Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Morgo]

Would require either a 12% increase in personal taxes, a 4% increase in GST, a 10% additional company tax rate, a 40% cut in other programs, or a $40B per annum increase in debt.

Or the imposition of modest inheritance taxes (like virtually every other advanced nation has), proper royalties on Australian gas, oil, coal and iron ore (like virtually every other resource rich nation does), elimination of stupid carve outs like negative gearing, CGT discounts, franking credit refunds, and including the primary family residence in means testing for various benefits.

This could comfortably fund an increase in Defence spending and probably deliver significant personal income tax and company tax cuts as well.

But our politicians are cowards.

 

[Stampede]

Not yet the RAN; Defence, ie that part responsible for shipbuilding. Simplified and at a high level the process is;

Proof of compliance with contract (builders sea trials) - acceptance by Defence - transit to home port (if required) - completion of certifications leading to RAN sea release - delivery to RAN - proof of compliance with capability requirements (operational sea trials) - IOC - delivery of last ship in build - FOC.

From that press release, we’ve just completed stage 2. Transit if needed, and it is here, can occur before, during or after the certification process. Certification, particularly for the first of class, can take a month or two (or longer) depending on the complexity of the platform. Commissioning usually occurs on delivery to the RAN.

So is commissioning before or after when the next federal election is called ?

 

[spoz]

If not before, the caretaker conventions might require it be delayed until after the election is decided.

 

[hauritz]

Australia can’t easily lift defence spending to a Trump-satisfying level | The Strategist

On that point I was reading this article this morning. It talks about what would need to occur to fund defence at the levels of 3.5% GDP. Key points as follows:

• It would equate to $97B total annual Defence spend, or $40B more than current.
• Would require either a 12% increase in personal taxes, a 4% increase in GST, a 10% additional company tax rate, a 40% cut in other programs, or a $40B per annum increase in debt.
• For comparison, NDIS is currently about $46B. Health and aged care is about $120B per annum.

I am a person who wants to see defence spending increase, and would love to support it at 3.5%. It would be great to get all the gear we could ever want for that money. Given the impact on either taxation, debt or other expenditure programs, I can't see that happening outside of some great and imminent threat (it really needs a barbarians at the door situation).

I still think there will be pressure from Trump for us to increase our spending, so maybe something small, such as an earlier increase to 2.4% and a longer term commitment to 3% next decade. To note there would be zero way that an extra $40B could be spend in FY26, so an immediate increase is near impossible.

For an earlier increase to 2.4%, perhaps some infrastructure investments in bases brought forward (WA and NT in particular), or some extra missile orders (can never have enough SM2s), or higher wages (something that could happen immediately).

If US allies were to actually boost their defence spending to 5% or even 3.5% of GDP a huge hunk of that money would end up in the coffers of the US defence Industry. The only way boosting Australian defence spending to US levels would work is if we built the vast majority of our equipment in Australia. When Australia buys F-35s, Virginia SSNs, missiles or whatever else from overseas that money is effectively ripped out of the Australian economy forever.

What the US spends on defence mostly benefits US industry. In turn these industries generate huge amounts of money for the US economy, partly compensating their defence budget. You then have all the other benefits the US derives from being a global superpower.

While I have no issue with Australia increasing its defence spending I think we need to be prudent in the way that money is spent.

 

[swerve]

You wouldn’t want to come up against a Type 56 corvette in an OPV.

- 4x Anti-Ship missiles.
- 8x SAM’s in a reloadable launcher for point defence
- 76mm gun.
- Presumably a decent electronics fitout.

I’m assuming they retained their missiles when they were transferred to the Coast Guard?

Reported that the missiles have been removed & other mods. Photos of them in coast guard colours appear to corroborate the reports.
China Transferring Navy Type 056 Corvettes to the Coast Guard - Naval News

Compare with a PLAN Type 056 - the missile launchers are clearly visible.
Type 056 corvette - Wikipedia

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

The fact that the usually reserved and quiet Japanese government is saying all these things on record, shows you how they view the project.

Until relatively recently the Japanese defence industry didn't really do exports, and then when they tried they found it hard to enter the market because they didn't have the necessary experience to win contracts. Some years ago they had a bit of an epiphany and appeared to have changed they way they approached things. Part of this required diplomatic backing.

Note how the German government has been almost silent on the contract. Part of it is likely down to distractions from political infighting but equally I think they just don't care that much.

Also, there is no need for an urgently fast decision from Australia, because Japan is suppose to be building them anyway for herself. An early yes from Australia might then see Japan curtail her side of the program, and Australia yet carries the can for another orphaned development.

The last I heard Australia wanted the new frigates from 2029. If Australia was buying off-the-shelf from Japan it wouldn't matter as much, but if the RAN wants different radar, etc, it would be better to make the decision sooner rather than later. There's time to ensure that a robust contract has been drawn up that ensures there's no confusion as to who is expected to do what. But I think a formal choice on the winning offer has to be this year.

That said there is no realistic prospect of the new Mogami becoming an orphaned project. Japan has always wanted 22 new frigates, and they've reduced the Mogami-class to 10. That means Japan will have 12 of the new class, even if Australia buys some from its production line.

Also those Germans go back to Germany and tell their political leadership what is happening in the Asia Pacific and on this project. I hope they go back and literally, physically, slap their political masters, tell them things are happening, and that Germany and Europe is living in their own fantasy bubble and are being left behind and irrelevant.

Unlikely to happen. Germany is having the political equivalent of a psychological breakdown. They're unable to agree how to deal with a war on their doorstep and the rise of the AfD, let alone think about events on the other side of the world.

 

[John Fedup]

If US allies were to actually boost their defence spending to 5% or even 3.5% of GDP a huge hunk of that money would end up in the coffers of the US defence Industry. The only way boosting Australian defence spending to US levels would work is if we built the vast majority of our equipment in Australia. When Australia buys F-35s, Virginia SSNs, missiles or whatever else from overseas that money is effectively ripped out of the Australian economy forever.

What the US spends on defence mostly benefits US industry. In turn these industries generate huge amounts of money for the US economy, partly compensating their defence budget. You then have all the other benefits the US derives from being a global superpower.

While I have no issue with Australia increasing its defence spending I think we need to be prudent in the way that money is spent.

Yes, local builds, AND, diversify where you buy your kit from. Trading partners (and so-called allies) can be unreliable as our current situation demonstrates.

 

[SammyC]

If US allies were to actually boost their defence spending to 5% or even 3.5% of GDP a huge hunk of that money would end up in the coffers of the US defence Industry. The only way boosting Australian defence spending to US levels would work is if we built the vast majority of our equipment in Australia. When Australia buys F-35s, Virginia SSNs, missiles or whatever else from overseas that money is effectively ripped out of the Australian economy forever.

What the US spends on defence mostly benefits US industry. In turn these industries generate huge amounts of money for the US economy, partly compensating their defence budget. You then have all the other benefits the US derives from being a global superpower.

While I have no issue with Australia increasing its defence spending I think we need to be prudent in the way that money is spent.

Yep 100%.

If you build and maintain things in country then a large portion of that investment comes back as personal and business taxes. For local corporations, the profits largely go back to superannuation funds for pensions.

The deeper the local supply chain the more that gets returned. The deeper the supply chain the more ancillary businesses that also get created (such as cafes for workers, gyms, window cleaners, car leesees etc) which also pay taxes, and so thorth. None of that happens with overseas procurements.

All that is on top of the independence and security benefits that local weapons production provides.

It does need to be balanced off against efficiency and opportunity cost. We only have capacity to build so many things, and in many cases we would struggle to develop the capability to do some activities. And some things we can't get any level of cost competitiveness with.

 

[seaspear]

I came across this article on what Spain may intend for its sole carrier the same class as the Canberra once the fighter jets are retired( hint large drones) with perhaps a catapult installed and wondered if this is something we should keep an eye on

Spain Wants To Convert Its Aircraft Carrier For Drone Operations

The Spanish Navy is the latest to eye the potential of fixed-wing drone operations from big deck amphibious assault ships. The Spanish Navy is the latest to eye the potential of drone operations from its sole flattop, the Juan Carlos I.

www.twz.com

 

[ADMk2]

I came across this article on what Spain may intend for its sole carrier the same class as the Canberra once the fighter jets are retired( hint large drones) with perhaps a catapult installed and wondered if this is something we should keep an eye on

Spain Wants To Convert Its Aircraft Carrier For Drone Operations

The Spanish Navy is the latest to eye the potential of fixed-wing drone operations from big deck amphibious assault ships. The Spanish Navy is the latest to eye the potential of drone operations from its sole flattop, the Juan Carlos I.

www.twz.com

Drones will almost certainly operate from the Canberra class. (Assuming they haven’t / don’t already...) Whether we are talking fixed-wing CTOL operations, rotary wing or other launch and recovery methods is the question.

I personally doubt we’ll see Army or RAN flying a MALE UAS system like this or MQ-1 Mojave or similar off a Canberra Class for the exact same reason we’ll never see F-35B fly off them.

But some sort of UAS capability (and USV for that matter)? Almost certainly.

 

[Stampede]

Drones will almost certainly operate from the Canberra class. (Assuming they haven’t / don’t already...) Whether we are talking fixed-wing CTOL operations, rotary wing or other launch and recovery methods is the question.

I personally doubt we’ll see Army or RAN flying a MALE UAS system like this or MQ-1 Mojave or similar off a Canberra Class for the exact same reason we’ll never see F-35B fly off them.

But some sort of UAS capability (and USV for that matter)? Almost certainly.

Very surprised Navy have not acquired a S100 sized UAV for the fleet.
The S100 trial, selection and cancellation was disappointing.
If this platform was not suitable there are plenty of alternatives.
Good range and weight carrying capacity for its size
A very flexible asset.
A class of UAV that can fly off a OPV and a LHD and everything in between.



Cheers S

 

[Bob53]

Australia can’t easily lift defence spending to a Trump-satisfying level | The Strategist

On that point I was reading this article this morning. It talks about what would need to occur to fund defence at the levels of 3.5% GDP. Key points as follows:

• It would equate to $97B total annual Defence spend, or $40B more than current.
• Would require either a 12% increase in personal taxes, a 4% increase in GST, a 10% additional company tax rate, a 40% cut in other programs, or a $40B per annum increase in debt.
• For comparison, NDIS is currently about $46B. Health and aged care is about $120B per annum.

I am a person who wants to see defence spending increase, and would love to support it at 3.5%. It would be great to get all the gear we could ever want for that money. Given the impact on either taxation, debt or other expenditure programs, I can't see that happening outside of some great and imminent threat (it really needs a barbarians at the door situation).

I still think there will be pressure from Trump for us to increase our spending, so maybe something small, such as an earlier increase to 2.4% and a longer term commitment to 3% next decade. To note there would be zero way that an extra $40B could be spend in FY26, so an immediate increase is near impossible.

For an earlier increase to 2.4%, perhaps some infrastructure investments in bases brought forward (WA and NT in particular), or some extra missile orders (can never have enough SM2s), or higher wages (something that could happen immediately).

jobs.
[/QUOTE]

Or the imposition of modest inheritance taxes (like virtually every other advanced nation has), proper royalties on Australian gas, oil, coal and iron ore (like virtually every other resource rich nation does), elimination of stupid carve outs like negative gearing, CGT discounts, franking credit refunds, and including the primary family residence in means testing for various benefits.

This could comfortably fund an increase in Defence spending and probably deliver significant personal income tax and company tax cuts as well.

But our politicians are cowards.

why does everyone just jump to let’s add more tax? one ever mentions actually looking into waste and efficiency across government programs And diverting some of that money. adding or increasing tax just seems to be the default go to. that said it does see, time for a great reset of how we do tax in the country.

Im Not sure cowardly is the way to describe it…. there is now a cohort at every level of society that gets substantial government handouts or assistance that simply vote for what’s in it for me. As our parties are usually in government on a slim majority you only need 1 voter group ( Pensioners, NDIS recipients, Students, social security, miners and so on) to turn completely against the government to essentially change election results. The parties want to 1st get elected and 2 stay in power and 3rd do what’s right ( in their opinion) for the country. Committing political suicide by upsetting a large section of the self interested voter base makes those objectives more difficult to achieve.

as an example the GOD labour are going to cut student debt by 25% but not until after the next election. Who do you think those students will vote first? Notably my sons 3 mates that are all electrical engineers worked their asses off with multiple PT jobs while studying and paid off their HECs within 2 years of finishing. They won’t get any relief while others in their class who basically lived like animal house are going to get up to $20k HECs relief.

 

[GregorZ]

Drones will almost certainly operate from the Canberra class. (Assuming they haven’t / don’t already...) Whether we are talking fixed-wing CTOL operations, rotary wing or other launch and recovery methods is the question.

I personally doubt we’ll see Army or RAN flying a MALE UAS system like this or MQ-1 Mojave or similar off a Canberra Class for the exact same reason we’ll never see F-35B fly off them.

But some sort of UAS capability (and USV for that matter)? Almost certainly.

A drone has recently landed and taken off from one of the LHDs recently

 

[Going Boeing]

Very surprised Navy have not acquired a S100 sized UAV for the fleet.
The S100 trial, selection and cancellation was disappointing.
If this platform was not suitable there are plenty of alternatives.
Good range and weight carrying capacity for its size
A very flexible asset.
A class of UAV that can fly off a OPV and a LHD and everything in between.

I suspect that the RAN is closely following the development of STRIX as it offers multiple capabilities with reasonable range. It would complement amphibious operations.

 

[Stampede]

I suspect that the RAN is closely following the development of STRIX as it offers multiple capabilities with reasonable range. It would complement amphibious operations.

No doubt STRIX is an interesting concept either in the current size being tested or alternatively something smaller or larger.
What ever that outcome I suggest it will still be some years off before it joins the fleet.

If we are fast tracking ships for SEA 3000 because of a heightened level of threat , a S100 sized UAV should also be in the mix.

OPVs are not far away and the existing fleet needs this capability ASAP.

Too much procrastination with this capability.

Cheers S

 

[StingrayOZ]

The last I heard Australia wanted the new frigates from 2029. If Australia was buying off-the-shelf from Japan it wouldn't matter as much, but if the RAN wants different radar, etc, it would be better to make the decision sooner rather than later. There's time to ensure that a robust contract has been drawn up that ensures there's no confusion as to who is expected to do what. But I think a formal choice on the winning offer has to be this year.

That said there is no realistic prospect of the new Mogami becoming an orphaned project. Japan has always wanted 22 new frigates, and they've reduced the Mogami-class to 10. That means Japan will have 12 of the new class, even if Australia buys some from its production line.

We will accept the standard fit out radar and weapons on the japanese built ships. We will upgrade them later to our systems. This isn't unusual, hobarts, of which the last was commissioned in 2021 are already having their combat systems upgraded.

Its not just a Japan build, we have to build them in Australia as well, and have some sovereign capabilities in building them. All of which need to happen by 2029. And like most things, earlier is better, and if more capability is sooner, then that is better.

But this program also impacts many many other programs including drones, UAV, UUV, weapons etc.

That said there is no realistic prospect of the new Mogami becoming an orphaned project. Japan has always wanted 22 new frigates, and they've reduced the Mogami-class to 10. That means Japan will have 12 of the new class, even if Australia buys some from its production line.

12 is a good number. Probably a bigger threat is how much will actually get built by 2029. The capability needs to be ready to go, not just some sort of initial capability. Preferably by 2028.

Unlikely to happen. Germany is having the political equivalent of a psychological breakdown. They're unable to agree how to deal with a war on their doorstep and the rise of the AfD, let alone think about events on the other side of the world

All the more reason for them to benchmark a rapid program like this.The psychological breakdown will be over ridden by the situation.

 

[ADMk2]

A drone has recently landed and taken off from one of the LHDs recently

The news story? That happened nearly 5 years ago.

The news only just found out about it…

 

[hauritz]

why does everyone just jump to let’s add more tax? one ever mentions actually looking into waste and efficiency across government programs And diverting some of that money. adding or increasing tax just seems to be the default go to. that said it does see, time for a great reset of how we do tax in the country.

Im Not sure cowardly is the way to describe it…. there is now a cohort at every level of society that gets substantial government handouts or assistance that simply vote for what’s in it for me. As our parties are usually in government on a slim majority you only need 1 voter group ( Pensioners, NDIS recipients, Students, social security, miners and so on) to turn completely against the government to essentially change election results. The parties want to 1st get elected and 2 stay in power and 3rd do what’s right ( in their opinion) for the country. Committing political suicide by upsetting a large section of the self interested voter base makes those objectives more difficult to achieve.

as an example the GOD labour are going to cut student debt by 25% but not until after the next election. Who do you think those students will vote first? Notably my sons 3 mates that are all electrical engineers worked their asses off with multiple PT jobs while studying and paid off their HECs within 2 years of finishing. They won’t get any relief while others in their class who basically lived like animal house are going to get up to $20k HECs relief.

The way governments pay for stuff is by going into debt. This debt is often expressed as a percentage of GDP. I believe Australia is currently running about 38% which is sustainable. Tax increases might happen down the track but it certainly won't be happening immediately.

The other thing to consider is that immediately increasing defence spending isn't practical. The lead time for military equipment is measured in decades. Order something now and it probably wouldn't impact our defence spending until well after Trump leaves office.

Ironically one way to ensure Australia will increase its defence spending quickly would be for Trump to grant early access to the Virginia SSNs. Something I don't see happening.

 

[Bob53]

The way governments pay for stuff is by going into debt. This debt is often expressed as a percentage of GDP. I believe Australia is currently running about 38% which is sustainable. Tax increases might happen down the track but it certainly won't be happening immediately.

The other thing to consider is that immediately increasing defence spending isn't practical. The lead time for military equipment is measured in decades. Order something now and it probably wouldn't impact our defence spending until well after Trump leaves office.

Ironically one way to ensure Australia will increase its defence spending quickly would be for Trump to grant early access to the Virginia SSNs. Something I don't see happening.

GDP is the measure of the output of the economy. Not government income. Government income or the Taxation take is going to be approx $1 trillion in 24/25. Government debt is around $700 billion. Put in terms of a household budget it works because generally the asset the money is owed on goes up in value over the course of the loan And it can be sold to repay the loan. Government loans don’t generally buy saleable assets So we have the debt but not the asset that can be later sold to repay the initial loan.

Governments used to pay for stuff using taxes collected. now they promise services or handouts to the public which are more than they collect. we go into debt because the GOD over spend. That money has to be paid back out of the tax take. High government debt causes inflation. we don’t have inflation because you’re buying 2 coffees a day. Inflation then causes high interest rates…… which in Australia only really punishes people with a mortgage or significant loans…which then takes that money back out of the economy. It’s a cycle of stupidity. Just because governments all around the world do it doesn’t make it smart. it works out ok while the economy is growing but shits itself when there is a down turn and a rough few years …like Covid destroys this model as they loans they took then for some really dumb things like COVID job keeper payments (any political comments here …. don’t worry Labor said they didn’t spend enough) are now never going to be paid off and the interest payments keep increasing.

It’s why our governments are addicted to high immigration growth. It’s the only thing stopping us from shitting the bed completely but its not that good for the people that are already here…….as it leads to increased demand for things like housing and health services without a corresponding increase in supply Which sends prices up.

 

[seaspear]

This article goes into Australia's costs of importing and exporting of weapons ,the more recent deal with the German government is not mentioned

What we know about Australia’s arms exports: we’ve analysed the data

And what, if anything, is Australia exporting to Israel?

theconversation.com

Biggest ever defence deal to make us safer and richer

Labor has just landed the single largest defence export agreement in Australia’s history – and the deal means jobs and economic opportunity for Queensland.Queenslanders will be building more than 100 new Boxer heavy weapon carrier vehicles at Rheinmetall Defence Australia’s Military Vehicle...

www.pm.gov.au

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/design-and-implementation-the-defence-export-strategy