Australian Defence Discussion

[Sean K]

Going to revitalise this thread because I'm now completely out of defence, not going back in any capacity and can say what I like. I'm not banned from Russia unlike some of my acolyte.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Why does the ADF need so many Submarines?

Our history of overspending on and ending up with defective submarines is not good.

The best predictor of future results from endeavours is looking at the results of similar previous endeavours.

Do we need them at all?

Will they be obsolete before they are built?

Will they be like the Collins class and break down without an RACQ garage close by?

The only thing I know of the Australian Navy is that they are unable to march properly and consider themselves the senior service, neither of which bothers me to be honest. Marching properly is not easy and if they want to be senior that's ok with me.



gg

 

[IFocus]

Submarines what's the strategic objective?

Anyone know?

Wouldn't extensive missile defense / offensive systems long and short be a better spend?

 

[SirRumpole]

Submarines what's the strategic objective?

Anyone know?

Wouldn't extensive missile defense / offensive systems long and short be a better spend?

I'm definitely not an expert, but nuclear powered submarines can go anywhere in the world to gather intelligence and hit enemy shipping if necessary, are hard to detect and not easy to destroy.

They have the advantage of mobility over land based missile systems whose locations can be determined and therefore targeted.

 

[sptrawler]

I'm definitely not an expert, but nuclear powered submarines can go anywhere in the world to gather intelligence and hit enemy shipping if necessary, are hard to detect and not easy to destroy.

They have the advantage of mobility over land based missile systems whose locations can be determined and therefore targeted.

Pretty well sums it up IMO.

The other obvious issue IMO is, with fixed land based sites they will need to be manned and we historically have a problem manning anywhere other than Sydney/Melbourne and Canberra and I'm sure they wouldn't want the missile sites there. ?

 

[sptrawler]

I'm definitely not an expert, but nuclear powered submarines can go anywhere in the world to gather intelligence and hit enemy shipping if necessary, are hard to detect and not easy to destroy.

They have the advantage of mobility over land based missile systems whose locations can be determined and therefore targeted.

Just for clarification, the U.S subs have a very mobile underwater arsenal, that can strike land based, sea based and airbourne targets.

The SSBN submarines provide the sea-based leg of the U.S. nuclear triad. Each SSBN submarine is armed with up to 24 Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). Each SSGN is capable of carrying 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, plus a complement of Harpoon missiles to be fired through their torpedo tubes.

The UGM-133A Trident II, or Trident D5 is a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), built by Lockheed Martin Space in Sunnyvale, California. Range 12,000km, accuracy 100m.

The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile is a long-range, all-weather, jet-powered, subsonic cruise missile that is primarily used by the United States Navy and Royal Navy in ship and submarine-based land-attack operations Subsonic surface strike missiles with gps and active radar homing guidance.

The Harpoon is an all-weather, over-the-horizon, anti-ship missile manufactured by McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing Defense, Space & Security).

 

[IFocus]

Just for clarification, the U.S subs have a very mobile underwater arsenal, that can strike land based, sea based and airbourne targets.

The SSBN submarines provide the sea-based leg of the U.S. nuclear triad. Each SSBN submarine is armed with up to 24 Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). Each SSGN is capable of carrying 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, plus a complement of Harpoon missiles to be fired through their torpedo tubes.

The UGM-133A Trident II, or Trident D5 is a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), built by Lockheed Martin Space in Sunnyvale, California. Range 12,000km, accuracy 100m.

The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile is a long-range, all-weather, jet-powered, subsonic cruise missile that is primarily used by the United States Navy and Royal Navy in ship and submarine-based land-attack operations Subsonic surface strike missiles with gps and active radar homing guidance.

The Harpoon is an all-weather, over-the-horizon, anti-ship missile manufactured by McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing Defense, Space & Security).

It will be interesting just how much tech capability the US will be willing to allow Australian Subs to have.

 

[sptrawler]

It will be interesting just how much tech capability the US will be willing to allow Australian Subs to have.

That is the $64,000 question, the last thing the U.S and U.K will risk is having one of their subs in the wrong hands IMO. So whether they are 'our' subs, or their subs with mixed crews and our ports is another thing.
Time will tell, but there will already be subs patrolling our waters IMO.

 

[IFocus]

Rex Patrick: as US-China tensions rise Australia remains pitifully unprepared for war​

Tensions are rising. Defence has received a list of desirable new toys, including nuclear submarines, to beef up capability. But as Rex Patrick asks, what’s the use of such a list in the hands of a department with a proven track record of taking decades to deliver anything?

Rex Patrick: as US-China tensions rise Australia remains pitifully unprepared for war - Michael West

Defence has received a list of weapons including nuclear submarines to beef up capability. But the department's spending record is shocking

michaelwest.com.au

 

[sptrawler]

Well according to the media we are useless at everything else, so why not the military also. Maybe just put up white flags around the coast and offer up our first born. Lol

 

[Sean K]

Forgetting about our need to deploy assets into other regions to support allies, I think we need the subs and ships for forward defence. Our big moat needs some prickly assets sitting in them for both deterrence and to defeat enemy ships before they get close enough to our shore to launch their own missiles or any amphibious landing.

The future is remote weapons systems like unmanned armed subs and aircraft and we have nothing.

If the strategists are right and China invades Taiwan in the next few years, we will have to be involved and we're not ready to provide anything except a few ships and a couple of squadrons of F35/FA18s.

Our air defence is abysmal. Need Patriots infront of all our key military installations and key infrastructure such as power and fuel for defence against a first strike. They do not just sit on a shelf at Bunnings ready to go.

 

[sptrawler]

Agree completely @Sean K , our Northern coastline is just about indefensible with ground forces at our disposal, it's just too large IMO.
So intercepting and interrupting the deployment of invading troops, is the only hope we have of stalling an invasion, as the invading force probably would be of much greater numbers I would guess.
So to intercept a large naval fleet and have any chance of inflicting any damage , we would need to have some serious equipment, if they have an aircraft carrier that keeps our planes busy.
I doubt we could manage a carrier battlegroup of our own, let alone afford one, so subs really are the only mobile heavy hitting equipment that comes to mind IMO.
Ground deployment of missile bases at heavily populated areas and sensitive sites is an obvious choice, but the ability to impede or delay a large invading force enroute would be paramount and I would think state of the art subs would be critical and probably all we could afford to buy and support.
Just my thoughts and I do defer to your military background.

 

[JohnDe]

Looks like the decision has been made -

Australia to buy up to five US nuclear-powered submarines

The US will speed up Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines by arranging for Canberra’s first few subs to be built in the US, according to people familiar with the still-confidential plan.

The arrangement is part of a multifaceted plan to be announced Monday in San Diego at a meeting attended by US President Joe Biden, Anthony Albanese and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

The plan to sell up to five US Virginia-class submarines to Australia is intended as a stopgap to provide Australia with nuclear-powered subs by the mid-2030s.

Submarine production would later shift to Britain and Australia, which would produce a sub with a new design that would incorporate American technology, the people added.

Other facets of the plan call for the US to step up its port visits to Australia in coming years and to establish the capability to rotate American attack subs through Perth by 2027.

All three nations would invest heavily in upgrading the defence industrial base, and Australia might even make a contribution to expanding US capacity to construct submarines.

 

[Sean K]

Good speeches from the leaders at the submarine plan this am. Albo went on a bit too much about jobs and local politicking a bit (which is one of the reasons it's taken so long to come up with a plan) but otherwise he performed well. No big mistakes from Biden which was a surprise. Sounds like a good, but very expensive plan. They hammered on about the fact these things are going to be nuclear powered but not armed, but who knows what's going to transpire by the time the SSN AUKUS gets in the water.

 

[SirRumpole]

Good speeches from the leaders at the submarine plan this am. Albo went on a bit too much about jobs and local politicking a bit (which is one of the reasons it's taken so long to come up with a plan) but otherwise he performed well. No big mistakes from Biden which was a surprise. Sounds like a good, but very expensive plan. They hammered on about the fact these things are going to be nuclear powered but not armed, but who knows what's going to transpire by the time the SSN AUKUS gets in the water.

So I wonder why the AUKUS subs will be British designed rather than US designed.

What do the Brits have that the Yanks don't, given that the US Columbia subs are coming soon ?

 

[JohnDe]

So I wonder why the AUKUS subs will be British designed rather than US designed.

What do the Brits have that the Yanks don't, given that the US Columbia subs are coming soon ?

Probably something to do with a timeline, practicalities. and equipment secrets.

The plan to acquire between three and five Virginia-Class submarines from the US from the early 2030s a crucial plank in the planned transition to a British-designed ‘SSN-AUKUS” submarine from the early 2040s.

But the purchase of Virginia-class boats will require congressional approval by a future US administration, for which there can be no certain guarantees. That is why the plan includes Australia investing many billions (up to $3 billion in the next four years for starters) in improving the US production line for the Virginia-class boats. This investment will help the US build their submarines faster, but it is also a political sweetener to curry support in Washington for the eventual purchase of the Virginia-class submarines.

The plan seeks to move quickly to ramp up the massive training which will be required for Australia to support, sustain and crew the Virginia boats and then eventually the SSN-AUKUS submarines which will be built in Adelaide.

The planned timelines to acquire these capabilities are aggressive and optimistic, with the Virginia-class submarines planned to arrive in 2033, 2036 and 2039.

Meanwhile the first Australian SSN-AUKUS is scheduled to be completed in Adelaide in 2042 with new boats then built every three years until Australia has eight of them.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/albanese-biden-and-sunaks-aukus-plan-ticks-many-boxes-but-there-are-plenty-of-unknowns/news-story/03ff661c6a34ca518582ba71164e94cb

 

[Sean K]

So I wonder why the AUKUS subs will be British designed rather than US designed.

What do the Brits have that the Yanks don't, given that the US Columbia subs are coming soon ?

Must be comparative production capacity. The Brits are currently designing a replacement for their current subs and I think we just tack on to the future production plan and chip in. The US sub building yards are full, building two per year. I thought they might have built a third yard paid for by us and started building a third boat each year that would come to us until we developed our own capability on a the new boat. Musn't have been the best option. Similar sort of plan I guess except the US are willing to give us 3-5 from their current production lines, or sell us second hand ones.

 

[JohnDe]

So I wonder why the AUKUS subs will be British designed rather than US designed.

What do the Brits have that the Yanks don't, given that the US Columbia subs are coming soon ?

Just read this -

America, Australia and Britain will build, man and arm each other’s nuclear subs in Asia

Under its terms, America and Britain would help Australia build a fleet of at least eight nuclear-powered (though not nuclear-armed) submarines. These have far greater range, endurance and stealth than electric boats (see map). They are also far more complex. Only six countries have them and America has until now only shared the technology with Britain.

Many expected that Australia’s future submarine would be modelled on America’s current Virginia-class sub or on its planned successor. Yet Mr Biden, Mr Albanese and Mr Sunak revealed that it will in fact be based on Britain’s future attack sub, a hypothetical boat known as the ssnr (“ssns” are attack submarines, which carry conventional weapons and hunt other subs and ships, as opposed to “ssbns”, which carry nuclear-armed ballistic missiles). Britain will build the first boats at Barrow in north-west England. Australia will learn from the prototypes and then build its own in Adelaide. The idea is to create an economy of scale, with Australian investment boosting British shipbuilding capacity and a larger aggregate order lowering the cost to both countries.

American technology will suffuse this new “ssn-aukus”. America will provide its vertical launching system, a set of tubes that can hold a greater number of missiles, and more advanced ones, than traditional torpedo tubes. No British attack submarine has had this capability. The defence industries of all three countries will be entangled to an unprecedented degree. Subsystems like communications gear, sonar and fire control should be compatible between the Anglo-Australian boat and the next American one. “We’ll almost be one joint nuclear submarine force”, says one official involved in the pact. It will be a “beautiful, blended submarine” gushes another.

 

[SirRumpole]

Don't talk too loudly about these, the Ukranians will want to pinch them.

Meet the Boxer— the army's combat vehicle that's 'like a human'

The Australian Army's 2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment is testing the capabilities of its newest combat reconnaissance vehicle this week in a special live-fire exercise.

www.abc.net.au

 

[mullokintyre]

The ADF has come under fire over recent times over its handling of bullying, its gender policies, and its lack of diversity.
Unfortunately, these societal issues have absolutely zero to do with the job we expect members of the ADF to do on our behalf.
The problem is, these people are trained to defend our country, not to tick ESG boxes.
If it means killing your enemies, so be it.
So it comes as no surprise that some serving and former members of the ADF have expressed dismay at the total silence from the ADF and in particular the Chief of the Armed forces, Angus Campbell, following the charging of a en ex SAS member with war crimes.
This video released by a retired army major who has served multiple tours in Afghanistan sums it all up perfectly.


Mick