Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Amazing the US is desperately trying and admittedly failing to boost its submarine production from 1.2 to maybe 2.3 vessels a year largely in response to the threat from China.
No such sense of urgency from Australia when it comes to building the Hunter Frigates. You would think they would move heaven and earth to boost production given the precarious state of the navy but no. Instead we are plodding along at the same rate we planned all those years ago.
What is more important a build rate that avoids the "valley of death" or meeting threat requirements ? , I know it sounds simplistic but future job layoffs I would suggest as the lesser harm to our country than being underprepared because of historic lack of ship building has left the navy exposed
Anzac is well on the way through its stripping, at this stage she may be handed over to the scrappers mid-year.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Do you know if the MK41 VLS and the gun are suitable for fitting to the new GPF - I imagine that the longer barrel version of the gun would be desirable?
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
As a layman I believe both options can take the Mk.41, preferably strike length to give more options for missile load out. Not sure about the barrel length of the gun but it will be 127mm for commonality with the rest of the fleet. Both designs have room for 32 VLS cells.
The valley of death is the simplest thing to avoid and we have gone the stupidest way about it possible.
There is no “valley of death” if we order sufficient numbers of ships… There wouldn’t have been one if we’d ordered a 4th, 5th, 6th etc Hobart and paid off ANZAC’s to crew and pay for sustainment of them and we’d have a fleet in a much better condition if we did.
But of course as usual we took the parsimonious route.
The slow march build is designed to do nothing more than save money.
It’s disgraceful.
For such a long term ship building endeavour providing a fleet for the navy I’m sure we could accommodate the current and future manufacturing consistency with planning and discipline.
Short term needs should trump what manufacturing needs we may or may not have in the 2040s.
the Hunters should hit the accelerator as best they can.
SEA 3000 should not exist but it doe for the neglect of the past and the challenges we face today and the immediate future.
We need ships and Subs ASAP
NUSHIP Arafura has arrived at FBE. Image Source : ADF Image Library
"NUSHIP Arafura is the first of its class Offshore Patrol Vessel, delivered under project SEA 1180-1 by Luerssen Australia. NUSHIP Arafura arrived at Fleet Base West, Western Australia in March 2025, following its transit from Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia. Upon arrival, NUSHIP Arafura will commence preparations for its introduction into service. NUSHIP Arafura was accepted by Defence in January 2025 for further test and evaluation, ahead of delivery to the Royal Australian Navy."
"NUSHIP Arafura is the first of its class Offshore Patrol Vessel, delivered under project SEA 1180-1 by Luerssen Australia. NUSHIP Arafura arrived at Fleet Base West, Western Australia in March 2025, following its transit from Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia. Upon arrival, NUSHIP Arafura will commence preparations for its introduction into service. NUSHIP Arafura was accepted by Defence in January 2025 for further test and evaluation, ahead of delivery to the Royal Australian Navy."
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Look at the Japanese method of ship building. Contract a dozen Mogamis, then contract a dozen Evolved Mogamis, then design the next to follow them. No Valley Of Death. And the Americans have been building ABs for decades. Our politicians and bureaucracy are just stupid.
I didn't say only, but the issue is "
I imagine someone like him would actually agree with me.
A clerk or admin person isn't an ADFA graduate of any shape or form, nor are they a lawyer, an economist or an accountant, they are a clerk or an admin person. They are not specialists, nor are they professionals, yet they are appointed as contract managers, administration managers and project managers, without having had to undertake any formal study, or sit any professional boards.
They are put in-charge of engineers, techos, lawyers, accountants, systems specialists etc. They specialise in nothing so, by default are seen as "generalists", while ironically, specialists, with multiple specialities are not.
I have worked with and know many people who have advanced skills, even mastery, in multiple fields, who are considered to be specialists in one field only and "well educated morons" by absolute dumb F's who may, or may not have a cert 3 in business or maybe even a "more bugger all" (MBA).
I am a great believer in on the job training and recognition of prior learning, I enjoy and support others in professional development. I believe one of the biggest wanks is Engineers Australia redefining a professional engineer exclusively as someone who has completed a four year engineering degree.
My objection is to the incompetent, ignorant, unqualified, inexperienced people who are appointed and promoted of "fit".
Keith Woolahan sounds like a really impressive and talented individual, and eminently qualified as well, which has me wondering why you brought him up as counter to my comment?
I imagine someone like him would actually agree with me.
A clerk or admin person isn't an ADFA graduate of any shape or form, nor are they a lawyer, an economist or an accountant, they are a clerk or an admin person. They are not specialists, nor are they professionals, yet they are appointed as contract managers, administration managers and project managers, without having had to undertake any formal study, or sit any professional boards.
They are put in-charge of engineers, techos, lawyers, accountants, systems specialists etc. They specialise in nothing so, by default are seen as "generalists", while ironically, specialists, with multiple specialities are not.
I have worked with and know many people who have advanced skills, even mastery, in multiple fields, who are considered to be specialists in one field only and "well educated morons" by absolute dumb F's who may, or may not have a cert 3 in business or maybe even a "more bugger all" (MBA).
I am a great believer in on the job training and recognition of prior learning, I enjoy and support others in professional development. I believe one of the biggest wanks is Engineers Australia redefining a professional engineer exclusively as someone who has completed a four year engineering degree.
My objection is to the incompetent, ignorant, unqualified, inexperienced people who are appointed and promoted of "fit".
Also greater use of subcontracts and fabricating block in other yards.
The AWD wasn't a bad model in many ways.
In theory yes. The gun has already been removed, just waiting on the VLS to come out.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Like yesterday
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Looks good. Just needs a 40mm gun up forward.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Volks, always the voice of sanity!
OldTex
Well-Known Member
You seem to be happy for the various professional bodies covering doctors, pharmacists, psychologists, dentists, lawyers and a whole range of other professions defining what is needed to be identified as a member of that profession, but rant about Engineers Australia doing exactly that for engineers. Get the forest sized chip off your shoulder!
Other professional bodies recognise other qualifications and provide tailored pathways for talented individuals to accelerate qualification and certification.
I even know a few engineers who have under taken accelerated medical degrees.
There are also, quite literally experts in engineering fields who do not have engineering degrees, i.e. they are industrial designers, scientists etc. and are not recognised or classified as engineers even though they hold mastery in the fields.
I knew people in automotive in that boat, as well as defence.
I have a chip on my shoulder about many things, I'm pissed off that we as a nation no longer train and certify engineers through pupillage, for the simple reason some of the very best engineers I learnt from came up through that pathway.
I worked with many talented people who, by the time they were mid career, you couldn't tell if they started on the tools as apprentices, came through pupillage, did an old three year diploma at an institute of technology or went to a traditional university. The shit ones were shit, no matter where they came from.
I despise elitism and exclusion, I hate having to work around and fix the f ups of entitled prats, while much more talented people, who I have seen do a much better job, can't even get through the door, or need to change careers because they don't tick arbitrary boxes.
Interestingly Pharmacy also used to be an apprenticeship.
Everyone should be worried, there is a shortage of competent engineers, people are being employed with nothing more than a pulse and a parchment. People with trades, associate or advanced diplomas and masters degrees are not even being considered for roles they have been doing successfully for a couple of decades because it was decided as part of professionalisation that they needed to be chartered engineers. Roles are staying vacant for years before being filled by someone who is not experienced enough, or worse not competent.
People come on here and bitch about project delays, cost over runs, incompetence in defence and industry but don't stop to think about the institutional, systematic and structural causes.
I'm telling you the causes that I have witnessed over years but it doesn't fit your narratives so you cry and winge and make personal accusations.
In defence engineers need to sit boards, in industry they don't. I'd take a board certified engineer over an uncertified one any day.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
I am not the one crying and whinging. I am calling out biased comments and hypocrisy. I am sure you do have chips on your shoulder about many things (some fully justified) but the matter of professional engineers seems to be almost a casus belli.
I too did not enjoy fixing other peoples mistakes,especially when they had been given ample evidence that what they were implementing was not fit-for-purpose (and that is not just in defence either).
Yes there are institutional, systemic and structural causes to the problems facing defence projects. But those can not be solely laid at the feet of Engineers Australia or chartered engineers. The way to improve defence projects is to learn from the mistakes made previously. Honestly identify the root cause(s) and fix them. Also make the process open so anyone and everyone involved in defence projects can learn. If they don't want to learn then they should be told to find another employer. That applies not just to defence projects but a much wider range of industries where the same thing happens.
Last edited:
You didn't actually read what I wrote did you?
Take your biased blinkers off and read it again.
I was pointing out that career paths for engineers and technical ( i.e. those with trades, post trade, technical, under graduate and even post graduate qualifications that are not four year engineering degrees) are far more limited than those of the non technical, non professional administration, contracts and project managers who seem to be advancing in many major projects.
I then made the point that engineers Australia are part of the problem because they have been allowed to dictate who is, and is not an engineer. There is actually a paper written by a former head of EA who states that EAs initial goal in restricting who was and was not an engineer was to reduce the pool of engineers and drive up wages.
They then actively campaigned to convert senior technical roles into professional engineer roles. There used to be multiple pathways for technical people, now there are almost none, they either go back to school and do a four year undergraduate degree ( which is a joke for those who have already completed postgraduate engineering degrees) or they switch to a non technical stream.
When government and industry outsourced professional recognition to EA, they, instead of assessing the the knowledge skills and experience of all of those working as engineers, put the four year degree as the arbitary entry requirements for assessment. The then introduced technical officer and technologist levels, again based on two, or three year qualifications.
Additionally, after being paid to do so, they began issuing recognition to individuals who had passed promotion courses within the ADF, without assessing the individual at all.
Worst was their agreement with INCOSE, who previously used a formula equating X years experience, to y years of study for entry into their certification process that included a course, an exam and a board. Now you just need a four year engineering degree and a certified work history
At least RINA still go case by case.
The problem is elitism, exceptionalism and a lack of intellectual diversity. When you have hierarchical structures where conformity of thought and behaviour is paramount, you are heading for failure.