Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[old faithful]

What ever the outcome of the Naval review, nothing is going to happen re: fleet capability enhancement until at least 2028 at the earliest as far as I can see. Until then, capability will continue to decline to an even worse situation than now. Recruitment needs to be overhauled for Navy and Army. Army needs more tattooed footy type players and less accountant type boy band members, and Navy needs more computer geeks and tradesmen type people.
Airforce seems to be in an OK place atm.
Then, Navy needs our bean counters to start fast tracking procurement once they have decided what they need.
Army needs strong leadership and a clear mission statement and direction. They need a solid plan to follow, without constant changes.

 

[Reptilia]

What ever the outcome of the Naval review, nothing is going to happen re: fleet capability enhancement until at least 2028 at the earliest as far as I can see. Until then, capability will continue to decline to an even worse situation than now. Recruitment needs to be overhauled for Navy and Army. Army needs more tattooed footy type players and less accountant type boy band members, and Navy needs more computer geeks and tradesmen type people.
Airforce seems to be in an OK place atm.
Then, Navy needs our bean counters to start fast tracking procurement once they have decided what they need.
Army needs strong leadership and a clear mission statement and direction. They need a solid plan to follow, without constant changes.

Apart from Hobart and Anzac upgrades, the quickest things that can be done with Navy are the Arafura and Cape bolt ons. Austal said they can pretty quickly install 1 nsm launcher replacing 1 rhib and a small naval gun on existing and new Cape Class boats. The Arafura with likely 6, or more in service by 2028 could have a couple of 10-20ft containers on the deck and 2 nsm launchers. Not a good look but it is something.

 

[devo99]

And a much better colour to blend in with sea and atmospheric conditions in our north than Haze Grey; but apparently the current paint, which is just about the same as the USN, has some sort of absorbent quality that, for some reason, cannot be added to Storm Grey. Seems more like a fashion thing to me.

From what I've read the reason we switched from Storm Grey to Haze Grey is because they conducted IR signature tests on the former and found that it performed very poorly and so it was recommended to replace it.

 

[John Fedup]

Fair call and I understand what you are saying. I just see it as a waste in this country when many of our most talented individuals are lost to public service when the government loses office or they retire from the military. Many others don't get to serve at higher levels because they never seek political office.

I am certain a PM like junior would sack a knowledgeable appointee just as fast as a minister who didn’t agree with him. Deputy ministers here are the ones with knowledge (mostly). Like senior military officers, they can’t disagree publicly with the GoD.

 

[SammyC]

I don’t think we will see any big builds done in Henderson for some time, maybe corvettes but not Large frigates, Destroyers or Joint Support ships.

Quite alot going on…
Osborne South > Hunter class
Osborne North > SSN AUKUS Submarine yard construction
Henderson/LURSSEN/CIVMEC > Arafura class
Henderson/AUSTAL > Cape class, Landing craft medium, Landing craft heavy(maybe)
Henderson upgrades current > Naval offices building, Wharf extensions, Wharf fill ins, New Finger Wharf planned, Hall under construction at CUF North.

You could sort of see what Henderson might become back in 2021 in the government document below and the new artist impressions have not changed in a recent document from December. 2023. With AUKUS though, who knows how much the plans have changed.
You can see in the artists impression -the upgrades to the wharf, the wharf extensions and fill ins, the new finger wharf, a larger approx 150m floating dock(could be 2 connected), a new duel hall infront of civmec fab building, a new very large duel hall next to ASC and also a little bit of the dry dock on the far right. Alot of the wharf upgrades have been happening over the last year, they just finished filling in wharf 2. If all these plans come true, its going to take quite a bit of time.

Wharf upgrades

Proven Project Management, Perth WA - Project Managers

Welcome to Proven, an innovative project management company with a track record of exceeding client expectations.

provenpm.com.au

AMC2 Deck Infill and Maritime Bollards - Proven

The AMC2 project was a follow on from the initial Wharf Extension project. It commenced in February 2023 and is now completed as of December 2023. The project involved filling a section of the wharf to allow a far larger service area adjacent to berthed vessels. The construction involved...

provenpm.com.au

Part 17 Significant Development Applications

View significant development applications listed by local government area.

www.wa.gov.au

Yes, I wish there were more Kim Beazleys in our political history. I'm keen to see how his daughter Hannah goes over in the west.

In regards to the Henderson facility, it certainly has the shed space to build a lot. The Civmec main hall has four construction bays, two of which can hold destroyer sized ships (it's huge). Its fabrication, pipework and preservation halls are smaller but not that far off what is available in Osborne. The common user facility already has a 12kt floating dock, 4.5kt vessel transporters, extensive laydown areas and new jetties, and there are future announced wharf (will happen) and dry dock (may happen) upgrades. I suspect there will be some further investments for this facility as part of the naval review and AUKUS plan (it's not all about ships and subs).

Right alongside is the Austal shipbuilding facility, an ASC submarine maintenance complex, and BAE's ship maintenance yard with another 8kt synchrolift. Both ASC and BAE have invested significantly in recent times, and they are no longer the dust bowls they used to be. Beyond all that is the Australian Maritime Complex which consists of a multitude of medium to heavy businesses including many original equipment manufacturers and numerous specialty services. This rivals any other industry park in Australia.

So, Henderson is already a very formidable building facility, with a large workforce, that has existing mature maintenance and smaller shipbuilding experience, and can construct major equipment. Unlike perhaps Osborne, it has the mining and offshore industry to provide very strong financial underpinnings. I think sometimes people underestimate what can actually be done here, and its full capability goes under the radar.

What I do think needs to happen is some consolidation. The Civmec and Austal facilities sit somewhat awkwardly and it is a shame they could not combine for the Arafura class build. Perhaps some of the issues with hulls 03 and 04 may have been avoided had that occurred. It would not surprise me if Austal spin their Henderson yard off as part of the current sale process (their US and Philipine yards are probably more profitable and sustainable in the long term) and the federal government buys it and converts it into an ASC like enterprise.

I would have expected that the eventual tier 2 frigate selection (whatever it may be) would be built in Henderson, either concurrently or after the Arafura run. It just depends on how much other stuff they are building for the Rios, Roy Hills and Covalents at the time.

Reptilia, I agree that any tier 1 build (such as Hobart class destroyers), might be a little too much on top to cope with, but it should be good for the rest.

 

[Volkodav]

Steel is cheap and air is free. The cost and complexity of a platform has little to do with its size but rather it's designed in capability and survivability.

A very quiet asw platform (while tending to be larger) is more complex and expensive than a patrol vessel. A survivable warship is more complex and expensive than an adapted commercial design.

The biggest cost is high end, high capability systems, not size. I include survivability and signature reducing features in this.

Now what is a corvette, frigate or destroyer? It actually annoys me alot that people are seriously considering blinged up Capes and Arafuras to be a serious second tier combatant.

Under the original tiered scheme introduced when Beazley was DEFMIN, these abominations wouldn't even satisfy tier 3.

What was tier 3, it was the replacement of the PB capability with a guided missile corvette built to naval standards. It was a 90m plus warship, built to the same standard of survivability as the ANZACs with frigate level combat systems and armament, including a medium naval helicopter.

Now we have Austal taking the piss and seriously trying to sell Capes with a couple of NSM canadters Gaffa tapes on as an ANZAC replacement. Seriously, nother Austal has built, and I include their LCS 2 in this, was good enough to meet the original tier 3 requirement, let alone the current teir 2.

 

[old faithful]

Yes, I wish there were more Kim Beazleys in our political history. I'm keen to see how his daughter Hannah goes over in the west.

In regards to the Henderson facility, it certainly has the shed space to build a lot. The Civmec main hall has four construction bays, two of which can hold destroyer sized ships (it's huge). Its fabrication, pipework and preservation halls are smaller but not that far off what is available in Osborne. The common user facility already has a 12kt floating dock, 4.5kt vessel transporters, extensive laydown areas and new jetties, and there are future announced wharf (will happen) and dry dock (may happen) upgrades. I suspect there will be some further investments for this facility as part of the naval review and AUKUS plan (it's not all about ships and subs).

Right alongside is the Austal shipbuilding facility, an ASC submarine maintenance complex, and BAE's ship maintenance yard with another 8kt synchrolift. Both ASC and BAE have invested significantly in recent times, and they are no longer the dust bowls they used to be. Beyond all that is the Australian Maritime Complex which consists of a multitude of medium to heavy businesses including many original equipment manufacturers and numerous specialty services. This rivals any other industry park in Australia.

So, Henderson is already a very formidable building facility, with a large workforce, that has existing mature maintenance and smaller shipbuilding experience, and can construct major equipment. Unlike perhaps Osborne, it has the mining and offshore industry to provide very strong financial underpinnings. I think sometimes people underestimate what can actually be done here, and its full capability goes under the radar.

What I do think needs to happen is some consolidation. The Civmec and Austal facilities sit somewhat awkwardly and it is a shame they could not combine for the Arafura class build. Perhaps some of the issues with hulls 03 and 04 may have been avoided had that occurred. It would not surprise me if Austal spin their Henderson yard off as part of the current sale process (their US and Philipine yards are probably more profitable and sustainable in the long term) and the federal government buys it and converts it into an ASC like enterprise.

I would have expected that the eventual tier 2 frigate selection (whatever it may be) would be built in Henderson, either concurrently or after the Arafura run. It just depends on how much other stuff they are building for the Rios, Roy Hills and Covalents at the time.

Reptilia, I agree that any tier 1 build (such as Hobart class destroyers), might be a little too much on top to cope with, but it should be good for the rest.

Beazley wanted to be, and would have been a very good defence minister, however, the governments he served did SFA for defence.

 

[hauritz]

What ever the outcome of the Naval review, nothing is going to happen re: fleet capability enhancement until at least 2028 at the earliest as far as I can see. Until then, capability will continue to decline to an even worse situation than now. Recruitment needs to be overhauled for Navy and Army. Army needs more tattooed footy type players and less accountant type boy band members, and Navy needs more computer geeks and tradesmen type people.
Airforce seems to be in an OK place atm.
Then, Navy needs our bean counters to start fast tracking procurement once they have decided what they need.
Army needs strong leadership and a clear mission statement and direction. They need a solid plan to follow, without constant changes.

I always assume, perhaps optimistically, that their is a lot of work happening behind closed doors and that the announcement of the review findings is simply a formality.. The selection of Austal as the preferred builder and the investment of billions for infrastructure in the west would be the necessary first steps in the production of any new warships.

I would hope, and once again I am being optimistic here, that when the review results are announced that they will be ready to hit the ground running.

Referring back to the DSR it made it quite clear that decision making had to a far more streamlined process and that selection of new equipment may well be simplified if an obvious candidate was available. When you take everything into account it might also not be coincidental that a Austal led consortium with Navantia and Civmec was announced at the Indo Pacific trade show.

So who knows, in Feb/Match we may get another announcement of yet another review or we could have a fully formulated plan ready to be set in motion.

I am hoping for the later since the navy currently seems to be in just about the worst state I have ever seen it.

 

[Volkodav]

I think there needs to be a bit of a reality check on the defence budget and how much governments spend, versus what they promise or commit.

Some are more honest than others.

A capability will cost $13B, the government plans $10B, then sets aside $7B. Then instead if investing that money to set up for the project and mitigate risk, i.e. by let's say hiring and training or even just retaining a workforce, they spend the money on something else.

That something else is usually another project they have over committed and need to fund to prevent failure.

Eventually they reach the point that juggling money and having to remediate problems caused by under investment to mitigate risks before they became problems becomes insurmountable and capability needs to be cut.

When you have large complex projects where every deferal or cut has flow on effects to the whole, this causes even greater costs and delays.

The more time you spend fluffing around the tighter the schedule to maintain or replace a capability becomes and the more expensive it becomes to achieve it.

Now I am going to make a political statement. IMO a lot of the defence shopping list under Dutton was unrealistic considering the money available, especially following the submarine decision. It was more window dressing in the full knowledge a future government would have to cut it and wear the bad press for doing so.

We are now heading into the stage 3 tax cuts, this will further reduce available revenue. On going cost of living pressures will further impact the budget, spending big on defence while voters are struggling is political suicide.

Most of us are in this forum because we have an interest in defence, most people have other priorities. Health education, cost of living, home ownership, even support for sporting clubs or their church is more important to many.

 

[SammyC]

I always assume, perhaps optimistically, that their is a lot of work happening behind closed doors and that the announcement of the review findings is simply a formality.. The selection of Austal as the preferred builder and the investment of billions for infrastructure in the west would be the necessary first steps in the production of any new warships.

I would hope, and once again I am being optimistic here, that when the review results are announced that they will be ready to hit the ground running.

Referring back to the DSR it made it quite clear that decision making had to a far more streamlined process and that selection of new equipment may well be simplified if an obvious candidate was available. When you take everything into account it might also not be coincidental that a Austal led consortium with Navantia and Civmec was announced at the Indo Pacific trade show.

So who knows, in Feb/Match we may get another announcement of yet another review or we could have a fully formulated plan ready to be set in motion.

I am hoping for the later since the navy currently seems to be in just about the worst state I have ever seen it.

There is an old political addage of never initiate a review on something where you don't know what the answer will be. Sometimes these things are used to buy the time and form the consensus necessary for the answer to be accepted.

I would have hoped that they have been working feverishly behind the scenes for the last year to fully developed proposals that are ready to go. I will note that both the Blackhawk and Apache announcements followed this principle, so my hope is combined with some optimism.

I would be very disappointed if there is another review or a bunch of long winded tenders.

 

[old faithful]

I think there needs to be a bit of a reality check on the defence budget and how much governments spend, versus what they promise or commit.

Some are more honest than others.

A capability will cost $13B, the government plans $10B, then sets aside $7B. Then instead if investing that money to set up for the project and mitigate risk, i.e. by let's say hiring and training or even just retaining a workforce, they spend the money on something else.

That something else is usually another project they have over committed and need to fund to prevent failure.

Eventually they reach the point that juggling money and having to remediate problems caused by under investment to mitigate risks before they became problems becomes insurmountable and capability needs to be cut.

When you have large complex projects where every deferal or cut has flow on effects to the whole, this causes even greater costs and delays.

The more time you spend fluffing around the tighter the schedule to maintain or replace a capability becomes and the more expensive it becomes to achieve it.

Now I am going to make a political statement. IMO a lot of the defence shopping list under Dutton was unrealistic considering the money available, especially following the submarine decision. It was more window dressing in the full knowledge a future government would have to cut it and wear the bad press for doing so.

We are now heading into the stage 3 tax cuts, this will further reduce available revenue. On going cost of living pressures will further impact the budget, spending big on defence while voters are struggling is political suicide.

Most of us are in this forum because we have an interest in defence, most people have other priorities. Health education, cost of living, home ownership, even support for sporting clubs or their church is more important to many.

Well going ahead with a $450 Million Voice to parliament referendum, didnt do much to ease the cost of living, even though the Government knew all to well that unless a Referendum has bi-partisan support, and the polls also predicted it would not pass, went ahead anyway.....

As for what Sammy said "I would be very disappointed if there is another review or a bunch of long winded tenders. " I fully expect this to be the case after the current governments criticism of "captains calls" etc....I fully expect a proper and long tender process, lets hope they get it right, but I am pessimistic , and don't expect a quick or ideal decision.

 

[Volkodav]

Well going ahead with a $450 Million Voice to parliament referendum, didnt do much to ease the cost of living, even though the Government knew all to well that unless a Referendum has bi-partisan support, and the polls also predicted it would not pass, went ahead anyway.....

As for what Sammy said "I would be very disappointed if there is another review or a bunch of long winded tenders. " I fully expect this to be the case after the current governments criticism of "captains calls" etc....I fully expect a proper and long tender process, lets hope they get it right, but I am pessimistic , and don't expect a quick or ideal decision.

Well just look at the carryon over Hunter even though it has been shown to have been the best and most versatile of the short listed options. Then there's the MRH, mud being thrown in every direction.

Basically unless there are multiple reviews and the opposition admits they wouldn't have done any different, people carry on as if every single decision is totally wrong every single time.

Everything is too big, too small, too old, too new, too expensive, too cheap, all at the same time.

 

[Stampede]

I always assume, perhaps optimistically, that their is a lot of work happening behind closed doors and that the announcement of the review findings is simply a formality.. The selection of Austal as the preferred builder and the investment of billions for infrastructure in the west would be the necessary first steps in the production of any new warships.

I would hope, and once again I am being optimistic here, that when the review results are announced that they will be ready to hit the ground running.

Referring back to the DSR it made it quite clear that decision making had to a far more streamlined process and that selection of new equipment may well be simplified if an obvious candidate was available. When you take everything into account it might also not be coincidental that a Austal led consortium with Navantia and Civmec was announced at the Indo Pacific trade show.

So who knows, in Feb/Match we may get another announcement of yet another review or we could have a fully formulated plan ready to be set in motion.

I am hoping for the later since the navy currently seems to be in just about the worst state I have ever seen it.

If the outcome of the Naval review does initiate some new large projects such as a tier two vessel, then these projects will by necessity have relatively long term lead times.
Of interest to myself , is what very short term fixes to RAN capabability will be found to match the rhetoric of concern in the DSR.

Short term options maybe limited, but it will be a pointer as to how serious the government views our current strategic world.
In such a space, the the ridiculous may trump the alternative of the status quo short term.

We wait to see what our Navy will look like in
25,26,27,28,30,31plus

Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

If the outcome of the Naval review does initiate some new large projects such as a tier two vessel, then these projects will by necessity have relatively long term lead times.
Of interest to myself , is what very short term fixes to RAN capabability will be found to match the rhetoric of concern in the DSR.

Short term options maybe limited, but it will be a pointer as to how serious the government views our current strategic world.
In such a space, the the ridiculous may trump the alternative of the status quo short term.

We wait to see what our Navy will look like in
25,26,27,28,30,31plus

Cheers S

Realistically what is the best the RAN could look like in 2031
Probable's
SSN: 1 USN Virginia identified for transfer undergoing a refit in the US with RAN personnel posted.
SSK: 1-2 Collins LOTE, 2-3 Collins pre-LOTE and 1-2 undergoing LOTE
DDG: 3 upgraded Hobart, early planning for a replacement.
FFG: 0-2 Hunter in commission, 1-2 Hunter fitting out, 1-3 Hunter laid down. 0-3 Hunter planned
FFH: 3-5 Anzacs,
OPV 6-18 Arafura's
Possibles
As yet unidentified surface combatant*: 0-3 in commission, 1-2 fitting out, 1-3 laid down, 0-3 planned.
*Could be anything from 90m Corvettes to Hobart Batch 2s

 

[Stampede]

Realistically what is the best the RAN could look like in 2031
Probable's
SSN: 1 USN Virginia identified for transfer undergoing a refit in the US with RAN personnel posted.
SSK: 1-2 Collins LOTE, 2-3 Collins pre-LOTE and 1-2 undergoing LOTE
DDG: 3 upgraded Hobart, early planning for a replacement.
FFG: 0-2 Hunter in commission, 1-2 Hunter fitting out, 1-3 Hunter laid down. 0-3 Hunter planned
FFH: 3-5 Anzacs,
OPV 6-18 Arafura's
Possibles
As yet unidentified surface combatant*: 0-3 in commission, 1-2 fitting out, 1-3 laid down, 0-3 planned.
*Could be anything from 90m Corvettes to Hobart Batch 2s

A realistic absolutely very very best case scenario from what we know!
Add idealistic high ship availability and crewing to meet all needs both at sea and ashore.
All vessels armed to their full potential.
Add MCM, Survey, HMAS Choules replacement, plus all the vessels/craft for the Littoral lift group.
A very busy seven years.
Will we get there?

I want to be optimistic.
A big undertaking.

Cheers S

 

[Reptilia]

2031
Up to 6 Collins Class SSG
2 Canberra Class LHD
1 Bay Class LSD
2 Supply Class AOR
3 Hobart Class DDG
Up to 8 Anzac Class FFH
6-12 Arafura Class OPV
0-20 Cape Class PB

Offers that first came to Light last year
APR 2022 > Navantia - 3xHobarts by 2030(Spain) or ‘Hybrid’ build.
FEB 2023 > Navantia - 6xCorvettes by 2029(Spain), 2032(Australia) - 3xHobarts by 2030(Spain), 2032(Australia) > Both
MAY 2023 > RAN/Rafael - Upgunned Arafura class opvs with containerised C-Dome.
JUL 2023 > Luerrsen - 1xC90 in 2028(Australia), follow on C90s every 10 months.
NOV 2023 > Navantia/Civmec/Austal - 6xTasman Corvettes(Australia), No Timeframe.
NOV 2023 > Austal - Upgunned Cape class Patrol Boats with NSM launcher, No Timeframe

NOV 2023 INDOPACIFIC displays
BAE - Tier 1 Upgunned Hunter class
Navantia - Tier 1/ Hobart Flight II or Aussie F110, Tier 2/ Tasman class, Alpha 5000, Future/ Flight III Destroyer.
TKMS - Tier 1/Tier 2 MEKO A210, successor to the A200.
Babcock - Tier 2/ Arrowhead 140 or 140 MNP, longer more flexible version of the A140.
Gibbs & Cox - Tier 2/ Aus Light Frigate, a mini constellation which looks to based off a shortened legend class hull.
Other ships on display at Indopacific
BAE Adaptable Strike Frigate, Mitsubishi Mogami and FFM Frigate, Fincantieri FCX30 Corvette, Austal Manta Catamaran

 

[SammyC]

I think all we can do between now and 2030 is improve the ships we have, introduce the ships already in production and get on with the ships we are going to build. Things look better from 2030 onwards.

In addition to the posts above from Stampede, Redlands and Reptilia, don't forget that the ANZAC transcap program should be nearing completion by this time, so materially the existing fleet should be in better shape, albeit old.

I think we could also assume that our missile holdings would be fully stocked for wartime with ESSM B2, SM2 B3C, SM6 and NSM, plus TLAM. So at least we won't run out of bullets.

Given that we have in the order of three ANZACs tied up pending crew, then the single biggest bang for buck between now and 2030 is to get them back in operational service. That is hard, but as mentioned in multiple posts above is achievable with a serious recruitment drive, expanded retention program and improved training regime for critical skills.

 

[Wombat000]

Update from NavalNews (YouTube, sorry cannot link it), reporting from Washington DC, Surface Navy Association-2024 re Adaptable Deck Launchers.

effectively a non-deck penetrating RELOADABLE angled VLS, in 2, 4 & 8 launch tube configurations.
whilst not ideally launching from the vertical, they would provide more reloadable redundancy to existing magazine capacities.
I don’t know what CMS integration would be required or whether smaller vessels could be data linked?

also mention of containerised vertical launch solutions, in I think 4 cell configuration?

this Potentially has not only for enhanced ship borne resilience, but perhaps also potential for rapid installations of point defence solutions for land based asset protection?

I found it very interesting, perhaps grounds for optimism, and food for thought.

Why can't you link the video? I have never had trouble linking videos from YouTube. Anyway, link inserted below.
Ngatimozart.

 

[StevoJH]

Hypothetically, wouldn't it be better to try speed up Hunter rather than build more Hobarts?

Hunter can do everything that Hobart can do (and more), Hobart cannot do the same.

Hobart would also need significant amounts of work, its now quite a dated platform and long leads haven't been ordered. The only advantage it has is the additional 16 VLS cells....does the RAN even have the missiles to fill them?

 

[OldTex]

I think all we can do between now and 2030 is improve the ships we have, introduce the ships already in production and get on with the ships we are going to build. Things look better from 2030 onwards.

In addition to the posts above from Stampede, Redlands and Reptilia, don't forget that the ANZAC transcap program should be nearing completion by this time, so materially the existing fleet should be in better shape, albeit old.

I think we could also assume that our missile holdings would be fully stocked for wartime with ESSM B2, SM2 B3C, SM6 and NSM, plus TLAM. So at least we won't run out of bullets.

Given that we have in the order of three ANZACs tied up pending crew, then the single biggest bang for buck between now and 2030 is to get them back in operational service. That is hard, but as mentioned in multiple posts above is achievable with a serious recruitment drive, expanded retention program and improved training regime for critical skills.

I suspect that the announcements following the public release of the surface fleet review will be directed towards vessels to be produced at Henderson. With the 2-3 ANZACs tied-up and involvement in TRANSCAP unclear, the spin will be that the new vessels will be as capable as the ANZACs (whether it is true or more likely not) but with fewer crew. This will be lauded as in increase in the size of the surface fleet. Other announcements might also put an end to the current Arafura build and transfer the build to an OPC (like C90). Again the spin will be an increase in the surface fleet size.
The fly in the ointment will be that vessels are tied up because they cannot get enough qualified technical sailors. Those that would be available from the tied-up ANZACs won't spread far enough across the new vessels. Also the process to just train new technical sailors isn't able to keep up with the current separation rate let alone grow the number of technical sailors (and only time and experience can turn a green technical sailor into a valuable experienced senior sailor).