Cao Ni Ma posted:

The acknowledgment is that the churn of new soldiers may not be the optimum strategy for maintaining readiness. This article links back to the war college one made a few months ago, about how the army needs to transition back into division level structures. The articles with military families struggling usually had the same common reason for it, the soldier had to move and got hosed up by the double whammy of the spouse losing their job and the rent market being insane. If they drop the centralized HR and move to a division level managed system again then soldiers will move less and for shorter distances. Soldiers can more realistically use their housing allowance to pay for a mortgage instead of endless rent, their spouse wont lose their job, their kids wont need to uproot into a new school.

I'd probably go a step further on top of the up or out system being removed. Bring back the specialist ranks for non combat positions and make promotions like warrant officers, where you can promote despite not being "in grade" on the MTOE at least to a point (Probably up to spec6). Then make transitioning to WO easier for those soldiers that show a commitment to stick around and continue to improve on the technical aspect of their job.

Theres studies that say that zoomers are willing to take up a job that pays less if its more interesting or less bullshit. Being in the military IS more interesting than flipping burgers and other menial jobs like working at an amazon warehouse. But the amount of bullshit you have to endure from the life just isn't worth it for most people. Decreasing the amount of bullshit is a way to retain them.

The Voice of Labor posted:

well I guess if someone has to exploit africa and plunder all its mineral wealth it's better that those minerals go towards making fireworks that make people happy than going towards bombs that genocide innocents

Jel Shaker posted:

i think the whole thing was really a make work program to keep the docks going, but not only has the design and construction been a complete embarrassment, the uk is in the process of closing its last few steel plants so it’s not like we can build any more boats if we wanted to

mila kunis posted:

wait Up or Out is applied in the loving military????? Lmfao

Raskolnikov38 posted:

i realize the answer is "lol, lmao" but is anyone in the press corp going to ask who is running the show between the president being brain dead and the secdef being dead dead

DancingShade posted:

A white house aide who has experience from playing War Thunder.

DancingShade posted:

A white house aide who has experience from playing War Thunder.

DancingShade posted:

A white house aide who has experience from playing War Thunder.

The Voice of Labor posted:

well I guess if someone has to exploit africa and plunder all its mineral wealth it's better that those minerals go towards making fireworks that make people happy than going towards bombs that genocide innocents

ModernMajorGeneral posted:

The 4D chess move will be to trick China into buying them believing they can pull off a Varyag/Liaoning conversion, hamstringing the Chinese navy for a generation

Jel Shaker posted:

i think the whole thing was really a make work program to keep the docks going, but not only has the design and construction been a complete embarrassment, the uk is in the process of closing its last few steel plants so it’s not like we can build any more boats if we wanted to

Cheatum the Evil Midget posted:

Joe Biden has shown how much elders can contribute

quote:

Australia's troubled Hunter-class frigate program has avoided being axed following a sweeping review of the navy's combat surface fleet, with at least six and possibly several more of the large and expensive warships to be built over coming decades.

Next week the Albanese government is scheduled to unveil a "Future Navy" plan that emphasises "continuous naval shipbuilding" and confirms British-owned BAE Systems will proceed with the $45 billion project to replace Australia's aging Anzac-class frigates.

Retired US admiral to review Australian warship fleet
The reviews, recommended by the Defence Strategic Review, will ensure that the navy's warship fleet "complements" the new AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines.

In 2018 BAE Systems was controversially selected to construct nine anti-submarine vessels based on the UK's Type 26 warship, but the program based in South Australia has been beset by delays and design problems, with the first frigate not expected until the early 2030s.

Naval figures have pointed to only "minimal penalty clauses" in the massive SEA5000 shipbuilding contract and the immature design of the British Type 26 as some of the key contributing problems but acknowledge the company has resolved many issues.

quote:

Over recent days industry figures have speculated that BAE Systems could be asked to build as many as 16 warships, under a scenario where the hulls in latter batches would be modified to eventually replace Australia's existing and smaller Air Warfare Destroyers.

"At more than $4.5 billion each — the Hunter Class frigate could end up being the most expensive surface combatant in the world," a figure closely involved with the project said.

Warnings about the lack of firepower on the current Hunter-class design prompted BAE Systems to last year unveil a proposed dramatic modification of the warship to boost the number of vertical launch missile cells from just 32 to a configuration of 96.

quote:

Displacement
8,167 t (8,038 long tons)[4] Stability Lightship
8,800 t (8,700 long tons) full load displacement[5]

quote:

Craig Lockhart from BAE Systems told the ABC the new design modifications would add a further 64 missile cells to the warship without affecting the overall cost or delivery timetable.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

i realize the answer is "lol, lmao" but is anyone in the press corp going to ask who is running the show between the president being brain dead and the secdef being dead dead

ModernMajorGeneral posted:

our new frigate is the size of an Arleigh Burke, costs a billion dollars more, and carries 1/3 of the missiles (before they realised maybe they should add more missiles)

bonus magical thinking from the plan to add more missiles:

Oneiros posted:

sometimes i wish i had no morals and could just effortlessly grift these loving retards for every last dollar

Livo posted:

and don't work for Aussie shipyards bribing politicians.

Livo posted:

Basically, the Hunter class CEAFAR radar technology (used in other Aussie ships for decades & also by the Aussie Army for it's NASAMs) is quite good but very, very heavy and needs lots of cooling in its ship version. Most proper Anti Air Warfare (AAW) ship radars tend to be fairly large & heavy for their role in detecting aircraft/ballistic missiles from quite a far distance. They're usually mounted fairly high as well to better detect major airborne threats with enough warning time. There's always issues with having heavy radars high up, but ships designed for the AAW role usually factor this in from Day 1 of their design, not to mention AAW designs are generally better at adding in extra missile cells & electronics with their better future growth margins. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) ships on the other hand, have smaller, lighter radars mounted a lot lower since their main job is going very slow & dealing with subs: they have some protection from air threats, but more of a ship self-defence role or a limited air defence role.

The Australian Navy took a excellent, quiet ASW design meant for sub hunting (the original British Type 26), and then stupidly insisted on giving it very heavy radar mounted high up and extra missile cells to do a AAW mission as well. These changes have been problematic, costly & quite expansive in their scope. The Naval News article also has links to the Australian Government Review itself. There were later complaints from the Royal Australian Navy that the 32 cells weren't enough for a proper air warfare role, hence the "Batch 2" proposals with an extra 64 cells and even more expensive design changes to accommodate this. AAW ships are noisier than ASW because a) they go much faster compared to ASW who tend to go deliberately slow to find subs b) most AAW ships don't have their engines isolated from the hull c) they usually have variable pitch propellers which are a few knots faster but noisier, whereas ASW tend to be fixed pitch propellers & quieter and d) ASW have their underwater hull specially shaped for extra noise reduction.

Isolating the engines/propulsion from the hull is something that practically all ship designers have been offering for decades. You can't retrofit engine isolation rafts after the ship has been built, you had to have it done beforehand, but that's something you simply chose in your contract. FREMM & Navatia (the other failed Hunter class contract bidders) offered this feature, it's bog standard for most large ship contracts around the world. Want a AAW ship that's quieter than other AAW class ships by rafting the propulsion from the hull? No problem! The ship still wouldn't be as quiet as a dedicated sub hunter, but it'd still be a big improvement. Basically, you'd have an excellent AAW ship that's also pretty good for a secondary ASW role if you just isolated the propulsion & use fixed propellers; those two things make a big difference. You'd also have more margin for future growth & extra weapons/sensors to reduce the chance of/need for major design changes. Unfortunately, the Australian Navy decided they wanted an excellent AAW ship and an excellent ASW ship so they decided to have a shitload of expensive changes to shoe-horn two fairly different missions into one ship. They're wondering why a ship never intended to have very heavy radars high up in the first place is having troubles when you plonk heavy things on top.

They could have done the "Excellent air warfare/pretty good sub hunter" option by choosing a quietened AAW design, or if they were really insistent on the best of both worlds, have a whole new design specifically for those missions, but that would cost a fortune. I'd say a quieter AAW design would have been cheaper, less troublesome and be more future proof for upgrades, but I'm not in the Australian Navy and don't work for Aussie shipyards bribing politicians.

Frosted Flake posted:

The shipyards bribing politicians is really what these decisions come down to. I read the naval architecture journals every now and then, and Warship 202X digest, and these decisions all come down to the contracts. You hate to see it.

Livo posted:

Hatebag posted:

ah, interesting. is it for construction or resupply stuff or what?

Frosted Flake posted:

Rather than a navy saying we need X ships in Y years and doing all the design in house, then offering shipyards that are able a share of the ships, the government issues loose requirements, contractors and shipyards do the designs themselves, bribe the government to win the competition, and say how many ships they will build for how long at their shipyard. The Australian shipyards specifically spread out work to prevent steady employment.

So rather than 8 ships in 6 years between 3 competing shipyards or whatever, one shipyard gets to monopolize shipbuilding for 10 years and produce 3 ships.

Irving just did this with the RCN. The ship is totally compromised from the RCN requirements because Irving dictated what they will and won’t build, no competing slipways are allowed to build it (like the west coast firm that makes BC ferries) and they can take as long as they like, basically.

Hatebag posted:

it's good that capitalism inherently leads to self-attached fetters like these because that means it is incapable of competing with communism in the long term. the fact that everything in the west is underpinned by bribery also means that it's incapable of rectifying the situation without a full collapse or catastrophe.
and the west is so decrepit that this one last holdout of government spending, weapons production, is also just a transparent grift.
the ussr was pretty unlucky to be competing against the us while there were still capable people in the government and the government was able to spend money.

Frosted Flake posted:

Well, look how quickly China went from “no navy”, to “no blue water navy”, to “no carriers”, to “only one…two…three carriers”. The same goes for the postwar Soviet Navy.

quote:

Sikorsky's Raider X, advanced compound helicopter design seen at the top of this story, and Bell's 360 Invictus, a more traditional helicopter design seen below, have been competing for FARA since 2020. The Army first announced the FARA program in 2018.

FARA had ostensibly been seeking a new a helicopter to supplant AH-64 Apaches that had been assigned to certain units following the retirement of the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior scout helicopter. The use of Apaches in this role had, in turn, followed years of failed attempts to secure a direct replacement for the OH-58D.

RubberJohnny posted:

Army cancels next gen reconnaissance helicopter program

6 years wasted.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

i realize the answer is "lol, lmao" but is anyone in the press corp going to ask who is running the show between the president being brain dead and the secdef being dead dead