New warships with bigger manning needs means big manning problems

The RAN and senior Defence leadership are in a dreamland if they think the 3 Hobart-class air warfare destroyers and 2 Canberra-class amphibious ships will have enough manpower to run them.

Why? Current known manning performance in today's fleet.

A shortage of technical sailors, blamed on the resources boom, has forced the navy to tie up two frontline warships indefinitely while its remaining 10 frigates lost 459 days in just six months this year due to "unscheduled" repairs and maintenance.

The navy describes the temporary withdrawal from service of the WA-based frigate HMAS Arunta and the Sydney-based HMAS Stuart as "extended readiness" and it blames the mining boom's high wages for cornering the market in highly qualified technicians.

He said the impact of the loss of two frigates would be minimal because three of the ships would be out of service receiving an anti-ship missile upgrade. "We still have a problem with technical sailors and retaining technical sailors," Admiral Griggs said.

"It is going to be a long-term thing to recover from."

And as a long-time observer of Defence issues informed me, the excuse of the resources boom is old. It has existed for at least 10 years.

H/T-SR

The potential greatness of Senator Johnston

A speech the other day by a person that could be the next Defence Minister under a new leadership, Senator David Johnston, shows a man that has his heart in the right place for Defence.

The video here, is recommended viewing.

Unfortunately, he admits he is not very knowledgeable on Defence. Historically this isn't a new situation for Defence Ministers in Australia. It does seem that he has the potential to be more up-to-speed than other Defense Ministers before him even if Johnston admits he is a “slightly educated amateur” in relation to the portfolio.

In my opinion, he still has some views of Defence that are not realistic.

For example he said that Australia's air combat capability is “relatively straight forward” when in fact it has serious challenges ahead. He mentions that in spite of critics, the F-35 will be a “fantastic” capability. He then goes on to mention that DAS on the F-35 saw a rocket launch from 800 some miles away. Hint: it was one of the biggest boosters available on the market. Or as one critic said of this Lockheed Martin marketing effort (that is where it came from and has been pushed elsewhere when hyping the F-35): “With the naked eye, I can see 93 million miles in daylight; quite a bit further at night.”

Johnston goes on to mention the alleged net-centric-warfare capability of the F-35 when this technology exists today in other platforms. He mentions the wonders of the F-35 pilot's integrated sensor helmet but doesn't mention this system is in deep trouble. He mentions that the F-35 will give Australia a “fantastic, regionally dominant capability.” He doesn't mention that the Joint Operational Requirement Document (JORD) for the Joint Strike Fighter, drawn up in the 1990's and signed off on at the beginning of the last decade, insures that this aircraft, as delivered, will be obsolete against regional threats. And that assumes that there are no development troubles. It is doubtful that the claim by the maker of the F-35, that it is affordable, lethal, supportable and sustainable, has any credibility.

In short, he was easily taken in by all the glamour of a junket to Fort Worth to visit the F-35 factory and consume the blue-sky marketing, but has little-to-no critical thinking capability in this area of Defence.

Senator Johnston should not hitch his wagon to marketing hype.

Johnston refers back multiple times to the 2009 Defence White Paper (a wish list of $275B of spending short-falled by around $200B once realism hits), but he doesn't seem to grasp that the document is a horrific joke.

Which leads to something else where he stated that Parliament as a whole, does not understand the complexity of Defence. No surprise here. He praises ASPI for helping out (they do help) but mentions them as, “independent and non-partisan”.

I don't know about that:



If Senator Johnston becomes the next Defence Minister, here is what he must do:

-Make Defence officials accountable.

-Improve professional military education (PME) (art of war, leadership and management) which connects with:

-Improve the bad condition of the military justice system. Hint, this capability improves by leaps and bounds as PME quality improves. When this happens (regardless of the military procurement bungling by the entrenched defence bureaucracy) we will have a strong foundation that our soldiers, sailors and airmen deserve during peace and war.

Johnston may fail with the entrenched defence bureaucracy in relation to procurement stuff ups but if he can produce big victories with the human relations side of the fence for our war-fighters, he will have left a lasting legacy and, improved the defence posture of the nation.

Simply because ethics issues are what plague Defence. There is little difference between a soldier, sailor or airman receiving bad military justice and a $1.5B waste of the Sea Sprite, the many ship and submarine sustainment mistakes or other defence procurement disasters.

All of the bad behaviour comes from the same ills: poor senior leadership ethics and accountability.

Consider the DMO, ASC, RAN relationship which has been in serious trouble for years and as Johnston states, is full of “malice”. Maybe a Defence Minister Johnston can let us know the alleged worse problems in that second and restricted DMO, ASC, RAN report. After all, for years, we have been paying billions for a Navy that has been short-changed by the entrenched defence bureaucracy leaving combat capability for the worse.

Senator Johnston has the potential to be a good Defence Minister. If we all help him out, maybe he can be a great Defence Minister.

"New" RAN amphib ship down for 6 months of repair

On its' way to an exercise in June, the RANs new amphibious support ship, HMAS Choules, was stricken by an engineering failure. It will be out of action until the "end of December" reports today's The Australian.

The Choules was bought from the U.K. who are having a going-out-of-business sale with their military for only $100M. The repair is billed as being cheap at $1M. What makes it interesting is the time eliment, amount of down-time for the repair and the business-as-usual lack-of-due-dilligence by the Defence-DMO-RAN cabal.

What failed on the ship was an electrical transformer, however:

The 16,000-tonne vessel was bought by the Gillard government last year to fill the embarrassing capability gap caused by major problems with the Navy's three landing ships, Tobruk, Kanimbla and Manoora.

It was said at the time to be in excellent condition.

But a Royal Navy report from early last year indicated engineers had noted that when it was sailed at full speed its propulsion motors and transformers tended to overheat.

"The running of equipment at near maximum temperatures on a regular basis will likely cause early failure of the motors and transformers," the report said. That report was written a month before Defence Minister Stephen Smith and the Minister for Defence Materiel, Jason Clare, announced Australia's successful bid for the ship.

Currently the frigates are one of the few RAN communities that work. While "successful" at sinking a defenceless target in a recent exercise, a RAN sub that did the job had to go to port due to leaks. The sub-fleet is an expensive disaster. Just as bad, the current leadership can only field a small amount of patrol craft due to poor maintenance and crewing issues. The regional naval assets the RAN have are used as an on-call taxi service for illegal boat people.

At some point and time the public should be asking why we have such an ineffective and expensive naval service.

H/T- RS

---

-Analysis of Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Management and What Needs to be Fixed

-Australia's Failing Defence Structure and Management Methodology

More sub misinformation from the usual sources

It is that time again. About every few months or so the discussion comes up about Australia's useless submarine fleet.

Then we have those that want to continue under the fantasy that subs can be built here at home.

Those stating that off-the-shelf subs will not work, (due to the nonsense-need called "Australianisation" of the product)..guarantee a plan to have no subs.

The ASC, DMO, Navy and rent-seekers are a poisonous team that  ensure failure by their own incompetence on managing the current 6 subs we have.

They do not deserve the taxpayer's trust when talking about submarines.

Off-the-shelf subs make it certain that we can have a continuous, skilled, crew capability. Off-the-shelf subs make it certain that the RAN has some submarine capability as opposed to none.

Not a hard choice if ones only goal is the defence of the nation.

-

-Find out who is responsible for the Air Warfare Destroyer mess
-Analysis of Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Management and What Needs to be Fixed
-How dangerous is the Defence Material Organisation to our Defence Industry?
-Australia's Failing Defence Structure and Management Methodology

Rent-seeking or Defence?

The opposition wants to do something about illegal arrivals via boat. Good idea as in this area, the Howard plan worked.

The Opposition would fast-track plans to buy new Offshore Combatant Vessels (OCV) - a multi-purpose warship displacing up to 2000 tonnes and capable of long-endurance border protection tasks.

However, some are a little confused. They would consider a defective U.S. requirement built in part by an Australian effort:

Senator Johnston said he was particularly impressed with the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), a cutting edge trimaran designed by WA-shipbuilder Austal.

Maybe someday we will actually get some politicians that study warfare instead of rent-seeking.

Article, less flawed than sub plan or defence white paper

I know I have my bad days but I don't get paid to write.

This submarine story doesn't even end with a proper sentence.

Until the Soryu became theoretically available, off-the-shelf submarines included only German, French and Spanish designs of about 2000 tonnes.

It is almost as bad a sin as referring to the failed-within-one second of launch 2009 Defence White Paper as if it had value.

And yes the article fails to mention that Defence/DMO/RAN do not have the skill to sustain and crew 6 subs let alone 12.

Update on the Spanish support ship rental

More on how Australia will subsidize an extended deployment of a Spanish Navy support ship because Defence/DMO/RAN leadership has dropped the ball on our own support ship sustainment.

I wonder if Spain has some patrol ships we can borrow for either properly enforcing our borders or, depending on the political will, provide more happy-cabby service for illegals.

Maybe this Spanish support ship could make a few runs providing dock-to-dock service for illegals.

Seriously though, it does look like a nice ship.



I wonder how many years it would take for the DMO/RAN to ruin a new ship with their current support methods if Australia were to procure some of these?

2 new illegal-boat-people transporters for the RAN on-track?

Yippee!

The Navy/DMO/Defence cabal can't maintain current ships or submarines; has to ask the Spanish Navy for a defacto support ship rental and has not enough patrol ships at the ready to repel illegal boat-people if so ordered. Yet the RAN will get two, giant dream-ships which will have big question marks surrounding them in all areas of operations and sustainment.

Maybe the RAN can scare up just enough crew for these ships to go to the docks in Indonesia, pick up illegal boat-people, thus making their travels much safer rather than paying a middle man to boat them a ways then call for a RAN happy-taxi.

Another Defence/DMO/RAN goof up with support ships?

Earlier last month we had this read about the difficulty of Defence/DMO/RAN being able to keep important support ships ready.

And now this joint press release from Saturday.

Maybe if we just teach Defence/DMO/RAN to all speak Spanish we can have a rental agreement with the Armada Española?

Maybe the previous series of messes are being addressed correctly. Although given the consistent behaviour of the Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy, I wonder how?


H/T: Richard

RAN/DMO disconnected from Australia's need for a real navy

I don't get it.

Australia has a need for frigates, patrol boats and various kinds of transport and support ships. Yet, the RAN/DMO team just seem unable to make any real progress in delivering a useful navy to Australia.

I would mention submarines, but in regard to the current situation, that is pretty much a complete write-off.

'The Navy is out of control'

Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4bn wish list

THE Royal Australian Navy has produced a secret $4 billion "wish list" that includes an aircraft carrier, an extra air warfare destroyer and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarine fleet.

The RAN wants a third 26,000 tonne amphibious ship equipped with vertical take-off jet fighters, a fourth $2 billion air warfare destroyer and cruise missiles that could strike targets thousands of kilometres away.

LOL. What non-existent operational aircraft are they going to fly off of the dream carrier?

$2B for an extra Air Warfare Destroyer? Right now they are tracking at $3B each.

Besides the idea that well, there is no money, who would crew these ghost ships?

A dying man can dream.

-UPDATE-Statements by sub commander finish any hope for Collins fleet

In today's The Australian, Cameron Stewart reports that a newly retired sub commander proclaims that the Collins-class submarine program is 'a lost cause' by virtue of being obsolete and unsustainable.

In comments that will rattle the Defence hierarchy, Commander James Harrap, a 20-year navy veteran, said Australia's submarines had "the least reliable diesel engines ever built", and attempts to upgrade the boats would be a waste of money because their performance would only get worse.

"I don't believe the Collins-class are sustainable in the long term and many of the expensive upgrade plans which have been proposed would be throwing good money after bad," he said in a written account of his time as commander, obtained by The Weekend Australian.

Commander Harrap, who has commanded both HMAS Waller and, until last month, HMAS Collins, said: "Lack of available stores inventory, increased equipment failure rates and submarines living with reduced capability is something I expect will persist for the remaining life of the class.

Harrup adds:

"I do not believe we have the capability to independently design and build our own submarines.

In response to a recent negative report of Australia's submarine prospects in the coming years authored by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), top Navy brass released a statement to the fleet which claims confidence in the Collins subs to meet the operational requirements of the government.

Yet, the hard truth seems otherwise. Harrup also states:

"Over the last two years, I believe these problems have become worse," he wrote. "Throughout my command of both Collins and Waller, full capability was never available and frequently over 50 per cent of the identified defects were awaiting stores.

"Collins has consistently been let down by some fundamental design flaws, leading to poor reliability and inconsistent performance. The constant stream of defects and operation control limitations makes getting to sea difficult, staying at sea harder and fighting the enemy a luxury only available once the first two have been overcome."

Tying up the Collins subs and scrapping them could be a big money saver. They offer no credible capability.

The first boat of an off-the-shelf sub purchase could start to be fielded within only a few years. Then, as the capability proves itself, further boats could be added. This would provide a real submarine force as opposed to a dream submarine force that only consumes billions and has no return on investment.

For the capability it delivers (or doesn't deliver) the $27B per year defence budget needs a haircut. A bloated civilian workforce (over 21k and counting), an incompetent Defence Material Organisation (DMO), way too many flag-ranks and senior executives, a corrupt leadership environment, along with a variety of useless items on the Project of Concern list means a house-cleaning is in order.

The condition of Australia's submarine fleet is iconic of the state of the entrenched Defence bureaucracy.

Moribund and dysfunctional.


---

UPDATE--- "Barking mad".

---

RAN woes update

The image of the Australian Navy has taken a beating over the years.

Poor management of existing ships by both the Navy and Defence Material Organisation have left severe holes in amphibious, fleet auxiliary, submarine and patrol ship capability.

Here is an update of the drama.

And, at the end of it all, how 3 large destroyers and 2 large amphibious flatops can be paid for and sustained over the long-haul, let alone crewed, will be a grand mystery.

Australia needs frigates, patrol vessels, some light amphibious capability and useful auxiliary ships. You can add affordable submarines to that if anyone has a sane idea to make that happen.

Unfortunately, the Navy isn't headed in that direction. And, they want more money to paper over their stupid mistakes.

I am not seeing the value of their "capability" roadmap.

HMAS Choules passes first capability test

It works.

(Australian Defence photo)

Australian Defence press release:

The Royal Australian Navy’s new amphibious ship HMAS Choules has successfully completed its first major amphibious training tasks.

Navy and Army have come together during the last three weeks for the amphibious exercises SQUADEX and SEA LION.

Exercise SQUADEX provided practice for drivers of Army and Navy landing craft along with a variety of vehicle types as they drive on and off HMAS Choules.

HMAS Choules is significantly larger than the amphibious ships she replaced and gives the ADF new capabilities such as a floating dock.

The internal docking facility (or well dock) can be flooded to a depth of up to three metres so landing craft and the ship’s own landing barges actually drive inside the hull while the ship is at sea, taking on their cargo of vehicles and people in safe and controlled conditions.

Army Blackhawk helicopter pilots from 5 Aviation Regiment have also put the ship to the test, flying constant sorties to confirm their deck landing qualifications and practice cargo and personnel transfers.

For exercise SEA LION, HMAS Choules was joined by the New Zealand amphibious ship HMNZS Canterbury, Australian Army personnel from Townsville’s 3rd Brigade and planning staff from all three services around Australia. This exercise focused on ensuring the ADF is prepared for a humanitarian assistance and disaster relief incident in our region.

HMAS Choules’ Commanding Officer, Commander John Cowan, said Choules had the capacity to conduct simultaneous landing craft and helicopter operations, day and night, to support humanitarian and disaster relief operations.

“Using Choules’ well dock to move personnel and equipment ashore allows a significant increase in the speed of transfer compared with the Navy’s previous Landing Platform Amphibious ships,” Commander Cowan said.

Choules has a crew of 158 officers and sailors, including a permanently embarked Ships Army Department of 22. The ship can accommodate two large helicopters, 150 light trucks and 350 troops.

Well done RAN and Army!

Few realistic options for the Collins sub replacement

If one wants to dream about unobtainable submarine capability for Australia, look no further than here.

With the Defence, DMO and RAN management in a mess, we will be lucky to have any replacement for our 5 defective Collins boats (the 6th one being a source of parts).

Because Defence gave up our long range F-111 strike capability on a lie, that is it. We have none. Those thinking of using a submarine as some kind of long range punitive strike weapon are off their rocker. Note the mention of cruise missile capable subs in the above linked article. Only an aircraft gives you the ability to hit numerous targets: per day. A submarine is not a replacement for this ability. It can only be value-added.

Considering the past dumbassery from the certain think-tanks that our government officials listen to we might be seeing some hope. There is noise from those circles that the moronic 2009 Defence White Paper may be faulty; that building 12 subs at home to replace the Collins nightmare might be unworkable. Good on them. A small hint of progress.

There is other noise of nuclear subs as one option. This political climate makes that idea impossible.

Which leaves us with few options. Those few are as follows:

A German 214 class. It is powerful with knowns. It is doubtful that even the DMO could ruin this idea. The advantages are to get some consistency into the submarine workforce. A handful of these boats would have predictable mission and repair schedules. And, it has killing power to aid in securing our Northern approaches. Notice I said “aid”. You need air power so that your own anti-submarine aircraft can do their work unmolested. Add some 214s at choke points an now you have a workable defence plan. Air domination is linked to submarine capability. Unless you enjoy the idea of enemy anti-submarine aircraft fishing for your subs.

Once the RAN is stable (workforce/logistics/readiness consistency) with that, you can press ahead with other specialist subs. If one wants something more they should look no further than the Spanish effort known as the S-80.

The submarines of the S-80 class are designed to better complete their mission in threat scenarios. Their operational mobility will allow them to operate in remote areas, traveling discreetly at high speeds. Their air independent propulsion (AIP) system will ensure their ability to remain long periods of time in an area without being detected and their ability to operate in possible conflict zones.

Their capabilities include:

* A combat system for multiple target acquisition in different scenarios
* The ability to transport personnel, including special operations forces
* Low noise and magnetic signatures in order to minimize detection
* Low radar and infrared signatures in order to minimize detection

Risk alert. The production of this boat is not complete. However that beats the other loony ideas floated by some. And it even knocks down those that claim only a Collins-like ability will work for Australia. This last one of course used as a club by the rent-seekers when lobbying government.

Some advisors to our government are fixated on the unobtainable and unrealistic. This disease has to be broken. Or, we can just continue the laughing stock which is synonymous with the words “submarine” and “Defence” in the Australian public mind.

The RAN needs more than manpower and ships

So if you add more people into an organisation that has bankrupt senior leadership ethics, that will some how fix a lot of problems....

Doubtful.

The shortage of expertise in our services has already led to some dramatic failings. The Australian's Cameron Stewart revealed in February that two-thirds of the Royal Australian Navy fleet had, in the previous year, been unable to operate at full capacity. Figures showed 38 of the RAN's fleet of 54 vessels had been at least partially incapacitated by faults, repairs or crew shortages. And we revealed an internal navy report detailing critical shortages of engineers, and warning that urgent action was required to maintain the fleet and improve "cancerous" morale. The problems were laid bare in February when the federal government wanted to provide naval assistance in response to the devastation left by Cyclone Yasi, and found none of the navy's three support ships was seaworthy. Then, just this month, a report revealed profound safety risks for our Collins Class submarine fleet, in part because of the lack of experienced crew and support staff

.

In other news. Like a broken record; the rent-seekers are out in force.

Also, great news! Home grown subs may only cost $18B... but not so fast.

"When it all starts to go wrong it will make the Collins $800million plus per annum [sustainment] program look ridiculously cheap."

"Any government that ignores the cold hard facts of Collins would be being more than just cavalier with tax payers' money; they would be failing in their duty of governance."

It is common practice for military think tanks, such as The Kokoda Foundation, to receive corporate sponsorship across the board and for specific research projects.

Australia's naval "strategy" and ship-building industry explained

Via White, Australia's naval "strategy" explained. Here are just a few things.

1. The Air Warfare Destroyer is not a worthy project.
2. The Air Warfare Destroyer is a waste when we could get Burkes for $1B each.
3. The idea that the Air Warfare Destroyer (or some similar projects) provides industry worth may not be accurate. It takes useful (and limited) skills away from non-military sectors.
4. The amphibious flatops are also a waste. One reason is we won't be able to protect them.
5. Sea denial should be the strategy, not force projection. Simply because of our limited resources.

White mentions subs, but given everything stated so far, it is hard to believe we have credible skills to build those at home.

I would quote a few things, but it is all good. He hasn't always hit the mark but this is White's best work.

.

Faulty Australian sub fleet costs $800M per year

The Australian is pressing forward with their version of events even after the Defence response.

"Australia's submarine fleet is the first line of defence in protecting our borders, however it is heading down the same path as our ridiculed amphibious force - missing in action when required," Senator Johnston said.

"We are spending close to $800 million a year on sustaining and operating our ailing submarine fleet with little to show but a succession of embarrassing breakdowns," he said.

Doubtful. Certainly this submarine fleet was never a credible "first line of defence".

Is senior Defence capable of telling the truth?

We were told...

"The ship presents very well, and from a technical point of view, there are no major defects."

Now we know that was a lie.

.

Summary of Defence/RAN/DMO sustainment and leadership problems

Here is a great overview on the problem.

"Perhaps the lesson we are just now learning is that it's time to put aside the glory of ANZAC, to probe beyond the courage of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen, and for the first time objectively answer one important question – just how good is our Defence force, really?"

.