Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

MickB

Well-Known Member
5 Nov 2023 is the 30th anniversary of the Anzac being laid down.

There are half a dozen shipbuilders in half a dozen countries at present who can offer NZ Frigates off hot production lines in the next 5-6 years, other than the Hunter class, which I suspect will be too expensive, how is Australia supposed to be in anyway competitive?
In this I think that NZ is in much the same boat as Aust in that most Euro frigates don't meet basic range/endurance needs.
 

Anthony_B_78

Active Member
Toxicity and bullying once again. Seems to be a common thread around here.
You're right to be critical of aussienscale's post, as quoted. It was unnecessary. That said, the combative posts from a few - the suspended poster, and I'll include you - were unedifying, and "toxicity and bullying" is over the top. I can understand the frustration that others were feeling when reading the suspended member's posts, and I suggest you could have shown an appreciation of that too before jumping in. By the standards of the forum, the mods' action was to be expected. I would add a member having the "blue tick" shouldn't excuse them from being rude to others. Greater latitude perhaps should only extend to making arguments without sourced evidence. e.g. If they served in a particular role, they are going to know things and shouldn't have to prove what they say - as long as those things are within their wheelhouse. Anyway, just my two cents. I think even with the unpleasantness, there's been great discussion that I am sure many are finding interesting and enlightening.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Toxicity and bullying once again. Seems to be a common thread around here.
There is a requirement for providing a credible source for any claims you make on this site, el Cid posted a video 4 times despite being told the video was not credible proof and basically claimed that an SME did not know what he was talking about on a subject he has forgotten more about than most of us will ever know.
@aussienscale provided the above transcripts as proof of the fact that Australia has never approached Navantia for a further 3 Hobart DDGs. Did el Cid bother reading them? Considering his continual arguing I would be extremely doubtful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: H_K

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The simple fact of the matter is, had the poster provided credentials, and or reasonable references backing his claims the response would have been completely different. Most members on this site appreciate previously unknown information and different insights. The thing is, if it is presented as fact, it has to be based on fact.

If it is not fact, or is maybe speculation, that to a degree is also tolerated, even appreciated, so long as it is presented as such. For instance, when Navantias unsolicited offer was first reported it generated a lot of discussion and speculation, here and elsewhere. As it became obvious there was little official interest, the topic died down, reaching the point that, failing any additional announcements, further discussion or speculation served no purpose.

Saying something over and over again, doesn't make it true, nor does posting the same disputed links over and over.

Attacking and condescendingly engaging with those who provide inconvenient facts that disprove or undermine the arguments being made is in itself rude. As is cherry picking and misrepresenting context or facts to give the impression that something that is true is untrue.

Formal complaints were lodged against me by a couple of members who had made untrue, condescending, inflamitory, and somewhat personal attacks on me. I committed the sin of biting back, which apparently hurt some feeling which lead to more complaints.

This matter was dealt with by the mods. Those involved, including myself, were counceled, the matter should be closed. Instead the sniping and oneupsmanship continues. There is a distinct stench of "don't you know who I am".

The recent carryon reminds me of a colleague who was facing an extremely frustrating situation where he had blocked closing a safety related matter because the proposed solution did not work.

He was subjected to bullying and threats from those attempting to get him to sign off. Long after the matter was sorted, they continued their attacks on him. He laid it out to me perfectly when he said, (he was a baby boomer himself) that he would rather put up with baby boomer, toddler temper tantrums, than fail to prevent someone being killed or injured.

The thing is, those attacking him, accused him of being a toxic bully, someone who had to be removed and punished. These so called professionals, were more concerned about being told no, having their authority questioned, than they were about the safely of their people.
 

Meriv90

Active Member
We have a great relationship with South Korea. They have massive ship building capacity (no 2 in the world I think behind China). They have suitable ship designs with American systems and appear to build them economically. Why aren’t we knocking on their door? Build them there. Get them into service. Explain the situation to the public. Forget the ANZAC upgrades. We essentially face the same issues as the USN but worse. There are suitable and cost effective options to build some ships off shore.

A bit late but how does ship-building Bulk carriers and LNG ships transfer to DDG? There is a reason why India and South Korea asked Italy for help with the CVs.

It is like saying that you would buy Italian tanks because FCA+PSA became the 4th biggest automotive carmaker. Would you buy an Ariete ;)

You have to look for not just quantity but also quality.

Korea/Japan/US have political weight. But if you are looking for Quality + Quantity in shipbuilding you have to go European with the French first or Germans and Italians. With UK and Spain being the middle ground (they got good military shipbuilding but not civilian)

And to support what i wrote consider that just the order from QATAR should almost cover all export orders from Korea military shipbuilding if I remember correctly and we are the smaller player of the 3.

Korea strongpoint is R&D they are second only to the US, they spend as almost all big EU player put together. If you want to do collaborate with Korea is on development of something new and not on know how if not in specific sectors (at risk of ending up with Pali pali mentality for who know Korean culture)
 
Last edited:

Meriv90

Active Member
At 175m long, 24m wide and 9m draft they will be every bit of 13,000t, only the Type 055 is longer but not as wide. They do look a touch under-armed SAM wise for their size though.
We dont have to start a arms race in the Med. It is like a Chiken game/Prisoner dilema, if no one starts a race to VLS we all benefit from it. Surely there will be space for them if needed just like in the FREMM.
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A bit late but how does ship-building Bulk carriers and LNG ships transfer to DDG? There is a reason why India and South Korea asked Italy for help with the CVs.

It is like saying that you would buy Italian tanks because FCA+PSA became the 4th biggest automotive carmaker. Would you buy an Ariete ;)

You have to look for not just quantity but also quality.

Korea/Japan/US have political weight. But if you are looking for Quality + Quantity in shipbuilding you have to go European with the French first or Germans and Italians. With UK and Spain being the middle ground (they got good military shipbuilding but not civilian)

And to support what i wrote consider that just the order from QATAR should almost cover all export orders from Korea military shipbuilding if I remember correctly and we are the smaller player of the 3.

Korea strongpoint is R&D they are second only to the US, they spend as almost all big EU player put together. If you want to do collaborate with Korea is on development of something new and not on know how if not in specific sectors (at risk of ending up with Pali pali mentality for who know Korean culture)
It's more a case of the superb surface combatants South Korea have been building for a couple of decades now.

They started with smaller, simpler ships than we were building in Australia. While we cancelled local projects, bought offshore, folded yards, relocated and started from scratch, South Korea grew and improved their design and build capability with each new class.

While we were deciding to build a minimum change FFG to print, instead of an evolved DDG, which we owned the IP for and were doing much of the design work for, South Korea was building a larger, more capable evolved DDG from the same reference design (the Arleigh Burke).

While we were arguing about how to avoid, yet another shipbuilding blackhole (it never occurred to our political masters to just keep building ships to at least replace those we were retiring) South Korea built new ships and submarines to replace old, improving design and capability with each generation.

In a couple of generations, irrespective of their commercial naval construction, South Korea went from literally no naval design or build capability at all to world class. Over the same period, Australia has rebuilt its shipbuilding industry, to world standard, three times, then killed it again before profiting from the capability, so expensively, built.

Forget about arguing who is better out of Europe, UK, US, Japan, South Korea, or for that matter, India, they are all better than Australia. They invest (with bumps along the way) in local industry and capability, where Australia plays at it. Australia happily sacks Australians to buy overseas ( or worse doesn't buy or build anything), then spends tax payers money to train a new generation, only to sack them at the end of their project too.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
A bit late but how does ship-building Bulk carriers and LNG ships transfer to DDG? There is a reason why India and South Korea asked Italy for help with the CVs.

It is like saying that you would buy Italian tanks because FCA+PSA became the 4th biggest automotive carmaker. Would you buy an Ariete ;)

You have to look for not just quantity but also quality.

Korea/Japan/US have political weight. But if you are looking for Quality + Quantity in shipbuilding you have to go European with the French first or Germans and Italians. With UK and Spain being the middle ground (they got good military shipbuilding but not civilian)
Republic of Korea Navy - Wikipedia
Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force - Wikipedia
Seriously are you claiming Japan and South Korea do not know how to build warships? I think you need to do some research, Every Japanese Warship built in the last 50 odd years has been a Japanese design except for the Burke class derivatives. South Korea while somewhat behind Japan are now designing and building their own Destroyers and Frigates. Yes they have turned to Europe for help with CV designs but the two designs put up are a long way from a QE or a Trieste. Same as Submarines, they have started with Euro designs and working from there.

Quantity wise, Japan has built more warships since 1990 than any European nation, how many Euro nations are currently building 22 Frigates to one design? South Korea currently operates 12 Destroyers and15 Frigates and are building Frigates to replace Corvettes.
 

Meriv

New Member
Did I wrote they don't know how to build ships of quality?

I didn't.

What I wrote is to not take bulk shipbuilding as a factor to choose them.

There was no need to answer with that level of aggressiveness.

I will answer with the same level.

Korea Exports amount to one single order from Qatar in billion worth from one of the smaller EU players.

Japan changed constituion almost a decade ago where are the exports?

Or you wanna tell me the market is wrong?
 

Meriv

New Member
Japan shipbuilding?

Go take a look how they(Mitsubishi )wasted 2bln on cruiser building and 2 years delay for something we do everyday 2 km from my home.

While the Chinese with Italian help ended up with a good result.

You triggered this level of answer
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I don't think we do. I think the biggest threat to being able to maintain the workforce / avoid valleys of death is by concentrating shipbuilding in a single yard. It somewhat future proofs shipbuilding against peace dividends / shortsighted governments.
The horse has already bolted as far as a second yard is concerned. The current plans are basically that the majors will be built in SA and the minor combatants are being built in WA. If the decision is made to replace OPVs with something more substantial then nothing should change as far as sharing the work is concerned.

The only proviso on that would be if the number of major vessels being built is substantially slashed and all we need is a single type of warship and even then I think they would likely try to spread that build across two yards.

Besides no political party would be crazy enough to go into an election on the promise that they are going to take all the work away from WA ship builders and give it to SA.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
A bit late but how does ship-building Bulk carriers and LNG ships transfer to DDG? There is a reason why India and South Korea asked Italy for help with the CVs.

It is like saying that you would buy Italian tanks because FCA+PSA became the 4th biggest automotive carmaker. Would you buy an Ariete ;)

You have to look for not just quantity but also quality.

Korea/Japan/US have political weight. But if you are looking for Quality + Quantity in shipbuilding you have to go European with the French first or Germans and Italians. With UK and Spain being the middle ground (they got good military shipbuilding but not civilian)

And to support what i wrote consider that just the order from QATAR should almost cover all export orders from Korea military shipbuilding if I remember correctly and we are the smaller player of the 3.

Korea strongpoint is R&D they are second only to the US, they spend as almost all big EU player put together. If you want to do collaborate with Korea is on development of something new and not on know how if not in specific sectors (at risk of ending up with Pali pali mentality for who know Korean culture)
Not really. sth Korea has yards pushing out their DDGs and FFGs quite quickly. And their ships are mostly integrated from the yard with US Systems and Weapons where as Europeans ships need more integration work. With the Sth Korean ships this work is already done. On the hunters thsi works appears to have ran into multiple billions $.
 
Last edited:

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Did I wrote they don't know how to build ships of quality?

I didn't.

What I wrote is to not take bulk shipbuilding as a factor to choose them.

There was no need to answer with that level of aggressiveness.

I will answer with the same level.

Korea Exports amount to one single order from Qatar in billion worth from one of the smaller EU players.

Japan changed constituion almost a decade ago where are the exports?

Or you wanna tell me the market is wrong?
And how many warships had France, Italy, Germany and Spain exported by 1980, because that is about the point South Korea is now and they have a much tougher market to break into. Australia would not have ordered any ships from those 4 countries in 1975 as they had no designs useful to Australia but all four were successful in the following decades. South Korean Naval shipbuilding is getting stronger and we need to have this conversation in 10 years time and then compare who has exported more ships. Japan is not being anywhere near as aggressive in trying to get export orders, the JMSDF orders enough ships to keep them going.
 

south

Well-Known Member
Frankly - all of this is childish and below the standards I’ve enjoyed on this forum.

Despite the forum rules, we’ve seen repeated examples of pile ons, unattributed posts, one liners, and openly combative behaviour. From both new guests, as well as long term members who should know better.

Despite whether you feel provoked or triggered, how about asking yourself a simple test.

Will this post add value?

Hooroo
 
Last edited:

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Frankly - all of this is childish and below the standards I’ve enjoyed on this forum.

Despite the forum rules, we’ve seen repeated examples of pile ons, unattributed posts, one liners, and openly combative behaviour. From both new guests, as well as long term members who should know better.

Despite whether you feel provoked or triggered, how about asking yourself a simple test.

Will this post add value?

Hooroo
I recall some years ago on DT when things were getting heated on a particular subject a poster made the statement
" it's not a competition "
Not sure where the line is between robust debate and completion but it's something to bare in mind.

Wishing a good day to all

Regards S
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Redirecting back on topic, has anyone heard anything more about the Austal sale process?

Last I heard it the interested parties were a variety of private equity funds along with Hanwha, and their interest was very much in the US operations, with a potential spin out of WA on the cards.

Another acquisition opportunity for the Commonwealth via ASC?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Don't make us invade you.

Or worse, let rugby league players join the Wallabies. We might actually give the All Blacks a match.
OT.
A strong Wallabies team has always been in the best interests of both NZ and World Rugby. We don't like it when the Wallabies are playing like a primary school underage team.

There's much gnashing of teeth, tearing of hair, and rendering of cloth in Kiwiland today after last nights great preliminary final win by the Broncos against the Warriors. It's as funny as. I have extended family members and friends who are Warriors tragics, and they were not happy with me parading in my Broncos shirt last night before the game started. I have explained to them that I have been a Broncos supporter since 1988, long before the Auckland Warriors were a pipe dream. It's also against my religion to support any Auckland team. That's a South Island thing.
 
Top