Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

gf0012-aust · Oct 27, 2015

hairyman said:
Are we determined that our subs will have an American Combat System and weapons? Are they still the best available? You can be sure they will be the dearest.

You can't look at it as just an item acquisition cost

we get a lot of sidebar support from the US where we don't pay anything - or minimal relative to its capability

I can think of any number of solutions where the US has basically gifted them - we don't get that from some others - I can assure you

especially some who are now asking us to the dance - esp when they couldn't give a FF about us 12 months ago

I'd defy anyone to point out any other country that has broken production runs, allowed a token entry price, loaned us gear on operations without a receipt and not sort to recover against said gear when we have finished with it

I've bet the left nut on every male member of my biological family on that

ASSAIL · Oct 27, 2015

gf0012-aust said:
You can't look at it as just an item acquisition cost

we get a lot of sidebar support from the US where we don't pay anything - or minimal relative to its capability

I can think of any number of solutions where the US has basically gifted them - we don't get that from some others - I can assure you

especially some who are now asking us to the dance - esp when they couldn't give a FF about us 12 months ago

I'd defy anyone to point out any other country that has broken production runs, allowed a token entry price, loaned us gear on operations without a receipt and not sort to recover against said gear when we have finished with it

I've bet the left nut on every male member of my biological family on that

On a much smaller scale our DDG's enjoyed spectacularly generous support and help during their Westpac/Vietnam deployments. So much was received/repaired with little or no accounting, they were just happy to have competent partners.

Todjaeger · Oct 27, 2015

ASSAIL said:
On a much smaller scale our DDG's enjoyed spectacularly generous support and help during their Westpac/Vietnam deployments. So much was received/repaired with little or no accounting, they were just happy to have competent partners.

A things worth keeping in mind from my POV regarding the Australian-US defence relationship.

Both Australia and the US will (naturally, IMO) act in their respective national interests, which is why sometimes one nation or the other will do something the other does not want.

However, the two nations are very much friends, allies, and partners. This means that things will be done for the benefit of the other more often than not.

Regarding sales and purchases of defence material, the relationship as GF and Assail mentioned is very good. IMO this is because from a US POV, such sales to Australia are not just commercial/industrial activities.

Using the future sub programme as an example, the French, Germans, and Swedes are all very interested in winning the contract for the future RAN sub, because it will mean an increase in some exports, an expansion of market share, and potentially open new export markets to their nations' respective goods. The success or failure of new RAN subs will not potentially impact the national security of those nations, or their armed forces. Apart from French Polynesia, none of the European contenders have either territories or forces in the Pacific. Meanwhile, the US does indeed have significant territories and forces in the Pacific. Given the degree which the US works with, and relies upon (or recognizes that it might want to/have to rely upon, especially in an emergency) Australia, then it is in the best interests of the US for Australia to have the best kit available, which is also able to seamlessly integrate alongside US forces.

An anecdotal joke I have heard here on DT and elsewhere is that the USN's 7th and 1/2 Fleet has another name, which is the RAN...

One of the other reasons why I suspect Australia can get so much support, is the degree of trust between the two nations. There are a few allied nations which have not (or at least have not been caught) conducted espionage operations against the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia are on that short list, and I suspect NZ is as well. Germany has conducted such operations, and I believe France has to an even greater degree. This is not just in terms of gov't-to-gov't operations, but also industrial espionage where businessmen have had their hotel rooms tossed and personal electronics stolen and/or copied.

Volkodav · Oct 27, 2015

Todjaeger said:
A things worth keeping in mind from my POV regarding the Australian-US defence relationship.

Both Australia and the US will (naturally, IMO) act in their respective national interests, which is why sometimes one nation or the other will do something the other does not want.

However, the two nations are very much friends, allies, and partners. This means that things will be done for the benefit of the other more often than not.

Regarding sales and purchases of defence material, the relationship as GF and Assail mentioned is very good. IMO this is because from a US POV, such sales to Australia are not just commercial/industrial activities.

Using the future sub programme as an example, the French, Germans, and Swedes are all very interested in winning the contract for the future RAN sub, because it will mean an increase in some exports, an expansion of market share, and potentially open new export markets to their nations' respective goods. The success or failure of new RAN subs will not potentially impact the national security of those nations, or their armed forces. Apart from French Polynesia, none of the European contenders have either territories or forces in the Pacific. Meanwhile, the US does indeed have significant territories and forces in the Pacific. Given the degree which the US works with, and relies upon (or recognizes that it might want to/have to rely upon, especially in an emergency) Australia, then it is in the best interests of the US for Australia to have the best kit available, which is also able to seamlessly integrate alongside US forces.

An anecdotal joke I have heard here on DT and elsewhere is that the USN's 7th and 1/2 Fleet has another name, which is the RAN...

One of the other reasons why I suspect Australia can get so much support, is the degree of trust between the two nations. There are a few allied nations which have not (or at least have not been caught) conducted espionage operations against the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia are on that short list, and I suspect NZ is as well. Germany has conducted such operations, and I believe France has to an even greater degree. This is not just in terms of gov't-to-gov't operations, but also industrial espionage where businessmen have had their hotel rooms tossed and personal electronics stolen and/or copied.

Speaking on my experience in naval shipbuilding the level of support from the US and the majority of US contractors far outstrips what many others are able to provide, even if they wanted to. Looking at the help we got from BIW compared to Navantia ( they simply lacked the experience and capacity to support an offshore build), let alone BAE an extremely expensive subcontractor, who claimed to be the most experienced and most capable shipbuilder in Australia, if not the world, there is just no comparison.

Forget Navantia, BAE, even G&C and Raytheon, if we had signed, as far back as 1998/9, or even as late as 2002/3, with the USN, BIW to develop and build an enhanced DDG51 in a GD, Tenix, ASC joint venture at the Techport site, I believe we would have had a much better outcome for all.

t68 · Oct 27, 2015

Volkodav said:
Speaking on my experience in naval shipbuilding the level of support from the US and the majority of US contractors far outstrips what many others are able to provide, even if they wanted to. Looking at the help we got from BIW compared to Navantia ( they simply lacked the experience and capacity to support an offshore build), let alone BAE an extremely expensive subcontractor, who claimed to be the most experienced and most capable shipbuilder in Australia, if not the world, there is just no comparison.

Forget Navantia, BAE, even G&C and Raytheon, if we had signed, as far back as 1998/9, or even as late as 2002/3, with the USN, BIW to develop and build an enhanced DDG51 in a GD, Tenix, ASC joint venture at the Techport site, I believe we would have had a much better outcome for all.

To be honest I would have preferred that the US built our AWD with more automation of the DDG-51 Flight IIA and brought forward our domestic builds of OCV and ASW future frigate, but I suppose most would have howled at that idea.

Joe Black · Oct 28, 2015

Todjaeger said:
An anecdotal joke I have heard here on DT and elsewhere is that the USN's 7th and 1/2 Fleet has another name, which is the RAN...

I don't think RAN's fleet is that big enough to even make 1/2 the 7th fleet. But then again, I suppose this is a compliment to RAN saying RAN is capable to share the load and support the pacific fleet.

Todjaeger said:
One of the other reasons why I suspect Australia can get so much support, is the degree of trust between the two nations. There are a few allied nations which have not (or at least have not been caught) conducted espionage operations against the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia are on that short list, and I suspect NZ is as well. Germany has conducted such operations, and I believe France has to an even greater degree. This is not just in terms of gov't-to-gov't operations, but also industrial espionage where businessmen have had their hotel rooms tossed and personal electronics stolen and/or copied.

Well, isn't that obvious, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ are all Anglo-Saxon countries. They all speak English, thus the 5 eyes

Joe Black · Oct 28, 2015

t68 said:
To be honest I would have preferred that the US built our AWD with more automation of the DDG-51 Flight IIA and brought forward our domestic builds of OCV and ASW future frigate, but I suppose most would have howled at that idea.

I disagree, I think the greater benefit to Australia is not just on the economic sense, it is also getting a lot of technology transfer from building the AWD. This is the very reason why Singaporean, Taiwanese and Korean always want to build their warships in-house from a foreign designs. Singapore with their Formidable frigates, Taiwan with the OHP class, Korean with the Type 214 submarines are some great examples.

gf0012-aust · Oct 28, 2015

Joe Black said:
I don't think RAN's fleet is that big enough to even make 1/2 the 7th fleet. But then again, I suppose this is a compliment to RAN saying RAN is capable to share the load and support the pacific fleet.

Its meant to be a compliment - is the interoperability is clean enough to make us a defacto fleet etc....

gf0012-aust · Oct 28, 2015

t68 said:
To be honest I would have preferred that the US built our AWD with more automation of the DDG-51 Flight IIA and brought forward our domestic builds of OCV and ASW future frigate, but I suppose most would have howled at that idea.

That was the preferred option from quite a few that were involved.

IMO going spanish was just plain daft - for a variety of reasons

gf0012-aust · Oct 28, 2015

Joe Black said:
Well, isn't that obvious, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ are all Anglo-Saxon countries. They all speak English, thus the 5 eyes

5 eyes and ABCA weren't just based on the issue that we all spoke english.

in fact I'd argue that in some exercises we still need translators....

Alf662 · Oct 28, 2015

NT Govt offers to spend $100m on new ship facility, seeks help from Federal Governmen

A recent article from the ABC about a new ship lift facility in Darwin.

It makes sense considering the amount of commercial work that Darwin is now attracting. I think the facility being proposed would be with in the Port of Darwin which was recently leased to a Chinese company, so it will be interesting to see what the Navy's reaction would be.

If the facility is within the leased area I question the rationale of spending public money on infrastructure that has been leased to a foreign company whose government has questionable motives.

NT Govt offers to spend $100m on new ship facility, seeks help from Federal Government, private sector - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Todjaeger · Oct 28, 2015

gf0012-aust said:
5 eyes and ABCA weren't just based on the issue that we all spoke english.

in fact I'd argue that in some exercises we still need translators....

Frankly IMO, it is hilarious to hear someone from Canarsie (a neighborhood in Brooklyn, NY) trying to converse with someone from somewhere like Akron, Ohio or Phelps in eastern Kentucky...

Never mind adding in someone who speaks Cockney English, or has a Scots burr, or any of the Canadian, Oz, or Kiwi regional dialects.

Twain · Oct 28, 2015

gf0012-aust said:
5 eyes and ABCA weren't just based on the issue that we all spoke english.

in fact I'd argue that in some exercises we still need translators....

It's been said the UK and the US are two countries separated by a common language, I'm sure it's equally true of Australia, Canada, just throw in a few ehh's and you're covered

StingrayOZ · Oct 28, 2015

France, Germany, or Japan, who to seek closer military ties with. Hmm.

For Australia however, it needs to be more than the 71/2 fleet. We won't always have the USN backing us all the way.

Even though Australia has always sought close relationships with allies particularly with the US and the UK. There have been very important times where Australia has had to stand alone or with minimal support or even nations we would normally consider allies working against us.

Little trip back into the Chaos of 1999.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/09/indo-s14.html

Howard's demands for US support met with certain resistance in Washington from sections of the Pentagon and State Department who made clear that the mass murder in East Timor did not affect America's national interest and intervention could destabilise the Indonesian regime.

However, the issue wasn't clear for the US either, while the US did give support, and it was critical, it was very limited.

And of Europe? Unified in support?

But a representative of the other former colonial power in the region, the Netherlands, immediately countered this. The Dutch European commissioner for external relations, Hans van den Broek, said that European troops should stay out.

Thankfully not many listened to the dutch.

IMO East Timor wasn't just a lesson in Amphibious ops it was a lesson in politics and alliances. Australia thought we had this unshakable rock of a relationship which we had rarely needed and was meant to cover all contingencies right up to nuclear war. When we needed something fairly small, we suddenly learned it wasn't what we expected.

Is it any wonder that afterwards we started looking very hard at non-us allied platforms as well as US platforms?

gf0012-aust · Oct 28, 2015

StingrayOZ said:
France, Germany, or Japan, who to seek closer military ties with. Hmm.

For Australia however, it needs to be more than the 71/2 fleet. We won't always have the USN backing us all the way.

Even though Australia has always sought close relationships with allies particularly with the US and the UK. There have been very important times where Australia has had to stand alone or with minimal support or even nations we would normally consider allies working against us.

Little trip back into the Chaos of 1999.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/09/indo-s14.html

However, the issue wasn't clear for the US either, while the US did give support, and it was critical, it was very limited.

there's quite a bit of biased fiction in that presentation of the US reaction
it leaves out the bit about CINCPAC visiting Indon snr naval command and reinforcing that he would not tolerate any moves against australian forces
it ignores the fact that CINCPAC made it public that his forces standing off indonesia would not be benign if circamstances warranted it
it ignores the fact that even though the US always declared non participation there was the unfortunate photo of a couple of Hughes 500's that were sitting in Oz held areas and that they were visible for a reason

unfort the debate is about the platform (again) or about the widgets on that platform - what the other gun runners are not telling those with soft ears who they think have influence is that integration of their gear causes problems across the broader operating picture. they can crap on about how they integrate with NATO etc etc.... but I've lived that dream - and its a house of cards

old faithful · Oct 28, 2015

Alf662 said:
A recent article from the ABC about a new ship lift facility in Darwin.

It makes sense considering the amount of commercial work that Darwin is now attracting. I think the facility being proposed would be with in the Port of Darwin which was recently leased to a Chinese company, so it will be interesting to see what the Navy's reaction would be.

If the facility is within the leased area I question the rationale of spending public money on infrastructure that has been leased to a foreign company whose government has questionable motives.

NT Govt offers to spend $100m on new ship facility, seeks help from Federal Government, private sector - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Guys Im struggling to understand why I should have to pay for a ship lift that a Chinese company will be using.
I also cant see why a Chinese company would pay 100 mil to lease a non profitable harbour?
Is it just the local libs up here admitting they cant make local buisness work? They sold off TIO, the Port, the prison is privatley owned and leased by the govt (130mil over 30 years im lead to beleive) At federal level, Ive been a National/Lib voter and local level, ive voted Libs a few times, and not at all if the tides were good, but im starting to lean to the left at local level. Having said that, there is not a lot of talent on the left either.....

StingrayOZ · Oct 28, 2015

gf0012-aust said:
there's quite a bit of biased fiction in that presentation of the US reaction

Definitely, how ever many of its core issues were reaffirmed in a much more recent Murdoch paper as Cosgrove reflected on E.T. I would be interested in your thoughts..

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

US pressure proved critical in securing Habibie's approval of the mission.

"American support, diplomatic support, was very important," Howard says. "The Americans put a lot of diplomatic pressure on Jakarta to agree to the Interfet."

But the US refusal to provide a troop commitment was a blow for Howard in his dealings with president Bill Clinton.
....
Interfet commander Peter Cosgrove says: "Clinton had to be talked into this effort in East Timor when he was in Wellington for APEC (the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum). And the Pentagon (was) very reluctant to have any commitment in East Timor."

Howard concedes Australia could have led Interfet without US support but insists Clinton provided "a package of assistance that proved quite valuable in the end".

"I'm always a little wry about this," Cosgrove says. "The US is a great friend, but the US did not provide strategic lift of any weight to us. We did it."

The us did certainly help, I'm not trying to bash the US, they almost certainly avoided it turning into a full conflict and played a pivotal diplomatic role, but again highlights that alliances aren't infinite scope. They didn't provide all the missing pieces, even the easier non combat missing pieces. Australia seemed very surprised at that.

Which gets back to the RAN/ADF being self capable as much as possible. Yet being as US compatible as possible. Some US stuff is clearly inappropriate, american LHD for example. It seems that OTS Burke fell into that category too. IMO is that aspiration that lead us to eyeball Spanish stuff, as its pretty american for a small European with out excessive local systems. But in reality we want something much more capable than Spain.

unfort the debate is about the platform (again) or about the widgets on that platform - what the other gun runners are not telling those with soft ears who they think have influence is that integration of their gear causes problems across the broader operating picture. they can crap on about how they integrate with NATO etc etc.... but I've lived that dream - and its a house of cards

I certainly hope Australia has greater integration with the US than NATO shares. I guess from where I sit it would seem to be that the Japanese have the close relationship we also hope to have with the US and US systems. Being a regional player it would also seem beneficial that we might also have a tight relationship with them directly.

vonnoobie · Oct 28, 2015

old faithful said:
Guys Im struggling to understand why I should have to pay for a ship lift that a Chinese company will be using.
I also cant see why a Chinese company would pay 100 mil to lease a non profitable harbour?
Is it just the local libs up here admitting they cant make local buisness work? They sold off TIO, the Port, the prison is privatley owned and leased by the govt (130mil over 30 years im lead to beleive) At federal level, Ive been a National/Lib voter and local level, ive voted Libs a few times, and not at all if the tides were good, but im starting to lean to the left at local level. Having said that, there is not a lot of talent on the left either.....

The area they are talking about while next to the Port is not actually a part of it. It is a separate entity so it wont actually be controlled or owned by the Chinese.

As to why they bought it, Well simply while not profitable at the moment it is fast becoming a growth region with it being viewed as a supply line for food between Australia and China, Doesn't have to be profitable straight away with a 99 year lease, With Chinese influence (Greasing the hands back home) and a few years and they will make this into a solid investment.

In regards to why we should spend the money on the ship lift and associated facilities, Well simply if the number's are accurate it will create a bucket load of jobs and revenue for a fractional investment by us, It is simply smart economics. The more financially secure the NT is the less GST support they require from other states, which means more GST staying there, Flow on effect's help every one.

Add to that has been mentioned in past that the facilities in Darwin are inadequate for the OPV/OCV's we are looking at (size wise), This could be a good time to rectify that and to build up facilities suitable to at the very least providing basic maintenance capability.

In short:
- Makes the NT more financially independent and secure
- Flow on effect's help all other states and territories
- Provides facilities able to help support future OPV's

And all for $100m? Where do I sign?

ASSAIL · Oct 28, 2015

Alf662 said:
A recent article from the ABC about a new ship lift facility in Darwin.

It makes sense considering the amount of commercial work that Darwin is now attracting. I think the facility being proposed would be with in the Port of Darwin which was recently leased to a Chinese company, so it will be interesting to see what the Navy's reaction would be.

If the facility is within the leased area I question the rationale of spending public money on infrastructure that has been leased to a foreign company whose government has questionable motives.

Apolagies, didn't read the previous post so duplicate

NT Govt offers to spend $100m on new ship facility, seeks help from Federal Government, private sector - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The proposed lift would be in the Multi User Facility (MUF) area and has nothing to do with the Chinese leasing the Port. Darwin Harbour is a very large area of about 140 square miles, the port is a very small part of it.

There is already an advanced proposal to build a common user barge ramp in part funded by the DoD which will be used for landing craft in support of the amphibious fleet. There is also a private Synchro lift with a 2,500 tonne capacity, this is being used to support the fishing and offshore fleet, tugs and landing barges but will probably be too small for future naval use, hence the push by the NT govt to provide a facility which will ensure local sustainment for deployed RAN vessels

alexsa · Oct 28, 2015

ASSAIL said:
The proposed lift would be in the Multi User Facility (MUF) area and has nothing to do with the Chinese leasing the Port. Darwin Harbour is a very large area of about 140 square miles, the port is a very small part of it.

There is already an advanced proposal to build a common user barge ramp in part funded by the DoD which will be used for landing craft in support of the amphibious fleet. There is also a private Synchro lift with a 2,500 tonne capacity, this is being used to support the fishing and offshore fleet, tugs and landing barges but will probably be too small for future naval use, hence the push by the NT govt to provide a facility which will ensure local sustainment for deployed RAN vessels

The facility will also offer a facility that will replace the need for vessels from the north to go to Port Morseby for docking. There is a regular trickle of larger vessels heading to PNG.

If the Customs Act gets changed there is also and opportunity to provide services to visiting ships without the need for the ship to be 'imported' under the act (which makes the option non viable due to the cost). I am not saying there will be a rush but it xwould help.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Grumpy Old Man

The Bunker Group

Potstirrer

The Bunker Group

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man

New Member

Potstirrer

Active Member

Super Moderator

Grumpy Old Man

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator