In general they are talking about new plans of combined navy/civilian crewing.
@ Todjaeger, they will need the helo pad to shuttle the civilian part of the crew for 6 weeks on/ 6 weeks off
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
In general they are talking about new plans of combined navy/civilian crewing.
@ Todjaeger, they will need the helo pad to shuttle the civilian part of the crew for 6 weeks on/ 6 weeks off
yep, but the detail is whats causing grief. there are some legislative and governance issues.
Well the the outsourcing of key naval roles continues with the bellow announcement http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2011/12/13/minister-for-defence-and-minister-for-defence-materiel-–-study-into-alternative-crewing-for-navy-support-ships-2/
Basically it looks like we may be setting up some kind of quasi RFA
Basically it looks like we may be setting up some kind of quasi RFA
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7,344
“In the past 12 months, we’ve made a number of improvements in Defence,” Mr Clare said.
These include:
1) A record number of Government approvals – This year the Government has approved more Defence projects than any Government in the past decade – 46 project approvals worth more than $6 billion.
2) Implementing reform – This year Mr Smith and Mr Clare announced 42 reforms to improve the way Defence purchases, maintains and disposes of military equipment. A dozen of these reforms have now been implemented. Implementation of the rest is underway. The Australian Strategic and Policy Institute has described these reforms as a “package of measured and sensible reforms.”
3) Delivered new equipment – This includes 24 new Super Hornet fighter jets, the missile defence system for our Navy frigates and upgrades to our Bushmaster vehicles in Afghanistan to make them even safer.
4) Fixing problems – This time last year, the Navy had no amphibious ships available. Now they have three to assist with humanitarian and disaster relief. In the past 12 months, the Projects of Concern list has also been cut in half. At the start of the year there were 12 projects on the list, there are now six.
”
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2011/12/13/minister-for-defence-materiel-statement-on-appointment-as-minister-for-home-affairs-and-minister-for-justice/
Umm, am i the only who notes that half of these problems are because of the goverment...
item 1, does the approvals include paperclips or something? im guessing post 9/11 there were a record number of useful approvals made to improve the ADF.
2. Reforms...when does this kick in?
3. delievered new equipment, ordered by the previous govt. and ones in which they competed against...SH anyone?
4."12 months ago the navy had no amphibious ships, now they have 3" umm, Choules and what?!? im pretty sure HMNZS Canterbury does not count as our own...and OP was a joke,Windimere still is, and Tobruk is lucky to put to sea, im waiting for her to get back this week and find out how it went past the heads.
If your going to make a big name for yourself, tell your spin doctor to find something worth gloating about, cause right now theres FA id put in a press release to be proud of...
These include:
1) A record number of Government approvals – This year the Government has approved more Defence projects than any Government in the past decade – 46 project approvals worth more than $6 billion.
2) Implementing reform – This year Mr Smith and Mr Clare announced 42 reforms to improve the way Defence purchases, maintains and disposes of military equipment. A dozen of these reforms have now been implemented. Implementation of the rest is underway. The Australian Strategic and Policy Institute has described these reforms as a “package of measured and sensible reforms.”
3) Delivered new equipment – This includes 24 new Super Hornet fighter jets, the missile defence system for our Navy frigates and upgrades to our Bushmaster vehicles in Afghanistan to make them even safer.
4) Fixing problems – This time last year, the Navy had no amphibious ships available. Now they have three to assist with humanitarian and disaster relief. In the past 12 months, the Projects of Concern list has also been cut in half. At the start of the year there were 12 projects on the list, there are now six.
”
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2011/12/13/minister-for-defence-materiel-statement-on-appointment-as-minister-for-home-affairs-and-minister-for-justice/
Umm, am i the only who notes that half of these problems are because of the goverment...
item 1, does the approvals include paperclips or something? im guessing post 9/11 there were a record number of useful approvals made to improve the ADF.
2. Reforms...when does this kick in?
3. delievered new equipment, ordered by the previous govt. and ones in which they competed against...SH anyone?
4."12 months ago the navy had no amphibious ships, now they have 3" umm, Choules and what?!? im pretty sure HMNZS Canterbury does not count as our own...and OP was a joke,Windimere still is, and Tobruk is lucky to put to sea, im waiting for her to get back this week and find out how it went past the heads.
If your going to make a big name for yourself, tell your spin doctor to find something worth gloating about, cause right now theres FA id put in a press release to be proud of...
Last edited:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
All the debate thats been going on over at the RFA Largs Bay/ HMAS Choules thread about why Choules wasn't repainted in RAN Green/Gray.
Well here's the answer as to why, Choules will be the lead ship of the Australian RFA, or should I say RAFA!!
if we want to save money then stopping funding to ASPI to stop them coming out with stupid comments on subs and force posture would be a win - we could shove that money back into something useful. Let them survive on merit
3? what 3?
that would be why there are 30 on the list - not 6
the review process is even more complex - far more gate reviews and submissions have to be made
they took away $20bn, reform by proxy
if they're counting tobruk then they're being a bit loose with the truth
A further vessel requirement was identified about 2 months ago but no details were made available to the public
a whole pile of things were identified, some are drip feeding out now.
or it could be a bad interpretation of this media release
Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Landing Helicopter Dock Ship update
Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Landing Helicopter Dock Ship update
they may have taken "Arrive" to mean the same as "deliver".
Nope, after they get delivered they will face another couple of years in the hands of those idiots at TENDIK's...opps i meant BAE :roll to get the superstructure fitted.
They have already had their AWD work taken of them because inability to read plans properly, so forgive me if I am not confident on their ability to deliver on schedule.
Minister Smith was speaking (presumably at the commissioning of HMAS Choules) and was very specific about a new transport ship having been ordered and due for delivery next year. His exact words were ... a second transport ship ....
I did a double take when I heard it - hence my question here.
Here is the link to the media release
Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Additional ship to be purchased for humanitarian and disaster relief capability
Quote "Detailed decisions on the purchase of the additional ship will be taken in the near future.
The third ship will primarily be used to transport troops and supplies in support of humanitarian and disaster relief operations domestically and in the region.
A commercial off-the-shelf vessel will be sought so that minimal modifications will be needed allowing the ship to enter into service in the course of 2012.
The vessel will be manned under a civilian crewing arrangement."
COTS and Civvy manned ? I would take a stab in the dark, knowing this Government, and guess another JB ? Interesting move, not sure how it will work with the civillian crew, nothing I have heard in the pipeline, but easy enough to make the changes for a Fleet Aux ?
Cheers
Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Additional ship to be purchased for humanitarian and disaster relief capability
Quote "Detailed decisions on the purchase of the additional ship will be taken in the near future.
The third ship will primarily be used to transport troops and supplies in support of humanitarian and disaster relief operations domestically and in the region.
A commercial off-the-shelf vessel will be sought so that minimal modifications will be needed allowing the ship to enter into service in the course of 2012.
The vessel will be manned under a civilian crewing arrangement."
COTS and Civvy manned ? I would take a stab in the dark, knowing this Government, and guess another JB ? Interesting move, not sure how it will work with the civillian crew, nothing I have heard in the pipeline, but easy enough to make the changes for a Fleet Aux ?
Cheers
The ship is finally commissioned, the ceremony was today, it went pretty fast, I enjoyed being part of it.
Rumours of a second Bay Class purchase were around when we were in Falmouth.
The hull appears to have been painted as well but if you are moving from a single part paint to an epoxy two pack then it is quite lilely you will need to blast back to primer (probably not SA2.5). this will add cost. If the same paint type is used then it may be a patch and coat job only. Even if you tint to the Aus colour (which in short runs will be more expesive) there may still be a compatabiltiy issue in paint types.
...... and a number of us have a lot of experience in this area.
Civilian crew means full Naviagation Act 1912 compliance and a civilian operator. DoD would be free to direct the ship to undertake certain fucntions as the 'charter' or client, but these must be carried out within the limits of the vessels certification.
You can call it a fleet Aux if you like but the term does not exist in law.
And then some.
That's what I meant. it is easy enough for the Government to change it so it is law
Forget reading plans, they can't even get basic workmanship right, it’s not just what they built its how they built it.
Williamstown have never been a brilliant yard but successive governments have to wear some of the blame for not ensuring the capability to build major combatants was maintained. When you only build half your combatants locally and have gaps of several years to a decade or more between builds you can’t expect capabilities to be maintained. Worse than that, the government starves yards of work and then expects them to be able to ramp up and build ships in less time and to a competitive cost to the best and busiest yards in the world.
Watch this space as the same is about to happen with the ANZAC replacements. There will be a gap of several years between the last AWD and the first of the new frigates which will see a significant degradation of skills and know how, no matter which yard wins the eventual contract. This will result in delays and cost over runs. The OCV program could be used to fill the gap keeping skills up and teams together, however based on past experience this contract will go where ever there are votes to be bought by who ever is in power at the time, not where it makes strategic sense to maintain the capability to build ships.
Australia seeks European designs on $36 bln submarine fleet | Reuters
this is new, does this mean an all australian sub has been ruled out?
It is not really that easy ..... particulalry in the current climate. The Navigation Act 1912 has been under review for over a decade. Next version will be released next year after much work. Have a look at the Transport ministers releases in this regard.That's what I meant. it is easy enough for the Government to change it so it is law
Moot point really as, even if they give the term a legal basis, it would still need to be a commercial vessel (same as RFA are) unless they wish to change the acts associated with this act...... as an example
The OHS (MI) Act
The seafarers compensation act
The Shipping Registration Act
And a few others to do with levies and environment protection.
I really don't care BUT no action ahs been taken to amend the legisation and this term does not exist in law at this so I would suggest the any suggestion that an Australian version of the RFA will pop into existance in the next 12 months may be preamature.
If they decide to call it a fleet auxillary it really make no difference the critical issue is how it will be regulated.
- Status