Aardvark144
Active Member
Here we go again. Can we keep all things politics out of the Forums please?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I don’t think it is mate - it’s entirely factual and directly feeds into a procurement issue. Whether it’s right or wrong is a different issue, not addressed by the post and not appropriate for this forum.
I think it handled the issue well.
There is a clear prohibition against Federal public servants (at least) from expressing political views. That would include putting your name to an open letter criticising the GotD and describing yourself as a public servant. In my view, after more than 50 years as a servant of the Government in one capacity or another, that is a sackable offence as a breach of a condition of employment. It is NOT about the implied freedom of political communication - that applies to your private persona, not your public one.
Well better to have six than none. Also I think we are underestimating what SM-3 can do, particularly as a deterrent. If you are talking about orbital exo-atmospheric intercepts, after 6, there may not be much point in using exo-atmospheric anything anymore. In that way, SM-3 should probably be thought of more like nuclear weapons than a simple muntion interception device. While it has ABM capabilities, for highly capable ICBMs, it also has anti sat capabilities in the LEO category. Due to not all orbits always being perfectly circular, and not always passing over US assets, having our own capabilities is worthy on several levels.
SM-3 is also for mid course intercepts. If it's only mid course flying over Australian ships based in FBW and FBE then there are other problems. SM-3 as a ABM shield is always going to be about further north than Australia's mainland. We aren't the main goal. In coordination with the Americans, the Japanese, we offer full time southern hemisphere coverage, even when our ships are in our own EEZ. Having that capability complicates the enemies planning significantly. If we deploy a ship with SM-3 to near japan, that would be a huge boost in capability for them, even if only armed with a few missiles. Having a platform at a different location is perhaps more useful than a large missile loadout, as each platform (or only one platform in a group of grids) may only be able to launch a single SM-3.
More of anything would be better, but money and resources aren't infinite. SM-3 is very expensive, and extremely niche. But potentially could deter a whole war by itself (unlikely but possible). If China thinks it could risk/degrade much of its LEO sat capabilities entirely, it may choose to pick on other, less capable targets or reassess its actions and priorities. Being blinded in the eyes and losing communication while the CCP are assessing going to war with the US would reframe the entire endeavor. Australia has the ability to track, target and fire all by itself. Unlike nuclear weapons, there wouldn't be any radiation, people would not be killed, and Australia has few sats that could allow it to retaliate and is quite strong in ground based sensing. If China retaliated they would also be blinding their own capabilities.
It would put Australia at the table. It would shape our future acquisitions and how we would think about warfare. Both defensively and offensively.
downunderblue
Active Member
Thanks for the informative reply.
In my recent use of AI as a summary and alaytical tool, I took a whole look at the SM-3, the different blocks, funding, emerging technologies and press releases from the Missile Defense Agency and started attempting to compare the pros and cons of multiple systems on the market.
I eventually stopped and formed the conclusion that this is really complex and nuanced.
I think we are united in suggesting Australia needs a better IADS solution to cover all continental threats from PLAAF/PLAN cruise and hypersonic missiles in addition to ballistic missiles threats from the PLA Rocket Force (PLARF). You may add anti satellite in some limited capacity however I would have thought INDOPACOM could cover that in depth.
Whilst our distance (over 4000km) from China seems to eliminate many of the PLARF inventories (leaving us initially exposed to PLAAF/PLAN cruise and hypersonic missiles), the PLARF's DF-27 (CH-SS-X-24) clearly complicates this equation, both with extended range and in mounting a glide vehicle which is clearly designed to avoid interception. I can't find any sources on production rates but this missile seems to have our name on it (along with Hawaii), and they seem to churn the equipment out very very quickly.
When you open this rabbit hole you start to conclude that we may overcome by the quantity of incoming threats. Whilst they have a lot of targets, FBW, Darwin, Tindal are high on that list and likely will be hit pretty hard. Maybe we need to have a look at what INDOPACOM is doing and move beyond IADS/ABM defense (not to ignore it of course as those PLAAF/PLAN threats are real) but evaluate other risk mitigation solutions to ensure our facilities are either hardened or that our equipment can be more effectively dispersed especially at short notice. I assume INDOPACOM will be looking to deny or degrade PLA real time targeting data but that is something likely beyond our capability to impact and best left to them.
So for now at least I will drop this complex topic. If I keep going I may start spruking the benefits of a F-35B squadron but we need to stay clearly in scope and off any potential topic that has any potential election component to it (even if it related to F-35A's)!
It's a fine line these days. A senior officer I know has been commenting, very carefully, on the impacts things in the US are having on female pilots. Keeping their comments away from politics and based purely on fact.
Others I know have spoken, again, very carefully about their personal and professional respect for some senior officers in the US they have had professional contact and engagement with, officers who have been removed in the current US war on DEI.
It is a very uncomfortable time where things are happening that are the opposite to what we have seen as right and proper for the last 20 years yet those things are perceived as political and any discussion of them is seen as political partisanship.
There is a push back, a flavour almost, that everything is political and cannot be discussed by certain people, yet at the same time, those saying others cannot discuss them are very free in expressing their views.
I don't know the answer but there is far more pressure to confirm being placed on some views than others.
downunderblue
Active Member
I know its off scope but agree with you 100%. I was really surprised and somewhat shocked when I discovered the petition and by the number of people actually putting their name to it, as I would have thought expectations would be clearly set (especially in this generation). From the Commonwealth POV they always made it very clear that reputation was very very important, both of the Department to Government, and from the WOG to the Australian public.
Notice there were a lot of state and local public servants on the list. Even in the Commonwealth there will be some non NS departments where there are less restrictions on your freedom of political expression- think Dept of Social Services, Health and Aged Care or Education. Either that or no one in the department is watching unlike some of the NS portfolios.
But alas like many I was very surprised and assumed someone within the CoA would be taking a very long look at that list and matching it against Departmental positions and roles. In time there would be a complex 'please explain' process asking why those signatories should not have their position terminated.
Anyway, back on topic as whilst illuminating it clearly isn't RAN related (or I hope it isn't).
There is a surprising lack of consequences in many areas. Steering off the political and into the organisational, there is a lot of resistance and malicious compliance to direction from the Gotd and senior leadership. Clear direction is given, yet it has often been effectively reversed by the time it reaches the coalface.
Yes Minister on steroids.
Commonsense does not apply, the only thing that does is conformance, compliance and loyalty, not to the government or senior leadership, but to the two or three levels of management above you who recognise your face and know your name.
The entire organisation is reliant on the quality of its junior and middle leadership, and, unfortunately, with few exceptions, that leadership is lacking.
downunderblue
Active Member
In some ways, you are mirroring the criticism from the dPM/MinDef. He seemed to believe there was/ is a culture issue within Defence who are resistant to change in the lower command ranks:
On Sunday in a television interview, Mr Marles said among the broader leadership of the Department of Defence and Australian Defence Force there must be more timely and accurate advice provided to the government. “I think there are issues of culture within the senior leadership and the more general leadership of the ADF and the department, which needs challenging,” Mr Marles said on Sky News. “That’s something I’ve had complete collaboration with from both the secretary of defence and the CDF [chief of defence force]. “There is an issue in relation to culture, and we should be seeking to have a culture of absolute excellence.” It is understood Mr Marles believes his relationships are good with the military service chiefs and down to the deputy secretary level in the bureaucracy, he is concerned about resistance to change in lower command ranks.
You'd assume that flatly ignoring or not caring about the political impact of your decisions or statements would be a one-way path to career oblivion. Mind you, this was documented over a year ago so maybe his public criticism had its intended impact, for now at least. Either that or parts of the ADF are just waiting it out for Marles to move on so they can go back to normal?
Marles rips into defence ‘culture’
Defence Minister Richard Marles has sharpened criticisms of his own department, arguing there are “issues of culture” which need challenging.
Would it be possible for the RAN to purchase the SLCM-N missile for the upcoming nuclear submarines? It’s would be the ultimate deterrent and in my view would make the submarines and associated costs worth tit, if it could launch a long range nuclear cruise missile.
It would make the new RAN fleet a power in the region.
I’d this just the next step once the fleet is acquired?
Is the end game to become a nuclear power?
www.twz.com
I’d this just the next step once the fleet is acquired?
Is the end game to become a nuclear power?
Pros And Cons Of The Navy's Controversial Submarine-Launched Nuclear Cruise Missile
Will Trump returning to the White House put wind in the sails of the nuclear-tipped cruise missile program he started?
www.twz.com
In some ways, you are mirroring the criticism from the dPM/MinDef. He seemed to believe there was/ is a culture issue within Defence who are resistant to change in the lower command ranks:
On Sunday in a television interview, Mr Marles said among the broader leadership of the Department of Defence and Australian Defence Force there must be more timely and accurate advice provided to the government. “I think there are issues of culture within the senior leadership and the more general leadership of the ADF and the department, which needs challenging,” Mr Marles said on Sky News. “That’s something I’ve had complete collaboration with from both the secretary of defence and the CDF [chief of defence force]. “There is an issue in relation to culture, and we should be seeking to have a culture of absolute excellence.” It is understood Mr Marles believes his relationships are good with the military service chiefs and down to the deputy secretary level in the bureaucracy, he is concerned about resistance to change in lower command ranks.
You'd assume that flatly ignoring or not caring about the political impact of your decisions or statements would be a one-way path to career oblivion. Mind you, this was documented over a year ago so maybe his public criticism had its intended impact, for now at least. Either that or parts of the ADF are just waiting it out for Marles to move on so they can go back to normal?
Marles rips into defence ‘culture’
Defence Minister Richard Marles has sharpened criticisms of his own department, arguing there are “issues of culture” which need challenging.www.afr.com
While I have been retired for some time, I was a leader at the level he may see as resistant to change. However, I would view the focus at that level as being almost exclusively on achieving Defence outcomes in the sense of increasing preparedness to actually protect this country. I was also for a while a close assistant to a very senior officer, in fact the most senior. Observation of the priorities at that level suggested that, while of course the Defence outcomes were not ignored, they were focussed at least equally, and arguably more, on the GotD’s economic and social goals.
That focus is quite understandable in peacetime, and probably appropriate there, but so is a different focus lower down. Sometimes those focii clash; and to a politician with no experience of actual involvement in executing Defence functions the lower focus might seem inappropriate or even insubordinate - but it is not. And to change the focus of the lower level to that of the higher, as has occasionally been tried in the past, is not something which will actually promote the interests of Australia.
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
The bipartisan decision has been made to not go down the nuclear weapon path. That's another can of worms. However, a long range conventional warhead cruise missile is a better idea. An echidna with very long spikes.
Part of the issue is the new middle managers, for the most part, don't have the level of experience and competence your generation had. You guys tended to be highly qualified professionals and or operators, with a couple of decades experience. You just didn't get to where you were if you didn't know what you were doing.
They now seem to be a mix of older incompetents, who were only promoted because there was no one else and it was assumed they would listen to the competent people in their teams, as well as follow direction; unqualified sycophants the older ones liked, and lateral entries who sell themselves well at interview.
Competent professionals, techos and experienced operators are too rare and valuable to waste as managers or even PMs these days. There is also the issue that pay is too low to attract external talent.
The only reason there has not been a mass exodus of technical talent at the lower levels is the moratorium on APS and ADF becoming above the line contractors. There is nothing more demoralising seeing unqualified people promoted and appointed, while the qualified people are held back and loaded up with multiple roles because they can't be spared from their roles which require SQEP.
I work with a highly competent older professional who is juggling multiple roles up to four levels above their classification, who can't get their position upgraded, despite coaching and mentoring others and consulting to other projects.
Then we have clowns at the higher levels, who literally don't seem to understand what we are doing, who do stupid things that derail what the rest of us have done.
downunderblue
Active Member
It's an interesting topic. I think you're heading into elements of organisation politics. Strangly when one joins a particular organisation, your training and focus is on gaining experience and professional outcome/ output. You want to be the best operator you can be and over time you're relied upon with greater responsibility effecting greater outcome, The 'boundaries' and ROE within your role are quite often reasonably clear and this allows you to achieve good outcomes and in turn the respect of those around you. You have a strong sense of right vs wrong in terms of ethics and expectations and generally work well together with reasonable cohesion.
There seems to be a change though at some point. I found myself being put into a position because of my experience and reliability but be given a role which I was not trained for, where the ROE or boundaries were not really clear at all. There were pros and cons. On one hand you felt you knew as an operator where the effort should be focused, but I was placed in an unexpected position of knowing how dance and co-opt with others and the system to get it done. I realised I could have impact on elements of policy purely by crafting the way I used my words, leading the time poor decision maker down one path or another (I never abused this but clearly I had opinions on what should be done and I effected that change as best as I could). You found senior people suddenly asking (and almost depending) on your opinion and realised that a) no one ever prepared me for this role nor was I selected for any useful skillset, and 2) I was amazed and almost frustrated at how unpreprepared some of the senior figures were for the role they occupied.
It was like I was in another world. In time though you got better and better at moving and weaving within this world but wondered why it wasn't taught prior so you could have hit the ground running more effectively.
You give that influence or power to some of the more shady figures in your organisation though, and they seemed to utilise it brilliantly, utlising well ingrained survival skills and a pragmatic or even limited view on ethics, relationships and morality, they would say or do anything to rise higher and higher. Not to cast too much criticism, when I think of these people, I see characteristics similar to someone like Mike Pezzulo who seemed to have a silent agenda, or even JD Vance who seems to weild power to gain more power, always reading what his boss wants, jealously competing against rivals and ultimately being a yes man without limits in the pursuit of one day being the top dog.
I may be going off topic, but to reinstate, a lot of all of this involves organisational politics and the use of power. It's fundamentally human. You get 50 people in a collective and soon they will organise themselves around a formed structured and tiered tribe. Acting like pack animals they assemble into order and continually jockey for an increased slice of authority and impact. It's fundamentally a construct of individual psychology and sociology within the collective. It's not pretty, nor is it efficient or always effective, but it is human and ultimately the way we order ourselves.
Maybe Marles as top dog had to bark and nip at his puppies to ensure they knew who was boss who could remove them at a whim, the same way Xi Jinping just had General He Weidong (a former trusted yes man who was the 3rd in charge of the CMC/ PLA holding a position on the Politburo) purged for alleged corruption. It's the way we seem to run our societies and yes I wish we had more accepted ethics (rules based order maybe?) where some people were found out before they got to the top, but until we find a better way it seems to be the status quo and accepted ROE within organisations effecting power and influence over others.
After you've watched if for enough time, you learn to expect it, commerce quoting Machiavelli etc, but in the end see the humanity to it. Us animals don't know any better when working in/within the pack.
Anyway we should take this offline as its about humans not about our maritime domain. Yes they arent mutually exclusive but its best to get back to the topic ... so ... how IS the RAN going and how are we going to save ourselves from the Davidson window looming ...
Anyone else see the irony where the inner city folk who have a higher % of women and LGBTQ voters support the greens who seem to support Hamas who would in no way give women or LGTBQ folk the same equality in life they get here?
OT….but ….The commander of the Space Force base on Greenland was replaced further saying some of the comments of KD Vance didn’t reflect reality on her base. Nek Minute ..,BANG.
I a way she, instead of settling things down, proved them to be worse than it was thought.
It is a very uncomfortable time, more so for conservatives with morals, than for many others. The sad part is, the excesses we are seeing now is undermining enlightened, thinking conservatives, while empowering the loony left.
Human factors is critical to capability. Not just will a person fit, or whether they will be able to do their job in certain scenarios, but whether they will be facilitated or allowed to do their jobs.
There’s a danger in shooting the messenger rather than listening to, and understanding, the message. Whether she was right or not we’ll never know; but to sack anybody whose story doesn’t completely align with yours is more than dangerous. “Don’t tell me how good I am, I know that. Tell me how bad I am and where I can improve.”