PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

adeptitus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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".

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

adeptitus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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".

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

adeptitus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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".

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.