Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

s002wjh said:

i dont think anyone assume ABM can hit ASBM. but because it already has base/certain capability, it has better chance to get an upgrade before ASBM deployed. its similar to upgrade an existing car with certain components vs assemble the entire car from scratch.

Click to expand...

In other words, an assumption - you are assuming upgrades to ABM would be like an upgrade to a car, which is a flawed comparison. Waving your hands in the air while using weasel words like "better chance" adds absolutely nothing in terms of substance to what you've already said. A more valid comparison is the adding of tracking and anti-ship capability to an already advance MRBM system to the adding of tracking and interception capability that turned an anti-air system into an ABM system.

s002wjh said:

true absence of evidence does not mean its not there. but you can't use this arguement/reason in a discussion where you try to prove the existing of something, unless you have certain credential/reputation.

Click to expand...

Once again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A lack of publicized full-scale system test under full combat scenario is called absence of evidence, and it cannot be used as an argument/reason to prove something does not exist, unless you have certain credential/reputation.

s002wjh said:

imagine if i said there is a f117 stealth program before US release its existence, would you belief me.
to prove existing of something, fact/evidence has to be showed, this is not religion.
also US certainly doesn't release all its weapon program to the public, F117 is an example.

Click to expand...

And to prove something doesn't exist in China when:

1. we have already seen bits and pieces about ASBM
2. it is common knowledge that China pretty much hides everything it does

require something more than "we have not seen a test yet". For example, we never heard of any specific tests regarding DF-31 or JL-2, but that cannot be used to justify that TELs we have seen and 094 submarines are empty. In your F117 example, it doesn't matter if someone believed you - F117 existed and that's the end of the story. Saying something to the extent of "we have not seen F117 being tested publicly under ECM condition" is not a proof that F117 does not exist. To prove something is absence requires evidence of absence. This is not religion.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Engineer said:

In other words, an assumption - you are assuming upgrades to ABM would be like an upgrade to a car, which is a flawed comparison. Waving your hands in the air while using weasel words like "better chance" adds absolutely nothing in terms of substance to what you've already said. A more valid comparison is the adding of tracking and anti-ship capability to an already advance MRBM system to the adding of tracking and interception capability that turned an anti-air system into an ABM system.


Once again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A lack of publicized full-scale system test under full combat scenario is called absence of evidence, and it cannot be used as an argument/reason to prove something does not exist, unless you have certain credential/reputation.



And to prove something doesn't exist in China when:

1. we have already seen bits and pieces about ASBM
2. it is common knowledge that China pretty much hides everything it does

require something more than "we have not seen a test yet". For example, we never heard of any specific tests regarding DF-31 or JL-2, but that cannot be used to justify that TELs we have seen and 094 submarines are empty. In your F117 example, it doesn't matter if someone believed you - F117 existed and that's the end of the story. Saying something to the extent of "we have not seen F117 being tested publicly under ECM condition" is not a proof that F117 does not exist. To prove something is absence requires evidence of absence. This is not religion.

Click to expand...

we can stop this arguement back and forth now. if you have any evidence/link prove df21 is operational, then we have something to talk about. ABM is at least tested and deployed, which cant be said the same for ASBM.

there are assumption made base on existing data, than there are assumption made base on almost nothing. the ABM already in its mid/later phase of the project with plenty of data to back it up, df21 hasn't even been test in open sea yet. if you insist on df21 operation status, please provide some data or facts, not the theoretical papers. data shows test date, or some chinese offical said df21 is good to go etc. something like the j20 video would be even better.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

Allow me to quote only ONE of the famous Chinese General Sun Tzu's War strategies, petinent to comments in this thread. It is: "Cross the Sea under Camouflage - The perception of perfect preparation leads to relaxed vigilance. The sight of common occurrences leads to slackened suspicion. Therefore, secret machinations are better concealed in the open than in the dark, and extreme public exposure often contain extreme secrecy". This is the English transalation, and it may be a little confusing to some, BUT it is a Military/Naval Strategy alright that has its merits.

Re: The End of the Carrier Age?

s002wjh said:

we can stop this arguement back and forth now. if you have any evidence/link prove df21 is operational, then we have something to talk about. ABM is at least tested and deployed, which cant be said the same for ASBM.

Click to expand...

Feel free to stop at any time, since you have been going around in circles and still can't prove that ABM has anti-ASBM capability. Testing against SCUD type targets has little similarities with testing against DF-21 like targets. By your own critiera, ABM isn't operational against ASBM.

s002wjh said:

there are assumption made base on existing data, than there are assumption made base on almost nothing. the ABM already in its mid/later phase of the project with plenty of data to back it up, df21 hasn't even been test in open sea yet.

Click to expand...

And base on available data, ABM does not have anti-ASBM capability. It doesn't pass the criteria you have which demands a full scale system test under ECM condition for a system to be declared operational (working). Your assumption with regards to ABM breaks that critieria, and holding your criteria as true means ABM system doesn't have anti-ASBM capability; you are in contradiction.

s002wjh said:

if you insist on df21 operation status, please provide some data or facts, not the theoretical papers. data shows test date, or some chinese offical said df21 is good to go etc. something like the j20 video would be even better.

Click to expand...

Er, no. I am not required to do any of that since I am not the one who is insisting anything, but I will humor you. Before I do that however, I shall point out that your insistence on passing ASBM not being operational (being deployed) as ASBM cannot be operational (work) is a fallacy of equivocation, so your argument is unable to stand up to any scrutiny.

Now, to humor you I shall provide the following quote:

Willard: The anti-ship ballistic missile system in China has undergone extensive testing. An analogy using a Western term would be “initial operational capability (IOC),” whereby it has—I think China would perceive that it has—an operational capability now, but they continue to develop it. It will continue to undergo testing, I would imagine, for several more years.

Click to expand...

This has already been pointed out many pages ago. Being in development does not mean it is not functional. It being functional does not mean it has operational capability. It having operational capability does not equate to having full operational capability.

Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos

Just saw on some internet traffic,

Yuanwang 4 / Xiangyanghong 10/ Shiyang 1 was struck,

was towing back to port when sink in shallow waters.

now by what and how?

that is the question.

Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos

Wait, what? Yuanwang 4 sank?

... What?
And how's that relevant to the thread?

Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos

Oh it has everything to do with Chinese and Aircraft Carriers.

Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos

Ok... but I'm still not sure what you're saying.

Are Yuanwang 4 / Xiangyanghong 10/ Shiyang 1 three different ships? And they were all sunk while being towed back in harbour? And their sinking is somehow connected to the chinese carrier program? Are we saying the Varyag accidently sunk yuanwang 4 while leaving harbour or something??

EDIT: okay yuanwang 4 and xiangyanghong 10 are the same ship..

Re: PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos

i.e. said:

Just saw on some internet traffic,

Yuanwang 4 / Xiangyanghong 10/ Shiyang 1 was struck,

was towing back to port when sink in shallow waters.

now by what and how?

that is the question.

Click to expand...

Some traffic indicates it was being towed and sunk.

There are some suggesting it was a DF21D test...but I have trouble believing that from the other reports because other vessels would not be that close to it in that case when it went down.

Guess we will just have to wait for more info.

Bltizo said:

Ok... but I'm still not sure what you're saying.

Are Yuanwang 4 / Xiangyanghong 10/ Shiyang 1 three different ships? And they were all sunk while being towed back in harbour? And their sinking is somehow connected to the chinese carrier program? Are we saying the Varyag accidently sunk yuanwang 4 while leaving harbour or something??

Click to expand...

The Old Xiangyanghong 10, (that supported alot of early DF-5 tests...)
became Yuanwang 4 (that supported alot of early early satellite launches..)
which became Shiyang 1.
which had alot of corner reflector put on it...
It was struck. (by what? I donno, use your imagination)
and while it was towing back to port, sank in shallow waters.
Some breaker Company in Tianjing brought the wreckage and took it apart.

WHo said Varyag has had anything to do with it.

saw this on chinese bbs from the most trust worthy source... I can think of.

Jeff Head said:

Some traffic indicates it was being towed and sunk.

There are some suggesting it was a DF21D test...but I have trouble believing that from the other reports because other vessels would not be that close to it in that case when it went down.

Guess we will just have to wait for more info.

Click to expand...

It could be just moored and struck.
or it could be on autopilot and struck.
who knows.

and it was being towed back when it sank.

The guy who broke the news works as a photography for China Marietime Surveillance. He usually is the source of these nice aerial photos of chinese warships on chinese internet bbs....