Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Kevin Rudd and the Navy.
hairy man    12/20/2008 6:28:51 PM
Watching the news the other night (Thursday I think), Kevin Rudd was speaking from the Middle East, and he again made reference to "Australia needs a bigger navy". I wonder what he has in mind? More than just the 4th AWD surely.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
DropBear       12/21/2008 4:27:24 AM
 
I have heard this tossed around a bit lately and I think that extra subs has been mentioned, however, I have not seen anything that mentions any surface vessels or extra clearance divers etc etc etc. Hard to imagine what can be done with the numbers of folk joining up now and in the near future.
 
We could woffle on about GDP spending and carriers ad nauseam, but I fear it will be a hard ask to increase a navy that seems to be struggling to recruit in sufficient numbers.
 
One thing I would like to see is some sort of large robust patrol vessel like NZ's that can pluck hapless French sailors from the Great Southern Ocean and surrounds. I am getting a tad fed up with seeing guided missile frigates doing the job when a cheaper and more suitable ship can be used. You don't need ESSM and 5 inch guns to patrol and defend Patagonian Toothfish stocks and the like.
 
Get an ice breaker type ship with the capacity to operate an NH-90 sized SAR bird.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       12/22/2008 4:07:09 AM
Extra subs is probably a definite with an extra AWD a maybe.  Expect to see a helicopter capable OPV earmarked as the long term ACPB replacement.
What might be an interesting option would be to build a class of 3 ships similar in concept to the (now cancelled?) Canadian JSS to replace our existing tankers and the sealift ship proposed to replace the remaining LPH. http://www.cdnmilitary.ca/index.php?p=12
 
If we are serious about increasing our Naval capability we would have to seriously re-examine reforming a fixed wing FAA.  Even a very small carrier the size of Chakri Naruebet would be a very useful addition to the fleet and complement to both our surface and amphibious elements.  It would initially permit a major increase in our ASW and MCM capabilities through the deployment of mission tailored helicopters, but eventually would operate F-35B's and maybe future UCAV's.  Something larger, i.e. similar size to the Hyuga would be even better.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       12/22/2008 5:41:22 AM
Ironically, the saviour for ADF spending may end up being the current international financial crisis.  Prior to this the direction from both the current and prev governments was that the priority was to get the warfighter the best possible solution - and that did not necesarily mean buying austalian production etc...  Now the direction is to make sure that we do "everything possible" to support australian industry so that companies aren't placed in jeopardy etc....

we could well end up with ticks against the prev canned large capital items.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       12/22/2008 8:20:32 AM
we could well end up with ticks against the prev canned large capital items.
 
Oh do tell?
 
Extra AWD's?
12 to 18 subs?
Copperheads for LAND 121?
An indiginous LAND 400 solution?
OPV's for Customs?
Extra Tigers and MRH?
NH-90's for the RAN to keep the local line open?
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       12/22/2008 11:33:00 PM
NH-90's for the RAN to keep the local line open?
 
Wasn't that something more or less thought as a replacement for the SeaKings and ultimately the SeaHawk anyway?
 
Curious.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       12/23/2008 5:04:21 AM

NH-90's for the RAN to keep the local line open?
 

Wasn't that something more or less thought as a replacement for the SeaKings and ultimately the SeaHawk anyway?

 

Curious.

 



Theres a lot of pressure from the US as well as some elements in the CoA who are pushing for a MH-60 Romeo and Sierra buy to replace the SH-60B and Sprogs.  The main plusses of this option being commonality with the USN, accelerated delivery options as seen with the SH purchase.

NH-90 would make sense but there are timing issues.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       12/23/2008 6:00:36 AM

we could well end up with ticks against the prev canned large capital items.

Oh do tell?


NFI.  All I know is the speech we got on assisting where we can - subtle but significant in the timing.




 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       12/23/2008 7:02:12 AM
NFI.  All I know is the speech we got on assisting where we can - subtle but significant in the timing.
 
A big assist would be to explain to major contractors and SME's that SADI is for more than just giving engineering and project managers masters degrees or MBA's and clerical officers Cert IV's in sea weed weaving and under water nitting.  Big risk, we are currently unable to recruit suitably qualified and experienced people in my and many other technical fields with the situation being even more dire one or two steps up. 
 
If you don't have enough of the right people we will not be able to do the work we have already, let alone any extra.
 
We currently have a stack of highly experienced senior people who will be retiring within the next five years and no clear succession plan with the next people in line lacking the ability or intellect to step up and the younger more talented people unable to secure relevant training or professional development to leap frog the seat warmers.  Unfortunately the majority money appears to have been wasted on people who will be retiring from the industry within ten years.
 
Long story short, a lot of critical engineering support / facilitation functions in many defence companies are in very real danger of falling over in the next decade because the assumed successors are to old and often not up to the grade while the younger people, who will have to pick up the slack, have been held back and lack the formal training that would enable them to step up.
 
SADI is providing support to train the people needed in the coming decades but many companies seem to be using it to upskill their under achieving baby boomers who are due to retire in the next several years while ignoring the gen X and Y employees who will have to take over when the boomers go.
 
Why spend $20k a head on training 40 something clerks, who have never invested any of their own time or money in professional development, to be supervisors and managers when you already have higher skilled more dedicated X's and Y's who will provide a much better return on the investment.
 
Rant over.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       12/23/2008 10:53:36 PM
 
Sadly, your rant (and its reality) are not merely confined to engineering and defence industry fields.
 
There seems to be a real lack of professional mentoring, succesion planning, and graduate programs etc across all industries in Oz of late.
 
I've seen alot of talented young folk get left behind or knocked back whilst the seat warmers coast along till retirement.
 
I think it is the product of our so called Lucky, Smart, Clever country we apparently live in.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       12/24/2008 2:12:15 AM
I have seen it in other industries too but when government funding was made available for training and upskilling they actually tended to spread it around a bit to which I owe some of the tickets and cert's I have managed to collect over the years.  The nepotism and mates club favors tended to be limited to the company's own money.
My issue with elements of the defence industry is this is tax payers money they are wasting on people who are old enough to have enjoyed a free education and a multitude of educational assistance over the years but have chosen to put the effort in and just coast along waiting for the boss to spoon feed them by sending them on tax payer funded training programs during working hours with full salary.
 
Ironically I was forced to put my personally funded studies on hold this year as I was unable negotiate flexible working hours I needed to make it into the uni.  The issue was I needed to be available when and as required to cover for the boomers who were off on various, fully supported, courses and programs through out the year.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics