Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Actually the PSV might be an interesting ship to train and crew with a part Pacific crew. Fiji and Timor were complaining about how limited it was to get training. Why not make the ship part of the training solution? IMO you will get much better mileage out of the program if it is more joint nation, rather than AU exclusive.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Actually the PSV might be an interesting ship to train and crew with a part Pacific crew. Fiji and Timor were complaining about how limited it was to get training. Why not make the ship part of the training solution? IMO you will get much better mileage out of the program if it is more joint nation, rather than AU exclusive.
They may use the Teekay option as with the ADV Ocean Protector. Civilian crew operate the ship but with defence folk embarked for the specific mission. Recognition of sea time for commercial qualifications should be practical under those conditions if cadets/seaman trainees are contemplated.

Always liked Pacific Islander crews on ships. In my time in the Merchant Marine (British) we used Tuvaluan and PNG (from Milne Bay) crew on many of our ship. They were very good. The PNG were directly employed by the company and were well looked after. Resulted in a very motivated crew.

Back to the topic at hand... again the lack of clarity on how this ship will operate means we are all guessing.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
These thoughts highlight perhaps a better way of engaging with the Pacific Island nations than has been done in the past. I have read somewhere that some of the PIF countries have suggested that they would prefer to receive vessels that would enable them to connect more frequently with their many outlying islands, as a higher priority, rather than the Guardian class patrol boats. Ultimately the GoA and the various departments involved in various nation building projects need to listen to the various Pacific Island governments rather than dictating what the 'solution' that will be provided.

As the PSS/PSV envisaged above is not a warship, then it should be able to be constructed to civilian standards and largely crewed by civilian sailors. It might even be a useful training environment for trainees and graduates of the AMC.
I think that would be a better idea. To give smaller island nations their own HADR capability would be a more effective way of dealing with region wide disasters such as cyclones, as well as taking care of those smaller tasks that wouldn't normally be seen as a priority.

However the cynic in me thinks that this might be as much about showing the flag and winning the hearts and minds of the locals as anything else and a big ship moored in the harbour is a more attention grabbing way of doing that.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
However the cynic in me thinks that this might be as much about showing the flag and winning the hearts and minds of the locals as anything else and a big ship moored in the harbour is a more attention grabbing way of doing that.
No need to be cynical. It was first suggested as a counter to Chinese influence, a strategy that goes back beyond the classical Greeks

oldsig
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
I take it that the design team for the Anzac upgrades were Dr Who fans? Nice bit of homage there, though I suppose the Malaysians probably did get the pop culture reference. ;)
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
An interesting article from the Lowy Institute that discusses the concepts of SLOC and sea control. The author discusses in wartime what are you protecting on your SLOC? Trade or essential supplies? Secondly, WRT sea control, how much sea are you attempting to control and for how long? What's the purpose of it? Thirdly WRT to both concepts what's best in the national interest during wartime, and how do we prepare for it now? How quickly do we need to prepare? Lots of very important questions to answer and they all relate to National Security Strategy, especially resilience.

 

Massive

Active Member
Yes, that’s the plan - one on each coast.
Thanks Spoz.

A long way away but will be interesting to see how basing plays out when/if the JSS come into service.

Would both supply ships end up at FBW & the JSS at FBE.

Regards,

Massive
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I would imagine one AOR and one JSS at each coast.
FBE has the LHD, the Hobarts and what ever else is around.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, there is a difference. The CoA has accepted the ship from the prime contractor; there follows a certification and training period before the mariner skills evaluation. Commissioning is usually just before that, some weeks after delivery. Although it does mark the point where “NUSHIP” becomes “HMAS”, it is largely ceremonial.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Yes, there is a difference. The CoA has accepted the ship from the prime contractor; there follows a certification and training period before the mariner skills evaluation. Commissioning is usually just before that, some weeks after delivery. Although it does mark the point where “NUSHIP” becomes “HMAS”, it is largely ceremonial.
Unfortunately its likely to be another low key commissioning, may even do it at sea again like the Sydney, though being in Perth may help with how many people can be there.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Yes, there is a difference. The CoA has accepted the ship from the prime contractor; there follows a certification and training period before the mariner skills evaluation. Commissioning is usually just before that, some weeks after delivery. Although it does mark the point where “NUSHIP” becomes “HMAS”, it is largely ceremonial.
Thanks for the clarity


Cheers S
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top