Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Flexson]

@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.

Mine might not be a popular opinion on this forum but I can assure everyone that there are MANY people I work with who share this view.

Also might I suggest everyone goes to defencejobs.gov.au and search 'Combat and Security jobs' try this link Combat & Security and see what the recruiting web pages classify Combat AND security roles as, stressing that they have thrown security roles into this list of jobs.

Also cut and pasted from a couple documents from when they were opening up Direct Combat Roles to women.

categories of employment which are classified as ‘direct combat duties’. These are: clearance diving teams (Navy); infantry, armour; artillery and combat engineers (Army); and airfield defence guards and ground defence officers (Air Force)

Table 1. ADF Combat Role Employment Categories
Navy - Clearance Divers
-Mine Warfare and Clearance Diving Officers
Air Force - Airfield Defence Guards
- Ground Defence Officers
Army - Infantry Corps
- Armoured Corps
- Artillery roles
- The Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron
-Combat Engineer Squadrons

 

[ngatimozart]

@76mmGuns I'm most definitely not the one to ask about submarine service. Why deliberately sink your ship and be subject to unkind sods dropping exploding bricks on you. If you spring a tad large leak, it's not as though you can jump over the side.

On the serious side, I haven't any experience with submarine service so don't know the ins and outs of it. However I would think that it would still require one to be fairly physically fit and to be in excellent health. Unfortunately when we hit the age of 60 and beyond, we can have more health related problems than those who are 20 or 30 years younger. A submarine by its nature is a solitary stealthy platform, so is not equipped, nor should be equipped, for the medical care of 60+ age group crew. That's my take on it.

BTW I am over the age of 60, so am getting in before I am accused of ageism or something else by some disciple of PC or some geriatric hippy.

 

[StingrayOZ]

My question is: why can't we encourage over 60's from crewing submarines?

I went through on a tour with the submariners association sydney of a Collins class boat recently. I was the only non-ex submariner in the group.

Half the group had served with each other of some sort in overlapping 20+ years, but all oberons class crews. Age group when from early 50's to mid to late 70's .

Collins boats are miles different in every which way, Oberon sailors aren't going to be much use Collins boats. Oberson's are basically the WW2 submarine out of Das Boot. Collins class are "startrek" in comparison. However, access in the oberon was probably easier than on Collins, you have got to be skinny and flexible on a Collins, and inside, the Collins class "felt" tighter on the inside. A lot of jobs had been automated or changed in such a way they were totally different. Even the structure was totally different, o boats had loads of small compartments (7 or 8?) where Collins was basically divided into 3 which was really 2..

They had all agreed their best years were behind them, and and they had all become more obnoxious and less nimble. While one had actually been to sea on a Collins recently, and worked as a contractor, and was one of the oldest members, but, admitted it was still physically draining for him just for a few hours. At the end of the tour, they all agreed the young crews do it as tough as they did. On a more modern, more effective platform.

What was interesting was the interaction between the young Collins class crew and the older submariners. I think there is definitely something there that could be done to help active submariners through their issues and burnout. Its a shame the the new sub base is in WA and the old one was in Sydney, because there could definitely be more support.

Subs have surprisingly young crews (high burnout? Low retention). Most were 20-30. Every 30 year old told me about their immediate plan to get out of the RAN ASAP. So even a 40 year old would be ancient on these platforms. By the time your in your 60's you could be someones great grandpar on the boat.

However, there is now a huge pool of ex-Collins class sailors out there, working in mining, defence and related industries. Aged between 25-early 50's. Who would be available in a conflict type scenario. But it doesn't make sense to be a submariner currently because of career prospects, family, money etc. But it is also those same reasons they can't offer much support or be active in the WA association. Many relocate to SA where the Subs are built or Canberra (senior postings) etc.

Which is why I think an East Coast base is a good idea. If for nothing else it draws from a much larger pool of potential applicants. WA can be the main base, but basing of at least some subs in the east would be good for many reasons.

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

Mine might not be a popular opinion on this forum but I can assure everyone that there are MANY people I work with who share this view.

Also might I suggest everyone goes to defencejobs.gov.au and search 'Combat and Security jobs' try this link Combat & Security and see what the recruiting web pages classify Combat AND security roles as, stressing that they have thrown security roles into this list of jobs.

Also cut and pasted from a couple documents from when they were opening up Direct Combat Roles to women.

categories of employment which are classified as ‘direct combat duties’. These are: clearance diving teams (Navy); infantry, armour; artillery and combat engineers (Army); and airfield defence guards and ground defence officers (Air Force)

Table 1. ADF Combat Role Employment Categories
Navy - Clearance Divers
-Mine Warfare and Clearance Diving Officers
Air Force - Airfield Defence Guards
- Ground Defence Officers
Army - Infantry Corps
- Armoured Corps
- Artillery roles
- The Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron
-Combat Engineer Squadrons

• Direct combat duties are defined in a Defence Instruction on the employment of women in the ADF as ‘duties requiring a person to commit, or participate directly in the commission of an act or violence against an armed adversary; and duties exposing a person to a high probability of direct physical contact with an armed adversary.’

source: Women in the armed forces: the role of women in the Australian Defence Force – Parliament of Australia

Aircrew and ships crews do undertake combat (surprise, surprise) but generally not in "direct physical contact with an armed adversary".

 

[76mmGuns]

Thanks everyone for your replies. I was just looking at the positives of the over 60's to help with crewing shortages. I also didn't want to waste people's time on something which might sounds silly to the more knowledgable here, hence I tried to message a moderator first.

 

[Volkodav]

Mine might not be a popular opinion on this forum but I can assure everyone that there are MANY people I work with who share this view.

Also might I suggest everyone goes to defencejobs.gov.au and search 'Combat and Security jobs' try this link Combat & Security and see what the recruiting web pages classify Combat AND security roles as, stressing that they have thrown security roles into this list of jobs.

Also cut and pasted from a couple documents from when they were opening up Direct Combat Roles to women.

categories of employment which are classified as ‘direct combat duties’. These are: clearance diving teams (Navy); infantry, armour; artillery and combat engineers (Army); and airfield defence guards and ground defence officers (Air Force)

Table 1. ADF Combat Role Employment Categories
Navy - Clearance Divers
-Mine Warfare and Clearance Diving Officers
Air Force - Airfield Defence Guards
- Ground Defence Officers
Army - Infantry Corps
- Armoured Corps
- Artillery roles
- The Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron
-Combat Engineer Squadrons

The navy is very much all or nothing, either the whole ship is in combat and the line of fire or it is not. Doesn't matter what your job is on board, when the ship fights you fight, some of the most dangerous jobs, i.e. damage control and fire fighting are conducted by non combat rates, my mates grandfather was a cook and awarded the DCM in WWII. As for stokers, boarding parties have included a MT for years now to secure the machinery spaces of boarded vessels. They even fast rope when required, i.e. during Gulf deployments, most regular infantry in most countries don't do that.

 

[old faithful]

Modern warfare is much different now.
I have a Q Waller mate who in Afghanistan had some hairy moments inside the wire, and one of my work mates was a cook, his digger (also a cook) was murdered by a Taliban ANA infiltrater whilst he was taking a leak.
The VC also did similar things, my uncle was a which hand on a RAN chopper in Vietnam, they did some casevacs mainly assisting US forces. He and his mate got through till the last days of their deployment. Uncles mate got a haircut just days before going home, had his throat cut in the barbers chair, and went home in a bag.
Guess what I'm trying to say is, everyone has a role to play, now more important than ever. Its usually the younger grunts who call pogo, in my day, it was never said with venom. Our Admin company 3RAR became a quasi rifle company on operations, we didn't airdrop many field kitchens or uni mogs......we did drop the occasional mog and Hamel gun, but not often, engineers used to man pack all sorts of heavy looking bits of stuff like cobras, (petrol pwered jack hammer, chainsaws etc ) just as awkward and as heavy to jump with as an 81mm morter, base plate, tripod or 84.

 

[Flexson]

The navy is very much all or nothing, either the whole ship is in combat and the line of fire or it is not. Doesn't matter what your job is on board, when the ship fights you fight, some of the most dangerous jobs, i.e. damage control and fire fighting are conducted by non combat rates, my mates grandfather was a cook and awarded the DCM in WWII. As for stokers, boarding parties have included a MT for years now to secure the machinery spaces of boarded vessels. They even fast rope when required, i.e. during Gulf deployments, most regular infantry in most countries don't do that.

Correct. Still doesn't mean my job is classified as a Combat Role/Direct Combat Duties by the ADF.

 

[hairyman]

If when I was 60, someone offered me a job on a naval ship, I would have thought long and hard about it, but if they said it was to be a submariner, no thought required. I would have said "Get stuffed" I have the same thoughts as Ngatmozart re spending time in tin cans under water.

 

[hairyman]

I have nothing but the greatest admiration for those boys and girls that do serve under water.

 

[Volkodav]

I

If when I was 60, someone offered me a job on a naval ship, I would have thought long and hard about it, but if they said it was to be a submariner, no thought required. I would have said "Get stuffed" I have the same thoughts as Ngatmozart re spending time in tin cans under water.

I am closer to 50 than 40 and following a conversation with an RAN surgeon, I am seriously considering what is called mid career entry. This is where candidates with suitable skills can be appointed to the reserve, or potentially the permanent force, at a rank commensurate with their qualifications and experience.

Sometimes knowledge counts more than physical prowess.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Submariners also have to be pretty physically capable to use the escape system. There is an argument that escape training is too dangerous as it is.
Is pressurised submarine escape training really too dangerous? | The Strategist
Back in the day I believe the rate was about 1 person a month in the US would literally explode their lungs by surfacing too quick.

Subs are pretty risky places, recent events with Russian subs and Argentinian subs highlight this. After these events, you can imagine the sort of pressure the whole sub community feels when they deploy. Subs have always been hard to crew. We event tried conscripting people into subs, an experiment that failed, badly.

Sometimes knowledge counts more than physical prowess.

Particularly in technical postings. IMO why would physical prowess ever really come into it. ~70% of the ADF roles, if not more is not about physical prowess. Why should an expert in Cybersecurity need to be able to run a minute mile and do 100 pushups in 2 minutes. Particularly in a reserve type posting in a technical role. Wouldn't it be more important they are good at the core functions of their job.

Some people might even join the ADF as an incentive to "get fit" (using the John Candy argument from stars and stripes). Approximately 50% of Australians report as being overweight. Losing 5-10 kg is much easier than teaching someone how to be an engineer.

While we probably aren't looking at 60 year olds to join the SAS. We could certainly use talented older people in a huge number of technical/non front line roles in the ADF. The nature of warfare has changed.
The next major war may not actually involve any human combatants. So the idea that we need everyone to run 20 km in a tight time and do 100 pushups is pretty old fashioned. Not only that, fitness freaks are likely to be disappointed in a career which sees them behind a computer for 8+ hours a day in an office.

 

[Volkodav]

Particularly in technical postings. IMO why would physical prowess ever really come into it. ~70% of the ADF roles, if not more is not about physical prowess. Why should an expert in Cybersecurity need to be able to run a minute mile and do 100 pushups in 2 minutes. Particularly in a reserve type posting in a technical role. Wouldn't it be more important they are good at the core functions of their job.

Some people might even join the ADF as an incentive to "get fit" (using the John Candy argument from stars and stripes). Approximately 50% of Australians report as being overweight. Losing 5-10 kg is much easier than teaching someone how to be an engineer.

While we probably aren't looking at 60 year olds to join the SAS. We could certainly use talented older people in a huge number of technical roles in the ADF.

Not all ADF personnel are that fit, or even that proficient with firearms. That said though, I would be a hell of a lot fitter if I was allowed (expected even) to spend an hour or so a day doing PT during work hours.

 

[ngatimozart]

If when I was 60, someone offered me a job on a naval ship, I would have thought long and hard about it, but if they said it was to be a submariner, no thought required. I would have said "Get stuffed" I have the same thoughts as Ngatmozart re spending time in tin cans under water.

Some of us Kiwi old salts have said that we'd sign up again, but with conditions: all night in (no night watches), afternoon nana naps, daily rum tot (must be West Indian). Think that was it.

 

[Stampede]

Some food for thought in the latest edition of Defence technology Review.

Defence Technology Review : DTR JUL 2019, Page 1

The Pacific Support ship and options for the future.
Maybe the LCH has not had it's day.


Regards S

 

[hauritz]

Some food for thought in the latest edition of Defence technology Review.

Defence Technology Review : DTR JUL 2019, Page 1

The Pacific Support ship and options for the future.
Maybe the LCH has not had it's day.


Regards S

It would be nice if the navy got a ship out of this that was actually useful.

The white paper actually identified a need for a logistic ship or AOR to be built towards the end of the next decade. The Pacific Support ship might be a chance for the navy to get both. They could get the Pacific Support Ship to perform double duty and also serve as a logistics ship and then buy a third AOR in the late 20s.

 

[MickB]

It would be nice if the navy got a ship out of this that was actually useful.

The white paper actually identified a need for a logistic ship or AOR to be built towards the end of the next decade. The Pacific Support ship might be a chance for the navy to get both. They could get the Pacific Support Ship to perform double duty and also serve as a logistics ship and then buy a third AOR in the late 20s.

The conclusion I got from the article was that a number of modern LCH style ships would be more useful in supporting the pacific region than one large multi-role ship.

This will fill the gap between the LCMs and the big amphibs.

Of interest is who has the lead role in this program, ADF, DFAT or joint.
Will the ships be armed as military auxilaries?
Will the crews be service personnel, contractor or both?
A lot of details still to be worked out.

My hope is when the money is allocated for this role that it given to the ADF (in addition to the defence budget) and they expand to include this tasking.

 

[spoz]

Interesting article, although there were a couple of errors of fact. At least early in her life Tobruk quite regularly beached without tugs being in attendance, classification society rules don’t apply to ships under Naval Flag Authority regulation unless specifically called up, and in any case there are classification society rules which provide specifically for ships which are designed to regularly beach. And of course while it is true that there were originally 8 LCH, two were always dedicated to working in PNG, were gifted to PNG at independence, and are still operating there so far as I know, so they were never lost to the tasks for which they were acquired. These don’t detract from the “more hulls are likely to be better, and smaller hulls are easier to beach” argument but they are distracting.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Some food for thought in the latest edition of Defence technology Review.

Defence Technology Review : DTR JUL 2019, Page 1

The Pacific Support ship and options for the future.
Maybe the LCH has not had it's day.


Regards S

The conclusion I got from the article was that a number of modern LCH style ships would be more useful in supporting the pacific region than one large multi-role ship.

This will fill the gap between the LCMs and the big amphibs.

Of interest is who has the lead role in this program, ADF, DFAT or joint.
Will the ships be armed as military auxilaries?
Will the crews be service personnel, contractor or both?
A lot of details still to be worked out.

My hope is when the money is allocated for this role that it given to the ADF (in addition to the defence budget) and they expand to include this tasking.

I came to a similar conclusion as MickB. A certain paragraph at the end of the article, as well a certain prominent ad further back in the publication, made think of a certain direction that DTR might recommend in a future article.



The company from the ad has a decent video on the Stern Landing Vessek's capabilities. Pretty sure it's been posted before, likely in this thread. So, I'll just add a link
Stern Landing Vessel (SLV) vs Conventional Landing Craft - Updated

 

[Stampede]

I came to a similar conclusion as MickB. A certain paragraph at the end of the article, as well a certain prominent ad further back in the publication, made think of a certain direction that DTR might recommend in a future article.
View attachment 46662
View attachment 46663

The company from the ad has a decent video on the Stern Landing Vessek's capabilities. Pretty sure it's been posted before, likely in this thread. So, I'll just add a link
Stern Landing Vessel (SLV) vs Conventional Landing Craft - Updated

I think you may very well be correct.
We'll just have to wait for the next instalment.
Something small enough to independently land and extract itself form the beach.
But also with the ability to transit the mainland coast and sail to our Island neighbours would be a good fit.
Not sure what size and shape, such a craft looks like; but suggest three of such a vessel would certainly be more preferable than one much larger Pacific Support Ship.
Maybe the Stern landing Vessel concept is the modern incarnation of the older LCH.

Regards S