PLA Navy news, pics and videos

J

jobjed

Captain
Lethe said:
Yes, we have managed things very poorly. Partly this is due to a lack of consensus here about the desirability of maintaining domestic industry. Unlike many other nations, Australia has not committed to sustaining domestic industry as a strategic imperative. This is largely due to Liberal free market ideology that, although looking favourably upon military spending, is hostile to the manufacturing industry (because it tends to be unionised) and to government spending in general. As an expression of this, our domestic car industry dating back 70 years literally died
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. There is reason to believe we have seen the high-water mark of such short-sighted neoliberalism, and the new National Shipbuilding Strategy is certainly a significant step forward.
Click to expand...


The amount of money that will have to funnelled to build and sustain a domestic heavy industry is simply not worth it. If Australia didn't spend all that money keeping a dirt-tier shipyard alive, insisting on domestic manufacture/design, the RAN can have six Aegis combatants with extra left over to upgrade ANZAC frigates.

Now the RAN's surface combat potential is left halved and what did Australia get out of it? A laughing stock of the international shipbuilding industry in South Australia.

Australia trying to sustain heavy industry is like a fat girl putting on makeup and picking out nice dresses. Try all they might, it's not going to work due to inherent issues. Cut your losses and find better ways of spending $10 billion than to force a joke of a shipyard to stay open.
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
jobjed said:
The amount of money that will have to funnelled to build and sustain a domestic heavy industry is simply not worth it. If Australia didn't spend all that money keeping a dirt-tier shipyard alive, insisting on domestic manufacture/design, the RAN can have six Aegis combatants with extra left over to upgrade ANZAC frigates.

Now the RAN's surface combat potential is left halved and what did Australia get out of it? A laughing stock of the international shipbuilding industry in South Australia.

Australia trying to sustain heavy industry is like a fat girl putting on makeup and picking out nice dresses. Try all they might, it's not going to work due to inherent issues. Cut your losses and find better ways of spending $10 billion than to force a joke of a shipyard to stay open.
Click to expand...

There are no "inherent issues" that prevent Australia from maintaining a domestic naval shipbuilding industry if such is seen as a desirable strategic asset, but this post amply demonstrates why things have unfolded as they have. An enduring political consensus is required to maintain a domestic naval shipbuilding industry, and no such consensus exists. Lacking such a consensus and commitment, a wasteful "boom and bust" cycle is inevitable. Fortunately, however, there are signs that neoliberalism is in retreat. The long overdue national shipbuilding strategy is one such sign.
 
Last edited:
J

jobjed

Captain
Lethe said:
There are no "inherent issues" that prevent Australia from maintaining a domestic shipbuilding industry is such is seen as a desirable strategic asset, but this post amply demonstrates why things have unfolded as they have. An enduring political consensus is required to maintain a domestic naval shipbuilding industry, and no such consensus exists. Lacking such a consensus and commitment, a wasteful "boom and bust" cycle is inevitable. Fortunately, however, there are signs that neoliberalism is in retreat. The long overdue national shipbuilding strategy is one such sign.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are inherent problems with Australia that precludes the possibility of her ever developing a viable shipbuilding industry, never mind a competitive one.She lacks the human resources required, including both labour force and engineering force. Australia's engineering graduates don't stay in Australia to do engineering, and her naval architects number even fewer with UNSW having just closed their naval architecture stream. The only institution that offers a naval architecture degree in Australia now resides in Tasmania. LMAO, Tasmania. Australia lacks the brains required to establish heavy industry and she lacks the institutions to nurture additional brains. Australians as a whole are also far less inclined towards STEM-related fields than her East Asian and continental European counterparts which immediately puts her at a serious disadvantage because a huge part of her already-small population
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
into mediocrity.

Shipbuilding is a labour-intensive industry and Australia's labour force is the most stuck-up, arrogant labour force in the world, demanding exorbitant wages for rudimentary skills developed by a few semesters at TAFE. They also number too few, with more Australians being interested in getting a business or commerce degree from the closest university than apprenticing in industrial manufacturing. You're not sustaining a viable shipbuilding industry without enough workers while bankrupting yourself paying the stupidly-high wages for the few that do get hired.

Australia has a tertiary sector almost devoid of engineering firms, and a mining and dairy-dominated primary sector. Her secondary sector is a joke and her population's skills in heavy industry-related areas are an even bigger joke. The wider population's attitude to STEM and education are nowhere near as serious as that in East Asia and countries like Sweden and Germany. Why do you possibly think an under-populated, undisciplined, Anglo-cultured country can even hope to develop a viable (by international standards) shipbuilding industry? It's a systemic and inherent issue that's not going to be fixed by government subsidies. Stop wasting your money trying to be something you're not and just buy from countries that have an inherent advantage in engineering and manufacturing.
 
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
J-15, catapults, bases etc...

Satellite images reveal China’s state-of-art naval airbase

It has 24 aircraft shelters, 3 large hangars possibly for UAVs, one hangar for airborne early warning and control (AEWC) planes, among others.

China’s dream is Chairman Xi Jinping’s vision to achieve superpower status by 2050. To realise this dream, China needs to possess power projection capability much farther than its shores.

China is already building an
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, which has unprecedented security. The Chinese navy or the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) plans to build at least six new aircraft carriers to complement the government’s political aims. Its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
indicates that the six carrier vessels will be in service by 2030.

The Shenyang Aircraft Corporation or SAC, along with 601 Aircraft Design Institute, is working hard to produce enough J-15 aircraft and its variants to match the speed of PLAN. China has produced two batches of 24 J-15A aircraft and has now begun to produce J-15B, which is an improved version.

China’s naval air force (PLANAF), although in existence since 1955, did not have a separate aircraft carrier aviation wing. The need was possibly felt when China’s first aircraft carrier — the Soviet era Kuznetsov-class Riga (renamed Varyag) — reached Dalian from Ukraine in March 2003. The PLANAF needed trained pilots for its carrier aviation wing and a facility to train them.

The need for training of pilots for PLANAF was being alleviated with the Ukrainian offer for NITKA or Ground Aviation Training and Research Complex, to be used at a good rental price. Russia was unwilling to extend the lease for NITKA and Ukraine was looking at China to fill up the place.

The first ski ramp in China was observed in China Flight Test Establishment airport at Xian Yanliang. It was obviously for testing aircraft rather than for training, since it did not have any wire traps.

Construction of specialised airbase

The first airbase with possible ski ramps was noticed in June 2010 at Huangdicun near Xincheng. The airbase construction started in April 2009 and was operational by the end of 2011.

The airbase has two ski ramps and two wire traps with arrestor cables. It has 24 aircraft shelters with one shelter for possible UAV parking, three large hangars possibly for UAVs, one large hangar for airborne early warning and control (AEWC) planes and other administrative facilities.

The airbase was upgraded with two catapults between 2015 and 2016. The first catapult-assisted take off was observed on satellite imagery in October 2016. The two catapults (steam and electromagnetic) suggest that future carrier vessels of the PLAN will have catapult assisted take off but arrested recovery or CATOBAR.
...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
This is hilariously short-sighted, and typical of neoliberalism: first deprive public institutions of the necessary resources, then point to their failings as an excuse to justify further cuts. Australia has had a naval construction industry. Australia has had a car industry for 70 years. At one point we even had an aircraft industry. And all with a culture and nation that was smaller, poorer, and more exclusively 'Anglo' than it is today. What changed was not Australian culture, but Australian politico-economic ideology. The 'Anglo' commonality is not cultural, but economic: it is the Anglo nations that, more than any other, embraced the radical capitalist doctrine of neoliberalism that saw no role for the state, and had no vision of the national interest. Other European cultures had much stronger conceptions of communal responsibility and the common good and were not so seduced, although they have certainly been forced to compromise in the "race to the bottom". If the Americans had taken your advice in the 19th century they would still be an agrarian society shipping wheat, corn, cotton, etc. to the industrial powerhouses of Europe. Instead they decided to land on the moon. Fortunately it appears that the neoliberal disease has reached its high water mark even in Anglo societies, although we will be dealing with the damage for generations to come.
 
Last edited:
J

jobjed

Captain
Lethe said:
This is hilariously short-sighted, and typical of neoliberalism: first deprive public institutions of the necessary resources, then point to their failings as an excuse to justify further cuts. Australia has had a naval construction industry. Australia has had a car industry for 70 years. At one point we even had an aircraft industry. And all with a culture and nation that was smaller, poorer, and more exclusively 'Anglo' than it is today. What changed was not Australian culture, but Australian politico-economic ideology. The 'Anglo' commonality is not cultural, but economic: it is the Anglo nations that, more than any other, embraced the radical capitalist doctrine of neoliberalism that saw no role for the state, and had no vision of the national interest. Other European cultures had much stronger conceptions of communal responsibility and the common good and were not so seduced, although they have certainly been forced to compromise in the "race to the bottom". If the Americans had taken your advice in the 19th century they would still be an agrarian society shipping wheat, corn, cotton, etc. to the industrial powerhouses of Europe. Instead they decided to land on the moon. Fortunately it appears that the neoliberal disease has reached its high water mark even in Anglo societies, although we will be dealing with the damage for generations to come.
Click to expand...

For most of the 1800s and 1900s, the Anglosphere was disproportionately wealthy compared to the rest of the world thanks to industrialisation. It's not a reflection of Australian merit that she had a respectable heavy industry in the 20th century, it's a reflection of how behind the rest of the world was that a country like Australia could call themselves competitive. Now that the sick men of Asia have rid themselves of their sickly legacy, the formerly industrially competitive Anglosphere is being relegated to a position more befitting their merits. The UK and Australia have ended their short-lived and unnatural state of domination; the rest of this century will see the US, the last of the Anglo giants, complete her decline as hegemon.

When Australia still had HMAS Melbourne, East Asia and East Asian industry was a joke with only Japan making headway in certain industries. That was not a natural state of affairs. East Asia had so much unused potential that, when sparked, would dwarf anything and everything the Anglosphere could possibly conjure. It's 2017 and that potential has been sparked, and as expected the Anglos could not compete. Shipbuilding, cars, mass manufacturing, and electronics are now all fields dominated by East Asian firms, with more fields being dominated with every passing year. That, is the natural state of affairs, not the aberration that was a century of Anglo domination that you so wistfully reminisce.

No amount of money or reversion to leftist policy can fix a fundamental issue; there is not enough cultural emphasis on education and STEM in the Anglosphere. You can't force people to like something that they simply don't; China learnt that the hard way with devastating and failed draconian attempts to implement a political ideal that went against human nature and cultural affinities. Australians simply don't like STEM or hard work, and you're not making a viable shipbuilding industry, or any heavy industry, without those virtues. Of 77,000 HSC students, only 12,000 studied the necessary maths skills for engineering and physics, and most of those 12,000 chose to pursue other degrees. You want to build Australian industry to world standards? Increase the population to at least 50 million and change the cultural mindset that, right now, is too lenient on the academically-disinclined. Succeed in that and maybe you'd have a shot of competing with East Asia. Until then, Australian industry will remain in the same state as Australia's cultural affinity for education and STEM: weak.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
jobjed said:
For most of the 1800s and 1900s, the Anglosphere was disproportionately wealthy compared to the rest of the world thanks to industrialisation. It's not a reflection of Australian merit that she had a respectable heavy industry in the 20th century, it's a reflection of how behind the rest of the world was that a country like Australia could call themselves competitive. Now that the sick men of Asia have rid themselves of their sickly legacy, the formerly industrially competitive Anglosphere is being relegated to a position more befitting their merits. The UK and Australia have ended their short-lived and unnatural state of domination; the rest of this century will see the US, the last of the Anglo giants, complete her decline as hegemon.

When Australia still had HMAS Melbourne, East Asia and East Asian industry was a joke with only Japan making headway in certain industries. That was not a natural state of affairs. East Asia had so much unused potential that, when sparked, would dwarf anything and everything the Anglosphere could possibly conjure. It's 2017 and that potential has been sparked, and as expected the Anglos could not compete. Shipbuilding, cars, mass manufacturing, and electronics are now all fields dominated by East Asian firms, with more fields being dominated with every passing year. That, is the natural state of affairs, not the aberration that was a century of Anglo domination that you so wistfully reminisce.

No amount of money or reversion to leftist policy can fix a fundamental issue; there is not enough cultural emphasis on education and STEM in the Anglosphere. You can't force people to like something that they simply don't; China learnt that the hard way with devastating and failed draconian attempts to implement a political ideal that went against human nature and cultural affinities. Australians simply don't like STEM or hard work, and you're not making a viable shipbuilding industry, or any heavy industry, without those virtues. Of 77,000 HSC students, only 12,000 studied the necessary maths skills for engineering and physics, and most of those 12,000 chose to pursue other degrees. You want to build Australian industry to world standards? Increase the population to at least 50 million and change the cultural mindset that, right now, is too lenient on the academically-disinclined. Succeed in that and maybe you'd have a shot of competing with East Asia. Until then, Australian industry will remain in the same state as Australia's cultural affinity for education and STEM: weak.
Click to expand...

While I agree in principle to mostly everything else, I think it would be a mistake to characterize a lack of "cultural emphasis" in education and STEM in the "anglosphere" as either a "problem" or a fixed characteristic.

It remains that many of the most forward thinking engineering achievements are done by western nations -- though of course that may be a holdover from a period in history when other regions of the world were less developed, and that this period of continued imbalance might correct itself in coming years.

However that says just as much about how fluid culture can be and how much it can change -- for example there is no reason to think that Australia cannot at some time in the future develop and grow a culture which prioritizes STEM in a greater manner, in the same way that a century ago the west thought of much of the rest of the world as unscientific or uncultured or what not.



That said I do also agree that the prospects of Australia being able to maintain a consistent and competitive shipbuilding industry over the next few decades with the projects that they've lined up and their recent performance, is going to be quite a significant challenge.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
That is on the supply side.

On the demand side, remember that it only takes 6months to assemble a submarine, frigate or destroyer.

Yet the current Australian fleet only needs to produce 1 vessel roughly every 2 years. And remember it takes 5-10 repeats for a shipbuilder to become efficient at building a single design.

That simply means that an independent Australian industrial base operating with very high costs, and which can't sustain a programme long enough to work out all the glitches.

The Australian fleet (and therefore shipbuilding requirements) need to be a lot larger for a domestic Australian shipbuilding capability.
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Anyone who knows anything about European history and culture knows that the most significant cultural divide is not between supposedly inexplicable countries like Germany and Sweden who have some mysterious cultural affinity for STEM (as opposed to very concrete politico-economic configurations that can, in principle, be emulated) and Anglo layabouts, but between a Germanic northern Europe (protip: the UK is in here, and culturally by extension Australia) and a Latin southern Europe. And yet even that far-more credible distinction doesn't work, because of course one can hardly fail to notice that Latin Italy and Spain and semi-Latin France have highly developed naval shipbuilding capabilities.

In any case the talk of cultural affinities for the educational disciplines required to sustain naval shipbuilding is hilariously irrelevant, not least of all because naval shipbuilding is a largely non-competitive endeavour, i.e. it is undertaken to serve the strategic interests of the nation in question. The supposed STEM prowess of East Asia is irrelevant, because we aren't buying from or competing with East Asia and never have. The "competitors" to Australian domestic industry are other high-wage, supposedly culturally deficient European nations.

AndrewS said:
That simply means that an independent Australian industrial base operating with very high costs, and which can't sustain a programme long enough to work out all the glitches.

The Australian fleet (and therefore shipbuilding requirements) need to be a lot larger for a domestic Australian shipbuilding capability.
Click to expand...

Australia is certainly on the low side in terms of having the requirements to sustain a domestic shipbuilding industry (without significant exports), but the gap between Australia -- particularly in the context of its future plans -- and the UK, France, Italy, is not so large as you might think. Go and count the ships. Nonetheless, sustaining a domestic industry for a nation of Australia's size requires very careful management to ensure constant workflow across decades. That requires bipartisan political commitment that acknowledges sustaining the industry as a strategic objective and resources the sector appropriately, and it also involves accepting that there can be only one significant site for such activity. Both of these things have been politically problematic in the past. ​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top