Mr Volk has obviously missed the massive transition in the ADF maybe his branch has avoided the diversity stacking? And, he is 100 percent wrong on which way the favouritism goes and it is not your traditional Aussie bloke who is 'winning' this race to the bottom.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Were they rejected on the basis of gender? If there was a special recruitment for only women, or only indigenous and the open for all recruitment was full that's not rejecting the blokes for being blokes, they were saying there are no vacancies in that category.
Based on my current, relevant experience in defence, both in units and on the civilian side of government, defence will leave a role vacant rather than appoint an unsuitable person into it.
There are discrepancies on interpretations of who is suitable and some justifications are dodgy, but they almost always advantage those who win the popularity contest through conforming, and disadvantage those who are perceived not to belong.
I think it’s likely we get a few(2-4 cheap), maybe for various tasks in the north. USS Jackson and Montgomery are up for sale in 2024. a bit more range than the Arafura class with the ability to sprint, containerised missiles on the deck, transport or mine laying, uuvs, usvs, uavs etc. Don’t think we end up keeping the Arafuras for RAN, atleast not all of them.
Last edited:
Simply not true as much as we would like it to be. Defence routinely reject white male applicants and routinely accepts female or 'diversity' applicants with much much lower fitness, suitability scores. Distinct and energetically enforced discrimination against young Australian males of european heritage was POLICY. Fortunately those discriminatory selection processes were adjusted about 18 months ago as the ADF's workforce collapse became too serious to hide any more. Some ethnicities had 100 percent acceptance of applications. I'll give you a hint, they weren't Aussies of pioneer heritage.
@Maranoa You are required to provide independent verifiable proof for this allegation. Failure to do so will result in Moderator action being taken against you. You have until 1200Z 20 Nov 23 (12pm UTC / GMT Monday 20th November) to provide the required proof.
Ngatimozart.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd rather work with a competent woman, coloured person, Muslim/Sikh/Hindu/Buddist, LGBTIQ or whatever, than a "lad" who got his job/promotion because his boss saw his younger self in him, and perceived him as the sort of bloke he wants to have a beer with.
To quote a mate, he would never have let his daughter join the navy as it was when he joined, now he would encourage her to join.
I have worked with and continue to work with highly competent, capable individuals who could run many of my generation into the ground, even when they were at their best. Individuals who still face discrimination because they are seen not to conform to what some believe a defence member should be.
It is my belief that the further defence moves from pandering to the wants and opinions of a minority of self appointed gate keepers, the better.
Diversity is a good thing, and the ANZAC legend supports this. WWII was fought by people who normally never would have joined, who normally would have been denied entry, or driven out.
I don’t think anyone is complaining about any competent person of any Color, shape or background. I cannot accept that narrowing the selection pool to any one demographic is building a stronger organisation. Certainly I have no issue with providing equal opportunity and encouraging non traditional demographics to apply for roles but not pre designed equal outcomes simply because of that demographics deemed disadvantage. I’m also against giving an orange ribbon to the 4th to 20th place getters.
Sorry mate, prove it.
Demonstrate a case, not hearsay, of a suitable white male applicant who was rejected in favour of a diverse candidate who was demonstrably inferior.
I don’t see the argument about having to develop a supply chain for an orphan group of ships as valid. We have Multiple classes of ships that are 1 or 2 offs. The LCS if they were in good condition and at the right price with their ability to carry 2 Helicopters and with large multi mission bays, to me offer a great solution for northern and littoral patrol. My understanding and happy to be corrected is the ISN has corrected most of the propulsion and cracking issues on ships 5+. We don’t need to sail them all the way across the pacific or Indian oceans and some of these ships are under 8 years old And probably way cheaper than do another ANZAC upgrade While waiting fir the next line of MFUs to come on line.
Two white Anglo guys didn't get in so the implication is that the female candidates weren't good enough but got in anyway, at the expense of the white males.
That is judgemental and unfair.
As for not recognising place getters, is a foot race the right test? What happens if instead of a 100m sprint we make it 400m, how about we make it a combat fitness test.
BFAs I always struggled, CFTs I'd be one of the guys carrying their mates over the finish line to finish as a unit. If you only took the top 50% of the BFA I'd miss out, if you only took the top 10% of the CFT, I'd get in.
You want me to do four essays in three hours for a year 12 exam I'll only finish three and get a C, give me a post grad paper to write and I'll get a distinction.
Diversity is important because different people have different strengths and weaknesses. The ADF is and should be diverse because it's about complementing and lifting each other, not undermining and dumping on your team mates.
The first 2 independence class have been decommissioned, 3(LCS6) and 4(LCS8) are up for sale. Previously they have stated they want to keep between 12-15 from the 19 total. Leaves 2-5 for potential purchase. 2 next year, potentially 3 in the future.
Most of the Freedom class seem to be unwanted. 5 decommissioned, 2 of which are for sale, 4 more up for sale in 2025. No way Australia would be interested in these.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
First, consider what the likely condition of the LCS being decommissioned so early are. The first two LCS to be put into reserve and it has been estimated that it would have cost USD$2 bil. to get the first four LCS, two each of the Independence-class and Liberty-class LCS prepped for sea service.
Also consider the engine and transmission problems with the combining gear for some of the LCS. This part of why so many of the LCS have been getting either retired, or put forward by the USN to be retired. Fixes have been developed, but the time and cost to apply the fixes to already built vessels has in many cases deemed too expensive and not worthwhile, and from my understanding it would require essentially cutting apart the vessel to remove the faulty gearing design and install a functional one. As it stands now, the USN has decommissioned I believe five Freedom-class LCS, and two Independence-class LCS, with the longest serving having been commissioned for ~13 year whilst the shortest time in commission was ~five years.
Think about that, seriously, the USN decommissioned new warships which cost ~USD$360 mil. (not including the mission modules) within five years of their commissioning. That should be an enormous warning sign that there are issues with these specific vessels. These issues are potentially fixable, but the USN decided that the cost to do so was not worthwhile, which in turn strongly suggests to me that it would not be worthwhile for the RAN to attempt to 'fix' them.
This is particularly true in light of their overall systems which are not in use by the RAN and therefore RAN personnel would need to become familiar with operating and repairing completely new CMS, radars, machinery and weapons. Similarly, the RAN would need to establish maintenance capabilities including sources of parts and spares. Perhaps more importantly, the vessels as fitted out are not believed to be survivable without escort in hot contested areas with the main offensive and defensive systems consisting of a 57mm Mk 110 gun, and a 21-missile RAM launcher for missile-based CIWS.
Also due to the nature of the design and in order to achieve the speeds desired of ~45 kts, there is very little weight margin available to fit new/replacement systems, or have much extra embarked aboard.
The last thing to consider is where would the crew come from? Yes, they have relatively small crews, but the USN has also found that crews of this size are not able to keep up with the proper maintenance of the vessels and need additional support from personnel ashore when docked. Given a choice between getting a trio of LCS, or keeping an ANZAC-class frigate in commission, I would keep the frigate as IMO it is a more capable vessel overall.
Why in God's name would you want to saddle Australia with this burden? Truly, why? Here's some reasons the LCS , in technical jargon, sucks(Indy class only- Freedom Class is non functional):
- massive wake. Photos showing the Indy class LCS following an AB clearly show the wake is 2-3 time wider and more visible, so easier to find and track
- waterjet engines are extremely loud
- flight deck is not as useful as it's size might imply, since the Indy class is cheaped down and can't handle more than about 10 tons.
- apparently it's ordinance locker is very small.
- maintenance requires a dry dock for te Indy class
- the Indy class cannot actually reach it's boasted speed of 40+ knots. It's best recorded speed in 38 knots
- It's a waste of pier space, made worse by it's width.
- require civilian contractors to service a lot of it.
You can mount anti ship missiles on the Arafura, if you really need to. The Brunei people do it. But don't buy the LCS.
- massive wake. Photos showing the Indy class LCS following an AB clearly show the wake is 2-3 time wider and more visible, so easier to find and track - TRUE - but for our use, it means nothing…
- waterjet engines are extremely loud - TRUE - but for our use, it means nothing…
- flight deck is not as useful as it's size might imply, since the Indy class is cheaped down and can't handle more than about 10 tons. - A bit more but means nothing once again, Seahawks are about that, strix and other uavs etc -2ton. Containerised launchers also under weight limit. We do not operate ospreys which are too weighty and we have no need for chinooks to land on the deck.
- apparently it's ordinance locker is very small. - Room to grow. Many options available and already considered by the U.S.
- maintenance requires a dry dock for the Indy class - A Floating dry dock minimum, one that can be lengthened. Lucky we have one in Henderson capable.
- the Indy class cannot actually reach it's boasted speed of 40+ knots. It's best recorded speed in 38 knots - FALSE but that speed not required.
- It's a waste of pier space, made worse by its width. - Would depend on where it was based. Lucky Darwin(now with its new 250m wharf) and Wa have plenty of space.
- require civilian contractors to service a lot of it. - like many other ships in the fleet. Civmecs middle bay is capable. 185m x 40m.
- waterjet engines are extremely loud - TRUE - but for our use, it means nothing…
- flight deck is not as useful as it's size might imply, since the Indy class is cheaped down and can't handle more than about 10 tons. - A bit more but means nothing once again, Seahawks are about that, strix and other uavs etc -2ton. Containerised launchers also under weight limit. We do not operate ospreys which are too weighty and we have no need for chinooks to land on the deck.
- apparently it's ordinance locker is very small. - Room to grow. Many options available and already considered by the U.S.
- maintenance requires a dry dock for the Indy class - A Floating dry dock minimum, one that can be lengthened. Lucky we have one in Henderson capable.
- the Indy class cannot actually reach it's boasted speed of 40+ knots. It's best recorded speed in 38 knots - FALSE but that speed not required.
- It's a waste of pier space, made worse by its width. - Would depend on where it was based. Lucky Darwin(now with its new 250m wharf) and Wa have plenty of space.
- require civilian contractors to service a lot of it. - like many other ships in the fleet. Civmecs middle bay is capable. 185m x 40m.
Last edited:
I don't know how to react to that, even though it was not directed at me.
Both young men I mentioned specifically applied for RAINF positions s, and both were rejected, and told, also I believe in writing, that at the time RAINF were ONLY accepting Female applicants. I don't know how I can prove it, but neither wanted to join other corps.
One is now a SERT member in WA Corrections, the other is a Cop.
Further to that, when I re enlisted in 1989, 2nd time in, I wanted to return to 3 RAR, who were very undermanned at the time. There were 120 applicants , and 3 of us were recuited, 2 ex ARA and 1 ex RAN who were accepted. None of us got to go to the Corp we wanted to. I ended up as a para rigger for 18 months before my Corp transfer back to infantry was accepted. Don't know where the other 2 ended up. I read all of your posts Volk, some are really very educational for me, particularly Navy posts, but some I find make you look like a very bitter and twisted man who can't get the engineering job you want because of incompetent people who got there in front of you, old crusty ex serving warrant officers and incompetent ex officers.....
Last edited:
Many of the very best I have worked with have been ex reg senior NCOs three of the worst were the same.
The three worst were also bigots who saw themselves as gate keepers, i.e. they honestly believed it was their role, over and above what they were actually employed to do, to ensure only people they deemed suitable, were employed or promoted.
I've got the job I want, I just don't get the pay or the level that should come with it because the field I work in still functions like defence of old. If you don't conform to arbitrary requirements that have nothing to do with the role, you are allowed to do the work, you just don't get the pay or recognition. Ironically, if they adopted the current payscales and personnel policies of the ADF, things would be much better.
That's what shits me about the attitude that being a certain gender and demographic automatically makes someone suitable for the ADF and being something else makes you unsuitable.
I've worked side by side with people who would never have gotten into the ADF, let alone the roles they are in, 20 or 30 years who are absolutely fantastic at what they do. I've also worked with some self entitled tools who honestly see themselves as God's gift, but leave much to be desired.
There have always been very good people in the ADF, just that, from my perspective, there are now very good, even exceptionally good, people who in the past would have been automatically excluded.
Edit: yes I am bitter, but not twisted. I vent but I am also fixing things from the inside by shining a light on unacceptable behaviour, stuffed, outdated attitudes, racism, sexism, etc. I'm seen as a trouble maker but it's better than being a passive bystander or worse, part of the problem.
Last edited:
Well mate, I've done my dreM job, and I loved every minute of it, in fact I have had many dream jobs and experiences some blokes only ever day dream about, but the reality is, I have always known, and always knew that I could never do them forever, because of the pay.
I did the Steve Irwin thing, croc and Australian wildlife keeper and shows, marlin deckhand in the Cairns fleet, live aboard barramundi fishing guide, paratrooper, and a few others, and I believe my Army time lead me there and opened doors, and for that I'm greatful.
Now I'm a screw. I get paid way more than I ever dreamed I would, I work a 13/28 roster with 7 weeks annual leave and 4 months long service every 10 years. All I have to do, is stay in my lane and "act my wage". I work in a hugely diverse environment, many of who are ex ADF all 3 services, dominated by Army and Navy. It's the most frustrating job I have ever had, with terrible leadership and other factors out of my control. But, it is what it is, and I make the most of it. Oh to be working with wildlife again, what a great job....terrible pay and conditions though.
I did the Steve Irwin thing, croc and Australian wildlife keeper and shows, marlin deckhand in the Cairns fleet, live aboard barramundi fishing guide, paratrooper, and a few others, and I believe my Army time lead me there and opened doors, and for that I'm greatful.
Now I'm a screw. I get paid way more than I ever dreamed I would, I work a 13/28 roster with 7 weeks annual leave and 4 months long service every 10 years. All I have to do, is stay in my lane and "act my wage". I work in a hugely diverse environment, many of who are ex ADF all 3 services, dominated by Army and Navy. It's the most frustrating job I have ever had, with terrible leadership and other factors out of my control. But, it is what it is, and I make the most of it. Oh to be working with wildlife again, what a great job....terrible pay and conditions though.
I was a Zookeeper at various institutions for a long time, (18 years). Can confirm... Great Job, terrible pay. Glad I ended up choosing that pathway over the Navy.
I've had other great roles in great teams, many paying much more than I am paid today. There are above the line contract roles available now but I turned down because they weren't what I wanted to do.
I've noticed many of the sensible things we stopped doing in the 80s and 90s are starting up again now. Exciting times.
Let's hope the world does become a bit more sensible, because fit young suitable men who want to be infantryman, should be allowed to be infantryman, when our infantry battalions, all 6 of them, are under manned.
