Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[old faithful]

I wonder if the time to make a decision is reflected in the reality of time to manufacture.
I hope not, but the reality is as most have observed over the years /decades ship construction is a complicated endeavour that takes time from the starters gun going off to select a vessel, to the physical reality of the first of class being commissioned.
SEA 3000 is ambitious.
History will judge its success.
For now, however frustrating we can only hope the first ships are delivered to meet our expectations on time and equally we can produce domestically to the same expectations.
I can only share the frustration and anxiety.

it’s an ambitious project on many levels.
It’s our plan B , C and D for the mistakes of the past.
It just has to work and regretfully I’m just not that confident it will.

Cheers S

I feel the same.
If something happens to our relationship with Uncle Sam, we are in deep deep water.
Frigates and the Hunters are a long way off, if the Virginas don't happen, we then have to wait for AUKUS subs, which if worst comes to worst, will be auk subs.....

 

[Reptilia]

I feel the same.
If something happens to our relationship with Uncle Sam, we are in deep deep water.
Frigates and the Hunters are a long way off, if the Virginas don't happen, we then have to wait for AUKUS subs, which if worst comes to worst, will be auk subs.....

May also effect Ghost Shark program with Palmer Luckey(Anduril) extremely close to Trump.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

If something happens to our relationship with Uncle Sam, we are in deep deep water.

Unfortunately, yes. Would make a tie up with the Japanese all the more important. Germany won't be able (even if willing) to do anything in the Pacific in a world where the US won't militarily support Europe, as it's uncomfortably close to Russia.

Frigates and the Hunters are a long way off, if the Virginas don't happen, we then have to wait for AUKUS subs, which if worst comes to worst, will be auk subs.....

SSN-AUKUS was always primarily about the AUK. The US is providing assistance with things like the combat management system, but even Trump wouldn't cancel that - a sale is a sale to him. But it's the UK that's producing the PWR, which is the really important part, and also guaranteeing that the class will be built.

It's also a good reason for Australia to really build up relations with the UK. Unlike Trump we don't see everything as brutally transactional and won't tie Canberra to a barrel just because we can.

 

[Reptilia]

Heavy question... Should the UK continue the production of Dreadnought class for Australia?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Heavy question... Should the UK continue the production of Dreadnought class for Australia?

I don't think we can. We will need at least some of the space vacated by the earlier boats to get started with the new SSN class. At a minimum we'd need Canberra to pay for extra shipyard capacity, which would not be cheap.

Also I think that the nuclear threat to Australia is still limited. If China used WMD on Australia because of a conventional conflict, it would mean a global rush for nuclear weapons, which would not be in the CCP's interests.

 

[John Fedup]

I don't think we can. We will need at least some of the space vacated by the earlier boats to get started with the new SSN class. At a minimum we'd need Canberra to pay for extra shipyard capacity, which would not be cheap.

Also I think that the nuclear threat to Australia is still limited. If China used WMD on Australia because of a conventional conflict, it would mean a global rush for nuclear weapons, which would not be in the CCP's interests.

A rush for nuclear weapons is likely underway (or should be) by Japan and SKorea because the US is longer a reliable ally. Other countries will have similar concerns.

 

[Going Boeing]

Heavy question... Should the UK continue the production of Dreadnought class for Australia?

Are you thinking of using them in a converted SSGN role similar to what the US did with the first 4 Ohio class?

 

[John Fedup]

Are you thinking of using them in a converted SSGN role similar to what the US did with the first 4 Ohio class?

Although a Dreadnought conversion from SSBN to SSGN is possible, I doubt either the UK or Australia would want to pay the development costs and the cost for additional subs. A SSBN is of no value to Australia as it doesn't have nuclear bombs and i don't think Trident missiles are part of the AUKUS agreement.

 

[iambuzzard]

I wonder if the time to make a decision is reflected in the reality of time to manufacture.
I hope not, but the reality is as most have observed over the years /decades ship construction is a complicated endeavour that takes time from the starters gun going off to select a vessel, to the physical reality of the first of class being commissioned.
SEA 3000 is ambitious.
History will judge its success.
For now, however frustrating we can only hope the first ships are delivered to meet our expectations on time and equally we can produce domestically to the same expectations.
I can only share the frustration and anxiety.

it’s an ambitious project on many levels.
It’s our plan B , C and D for the mistakes of the past.
It just has to work and regretfully I’m just not that confident it will.

Cheers S

If we choose Evolved Mogami the Japanese have form on quick delivery.

 

[Morgo]

If we choose Evolved Mogami the Japanese have form on quick delivery.

They can build us a ship faster than we can make a decision it seems

 

[Todjaeger]

If we choose Evolved Mogami the Japanese have form on quick delivery.

Perhaps, but delivery of a finished piece of major kit is not the same as having that same piece of kit (or the service itself) being ready for entry into service.

TBH (and this is unlikely to surprise people who read & recall my posts) I have thought the desired timeline for SEA 3000 acquisitions to be quite ambitious, perhaps overly so. I would expect that any worthwhile selection process would ask several pertinent questions, questions which might not have answers that were exactly straightforward.

There would of course be questions about who might be able to start construction first, as well as which potential vessel class could be completed first. Those questions though are not nearly as easy to answer as I suspect many might believe, as part of the answer will depend on vessel fitout and how much time is required to order and start taking delivery of long-lead items, in addition to build slot availability.

Similarly any selection process would need to consider what has to happen for a completed vessel to actually be not only delivered but enter service.

Theoretically Germany or Japan could 'give' Australia an in-service tomorrow but that does not mean that the RAN would be able to immediately start operating such a new vessel because of differences in kit, displays, systems and documentation. Same goes for any new vessels ordered especially of classes built and in-service overseas. I would expect part of the selection process will be determining who can meet construction delivery timeframe requirements, and which candidate can meet in-service date requirements.

Last thought (for right now) to consider is how many seem to assume that spare shipyard capacity exists and will continue to do so for the time needed for an Australia order. For instance, it seems many believe Japan has sufficient spare capacity, whilst ignoring the potential for Japan to decide looming security threats require spare capacity be utilized to fill Japanese orders first.