1174Likes
Reply With Quote
Just ignore everything else I have said why don't you? And please, making nonsense hyperbole claims only makes your arguments seem childish.Originally Posted by Mysterre
Blatantly ignoring what has been very clearly explained to you already.The absence of an actual embarked helo inside a dedicated hangar makes the 056 a joke of a ASW ship. Or rather, not one at all. Calling it a brown water ship does nothing to alleviate the glaring omission of such a necessary part of ASW.
You need helos for ASW, being able to land, refuel and rearm them is the important part, whether it has a nice hanger to sit in or not when not on duty have very little impact on the ASW capabilities of a ship.
If the weather conditions is such that a helo needs a hanger, it won't be doing much sub hunting, and neither will any surface ASW ship.
My stressing of the brown water nature of the design was meant to highlight the fact that the 056s will be operating well within range of land based helos most of the time. That means not having a hanger is not much of a deficiency for such a ship, compared to blue water ASWs which won't have the luxury of being able to base their helos elsewhere.
What makes you think for a second that anyone would wait till such ridiculously short notice to deploy helos onto 056s?The helo must come from somewhere. It make it come from shore is a dangerous tactic when minutes count, and they always do in ASW warfare. Sometimes you have a brief blip at a convergence zone that you must act on immediately before the sub slips inside that layer and changes course on you.
I have already expressly mentioned that it is perfectly feasible to embark helos on 056s when in war time conditions by just lashing them onto the helipad. Even the likes of the USN and US marines regularly embark planes and helos on their carriers and LHDs by lashing them on deck when they need to carry more planes than can fit in the hangers. And those are for true Ocean-going blue water ops.
Where is it written in stone that TAS holes need to be square while mooring ones round? For someone who loves to use the 'square peg round hole' cliche so much, surely you must appreciate the irony of such insistence.We know very well what PLAN TAS openings look like by now. They are present on the 054A and the 052C and are square-shaped with thinly-flared openings, usually located towards the port side. The single large round opening in the back of the 056 is present on almost all PLAN ships and are access points for mooring lines. The 056 does not have TAS.
I would also urge you to dig up some photos of older PLAN ships with open rear end designs like the 056 and see where they run their mooring lines from when in port before you suggest again that the round hole is for mooring lines again.
Again, where is it written in stone that the helipad needs to be two decks above the waterline? How does that even make sense? The positioning of things on a ship is determined by ratios, not arbitrary units. If they just wanted to make things easier for themselves design wise, it would have been far far easier to just use the existing rations from the 054A design.It only appears to you that way because the 056 is so small. The helipad is two decks above the waterline, just like every other new PLAN ship with a helipad. Two decks is probably the new PLAN standard these days and is not likely to represent some special supersecret-potential-hangar-capacity.
I also have no idea what you are trying to say with that "supersecret-potential-hangar-capacity" dig since I have said nothing of the sort.
How does that make any sense at all?Besides, it is difficult to imagine them having to redesign the rear end to insert a hangar if that was not their intention originally. Again, square peg, round hole.
The 056 is an entirely new design. If they wanted it to have a hanger, they would have designed her to have one. Where did all this redesign notion come from in the first place?
Wait, so you are saying those are not hangers because you don't think they have doors? Really? Isn't it a wee bit more likely that there are in fact doors, but they are just haven't been closed yet?I also thought initially those two entryways were large enough for UAV's. Not anymore. Possibly just 5m inside are where the triple torpedo launchers are located, and the width is needed for them to swing out for launching. And if these were hangars for UAV's, they would have doors instead of exposing the UAV's to ocean spray. They don't seem to have any.
Please explain to me the rationale for thinking that they would not have doors?!
Just look at the size of those doors. They are for hangers, no doubt about it. China has been having an expanding waistline problem in recent years, but I assure you, there is no way anyone need doors that vast if they were only meant for people to pass through.
As for the openings you are referring to, well have you considered the possibility that they are not for torpedos?
Even many FFGs and DDGs carry their torpedo launchers out in the open on deck as opposed to having them stored internally. Have a look at the pictures for the 056 side-on, and notice the retractable parts.
There is one opening for the 30mm, there is one opening for the AShMs, and there is one opening right at the end before the hanger starts. Now what do you think that opening might be fore?
I was asking how you could possible make the claim the the 056 lacks the back-end processing equipment to support a TAS, where did this secret VLS claim come from?No knowledge of the internal layout of the ship is necessary, unless you want to claim that this little ship has some kind of popup VLS module that we can't see. When I say actionable, I mean that a ship has the ability to conduct offensive ASW against a distant sonar contact. So calm down, there is nothing on the inside of this ship that I need to know does or does not have this ability. Nothing on the inside of this ship has this ability, and that's a fact.
As for offensive ASW operations, well the 056s would at present employ helos as their primary ranged ASW weapon. However, when the PLAN develops an ASROC style weapon, I can see no technical difficulty that would prevent them from mounting 4 such ASROC missiles on the amidships launchers currently used for YJ83s.
As usual, already explained before in my last post.
Already thoroughly addressed.As I have already pointed out, not having embarked ASW helos is a serious deficiency for a supposed ASW warfare ship, regardless of the existence of a helipad.
That just tells me know don't know the first thing about ship designing.This sounds like making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't see any serious design consequences here. Adding 4 more missiles may be barely possible, but just as easily this space was intended for people to easily walk from port to starboard on the deck or vice versa, or allow enough room for exhaust gases to vent without damaging the hull.
Well, if you refuse to accept something despite it being explained repeatedly to you, that is not my problem. You can believe what you want, it means nothing to me, but the facts are against what you are claiming.I've already mentioned replacing YJ-83 with ASW missiles, and while this is certainly possible, the 056 does not carry anything that would make such a missile useful. This is why I keep saying that trying to describe the 056 as an ASW platform is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. A "potent" ASW platform needs one or more means of locating a distant enemy submarine AND one or more ways of being able to attack a distant enemy submarine. As far as I can tell right now, the 056 lacks BOTH of these components.
Bookmarks