YOU can make a comment about any specific article on the ANI site in the Comment box at the bottom of the article.
But if you want to make general observations or comments on any naval or maritime issue, you can do so at the bottom of this article in the comment section. You can write in as much detail as you wish. You can write a short article if you wish. You should put your name for publication at the top or at the end of the item.
If the Editor of the ANI website approves, your observations, comments or article will be posted as a separate post under the Have Your Say category on the menu bar.
BTW: our software generates an automatic reply which uses the greeting “Howdy”. It is embedded in the software and we cannot replace it with an Australian “G’day” or neutral “Hello”. Apologies.
Is it time for an Australian coastguard?
Kim Beazley floated this concept some years ago and labelled it ‘a cop on the beat’. The idea was dropped presumably because the RAN could do maritime constabulary as well as maritime warfighting and anyway it was too hard at the time. But is it time to revisit this proposal? Looks like Sovereign Borders is here to stay.
The RAN is to have ‘OPVs/corvettes’ under the fanfare of the recently announced shipbuilding program (no further information as to design, capability etc). This is presumably to replace the Armidale class. We had something similar in SEA 1180 (on again?).
We have two navies: a warfighting one and a constabulary one. The Fleet Commander wants to return warfighting skills to the RAN. Can we maintain those skills when we send FFGs and FFHs on anti-piracy patrols off Africa? Boarding and search parties get plenty of exercise but what about EW, sonar, ASW etc operators. We send MHCs to supplement Op Resolute – shouldn’t they be practicing MCM (we might need this skill one day)?
So perhaps we should look at some of the ships that many coastguards operate these days. The USCG might be a good start. That service operates under considerable funding and resource constraints but is now receiving some excellent new cutters which would sit well as high endurance vessels with good seakeeping qualities.
We needn’t have a separate uniformed service (look at what troubles the new Border Force is throwing up). We can man an Australian coastguard with navy personnel, perhaps as a separate PQ/category (e.g. as per Hydro).
Let’s hear your opinions.
Tim Coyle
On 7th August the Prime Minister announced a continuous naval shipbuilding program in Australia for the future frigate (SEA 5000) and the Offshore Patrol Vessel [OPV] programs. Earlier this year on 20th February the Government announced the initiation of the Future Submarine Program (SEA 1000) Competitive Evaluation Process which requires costed options for offshore and domestic build programs or a hybrid combination of the two.
Together these represent the greatest validation of the essential nature of naval capability for Australia as a maritime nation, and for the significance in strategic, industrial and economic terms of maximising Australian participation in the design, construction, operation and sustainment of those naval assets.
The stop-go nature of such programs in the past has produced an understandable reluctance to invest for the longer term, sustainable productivity increases that will now be possible. Furthermore with the cost of unskilled industrial labour now exceeding that of professional engineers and teachers plus the world leading expertise of robotic automation in Australia there is every reason to mandate a progressive cost-reduction per unit in these major programs.
This has been a watershed year for naval investment that has not been seen since a century ago in the time of Prime Minister Alfred Deakin
By Dr Gregory P. Gilbert, 09 September 2015
THE END OF AUSTRALIAN NAVAL ENGINEERING – DOWNSIZING FOR OVER 25 YEARS
I am no longer surprised by the misdirected attempts at reform within the Department of Defence. Yesterday’s article in the Canberra Times – http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/new-jobs-cull-at-department-of-defence-20150907-gjh7o1.html – confirms that Defence job cuts are an ongoing feature of the management of that Department. It was only the day before that I heard that the few surviving civilian naval engineers who are still employed by Defence were offered Voluntary Redundancies. Of course their positions were given up by the Navy in 2000 when they were transferred to DMO. And so now their expertise no longer is seen to be relevant to the RAN. The last of those Navy civilians with 30 to 40 years of naval engineering design, build, and maintenance experience are being pushed out the door.
What is the Chief of Navy and the Chief Naval Engineer doing about it. Despite the recognised disastrous current state of naval engineering in Australia – well documented in the Strategic Review of Naval Engineering (SRNE) and the Rizzo Review – the Navy continues to witness others within the Defence organisation throw away thousands of years of experience. As I stated when interviewed for the SRNE it will take at least 30 years to rebuild naval engineering in this country, starting from the time corrective action starts. We are waiting on the start line but the crowd is dissipating while we wait for the starters gun to fire!
Naval engineering is one of the foundations of sea power. In the absence of this foundation Australian sea power cannot be sustained. Without naval engineering the Royal Australian Navy will become unmanned hulks unable to float, move or fight.
FURTHER COMMENTS ARE WELCOME.
CORRECTION to above for Moderator
… Of course their positions were given up by the Navy in 2000 when they were transferred to DMO, and now their expertise is no longer seen to be relevant to the RAN. …