have to pay for it.
I find it strange the critical mass for submarines are 12 units how does that change from the surface fleet why not 12 frigates 6 destroyers 3 lhd and so on

 

[aussienscale]

sorry I miss read the intension of your post, I had taken it the other way around. but my head hurts a little bit this morning think I had too many after work drinks last night

All good mate, figured that was the case, I do have a habit of assuming people get where I am coming from, hence the brevity of some of my posts

GF and I had a few of those moments after I had first joined over the JSF, one day I might get out of that habit then again.....

As far as head hurting, oh my, no wonder the average Aussie has no idea when they are confronted with that crud !!

Cheers

 

[oldsig127]

But wasn't 12 just a magical figure from K Rudd never believing he would have to pay for it.
I find it strange the critical mass for submarines are 12 units how does that change from the surface fleet why not 12 frigates 6 destroyers 3 lhd and so on

For starters, it's not *really* an increase to 12 submarines. Look at the period of the rolling build, and the numbers being built, I suspect 9-10 are the most we'll actually have at one time *including* those in dock.

That fits with the original plan for the Collins, which was IIRC, for 8. It's not so different from the surface fleet - we do not have the numbers to crew a vast navy, so we are building a technological gap instead.

Which, BTW, is what we were doing long ago - it's why we had the Pigs for starters.

oldsig

 

[hairyman]

I appreciate that our "pigs" were considered technically superior to anything else in the region, but we have not replaced them have we? The F18 were an improvement on the Mirage 111 0, but hardly an improvement on the "pig". Now in the region we have modern Russian aircraft that concievably will be the equal of the Super Hornet, the F35 arriving at a very slow rate, and it is open to opinion as to how much of an improvement they are over what is in the region already. We needed the F22 if we were to keep the techology advantage we had 45 years ago with the "pig".
My opinion anyway.

 

[Boagrius]

I appreciate that our "pigs" were considered technically superior to anything else in the region, but we have not replaced them have we? The F18 were an improvement on the Mirage 111 0, but hardly an improvement on the "pig". Now in the region we have modern Russian aircraft that concievably will be the equal of the Super Hornet, the F35 arriving at a very slow rate, and it is open to opinion as to how much of an improvement they are over what is in the region already. We needed the F22 if we were to keep the techology advantage we had 45 years ago with the "pig".
My opinion anyway.

I think you might be looking at this through the wrong lens. Certainly we did not replace the pig with an extremely long legged deep strike/interdiction aircraft one-for-one, but that's not to say we didn't replace the capability whatsoever (Hornets + SH + Growlers + JASSM + tankers).

By all accounts the F35 seems to be shaping up to be substantially more potent than any Flanker derivative/other 4th gen aircraft you might find in the region. This is particularly true when used as part of a highly networked force that is greater (in capability terms) than the sum of its parts ie. the goal of Plan Jericho.

I think that is where the regional overmatch is going to ultimately come from - not just the superiority of individual platforms (although that will also be important) but the superiority of the whole system.

That said our region is changing rapidly and simply will not bear any resemblance to what it was ~40 years ago. We are moving from being a wealthy middle power in a strategic backwater to front and centre as China transforms into a potentially massive strategic player. There are limits to what you can do about that when you're a fairly small fish in the grand scheme of things...

 

[t68]

I appreciate that our "pigs" were considered technically superior to anything else in the region, but we have not replaced them have we? The F18 were an improvement on the Mirage 111 0, but hardly an improvement on the "pig". Now in the region we have modern Russian aircraft that concievably will be the equal of the Super Hornet, the F35 arriving at a very slow rate, and it is open to opinion as to how much of an improvement they are over what is in the region already. We needed the F22 if we were to keep the techology advantage we had 45 years ago with the "pig".
My opinion anyway.

F22 not a bomber it's an air superiority aircraft, it technically would have replaced the Mirage IIIO(F) interceptor which were only in service in that configuration for about 10 yeas

 

[ADMk2]

I appreciate that our "pigs" were considered technically superior to anything else in the region, but we have not replaced them have we? The F18 were an improvement on the Mirage 111 0, but hardly an improvement on the "pig". Now in the region we have modern Russian aircraft that concievably will be the equal of the Super Hornet, the F35 arriving at a very slow rate, and it is open to opinion as to how much of an improvement they are over what is in the region already. We needed the F22 if we were to keep the techology advantage we had 45 years ago with the "pig".
My opinion anyway.

If you are looking merely at 'technology' there is nothing flying that equals the F-35 and that includes the F-22A given F-35 radar and LO tech is being retrofitted even to F-22A.

However this is quite probably a better discussion to have on the RAAF thread...

 

[Volkodav]

If you are looking merely at 'technology' there is nothing flying that equals the F-35 and that includes the F-22A given F-35 radar and LO tech is being retrofitted even to F-22A.

However this is quite probably a better discussion to have on the RAAF thread...

Way back when the alternative to the F-111 being discussed when the project was in trouble was something along the lines of 36 F-4E, 6 RF-4C and 12 KC-135, ironically not that different to the force structure evolving today.

Slightly earlier than this the RAN were pushing for a strike carrier to replace Melbourne equipped with F-4B (likely Js by the time a carrier would be ready), Trackers, Tracers and Sea Kings. Looking at the cost of some of the projects that got up instead, how much they cost and the pain they caused, you have to wonder if the supposedly less state of the art options would have been better value for money, better for force structure and better for industry.

 

[Stampede]

Way back when the alternative to the F-111 being discussed when the project was in trouble was something along the lines of 36 F-4E, 6 RF-4C and 12 KC-135, ironically not that different to the force structure evolving today.

Slightly earlier than this the RAN were pushing for a strike carrier to replace Melbourne equipped with F-4B (likely Js by the time a carrier would be ready), Trackers, Tracers and Sea Kings. Looking at the cost of some of the projects that got up instead, how much they cost and the pain they caused, you have to wonder if the supposedly less state of the art options would have been better value for money, better for force structure and better for industry.

Always interesting to look at the past and the what if's.
Certainly good to learn from mistakes in framing what is needed now and into the future,

I wonder what this conversation will be like in twenty years from now with regard to the RAN's composition.

Will the talk be of good choices or opportunities lost.
Will we in fact get a dozen destroyers,OPV's ,Submarines and also maintain our intended number and type of amphibious / supply ships. What about the minor vessels and there replacement.

In general I'm in favour of most of the 2016 DWP and hope it comes to fruition.
As to it's reality we'll just have to wait Twenty years.

Regards S

Ps As to the F111;
It just looked good.

 

[rjtjrt]

British Gov/RN first order for Type 26.

BAE Systems gets green light on $4.9 billion deal from UK for anti-sub warfare frigates

 

[PeterM]

Collins was designed to be able to undertake nuke sub tempo cycles - and thats been achievable since they were first slipped into the water

That is very interesting, I was unaware of that. That is quite respectable considering the RAN was building a domestic sub construction capability from scratch.

I am really interested in seeing what the Shortfin Barracuda design ends up like. The RAN has excellent experience with the Collins, add in new battery tech along with both US and French sub tech packed into the larger design, i expect we will have an exceptionally capable capability.

 

[SpazSinbad]

'Volkodav' said: "...Slightly earlier than this the RAN were pushing for a strike carrier to replace Melbourne equipped with F-4B (likely Js by the time a carrier would be ready), Trackers, Tracers and Sea Kings...." I would be interested in a time frame for this idea and or any links to this history online please. Thanks in advance.

 

[Stampede]

That is very interesting, I was unaware of that. That is quite respectable considering the RAN was building a domestic sub construction capability from scratch.

I am really interested in seeing what the Shortfin Barracuda design ends up like. The RAN has excellent experience with the Collins, add in new battery tech along with both US and French sub tech packed into the larger design, i expect we will have an exceptionally capable capability.

Our submarine replacement is a long term project
.
It's early days, however I agree that maybe we might have made a good choice for some of the reasons you mentioned.
Hopefully in time the outcome meets our expectations.

Regards s

 

[Volkodav]

'Volkodav' said: "...Slightly earlier than this the RAN were pushing for a strike carrier to replace Melbourne equipped with F-4B (likely Js by the time a carrier would be ready), Trackers, Tracers and Sea Kings...." I would be interested in a time frame for this idea and or any links to this history online please. Thanks in advance.

Abe dug this out several years ago from the national archives. A very interesting read.

https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/Sea...eports/ItemDetail.aspx?Barcode=1565492&isAv=N