A
Aussie Digger
Guest
In some areas. In others, such as ADFIS, hours are growing. Which is why I'm looking at re-joining next year...
It's like someone is deliberately TRYING to do everything WRONG in sustaining a defence force...
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
It's like someone is deliberately TRYING to do everything WRONG in sustaining a defence force...
thats the irony, money for light green or internal work. the forward vision stuff is taking the hammering.
The problem with the defence bureaucracy is not inherently in the outsourcing of logistics roles or the use of civilians in coal face operations like service provision, project management, etc (with the disclaimer to the above that there are dysfunctional outsourcing and coal face operators but they are in the minority). The problem is in the massive growth of various administration and governance programs that did not exist 20 years ago and if to disappear overnight would not cause a single micro point loss of capability for the ADF.
These programs cause the employment of massive numbers of personnel to run and cause all sorts of inefficiencies to the various frontline/coal face personnel inflicted with their presence. They are far more than a handful of ‘Political Correctness’ programs and relate to the incredible inefficiencies in modern ‘risk adverse’ management. Slash the admin load and not only will you save upwards of 50% of the Defence budget you will significantly improve the working conditions of the balance of the force actually delivering capability.
change the cabinet enforced processes and efficiency will go up. 99.9% of people fail to understand that projects are running under legislated processes.
suits and uniforms pay the price for this. we're a model of efficiency compared to some of NATO.
its a damn shame that the govt doesn't allow journo's into the corporate briefs - they might get a little surprise about how things actually work.
eg the recent article on my project was nonsense (even though it was absolutely positive) unfort we can't comment or correct things or suffer the risk of......
govt knows that they get a free ride and the general public and media will regularly bash the public service. whats laughable is when you see some talking about procurement purely through CDG and DMO terms and often mix up the roles and responsibilities.
I despair at the quality of journalism on defence issues in this country, but know that the poor bastards doing the job can't even go out and correct the most basic mistakes. It regularly goes to govt that staff are pissed at not being able to defend themselves against some of the trollish behaviour that passes as journalism in this country - but it ends up being handled by media units.
I don't know who's teaching Govt media liaison, but when I had to do my course it was a solid month and run and done by ABC taught investigative journalists.
when you don't look after your people, when you let this crap pass as truth - then you will never get the absolute loyalty and goodwill that does exist.
HMAS Perth ASMD
Informative article on HMAS Perth and the upgraded capability, and it's actually quite accurate too..... now there's a bonus. Sorry can't post link directly as post count too low.
See Asia Pacific Defence Reporter : APDR November 2010 page 32
Maybe someone else will post the link.
Informative article on HMAS Perth and the upgraded capability, and it's actually quite accurate too..... now there's a bonus. Sorry can't post link directly as post count too low.
See Asia Pacific Defence Reporter : APDR November 2010 page 32
Maybe someone else will post the link.
It is difficult when it comes up where you work at a social setting and some dipstick starts going on and on about the crap a particular journalist keeps writing as if it is gospel truth. You have read the stories, you know they are totally off the mark but are restricted from defending yourself and your colleagues from this unsubstantiated libel.
It is particularly frustrating when there is a problem that is due to another organisation directly contracted to the Commonwealth, which you have no authority or visibility of, yet their name is not even mentioned in the article that describes in great detail the journo’s opinion that your employer, and therefore you and your colleagues, are to blame.
We continually get reminders from our security personnel that a favoured technique used by foreign intelligence operatives is to provoke a defensive response through slander and / or libel in the hope someone in the know will say too much putting the story straight. Could we possibly consider all journalists who produce untrue reports as foreign intelligence operatives and either deport or jail them?
Yes that was a good article and I look forward to hearing how the trials go.
I can't help but wondering how much the new mast on PERTH weighs in comparison to the main mast on the AWD and whether the EMI issues of fitting CEAFAR / CEAMOUNT (and integrating it into AEGIS) in addition to SPY-1D would be insurmountable.
I guess nothing is insurmountable, it comes down to compromise, compromise on design, performance, interoperability, etc. The RadHaz and interoperability implications of SPY-1D are quite huge to say the least, and I don't believe it would make much sense to have both systems on a common platform. Integration of CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT into the AEGIS suite (in replacement of SPY-1D), well that does make sense especially for a medium range engagement capability on a smaller platform (ie. frigate). I guess Northrup Grumman (part share holder in CEA) would be pushing for this, but I would think Lockheed Martin would probably like to see something from there own product line integrated rather than CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT.
The ASMD mast is an all aluminimum structure and is largely empty, and the CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT faces while not light, aren't that heavy in comparison to comparable legacy technology. AWD doesn't really have a mast for the SPY radar as it's integrated into the foremast/bridge house and apparently doesn't require the elevation to get full horizon coverage, so it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Blas de Lezo
Member
I have read quite a few articles from the asiapacificdefencereporter lately. In your opinion how credible are their articles? is it a serious publication?. The questions are genuine , I very much would like your opinion on this site.
Best regards and thanks.
Best regards and thanks.
Well I'm not to sure how to take your question. The article is accurate, and does describe the capability of the upgrade (assuming the trials are successful). I can't speak for other articles, but I would assume they would be crediable.
APDR tend to go for accuracy rather than sensationalism and over the years they have been pretty good at predicting trends in procurement. There have been many even handed articles they have published that have turned out to be spot on.
Blas de Lezo
Member
As I said, the question was genuine and it did not referred to the mentioned article but to this one
http://www.navantia.es/irj/go/km/docs/documents/Portal%20Navantia/Noticias/Navantia%20es%20noticia%20PDFs/APDR.pdf
But since I had no previous references to the site, I did not know how much credibility it deserved.
Thanks for your opinion.
Regards
I have always found their articles fair and pretty well informed with good accuracy, occasional glitch here and there, but better than most defence journalism
Blas de Lezo
Member
Thanks, I will keep an eye on it, sorry for the one-liner
Regards
Regards
With the remote possibility of a Bay Class LSD(A) serving under our white ensign, I am interested in the dimensions of their docking wells. They carry a single LCU MK 10 and 2 LCVP's but I am unsure if the LCVP's are in the dock with the with the LCU or if the LCVP's are launched by the big cranes aft of the super structure.
In the one photo of a Bay's dock that I can find it look fairly long, longer than it needs to be for one LCU and I understand that a MK 10 if a fair bit bigger than a LCM1e. So I doubt it but could two 1e's fit?. Bellow is a link of a photo the dock.
Google Image Result for http://www.damennaval.com/dynamisch/zoommodule/6_1_LSDA_Bay_Class_2.JPG
On another note somebody on this thread or another mentioned that a big "Tent" can be erected for use as a hanger. Bellow is a link to a photo I found with a Bay with the "Tent" on the back.
Google Image Result for http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3515/4077216897_f5762e5e88.jpg
In the one photo of a Bay's dock that I can find it look fairly long, longer than it needs to be for one LCU and I understand that a MK 10 if a fair bit bigger than a LCM1e. So I doubt it but could two 1e's fit?. Bellow is a link of a photo the dock.
Google Image Result for http://www.damennaval.com/dynamisch/zoommodule/6_1_LSDA_Bay_Class_2.JPG
On another note somebody on this thread or another mentioned that a big "Tent" can be erected for use as a hanger. Bellow is a link to a photo I found with a Bay with the "Tent" on the back.
Google Image Result for http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3515/4077216897_f5762e5e88.jpg
Last edited:
I'm just a somebody now... 
The well dock of the Bay class LSD is quite small in keeping with its sealift role and to avoid the same scale of ballasting needed for longer well docks. It is sized just for a single RM LCU Mk 10 which is about 30m long and 8m wide. So it could only carry a single LCM8. But the role of the sealift ship is not to host LCMs on board but to simply provide for the LHDs LCMs to dock and take on stores for transfer to the LHD.
Other Bay class factoids from the brochure include:
The well dock of the Bay class LSD is quite small in keeping with its sealift role and to avoid the same scale of ballasting needed for longer well docks. It is sized just for a single RM LCU Mk 10 which is about 30m long and 8m wide. So it could only carry a single LCM8. But the role of the sealift ship is not to host LCMs on board but to simply provide for the LHDs LCMs to dock and take on stores for transfer to the LHD.
Other Bay class factoids from the brochure include:
Truck lane metres are over 1,200 which equates to 24 MBTs or 150 light trucks.
Well take solace in the fact that your at least a somebody, not a nobody! :lol3I'm just a somebody now...
The well dock of the Bay class LSD is quite small in keeping with its sealift role and to avoid the same scale of ballasting needed for longer well docks. It is sized just for a single RM LCU Mk 10 which is about 30m long and 8m wide. So it could only carry a single LCM8. But the role of the sealift ship is not to host LCMs on board but to simply provide for the LHDs LCMs to dock and take on stores for transfer to the LHD.
Other Bay class factoids from the brochure include:
Truck lane metres are over 1,200 which equates to 24 MBTs or 150 light trucks.
Fair enough point about the LSD's role being to support the LHD's, so they don't necessarily need their own Landing Craft as they can use the LHD's. Still it is a useful capability to be able to deploy a LCM-8 in theater to under take the independent tasking's a LCM-1e is not capable of. After all when we pay off the legacy Amphibs we loss that capability.
Last edited:
Blas de Lezo
Member
I took this pictures at Portsmouth, 2006, I think. I wasn't allowed to sail any closer sorry.
- Status