Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Going Boeing]

Japanese news stated "It has been revealed that the U.S. aerospace and defense technology company Shield AI's "V-BAT" is being considered as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to be installed on the new Mogami-class (FFM), which will be an improved version of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force's FFM. A person related to the MSDF revealed this on July 1."

Does Australian Mogami will follow?

The Mogami hasn’t yet been selected for the RAN but, hopefully, it will.

I hope the space that is allocated for the V-BAT on the Improved Mogami is also big enough to accommodate the BAES Australia Strix - I believe that the ADF is interested in this capability.

 

[Takacosta]

Towering above the bridge is the tall tower mast, topped even further by the NORA-50 integrated communication antenna.
The large square panels on the tower mast are the flat-panel antennas for the OPY-2 radar, with the antennas for the NOLQ-3E electronic support and jamming system positioned above and below them.
The disk with bumps at the very top of the tower mast is the IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) transmission antenna.
Mounted on the angular flat plate above that is the OAX-3 optical composite sensor, visible through its window.
On the front side of the tower mast is a long, horizontally-oriented antenna—likely the navigation radar.
The gray domes located in front of that and behind the tower mast are the NORA-1D satellite communication antennas.

 

[MARKMILES77]

This is going to be politically very difficult for the Australian Government to accept.

US wants to know how Australia would use subs if America goes to war

The Pentagon is also pushing Australia for “substantial increases” in defence spending as part of its review of the $368 billion AUKUS agreement.

www.theage.com.au

 

[InterestedParty]

I know it's not this simple but my inclination is to tell them whatever they want to hear, the submarines won't exist within the timeframe of the current US administration.
They don't respect any international agreement, including our free-trade agreement. Why should this be any different

 

[SammyC]

This is going to be politically very difficult for the Australian Government to accept.

US wants to know how Australia would use subs if America goes to war

The Pentagon is also pushing Australia for “substantial increases” in defence spending as part of its review of the $368 billion AUKUS agreement.

www.theage.com.au

View attachment 53168

I think it is an interesting position for the Americans to ask us for a commitment to militarily support Taiwan, when the American position to support Taiwan remains ambiguous and uncommitted.

The Americans have their own internal dissenting views on the Colby review, which are still being worked through (somewhat messily by the looks of things). Colby is being publicly blamed for stopping weapons transfers to Ukraine with little cover from his superiors, which is an unusual outcome and I would suggest is an act by others to deliberately reduce his influence. The congress armed service committee members (who will all outlast this administration) are known to be stong AUKUS and Australia advocates. I think there will be balance (and a moderation to above) before an official position is released.

I observe in general that America (including Trump) is being careful with Australia. While Albanese may not have had a meeting with Trump (which is not necessarily a bad thing), we have avoided much of the harsh language dished out to other allies such as Japan, S Korea, Europe and Canada.

I think there is a reason for this, firstly we have a lot of supporters within the American political and military organisation and this runs deep. It might not be public, but it acts as a counter weight behind the scenes. Secondly, we have strategic facilities that the Americans want (Darwin and FBW) that they will be careful not to disrupt.

I would also suggest Australia is very effective in diplomacy and we have to date been active in behind the scenes discussions. Aparently even Kevin Rudd has had a face to face with Trump earlier in the year. America would also be aware that we very competently dealt with China when they tried the coercive pathway, and we have a reputation for holding firm in the face of agression. That approach doesn't work with us.

I would also suggest it is no coincidence that Albanese is in China on a very public tour, meeting with Xi, right at the same time America is finalising the AUKUS assessment and other trade conditions that may impact Australia. This is a subtle demonstration of our influence and ability to fustrate the Americans if we choose to do so.

 

[hauritz]

Seems to just be asking for clarification on how we would use those subs in the event of a conflict over Taiwan. There doesn’t seem to be any requirement to make a public announcement or even any requirement to take direct action.

I see submarine operations as being similar to special forces operations in that they never make public comments concerning their use.

As for increasing defence expenditure the Americans are right but it is pointless committing to a number. Let’s just say that I think the 2.3% of GDP is more likely to blow out than not.

 

[SammyC]

Insiders from this morning where Senator Conroy was interviewed. Jump to 19:10-35:50 to skip the other stuff. A few notable points:

• The decision to commit troops is a decision for the government of the day. In my view a good answer back to the Americans, without being offensive and without making a commitment.
• Statements around Ex Talisman Sabre regarding Chinese observation. The government seems to have learnt from the recent Naval circumnavigation by stating early that this is normal and there is nothing secret that they will gain.
• A reframing of the FBW/Henderson development discussion, prioritising FBW for 2027 and Henderson for mid 2030s (aparently FBW is well advanced, with billions spent/spending). Notably Conroy's words stated this was the timeline for Henderson for our own needs. It left the door open for this to be brought forward to support American needs.
• The FBW maintenance facility will provide 1,800 maintenance days to American SSNs over the first five year period, which is being pitched as something the Americans can offload from their own facilities. So that is basically a 7 days per week, 365 days a year continuous maintenance provision at FBW. It dosn't indicate if that is a 1 person or 100 person maintenance day, but I think in general that's a pretty good offering to the Americans and should be valued.
• $30 billion is going into our own supply system to produce and maintain SSNs, 20,000 person industry development. Nice to hear this level of investment in our own businesses and infrastructure.
• Some interesting questions on how we incorporate expenditure such as S Pacific diplomacy into the defence %GDP calculation. Conroy indicated that this is being articulated behind the scenes, as we would expect.
• A reframing of the pathway for additional defence expenditure, being if a case is made, the government will invest more. I have a feeling we might start to see a number of cases being made over the remainder of the year, perhaps starting with an expediting of Henderson precinct because the American SSNs need it.
• An indication that there is more reform to be done in Defence to ensure projects stay on track and on budget.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think it is an interesting position for the Americans to ask us for a commitment to militarily support Taiwan, when the American position to support Taiwan remains ambiguous and uncommitted.

The Americans have their own internal dissenting views on the Colby review, which are still being worked through (somewhat messily by the looks of things). Colby is being publicly blamed for stopping weapons transfers to Ukraine with little cover from his superiors, which is an unusual outcome and I would suggest is an act by others to deliberately reduce his influence. The congress armed service committee members (who will all outlast this administration) are known to be stong AUKUS and Australia advocates. I think there will be balance (and a moderation to above) before an official position is released.

I observe in general that America (including Trump) is being careful with Australia. While Albanese may not have had a meeting with Trump (which is not necessarily a bad thing), we have avoided much of the harsh language dished out to other allies such as Japan, S Korea, Europe and Canada.

I think there is a reason for this, firstly we have a lot of supporters within the American political and military organisation and this runs deep. It might not be public, but it acts as a counter weight behind the scenes. Secondly, we have strategic facilities that the Americans want (Darwin and FBW) that they will be careful not to disrupt.

I would also suggest Australia is very effective in diplomacy and we have to date been active in behind the scenes discussions. Aparently even Kevin Rudd has had a face to face with Trump earlier in the year. America would also be aware that we very competently dealt with China when they tried the coercive pathway, and we have a reputation for holding firm in the face of agression. That approach doesn't work with us.

I would also suggest it is no coincidence that Albanese is in China on a very public tour, meeting with Xi, right at the same time America is finalising the AUKUS assessment and other trade conditions that may impact Australia. This is a subtle demonstration of our influence and ability to fustrate the Americans if we choose to do so.

A couple of points from my POV in the US. First, some members of Congress, potentially including members of the US House and Senate Armed Services Committees, could very well be out and/or retire before Trump is out of office. All members of the House are up for re-election in 2026, and a third of the Senate Armed Services committee members (9 out of 27) are also up for re-election in 2026. NFI at this point which way things might go or whether it would be to Australia's gain or detriment, but I did it understood that things within Congress (House & Senate) could certainly change before the next US presidential election.

There are also a number of US and/or joint facilities that are of strategic importance to the US, located within Australia which IMO Australia would be well-served to remind the US of these facilities and their importance. Pine Gap is one facility, but NASA also has a Deep Space Network ground facility in the ACT south of Canberra.

Right now I have been getting a bit of a sense that Colby has adopted an "America First" attitude that is effectively asking, "what have you done for the US lately," and seems to be (or at least is intended to project) what Colby thinks Trump's priorities are. It would not surprise me if he had forgotten about the importance of US facilities in Australia, and/or took them for granted.

 

[devo99]

Also it's not really expected to need it. It isn't an air defence ship. It's a frigate focusing on ASW, but strong self defence capabilities while performing that ASW role. It won't be launching SM-3. It's not designed to. Mogami isn't an AEGIS ship. It isn't really designed as a fleet escort. The first batch of mogami only had 16 VLS, and the first five were built not even fitted with that.

I would argue this is a point in favour of CEC as one of the main benefits is it allows ships normally limited to self defence to act as sensor nodes significantly broadening the picture for the ships carrying the long range interceptors.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I think it is an interesting position for the Americans to ask us for a commitment to militarily support Taiwan, when the American position to support Taiwan remains ambiguous and uncommitted.

Technically yes, but only in the sense that any government's foreign and military policy is sovereign, so cannot be enforced even via treaty. Biden sort of rumbled the fact that, when the chips are down, the US probably would intervene.

 

[SammyC]

I would argue this is a point in favour of CEC as one of the main benefits is it allows ships normally limited to self defence to act as sensor nodes significantly broadening the picture for the ships carrying the long range interceptors.

CEC is not the only sensor fusion system. Link 16 for instance can be utilised to share prosecutable target tracks from a remote radar and provide a common operational picture with other platforms.

Its not as advanced as CEC, however I would view it is still capable, particularly for the second tier platforms to provide that additional sensor node.

 

[seaspear]

One of the interests of the U.S in defending Tawan is their advanced micro chip industry ,I understand Taiwan to be building such facilities in the U.S

https://pr.tsmc.com/english/news/3210

Since 1972 Australia has stated that Taiwan is a province of China making it difficult to interfere for Australia

https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/taiwan/australia-taiwan-relationship

 

[Todjaeger]

One of the interests of the U.S in defending Tawan is their advanced micro chip industry ,I understand Taiwan to be building such facilities in the U.S

https://pr.tsmc.com/english/news/3210

Since 1972 Australia has stated that Taiwan is a province of China making it difficult to interfere for Australia

https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/taiwan/australia-taiwan-relationship

If one looks at trade data, something like 60%, possibly a little more, of the high end micro chip for the entire world is done in Taiwan. Some advanced countries are now starting (or re-starting) efforts to establish their own domestic advanced chip production capability, but IMO it will be some time before Taiwan's industrial capacity could be replaced.

It is therefore in the interests of most advanced nations for conflict within or impacting Taiwan to be avoided. We have already seen world chip shortages as a result of natural disasters and drought. Should PRC missiles start striking parts of Taiwan, this could easily disable or outright destroy production facilities and trigger more chip shortages.

 

[Going Boeing]

I would think that the PRC wouldn’t attack the chip manufacturing plants as they want to acquire the very high technology equipment that makes them.

I recall some years ago, the Taiwan President stated that explosives have been placed under those plants as they would not allow mainland China to seize that equipment in event of an invasion.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would think that the PRC wouldn’t attack the chip manufacturing plants as they want to acquire the very high technology equipment that makes them.

I recall some years ago, the Taiwan President stated that explosives have been placed under those plants as they would not allow mainland China to seize that equipment in event of an invasion.

Damage to the ultra pure water sources, transportation or storage could also knock out chip foundries, and one should not forget that even precision guided munitions sometimes err. Not to mention the potential for defenders to fall back to facilities including the foundries or other facilities that are involved with chip production and distribution, should a PRC-Taiwan conflict get that far.

 

[devo99]

CEC is not the only sensor fusion system. Link 16 for instance can be utilised to share prosecutable target tracks from a remote radar and provide a common operational picture with other platforms.

Its not as advanced as CEC, however I would view it is still capable, particularly for the second tier platforms to provide that additional sensor node.

In that case I think CEC is still something the RAN should acquire but not as a priority over other capabilities.

 

[seaspear]

An interesting history of the Anzac class ships and political considerations with "Australianisation" that went into this with the capabilities

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X24000010

 

[seaspear]

This earlier article addressing future frigate capabilities does go into a possibility of the c.e.c

https://www.aspi.org.au/strategist-posts/the-heart-of-the-matter-choosing-a-combat-management-system-for-the-future-frigates/

 

[Bob53]

I think it is an interesting position for the Americans to ask us for a commitment to militarily support Taiwan, when the American position to support Taiwan remains ambiguous and uncommitted.

The Americans have their own internal dissenting views on the Colby review, which are still being worked through (somewhat messily by the looks of things). Colby is being publicly blamed for stopping weapons transfers to Ukraine with little cover from his superiors, which is an unusual outcome and I would suggest is an act by others to deliberately reduce his influence. The congress armed service committee members (who will all outlast this administration) are known to be stong AUKUS and Australia advocates. I think there will be balance (and a moderation to above) before an official position is released.

I observe in general that America (including Trump) is being careful with Australia. While Albanese may not have had a meeting with Trump (which is not necessarily a bad thing), we have avoided much of the harsh language dished out to other allies such as Japan, S Korea, Europe and Canada.

I think there is a reason for this, firstly we have a lot of supporters within the American political and military organisation and this runs deep. It might not be public, but it acts as a counter weight behind the scenes. Secondly, we have strategic facilities that the Americans want (Darwin and FBW) that they will be careful not to disrupt.

I would also suggest Australia is very effective in diplomacy and we have to date been active in behind the scenes discussions. Aparently even Kevin Rudd has had a face to face with Trump earlier in the year. America would also be aware that we very competently dealt with China when they tried the coercive pathway, and we have a reputation for holding firm in the face of agression. That approach doesn't work with us.

I would also suggest it is no coincidence that Albanese is in China on a very public tour, meeting with Xi, right at the same time America is finalising the AUKUS assessment and other trade conditions that may impact Australia. This is a subtle demonstration of our influence and ability to fustrate the Americans if we choose to do so.

Australian Gov should ask Trump our response will depend on what’s his plan if China attacks Taiwan.

 

[Bob53]

If one looks at trade data, something like 60%, possibly a little more, of the high end micro chip for the entire world is done in Taiwan. Some advanced countries are now starting (or re-starting) efforts to establish their own domestic advanced chip production capability, but IMO it will be some time before Taiwan's industrial capacity could be replaced.

It is therefore in the interests of most advanced nations for conflict within or impacting Taiwan to be avoided. We have already seen world chip shortages as a result of natural disasters and drought. Should PRC missiles start striking parts of Taiwan, this could easily disable or outright destroy production facilities and trigger more chip shortages.

chip shortage since COVID hasn’t really been fully covered. My VW sprinter took 26 months from ordere to delivery due to Chip shortage and then my Mercedes Sprinter took 18 months due to chip shortage in the 360 degree camera kit.