Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Scott Elaurant]

Australian-built evolved Collins needed to bridge the gap to nuclear subs

Australian-built evolved Collins needed to bridge the gap to nuclear subs | The Strategist

I should start by affirming my support for Australia’s transition to nuclear-propelled attack submarines, or SSNs, as my detailed study, delivered to the Department of Defence in 2013, and my public advocacy implies. I think ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

A piece by Peter Briggs, in my mind, one of the most qualified ex RAN submariner to comment on RAN future SSN. I have always thought building sons of Collins is the best course of action as a stop gap until the SSN becomes available. Simply doing LOTE on the existing Collins class boats is just short-sighted, and a mistake. LOTE for the newest 3 boats, and build another 3 or 4 evolved Collins would not only maintain the sub building skills through to the start of building SSN, but at the same time, it will ensure RAN will not have a capability gap.

I also saw the ASPI article and agree with Joe Black and Mikey Mike. I cannot see any time advantage in trying to fit a “Son of Collins” or any other class of submarine in the ASC build schedule before building the SSNs. The former would only delay the latter. From an engineering viewpoint the critical components of the SSN program is who can supply the reactors (and probably whole reactor compartments) to the RAN to support an Adelaide build. Using the modular construction techniques pioneered on the Virginia (by Electric Boat Company) and Astute programs, the reactor compartments could be supplied as a sealed unit and added to an Adelaide assembled sub. The combat system would be supplied by Lockheed Martin and would be identical to taht intended for the Attack Class, so should not be a major problem. All the rest can be built in Australia.

Time wise I assume the following are the critical steps to permit quickest progress:
- decide which SSN program (RN or USN) to join
- establish SSN safety protocols, Australian regulator, training programs for crew and construction and maintenance workforces
- upgrade ASC sub shipyard to a nuclear engineering standard (to match relevant RN and/or USN standards)
- upgrade ASC facilities (e.g. ship-lift) to accomodate planned sub build. A Virginia Block V would be too long and too heavy to fit at present.
- order the reactors and preferably reach agreement with BAE UK or EB in USA to supply entire reactor compartments
- undertake any design modifications to suit local construction (local components, power supply, and combat system if Astute)
- start building modules!
I think all of that would take 4 years before construction started, assuming some steps could be done in parallel. It need not be the absurd ten year timeframes some have suggested before starting. In the mean time, while the ASC yard was being prepared, you would be recruiting and training the construction workforce. This was what never really happened in adequate scale with the Attack Class before it was cancelled.
Recruiting and training the extra sub crews, trained to SSN procedures, takes longer. However it also has a 10 to 12 year timeframe to be done in, because that is the earliest a locally built SSN could be completed in my opinion. So recruiting and training the construction workforce is the most time critical step. In my view all of this si possible in Adelaide
It is worth reading the Rand report into the Astute Class construction. There were lots of problems at first, due to most former cold war sub build skills having been lost. But once the Electric Boat Company was brought on at Barrow to oversee a shift to modular construction, digital engineering and SSN welding skills, the Astute construction was reorganised and under way in 3 years. The use of modular construction (in AWDs) and digital engineering are already established in local industry, so I see no reason we cannot go that way.

The big challenge in workforce recruiting will not be lots of PhDs. We are not going to design or redesign an SSN; we should stick as closely to the RN or USN SSN design as possible. The real challenge will be to recruit enough welders, electricians and the various other technical build specialsits, and training them all to SSN standards. These are very high for standards of workmanship, especially on the welding.

The Rand report is here

Learning from Experience

This volume presents a set of lessons learned from the United Kingdom's Astute submarine program that could help inform future program managers.

www.rand.org

There is an excellent pictorial description of the modular construction and assembly process for Astutes in the Haynes Workshop Manual Series book on Astute Class Submarine production. I recommend it as a fascinating read to anyone interested. You can get it at most bookshops.

Astute Class Nuclear Submarine Manual Haynes Manuals

Buy Astute Class Nuclear Submarine Manual Haynes Manuals by Professor Jonathan Gates, HardCover format, from the Dymocks online bookstore.

www.dymocks.com.au

My 2 cents worth.

 

[John Fedup]

What is the latest wrt a reactor for a possible Australian Astute? The PWR2 has now been phased out for the PWR3 which will power the UK’s future SSBN. Any word on how PWR3 could be incorporated into an Australian Astute? I assume this reactor will eventually power the future SSNR.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Sweet, and we end up with the same number of ships, but basically based on a 20 year + Design for a few extra cells and scuttle the Hunter program or at best put it back another decade or so ? You then have to re order the systems for the Hunters that we have taken for the restart of the AWD's, we have a limited industrial base for other long lead items and qualified and certified companies to do so, also putting on hold what is happening with Hunters to build more AWD's, still not real increase in capability or numbers to be frank, so not sure what the point would be ?

At the end of the day, yeah could do any number of these things, but the capability does not increase, a lot of hassle for no return !!

Not using hunter systems. Not putting them on hold at all. That is Marcus stupid idea to replace Hunters with Hobart's. Which is genuinely stupidly bad. If anything we should free resources for Hunter.

I guess I am just concerned the current plan requires all the resources of asc, cutting up 3 brand new destroyers, to perform a high risk upgrade, that will see Australia loose any deployable destroyer capability for the next decade, that costs 70% the cost off new ships.

If you think the Hunter program will go faster while 3 existing destroyers are on hard stands being cut to peices, as we try to retrofit 6 billion bucks of equipment and labour into another growth Limited platform. With all the crewing and capability impact that goes along with it. Then that is the current plan. I would be looking a shift some of that away, or atleast staging differt activities of these programs to occur at different times

It doesn't matter in the next few months the remainder of the work will be signed up. Hobart's will go onto the operation table 2024 to 2032..

And we will throw 6 billion of 2018 vintage aegis in combat systems and radar into the ocean. It's a big upgrade. Apparently pretty much all the gear on the ships will need to be changed.

We are building 3 new Hobart's just using some of the steel and pennant numbers from the origional ships.

 

[Redlands18]

What is the latest wrt a reactor for a possible Australian Astute? The PWR2 has now been phased out for the PWR3 which will power the UK’s future SSBN. Any word on how PWR3 could be incorporated into an Australian Astute? I assume this reactor will eventually power the future SSNR.

Very quite on that front since DEFMIN Dutton said a couple of weeks ago that the announcement was only a couple of months away. So probably looking mid year, with a Fed Election between now and then a decision could be delayed with a change of Government. We still haven't chosen the Sub design yet, I would find it hard to believe they would put a PWR3 into a Virginia, seems to me it will either be an Astute with a PWR3 Reactor and the US AN/BYG-1 CMS or a minimum change Virginia Blk IV.

 

[John Fedup]

Very quite on that front since DEFMIN Dutton said a couple of weeks ago that the announcement was only a couple of months away. So probably looking mid year, with a Fed Election between now and then a decision could be delayed with a change of Government. We still haven't chosen the Sub design yet, I would find it hard to believe they would put a PWR3 into a Virginia, seems to me it will either be an Astute with a PWR3 Reactor and the US AN/BYG-1 CMS or a minimum change Virginia Blk IV.

Yes, that seems likely. If the PWR3 can be adapted for Astute then that may simplify things from a crewing perspective and possible US concerns about dual citizenship RAN personnel access to USN nuclear technology. The other attractive point about a UK choice is a possible tie in to the SSNR program which may be a bridge too far with possible Australian involvement in the SSN(X) program

 

[Redlands18]

Australia welcomes first evolved Cape-class patrol vessel

The Royal Australian Navy has taken delivery of the first evolved Cape class patrol boat built by defence contractor Austal.

www.navaltoday.com

The RAN accepted the first of 6 evolved Cape class Patrol Boats on 23 March and revealed their names at the same Time
Cape Otway
Cape Peron
Cape Naturaliste
Cape Capricorn
Cape Woolamai
Cape Pillar
Also appears they will not be commissioned Vessels of the RAN, will be designated as Australian Defence Vessels (ADV) instead, so mainly Civilian Crews I believe.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

What is the latest wrt a reactor for a possible Australian Astute? The PWR2 has now been phased out for the PWR3 which will power the UK’s future SSBN. Any word on how PWR3 could be incorporated into an Australian Astute? I assume this reactor will eventually power the future SSNR.

John good question and I don’t know apart from rumours I have read on forums. Irrespective of cost or design capability the ability to supply reactors will be the real determinant of which sub build path we follow. I agree with John that if the PWR3 reactor can be made to fit that would solve the problem neatly as it also has a longer life (32 vs 25 years).

I read one claim that they were looking at fitting a US S9G reactor into an Astute hull design. It is possible in terms of pressure hull design but I have no idea whether it is true. In my view we should built Astutes if we can get reactors supplied or if not build Virginia Block IVs. The Block Vs are significantly more expensive and will be a little slower and less maneuverable hence not any better for the anti-ship/ASW role. The Block Vs are designed to replace the Ohio SSGNs, not true SSNs.

 

[Redlands18]

John good question and I don’t know apart from rumours I have read on forums. Irrespective of cost or design capability the ability to supply reactors will be the real determinant of which sub build path we follow. I agree with John that if the PWR3 reactor can be made to fit that would solve the problem neatly as it also has a longer life (32 vs 25 years).

I read one claim that they were looking at fitting a US S9G reactor into an Astute hull design. It is possible in terms of pressure hull design but I have no idea whether it is true. In my view we should built Astutes if we can get reactors supplied or if not build Virginia Block IVs. The Block Vs are significantly more expensive and will be a little slower and less maneuverable hence not any better for the anti-ship/ASW role. The Block Vs are designed to replace the Ohio SSGNs, not true SSNs.

Considering that not even the tiniest of hints about SSNs had broken before the announcement on 16 Sept, I would treat anything that you read on the Net about the Subs as pure speculation and nothing else. Nobody in the know is talking, not on this one, its far to sensitive, the penalties will be far worse then leaking information on Land 400 phase 3 for example.

 

[Morgo]

I also saw the ASPI article and agree with Joe Black and Mikey Mike. I cannot see any time advantage in trying to fit a “Son of Collins” or any other class of submarine in the ASC build schedule before building the SSNs. The former would only delay the latter. From an engineering viewpoint the critical components of the SSN program is who can supply the reactors (and probably whole reactor compartments) to the RAN to support an Adelaide build. Using the modular construction techniques pioneered on the Virginia (by Electric Boat Company) and Astute programs, the reactor compartments could be supplied as a sealed unit and added to an Adelaide assembled sub. The combat system would be supplied by Lockheed Martin and would be identical to taht intended for the Attack Class, so should not be a major problem. All the rest can be built in Australia.

Time wise I assume the following are the critical steps to permit quickest progress:
- decide which SSN program (RN or USN) to join
- establish SSN safety protocols, Australian regulator, training programs for crew and construction and maintenance workforces
- upgrade ASC sub shipyard to a nuclear engineering standard (to match relevant RN and/or USN standards)
- upgrade ASC facilities (e.g. ship-lift) to accomodate planned sub build. A Virginia Block V would be too long and too heavy to fit at present.
- order the reactors and preferably reach agreement with BAE UK or EB in USA to supply entire reactor compartments
- undertake any design modifications to suit local construction (local components, power supply, and combat system if Astute)
- start building modules!
I think all of that would take 4 years before construction started, assuming some steps could be done in parallel. It need not be the absurd ten year timeframes some have suggested before starting. In the mean time, while the ASC yard was being prepared, you would be recruiting and training the construction workforce. This was what never really happened in adequate scale with the Attack Class before it was cancelled.
Recruiting and training the extra sub crews, trained to SSN procedures, takes longer. However it also has a 10 to 12 year timeframe to be done in, because that is the earliest a locally built SSN could be completed in my opinion. So recruiting and training the construction workforce is the most time critical step. In my view all of this si possible in Adelaide
It is worth reading the Rand report into the Astute Class construction. There were lots of problems at first, due to most former cold war sub build skills having been lost. But once the Electric Boat Company was brought on at Barrow to oversee a shift to modular construction, digital engineering and SSN welding skills, the Astute construction was reorganised and under way in 3 years. The use of modular construction (in AWDs) and digital engineering are already established in local industry, so I see no reason we cannot go that way.

The big challenge in workforce recruiting will not be lots of PhDs. We are not going to design or redesign an SSN; we should stick as closely to the RN or USN SSN design as possible. The real challenge will be to recruit enough welders, electricians and the various other technical build specialsits, and training them all to SSN standards. These are very high for standards of workmanship, especially on the welding.

The Rand report is here

Learning from Experience

This volume presents a set of lessons learned from the United Kingdom's Astute submarine program that could help inform future program managers.

www.rand.org

There is an excellent pictorial description of the modular construction and assembly process for Astutes in the Haynes Workshop Manual Series book on Astute Class Submarine production. I recommend it as a fascinating read to anyone interested. You can get it at most bookshops.

Astute Class Nuclear Submarine Manual Haynes Manuals

Buy Astute Class Nuclear Submarine Manual Haynes Manuals by Professor Jonathan Gates, HardCover format, from the Dymocks online bookstore.

www.dymocks.com.au

My 2 cents worth.

This all makes sense to me.

One query though - I would question the wisdom of trying to do everything in Adelaide. As you say, finding a skilled workforce is going to be a key challenge, and modular construction is a proven concept. Given this we should tap into as much of the industrial capability of the nation as we can. As the Government has announced the construction of an east coast base I would suggest that facility should be built to be able to contribute to the build of the submarines, not just their basing.

While Adelaide can and should remain the centre of our submarine construction I think it would be sensible for ASC to have secondary operations where the biggest pool of skilled labour is.

 

[Morgo]

Yes, that seems likely. If the PWR3 can be adapted for Astute then that may simplify things from a crewing perspective and possible US concerns about dual citizenship RAN personnel access to USN nuclear technology. The other attractive point about a UK choice is a possible tie in to the SSNR program which may be a bridge too far with possible Australian involvement in the SSN(X) program

..... do we have many dual citizens in the ADF? Is that a thing?

 

[CJR]

..... do we have many dual citizens in the ADF? Is that a thing?

I think (no citations at hand but talk here in the past etc.) there's been extensive poaching from the RN and some poaching from the RCN, particularly in the field of submarines, over the last couple of decades, which would probably involve dual citizenship. But those cases are probably not gonna raise much of a security issue as the nations involved are already deep in 5-Eyes and similar.

With about 30% of current Australian residents born overseas (can't find stats on how many of 'em actually hold dual-citizenship) there's likely to be a LOT of other dual nationals floating round, some of whom would find their way into the military.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

This all makes sense to me.

One query though - I would question the wisdom of trying to do everything in Adelaide. As you say, finding a skilled workforce is going to be a key challenge, and modular construction is a proven concept. Given this we should tap into as much of the industrial capability of the nation as we can. As the Government has announced the construction of an east coast base I would suggest that facility should be built to be able to contribute to the build of the submarines, not just their basing.

While Adelaide can and should remain the centre of our submarine construction I think it would be sensible for ASC to have secondary operations where the biggest pool of skilled labour is.

Morgo

None of the other Australian cities have shipyards equipped to build subs or any residual workforce trained to build them or local industry equipped to supply components. Sub building requires some quite specialist skills. If there is a concern about the overall workload being too high in Adelaide then the other navy builds should be moved around, not the subs.

 

[Redlands18]

Morgo

None of the other Australian cities have shipyards equipped to build subs or any residual workforce trained to build them or local industry equipped to supply components. Sub building requires some quite specialist skills. If there is a concern about the overall workload being too high in Adelaide then the other navy builds should be moved around, not the subs.

Offer decent pay and other incentives such as subsidised housing, removal costs, tax incentives etc to people with the right qualifications to move to Adelaide to build the Subs. They have already started an incentive for Nuclear Engineering Students worth about $20,000 PP I believe. Work out cheaper then starting a 2nd production line in another City.

 

[alexsa]

Australia welcomes first evolved Cape-class patrol vessel

The Royal Australian Navy has taken delivery of the first evolved Cape class patrol boat built by defence contractor Austal.

www.navaltoday.com

The RAN accepted the first of 6 evolved Cape class Patrol Boats on 23 March and revealed their names at the same Time
Cape Otway
Cape Peron
Cape Naturaliste
Cape Capricorn
Cape Woolamai
Cape Pillar
Also appears they will not be commissioned Vessels of the RAN, will be designated as Australian Defence Vessels (ADV) instead, so mainly Civilian Crews I believe.

Not necessarily. The RAN already operate two Cape Class acquired prior to the current build (these were owned by the NAB and leased to the RAN). The existing two capes are to be operated by uniformed personnel as indicated by the Navy Website list of CO's:

Patrol Boat, General (PB) | Royal Australian Navy

The new vessels appear to be owned by defence and are likely to also be manned by Navy. The fact these are not commissioned does not necessarily mean they are civilian manned. If manned by Navy then these are still considered warships under section 10(a) of the Navigation Act 2012

(a) a warship or other vessel that:

(i) is operated for naval or military purposes by Australia or a foreign country; and

(ii) is under the command of a member of the Australian Defence Force or of a member of the armed forces of the foreign country; and

(iii) bears external marks of nationality; and

(iv) is manned by seafarers under armed forces discipline (however described);

It is probable that the vessels are not being commissioned as they are considered a stop gap measure pending the OPV coming into service. It will be interesting to see if they are handed to Border Force when no-longer needed noting the first Cape for Border Force is now 10 years old and the Armidale's started decommissioning (HMAS Pirie) in 2021 when just 15 years old. (I don't Bundaberg's decommissioning as that was fire related).

 

[John Fedup]

John good question and I don’t know apart from rumours I have read on forums. Irrespective of cost or design capability the ability to supply reactors will be the real determinant of which sub build path we follow. I agree with John that if the PWR3 reactor can be made to fit that would solve the problem neatly as it also has a longer life (32 vs 25 years).

I read one claim that they were looking at fitting a US S9G reactor into an Astute hull design. It is possible in terms of pressure hull design but I have no idea whether it is true. In my view we should built Astutes if we can get reactors supplied or if not build Virginia Block IVs. The Block Vs are significantly more expensive and will be a little slower and less maneuverable hence not any better for the anti-ship/ASW role. The Block Vs are designed to replace the Ohio SSGNs, not true SSNs.

I would say the Block Vs are a stop gap for replacing the Ohio converted SSBN to SSGN. There is a significant difference in missile capability. That being said, budgetary concerns may see Block Vs as the SSGN “mini”. A Columbia derivative for a new SSGN seems to be a better option IMHO but money talks!

 

[Volkodav]

Can I just call out the elephant in the room, Long Lead Items ! How long ago do you thing we placed orders for the combat systems and integration ? Weapons systems ? Engineering anyone ? for the Hunter program !

You just can not plug a gap and think we can build more AWD's because we have done it before, long lead items like combat systems need to be ordered years in advance to be built and ready to be installed during construction ?

Where would all these long lead items come from to do such a thing ? just to do a re-pop of an AWD means restarting long lead production of even the most basic items that has not been produced for a very long time, more than likely items that we as a country only have one or 2 companies capable of certain items, and guess what ? They are already gearing up for the Hunters, put that behind and you may as well cancel the program altogether !!

Edit:

This will give a good heads up of how long ago some of these things were announced

Hunter Class Frigate | Department of Defence

CASG Project Hunter Class Frigate

www.defence.gov.au

.

The elephant is not only in the room, it has a name, AEGIS.

The lead times for the Hunters as well as for any restarted Hobart options is driven by the lead times for the critical systems that can't be replaced by anything else.

The lead times for the OPVs is much less as is the lead time for the ANZAC upgrades, this is because many (not all) systems can be sourced locally or commercially. SAAB do the combat system locally and are already supplying kit derived from existing in service systems for current projects, hence local production can be ramped up. ASC and CIVMEC are building the platforms and can lift the tempo, hire more apprentices etc. and further expand their work forces. BAE are doing the structural work for the ANZAC upgrades, the masts etc. CAE are doing the radars for not only the ANZAC upgrades but the Army's new air defence systems and can ramp up production.

The thing is the OPV is a patrol vessel (its even in its name) not a warship per say, while hull numbers of the ANZACs are fixed at eight and Hobarts at three. We could build more Arafuras more quickly, but they are not warships, we could order more Hunters but theory of constraints the combat systems is the constraint, the platform issues are related to redesign to fit the evolving combat system, realistically there is no way to speed it up.

Assuming the constrain is how many and how soon for AEGIS, plus how many existing hulls do we have, what aren't we constrained on? For one we could probably say upgraded ANZAC combat systems, two, the ability to fabricate hulls, the ability to acquire common ship systems used in ANZAC upgrade and Arafura build, and Hobart upgrade, related systems from the same supplier, systems we could order locally from suppliers who were gearing up to support SEA 1000 and SEA 5000.

Basically we have all we need to build a decent patrol frigate or even a high end GP frigate. To be worth doing it would need to be available before the Hunters, not result in a delay in the Hunters, and it would need to be complementary to The ANZACs and Hobarts, not an alternative to them. So it would need to use the infra structure currently used for other things, i.e. the Arafuras, or not yet used for the Hunters.

Where does the money and where do the crews come from? Well the government has just announced a massive increase in defence spending and defence personnel going forward.

 

[John Fedup]

John good question and I don’t know apart from rumours I have read on forums. Irrespective of cost or design capability the ability to supply reactors will be the real determinant of which sub build path we follow. I agree with John that if the PWR3 reactor can be made to fit that would solve the problem neatly as it also has a longer life (32 vs 25 years).

I read one claim that they were looking at fitting a US S9G reactor into an Astute hull design. It is possible in terms of pressure hull design but I have no idea whether it is true. In my view we should built Astutes if we can get reactors supplied or if not build Virginia Block IVs. The Block Vs are significantly more expensive and will be a little slower and less maneuverable hence not any better for the anti-ship/ASW role. The Block Vs are designed to replace the Ohio SSGNs, not true SSNs.

I would say the Block Vs are a stop gap for replacing the Ohio converted SSBN to SSGN. There is a significant difference in missile capability. That being said, budgetary concerns may see Block Vs as the SSGN “mini”. A Columbia derivative for a new SSGN seems to be a better option IMHO.

 

[Volkodav]

Australian-built evolved Collins needed to bridge the gap to nuclear subs

Australian-built evolved Collins needed to bridge the gap to nuclear subs | The Strategist

I should start by affirming my support for Australia’s transition to nuclear-propelled attack submarines, or SSNs, as my detailed study, delivered to the Department of Defence in 2013, and my public advocacy implies. I think ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

A piece by Peter Briggs, in my mind, one of the most qualified ex RAN submariner to comment on RAN future SSN. I have always thought building sons of Collins is the best course of action as a stop gap until the SSN becomes available. Simply doing LOTE on the existing Collins class boats is just short-sighted, and a mistake. LOTE for the newest 3 boats, and build another 3 or 4 evolved Collins would not only maintain the sub building skills through to the start of building SSN, but at the same time, it will ensure RAN will not have a capability gap.

SAAB (the current owners of Kockums) have been engaged to upgrade Swedens submarines and the way they have been doing it is assembling and testing the new systems, including often fabricating and out fitting new hull sections prior to the sub being upgraded even leaving service to begin the upgrade. The Sub is cut, old sections and systems removed, any remediation on the remaining structure conducted, new systems installed and tested, new sections welded in. Basically the upgraded subs are, in part, completely new.

If Australia was to carry out our upgrades in the same manner, and I believe SAAB/Kockums are involved, we would be fabricating new hull sections as part of the upgrade. To build new interim subs we would simply increase the quantity of systems and sections, designed for the upgrade, that we order and then produce the required quantity of systems and sections to complete the new boats.

 

[DDG38]

..... do we have many dual citizens in the ADF? Is that a thing?

More than you might think. Also, it's not illegal to hold dual citizenship. And you can get high level security clearances while holding dual citizenship. Not really an issue.

 

[Volkodav]

This all makes sense to me.

One query though - I would question the wisdom of trying to do everything in Adelaide. As you say, finding a skilled workforce is going to be a key challenge, and modular construction is a proven concept. Given this we should tap into as much of the industrial capability of the nation as we can. As the Government has announced the construction of an east coast base I would suggest that facility should be built to be able to contribute to the build of the submarines, not just their basing.

While Adelaide can and should remain the centre of our submarine construction I think it would be sensible for ASC to have secondary operations where the biggest pool of skilled labour is.

Lack of skilled workers is a complete furphy, even at the height of the destroyer program work force levels never reached anticipated levels due to cost cutting and program slip. The area I worked alone was only 60% its planned original size as they deliberately slowed the drum beat so single teams for particular functions could go from ship to ship instead of the original plan of multiple teams working concurrently. The entire org chart below me for instance was removed before I was able to recruit, requiring me to share resources with other leads. This alone probably reduced the number of people being trained by a third.

Adelaide actually has a huge pool of engineering and trade labour, thanks to the substantial manufacturing and defence R&D that has been the mainstay of the local economy since the 1950s. It was only following the shenanigans from the mid to late 2000s through to the mid 2010s that parochial state issues and a general attack on manufacturing, when we decided to off shore everything and become Chinas quarry, that the complete fiction of a skills shortage arose. There is a preponderance of dopes in politics, defence and industry bodies (who incidentally wouldn't know the difference between a screwdriver and a multi axis machining centre) who spread (and occasionally believe) the skills BS.

I still know what I know, can still do what I used to do, and I am most definitely not alone in that. The role I relocated for was defunded because of lack of work, so I like many others am marking time, in spuriously related roles, waiting for the funding for the positions to be reinstated. I even had one old twit try and change me from Engineering and Technical to admin because of the number of admin tasks I have to do to fill time because we aren't building frigates or destroyers at the moment.

We are here, we are waiting and to be honest it shits me when people spread this BS about skills and work forces etc. I would love my kids to be able to follow me but to be honest they will be better off following my wife, getting into financial services and getting paid an F load more for doing an F load less and never having their career put on hold or even killed by lying politicians and arm chair experts.