Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trackmaster

Member
I think you are pretty spot on there.

Apart from appealing to the Greenies by suggesting that this would allow for 'greater access to harbourside areas', which we have plenty available anyway, it also means Rudd can use this announcement as an appeal to QLD voters, especially Brisbane voters that a move to Brisbane would be good for the QLD economy, jobs, jobs, jobs!

NSW Premier O'Farrell has already slammed the idea, saying it will take half a billion dollars out of the NSW economy.

Oh well, less than two weeks to go and the election will be over and we can all get back to normal!!


EDIT:
Just came across this on the SMH site, including a video interview with Neil James:

Garden Island naval base faces closure under Kevin Rudd
His own electorate of Griffith is front and centre. The Cairncross dry dock and associated ship maintenance facilities are in the electorate...The dock is big enough for the LHDs and there is a large wharf for along-side work.

He is fighting to retain the seat.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I agree with Mr Gubler on this one that moving navy out of Sydney has probably been on the drawing board for a while!

As i have said in a past post navy needs a secure facility, that doesnt have residential neighbours within spitting distance, of what is Australia's premier naval base. Defence need to know that they can operate freely within their base 24/7 without the threat of legal action because some hop-nob that lives next door cant get their beauty-sleep.
Really, LHD need facilities up north but it is not just Garden Island but all the other infrastructure such as Support facilities for ships and systems (for some of whihc construction is just starting), Housing, stores, Accomodation for seafarers, Support facilities for seafarers (including medical) and married quarters will all add a lot of cost. Duplicate these and you add a lot more cost.


Just an election stunt ............. particualry given the 2030 date mooted after he took a flogging.
 

StoresBasher

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just an election stunt ............. particualry given the 2030 date mooted after he took a flogging.
That's what we said, we could see them from our position at GI, noting the camera's had 2 of the 4 RAN ships currently alongside in the background. Another 15 degrees to the left and you would have seen no ships and lots of spare berths.

Yes just an election stunt to get vote's in the marginal seats in and around Brisbane.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I agree with Mr Gubler on this one that moving navy out of Sydney has probably been on the drawing board for a while!.
It was in Defences white paper submission 2010

Govt rejected it as too expensive, and then commenced raping personnel despite saying that Defence would not be touched in the Govt savings cull.
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Considering they need to spend money on upgrading HMAS Coonawarra so that they can berth ships and then ACPB replacements. Even if they go el cheapo and replace them with Cape class, there is talk of moving more cairns crews to Darwin with the work load being northern based. The plans for an upgrade are there, only need costing and a start date now that Larrakeyah accomadation is complete.

If they plan on the navy leaving by 2030, then they could at least start on a new Fleet Headquarters building. It was scheduled for replacement when the old JOC building was moved to Canberra. I highly doubt the building will be able to house the navy over the next 10 years let alone another 20. Even HMAS Kuttabul and its accomadation is dilapidated and needs to be replaced. This will be put on the backburner as for the next 10 years they argue about whether to move or not, then decide to stay and then start planning for new buildings, can not even argue better late then never as the never seems more likely.

The LHD move makes sense for moving closer to Brisbane and Townsville, but what about Adelaide regiments. Would we see SA units lack all training with the LHDs and then have to conduct interoperability at the last minute when needed for operations?

Ive been supportive of moving a part of the future submarine fleet to the East coast and open to the possibility of Brisbane as Sydney will fill up pretty quickly. But to move the whole future FBE to Queensland and then add submarines to the mix will be adding to the mess. The quick option will be basing more units in WA and then having more families split, drain already strained local resources, schools and housing which will require long term planning.

$10 billion would be better spent on the valley of death gap between AWD III and Future Frigate, the OPV/OCV and upgrades to current basing, not planning for something that will not start until 2028 as a last minute relisation. The only thing that has been acceptable is that the money will not come from defence budget to build the base and move the ships, but it comes down to the other budget strains of personnel and relocation costs.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That's what we said, we could see them from our position at GI, noting the camera's had 2 of the 4 RAN ships currently alongside in the background. Another 15 degrees to the left and you would have seen no ships and lots of spare berths.

Yes just an election stunt to get vote's in the marginal seats in and around Brisbane.
Correct and don't forget that the "Sydney" electorate(Plibisek) includes the finger wharf at Wooloomooloo so double return to Rudd for all the Wayne Kerrs.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
There is an interesting poll going on at ninemsm about whether FBE should be moved, out of the 83781 people that have voted so far 42810 have voted yes and 40941 have voted no. That's pretty close but what is interesting is the amount that have taken the time to vote.

I guess you can chalk up all this talk from Krudd is he does not have to worry about it because it would be so far in the forward estimates he does not have to account for it.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I guess you can chalk up all this talk from Krudd is he does not have to worry about it because it would be so far in the forward estimates he does not have to account for it.
Just like the high speed train proposal.

Though the actual policy announced by Rudd was just to have a triumvirate explore the idea of moving FBE. The cost, the complete lack of advantage, the huge negatives, etc, etc make it all seem impossible.

I wish there was this much 'media traction' for a mega infrastructure project that was actually useful like a new Sydney international airport (Badgery's Creek) or rail gauge standardisation across the nation.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
The leading news story on ray Haley show was the possible move of FBE, it was interesting as it brought up the FAA at nowra and the armaments wharf at Eden would they have to move also?
 

hairyman

Active Member
With the coalition now poised to win the upcoming election, it is time to look at Mr Abbott's policies regarding defence. Apart from him saying they will spend more on defence, I am unaware of any defence policies of the coalition.
From my own experience and memory of coalition governments, they appear loathe to spend money on any type of infrastructure which is one reason why whenever Labour attain office they have to borrow to improve the infrastructure situation.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
With the coalition now poised to win the upcoming election, it is time to look at Mr Abbott's policies regarding defence. Apart from him saying they will spend more on defence, I am unaware of any defence policies of the coalition.
From my own experience and memory of coalition governments, they appear loathe to spend money on any type of infrastructure which is one reason why whenever Labour attain office they have to borrow to improve the infrastructure situation.
we've had a few warning shots on what they intend doing.

not for public comment though
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Can you say if they would be good or bad for the ADF? or is that going to be skating too close to the line?
depends on your perspective :)

some are significantly unattractive

I just hope that they don't knee jerk react on some decisions and actually take a considered and consultative approach rather than take an auto idealogical rejection of anything that smacks of Labs hand
 

protoplasm

Active Member
depends on your perspective :)

some are significantly unattractive

I just hope that they don't knee jerk react on some decisions and actually take a considered and consultative approach rather than take an auto idealogical rejection of anything that smacks of Labs hand
Which is a significant risk. There is the potential for some monumentally stupid decisions just so that the Liberals can take away any possible Labour legacy. I hope that we get to see the capability of the LHD and AWD developed rather than hamstrung by the next government, as well as decent decisions that affect programs due towards the end of the decade.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Correct and don't forget that the "Sydney" electorate(Plibisek) includes the finger wharf at Wooloomooloo so double return to Rudd for all the Wayne Kerrs.
Pity the turned the wharf into flats as it could have solved the cruise ship issues. Nope, short term money grap to be solved by a vote grapping tactic.


It really is idiotic
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Which is a significant risk. There is the potential for some monumentally stupid decisions just so that the Liberals can take away any possible Labour legacy. I hope that we get to see the capability of the LHD and AWD developed rather than hamstrung by the next government, as well as decent decisions that affect programs due towards the end of the decade.
Don't forget the AWD and LHD were Howard Government projects, these should be OK as they can carp on how successful they were. I would say ALP projects they don't entirely agree with may be in for some heat.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Which is a significant risk. There is the potential for some monumentally stupid decisions just so that the Liberals can take away any possible Labour legacy. I hope that we get to see the capability of the LHD and AWD developed rather than hamstrung by the next government, as well as decent decisions that affect programs due towards the end of the decade.
unfort the shadow defmin has said some pretty daft things in the last few months.

lets just hope its an aberrant brain fart generated by the excitement of being asked to comment on something :)

the main danger is whether Libs weight industry commentary disproportionately to those who comment because they're acting in the national interest as opposed to having a commercial interest.

having worked on the industry side as well as govt, I know how we used to "play" Ministers (PM&C, Treasury, DoFnn, ADF, AG's) to put them under pressure.

The key is going to be whether the Ministers are able to decide with consideration, consult and are able to make sure that they have decent staff on their own teams. Its been distressingly obvious when I worked in Industry that some Ministers staff only comprehension of Defence acquisition was based on reading Greg Sheridan sound bites, or blindingly fawning over delegations from Industry who could see the Minister and their staff coming a golden mile away.

The "Seduction of the Innocents" was how we termed it..... and depending on time frames, Innocents was replaced with Imbecile.

If they can get a thinker like Faulkner then all's well, if they get someone like .(insert name of one of 2 recent Lab Ministers)...... then we're well and truly phuqued
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
With the coalition now poised to win the upcoming election, it is time to look at Mr Abbott's policies regarding defence. Apart from him saying they will spend more on defence, I am unaware of any defence policies of the coalition.

Unfortunately Defence doesn't get the priority it should from the general public, even though all of us here believe and know it should, people today seem to be far more concerned about policies that relate to Health, Education, NDIS, etc, etc. Defence (apart from border security, eg, 'stopping the boats') doesn't seem to be high on people's list of 'top 10' issues.

At least Abbott has pledged to spend more on defence, well that's a good start isn't it?

Up until Abbott's announcement last weekend that Defence spending will increase to 2% of GDP within 10 years both sides of politics had said it was their 'goal' to get to 2%, a 'goal' is just a desire, so at least someone has actually said 'yes' it will be 2%, will it be delivered?, well that's another question, but at this stage it is a commitment.

Maybe Rudd has done a 'me too' since then about getting to that level of spending too, but I haven't heard it, maybe he has, I don't know.

As far as published LNP policies on defence, yes I would agree there is very little detail, which doesn't surprise me, as we know in the lead up to elections, both sides have the capacity to say 'me too' to hose down differences when one announces something new or different.

On the Liberal Party website they have said they will speed up acquisition of a Global Hawk/Triton type capability (which I think was in place before Def Min Smith announced that Triton was back on the table), there is talk of not allowing a gap in Submarine capability, etc, and the main point that I see, is that they will produce a new White Paper within 18mths.

So unless they make some major changes soon after coming to Government (assuming they win) we may not see any significant shift in direction till the new White Paper, which I'd assume would be due late 2014 or early 2015.

And talking of White Papers, when Rudd produced the ambitious 2009 WP, (including 12 new Subs, 8 new Frigates, 20 OCV, etc) for a non-Labor voter, I was impressed, but did I believe for one minute that all would be delivered? No I didn't.

And by the time we get to the 'less ambitious' 2013 WP, I was less impressed. We have had cuts in Defence spending, the 20 OCV's have been deferred to the 'never never' sometime into the future, the possibility of a 4th AWD was killed off, the 8 Future Frigates are now just referred to as 'Future Frigates', no mention of '8' anymore, in fact earlier this year at a press conference with the UK Def Min, our Def Min Smith when asked a question by the UK Def Min said something along the lines of 'six, half a dozen' when referring to possible participation with the UK on the Type 26, in other words a 25% reduction in the Future Frigate fleet.

Yes the current Government is very very good at making big bold announcements of things that it plans to happen way into the future, the delivery on the other hand is very very questionable, in my opinion at least.


And last but not least, what has happened to the 2013 DCP? Is it still sitting on the Def Min's desk collecting dust? Has it been put in the bin?

We've had the new White Paper back in early May, we've had the Budget, we've had the updated Economic Statement which made some adjustments to Defence spending over the forward period of the Budget, but no new DCP, where is it?

Yes the Government is now in 'caretaker' mode with the Election only 10 days away, but why wasn't the DCP released prior to the election announcement? Or are they leaving it to the Libs to deal with it if they come to Government?

Not that I think the Lib's are the 'be all and end all' when it comes to delivering for Defence, but I'm certainly less than impressed with this current mob!

Anyway, just my personal observations and opinion, other's may no doubt disagree.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
mixed bag. Anything and everything is possible in this environment.

However, I hope whoever wrote or influenced the 2009 WP is still around, as that seemed to be the clear sign that someone had a bit of direction and more about capability rather than electoral buying or general politics and spin. Even if it was a bit unrealistic, even if only some of its targets approached, it had a clear vision and a path to get there. It set a goal for both libs and labor to try to reach.

Both sides a liable to put a Muppet in charge and stuff everything. The problem is they seem (both) to have a bag with less and less competent idiots.

There does most likely need to be some upgrades to northern ports, ideally a place everything can be forward deployed from if needed. But also upgrades to GI and other bases. Of course what we really need is some subs on the east coast.

I would have hoped now would be the time that someone would announce a 4th AWD but that appears to be completely dead.

More cruise ships will of course kill the new casino in Sydney, so you can't have it all. Nothing like an Election to drop random ideas.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I would have hoped now would be the time that someone would announce a 4th AWD but that appears to be completely dead.
Well the Libs didn't do it last Sunday and I can't see it happening in the next 10 days.

Labor still has its 'official' campaign launch next weekend, so that would probably be the last chance, but I seriously doubt it.

Don't know if you saw this comment from Def Min Smith back in early May when being interviewed about the 2013 White Paper announcement, he said:

I saw people out there saying we were going to purchase a fourth AWD. There’s never been a recommendation to me by the Chief of the Defence Force or the Chief of Navy to do such a thing.
So according to Smith neither the Chief of the Defence Force or Chief of Navy have ever requested a 4th AWD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top