PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Jeff Head said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Jeff Head said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Jeff Head said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

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

Click to expand...

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.