A major issue connected to Australia’s nuclear propelled submarine
decision is where, on the East Coast, might Australian and perhaps UK and US
SSNs be forward based or regularly visit? Scholars say if you want new ideas read old books. To that end I remembered a 10 year old document that WAS on the Internet,
but for some reason(s) no longer.
The following are excerpts, relevant to nuclear propelled
submarines,
from the Australian Department of Defence's Future Submarine "FSM
BASING STUDY" written by Commander D.L. Stevens
RANR, dated 15 December 2011, formally released 15 December
2011, under FOI 373/17/18 Item 1 Serial 1. As the document is 348
pages long I’m just highlighting nuclear bits. The document had been removed from most places on the web. However "Rossler" has kindly rediscovered the document (about 100 MB PDF) on the "Wayback Machine" at
Most of the document concerns the many social, environmental, and
other factors concerned with building an East Coast Naval Base outside of the
present one in Sydney Harbour. Alternative locations are discussed, with the
message a base requires a large city to support its many needs.
Table of Acronyms and Abbreviations
"NBCD Nuclear Biological and Chemical
Defence
NPS Nuclear Propelled Submarine(s)
NPW Nuclear Propelled
Warship(s)"
Annex T: Host
Ports for Visiting [concerns Nuclear Propelled Submarines / Warship(s)] Hence Annex T's pages, ie. 153 to 163 are Blanked Out under FOI Section 47C.
"RAN
Homeport Hosting of Nuclear Powered Submarines ..........................
155"
"Figure 97 -
Gage Roads Fremantle - Remote Anchorage for [Nuclear Propelled] NP Submarines ..........
156"
"Figure 98 - Fleet
Base West Berthing Options for [Nuclear Propelled] NP Submarines
.......................... 157"
"Figure 99 -
Albany-King George Sound [Nuclear Propelled] NP Submarine Anchorages
....................... 158"
"Figure 100 -
Brisbane Berthing Options for [Nuclear Propelled] NP Submarines
.................................... 159"
"Figure 102 -
Jervis Bay [Nuclear Propelled] NP Submarine Anchorage .... 160"
"Figure 103 -
Melbourne [Nuclear Propelled] NP Submarine Anchorages....161"
"Figure 104
- Darwin [Nuclear Propelled] NP Submarine Anchorages ....... 162"
"Figure 105 - Nuclear Powered Submarine Anchorage
– Hobart……......... 163"
[Paragraph] "59 For each of the homeport prospects considered in this study, key
assessment criteria determined from stakeholder interviews are: "...Visiting Nuclear
Propelled Submarines (NPS) – is the port accredited already for visiting nuclear
powered warships or submarines, or does it have potential to acquire that
accreditation?"
[Paragraph] "275 Gladstone is one of three ports that provides alongside berths for
visiting [Nuclear
Propelled Submarines] NPS 191, could it also be an FSM homeport?"
[Paragraph] "282 Brisbane is the most northern capital city on the Australian East
Coast, and the only one approved to place visiting [Nuclear Propelled
Warships] NPW at wharves."
[Paragraph] "445 In 1971, work had commenced there for construction of Australia’s first nuclear power station and the area excavated now forms the car park to a local boat ramp
and to Murray’s
Beach [Jervis Bay] …region and the adjacent Green Patch public
camping zone has become such a significant public access and revenue earning
facility for the local indigenous community since the Fleet Relocation Studies ending
in 1992, that it will not be considered further as a potential [Future
Submarine] FSM homeport site."
[Paragraph] "589.2 Garden Island [Sydney Harbour] (NSW) Modernisation [Environmental
Impact Statement] EIS – 1979 - the EIS
found that ‘Subject to the completion of a modernisation programme the fleet
base in Port Jackson would be capable of adequately accommodating a fleet of
the present size into the twenty-first century. A major expansion of the fleet or the
acquisition of nuclear-powered warships could make it necessary
to develop a fleet base outside Port Jackson [Sydney Harbour]. Should it become
necessary to construct a new fleet base, Jervis Bay. [but note Paragraph 445
above] is the preferred location in South-East Australia."
Australia's Fleet Base East, "Port Jackson", aka Sydney
Harbour. I know of no nuclear propelled subs or surface ships that have
actually entered the harbour. There appears to be pre-existing public and
political resistance to that prospect. Hence possible, long-term, contemplation
of alternative basing. Nuclear aside, the base looks quite crowded in
Australia's largest city and busy harbour.
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that due to geography /straits/shallow water..in the W , any potential chinese threat (as the Japanese Imperial Navy in 1941/1942 ..) will occurs on the Eastern Seaboard and Brisbane neighbourhood is the place facing the Coral Sea lane where RAN should be positionned
500 miles in the NW lies a friendly country: the" French Departement "of New Caledonia (identical political status as Hawaï.. BTW..) larger than HawaÏ or Cyprus,smaller than Sicily, having 15 airfields (Tontouta Air Base with a 3 km runway modernized in 2011, a naval base (enlarged hugely in 1942 by the USN to backup Guadalcanal/Coral Sea battles).. harboring French SSN times to times..
(Independance rejected in 3 successive referenda even with a melanesian biased constituency..)
In the Barracuda deal , a Defense pact (as important as the subs for the French ) was included between F.and Aus...
Just to show that the summer 2021 Australian change of tack, rationnal and explainable,after all ,was diplomatically incredibly bungled..
..
Hi Pete, I found the link to download the book
ReplyDeletehttps://web.archive.org/web/20210804160533/https://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/Docs/Disclosures/373_1718_Documents.pdf
Thanks Rossler
ReplyDeleteFor finding the document on the Internet. I've altered the article text accordingly - crediting you with the document's rediscovery :)
The 2011 Australian Future Submarine "FSM BASING STUDY" via the "Wayback Machine" is indeed at
https://web.archive.org/web/20210804160533/https://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/Docs/Disclosures/373_1718_Documents.pdf
Cheers Pete
Hi Anonymous [Feb 16, 2022, 1:51:00 AM]
ReplyDeleteYes Brisbane or nearby/commuting distance Queensland coastal areas might be more accepting of a East Coast forward base fo SSNs. And it makes sense strategically.
I don't thing Sydney would want to part with other $Multi-Billions for local economy Fleet Base East units.
Yes there are significant French naval, land-military and air assests in French New Caledonia, that Australia should not take for granted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Caledonia#Military .
A 2 way Australia-France alliance. France will increasingly benefit from the alliance with Australia in which the RAN will have SSNs.
More important for Australia's alliance and SSN support are US Pacific and Indian Ocean Bases. For Australia's future fast submerged SSNs much larger US ports, and air bases will increase in relevance. In the Pacific this means Guam, Hawaii, Yokosuka and the continental US.
Regards Pete