ADF General discussion thread

[vonnoobie]

It will help a lot with Recruitment and Retention for the Sub Fleet, at present, the Submariners are pretty much stuck in Perth for their entire Career. Even being able to cruise at 20-25kt+ for an extended period it still takes a long time to get anywhere. a East Coast Base would make an Eastern approach into North Asian waters a lot more feasible.

Unless its a move against Russia our boats moving into North Asian waters really is just splitting our force while doubling down on the US/Japanese forces.

While I dont doubt a benefit to an East coast base when it comes to deployments betweens bases and geographical locations etc Japans well positioned to cover the north, Australia down south and US everywhere inbetween.

 

[spoz]

Exactly, not everybody wants to live in the West, particularly if their family support is un the east. And if you want to grow the number of submariners significantly, that’s a disincentive you don’t need. Plus half your destroyer/frigate force is in the east, and they need to play with real submarines. It’s easier if they are based on the same coast, even with the transit speed.

 

[old faithful]

With regard to security of bases, would having nuke subs mean an increased security for the NAVY? Would it require more man power in this regard?

 

[Redlands18]

With regard to security of bases, would having nuke subs mean an increased security for the NAVY? Would it require more man power in this regard?

Osborn I think would be the big one for increased security, that would have to be where any sub would be most vulnerable. The US would definitely demand very tight security for any Technology used.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Out of interest, why would it be necessary to have a base on the east coast? Given the unlimited endurance and fast transit times of SSNs wouldn’t the existing base at HMAS Stirling be enough?

The population of Perth isn't where we are going to find the nearly 4,000 submariners, plus nuclear experience etc. Manning our 6 conventional boats from Stirling has been a huge effort, and one we are still struggling with.

The only nuclear reactors in Australia, all 3 of them, were built in Sydney. The only nuclear engineering courses are in Sydney. ANSTO, is in Sydney, which is where people familiar with anything nuclear are. 90% of the population is on the East Coast, Stirling will need significantly upgraded facilities to handle new boats and Collins. Many of the new positions will need to be in Canberra too, which is on the east coast. The base doesn't have to be in Sydney, but closer to the area makes a lot more sense. Newcastle/Wollongong have been mentioned as bases for the Attack class, and both still make sense as SSN ports.

WA had a ban on even uranium mining until 2008. WA has also rejected anything nuclear for a long time.

There are other issues. With an east coast base, our SSN's can give Indonesia, Malaysia etc a wide berth, and transit to SCS. The Americans are much easier to access on the East coast. Collins is much better based on the West coast.

Eventually nuclear boats will be able to be based in WA, but you have to build the kingdom first.

With the decisions that are being made, we can't run all subs out of sterling. That wasn't the plan with the 12 attacks. Certainly, now even more so not possible with SSNs. The new subs were going to be east based.

 

[Takao]

@StingrayOZ - on point as normal.

I realise people like Peter Dean and Andrew Hastie don't like to hear - but WA is still effectively an outpost. You can't simply dump thousands more of Defence personnel in Perth (or - laughter ensuring - Exmouth) because the societal requirements are missing. The majority of our population, our schools, our jobs, our health care facilities and our infrastructure sits in a triangle between Adelaide, Melbourne and Brisbane.

This idea that some (_not_ a dig at anyone on this forum) have where we can rapidly increase numbers in Perth or elsewhere in WA is hilarious without significant more work. I love Darwin, I'd go back in a heartbeat. But not for more than a posting at a time as the work options for my spouse and the educational options for my kids aren't as good there. Perth is no different. 1 posting, even 2 back to back is manageable by almost everyone. But years in these remote locations? That's a retention issue waiting to bite.

Good thing some of these trade don't have retention issues already....

 

[Julian 82]

@StingrayOZ - on point as normal.

I realise people like Peter Dean and Andrew Hastie don't like to hear - but WA is still effectively an outpost. You can't simply dump thousands more of Defence personnel in Perth (or - laughter ensuring - Exmouth) because the societal requirements are missing. The majority of our population, our schools, our jobs, our health care facilities and our infrastructure sits in a triangle between Adelaide, Melbourne and Brisbane.

This idea that some (_not_ a dig at anyone on this forum) have where we can rapidly increase numbers in Perth or elsewhere in WA is hilarious without significant more work. I love Darwin, I'd go back in a heartbeat. But not for more than a posting at a time as the work options for my spouse and the educational options for my kids aren't as good there. Perth is no different. 1 posting, even 2 back to back is manageable by almost everyone. But years in these remote locations? That's a retention issue waiting to bite.

Good thing some of these trade don't have retention issues already....

Hmm. An outpost of more than 2 million people. Great weather and beaches. Plenty of education and employment opportunities. Cosmopolitan culture and vibrant night life. That’s an interesting assessment. I wonder why half the fleet is based there?

 

[Julian 82]

@StingrayOZ - on point as normal.

I realise people like Peter Dean and Andrew Hastie don't like to hear - but WA is still effectively an outpost. You can't simply dump thousands more of Defence personnel in Perth (or - laughter ensuring - Exmouth) because the societal requirements are missing. The majority of our population, our schools, our jobs, our health care facilities and our infrastructure sits in a triangle between Adelaide, Melbourne and Brisbane.

This idea that some (_not_ a dig at anyone on this forum) have where we can rapidly increase numbers in Perth or elsewhere in WA is hilarious without significant more work. I love Darwin, I'd go back in a heartbeat. But not for more than a posting at a time as the work options for my spouse and the educational options for my kids aren't as good there. Perth is no different. 1 posting, even 2 back to back is manageable by almost everyone. But years in these remote locations? That's a retention issue waiting to bite.

Good thing some of these trade don't have retention issues already....

I’m sorry. I lived in Melbourne and I now live in Perth. The statement that Perth has the same limitations with respect to health, education and employment opportunities as Darwin or the north west is laughable.

 

[oldsig127]

I’m sorry. I lived in Melbourne and I now live in Perth. The statement that Perth has the same limitations with respect to health, education and employment opportunities as Darwin or the north west is laughable.

And yet lived experience says that we have great difficulty retaining people posted to Perth who can expect to stay there for most of their career. Okay if they are WA natives or have family there, but the pull to the east coast is strong for many others who on a simple per capita basis won't be from the west.

Note that non-submariners aren't quite such an issue. There are Frigates and other vessels based on both coasts so postings are available - but your submariners are stuck there until they land at a desk in Canberra or elsewhere. This is not a criticism of Perth - I left the Army because my wife needed to be elsewhere than where the Army wanted me to park my backside (Canberra) and as a Sig I at least had a *chance* of a job in Brisbane


oldsig

 

[Takao]

Half the fleet, but a pittance of the RAAF, Army or wider DOD. And only half of the big ships; as an entire force the RAN is concentrated in SE Australia.

I'm not saying Perth is a bad city. But our retention figures highlight that it is indistinguishable from other remote localities. And it is remote. 2 million is a good city, but pales in the population found in the SE triangle. We will always have people who want to live there (see me and Darwin!) but retention of people there is really, really hard. And one of the main reasons given is remoteness to family in SE Australia.

 

[Julian 82]

Half the fleet, but a pittance of the RAAF, Army or wider DOD. And only half of the big ships; as an entire force the RAN is concentrated in SE Australia.

I'm not saying Perth is a bad city. But our retention figures highlight that it is indistinguishable from other remote localities. And it is remote. 2 million is a good city, but pales in the population found in the SE triangle. We will always have people who want to live there (see me and Darwin!) but retention of people there is really, really hard. And one of the main reasons given is remoteness to family in SE Australia.

Fair enough. Appreciate the insight from you and Oldsig. Would the plan be to relocate the entire SSN fleet to a new base in the east coast or split the fleet with some subs still permanently deployed at HMAS Stirling? Just thinking about things like critical mass for training, logistics and maintenance which may make it difficult to split a fleet of 8. Thanks

 

[Takao]

Now that's an excellent question.

I know splitting 12 SSK across two locations works well, the two 'sub-fleets' are large enough to be self-sufficient in each location and the tech doesn't demand much over civilian industry (watch all the sub technicians come after me with pitchforks!).

I'm too ignorant about SSNs, but at a guess the nuke side will complicate matters. I also think having a sub-fleet (and I don't mean to pun!) of four would be much more challenging than six. I imagine that there will be some interesting maths being done soon!

 

[Redlands18]

Now that's an excellent question.

I know splitting 12 SSK across two locations works well, the two 'sub-fleets' are large enough to be self-sufficient in each location and the tech doesn't demand much over civilian industry (watch all the sub technicians come after me with pitchforks!).

I'm too ignorant about SSNs, but at a guess the nuke side will complicate matters. I also think having a sub-fleet (and I don't mean to pun!) of four would be much more challenging than six. I imagine that there will be some interesting maths being done soon!

The other thing is what happens with the Schools, they are established in Perth however will need enlarging, will be interesting to see what they do there.

 

[Stampede]

Fair enough. Appreciate the insight from you and Oldsig. Would the plan be to relocate the entire SSN fleet to a new base in the east coast or split the fleet with some subs still permanently deployed at HMAS Stirling? Just thinking about things like critical mass for training, logistics and maintenance which may make it difficult to split a fleet of 8. Thanks

Perth's a nice place.
Traveled a bit in the west in the 80's and stayed in Perth awhile. It had it's attributes but could not call it home.
Not good or bad, but just like 23 million other Australians somewhere else beckoned.
Perth is remote. Driving there reinforces the challenge of distance.

With a total conventional fleet of six submarines the West makes sense.
It was a major sub base in WW11 and it's geography works for this capability.
As we were to grow Sub numbers to 12 , then some transfer of these assets to the East coast also makes sense.

Now we intend to go nuclear and have a fleet of 8 plus ( Mystery ) subs then I'm not sure how this works on both coasts.

I don't believe we have many visits of nuclear anything so how this works domestically will be interesting
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

VISITS BY NUCLEAR POWERED WARSHIPS TO AUSTRALIAN PORTS Report on Radiation Monitoring During 2020

https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/report_on_radiation_monitoring_during_2020.pdf

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

I once was at the Airshow in Avalon and at the F35 static display someone in the large crowd asked one of the ground crew about why we don't get the F35B.
Obviously asked the same question many times his quick answer was too may moving parts.
He acknowledged it's attributes but quietly and with political tact moved off the subject.

The plane has it's attributes but too dear and too complicated.

I personally don't agree with the F35B challenges, but I do wonder are we really up to the challenges of going nuclear.



Regards S

 

[Boagrius]

I once was at the Airshow in Avalon and at the F35 static display someone in the large crowd asked one of the ground crew about why we don't get the F35B.
Obviously asked the same question many times his quick answer was too may moving parts.
He acknowledged it's attributes but quietly and with political tact moved off the subject.

The plane has it's attributes but too dear and too complicated.

I personally don't agree with the F35B challenges, but I do wonder are we really up to the challenges of going nuclear.

I think the issue with the comparison between F35A->B and SSK->SSN is that the shift to SSNs provides a paradigm shift in capability, and at a strategic level. I can't imagine the F35B could offer anywhere near the same capability enhancement over the planned fleet of A models, and it would in fact be a backward step in some areas (payload ranking highly among them).

 

[Stampede]

I think the issue with the comparison between F35A->B and SSK->SSN is that the shift to SSNs provides a paradigm shift in capability, and at a strategic level. I can't imagine the F35B could offer anywhere near the same capability enhancement over the planned fleet of A models, and it would in fact be a backward step in some areas (payload ranking highly among them).

Like the F35 B or not is academic, as a variant to an in service platform it's technically not really to big a challenge.
Going nuclear propulsion has no comparison for any bit of kit with in the ADF ,both for today or at any point in history on many levels.
This is a seismic change and challenge that I don't believe many really appreciate what sort of ramifications it will have both for the ADF and us as a nation.

Technically , Politically ( Domestic and international ) , Financially and practicality.

I'd love to be another fan boy with this, but for myself the benefits don't match the negatives.
Subs at the end of the day are just one bit of kit that perform a role within the ADF.
Modern nuclear subs are very good at somethings
Conventional subs are just good at somethings.

The trade off of "just good" is OK in a balanced ADF order of battle.

It will also give us a more sovereign submarine capability truly serving our national needs, rather than one coming with conditions.


Regards S

PS - Not a left wing nutter, just been around the sun too many times not to question this nuclear endeavor.
Doubts are healthy when you see problems.

 

[Hoffy]

Not sure if this should be posted here or RAN:

Australia looking at existing design to ‘accelerate’ delivery of nuclear-powered submarines (smh.com.au)

So it looks like an existing design is the preference(no surprise).

 

[vonnoobie]

Not sure if this should be posted here or RAN:

Australia looking at existing design to ‘accelerate’ delivery of nuclear-powered submarines (smh.com.au)

So it looks like an existing design is the preference(no surprise).

That has been the plan since the very first day it was announced. There may be some changes (maybe there will be some kit we want from one nation in the hull of the other nations boat, Or maybe we want the Astute boat with the S9G reactor, who knows, still TBD) but they will try their utmost to keep them to the bare minimum required atleast for the earliest boats (ie: Only changes where its easier to do before they are built rather then potentially having to rip boats apart to retrofit them) but overall they will be the same boats with maybe a BBQ added and getting rid of the British tea/Crappy US coffee and putting our own good coffee in it (Maybe with a dash of bourbon to give it a kick).

 

[Boagrius]

Like the F35 B or not is academic, as a variant to an in service platform it's technically not really to big a challenge.
Going nuclear propulsion has no comparison for any bit of kit with in the ADF ,both for today or at any point in history on many levels.
This is a seismic change and challenge that I don't believe many really appreciate what sort of ramifications it will have both for the ADF and us as a nation.

Technically , Politically ( Domestic and international ) , Financially and practicality.

I'd love to be another fan boy with this, but for myself the benefits don't match the negatives.
Subs at the end of the day are just one bit of kit that perform a role within the ADF.
Modern nuclear subs are very good at somethings
Conventional subs are just good at somethings.

The trade off of "just good" is OK in a balanced ADF order of battle.

It will also give us a more sovereign submarine capability truly serving our national needs, rather than one coming with conditions.


Regards S

PS - Not a left wing nutter, just been around the sun too many times not to question this nuclear endeavor.
Doubts are healthy when you see problems.

Not a fanboy either, but not sure I agree entirely. To my mind it is (at least ideally) a case of matching the needed capability to the projected threat. In a threat environment that may very well include PLAN Type 095 SSNs (and better) frequenting our immediate region, I suspect it is not just be a case of "SSK good at x"; "SNN very good at x", but "SSN can do x and SSK cannot". Unfortunately we have now burnt a lot of bridges on the SSK front, so I can't see any new sub acquisition being an easy endeavour. Unfortunately we are in that stage of the game where much of the relevant information is simply not in the public domain, so I guess we will have to wait the ~18 months to really find out what is even being proposed.

 

[Julian 82]

Not a fanboy either, but not sure I agree entirely. To my mind it is (at least ideally) a case of matching the needed capability to the projected threat. In a threat environment that may very well include PLAN Type 095 SSNs (and better) frequenting our immediate region, I suspect it is not just be a case of "SSK good at x"; "SNN very good at x", but "SSN can do x and SSK cannot". Unfortunately we have now burnt a lot of bridges on the SSK front, so I can't see any new sub acquisition being an easy endeavour. Unfortunately we are in that stage of the game where much of the relevant information is simply not in the public domain, so I guess we will have to wait the ~18 months to really find out what is even being proposed.

I recently listened to an interesting podcast from the Australian Naval History Podcast on the RAN in the Cold War. Commodore Kim Pitt spoke about his experience in the Oberon SSKs tracking Soviet SSNs. One comment that stood out was that while we could certainly track them for a short time, we didn’t have the speed or endurance (in terms of battery capacity) to maintain that contact for long.

I think that’s the point about acquiring SSNs. For the first time we will be able to match the best submarines of any potential adversary. SSKs are great for collecting intelligence and ambushing adversaries in choke points. However when they are up against SSNs they are like mobile mine fields.