Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, but there is potential for some of the later prototype blocks to be incorporated as I understand it. Presume that will depend on the quality of the product.


Assail, the other thing was that the officers were not wearing patent leather gaiters. Shocking - they can’t be real goonery officers……
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, but there is potential for some of the later prototype blocks to be incorporated as I understand it. Presume that will depend on the quality of the product.


Assail, the other thing was that the officers were not wearing patent leather gaiters. Shocking - they can’t be real goonery officers……
A few uniforms seem to have changed from what I remember from previous ceremonial parades. With the exception of the Household Division and Royal Marines, the others appeared to be more dress, than ceremonial.
 

seaspear

Active Member
There was a recent article in the Australian my apologies for not being able to present it as I am well away from the computer and using the phone , that more than suggested there was minimal interest in anti drone technology particularly by the R.A.N even U.S.N carriers have had Iranian drones loiter over them , perhaps there exists a program to develop such anti drone capability for the navy ,and would sensors need upgrading to detect small and slow flying drones that may be capable of attack . I'm not sure the LHDs have such
 

ddxx

Active Member
The 'Incoming Government Brief' has recently been released by Defence under FOI.

One particularly interesting part is:

"Navy’s single highest priority, within the maritime domain is retaining its current workforce, and growing the workforce by more than 30 per cent to approximately 21,000 full-time active members in uniform by 2038"
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
There was a recent article in the Australian my apologies for not being able to present it as I am well away from the computer and using the phone , that more than suggested there was minimal interest in anti drone technology particularly by the R.A.N even U.S.N carriers have had Iranian drones loiter over them , perhaps there exists a program to develop such anti drone capability for the navy ,and would sensors need upgrading to detect small and slow flying drones that may be capable of attack . I'm not sure the LHDs have such
The Canberra Class are fitted with SAAB Sea Giraffe AMB naval radars, which among other capabilities provide counter-UAS capabilities through their “ELSS” function (enhanced low, slow and small sensing and tracking function). Additionally each ship is fitted with SAGEM ‘staring’ infra-red search and track systems and Rafael EO/IR sensor balls, all stitched together by the 9LV combat system meaning that air-sea surveillance around the ships, is pretty tight.


If there is a capability gap, I’d suggest it is in the electronic (ie: non-kinetic) interception space, something ADF is at least aware of, as seen with the current ‘drone shield’ trial being conducted by Army’s 2nd Cavalry Regiment. The development of response options I would forsee would inevitably follow-on from such trials, but could be rapidly supplemented by “Dronegun” type systems which have been employed by ADF personnel on operations, already.


In terms of C-UAS kinetic engagement, they are reasonably well placed already with 25mm guns and numerous 12.7mm guns, but I suspect as years go by an upgrade to RAN’s clearly preferred new generation medium calibre gun system - Typhoon Mk30C 30mm system might be on the cards, which opens up options for air-bursting munitions (KETF / KEET) and proximity fused ammunition natures which appear more suited to C-UAS operations.

Overall, this class is actually pretty well equipped for this sort of threat. Other more traditional military threats, remain dubious with the nascent Phalanx upgrade program, seemingly in no hurry whatsoever to equip the LHD’s, when originally a 2018/19 timeframe was planned…
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The 'Incoming Government Brief' has recently been released by Defence under FOI.

One particularly interesting part is:

"Navy’s single highest priority, within the maritime domain is retaining its current workforce, and growing the workforce by more than 30 per cent to approximately 21,000 full-time active members in uniform by 2038"
We finally get some sort of breakdown of the 18,000 extra positions announced last year, the ARA to be increased to 35,000 according to that report, while nothing announced in that report for the RAAF, it would also be up around 21-22,000 as well.
 

Morgo

Active Member
Lots of different dialects, probably a lot of cool names with appropriate meanings. Names for fish, sharks, maritime weather. If my dear old mum was alive, she could have told me some, she picked up a lot of the local languages through nursing in the northern areas for years.
I like Otama. As noted it'd keep the Greens happy too (as happy as they can be).

But if we're going for a dolphin, then surely HMAS Orca must be on the cards as well? The marine apex predator and all that?
 

76mmGuns

Active Member
One of the RAN ‘O’ boats had an indigenous name, HMAS Otama.

The boat’s name comes from a North Queensland Aboriginal word meaning dolphin, reuse that name, box ticked.

And anyway, what’s wrong with a ‘Pomland’ name as you call it? The name Odin is from Norse mythology, not specifically pommy.

Everyone keeps trying to rewrite modern Australian history, that is PC.

And if we want to be accurate with the proper meaning of the word ‘indigenous’, then its being misused regarding Aboriginal Australians, they didn’t pop up out of the ground like mushrooms, they were in fact the first immigrants, the first boat people to this ‘vacant’ land, my ancestors came by boat too, about 200 years ago.
Pretty interesting history, really. 50000 (i think) yrs ago from South East Asia, 4000 years ago from India/South Asia, then 240 years ago from Europe.
Next group of migrants from Mars? ;)
 

swerve

Super Moderator
And if we want to be accurate with the proper meaning of the word ‘indigenous’, then its being misused regarding Aboriginal Australians, they didn’t pop up out of the ground like mushrooms, they were in fact the first immigrants, the first boat people to this ‘vacant’ land, my ancestors came by boat too, about 200 years ago.
Everywhere outside Africa (& even in most of Africa) nobody's indigenous in the sense of having evolved there, but the first to arrive are usually considered indigenous where they're still around, & if your ancestors arrived tens of thousands of years ago you're a hell of a lot closer to being indigenous than anyone whose ancestors have arrived since 1788.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Everywhere outside Africa (& even in most of Africa) nobody's indigenous in the sense of having evolved there, but the first to arrive are usually considered indigenous where they're still around, & if your ancestors arrived tens of thousands of years ago you're a hell of a lot closer to being indigenous than anyone whose ancestors have arrived since 1788.
It's a bit like people warmongering over ancient borders, how far back do you go? It's usually just an excuse to take something someone else has.

The thing is, when we are talking about indigenous people these days, we are talking about the disinherited survivors of colonisation. There are people still suffering today because of what happened to their ancestors.

We may not be able to fix what happened 2 or 300 hundred years ago but we are morally obligated to ensure the descendents of the survivors are at least equal in their ancestral home.
 

Lolcake

Member

Discussions underway for first few boats built in the US by mid 30s. Likely to mean SSNX. Australia expected to contribute to expand US production capacity. Nothing has formally been approved as of yet as discussions continue

Behind a pay wall but you can simply listen to article to get the whole scoop.
 
Last edited:

Redlands18

Well-Known Member

Discussions underway for first few boats built in the US by mid 30s. Likely to mean SSNX. Australia expected to contribute to expand US production capacity. Nothing has formally been approved as of yet as discussions continue

Behind a pay wall but you can simply listen to article to get the whole scoop.
SSN(X) 5-7 years before the USN gets them, be highly doubtful about that. Current plans have the first SSN(X) ordered in 2031, laid down in 2034 and operational in 2043.
 

Morgo

Active Member

Discussions underway for first few boats built in the US by mid 30s. Likely to mean SSNX. Australia expected to contribute to expand US production capacity. Nothing has formally been approved as of yet as discussions continue

Behind a pay wall but you can simply listen to article to get the whole scoop.
This just seems like the US trying to get a free kick.

Australia expanding Australian production of certain blocks that are within our capability to fit into the US supply chain, contributing to our long term sovereign SSN building capacity and increasing the ability for the US (and UK for that matter) to ramp up SSN numbers? Great idea. Happy to do it.

Australia funding US infrastructure and workforce to produce a couple of submarines? No thanks.
 

Lolcake

Member
SSN(X) 5-7 years before the USN gets them, be highly doubtful about that. Current plans have the first SSN(X) ordered in 2031, laid down in 2034 and operational in 2043.
This could easily change depending on USN priorities and urgency which would seem with the current situation, it is in one. I believe the Block V will likely be the last of the Virginia' series. Payload is going to be prioritised and we will likely witness a seawolf class derivative for the next boat albeit with with an organic ability to fight seabed battles, room for growth in the AI intelligence dept, Drone warfare prioritisation and associated counter-measures.

Expanding the production and supply chain to include Australia and possibly the UK would be an excellent choice given the expansion of the PLAN.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The proposal would seem to involve Australia paying for an expansion to the United States submarine construction capability. The UK Defence Secretary also dropped hints the the US, UK and Australia may collaborate on the next gen submarines.
 
The proposal would seem to involve Australia paying for an expansion to the United States submarine construction capability. The UK Defence Secretary also dropped hints the the US, UK and Australia may collaborate on the next gen submarines.
There were comments along the same lines a number of months ago in various sources. Makes sense.
 

Richo99

Member
Not sure if anyone's posted this before, pics of ADV Reliant on first tasking, carrying 3 (!!) containers of aid to be distributed amongst the 8 countries visited. Interested to see an old lcvp on deck, and an empty cradle for a second.

Reliant with lcvp

(Source..defence images)
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The proposal would seem to involve Australia paying for an expansion to the United States submarine construction capability. The UK Defence Secretary also dropped hints the the US, UK and Australia may collaborate on the next gen submarines.
Great idea for competing against the the huge industrial capacity China has. However it may be a bridge too far for the US Congress. Then again the financial pressure on the US in the coming decades may force a joint effort. I wish Canada could be part of this effort as well but our debt problems are just as bad as America’s.
 
Great idea for competing against the the huge industrial capacity China has. However it may be a bridge too far for the US Congress. Then again the financial pressure on the US in the coming decades may force a joint effort. I wish Canada could be part of this effort as well but our debt problems are just as bad as America’s.
A lot of people are caught up by the debt numbers. One thing to ask yourself is what other G20 country has been able to maintain a consistent surplus? None. Also, the ABC also ran an article some time ago to look into the 1T debt and was it as bad as being touted by some, the answer was again no. They found that whilst the raw number is huge are more appropriate way to look at it was as a comparison against the size of the economy and as such this has been much higher in previous decades. Also remember if it is such a major issue why has Australia been one of only 11 countries to maintain a AAA credit rating? Now back to Defence.
 
Top