Can only speculate ,but maybe there was a trade off with size and numbers purchased.
Just wondering. would the smaller and lighter LST 100 be easier to beach and extract itself rather than the larger LST 120.
Cheers S
Just wondering. would the smaller and lighter LST 100 be easier to beach and extract itself rather than the larger LST 120.
Cheers S
Takao
The Bunker Group
The size of an Anzac and 300t heavier? I'm more worried about the impact on safety and the like by having Army own such ships. Noting the overhead Army has with airworthiness, it boggles the mind as to why Army is getting them...
OldTex
Well-Known Member
That decision can always be changed and may well even before the vessels are in service. But would the Navy personnel be eager to operate and maintain what is essentially a coastal freighter rather than high end warships?
Takao
The Bunker Group
No it's not - it's an excellent example of building a solid Joint Force. The RAN gets more experienced officers and sailors (which translates to better use of the landing craft - including when things go to custard 1500nm off shore), similarly they also get more who are fluent in 'Land'. Give them 10 years and they are now the senior peeps on the LHD/LSD, able to better translate between the ship and the embarked forces than ever before. Similarly, Army now has better inter-personnel connections with the fleet - enabling a whole bunch of stuff from fire support to quick showers....
The idea that Army should own them because they deliver Army is the internal focus, with little opportunity to actually excel. It's a similar isse to how resources are allocated in the Bde's, or even air mobility.
Please read the below article about maritime training for army officers who are undertaking the Accelerated Maritime Warfare Officer Course at HMAS Stirling in WA and HMAS Watson in NSW.
The training will enable the officers to command and manage the future fleet of littoral manoeuvre vessels.
The training will enable the officers to command and manage the future fleet of littoral manoeuvre vessels.
Also most people seem to forget the army has managed a number of supply ships and amphibs in the past.
It appears to be inter service politics rather than lack of skill that saw it end.
But I agree that standing up a skillset that has been lost due to time will will be a challenge.
Interesting issue of ‘ownership’.
I can appreciate the domain role being Army manoeuvre in Littorals, so there is an incentive to have these tasked and managed by Army, especially as there is a historical precedence of extensive Army Watercraft operations in WW2 and beyond.
my concern however is the ‘seamanship‘ skillset, and its maintenance and individual career pathways.
perhaps there’s less natural ‘synergy’ between maritime larger ship handling and the wider general Army domain, than other Army specialist Corps?
perhaps a transferred soldier from whatever corp they are currently in, to another, might be more relatable in a wider Army context?
An LST driver might feel somewhat land-locked by a posting to a non-maritime ops posting?
Also, whilst they do move around in non-corp career postings, they aren’t necessarily focused on the maritime ship ops they trained in, which flattens out the operation experience base. Ie: A specialist ‘maritime ship driver’ is by definition, a specialist.
interesting, looking fwd to seeing how this awesome capability plays out.
I can appreciate the domain role being Army manoeuvre in Littorals, so there is an incentive to have these tasked and managed by Army, especially as there is a historical precedence of extensive Army Watercraft operations in WW2 and beyond.
my concern however is the ‘seamanship‘ skillset, and its maintenance and individual career pathways.
perhaps there’s less natural ‘synergy’ between maritime larger ship handling and the wider general Army domain, than other Army specialist Corps?
perhaps a transferred soldier from whatever corp they are currently in, to another, might be more relatable in a wider Army context?
An LST driver might feel somewhat land-locked by a posting to a non-maritime ops posting?
Also, whilst they do move around in non-corp career postings, they aren’t necessarily focused on the maritime ship ops they trained in, which flattens out the operation experience base. Ie: A specialist ‘maritime ship driver’ is by definition, a specialist.
interesting, looking fwd to seeing how this awesome capability plays out.
In the short term, it will enable them to be junior officers, aspiring to BWCs. It will not fit them for command fo some years to come.
The army used to operate the Balikpapan class before handing them over to the navy. This was because of a re-organisation of watercraft responsibilities back in the 1970s. In fact the last couple went directly into navy service.
I agree going from nothing to half a dozen largish landing ships will represent a big learning curve for the army.
Wouldn’t be surprised to see history repeat itself.
While this article discusses recruitment issues for intelligence agencies, it does cover the same issues being faced by military recruitment (including in Australia). Interesting read and take on why younger generations are reluctant to sign up :
Britain and Australia have a spy shortage and recruiting the next generation is proving difficult
Britain and Australia have a spy shortage and recruiting the next generation is proving difficult
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
A Russian victory in Ukraine and a CCP takeover of Taiwan may awaken the younger generations that their goals for fixing climate change might take a serious downturn wrt Russia. As for COVID, a Wuhan Lab screw-up or live market, China hasn't been doing much wrt transparency or regulation of live markets. The vetting of second generation immigrants for intelligence, a difficult issue considering how some opted for a career with ISIS from many Western nations but their language and cultural awareness are huge assets for spy services. The same applies for military sercice, albeit perhaps not to the same extent.
KrustyKoala
New Member
Social issues have always been important to the younger generations but they arent what's actually causing a shortage. Why should any young person work for an Intelligence Service when they could study to be a Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant or Tradie and make more money.
That article posted doesnt talk up the benefits of service instead acknowledging the drawn out vetting process and the demand placed on personal lives. If the pay isnt as good as other career paths and the benefits are unclear then you dont deserve the next generation.
That article posted doesnt talk up the benefits of service instead acknowledging the drawn out vetting process and the demand placed on personal lives. If the pay isnt as good as other career paths and the benefits are unclear then you dont deserve the next generation.
In regards to ADF staffing, for those who missed it the Defence Workforce Plan was released in November, you can find it here :
Defence Workforce Plan
Some excerpts/summaries (created using Adobe PDF's AI assistant) :
Defence aims to align workforce growth with the National Defence Strategy, focusing on Combat and Security, Enterprise and Command Support, and Engineering, Maintenance and Construction, which will comprise 57% of roles. Significant growth is planned for Communications and Cyber, Intelligence, and Health segments. Remediation of skill gaps in junior and middle ranks is crucial.
The National Defence Strategy and Integrated Investment Program focus on enhancing Navy's surface combatant fleet and introducing nuclear-powered submarines, requiring sustainable workforce growth until 2040. Investments include new general purpose frigates, Hunter Class frigates, and autonomous underwater warfare systems. Workforce growth is essential across various domains including surface combatants, submarines, and naval aviation.
The Army is restructuring to enhance amphibious capabilities, requiring workforce reprioritization, new qualifications, and sustained growth, with a focus on long-range strike and air defence.
Defence Workforce Plan
Some excerpts/summaries (created using Adobe PDF's AI assistant) :
- The 2024 Defence Workforce Plan aims to transition the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to an integrated, focused force to meet strategic demands.
- Defence is prioritizing the recruitment, retention, and growth of a highly specialized and skilled workforce, while also implementing cultural changes and improving mental health and wellbeing support.
- The competitive national labour market and low unemployment rates challenge Defence's ability to attract and retain skilled workers.
- Since 2022, Defence has transformed its recruitment and retention systems, leading to a stabilized ADF workforce with improved recruitment and retention.
- Initiatives include widening eligibility criteria, expanding the recruiting system, and encouraging current personnel to stay longer through retention initiatives.
- The Government has introduced financial and non-financial initiatives, such as enhanced study assistance, family health benefits, and the ADF Continuation Bonus, which has seen an 80% uptake rate since July 2023.
- The 2024 Defence Workforce Plan will be updated biennially as part of the National Defence Strategy cycle.
Defence aims to align workforce growth with the National Defence Strategy, focusing on Combat and Security, Enterprise and Command Support, and Engineering, Maintenance and Construction, which will comprise 57% of roles. Significant growth is planned for Communications and Cyber, Intelligence, and Health segments. Remediation of skill gaps in junior and middle ranks is crucial.
The National Defence Strategy and Integrated Investment Program focus on enhancing Navy's surface combatant fleet and introducing nuclear-powered submarines, requiring sustainable workforce growth until 2040. Investments include new general purpose frigates, Hunter Class frigates, and autonomous underwater warfare systems. Workforce growth is essential across various domains including surface combatants, submarines, and naval aviation.
The Army is restructuring to enhance amphibious capabilities, requiring workforce reprioritization, new qualifications, and sustained growth, with a focus on long-range strike and air defence.
- The Army is pivoting to deliver an amphibious-capable, combined-arms land system optimized for littoral manoeuvre, necessitating immediate changes.
- This includes reprioritizing the existing water transport workforce to new vessels built in Australia and investing in ship handling and ocean navigation qualifications for soldiers and officers.
- The Army is also being rebalanced to generate new capabilities in long-range, land-based strike and air defence.
- Sustained workforce growth is required to meet these new demands, with specific workforce requirements outlined for the years 2025 to 2040.
- The Air domain workforce needs to expand sustainably to develop new capabilities in expeditionary air combat, integrated air and missile defence, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, and secure airfield operations.
- The introduction of advanced technologies like the MQ-4C Triton uncrewed system and MC-55A Peregrine aircraft will significantly enhance the ADF's capabilities and necessitate new skillsets.
- Workforce growth is required across various areas including Air Combat, Air Mobility, Air and Missile Defence, Air Mobility Aerial Refuelling, Air ISREW, Combat Air Support Air Base Operations, and Combat Air Support People/Health from 2025 to 2040.
- The table provided outlines the workforce requirements for each year from 2025 to 2040, indicating areas where moderate to larger workforce growth is needed.
Thanks for this. It does seem to address the question of who will man the new heavy landing craft.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The economic collapse of 1929 eliminated most economic opportunities so service was one of the few paths available for many prior to the war. This likely provided a decent base of experienced personnel that could assist in training the huge number of draftees and volunteers that started to arrive in late 1939 onwards. A new depression isn't going to help this time as there won't be a 10 year interval before a major war starts. Higher pay perhaps with significant tax benefits including working spouses at home might help. Needless to say decent housing would be a huge asset as well, a problem for many Western militarises.
Its been mentioned here many times that ADF salaries should be tax free.