Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: ROCN's plan to build twin-hull corvettes.
YelliChink    4/18/2011 4:06:37 PM
http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/sunponyboy-IDF/article?mid=29820&prev=29821&next=29818&l=a&fid=14 For some reason, some Australian ship designer may have involved in this.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
Aussiegunneragain       4/18/2011 10:35:36 PM
The chance of Australian involvement is about Buckleys and none. We have too much commercially at stake in China, the mining sales there basically keep our economy afloat and this will be even more the case now that Japan is in trouble. I'm afraid that means we have to have our national nose too far up the PRC's national arse to be worried about defence sales to Taiwan. Sorry. 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/19/2011 2:53:15 AM

The chance of Australian involvement is about Buckleys and none. We have too much commercially at stake in China, the mining sales there basically keep our economy afloat and this will be even more the case now that Japan is in trouble. I'm afraid that means we have to have our national nose too far up the PRC's national arse to be worried about defence sales to Taiwan. Sorry. 

Says the spineless leftist.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       4/20/2011 4:04:17 AM






Says the spineless leftist.

My little friend,
 
I was just spelling out the the reality of the Australian mindset on this matter ... the fact that our previous conservative government wouldn't sell Taiwan Collins Class submarines is a pretty strong indication that whatever side of politics is in power, Australia is largely more interested in its own economic wellbeing than in Taiwan's physical security. 
 
I don't agree with that mindset, the bullies get to us all eventually if we let them throw their weight around with freedom loving people, and I said nothing to indicate that indicates that Ithink otherwise. I am in fact all for helping out Taiwan in any way that we can. That is why I finished my previous post with "sorry". The only beef that I have with Taiwan is that they don't spend enough of their own money on defence and expect others to help them out, but there are a few nations including Australia that could be accused of that.
 
Anybody who knows me from this site knows very well that I am most often hawkish on defence matters, including helping out Australia's democratic allies, and for all the times I have disagreed with him on other matters even Warpig has complemented when I have made comments reflecting this.
 
So, you owe me an apology for this slur. I'm not really expecting that to happen because I know you are a moral mouse rather than a moral man, but if you had any decency that is  what you would do.
 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/20/2011 12:51:36 PM
http://i593.photobucket.com/albums/tt15/cocofong/Taiwandevelopingcarrierkiller2.jpg" width="640" height="361" /> 

So, you owe me an apology for this slur. I'm not really expecting that to happen because I know you are a moral mouse rather than a moral man, but if you had any decency that is  what you would do.

 

 
Tell me that there aren't Australians involved in this. This is apparently Australian wave-piercing design that commies have stolen, and not anything catamaran originated in Taiwan. The design took only 2-3 years to finalize and the ROCN is asking for funding in the next fiscal year. Your government, albeit leftists, have more spine than you, and they know that the difference between sub tech and catamaran tech.
 
And don't tell me that we don't spend enough when we operate more 4th Gen fighters and more major surface combatants than Australia, not to mention an actual IADS with some ballistic missile defense capability.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       4/21/2011 12:50:02 AM
Tell me that there aren't Australians involved in this. This is apparently Australian wave-piercing design that commies have stolen, and not anything catamaran originated in Taiwan.
 
Your link was unreadable, presumably because the text was in Chinese, and since the title of your post refers to the ROCN I naturally presumed that that was what the picture related to. If you want to engage in an intelligent discussion about these things, then I suggest you provide readable information.
 
The design took only 2-3 years to finalize and the ROCN is asking for funding in the next fiscal year. Your government, albeit leftists, have more spine than you, and they know that the difference between sub tech and catamaran tech.

You didn't provide any information to the effect that our government was allowing the transfer of military technology to Taiwan. If that is the case then great, I'm more than happy to see it go. I would just be surprised if it did happen though.

And don't tell me that we don't spend enough when we operate more 4th Gen fighters and more major surface combatants than Australia, not to mention an actual IADS with some ballistic missile defense capability.

Whether or not you spend more than our level of defence spending (which I consider to be inadequate) is irrelevant. What matters is whether you make the maximum effort to defend yourself against the giant across the straits. At 2.5% of GDP you don't make enough of a commitment, as a comparison Singapore spends 5%. Therefore increase the prospect of a war where your allies (mainly the US) would have to pick up the slack to save your sorry arses. Also, did you ever consider that had you invested enough in your own defence over the years, that you would be less likely to be begging the likes of Australia for military technology now?
 
Still, you are the descendants of the losing side of the war in '49, so it might be too much to expect that you have the sort of character required to look after yourselves. Perhaps all the Chinese with a spine sided with the Communists, which is why your forebears were left crammed into a miserable little island off the Coast.
 
With that in mind, I wouldn't be throwing around accusations of spinelessness if I were you.



 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/21/2011 2:47:30 AM

 
 

And don't tell me that we don't spend enough when we operate more 4th Gen fighters and more major surface combatants than Australia, not to mention an actual IADS with some ballistic missile defense capability.



Whether or not you spend more than our level of defence spending (which I consider to be inadequate) is irrelevant. What matters is whether you make the maximum effort to defend yourself against the giant across the straits. At 2.5% of GDP you don't make enough of a commitment, as a comparison Singapore spends 5%. Therefore increase the prospect of a war where your allies (mainly the US) would have to pick up the slack to save your sorry arses. Also, did you ever consider that had you invested enough in your own defence over the years, that you would be less likely to be begging the likes of Australia for military technology now?

 

Still, you are the descendants of the losing side of the war in '49, so it might be too much to expect that you have the sort of character required to look after yourselves. Perhaps all the Chinese with a spine sided with the Communists, which is why your forebears were left crammed into a miserable little island off the Coast.

 

With that in mind, I wouldn't be throwing around accusations of spinelessness if I were you.



What ever. Over the years you have proved that you are the most vitriolic and vile person on SP. For the record that you are still the one who calls for violent action again an individual simply because the alleged person says something you don't like.
 
Bring in the case of Chinese Civil War simply shows how bigoted and racist you really are. At that time a lot of generals and soldiers didn't see the evil of Mao and commies, so they simply went for the side with better propaganda and regular payment of hard currency and gold (with the help of Stalin) while KMT's dominion suffered hyper inflation after fighting IJA for 8 years with first 4 under total blockade. The loyalty is to the nation, not to the leader. When Mao tricked them to Korea, they fought overwhelming superior forces. Guess that's too much spine for you.
 
Mind you, a lot of our defense expenditure is not even in defense budget. Due to inter-service politics, major equipment acquisition is usually executed via special fund just like other major government projects. Compare the condition of Singapore to us is comparing apple to oranges. Most of the time it is that we want to spend but we can't buy what we want. Just ask gf on how many things he knows that ROCMOD officials have been asking for. Some of the time it is Americans who try to "persuade" us to give up certain capability, such as HF-2E. Spending for the reason of spending does not make any sense. A lot of time the Singaporean acquisition strategy doesn't make any sense to us as well, but they did paid a lot on things such as A-4SU and their shiny army infantry fighting vehicle. Those look more like misplacement of resources to us, but that cost a lot. They paid too much that they sometimes asked us to join their pet projects, such as 40mm cannon project (ROCMOD labeled Type 92) and their 8x8 wheeled vehicle (same Irish chassis design). It seems that there still is an automatic mortar project going on but I'm not sure about this. The other case is their domestic LST design, which is way inferior to the two Newport Class boats we paid for much less from the US.
 
If you are talking about investment in R&D, then the unfortunate reality is that you don't get linear percentage out of the amount of money you throw in. Usually X amount of money is need to achieve expected result Y, and the larger the investment, the faster and cheaper it can be attained. Most of the expected result Y are not within Taiwan's financial reach. We Taiwans are stingy, not dumb, and our bureaucrats are usually risk averse. That's why our R&D accomplishments are usually weapons, electronics rather than platforms. Let me know when Australia starts to produce supersonic anti-ship missile, PAC2-equivalent AD system with terminal ARH and air-launched stand-off anti-runway munition. I don't doubt that Australia has the capability and tech knowhow, but you people aren't doing it. Scientific project is relatively cheap, engineering is exponentially expensive, and actually making a product and mass production is very serious investment. Instead, buy American is usually faster and cheaper.
 
Oh and a
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Yellichink   4/25/2011 10:24:06 PM
Your resorting to playing the race card was as expected as it is dishonest. I was comparing two groups of the same race, that is not racist. This behavior only reflects poorly on you.
 
Just ask gf on how many things he knows that ROCMOD officials have been asking for. Some of the time it is Americans who try to "persuade" us to give up certain capability, such as HF-2E.
 
Doesn't this entirely prove my point about the need for the Taiwanese population to collectively to grow some balls, loosen the purse string and take as much responsibility for their own defence as they can? The American's will clearly act in their own interest when they think they have to, just like our Government will, which means that you aren't always going to get the technology you need. If it comes to war, they might even leave you to the tender mercies of the PRC. They have sold you out before, in '79, so what makes you think that it won't happen again if, as expected, China becomes preeminant in Asia and as the US is challenged by them?
 
Your argument about how the Taiwanese Government can't spend the money due to lack of access to foreign military technology is hollow. The Taiwanese legislature has on a number of occasions refused to fund arms purchases even when you have been given access to technology, a full complement of SM-2's for the Kidds comes to mind. One of the Opposition politicians was once, while blocking a spending as bill, quoted as saying that he considered that the US had an obligation to protect Taiwan because of it's strategic location on North East Asian sea lanes. Even in those situations where the US has denied access to equipment, there have in many cases been alternative suppliers who could have provided acceptable equipment, so the idea that you can't spend the money productively is frankly just an excuse.
 
Additionally, your argument about how it is too hard it is to invest in defence technology is equally wrong. Look at the defence industries countries with smaller populations who have committed to their own defence such as Israel, Sweden and Singapore. Taiwan might have made some good gear of it's own, but it definately isn't punching to weight compared to others operating in challenging circumstances.
 
On the comparison with Singapore, if you want to claim that the comparison of budget's is apples and oranges, we can talk about those other metrics that you used to compare Taiwan to Australia, fourth generation fighters and major surface units. Per head of population the Sings out do you on 4th gens by a ratio of around 2 to 1 and that is only because I've counted the IDF's which are qualitatively inferior to the other 4th gens that both countries operate. In terms of hulls and tonnage you are equal to better than the Sings, but 4 out of 5 of your ships are aging to obsolete, while Singapore's entire fleet of major surface units is modern. We can talk about other metrics if you like, submarines (5 to 1 per head of population to Singapore), AWAC's (4 to 1 per head) .... but I think people here will get the picture. You don't pull your weight to buy enough of the gear that you can get.
 
As for the American's trying to block the HF-2E, if you had any balls you would just tell them to f*ck off and build the things anyway. The Israelis have done that enough and the American's are still helping them. Those are the best bet for defeating the PRC's air force on the ground that you have, you should have a thousand of them rather than what, 50?
 
You can argue this all you like, but at the end of the day it is your country's future that these sort's of excuses are screwing up. I personally think that Taiwan has left adequate defence investment for so long that your case might be terminal, as you haven't put the infrastructure in place to adequately provide for yourselves and China, negotiatiing from a position of strength compared to yours of largely self inflicted weakness, is gradually isolating you from potential overseas suppliers. If as I think will happen, and Taiwan just rolls over in a couple of decades and allows itself to be absorbed by China in a similar manner to the way Hong Kong was, then that is no skin off our noses. In fact, it would probably provide a good example to the Australian public about why we shouldn't make the same mistake ourselves, and why we need to forego other things for adequate defence spending.
 
However, I do resent the notion that Taiwan might draw America and it's Pacific allies into an extremly destructive war because Taiwan was too stingy and spineless to do the utmost to deter Chinese agg
 
Quote    Reply

SteveJH       4/26/2011 3:40:58 AM
+1 @ AussieGunnerAgain
 
@ Yellichink,
 
Err, i'm having some trouble understanding in what way the four Endurance class ships are inferior to the Newports whether on a ship to ship comparison or a squadron to squadron comparison. Please feel free to enlighten me though because I feel your view could be interesting.
 
From my perspective though, the Endurence class ships outclass the ex-USN Newports in pretty much every way. Smaller crew, helicoptor capable, NEW, similar (slightly lower) troop carrying capacity, much cheaper to operate, more modern and more comprehensive defenseive systems.
 
But feel free to justify your declaration of their inferiority, if you can. Oh btw, how many days of the year are the Newports either at sea or available for sea duty?
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/26/2011 3:45:36 PM

Additionally, your argument about how it is too hard it is to invest in defence technology is equally wrong. Look at the defence industries countries with smaller populations who have committed to their own defence such as Israel, Sweden and Singapore. Taiwan might have made some good gear of it's own, but it definately isn't punching to weight compared to others operating in challenging circumstances.

 

On the comparison with Singapore, if you want to claim that the comparison of budget's is apples and oranges, we can talk about those other metrics that you used to compare Taiwan to Australia, fourth generation fighters and major surface units. Per head of population the Sings out do you on 4th gens by a ratio of around 2 to 1 and that is only because I've counted the IDF's which are qualitatively inferior to the other 4th gens that both countries operate. In terms of hulls and tonnage you are equal to better than the Sings, but 4 out of 5 of your ships are aging to obsolete, while Singapore's entire fleet of major surface units is modern. We can talk about other metrics if you like, submarines (5 to 1 per head of population to Singapore), AWAC's (4 to 1 per head) .... but I think people here will get the picture. You don't pull your weight to buy enough of the gear that you can get.

 

As for the American's trying to block the HF-2E, if you had any balls you would just tell them to f*ck off and build the things anyway. The Israelis have done that enough and the American's are still helping them. Those are the best bet for defeating the PRC's air force on the ground that you have, you should have a thousand of them rather than what, 50?

 

You can argue this all you like, but at the end of the day it is your country's future that these sort's of excuses are screwing up. I personally think that Taiwan has left adequate defence investment for so long that your case might be terminal, as you haven't put the infrastructure in place to adequately provide for yourselves and China, negotiatiing from a position of strength compared to yours of largely self inflicted weakness, is gradually isolating you from potential overseas suppliers. If as I think will happen, and Taiwan just rolls over in a couple of decades and allows itself to be absorbed by China in a similar manner to the way Hong Kong was, then that is no skin off our noses. In fact, it would probably provide a good example to the Australian public about why we shouldn't make the same mistake ourselves, and why we need to forego other things for adequate defence spending.

 

However, I do resent the notion that Taiwan might draw America and it's Pacific allies into an extremly destructive war because Taiwan was too stingy and spineless to do the utmost to deter Chinese aggression yourselves, and I think it is extremely poor form for you to be claiming that others are spineless when your own country is acting in such a spineless manner.
 


Kidd class is now fully operational. The plan is to fund SM-2MR missiles in the following fiscal years and they did. HF-2E production has been funded like two years ago, and as a result the US did put unofficial sanctions to hamper our other military projects. Also your comment on IDF is completely nonsense, as it is of the same class to Grippen and Tejas, but unlike the other two, it sacrifices range and max t/o weight for agility. The whole IDF project is limited by the US from the beginning, but it is not limited to the platform, and also includes a range of weapons systems such as TC-1, TC-2, and some other a2g weapons that are still under testing. As a result it costs much less to operate, maintain and has highest readiness rate.
 
And compare to Singaporean navy, are you serious? They have like, only 6 Formidable class that commissioned  just a few years ago. Yes, some of our ships are very old, but Formidable doesn't possess the same ASW capability as old Knox. There is no comparison between EDO Model 980 to SQR-18, and ASROC is certainly advantageous. We would have SQR-19 if the US was willing to sell us. As for air-defense, just ask Herald on Aster. That's why ROCN is planning to get SeaRAM on KangDing instead. Half of Singaporean AWACS don't make any sense at all. Most of their AWACS aren't even based in Singapore, as their defense strategy is more reliant on allies than independent actions. You look at only the radar but the expert looks at Link 16 integration, which all 6 of our current E-2 w
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/26/2011 4:24:11 PM


Err, i'm having some trouble understanding in what way the four Endurance class ships are inferior to the Newports whether on a ship to ship comparison or a squadron to squadron comparison. Please feel free to enlighten me though because I feel your view could be interesting.
From my perspective though, the Endurence class ships outclass the ex-USN Newports in pretty much every way. Smaller crew, helicoptor capable, NEW, similar (slightly lower) troop carrying capacity, much cheaper to operate, more modern and more comprehensive defenseive systems.
But feel free to justify your declaration of their inferiority, if you can. Oh btw, how many days of the year are the Newports either at sea or available for sea duty?


First you have to understand that Singaporeans are operating on different strategic guideline than us. Their troops need to be moving around the globe that's why they are opting more for a fast transport rathe than traditional LST. Hence Endurance is classified as LPD, and the closest thing we have is Anchorage class.
As far as LST goes, there is simply no better one than Newport class, period. As troop transport, Newport still has more potential, the problem is that LST no longer fits USN/USMC operational model, and were phased out. So the only ones available are old ones. One of the reason that Newport out-class Endurance is the internal design that allows vehicles to move either to the front or to the rear, which means either faster roll-on/roll-off efficiency and flexibility. It does operate with H-3 class helicopters.
 
Low crew means Endurance class is operated more in-line with commercial shipping vessels. Given the size of the crew, the ship is not expected to operate under potential AShM or anti-ship artillery threat. Even if it does, the onboard weapons system and defense suite don't make much sense.
 
As far as defensive capability, Newport can be upgraded, but it simply isn't worth it.
 
Newport can run at 20+kt.
 
Newport carries 29 MBTs or 30 AAV-7. Endurance 18 MBTs.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics