Aardvark144
Active Member
From the AFR link -
Sources said there was view within Defence Mr Marles was losing too many fights in Cabinet at the hands of the economic ministers Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallagher and Foreign Minister Penny Wong.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Sources said there was view within Defence Mr Marles was losing too many fights in Cabinet at the hands of the economic ministers Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallagher and Foreign Minister Penny Wong.
Read the AFR one again. Directly states that Marles has gone to cabinet with additional funding request and repeatedly lost out to arguments raised by Jim Chalmers, Katy Gallagher and Penny Wong.
So with the Naval Review seeming close I'll take a stab at what it will look like.
It's not necessarily what we should should get , but the vibe of what I think government will announce.
Hunters will get the gong for a large build.
Numbers will be somewhat elastic with emphasis placed on continuous build.
Assumption of different tranches based on Hunters hull.
It will give the impression we are building a big Navy with the reality that a future government and budget will have to make it happen.
More than the current plan of nine ships.
Tier two will not be an ANZAC sized vessel, but something nutted out with Lursessn.
80 or 90m vessel with a gun plus a limited something else.
It just maybe that up gunned Arafura.
Will satisfy industry in the West and provide capability in whatever form this decade and into the next.
Government will be able to say they are meeting the challenges of today.
Also a lot will be made of the medium and heavy landing craft.
Their construction in the west and the three littoral groups they will support.
Government plugging their commitment to supporting construction both in SA and WA.
Everyone's a winner!
Survey and MCM will get clarity, as will a replacement for HMAS Choules .
Subs stay the same
So my shot in the dark.
Mud on my face or spot on
Hopefully know next week.
Cheers S
It's not necessarily what we should should get , but the vibe of what I think government will announce.
Hunters will get the gong for a large build.
Numbers will be somewhat elastic with emphasis placed on continuous build.
Assumption of different tranches based on Hunters hull.
It will give the impression we are building a big Navy with the reality that a future government and budget will have to make it happen.
More than the current plan of nine ships.
Tier two will not be an ANZAC sized vessel, but something nutted out with Lursessn.
80 or 90m vessel with a gun plus a limited something else.
It just maybe that up gunned Arafura.
Will satisfy industry in the West and provide capability in whatever form this decade and into the next.
Government will be able to say they are meeting the challenges of today.
Also a lot will be made of the medium and heavy landing craft.
Their construction in the west and the three littoral groups they will support.
Government plugging their commitment to supporting construction both in SA and WA.
Everyone's a winner!
Survey and MCM will get clarity, as will a replacement for HMAS Choules .
Subs stay the same
So my shot in the dark.
Mud on my face or spot on
Hopefully know next week.
Cheers S
The budget black hole is a bit better than at the time of that article …mainly as a result of plain good luck on the global economy .. the deficit is much smaller than the forecast at the time of that article for 22/23/24 … with a large surplus in 22/23 and another now looking likely in 23/24. The Gov want to keep that as a flag to wave on financial management at up coming elections. that said there are deep structural issues with the budget that will hit probably 24/25 with NDIS, Climate and energy impacts on productivity, Tax cut funding and other areas of expenditure. Applause for the GOD at this point for trying to show restraint but at any stage they need to rely on the greens for support the bills increase.Are we seeing "Rigour"?
Or is rigour an excuse for delaying making decisions and placing orders?
There seems to be a requirement for "Rigour" when it comes to spending money.
But little need for rigour when cancelling spending.
Every decision you can delay means spending you can defer!
I think this is the issue:
Army vehicles gutted for missiles amid $42b budget hole
Plans to build new armoured vehicles in Australia for the army will be slashed to pay for new missiles and stronger cybersecurity, after a major military review uncovered a $42 billion budget hole.www.afr.com
So expensive programmes like the SSN might give us a top shelf submarine force but will lead to the gutting of many other capabilities.
The question is whether it is worth it?
The Navy might say yes but Army???
Last edited:
If we are indeed to eventually procure 16x Hunter class frigates in so-called 'Tier-1/2' configurations, do you think the government will even bother with a rumoured corvette? Would the 6x presently ordered Arafura class, with further modification, simply become the replacement for the Huon class minehunters 1 for 1? And on the same token, will a handful more Cape's just replace the Armidale's 1 for 1?
a handful of up armed Arafura's could become reasonable training platforms for the Hunters, if Good electronics and systems were "bolted on", a bit like an armed Hawk 127 though, not particularly useful in a contested environment.
Last edited:
Would a ANZAC class II type be a goer? Get the RNZN to buy 4. Maybe base it on the MEKO A200.
I think your prediction is pretty spot on. The West has to get a consolation prize or there will be a revolt (and possibly an attempt at seccession).
The logical option is a corvette platform with Luerrsen, simply because it would be quick, cheap and easy and follows straight on from the Arafura build. Could get 8-10 new ships to make 16-24 Arafura OPV/corvette fleet, which is necessary to underpin continuous shipbuilding, and the first could come off the production line before 2030. Survey/MCM platforms will need to align with either the OPV or corvette, my view is they will be based on the OPV design.
To be clear, there are better platforms than the Arafura corvette, but this is my expectation of what we will get. For better or worse, our bed has been made with Luerrsen (just as it has with BAE). The only fly in the ointment is the need to resolve and move on from the current Arafura build problems. Hopefully they can do this.
Are they useful: I would suggest they would be better than nothing, and there is a range of jobs they could do that takes load off the MFUs.
I think there is still a place for this with 16 Hunters, mostly because we won't have 16 Hunters for a long time and they fill a gap needed now.
Likewise, I have a very tasty rabbit hair hat ready to eat if wrong.
People. People are the absolute critical priority right now for the RAN. We are critically short of people. And until that manning shortfall is fixed, everything else, extra ships, new classes of ship, bolt on super lasers on due to be paid off patrol boats etc, is just water cooler wishful thinking.
Seriously, try putting some thought to how the RAN can recruit and retain more people. Because until that problem is fixed, everything else is quite frankly meaningless.
Seriously, try putting some thought to how the RAN can recruit and retain more people. Because until that problem is fixed, everything else is quite frankly meaningless.
I think Vice Admiral Hammond has stated that Arafura uparmed or not was not an option as a Tier 2. A C90 though?
I can see the Arafuras becoming mcm/hydro or ABF vessels but not a Tier 2 and the recent talk of cancelling Arafura 7-12 altogether unless changes are made on Arafura 1-6 is not a good sign.
Recent post by Navy Lookout states 5 design licenses have now been sold for the Type 31/Arrowhead 140 design. That’s the U.K, Poland, Indonesia but who are the other 2?
Coincidence that NZ prime minister(excuse me, foreign minister-thanks Alberto) and defence minister showed up last week talking about common platforms with Australia?
Babcock now embedded at the Henderson precinct.
16 Hunters.., 8 of the ASW variant seems pretty crazy and the manning requirements for 16 hunters. Over the last 2 years we have heard alot about the fleet being unbalanced, cutting down the number of ASW ships for more AAW and also because of the introduction of new submarines and unmanned autonomous usvs, uuvs.
If Babcock were to be selected, I’d also be interested in seeing how the collaboration between Saab and Babcock evolves for the lulea class corvette.
I can see the Arafuras becoming mcm/hydro or ABF vessels but not a Tier 2 and the recent talk of cancelling Arafura 7-12 altogether unless changes are made on Arafura 1-6 is not a good sign.
Recent post by Navy Lookout states 5 design licenses have now been sold for the Type 31/Arrowhead 140 design. That’s the U.K, Poland, Indonesia but who are the other 2?
Coincidence that NZ prime minister(excuse me, foreign minister-thanks Alberto) and defence minister showed up last week talking about common platforms with Australia?
Babcock now embedded at the Henderson precinct.
16 Hunters.., 8 of the ASW variant seems pretty crazy and the manning requirements for 16 hunters. Over the last 2 years we have heard alot about the fleet being unbalanced, cutting down the number of ASW ships for more AAW and also because of the introduction of new submarines and unmanned autonomous usvs, uuvs.
If Babcock were to be selected, I’d also be interested in seeing how the collaboration between Saab and Babcock evolves for the lulea class corvette.
Last edited:
Winston Peters is the Foreign Minister, who was with the NZ Defence Minister. He's also the Deputy PM for the 1st half of this term.
An increase in the allowances such as housing, relocation for families, as well as more family time. Perhaps a loosening of the rules in beards and moustaches. More opportunities for study and training to both enlisted and Officers, placing a bigger emphasis on trade schools within the military mPerhaps a scheme for helping personnel to get a house deposit in return for a set amount of years say 5 to 10 years commitment as a bond scheme, as there will be people wanting to get on the property market. But it also comes down to having a competitive pay scale, with perhaps tax breaks for personnel to have a better take home pay.
AFR article
This one is just out on AFR. Sorry it is behind a paywall, however a few key points.
This one is just out on AFR. Sorry it is behind a paywall, however a few key points.
- Similar view on the Hunters, discussion on an 18 month build tempo (over the current 2 years)
- Some stronger views on mothballing ANZACs for poor condition and limited people
- Couple of other options for small ships, in particular a Navantia/Austal/Civmec tie up and an offer by TKMS
- The escallating cost to maintain the ANZACs (up 10% on the FY24 budget, they needed an extra $56 million)
- The impact delaying ship builds (and other projects) has on small to medium businesses. Potential to offer compensation.
Last edited:
The Arafuras combat system is the same as the core combat system in the ANZACs, LHDs, AORs, the interface on the Hobart's and to be fitted to the Hobart's.
Basically the RAN should be able to use any of these ships to run training using emulators.
Loosening of the rules on beards? I can assure you the current allowance has changed in last 10yrs. Bushy beards were at sea or on deployment only and must adhere to King George style by return to home port.
Walking around Garden Island now is like a hermit village.
This from someone who got signed off by Coxswains in 2009 and never worried about shaving again but kept it tidy.
Totally agree with education trades which need to align closer to quals as well as home purchasing assistance. I spoke with an Snr officer recently who agreed with that idea. If you choose to purchase a home, similar contributions to Rental Assistance should be provided whilst in service. Current DHOAS is very low to market rates.
Rental Assistance in Sydney can be $300wk where as DHOAS is $300 month. (Not exact but you get the idea of discrepancies.
These circumstances depend also on DHA accommodation and alike but if you dont wish to live within the Patch, than other options should exist along these lines.
Andrew Tillett is doing an excellent job on defence at the AFR. Dispassionate reporting and seems to get the jump on the Australian (the only other major paper that bothers with defence) on most of these leaks/reports.
Maybe a start could be to give young Australians permission to be proud of their country, instead of smashing them with guilt trips about the past, perhaps celebrate some of the past as well.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Applies equally to other Western countries as well. as does the people problem for armed forces. While get the point that much of the new toys won't have the people to use them, trying to recruit people to serve in 30-40 year kit doesn't do much to motivate recruitment. Of course there are other issues (pay, accommodation, etc.).
I agree, very important that this is resolved. My two bobs worth is below
- Step 1 is remuneration. I know retention bonuses are being considered. Civilian industry uses this mechanism frequently for at risk people. My business for instance provides a $20k bonus for staying an extra 12 months (payable on completion) for specific individuals (about 3-5% of the workforce). It provides a very effective set of golden handcuffs to those who are financially sensitive and have critical skills that are needed.
- Step 2 is stability. Provide the ability to stay in one location for multiple postings. Moving around the country is great for single people with no connections. It's an absolute disaster for families with children, both partners working and/or elderly parents to look after.
- Step 3 is predictability. Reduce the frequency of crash postings and other short notice activities. Like the above, it is highly disruptive to a family when a parent needs to suddenly depart without the ability to prepare, or needs to stay at sea when they were planning to be alongside.
The second and third points are actually driven more by fleet size. The larger the fleet, the more postings available in a single location. Additionally the larger the fleet, the more capacity to rest ships and people, and avoid back to back deployments. So, expanding the fleet size (which appears to be part of the upcoming review) is in my opinion important to retention.
From my own perspective, I left the Navy for point 3. I remember vividly having to leave my wife sobbing at the front gate of FBE while I departed for a three month deployment on 48 hours notice. This was on top of moving to Sydney a month earlier for the first time (where my wife managed the full removal and house hunting while I was at sea), where we had no family support and my wife had no local friends. This happened several other times, and it got less emotional on subsequent events, but in the end I had to choose between my job (which I enjoyed) and my family. I chose my family.
I will add a fourth point. People do like to work with new, modern and cutting edge equipment. It goes to job satisfaction. New platforms help with this motivation.
Last edited: