Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

Back to the real world read an article the other day about ASC, CSIRO and DMTC Limit to pioneer the use of cold spray tech on submarines not just in port which will potentially cut cost and improve quality but also developing a small unit to be located aboard submarines to effect repairs at sea rather then having to turn home. ASC and partners to pioneer additive manufacturing for submarines
Will be quite the useful but of kit to have that I could see becoming of use in other RAN assets outside of submarines.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

Thread reopened.

As aussienscale noted, the Australian Government sets task, based on that task Defence develops CONOPS, from those CONOPS capability is determined and goes back and forth until the platform is selected. The Arafura class OPVs at 1,640 tonnes, as the platform selected is intended for constabulary patrolling — they may be equipped with RHIBs (or USVs) and a helicopter landing deck that can launch UAVs, like the Camcopter S-100.

These are versatile vessels with some room for incremental growth. But they don’t have the capacity to become, some sort of surface combatant Swiss Army knife.

The Arafura class (and it’s more heavily armed cousin, the Darussalam class) as OPVs are not capable of being turned into mini DDGs or perform the role of heavily armed corvettes. It irks the Mod Team that any attempt to introduce reality and hose down flights of fancy was just ignored. Imaginary OPV upgrade discussion moved to: Interesting & obscure RAN discussions (not related to current capabilities)

I am by no means an expert on OPVs, but this ship looks extremely capable for the Australian Navy and what it is designed to do (pretty & mean as well). I know I would not like to tangle with it. Not every vessel has to be designed to be "the biggest and baddest" (at least from my lowly Canadian Naval perspective-Cheers!).

 

[ASSAIL]

HMAS Anzac has now left Henderson and rejoined the fleet although she still has a way to go before being operational.
The MCAP programme seems to be progressing well.

https://www.facebook.com/123855294295846/posts/3599478990066775

 

[ASSAIL]

There is a very interesting and disturbing essay by H Morant (a nom de plume) in Vol 82, the current Navy League “Navy” magazine, discussing the level of gender diversity in the Maritime Warfare Officer cohort.
Reports by Sex Discrimination Commissioner (Elizabeth Broderick) to the Australian Human Rights Commission undertook a Maritime Warfare Officer Project but it’s not clear who signed off on the report, was a poorly targeted and poorly resourced affair and left questions unanswered including;
Why the report was addressed to the AHRC rather than any number of in house departments such as the APS, ADFA, service consultants and Deputy Chief of Navy Staff?
Who gave permission for the report to proceed, authorised the AHRC to undertake the report and what was their intent?
What reporting safeguards were put in place to enable trust to be maintained and risks mitigated in this most sensitive workforce?

over 200 MWOs were interviewed but was not representative of the MWO branch, it was bottom heavy with 40% considered “under training” and interviews were polarised around shore training establishment and not operational units and female officers were over represented.
In other words the results were highly dubious.

Morant goes on the discuss the various psychological attributes of each gender and their suitability in the role and he makes the point that in order to meet the Navy’s KPIs for gender diversity it will need to recruit far more officers than desired because of the statistically lower retention rate of females. The RAN’s KPI for females is 35% but it would seem that is highly dubious without losing capability and he offers the current rate of around 19% as being desirable and functional.
He opined that peacetime codes of conduct, rights, ethics and racial and gender diversity meet community expectations but at what point does an organisation established in the discipline of war become more about welfare than warfare.

He finishes by suggesting that the RAN addresses the following questions;
1. What proportion of men to women is affordable and sustainable and will allow the force to grow as a whole without offsetting variet and capability for diversity?
2. What impact does diversity have on capability; including the morale of the force, it’s moral standing and equitable burden sharing as a whole?
3. On what empirical grounds do gender based KPIs(supporting increased proportions of women) show the ADF will be more capable and better prepared for war? Where is the research and evidence?

I haven’t done the essay justice because there is far more detail such as the disparity in combat deaths in the ME (98% men) and the differences in aspiration to command, surely every MWO’s dream, but apparently not.

I think it’s a bit like the Emperors new clothes, at last somebody is saying he is naked!

 

[vonnoobie]

All for gender equality but when you start making an organisation go backwards then you have done a disservice. Yes give them the chance and opportunities but at the end of the day if they can not either make the cut or decide to move onto other endeavours then that is that. Men and women need to be equally based off their capabilities, not the gender, ethnicity, skin colour or religion. And I know I am a solid standing on my views when my mum and 5 sisters agree with me lol. Doesn't matter if it is civil or military in nature for the organisation it will only get weaker if we fail to promote purely on the individual capabilities of the team members that make it up.

Sorry for OT admins, don't send them black helicopters my way

 

[ngatimozart]

All for gender equality but when you start making an organisation go backwards then you have done a disservice. Yes give them the chance and opportunities but at the end of the day if they can not either make the cut or decide to move onto other endeavours then that is that. Men and women need to be equally based off their capabilities, not the gender, ethnicity, skin colour or religion. And I know I am a solid standing on my views when my mum and 5 sisters agree with me lol. Doesn't matter if it is civil or military in nature for the organisation it will only get weaker if we fail to promote purely on the individual capabilities of the team members that make it up.

Sorry for OT admins, don't send them black helicopters my way

We don't have black helicopters. So you're lucky. Preceptor has his drop bears and killer raccoons.

I think that it should be the best person for the job. Women should be thoroughly encouraged to join the branch and supported during their careers especially if they want to have families. That shouldn't be seen as a career killer. I know that in the RNZN females have taken maternity leave and returned to their careers. Regarding ethnicity, in a Kiwi context, it's about dragging Maori and Pacific Islanders up through higher educational levels and STEM and like women, having a stronger representation of them in the technical branches and higher echelons of the navy. The RNZN is starting a program here for female senior high school students called from School to Sea which gives them a weeks experience in the services technical branches. It's based on the highly popular RNZAF School to Skies program which has been going for a years now and has been successful in attracting females to the technical trades.

 

[Takao]

I will state up front, I haven't read the Navy article, nor have I the ability to at the moment. But, that summary sounds familiar to a number of the bullshit old white man views in RAAC and RAInf.... and as background, I aided the collation of data considering the integration of women into infantry, so have seen most of this before.

I don't know the details of this report, but there is pretty constant engagement with the AHRC and the military over the past 3 - 4 years. I have participated in two myself. I'm sure there are reasons and deeper levels, but the two I was in were simply asking questions about culture. We weren't steered, nor constrained from replying. I actually found them a breath of fresh air compared to some other culture and investigative 'interviews'.

An advantage to using AHRC is it's independent and there is no risk to subordinates. It allows juniors to speak honestly and frankly (and I'm sorry, but the ADF has becoming increasingly bad at allowing that). It is also an expert in culture. And many of the problems in the ADF today - procurement, budget, workforce - all trace back to culture. Finally, AHRC changes nothing in the ADF, it's an adviser. The SLG gets reports and makes the call.

Every PWO I know (and I worked with 6 - 7 directly over the past two years + know another two dozen) received an invite to chat with the AHRC. At least 3 sneered at it that I know of (and anecdotally from my PWO peer, a hell of a lot more) and ignored the invite - that's a combat indicator right there (especially knowing the personality types of those individuals). It also accounts for a bias in numbers. Especially considering that we had 2-star direction that PWOs were to be made available to AHRC if they wanted to attend. The spent heaps of time in Perth and Sydney, and not one ship was absent from their home port for the entire duration of the study.

Again, haven't read it, but I will suggest every one of Morant's physiologically attributes and their suitability claims is bullshit. Certainly every claim like that for combat arms in the Army was wrong or pseudoscience. I'd love to see one actual, scientifically backed physiological attribute that makes females not suited for any job in the ADF. I haven't seen one yet. Ironically, the one that people thought would be a slam dunk (injuries at Kapooka) highlighted it wasn't a 'female thing', it was a diet and time thing, and the trials improved male and female injury and graduation rates. In relation to this topic - what job does a PWO do (mine, air or surface) that a female cannot do?

Honestly, the way PWOs act (especially to each other), the way the trade has handled workforce and the shortage in numbers implies that any senior PWO (and this sounds like Morant) should have no say in how the trade goes forward. To mismanage one of Navy's most critical trades to the point you make Air Force aircrew retention look perfect means that those senior PWO peeps should never have a say again. The fact that there were more O6+ PWOs than O1-O4 PWOs in the 2010s highlights (a) that senior PWO peeps are atrocious at career work and (b) that the trade desperately needs more people recruited - so cutting of 51% of the Australian population would be criminal.

Frankly, anyone who says increased females degrades ADF capability is so far out of date that they are a bigger risk to our overall capability. It is so pig-ignorant, wrong and illogical that I have little faith they could do their actual job in an increasingly complex world. There is significant bodies of work that highlight women in ground forces make understanding human terrain better, that having women in HQ makes for broader (and better) thinking, that women are better for anything that exposes them to G's and that women can think and react more logically under pressure. And not all of them come from the ADF, or even militarises.

Opening up all jobs to women makes the ADF better, stronger, more capable and more resilient. This is an easy win. It will be brutal seeing dead women come home (is it any less seeing young men? Really?) but if people think women won't be in the front line they have no understanding of modern warfare.

 

[Boagrius]

Frankly, anyone who says increased females degrades ADF capability is so far out of date that they are a bigger risk to our overall capability. It is so pig-ignorant, wrong and illogical that I have little faith they could do their actual job in an increasingly complex world. There is significant bodies of work that highlight women in ground forces make understanding human terrain better, that having women in HQ makes for broader (and better) thinking, that women are better for anything that exposes them to G's and that women can think and react more logically under pressure. And not all of them come from the ADF, or even militarises.

Opening up all jobs to women makes the ADF better, stronger, more capable and more resilient. This is an easy win. It will be brutal seeing dead women come home (is it any less seeing young men? Really?) but if people think women won't be in the front line they have no understanding of modern warfare.

That's a very interesting take. I must admit I'm not well informed on the issue, but I was under the impression that mixed-gender infantry units had yielded less than stellar results in USMC tests?

Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Performed Better Than Mixed Units

The yearlong study found that all-male squads did better than mixed groups in 69 percent of the tasks evaluated. It's unclear what this will mean for the future of women in ground combat jobs.

www.npr.org

(Happy to discuss in PM if it is too OT mods)

 

[spoz]

A nice bit of PWO bashing, and I'm a pusser so I don't mind that.

But in the last year I can actually check the numbers there were 54 06+ PWOs and more than 100 LCDR PWOs alone. Of course, one can't actually qualify as a PWO until one is a reasonably senior LEUT, so the lack of PWOs in the 01, 02 and junior 03 ranks is hardly surprising. Officers below that rank who are plain MWO and therefore SMN in the warfare stream may (or may not) aspire to be PWOs; but they certainly are not one of the anointed until they have done the course. I didn't do a count of pilots, submariners and other warfare trades but I suspect the numbers are probably broadly in line. In some of them, of course, the qualification does come earlier. It was before the RANR was rolled into the RAN so the numbers reflect people who would now be categorised SERCAT 6-7.

The mental attitude of the spear chuckers is the same across the ADF; in that respect PWOs are little different from fast jet pilots or arms officers. They know they are the elect of God, and that all others are the unwashed - but that's OK, we'll let them keep their delusions.

 

[Takao]

A nice bit of PWO bashing, and I'm a pusser so I don't mind that.

But in the last year I can actually check the numbers there were 54 06+ PWOs and more than 100 LCDR PWOs alone. Of course, one can't actually qualify as a PWO until one is a reasonably senior LEUT, so the lack of PWOs in the 01, 02 and junior 03 ranks is hardly surprising. Officers below that rank may (or may not) aspire to be a PWO if they are a SMN, and they are in the maritime warfare stream; but they certainly are not one of the anointed until they have done the course. I didn't do a count of pilots, submariners and other warfare trades but I suspect the numbers are probably broadly in line.

The mental attitude of the spear chuckers is the same across the ADF; in that respect PWOs are little different from fast jet pilots or arms officers. They know they are the elect of God, and that all others are the unwashed - but that's OK, we'll let them keep their delusions.

Oh - not really PWO bashing - like you say, little different to fast jet pilots or infantry officers. And some superb human beings there too - I'm dead proud of some of them going onto ships and the like.

I know the rank disparaty has been fixed; but the O6+/O4- split came from pre-2015. When HNC briefed it I turned to my PWO mate beside me in astonishment and he agreed. But thanks for the numbers, it emphasises that the good work (that I did not mention) by RAN on its recruitment and retention. Which in further consideration of the topic, from an overall RAN point of view, must be highly commended. Over the past 5 years the RAN has left the other two services in the dust for meeting workforce target numbers.

 

[ngatimozart]

That's a very interesting take. I must admit I'm not well informed on the issue, but I was under the impression that mixed-gender infantry units had yielded less than stellar results in USMC tests?

Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Performed Better Than Mixed Units

The yearlong study found that all-male squads did better than mixed groups in 69 percent of the tasks evaluated. It's unclear what this will mean for the future of women in ground combat jobs.

www.npr.org

(Happy to discuss in PM if it is too OT mods)

I would like to state that I have not read the original report. However it wouldn't surprise me that the report would come up with such findings. Officially the USMC is supportive of equal rights for women, including women undertaking combat roles. However from comments that I have read on various sites, the average jarhead veteran is quite anti the idea, and I would not be surprised that the same view would be held by currently serving marines. It's part of the national culture as well, so not something that will change overnight.

 

[Boagrius]

Fair enough. I am also of the view that the best people for the job ought to be the ones selected to do it, irrespective of their gender, race etc. That said I can also see how there might be challenges & teething issues with integrating women into infantry units specifically.

 

[south]

I will state up front, I haven't read the Navy article, nor have I the ability to at the moment. But, that summary sounds familiar to a number of the bullshit old white man views in RAAC and RAInf.... and as background, I aided the collation of data considering the integration of women into infantry, so have seen most of this before.

I don't know the details of this report, but there is pretty constant engagement with the AHRC and the military over the past 3 - 4 years. I have participated in two myself. I'm sure there are reasons and deeper levels, but the two I was in were simply asking questions about culture. We weren't steered, nor constrained from replying. I actually found them a breath of fresh air compared to some other culture and investigative 'interviews'.



Frankly, anyone who says increased females degrades ADF capability is so far out of date that they are a bigger risk to our overall capability. It is so pig-ignorant, wrong and illogical that I have little faith they could do their actual job in an increasingly complex world. There is significant bodies of work that highlight women in ground forces make understanding human terrain better, that having women in HQ makes for broader (and better) thinking, that women are better for anything that exposes them to G's and that women can think and react more logically under pressure. And not all of them come from the ADF, or even militarises.

Opening up all jobs to women makes the ADF better, stronger, more capable and more resilient. This is an easy win. It will be brutal seeing dead women come home (is it any less seeing young men? Really?) but if people think women won't be in the front line they have no understanding of modern warfare.

There’s no doubt that some entrenched views need challenging, and many obstacles to remove. However, The AHRC report I’m familiar with was disappointing in some key areas. A lot of personal opinion used as justification/evidence, and in my experience it was either untrue, or extremely ill-informed.

Across the broad spectrum though, denying totally, or having blocks to 51% of the population is shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[ASSAIL]

I think all need to read the essay before launching into a tirade about crusty old extinct PWOs, I am one.
Morant was not railing against female MWOs he was simply pointing out the flaws in the AHRC report and highlighting empirical retention numbers and the deleterious effect that had on the effectiveness of the branch.
He maintains that the training and recruiting effort needed to reach the KPI of 35% is wasteful because of the retention issue and that the current figure of 19% seems about right.

The MWO/PWO branch is the largest, it accounts for the RANs war fighting commanders so naturally it is over represented in senior ranks. This disparity has been made worse by the retirement changes which encourages the old and not so bold to stay on way beyond their usefulness. In days gone by LCDRs, not promoted to CMDR had to retire at 45, CMDRs not promoted to CAPT at 50 and CAPTs at 55. This encouraged young Turks, prevented logjams to promotion and kept the force vital.
Im not a fan of all having an entitlement to retire at 65 or 70 in a fighting service.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

I think all need to read the essay before launching into a tirade about crusty old extinct PWOs, I am one.
Morant was not railing against female MWOs he was simply pointing out the flaws in the AHRC report and highlighting empirical retention numbers and the deleterious effect that had on the effectiveness of the branch.
He maintains that the training and recruiting effort needed to reach the KPI of 35% is wasteful because of the retention issue and that the current figure of 19% seems about right.

The MWO/PWO branch is the largest, it accounts for the RANs war fighting commanders so naturally it is over represented in senior ranks. This disparity has been made worse by the retirement changes which encourages the old and not so bold to stay on way beyond their usefulness. In days gone by LCDRs, not promoted to CMDR had to retire at 45, CMDRs not promoted to CAPT at 50 and CAPTs at 55. This encouraged young Turks, prevented logjams to promotion and kept the force vital.
Im not a fan of all having an entitlement to retire at 65 or 70 in a fighting service.

It's my understanding that this "up or out" model is used in the US. It sounds harsh but does make sense. I've seen lists showing the number of officers by rank and it has struck me that the ADF is somewhat top heavy.

 

[hauritz]

That's a very interesting take. I must admit I'm not well informed on the issue, but I was under the impression that mixed-gender infantry units had yielded less than stellar results in USMC tests?

Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Performed Better Than Mixed Units

The yearlong study found that all-male squads did better than mixed groups in 69 percent of the tasks evaluated. It's unclear what this will mean for the future of women in ground combat jobs.

www.npr.org

(Happy to discuss in PM if it is too OT mods)

My opinion of mixed gender military personnel is that if any individual can meet an agreed to standard then they should have the right to serve, regardless of sex. What I am wary of however is when you apply different standards for different personnel. Those standards should not be relaxed just to allow more women to serve. When the boots hit the ground there is no place for political correctness.

Same applies to older personnel as well.

 

[ngatimozart]

My opinion of mixed gender military personnel is that if any individual can meet an agreed to standard then they should have the right to serve, regardless of sex. What I am wary of however is when you apply different standards for different personnel. Those standards should not be relaxed just to allow more women to serve. When the boots hit the ground there is no place for political correctness.

Same applies to older personnel as well.

I was in the NZDF when this discussion first started and the RNZAF decided that the WAAFs were to use the SLR rifles. I remember being at the 25 m range at Hobsonville and this young WAAF was struggling with said rifle on the firing point. Wasn't really her fault because the rifle was just about as tall as she was, and I being a corporal at time, said to the instructor at the range, "jeez give her a bloody cannot why don't you?" Which went down like a lead balloon. Told him, considering her size she would've been far better off and safer with a Sterling SMG. Reply was she can't have one because the book said she couldn't. Bloody stupid. Got a rark up from my boss when I got back to work for upsetting the base training staff.

I said then, later when I was in navy, and still today; I don't care who or what the person I am fighting alongside is. They can be, black, white, green, blue, gay, hetero, religious, atheist, male, female, between, whatever. As long as they can do the job and have my back as I have theirs, that's all that matters when the bullets start flying and the blood starts flowing. Anything else is crap.

 

[swerve]

I'm sure there are plenty of rifles she could have used - if the RNZAF had them. But if it didn't, I reckon you were right: give her the next best thing.

This Spanish soldier looks OK with her rifle - but I think it's a lot shorter than an SLR.

 

[Boagrius]

Times are changing wrt women's strength and conditioning too. 10-15 years ago I worked in the fitness industry and there was always a pretty strong male domination of the free weights/strength training areas of most gyms. Not so today - a lot of young women are getting heavily involved in it and are able to reach a level of overall physical strength that would have been extremely rare even a decade ago.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm sure there are plenty of rifles she could have used - if the RNZAF had them. But if it didn't, I reckon you were right: give her the next best thing.

This Spanish soldier looks OK with her rifle - but I think it's a lot shorter than an SLR.
View attachment 47427

In the 1990s the RNZAF was issued with the Steyr rifle, which would have been just right for her. Didn't like it myself.