Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

HotCopper

New Member
Long time lurker here. The recent report via Defense Industry Daily suggests Japan will sell the Soryu class to Australia conditional upon a joint military alliance between the two countries. Unfortunately I can't post the link as I haven't surpassed 10 posts on this forum yet. Hopefully somebody else can display the link.

The ramifications of this report, if true, are enormous. It puts a new perspective on the opportunity cost of the RAN gaining access to Japanese submarine technology. I'm not a military expert but travel extensively throughout Asia on business. I am indirectly involved in the mining industry and cognisant of the fact 30% of Australia's exports currently go to China. 300 million Chinese (the population of USA) will move from the countryside to the cities within the next 15 years and the demand for Australia's raw materials will surge. By 2030 it's not unreasonable to suggest 50% of our exports will go to the Chinese. Our economy, living standards and defense budget will be totally dependent upon trade with this one country. Pardon the pun but we have put all our eggs in one basket.

Most Australians are unaware of the deep seated animosity between China and Japan. It all stems from the atrocities committed on the Chinese population by the Japanese military 70 years ago. In Australia post WW2 it was not uncommon for my grandparents generation to avoid buying Japanese products. Understandably they were disgusted by first hand stories of diggers being murdered and tortured whilst prisoners of the Japanese. As time went by the following generations of Australians mellowed in their opinion of the Japanese and today the atrocities are almost forgotten.

Not so in China. Commencing in primary school the Chinese kids are taught how the Japanese butchered their way through China in the 1930-40's. The infamous Unit 731 and their biological experiments. The Nanjing massacre. The Changde massacre whereby the Japanese released fleas infected with bubonic plague from aircraft above the city. Every event and gory detail is described and discussed. Kids are encouraged to stand up in class and vent their anger. Teachers win awards by writing scathing critiques about the Japanese occupation. It has basically become part of the school syllabus. Most of my Chinese friends are in their 20's and they were all exposed to this indoctrination. Not surprisingly they all despise the Japanese.

Which brings me to crux of the issue. The Chinese population hates the Japanese. Rather than lessen over time this deep seated hate and anger has gotten worse with each generation. Sit down for a meal with an ordinary Chinese family and listen to what they have to say about the Japanese. It's like Jews talking about the Nazi's. Drive through the major Chinese cities and you will see huge billboards adjacent to the freeways saying "The Diaoyu Islands belong to China". Owners of Japanese cars in China, in an attempt to stop their windows from being smashed, display bumper stickers saying they are Chinese. Some western commentators falsely believe this anti-Japanese agenda is for internal consumption to keep focus away from the government. Nothing could be more from the truth. The Chinese population and military is gagging for a chance to settle the score with Japan. It is only a matter of time before bullets start to fly. When this eventually occurs Australia will need to decide to stay out of it or choose a side. Handcuffing ourselves now to a military alliance with Japan (for the sake of a submarine) is completely irresponsible. We would be much better off obtaining the submarine technology from another country without threatening our entire economy. Cheers
 

Ships in Port

New Member
Self defence

The LHD's are grossly under-armed and with the shape of a Car-Carrier make an easy target for shore launched ASM. Any escorts will be too busy defending them-selves. The LHD's should of been built with two sponsoons each side for Milleniums and Rams at each stern quarter, plus Nulka.The Italian "Carrier" Cavour has two vertical launch systems; one starboard-side in front of the Island and one near the stern port-side, so a vertical launch system starboard-side of bow ramp could also be added with-out interfering with deck operations.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
The LHD's are grossly under-armed and with the shape of a Car-Carrier make an easy target for shore launched ASM. Any escorts will be too busy defending them-selves. The LHD's should of been built with two sponsoons each side for Milleniums and Rams at each stern quarter, plus Nulka.The Italian "Carrier" Cavour has two vertical launch systems; one starboard-side in front of the Island and one near the stern port-side, so a vertical launch system starboard-side of bow ramp could also be added with-out interfering with deck operations.
Sponsors can be added later at the whim of any government. The LHDs will be around for a few decades, at least 30 if not 40 years. I am more worried about the very hefty expenditures for F35Bs. Just how many jump jets are required to provide a quality all day and all night fighter cap? And is that required for the South Pacific where Australia may act alone outside a coalition?
 

Monitor66

New Member
The LHD's are grossly under-armed and with the shape of a Car-Carrier make an easy target for shore launched ASM. Any escorts will be too busy defending them-selves. The LHD's should of been built with two sponsoons each side for Milleniums and Rams at each stern quarter, plus Nulka.The Italian "Carrier" Cavour has two vertical launch systems; one starboard-side in front of the Island and one near the stern port-side, so a vertical launch system starboard-side of bow ramp could also be added with-out interfering with deck operations.

Agree, although the LHDs do have Nulka as standard fit.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Escorts do not only engage threats attacking them, They will hit any missiles heading to any friendly ships especially the AWDs as that's their job - fleet area air defence.

Not commenting on the LHD being underarmed or not, but merely due to proximity the escorts will be defending the LHD as well as themselves.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The LHD's are grossly under-armed and with the shape of a Car-Carrier make an easy target for shore launched ASM. Any escorts will be too busy defending them-selves.
Defending themselves? Do you not understand what the purpose of an escort is, & why it is called an escort?

Hint: they try to position themselves between the thing they're escorting & any threat. Why do you think that might be?
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
The LHD's are grossly under-armed and with the shape of a Car-Carrier make an easy target for shore launched ASM. Any escorts will be too busy defending them-selves. The LHD's should of been built with two sponsoons each side for Milleniums and Rams at each stern quarter, plus Nulka.The Italian "Carrier" Cavour has two vertical launch systems; one starboard-side in front of the Island and one near the stern port-side, so a vertical launch system starboard-side of bow ramp could also be added with-out interfering with deck operations.
You do realise the Hobarts have the same AWD fit (in broad strokes) as an Arleigh Burke? Same missiles, more advanced radar (SPY1-D(V) as opposed to SPY1-D) and all the trimmings. The Hobarts were designed to defend a large task group or convoy.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Sponsors can be added later at the whim of any government. The LHDs will be around for a few decades, at least 30 if not 40 years. I am more worried about the very hefty expenditures for F35Bs. Just how many jump jets are required to provide a quality all day and all night fighter cap? And is that required for the South Pacific where Australia may act alone outside a coalition?
Whilst I am not in favour of putting F35B on the Canberra class where it will take it away from its core capabilities, it’s not to suggest the STOVL variant in RAAF colour’s will not have its benefits in austere forward operating bases places where traditional fixed wing aircraft will have difficulty using.

As for your assertion when will Australia act alone in the South Pacific outside of a coalition? One never know what the future brings, unless the USN is going to port a CBG in Australian waters permanently we cannot rely on the fact that the USN have available the means to provide that capability if needed. The role of the RAN is

(1) To provide an effective and sustained Naval contribution to Australian and Allied forces maintaining command of the seas in our areas of strategic interest.

(2) To contribute to and to defend Australian and Allied military shipping en-route to the areas of operations.

The RAN needs an offensive capability. If we have no offensive capability the initiative remains with the enemy at all times, the best method of defence is to attack and we can’t do that with just a few F35B on a LHD.
 

Goknub

Active Member
Handcuffing ourselves now to a military alliance with Japan (for the sake of a submarine) is completely irresponsible. We would be much better off obtaining the submarine technology from another country without threatening our entire economy. Cheers
That's something I believe is (hopefully) being taken into account.

The govt needs to have in it's backpocket a plan on just how far we will go in supporting friends of friends. An Alliance with Japan would not be in our interests. We get nothing but a few subs whilst poking our No.1 trading partner.

If we are going to poke them, then it needs to be for a damn good (for Australia) reason. China expanding into our claims in Antarctica would be a reason, a rematch between China & Japan is not.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
lets see, china is in territorial dispute with 8 countries in the pacrim....
japan is our number 2 trading partner
we have fundamentally good relations with everyone in the pacrim

there is a term used to describe chinas behaviour since 2010 in military circles - its called finlandization

we already have industry trying to influence govt on foreign policy - I'd hope that we wouldn't let that form of intellectualised prostitution permeate further down
 

Goknub

Active Member
I would also prefer we not go down that path but we need to be realistic on what it might cost Australia and the force structure that would need to exist to back a kinetic confrontation with China.

Just look at the disparity of forces in the South China Sea.

So far I believe both sides of Fed govt have managed this quite well but then we've not had to test our resolve either.
 

Monitor66

New Member
You do realise the Hobarts have the same AWD fit (in broad strokes) as an Arleigh Burke? Same missiles, more advanced radar (SPY1-D(V) as opposed to SPY1-D) and all the trimmings. The Hobarts were designed to defend a large task group or convoy.
The US also has Arleigh Burkes and a multitude of escort assets besides, yet they still deem it prudent to equip their amphibs with decent self-defence capabilities.
 

knightrider4

Active Member
lets see, china is in territorial dispute with 8 countries in the pacrim....
japan is our number 2 trading partner
we have fundamentally good relations with everyone in the pacrim

there is a term used to describe chinas behaviour since 2010 in military circles - its called finlandization

we already have industry trying to influence govt on foreign policy - I'd hope that we wouldn't let that form of intellectualised prostitution permeate further down
I agree bad luck if they don't like it. I don't like them treating the South and East China sea as their private pond. Somehow I seriously doubt they give a continental what I or Australia think. The Soryu class would be a great low risk solution to SEA 1000. With an American Combat System and weapons of course.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Given the Stbd bow and both port and stbd quarter are on structural decks (as in part of hull continuaity) I would expect that SeaRAM or CIWS woould not pose a problem from a weight perspective. Not sure about the Typhoon platform on the port bow.

The bow section is set down and away from the flight deck so the discharge fromthe the back fo ther mount may not be a hugh issue in that location.

Cannot see why the RAN would go with Sea Ceptor given we have ESSM. SeaRAM I can see given the 20mm CIWS is prettty much a Hail Mary solution and this provides a easy retorfit for the CIWS fitted ships.

This being said....... in the current budget this is all sematics
ESSM requires CW illuminators for terminal guidance, Sea Ceptor doesn't, nor does it require 'heavy' Mk 41 VLS systems (though it can be used from them) so it's seen by many 'on the surface' as being easier to integrate...

Agreed about the budget atm. These upgrades whilst probably feasible and a 'good' idea won't happen unless a significant threat appears. This argument is much like the idea of Army Reserves 'only' training on Landrovers and Mortars, the problem being obviously that these capabilities won't suffice in actual wartime.

Well neither will the LHD's as 'planned' but before they are ever deployed operationally, they will be 'fitted with' vastly improved self-defence capability, just as Bill and Ben (Manoora and Kanimbla) were back in the day when they went on Ops.
 

HotCopper

New Member
I agree bad luck if they don't like it. I don't like them treating the South and East China sea as their private pond. Somehow I seriously doubt they give a continental what I or Australia think. The Soryu class would be a great low risk solution to SEA 1000. With an American Combat System and weapons of course.
Agreed. The Soryu class sounds like a great fit for the RAN. But is it worth the risk of destroying our economy? China can quite easily buy its raw materials from other sources such as Brazil and Africa. It's easy to talk tough now but if Australia suddenly lost 30% of its exports the social and political repercussions would be devastating. All of this over a submarine that is still inferior to the Virginia class.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I don't see Australia purchasing a submarine (technology, joint build program etc) off japan as much of a problem. We are already have a defence pact with Japan. Which has a pact with the US like we do.

That being said Australia still has reasonable relations with China. I would say best in the region? Maybe. While they will probably disapprove, be grumpy, it won't be a huge issue. Might piss the koreans off more than anyone else.

To be honest I don't think any Japanese agreement would go beyond what we could reasonably be expected to perform anyway.

The purchase might actually have a more positive effect on the region. As have a strong western nation that has significant capabilities, in region and seen as politically reasonable. In a region with many disagreements and disputes thats a big plus.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
The US also has Arleigh Burkes and a multitude of escort assets besides, yet they still deem it prudent to equip their amphibs with decent self-defence capabilities.
And UK CVF just has 1b - horses for courses and more a case of making decisions as to where you spend your money. Every penny you spend on defending the Amphibs takes a penny out of the rest of the budget. I'm assuming some of the defence professionals did the sums and decided Nulka on the amphibs plus the layers of systems on the Hobarts made more sense.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I agree bad luck if they don't like it. I don't like them treating the South and East China sea as their private pond..
the concept of finlandization is that the belligerent threatens with either punitive economic repercussions or blunt force military trauma. its designed to club any opposition to the belligerents strategic agenda and by sending a clear message to any other countries that may oppose their approach to exercising their foreign policy agenda

china has been doing everything it can - and especially in the last 5 years to isolate the japanese from any political support.

at the moment the japanese could clean their clocks in any conventional conflict, so they're conducting political isolation as well as rapidly building up their force structure via their own RMA.

I have a personal aversion to bending over and being gutless in the face of a belligerent. guilt by omission or commission is still the same dog in the yard

bend over for one and you might as well bend over for all.

as night follows day china will progressively isolate every one of those 8 countries in territorial dispute with her - and most of it they hope to achieve by finlandization.

people need a reality check on chinas long view
 

knightrider4

Active Member
the concept of finlandization is that the belligerent threatens with either punitive economic repercussions or blunt force military trauma. its designed to club any opposition to the belligerents strategic agenda and by sending a clear message to any other countries that may oppose their approach to exercising their foreign policy agenda

china has been doing everything it can - and especially in the last 5 years to isolate the japanese from any political support.

at the moment the japanese could clean their clocks in any conventional conflict, so they're conducting political isolation as well as rapidly building up their force structure via their own RMA.

I have a personal aversion to bending over and being gutless in the face of a belligerent. guilt by omission or commission is still the same dog in the yard

bend over for one and you might as well bend over for all.

as night follows day china will progressively isolate every one of those 8 countries in territorial dispute with her - and most of it they hope to achieve by finlandization.

people need a reality check on chinas long view
Interesting article on APDR.Australia urged to up defence spending to meet threat from rising power China | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

Conflict if history is any guide will be inevitable. May not be a pleasant thought, but if there isn't conflict between China and the United States in the next 50 years it will be the first time in the history of mankind that the rise of a major power against an established super power in the United States doesn't lead to conflict.

Not to say it will be strictly military in nature, certainly economic and that is happening now. But if it is a conflict of arms it will be short, sharp and devastating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top