RADM Hughes on the future of the Royal Australian Navy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- Interview with Rear Admiral Stephen Hughes, Head of Navy Capability, Royal Australian Navy, during Indo Pacific 2023. RADM Hughes is responsible for identifying the needs and requirements of the RAN’s future capabilities and for the development and delivery of these capabilities to the Fleet.
=====================
In this interview recorded in November 2023 (prior to the Tier 2 frigate announcement), RADM Hughes discusses:
01:29 - Tomahawk land attack cruise missile aboard Collins-class submarines
02:48 - Increasing the lethality for the surface fleet
06:45 - Modularity
07:34 - Uncrewed systems
=====================
For new videos every week, subscribe here! ruclips.net/user/NavalNews?su...
Follow us on Twitter: / navalnewscom
Follow us on LinkedIn: / navalnews
Like us on Facebook: navalnewscom
Check out our daily naval defense news coverage at: www.navalnews.com/
NAVAL NEWS is fully focused on naval topics. We cover the latest naval defense shows & events. We also report on naval technology from all over the world. Navalnews.com is updated daily with in-depth features, industry, and naval forces news round-ups, event coverage, video reports and more. Our top of the line site is responsive across all mobile and desktop devices.
RADM Hughes says the key to lethality is with retention and recruitment yet my daughter who finished high school (year 12) last year with good grades and has applied to join Australian Navy. Six months since applying and despite us following up multiple times she hasn’t even had interviews. We are being told she could be waiting 12-18 months from the date of application to the first day of boot camp. If Australia’s defence streams were serious about recruitment and retention they wouldn’t take a year and a half to get someone in the door. People don’t want to sit around twiddling their thumbs just waiting for a phone call or a letter.
Ease up I'm sure she will be an asset when called .....
I’ve a mate who works with Adecco which is a billion dollar multinational that has the recruitment contract for the ADF. They operate on a for profit basis and thus employ the cheapest staff they can locate, often on a casual basis. The ADF knows this yet fails to act or address this failure. It gives me a warm glow to know that my taxes are keeping Adecco highly profitable in an increasingly ambiguous defence environment. 😂
My son has had a similar experience. Originally too young for RMC in VCE, he is now a 2nd yr uni student and applied last year for the new gap year officers fast track course. After 12 months of interviews, testing etc, still not accepted and despite acing all his entry requirements…an absolute disgraceful program outsourced by defence to pathetic and disengaged contractors…my son has gone from excited for an army career to disappointed in our DF. If defense want to attract the best then they need to work harder at attracting and retaining talent….absolutely pathetic and 12 months and 8 different non army case managers later still no answer and now hoping to get into RMC September intake…appalling selection/recruitment process!
@@darylbird4912 I’ve heard from lots of other parents that are saying mostly the same thing.
I am Australian. If we have a problem with recruiting, the solution to that is more autonomous systems. Japan went through a similar thing in two stages, first Japan allowed women into the navy because they needed more recruits, but even after doing this after a while it still wasn't enough, so Japan then sought more automatic systems on newer vessels like their Mogami and such, it enables them to build a large fleet while not having a large amount of crew etc.
I personally think the Collins class shouldn't be converted, meaning they shouldn't be given VLS and Tomahawk, it's a waste of money for an old submarine that is already toward the end of its service life.
Another thing to accept is the reality of Australia's role in potential future wars, our role is to play a part in retaining the status quo order, which the USA is generally the leader of. It means in a future war, we will likely be fighting quite a distance away from Australia, rather than fighting in Australia or near Australia's shores. This is precisely why we sought the Virginia class submarines to begin with, it offers far more power projection than the Collins class. What I am saying is, is that Australia needs more weapons and forces that can project power at longer ranges, because most likely our future battles will be joint battles alongside the USA, and against China in the South East Asia region etc.
I agree with many systems we have already purchased, or are implementing, such as the Virginia class, Tomahawk, F-35, joint strike missile etc. Australia also acquired AGM-158C which is an excellent anti-ship missile.
I actually think one of the most important things is to have Australia's forces spread quite a bit and ready for rapid deployment to a distant area like South East Asia when it is needed, because in a future war with China, China will try to strike Australian military bases with long range ballistic missiles in order to prevent us from successfully reaching the battlefield and joining with the US forces, therefore it is important to not base too many of our craft in any one location, and it is important to have several pathways setup for rapid deployment to a foreign location.
Suggest you do a little research to understand the personnel requirements in the background to operate, support and maintain such systems.
The Tomahawk on Collins won't be through VLS, the submarine version of tomahawk can be fired through the torpedo tubes
Did chatgpt write this? You have no idea about defence. Wars fought far from Australia. You are kidding me, right? With what? Automated Australian vessels mate these need services and input; even a CWIS needs the radars and fire control personnel. We are already minimally manned. We already do more with less.
The opposing force is statistically far superior to Australia. How many Americans are in Ukraine, boots on the ground? Mate, you squeeze a lot in, but most is nonsense. Procurement is stuffed, and the civilianisation of logistics is a disaster. Taiwan is not our concern, as we have a China trade-centric government that will stay on bended knee. Automation, drones as such, are just wank bling. It's too expensive and easily defended against. Look at China's new plasma jet anti-radar steps.
Sorry, but it's a pointless input here. As one Polly said who got it right, "We can’t build a canoe." So, the enemy will wait 10-30 years for Australia to get the armaments it desperately needs. Who's protecting the northern sea lanes? JORHN? Why is the bulk of defence still in the southern eastern and western states? The government will never spend and will never dish out the dollars required. Hell, where's the dole money going to come from. Cheers, Mark.
No we has over a million people on the dole and we has youth crime out of control, you give people and alternative, loose the dole or join the military or no bail for minor crimes yu go to jail or join the military? It's not that hard, it's been done before and it can be done again!
@@paulsandford3345 It's Labor remember. Welfare is their base. Virtue signalling their mantra. There is no will in the country for practical measures. But your sentiment in on the money. Cheers.
Welcome back to Australia Xavier n Naval News, great start, interesting more Seahawks, so total of Seahawks for RAN is 36? Interesting how trials of S 100 helicopter progressing as its gone quite, there was no mention in defence reviews.
The S-100 purchase has been cancelled, got no idea what is happening in that area. Currently only have 23 Seahawks in service (lost 1 a couple of years back) 12 have been ordered to replace the 6 RAN MRH-90 and increase fleet numbers, there has been talk of ordering 1 more to replace the lost one.
Not mentioned but It would be interesting to know if Oz also plans to integrate Patriot on their ship (like many US boats are going to this year, 4 per VLS)
L01 Adelaide and L02 Canberra Still have no air defence and anishiping missile defence.
The decoys may work most of the time.
I still can't understand this. I would like to know why spend over a Billion dollars on a shp and not spend the 30 million for 2 CWIS to give it a much higher survival chance.
They where suposto have them.
Not possible to operate these two ships in contested battlespace unless part of US Task Group.
Because we are run by politicans who only care that they get a contract, cushie well paid position or who keep having power.. Australia has zero defense and zero capability to save most of its assets. China knows this and as we're in pre-war posture, they'll start the war BEFORE we're able to defend ourselves.
I'm so glad Harvey Norman, Churches and political mates and their companies got all our money during covid. Now we can arm ADF members with rocks, sticks and the fading glory of ANZAC's from over 100 years ago... We're a joke and the public have no idea.....
That's what the new DDG's are for.
I agree that’s total madness. Why would you embark about a thousand soldiers, air crews, landing craft,tanks and sailors on a ship that has no defences. Plus we only three underwhelming AWDs to defend them and under armed ANZAC frigates that can barely defend themselves. These vessels should be fitted with at least SeaRAM point defence systems and preferably its own vertical launch system for air defence and even strike missiles. SeaRAM is designed for this and no reason why you would not have it on these vessels given the value of the men and women and assets it carries not mention the vessels themselves.
@@min1te yes mate we have a whole 3 AWDs and well, you know the rule of 3….means the other two probably aren’t working a lot of the time. Then there’s the ANZAC frigates you will say…which would barely protect themselves. No excuse for not having a SeaRAM point defence system which is a stand alone weapon system that doesn’t need an additional combat system array
Great video, thank you.
The reason there is a recruiting problem is simple. They dont get paid enough. Working in civi street attracts more money. People are being paid 100K+ in the metro areas and then 120k+ in the mines.. Working in the defence force is a specialist role and they should get paid well, for that specialist work. If junior salilors were earning 100K -110k plus allowances, then you would see the recruiting numbers climb. Dangle that carrot and they will come.
You're quite right, the pay and conditions needs an overhaul, its too outdated and why the hell would people want to post to rubbish locations when they can work in metro cities etc. Very much needs an overhaul for recruiting and retention.
Do we even have hydrographic fleet left ?
Impressive interview. I wish them well. East Asia is becoming a dangerous neighborhood.
I want to know why did Marles feel the need to visit, the Chinese defence minister?
The sheer incompetence of the leaders of the ADF is embarrassing. None of these people would have a chance in civilian life. The lethargy in recruiting and the horrendous management of projects are the worst.
More open days for the ships, these days plant the seeds in young Australians to join.
I'm an embarrassed Aussie... it takes years to simply make a decision here. Thank god for our allies, but we are bludging.
Doubling our hulls is not bludging. I swear to god some people won't be satisfied with the defence budget until we're north korea. it's never enough.
Making rash thoughtless descisions is how our navy ended up in the current mess it's in in the first place.
They really need to develop the Navy cadets, they are great but they are functioning on shoes strings/volunteers
Latest Australian navy news, Australia still has 17 less ship than it did 2 year ago, with no new ship as fas as the eye can see!
Under the current regime Kaput.
Maybe if PM wasn't buying new aircraft we would have an extra 450 million in budget to get some assets...glad I left!
look to the south Korean navy and Israeli navy for new ideas
As bad as it may be for our Commonwealth brothers in AU, the Canadian Navy is in far worst shape both now and into the future
Spare a thought for this: every "western" nation seem to have recruiting problems.
Even the grotesquely over-funded US navy that casually throws away more dollars than our navies will ever have.
But Canada, UK, Australia, all have to face dwindling numbers who either don't want to join, or more likely, can't afford to - people who can't afford to live in their own countries anymore, unless they have the high-dollar careers like investment banker (semi-criminal parasite), real estate developer (semi-criminal parasite), crypto currency trader (semi-criminal parasite), or drug cartel gangster (criminals we actually call criminals).
Weapons merchants are always well taken care of though - the future of every military will eat up ungodly amounts of public resources, mostly to protect the elite who are slowly killing the public with drugs, swindles, and environmental destruction.
So as military recruiters are discovering, to their dismay: the sales pitch of earning not nearly enough money to survive, in order to to serve the common good when nobody else does anymore (certainly nobody in charge), is just not selling itself anymore..
The problem with Australia is that it's citizens get paid really well. It's hard for the military to compete. The US has the "advantage" of having a rubbish minimum wage, expensive tertiary education and insane healthcare costs so the navy can just offer all those, which is a dystopic fact in and of itself. Most of the type of Australians you'd want in the army are the ones getting paid far more and sacrificing far less than miners do.
Also, bullshit Iraq war has made the younger generations wary of going off to fight in a pointless war.
go woke go broke
How on earth can Australia protect the Australian coastline? We’d need billions of dollars, thousands of staff and we don’t have either.
The ADF has a different (low) existence in Australia. Being posted to most bases are boring, isolated and not attractive to Gen Z. The pay is also way too low when competing to other work forces that want to pay more to have you as an employee.
where is an isolated naval base?
lol our biggest base is literally in the rich suburb of Potts point smack bang in Sydney
@@adamroodog1718 Have you tried reading? I said ADF...
@@TrugginsOFFICIAL Have you tried reading? I said ADF...
@@Heshhion the navy isnt part of the adf?
The govt wants a feasability study done to see if Tomahawk missiles will be good enough for our ships ! What a freaking joke why does he not grow a set and tell Albo & Marles we need the Tomahawk missiles and put them on all of the ships. This govt knows how to delay and set back our defense just like the last time they were in power. No wonder we are the laughing stock of the world we have dumbasses running the show.
I'm sure Navy tell them all the time what they idealy want, governments drag their feet and f defence over every chance they get!
@@montys420- well said
RADM Hughes was talking about fitting them to the Collins class, there are 200 currently on order for the Hobart class (Anzacs can't carry them). That model cannot be fired from Submarines. A major problem for the Collins class getting Tomahawks is capacity, as they do not have a VLS fitted, they can only fire them from the Torpedo Tubes. The Collins class can only carry 20-22 missiles and Torpedoes, so carrying Tomahawks eats into the anti-ship war load.
Labour don't want to spend new money for another 6+ years - you can therefore expect a lengthy consideration of all available data and options!
@@RobertLewis-el9ub in other words they are a do nothing government
Australia has a recruiting problem first. Lack of political management and lack of money..
In 2028, China has 6 aircraft carriers.⬅
Australia needs 11 frigates against the Chinese navy and war.
Australia must import 6 frigate ships directly from Japan and 5 frigate ships from Korea at low prices within 3 years.
There is not enough time to delay.
Australia really is the tip of the spear far as confronting the rival of a rules based international global society .😊🙏🫵👏👊
It just made an agreement, AUKUS, with the one country who didn’t sign most of the international laws and conventions and uses them as it pleases its interests; and in the case of the submarines breached the non proliferation treaty by providing submarines with highly enriched fuel (so equal to nuclear weapons. What’s more, since the 90s the USA closed their last enrichment facility and their subs and carriers are fuelled by the nuclear material of the decomissioned weapons. It is one of the many reasons the USA has been studying for years the possibility of modernising and changing to low enriched nuclear fuel, and for that is looking at and taking lessons from France. The Columbia class nuclear reactor had already been long designed and so is to continue with the older technology of highly enriched fuel, but the USN and Congress are looking at implementing it in the next nuclear carriers and subs, amongst which the AUKUS class could be the first one to use low enriched hex fuel based in French technology with a dedicated special opening in the subs for fuel change).
So for rules based order you can pass…
"Rules based international society"... rules written by whom? (Hint: It's capital is Washington.)
Don't just automatically sell your soul to one evil empire for fear of another.
@@brunol-p_g8800 The reason why the US and UK use HEU fuel is they can get 30+ years out of their subs before the need for refuelling, France using LEU gets 8-10 years, why would they change? And where is the proof of your claims of the US switching to LEU reactors? The US and UK using French nuclear reactor technology would be as likely as them using Russian or Chinese. Being able to get access to reactors that don't have to be re-fuelled for the life of the Sub is the reason why Australia changed its mind on SSNs and why France had no chance of selling the Barracuda SSNs to Australia, that and the fact the US will not allow the French anywhere near the AN/BYG-1 CMS.
lol what, the AUUKUS subs won't be using low enriched fuel. The whole point is that the reactor will last the length of the subs life.@@brunol-p_g8800
Are you kidding me. This admiral should be fired for sleeping at the wheel. Our navy is barely able to fight its way out of a paper bag and ten years before we get capabilities and still underwhelming compared to potential competitors