Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Morgo]

My personal preference would be to see a class named after RAN heroes. I know the Collins class were so named, but there are many other names out there that could be recognised. Goldsworthy, Gosse, Mould, Syme, Rodgers & Bagot all George Cross winners. Taylor, Shipp, Emms, Bush, Rudd, Staples & Gillard were all nominated for the Victoria Cross but ultimately not awarded as such. Cheers.

Sadly, we can’t have an HMAS Gillard given a certain PM gutted the proposed recapitalisation of the RAN.

That 4th Hobart would be pretty handy right now…. as would some new subs….. as would’ve a stockpile of Tomahawks…. thanks Julia.

 

[Morgo]

I wonder if this is a theme that goes with the strategy of the eventual east coast submarine base. If I remember Newcastle was one of the proposed sub sites. Makes sense to build a submarine facility that can also support surface ships, spreads the costs.

FBW has a lot of wharf space, particularly with Henderson coming online for maintenance, so I would have thought it is fine for say six-eight new frigates.

The sites being considered for the sub base are apparently Port Kembla, Newcastle and Brisbane. I personally thought Kembla made the most sense (as does Defence reportedly) as it gives the quickest access to the continental shelf (although longest transit times) and access to the workforce of southern and south west Sydney. It’s also in close proximity to Lucas Heights so there’s the opportunity to concentrate activities with the SSNs and scale up the nuclear industry.

 

[seaspear]

Sadly, we can’t have an HMAS Gillard given a certain PM gutted the proposed recapitalisation of the RAN.

That 4th Hobart would be pretty handy right now…. as would some new subs….. as would’ve a stockpile of Tomahawks…. thanks Julia.

Convert Williamstown into Port Gilliard naval base then government wont shut it down

 

[StingrayOZ]

I wonder if the Mogami's will be delivered with SeaRAM?

If they are, will the RAM use the system on other platforms?

I suppose maybe they could be delivered without and the RAN could fit Phalanx.

It would need to be signed off by the Navy, the deputy PM and defence industry minister. That would be a variation, and cost more, and then someone would have to do some sort of integration work. No matter how minimal, even if its just to check where munitions can be loaded and firing arcs, money and time. The political cost is too high. If there is any modification, and the project is delayed or costs more, it will be on them. Also many would see that as a downgrade. Part of the low crewing is weapons that are low crewing. So any changes, no matter how simple will be heavily contested.

I actually think they will be delivered with them. SeaRam isn't the worst system, and it was what the ships were designed with in mind, and its a US munition and system. It would be useful to have some of them in the pool and become familiar with them. SeaRAM would be IMO a better fit for things like LPD/LHD/AOR..

I think its a pretty good outcome. There was a lot of focus on up arming OPVs.. Now we are getting Mogamis, that whole concept seems to be unpopular. The evolution of this project has been interesting, we showed no interest in the original frigates back in 2017-2018..

11 Mogami + 6 Hunter + 3 AWD.. Gets us 20 pretty good surface combatants.

 

[d-ron84]

Since we're getting SSNs, is there really any benefit to having an east coast sub base?
The biggest reason for it was the slow transit speeds of Diesel Electric boats, we don't really have that problem anymore.
With the defence budget as tight as it is, why spend an inordinate amount of money setting up a base from scratch? It's a big undertaking , you not only need to build the infrastructure to support the military side, you also need all the defence contractors, logistics support et al.
I can see so many more uses for that money

 

[Morgo]

Since we're getting SSNs, is there really any benefit to having an east coast sub base?
The biggest reason for it was the slow transit speeds of Diesel Electric boats, we don't really have that problem anymore.
With the defence budget as tight as it is, why spend an inordinate amount of money setting up a base from scratch? It's a big undertaking , you not only need to build the infrastructure to support the military side, you also need all the defence contractors, logistics support et al.
I can see so many more uses for that money

Redundancy in case one base is hit.

Access to the major population centres for both maintenance and crewing.

SSNs are def much faster but also can’t magically teleport - in high tempo operations in the South Pacific you would not want to have to transit all the way to Perth and back to repair / rearm.

To be honest if we’re only going to have one I’d close WA. But would strongly prefer both.

FBE is also going to be too small for the fleet we’re building.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

An east coast submarine base would help with recruitment. A lot of people aren't interested in a WA posting.

 

[d-ron84]

Redundancy in case one base is hit.

Access to the major population centres for both maintenance and crewing.

SSNs are def much faster but also can’t magically teleport - in high tempo operations in the South Pacific you would not want to have to transit all the way to Perth and back to repair / rearm.

To be honest if we’re only going to have one I’d close WA. But would strongly prefer both.

FBE is also going to be too small for the fleet we’re building.

Redundancy isn't really a reason for the basing, otherwise we would have the DDGs and LHDs split between FBE and FBW.
We already have two maintenance centers, ASC-West in Henderson WA, and the terribly named ASC-North in Osbourne SA.
We also have two places to re-arm, Stirling and Eden.
Port Kembla (the only viable option for an east coast base for many reasons) isn't really a major population center.
And you would close the one that actually has the people and infrastructure (granted it needs to be upgraded, but not starting from scratch)
And good luck moving any useful amount of the squadron east, many reasons we are based over here

 

[Morgo]

Redundancy isn't really a reason for the basing, otherwise we would have the DDGs and LHDs split between FBE and FBW.
We already have two maintenance centers, ASC-West in Henderson WA, and the terribly named ASC-North in Osbourne SA.
We also have two places to re-arm, Stirling and Eden.
Port Kembla (the only viable option for an east coast base for many reasons) isn't really a major population center.
And you would close the one that actually has the people and infrastructure (granted it needs to be upgraded, but not starting from scratch)
And good luck moving any useful amount of the squadron east, many reasons we are based over here

It’s a one week trip from Sydney to Perth and back at 25 knots. If operations are taking place anywhere but the SCS / northern Indian Ocean approaches it’s significantly faster from the east coast. Like days faster.

Wollongong most definitely is a major population centre. All of the greater Sydney area’s growth is going to the south and south west. And high speed rail will likely connect it to a larger population pool of c. 6m within an hour’s travel.

ANU, UNSW and UOW also have well established nuclear physics programs. ANU has Nobel prize winners in their Physics faculty. ANSTO is a half hour drive away from Kembla.

Cutting that pool of labour out of the broader SSN ecosystem would be madness.

What are the “many reasons” that they should be based solely in Perth?

 

[Stampede]

It would need to be signed off by the Navy, the deputy PM and defence industry minister. That would be a variation, and cost more, and then someone would have to do some sort of integration work. No matter how minimal, even if its just to check where munitions can be loaded and firing arcs, money and time. The political cost is too high. If there is any modification, and the project is delayed or costs more, it will be on them. Also many would see that as a downgrade. Part of the low crewing is weapons that are low crewing. So any changes, no matter how simple will be heavily contested.

I actually think they will be delivered with them. SeaRam isn't the worst system, and it was what the ships were designed with in mind, and its a US munition and system. It would be useful to have some of them in the pool and become familiar with them. SeaRAM would be IMO a better fit for things like LPD/LHD/AOR..

I think its a pretty good outcome. There was a lot of focus on up arming OPVs.. Now we are getting Mogamis, that whole concept seems to be unpopular. The evolution of this project has been interesting, we showed no interest in the original frigates back in 2017-2018..

11 Mogami + 6 Hunter + 3 AWD.. Gets us 20 pretty good surface combatants.

The virtue of the 12 OPV’s was time!
All 12 in service in the by the early 30’s
A great asset as is without any weaponising but for a sizeable fleet of complimentary S100 sized UAVs.
The proposed fleet mentioned above is way off into the 2040s.

Agree the Arafura’s are really not one thing or the other.
We should have got a bigger OPV.
That said we have them in construction and we should have worked with that practically.

I have no doubt we will pay “defence options “ tax on cutting their numbers in half while we transition very slowly to our much bigger and capable fleet.

We must remember the time frames involved with projects.
I think we get the mindset that because we have a project and proposed vessel numbers it’s somehow already in existence which of course it is not.

The media need to reality check the politicians when they talk this way.

Regards S

 

[BSKS]

Given Mogami's touted advanced ASW capabilities, Hunter should pivot to an AWD/BMD role to preserve its relevance and justify cost. I know this would add further costs, but without a clear point of difference, the Hunter program will likely come under increasing pressure.

 

[iambuzzard]

Defence Connect are pushing the Japanese ASEV destroyer concept as a potential replacement for the Hobart class now that the Mogami deal is almost sealed. What do you guys think of the concept? How does it compare to an upgunned evolved Hunter hull in regards to manpower, weapons, etc?

 

[devo99]

TBH I would like the RAN to continue using/reusing ship's names and passing along the battle honours.

One significant danger in naming vessels after people is that doing so can and often does end up being done for political advantage, rather than something which really honours the service. IMO we have seen this a little bit in the RAN with the naming of HMAS Choules.

We also see this extensively if we look at the naming, or in some cases renaming, of ships in US service. If one looks at USN vessels commissioned during or immediately after WWII, we see extensive use of ships named after individuals who distinguished themselves in service, often having been awarded the Navy Cross or Medal of Honor, and after the named person had passed. For many of the distinguished service members from WWII, their awards were made posthumously.

Unfortunately though, it does seem as though a number of US warships are getting named after political figures, with auxiliary vessels getting named after political/social figures, like examples of the John Lewis-class AO which were getting named after US civil rights leaders.

Me being me, I would very much prefer that Australia avoid all of that mess.

I do understand the precedent it sets can turn into a slippery slope as it has for the USN with the use of names only vaguely related to the USN. I personally always felt HMAS Choules should've been HMAS Bracegirdle of RANBT fame.

What I'm hoping for maybe is just more public exposure of RAN history in general. Everyone learns about Gallipoli and Kokoda in school but there's barely a footnote on anything the RAN has done. I don't think a single one of my extension history classmates could've named an action the RAN was involved in and I don't blame them for it, seeing as it is completely omitted from the curriculum.

On almost every occasion I've told someone I'm enlisting the first question is something along the lines of "tanks or infantry?" and once corrected they start talking about the latest shipbuilding scandal or AUKUS because that's almost all the public hears about. How do we expect to achieve a "whole of nation" approach to expanding the Navy if the whole of the nation within the relevant age bracket can't think of anything the RAN has done other than be old and over budget?

 

[Going Boeing]

Given Mogami's touted advanced ASW capabilities, Hunter should pivot to an AWD/BMD role to preserve its relevance and justify cost. I know this would add further costs, but without a clear point of difference, the Hunter program will likely come under increasing pressure.

With the Hunter’s quieter hull & drivetrain, I believe that it would be a superior ASW platform compared to the Mogami.

Defence Connect are pushing the Japanese ASEV destroyer concept as a potential replacement for the Hobart class now that the Mogami deal is almost sealed. What do you guys think of the concept? How does it compare to an upgunned evolved Hunter hull in regards to manpower, weapons, etc?

The ASEV Destroyer is obviously very capable but, as all the integration work for the CEAFAR 2, AEGIS & 9LV systems have been done at great expense for the Hunter class, it’s probable that Defence would want to stick with an AAW version of that platform. If there is new technology & capability available on the ASEV, then there may be interest.

 

[seaspear]

Is this a safer option to develop ,a number of these should be able to be locally quite cheaply instead of putting all missiles in one ship

Navy Unmasks Its Vision For Fleet Of Uncrewed Modular Surface Attack Craft

The Navy's plans for a family of MASC drone vessels are centered on containerized missile launchers and sensor packages.

www.twz.com