PLA Navy news, pics and videos

Jura The idiot · May 28, 2017

Bltizo said:
055s and 052Ds and other ships will all have their own missiles, it isn't like the arsenal ship's missiles means other ships will not also have full VLS cells.

As for communications and datalinks -- you realize that they are the very cornerstone of modern warfare right? If the arsenal ship had its datalinks severed then chances are the datalinks between all of your other ships and aircraft in the task force are compromised as well and then it won't matter whether your arsenal ship is able to fire its missiles or not because everyone is collectively screwed due to an inability to communicate.

well I said "such a vessel as the part of a SAG would be more a vulnerability than an asset" and I meant she (LOL 'semi-submersible arsenal ship') couldn't even egress quickly (due to presumably lower speed) possibly endangering the SAG

here:

Bltizo said:
Anyway, what you describe seems to be more about the arsenal ship concept in itself rather, because the whole idea of an arsenal ship even in the original USN proposals was that it would rely on datalinks and offboard sensors from other ships and aircraft.

OK later during this discussion I became aware of an interesting link you had posted inside
#1047 Bltizo, Yesterday at 8:00 AM
I repost it here now:
Breaking the Anti-Access Wall
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

as I'm going to read it plus somebody else might be interested

for this:

Bltizo said:
The role of having the ship be semi submerged and harder to track and engage has not much effect on the ship's role of a traditional arsenal ship concept and it remains dependent on offboard sensors and datalinks. Being semi-submerged would be just to increase the ship's survivability by reducing its RCS and visual signature, that's it.

was my

Jura said:
no, I don't believe in "stealth at sea"

line

Blitzo · May 28, 2017

Jura said:
well I said "such a vessel as the part of a SAG would be more a vulnerability than an asset" and I meant she (LOL 'semi-submersible arsenal ship') couldn't even egress quickly (due to presumably lower speed) possibly endangering the SAG

Are you saying the arsenal ship has a slower top speed therefore cannot keep up with the other ships in a task force so therefore it limits its utility?
For this Chinese proposal, I think the goal is to be able to maintain a similar speed to the CSG, SAG or task force that it is being accompanied by, something like 30 knots.

here:
OK later during this discussion I became aware of an interesting link you had posted inside
#1047 Bltizo, Yesterday at 8:00 AM
I repost it here now:
Breaking the Anti-Access Wall
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

as I'm going to read it plus somebody else might be interested

It is a good article, however keep in mind that what it suggests is not the only way of doing an arsenal ship and the semi submersible proposal that China may or may not be pursuing is likely to have quite a few differences from what the author proposes in that article.

for this:

was my

line

You don't believe that RCS reduction and reduction of visual signature for an otherwise large surface vessel is useful?

Jura The idiot · May 28, 2017

Bltizo said:
Are you saying the arsenal ship has a slower top speed therefore cannot keep up with the other ships in a task force so therefore it limits its utility?

yes, I meant she would potentially be slowing the SAG maneuvers

Bltizo said:
For this Chinese proposal, I think the goal is to be able to maintain a similar speed to the CSG, SAG or task force that it is being accompanied by, something like 30 knots.

this would take a Marine Engineer to address (who I'm definitely NOT LOL! just a wannabe)

Bltizo said:
It is a good article, however keep in mind that what it suggests is not the only way of doing an arsenal ship and the semi submersible proposal that China may or may not be pursuing is likely to have quite a few differences from what the author proposes in that article.

well, I indicated I had not read that article yet ...

Bltizo said:
You don't believe that RCS reduction and reduction of visual signature for an otherwise large surface vessel is useful?

well I don't if she sailed as a part of the SAG; in short: a competent Opfor would know she's there

and in general I addressed RCS reduction (now I see quoting you

already Nov 22, 2016

Jura said:
...

I'm not saying "RCS reduction" is a bust, but I think it would be useful if for example some Navy in south-east Asia tried its luck and lobbed two AShMs without mid-course correction, this type of situations, not against a peer

...

and that's what I still think

Blitzo · May 28, 2017

Jura said:
yes, I meant she would potentially be slowing the SAG maneuvers

That really depends on how fast or slow it really is. If it is very slow then it would not be a useful asset but if it can keep up with a task force then it would be quite very useful.

well, I indicated I had not read that article yet ...

I know. I was just telling you that when you read it, it may be worth for you to keep in mind what I wrote.

well I don't if she sailed as a part of the SAG; in short: a competent Opfor would know she's there

Of course a competent opfor would likely guess that the ship is with the SAG just based on common sense, and even possibly based on certain forms of ISR.
The purpose of its RCS and visual signature reduction isn't meant to make it invisible or make the opponent impossible to know where it is, it is to make it harder to accurately detect and ID at long range and harder to ID and engage in the terminal phase.

The fact that it is surrounded by an SAG doesn't matter because RCS and visual signature reduction will mean it is harder to accurately ID whether the ship is there or not and it will also mean it is harder for weapons like AShMs to engage the arsenal ship in the terminal phase because there are so many other bigger targets which will all have their own layered hard kill and soft kill mechanisms too.

and in general I addressed RCS reduction (now I see quoting you already Nov 22, 2016
and that's what I still think

I have no idea what you meant, but it reads like it is oversimplified.

Jura The idiot · May 28, 2017

Bltizo said:
That really depends on how fast or slow it really is. If it is very slow then it would not be a useful asset but if it can keep up with a task force then it would be quite very useful.

I know. I was just telling you that when you read it, it may be worth for you to keep in mind what I wrote.

Of course a competent opfor would likely guess that the ship is with the SAG just based on common sense, and even possibly based on certain forms of ISR.
The purpose of its RCS and visual signature reduction isn't meant to make it invisible or make the opponent impossible to know where it is, it is to make it harder to accurately detect and ID at long range and harder to ID and engage in the terminal phase.

The fact that it is surrounded by an SAG doesn't matter because RCS and visual signature reduction will mean it is harder to accurately ID whether the ship is there or not and it will also mean it is harder for weapons like AShMs to engage the arsenal ship in the terminal phase because there are so many other bigger targets which will all have their own layered hard kill and soft kill mechanisms too.

I have no idea what you meant, but it reads like it is oversimplified.

I'll address just one part now, to cut the long story short:
if she's in a SAG, it actually doesn't matter if the Opfor could hit her or not, as the Opfor would likely disrupt the communications with her, making her useless (except of the all-out launch to get rid of the missiles to save on weight

AND making her a burden for the SAG ... is what I think

Blitzo · May 28, 2017

Jura said:
I'll address just one part now, to cut the long story short:
if she's in a SAG, it actually doesn't matter if the Opfor could hit her or not, as the Opfor would likely disrupt the communications with her, making her useless (except of the all-out launch to get rid of the missiles to save on weight AND making her a burden for the SAG ... is what I think

Okay, my question, is HOW???

A task force's communications and datalinks between their different ships are central to their ability to fight as a coordinated unit. Without that communications and datalinking ability, you significantly reduce the task force's overall fighting ability and survivability.

Let's ignore the arsenal ship for a moment -- if it was that easy to disrupt communications and datalinking, then what you're basically saying is that a key cornerstone of modern air and naval warfare is a waste of time. The arsenal ship doesn't even have to come into this, you're basically saying that in a way, all the ships in a task force will have to essentially fight alone without the ability to pass targeting information with each other. Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

Also, please stop with the smiley faces. When we're discussing real matters of note, smiley faces become quite irritating and it makes me wonder how serious you want me to take you.

Jura The idiot · May 28, 2017

Bltizo said:
Okay, my question, is HOW???

by taking out PARTS OF the network, one by one ... as they say
Chain Is As Strong As Its Weakest Link ...
to achieve a mission kill (while a SAG might still sail in harm's way, it wouldn't)

unfortunately in the part:

Bltizo said:
A task force's communications and datalinks between their different ships are central to their ability to fight as a coordinated unit. Without that communications and datalinking ability, you significantly reduce the task force's overall fighting ability and survivability.

Let's ignore the arsenal ship for a moment -- if it was that easy to disrupt communications and datalinking, then what you're basically saying is that a key cornerstone of modern air and naval warfare is a waste of time. The arsenal ship doesn't even have to come into this, you're basically saying that in a way, all the ships in a task force will have to essentially fight alone without the ability to pass targeting information with each other. Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

you 'put words in my mouth' so I won't react

Bltizo said:
Also, please stop with the smiley faces. When we're discussing real matters of note, smiley faces become quite irritating and it makes me wonder how serious you want me to take you.

oh I'm sorry, in fact I'm enjoying this conversation, hope you are as well

delft · May 28, 2017

If you want high speed go to great length, litterrally, and sufficient depth so use a long snorkel tube, to reduce wave drag. But as always in engineering it is a matter of compromises.

Blitzo · May 28, 2017

Jura said:
by taking out PARTS OF the network, one by one ... as they say
Chain Is As Strong As Its Weakest Link ...
to achieve a mission kill (while a SAG might still sail in harm's way, it wouldn't)

Then that has nothing to do with the arsenal ship's effectiveness but the effectiveness of the task force around it.
Basically you're saying that an arsenal ship's effectiveness is dependent on how well defended and datalinked it is with the rest of the ships and assets in the taskforce, right? That is like saying nothing because it's like saying a destroyer's effetiveness depends on the quality of the missiles it has or a carrier's survivaiblity depends on the quality of the escorts it has --- it is so obvious that it's basically not even worth mentioning.

unfortunately in the part:

you 'put words in my mouth' so I won't react

So you agree with my suggestion that your logic doesn't make sense?

oh I'm sorry, in fact I'm enjoying this conversation, hope you are as well

It's a conversation, there's nothing to particularly dislike or enjoy about it anymore than any other conversation on this forum.

Jura The idiot · May 28, 2017

Bltizo said:
Then that has nothing to do with the arsenal ship's effectiveness but the effectiveness of the task force around it.

well in reaction to 54 minutes ago

Jura said:
I'll address just one part now, to cut the long story short:
if she's in a SAG, it actually doesn't matter if the Opfor could hit her or not, as the Opfor would likely disrupt the communications with her, making her useless (except of the all-out launch to get rid of the missiles to save on weight AND making her a burden for the SAG ... is what I think

you asked 41 minutes ago

Bltizo said:
Okay, my question, is HOW???

...

and I answered 32 minutes ago

Jura said:
by taking out PARTS OF the network, one by one ... as they say
Chain Is As Strong As Its Weakest Link ...
to achieve a mission kill (while a SAG might still sail in harm's way, it wouldn't)

...

and here I have nothing more to add

here though:

Bltizo said:
Basically you're saying that an arsenal ship's effectiveness is dependent on how well defended and datalinked it is with the rest of the ships and assets in the taskforce, right? That is like saying nothing because it's like saying a destroyer's effetiveness depends on the quality of the missiles it has or a carrier's survivaiblity depends on the quality of the escorts it has --- it is so obvious that it's basically not even worth mentioning.

So you agree with my suggestion that your logic doesn't make sense?

It's a conversation, there's nothing to particularly dislike or enjoy about it anymore than any other conversation on this forum.

I got an impression as if you had considered me to be some kind of a Clown (it would be OK with me) as you first 'put words in my mouth' with

"... you're basically saying that in a way, all the ships in a task force will have to essentially fight alone without the ability to pass targeting information with each other. Do you realize how ridiculous that is?"
inside
#1086 Bltizo, 52 minutes ago

and after I had said I wouldn't react to this, you pressed on with
"So you agree with my suggestion that your logic doesn't make sense?"
right after

your move now

PLA Navy news, pics and videos

Jura The idiot

General

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Jura The idiot

General

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Jura The idiot

General

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Jura The idiot

General

delft

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Jura The idiot

General