Aussie sub 88 op days a year?
-
The manpower shortage has brought the number of sea days per operational submarine down from 113 in 2005 to an estimated 88 days this year.
---http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21460102-2702,00.html
2.Besides u can get Aussie PR by joining RAN,u just work 88 days a year!!
What are the average op days of G8 or NATO sub?
I have to quote for i am afraid the article will be deleted.
$1bn defence spending boost
* Patrick Walters, National security editor
* March 28, 2007
DEFENCE spending is set to rise by close to $1billion in the May budget, taking annual spending to more than $20 billion.
The boost will focus on people as much as equipment as the defence force struggles to retain experienced technical officers.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson is to announce an additional round of incentives as part of a $1billion drive to lift army numbers by nearly 3000 over the next decade and fill growing skill shortages in the army, navy and air force.
The May budget spending is on top of earlier changes to defence force retention bonuses, including a $190million army scheme announced by Dr Nelson this week and a commitment to lift defence spending by 3 per cent annually.
The Government will advance spending on more than $15billion of equipment in 2007-08, including the $8billion air warfare destroyer program and $6billion purchase of 24 Super Hornet planes.
Spending on Iraq and Afghanistan is to climb above $600million annually as John Howard prepares to send a special forces task group to the latter.
Senior government sources said Dr Nelson would make announcements on improving pay and conditions for the ADF's 50,000 serving men and women, as well as incentives for people to join.
A particular focus will be on the navy. Sources said the submarine arm was operating at about 50 per cent of its authorised strength, with the strong West Australian economy enticing submariners into better-paid civilian jobs.
The manpower shortage has brought the number of sea days per operational submarine down from 113 in 2005 to an estimated 88 days this year.
Dr Nelson has also authorised the preparation of a new defence policy statement before the end of the year. The strategic update will be the Government's first major national security policy statement since 2005, with Dr Nelson ruling out a new defence white paper before the next election.
Dr Nelson this week received the draft report of an external review of the higher management of the Defence Department conducted by former senior public servant Elizabeth Proust. The report is expected to recommend an overhaul of Defence's information management and IT systems and streamlining of the department's committee system. -
So?
What about the tibetian navy? -
lolOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:So?
What about the tibetian navy? -
The submarine force overall, including land-based personnel, is 30 per cent understrength from its authorised manning level of 500. Only three of the six Collins-class submarines are currently fully operational. The reduced manning levels have meant that HMAS Collins has had be to temporarily tied up until July....
2.This show the full operational ratio is more important
The manpower problem had led to a reduction of about 20 per cent in planned days at sea for the Collins boats in 2007, compared with 2005....
than quantity. -
The point of this thread to attempt to portray Australia (again!) in bad light is not only humourous but hypocritical.
It is as if the SAF is one perfect house.
-
Ah, I see what you're saying.Originally posted by lionnoisy:2.Besides u can get Aussie PR by joining RAN,u just work 88 days a year!!
What are the average op days of G8 or NATO sub?
They spend 88 days in the sub. The other days are all spent slacking. Since you say that they only work 88 days per year, they don't need to work on other days.
Once they book into base, they immediately enter the sub which then sets off.
Once the sub returns to base, the submariners immediately leave the sub and book out.
No need for departure preparations, after action reviews, sub maintenance, on-base admin and training programmes, etc. Right?
You sure about this? Or do you want to risk getting owned again? -
Gee, man. You are drawing a lot of conclusions from one posted article (that is allegedly fact).Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:The point of this thread to attempt to portray Australia (again!) in bad light is not only humourous but hypocritical.
It is as if the SAF is one perfect house.
Nobody is an enemy of Australia here, nor do we pretend SAF is perfect.
But how did you come to this conclusion so quickly that we are comparing SAF and Australia? -
Oh sorry, fudgester just made some deprecating comments are "slacking" etc...
I apologise on behalf of him.
-
Uhh... dude? I'm not trying to imply that Aussie submariners are slackers. What I'm trying to do is to poke holes into lionnoisy's stance that you only work 88 days a year if you're in the Australian Navy.Originally posted by moca:Oh sorry, fudgester just made some deprecating comments are "slacking" etc...
I apologise on behalf of him.
Of course I recognise that Aussie submariners work a lot more than the 88 days per year spent out at sea. Even on base they would have to spend a lot of time on training, admin, etc. -
You only need to follow lionnoisy's other threads in other forums to realize not only is he no friend of Australia, he intends to degenerate every thread his starts into a pointless and offensive discussion on the vauge justification of finding the "downsides of downunder" to better educate those who want to go there.Originally posted by moca:Gee, man. You are drawing a lot of conclusions from one posted article (that is allegedly fact).
Nobody is an enemy of Australia here, nor do we pretend SAF is perfect.
But how did you come to this conclusion so quickly that we are comparing SAF and Australia?
In fact he was so offensive that a bunch of people considered reporting his actions for it reached a point where it could be considered attempting to incite hatred or sow discord... of which he then quietly backed down and moved on to other forums.
Hence there's no need to entertain him here, he's not really in for a serious discussion, only to find some clueless people to vent his anti-Aussie steam on. -
I heard they might want to raise a Corps of Marines.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:So?
What about the tibetian navy? -
Indeed, it is getting both tiresome, and even boring. Though sometimes I find such behaviour a little hilarious.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:You only need to follow lionnoisy's other threads in other forums to realize not only is he no friend of Australia, he intends to degenerate every thread his starts into a pointless and offensive discussion on the vauge justification of finding the "downsides of downunder" to better educate those who want to go there.
In fact he was so offensive that a bunch of people considered reporting his actions for it reached a point where it could be considered attempting to incite hatred or sow discord... of which he then quietly backed down and moved on to other forums.
Hence there's no need to entertain him here, he's not really in for a serious discussion, only to find some clueless people to vent his anti-Aussie steam on. -
So back to the tibetian navy yes?
-
Is the dalai lama the actually CDF of tibet?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:So back to the tibetian navy yes?
I mean i read an article once that some vassel of tibet got invaded some 500 years ago and the dalai lama sent his army to kick the invaders butt!!! -
I think he can be said to be the CINC. After all, he had his warrior monks, and the monk training was tough, and in austere winter conditions.Originally posted by |-|05|:Is the dalai lama the actually CDF of tibet?
I mean i read an article once that some vassel of tibet got invaded some 500 years ago and the dalai lama sent his army to kick the invaders butt!!!
-
I wonder if they have subs in their fleet.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:So back to the tibetian navy yes?
Anyone can shed light on this?
-
Only 4.5 available submarines in Aussie in 2007 !!
The manpower shortages have seen the submarine force plan to spend 397 days at sea this year (an average of 88 days per available submarine) compared with 490 days at sea (113 days per boat) in 2005.
---http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21500144-31477,00.html
2.Is it value for money to spend A$150 m to upgrade a sub? -
Erm... can anyone shed light on the Elbonian Navy's submarine fleet?
I heard somewhere that they have magnetohydrodynamic drives which can throughly pwn our Vastergotlands' rumoured Stirling AIP engines.
-
I would hate to be in that ".5" of a sub!Originally posted by lionnoisy:Only 4.5 available submarines in Aussie in 2007 !!
[b][url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21500144-31477,00.html]---http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21500144-31477,00.html
2.Is it value for money to spend A$150 m to upgrade a sub?
Anyway, I always find governments like Malaysia and Australia very refreshing in being so open about what would qualify as sensitive national security issues in SAF.
I just want to remind everyone that nobody knows how "operational" SAF is cos this is all top secret.
For all you know, our figures - if revealed - could also be frightening.
Take the "300" AMX-13SM1 for example. What will be its operational statistics?
How many of you have seen ALL 300 SM1s being operational at once?
Do we even HAVE enough crewmen for 300 SM1's? Don't forget SAR has "thousands" of other vehicle types.
In a peacetime army like SAF operating an extinct vehicle type, it would usually mean that some are used for training, some are kept for war, and the rest merely for spare parts cannibalisation.
A safe bet would be that on a full mobilisation, probably less than 100 SM1s will be operational. -
Actually it's another case of lionnoisy making as much noise over any dirt he can dig up on the Aussies.
What the media says can be true, but it's rarely if ever, the full story.
What about the other side of the story, from the sailor's side of it?
In reality, despite all it's teething problems, the Collin's class sub is one of the deadliest SSKs in the world today. The fact that it often comes out ahead in exercises againsts the USN, and that the USN is studying it to learn how to improve it's abilities against SSK threats is telling on the actual potential of this system.
Here's a recent article that gives another picture on the Collins, by the Yanks no less:Deadliest Diesel Boat in the World Goes to Sea
So is it worth it for them to upgrade their subs for such a cost?
April 5, 2007: Australia has completed the refurbishment and upgrades on the first of its six Collins class subs. The United States, in a rare move, gave Australia access to American sonar and underwater warfare systems technology for this. Australia is spending nearly a hundred million dollars each, to upgrade the sonar and fire control systems on its six Collins class subs, and this new deal with the U.S. means that those diesel electric subs will carry the most advanced electronics in the world. The Collins class boats, mainly because of the quality of their crews, have proved to be among the most capable diesel-electric subs in the world. This is known because Collins class boats often train with U.S. Navy ships and aircraft, and usually come out ahead.
This has made the American admirals more concerned about the threat from diesel-electric subs. For the moment, however, none of America's potential naval foes have submarine crews as well trained as the Australians. The new electronics will provide the Collins class boats with combat capabilities similar to the new U.S. Virginian class SSNs.
The Collins class boats were built in Australia during the 1990s, and are based on a Swedish design (the Type 471.) At 3,000 tons displacement, the Collins are half the size of the American Los Angeles class nuclear attack subs. However, boats that size are nearly twice the size of subs Europeans are accustomed to designing and building for their own use. Australia needed larger boats because of the sheer size of the oceans that surround Australia. There were a lot of technical problems with the Collins class boats, which the media jumped all over. The design of these subs was novel and ambitious, using a lot of automation. This reduced the crew size to 45.
Australia didn't formally "accept" all the Collins class boats until three years ago, when everyone agreed that all the major technical problems were fixed, or at least identified. The current problem is recruiting a sufficient number of qualified sailors to keep these subs at sea. Last year, because of personnel shortages, each available Collins class sub was only able to get to sea for 88 days. In 2005, each boat averaged 113 days. The Australian armed forces, in general, are having recruiting problems, and the government is providing more money (the traditional, and most effective, cure) to deal with the problem.
Unless you can find some other way to give any SSK in the world the abilities of Virginia class SSN, the amount they are spending is actually a very nice bargain. -
Happily though, Strategy Page also gave our latest SSKs their vote of confidence as the deadliest subs in SEA, as well as the title of “supersub” (for a conventional).
-
If I am not wrong , it is standard for most subs spend 1/3 of the time for maint. , 1/3 on standby and 1/3 on patrol.
So 88 days per year is not really that low. -
88 is 75 % of 120 days,one third of a year.
u think is acceptable.
What can i say? -
You shouldn't really be saying anything in the first place. The 88 days they are spending out at sea certainly isn't the disaster you are trying to make it out to be, and the cost they spent on upgrading their boats proved to be a very great deal, considering they are getting a package that puts their boats on par with the latest American SSNs.
It's apparent that the Aussies have a incredible open ocean sub on their hands and what unbalanced media reports you are tossing out isn't going to change the fact that the sailors see a totally different side of the story, know they have one of the deadilest SSKs in the world, have bested the USN in exercises, and also under study by the USN on how to better deal with SSK threats.
By all yardsticks they have a very good boat on their hands. The inability to field their boats as much as they would like is more reflective on them being unable to find people good enough to staff these boats (which is reflective on how advanced these SSKs actually are) then any reflection on the submarine themselves.
So if you want to ask if they have a deadily and effective boat on their hands that is worth the cost price? Once you get over all the media jumping (of which you are prone to listening to), the answer is certainly a resounding yes.
Here's a tip, this is a military forum so you jolly well post in here with the mindset of a grunt who does his homework and knows his stuff, not some person who blindly grabs articles off the web without knowing anything on the subject matter at all.
What can I say?
You got pwned! -
What are you doing here anyway? Too afraid to go back to Speaker's Corner where you might be taken to task for what you say that you feel the need to come here and vent your anti-aussie steam?
And to think this was the guy taunting the police to give him a free ride to Queensway Police Station for an interview on spreading discord among international relations.