Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
It's important to keep a sense of proportion and not get hysterical. The really important part of AUKUS - Australia's involvement with construction and operation of the new submarine class - can only fail if Australia pulls out. The Royal Navy will replace Astute. It's implausible that part of the agreement could be derailed by an external power.

Even the Trump administration has said it supports AUKUS. The only issue is whether Virginia-class boats will be sold. It would suck big time for the RAN if they weren't sold, and the Collins boats had to soldier on. But that wouldn't stop the rotational USN/RN submarine visits, training for Australian submariners or the work to get Australia ready for the building of the new boats.
I guess it depends on US reliability and how badly the geopolitical situation deteriorates. Absolutely the UK will continue, with or without the US, and Australia will have to keep to the current plan until it falters. Given US SSN production issues, Australia really can't assume American SSNs will be made available. If AUKUS falls apart either by the current MAGA idiots or production issues then a collaborative plan with UK, Australia, Japan, SK, France, and long term Canada might be the solution.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
It's worth noting that even if a future US President (Trump will probably look to increase military exports, not reduce them) wanted to stop the project it would be too late. Treaties have been signed and approvals given - ENNPIA was signed as far back as 2021. Multi-billion pound contracts have been placed with Rolls-Royce, Babcock and BAE.

The most the US could do would be to refuse to sell the combat management system, which would make no sense. General Dynamics' lobbyists would work overtime to "remind" Congress why they needed to support the sale and even if the sale didn't happen, we could just use an evolved version of BAE's system.

Given US SSN production issues, Australia really can't assume American SSNs will be made available.
This is true. Australia should consider a backup, interim solution for its submarine force until the new AUKUS boats arrive, in case it can't access Virginia boats. But you'd have hoped these plans always existed given even during Biden's term there were doubts as to when the Virginia boats could be spared.

a collaborative plan with UK, Australia, Japan, SK, France, and long term Canada might be the solution
Pillar 2 of AUKUS is flexible and could include any number of countries. However, Pillar 1 needs to stay small for the foreseeable future.

First, because there's no authorisation to share nuclear technology outside of the tri-nation group. Sorry, but just because the US is happy for technology to be shared with Australia doesn't empower Australia to pass it on like copies of a pirated movie.

Second, because it would just slow things down. You'd have countries demanding work share, and it would end up like Eurofighter. I don't even think France would want to join because they're very protective of their defence industry and technology.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
It's worth noting that even if a future US President (Trump will probably look to increase military exports, not stop them) wanted to stop the project it would be too late. Treaties have been signed and approvals given - ENNPIA was signed as far back as 2021. Multi-billion pound contracts have been placed with Rolls-Royce, Babcock and BAE.

The most the US could do would be to refuse to sell the combat management system, which would make no sense. General Dynamics' lobbyists would work overtime to "remind" Congress why they needed to support the sale and even if the sale didn't happen, we could just use an evolved version of BAE's system.



This is true. Australia should consider a backup solution in case it can't access Virginia boats.



Pillar 2 of AUKUS is flexible and could include any number of countries. However, Pillar 1 needs to stay small for the foreseeable future.

First, because there's no authorisation to share nuclear technology outside of the tri-nation group. Sorry, but just because the US is happy for technology to be shared with Australia doesn't empower Australia to pass it on like copies of a pirated movie.

Second, because it would just slow things down. You'd have countries demanding work share, and it would end up like Eurofighter. I don't even think France would want to join because they're very protective of their defence industry and technology.
It is also worth noting that Trump doesn't have much respect for anything legal as he has stacked the US federal justice system with those who will bend the knee (probably a lot more as well). As for treaty obligations, signed and approved, do you thing he cares? I don't and that current tariff war proves that, not to mention all the BS complaints wrt the current USMC trade agreement.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Do NOT talk politics, Do NOT mention Trump.
It is also worth noting that Trump doesn't have much respect for anything legal as he has stacked the US federal justice system with those who will bend the knee (probably a lot more as well). As for treaty obligations, signed and approved, do you thing he cares? I don't and that current tariff war proves that, not to mention all the BS complaints wrt the current USMC trade agreement.
How would the US stop the UK sharing British nuclear and submarine technology with Australia?

The PWR3 is being manufactured in Derby, not Boston. Rolls-Royce may have benefited from US assistance with the PWR3's development, and I expect that would have given America a right to ask that reactor not be shared with another country without its permission. But it's still a UK built reactor. Once the US gave permission for us to exchange technology with Australia that was it.

This is why the AUKUS discussion gets a little tiresome sometimes, because people keep thinking the US can just shut the whole thing down on a whim. It can't. It can refuse to sell US-built boats. It can refuse to sell the combat management system for SSN-AUKUS. But it can't stop the construction of SSN-AUKUS. It can't stop us using BAE's version of the CMS, and we're probably not using US sonar, etc. All the US can do is cut out American companies from the build process.

Note that I'm keeping this within the realms of sanity. Not least because the US (in a bipartisan way) has been one of the driving forces behind AUKUS, to help share the burden of keeping China in check. If the US no longer cares about AUKUS, that suggests it's carved the Pacific up with China. In that scenario, Australia not having the US' help to get nuclear-powered submarines will be the least of its concerns.
 
Last edited:

Bob53

Well-Known Member
What makes you think the average public servant has been to university or even has a trade?

The techos and professional officers do, but most of them are treated like labour hire or consultants and have no career path. In fact, no public servant has a career path as the "appearance" of "merit" has become so ridiculous that there is virtually no way to train, coach and mentor competent people and then promote them.

Every role literally has to be advertised or filled from "merit pools" where interview performance, confidence and often delusion, count more than demonstrated skill, knowledge experience and competence. "Fit" and perception are rated higher than talent and ability.

Personally, I would prefer a return to psychometric testing and maybe introduce some sort of work sampling.
I thought having an arts degree was minimum entry requirement? Except for maybe call centre operator.
 
Last edited:

Bob53

Well-Known Member
A bit OT but France has been paying for its nuclear subs and WMD on its own and it is a huge expenditure. The UK benefits from its US partnership wrt SSN technology transfer. France might not be interested in EU partners but with the US becoming unreliable, perhaps Japan and SK could be useful partners and Australia if AUKUS gets derailed. I think France would have entertained a technology transfer with Australia had they decided on SSNs at the time (not to mention delivery likely would be faster).
Talking about unreliable partners …. the Japanese - subs , The French subs, The Germans Arafura and revised Boxer number, The Sth Koreans - drastically revised IFV numbers could all mount a case as Australia being an unreliable partner.
 

Sender

Active Member
Do Not talk Politics, Do not Mention Trump
How would Trump stop the UK sharing British nuclear and submarine technology with Australia?

The PWR3 is being manufactured in Derby, not Boston. Rolls-Royce may have benefited from US assistance with the PWR3's development, and I expect that would have given America a right to ask that reactor not be shared with another country without its permission. But it's still a UK built reactor. Once the US gave permission for us to exchange technology with Australia that was it.

This is why the AUKUS discussion gets a little tiresome sometimes, because people keep thinking the US can just shut the whole thing down on a whim. It can't. It can refuse to sell US-built boats. It can refuse to sell the combat management system for SSN-AUKUS. But it can't stop the construction of SSN-AUKUS. It can't stop us using BAE's version of the CMS, and we're probably not using US sonar, etc. All the US can do is cut out American companies from the build process.

Note that I'm keeping this within the realms of sanity. Let's not go down the route of "well, what happens if Trump threatens to nuke London". Not least because the US (in a bipartisan way) has been one of the driving forces behind AUKUS, to help share the burden of keeping China in check. If the US no longer cares about AUKUS, that suggests it's carved the Pacific up with China. In that scenario, Australia not having the US' help to get nuclear-powered submarines will be the least of its concerns.
I don't think you understand just how little this current administration cares about rules, and laws, and treaties. They mean absolutely nothing to him. Don't be cocky about this. Australia and the UK need to be prepared to fight hard to defend this alliance, and be prepared to go it alone if the US, on a whim, chooses to withdraw. Stuff no one ever thought possible is happening right now, including the dismantling of the US Department of Education. Also, Trump is on record stating he wants to cut the defense budget in half. That last one is what I would worry about if I was an AUKUS partner.
 

InterestedParty

Active Member
Is the UK dependent on the US for the reactor of their new submarines. I was under the impression that although they may be built by RR, they are a US reactor.
That may be an issue in an AUK submarine development
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member

Craig Lockhart on the Hunter program
-First ship expected to hit the water in 2031.
-27 units at various stages of construction (about 9 blocks worth) (12 blocks total in a Hunter Frigate)
-Approx 2,500 working on the program.
-8 of 12 design zones complete.
-Keel Laying Q1 2026.
 

devo99

Well-Known Member

Craig Lockhart on the Hunter program
-First ship expected to hit the water in 2031.
-27 units at various stages of construction (about 9 blocks worth) (12 blocks total in a Hunter Frigate)
-Approx 2,500 working on the program.
-8 of 12 design zones complete.
-Keel Laying Q1 2026.
Combat systems design zones still lagging behind as they already were in 2022 it seems.
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
This article discusses the need to restart Australia’s merchant navy so that the Government would have some control over ships available to overcome embargoe/blockades, etc if things get nasty. It would be effective insurance for a nation that relies on SLOC’s.
I had forgotten about that program. To be honest if we think rebuilding the Navy is difficult, trying to do the same for the merchant fleet is an order of magnitude more complex. We are at the end of the food chain, and our costs are very high. At the risk of being contraversial, the maritime union, is one of the most agressive. The majority of our biggest industrial disputes have occured on the warves.

We used to have a merchant fleet, ANL, mentioned in the article. It didn't last very long once it was privatised.

I did see the Government has made the smallest of small steps towards this ambition, with a tender for three vessels. And a five year trial to see how it performs.

That said, our maritime trade is our archilles heel and I worry that this would cripple us early on in a conflict. (Thought bubble, what did people call their achilles tendon before Troy).

Rather than buy/contract ships and crew, the first step in my mind is to be able to protect key shipping laneways. If the route is safe, ships will come regardless of flag. If not they won't. The link between us and Singapore is perhaps the most important and it is a long and convoluted route. That's a lot of frigate work, in my mind more than 11 units. Perhaps autonomous ISR, ASW and mine avoidance drones will help.

Second step is to develop internal capacity and self reliance. We produce crude oil for instance, just not where we refine it, and we never developed the connection between the two, or the equipment to refine our type of oil. Its easier (and cheaper) to ship oil from the North West Shelf (and other areas) to Singapore for refinement, and then send the petrol and diesel from Singapore back to Sydney, than it is to supply directly to Gelong or Lytton. That model does not work as well in a deglobalised world. Maybe some coastal ships from WA to Vic/QLD could be useful. Those two refineries should be invested in to make them modern, efficient and compatible.

From a Defence perspective (rather than civilian), perhaps an RFA has merit. We will need fuel and supply tankers to support not just ships at sea but any amphibious/littoral force. Two oilers will not cut the mustard. The JSS vessels that were on the drawing board a while ago might come back into favour. These types of crew and vessels can be used to go get stuff in difficult places, and bring it back.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
I don't think you understand just how little this current administration cares about rules, and laws, and treaties. They mean absolutely nothing to him. Don't be cocky about this.
I'm not being cocky, I'm trying to explain - to people who should know better - why the hysteria over Trump and the new submarines is overblown.
This isn't about rules, it's about sovereign British technology.

If I bake cookies in my own oven, you can't stop me from doing that just because you gave me some tips when I started learning how to bake. And if you said "sure, I'm happy for you to sell those cookies because you're a baker in your own right now", I'm not going to stop selling them because you died and your son claimed a "secret family recipe" was passed on and he now somehow owns it for always and always and always.

You are right that it's sensible for Australia and the UK to remind *REDACTED* of why this is all a good idea. Australia in particular will benefit from US assistance with construction, and the Virginia boats can't be sold without a final approval. But at the end of the day, if Australia wants this to happen it will happen. It's not that hard to be friends with the UK.

As for the US talking about cutting the defence budget, that has little to do with SSN-AUKUS. If anything it shows why Australia should double-down on the project because the US might expect it to do more heavy lifting in its part of the Pacific.

EDIT: I'm not going to reply to the latest post. At this point people are deliberately ignoring what I'm writing, so there's no point engaging any more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
An example is how China licences technology then steals it, then the countries that they stole from line up and do it again.

They can't stop them, but know they will be back when they have hit the limits of their expertise.
 

Sender

Active Member
I'm not being cocky, I'm trying to explain - to people who should know better - why the hysteria over Trump and the new submarines is overblown.
This isn't about rules, it's about sovereign British technology.

If I bake cookies in my own oven, you can't stop me from doing that just because you gave me some tips when I started learning how to bake. And if you said "sure, I'm happy for you to sell those cookies because you're a baker in your own right now", I'm not going to stop selling them because you died and your son claimed a "secret family recipe" was passed on and he now somehow owns it for always and always and always.

You are right that it's sensible for Australia and the UK to remind Trump of why this is all a good idea. Australia in particular will benefit from US assistance with construction, and the Virginia boats can't be sold without a final approval. But at the end of the day, if Australia wants this to happen it will happen. It's not that hard to be friends with the UK.

As for the US talking about cutting the defence budget, that has little to do with SSN-AUKUS. If anything it shows why Australia should double-down on the project because the US might expect it to do more heavy lifting in its part of the Pacific.
He's talking about cutting the budget in half. I don't see how AUKUS funding would not be affected if that comes to pass. It's not necessarily the end of the world for this program, but it will add to the challenges for certain.

 

Aardvark144

Active Member
He's talking about cutting the budget in half. I don't see how AUKUS funding would not be affected if that comes to pass. It's not necessarily the end of the world for this program, but it will add to the challenges for certain.

Without dwelling too much on politics, whilst POTUS has directed defence cuts of 8% per year in each of the next 5 years, 17 Defence areas have been prioritised one of which is submarines, so if AUKUS is impacted it should not be anything to lose sleep over.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Do NOT talk politics, Do NOT mention Trump. You post was political and contained an image with the words Donald Trump.
He's talking about cutting the budget in half. I don't see how AUKUS funding would not be affected if that comes to pass. It's not necessarily the end of the world for this program, but it will add to the challenges for certain.

This is speculation based of the comments of 3 former KGB spies. They could be true or they could be part of an attempt to undermine POTUS and American trust in its institutions. Grain of salt stuff atm. . The rest of the article provides further back ground.
*IMAGE REDACTED*
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

Sandson41

Member
Link included the Trump word. Mod edited and redacted.
I've no objection to my earlier post being described as hysterical. I hope that proves true, in this case.

US politics and politicians aren't our concern here, either. US policy is (unfortunately). That policy so far this year seems to be isolationist.
Our foreign affairs and defence policy (and maritime strategy, most relevantly) is built around alliances.
There might be a gap between our policy, and the US one.
That gap may be a temporary, or exaggerated, cause for concern. I'm sceptical, and would argue that even if proves to be, planning on that basis is risky.
  • I'm sure we can build AUK or AUKUS SSNs, eventually.
  • I'm sure the Brits can build their own reactors, and that our relationship with them is strong.
  • I'm increasingly unsure we'll succeed in the plan to operate Virginia's, for several reasons. (If it was one reason only, I'd not bother raising the subject.)
  • I'm sure we'd prefer not to pay the US with money and trained sailors to operate their submarines out of our facilities, in the event they won't sell us any, and hope they hold up their end of the alliance, even though they may not want to, and would have already failed us once.
  • I'm not sure how effective those AUKUS SSNs would eventually be if the US led fleet of SSNs and other assets they are intended to work alongside will not be participating in the conflict. Fingers crossed we never find out.
That's my current situation. I agree that efforts to maintain AUKUS and ANZUS are vital, on our part.
Speculation into how our naval policy and structure may yet have to change, as it is in Europe, would sound much more hysterical, I'm sure. But I hope someone responsible, with some influence and authority is working on a list - just in case.

EDIT: Another article expressing some related concerns. Wasn't expecting the ABC to make reference to the seizure of HMS Erin and Agoncourt:
ABC.NET.AU Link *REDACTED TITLE*
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SammyC

Well-Known Member
DARPA's First Fully Autonomous USX-1 Defiant Vessel Enters Testing Phase

The above is the latest unmanned surface drone from the US. This one is aparently about 60 metres long and weighs 240 tonnes (lightship), so patrol boat sized.

It's still a testing platform, however it is the first one to remove all human systems (so not optionally manned). That strips out a lot of weight, that can be used for other systems. It builds on the knowledge gained from the Ranger and Mariner (since sold off to my understanding). We should see it in action within the next few months.

While this is not an LOCSV ready platform, it aligns with the USN MOSV (medium sized, for ISR taskings). It has a hull built for speed (long and slim) so expect it to be fast. I imagine it will incorporate one of the recently approved reliable diesel propulsion systems.

The article also makes reference to the adaptable deck launchers. My view is this is the likely technology to make a drone into a strike platform, rather than the Mk41. Its a lot simpler and allows for flexibility in fit out.

Aparently one of the trials relates to refuelling at sea. That will be interesting.

The technology is moving along.
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
DARPA's First Fully Autonomous USX-1 Defiant Vessel Enters Testing Phase

The above is the latest unmanned surface drone from the US. This one is aparently about 60 metres long and weighs 240 tonnes (lightship), so patrol boat sized.

It's still a testing platform, however it is the first one to remove all human systems (so not optionally manned). That strips out a lot of weight, that can be used for other systems. It builds on the knowledge gained from the Ranger and Mariner (since sold off to my understanding). We should see it in action within the next few months.

While this is not an LOCSV ready platform, it aligns with the USN MOSV (medium sized, for ISR taskings). It has a hull built for speed (long and slim) so expect it to be fast. I imagine it will incorporate one of the recently approved reliable diesel propulsion systems.

The article also makes reference to the adaptable deck launchers. My view is this is the likely technology to make a drone into a strike platform, rather than the Mk41. Its a lot simpler and allows for flexibility in fit out.

Aparently one of the trials relates to refuelling at sea. That will be interesting.

The technology is moving along.
And can be built at any tier 2 or 3 shipyard which means Birdon down the track could build these.
 
Top