From the Source: VADM Russ Shalders, AO, CSC, RAN, Chief of Navy | ADM Dec 07/Jan 08

By Julian Kerr

Vice Admiral Shalders was appointed as Chief of Navy in July 2005, 38 years after joining the service as a Cadet Midshipman.

Previous appointments include a secondment to the Australian Customs Service as the inaugural Director General Coastwatch; Head, Defence Personnel Executive; and Vice Chief of the Australian Defence Force.

He was interviewed by ADM's Senior Correspondent, Julian Kerr.

Profile - Vice Admiral Russ Shalders
1967 - Joined RAN as Cadet Midshipman
1988 - Commanding Officer HMAS Sydney
1990 - Commanding Officer HMAS Darwin
1991 - Director of Naval Warfare
1993 - Commanding Officer HMAS Perth
1998 - Commodore Flotillas
1999 - Director-General Coastwatch
2002 - Vice Chief of Defence Force
2005 - Chief of Navy

ADM: What have been the high points for the RAN over the past year or so?

Shalders: The Navy is here to do one thing, and that's to conduct operations. We've been very busy, we continue to be very busy, and I don't see any change in that operational tempo.

That remains the high point of a large number of things. I suppose the focus in conducting operations would be the activities in the Gulf which have been continuous now for almost 17 years; also the operations we conduct in the north of Australia under Operation Resolute.

This is an activity which has become almost routine because of its success but it does take a lot of effort to maintain our assets in the northern part of Australia.

The second highlight, if you could call it that, would be the issue of our people. Whether it's a highlight or a challenge, it's a top priority for most of the Navy's efforts.

The issue there of course is retention and recruitment, with a particular focus on retaining our good people.

We've done a lot in that space over the past two years and we're holding our head above water at the moment but the people problem is going to be a continuing problem and will remain Navy's top priority in 2008 - and beyond, I expect.

Another two obvious highlights in the past year have been the capability decisions the government has announced on the Air Warfare Destroyers and the LHDs.

Another highlight has been the introduction into service of the Armidale class patrol boats.

ADM: What are Navy's short and medium-term challenges?

Shalders: People are the short, medium and long-term challenge. That really goes to the demographics of Australia, we know the labour pool is limited and reducing.

This is a problem which my successor and several successors beyond him will have to struggle with.

ADM: In what trades or specialisations is Navy having to work hardest to maintain both numbers and operational proficiency?

Shalders: As you'd expect, the technical trades are the most difficult to keep and the most difficult to attract, and I think that's a reflection of a skills shortage across the nation.

But specifically, the ones we find hard to get and hard to keep are technical trades - marine technicians and electronics technicians particularly, combat system operators, the majority of the submarine workforce and we're short also in most officer professional categories.

We're recruiting overseas for anybody with the appropriate skills sets. That's largely focused in the UK because a lot of the skills sets are similar but we're also looking at other nations, particularly the US, Canada and New Zealand.

We have 24 categories which we term critical and they range from doctors through principal warfare officers to marine engineering officers, and so on.

ADM: Have the recent recruiting and retention initiatives made any difference?

Shalders: It's too early to declare victory on any of those things but we're starting to see some favourable trends.

By way of example, the electronics technicians are not just critical, they're worse than critical, or were. That group was running at a separation rate of between 15 to 16 per cent, and we've driven that down through some of the initiatives to less than 10 per cent, which is where we need to be.

ADM: Is it just money, or have there also been other issues?

Shalders: It's not just money, we know that. It's geographic stability, it's an ability to give some certainty in their life, an ability to manage their careers in a way that satisfies them.

We're working with a new generation, we understand that. Generation Y is different to Generation X and we try to understand what makes them tick and address the issues that concern them.

The challenges relating to money are significant, particularly with a mining industry that's booming.

Our people are really well-trained, industry knows that; they're good workers by and large, industry knows that; and we can't compete with an organisation that can pay $150,000 to someone who drives a truck.

The West Australian mining industry has a very good awareness of how well our people are trained and they literally stand outside the gate to recruit them.

Recruiting is important but retention is the key: it's better to retain a Leading Seaman than to recruit six young men who we're going to turn into Leading Seamen in a few years' time.

Some of the things we've done are starting to pay dividends - pay rises, instructor allowances, retention bonuses, all of those things are starting to have an impact but it's way too early to credit them just yet.

ADM: Have any changes been necessary in Plan Blue in the light of recent developments such as the war on terror?

Shalders: Plan Blue is only a year old and at this point I'm not proposing to update it until next year. It's stood the test of time over the past 12 months fairly well.

There is a new planning document which I'm about to release called Navy Strategy, and that really links Plan Blue, which is our long-term vision and Plan Green, which is our short to medium-term plan.

In the middle of that we've developed a strategy, which looks upwards to Plan Blue and downwards to Plan Green. There won't be an unclassified version.

ADM: The RAN has 13 surface combatants in commission at present, shortly reducing to 12 with the retirement of HMAS Adelaide. What in your opinion is the optimum sustainable surface combatant force?

Shalders: The need is to have a balanced force, a force that can provide the effect that we need. And that might be 15 ships, it might be 10 ships.

To be pragmatic, the budget will only cover a certain number of ships and we want to be able to crew them. I think we are a balanced force with our current surface combatant fleet.

I think that balanced fleet will be retained when we get the air warfare destroyers (AWDs) as the FFGs pay off. To get the effect we need, I think our surface combatant force is going to be around 12 to 14 ships in the future.

When I speak of effect, by revising the crewing concept, as has been done in the Armidales, we've actually increased the effect that 14 (patrol boat) hulls can provide by 50 per cent.

The 15 Fremantles provided 2,400 sea days, the 14 Armidales, because of the multi-crewing construct, will soon be able to provide 3,600.

ADM: What sort of capability will the RAN be seeking to replace the Anzacs and the FFGs?

Shalders: The effect that is delivered by the FFGs will be replaced by the effect that will be delivered by the AWDs.

The follow-on capability beyond the Anzacs has been given a name, the Next-Generation Combatant, and it's been given a project number - SEA 5000.

That means we've started to think about it. It's too early to say what that might look like; it might look like an Anzac ship, it might look like a littoral combat ship.

Those sort of trade-off studies haven't started yet. We'll need something which delivers the same capability as the Anzac ships can deliver at the moment, which they'll do even better as they go through their upgrade programme.

ADM: Are three AWDs sufficient? Is a fourth operationally necessary?

Shalders: Are three sufficient? - Yes, and certainly government took a long time thinking about this. The press was making all sorts of speculative comments about what the Chief of Navy might or mightn't have said.

My advice to the government remains exactly that, advice to government; I don't speculate in the press.

Government did, I'm pleased to say, keep in the option of a fourth platform. They've reserved the right to revisit whether three or four is appropriate.

With four, obviously, you get more capability and efficiencies in terms of training, sustainment, logistics support, but most critically, you actually get a fourth platform which gives you more flexibility in terms of operational tasking.

ADM: What's the likelihood of the AWDs deploying SM-3?

Shalders: Again, as indicated by government, that's an option that remains on the table. We keep abreast of those issues.

The AEGIS system has a growth path, and that was part of the AEGIS selection process. Government will make a call on that in due course.

ADM: How does the Australianised version of the AEGIS system differ from the "standard" system?

Shalders: The AEGIS system that we're getting is the standard system. There is no different Australian system.

I've just come back from speaking with Lockheed Martin and they're used to dealing with other nations using the system - the Norwegian frigates for example have all sorts of different interfaces, the Japanese ships have different systems to the Korean ships.

The core of what we're getting is the AEGIS system which is currently fitted or being fitted to the US DDG 51 class.

ADM: Where does Seasprite now stand? Is the report that test flying will resume in Australia in mid-2008 correct?

Shalders: That's my great hope. But before we get to that point a number of things have to be done.

The automatic flight control system must be working the way it should, we need to complete a bunch of operational software testing which has also been holding us back, and then of course we need to start flying it again.

Some of these activities are being tested in the airframe that is in the US. But until we get a guarantee from the manufacturer that these issues are resolved satisfactorily, we won't be flying the aircraft in Australia.

The government has said the programme is proceeding, and I'm hopeful that the aircraft test flying we were doing in Australia will be resumed about the middle of 2008.

ADM: How do you envisage the Fleet Air Arm evolving over the next five to 10 years?

Shalders: That's a pretty exciting space, and I think a young aviator would also see the same thing. There are a number of replacement programmes in train, the first of which will see the MRH90s replacing the Sea Kings, and at this stage we hope to reach Initial Operational Capability by 2010.

Then AIR 9000 Phase 7 will replace the Squirrel and again that's on track. The Squirrel is a great platform but it's getting a little bit elderly. We've lost a few months with the election but I'd hope for a decision early next year.

We've got the three Augusta 109s at Nowra now under a contract arrangement and the young aviators couldn't be more pleased.

Of course, the big decision will be Air 9000 Phase 8 which will be rationalisation and replacement of the Sea Hawks and Sea Sprites. I don't know when that decision will be made, but we need to make it as soon as we can.

ADM: Do you see a change of focus for Navy Aviation?

Shalders: The LHDs are going to change the ways we do aviation at sea from a large deck. The Melbourne was decommissioned in 1983, and we've probably lost a lot of the skills associated with a large deck platform at sea.

We have to rebuild those skills, and that will have to be a fairly major focus for the Fleet Air Arm.

The second thing we have to do is get helicopters back on every air-capable platform. We haven't been able to do that for a number of different reasons, Seasprite being one.

The upgrade of Seahawks is taking aircraft offline. My view is that every air-capable platform should go to sea with its helicopter embarked. We haven't been able to do that for a long time, and we need to get back to that.

ADM: Would you like to see Penguin on the Seahawks?

Shalders: There's a program looking at that. I want to get Penguin to sea as quickly as we can.

It seems it's not going to come as quickly as we like with Seasprite so it's sensible to look at other options.

ADM: How is the RAN (and the wider ADF, for that matter), developing expertise in amphibious operations?

Shalders: The new LHDs are such a quantum leap in this area that we need to be very focused on understanding what we're getting into.

The two LPAs and Tobruk are a long way beneath the capability that will come with the Canberra and Adelaide when they arrive. We need to recognise that, we need to understand how it's going to change the way we do business.

For example, I can't imagine either of those ships ever going to sea without a sizeable Army force embarked.

But we're not starting from a blank sheet of paper here. We have had a lot of experience with Tobruk over many years; with the two LPAs we've undertaken quite a number of challenging activities.

But we recognise there are areas we've not done before. We've had a series of Army/Navy/Air Force working groups looking into various issues, but we think our doctrine is pretty good. We test ourselves regularly and we do OK.

What we've got to think through is how we step up from the capabilities represented by the LPA and Tobruk to the capabilities represented by the LHD.

We're seeking support, and it has been offered, from the Royal Navy, the US Navy, the Spanish Armada, and interestingly, also from the French Navy.

There's a lot of experience out there, and we recognise we've got a long way to go in a short time.

ADM: Is Navy paying sufficient attention to the ASW (Antisubmarine Warfare) capabilities of its surface combatants and helicopters?

Shalders: Once ASW skills are lost they're very difficult to bring back. I would state that we have good ASW capabilities and we're getting better.

We're capable in most areas of ASW; we've got good sensors, we've got good systems and we're getting better systems, we regularly conduct exercises at the high end of ASW and do it pretty well.

Our best ASW assets are of course our Collins class submarines.

ADM: Are the fuel contamination problems of the Armidale class fixed? Are any restrictions still in place?

Shalders: There are no restrictions. To be brutally honest, we don't know what caused the problem in the two boats that had the problem, and that created the need for the operational pauses while we investigated what caused the issue.

We went away and we fixed it, and that means now there are no restrictions on the boats; in fact, the 12 we have in commission are out there today.

The last five boats delivered to us of the 12 we currently have, as well as the final two, have all come with the modifications required to fix the problem.

ADM: You've spoken well of the Collins class. What will you expect of the next generation of Australia's submarines?

Shalders: There's a bunch of studies that are being done for us, but with the first of the Collins decommissioning in 2026, we need to be working out now how to deliver the same sort of effects when those boats go.

The other thing to bear is mind is that our requirements are different to anything anywhere else in the world, certainly in conventional submarine terms.

We've got to go further, we've got to go faster, and no-one in Europe is really building anything that satisfies those requirements. So whatever it is, it's probably going to be uniquely Australian, as is the Collins.

ADM: Any possibility of nuclear propulsion?

Shalders: No, I don't think so. The premiums associated with nuclear propulsion are very significant. Whether we have time between now and 2026 to get to that point - I suspect not.

Some people in the submarine community would argue that for all the benefits it brings we should be looking at it.

But frankly, the return on investment is probably going to be negative for some years to come - that's my view.

We'll look at it of course, but at this stage I wouldn't be buying shares in the nuclear industry.

Copyright - Australian Defence Magazine, December 2007/January 2008