Australian Defence Force
Re: Australian Defence Force
IF we went back to having two classes of SSNs in service at any one time, therefore accellerate the next gen SSN to be built at the same time as Dreadnought and expand the facilities at Barrow, maybe we could get the RAN on board with their initial subs built here nad the remainder eventually being built elsewhere. IT will take a huge invenstment for the Australians to beild the infrastructure etc for the construction of nuclear submarines, but could they also gain access to nuclear power generation using similar plants to that in the subs, using what BAe is working on at the moment?
- These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 3):
- Scimitar54 • Mercator • serge750
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1711
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Australian Defence Force
The gap after Vanguard and the v slow build up in production of Astute has lost the RN a whole class of SSN.
It is clear investments have already been made at Barrow and with Dreadnought production already started and Astute still on going some capacity for parallel design and build exists. With potenial increase peed and capacity further.
For example haven't there already been four boats under construction in the DDH together?
Australia has a clear desire for an American sonar and combat system, combine that with the nuclear issues and I think you may end up with a hybrid SSN(R) /SSN(X) for Australia. There maybe some sharing of the various secret sauces between US/UK on the side but the main outcome will be 2 (and a half) classes of sub., maybe we could get the RAN on board with their initial subs built here nad the remainder eventually being built elsewhere.
1) A more 'Seawolfy' SSN(X) Virginia replacement. US designed and built. Big and expensive.
2a) A SSN(R) for the UK with UK systems. Bigger than Astute but not hugely with some VLS.
2b) A SSN(R-Aus) basically the UK boat with American systems for Australia.
All reactor/'back halves' to be built in UK with an early Aus boat(s) constructed in the UK and later ones with Australian 'front halves' built and completed in Osbourne.
The exact split of the SSN(R) construction may vary with Australia contributing 'blocks' to all the SSN(R)s.
On the surface the skills are similar but a sub power plant is very different from a civil reactor so the benefits would be small. I don't think Australia will have sovereign reactor build capability. For civil use it would be easier to get EDF or an another company to build them a reactor or two.IT will take a huge investment for the Australians to beild the infrastructure etc for the construction of nuclear submarines, but could they also gain access to nuclear power generation using similar plants to that in the subs, using what BAe is working on at the moment?
Re: Australian Defence Force
Or to go down the Rolls Royce SMR path
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: Australian Defence Force
- These users liked the author Mercator for the post (total 3):
- wargame_insomniac • R686 • serge750
Re: Australian Defence Force
All good but When you joining tempest Australia?,that's the question lol,
Re: Australian Defence Force
A lot of work has gone into upgrading Darwin and Tindal over the last few years. A bit more to come. Pretty noticeable on the ramp during Pitch Black.
Darwin always had a little room for heavies (and a long, wide runway), but Tindal was always just a fighter base. Both now have some room for tankers and perhaps a few bombers at the same time, but neither truly has bomber revetments like a SAC base or Guam, for example. But getting better.
Darwin always had a little room for heavies (and a long, wide runway), but Tindal was always just a fighter base. Both now have some room for tankers and perhaps a few bombers at the same time, but neither truly has bomber revetments like a SAC base or Guam, for example. But getting better.
- These users liked the author Mercator for the post (total 2):
- SW1 • wargame_insomniac
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Australian Defence Force
Are Darwin and Tindal the two most northerly RAAF bases?Mercator wrote: ↑13 Sep 2022, 09:19 A lot of work has gone into upgrading Darwin and Tindal over the last few years. A bit more to come. Pretty noticeable on the ramp during Pitch Black.
Darwin always had a little room for heavies (and a long, wide runway), but Tindal was always just a fighter base. Both now have some room for tankers and perhaps a few bombers at the same time, but neither truly has bomber revetments like a SAC base or Guam, for example. But getting better.
Re: Australian Defence Force
Are Darwin and Tindal the two most northerly RAAF bases?
Scherger is up there (name misspelled in the map above), but it's a bare base. All the bare bases are coloured grey on the map above. As you might know, jet fuel has a shelf life (about six months, if I understand correctly), so if you want big bomber loads of fuel, you pretty much have to go to Darwin or Tindal. The US recently paid to have fuel reserves at Tindal upgraded. Even Darwin requires deliberate preparations for something like Pitch Black, so no one can just turn up and expect weeks worth of fuel for operations. Frankly, if the bad guys take out the refineries in Singapore on day one, we are all kinds of screwed.
- These users liked the author Mercator for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Australian Defence Force
I hope Darwin and Tindall (and Shergar) have good Anti-Missile Radar and GBAD. I worry about the sheer quantity (and slowly increasing quality) of Chinese Missiles.
US bases on Japan, Guam and then Pulau risk being the first targets if hostilities break out, but Australia is increasingly becoming next potential target.
I am guessing that Darwin and Tindallmay well have RAAF Fighters and USAF Bombers based there to maximise time on target to patrol up towards the South China Sea.
My cousin was deployed to Darwin IIRC when he served in the RAAF. Now lives in Perth.
US bases on Japan, Guam and then Pulau risk being the first targets if hostilities break out, but Australia is increasingly becoming next potential target.
I am guessing that Darwin and Tindallmay well have RAAF Fighters and USAF Bombers based there to maximise time on target to patrol up towards the South China Sea.
My cousin was deployed to Darwin IIRC when he served in the RAAF. Now lives in Perth.
Re: Australian Defence Force
The first line of defence should be the three Hobart class Destroyers operating north of Australia. After that, Australia would need to purchase a GBAD/ABMS such as Patriot PAC-3 or the european SAMP-T systems. IF hostilities were seen to be likely I am sure the US would also contribute systems for the defence of Northern Australia.
Re: Australian Defence Force
The US has a deployable theatre missile defence capability that I'm sure would get a workout if the US was heavily invested in northern Australia. In the meantime, have a look at this webpage from the Australian DoD and have a look at the language they use to describe the prospective capabilities:Lord Jim wrote: ↑16 Sep 2022, 08:25 The first line of defence should be the three Hobart class Destroyers operating north of Australia. After that, Australia would need to purchase a GBAD/ABMS such as Patriot PAC-3 or the european SAMP-T systems. IF hostilities were seen to be likely I am sure the US would also contribute systems for the defence of Northern Australia.
https://www.defence.gov.au/projects
The joint project for the air battle management system specifically mentions the capability to integrate air and missile defence, and the medium air defence project is deliberately labelled "medium" implying both short and long range possibilities, as well as a deliberate mention as being one component of the air defence environment. I think the DoD recognises the approaching ballistic missile defence problem and is definitely ready to slot something into the command architecture. Like many things, it's just time, money and priorities.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Australian Defence Force
It would be great if Australia can invest in a layered GBAD / BMD system, whether purchased from USA or using local components, so long as ir is compatible with US systems. Could look to start buidling a ring of such systems across the wide expanse of the Pacific, starting with Japan, then US bases in the likes of Guam and Pulau, and then Australia, with a second line of support from US bases back on Hawaii and Diego Garcia.
Re: Australian Defence Force
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-admi ... ck3jwhj07n
U.S. in Talks to Build First Nuclear Subs for Australia
Proposal seeks to expedite capabilities for ally by mid-2030s, until it can build its own, in bid to counter China
looks like Peter Dutton might have been on the money about an early US build for the RAN. But its up to the new Albanese Government to see it to fruitarian anyway interesting
U.S. in Talks to Build First Nuclear Subs for Australia
Proposal seeks to expedite capabilities for ally by mid-2030s, until it can build its own, in bid to counter China
looks like Peter Dutton might have been on the money about an early US build for the RAN. But its up to the new Albanese Government to see it to fruitarian anyway interesting
- These users liked the author R686 for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
Re: Australian Defence Force
Just as I always thought,it would definitely be a US sub for Australia as I stated along time back and the reasons ,UK was never going to build a sub for Australia especially when it all US internals that Australia wanted,makes sense tbh plus with just having a left winger in Australia as new pm and a left winger in white house think will ease passage thru government,and would be harder than a new right wing truss government for new Australian government to do business with ,the only thing is the manning issue for a US sub for Australia as apposed to a British design and cost but if it gets it in the water in time frame think Australia will definitely go for it
Re: Australian Defence Force
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Australian Defence Force
To my mind this was always the most realistic outcome. Australia is not yet ready a shipbuilding project of that magniture. UK was busy finishing the Astutes and starting the Vanguards. It was always going to be a lot easier for the US to up production from 2 boats at a time to 3 (2 for US and 1 for Australia) than it would be for UK to hope to double production to 2 boats at a time (for 1 boat apiece).
The first step seems to be already happening is for RAN crew to serve aboard UK and US SSN.
Next I still think is that down the line the US sells 1 or 2 SSN (the US still has 27 Los Angeles-class) to Australia, even if mainly used for training.
Then if US builds two Virginia-class for RAN with participation of some Australian shipbuilding crew before the rest of the boats are built in Australia,
It just makes sense to do it in small steps at a time rather than big leap.
The first step seems to be already happening is for RAN crew to serve aboard UK and US SSN.
Next I still think is that down the line the US sells 1 or 2 SSN (the US still has 27 Los Angeles-class) to Australia, even if mainly used for training.
Then if US builds two Virginia-class for RAN with participation of some Australian shipbuilding crew before the rest of the boats are built in Australia,
It just makes sense to do it in small steps at a time rather than big leap.
Re: Australian Defence Force
I personally see a more cautious programme moving forwards. The first part is the embedding of RAN personnel on board USN and RN SSNs. I then see Australia leasing a Los Angelese class, but it would operate with a number of USN personnel still on board and as part of the SUBPAC. Things would then progress to the RAN operating one or more leased Los Angelese class with full RAN crews and from RAN Ports under overall RAN command. The final part would be the delivery of the first RAN Virginia mod being delivered.
One thing of interest is the amount of infrastructure the RAN thinks it needs, when operating a modern SSN. The Modern reactors are designed to last the service life of the SSN, therefore no need to refuel. This should have an impact of the size and type of nuclear support structure the RAN needs to build up for example.
The time frame for delivery of a Virginia mod SSN will require an order being placed sooner rather then later. The SSN building programme in the US has struggled to increase its pace to cover the retirement of the Los Angelese class creating s shortfall in the availability of SSNs. I do not think there can be a further increase to cover deliveries to Australia bit more likely slots being taken up in teh USN building programme.
What configuration the RAN Virginia mod. actually, takes will also be interesting. Will they opt for the latest flight type or wand to retrograde to an earlier flight configuration? Only time will tell.
I also wouldn't totally right off BAe submitting a proposal for the SSN programme. They also have a mature design as well as having infrastruture already in place that could possibly be expanded. Possibly how the Hunter building programme progresses could influence things.
One thing of interest is the amount of infrastructure the RAN thinks it needs, when operating a modern SSN. The Modern reactors are designed to last the service life of the SSN, therefore no need to refuel. This should have an impact of the size and type of nuclear support structure the RAN needs to build up for example.
The time frame for delivery of a Virginia mod SSN will require an order being placed sooner rather then later. The SSN building programme in the US has struggled to increase its pace to cover the retirement of the Los Angelese class creating s shortfall in the availability of SSNs. I do not think there can be a further increase to cover deliveries to Australia bit more likely slots being taken up in teh USN building programme.
What configuration the RAN Virginia mod. actually, takes will also be interesting. Will they opt for the latest flight type or wand to retrograde to an earlier flight configuration? Only time will tell.
I also wouldn't totally right off BAe submitting a proposal for the SSN programme. They also have a mature design as well as having infrastruture already in place that could possibly be expanded. Possibly how the Hunter building programme progresses could influence things.
Re: Australian Defence Force
I agree it will be very cautious to start a crawl walk run, No I do not see a LA class ever being leased by the RAN. Construction began in March 2018 for both Arkansas (SSN 800) & Utah (SSN 801) if the story is correct, I believe these two will be bought by the AusGov and initially crewed by USN/RAN sailors all the while with Adelaide gearing up for construction to begin in Australia. We are seeing the RAN being embedded on both RN/USN boats.Lord Jim wrote: I personally see a more cautious programme moving forwards. The first part is the embedding of RAN personnel on board USN and RN SSNs. I then see Australia leasing a Los Angelese class, but it would operate with a number of USN personnel still on board and as part of the SUBPAC. Things would then progress to the RAN operating one or more leased Los Angelese class with full RAN crews and from RAN Ports under overall RAN command. The final part would be the delivery of the first RAN Virginia mod being delivered.
I think this is where the value adding strategically will be for the USN. By have a continuous build programme and a future repair and MLU capability in Australia the USN could leverage access for their own repair MLU upgrades in a timelier manner and being closer to the Operational areas in both the Indian Pacific & SCS zones I believe that’s a win-win for both the RAN/USNLord Jim wrote: One thing of interest is the amount of infrastructure the RAN thinks it needs, when operating a modern SSN. The Modern reactors are designed to last the service life of the SSN, therefore no need to refuel. This should have an impact of the size and type of nuclear support structure the RAN needs to build up for example.
I read somewhere that it could be done to increase the production of the Virginia class it come down to how much the USG wants to invest in it, its not an overnight thing to achieve but its doable. I’ll see if I can find the article again it was some time ago.Lord Jim wrote: The time frame for delivery of a Virginia mod SSN will require an order being placed sooner rather then later. The SSN building programme in the US has struggled to increase its pace to cover the retirement of the Los Angelese class creating s shortfall in the availability of SSNs. I do not think there can be a further increase to cover deliveries to Australia bit more likely slots being taken up in teh USN building programme.
Nothing stopping them from building the first 2/3 in AU to Block IV then continuing or upgrading to Block V later down the track. If we can get our mitts on the last 2 Block IV whilst building the 8 in Adelaide for a total of 10 boats I think is the magical number for a East(NSW)West(WA) submarine base 5 each side of the country with repair maintenance in the middle (SA)Lord Jim wrote: What configuration the RAN Virginia mod. actually, takes will also be interesting. Will they opt for the latest flight type or wand to retrograde to an earlier flight configuration? Only time will tell.
I also think that a suggestion a long time ago that once the new Western Sydney International Nancy-Bird Walton Airport should be expanded and Kingsford-Smith Airport should be reconfigured into a ADF super base between the RAN/RAAF with RAAF Richmond closing and the current FBE handed over to the NSWG for a new cruise liner terminal except of course that the Captain Cook remains RAN control
Re: Australian Defence Force
- These users liked the author Mercator for the post (total 3):
- Lord Jim • donald_of_tokyo • wargame_insomniac
Re: Australian Defence Force
[Press Release]
ADF signs up for next generation of weapons
30 September 2022
Media can access imagery of the selected weapon systems at http://images.defence.gov.au/S20223056
Source: https://news.defence.gov.au/media/media ... on-weapons
New weapons systems to be acquired include:
-- Australian manufacturer ZU Bladeworx’s Double-Edged Fighting Knife - selected as the basis of the ADF’s new Hand-to-Hand Fighting System. The black, double-edged fighting knife has a 100mm blade, is machined from a solid billet of A2 steel and features a non-slip handle and retention ring.
-- The SIG Sauer P320 XCarry Pro - selected as the platform for the Sidearm Weapon System, which will replace the venerable Browning Mk3 pistol. It will be complemented with reflex sights, and a white light illuminator.
-- The Benelli M3A1 - selected as the platform for the Combat Shotgun System. Operable in semi-automatic or pump-action mode, it is complemented with a red dot sight and white light illuminator.
-- The SIG Sauer MCX, in .300 Blackout calibre - selected as the platform for the Personal Defence Weapon System, to provide dismounted combatants with a light, modular, and compact weapon system that can be rapidly optimised for specialised roles.
-- The Accuracy International AX-SR - selected as the platform for the Long Range Sniper Capability. It will be introduced into ADF service as a multi-calibre system capable of delivering in .338 Lapua Magnum, .300 Norma Magnum and 7.62mm NATO calibres.
-- The Sniper Surveillance Capability – selected to provide ADF snipers with a day and night capability utilising the Safran JIM Compact multispectral surveillance device and Steiner laser range-finding binoculars.
-- The M107A1 rifle, manufactured by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Incorporated, - selected as the platform for the Anti-Material Sniper Capability. The M107A1 is a lighter, modernised and suppressed derivative of the in-service weapon, and is complemented with precision optics, night vision, and ranger-finding devices.
ADF signs up for next generation of weapons
30 September 2022
Media can access imagery of the selected weapon systems at http://images.defence.gov.au/S20223056
Source: https://news.defence.gov.au/media/media ... on-weapons
New weapons systems to be acquired include:
-- Australian manufacturer ZU Bladeworx’s Double-Edged Fighting Knife - selected as the basis of the ADF’s new Hand-to-Hand Fighting System. The black, double-edged fighting knife has a 100mm blade, is machined from a solid billet of A2 steel and features a non-slip handle and retention ring.
-- The SIG Sauer P320 XCarry Pro - selected as the platform for the Sidearm Weapon System, which will replace the venerable Browning Mk3 pistol. It will be complemented with reflex sights, and a white light illuminator.
-- The Benelli M3A1 - selected as the platform for the Combat Shotgun System. Operable in semi-automatic or pump-action mode, it is complemented with a red dot sight and white light illuminator.
-- The SIG Sauer MCX, in .300 Blackout calibre - selected as the platform for the Personal Defence Weapon System, to provide dismounted combatants with a light, modular, and compact weapon system that can be rapidly optimised for specialised roles.
-- The Accuracy International AX-SR - selected as the platform for the Long Range Sniper Capability. It will be introduced into ADF service as a multi-calibre system capable of delivering in .338 Lapua Magnum, .300 Norma Magnum and 7.62mm NATO calibres.
-- The Sniper Surveillance Capability – selected to provide ADF snipers with a day and night capability utilising the Safran JIM Compact multispectral surveillance device and Steiner laser range-finding binoculars.
-- The M107A1 rifle, manufactured by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Incorporated, - selected as the platform for the Anti-Material Sniper Capability. The M107A1 is a lighter, modernised and suppressed derivative of the in-service weapon, and is complemented with precision optics, night vision, and ranger-finding devices.