By: Hyperwarp - 14th June 2005 at 02:29
[QUOTE=JonS]
Hyperwrap
Dont know about CDF but well aware of CMF, either way using forums as your source for factual isnt valid by any means and didnt post any links to back up what he said. Besides he doesnt seem know anything about 054A (didnt know it had mineral-me, rbu-1000 or 12*2/4 vl-shtil) so i doubt any such discussion took place.
Well, not much is known about the 054A. Still under development. An official model was shown at a Naval exhibition thats it. Should get more details within the next few years.
By: hallo84 - 13th June 2005 at 22:06
The USN is retiring some of its early Aegis Cruisers. I wonder what are the odds of Taiwan getting them in the next 5-10 years. They would fit perfectly with the ex-Kidds……………(i.e. armament, infrastructure, logistics, etc.) 😮
Highly unlikely due to many reasons!
1) Taiwan does not have or cannot gather enough money for such a purchase! Just look at how long it took for the Pac-3 and the diesel sub to be approved… It still haven’t happened yet! The systems are extremely expensive more so than the diesel subs.
2) US is going to have a hard time convincing the chinese that the Aegis equiped vessels won’t be a serious threat to the PLA! I’d be damned if the USN had to share some of the stats information with PLAN. The french did that with their Lafayette class with it was sold to Taiwan. The funny thing was that mainland china actually got the bigger portion of the rebate when it was Taiwan that baught the vessels!
By: Nemesis - 13th June 2005 at 22:05
I’ve seen CMF, Strategypage, Indian Defence Forum, etc.. Guess what? There’s no difference. Here and there… there are immature posters everywhere. Here’s the one thing all posters in these forums have in common: This all about ego. Wouldn’t be all great if there can be a civil discussion, but that genie left the bottle when the internet was born. So calling others “13 year old children” is most likely hypocritical and childish name calling in itself.
By: JonS - 13th June 2005 at 17:40
[QUOTE=crobato]Look whose talking about flaming. You got to be one of those idiots jumping at FC-1/Pakistan topics.
more childish namecalling and you say i am flaming. Besides when was that i flamed, only thing i recall doing was correcting what the pakistani oracle said.
In the Luhai it was meant as a stopgap, but then the VLS system originally meant for the Luhai could not come to be back in the ’90s. So it was rebuilt for the HQ-7/reloader. But then, look at the new 051s being built in Dalian that is very likely to have VLS.
as usual i assume you have proof to back it up or are you once again acting like the chinese oracle, how is 051 have anything to do with this?
You don’t have to retrofit a vessel if you plan it well ahead enough.
Some how china knew ahead to design the vessel for vl-shtil :rolleyes: once again more prophecy’s and no proofs to back it up? Let see even if you ignore the whole issue of topweight problems or power requirements, there is the still the problem of integrating different Systems. So you’re basically what you are saying is that china build a magic “plug n play” FFG that can fitted with any SAM or weapon system that will be available in the near future. Mk 41, Aster, VL-shtil, rif-m etc all you have to strap one of systems on into 054 and its good to go. May be USN should build some of these instead of LCS eh.
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th June 2005 at 05:33
The USN is retiring some of its early Aegis Cruisers. I wonder what are the odds of Taiwan getting them in the next 5-10 years. They would fit perfectly with the ex-Kidds……………(i.e. armament, infrastructure, logistics, etc.) 😮
By: sferrin - 13th June 2005 at 05:23
It’s BlockIV, already delivered and loaded. On the RIMPAC2004, KD-2 DDG-975 fired and hit a drone from 102km out.
What’s Block IV? Standard? The Mk26 can’t fire Block IV because of the booster. If Kidd hit a drone it was likely with a SM-2 Block IIIA. On a sidenote the Kidds apparently have the NTU and may have been better off had they had the Mk 10s of the Leahys. There was a pretty long discussion on sci.military.naval involving people who served on both types and apparently the ships with SM-2ER and NTU rivaled Aegis in some ways. The RIM-67 had a range of well over 160km. The Mk26 was developed to deal with saturation attacks and could get a round off something like one every five seconds sustained but couldn’t fire the larger missile.
By: danrh - 13th June 2005 at 03:10
It is not similar to it. It is exactly like it. There is no point for a size increase since from the beginning the 054 is large enough to carry such systems, but resorted to using the HQ-7 with reload when the appropriate SAM system isn’t available yet. The HQ-7 with reload is a stopgap.
For them to create a bigger ship would mean to create an all new ship, since the moment you changed the hull dimensions, you change the entire hull. Where do you have this idea that hulls are plug and play, huh? In that sense, it would be vastly uneconomical for them to create a ship design that was already obsolete right off the board since they would have to create a new ship once again just to change the SAM system.
This sounds a bit like the 115 v 167 debate that we had on CDF. Is it bigger or not 🙂
Ships have in the past been given stretches without creating an entire hull. They add a few extra frames to the hull ala Type 42/3 or they can angle out the stern as in the later FFG7s. The MEKO sytems is designed to be choose your own hull size and modules type of afair. What has never happened (AFAIK) is an overall scale up ie same proportions, larger dimensions.
Daniel
By: Hyperwarp - 10th June 2005 at 15:38
Well, one thing….CDF posters are not 13 year old teenagers,….ok….obviously…there would be few here and there but…….. There are quite a few decent people….
The best thing is there quick handling of flames (Mr. T does not negotiate with flamers). You don’t get disgusting flame wars like over here. But its not one sides. There are even regular Taiwanese posters like Bryan C, who have some very valuable input.
Though, I have to admit since the place has gained more and, more popularity, the number of members have rapidly increased and the number of Questionable posts also have increased. But, still, miles ahead of this joint.
Off-course CMF has plenty of 13 year old teenagers…… 😀
PS: apologeez for going off topic…… 😮
By: crobato - 10th June 2005 at 13:18
right what was the last flame war i got into?, everytime someone expresses some opinion thats contradictory to yours you flame at them all the J-10 topics are prime example of that. Anyway i am not even touch such this subject, when did people posting in the internet become valid enough source for factual information.
Look whose talking about flaming. You got to be one of those idiots jumping at FC-1/Pakistan topics.
And i assume you once again have facts or some evidence to back it up or is just one of those claims like when you guys claimed that HQ-7 in JW-III and Luhai etc were stop gapmeasures last i recall those vessels have yet to be fitted with anything new. For VL system to fitted on it it would require extensive structural modifications (ie deck penetration).
In the Luhai it was meant as a stopgap, but then the VLS system originally meant for the Luhai could not come to be back in the ’90s. So it was rebuilt for the HQ-7/reloader. But then, look at the new 051s being built in Dalian that is very likely to have VLS.
Rarely has a large VLS system been retrofitted on a vessel already built because of the issues like cost, time and top weight issues (the french have yet to fit aster onto la fayette due to those reasons).
You don’t have to retrofit a vessel if you plan it well ahead enough.
No its not 12 vls cells its 2 to 4 rows of 12 vls cells or is that what the experts told you? So what you are suggesting is that china knew the specs of VL-shtil in late 90s and was able to make accomdations for it in 054 which seems rather inplausible.
In any case, the Chinese would already be designing the ships in anticipation for their own VLS designs, and the VLS Shtil-1 is just incidentally a stop gap for that goal that happens to just conveniently fit—or even made to fit preplanned Chinese requirements. Note again, the 054 is also a later design than both the 052B and 052C destroyers, both of whom lacked the indigenous radar to guide the ASMs (both destroyers had to rely on Mineral-ME) while the 054 relied on the much later arrived indigenous radar (Type 343G?) which was too late to be used on the destroyers.
IMO both 54 and 54a will be procured, 054 FFG will be built in large nos as cheap pocket destroyers and will replace older PLAN ffg. Whereas the latter will be procured in small batches to serve as Multi purpose FFG.
054 is just temporary, and 054A is just yet another stepping stone from the first. The Chinese objective is to ultimately design and create their own mid range VLS SAM system.
By: JonS - 10th June 2005 at 13:01
Flame wars and other BS? I see you one of the main sources of it in this forum. Yeah, you expressed an OPINION. And I disagreed with you and I pointed out no one else supports that opinion. Then you go off tangent by calling members of the Chinese forums 13 year olds?
right what was the last flame war i got into?, everytime someone expresses some opinion thats contradictory to yours you flame at them all the J-10 topics are prime example of that. Anyway i am not even touch such this subject, when did people posting in the internet become valid enough source for factual information.
It is not similar to it. It is exactly like it. There is no point for a size increase since from the beginning the 054 is large enough to carry such systems, but resorted to using the HQ-7 with reload when the appropriate SAM system isn’t available yet. The HQ-7 with reload is a stopgap.
And i assume you once again have facts or some evidence to back it up or is just one of those claims like when you guys claimed that HQ-7 in JW-III and Luhai etc were stop gapmeasures last i recall those vessels have yet to be fitted with anything new. For VL system to fitted on it it would require extensive structural modifications (ie deck penetration).
Rarely has a large VLS system been retrofitted on a vessel already built because of the issues like cost, time and top weight issues (the french have yet to fit aster onto la fayette due to those reasons).
Not to mention there is a gap between the launcher and the hatch. So overall, there is more than enough space for that to fit 12 VLS cells. Just remember, that the octel launcher with reloader is already holding 16 missiles between the two of them in this given area. The fact that 054 has HQ-7 plus reloader makes it quite bigger than the Jiangweis, and the size increase built into the 054 isn’t just there for the benefit of the HQ-7s.
No its not 12 vls cells its 2 to 4 rows of 12 vls cells or is that what the experts told you? So what you are suggesting is that china knew the specs of VL-shtil in late 90s and was able to make accomdations for it in 054 which seems rather inplausible.
IMO both 54 and 54a will be procured, 054 FFG will be built in large nos as cheap pocket destroyers and will replace older PLAN ffg. Whereas the latter will be procured in small batches to serve as Multi purpose FFG.
By: crobato - 10th June 2005 at 12:30
nationalistic jealousy complex lol this coming from you, all u can resort to childish name calling, trying to incite flame wars and BS with little fact to back you up. I just expressed my opinion that 054a looks enlargened with little or no fact other no facts to back to up you claim that i am completly wrong, you need to learn to seperate opinions from fact.
Lol. How dare you call the posters at the CDF thirteen year olds, HUH?
Do you know how many people there actually SERVED, or connected to international defense publications? HMM?
Flame wars and other BS? I see you one of the main sources of it in this forum.
Yeah, you expressed an OPINION. And I disagreed with you and I pointed out no one else supports that opinion. Then you go off tangent by calling members of the Chinese forums 13 year olds?
Anyway you know claim that 54 is same size 54a because it looks similar to it you do realise thats a model which doesnt really seem to built to scale. Just like a while back you made the claim that there will be no rbu-1000 on it because you say so.
It is not similar to it. It is exactly like it. There is no point for a size increase since from the beginning the 054 is large enough to carry such systems, but resorted to using the HQ-7 with reload when the appropriate SAM system isn’t available yet. The HQ-7 with reload is a stopgap.
For them to create a bigger ship would mean to create an all new ship, since the moment you changed the hull dimensions, you change the entire hull. Where do you have this idea that hulls are plug and play, huh? In that sense, it would be vastly uneconomical for them to create a ship design that was already obsolete right off the board since they would have to create a new ship once again just to change the SAM system.
So you just have to create the bigger ship in the first place and stick to it.
The hq-7 launcher is roughly 3 meters longer (similar to length cotale/hq-7 canister round) and the hatch is roughly same length as well. So you are telling me that a row 12 vls cells of shtil-1 take up less space in length than ~ 6 meters.
Not to mention there is a gap between the launcher and the hatch. So overall, there is more than enough space for that to fit 12 VLS cells. Just remember, that the octel launcher with reloader is already holding 16 missiles between the two of them in this given area. The fact that 054 has HQ-7 plus reloader makes it quite bigger than the Jiangweis, and the size increase built into the 054 isn’t just there for the benefit of the HQ-7s.
By: JonS - 10th June 2005 at 10:58
WTF? 13 year old teenagers? The Chinese forums and military watchers DID a lot more to reveal about Chinese military development than the Pentagon. As for journalists, well, you’er talking about international defense journals like Jane’s and US think tanks. Tell me how is your competency compared to them, HMM? You’re full of complete bull as if your nationalistic jealousy complex from the BR forums could understand the difference. The HQ-7 with reloader takes up quite a bit of space since previously, you cannot fit that on a Jiangwei frigate, but something as big as a Luhu destroyer. The 054 can fit the reloading HQ-7. Maybe you have not see the reloading HQ-7 properly. Not only do you have the octel launcher, but you have the hatch on the back with the reloader.
The FACT is that the ship shown with the VLS Shtils is unmistakenly a 054. The outline and the superstructure cannot be mistaken. As if you think you know better. Sheesh. Don’t give me a laugh. If you have no business in knowing better, go elsewhere, since we don’t take BS from a nitwit like you.
nationalistic jealousy complex lol this coming from you, all u can resort to childish name calling, trying to incite flame wars and BS with little fact to back you up. I just expressed my opinion that 054a looks enlargened with little or no fact other no facts to back to up you claim that i am completly wrong, you need to learn to seperate opinions from fact. Anyway you know claim that 54 is same size 54a because it looks similar to it you do realise thats a model which doesnt really seem to built to scale. Just like a while back you made the claim that there will be no rbu-1000 on it because you say so.
The hq-7 launcher is roughly 3 meters longer (similar to length cotale/hq-7 canister round) and the hatch is roughly same length as well. So you are telling me that a row 12 vls cells of shtil-1 take up less space in length than ~ 6 meters.
edit:datafuser,
thanks for the info couldnt translate what the link said.
Also it would nice if mod goes thru and deletes last few posts since this fully off topic and knowing you’re childish mentality you will resort to more naming calling. Rather than an intelligent discussion.
By: datafuser - 10th June 2005 at 07:54
Found this in imdex 2005 gallery anyone what korean vessel this is?
That’s an export variant of KDX-II.
By: crobato - 10th June 2005 at 07:47
WTF? 13 year old teenagers? The Chinese forums and military watchers DID a lot more to reveal about Chinese military development than the Pentagon. As for journalists, well, you’er talking about international defense journals like Jane’s and US think tanks. Tell me how is your competency compared to them, HMM? You’re full of complete bull as if your nationalistic jealousy complex from the BR forums could understand the difference. The HQ-7 with reloader takes up quite a bit of space since previously, you cannot fit that on a Jiangwei frigate, but something as big as a Luhu destroyer. The 054 can fit the reloading HQ-7. Maybe you have not see the reloading HQ-7 properly. Not only do you have the octel launcher, but you have the hatch on the back with the reloader.
The FACT is that the ship shown with the VLS Shtils is unmistakenly a 054. The outline and the superstructure cannot be mistaken. As if you think you know better. Sheesh. Don’t give me a laugh. If you have no business in knowing better, go elsewhere, since we don’t take BS from a nitwit like you.
By: JonS - 10th June 2005 at 03:15
Sorry, but it is the opinion of everyone else, including knowledgeable posters in the Chinese forums and the CDF, not to mention journalists, who saw that picture that the mockup is a future version of 054. The superstructure and the design of that ship is exactly like the 054. You are the one who has no evidence.
knowledgeable posters (in other word 13 yr old chinese teenagers ) and journalists (when did journalists become naval analysts?) opinions thats ur source with no evidence to back it up. You make empty claims like hq-7 larger is than vl-shtil, then you claim that rbu-1000 wont be present because you say so. W/e i guess there is no point in arguing with someone who cant seperate opinions from fact and takes the latter for granted.
Found this in imdex 2005 gallery anyone what korean vessel this is?
By: crobato - 10th June 2005 at 02:37
well size argument is purely opinion unless you have some evidence, anyway know u claim that 54A wont have those RBU-1000s because you say so? but doesnt that support my argument that bow is longer than 054. Also super structure also seems enlargened to carry light buld and fregat.
Sorry, but it is the opinion of everyone else, including knowledgeable posters in the Chinese forums and the CDF, not to mention journalists, who saw that picture that the mockup is a future version of 054. The superstructure and the design of that ship is exactly like the 054. You are the one who has no evidence.
By: Himanshu - 9th June 2005 at 15:07
All courtesy Harry..
http://www.acig.org/exclusives/viraat/viraat_3.htm
By: JonS - 9th June 2005 at 13:47
No the VLS Shtil does not take up more room than the HQ-7 with reloader. Probably takes up less. The future 054 does not necessarily have to have the mortars.
well size argument is purely opinion unless you have some evidence, anyway know u claim that 54A wont have those RBU-1000s because you say so? but doesnt that support my argument that bow is longer than 054. Also super structure also seems enlargened to carry light buld and fregat.
By: Pinko - 9th June 2005 at 13:35
As no surprise, Now US accuses China has stolen the Aegis battle management technology according to today’s edition of the Washington Times :
Title: Analysts missed Chinese buildup
Among the failures highlighted in the study are:
•China’s development of a new long-range cruise missile.
•The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology.
•Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the Yuan class that was missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine appeared on the Internet.
•Development of precision-guided munitions, including new air-to-ground missiles and new, more accurate warheads.
•China’s development of surface-to-surface missiles for targeting U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups.
The full report:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm
By: crobato - 4th June 2005 at 01:55
No the VLS Shtil does not take up more room than the HQ-7 with reloader. Probably takes up less. The future 054 does not necessarily have to have the mortars.
Sign In
March 2, 2005 at 6:13 am
