Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[CJR]

We do not refine our own fuel,

Not strictly true, referring to the Dec 2016 statistics on the Chief Economist's website... 2015-16 annual refinery production was 25800 ML vs annual sales of 55400 ML.

Of cause there are complications... production of crude in Australian territory is around 18400 ML, but most of that goes offshore (China, Korea, Singapore and Thailand as the big destination) for processing while onshore refineries source about 79% of their feedstock from offshore.

 

[oldsig127]

Oldsig wrote: "The reason our population can double without the Navy size doubling - the perceived risk ("What will happen if we don't do it?") is lower than in the aftermath of WW2, and the appetite of people who grew up beyond memory of those years for service is decidedly less."

Sadly, undeniable facts:
We are an island nation, dispersed of similar size to Europe,
We do not refine our own fuel,
There is not one single facet of modern society that doesn't ultimately rely on fuel.
Is there realistically a better question to ask than "what will happen if we don't?"

Yes, fuel reserve is an issue which I don't deny, and which the general public would probably approve increasing, if only because of the possible loss of the tank of fuel for their car. If the Greens didn't convince them it was a plot to go back to carbon based power sources

My response was aimed entirely at the likelihood of increasing the size of the Navy (or other forces) at a time when the voting public is thoroughly disengaged from the notion of collective security and a significant portion of the political class and press are actively against even the amount currently spent. At this time we are working towards an international median of 2% of GDP. Watch the ABC some time when even that level is mentioned and there will almost certainly be a guest there from any one of hundreds of worthy recipients who'll ask "Why increase Defence spending when there's no threat and <insert sob story here> is surviving on the smell of an oily rag". I can't blame them, but it doesn't help change attitudes. The better solution would be to increase GDP, but then some of the makework professions would have to find a productive job.

oldsig

 

[Todjaeger]

Sadly, undeniable facts:
We are an island nation, dispersed of similar size to Europe,
We do not refine our own fuel,
There is not one single facet of modern society that doesn't ultimately rely on fuel.
Is there realistically a better question to ask than "what will happen if we don't?"

Actually, modern society is dependent on energy, not necessarily fuel. The thing about fuel (at least many hydrocarbon-based ones) is that they tend to have a high energy density.

It might be possible for many areas in Australia to utilize solar panels and other, non-fuel consuming methods of energy production. Honestly I would be very much in favour of that, as it reduces the demand for fuel and thus the dependency on it. I do support the notion of increasing strategic fuel reserves, especially if/when the commodity prices for said fuel is comparatively low. At the same time though, working to increase fuel efficiency and alternate methods of energy production would similarly be wise for a number of reasons.

 

[Wombat000]

Energy is one issue (interestingly, renewables are IMHO relatively fuel free, but fossil fuels need fuel themselves to transport the product to burn), but the main one is fuel.
Fuel facilitates everything from holidays to stocking supermarkets.

Every individual has a direct interest in fuel.

How many surface units are required to escort constant supply on each side of the continent?
How much more do you reckon would be free to actually hunt an aggressor?

 

[Stampede]

In answering this question I'm constrained by the 2016 DWP and IIP. The most important guidance in these documents comes in the IIP Forward and is worth reading every time a suggestion on force structure is made.
The IIP was developed through a comprehensive force structure review which assessed defence capability needs to meet the challenges of our regions operating environment through the 2030s.

All the above is a long winded way of saying that I believe our force structure is currently adequate (including the surface Fleet) within the constraints of balance and affordability. The question you should ask is " if the surface force is increased, what capability and from which service will a sacrifice be made to pay for and man it"?

G'day Assail

I agree that the DWP is the current guide for force direction and expectation.
Before any talk of expansion maybe doing justice to the DWP is the starting point.
The challenge is however that many of the projects are very long term and Geo /Political change can have a different script.
Maybe stick with the DWP but suggest getting the Destroyer /Frigate force up to a quantity of twelve ASAP may have merit.
We could achieve this not by building additional ships but by retaining and retiring later some of our existing frigate force.
We will need to find the capital for crew and running costs and I fully appreciate the question as to where is the money coming from.
This question never has a easy answer so I suggest It would be from an increase in budget allocation.

Get the fleet up to twelve ASAP and place a CIWS on the ANZAC's
That's my fantasy Fleet.

Regards S


Regards S

 

[Rob c]

You don't get that option when your family business continues to operate. In any case I think I'd go bonkers if I didn't go to work regularly, even if not full time anymore, and if I stayed at home my wife would divorce me in a month.

I found that when I retired, (a lot earlier than planned due to an accident ) I was still busy. Between some voluntary work, upgrading the house, projects for the Kids (last one was a rebuild of a loader bucket for my son) walking the dog and riding my motor bike and watching the ODI's I don't have spare time to get bored or go bonkers.

 

[Volkodav]

I found that when I retired, (a lot earlier than planned due to an accident ) I was still busy. Between some voluntary work, upgrading the house, projects for the Kids (last one was a rebuild of a loader bucket for my son) walking the dog and riding my motor bike and watching the ODI's I don't have spare time to get bored or go bonkers.

I don't have spare time but have gone bonkers anyway

Back on topic, while the number of major combatants has remained fairly consistent since WWII, so has the perceived need for an increase in numbers and individual capability. For instance the CVS based ASW group built around Melbourne was one of a planned two with a third desired in strategic planning by the UK.

There are numerous examples of strategically justified expansions that have never become reality due to changing circumstances, including, sometimes, war, which changes priorities and makes lead times critical.

 

[ASSAIL]

Capability in terms of kit - yes. Depth? I'm not convinced

I've just noticed this and although I may agree a casual observation would show little change by just looking at Fleet units but there are many ways in which the RAN has increased its footprint over the last several decades.
Here are a few "depth" changes which have strengthened the RAN and there may be others which I have missed
We now have a Fleet base in WA with infrastructure supporting industrial capacity. This includes exercise areas and ranges for total training utility.
There are now 2 x submarine rescue ships where none existed.
Our Hydrographic branch has a dedicated headquarters in Woolongong and 6 dedicated hydro ships based in Cairns plus a Laser Airborne capability.
Our MCM and Diving organisation is more robust with a dedicated team in the West.
We have a functioning amphibious capability with 2 LHDs, a specialist Army unit in lieu of a troop transport shipwhich required further chartered merchant ships to do the heavy lifting.
We now have a dedicated Joint Warfare Operations Centre and a fully Joint and functioning ADF in lieu of 3 very fiercely independent and competing services.
ADFA is an organisation which promotes the joint ethos amongst its alumni, good for the ADF.
Our naval Officer specialist training is now held onshore and not in the RN as that organisation has become increasingly irrelevant to Australia as its footprint shrinks.
The RAN is building towards 20% female recruitment which ads to the social,"depth" of the RAN although there are still many of the old traditionalists who still can't imagine the benefit of this.

What we've lost and I hope we are slowly regaining is the in depth engineering and technical,expertise which used to be a standout for the RAN, particularly when working alongside others. This was sacrificed to the gods of cost cutting and contracting, an horrendous mistake IMHO

 

[PeterM]

What I find interesting in the growth of defence spending experienced by Australia over the last 15 years with the growth of the economy. I think to some extend this may be getting lost in all the talk of defence spending as a percentage of GDP and we lose sight of how our actual spending compares with other nations. Comparing it to nations such as the UK and Italy is quite interesting

Australia

• 2016: $33.190 bn USD
• 2011: $25.785 bn USD
• 2006 $18.910 bn USD
• 2001: $13.617 bn USD

UK

• 2016: $35.763 bn USD
• 2011: $37.617 bn USD
• 2006: $31.241 bn USD
• 2001: $24.544 bn USD

Italy

• 2016: $25.259 bn USD
• 2011: $27.429 bn USD
• 2006: $26.631 bn USD
• 2001: $24.592 bn USD

Source: Military expenditure (current LCU) | Data

We are experiencing a substantial increase in expenditure and capability.

Obviously there is a substantial lead time in developing naval capability. We are certainly experiencing a substantial growth the the capability of the RAN. If the Australian military spending is sustainable, there are a range of possibilities that could be considered by future governments.

Comparing defence spending with other nations gives an general indication of the kind of options that we can potentially afford. The real interesting questions for me is what should the future RAN look like with evolving and dynamic environments, considering we have the regional naval growth in China and elsewhere combined with possible scaling back of the US presence in the region.

While we know what our short to medium plans are, how might these change in the medium - long term? We are going to get the defence force that we can afford. but cost may not be quite the limiting factor that it has been historically, particularly if we maintain our defence spending at 2% GDP.

 

[vonnoobie]

@PeterM good list and does give an idea though I would caution against using it as a true basis. Other factors that come into play is local costs of living, exchange rates, self sufficiency etc

Higher cost of living and will naturally cost more to sustain your forces, Exchange will also affect them in conjunction with self sufficiency. If not self sufficient then your reliant on imports and a low valuation to the USD will weaken your forces, A high one will strengthen them. The higher your self sufficiency the less exchange rates will matter.

Around that time period the Euro to USD was .94 on average while the AUD to USD was just over .50 . Always a risky business when comparing our selves in spending with other nations as there is a lot more to it then a number to number comparison.

 

[PeterM]

@PeterM good list and does give an idea though I would caution against using it as a true basis. Other factors that come into play is local costs of living, exchange rates, self sufficiency etc

Higher cost of living and will naturally cost more to sustain your forces, Exchange will also affect them in conjunction with self sufficiency. If not self sufficient then your reliant on imports and a low valuation to the USD will weaken your forces, A high one will strengthen them. The higher your self sufficiency the less exchange rates will matter.

Around that time period the Euro to USD was .94 on average while the AUD to USD was just over .50 . Always a risky business when comparing our selves in spending with other nations as there is a lot more to it then a number to number comparison.

There are certainly lot a factors that comprise the structure of defence spending. At a holistic level over time it can provide an indications of trends, how we build capability etc.

While like for like is not directly comparable due to a range of local factors, it does give a general idea of what might be affordable in the future.

It also shows how effective we are at getting bang for buck compared to other nations. This may open up potential opportunities for improvement going forward.

In general though, defence capability is enabled through (and limited by) the money available.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Just to add to the 'assail' excellent summary of RAN improvements over the years - aviation-wise. HMAS Albatross is unrecognizable to me (from the air - GoogleEarth). The base has expanded dramatically over the last decade with significant infrastructure for training & maintaining the new very robust helicopter fleet (some argument about the MRH-90 perhaps).

To me it is significant (but I'm not a former helo pilot) that the ARMY will be trained by the RAN FAA thus gaining necessary insight into flat deck landings for the LHDs via a dedicated Helo Training Ship (SYCAMORE). Amazing. ASW is back in the ROMEOs.

 

[John Newman]

What I find interesting in the growth of defence spending experienced by Australia over the last 15 years with the growth of the economy. I think to some extend this may be getting lost in all the talk of defence spending as a percentage of GDP and we lose sight of how our actual spending compares with other nations. Comparing it to nations such as the UK and Italy is quite interesting

Australia

• 2016: $33.190 bn USD
• 2011: $25.785 bn USD
• 2006 $18.910 bn USD
• 2001: $13.617 bn USD

UK

• 2016: $35.763 bn USD
• 2011: $37.617 bn USD
• 2006: $31.241 bn USD
• 2001: $24.544 bn USD

Italy

• 2016: $25.259 bn USD
• 2011: $27.429 bn USD
• 2006: $26.631 bn USD
• 2001: $24.592 bn USD

Source: Military expenditure (current LCU) | Data

We are experiencing a substantial increase in expenditure and capability.

Obviously there is a substantial lead time in developing naval capability. We are certainly experiencing a substantial growth the the capability of the RAN. If the Australian military spending is sustainable, there are a range of possibilities that could be considered by future governments.

Comparing defence spending with other nations gives an general indication of the kind of options that we can potentially afford. The real interesting questions for me is what should the future RAN look like with evolving and dynamic environments, considering we have the regional naval growth in China and elsewhere combined with possible scaling back of the US presence in the region.

While we know what our short to medium plans are, how might these change in the medium - long term? We are going to get the defence force that we can afford. but cost may not be quite the limiting factor that it has been historically, particularly if we maintain our defence spending at 2% GDP.

Peter M,

Sorry but I think the figures you have quoted are inaccurate (exchange rate calculations?).

According to the DWP, Australian defence expenditure for the 2017-18 financial year is approx A$34.2B, which at the current exchange rate, is USD$27.25B.

From what I can find, UK expenditure this year (in UK Pounds) is 48B, which equates to USD$66.22B.

Italian figures are a bit harder to find, but from what I can see Italy is spending approx, in USD, 37.7B

Your figures, above, are suggesting that (in USD), we are just behind the UK and well ahead of Italy, again, sorry, I think that is inaccurate.

Cheers,

 

[ASSAIL]

Peter M,

Sorry but I think the figures you have quoted are inaccurate (exchange rate calculations?).

According to the DWP, Australian defence expenditure for the 2017-18 financial year is approx A$34.2B, which at the current exchange rate, is USD$27.25B.

From what I can find, UK expenditure this year (in UK Pounds) is 48B, which equates to USD$66.22B.

Italian figures are a bit harder to find, but from what I can see Italy is spending approx, in USD, 37.7B

Your figures, above, are suggesting that (in USD), we are just behind the UK and well ahead of Italy, again, sorry, I think that is inaccurate.

Cheers,

Agree John this is a graphic from Forbes for 2016

The Top 15 Countries For Military Expenditure In 2016 [Infographic]

 

[hauritz]

Australia is pushing ahead with SEA 2400 and is seeking information in regards to building a new oceanographic/hydrographic survey vessel.

Australia confirms interest in acquiring strategic military survey capability | Jane's 360
AusTender: Current ATM View - CASG/SHIP/EOI0071/17

It looks like the navy wants a specialised vessel that will enter service around 2025.

It seems like only a single vessel is being sought.

The DWP stated that the navy would work in combination with commercial hydrographic and oceanographic survey assets so it might be that the navy survey fleet may well just end up with this one ship.

 

[alexsa]

The news was uninspiring this morning with our new SA Senator taking aim at the Submarine Project. A bit of balance would be great noting Rex Patrick has been long term advocate of offshore builds of small submarines (from Germany) and has had a tie up with Atlas electronics........ this is before we get to his involvement in the DCNS ‘leak’ where he got hold of some material on the Malaysian projection and he, and NXT, were implicated in the release of this material. I would not he was not investigated for this to put this in context.

He also supported the procurement of Nuclear Submarines from the US which appears at odds with his support for small off the shelf Submarines (which would be useless in the Australian context IMHO) meaning the only common thread is they should not be build in Australia.

So when he gets up and claims that the signing of two reports (now done) that was not achieved at the end of 2017 (17 days ago) means the project is going to blow out by billions ............ if find it surprising the press are not looking at his past to take this in context. Mind you that would involve journisltic skill and balance.

This assessment was based on evidence that the good Senator has collected by talking to members of the Submarine community. It would be useful if the nature of such evidence was assessed noting there are a range of folk in the ‘Submarine community’ and not all support the current programme (shock, horror) having hitched their figurative wagon to a diferrent train.

I don’t know enough about Senator Patrick to judge but it is the sort of discussion that reminds me of Copp and Goon and the F35 roasting.......... all lot of good that did except to promote uniformed comment by uninspiring journalists.

 

[ASSAIL]

Ye

The news was uninspiring this morning with our new SA Senator taking aim at the Submarine Project. A bit of balance would be great noting Rex Patrick has been long term advocate of offshore builds of small submarines (from Germany) and has had a tie up with Atlas electronics........ this is before we get to his involvement in the DCNS ‘leak’ where he got hold of some material on the Malaysian projection and he, and NXT, were implicated in the release of this material. I would not he was not investigated for this to put this in context.

He also supported the procurement of Nuclear Submarines from the US which appears at odds with his support for small off the shelf Submarines (which would be useless in the Australian context IMHO) meaning the only common thread is they should not be build in Australia.

So when he gets up and claims that the signing of two reports (now done) that was not achieved at the end of 2017 (17 days ago) means the project is going to blow out by billions ............ if find it surprising the press are not looking at his past to take this in context. Mind you that would involve journisltic skill and balance.

This assessment was based on evidence that the good Senator has collected by talking to members of the Submarine community. It would be useful if the nature of such evidence was assessed noting there are a range of folk in the ‘Submarine community’ and not all support the current programme (shock, horror) having hitched their figurative wagon to a diferrent train.

I don’t know enough about Senator Patrick to judge but it is the sort of discussion that reminds me of Copp and Goon and the F35 roasting.......... all lot of good that did except to promote uniformed comment by uninspiring journalists.

Yes I read that this am from ABC online and thought here we go again with an ex uniform with a personal preference making outlandish claims based on SFA evidence provided it bags the governmental chosen way. Then I thought to myself well this guy is in the Xenophon team in the Senate (that should tell you enough) and is simply following the path of his party's leader, that doyen of self promotion, x himself.
What a tosser.

 

[ASSAIL]

Ye



Yes I read that this am from ABC online and thought here we go again with an ex uniform with a personal preference making outlandish claims based on SFA evidence provided it bags the governmental chosen way. Then I thought to myself well this guy is in the Xenophon team in the Senate (that should tell you enough) and is simply following the path of his party's leader, that doyen of self promotion, x himself.
What a tosser.

More to the above. I was trying to find out more about Patrick's experience as a submariner and it appears that this was gained over a 10 year navy career as an Electronics Technician submariner so he has expertise in what? Certainly not strategic submarine issues.
He also has a bone to pick with the government as his contract with them, details unknown, was terminated.
I might be sounding petty here but this sort of crap gets up my nose.

New SA Senator for Nick Xenophon Team outlines history, priorities

 

[alexsa]

More to the above. I was trying to find out more about Patrick's experience as a submariner and it appears that this was gained over a 10 year navy career as an Electronics Technician submariner so he has expertise in what? Certainly not strategic submarine issues.
He also has a bone to pick with the government as his contract with them, details unknown, was terminated.
I might be sounding petty here but this sort of crap gets up my nose.

New SA Senator for Nick Xenophon Team outlines history, priorities

Yep, it had some trite words to say to Defence when they refused to divulge information. Ignoring his involvement in the DCNS information release I suspect defence are treating him like any other punter in the release of detail. He appears to think he is a special case.

He was in Navy for 11 years and I am not to sure how much of that was in Submarines or what rank he was at when he left. In noting his bent I would note there are a lot of serving and ex members of defence who have their particular bent on what the RAN should buy. This is often based on their experaicne and ... often ... without the full picture (not that I m suggesting defence procurement gets it right all the time). This does result in apparent discord that our wonderful press jump apron to make a story.

 

[vonnoobie]

Reading through the ABC article.. Sub delays could lead to multi-billion-dollar cost blowout, senator warns

"Rear Admiral [Gregory] Sammut is a highly respected and highly capable naval officer, however he's never run a major project, he's never run a minor project,"

He is a leader, Leaders assign those under them to do the tasks and ensure they are doing them. Looking at is bio I'd say he has more then enough leadership skills and experience to know how to pick the right people and when to take advice when given.

"There are a number of highly qualified, highly experienced project managers in the mining industry, in the chemicals industry, in the IT industry that can be brought in to offer assistance for this extremely important program."

Possibly, Possibly not. But I dealt they are apples to apples. Very different fields with very different requirements. Blue collar workers yep grab them because lot of skilled tradesman around but the white collar guys.. Wouldn't touch any of them from these fields unless they have passed defence acquisition experience.

"However the program that they've been asked to execute, the program that's been selected by the Prime Minister, is a highly risky program, it's a new design of submarine."

And with this statement he has made me a believer in his stupidity. Every single one of them was risky, None of them needed minor changes but all needed major ones. Barracuda was still being built and nuclear, Soryu was too short short ranged and cramped, Type 216 was only a design with no idea how far along the design actually was (Could have been another Navantia situation). The least risky option was always the Collins class but politicians like him made that option impossible, Now he is out and about shouting nonsense about things he has no clue about. Even Nuclear boats would have taken longer, Ignoring the fact we dont have the policy and procedures in place that other nations have spent decades introducing the US has no spare capacity for the next 2+ decades at a minimum. Why cant we get a politician that can sit down with the ADF and say "Heres our goals, Heres our budget. What can we do?"