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.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
WaveWalker
Member
Toxicity and bullying once again. Seems to be a common thread around here.Was nice knowing you, not
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
It's more a case of the superb surface combatants South Korea have been building for a couple of decades now.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)
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
Republic of Korea Navy - WikipediaA 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)
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 $.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:
Mod update: Following discussion among the Mod team, the Ban has been made Permanent, as the poster's behavior is not tolerated here.
-Preceptor
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
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.
From you yeah.
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
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:
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
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?
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?
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.