NeilChapman
Interested 3rd party
- Joined
- 14 December 2015
- Messages
- 1,302
- Reaction score
- 536
I hear it started as a 40B program and became a 90B program. What's the backstory on that?
A significant number of RAN SSK drivers are ex RN SSN drivers. I have had the pleasure of working with some of them, they definitely leave the run of the mill RAN operator / maintainers for dead.Someone is going to have to take RAN SSK drivers and turn them into RAN SSN drivers, and whether you run them through Perisher or its US equivalent is probably going to shape what they want from their boats.
Remember some of the worst in industry and government are ex defence. More to the point they are ex operators and maintainers who for whatever reason, did not progress to senior rank, or even to higher professional assignments while in defence.Oh not disagreeing there - have often said "What's the single common element in all Defence failed/troubled projects? Defence!" - but I think in many cases both sides are partially to blame if we're completely honest.
Various people have suggested reasons Australia might prefer a US boat or a UK one, but I've not seen any discussion of whose operating practises the RAN submarine force is closest to, USN or RN? Anyone know?
Can't help but wonder if some sort of certification system wouldn't help address this very real problem.
These people are then appointed to the Public Service and industry, in management roles, often being gifted engineering delegation far beyond their actual experience and competence, based on their defence service.
Various people have suggested reasons Australia might prefer a US boat or a UK one, but I've not seen any discussion of whose operating practises the RAN submarine force is closest to, USN or RN? Anyone know?
There is but its a bit iffy. Engineers Australia has Chartered Technical Officers, Technologists and Engineers, the idea being they assess the persons actual skill and experience, not just their qualification. It falls down when dealing with defence personnel because they equate rank with knowledge and experience, i.e. you are a Warrant Officer so here is your Chartered Technical Officer status, don't worry about getting a Diploma, we will just assume your promotion courses are equivalent. Oh you were a Lieutenant and have a degree, we will just assume you are equivalent to a civilian Mechanical engineer with 20 years experience and masters.
Can't help but wonder if some sort of certification system wouldn't help address this very real problem.
The UK engineering institutions have gone the same way, my dad was a Chartered Civil Engineer, but got there from starting as an engineering apprentice and skilling up through night school classes during the 60s and 70s. That had ceased to be a possibility long before he retired, and he retired at 50. Nowadays it's a degree or nothing.Conversely they give zero recognition to civilians who haven't completed qualifications at institutions they recognise, irrespective of their knowledge and experience. For example I worked in Test and Evaluation and other systems engineering specialities and many of our best people had come up through trade. They had diplomas but not Associate or Advanced Diplomas and had also done extensive professional development that some of them were able to articulate into post graduate certificates, diplomas and masters in engineering. RINA and other organisations recognised the but Engineers Australia wouldn't even assess them.
“I just think it’s time for some of our dearest friends around the world to prenez un grip about this and donnez-moi un break,” Johnson told reporters outside the Capitol building.
Different countries have different ways, UK is fairly open to skilled people moving into management. A german colleague explained to me that he would never ever be a manager, because he went to an 'Gymnasium' which to UK, would I think mean college, as apposed to University.The UK engineering institutions have gone the same way,
A german colleague explained to me that he would never ever be a manager, because he went to an 'Gymnasium' which to UK, would I think mean college, as apposed to University.The UK engineering institutions have gone the same way,
Gilday: Australian sub deal ‘brilliant,’ partnership with French Navy remains strong
The U.S. chief of naval operations is committed to helping Australia with its nuclear-powered submarine program and equally committed to operating seamlessly alongside the French Navy.www.defensenews.com
I applied for a role with Naval Group much earlier this year, before I was warned off them. I didn't hear anything and forgot about it.French Government: We will force the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment through the EU commission before Joe Biden is inaugurated
Also the French Government: We are committed to the security of the Into-Pacific region which is under threat from Chinese aggression and military expansion, we will work as closely as we can with our Allies there, please invite us to join your Five-Eyes arrangement
The French government a bit later: If you cancel this single commercial contract (within your contractual rights), that has been running late, over budget and no longer meets your needs, we will withdraw our ambassador, block your free trade deal and cancel numerous bilateral meetings with both you and the countries you have sought an alternative solution from in addition to openly and arrogantly insulting you
It is not a good look.
Talk about burning bridges!!!I applied for a role with Naval Group much earlier this year, before I was warned off them. I didn't hear anything and forgot about it.
Today I received an email informing the role was no longer being recruited, fair enough, it then launched into a diatribe I have yet to manage to finish reading. What a bunch of self entitled sooks, nothing is their fault, they know more about submarines that the US or UK, Australia is stupid because they need DE subs, not SSNs. etc. etc.
Engineers Australia ignore the higher degree whether you have a bachelor or not. The bachelor is the entry ticket and the be all and end all.
German selective school for the brighter set. AIUI Germany's more focused on the Dr. (Ing) qualification at the management level, so you need an advanced degree, not just a bachelor's. And if you don't have either....
Blame Macron own character instead - he can be an arrogant prick at times, there is no question about it.
I applied for a role with Naval Group much earlier this year, before I was warned off them. I didn't hear anything and forgot about it.
Today I received an email informing the role was no longer being recruited, fair enough, it then launched into a diatribe I have yet to manage to finish reading. What a bunch of self entitled sooks, nothing is their fault, they know more about submarines that the US or UK, Australia is stupid because they need DE subs, not SSNs. etc. etc.
It's not impossible BAE might, my immediate boss got some support (day off a week IIRC, probably fees paid) to upgrade his HND to a degree. But that's the kind of thing that could be organised within one subsidiary for an existing employee without being company wide.Just reread it, apparently I was short listed, and now I remember what the role was I am disappointed. It was a two year trainee / internship to France to learn how to be a designer instead of a test and systems wonk. They would have paid for me to upgrade my Dip Eng to a B Eng (Mech Design). Now I feel the butt hurt, Karma can be a b!tch. Guess i need to wait and see if EB or BAE offer something similar or just stick to clerical, whoops i mean systems, engineering
Unlikely. I remember reading when the French won the contract that one of the reasons they won was the future path to a nuclear submarine. I believe the French / Naval Group even explicitly said this.It's probable that France would have refused to share nuclear technology given the mystic love affair b/w French politicians and the brutal Chinese regime...
Put him in a turtleneck, give him a pack of Gauloises and you've got a François Truffaut character; what's not to like?
Unlikely. I remember reading when the French won the contract that one of the reasons they won was the future path to a nuclear submarine. I believe the French / Naval Group even explicitly said this.It's probable that France would have refused to share nuclear technology given the mystic love affair b/w French politicians and the brutal Chinese regime...
Falls over laughing.BAE Systems, better paid
This is an interesting issue.Hmmm...random idea: I wonder if either Agamemnon or Agincourt could be redirected to the RAN and replacements sought? Would allow BAE Systems' yard to keep going longer, would get quicker solution for RAN and would provide pattern for future Australian builds.More significantly the last two boats of the class are being built and there is nothing in the pipeline until the successor design is completed.
RR gave run down long lead elements of PWR-2 reactor production and are ramping up for PWR-3 instead.
This limits the number of Astutes with PWR-2 to the planned production run for the RN.
A major gap is opening up as Astute production runs down prior to Dreadnought production.
So arguably the fastest option for the RAN to get an Astute is one of the Current Build.
But to fill that gap in the RN, more, new SSN production is needed and this cannot be with PWR-2 reactors.
So a modified Batch II Astute with PWR-3 reactor is on the cards....possibly needing a larger diameter hull.
De-risking Dreadnought reactor and propulsion i
Right on! As a aviator this isn't my field so I am not qualified to give a judgement, just a general defence opinion. The broader plan is to keep the peace by pulling our own weight and doing our job in the region - we could not do that without this revision of planning.Exactly!Short answer - This isn't just about submarines.why Australia, given the decision to "go nuclear", didn't simply approach the French for Suffren-class SSNs retrofitted with US combat systems?
Rumors of a Plan B were officially denied multiple times by Australian defence officials, including in that video session. It was broadly perceived as a negotiating tactic by the incoming Defence minister who wanted extra leverage in contract negotiations particularly on work share. It’s standard practice anytime there’s new leadership to question previous decisions… 99% of the time it’s ego-driven showboating that leads to no change.Parliamentary committee discussed plan B option openly as early as June