And who are you accusing of this?
052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Jura The idiot
General
Lethe
if I had noticed, I would've given credit to you
let's see if your acronym sticks
Bickering
snowflake
so here:
I'm intrigued: it's an accusation of being ...?
Last edited:
Lethe
Captain
Because it reflects China's increasing mastery and deployment of advanced technologies and is therefore part of the story of its convergence with western nations and Japan. Of course everyone likes to hear about technologies that deliver some fundamentally new capability, but many technological advancements are not of that nature, rather they are about doing something slightly better, cheaper, more efficiently, more reliably, or with greater flexibility than in the past.
To quote directly from my previous post, lest anyone think that your characterisation bears any relationship to the reality of my position:
"Because there is little reason, either empirical or theoretical, to suspect that China's system is inferior to Aegis in any particular respect, the appropriate expression of our uncertainty, incorporating what we know about AESA vs. PESA, is that China's system as fielded on 052C/D and, in future, 055, is at least comparable to Aegis. That is to say, we should challenge assertions of both Chinese superiority and inferiority as exceeding the available evidence."
Your bias and agenda, on the other hand -- your desperate need to assert American superiority against the weight of evidence, or even in the complete absence of evidence -- is clear for all to see.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
yup that is what he is On different subject and without much fanfare according to Henri K
It is 3 months earlier than expected from our forecast, and for the moment no official confirmation, so the information to be confirmed.
The destroyer 154 Xiamen was admitted to active duty 2 weeks ago, in which case it becomes the 6th Type 052D of the Chinese Navy.
It is 3 months earlier than expected from our forecast, and for the moment no official confirmation, so the information to be confirmed.
The destroyer 154 Xiamen was admitted to active duty 2 weeks ago, in which case it becomes the 6th Type 052D of the Chinese Navy.
Yes, China has indeed had increasing mastery and deployment of advanced technologies. But do you actually know how much "increasing mastery" it has obtained? You DON'T. Do you know the detailed characteristics of the "advanced technologies" it has fielded? You DON'T. Can you actually numerically quantify ANY of your claims? You CAN'T. Basically your attempt to bridge the fact that "China has had increasing mastery and deployment of advanced technologies" and the speculation that "China has caught up to or exceeded Western technologies" FAILS utterly and ludicrously because you just don't freaking know anything of substance. Just like me. But at least I'm being honest and admitting to it. You've got literally nothing and have been trying to play your hand like you've actually got more than hot air.
I don't have a desperate need or agenda to assert American superiority, either against the weight of evidence, WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE, or in the complete absence of evidence. What this statement from you actually shows is the sheer degree of utter ignorance of others' motivation and perspective that can be brought on by massive brain cell-killing fanboism. It's actually shocking, really. In any case, what I'm saying is that we don't have enough evidence to judge one way or the other, which is UNEQUIVOCABLY true. Because if you actually had any real evidence, you would long have pulled it out of your ass. Instead you have pulled out essentially bluster, polemic and logical fallacies. Is 346/A and its combat data system "comparable" to SPY-1 and Aegis? Maybe. Maybe it's BETTER. Maybe it's WORSE. You (as in you personally) don't have the first flipping clue which is the case. Whatever "little reason" you have to suspect that China's system is superior to or inferior to the Aegis system is something you are both totally unable to articulate and totally unable to quantify. All you have in your head is the desire to express Chinese equivalency or superiority in this or that technology, but you don't have the weight of Reality behind you, because you don't have access to that Reality. You don't have access to the research, the hardware, the software, the specifications, the integration, the trials. All you have is "oh, China has 'mastery', it's all good now, boys". Hey genius, "mastery" is not a binary value.
Jura The idiot
General
Jura The idiot
General
I now reread
#1895 Iron Man, Yesterday at 9:39 PM
and the posts which lead to it, but just from the previous page
(#1885 Lethe, Thursday at 1:20 PM
#1886 Iron Man, Thursday at 5:41 PM
#1887 Lethe, Thursday at 6:29 PM
#1888 Iron Man, Yesterday at 2:53 AM)
it's actually a quite interesting exchange, with the assertion of
Lethe
(not an exact quote) 'AESA is more advanced then PESA'
which you countered with (not an exact quote either) 'more advanced doesn't necessarily mean more capable'
but what's the bottom line here
Iron Man
?
do you perhaps imply a Chinese "AEGIS" wouldn't actually work or something?
(I admit I prefer to ask you directly than going back over several more pages)
I've noticed that you're quite the pot stirrer.
Please point to any post where I mentioned that a Chinese Aegis wouldn't actually work.
Jura The idiot
General
I'm trying to be helpful here, thinking over both pro-US and pro-China arguments; it's perhaps natural BOTH sides are mad at me, then
Iron Man
since Chinese "AEGIS" is newer, it's easy to understand the line of reasoning of pro-China debaters; you gave an interesting counter-example
#1841 Iron Man, Jun 18, 2017
but I think you tend to overrate the USN level of modernization, which has suffered from the sequester etc.
(later I found some Burkes were still on Aegis 5 (five) in the beginning of 2016 despite
#1879 Iron Man, Thursday at 7:25 AM
but I let it be: what if they had been upgraded in the meantime plus it would be off topic here, but for me this information was important anyway)
plus the USN faces readiness issues (I've repeatedly posted about it in the US Military threads), so I try to figure what's your point, that's why I said
"do you perhaps imply a Chinese "AEGIS" wouldn't actually work or something?" Yesterday at 9:57 PM
and I found it strange to get
"Please point to any post where I mentioned that a Chinese Aegis wouldn't actually work."
in return Today at 1:32 AM
I don't know what you're implying in this naval debate EDIT and I feel it's something very interesting
Last edited:
Nah, you're a pot stirrer, and not just in this case.
Which Burkes are still at baseline 5?
Claiming that someone is saying that a Chinese Aegis "wouldn't actually work" is a kind of straw man attack, easy to beat down, but nowhere near where the discussion has been.
In any case, I gave an example of an AESA (APAR) that is inferior to a PESA (AN/APS-145). Its upgraded version (APAR 2) is STILL inferior to AN/APS-145. The fanbois decided to ignore this painful reality and scream even louder that AESA >[times infinity]> PESA. I reiterated that this is only true in general but that there is a lot more to radar capability than merely whether it's AESA or PESA, as exemplified by the radar examples I gave (neither of which were Chinese, which should have calmed fanboi sensitivities, but clearly it did not). They decided to scream even louder that not only is AESA superior to PESA, but that China had "mastered" various "technologies". I basically said that mastery is on a scale and that without details on said technologies and the degree to which China had mastered them, such statements still did not inform us on how SPY-1 and 346/A compare to each other. How you got that I was claiming Chinese Aegis "wouldn't actually work" in all of this is something that still perplexes me.