Another afternoon wasted…but devil he told me to roll:dev2:

Could you point out another design like the B2? Does that mean that the B2 can’t do what it can?

Nope, but I can name other bombers and interdiction aircrafts…no matter how unique B2 is, it still isen’t fighter…

Besides, at 40+m, it is only marginally smaller then the smaller corvettes some navies use, and far smaller boats are routinely used by civilians for oceon going operations. There is no physical limitation that stops these boats going into deep water at all, they might not be able to go out in especially bad storms, but then even the biggest warships try to avoid those so you are making a big deal out of nothing.

Here we get to the essence of your proplems. You compare the physical factors of the hull and compare it to ships by only physical size. The whole issue however is the operability. Hell, you can travel around the world with small yacths and cutters, but its completely different thing to wage naval warfare in similar distances. The further you get of from the shore, your operational area increases expotentially. The distances and engaging areas grew in size and are far further apart from your own position. To be able to performance in such enviroment you need long range weapons. But those are useless if you don’t have sensor suite corresponding to those distances. As you are further away from your land based support elements, you need heavier selfdefence suite.
As the distances rose, you operational time increases as you need to cover up those distances between your starting point and target point. That requires endurance. Good endurance requires fuel, water, food and other basic supplies which all requires volume to be stored inside the boat. Endurance means that you need to have rotating shifts for your crews which means you need to have more than one man for every single task that requires manning onboard the ship.

What utter nonesenes. One really has to wonder what you were reading. It seem the only thing you have been doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and repeat the same stuff without any independent thought or analysis

.

Ehh…once again nope. I have repeated the same stuff as someone cannot get to his head the very basics of both naval and land warfare. There is nothing to analyze, just video-game commanders nationalistically driven fantasies and plain fanboyism. Like some other members said I really should be wasting my time on this, and he is 100% right…I’m just too weak to resist the temptation.

So you can only have an idea if someone else had it first? No wonder your views are so out of date.

Nope. I haven’t “invented” any ideas here, I’ve have studied these matters and reading what people far more intelligent and informed than I have has to say about it. Add to that I’ve tried to adjust what I’ve read to what I’ve done personally and create some sort of overall picture.

I don’t care where an idea comes from, only if it makes sense, and what you are suggesting is just pure nonesense.

Or in otherwords (as the stuff that makes sense to you is in fact the stuff that you want to hear) you just take all the BS people is throwing and as it suites your fantasy of China being super-hyper superpower what comes to military issues. Real nice…

If you disagree, answer these questions:
1) Are USN carrier battle groups likely to close within a few hundred miles of the Chinese coast in times of war?

Depends how far they wish to strike inside the Chinese territory. If there is no coastal defence, then yeas why not as there is no bluewater elements to counter them.

2) Is anyone likely to try to invade China from the Sea in the foreseeable future?

Basic philosofy of justification of any armed forces in any part of the world…common thumprule is that if there is nothing to prevent it, then yeas there propably will be.

If the answer to 1) and 2) are both “No”, then:
3) Why is the PLAN to mass producing Type 022s for coastal defence when there is no pressing need for coastal defence FACs at a time when the PLAN budeget is being tightly squeezed by so many other high priority projects ranging from LPDs to new gen FFGs, SSKs, SSNs, SSBNs and DDGs etc?

Well altough my awnser to those was different I can still awnser to this (or In fact I have already done it):

Really good standing point for todays PLAN is the Type022 FACs which brings focus few good points.
In otherhand, PLAN is still willing to invest into inshore coastal defences, but what makes this class peculiar, its that despite the Large combatants and other services in the PLAN, the Type022 still presents the Soviet model coastal defence thinking. Why? I think becouse these crafts will be the last of the line in PLAN inshore attack vessels. After they are worn out PLAN is to be large enough atleast to keep the martime figthing well beyond Chinese shore line. (similar fashion than in most Western larger fleets)
So the schedule of when the grand-strategical choises of PLAN comes prevailing is IMO when the Type022 class is laid up. The current fleet of DDGs, and FFGs is to give stopgap during this transistion period, and to give experience and forge the PLANs know-how of how to operate in blue water navy, possible even in power projection role

If you haven’t noticed that the PLAN shipbuilding is taking babysteps towards the bluewater capability and certainly isen’t running straight to the unvisible corner. In the meantime PLA still needs workable solution for its naval forces and if it cannot fully use the bluewater concept (as it lacks the cabability) it has to rely on the alternative, which is coastal defence.

Unless you can come up with a plausable explaintion to the above questions, your arguement that the Type 022s are only meant for coastal defence falls flat on its face.

I have awnsered to those, propably in every single post that I have made, its completely another thing wheter you understand it or not.

No, but plenty of people have been to the deep oceon in smaller boats that are not catamarans, they have come back and go out on a regular basis.

Quite what I’ve tought…explains alot of your lack of perspective. Tell me, how many of those have waged war on those small boats at deep in the oceans??

Its not volume but displacement that is important. If anything, this example goes to show that the Type 022 is meant for deep water operations. It has much less volume and about half the crew of the Hamina class, but weighs only 30 tons less.

We know that it carries only a very basic sensor suit (so a lot less weight) and does not carry a main gun or SAMs and mines/depthcharges. Even if a lot of that is offset by the 022’s larger missile load, you cannot deny that the 022 is usually heavy for its size. That points to large fuel/store carry ability and/or heavily reinforce hull design, which in turn points to open water operations.

Well Its more of the ultra-lightweight construction of Hamina that makes it so light compared to what it carries onboard. 200 tons is actually quite small displacement, in fact all other combatants of that size are suprise suprise…well you know it without saying already;)

No one said anything about the Type 022 being better, merely that it is extremely likely that they can operate further out to sea then that required of coastal defence.

And where did I said Hamina was better? I said that despite the deniable performance superiority, Hamina is still regarded as a coastal defence boat just is every single other missile FAC in the world as well.

The Hamina class is what a coastal defence boat should be like – well rounded and able to operate indepedently to a large degree and perform a wide range of missions

There we almoust agree, tough IMO Hamina is far too small to its given function which is due the fact that the design was a compromise in the changing operational doctrines. But thats completely different story and we shouldn’t go to it. Still interestingly enough Hamina is exactly what you think 022 would be, a coastal defence vessel given tasks which are starting to sound bit blueish..

The Type 022 is nothing like that, it is a purely offensive attack platform who’s only capacity is to zoom towards a target with the aim of off-board sensor platforms to unleash enough firepower to potentially sink any ship afloat.

Yeas…generationally behind of almoust every other western missile FACs. Its tied to the centralized shore-base commanded, inflexible and stiff operational concept. Its like the old soviet ground controlled fighter/interceptor doctrines where as Hamina for instance represents the idea that the decisions and commanding is made from the ships themselves, and it has the neccerical equipments to do so.

As I have said before so many times, the only use for such a dedicate weapons system is against USN carrier battle groups, and unless you think they are going to be operating within a mere few hundred miles from the Chinese coast, then the Type 022 is going to have to go into the open oceon to hunt them out

Nope…its more like against the advancing USMC landing fleet. Or disturping any other enemy naval activities in the coastal waters. It cannot survive against any aerial threads, which are quite often the case with carriers…Also its weapon suite hardly match the requirements of anti-carrier task. Remember that Soviets didn’t regarded even the 3M80s, the largest SSM that china has as primary anti-carrier missiles, so what makes you think twice the smaller missile would do the job better?

And also, please, your view that ‘if we don’t use if then nobody else will’ is small minded and arogent in the extreme. Just because the Finnish navy uses a certain doctorine does not make that universal. What more, the Finnish navy and PLAN are operating under very different historical, geographical and operational requirements. If the Finnish navy was threatened by hostile carriers, do you not think they would also develop ships with the range neccessary to threaten those carriers?

Finnish doctrines does vary from the chinese ones, but the very basics of naval warfare still aplies both countries.

The PLAN did not just buy a few civilian cats and slap missiles onto them, they designed these boats from the bottom up and that is the key – they designed them to fit their requirements. Civilian cats are designed with carry capacity as a prirority and also only designed to operate in littirol conditions. Was the cat you were on multi-story to allow more passengers? If so, then that is going to affect its sea going capabilities.

I have been in plenty of civilan aircraft, but I make not assumptions about them being anything like how military planes would handle.

So first you tried to apply the logic that “civil ships does it too” and then completely controverse it but the above statement…so which one is it?:rolleyes:

I was basing that on the cruise range of civilian yachts of similar size, as a counter example to your original claim that the Type 022 was too small to be able to carry enough fuel and provisions for long voyages. That is clearly not the case since civilan yachts seem to be able to give a 40m vessal a 1000nm range and still have gobs of internal space left over for all the comforts of home. All at ~150t to boot.

That proves that the size of the Type 022 is no limitation to it being able to have the fuel and provision carry capacity for long distance travel.

😮 😮 Now its back on the “but civilships does it…” I’m starting to loose the tracks:confused:

That is just plain nonesense. I have never claimed that airpower can replace boots on the ground. However, it would be enough to majorly weaken an enemy before you attack and air support would allow a landing to take place and to give it necessary fire support until the land units get ashore in enougth number and with the right kind of equipment to start operating effectively by themselves.

It can and it will. But it cannot completely whipe out the enemy landforces, not of the size of ROCA and not with the capacity of PLAAF. Weren’t stating that “type 99G will start to manuvre and PLAAF just takes out everything that tries to pin them down”??? Now a question which I might ask later on as well: How can a less than a division size unit without complete organisations and all the required support units manuvre against minium of Army size (in this case four to six fully equiped divisions) defender? Even with US airpower, it would be the first time in history of warfare if it would happen.

To think that artillary on its own would be able to repell an amphibious landing attack when you have already surrendered control of the skies is just day dream ego trips.

Not artillery at alone (tough it would do most of the actual destruction of enemy forces) but the overall power and performance of the ROCA armed forces. The reason why I’ve raised the artillery to the pedestral is to give you the idea of how landwarfare is fought. You seem to take it that the artillery is some sort of seperate branch which operates independently and failed to understand that the artillery is just one part of every basic division or battalions operation and is tied to its performance as a depending and giving fraction. I’ve tried to explain just what exact unit of the division does what and what others wont and what whithout the whole division/battalion cannot function without.

We have already been through this before. Serbia was a special case because of climate that messed with LGBs (which were the primary PGM used by NATO then) and also because of NATO’s own limitation of over-reliance on technology with effective no human intell.

NATO’s problem was that it was not able to find targets to hit and when it did find targets, their weapons did not work as well as usual. The size of the NATO air force was of no importance because of that.

Oh yeas climate messed the LGBs…Funny, becouse I once asked about our instructors what good does the low-level anti-aircraft network gives us and you should have seen their faces and I was given quite a lecture what exactly it gives…Which correspond quite well from what I’ve read about the Kosovo conflict. The Serbian low-level airdefence network was regardless of its obvious outdateness still way too tense and powerfull to prevent NATO airpower to dive in to the lowlevel operations which are essential if you wish to inflict serious damage to mobile landforce units.

Well the rest is just transparent evasion strategy. Lets just say the PLA has taken complete control of the skies and have been bombing your coastal defences relentlessly. The invasion fleet is assemblying on the Chinese coast. Come up with a reasonable percentage of artillery units to be still operational and we can move on from there

Well lets just say that as the ROCAF fought hard, gaining the airsuperiority took heavy toll to PLAAF and thus severly reduced the ammount of damage which it would have inflicted if operated freely and also limiting the capacity of PLAAF to give decent airsupport. The toll was most severe to Su-30MKK’s and J-10s which are/were the best air-to-ground assets of PLAAF. They are left with round 60% of the quantity of those planes. (the toll was numerically larger to the older Q-5s)

The ammount of damage to the ROCA landforces, to its armoured and infantry divisions and to its airdefence assets, exspecially to the lowlevel-ones was far smaller than the most upfront fanboys might think…around the same as in Serbia bombings in 1999:dev2:

So as the fixed capacity of PLANs landing ships can only bring around all the tanks of one division to the shore at one sortie, without any supporting equipments, lets play along with the idea that one fully equipted marine brigade reached to the shores (I left mines and all other nasty stuff aside from this first assault so that we could see where to go on) Your turn. What do you plan to do with that brigade?

Taiwan’s President Chen Shui Bian’s ‘decisive battle outside the territory’ strategy is a good example of the emphysis on stopping the PLA before they reach Taiwan. Another can be found in Taiwan’s own annual Han Kuang military excerises, which only ever train to stop an invasion and to repell a landing. They never bother practicing what to do after the PLA have taken a beachhead because there is just no hope after that.

How about you try finding some sources and experts that think Taiwan would be able to defeat the PLA once they get ashore in numbers?

Ofcourse ROCA practises the “decisive battle outside the territory” as the ROCN is far more bluewater oriented than PLAN and long enjoyed superiority towards its mainland neighbours (this superiority is however reduced allmoust to nill by now however) Still the concept of ROCN is to take the naval engagements to far from Taiwanese shores, or in otherwords to be dominant in the seas and prevent the chinese landing forces to ever reach its goal.

But then you could ask, why does ROC field a large defensive landforces if they think they have no hope if PLAN would reach the shores?

That just shows how poor your knowledge is. Beidou is already operational and there have been plenty of photographic evidence of PLA soldiers training with them to prove the point. Then there is also the Russian GPS system.

Yeah I don’t understand…a quate, not by mine but Dongfengs:
The system provides positioning data of 100m accuracy. By using ground- and/or space-based (the 3rd and 4th satellites) differential methods, the accuracy can be increased to under 20m. The system capacity is 540,000 user per hour, and serve up to 150 users simultaneously.

ghh…Now a counterquestion: Does that in your obinion sufficies to undisturped and smooth artillery work?? :rolleyes:

Again, that is only a problem you invented based on the false assumption that Beidou is not yet operational. It is, so that issue is resolved easily.

But not accurate nor wide-networked enough to serve modern artillery requirements (We for instance managed to gain millimeter-level accuracy of you positioning with plain old theodolites)

…dammn I revealed the awnser…:mad: 😉

Either a forward air controller or whoever the chain of command directs him to call to order and air strike.

…Not sufficient enough, I want to know all the phases between the artillery radar spotting the enemy shells and when heroic PLAAF hurries to rescue.

Irrelevent. The PLA has been working hard on cross forces co-operative operations. There are well documented cases of PLAAF forward air controlers training with PLA infantry units. Its hardly an insurmountable task to assign a PLAAF forward air controled to the artillery spotting radar to relay attack orders to PLAAF assets or even to just train and equip the crew of the radar truck to be able to call in air strikes on their own

Did you say your math teacher “irrelevant!” if you don’t know the awnsers to his/hers equations?? Forward aircontrollers may be somewhere in the middle, but you see my question was toughted to be a test wheter you can casp the idea of how organisational features, chain-of-command and more importantly the difference of various size units affects on “simple” action like this.

Joint training is one thing, the full set of doctrines and equipments to conduct full joint-branch operations is another.

In which case the PLA would have gotten its own artillery ashore, set up and ready.

Yeas…a good boy (1 point). Now can we now seddle for the idea that counter-battery radars operate mainly alongside your own artillery and move on?

Its nowhere near that complicated and I suspect you know that or else you have even less of a clue then I first feared.

The radar itself does not need any additional changes. All that is required is for the crew to be able to reply the targeting information they get from the radar to friendly fighters overhead. A simple radio with the right codes can do that. Or failing that, the PLA merely need to assign a PLAAF forward air controler to the radar and have him rely the targeting info into the system. Its a very simple thing to do.

Well all you need to do is invent a perpetuum mobile and all the world energyprolems would be solved! How hard can it be?

Exactly…:cool:

Thank you for telling me what I already know. But your scoot tactic is only really effective against other artillery, and even then it would not be effective against modern artillery spotting radars as they give an almost instantanious fix on the enemy location. You just physically can’t move that quickly. That problem is compounded when air strikes and CAS planes come into play because unlike an artillery shell, fighters can independently search and attack a target even after it has moved.

Against other artillery, you might be safe after moving a few miles but a fighter will still very likely spot you and engage you, especially if you are on the move.

Nope. Its effective against all adversors that tries to use the counter-battery radars by the means of determine your location.

And yeas figters could do that in some cases, but that would require them to come down to the level where the organic airdefence of the divisions and battalions is able to engage them. Those aircrafts cannot hover and circle the area constantly when trying to search the ants from the surface of the woods if so to say.

Simply not true. Have you seen PLA units train? I have and they have no need for such things. I have seen a PLA AAA unit with no digital targeting equipment on their cannons respond instantly to a siumlated radar contact and had the target lock within 5 seconds. If the PLA expects AAA to be able to hit fast moving planes by aiming their cannons manually, then I would expect PLA artillerymen to be able to aim their cannons manually and hit a fixed enemy battery in a simular time frame.

So now you really are being quite dump. Sense when does AAA guns have to fire from surface of the ground to surface on the ground behind the horizon? You cannot be saying that the targetting of AAA and indirect artillery is done by using the same methods and concepts…man you are a noob.

You apparently have no idea how normal artillery is aimed and to what it bases its aiming, do you?

Those Iraqi artillery units that were overrun were not really batteries, but the odd gun here and there. That was because US air power was such that any larger concerntrations would surely have attracked attention and been attacked.

Besides, the above only serve to prove another point of mine that artillery is only really useful if you can pin the enemy down. That is why I keep mentioning the Type 99G – there is nothing in the ROC armoured forces that can hope to slow, never mind stop these things. The ROCA’s M60s are about as capable as Iraqi T72s, and thats only because the M60s had been heavily modified. But they can not hope to have a much better chance against Type 99s the T72s did against M1A1/A2s. Unless the ROCA can showhow stop the Type 99s, ROCA artillery would either be too busy being overrun or running away to be of much use

Ahh…the real treat, simple taken out of concept and cotext penis vs. penis comparison of Type 99 and M1s under the logic that “Number A was better than number B, number C is only as good as number B, so number D must be better consideralby than number C becouse number B was inferior to number A…”

Man how I miss the old days:diablo:

Such simple measures would not fool SAR. The PLA has had SAR spysats for years and most of the strike planes have SAR modes on their radar.

Based on what? And how does, if the situation changes, the data from SAR be transfered to the units needed to take out those guns?

In times of war they will be outside. In peace time, their storage facilities would be well known to the PLA through agents working on the ground. There is simply no hiding them.

Well what if the agents have been tied to so exiting came of bridge or blackjack that they did forget to snoop around the ROCA armed forces barracks alltogether?:eek:

Please tell me you are being stupid on purpose.

What part of ‘during the landings’ can you not understand? That is the most critical stage and once the PLA has established a beachhead, they can use any old boat to bring in anything and everything they would want.

During the landing stages, you can be sure that the PLAAF would be operating at maximum capacity to provide air support for the landing forces, and they can quite easily keep several hundred combat aircraft airborne over the landing areas for a few days without problems. They can then scale back their operations to recover once the ground forces are ashore in sifficient number to take care of themselves.

So not seven days but few days at least:rolleyes: Please note my other replies regarding to this matter.

And were you trained to fight under enemy air superiority?

Well in country with 60 fighters and one regiment of Buks in area defence role(!), what would you think?? Every single time we took the battlegear on we were under enemy airsuperiority…and man did the instructors just love to shout “ILMAHÄLYYTYS!!! or “VIHELTÄÄÄ!!!”

Sheesh, if you started with that artitude from the start we could have save a lot of time and energies. Instead it took me several thousand words to make you climb down from the plainly ridiculous notion that:

You think? Becouse from my part we could just sake hands and continue this in other place and other time…I gotta work you know and so do you.

Which is the position you started with.

As for the rest of that paragraph, I do understand, but what you seems to be unable to grasp is the idea that units can operate with a little bit of flexibility to easily overcome some minor shortoming without the need for a new dedicate system or survice.

The only time that the PLA would be without its organic fire support is during the initial stages of a landing. And the PLA would be fully aware of that and would be stupid not to develop tactics and equipment to address that. I have merely give an example of how existing PLA equipment can be easily and pretty much effortlessly adapted to counter ROCA artillery fire during the landing phase of any attack. Once that is done, the PLA can fight quite happily with its own intergrate organic fire support. Add in air support, unmatched armour and superior numbers and the outcome is clear.

No my lad. The one unable to grasp is you and the fact and idea how tied to the srutctures the whole warfighting is. Military hieracy and chain-of-commands are essential in all phases and in all branches. You can try it yourself: Try to get 100 randomly selected people to walk from location A to location B in given tight timeframe and that all the people are in the location B at the same time.
Tacktical awerenes and the ability to adjust to the changing situation is huge important but frankly the stiff tri-logical organisations and the dual-leadership idea of PLA is basicly against this from the conceptual point of view. In fact one certain northern little country managed to stop the invasion of certain large super power which used exactly the same structual components than PLA still today with that mentioned ability.

Well I still have fate:rolleyes: 😎

But I agree with your frustration and fully understand your and others dislike towards this type of mentality. Having managed few forums which solely is focussed on that part of the world for few years now, I’ve sort of have become pervertically addicted to these type of “exchanges of ideas”…

…I know I should seek help…but I just cannot leave my battleground. I’m too bloody pround;)

Length of ship actually tells nothing about its sea fairing ability.
If you look at commercial Crabbing boats that brave the worst seas in the Bering Sea then you’d notice a lot of ships are in that size range.

Thus the word “combatant” in my quote…:rolleyes: So to make this clear and leave no room for sarcasm, name me other missileboats (200-300 tonner) that are designed to operate in bluewater naval operations and outside the coastaldefence enchelon?

The long waited Principe De asturias!!
And as nice as always….great work
Whats next? Chacri narubet? Guiseppe Garribaldi?

ya rolling stones, which IMO were the first of the dinosaurs to lost the true meaning of rock:(

Gnah, Its only rock n’ roll;)

what people want is for China to buck up its human rights and stop treating people like dirt or less then dirt. Whats so tough to understand about that?

What people?:) Western people or chinese people?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
If western people wants that, why should china give **** about what they want?

there simply are no excuses or get out clauses for thier behaviour.

Whos is?
Me?
No my friend, I have allready told you that I dislike chinese HR violations too, you failed there lad.;) 😉