Is the Royal Australian Navy trying to get a Aircraft Carrier?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Not being funny but i think a carrier the size of ark royal would suit them, its 600 man crew unlike the 5000 on us carriers and a small but powerful air wing.

Agreed....they already have problems trying to crew yhe Collins Class subs

[TarJak]

Overall the ADF is having serious problems in maintaining a standing defence force due to the lcurative job market in the resources sector. A lot of young people who would normally be in the recruitment demographics, are off to the mines to earn a lot better for a lot less hassle than in the forces.

So much so that the government is advocating the spending of your gap year after high school in the forces and has established a program to cycle people through in 12 months temporary roles. (Honestly I don't think that's enough time but they are desparate).

The option of national service and drafting is not there as it is a political hot potato with very little public support for the concept.

[bookworm_020]

Originally Posted by TarJak

So much so that the government is advocating the spending of your gap year after high school in the forces and has established a program to cycle people through in 12 months temporary roles. (Honestly I don't think that's enough time but they are desparate).

It was sold as a try before you buy type deal, with the hope that they would sign on for a regular hitch.

The option of national service and drafting is not there as it is a political hot potato with very little public support for the concept.

I doubt that the draft will be brought back. Any political party who tried would be hung, drawn and quartered!

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

It was sold as a try before you buy type deal, with the hope that they would sign on for a regular hitch.

I'd be interested in knowing the numbers that do re-up. My guess is not many who do try before buying will be buying so I'm sceptical as to how successful the programme is likely to be.

[diver]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Overall the ADF is having serious problems in maintaining a standing defence force due to the lcurative job market in the resources sector. A lot of young people who would normally be in the recruitment demographics, are off to the mines to earn a lot better for a lot less hassle than in the forces.

So much so that the government is advocating the spending of your gap year after high school in the forces and has established a program to cycle people through in 12 months temporary roles. (Honestly I don't think that's enough time but they are desparate).

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.

Originally Posted by TarJak

I'd be interested in knowing the numbers that do re-up. My guess is not many who do try before buying will be buying so I'm sceptical as to how successful the programme is likely to be.

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.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by diver

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.

[JALU3]

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.

[diver]

Originally Posted by JALU3

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.

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.

[JALU3]

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