Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Flexson]

Ask 100 people how many want to be plumbers for a living, how many will say yes? Ask 1000 people how many want to be doctors for a living, how many will say yes? Ask 25 million people how many want to be in the RAN for a living and the answer seems to be about 14 thousand! Not everyone is interested in serving in the Navy. And at this stage it seems that everything we are doing to try and make it more attractive and increase that percentage of the population wanting to serve is not enough. And I think what the rest of the population wants the government will never want to offer or be able to offer.

 

[foxdemon]

It is hard to find a solution, if you think the RAN hasn’t been trying to recruit to fill its existing manpower gaps you would be mistaken. Both recruiting and retention have been huge issues for some years, unfortunately without achieving any great improvement in the situation.

Defence Connect

Is this article accurate?

Close to 100% recruiting goals achieved. Less than 10% of applicants accepted. If that article is accurate, then it would seem willingness of young people to join isn’t the issue. Rather, it might be the numbers set for recruitment are too low.

I think we could man a few extra frigates.

 

[King Wally]

This will sound like a throw away joke post but I'm actually serious (I work in the Marketing/Advertising field).

I think the RAN needs to attack their recruitment marketing like they would a combat exercise and actually dedicate a significant effort toward filming a good quality youtube based series with some charismatic personality based hosts or perhaps even fun hand picked high school seniors living aboard various RAN vessels and completing corny challenges and missions (LHD with storming the beach climax for one, Submarine with a "hunt down the rogue frigate mission", etc etc).

Kids these days need to see their dreams and ambitions in the media so they can get excited and fantasise about the "one day", that's why no matter how awful day to day life is for a Nurse, Ambo or Police Constable is the dozens of popular TV shows will always keep their intake numbers plump. You see it, you want to be it. I think the RAN needs to become more visible and accessible in the media, even if it means they have to heavily drive it themselves.

Hell if you could rope in a Gold Coast film studio, rope in a QLD gov film grant and go full TOP GUN with a LHD based feature film that could even take it to a off the chart level. Effort, money and distraction I know but the problem won't just fix itself if left alone.

 

[seaspear]

Why I suggested the consideration of double crewing, is aimed at keeping the highly trained and skilled personnel present if long deployments away from home are a reason for turnover .

 

[seaspear]

Just to add , quite a number of years ago unions in Australian shipping had the benefit of how ever long you away on ship you were paid at home the same rate

 

[StingrayOZ]

Seapatrol. I imagine as soon as the new patrol ships come on line it will be due for a reboot. People liked that show because it focused on relationships and showed a softer/humanitarian side of the RAN. The only reason Seapatrol stopped filming, was government credits stop after your show makes 65 episodes. So while Seapatrol was popular, its wasn't Home and Away/Neighbours popular. You would think the government could maybe wriggle an extension for a show that so in their interest, but no, those tax credits will go to Married at First Sight and Bachelorette.
The RAN recruitment guys used to hand out HMAS Hammersly caps and the kids used to think they were gold. You would think a reboot visiting Fiji/PNG/Tonga/Singapore/Hawaii (each season you could have 3-4 episodes based around one of these international locations, use our film industry for some soft diplomacy). Seapatrol had a budget of $1m per episode so, mass amphibious landings are probably not in the budget.

An Australian remake of the Final Countdown? (origional is on SBS app atm).

We can't and shouldn't crew the old FFG's. FFG crews have been training an looking forward to going onto the Hobarts and we haven't been training replacement FFG crews for a long time. They should go to an allied navy who would get serious use out of them. Greece would seem to be in a desperate situation and they would be suitable for someone operating FFG's. I would prefer S.E.A, but that isn't going to happen.

As for the Land400 amphibious vehicles its possible up to 50 (and possibly lower), and I wouldn't be surprised if they want them capable of going up to the light deck, I wonder if the larger 8x8 are capable of that. Patria/Terrex/K808/SuperAV I imagine would be an interesting competition for 24-48 vehicles.

 

[alexsa]

Just to add , quite a number of years ago unions in Australian shipping had the benefit of how ever long you away on ship you were paid at home the same rate

Sorry .... only the Australian merchant marine had that work/leave ratio. It is unsustainable and there are fundamental differences in how a merchant ship works and a warship. Merchant vessels are (or should be) in continous service between docking (normally 5 years for a young vessel but occasionally out to 7.5 years user EDDI). While on the ship you work .... there is no leave or going home in the evening for international trading vessels.

The 1 for 1 leave ration enjoyed by Australian seafarers under union negotiated agreements is one of the reasons we do not have much of an international trading fleet any more. Most UK companies run a 4 and 2 ratio (four months on - two months off) for officers which is pretty close to annual leave, public holidays and week ends. Other crews may be on board for up to 11 months.

So ....... in short.... to use the example of a merchant ship to justify how you man a warship is nonsense. The operating metrics are totally different.

 

[Wombat000]

Seapatrol.
The navy adventure featuring the undercurrents of sexual tensions of a mixed gender crew, and the resulting emotional dilemmas placed upon the ships command.
Sanctioned by Navy, and Defence.
At the same time, then HMAS Success (apparently/allegedly) tries to imitate the art, so it has been suggested by some.
Who am I to point out irony?
Anyway,
"Keep calm & carry on".

 

[Stampede]

Sure lets keep them, so they can be anchored around the east side of GI or put up on a hardstand somewhere and sit there not used because WE CAN'T MAN THEM. May as well get some cash for them if we can.

Keeping the last two FFG's is insurance.
I can fully understand the many concerns re maintaining these two ships with regards to funding,force structure and crewing, but I have reservations as to the region in the near future and see their retention as a wise move.
We have a lot of talk about the new build ships and sub's entering service but these are very long term projects with long term outcomes.
The RAN may have a range of capable ships today but I still have a concern about total fleet numbers and what realistically we can do with what we have.
My concern is our ability to respond to any range of scenarios in the next 5 to 6 years.
Our powerful ally with or without their current C in C will increasingly turn inwards and so for nations like Australia we will need to have an increased sovereign capacity to deal with their possible absence.
The FFG's are a timely gift for the taking not the giving.

I'm quite content to forgo their current market value to maintain their capability.
If crewing cannot be found then I'm happy to accept the comedic remarks of been at anchor at GI with the knowledge they could potentially provide a short term option of naval expansion and deterrence.
Paying insurance is always about unpredictability's

Regards S.

 

[Stampede]

This will sound like a throw away joke post but I'm actually serious (I work in the Marketing/Advertising field).

I think the RAN needs to attack their recruitment marketing like they would a combat exercise and actually dedicate a significant effort toward filming a good quality youtube based series with some charismatic personality based hosts or perhaps even fun hand picked high school seniors living aboard various RAN vessels and completing corny challenges and missions (LHD with storming the beach climax for one, Submarine with a "hunt down the rogue frigate mission", etc etc).

Kids these days need to see their dreams and ambitions in the media so they can get excited and fantasise about the "one day", that's why no matter how awful day to day life is for a Nurse, Ambo or Police Constable is the dozens of popular TV shows will always keep their intake numbers plump. You see it, you want to be it. I think the RAN needs to become more visible and accessible in the media, even if it means they have to heavily drive it themselves.

Hell if you could rope in a Gold Coast film studio, rope in a QLD gov film grant and go full TOP GUN with a LHD based feature film that could even take it to a off the chart level. Effort, money and distraction I know but the problem won't just fix itself if left alone.

Defence has to be a competitive employer no matter what the service or trade performed.
I don't have the answer other than you need to speak to market you wish to attract in a language they understand offering the advantages a service life can offer both for now and the future.For many youth a defence career is not on the radar as they have had no exposure to this sector and are ignorant as to the job possibilities offered
With a population of 25 000 000 we should be able to full fill every role across the services.
If we cannot,then will need to find a way as our new flash equipment will still need young bright people to operate them.

Regards S

 

[ngatimozart]

Defence has to be a competitive employer no matter what the service or trade performed.
I don't have the answer other than you need to speak to market you wish to attract in a language they understand offering the advantages a service life can offer both for now and the future.For many youth a defence career is not on the radar as they have had no exposure to this sector and are ignorant as to the job possibilities offered
With a population of 25 000 000 we should be able to full fill every role across the services.
If we cannot,then will need to find a way as our new flash equipment will still need young bright people to operate them.

Regards S

It's all very well saying "With a population of 25 000 000 we should be able to full fill every role across the services.", but the ADF is competing for people in a highly competitive environment, so it comes down to how much the govt is willing to pay for personnel. It's not just wages / salaries but all the other related costs as well, plus they have to take into quality of life these days.

 

[Systems Adict]

It's all very well saying "With a population of 25 000 000 we should be able to full fill every role across the services.", but the ADF is competing for people in a highly competitive environment, so it comes down to how much the govt is willing to pay for personnel. It's not just wages / salaries but all the other related costs as well, plus they have to take into quality of life these days.

Serving in ANY BRANCH of the armed forces ANYWHERE in the Western Nations has become something of a 'Bad Thing' as viewed by our 16 - 35 year olds.
Society & the media have helped make it very un-attractive. Too many kids think that sitting playing computer games, or watching youtube videos of other kids making slime is important & that being famous for 15 minutes will make them rich.

The media has reported every aspect from every major military action in the last 20 years, showing prime-time images of people & places being blown 7 ways from Sunday, in the hope of staving-off / destroying the Taliban / ISIS / Al-Shebab, etc., etc. The result is the 'snowflake' generation aren't interested, as they see it too negatively & don't want to lose a leg, or worse as the result of an IED or Blue-on-Blue incidents, in theatre.

In the Western world our populations have technically dropped, as W.A.S.P.'s & their descendants stop breeding / having more than 2 kids (although imigration from the East has helped many countries populations grow, as migrants attempt to escape the persecution / look for a life of free hand-outs in the West). Most of our populous is over 50, with the 'New-Generation' of 16-35 year olds only making about 1/5th the equivalent sized dent in the population in comparison to those who turned 16 between 1980 & 1990.

This gap is very noticeable in business, as there are similar issues. Most of the working population of Engineers is over 50, there's a big gap as many employers didn't take on apprentices between 1990 & 2005, due to the economic downturn & big crash in 1998, so we have a young, inexperienced influx that are just 'learning' their trade, while those in the thick end of the wedge are looking to retire / get away & spend all their hard earned cash, before they drop dead.

Some recent global events such as remembering the centenary of the end of WW 1 has helped instil a certain amount of 'respect' about how we globally came together, to fight a futile war, with men dying in their 10's of thousands, in muddy European fields. This sombre fact also helps hammer home that being in the services is 'difficult / hard', in comparison to sitting in your mum n dad's basement, getting fed & watching cats chase laser pointers up a wall....

SA

 

[DaveS124]

The previous thread page has several posts regarding getting troops ashore from an LHD.

Attached images of the Turkish solution to this, being built for their JCI.

Pics from Turkish media, although they look they're supplied PR pics.

 

[hauritz]

If manpower is becoming an issue then maybe we should consider something like an Australian version of the RFA. A mix of civilians and military personnel for the AORs, logistic vessels such as the HMAS Choules and perhaps the Hydrographic/Oceanographic fleet could free up personnel for the frigates, subs and large amphibs.

 

[Massive]

Not sure manpower is an issue due to recruiting.

The RAN has a certain funded strength - the number of positions the government pays for - and the RAN is typically around this strength - with a variation of a few hundred.

This funded strength could be increased by the government if required, and given current recruitment performance any additional positions would likely be promptly filled.

There are likely issues with the mix of experience and of roles/categories but not sure you can blame recruiting in the broad.

Regards,

Massive

 

[hairyman]

Defence Connect

Is this article accurate?

Close to 100% recruiting goals achieved. Less than 10% of applicants accepted. If that article is accurate, then it would seem willingness of young people to join isn’t the issue. Rather, it might be the numbers set for recruitment are too low.

I think we could man a few extra frigates.

This is so typical of our government. They are advertising for recruits for the armed services, but only accepting 10% or less of applicants. Money cant really be the problem, when we are supposed to be moving to spend 2% GDP.. I cant work out what is going on.

 

[Massive]

This is so typical of our government. They are advertising for recruits for the armed services, but only accepting 10% or less of applicants. Money cant really be the problem, when we are supposed to be moving to spend 2% GDP.. I cant work out what is going on.

Why is this an issue?

The armed forces took the numbers they needed from the pool of applicants.

If they were funded for more people they would have taken more applicants.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Flexson]

Ask 100 people how many want to be plumbers for a living, how many will say yes? Ask 1000 people how many want to be doctors for a living, how many will say yes? Ask 25 million people how many want to be in the RAN for a living and the answer seems to be about 14 thousand! Not everyone is interested in serving in the Navy. And at this stage it seems that everything we are doing to try and make it more attractive and increase that percentage of the population wanting to serve is not enough. And I think what the rest of the population wants the government will never want to offer or be able to offer.

When I wrote this what I should have said is; And at this stage everything we are doing to try and make it more attractive and increase that percentage of the population wanting to serve AND CONTINUE SERVING PAST THEIR INITIAL MINIMUM PERIOD OF SERVICE is not enough. Because there is our problem, we have what DCN calls "a hollowness in our ranks" at the LS/PO and LEUT/LCDR level that has existed for decades.

 

[Takao]

Sorry .... only the Australian merchant marine had that work/leave ratio. It is unsustainable and there are fundamental differences in how a merchant ship works and a warship. Merchant vessels are (or should be) in continous service between docking (normally 5 years for a young vessel but occasionally out to 7.5 years user EDDI). While on the ship you work .... there is no leave or going home in the evening for international trading vessels.

The 1 for 1 leave ration enjoyed by Australian seafarers under union negotiated agreements is one of the reasons we do not have much of an international trading fleet any more. Most UK companies run a 4 and 2 ratio (four months on - two months off) for officers which is pretty close to annual leave, public holidays and week ends. Other crews may be on board for up to 11 months.

So ....... in short.... to use the example of a merchant ship to justify how you man a warship is nonsense. The operating metrics are totally different.

@alexsa - not being familiar with merchant operations, a couple of quick questions, please?

When you say between dockings, are you talking about putting it on a slipway for maintenance? So it's constantly moving or loading/unloading?

That leave period, is that paid at the same rate (generally speaking)? Or are there such things as sea-going allowance and the like?

In a normal port when loading/unloading, would you expect a day or part thereof leave? A quick run ashore for a couple of hours?

Beyond the navigation / seamanship aspects, are there any cross-overs between naval and merchant crews?

In your opinion, what two things could a Navy take from merchant operations to improve their own ops?

Sorry - not as quick or a couple Thanks though...

 

[alexsa]

@alexsa - not being familiar with merchant operations, a couple of quick questions, please?

When you say between dockings, are you talking about putting it on a slipway for maintenance? So it's constantly moving or loading/unloading?

That leave period, is that paid at the same rate (generally speaking)? Or are there such things as sea-going allowance and the like?

In a normal port when loading/unloading, would you expect a day or part thereof leave? A quick run ashore for a couple of hours?

Beyond the navigation / seamanship aspects, are there any cross-overs between naval and merchant crews?

In your opinion, what two things could a Navy take from merchant operations to improve their own ops?

Sorry - not as quick or a couple Thanks though...

Merchant vessels dockings are generally in line with Chapter I of SOLAS (as modified by other chapters for bulk carriers and tankers) and this is a 5 year cycle with the intermediate (2.5 years) done in water on most vessels under 15 years of age. This cost money so shipowners will not go to a shorter docking cycle unless there is a need. Maintenance is done on the run as ships only make money when they are moving cargo.

If you are a full time employee of a company leave is just that ... paid leave. If you are on a contract the leave pay must be included in your wages. This is a requirement of the Maritime Labour Convention.

When a ship is in port you will not necessarily get time off. Efforts are made to allow the crew ashore for shopping and some time to themselves (and this is required by MLC) but it is not leave as such.

Naval training will not necessarily get you a merchant ticket (in fact I had to requalify) and there is good reason for this as Navy operate their ships differently noting the cargo ship is cargo focused.