綜合電力推進
That is fairly close. fzgfzy shortens it to "综合电力".
054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
That is fairly close. fzgfzy shortens it to "综合电力".
Jura The idiot
General
OK since the tab is still opened:
综合电力推进
is in 'Chinese (Simplified)'
it looks two me like what you posted plus two characters to the right (LOL but I'm not saying you're wrong or nothing!)
(closing that tab now)
For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't influence my position whether the few hundred tons they cut from the 054B was only IEPS related or if it was IEPS and some other new system or other new systems that didn't include IEPS.
The only reason I included the issue of "other" systems is to be comprehensive and to offer the observation that fzgfzy's original sentence that we're discussing doesn't talk about IEPS related weight increase but rather "system"/"subsystem" related weight increase. But feel free to ignore it if you wish and we can assume for the sake of discussion that fzgfzy was only referring to an increase in displacement that was associated with IEPS.
The rest of my position stands the same as laid out in my previous reply.. In fact, I'll modify the content of my last reply to be just exclusive to IEPS related weight change and it is still consistent with my meaning over the last two pages.
"First, they introduced IEPS (among other subsystems) to 054A, which is what made this new class of ship i.e.: 054B. As part of that initial 054B design it likely resulted in some degree of additional displacement to the 054B over the 054A (the degree of additional displacement is something which we do not know).
However, throughout the design process of this new class of ship (054B), they managed to design the ship to partially reduce the increase of weight that IEPS would've entailed, which fzgfzy describes as a few hundred tons. Whether they managed to reduce all of the IEPS related increase in displacement, or only able to reduce part of the IEPS related increase in displacement, is something we do not know."
Laying this out clearly, I think there are certain fundamentals of my position that I want to hash out.
1: 054B includes several new and/or changed subsystems from 054A, which definitely includes IEPS, but may also include other things that fzgfzy has alluded to, such as an integrated mast, a new "obvious" external difference, and whatever significant advancement in ASW capability he has referred to, among possible others.
2: the introduction of those new/changed subsystems on 054B relative to 054A originally resulted in an increase of displacement of 054B relative to 054A whose amount we do not know, however we do not know if all of the new subsystems collectively resulted in an increase of displacement or if only one or two of them did, or if all of them did.
3: through clever designing, as part of the design process, they were able to shave off a few hundred tons from the 054B's original displacement to what it currently is now (and 054B's displacement right now is also something we do not know). --- However, we do not know what subsystem-relevant displacement they managed to design away -- we do not know if it is IEPS related, or related to other subsystems or structures, or if it was only one subsystem or multiple.... but for the purposes of the above discussion, we can assume that the few hundred tons they shaved off is IEPS related.
And that is where I'm at right now, and I think it is a sensible interpretation of the information we currently have.
Yes, basically.
Well ok then, your italicized portion here describes a few hundred ton displacement increase of the 054B over the 054A due to the IEP, which they managed to negate with redesign; in other words the 054B once again displaces about the same as the 054A, which is what I've been saying is the default assumption until proven otherwise. The only difference is that your underlined portion does not seem to agree with jobjed's interpretation in terms of quantity of extra tonnage negated: "Originally, the tonnage was going to be a few hundred tonnes heavier due to new propulsion, however, naval architects supposedly managed to design their way out of this increase." Designing their way out of this increase suggests that all or almost all of the additional displacement increase was negated by redesign, something that is far less ambiguous than what you are claiming in the underlined portion of your post. "Reduction of a random quantity of extra tonnage" is a far wider range than "reduction of all or almost all extra tonnage".
Um, no not quite.
Please refer to the three numbered points I laid out in my last post.
In those three numbered points, I clearly say that for the sake of discussion, we can assume that the shaving off of a few hundred tons of displacement can be attributed to IEPS related increase in displacement, however that does not rule out any other possible increase in displacement which may have occurred due to changes in other subsystems.
We can use some very basic math to display this:
Let's say 054A (full) displacement = 4000 tons
And let's say the original 054B prior to design optimization (full) displacement = 4000 tons + X tons
In the above, "X tons" refers to the additional displacement of the totality of subsystem changes that 054B has over 054A, which includes IEPS, but also possibly others which fzgfzy has alluded to.
Now, what we know is that 054B's displacement is that they managed to cut down the original 054B's displacement by a few hundred tons (let's say 300 tons for the sake of this display), and let's say that those few hundred tons were all IEPS related as we agreed in my last post, in which case: current 054B after design optimization (full displacment) = 4000 tons + X tons - 300 tons
So the problem we're left with is this:
Current 054B after design optimization (full) displacement = 4000 tons + X tons - 300 tons
[or you could write it as "4000 tons + (X tons - 300 tons)" to indicate that the "X tons - 300 tons" is part of the post 054A subsystem changes and design revision as part of 054B's design process]
The problem is we don't know what "X tons" is, meaning we don't know what the current 054B's (full) displacement is, and we have no reason to suspect that it is equal to 300 tons.
Again, see above -- "reduction of all or almost all extra tonnage" in this case would only make sense if the IEPS was the only subsystem change that resulted in additional tonnage between 054A and the "original" 054B or if we had any clear indication that the extra few hundred tons they cut out were all the extra tonnage that the original 054B fielded from 054A.
I like how you're mixing what you stated you agreed to do with what you want to do. The weight increase that was negated was either all or almost all from the engine, or it was a mix including other systems. If you agreed that we would only be talking about the engine whose weight was increased as being the most straightforward assumption, then the negation of this increase would obviously drop the 054B displacement back down to that of a 054A. But of course this doesn't suit your interpretation, so really you HAVE to add potential increases in displacement from other systems into the mix, which you cannot even prove is going to happen in the first place. Your argument basically requires an extra step that is NOT present in the original statement. The original statement was that displacement was going to be increased but was designed away. Your argument requires fgzfgy to have had in mind all the other systems extra weights while talking about his baseline from which the propulsion increased which again is just not the most straightforward interpretation of his statement. There is no baseline 054B without an IEP to which they added an IEP and found that it was a few hundred tons more. The baseline 054B ALREADY had an IEP as part of its design so there would have been no displacement increase to design away. Only if you compare an IEP 054B to a non-IEP 054A does the statement make the most straightforward sense.
No, that is not how I interpreted the original statement.
What I agreed to do (as I wrote in post 3293) was to agree for the sake of discussion that all the weight they cut from "original 054B") could be considered to be all related to the IEPS:
I did not agree that all the weight that was added from 054A to "original 054B" was only equal to the IEPS related tonnage they would end up cutting nor did I agree that all the weight they added was equal to all the weight they cut!
This just takes us back to the previous disagreement about what the original "本来" is referring to:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-type-054-ffg-thread-ii.t4149/page-328#post-445443
My summary argument in that post is that it is rather ambiguous, and it is my opinion that it would be wise to not try and reach a consensus for what it likely means at this stage for 054B's displacement until it is clarified. Or putting it another way, I think there is as good of an argument to say that his post is saying that 054B's displacement is about the same as 054A, but also as good of an argument to say that his post is not necessarily saying that as well.
This argument seems to be going nowhere with both of us repeating the same stuff over and over. We'll just have to disagree on this.
Jura The idiot
General
LOL