FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Yes, that happened eight months ago. (the article if from Oct 2018) and was posted about extensively on page 1259 of this thread (back in Oct 2018)
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
My post was in response to earlier post by Hauritz for an additional AOR with UAV capabilities , the point I was attempting to make was there were of course present capabilities by the R.A.N in this , there are of course U.A.V,s being introduced elesewhere of a type that may be of interest to the R.A.N , should those capabilities be needed , but it also depends if they can be launched from a LHD with a ramp ,if the emphasis is on the capabilities of U.A.V,S that are of benefit to A.D.F operations then a flatdeck with cat n trap for the larger drones could be a consideration
I think we should re-look at how we do this. One of the biggest complains from the smaller nations is not enough education and opportunity for their personnel. Navy and Army. It was in fact more critical than the platform and platform cost. We created Frank Bainimarama (well had a significant input into his career), and in these nations those with Australian experiences are gold. We would also be wise to find something productive to do with Fiji's oversized military. Regular incorporation into Indo-Pacific ops seem likely but we may see Fiji contributing a more regular force to many Australian centric missions/exercises. There isn't any reason why they and others can't be integrated like the NZ'er are. If we are talking about greater capability that is one way. Smaller/other nations will also want a regular detachment. If we don't do something soon, the only Prime Ministers will be those from military backgrounds and that is a gateway for civil war.
A pacific base in PNG really opens the door to more options regarding crew, secondment, return of service deals, etc. Manus seems to be angling itself as sort of a Pacific Singapore, with low tax, relaxed entry requirements etc. Somewhere where say Sailors from Samoa, Fiji, Timor etc could be based with their families for an extended time. Australia, US and Japan stepping up to the plate, investing massively in first world levels of infrastructure and services.
Which is why the LHD's are so critical, they are a physical manifestation of our partnership and leadership with other nations. On our tour, we can literally pick up hundreds of other nations personnel and exercise and operate together.
Also all the Army's new equipment will be bigger/heavier and more capable than what the original Amphibious ships were designed around. We literally will not be able to fit the Army amphibious elements by 2030. Let alone any new capability. They have been tremendously useful on IP17/18/19.
But any new LHD/Aviation ship/etc would suck up a lot of personnel, you would have give something (big) up. Smaller ships (patrol crew sized) are more possible to pull out of existing, but even then, you are probably hollowing out the robustness of the capability.
Australia currently has a lot of projects going on. Realistically, if it hasn't already been in the 2016 whitepaper, its not doable until 2030. Even then we will have to prioritize which projects we go with post 2030 purely because we can't do all of them, even if we had the money to. Australia is still a small nation, we don't have the depth of the UK or France or other nations. One project can literally suck up all the experts, not just in Australia, but in the region. We have a limited amount of capability to run so many projects both in uniforms and non-uniforms. Off the shelf purchases of existing equipment are much easier and less demanding because all the back office boring stuff that makes that capability works has been done.
What you say makes a lot of sense and with the renewed swing back to the pacific worth pursuing.
My only concern is that these are sovereign detachments not part of the ADF and may be withdrawn subject to local politics.
This may leave a shortfall at a very inopportune time.
What is the point of this though?
If it is simply to build numbers then it would be addressing a problem that doesn't exist. Combat roles typically have waiting lists.
Regards,
Massive
Did I not read somewhere in the above posts about ANZACs sitting on blocks due to shortage of crew.
But really the suggestion was about practicle ways to reengage with the pacific region.
AusGov will invest millions in support and improvement over the next few years.
Some could be used to fund greater enlistment in the ADF.
As stated above the Pacific Islanders gain will be both financal and educational.
The gain for Australia is increased numbers of personal.
And the closer ties that Australia as a country will form between the individual serving, their families and their nation.
Isn't this what the pacific swing is all about.
May be wrong but recruiting sailors from the Pacific Islands is unlikely to solve the challenge of retaining the highly skilled & experienced technical sailors required to operate a highly sophisticated frigate.
There is no issue recruiting entry level soldiers, sailors or airmen as far as I am aware.
Regards,
Massive
The two approaches need not exclude each other, both I think are valid.
But since this is a military forum I commented on military based approach.
And the approach that will give them a skillset that would be very hard to attain within their home nations.
I don't want a colonial approach that skims off the best and brightest but a sharing of skills and knowledge.
Last edited:
My reply was just a through away line aimed at your blanket statement that there was no shortage of manpower within the combat arms of the ADF.
Now it seems there is a shortage but just with senior ranks. This may have been what you meant but it is not what you said.
Flexson
Active Member
He said "Combat Roles" in response to your reply to Big Bird's remarks about Gurka equivalents. I'm a Marine Technician, I would not consider my role a combat role, I would not consider any role in the Navy to really be a combat role besides from Clearance Diver. Yes we can have ancillary duites that are "combat like" in nature such as boarding parties but our primary role is not that. Unlike a Gurka's. Same goes with Army and Airforce hence the Army slang POG when referring to those not in combat roles.
Last edited:
Ocean1Curse
Member
The ADF would still have to recruit from with in the existing immigration frame work. Y'know identify skills the ADF is short on that can't be fulfilled by domestic means and shop around. That's if you wanted a pathway to citizenship.
MrC floated the idea in one of the kiwi threads of using one of the Pacific forums to slap stick a multinational exchange program using surplus RAN and RNZN vessels to build up boarder protection and resource management skills around the South Pacific.
My personal opinion is the more results that are gained out of signing up to deals then the more people will be on the ADFs side
@Flexson You're a stoker and yes fresh air is harmful to stoker types, especially as it means they have to leave their bunks
I was a seaman gunner.Why wouldn't you consider your role and the rest of the current ADF role a combat role? You all take the Queens shilling and as well all know it can turn to custard quicker than a PTI can find a mirror. What's the difference between you being alongside or sailing the oggy and a Gurkha soldier in his barracks or on exercise? Nothing apart from being somewhat more comfortable than the soldier. A sailors primary duty is the same as any soldiers or airmens: protect your nation and follow the legal orders given to you by those officers appointed by HM The Queen, her heirs and successors. Your role is a warfighting role and everything else is secondary. I was taught that by my dad and uncles who fought in WW2 against the Germans and the Japanese. The real lesson they drove home to myself and the rest of my cousins who joined the forces was that in war nobody wins, but in combat nobody comes second. That warfighting role is the prime reason for a Navy, Army and Air Force. However pollies and civvies forget that and generally have it arse about face.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Interesting thought. Noting that a stoker is automatically exposed to more combat than, say, a Brigadier (even a Brigade Commander). And there are certainly some combat roles in the Navy - otherwise your view is only those in a handful of jobs in the Army are combat roles.
Also note that combat role =/= safe or non-combat. Like you, my RAEME / RAAOC / RACT soldiers still faced combat and had to act appropriately. They wear body armour, carry weapons and utilise crew served weapons to defend themselves and neighbours. After all, the most commonly hit blue target in Afghanistan or Iraq wasn't the infantry patrols, but rather the fuel tankers. Why shoot at a Tiger or M-1 when you can kill their log chain?
I note the only time I hear POG mentioned in anything but jocular tones is by a particular type of individual. Most people understand that those in uniform fight - in many ways
It does seem a little strange to me that you think the navy has nothing to do with combat.
I'm sure the many seamen that lost their lives defending Australia would disagree with you.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
How is a crew member of a Destroyer or Frigate, heavily Armed Warships capable of Shooting down Dozens of Aircraft, sinking Surface Ships and Submarines not be in a Combat Role irrespective of wether he actually fires the Weapons? He faces exactly the same risk as those who sit in the Combat centre and they can’t do their job unless everyone else on board does theirs.
Hi. I wanted to ask the more experienced hands here about a crewing issue, but was worried it's too basic. I tried to do a pm to ngatimozart but there's no personal messaging ability, at least on my account.
So hopefully this won't sound too dumb.
My question is: why can't we encourage over 60's from crewing submarines?
My problem is I know nothing about conditions living in a sub. But I think conditions are less physical than on the surface.Am I wrong? My suggestion encouraging older people to crew subs hinges on this.
If sub crews don't face many physical challenges, then an older crew has the following advantages:
- Kids grown up, only a spouse, and they might want some time apart, so unlike those in late 20's/30's not thinking about building a family
- More mature.
- Wider range of life experiences.
- Don't need to carry 20kg loads on back and sprint 25km. So physical athleticism isn't especially important.
- With a growing number of single adults, there are less family commitments,
- Would over 60's be more patriotic?
- Would some think being part of a sub crew was a new lease of life?
- They won't be as hard up when they lose access to the internet ( I hope!).
- With retirement coming up, if they haven't planned financially for the future, surely a submariner's pay might sound appealing.
At the same time, I understand they also have health issues. so might need more Dr's/medical facitiies. Still, let's assume they'll all be fit, and they carry an adequate amount of HBP tablets on board.
What do you think? Please be gentle.
So hopefully this won't sound too dumb.
My question is: why can't we encourage over 60's from crewing submarines?
My problem is I know nothing about conditions living in a sub. But I think conditions are less physical than on the surface.Am I wrong? My suggestion encouraging older people to crew subs hinges on this.
If sub crews don't face many physical challenges, then an older crew has the following advantages:
- Kids grown up, only a spouse, and they might want some time apart, so unlike those in late 20's/30's not thinking about building a family
- More mature.
- Wider range of life experiences.
- Don't need to carry 20kg loads on back and sprint 25km. So physical athleticism isn't especially important.
- With a growing number of single adults, there are less family commitments,
- Would over 60's be more patriotic?
- Would some think being part of a sub crew was a new lease of life?
- They won't be as hard up when they lose access to the internet ( I hope!).
- With retirement coming up, if they haven't planned financially for the future, surely a submariner's pay might sound appealing.
At the same time, I understand they also have health issues. so might need more Dr's/medical facitiies. Still, let's assume they'll all be fit, and they carry an adequate amount of HBP tablets on board.
What do you think? Please be gentle.
I don't think the problem is finding recruits. It is finding the right recruits. Just from my experience in the recruitment industry (IT mostly) I can tell you that there really is a dearth of talent out there. Most companies I dealt with only wanted the most highly qualified and experienced staff.
The navy I expect is the same. I couldn't imagine anything much more complicated to operate than modern weapon systems be they ships, submarines or aircraft. The reality is that the type of people you would need to operate this equipment will always be in demand and in short supply.
The navy I expect is the same. I couldn't imagine anything much more complicated to operate than modern weapon systems be they ships, submarines or aircraft. The reality is that the type of people you would need to operate this equipment will always be in demand and in short supply.
From my (extremely amateur) perspective the challenges appear twofold:
1) I think you are right that, in ordinary operations, there is a relatively lower (but still not low) physical load. Perhaps some older workers could cope with this, but the real issue is what happens when things aren’t ordinary, and you’re doing damage control as a result of battle damage or an accident?
2) Submariners strike me as needing to be right on their game mentally all the time. The reality is that typical humans peak between mentally between the ages of 25 and 45, and subsequently start to experience a gradual decline in multiple aspects of cognitive function. This decline reaches an inflexion point post 55, and accelerates again post 70.
My personal view is that experienced older workers have a tremendous amount to share in training and solving complex problems, however I think trying to retrain someone from scratch post 55 and put them on a submarine would be a recipe for disaster.
Others who know what they’re actually talking with regard to submarine life will be able to correct me.
Apologies if I have offended anyone of a certain vintage!
- Status