Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

Neither does being based in Sydney help matters if your parents live in Melbourne or Brisbane or Perth or Hobart or Adelaide. Why is Sydney so important? Do all submarines being recruited come from Sydney? What is wrong with hiring a baby sitter?

Sorry rubbish. It is an achiveable drive up the east coast but it is not to the west. More to the point if you want to fly the flight options on the east coast are greater and costs lower. Not so flights to the west.

Due to our demographics the majority of Naval recruitement does come from the east coast and the idea of "head west and stay there" if you choose (or are pushed) into subs is less then appealing. Particulary when compared to the surface ship folk who have a pretty good chance of rotating out of there.

 

[alexsa]

Time to move on. This is going around in circles

Err sorry GF missed your post when I responded. Bit sick of the idea that any body in this day and age that decides they would rather not live in a certain place is a bit of a whip or a slacker is basically getting up my nose.

 

[hairyman]

Has the Navy been mentioned in the budget? With the RAAF now getting the C27's (at last), and the Amy now missing out on the motorised guns, it looks like the Navy has failed to rate a mention. Or did I miss something?

 

[Milne Bay]

Has the Navy been mentioned in the budget? With the RAAF now getting the C27's (at last), and the Amy now missing out on the motorised guns, it looks like the Navy has failed to rate a mention. Or did I miss something?

12 new submarines

 

[StingrayOZ]

$200 million to spend on submarine assessment. While nothing tangible comes from that directly, its still real money.
$40 billion to build them (HA! Believe it when it happens).

Navy also is getting the LHD, the AWD's, etc so its not like they aren't getting anything, its just was decided before. Both of those are going to completely change the RAN is doctrine and capability. Choles is still fairly new as well.

While defence is a mixed bag, they I believe are still committed to a 3% GDP on defence. Which given the current global situation is at least bearable.

 

[Trackmaster]

Sadly, I think the 3% commitment has gone with the wind.
I understand 1.6% of GDP at the moment.

 

[Marc 1]

Sadly, I think the 3% commitment has gone with the wind.
I understand 1.6% of GDP at the moment.

Remember (and I'm no apologist for this government) - the 3% was not a commitment to raise spending to this percentage of GDP, it was a commitment to raise spending above inflation by 3% per year IIRC.

On another point, yes the army did get stiffed, the RAAF and the Navy are fine, the army is yet again shafted. Maybe the cams worn by members are too effective and the government can't see the army, so forgets it exists?

Might be time to roll an M1 up to malfunction junction and poke the barrel into the house of Reps...

 

[StingrayOZ]

On another point, yes the army did get stiffed, the RAAF and the Navy are fine, the army is yet again shafted. Maybe the cams worn by members are too effective and the government can't see the army, so forgets it exists?

Army seemed to get nothing. I would have thought the self propelled artillery would have got up. As we actually now have the sort of assets that could deploy that capability. Where naval fire can't reach or get into and air support is too far away but too risky to have personnel in singlets man handling shells in the jungle.

Both the RAAF and the RAN have been able to yell out the dual purpose/peaceful capability of their assets (sea and airlift). The army needs something that has a peaceful use. M1's as political security details would be appropriate, but carefully, we won't want any pollies to get run over now..

 

[StevoJH]

Might be time to roll an M1 up to malfunction junction and poke the barrel into the house of Reps...

Best not to suggest that, even as a joke.

 

[rand0m]

Army seemed to get nothing. I would have thought the self propelled artillery would have got up. As we actually now have the sort of assets that could deploy that capability. Where naval fire can't reach or get into and air support is too far away but too risky to have personnel in singlets man handling shells in the jungle.

Both the RAAF and the RAN have been able to yell out the dual purpose/peaceful capability of their assets (sea and airlift). The army needs something that has a peaceful use. M1's as political security details would be appropriate, but carefully, we won't want any pollies to get run over now..

With all due respect, the budget could of been a whole lot worse given the mentality of the current government (and I'm a right wing extremist!). I'm surprised the RAN didn't become the new Asylum seeker ferry service.

 

[old faithful]

I read that the SPG guns are gone, but additional towed artillary will be bought.
Is that additional to the 35 x 777,s, or are they refering to those guns as the additional guns to augment the M198,s.?

 

[Raven22]

On another point, yes the army did get stiffed, the RAAF and the Navy are fine, the army is yet again shafted. Maybe the cams worn by members are too effective and the government can't see the army, so forgets it exists?

It's actually not that bad, of the $5.5 billion in cuts, less than a billion is out of the Army budget. A lot of the cuts are really just cuts on paper, with limited short term impact. For instance, storing a squadron's worth of M1s isn't that big a deal as there are only two manned squadrons in 1 Armd Regt anyway. It might impact the availability of vehicles and limit track kms, but its not like a squadrn has been taken out of service. Storing 100 M113AS4s will have almost no impact, as the M113s are being delivered straight to storage anyway.

What is going to hurt is the delay to major equipment programs. For instance, Land 400 has been delayed by 12 months, giving an IOC of 2023. For a project that was supposed to have an IOC of 2016 only four years ago, that doesn't bode well for the future. The ASLAV fleet for one won't last that long, especially as the Phase 4 upgrade has been canned.

Hopefully when the current government gets the boot next year the next mob might be able to fix it. Tony Abbott did promise me personally that he would bring back the beret, so that's a start.

I read that the SPG guns are gone, but additional towed artillary will be bought.
Is that additional to the 35 x 777,s, or are they refering to those guns as the additional guns to augment the M198,s.?

An extra 18 M777s will be bought instead of the 18 SPGs.

 

[phreeky]

Hopefully when the current government gets the boot next year the next mob might be able to fix it. Tony Abbott did promise me personally that he would bring back the beret, so that's a start.

Either side of politics would've made similar cuts to defence. There's only so much revenue to go around, times are tough for a lot of people, and ultimately there'll be a lot of people saying that a lot more should've been cut from defence than there has been.

 

[Volkodav]

Tony Abbott did promise me personally that he would bring back the beret, so that's a start.

The trouble is he also promised the Trooper he was chatting to in the ORs mess that he was bringing in the US Forage cap he thought were so cool, and don't forget the local RSL were promised that horses, swords and lances would be reissued too. :

 

[Raven22]

The trouble is he also promised the Trooper he was chatting to in the ORs mess that he was bringing in the US Forage cap he thought were so cool, and don't forget the local RSL were promised that horses, swords and lances would be reissued too. :

Yeah, but I've got proof:

However, Mr Abbott did raise smiles from the troops when asked his views on the banning of berets, which was revealed by Fairfax Media last year.

The decision - on the grounds of lack of "sun protection" - was heavily criticised by troops, who believed their heritage was being discarded for no reason, and were also resentful because the ban did not apply to the elite Special Air Service troops. It is a measure of the anger that, almost 18 months later, they were questioning Mr Abbott about it.

"What I don't understand is that they let the SAS keep their berets, but they don't let anybody else. If there was an [occupational health and safety] issue, then fine, but it should be across the board," Mr Abbott said.

"Maybe that should be my first promise if I'm in that position to do it."

One soldier then turned to this reporter, and said: "If he does it, he'll get a bloody lot of votes from us."

Traditionally, there has been been some discretion on whether a unit is allowed to sport a beret. As well as the historical reasons for troops wanting to retain their berets, there are practical considerations, with berets being better suited to troops predominantly operating in vehicles.

 

[Kirkzzy]

It's actually not that bad, of the $5.5 billion in cuts, less than a billion is out of the Army budget. A lot of the cuts are really just cuts on paper, with limited short term impact. For instance, storing a squadron's worth of M1s isn't that big a deal as there are only two manned squadrons in 1 Armd Regt anyway. It might impact the availability of vehicles and limit track kms, but its not like a squadrn has been taken out of service. Storing 100 M113AS4s will have almost no impact, as the M113s are being delivered straight to storage anyway.

By the time Beersheba rolls out do they (or did they, yet correct me If I am wrong from what I understand storing the M1s is only a temporary thing) plan to have 3 manned squadrons?

 

[Raven22]

By the time Beersheba rolls out do they (or did they, yet correct me If I am wrong from what I understand storing the M1s is only a temporary thing) plan to have 3 manned squadrons?

It's probably more appropriate in a different thread, but the plan is for three squadrons under Beersheeba. Plans don't always come to fruition though. Tanks haven't been a priority over the last ten years as the need to support deployments of ASLAV and, to a lesser extent, PMVs, to the MEAO has drained manpower. Hence, 1 Armd Sqn has had an entire squadron APEPed for as long as anyone can remember. In the future, without pressures to man OMDs, the tank regiment should be fully manned to three squadrons. The manpower is there, its just all about the money.

 

[Ozymandias]

Looking through the DMO, it's plain to see money for new systems is running dry. However sustainment has also taken a hit. For example, budget for Anzac frigate sustainment:

FY09 $255 million
FY10 $231M
FY11 $222M
FY12 $211M
FY13 $206M

Has the shrinking budget had an effect on the ships - are they turning into rust buckets like the LPAs?

 

[Vanguard]

There are only six left at the moment and as far as I am aware that number will be reducing as the remainder go through upgrades which will reduce the costs again.

 

[Tasman]

There are only six left at the moment and as far as I am aware that number will be reducing as the remainder go through upgrades which will reduce the costs again.

When you say there are only six left I presume you mean there are only 6 in full commission. None of the Anzacs have been stricken and all 8 have been approved for upgrade. The question really relates as to whether the navy will continue to maintain 6 in full commission or whether this number will shrink further. It concerns me that in the past year the RAN has already reduced the active surface combatant force from 12 to 10.


Tas