Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Stampede

Well-Known Member
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.
I'd make the assumption any adversary would have a pretty good idea as to our fleet composition and its capabilities.
Should a lone ANZAC unfortunately find it's self in harms way, the challenge for the hostile force is are they dealing with a 50 km range ESSM or potentially a SM2 with three times that range.
It would be part of the enemy's calculus even though they know the ship has only has 8 cells.
If SM2 fits and can be integrated to work with the ANZAC Class, I'd suggest its worth the effort within the realm of reasonable expenditure.

2 x SM2 and 24 x ESSM is not a great load out but it maybe enough to deter in appropriate circumstances .

Just my thoughts


Cheers S
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
Ironically, many standing up as technical instructors, coaches, and mentors, as well as many actually doing the technical work now are ex automotive people.

Towards the end the automotive industry was highly automated and relied on greater numbers of trades and technical officers than they ever had before. Design, development, certification, plant design production engineering, quality engineering, you name it, their were literally thousands of technical people in the industry.

Even the "production" workers were doing more and more study. Programming robots, CNCs, there were also a lot of operator maintainers.

Read an interesting article about the deep do do we are in because of how the economy has been allowed to develop. A quarry and an unfair tax system: Why is this the economy young Australians are inheriting?

Very poignant that the economy is now significantly shallower than it once was and how it will take decades to rebuild our competitiveness. The automotive industry was uncompetitive because China wanted our resources not our cars.
 

Aussie Coms

New Member
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.

Wasn’t it actually an RAN officer and an RN officer that came up with the concept of what became AUKUS ? I’d hardly be crediting SCOMO or any other politician for it
 

Aardvark144

Active Member
Wasn’t it actually an RAN officer and an RN officer that came up with the concept of what became AUKUS ? I’d hardly be crediting SCOMO or any other politician for it
Maybe the AUKUS acronym; however, I think some credit should have gone to Morrison (like him or loath him) for initiating the concept.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Wasn’t it actually an RAN officer and an RN officer that came up with the concept of what became AUKUS ? I’d hardly be crediting SCOMO or any other politician for it
You are wrong, dead wrong.

You, or I, or anyone could have thought SSNs for the RAN was a good idea.

It’s been a discussion for many decades as part of ‘Nuclear’ in some form or the other for Australia.

I’ve been in favour of SSNs for the RAN for 40+ years, does that mean I’m the architect?? (No it doesn’t).

But you, I, and anyone from the RAN or RN, is not in a ‘leadership’ role for it to happen.

Do a bit of research, it was ScoMo that instructed his Def Min (Merise Payne), and Defence to start the conversation firstly with the UK, then the USA, if SSNs were a possibility/probability for the RAN.

It was ScoMo, Boris and Biden that announced AUKUS, enough said??


Don’t take my word, but it has been documented and reported.


EDIT: small error, it wasn’t Marise Payne, it was Linda Reynolds as Def Min, regardless, the process was the same).
 
Last edited:

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Maybe the AUKUS acronym; however, I think some credit should have gone to Morrison (like him or loath him) for initiating the concept.
Agree.

This is correct, I neither like or loath ScoMo, but it was him that was in a Government leadership position for AUKUS to happen.

There are a number of media reports from 18mths ago (when AUKUS was first announced) that clearly report the ‘origins’ of AUKUS started a year or go before, when ScoMo asked his Def Min to investigate the possibility.

Again, don’t believe me, research articles written at the time of the announcement.
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Most recent image of Arafura I've seen in a while, showing her fitting out alongside (note I have cropped the original image to highlight the ship).
"Premier of South Australia the Hon Peter Malinauskas MP, speaking during the AUKUS Nuclear Submarine announcement at Osborne Naval Shipyard in Adelaide." Image Source : ADF Image Library
20230315raaf8485160_046.jpg
 

Aussie Coms

New Member
You are wrong, dead wrong.

You, or I, or anyone could have thought SSNs for the RAN was a good idea.

It’s been a discussion for many decades as part of ‘Nuclear’ in some form or the other for Australia.

I’ve been in favour of SSNs for the RAN for 40+ years, does that mean I’m the architect?? (No it doesn’t).

But you, I, and anyone from the RAN or RN, is not in a ‘leadership’ role for it to happen.

Do a bit of research, it was ScoMo that instructed his Def Min (Merise Payne), and Defence to start the conversation firstly with the UK, then the USA, if SSNs were a possibility/probability for the RAN.

It was ScoMo, Boris and Biden that announced AUKUS, enough said??


Don’t take my word, but it has been documented and reported.


EDIT: small error, it wasn’t Marise Payne, it was Linda Reynolds as Def Min, regardless, the process was the same).
First, AUKUS is not about SSN’s, it’s about technology sharing between AUS/UK/US

Second, I’m not talking about the name AUKUS. As previous poster mentioned, I’m pretty sure that is was two senior RAN and RN officers that came up with the concept, which was then expanded to include the US. Senior military people spend a lot of time talking to partners in 5Eyes, the QUAD, NATO, etc, etc

i somewhat doubt that this was thought up by SCOMO or any other politician, they , as usual, just take the credit for it.

Anyway, said my bit

EOT
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
First, AUKUS is not about SSN’s, it’s about technology sharing between AUS/UK/US

Second, I’m not talking about the name AUKUS. As previous poster mentioned, I’m pretty sure that is was two senior RAN and RN officers that came up with the concept, which was then expanded to include the US. Senior military people spend a lot of time talking to partners in 5Eyes, the QUAD, NATO, etc, etc

i somewhat doubt that this was thought up by SCOMO or any other politician, they , as usual, just take the credit for it.

Anyway, said my bit

EOT
Mate, I don’t disbelieve that you believe that.

But...

Maybe you can link some documents to back up that claim, hey?
 

knightrider4

Active Member
Most recent image of Arafura I've seen in a while, showing her fitting out alongside (note I have cropped the original image to highlight the ship).
"Premier of South Australia the Hon Peter Malinauskas MP, speaking during the AUKUS Nuclear Submarine announcement at Osborne Naval Shipyard in Adelaide." Image Source : ADF Image Library
View attachment 50350
Is all well with this program? Has she started sea trials?
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
two senior RAN and RN officers that came up with the concept, which was then expanded to include the US.
One problem with that little gem, any senior would know that discussions between Aus and UK re nuclear submarines would never get off the ground, it would only ever happen if the US allowed it to happen, the UK have no say in the matter, the US own the tech. Any discussion between RAN and RN would not have been of any substance, ITARS and the US-UK MDA makes sure of that.

Talk of nuclear submarines has been a part of the matrix for a very long time, all options were looked at for the Collins programme and I would be very confident with the Sea 1000 Programme, but none of that means squat until Government changes policy, and the previous LNP did that, the current ALP caught the ball and have run with it, and so far seem to be doing a good job with regards to SSN's.

Cheers
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
First, AUKUS is not about SSN’s, it’s about technology sharing between AUS/UK/US

Second, I’m not talking about the name AUKUS. As previous poster mentioned, I’m pretty sure that is was two senior RAN and RN officers that came up with the concept, which was then expanded to include the US. Senior military people spend a lot of time talking to partners in 5Eyes, the QUAD, NATO, etc, etc

i somewhat doubt that this was thought up by SCOMO or any other politician, they , as usual, just take the credit for it.

Anyway, said my bit

EOT
Mate, just to add to my reply from a few hours ago,

I’m still waiting for some supporting documentation regarding your claim that two senior Sirs from the RAN and RN started the AUKUS ball rolling.

So how about we start here....

Go back and look at the original RAN Thread (not the new RAN 2.0 thread).

This link is from a post I made on 16 September 2021 (post #30,494).


This was an ABC article made by Andrew Probyn.

Have a read of the detail, this article from 18mths ago talks about the instructions ScoMo gave to his then Def Min about 18mths prior.

In other words, ScoMo instructed his then Def Min to explore SSN options approx three years ago.

Clearly there were discussions by senior sirs from the RAN and RN, but it was under instruction from the Australian Def Min, who was under instruction from the Australian PM.

Senior Sirs don’t enter into serious discussions, of this type, without some encouragement or authorisation from above.

If you have some documentation to suggest otherwise, I look forward to reading it.
 

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
You are wrong, dead wrong.

You, or I, or anyone could have thought SSNs for the RAN was a good idea.

It’s been a discussion for many decades as part of ‘Nuclear’ in some form or the other for Australia.

I’ve been in favour of SSNs for the RAN for 40+ years, does that mean I’m the architect?? (No it doesn’t).

But you, I, and anyone from the RAN or RN, is not in a ‘leadership’ role for it to happen.

Do a bit of research, it was ScoMo that instructed his Def Min (Merise Payne), and Defence to start the conversation firstly with the UK, then the USA, if SSNs were a possibility/probability for the RAN.

It was ScoMo, Boris and Biden that announced AUKUS, enough said??


Don’t take my word, but it has been documented and reported.


EDIT: small error, it wasn’t Marise Payne, it was Linda Reynolds as Def Min, regardless, the process was the same).
I don’t know if this article is 100% accurate but it appears to be well researched and the later sections give good detail about the people involved in meetings that lead to the formation of AUKUS.

Radioactive: Inside the top-secret AUKUS subs deal
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The national archives have some interesting cabinet documents and other records, the truth of what happened won't be out for thirty years.

There was a costed proposal from navy, examining several options, that proposed the replacement of Melbourne in the 1960s with a new carrier. The recommendation put forward was for a modernised Essex, it died at cabinet level and wasn't heard of again until dug out of declassified papers released in the 90s.

The trials and tribulations of the 70s 80s program to replace Melbourne are enlightening. Politicians have ideas and plans but listen to experts. Most proposals are actually brought to parliament, it's not parliament that initiates them.

The RN and RAN were discussing the RAN taking on carriers as part of the British Pacific Fleet in late WWII, this was killed by government, but they could have just as easily said yes.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Ironically, many standing up as technical instructors, coaches, and mentors, as well as many actually doing the technical work now are ex automotive people.

Towards the end the automotive industry was highly automated and relied on greater numbers of trades and technical officers than they ever had before. Design, development, certification, plant design production engineering, quality engineering, you name it, their were literally thousands of technical people in the industry.

Even the "production" workers were doing more and more study. Programming robots, CNCs, there were also a lot of operator maintainers.

Read an interesting article about the deep do do we are in because of how the economy has been allowed to develop. A quarry and an unfair tax system: Why is this the economy young Australians are inheriting?

Very poignant that the economy is now significantly shallower than it once was and how it will take decades to rebuild our competitiveness. The automotive industry was uncompetitive because China wanted our resources not our cars.
“The automotive industry was uncompetitive because China wanted our resources not our cars”

To the best of my knowledge China never wanted our cars in the first place,

The simple reason the Oz Auto Industry died was because the manufacturers continued to make vehicles that nobody wanted anymore.

Yes once upon a time the big fat family car was king, the sedan with room for six adults, three in the front bench seat and three in the back, or even more if it was two adults and a pack of kids.

I vividly remember going on holidays, in the mid 1960s, in my fathers 1960 FB Holden and my younger brother and I bouncing around in the back seat, and there were no seat belts either (those were the days, we survived too).

Roll forward to the last 10-20 years or so, and Australian buyer tastes changed dramatically.

Older adults wanted a smaller hatchback, or a SUV or a 4WD, families wanted a SUV or similar, others wanted a hatch, sports, SUV, 4WD, but not a big fat Commodore, Falcon, Magna (previously Valiant), or Camry sedan.

The only people I knew who drove a big fat sedan in recent decades (including myself), was if it was company car (private or Government supplied),

Two of my early company cars were Magnas and Ford Fairmonts (the Fairmont was plush, but underneath it was just a Falcon taxi, rough as guts, I didn’t care because I had the company supplied fuel card).

My most recent company car from a few years back was a smaller Mitsubishi ASX SUV, far more practical for ‘out of hours’ use.

Today I drive a smaller German made turbo 4 cylinder, much more comfortable and refined for the City driving I do mostly.

Again, the Australian Auto industry died because they didn’t produce cars the average punter wanted (except for Utes that continued to be popular, but not in enough numbers to sustain local manufacture).

A good case study on how a nation can prosper manufacturing vehicles is Skoda, yes they are majority owned by VW, but they make cars that are attractive to buyers, the Czechs make a million plus vehicles a year (a country with half the Oz population).

Last time I was in Czech with my ex Czech partner, Skoda was everywhere, we went to Greece and I reckon I saw more Skoda than in Czech.

It wasn’t the Government, or the Oz public that let the Oz Auto industry down, it was the manufacturers and their parent companies that didn’t move with the times.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Actually, on the cabinet papers relating to the replacement of Melbourne in the early 80s (most going back to the 70s), there were multiple options out forward.

The argument of the deputy chief scientist and the RAAF staff was that the only carrier worth having was a CTOL carrier with supersonic strike jets and fixed wing ASW. This was unaffordable so the next best option was a light carrier with Harriers and helicopters. After this it was frigate based helicopters and no jets, fleet air defence and fixed wing ASW falling to the RAAF.

Multiple options are put to government, but government chooses.
 

buffy9

Well-Known Member
Actually, on the cabinet papers relating to the replacement of Melbourne in the early 80s (most going back to the 70s), there were multiple options out forward.

The argument of the deputy chief scientist and the RAAF staff was that the only carrier worth having was a CTOL carrier with supersonic strike jets and fixed wing ASW. This was unaffordable so the next best option was a light carrier with Harriers and helicopters. After this it was frigate based helicopters and no jets, fleet air defence and fixed wing ASW falling to the RAAF.

Multiple options are put to government, but government chooses.
I'm curious how RAN and government must have viewed the Falklands War then with regards to carriers, or navy more broadly? Force projection of such a scale didn't mix mix with what Defence was doing at the time but it could be enlightening considering where we find ourselves today.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
“The automotive industry was uncompetitive because China wanted our resources not our cars”

To the best of my knowledge China never wanted our cars in the first place,

The simple reason the Oz Auto Industry died was because the manufacturers continued to make vehicles that nobody wanted anymore.

Yes once upon a time the big fat family car was king, the sedan with room for six adults, three in the front bench seat and three in the back, or even more if it was two adults and a pack of kids.

I vividly remember going on holidays, in the mid 1960s, in my fathers 1960 FB Holden and my younger brother and I bouncing around in the back seat, and there were no seat belts either (those were the days, we survived too).

Roll forward to the last 10-20 years or so, and Australian buyer tastes changed dramatically.

Older adults wanted a smaller hatchback, or a SUV or a 4WD, families wanted a SUV or similar, others wanted a hatch, sports, SUV, 4WD, but not a big fat Commodore, Falcon, Magna (previously Valiant), or Camry sedan.

The only people I knew who drove a big fat sedan in recent decades (including myself), was if it was company car (private or Government supplied),

Two of my early company cars were Magnas and Ford Fairmonts (the Fairmont was plush, but underneath it was just a Falcon taxi, rough as guts, I didn’t care because I had the company supplied fuel card).

My most recent company car from a few years back was a smaller Mitsubishi ASX SUV, far more practical for ‘out of hours’ use.

Today I drive a smaller German made turbo 4 cylinder, much more comfortable and refined for the City driving I do mostly.

Again, the Australian Auto industry died because they didn’t produce cars the average punter wanted (except for Utes that continued to be popular, but not in enough numbers to sustain local manufacture).

A good case study on how a nation can prosper manufacturing vehicles is Skoda, yes they are majority owned by VW, but they make cars that are attractive to buyers, the Czechs make a million plus vehicles a year (a country with half the Oz population).

Last time I was in Czech with my ex Czech partner, Skoda was everywhere, we went to Greece and I reckon I saw more Skoda than in Czech.

It wasn’t the Government, or the Oz public that let the Oz Auto industry down, it was the manufacturers and their parent companies that didn’t move with the times.
Ford wanted to produce the full Focus range here, along side Falcon, but politics prevented this as it would have required shutting the ford engine plant in Geelong (replacing the inline six with an imported V6) and neither side of politics was going to let that happen.

The Ford Ranger and Everest were designed in Australia but built in Thailand because of the lop sided free trade agreement that allowed them to put a 100% sales tax on Australian built cars, pushing the Australia's sedans, wagons and SUVs into BMW and Mercedes price ranges.

Holden had a modular RWD platform that was underpinning the Commodore /Caprice, the Chev Camaro, and there were 3 series sized RWD sedan prototypes built.

At a time we had billions of revenue heading overseas because no politician was brave enough to fairly tax the multi nationals. This caused a rise in the Australian dollar that made every other industry uncompetitive.

Now we are paying the price, we are not only paying top dollar for imported products from nations we gave our IP to, there is now a deficit high paying jobs that normal Australian can get. Unemployment is low but when many of those jobs are paying less than equivalent roles in society were a decade ago we are in trouble.

It's not politics now, it's commonsense. business is struggling because of the structural issues we are suffering because of the loss of manufacturing.
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I'm curious how RAN and government must have viewed the Falklands War then with regards to carriers, or navy more broadly? Force projection of such a scale didn't mix mix with what Defence was doing at the time but it could be enlightening considering where we find ourselves today.
They completely ignored it.

The deputy chief scientist in particular didn't rate the Harrier or Sea Harrier describing them as inferior to the supersonic types used through our region, specifically the F-5 types.

Search the national achives for the carrier replacement and you can read it for yourself.
 
Last edited:

SD67

Member
Ford wanted to produce the full Focus range here, along side Falcon, but politics prevented this as it would have required shutting the ford engine plant in Geelong (replacing the inline six with an imported V6) and neither side of politics was going to let that happen.

The Ford Ranger and Everest were designed in Australia but built in Thailand because of the lop sided free trade agreement that allowed them to put a 100% sales tax on Australian built cars, pushing the Australia's sedans, wagons and SUVs into BMW and Mercedes price ranges.

Holden had a modular RWD platform that was underpinning the Commodore /Caprice, the Chev Camaro, and there were 3 series sized RWD sedan prototypes built.
Hi Volk I was in Oz Automotive until 2001 with a very well known tier 1 supplier, maybe not that senior at the time was was involved in the costing / benchmarking. Australia just didn’t have the quality relative to cost. There was a near enough attitude to QC, and serious stockloss problems that went beyond the normal pilfering, the Germans were tearing their hair out (oops - give away).
It was very sad because there were some excellent people who were passionate about their jobs but frankly the culture was too egalitarian to root out the bad apples.
 
Top