Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Its not just retention.

What do you do afterwards. Most submariners on boats a pretty young, unsurprisingly conditions, a shortage of personnel burn people up. Plus being located on an undetectable, metal tube underwater for 3 months isn't that supportive of family life either. Either is a whole career in stirling.

And one of the factors is, I guess, a lot of people join the Navy to see the world. Which isn't something you get to do driving an SSN.

I suppose it does given the nod to the Astute as a possible contender, given the crew size is something like 30 less.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
We have significant lateral recruitment from RN in subs, its already 20-30%. Its historical too, for decades. On any boat, any pommy sailor can clique in with a few other pommy sailors and drink warm beer and marmite. RAN culture fits in with RN culture tightly. The queen, is, the same queen. Australia is popular in the UK, moving to Australia has positive stigma. RSL and Submarine associations here even have sub groups for ex-RN sailors, full of those weird talking bastards with wearing their copy cat scaley dolphins they got in the RN.

I presume HMNB Clyde up in Scotland perhaps isn't as scenic as Sterling or platypus.

Relocating from Britain to Australia is already, a popular thing, outside of defence circles. Its a huge lifestyle change, its popular with families etc. People already have family here (and family over there too). We poach a lot of talent from the UK, in a lot of areas. Australia has over 1.3 million UK residents in Australia.


With the US is pretty hard. People here would know a lot more than I would. But in all the submariner functions, defence expos, Anzac days, I've attended over the decades, I don't think I have ever met one USN sailor that transferred to the RAN to serve on a submarine here. I am sure there are, but compared to poms?

Met some Army, met some air force, (and they usually leave the adf not long after - which is fine) but never a US submariner who transferred into the RAN. Ever. I don't recall anyone talking about anyone either. Maybe seconded, but not transferred for good.

30 extra sailors doesn't sound like much, but crewing 100 and crewing 130 is huge difference. And we are moving up from ~60 odd currently.

And given that it'd probably be easier for personnel to move between the RN & RAN than between either & the USN. A bigger pool of SSNs & hence crews with two-way movement could be advantageous for both countries.
It would be a nicer way for a submariner to see the world if they join the RAN, and could choose to serve, say 1-2 years in the UK out of their service here. Base your self in the UK, see a bit of europe, etc. UK could return the favor.. Happier sailors, improved retention, more crews, etc.

The UK program could do with greater build volumes 8-12 Australian submarines would bring to them. We would be pretty much equal peers in that kind of program. The UK and AU have significant political influence with each other. There is actually greater soverignty putting these two nations together. (he says as a republican).

In the US, Australia would be such a tiny partner. A forgettable line item. In a world of priorities, our priorities would not be theirs. If we wanted them to lower the crew on future designs (to say 60), good luck wrestling the USN with that.
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
The National Shipbuilding Plan from 2017 was due to be updated this year, yet no such updated plan has been released.

It's rather perplexing that Australia seems to be the only 'key player' in the Indo-Pacific without a single new surface combatant entering its fleet over the next decade.

Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, India, and China all plan to have new surface combatants entering their fleets between now and 2031. Australia is even more so an outlier when you consider there won't be an increase to the surface combatant fleet beyond the current stalemate of 11 for more than two decades.

Given the existing plan was informed by the 2016 White Paper, it's difficult to understand in the context of the strategic update and the substantial investment in defence over the next decade.

It certainly appears that the ball has been well and truly dropped.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The National Shipbuilding Plan from 2017 was due to be updated this year, yet no such updated plan has been released.

It's rather perplexing that Australia seems to be the only 'key player' in the Indo-Pacific without a single new surface combatant entering its fleet over the next decade.

Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, India, and China all plan to have new surface combatants entering their fleets between now and 2031. Australia is even more so an outlier when you consider there won't be an increase to the surface combatant fleet beyond the current stalemate of 11 for more than two decades.

Given the existing plan was informed by the 2016 White Paper, it's difficult to understand in the context of the strategic update and the substantial investment in defence over the next decade.

It certainly appears that the ball has been well and truly dropped.
Yes and the biggest part of that Shipbuilding plan was to build 12 Attack class SSKs, as far as the Subs are concerned the plan flew out the door on the 16th Sept. The updated Submarine building plan can't now be updated until Mar-May 2023. The Patrol Boat building is ticking along very nicely with about a 3rd of the Guardian class delivered, the first of the improved Capes has been launched and the Arafura very close to launching The Hunters have been held up by the designers.
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
Yes and the biggest part of that Shipbuilding plan was to build 12 Attack class SSKs, as far as the Subs are concerned the plan flew out the door on the 16th Sept. The updated Submarine building plan can't now be updated until Mar-May 2023. The Patrol Boat building is ticking along very nicely with about a 3rd of the Guardian class delivered, the first of the improved Capes has been launched and the Arafura very close to launching The Hunters have been held up by the designers.
I don't think the Attack program cancellation is an appropriate reason to withhold the update to the National Shipbuilding Plan. The few details surrounding exact timelines and 'drumbeats' for the Hunter Class program that have been revealed through Senate Estimates don't provide a clear picture or equate to a wholistic plan. The absence of which doesn't inspire much confidence, especially considering the 2017 Shipbuilding Plan drew from the greatly superseded 2016 White Paper.

There's nothing stopping Defence releasing an updated plan specific to Surface Shipbuilding, with details on the SSNs following once firmed up in the future. More than anything, it's this lack of transparency, and drip feeding on information only when pressed in Estimates which creates the impression of the ball being dropped.
 

justinterested

New Member
Yes, it was great to see HMAS Hobart in her home port and it is such an impressive ship up close, although it looks like a bit of a clean up is needed under the radar -
IMG20211210135025.jpg
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes and the biggest part of that Shipbuilding plan was to build 12 Attack class SSKs, as far as the Subs are concerned the plan flew out the door on the 16th Sept. The updated Submarine building plan can't now be updated until Mar-May 2023. The Patrol Boat building is ticking along very nicely with about a 3rd of the Guardian class delivered, the first of the improved Capes has been launched and the Arafura very close to launching The Hunters have been held up by the designers.
To be fair, much of the delay appears to be from Defence building more capability into the Hunter than was originally envisaged. The first batch were originally to be minimal change, however, increased acceptance of risk and the desire to have increase capability from the get go (and a desire to get it right) has resulted in delays. I cannot give you a reference from this but that came from the risk assessment process.
 

Geddy

Member
It really interests me what extra capability the Hunters will have. The weight has gone up a lot, so what extra capacity does the Navy get from all that weight? More VLS, UAV's?
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Meanwhile at sea :
"A photo of the frigate HMAS Anzac taken by Submarine Warfare Officer's Course students through the periscope from HMAS Rankin during an anti-submarine warfare training activity conducted as part of Exercise Zeehond in the Western Australian Exercise area." Image source : ADF Image Library
20211108ADF0000000_9901.jpg
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
It really interests me what extra capability the Hunters will have. The weight has gone up a lot, so what extra capacity does the Navy get from all that weight? More VLS, UAV's?
While it has been discussed to death, I think many around here would welcome additional VLS cells. Quad packing with ESSM helps, but with the hypersonic threat both present (now) and evolving, full up Mk41 cells for things like SM6, SM3 and GPI will be increasingly indispensable going forward, even for an ASW/GP "Frigate".
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
While it has been discussed to death, I think many around here would welcome additional VLS cells. Quad packing with ESSM helps, but with the hypersonic threat both present (now) and evolving, full up Mk41 cells for things like SM6, SM3 and GPI will be increasingly indispensable going forward, even for an ASW/GP "Frigate".
I understand it is about getting all the desired capability (noting the references to SM6 and an ABM capability as well as Tomahawk now probably being in the mix), along with the necessary power supplies, and retaining growth margin for additional capability in the future and effective use of the multi-mission bay. As noted by many the actual number VLS is not defined in the infographic put out by DoD so they may be growth there but defence are keeping things very close to the chest. The same may be true of the number of cannister launched SSM's.

The fact the CIWS have not been purchased for the LHD's or the Hunters at this stage may indicate that there could be a change there. SeaRAM perhaps (giving another 22 reloadable tubes within two mounts). Just speculation ...... but provides an effective autonomous self defence capability with the block II RIM and a layers systems when considered in combination with ESSM block II, SM2 and SM6.

In addition it appears the Hunters will be coming with a full suite of decoys and soft kill systems for about and below water threats. Nice change from the highly optimistic proposal to use SeaCat to shoot down SSM's in the mid 80's.
 
Last edited:

ddxx

Well-Known Member
SeaRAM perhaps (giving another 22 reloadable tubes within two mounts). Just speculation ......
Given the difference in how Phalanx and SeaRAM do their job, would a single SeaRAM aft be sufficient in place of two Phalanx midship?

Also, out of curiosity - I assume LSW in the naval sense includes the empty weight of equipment? E.g. The weight of empty/unloaded VLS modules, deck canisters etc?
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Given the difference in how Phalanx and SeaRAM do their job, would a single SeaRAM aft be sufficient in place of two Phalanx midship?

Also, out of curiosity - I assume LSW in the naval sense includes the empty weight of equipment? E.g. The weight of empty/unloaded VLS modules, deck canisters etc?
Light ship is generally the actual weight of the ship with no fuel, passengers, cargo, water, stores etc. on board. So, yes there would be no weapons on board and I suspect things like harpoon cannisters would be missing. The actual weapon systems should be on board.

With regard to location of CIWS and similar systems the two units will give you better coverage than one and provides more flexibility in response (noting ships will not be going straight and slow in such situations but will be manoeuvring to optimise the use of soft and hard kill options).
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Given the difference in how Phalanx and SeaRAM do their job, would a single SeaRAM aft be sufficient in place of two Phalanx midship?
Here’s some graphics of the Hunter class, look at the graphics viewed from the stern:


I think it’s pretty clear that a single CWIS won’t work, it will be impossible to get the arc of fire necessary to do the required job.
 
Top