Captain Matchbox
New Member
Tactical takes SM2 and ASROC. They don’t embark SM2 because there’s only 8 cells and there’s no TIR. I was on Arunta during commissioning and I’m sure I recall it being stated they were strike length.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Unfortunately much speculation, especially that in the media, even the speciality defence media, is wrong. It may sound plausible, even likely, but often it is simply made, up or assumed.
I have read detailed articles by alleged experts that I gave known to be materially wrong. Anyone reading them would be forgiven for believing them, speculating, discussing. But they have been wrong, and in some cases deliberately fabricated.
One noted author and journalist used to get invites for sea rides, unit visits and other yippee trips, simply because he was known to make stuff up if he didn't. By sucking up you would get a fluff piece, by excluding him there would be an expose of your alleged incompetence.
Even when the facts are known and shared many choose to believe stories put forward by those with an agenda. Often thus is politically motivated, other times it is business, i.e. execs of one company backgrounding against another.
There is a lot of BS, lies and unsubstantiated guesses out their, we try and limit it in here. These are other sites that are even stricter, where they attempt to provide vetted accurate accounts of historical projects. If you think it's tough here you should try there.
I've tried a number of times without success to get get clarity on the ANZAC's Mk-41 VLS.
What is it's actual length and therefore what can it carry over and above ESSM.
When ANZAC was new to the fleet it was open to the public and I enjoyed a look over the ship including a climb past the area where the second VLS was intended to be located. I recall thinking at the time that space was a bloody big void.
No tape measure on hand in the backpack back then so I cannot add to the knowledge bank on this one.
Maybe we are just not meant to know.
Cheers S
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
I don't disagree with any of that. I don't think it's tough here. I wasn't being critical of the forum; I was highly commending of the discussion to date. I was disagreeing with the idea that the discussion should not continue because it is speculative in nature. Surely it is better to have the discussion, to point out what doesn't stack up, to educate others if they have misunderstandings, to clarify what we don't know yet? This idea that it is frustrating to read something you find disagreeable is overblown because it really only takes the maturity to either ignore or to engage civilly and try to help explain why what was said is wrong. And if you get rid of all that you disagree with, what have you got left? Not a discussion forum.
"... fabled "DEFPROs" "I hope that you are being humorous. Those who have been tagged as Defence Professionals have to provide documentary evidence to the Moderation Team that they have the necessary qualifications and have / or are working in the field.
We don't like uniformed speculation where things get out of hand quickly. Speculation does have its place, but speculation for the sake of speculation isn't acceptable. I learned that the hard way when I was first on here. After some run ins with the Mods, I pulled my head in and learned. We far prefer to deal in facts and defence is never one for giving up facts easily - for obvious reasons.
WaveWalker
Member
Can you explain the difference between speculation and speculation for the sake of speculation for me? How do you work out the difference?
I can’t see the point of having a forum when people can’t discuss things in the manner of a conversation. At this point the conversation taking place here is similar to the one taking place in the community. If people can’t discuss freely the greatest naval development in Australian history the public will very quickly stop supporting it.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Finally something worthwhile to comment on, after months and months of endless speculative rubbish.
Anyway.....
No point rehashing the A-Z steps from today to the delivery of the first AUKUS class boat in the early 2040s, but it is worth saying that each step appears to have been well thought out.
Yes there are lots of moving parts in the process that could potentially cause a hiccup, but overall it does appear the process will get us from today to where we want to get to in approx 20 years.
The continuation of the Collins class LOTE is confirmed, though I do wonder if all six will undergo the LOTE, if the three Virginia class arrive on time (with potential for two more), it may not be necessary to complete all six upgrades.
The political optics
As much as it pains me to say, I will congratulate Albo for picking up the ball that ScoMo left for him, there was a small early concern in my mind that the ALP might have tried to find a way out of committing to SSNs (we all know the ALP is fundamentally opposed to all things nuclear, they would never have proposed SSNs if they had been the Government at the time of Attack being cancelled).
When the three leaders made their speeches the other day, Albo made a comment that I thought was a bit odd, he referenced two of his ALP heroes, Curtain and Chifley in relation to the Australian auto industry.
Albo may have forgotten (the rest of us haven’t), but the Australian auto industry doesn’t exist anymore, it’s dead and buried, again, it was a bit odd.
One thing I believe he should have mentioned (in the spirit of Defence bipartisanship between the two major parties), is to make some reference to ScoMo, history will show that he was the PM that started the AUKUS ball rolling.
His speech was a bit too party political, mention Curtain and Chifley, but not ScoMo, I wasn’t surprised though.
One other thing I found interesting is the proposed availability of 3-5 Virginia class subs starting from the early 2030s.
Who will forget Dutton making that suggestion approx mid last year, eg, Virginia class subs for the RAN in the early 2030s, and at the time most commentators poo poo’d his suggestion.
Turns out his suggestion/prediction was reasonably accurate, which makes me think the possibility of a few Virginia boats transferred to the RAN was a topic discussed early in the 18mth investigation.
Anyway, that’s enough for now.
PS, a couple of naval related topics that hopefully will shortly receive some clarity.
Firstly the results of the Defence Review, and how other naval procurement plans will or won’t be affected.
And lastly will we finally see an update of the 2017 Naval Shipbuilding Plan? The update is way way overdue.
Anyway.....
No point rehashing the A-Z steps from today to the delivery of the first AUKUS class boat in the early 2040s, but it is worth saying that each step appears to have been well thought out.
Yes there are lots of moving parts in the process that could potentially cause a hiccup, but overall it does appear the process will get us from today to where we want to get to in approx 20 years.
The continuation of the Collins class LOTE is confirmed, though I do wonder if all six will undergo the LOTE, if the three Virginia class arrive on time (with potential for two more), it may not be necessary to complete all six upgrades.
The political optics
As much as it pains me to say, I will congratulate Albo for picking up the ball that ScoMo left for him, there was a small early concern in my mind that the ALP might have tried to find a way out of committing to SSNs (we all know the ALP is fundamentally opposed to all things nuclear, they would never have proposed SSNs if they had been the Government at the time of Attack being cancelled).
When the three leaders made their speeches the other day, Albo made a comment that I thought was a bit odd, he referenced two of his ALP heroes, Curtain and Chifley in relation to the Australian auto industry.
Albo may have forgotten (the rest of us haven’t), but the Australian auto industry doesn’t exist anymore, it’s dead and buried, again, it was a bit odd.
One thing I believe he should have mentioned (in the spirit of Defence bipartisanship between the two major parties), is to make some reference to ScoMo, history will show that he was the PM that started the AUKUS ball rolling.
His speech was a bit too party political, mention Curtain and Chifley, but not ScoMo, I wasn’t surprised though.
One other thing I found interesting is the proposed availability of 3-5 Virginia class subs starting from the early 2030s.
Who will forget Dutton making that suggestion approx mid last year, eg, Virginia class subs for the RAN in the early 2030s, and at the time most commentators poo poo’d his suggestion.
Turns out his suggestion/prediction was reasonably accurate, which makes me think the possibility of a few Virginia boats transferred to the RAN was a topic discussed early in the 18mth investigation.
Anyway, that’s enough for now.
PS, a couple of naval related topics that hopefully will shortly receive some clarity.
Firstly the results of the Defence Review, and how other naval procurement plans will or won’t be affected.
And lastly will we finally see an update of the 2017 Naval Shipbuilding Plan? The update is way way overdue.
Below is a graphic from Lockheed Martin which shows the missiles accommodated by both 'Strike Length' and 'Tactical Length' variants:
SM-2, ESSM and VLA (ASROC) all apparently fit the Tactical Length module. Are you thinking of the long discontinued 'Self Defence' module which is shorter again and can only accommodate ESSM?
SwingShift
Member
Ah the irony of the missing m given the topic of the post being responded to
Takao
The Bunker Group
I met ADM Goldrick on Staff College, and it was one of the best introductions I've had. He was a great mind, he spoke bluntly, deeply and to anyone. He spent many hours explaining to a simple Army officer sea power and the like. I think it doesn't matter what happens in the DSR, his death is the biggest loss to the RAN and ADF this decade. I value his mentorship over almost everyone else's - he will be sadly missed.I thought I'd share this article from ASPI titled -Remembering James Goldrick, an outstanding naval officer, historian and strategist.
Remembering James Goldrick, an outstanding naval officer, historian and strategist | The Strategist
On 17 March, Rear Admiral James Goldrick died in Canberra after a brave battle with illness. He was a naval officer of exceptional intellect and influence who became Australia’s most internationally acclaimed naval historian. Goldrick’s ...www.aspistrategist.org.au
I know nothing of the man but suggest he must of been well admired to warrant such an article.
Others may find this of interest.
The article by the Financial Revue suggests that Australia and the U.K have their workers operating in tandem on the submarines in a similar the U.S does, I'm not sure how it would work almost like a FIFO system for specialised workers, I'm aware there are some members here who have the expertise to provide a critique to this
AUKUS announcement: Experts pinpoint headache from top nuclear submarine deal - and it’s not money (afr.com)
AUKUS announcement: Experts pinpoint headache from top nuclear submarine deal - and it’s not money (afr.com)
I spoke to an ex-VLS maintainer we have on staff who had been posted to Anzacs, he confirmed that they are currently fitted with tactical modules. I did post that info on here late last year. The original build also had space & weight for an 8 cell VLS, only suitable for ESSM, on what is now the current Harpoon deck in front of the bridge. Cheers.I've tried a number of times without success to get get clarity on the ANZAC's Mk-41 VLS.
What is it's actual length and therefore what can it carry over and above ESSM.
When ANZAC was new to the fleet it was open to the public and I enjoyed a look over the ship including a climb past the area where the second VLS was intended to be located. I recall thinking at the time that space was a bloody big void.
No tape measure on hand in the backpack back then so I cannot add to the knowledge bank on this one.
Maybe we are just not meant to know.
Cheers S
There are ships out there with self defence length Mk 41, & it was discontinued after the ANZACs were built, so it could have been fitted to them. It took Sea Sparrow before there was ESSM - MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS)
The FFG's were fitted with said VLS during FFG-Up.
Articles behind a paywall but if it were up to me to increase the number of specialist workers what I would do is increase the opportunities for them to find work in the nuclear industry. At the moment the only show in town is the AUKUS SSN. If you are the only employer you set the wage and you decide whether I get to work. If I were about to embark on a 3 year university course I would want to know that I had a wide range of options at the end of it.
You want more graduates then it is simple. Start building a nuclear power industry.
Some recollections from Barrow :
The number of workers who got to "work in tandem" with the sub was very very few. It was a career accolade for a seriously good technical. And apart from the massive overtime, once you'd done that commissioning run - which involved a final stay on board the boat -you could write your ticket. Every one of them had to be individually approved almost at board level ( which meant they had to go tee total for a couple of months - that in itself was a major challenge - getting through the D&A testing)
The number of workers who got to "work in tandem" with the sub was very very few. It was a career accolade for a seriously good technical. And apart from the massive overtime, once you'd done that commissioning run - which involved a final stay on board the boat -you could write your ticket. Every one of them had to be individually approved almost at board level ( which meant they had to go tee total for a couple of months - that in itself was a major challenge - getting through the D&A testing)
I am uncertain of the exact figures but between a third and a half of the senior (mid career) engineers, technical officers and trades, started or spent much of their early careers in the automotive industry.
Australia still has a fairly large automotive design and engineering capability, doing a lot of work for their global parents, including designing entire vehicles from the ground up. They just aren't built here and more.
The biggest loss to the nation is we are no longer training and developing the critical mass of engineers and engineering paraprofessionals we once did. This means the number of juniors coming up are nowhere near what it was only a decade ago. We are sort of ok now but it's going to get very tight going forward until such time as the new people get up to speed.
An issue making the current situation worse is that when the number of engineering roles started reducing with the winding down of local automotive assembly, many positions previously held by paraprofessional were rebranded as professional engineer roles.
This gave the engineers something to do but removed career paths the senior paraprofessionals. Now we don't have and cant get enough engineers, there aren't enough paraprofessionals to fill the roles where you don't actually need a degree. A great own goal by engineers Australia.
Memory failure on the capacity of the tactical length, but for SM2 (current versions) in any case ANZACs don't have the FCS. It will be interesting when SM2 Active become available to see what the decision on load out then is. With only 8 cells you wouldn't want to give up more AAW volley capability than you had to and two or four SM2 are probably not worth it; although there might be scenarios where it is.
Last edited:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
V, I don’t disagree that there are small ‘remnants’ of the Oz Auto Industry still in existence, but it is a very very minute part.
Yes it’s a high end technical part, but it’s not the part that employed the vast majority of Oz Auto Industry workers, true?
If the Oz Auto Industry was a species of animal, it would be classed as extinct, yes there are a few isolated groups left, but certainly not enough to breed up again.
If you went to your local shops and asked 100 people if the Oz Auto Industry still existed, and can you purchase an Australian manufactured car? I guarantee that 90++% would say, no it’s gone, dead and buried.
But that’s not really the point I was making.
Albo got up there and referenced two of his ALP hero’s as being the forefathers of the now long dead Oz Auto Industry.
He was drawing a party political long bow between the very long distant past and trying to position himself as the father of the Oz SSN sub industry (in fact it was ScoMo).
Yes this is what all politicians do (ALP and LNP), they try and make claim to things they didn’t actually create or start.
Putting aside the ‘political optics’, I do hope the Oz SSN industry does succeed, and continue well into the future and survives the many different ‘flavours’ of Governments in all three AUKUS partners.