Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
weegee
Active Member
Sorry I have now placed it there so feel free to delete from the RAN thread.
British Empire Navy nonsense
I'm not entirely sure that this goes here, but it's relevant to the RAN as well as the RNZN, RN and RCN, and probably as hilariously improbable for all of them. It's also in an occasionally authoritative source.
All the Queen's Ships | U.S. Naval Institute
oldsig
I'm not entirely sure that this goes here, but it's relevant to the RAN as well as the RNZN, RN and RCN, and probably as hilariously improbable for all of them. It's also in an occasionally authoritative source.
All the Queen's Ships | U.S. Naval Institute
To me it sounds like an even older fart than I, hoping to fund a bigger better RN by co-opting all those colonial upstarts and their defence budgets. It also appears to entirely ignore the strategic realities of different modern spheres of interest and diverging political realities. There's no way now that the UK Foreign Office or the Admiralty will be jerking any apron strings to get us back in to line
oldsig
That's not that hard a schedule. German Coast Guard version of OPV85 has 25 months from signed contract to delivery.
Issued requirement in the German tender was for a rebuild or derivative of a design - with certain minimum dimensions - that would not just be available off-the-shelf, but had been operational with another Coast Guard or Navy for at least 12 months and that could be built and commissioned for all three planned units before end of 2018.
Gawd, no thanks we definitely don't want to go down that route again. Bugger that for a game of soldiers.
Considering one of the main reasons the UK withdrew their forces East of Suez is because they decided not to fund the required number of carriers. This was determined to be five strike carriers and six to eight Invincible like escort cruisers.
Yes, I read that piece and thought the author had delusions of grandeur. And of course the RN Commanders would exercise OPCON blah blah blah. We had two world wars where the RN couldn't give a brass razoo about Australian naval priorities and co-opted our fleet to benefit the old dart, never again!
Never again!
Never ever again.
OTOH the RAN acting in concert with allies is something that is possibly on the cards, even if those allies are not all commonwealth countries.
MB
The never again is handing over control of our navy almost en masse to the RN. In early 1942 when Singapore fell and Darwin was bombed the majority of our fleet and most of the major units were in the Med, the Red Sea and West Africa under British command.
Not for this thread but the same cane be said of the Australian Army and we all know the difficulty of getting those troops back to defend their homeland.
So yes, never again.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
RoAS Canberra has a much better ring to it. Not in any way denigrating the Ships or the people who have served on them, just the way the RN treated them. The lack of a single Victoria Cross not being awarded to the RAN a prime example.
* RoAS = Republic of Australia Ship
I read, and I can't remember the details, but their was a difference in the granting of bravery awards between the Australian Army and Airforce and the RAN.
For Army and RAAF recommendations came from their commanders, for the RAN they had to go through the RN. Thus men like Sheehan and Rankin and Waller got lesser awards for bravery that was possibly deserving.
Perhaps even worse was Operation Source the midget submarine / X craft attach on Tirpitz, the British boat commanders got, the Australian ones didn't.
From memory there was a significant lack of effort from the Australian Navy Board to seek recognition as well. Without that the likelihood of an award was very low.
Certainly Britain did not stint in awarding VC where recommendations were made (Cutler as an example) so our own leadership bears a degree of responsibility.
Looking at other examples of how we let down those that serve .... if you look at Vietnam and the paucity of VCs - when you consider the courage of the soldiers - it was a poor effort. In this case the cause was political.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I believe Sheean got mentioned in dispatches and thats all. Same number of VCs for Afganistan & Vietnam seems a bit odd, when at the height of Vietnam we had about 7000 on deck and Afganistan was only about 1500 if my memory serves me right.
Last edited:
Paul Ham wrote and excellent book on Vietnam and this issue was discussed. Some of the actions were truly heroic (and not just Long Tan) yet the awards were minor.
In Hermon Gill's official history of the RAN, Vol 1 "RAN 1939 - 1942 (First Edition,1957)
https://www.awm.gov.au/images/collection/pdf/RCDIG1070315--1-.pdf
you can read the mechanics by which the Australian Govt. handed over control of our squadron to "The Kings Navy". Note also that throughout the war the leadership of the RAN, CNS -First Naval Member, Second Naval Member and the Squadron Commander were all RN Officers on loan.
There was also a superior attitude by the leadership towards Australian Officers and this was caused by the fact that entry into the Royal Australian Naval College was open to all regardless of income or social status. This was not the case in the Royal Navy where entry was restricted.
Perhaps this explains some of the reluctance in recommending higher awards?
https://www.awm.gov.au/images/collection/pdf/RCDIG1070315--1-.pdf
you can read the mechanics by which the Australian Govt. handed over control of our squadron to "The Kings Navy". Note also that throughout the war the leadership of the RAN, CNS -First Naval Member, Second Naval Member and the Squadron Commander were all RN Officers on loan.
There was also a superior attitude by the leadership towards Australian Officers and this was caused by the fact that entry into the Royal Australian Naval College was open to all regardless of income or social status. This was not the case in the Royal Navy where entry was restricted.
Perhaps this explains some of the reluctance in recommending higher awards?
It's a bit unfair to blame the RN for having the units of the RAN under command in the world wars, when that had always been the plan and was agreed to by Australian leaders.
Australia benefitted immensely in peacetime by being protected by the RN, with Australia bearing almost none of the cost. It's hardly fair to complain when the Brits expect us to do our part when the balloon goes up.
Australia benefitted immensely in peacetime by being protected by the RN, with Australia bearing almost none of the cost. It's hardly fair to complain when the Brits expect us to do our part when the balloon goes up.
True, We did turn away from a cost sharing deal which would have given us a much larger force in a deal with cost's split between the UK, Australia and NZ 75%, 20% and 5%.
We started out great as a young nation with our armed forces especially with the Navy but after WWI and with the great depression it fell apart quickly and was not built up any where near fast enough.
Joe Black
Active Member
Come'on gf, Volk, what's wrong with giving some work to WA? Here in WA, work opportunities are drying up since the end of the mining boom. Besides, Austal makes good looking boats. Building OPVs will be perfect for them. Techport will still get the Future Frigates and Shortfin.I think you just answered your own question
I don't have a problem with WA getting work - its when they get their local pollies to try and undermine other states who have better capability in the work they're bidding for
State Treasurer being a first class example of a knob
production out of strategic necessity should be distributed, but the Commonwealth is not there to support any individual state - its there to make sure that the best capability possible is directed to those manufacturers and shops who have the competency to do it in under the conditions contracted
which then goes back to the issues of primes and how they treat their contractors and sub contractors
and its not about good looking boats - its about offering up the right design choice for the capability req
speak to nearly everyone who has driven (ie commanded) those alloy boats from Austal and they hate them
late addition: Austal have done themselves no favours in the way that they have carried on in the past.
eg as a priv mil vessel contractor I used to try and promote Austal flatpackers to overseas clients - they were good vessels for island work. everytime those companies got back to me they imparted stories of arrogance from the vendor.
Last edited:
- Status