Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

AD, i have read your post and thanks for your input.

I need to address some of the things that you have stated and would like to comment on them. Firstly, i am to be honest not up with the Army state of affairs and its interesting to get a perspective from you and your collegues over the retention issue regarding in fighting which you have laid out.

You mention "They could make PLENTY of changes but they won't". Who are they? The RAA or Australian Government.

You mention in the first comment:

1. Re-introduce training centres and depots for reserves in regional rather than consolidating in major centres for costs sake.


Answer. Wouldnt this be counter productive for Reserves who want to get into the Army having to Transit to Regional centers outside cities areas where the Personell live? Or do you mean add additional centres into the regional areas so they are easy to reach for those wanting to train in the RAA. That would make more sense to me.

Additional centres obviously. Consolidating into city areas is what I referred to earlier as already having happened...

There's dollars obviously to be spent to boost recruiting. Put it into REAL measures.

Army reserve training was combined with ARA training and reserves then had to spend 6 weeks at Kapooka. Show me an employer who's prepared to give 6 weeks leave to a soldier to go and do recruit training and I'll show you the MASSIVE recruitment loss of reserves that happened immediately AFTER this wonderful idea was introduced.

Guess what? The common "basic" training course is gone now. Reserves STILL have to do 4 weeks at Kapooka though. I'd suggest multiple "blocks" at regional centres would allow more recruits to undertake the training. On top of that it will alleviate the "bottle necking" that is yet another problem with recruiting. Have a look at any of the JOES day, GSO threads. People join ADF get selected THEN wait 5 months to get a spot on a training course. It's ridiculous. Defmin Nelson I read (I think) is hoping to get this wait down to 6 weeks. Well good luck I say. I won't hold my breath.

2. Get rid of the stupid 3 year posting cycle that FORCES people to move without any say in the matter whatsoever.


Answer. Postings are a fact of life in any part of the services. When you join any part of the armed forces this is a fact of life for any serviceman. When you sign up, everything should be put in front of you to let you know what the service requires of you. Get used to it.! You will have to be doing alot of this in overseas deployments and on exercises over an extended period of time with any branch of the armed forces.

Thanks for the advice champ, but I've done MY 6 years service in Army and am well aware of this. Address it to others if you must, but postings in general are not done for ANY other reason than because "that's the system". If there were a logical reason behind it, it'd be more palatable. They occur every 3 years with the soldier having virtually NO say in where he goes next, irrespective of ANY other consideration, including family, home ownership etc.

Army doesn't tell you in advance where you are going to be posted, nor even what JOB you'll be doing. They do this to allow themselves the flexibility to put you where they think you're best suited, where they need you most AND because if you're from Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne etc you are probably NOT going to get posted to those areas. You are probably going to be posted to Darwin or Townsville.

I guess Army is just a little bit worried about who would join IF they KNEW they were going there. And with good reason I expect. I don't think many WOULD join under those circumstances.

3. Stop pretending these enforced postings are for the soldiers/sailors/airman's own good.


Answer. In hindsite as it may sound corny, its actually true. It is good for them because it gives the servicemen experience as well as geographical knowledge in a part of Australia that they may not be used too and knowledgable about. The Army teaches survival skills and fighting skills with a variety of weapons in many conditions within Australia.

That is THE most ridiculous and illogical answer I've seen. Congratulations. and I thought Army was illogical...

Exercises and courses are where soldiers learn their job and "survival skills and fighting skills with a variety of weapons".

Postings refer to transfers between units, which are generally but not always between different geographical locations.

If you're going to presume to instruct me on these issues. Research the issue, learn and understand what you're talking about.

4. Stop covering up even SIMPLE issues like those concerning the issued Terra (or rather "Terror") boots. They're willing to spend $6b on AWD's and $6b on Super Hornets, but apparently they can't afford to purchase a decent boot for the defence force but can spend $6m on developing a piece of junk produced by "Redback" that wonderfully renouned boot manufacturer. The boot manufacturer you also see alongside KT-26 and Dunlop Volley shoes in any Kmart or Target in Australia, but NOT in a decent shoe shop...

A statement of principles is just that. A statement only. Unless it's backed up by REAL action, nothing changes. Think Government is SERIOUS do you about these things?


Answer. Yes i do. I will agree with you about the boot. Maybe thats an issue that needs to be taken seriously. That is an essential part of the servicemans kit. But hey, the Armed Forces life is one less ordinary. You have to accept that. To protect a nation and spread security across the globe requires mental and physical ability. But if you are after a Night Club lifestyle 24/7 then obviously its not for you. Before entering the Forces you need to consider carefully the consequences and some discomfort being away from home. Being in the Forces turns you from being a Patsy into someone with some skills and ability to serve their country. The message is as simple as that.

Again why are you telling ME this and what exactly has this got to do with Government and ADF not taking the treatment of it's personnel seriously?

That would explain the NUMEROUS similar proposals over the last few years (Defence recruiting has been a problem since the Howard Government came to power in 1996) wouldn't it? Guess what? Things just keep getting worse.


Answer. I am not convinced that this is as bad as you have laid out. Sure theres room for improvement on anything, but i do understand that staff retention and recruitment is on the up, and this government is doing something about it. Money turns what is needed into reality. Makes whats not there into something that is. You say that its the Government throwing money at the problem. That analogy isnt true to start with. It may seem like that, but the vast amount being spent this year as i have already stated in my posts is a huge investment into turning the situation around and making the improvements on things that need fixing. It may take some time. You cant expect the pilot to land a 747 on a 50 meter runway, when the runway crew need more time making the runway at 3000 meters! Its as simple as that.

Well once again I ask you to do your research.

Recruitment in 2006/7 has been WORSE than 2005/6. Retention rates are dropping too.

"Throwing money" means spending a whole lot of money on something. It doesn't mean "wasting money" as you seem to think it does.

I'm referring to bonuses etc that are contained within the "plan".

I very much doubt that even IF Government paid an equivalent wage to that which a private soldier could earn in the mines, that it'd make a big difference to retention rates, which are the REAL issue with ADF.

Conditions of service are what matter and nothing is being done about it, because it requires an attitude change by ADF managers. Government can order ADF to do it, but ADF has to implement it. SCMA, DHA all these organisations suffer ANY number of problems and the list of complaints are as long as my arm. They make DMO's well known problems PALE into significance...

Anyway I'm sure you'll disagree with me. Tell you what. Why don't you come and join ADF and PROVE me wrong AND help the recruitment situation?

Talking is not doing anything and as I said, I've done MY time...

 

[Markus40]

AD, i now see why the Army personell were leaving in droves. It was you.! The Army probably dicharged you because of your mental attitude towards it. It probably is better that you are now out of the Army because it sounds obvious you are not going to help yourself or bolster the optimism of those who are in the Army. So its good that you are out. I wish i could join the ADF and help the situation. I would join at the drop of a hat if i could, but realise that if i did and by the time i had got to a position of making some changes locally within my regiment i would be scratching my hairs out of my grey head.

You seem to lack any confidence in what you are saying by making comments like "Anyway I'm sure you'll disagree with me". You certainly are not going to help the morale of the servicemen in whatever field of the Army you were in and i certainly would be looking for a transfer because of your lack of objectivity.

In any case looking beyond that im wondering about how i can get through to you about a fundemental issue that you havent taken hold of, when enlisted with the Army or any other service for that matter.

There is a very good reason why your superiors would be enforcing postings on a temporary basis for the soldiers/sailors/airman. My answer was:


Answer. In hindsite as it may sound corny, its actually true. It is good for them because it gives the servicemen experience as well as geographical knowledge in a part of Australia that they may not be used too and knowledgable about. The Army teaches survival skills and fighting skills with a variety of weapons in many conditions within Australia.

That is THE most ridiculous and illogical answer I've seen. Congratulations. and I thought Army was illogical...

Exercises and courses are where soldiers learn their job and "survival skills and fighting skills with a variety of weapons".

Postings refer to transfers between units, which are generally but not always between different geographical locations.

If you're going to presume to instruct me on these issues. Research the issue, learn and understand what you're talking about.

My real question to you is do you really think i would have enough time to be researching this issue once i had a call to pack up my kit and move immediatly.? Your answer above really does tell me you truely didnt have a good time in the Army. And your little photo caption on your thread really does sum up why.

Mate, when in the services the Army owns you. You are employed by them to do what they say. Your attitude is that you own the Army. That is BS. It seems i have to instruct you because it hasnt got through to your head that this isnt the case. There are good reasons for the Army to do this and being part of the "team" you put up with the shit and the good. The Army is your Team. Everyone goes through the same things you do. They are family. I know because of my time in the Navy.

The Army need you to be ready to go, because it needs you for any contingency in the future at a moments notice. Why you cant see that is beyond me. Are you some kind of consientious objector? You chose to be in the Army. Stop sucking on your mamas tit, pack up your kit and be a team builder.!

 

[alexsa]

Markus, being from NZ I assume you have not served in the Australian forces and suggest the lecture to AD is probably over the top. The fact is retention in the services is poor. In the RAN it is a serious problem.

Recruiting processes are very poor. This has not been fixed.

Living conditions are often poor, this will improve for the Navy with new units but we really do need to break the idea that single members of the ADF have to 'live in' or pay their own way. Subsidised 'home' accomodation regardless of marital status would help and give them a breathing space away from work. Some of the palces I stayed were worse than boarding school and that was as an officer.

Pay is getting better but not a patch on industry who is activily poaching these guys.

Some entrenched attitiudes are tunring people off. This is improving in some are but still exists.

The posting issue is a beauty as well. I know a RAN Captain in a tri-service role who has specific qualifications for that positon. This person is in not hurry to move and is at the top of the tree for their specialisation. There are very few candidates to move into this positon (none currently qualfied) but as the end of the 3 years is almost up it is likley they will be retired....... what a decision of unmitagated stupidity. If they were left their you would see a growth in skills and the abiltiy to ensure corporate knowledge is transferec.

End of rant ...... by the way we appear to be well off topic.

 

[Tasman]

Some entrenched attitiudes are tunring people off. This is improving in some are but still exists.

The posting issue is a beauty as well. I know a RAN Captain in a tri-service role who has specific qualifications for that positon. This person is in not hurry to move and is at the top of the tree for their specialisation. There are very few candidates to move into this positon (none currently qualfied) but as the end of the 3 years is almost up it is likley they will be retired....... what a decision of unmitagated stupidity.

Absolutely unbelievable that this can happen! This is the sort of thing that must be fixed.

Coming back to the AWD selection:

With experienced personnel being in short supply (and likely to remain so for some time to come regardless of the success or otherwise of new initiatives) it seems to me that the navy needs to ensure that it gets the greatest capability that it can for a given number of personnel. That being the case it should favour the Evolved G&C over the F100. Both have similar crews (the G&C actually has less according to some websites) so it would make sense to put our sailors in the more powerful ship. The G&C clearly offers more capability per sailor! I am certain from what the CNS has said about capability and 'future proofing' that this is exactly what the navy is thinking and if the F100 is chosen it I am convinced it will be a decision made for and not by the navy.

Cheers

 

[AegisFC]

Unfortunatly there are holes in your argument about the lifestyle of the crew on a ship in port. Lets say the new LHD was laid up in port in Bangkok or Manila. First and foremost on any servicemans mind is security at that port. You simply cant allow serviceman to be staying in Hotels around the world. It only takes a "Terror Nut" to vapourise the Hotel they are in for the point to get home. So really that is a no brainer.

I don't know how the RAN (or any other country does it), but in the USN 1/3 of the crew is always on duty at any time standing various security, engineering and combat systems watches, also with 1/3 of the crew on board the ship can get underway in case of emergancy (won't be able to do very much but at least it can get out of a bad situation). The rest of the crew who isn't on duty can go and have fun. In some ports (not all) the crew can stay in hotels but you have to let your command know and call by a certian time in the morning to let everyone know you are still among the living.

 

[Markus40]

Cheers mate, im sure they would want to know who you were with as well.

I don't know how the RAN (or any other country does it), but in the USN 1/3 of the crew is always on duty at any time standing various security, engineering and combat systems watches, also with 1/3 of the crew on board the ship can get underway in case of emergancy (won't be able to do very much but at least it can get out of a bad situation). The rest of the crew who isn't on duty can go and have fun. In some ports (not all) the crew can stay in hotels but you have to let your command know and call by a certian time in the morning to let everyone know you are still among the living.

 

[Markus40]

Seems to be a touchy subject obviously. Im sure you have been following the posts and realise that i have laid on the table the various problems and solutions at a grass roots level, and i need to repeat that there needs to be objectivity over this issue rather than "punch bagging" a service thats trying to do its best under all the circumstances.

I have never denied that the issues arent there. But i have come against certain threads that like to vent their negativity and attitude on a service on the basis that is trying to make changes and it is obvious changes being made will be made in the 2007 Defence Budget.

Markus, being from NZ I assume you have not served in the Australian forces and suggest the lecture to AD is probably over the top. The fact is retention in the services is poor. In the RAN it is a serious problem.

Recruiting processes are very poor. This has not been fixed.

Living conditions are often poor, this will improve for the Navy with new units but we really do need to break the idea that single members of the ADF have to 'live in' or pay their own way. Subsidised 'home' accomodation regardless of marital status would help and give them a breathing space away from work. Some of the palces I stayed were worse than boarding school and that was as an officer.

Pay is getting better but not a patch on industry who is activily poaching these guys.

Some entrenched attitiudes are tunring people off. This is improving in some are but still exists.

The posting issue is a beauty as well. I know a RAN Captain in a tri-service role who has specific qualifications for that positon. This person is in not hurry to move and is at the top of the tree for their specialisation. There are very few candidates to move into this positon (none currently qualfied) but as the end of the 3 years is almost up it is likley they will be retired....... what a decision of unmitagated stupidity. If they were left their you would see a growth in skills and the abiltiy to ensure corporate knowledge is transferec.

End of rant ...... by the way we appear to be well off topic.

 

[alexsa]

Seems to be a touchy subject obviously. Im sure you have been following the posts and realise that i have laid on the table the various problems and solutions at a grass roots level, and i need to repeat that there needs to be objectivity over this issue rather than "punch bagging" a service thats trying to do its best under all the circumstances.

I have never denied that the issues arent there. But i have come against certain threads that like to vent their negativity and attitude on a service on the basis that is trying to make changes and it is obvious changes being made will be made in the 2007 Defence Budget.

Not really touchy..... just frustrating. The fact is there are things that can be fixed but the public servants and uniformed members addressing and assessing the problems appear to have some no go areas and tend not to learn from past events.

The HR/recuritment being a classic case in point. It really is pretty poor, just to try it out I have tried to rejoin the reserves .......... 6 weeks and counting for a response.

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD, i now see why the Army personell were leaving in droves. It was you.! The Army probably dicharged you because of your mental attitude towards it. It probably is better that you are now out of the Army because it sounds obvious you are not going to help yourself or bolster the optimism of those who are in the Army. So its good that you are out. I wish i could join the ADF and help the situation. I would join at the drop of a hat if i could, but realise that if i did and by the time i had got to a position of making some changes locally within my regiment i would be scratching my hairs out of my grey head.

Where's Occum when I need him? The Ad Hominem attacks have started on me...

I discharged voluntarily from Army.

Apparently my state of Mental Health upon discharging from Army was good enough to be accepted by the Queensland Police Service.

So please stop. It appears you know less about mental health issues than you do about ADF. Which is quite a statement indeed.

You seem to lack any confidence in what you are saying by making comments like "Anyway I'm sure you'll disagree with me". You certainly are not going to help the morale of the servicemen in whatever field of the Army you were in and i certainly would be looking for a transfer because of your lack of objectivity.

No, the only thing I lack confidence in is YOUR understanding of these issues.

I have no doubt you WILL NOT agree with me, because you quote the Ministers statements as some sort of evidence that things are improving.

Of course with no first hand experience of the things you are claiming you would, wouldn't you?

In any case looking beyond that im wondering about how i can get through to you about a fundemental issue that you havent taken hold of, when enlisted with the Army or any other service for that matter.

There is a very good reason why your superiors would be enforcing postings on a temporary basis for the soldiers/sailors/airman. My answer was:


Answer. In hindsite as it may sound corny, its actually true. It is good for them because it gives the servicemen experience as well as geographical knowledge in a part of Australia that they may not be used too and knowledgable about. The Army teaches survival skills and fighting skills with a variety of weapons in many conditions within Australia.

That is THE most ridiculous and illogical answer I've seen. Congratulations. and I thought Army was illogical...

Exercises and courses are where soldiers learn their job and "survival skills and fighting skills with a variety of weapons".

Postings refer to transfers between units, which are generally but not always between different geographical locations.

If you're going to presume to instruct me on these issues. Research the issue, learn and understand what you're talking about.

My real question to you is do you really think i would have enough time to be researching this issue once i had a call to pack up my kit and move immediatly.? Your answer above really does tell me you truely didnt have a good time in the Army. And your little photo caption on your thread really does sum up why.

The caption that goes along with that photo is: "I'm on the right, you're on the left"... I left it out in order to try and not start arguments with people, but since you brought it up, it's aimed squarely at gobby pricks like you, who have the audacity to try and tell former ADF members what ADF service is like, when they haven't spent 1 single day in an ADF uniform.

Capice?

I had a fantastic time in Army, had some excellent bush trips did some excellent courses and training and made mates I'll have for life.

I also learnt a thing or 2 about ADF operates, that you won't get from reading Ministerial releases. Pity you will never know what I know.

Mate, when in the services the Army owns you. You are employed by them to do what they say. Your attitude is that you own the Army. That is BS. It seems i have to instruct you because it hasnt got through to your head that this isnt the case. There are good reasons for the Army to do this and being part of the "team" you put up with the shit and the good. The Army is your Team. Everyone goes through the same things you do. They are family. I know because of my time in the Navy.

Next you'll be telling me the sky's blue and grass is green.

Get back on topic or take this to PM if you wish.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have no doubt you WILL NOT agree with me, because you quote the Ministers statements as some sort of evidence that things are improving.

Of course with no first hand experience of the things you are claiming you would, wouldn't you?

In 1997-98 I was on the Task Force (and was the Senior Exec for South Australia) that was set up, scope and recommend the restructure of Def Force Recruitment. We basically had to work with Brigadier Peter Dunn, the then Head, Defence Personnel Executive. I can tell you first hand, that all of the recommendations we made to the Minister via the DPE were never flagged in public. They were invariably dismissed

what we got was some public media circus geared to reflect the outsourcing idealogy of the govt of the day.

Never take Ministers statements as gospel and truthful.

In fact, I'd argue that if the Minister had accepted our recommendations, we would not be in the continuing cluster that still gathers and garners useful oxygen every day.

 

[Tasman]

HMAS Anzac deploys to Gulf

HMAS Anzac sailed from Fleet Base West on 5th June for her third Persian Gulf Deployment. Since her last deployment Anzac has undergone a major upgrade which has included the addition of Harpoon and the Mini Typhoon system for dealing with surface threats, including swarm attacks. I was pleased to see the full outfit of Harpoons in the photos of her departure. Mind you the photos take forever to download. I have attached a link to these photos:

HMAS Anzac, a Royal Australian Navy ANZAC Class Frigate, with her crew of 183 personnel has departed her homeport at HMAS Stirling at Garden Island, Western Australia (WA), to commence passage to the Northern Persian Gulf.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence Mr Peter Lindsay MP, representing the Minister for Defence, and the Commander Australian Fleet, Rear Admiral Davyd Thomas AM CSC RAN, joined family and friends in farewelling HMAS Anzac as she sailed to take over duties from HMAS Toowoomba, to provide an ongoing contribution to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq as part of Operation Catalyst.

This is Anzac’s third deployment to the Northern Persian Gulf and is the 16th rotation of Navy ships as part of coalition operations since 2001.

http://www.defence.gov.au/opcatalyst/images/gallery/20070605/index.htm

Cheers

 

[RubiconNZ]

4 Australian Navy Pilots To Go ‘On Loan’ to U.S. Coast Guard

PATRICIA KIME

In coming months, four Royal Australian Navy (RAN) pilots will arrive in the United States for a new duty assignment — to serve as co-pilots aboard U.S. Coast Guard helicopters.
The Coast Guard and the RAN cemented an agreement May 24 for a unique “loaner” program, one that will put RAN pilots in cockpits in San Diego, San Francisco, Miami and Cape Cod, Mass.
The pilots will serve with the Coast Guard for three to four years. Two will fly the HH-60 Jayhawk; the other two will be assigned to the HH-65 Dolphin, officials say.
All will train to become aircraft commanders.
“We came up with a great deal. [The RAN] was looking to relieve a bottleneck in their program and, we, with our projected growth in aviation, have shortages projected,” said Rear Adm. David Pekoske, assistant commandant for operations.
All four pilots hail from the same unit, 723 Squadron based at HMAS Albatross in Nowra, Australia. They are trained on the Eurocopter Squirrel and S-70B-2 Seahawk, a version of the Sikorsky H-60 Black Hawk, and normally do logistics operations.
Australian and U.S. officials say the loaner program will allow the RAN to retain pilots and maintain their skill sets, even as it lacks positions for them in their own service.
“From an operational perspective, we’ll be giving them additional skill sets; search and rescue, aids to navigation,” Pekoske said.
Lt. Ben Wenban, 25, of Orange, New South Wales, was the first to arrive in the United States. Touching down in Boston in late May in summer whites — a uniform of white shorts, long white socks and white shoes — he received curious stares, but he’s rapidly settling into the routine at Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod, he says.
“It’s a beautiful area. I don’t think I should have come to a nicer place in the United States,” Wenban said.
In late June, he’ll deploy to Mobile, Ala., for two months of training on the HH-60 Jayhawk.
When he returns to Cape Cod, he’ll be inserted into the regular co-pilot rotation.
“The weather here is said to be very extreme. Combining doing the operational work with the harsh conditions, I think it’s going to be a good experience,” Wenban said.
In Australia, Wenban’s squadron did mainly logistics support and maritime patrolling.
At Cape Cod, he’ll likely participate in search-and-rescue, homeland security, law enforcement and maritime interdiction missions, as well as some aids to navigation work.
“I’m very excited to do search and rescue. It will be extremely challenging but rewarding at the same time,” Wenban said.
Like all pilots, Wenban and his mates will take on collateral duties too, such as flight scheduling, flight standards or flight safety positions.
In the next decade, the Coast Guard will expand its aviation program, adding new aircraft including at least two RU-38B Twin Condor reconnaissance planes, as many as 30 CASA C-235 maritime patrol aircraft and six HC-130J aircraft.
Although the expansion is limited to fixed-wing planes, Coast Guard pilots are cross-trained in both fixed-wing and rotor aircraft. Thus, the service needs additional pilots as the new programs come online.
“We need to fill cockpits. We have a projected shortage on pilots over the next six to 10 years,” said Capt. Mike Moore, former chief of aviation forces.
Mindful of its tight budget, the Coast Guard jumped at a chance to bolster its pilot ranks without paying additional salaries. Plus, the loaner program gives the Coast Guard and the RAN a chance to work together and forge ties for future cooperation, officials say.
“This is a small community; you’re likely to see each other again,” Pekoske said.
The Coast Guard has pilot exchange programs with the United Kingdom and Canada. The agreement with Australia, however, is more of a loan: The Australian pilots will receive their salaries and allowances from the RAN while training and operations will be financed by the Coast Guard.
“It’s a win-win situation,” Pekoske said. •

Defense News
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2834475&C=landwar

What a brilliant idea, I wonder if we will see anything else similar to this arrangement perhaps some arrangements sending personnel to the US will occur next, perhaps filling some critical shortages.

 

[pepsi]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21936457-1702,00.html

FEDERAL Cabinet has approved a $10 billion contract to build five warships - including three air-warfare destroyers - of Spanish design.

I'm kind of glad that the Navantia design won out over the Mistral class design

Regarding the AWD, i wonder was the Arleigh-Burke design not chosen in favour of the F100 because of the required number of crew? Or is it more to do with some political/economic reasons that makes it cheaper/easier to have the entire contract for both AWD and LHD to be from the single country

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well Australia is getting two highly capable aircraft carrier/amphibious ships!!! Now to start the F-35B lobbying.

The F-100 design was always going to be much cheaper and faster. Hopefully most of the features of the evolved version are put into place now. The evolved F-100 is still much lower risk than the miniburke IMHO. It is being built, even if its just the hull modifications that are adopted and systems upgraded later.

The F-100 design really does open the door to a fourth to be made if they can keep a lid on costs (thats a big if). Better for industry, better for defence.

Both are mind blowingly more advanced than what we have now.

 

[Markus40]

Fantastic stuff and congratulations to a sensible and forward thinking ADF. This does mean that Australia is seriously interested in a strategic and global operations and its become very clear that the Navy at some point will have Combat Air Power to supplement a carrier battle group. I think most of us agreed the spanish design was the better option based on its future range of options.

Fantastic to see the F100 design has been chosen and this does have advantages over the AB and has good value for money options for the future too. IE A Fourth Destroyer. The F100 does pack a huge punch although somewhat slightly less than the AB however it seems to me that both designs have incredible technology that the RAN have never had before.

Having the larger AB version Destroyer to the fleet, with larger capacity for weapons load wasnt in my opinion a perogative for chosing the system above the F100 which has many of the design aspects of the AB. Its common wisdom to get the biggest bang for your buck without compromising the operational effectiveness of the Destroyer and i believe this is where the Australian government was going.

The F100 design and systems is fully interoperable with the US and European navies. You might be surprised to know that several successful Spanish-US Combat Systems Ship Qualification Trials have taken place, including one involving the F-100 Almirante Juan de Borbon and the USS Pinkney, the Arleigh Burke destroyer that visited Sydney early last year in support of the G&B AWD bid.

 

[Tasman]

Fantastic stuff and congratulations to a sensible and forward thinking ADF. This does mean that Australia is seriously interested in a strategic and global operations and its become very clear that the Navy at some point will have Combat Air Power to supplement a carrier battle group. I think most of us agreed the spanish design was the better option based on its future range of options.

Fantastic to see the F100 design has been chosen and this does have advantages over the AB and has good value for money options for the future too. IE A Fourth Destroyer. The F100 does pack a huge punch although somewhat slightly less than the AB however it seems to me that both designs have incredible technology that the RAN have never had before.

Having the larger AB version Destroyer to the fleet, with larger capacity for weapons load wasnt in my opinion a perogative for chosing the system above the F100 which has many of the design aspects of the AB. Its common wisdom to get the biggest bang for your buck without compromising the operational effectiveness of the Destroyer and i believe this is where the Australian government was going.

The F100 design and systems is fully interoperable with the US and European navies. You might be surprised to know that several successful Spanish-US Combat Systems Ship Qualification Trials have taken place, including one involving the F-100 Almirante Juan de Borbon and the USS Pinkney, the Arleigh Burke destroyer that visited Sydney early last year in support of the G&B AWD bid.

If the report is correct (we'll have to wait for the Minister's announcement to confirm it and provide the details) it will be interesting to see whether the new destroyer will be the baseline F100 or the 7000 tonne evolved version with second helo and 16 'short' Mk41 cells for ESSM that Navantia has said it could easily incorporate into the design. The Australian also reports that the government will keep open the option of a fourth ship using money saved by selecting the F100. Even if an Anzac has to be placed in reserve to man it I think this would be an excellent outcome.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21936065-2702,00.html

The report (again if it is correct) of the selection of the Navantia BPE is fantastic news for both the RAN and the Army.

Cheers

 

[astrolopitec]

Congratulations! What a leap in capabilities !
The clubs of the true AWDs and of the baby carriers remains quite exclusive. Landing over 2000 troops with all their heavy toys, over the orison, via sea and air, and all under an state of the art air umbrella. Is a capability that few navies possess.

Repeat after me:
Viva la Armada Australiana !

 

[Tasman]

Congratulations Navantia.

Well it's official. The Navantia BPE design has been selected for the RAN's new amphibious vessel.

$3 BILLION AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS WILL

STRENGTHEN ADF, BOOST AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY



The Australian Defence Force (ADF) will obtain one of the largest and most advanced amphibious deployment systems in the world following the Government’s selection today of a preferred tenderer for the supply of two amphibious ships.



Subject to successful contract negotiations, the preferred tenderer is Tenix. Defence will now enter negotiations with Tenix leading to a contract for delivery of the ships between 2012 and 2014.



At a cost of approximately $3 billion, this decision will greatly enhance Australia’s ability to deploy forces in strength when needed or to provide assistance in time of natural disaster. With their integrated helicopters and watercraft the ships will be able to land over a thousand personnel by sea and air, along with their vehicles, the new Abrams tanks, artillery and supplies. Each ship will also be equipped with medical facilities, including two operating theatres and a hospital ward.



In order to provide value for money, both tenderers – Australian companies – proposed partial overseas builds with a high degree of Australian fitout. Much of the combat and communications systems integration and installation - the ‘smart stuff’ - will be done by Australian industry, which will be able to make the most of project opportunities in the leading edge technologies – electronics, systems engineering and integration, and design development.



So that we could ensure the best possible outcomes for Australian industry and the ADF, the Government decided to consider the Amphibious Ship and Air Warfare Destroyer proposals in concert. Our decisions today mean that for decades into the future Navy’s ships will be backed by world-class industry support from Australia’s naval engineering and electronics industries. They also mean that hundreds of smaller and medium enterprises can now look to the future with confidence.



The Government has ensured the Landing Helicopter Dock contract will lay the groundwork for Australian industry to provide full in-service support for the life of the ships. This will provide a steady and reliable source of demand on industry that, over ship life, will amount to several times the value of the actual construction program.



This decision shows that the procurement reforms the Government introduced in 2003 are working.



Approximately one quarter of the construction of the amphibious ships will take place in Australia. The construction of the superstructure and the majority of the fitout will occur in Melbourne, with an estimated value of up to $500 million. The majority of combat system design and integration work will take place in Adelaide, worth up to $100 million for the South Australia economy. There will also be further work contracted to other states.



The amphibious ship project reflects our insistence on real world business procedures, especially tight governance, disciplined budgeting and strong risk management.



Our service men and women deserve the very best equipment to do their jobs. These ships will provide Navy and Army personnel with the satisfaction of operating state-of-the-art sea, air and land systems in the defence of Australia; but also with the ability to provide large-scale humanitarian assistance, at home or to our neighbours, in time of natural disaster.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=6780

This is great news for the ADF.

More controversial will be the official selection of the F100 for the AWD project which was also announced today (see Australian AWD thread).

Between them, the new destroyers and amphibious ships will greatly boost the ADF's capability. Now we just need to get recruitment and retention 'fixed'.

Cheers

 

[icelord]

Hey AD
Tenix got the Go ahead to build the LHD, Comment?

Now we see whether the ships will be able to smoothly come in compared with 'other' projects, and whether or not the Alliance Group for the AWD will work
Any word on Start date, i know they want it before the Election in November

 

[alexsa]

Well it's official. The Navantia BPE design has been selected for the RAN's new amphibious vessel.



http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=6780

This is great news for the ADF.

More controversial will be the official selection of the F100 for the AWD project which was also announced today (see Australian AWD thread).

Between them, the new destroyers and amphibious ships will greatly boost the ADF's capability. Now we just need to get recruitment and retention 'fixed'.

Cheers

I hope the actual F100 selected is the 'evolved' 1000 tonne larger variant. Given the equipment purcahsed to date is sufficient for 64 cells per ship perhaps this is possible. The price tag of 8 billion may also be an indication that this is possible but there is nothing in the statements to date to support his hope. I will just have to wait and see.

I suspect Navnatia offered a pretty good package deal on both classes vessels and I am very happy the BPE got up.