Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[John Fedup]

B-21s instead of subs? The US never shared F-22 technology so WTF would the US share B-21 technology, arguably even more sensitive. This alternative is more likely due to the US not being able to ramp up SSN production as opposed to Australian dollars being invested in other ways.

 

[spoz]

The function of the CRS is to provide members of Congress with analysis of all available options. I’ve read dozens of Defence related reports (they are available on line here: https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=&orderBy=Date) and they have canvassed some really way out ideas at times which there was never any chance would be implemented; but amongst other things such as programmatic issues their function is to look at alternatives to the chosen path. They NEVER recommend, they just analyse; something that the ABC, amongst others, does not seem to understand. Plus of course they do it from the perspective of the US; they might canvas options available to Australia but in the context of possible US responses. They do not, and O’Rouke in particular would never dream of suggesting, that they have any other function.

 

[Aardvark144]

B-21s instead of subs? The US never shared F-22 technology so WTF would the US share B-21 technology, arguably even more sensitive. This alternative is more likely due to the US not being able to ramp up SSN production as opposed to Australian dollars being invested in other ways.

Given the access received so far under AUKUS, B21 access is not an issue. We had RAAF presdence at the B21 rollout and SEC AF was quoted at the time as saying he was willing to work with Australia should we go down the B21 path. Fully back Spoz's comments on the lack of understanding amongst the Australian media on the role of the CRS. Every time they publish a report various outlets in Aus hyperventilate and go into overdrive.

 

[Volkodav]

And while we're at it we can pay for a squadron of British cruisers to patrol our waters and not trouble our silly little heads at all with such complex issues as national defence.

It's a joke and not a funny one.

Have they even read a history book?

Exactly what I was thinking.

Back when the RAN was being conceptuonalised many, including Admiral Fisher, were of the opinion Australia should just provide money, warm bodies and space for facilities to the RN.

Then the UK government started cutting costs so Fsher and co suddenly started pushing for all the Dominions, not just Australia to buy fleet units, i.e. a balanced force of cruisers, destroyers and submarines, centred around a battle cruiser.

US presidential terms are four years, and an individual can serve two terms. Before the first of these additional virginas is delivered, neither of the current condidates will still be in office.

If we pay for extra USN capability, it is pretty likely a future POTUS will cut their orders and keep out money.

 

[Bob53]

Exactly what I was thinking.

Back when the RAN was being conceptuonalised many, including Admiral Fisher, were of the opinion Australia should just provide money, warm bodies and space for facilities to the RN.

Then the UK government started cutting costs so Fsher and co suddenly started pushing for all the Dominions, not just Australia to buy fleet units, i.e. a balanced force of cruisers, destroyers and submarines, centred around a battle cruiser.

US presidential terms are four years, and an individual can serve two terms. Before the first of these additional virginas is delivered, neither of the current condidates will still be in office.

If we pay for extra USN capability, it is pretty likely a future POTUS will cut their orders and keep out money.

Of concern is that Trump is irrational in his reasoning. One one hand he will probably like that we are paying for US capability, jobs and proding basing. On the other hand he is quite selfish and won’t like any thought the US is giving up any capability. What he won’t like is that it was a deal Done under a democrat president. There is still a lot of uncertainty around AUKUS.

 

[Volkodav]

The function of the CRS is to provide members of Congress with analysis of all available options. I’ve read dozens of Defence related reports (they are available on line here: https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=&orderBy=Date) and they have canvassed some really way out ideas at times which there was never any chance would be implemented; but amongst other things such as programmatic issues their function is to look at alternatives to the chosen path. They NEVER recommend, they just analyse; something that the ABC, amongst others, does not seem to understand. Plus of course they do it from the perspective of the US; they might canvas options available to Australia but in the context of possible US responses. They do not, and O’Rouke in particular would never dream of suggesting, that they have any other function.

That said, too many CORGIs (commanding officers really good idea) are taken seriously and end up being adopted at least for a period of time.

Sometimes they are (can be made) workable, sometimes they are not. Unless they are drowned at birth they can be an expensive distraction that leads the uninformed to divert funding and efford from critical capability.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Have they even read a history book?

I don't think think Mr O’Rourke understands any of the history and even why we are seeking such capabilities, and history behind such capabilities being provided by others on promises and assurances.

Wonder how this reads elsewhere, US unable to meeting modest previously agreed Australian request. Flakey.

I also dislike how it often reads like Australia is the cause for all of the US's woes in submarine fleet numbers. Like everything will be fine and super if these pesky Australians just didn't want submarines.

Also that for Chinese aggression to occur to Australian territory, US lead order would likely have already collapsed, Guam wiped off the map Taiwan invaded, Japan and Korea crushed, US withdrawn and broken.. And that we would be left by ourselves to use B21's to fend for ourselves. Again my problem with the B21 plan, is what are we using a US USAF strategic strike aircraft for? With no naval strike capability? Striking mainland China? Unescorted? 18 hrs each way? With bombs made here? With bombers reliant on a US supply chain? Against China? By ourselves? Is the US also planning to just drop conventional bombs launched from CONUS on B21's as their only plan to deter China?

B-21 only have a ~4000km range, great, we can ditch them into the sea at around the Philippines, just like where our are B-17's are in the water just off Del monte airfield, where they had to ditch, trying to rescue MacArthur.

Does this stuff not get even some US peer reviewal? Do they not read the room? Makes them sound like an arsehats? Im pretty salty about this idea.. I hope someone in uniform sits Mr O'Rourke down and explains in clear and eloquently some history. I know its just a paper, but the writers perspective is pretty annoying, I would hate to see more wacky thought along these lines.

Its annoying because part of AUKUS was to build and improve production capability across all AUKUS partners. The idea that it is just a drain on US resources is stupid. I can think of plenty of other things that are a drain on US resources. We paid money to improve US production capability, we are building our own production capability, the end result is more production and support capability.

I also find it amusing that some of the Americans think Australia isn't going to be using the submarines in exactly the same aims as they would. Like they will just be trawling around the Australian coast.

Maybe we do need the UK as partners in the program. How are the UK submarines going? I saw some video's on their development, seems like they are pretty far along with their development.

 

[SammyC]

That said, too many CORGIs (commanding officers really good idea) are taken seriously and end up being adopted at least for a period of time.

Sometimes they are (can be made) workable, sometimes they are not. Unless they are drowned at birth they can be an expensive distraction that leads the uninformed to divert funding and efford from critical capability.

One would hope that if the rationalists in the American government hold sway (perhaps a big if at the moment), then they would see this as a good deal for America.

They get Auatralia to pay for some of the American in country shipbuilding infrastructure, Australia to pay for a substantial depot level maintenance facility, construction yard and submarine base (and a second in the future) that the Americans can use, they get to sell Australia three submarines at full price (no subsidies or grants), and they get an ally that will take on a regional responsibility (SSN patrol) that they then don't need to do (and pay for).

Additionally they get a whole heap of free submariner staffing for the next 10-15 odd years, in a time when recruitment and retention is difficult.

And they get eight subs fully paid and managed by an ally for the cost (paid for by Australia) of only three to them.

The Americans know they would struggle to maintain and staff an additional eight submarines, when they can't support their existing fleet.

 

[Stampede]

I don't think think Mr O’Rourke understands any of the history and even why we are seeking such capabilities, and history behind such capabilities being provided by others on promises and assurances.

Wonder how this reads elsewhere, US unable to meeting modest previously agreed Australian request. Flakey.

I also dislike how it often reads like Australia is the cause for all of the US's woes in submarine fleet numbers. Like everything will be fine and super if these pesky Australians just didn't want submarines.

Also that for Chinese aggression to occur to Australian territory, US lead order would likely have already collapsed, Guam wiped off the map Taiwan invaded, Japan and Korea crushed, US withdrawn and broken.. And that we would be left by ourselves to use B21's to fend for ourselves. Again my problem with the B21 plan, is what are we using a US USAF strategic strike aircraft for? With no naval strike capability? Striking mainland China? Unescorted? 18 hrs each way? With bombs made here? With bombers reliant on a US supply chain? Against China? By ourselves? Is the US also planning to just drop conventional bombs launched from CONUS on B21's as their only plan to deter China?

B-21 only have a ~4000km range, great, we can ditch them into the sea at around the Philippines, just like where our are B-17's are in the water just off Del monte airfield, where they had to ditch, trying to rescue MacArthur.

Does this stuff not get even some US peer reviewal? Do they not read the room? Makes them sound like an arsehats? Im pretty salty about this idea.. I hope someone in uniform sits Mr O'Rourke down and explains in clear and eloquently some history. I know its just a paper, but the writers perspective is pretty annoying, I would hate to see more wacky thought along these lines.

Its annoying because part of AUKUS was to build and improve production capability across all AUKUS partners. The idea that it is just a drain on US resources is stupid. I can think of plenty of other things that are a drain on US resources. We paid money to improve US production capability, we are building our own production capability, the end result is more production and support capability.

I also find it amusing that some of the Americans think Australia isn't going to be using the submarines in exactly the same aims as they would. Like they will just be trawling around the Australian coast.

Maybe we do need the UK as partners in the program. How are the UK submarines going? I saw some video's on their development, seems like they are pretty far along with their development.

For those not familiar with Toast, it is one of the most bizarre shows around.
Comedy is is personal, but at times it hits the mark.

back to SSNs

Cheers S and thanks for sharing the vid

 

[seaspear]

I do not not know the cost of the Virginia class vessels compared to the proposed AUKUS class and perhaps another alternative is to have just the one class built locally though instead of five perhaps eight,in the period prior with the Collins class being phased out the Virginia class operating out of Australia could undertake those responsibilities with Australian naval personnel serving aboard ,there may be savings in the operation of just one class of vessel

 

[Going Boeing]

I do not not know the cost of the Virginia class vessels compared to the proposed AUKUS class and perhaps another alternative is to have just the one class built locally though instead of five perhaps eight,in the period prior with the Collins class being phased out the Virginia class operating out of Australia could undertake those responsibilities with Australian naval personnel serving aboard ,there may be savings in the operation of just one class of vessel

I think that the journalist perception that there will only be 5 SSN AUKUS subs has been fully debunked and that the RAN will be operating a single fleet of 8 of these subs once the transitionary Virginias are retired. The first 2 Virginia’s planned to enter RAN service in 2032 & 34 with 20 years of service life available. They would be retired when the 6th & 7th SSN AUKUS subs enter service based on a 3 years drumbeat.

In 2038, the 3rd Virginia will replace the first Collins class (HMAS Farncomb) and the remainder of the Collins will be replaced by the first 5 SSN AUKUS subs.

The only discrepancy in this plan is that the 3rd Virginia is planned to be a new build and will still have some service life left when the 8th SSN AUKUS sub is completed.

 

[hauritz]

Given the track record of Australia's defence decision making I generally don't accept anything as a done deal until they crack the champaign bottle across the hull. The Aukus submarines will not only have to survive our own country's political machinations but also those of the US and UK. It has to survive a possible Trump re-election and also the UK is conducting a defence review which might result in delays to the AUKUS submarine program.

My own take on it is that Trump will probably honor his obligations to Australia. At least that is what he reportedly told Scott Morrison. If anything I think Trump is more likely to adopt a more isolationist policy effectively reducing the role of the US military and putting more responsibility onto its allies. That being the case he probably wouldn't have an issue selling off a few submarines.