Enough time to be an MT or a qualified CSO? No.

But it is enough time to learn enough basics so that a kid can spend about 9 solid months in the fleet to do jobs like for example: lookout or lifebouy sentry underway, QMA when alongside, and ships husbandry. Thereby decreasing the load for trained and experienced sailors to do mundane tasks and increasing R&R and job satisfaction among the troops. It will also allow exposure for the gap yearies to all the departments, so that if they decide to sign up past the initial year then they will know which jobs they will like and therefore are less likely to get out after thier fixed period of service is over.

It has many benefits.

But that is the big negative IMHO.

The Navy (and ADF as a whole) is a great choice, but they may not think so if all they do for a year is $h!tkicker jobs.

I agree it can be a great career, but as you said if all they get to do is the low end jobs (because that's all they've got time to learn), then they won't want to stay and ultimately I think the programme will fail.

Fundamentally a major part of the problem is current social attitudes that appear to be prevalent in relation to our involvement in overseas deployments. There will always be people attracted to the ADF anyway, whilst these attitudes persist in general society it will continue to be difficult for them to attract the people who would see the benefits of starting their career in the forces but have chosen not to because they oppose some of the current political decions that have resulted in some of our recent overseas deployments.

So I guess a 1200 officer and sailor ship would be out of the question . . . and that's not even including the Air Wing and Marines . . . but then again the Tarawas needed about 2/300 servicemembers less to operate . . . and the Saipan is still available.

I didn't realize that there was so much difficulty in recruiting . . . I would support a period of civil service . . . but rather, why not require a period of service in the australian version of the National Guard. This way there would be civil service, learning skills which will benefit the individual in the future, and also benefit the regular/active forces by supplementing their numbers in time of dire emergency.

Yeah a 1200 crew would represent 1/10th of our full time Naval strength, so thats too many for one asset.

To be honest, currently recruiting is not the main issue, I was in the largest graduation of officers from the RAN College, they struggled to accomadate all of us, and numbers at the enlisted recruit school are up too.

But retention of current personnel is the biggest issue. And there are multiple factors which effect that. And no matter how many we recruit, until we stem the tide of those leaving the problem will remain. Because it will take a guy inducted today 10 years before he can replace my mate who quit today.

Well . . . I don't know if it would be to old . . . but reports have it that the Tripoli is still intact, afloat, and seaworthy.
My thinking on it is . . . if we have sea worthy, battle capable vessels that we're decomissioning . . . why not give them to some of our staunches allies?
For instance . . . the four remaining stricken Ticos

Already offered, and the response was "thanks, but no thanks".

Really? Why? Age of the vessels? When you can purchase a Arleigh Burke or Álvaro de Bazán offshoot? And why the Alvaro de Bazan offshoot rather then the Burke?

Good point :hmm:

Besides US and AU just signed off a deal giving US access to Australian bases/storage facilites in return for some tricky next gen kit. Interestingly the latest gear for the F22 was included.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...671802012.html

Don't want the old stuff give us the new toys please.:D

That IT equipment they gave you looks a bit iffy :hmm:
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9...keredpciu5.jpg

LMAO It still works better than the trucks they sell us...
http://www.afgha.com/?q=system/files...an+G-Wagon.jpg

Yeah age, theres a reason they werre retired from the USN. They were old hulls, and just as importantly they were not equipped with VLS.

Also they are pretty manpower intensive.

And I believe they were seen as a risk to the new DDG proram, if we got the ticos it could delay, downsize, or even kill the air warfare destroyer program.


The first AWD should be in service in 6 years (from memory).

Yah, that was the reason why I saw that they retired them due to the fact that they didn't wish to upgrade them the the Mk41 VLS system . . . rather they have the Mk26 Rail System.

And I have to wonder, why is it that they have not decided to roll both these programs into one . . . a VLS armed Sea Control/Amphib Ship? With the decision to purchase the F-35B this would make it one of the most capable ships in the Southeast Asia/Oceania Region.

I think theres a few reasons for that. in no particular order
- too many eggs in one basket
- we need hulls in the water (the RAN is legally bound to more water than any other Navy on earth, that includes the USN)
- we woluld have the exact same capabilities by fielding two different ships, no real reason to combine thier roles, it wouldnt really bring down the manpower requirment by any useful margin
- it could turn into an design and building nightmare
- the ships size would have to be alot larger, which could pose problems in ops, port services, navigation
- we would have less flexibility to detail off assets to do jobs away from a main body. in any situation.
- having an ASW helo going from the amphib would up hangar space needed for the troop lifters and utility helos

Nobody fights alone. I really dont think combining roles is a workable idea, I can see the headaches Canada will have when its amphib/replenishment ships come on line.

Well here's my question . . . if you're going to fit RIM-166s . . . and RIM-162s on these boats for light self defense . . . why does it not make sence to replace these with Mk 57 or Mk 41 VLS. I mean the Tarawas had 5" guns fitted when it was originally built.