I think that captures the plausible future. If a future US president or Congress undermines the defence alliance with Australia or disengages in East Asia then Australia’s defence needs and partners will be very different (and a new stopgap submarine solution would have to be found somehow).
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Something perhaps worth considering is that only two of the SSNs Australia will be acquiring will be coming out of USN stocks. The third will be a new block 7 build. While any future US administration might have issues with boats coming out of the USN it becomes a lot more grey when you are talking about new build submarines.
Generally speaking SSNs need to be ordered about 7 years ahead of time which means the new build would need to be ordered around 2030.
Generally speaking SSNs need to be ordered about 7 years ahead of time which means the new build would need to be ordered around 2030.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I recall that, at the time of the announcement, the politicians went to great lengths to stress that the USN & RN submarines would not be based at FBW and would be rotated through that facility from their operating base. The name, Submarine Rotational Force West, was carefully chosen to reflect that.
Their presence is purely to facilitate the RAN & civilian contractors developing the skills and setting up the infrastructure to support SSN‘s at FBW.
I do remember those public announcements, and yes that is exactly what they said. My mind is however drawn to the trojan horse metaphore. Stating that it's all about maintenance and skilling makes it sound unthreatening and almost cuddly. Much easier to keep the population and our neighbours unalarmed that way.
The Americans however in my view are not that altruistic. They are not going to move $12-16 billion in equipment and something in the order of 1,000 -2,000 people, plus everything else that comes with the SSN juggernaught, just to teach us how to do an oil change. Particularly when submarines are already a scarce commodity. Yes training is important, but it is a secondary outcome here.
I would suggest that the Amercians have clearly understood that their existing bases in Japan, Guam, Diego Garcia and Hawaii are all vulnerable (look at the various war game outputs) and are searching for safer locations out of missile range, but still close enough to the fight. FBW is perfect for a submarine squadron, with close access to deep water. Darwin is viewed similarly by the US marines and air force. Look at how the Americans have set up home in Robertson Barracks, Tindal and other northern facilities.
I think most people would view that Australia went to the Americans and asked for nuclear subs. Its possible however they came to us and asked for a base, and the price was providing us SSNs. Maybe we both did it at the same time. Just a hypothesis.
I may be doing the pessimistic glass half empty thing again, however this fits the bigger picture of where the world is going.
The Americans however in my view are not that altruistic. They are not going to move $12-16 billion in equipment and something in the order of 1,000 -2,000 people, plus everything else that comes with the SSN juggernaught, just to teach us how to do an oil change. Particularly when submarines are already a scarce commodity. Yes training is important, but it is a secondary outcome here.
I would suggest that the Amercians have clearly understood that their existing bases in Japan, Guam, Diego Garcia and Hawaii are all vulnerable (look at the various war game outputs) and are searching for safer locations out of missile range, but still close enough to the fight. FBW is perfect for a submarine squadron, with close access to deep water. Darwin is viewed similarly by the US marines and air force. Look at how the Americans have set up home in Robertson Barracks, Tindal and other northern facilities.
I think most people would view that Australia went to the Americans and asked for nuclear subs. Its possible however they came to us and asked for a base, and the price was providing us SSNs. Maybe we both did it at the same time. Just a hypothesis.
I may be doing the pessimistic glass half empty thing again, however this fits the bigger picture of where the world is going.
Last edited:
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
On the US SSNs, there was an article on a recent issue of USNI Proceedings that gives some insight into their use in a Taiwan Strait conflict. The article is an essay written as a future history, presumably based on wargaming.
It highlights how critical the USN regards SSNs now, in a high intensity environment where surface warships might be unable to be sustained under heavy SSM attack. Taiwan and the SCS are such places. Whereas the article postulates Chinese ASW will have difficulty dealing with US SSNs.
The location of sub bases and time to transit to re-supply expended weapons is also critical, as is the ability to make more torpedos. This highlights the importance of FBW, which is only 2/3 the distance from Taiwan as Hawaii.
www.usni.org
Bearing in mind this criticality of SSNs, I find it highly likely that the USN would want to confirm assistance in the event of such a war Before any transfer was agreed.
It highlights how critical the USN regards SSNs now, in a high intensity environment where surface warships might be unable to be sustained under heavy SSM attack. Taiwan and the SCS are such places. Whereas the article postulates Chinese ASW will have difficulty dealing with US SSNs.
The location of sub bases and time to transit to re-supply expended weapons is also critical, as is the ability to make more torpedos. This highlights the importance of FBW, which is only 2/3 the distance from Taiwan as Hawaii.
You Can’t Win Without (More) Submarines
Submarines were one of the few forces that could penetrate denied areas inside the exclusion zone declared by China
Bearing in mind this criticality of SSNs, I find it highly likely that the USN would want to confirm assistance in the event of such a war Before any transfer was agreed.
ANZAC class replacements ie Hunter
Landing craft replacements
Collins replacements (boats not ships but still)
OPV on time but wrong vessel
How could it not be? They can’t have a 10 year gap in production.
I’m not sure D Trump and many of the American ( particularly younger) public would see the mutually beneficial nuances that you and many here can see. He is a massively egotistical populist and will sprout whatever he thinks makes him popular do the audience in front of him. In his mind he should be on Mt Rushmore.
W
Were the hunters deliberately stalled or was it a case of DOD and Navy taking forever to scope and downs select?
No idea, but:
(1) they were (and are) massively late leaving a massively gap in our surface force that was obvious to blind Freddy a decade and a half ago - Rudd’s Gov identified this in their whitepaper.
(2) Defence and the ADF report to the Government, and the Government are responsible for making sure Defence and the ADF are doing what they’re supposed to be doing at the right time, and giving them the resources to do this.
Successive Coalition Governments didn’t do #2, and equally the Gillard Government dropped the ball before that. To be fair, the Coalition did do some good stuff, particularly around Defence Industry and AUKUS is magnificent.
Incompetent is a word that pops into my mind. Can’t think of anything they got right, they selected the wrong ships, then there were delays and cost blowouts and here we are 15 years after the Rudd White paper and we have some OPVs that nobody wants and we seem to have moved back to square one for the ANZAC and Collins replacements.
iambuzzard
Active Member
He reckons he would hold it up. I have other thoughts about that.
Hi Bob, for clarity I am no supporter of Trump (I share your view of him), however I don't see him as high risk to AUKUS. I don't see him as low risk either (due to his unpredictability), so call it medium risk.
I would assume our diplomatic service would be fully engaged in the event of a Trump presidency managing this risk.
iambuzzard
Active Member
Our diplomatic service will certainly earn their wages if he gets in. I don't envy them.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Delete
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Very true, I wonder how American taxpayers will feel about the cost. Donald won’t want to share the mountain. The cost of removing the existing faces from the mountain will be huge.
A quick question about the MT30 naval turbine. Are there different versions? I ask as I see the Mogami at 4000+ tons and the Hunter at 8000+ tons both include 1 of these as part of their propulsion. Does this mean the Mogami is overpowered or the Hunter is underpowered? Am I missing something?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Probably are different power outputs for RR MT-30s as GE has different outputs for their 2500 series GTs. Two MT-30s have a combined 78 MW for the Zumwalt and I think the QE carrier is the same. T-26/CSC/Hunter seem to have 30 MW. Guessing 30-40 MW but higher outputs may be available.