How are you going to pay for them and crew them????? Read back through the thread.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
You can have a few high tech bespoke platforms with all the bells and whistles, or more platforms that are cheaper and capable of getting the job done. Quantity has a very definite quality of its own and against the PLAN quantity is very much a desired quality. Navies are having to look at multi tier combat capabilities and time is running out.
I totally agree in regards to quantity having a quality of its own without a doubt.
However, from what basis or evidence are you basing your claim that a variant of CEAFAR or the SAAB 9LV CMS would be more expensive than other options, not just upfront but through life?
The costs of integration between our weapons and these systems has already been covered, adding additional unique systems would not only require additional cost in integration but also in training and sustainment due to lack of commonality.
And all that is even before we consider both the net economic contribution and the crucial underlying value of sustaining and encouraging Australian Sovereign technology.
Well during times of uncertainty such as these one would usually up the defence budget to pay for such capability.
Japan, South Korea and other nations have dramatically boosted spending.
The suggested vessels numbers for commissioning would only have 2 extra hulls compared to what the RAN have forecasted for the same period to build so crewing wouldnt be an issue with my statement.
The ADF is currently undermanned by 3000 personnel and the RAN has critical shortages within multiple categories including the comms & intel branches which is impacting on operational availability of MFUs while competing against private industry which is paying salaries $20K above ADF pay rates. So yes, crewing WOULD be an issue for your statement.
There’s been significant redundancies in large tech (Google, Microsoft etc), startups and tech consultants in recent months.
Even if most of the people booted are not of terribly high quality some probably are excellent but in the wrong place at the wrong time. These organisations are also no longer hiring for the foreseeable future so competition for grads and early to mid career resources is lower (coming off record highs to be fair).
My point is that a relatively well paid (noting it could be better) and interesting job with excellent job security will become a lot more attractive during the coming recession, and I presume the Defence recruitment folk are gearing up accordingly for a big hire this year and next. Obviously these people need to be trained!
So the medium term manpower picture may be more promising than it looks at first glance.
Australia has a population of 25,000,000.
A defence force of less than 80,000.
Manning ADF assets is not a problem. Recruitment is not a problem.
Recruitment process is a problem.
Give Recruitment back to ADF personnel, not private companies who make it difficult.
A defence force of less than 80,000.
Manning ADF assets is not a problem. Recruitment is not a problem.
Recruitment process is a problem.
Give Recruitment back to ADF personnel, not private companies who make it difficult.
Aardvark144
Active Member
You seem to forget that whilst Recruitment may be administered by Contractors, front counter and interviews remains ADF as well as the allocation of recruitment targets and makeup of said targets. I agree with Morgo that whilst it is difficult to compete with Industry paying well above ADF Pay Rates, any slowdown in the economy will work well for the ADF.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
And the number hasn't grown since the late 70s when our population was only 15-16 million and most jobs were not open to women, in theory the number of people fit for a military career for all ADF jobs should have nearly tripled in that time.
What I don't forget is that when 2 soldiers visited my school and did a presentation of what life was like in the Army, they sold me an adventure, and it was an adventure that was awesome!
Aardvark144
Active Member
The ADF Recruitment Teams still do the school visits.
Some fields of employment are very much lifestyle jobs.
Most defence jobs fit this space.
Money counts .....yes, but for many it's the work / life / interest balance.
There the ones you want, so if defence can also sell a career complete with stability, then industry for many has less appeal.
With over 26 million people today, Australia should be able to meet defence employment targets.
If it is struggling in numbers there must be a fix.
The fix maybe many things, but lack of population should not be the challenge.
Cheers S
Add that ADF technical people are also having to back fill public service technical and engineering roles because the APS pay rates are between $30 and $80k behind industry depending on level.
Would better bonuses and incentive schemes address this ,I ask because trying to find direct comparisons of salaries with other countries is difficult without even taking into comparison of the currency ?
I was told this story by an ex sailor that years ago in WW2 R.N officers stationed with the R.A.N had a task of handing out pays to R.A.N sailors they seemed particularly annoyed because these sailors were getting more pay than them it put a lot of smiles on those sailors
I was told this story by an ex sailor that years ago in WW2 R.N officers stationed with the R.A.N had a task of handing out pays to R.A.N sailors they seemed particularly annoyed because these sailors were getting more pay than them it put a lot of smiles on those sailors
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I recall an article in the US recently noting that IT layoffs could be an opportunity for the military. It suggested a different recruitment criteria would be needed to attract these people (a more civilian type environment).
Many factors at play with recruitment and it's not all money. There are also societal/cultural shifts happening, volunteerism is at all time lows etc. It's also worth remembering that the military isn't just another job, it's has very special requirements that people have to meet and despite skills someone may bring they may not be a good fit/be able to handle military life. It's not for everyone, particularly if you want to retain them and grow them into senior NCOs and officers.
As an aside…..when I went on PWO course and RN exchange in 1976 I was a mid seniority Lieutenant and with my UK allowances I was paid the same as an RN Rear Admiral.
This was a tumultuous time for the RN economy but I believe service pay improved after/during the FI campaign.
It also hasn't helped that the media has been trashing the ADF for at least the last 20 years; there's not a bad news story that has been overlooked, even when they represent half truths such as rates of sexual assault in the military versus comparable demographic groups such as in universities. I don't subscribe to the "all journalists are rabid left wing" view, but sometimes I do wonder. Perhaps the ADF is just an easy target. Similarly, I wonder if the "reforms" in education over the last half century, or at least since Vietnam, have left us with a definite bias against a military career for their pupils amongst teachers. There certainly seems to be little promotion of the concept that a life of service should be a valued thing, which was certainly aroundin my early youth and encouraged by many of the generation that fought WW2
Assail, agree - I was paid the same as an RN Captain when over there on OW courses. Not sure what they are like now, but we were certainly still ahead of them when I last had anything serious to do with it in the 90s.
Assail, agree - I was paid the same as an RN Captain when over there on OW courses. Not sure what they are like now, but we were certainly still ahead of them when I last had anything serious to do with it in the 90s.
You hit the nail of the head, it's quality of life and most people I know who leave is because they don't want to be at sea away from their families.
The standard of new joiners I have witnessed first hand is getting worse and worse, most are not really interested and want to do the bear minimum amount of work and only stay in for 4/6 years and look it as a stepping stone and not a career anymore.
Last edited:
In many ways defence seems to be undermining those who want careers. They look for unicorns then end up settling for what they can get, after discouraging many who really wanted a career from joining at all.
They then allow self appointed gate keepers to shaft anyone they deem doesn't fit. Whether someone who is good enough and wants a career, actually gets a career, often comes down to the luck of the draw of who their immediate supervisor is.