Ideal chinese carrier thread

[Engineer]

Sorry...we disagree.

Japan definitely can see the need for helicopter carriers to help in ASW operations. In fact, without stretching their constitution at all they can, and now have, built such carriers.

A platform that carries few dozen heliocpters that all do ASW operation... talk about overkill. All the money they put into acquiring carriers and helicopters can be put into P-3's instead.

Na, you don't seriously think I would buy that, do you?

The Hyuga is not an amphibious or OTH assault carrier. The Osumi Class fills that role already, and they have built three of them. The Hyuga is strictly a helo carrier, principally for ASW and C&C work and that role is a very critical role for the Japanese as an island nation, and one they have been doing for a long time. Now they have a new, capable tool to help their destroyer flotillas in that regard.

Which proves my point that they built carriers because they can, and not because they have serious needs to. Afterall, they can't go oversea, they have no one to invade, thus they have no reasons to keep building carriers. Unless you are suggesting that they are going to invade someone through amphibious landings, in which case the carriers would be assets and justify the needs part.

Understand, I am not talking about some immediate, design it in a year and your done...I am talking about developing the infrastructure and experience to do so...which would take several years. Just like the Chinese are doing with their Aircraft carrier and fighter development programs. Japan could do the same if they were sufficiently motivated.

In other words, they are not capable of building fighter aircraft, but are merely capable of building the capabilities that build fighter aircraft. Big difference!

 

[Jeff Head]

A platform that carries few dozen heliocpters that all do ASW operation... talk about overkill. All the money they put into acquiring carriers and helicopters can be put into P-3's instead.

Acually, the Japanese Hyuga or the Osumi do not come close to carrying " a few dozen helos". They each can carry a few helos. And for ASW work, the Hyuga is therefore well suited as the center piece of such a task force.

Which proves my point that they built carriers because they can, and not because they have serious needs to.

Of course they build them because they want to, but that want is based on the perceived need of the Japanese leadership. Juts because you disagree with it, does not mean that they do not see it.

In other words, they are not capable of building fighter aircraft, but are merely capable of building the capabilities that build fighter aircraft. Big difference!

No, IOW, they are capable of putting together a program when they see the need for it, regardless of what you may think of that need. Just like they did with the Osumi and the Hyuga. No need for circlular arguements or terminology in that.

If they have the capability to have the capability, then by definition...they have the capability as soon as they choose to exercise it. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.

 

[Engineer]

Acually, the Japanese Hyuga or the Osumi do not come close to carrying " a few dozen helos". They each can carry a few helos. And for ASW work, the Hyuga is therefore well suited as the center piece of such a task force.

Right, they like to go with the most expensive route possible, and with ALL that deck space they would only put a few helicopters on it. Very convincing.

Of course they build them because they want to, but that want is based on the perceived need of the Japanese leadership.

They could conjure up some justifications, yes, but that doesn't translate to needs. If they are that serious about ASW, then they can get P-3's, a lot of P-3's, for the amount they are putting in to their carriers. If they want to invade someone, that would be another need, and in which case you would be right and I would be wrong. However, they are a pacific nation, at least that's what I'm told, so the second reason is out of the question. They are not getting P-3's either, so it means carriers are something they are investing but don't serious need.

Juts because you disagree with it, does not mean that they do not see it.

Just because they see something and you see something, that doesn't mean I have to be convinced about them.

If they have the capability to have the capability, then by definition...they have the capability as soon as they choose to exercise it. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.

A=B is not the definition of capability, it is call equivalent. For example, they can build a fighter aircraft means they can build a fighter aircraft.

Having the capabilities of building a fighter aircraft means they already have the experience, knowledge, and infrastructure to do so. By your own words "I am talking about developing the infrastructure and experience to do so...which would take several years", meaning they do not have that capability yet and but is working it. Building up these requirements is not the same as having these requirements already.

But for argument's sake, let say you are right in that capability to have capability to do A is equal to capability to do A. By that same logic, China has the capability to have the capability that can acquire... the capability to build a portal to Mars, which means China has the capability to build said portal. Isn't that awesome? :roll:

 

[Jeff Head]

But for argument's sake, let say you are right in that capability to have capability to do A is equal to capability to do A. By that same logic, China has the capability to have the capability that can acquire... the capability to build a portal to Mars, which means China has the capability to build said portal. Isn't that awesome? :roll:

You have clearly misunderstood what I said about a simple rule of mathematics and logic and are now taking that misunderstanding and projecting it to the point of getting simply rediculous.

We clearly disagree...and that's fine.

Clearly the Japanese are building helicopter carriers for ASW work because they feel they need them, regardless of what you or I think, and they are the ones making the decisions and put their by their people to do so, and they are using information provided to them by their military and intelligence people that you and I are not privy to.

We are far afield from the point of this thread, which is about the ideal PLAN carrier, so I will leave it at that.

I invite others to read our exchange and judge for themselves regarding this offshoot topic, and now to try and get back to the PLAN issue at hand...which I believe they are going to build and deploy as well according to their own needs as they see them.

 

[bd popeye]

Jeff Head say it best;

We are far afield from the point of this thread, which is about the ideal PLAN carrier, so I will leave it at that.

Get back on topic gents. If need be start a thread about the JSDF

bd popeye super moderator

 

[Engineer]

You have clearly misunderstood what I said about a simple rule of mathematics and logic...

That argument you have presented is neither mathematical or logical, and I will leave it at that. As far as PLAN's carriers are concerned, I believe they will be very similar to the Varyag. The hulls would be almost identicial, but the deck will be stretched in some way to enable more aircraft to be carried. The island will be changed and will look nothing like that on the Varyag.

 

[adeptitus]

A platform that carries few dozen heliocpters that all do ASW operation... talk about overkill. All the money they put into acquiring carriers and helicopters can be put into P-3's instead.

IMO people usually say "a couple" for 2 and "a few" for 3 or more. Check the ship's specs and you'll see why we disagree with your statement.

===========

Going back to the PLAN...

I'm a big fan of DDH designs. They're smaller and cheaper to operate than aircraft carriers, and are great for a variety of missions. Helicopters can fly at much faster speeds than ships and boats, so your response time is much better. A flat top DDH with below-deck hanger can also haul a lot of cargo to resupply island outposts and deliver food aid. In combat against lightly armed opponents, such as pirates and armed patrol boats, the helicopter can be equipped with guns and light anti-ship missiles.

A DDH, or a "helicopter carrier" would be a great asset to the South Sea fleet, and many off-shore missions, such as the one currently underway to Africa.

 

[Jeff Head]

That argument you have presented is neither mathematical or logical, and I will leave it at that. As far as PLAN's carriers are concerned, I believe they will be very similar to the Varyag. The hulls would be almost identicial, but the deck will be stretched in some way to enable more aircraft to be carried. The island will be changed and will look nothing like that on the Varyag.

Actually the mathmatical property I presented in the earlier arguement is called transitivity and it is both mathmatical and logical. Goes way back to Jr. High math.

Since my major in College was engineering (long ago) and I have now worked in that field for the last 35+ years applying it and much more complicated mathmatical properties (as you can imagine)...I may be able to remember and apply a principle like that. Transitivity.

Anyhow, I echo Adepitus's comments regarding the helo carriers. For the purposes he defined, as well as pure ASW work, alone, or particularly as a part of an ASW TF, they are very valuable and strong platforms and I believe the PLAN could make good use of them as well.

In addition to and complimentary to whatever larger, fixed wing carrier plans they have.

 

[Engineer]

IMO people usually say "a couple" for 2 and "a few" for 3 or more. Check the ship's specs and you'll see why we disagree with your statement.

And once you get to 12 it's called a dozen. Considering Jeff runs a webpage on world's aircraft carrier, I think deep inside he knows full well just how many helicopters can go onboard when he told me "few".

Actually the mathmatical property I presented in the earlier arguement is called transitivity and it is both mathmatical and logical. Goes way back to Jr. High math.

You were assuming that your argument satisified the rule already, then reused the rule to proof that it is true (assume A=C, given A=B=C, therefore A=C is true). Anything can be proven correct with that kind of flawed assumptions.

For the PLAN, given the limited budget, I think they would have to use a single class of carrier for the role of carrying helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

 

[Jeff Head]

You were assuming that your argument satisified the rule already, then reused the rule to proof that it is true (assume A=C, given A=B=C, therefore A=C is true). Anything can be proven correct with that kind of flawed assumptions.

For the PLAN, given the limited budget, I think they would have to use a single class of carrier for the role of carrying helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

Actually, now it is you who are assuming. You are now adding conditions to a statement that you earlier made without such conditions.

You said simply that the "argument you have presented is neither mathematical or logical".

I responded to that direct assertion and showed that the underlying property of the arguement was indeed both mathmatical and logical and based on a well known and very simple mathematical property whose logic is self apparent.

The condition of my arguement itself being based on that property has nothing to do with whether we agree or not, and thius, properly refuted your assertion .

It is clear that we disagree, and as I said, that is fine.

Why don't we just leave it at that without resorting to trying to tear down the basis for the other person's assertions and let others read and decide for themselves, the arguements themselves standing on their own merits?

As it is, as regards the PLAN, they are already showing that they are capable of multiple platforms. The 071 LPD is a clear indication of this. I would not be surprised in th next 10-15 years to see them using LPDs, LHA type vessels, as well as CVs.

Time will tell.