Ideal chinese carrier thread

[Engineer]

Actually, now it is you who are assuming... 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.

An incorrect use of logic doesn't make the argument logical. Party 1 having capability A which can leads to capability B is NOT the same as Party 1 having capability B. I also think you meant to apply transitivity in this way:
A=>B=>C therefore A=C

instead of
A=B=C therefore A=C

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

That's fine, I see nothing wrong with us having disagreement.

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.

They also have a large fleet of obsolete ships that needs to be phased out, which will take at least half a decade if not more and would need funding. Then they need to increase the number of combatants so that they still have enough ships at home while they send out the carrier battle groups to protect the sea lanes. This also takes funding. Thirdly, they have the 071 already, and they probably won't want to invest in another class of ship to prevent cost for maintenance from hiking. Finally, should they want to expand the number of carriers, ships like DDH would be competiting for funding. I think they need to address these issues before they can look at having dedicated carriers for different roles.

 

[Jeff Head]

An incorrect use of logic doesn't make the argument logical. Party 1 having capability A which can leads to capability B is NOT the same as Party 1 having capability B.

And saying that someone is capable of developing a capability (which is what I have said) is not the same as saying they already have a capability, which somehow you seem to be suggesting as my meaning.

You see, my arguement all along has been that they are capable of doing this...not that they are already doing it, or have already developed the capability.

And as regards the capability of going there if they so choose, I simply applied the transitivy princple to your own words, ie, they are not capable of building fighter aircraft, but are merely capable of building the capabilities that build fighter aircraft

Which is to say, purely regarding them being capable, if they have the capacity to be capable, then by definition, they will be capable as soon as they decide to take the time and expend the funds to be so. It's simply a matter will (or making the decision) and then of time and moeny...not inherant capability.

That's all.

Anyhow...too many words are getting interpreted and twisted and that is obscurring the meaning (IMHO), so I will leave it simply that they are capable of developing the necessary aircraft if they so choose. Whether they will choose to do so or not is another matter entirely.

They also have a large fleet of obsolete ships that needs to be phased out, which will take at least half a decade if not more and would need fundings. Then they need to increase the number of combatants so that they still have enough ships at home while they send out the carrier battle groups to protect the sea lane. This also takes fundings. Thirdly, they have the 071 already, and they probably won't want to invest in another class of ship, or they would have to a higher cost for maintenance. Finally, should they want to expand the number of carriers, ships like DDH would be competiting for fundings. I think they need to address these issues before they can look at having dedicated carriers for different roles.

Actually I agree with a lot of this. But over a period of 10-15 years, I believe the PLAN will address all of these issues and develop and field (though in samller numbers than the US) LPDs, some form of LHA or DDH, and CVs.

 

[Jeff Head]

I also think you meant to apply transitivity in this way: A=>B=>C therefore A=C.

No, I did not. That statement only holds in the condition of A=B=C. Otherwise, in any inequality as you have written it, A must be greater than C.

Anyhow...I'm happy to let it go. I believe the arguements ob both sides stand or fall on their own merit and others can read and decide for themselves without all the intervening minutia.

 

[crobato]

Let's can the logic debate here, and continue discussing nothing more than carriers...

 

[Jeff Head]

Let's can the logic debate here, and continue discussing nothing more than carriers...

Agreed...and no prob. As I said in my last post. I'm happy to let it go. Far too much minutia.

 

[Mu Shu Tortilla]

I'm having a bit of a chuckle at some here who think a big maritime patrol plane can do the job of shipboard helicopters for ASW. Both have their vitrues, but neither is the replacement for the other.
Big maritime patrol planes can patrol large areas of ocean identifying potential enemy subs, but it cannot be everywhere at once. Nor can it sit right on an enemy sub and drop torpedos on this sub while a partner helo pings it with a dipping sonar. The patrol plane cannot necessarily be on the spot if a datum emerges inside a group of ships.
Helos by comparison can be brought along with a surface force, and used properly make it very hard for an enemy sub to penetrate a surface force. A pair of helos equipped with dipping sonars are the most dangerous thing a submarine can face. Most often, in exercises at least, if the helo crews know their craft the sub cannot escape. The helos can take turns dipping their sonars, pinging the sub, while the other helo tries to get closer to deploy it's own sonar. Two helos can leapfrog an enemy sub until one is practically on top hammering it with it's sonar while it's partner launches it's torpedos nearby. No maritime patrol aircraft can tie a sub down so effectively. No maritime patrol aircraft has the availability as ASW helos operating with a surface force.

 

[bd popeye]

A pair of helos equipped with dipping sonars are the most dangerous thing a submarine can face.

I don't doubt what you say about ASW helos. At all.

But an LA class sub is the greatest danger to any sub. That's what they do.

 

[Jeff Head]

I don't doubt what you say about ASW helos. At all.

But an LA class sub is the greatest danger to any sub. That's what they do.

A good attack sub on your case will ruin your whole day...especially an ADCAP LA...but even more so a Sea Wolf or Virginia.

Having said that, another sub does have at least some chance or prayer of countering, egressing away from, and maybe even firing on another sub that is hunting it.

If a couple of helos are hunting you after having found you...there is absolutely nothing you can do about it except go deep and totally quiet and hope they either lose you or have to leave as a result of fuel concerns.

Any sub has a lot less options against a couple of ASW helos once they have found you.

 

[crobato]

The problem of ASW helos is that they use active sonars,which means they can be heard from afar, giving their general location well ahead of any sub so that the sub can take countermeasures. Long range low frequency passive sonars have to be huge and requires a lot of juice, which means they can only be fitted on ships and subs. Especially nuclear subs. You can't carry those around in a helo. Even if found, some of the newer subs are getting pretty good in countering active echoes, like in the way they are shaped, or with newer developments in the coating. Coatings around subs are not meant for quieting, they're meant for absorbing active sonars.

Helos can only use light torpedos. That's going to have limitations on depth. Even if they can physically reach that deep, they lack the speed and endurance of heavy torpedoes which can carry more battery power or fuel and can be encased with greater protection against deep water pressures. Furthermore, the heavy torpedo can also be wire guided, which means they can be commanded guided after launch by the ship or sub (well very few surface ships carry heavy torpedos anyway like the Udaloys). The light torpedo once it hits the surface, is pretty much on its own.

So Popeye is correct. Best counter to a sub is another sub.

 

[Scratch]

Helos can use their sonar passively and drop passive sonar boys, right?
So when for example escorting a convoy or taskforce, where a sub will have to maneuver (make noise), they can pick it up that way. Or if not obtain a crossfix after the big batteries of FFGs/DDGs found someting.
Or just scare them off with active sonar when hostile subs may be lying in an ambush and try to deny passage. A thing perhaps more difficult to another sub when the opponent doesn't move at all.
Those choopers are rahter safe as long as air and sea surface controll is established.
At least as long as subs don't carry SHORAD SAMs on a regular basis ...