Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Redlands18]

Leaders discuss future of nuclear-powered subs | Defence
A rundown of the 11th Biennial Submarine Institute of Australia Conference hosted in Canberra in November, guests included Rear Admiral Tim Hodgson (RN), who talked about the challenges of switching from SSKs to SSNs, Rear Admiral Richard Seif (USN) who talked about the interchangeability of undersea forces, Rear Admiral Mat Buckley (RAN) from the SSN Task Force, talked about the rigorous levels of stewardship required for the SSN capability.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Breaking Defence has revealed there is significant US Senate opposition to the potential supply of Virginia class submarines to Australia.
Senator Reed (Democrat, Chairman of the Armed services Committee) and Senator Inhofe (Republican, retired former Ranking Republican on the Armed services Committee) have written a joint letter to President Biden warning of their concerns.

“Over the past year, we have grown more concerned about the state of the U.S. submarine industrial base as well as its ability to support the desired AUKUS SSN [nuclear sub] end state,” Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and James Inhofe, R-Okla., wrote in a Dec. 21 letter sent to the White House. “We believe current conditions require a sober assessment of the facts to avoid stressing the U.S. submarine industrial base to the breaking point.”


“We are concerned that what was initially touted as a ‘do no harm’ opportunity to support Australia and the United Kingdom and build long-term competitive advantages for the U.S. and its pacific allies, may be turning into a zero-sum game for scarce, highly advanced U.S. SSNs,”

They also raise concerns that there are significant legal concerns:

“Just as the submarine industrial base constraints are real, so are statutory and regulatory constraints. We still have little understanding of what … permissions or waivers would be needed to realize the AUKUS SSN options,” “These permissions or waivers are a serious matter and should not be taken for granted in negotiating any agreements.”

More quotes from their letter available at the link:

EXCLUSIVE: Reed, Inhofe warn Biden AUKUS risks becoming 'zero sum game' for US Navy - Breaking Defense

"We are concerned that what was initially touted as a 'do no harm' opportunity to support Australia and the United Kingdom and build long-term competitive advantages for the U.S. and its Pacific allies, may be turning into a zero-sum game for scarce, highly advanced U.S. SSNs," wrote the SASC heads.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Morgo]

Breaking Defence has revealed there is significant US Senate opposition to the potential supply of Virginia class submarines to Australia.
Senator Reed (Democrat, Chairman of the Armed services Committee) and Senator Inhofe (Republican, retired former Ranking Republican on the Armed services Committee) have written a joint letter to President Biden warning of their concerns.


They also raise concerns that there are significant legal concerns:



More quotes from their letter available at the link:

EXCLUSIVE: Reed, Inhofe warn Biden AUKUS risks becoming 'zero sum game' for US Navy - Breaking Defense

"We are concerned that what was initially touted as a 'do no harm' opportunity to support Australia and the United Kingdom and build long-term competitive advantages for the U.S. and its Pacific allies, may be turning into a zero-sum game for scarce, highly advanced U.S. SSNs," wrote the SASC heads.

breakingdefense.com

Kevin Rudd better get to work earning his pay check....

 

[John Newman]

Kevin Rudd better get to work earning his pay check....

If success or failure falls at the feet of that moron Rudd, we’re doomed.

PS, it’s pay cheque, not pay check, (I hate American spelling!)

 

[StingrayOZ]

If success or failure falls at the feet of that moron Rudd, we’re doomed.

Smug git is probably more appropriate. Rudd may be many things, not sure moron is the right fit. IMO I think Rudd is a very valuable card, because he understand how serious the situation is, the view that provides to the American cousins is Australia sees reality and isn't in some European marshmallow land.

Rudd is the ambassador, he isn't going to start welding submarines together. Rudd is a diplomat and a China expert, he holds significant sway in that area. He is absolutely lobbying very hard for western nations to increase military capabilities to deter China. His original 2009 white paper was where 12 subs came from. Rudd has never seemed to have any wheelbarrow to push on the sub platform itself. It was just about capability.

Again, looking at the tea leaves. The Submarines will need to be built here, there was never any other option. The fuel and reactor may need to be built here, completely (mined, refined, enriched, manufactured etc). Neither the US nor the UK have any excess capacity, both are looking for low cost ways that could allow repair and refurbishment options without establishing a whole new yard themselves, which may be beyond their own capabilities. Both the US and UK have their own issues.

Australia's disastrous military procurement, particularly relating to ship building and doubling on the political footballing on the submarines is toxic, to everyone. First we did Collins, and we set ourselves on fire, with some help from the swedes, who also set themselves on fire. The mass public partisan tearing apart began. Then with Sea1000, We dragged the Japanese out of their shell, then publically set them on fire. Then we engaged the French, had a massive public domestic after a few years, then set them on fire after setting a giant pile of money on fire.

Any public voicing about stealing SSN off the US/USN either from their production line or their current fleet will get them clamming up. Even speculation about US basing is going to annoy them, as that is a decision for them.

The reality is Australia needs to commit to building them here, maintaining them here, and using crews, from here. We need to demonstrate that to them. That isn't a Rudd problem, that is a problem here in Australia for the government, the opposition, industry and the ADF. If we fail to do that, no SSN for Australia. The blame will be local. No amount of diplomating will be able to address the fundamental issues.

From the American perspective, Australia needs to significantly grow its navy, surface and subs. It needs to grow its industry, civilian and domestic. Any burden on SSN subs needs to be on Australia, not the US, the US has its own issues. This issue is hugely important for the US. We are poking our fingers into their holiest places, uninvited.

 

[ngatimozart]

PS, it’s pay cheque, not pay check, (I hate American spelling!) ***

*** Me too.

If success or failure falls at the feet of that moron Rudd, we’re doomed.

As a pollie and PM he may have been a moron, but as a China expert he is very good. And he knows the danger that the CCP presents especially in the Indo Pacific.

 

[John Newman]

I’ll stick with my original opinion of Rudd.

A failed ex PM, a legend in his own mind, a glory hound only interested in his own self promotion, I wouldn’t pee on him if he was on fire.

As for the 2009 DWP, it talked the talk, but never walked the walk, I’ve read it a numerous times, one thing is certain, it was very light on details.

Anyway, he’s got the ‘job for the boys’ he wanted, but nothing will change my opinion.

 

[buffy9]

Smug git is probably more appropriate. Rudd may be many things, not sure moron is the right fit. IMO I think Rudd is a very valuable card, because he understand how serious the situation is, the view that provides to the American cousins is Australia sees reality and isn't in some European marshmallow land.

Rudd is the ambassador, he isn't going to start welding submarines together. Rudd is a diplomat and a China expert, he holds significant sway in that area. He is absolutely lobbying very hard for western nations to increase military capabilities to deter China. His original 2009 white paper was where 12 subs came from. Rudd has never seemed to have any wheelbarrow to push on the sub platform itself. It was just about capability.

Again, looking at the tea leaves. The Submarines will need to be built here, there was never any other option. The fuel and reactor may need to be built here, completely (mined, refined, enriched, manufactured etc). Neither the US nor the UK have any excess capacity, both are looking for low cost ways that could allow repair and refurbishment options without establishing a whole new yard themselves, which may be beyond their own capabilities. Both the US and UK have their own issues.

Australia's disastrous military procurement, particularly relating to ship building and doubling on the political footballing on the submarines is toxic, to everyone. First we did Collins, and we set ourselves on fire, with some help from the swedes, who also set themselves on fire. The mass public partisan tearing apart began. Then with Sea1000, We dragged the Japanese out of their shell, then publically set them on fire. Then we engaged the French, had a massive public domestic after a few years, then set them on fire after setting a giant pile of money on fire.

Any public voicing about stealing SSN off the US/USN either from their production line or their current fleet will get them clamming up. Even speculation about US basing is going to annoy them, as that is a decision for them.

The reality is Australia needs to commit to building them here, maintaining them here, and using crews, from here. We need to demonstrate that to them. That isn't a Rudd problem, that is a problem here in Australia for the government, the opposition, industry and the ADF. If we fail to do that, no SSN for Australia. The blame will be local. No amount of diplomating will be able to address the fundamental issues.

From the American perspective, Australia needs to significantly grow its navy, surface and subs. It needs to grow its industry, civilian and domestic. Any burden on SSN subs needs to be on Australia, not the US, the US has its own issues. This issue is hugely important for the US. We are poking our fingers into their holiest places, uninvited.

If there was ever a time in Australia for political leadership and willpower, this is it. The DSR and SSN findings are only a few months away and with them comes a big ticket to be proactive. I expect the US and others will be expecting something proactive, rather than red flags of a possible burn.

For all parties,* not just whoever is in power right now.

The fuel and reactor may need to be built here, completely (mined, refined, enriched, manufactured etc).

Sounds like a proposition for nuclear energy industry, which would be a massive shift in policy - for the ALP as a party and for the country more broadly. Avoiding the hole of energy completely, there may be still options with the UK and combined options across all three AUKUS members on how to approach the problem. There is also Japan and its nuclear expertise, if JAUKUS were to become a thing.

 

[WaveWalker]

Just a question…. Is politics banned on this forum or not? Seems to me one side of politics is and the other isn’t.

 

[aussienscale]

Smug git is probably more appropriate. Rudd may be many things, not sure moron is the right fit. IMO I think Rudd is a very valuable card, because he understand how serious the situation is, the view that provides to the American cousins is Australia sees reality and isn't in some European marshmallow land.

Rudd is the ambassador, he isn't going to start welding submarines together. Rudd is a diplomat and a China expert, he holds significant sway in that area. He is absolutely lobbying very hard for western nations to increase military capabilities to deter China. His original 2009 white paper was where 12 subs came from. Rudd has never seemed to have any wheelbarrow to push on the sub platform itself. It was just about capability.

Again, looking at the tea leaves. The Submarines will need to be built here, there was never any other option. The fuel and reactor may need to be built here, completely (mined, refined, enriched, manufactured etc). Neither the US nor the UK have any excess capacity, both are looking for low cost ways that could allow repair and refurbishment options without establishing a whole new yard themselves, which may be beyond their own capabilities. Both the US and UK have their own issues.

Australia's disastrous military procurement, particularly relating to ship building and doubling on the political footballing on the submarines is toxic, to everyone. First we did Collins, and we set ourselves on fire, with some help from the swedes, who also set themselves on fire. The mass public partisan tearing apart began. Then with Sea1000, We dragged the Japanese out of their shell, then publically set them on fire. Then we engaged the French, had a massive public domestic after a few years, then set them on fire after setting a giant pile of money on fire.

Any public voicing about stealing SSN off the US/USN either from their production line or their current fleet will get them clamming up. Even speculation about US basing is going to annoy them, as that is a decision for them.

The reality is Australia needs to commit to building them here, maintaining them here, and using crews, from here. We need to demonstrate that to them. That isn't a Rudd problem, that is a problem here in Australia for the government, the opposition, industry and the ADF. If we fail to do that, no SSN for Australia. The blame will be local. No amount of diplomating will be able to address the fundamental issues.

From the American perspective, Australia needs to significantly grow its navy, surface and subs. It needs to grow its industry, civilian and domestic. Any burden on SSN subs needs to be on Australia, not the US, the US has its own issues. This issue is hugely important for the US. We are poking our fingers into their holiest places, uninvited.

Is that the same Rudd that said a couple of days ago that the US throw's their allies under a bus ? Yep he is off to a great start earning his mate's rates jobs for the boys.

 

[ngatimozart]

Just a question…. Is politics banned on this forum or not? Seems to me one side of politics is and the other isn’t.

Politics can be discussed with regard to defence. The highlighted section could be regarded as politics too but that's not my call to make because you have lodged a complaint about one of my posts. Another Moderator will resolve the issue.

 

[Volkodav]

Just a question…. Is politics banned on this forum or not? Seems to me one side of politics is and the other isn’t.

Fair call, I agree and we need to get back on topic.

I could spend a week listing the bad defence decisions and dodgy traits of politicians and governments of all flavours. To be honest if you want totally vicious, malicious and destructive personal attacks on PMs and former PMs you need go no further than the members of their own back bench.

Some politics is relevant to the discussion, others most definately are not. Personally I'm with Stingray and NG on Rudd's credentials in foreign affairs and in particular on china. Rudd is without a doubt an unpleasant and difficult person to work with by many accounts and pissed off enough people in his own government to get overthrown. The thing is, the same applies to almost every PM we have had in the last two decades

 

[hauritz]

Like him or loathe him Rudd was among the first to identify the Chinese threat. Had he not been tossed aside for Julia Gillard we may have been in a better position militarily than we are now. Gillard and the then Defence Minister Stephen Smith watered down the 2009 white paper and produced their own version in 2013. While it did repeat a lot of the same stuff as the 2009 paper it lacked any financial commitment which of course meant that very little actually proceeded.

 

[WaveWalker]

Fair call, I agree and we need to get back on topic.

I could spend a week listing the bad defence decisions and dodgy traits of politicians and governments of all flavours. To be honest if you want totally vicious, malicious and destructive personal attacks on PMs and former PMs you need go no further than the members of their own back bench.

Some politics is relevant to the discussion, others most definately are not. Personally I'm with Stingray and NG on Rudd's credentials in foreign affairs and in particular on china. Rudd is without a doubt an unpleasant and difficult person to work with by many accounts and pissed off enough people in his own government to get overthrown. The thing is, the same applies to almost every PM we have had in the last two decades

You see, yes it is a fair call but you still introduced politics and personality into it. None of you know Rudd and what he is like as a person is irrelevant. Frankly I think defence should be defence and not about domestic political point scoring. I’m interested in peoples opinion about defence, not their irrelevant political bias. Enough said.

 

[Volkodav]

You see, yes it is a fair call but you still introduced politics and personality into it. None of you know Rudd and what he is like as a person is irrelevant. Frankly I think defence should be defence and not about domestic political point scoring. I’m interested in peoples opinion about defence, not their irrelevant political bias. Enough said.

I think you need to watch your tone and above all read more carefully.

I agreed that the political and personal comments about politicians were getting way off topic and were irrelevant but also made the point that politics is highly relevant to defence.

Personality is also relevant, the entire submarine fiasco for instance is rooted in the political machinations of a functioning alcoholic who deliberately undermined a major defence capability to politically damage an alternative prime minister. The fallout of this is still doing damage today, as it has completely undermined the public's faith in Australia's ability to operate, let alone build submarines. What Moore did is something I couldn't see Marles or Dutton doing, both are political animals but also would IMO never deliberately harm the country to gain political advantage.

Now where did this information come from in regards to Moore? What he did is recorded historical fact, the alcoholic part, well that was from a former site member and senior public servant who had the misfortune of having to work with him.

Interestingly this member was quite conservative in his views and no fan of the Labor party but if the minister was good, he would say they were good, if they were bad he would say they were bad, irrespective of which party they came from. For example he had a lot of time for Combet and Faulkner, not so much for others, while he acknowledged Moore was incompetent and Reith was a seat warmer on his way out the door who loved the pomp and ceremony but had no idea of how to run the portfolio.

I won't go into his expressed opinion of Smith, other to say it was lower than mine.

This was based on their performance, their actions and their behaviour in the portfolio, and had nothing to do with them as individual human beings.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It doesn't really matter, it is not a political point anymore. the Americans have made it clear they have no spare capacity to build entire submarines for Australia or lease existing units. The article pushes the point, if we keep pushing them on it, it hurts our alliance, and degrades their military capability and affects them politically. Head of committees, individual members, those in uniform, those outside of the US, have all said the same thing.
The UK is in a more critical situation, with obviously smaller capability than the Americans, and undergoing a significant redevelopment of their SSN capabilities, on top of all their other problems, plus they have their hands full finishing and fixing Astutes and their SSBN issues.

The issue seems to be that some from America have indicated vague statements of hope and willingness of support, and Australian sources have turned that into green light on leasing/buying. Ex Admiral Harris said something like he had hoped that there may be a way to get Australia some SSN capacity before 2040. But Harris doesn't run anything anymore, 2040 is a very long way away, and that is a long way from a fixed price offer to purchase. I put far more weight into those in uniform heading the programs, or senators and representatives on committees, or industry who actually builds them.

Nuclear subs can arrive much earlier than 2040, US ex-commander says

Harry Harris, a former commander of US forces in the Pacific, says the AUKUS deal to acquire nuclear submarines “changes the regional balance”.

www.afr.com

Rudd is not negotiating the AUKUS submarine deal. He is not negotiating with Electric boat or the USN or the USG for submarines. Kevin Rudd appointment was supported by both the Government and Opposition. It was also warmly received in the US both by republicans and democrats, with US allies and globally etc. He has spent 10 years heading up thinktanks and living in the US, and completed his PhD at Oxford.

George Brandis wrote a piece openly and glowingly praising his appointment.

Kevin Rudd is the right choice for US ambassador

The Biden administration chose one of America’s most admired public figures, Caroline Kennedy, to be its ambassador in Canberra. Australia has returned the compliment.

www.smh.com.au

Dr Kevin Rudd won't be sworn in as US ambassador until March 2023, at which point the defence strategic review will already be in place and the conversations regarding submarines will be completed. The AUKUS arrangement expand very far beyond just the ambassador level. Kevin Rudd is not in the Royal Australian Navy. So this can be dropped right now.

Normally I would prefer to engage and explain to people why something is wrong before using mod powers. I tend to think people may just not be informed, and given evidence may make better conclusions. If people would prefer me to simply start dishing out holidays, that can certainly be obliged. Accusations/arguments of political bias regarding Kevin Rudd on subs/aukus can be sent to george.brandis@dfat.gov.au.

 

[OPSSG]

Just a question…. Is politics banned on this forum or not? Seems to me one side of politics is and the other isn’t.

The Moderators are sharing a general statement directed at no one in particular — please DO NOT teach or lecture the moderators on how to moderate.

In general, the team usually starts with a light touch, to reach out on posts that are contentious or reported (as breach of rules), for senior or bunker members and Defpros — so it takes a little time to translate steering input into a course correction.

We trust you can all understand the intent and purpose of issuing guidance but if we deem that a person DOES NOT want to understand our attempt to steer the thread, we can always use an alternative method of management (reserved for the less desirable), for Forum Hygiene.

Many thanks for your attention.

 

[ddxx]

I've been trying to figure out the reason behind the difference in quoted range between the Darussalam class and Arafura Class - both based upon the same OPV 80 design and thought someone here might know more.

The Arafura Class has a quoted range of 4,000 nautical miles (with speed unspecified), where as the Darussalam Class has a quoted range of 7,500 nautical miles at 12 knots.

Would this be due to Arafura's quoted range being at a higher cruising speed, or has Arafura been purposefully designed with reduced range (which would be rather odd)?

 

[spoz]

Quoted at a different speed. The RAN routing speed is faster than 12 knots, which is much too slow for fleet ops.

 

[Milne Bay]

Quoted at a different speed. The RAN routing speed is faster than 12 knots, which is much too slow for fleet ops.

This is a little confusing.
The Arafuras are designed as offshore patrol vessels for constabulary duties are they not, and are armed as such.
When will they be involved in fleet ops?
Puzzled
MB