Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[OldTex]

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.

Yes I did read what you wrote. Some I agree with and some I don't.

As for taking off biased blinkers... HELLO POT THIS IS KETTLE, OVER!!!!

If tertiary institutions do not choose to RPL a candidate's relevant experience that is an issue with the specific institutions. When my military trade was combined with a technical trade I was given the option of doing 2 years of courses or applying for RPL. I applied for RPL and I was told I was overqualified and I would have to do the courses. The Head of Corps and the Trade Supervisor both decided otherwise.

Nothing I can write will change your entrenched view, so I won't bother replying further to this chain.

 

[StobieWan]

Gentlemen, this matter is somewhat off topic and has become heated. Please take a moment to reflect and perhaps take the subject back on topic.

 

[OldTex]

Certainly

 

[Going Boeing]

It will be interesting to see if this support contract awarded to Navantia Australia will result in improved availability of their ships serving in the RAN - there have been numerous reports on this forum about the shortcomings of Navantia designs.

Navantia Australia Signs Landmark Designer Support Contract

 

[iambuzzard]

Question out of left field. A lot has been said about the PLA-N Type 55 Cruiser having 112 VLS cells, but what is the load out? Can they quad pack their AAM rounds or not? If we put a Hobart and Anzac up against one would they be evenly matched seeing as how we quad pack ESSM?
If both sides had roughly a 50/50 mix of ASM and AAM I think we would come out on top.
On my calculations a Hobart with that load out would have 24 Tomahawk/SM-2 etc and 96 ESSM plus 8 NSM, and an ANZAC would have 16 mixed attack missiles/64 ESSM and 8 NSM. That's 216 rounds. Depending on the Chinese load out we're in better shape.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Further buy of Mk-48 Torpedos.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2025-03-21/australia-bolsters-submarine-lethality-under-200-million-deal

 

[downunderblue]

Keith Wolahan 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.

He is IMO. The reason why I put forward his name is based upon your original comment quoted below, he doesn’t qualify. Moreso in your comments you stated anyone who wasn’t good at Maths or Sciences were soft, weak and of low intellect. See your exact words below.

I wasn't going to say it, but I need to. The kids who weren't good at maths and science, follow an easier, kinder path into device related roles. Because of the low intellectual bar, and the lack of anything actually quantifiable, they are promoted on popularity and likability. They end up as senior managers and directors, decision makers.

I conclude with relative confidence that 98% of Western society (including Keith), would vehemently disagree with you. Most of society are/were not “good at maths and science” or have follow a career in STEM. Thay doesn’t mean they were soft, weak and of low intellect? Or are they?

I could quote you many people in history who aren’t compliant with your ‘social rule’. I happened to google the BBC's ultimate icons of the 20th century (under leaders and activists- decision makers) and found that of the 8 ‘icons’ listen, only one had a STEM background. Does that make the rest soft, weak and of low intellect?

• Churchill (English and History), Nelson Mandela (Law) Franklin D Roosevelt (History) Margaret Thatcher (chemistry), Mohandas Gandhi (law), Helen Keller (Arts), Dr Martin Luther King Jr (Divinity), Emmeline Pankhurst (no tertiary education).

Honestly, I think you misspoke but I don’t think I am misrepresenting your words. They are there above in black and white.

What I would ask is after all this, do you still believe in those comments or where you just speaking emotionally and blurted something accidently out that is coincidently inherently insulting to the vast majority of people on this planet?

I assume it’s the later after you’ve had time to consider it. We in society all have our bias’ etc and make mistakes (often due to emotional factors) but if so, just own it and apologise to the rest of humanity you accidently called soft, weak and of low intellect.

And btw my intellect is in the 93rd percentile. I’ve lived a full life where I have given a lot back, but didn’t end up in STEM. I am not soft, weak and of low intellect, nor IMO is effectively anybody on this planet if you’re willing to listen and open mindedly judge people without prejudice or discrimination.

 

[downunderblue]

Further buy of Mk-48 Torpedos.View attachment 52502

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2025-03-21/australia-bolsters-submarine-lethality-under-200-million-deal

My cheap shot from cheap seats comment is to question why we need additional torpedos if we can only get one sub to sea at a time AND have a lot of subs on "backorder" which seem to be taking some time to come to fruition?

Quip over, I note we use the MK 48 Mod 7 CBASS. How does this compare with the Spearfish or the Japanese designs. I recall hearing it was good (and yes follows continuity/ no one needs change for change sake etc) but that the Spearfish (thinking AUKUS) was markedly better?

 

[Todjaeger]

My cheap shot from cheap seats comment is to question why we need additional torpedos if we can only get one sub to sea at a time AND have a lot of subs on "backorder" which seem to be taking some time to come to fruition?

Quip over, I note we use the MK 48 Mod 7 CBASS. How does this compare with the Spearfish or the Japanese designs. I recall hearing it was good (and yes follows continuity/ no one needs change for change sake etc) but that the Spearfish (thinking AUKUS) was markedly better?

I would advise caution when attempting to compare different types of guided ordnance, particularly if the desire is to determine which one is 'better' since a great deal will depend on what or how it would be defined as 'better'.

 

[Going Boeing]

While it is difficult to get many details in the public domain, the Mod 7 CBASS upgrade to the Mk48 torpedo has been described as a significant increase in its performance & capabilities. The development of this upgrade was pushed by elements of Australian Defence but I haven’t seen any details of their contribution.

This article gives a summation of the improvements over the previous ADCAP Mk48.

Active and passive homing guidance is provided by the Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System. The torpedo can effectively engage low-Doppler shallow submarines, fast deep diving submarines and high-performance surface ships.

It supports autonomous fire-and-forget operation or wire-guide capability to provide post-launch monitoring and updates through the submarine combat system. It also allows the transmission and reception over a wide frequency band. The broadband signal processing techniques ensure improved search, acquisition and attack effectiveness for the torpedo.

 

[seaspear]

I can add that the performance would be classified and unless the members here have ever such a clearance would not know mine expired over twenty years ago and if my knowledge was current would not be in a position to comment

 

[StevoJH]

I would be more concerned with compatibility between Spearfish and Mk.48 with regards to data connection points and integration into the combat system.

In an ideal world you could reload an Astute with an Australian Mk.48 and a Collins or Virginia with Spearfish.

 

[iambuzzard]

Question out of left field. A lot has been said about the PLA-N Type 55 Cruiser having 112 VLS cells, but what is the load out? Can they quad pack their AAM rounds or not? If we put a Hobart and Anzac up against one would they be evenly matched seeing as how we quad pack ESSM?
If both sides had roughly a 50/50 mix of ASM and AAM I think we would come out on top.
On my calculations a Hobart with that load out would have 24 Tomahawk/SM-2 etc and 96 ESSM plus 8 NSM, and an ANZAC would have 16 mixed attack missiles/64 ESSM and 8 NSM. That's 216 rounds. Depending on the Chinese load out we're in better shape.

Gents, I put this question to hopefully get us back on track, which is hopefully to talk about ships and subs. I'm only a token layman on this thread and appreciate the knowledge you all collectively have. I don't want politics or arguments about abilities about the people involved in the background of procurement. I own a hobby shop that sells models of these things and it's the hardware I'm interested in, not some American politician.

 

[Volkodav]

Gents, I put this question to hopefully get us back on track, which is hopefully to talk about ships and subs. I'm only a token layman on this thread and appreciate the knowledge you all collectively have. I don't want politics or arguments about abilities about the people involved in the background of procurement. I own a hobby shop that sells models of these things and it's the hardware I'm interested in, not some American politician.

Yep, sorry about that. I let my frustration with structural issues seep through and a couple of members picked up the wrong end of the stick, were triggered, took offence or whatever. My attempts to clarify just resulted in them becoming more strident.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

Further buy of Mk-48 Torpedos.View attachment 52502

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2025-03-21/australia-bolsters-submarine-lethality-under-200-million-deal

Oblivious any increase is better than nothing but $200 M doesn't buy too many torpedoes.

 

[seaspear]

Its hard to assess the exact cost of the torpedoes likely at under ten million Aus. but at least much of its developed in Australia

The U.S. Navy's Mark 48 Heavy Torpedo Is Unstoppable

Ask any ship captain what he fears the most in combat, and the answer will probably be submarines. Ever since subs became operationally viable, they have proved to be a menace for surface combatants and commercial shipping. During World War One and World War Two, for example, the German Navy...

nationalinterest.org

 

[SammyC]

Gents, I put this question to hopefully get us back on track, which is hopefully to talk about ships and subs. I'm only a token layman on this thread and appreciate the knowledge you all collectively have. I don't want politics or arguments about abilities about the people involved in the background of procurement. I own a hobby shop that sells models of these things and it's the hardware I'm interested in, not some American politician.

From what I have read, none of the Chinese missiles are quad packable. So it is one shot per cell. ESSM is usefull in equalising some of the VLS capacity imbalance, and makes our ships very good echidnas.

Their anti air defence is provided via two missiles, the large HQ9 (akin to an SM2) and the smaller HQ10 (used like RAM).

What the Chinese can do is mass load ship strike missiles (in particular the YJ91) into their VLS (so lets say 30-60 out of the 112 on a Type 55) whereas we are limited to the 8 deck cannisters. This missile is nasty, and they have the capacity to really saturate an attack.