Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Apparently a surprise for the NSW government. The NSW Premier was not informed of the arrival of three Chinese warships until the vessels steamed into Sydney Harbour yesterday morning.

It makes me wonder exactly what sort of jurisdiction the state actually has in regards to who enters its territorial waters.
The individual “States/Territories Rights” are governed by the Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) States Powers Act 1980.
Basically they are responsible for fishing, the subsoil under the sea, the air above and controlling ports and harbours. ie their jurisdiction is limited.
They have no jurisdiction over ships, including warships, right of innocent passage through Australia’s Territorial Seas (Baseline to 3 mile limit) whether entering a port or not.

However I doubt if the RAN would not follow protocols for the Chinese visit, just because the press numpties didn’t know it doesn’t mean those with authority were unaware.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Interesting, Australian states have a bit more authority than Canadian provinces. The Canadian federal government has control of oceans and our Great Lakes area. I think the Feds allow Toronto jurisdiction over its port now (probably because it only gets minimal use these days).
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It appears that the RAN had some visitors arrive yesterday with little fanfare. Gave some of the locals a bit of a fright.

Chinese warships cause surprise in Sydney Harbour
Usual press beat up, or perhaps a worse beat up than usual. "Jittery residents"?? I'd be surprised if 1% of Sydneysiders knew or gave a crap. The only jittery ones would have been the finger wharf residents worried their harbour views would be further obstructed, and a few ABC, Fairfax and News Ltd journos who hadn't been asked if it was okay by them.

oldsig
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Totally agree - warship movements in Sydney harbour are after all a daily event, and the average person in the street wouldn't know one from the other. Even if they did recognise a ship as not being Australian whether it was US, Indian, New Zealand, Brit, French, Indonesian, Singaporean,Chinese or anybody else would probably not be clear to a lot unless they actually got close enough to see the ensign, and not even then for most. In any case, even if they did recognise it as Chinese, why be jittery when the ships go alongside GI, with the obvious endorsement and cooperation of the RAN?
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I wonder how the PLAN managed the news coverage of the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre in regards to sensoring what their crews see and hear? Its one thing controlling dissemination of information on board or at home but a bit harder in a foreign port.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I wonder how the PLAN managed the news coverage of the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre in regards to sensoring what their crews see and hear? Its one thing controlling dissemination of information on board or at home but a bit harder in a foreign port.
Getting OT but compared with how they manage the coverage coming from Hong Kong, where this is a huge event, I expect it’s peanuts.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
There is a general feeling in China its a western conspiracy. Even those that are skeptical are smart enough not to engage or talk about anything they see. Its a non issue.

I think its a bigger thing that they came during this period to Australia. Probably a trust building exercise. Hence keeping it tight lipped. Loose lips will see protesters in front of Chinese ships.

Remember back to the Naval review in 2013. Where the Chinese were welcomed with open arms. While the Russians cancelled the visit and then a few months later waited "menacingly" (as described by the Aus media) off the coast of PNG in the Coral Sea, and public opinion was we should seen the whole RAN not just 3 surface combatants to see them off.

I think its a good thing. Sydneys a great port, and regularly welcomes all navies. During the navy review I bumped into Chinese sailors (officers) a couple of times. They seem to be really enjoy being in Sydney. People were welcoming and warm, they took lots of pictures of the rocks and other historic areas. The city had a great vibe and they seemed to be enjoying that. How many times do they get to visit truly great Western city ports, and just be seen as another nation.

Sure our relationship with China is complex, but we are no immediate threat to each other, we are friends on opposite sides of the neighborhood. Certainly at the professional sailor level, their is no animosity. You want to foster understanding, port visits are key to that. Our wider engagement with IndoPacific absolutely include China. And there are few countries that can charm China, like Australia.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I wonder how the PLAN managed the news coverage of the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre in regards to sensoring what their crews see and hear? Its one thing controlling dissemination of information on board or at home but a bit harder in a foreign port.
Most likely there'll be no shore leave and doubtful if any crew have personal cellphones on board. When the last PLAN ship was in Auckland, from what I understand there was no shore leave for the crew.
 

SteveR

Active Member
There is a general feeling in China its a western conspiracy. Even those that are skeptical are smart enough not to engage or talk about anything they see. Its a non issue.

I think its a bigger thing that they came during this period to Australia. Probably a trust building exercise. Hence keeping it tight lipped. Loose lips will see protesters in front of Chinese ships.

Sure our relationship with China is complex, but we are no immediate threat to each other, we are friends on opposite sides of the neighborhood. Certainly at the professional sailor level, their is no animosity. You want to foster understanding, port visits are key to that. Our wider engagement with IndoPacific absolutely include China. And there are few countries that can charm China, like Australia.
Sorry Stingray but I cannot forget the some 70 million Chinese killed by their Communist Party since 1949 (quoting a Chinese author about 12 years ago). Nazi Germany really only got truly nasty after the Wannsee Conference in Jan 1942 when the Final Solution was decided - 9 years after taking power. Quite rightly we condemn Nazi (and Stalinist) atrocities and the millions they killed and we still go after those on the German side at 90+ years of age who participated in their horrors.

A quick perusal of on-line sources will show that some 5 million Chinese were killed in show trials in every city and town within the first year of coming to power - the Chinese version of the Bolshevik Red Terror and then the Khmer Killing Fields. The Great Leap forward in the late 50s was the equivalent of Soviet forced collectivisation to be carried out at any price - about 30 million starved to death - Mao was disturbed at first but then hardened his attitude. Because he was criticised for this he launched his Cultural Revolution in the 60s - we do not know how many millions were killed or starved as the Chinese Party did not really seem to care.

Having rightly condemned Nazi atrocities and requiring the Nuremberg trials why don't we demand equivalent justice for the millions of Chinese who died. I know the standard Communist Party line is that deaths were necessary to preserve social stability. I don't buy that as look at Taiwan and Hong Kong as Chinese communities that maintained their unity without little if any violence.

Apologists for the Chinese Communist Party of China should also be apologists for the Nazi Party!
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Sorry Stingray but I cannot forget the some 70 million Chinese killed by their Communist Party since 1949 (quoting a Chinese author about 12 years ago). Nazi Germany really only got truly nasty after the Wannsee Conference in Jan 1942 when the Final Solution was decided - 9 years after taking power. Quite rightly we condemn Nazi (and Stalinist) atrocities and the millions they killed and we still go after those on the German side at 90+ years of age who participated in their horrors.

A quick perusal of on-line sources will show that some 5 million Chinese were killed in show trials in every city and town within the first year of coming to power - the Chinese version of the Bolshevik Red Terror and then the Khmer Killing Fields. The Great Leap forward in the late 50s was the equivalent of Soviet forced collectivisation to be carried out at any price - about 30 million starved to death - Mao was disturbed at first but then hardened his attitude. Because he was criticised for this he launched his Cultural Revolution in the 60s - we do not know how many millions were killed or starved as the Chinese Party did not really seem to care.

Having rightly condemned Nazi atrocities and requiring the Nuremberg trials why don't we demand equivalent justice for the millions of Chinese who died. I know the standard Communist Party line is that deaths were necessary to preserve social stability. I don't buy that as look at Taiwan and Hong Kong as Chinese communities that maintained their unity without little if any violence.

Apologists for the Chinese Communist Party of China should also be apologists for the Nazi Party!
The official Chinese line is it didn't happen. It was student riots and western propaganda.
 

hairyman

Active Member
According to todays media reports, HMAS Perth has been in dry dock for two years since the completion of her update, because of a lack of crew numbers. About time the government spent some of the extra money being allocated to defence, and built the numbers up for Navy personnel. I suspect the Army and Air force may also be suffering from a shortage of personnel.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
According to todays media reports, HMAS Perth has been in dry dock for two years since the completion of her update, because of a lack of crew numbers. About time the government spent some of the extra money being allocated to defence, and built the numbers up for Navy personnel. I suspect the Army and Air force may also be suffering from a shortage of personnel.
Both the Melbourne and Newcastle will decommission in the next few months so that will free up some Crew positions.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
According to todays media reports, HMAS Perth has been in dry dock for two years since the completion of her update, because of a lack of crew numbers. About time the government spent some of the extra money being allocated to defence, and built the numbers up for Navy personnel. I suspect the Army and Air force may also be suffering from a shortage of personnel.
It makes all of Australia's plans to expand the navy somewhat mute if it can't man what it already has.

I think the navy may need to start thinking more about unmanned systems.

Drone subs may alter the rules

Really if there is any country in the world that should be investing in UUVs and USVs it should be Australia. Even the ship and submarine numbers we are planning are going to be insufficient to counter the threats facing this region.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
According to todays media reports, HMAS Perth has been in dry dock for two years since the completion of her update, because of a lack of crew numbers. About time the government spent some of the extra money being allocated to defence, and built the numbers up for Navy personnel. I suspect the Army and Air force may also be suffering from a shortage of personnel.
This is not actually news; it's been discussed on here before repeatedly. It's just another beat up; necessary to fill column inches and air time now that the election is done. And *money* is not the issue, it's there. The problem is recruiting and training enough personnel to meet the numbers that have been funded and the considerable problem that you can't recruit a clever young Aussie today and give him or her 10 years of experience in one year of training.

And yes, Army and Airforce have the same issues. Money to spend on crew, but not enough recruits and the long term effect of losing the skilled backbone of technical and specialist positions to impossibly higher paid civvy positions. Throwing more money at this would be simply pissing it against a tree - it's a problem shared by virtually every nation that allows their people to choose to serve or otherwise

oldsig
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
If bodies like AMRL and DSTO are involved into the rearch and development of these craft that can take years to come to fruition they dont usually publicise what they are doing , but the incoming Hunter class do have a mission bay that would be suitable for such deployments
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Efficient crewing will be required for the future.

Its not just a money problem. Defence isn't an ideal career when you hit your 30's and want to have a family and buy a house and all those other things. Men and women. Has always been an issue, for hundreds of years, but while 50 years ago, having a military wife who stayed at home or on base and looked after the family was somewhat possible, that isn't really the case. Particularly because these days both parents work, both could be in the service. Having both sexes in the service has probably increase the likely hood of people finding a partner who also works in defense.

I know a few who have left the service and tried to get flexible type jobs while their female partner stays in the service. One guy runs a gunshop out of a industrial unit after he left the Army his wife still in the airforce. He can base the shops hours around his availability and has select clients, including the ADF and ADF personnel. He would probably love to still be in the ADF, but that just really isn't possible.

Those who are in their 30's also tend to get worried about finding a partner. So often look at moving out to "have a life".

Navy can be even harder. It isn't perhaps as straight forward to adapt around that.

So keeping those experienced navy/army/airforce people who are in their 30's, are vitally important, but don't have some high ranking/pay/power/flexibility officer job are very hard to retain. Trades are almost impossible, because a lot can walk out and start their own business or retrain quickly and do it. Have more flexibility, stability and probably same or better money.

Maybe some sort of advanced reserve job share type system. But also, just because they aren't available today, doesn't mean in near wartime that will be the same case. You are still going to need the platform, you can't just whip one up in a jiffy.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
This is not actually news; it's been discussed on here before repeatedly. It's just another beat up; necessary to fill column inches and air time now that the election is done. And *money* is not the issue, it's there. The problem is recruiting and training enough personnel to meet the numbers that have been funded and the considerable problem that you can't recruit a clever young Aussie today and give him or her 10 years of experience in one year of training.

And yes, Army and Airforce have the same issues. Money to spend on crew, but not enough recruits and the long term effect of losing the skilled backbone of technical and specialist positions to impossibly higher paid civvy positions. Throwing more money at this would be simply pissing it against a tree - it's a problem shared by virtually every nation that allows their people to choose to serve or otherwise

oldsig
The shortages causing the most pain are technically competent junior members, i.e. those qualified and capable of doing their jobs with minimal supervision but still very much on the tools. These people mostly are in their mid to late 20s, or early 30s have several years in service, are fully qualified in their trades, generally have done some promotion courses, but also a lot are starting families and thinking about alternative careers.

In the past there have been retention bonuses etc. with varying degrees of success but with unforseen side effects, i.e. creating dissatisfaction in more senior members who end up being on less money than their less qualified, less experienced subordinates.

One issue defence has is the lack of lateral recruitment, especially for technical trades, making them almost totally reliant on the people they grow themselves. Even when accepting people from allied militaries they force them to take massive drops in rank, ie WO2 to Corporal, same applies to personnel transferring service RAEME SGT dropping to Ordinary Seaman. (Ironically a corps transfer in army I know of non technical SGTs retaining their rank while doing technical training and being posted to more senior appointments than more technically qualified and experienced soldiers).

Civilians, no matter their qualifications or experience, hence value to defence, have to start at the bottom and spend years redoing things they have already done before they finally reach the level they were at before joining. By the time they get to use the skills they brought to defence they haven't used them in years.

There have been suggestions that the ADF look at reintroducing PO/SGT entry for qualified tradespeople. Great if it happens as they are being employed for their technical skills, not their military experience, the ADF are very good at training people in military skills. Another thought is there is also a shortage of higher level technical personnel, these are the CPO, FLT SGT, WO level, the Articifers. Their sub 4 training (I believe) facilitates Chartered TO Status with Engineers Australia, so why not equate this with providing the possibility of appointing suitably qualified civilians as Articifers with appropriate rank. Possibly also consider the appointment of qualified / certified LAMEs, Marine Engineers, Senior Technical Officers as para professional Special Service Officers, as is done for some pilots, as well as doctors, nurses, lawyers, some engineers, Chaplains etc. Officers being paid to turn spanners may face some resistance though.
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
I think I can safely assume that there dozens of foreign warships visiting Australia every year.

I have yet to see a P M call a press conference to announce any of these other visits so why do they expect it now.This whole thing leaves me at a loss to explain the total media hysteria about the recent port call by the PLAN.

Prior notice to the public is mostly for vessels open for inspection. Or of course the USN putting out a call to friendly young ladies.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Sorry Stingray but I cannot forget the some 70 million Chinese killed by their Communist Party since 1949 (quoting a Chinese author about 12 years ago). Nazi Germany really only got truly nasty after the Wannsee Conference in Jan 1942 when the Final Solution was decided - 9 years after taking power. ..
Bit of a mistake there, I'm afraid. The Wannsee Conference wasn't to decide on policy, but to rationalise & improve the execution of the policy which was already in place, & already being carried out.

It was about the difficulties that had arisen in mass murder of Jews, how it was physically difficult, messy, & distressing to those doing it, & how to improve the process.The mechanical aspects, not the policy itself. The implementation of that, the final solution, had begun in Poland in late 1939, & accelerated through 1940 & 1941.

The Hunger Plan, which envisaged starving to death tens of millions of mostly urban Soviet citizens (rural people were seen as needed to produce food, at least for the time being) in order to ensure there was plenty of food for Germans, was decided in outline by the beginning of May 1941, shortly before the invasion of the USSR.

Nazi Germany was truly nasty as soon as it thought it could get away with it, & that was as soon as it ruled territories closed to foreign visitors who might see what was going on - i.e. September 1939.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Civilians, no matter their qualifications or experience, hence value to defence, have to start at the bottom and spend years redoing things they have already done before they finally reach the level they were at before joining. By the time they get to use the skills they brought to defence they haven't used them in years.
This never occurred to me before but it is madness. Imagine if the private sector tried to run their businesses like this?

All they would be doing is hiring entry level staff which they would have to then invest enormous amounts of time and money on only to see most of them eventually poached by another company. It would be an absolutely terrible business model doomed to failure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top