PLAN Naval Helicopter & ASW Capability II

[Equation]

That really has nothing to do with the original statement though.

The point is just that it would not make much sense for a ship to send up a helicopter with only light AShMs against any real surface combatant the size of a corvette or larger.

I wasn't arguing about the original statement any longer why did you have to be so defensive? My statement wasn't even about ships sending up helicopter with "light AShMs" to combat larger naval vessel. It was about ANY AShMs can swarm and saturate the CIWS system.

 

[Blitzo]

I wasn't arguing about the original statement any longer why did you have to be so defensive? My statement wasn't even about ships sending up helicopter with "light AShMs" to combat larger naval vessel. It was about ANY AShMs can swarm and saturate the CIWS system.

I'm not being defensive.

I just assumed that since this entire discussion started from the topic of helicopters+light AShM against surface vessels, that that is what you were talking about.

If it's about any AShM, then okay, I have no particular opinion about it, but it's also not particularly directly relevant to the previous topic at hand.

 

[Iron Man]

Digressing again? You're the only one that takes it out of proportion because I dared to question your conclusion. That's why you bothered. And if you didn't get it, I was comparing your denial with the Sa'ar 5 incident.

Something did fail. Burden of proof? It had CIWS during a war and was hit by a missile. You said they didn't know Hezbollah had those types of missiles. They did know.

My conclusion was what? That the YJ-9 was small? This was in fact my conclusion and also the butt of my joke. Your conclusion is that CIWS sucks, not only missing the point and thus failing to "question" my actual conclusion but also spawning an entire conspiracy theory about how the Israelis are covering up their CIWS failure. Yes, there was a CIWS. It was turned off due to lack of expectation, poor decision-making, or any number of other reasons besides that "it was active and it failed", which is completely contrary to published reports. If you want to believe it's a lie and a coverup, go right ahead. But that is YOUR burden of proof, not mine.

 

[AssassinsMace]

My conclusion was what? That the YJ-9 was small? This was in fact my conclusion and also the butt of my joke. Your conclusion is that CIWS sucks, not only missing the point and thus failing to "question" my actual conclusion but also spawning an entire conspiracy theory about how the Israelis are covering up their CIWS failure. Yes, there was a CIWS. It was turned off due to lack of expectation, poor decision-making, or any number of other reasons besides that "it was active and it failed", which is completely contrary to published reports. If you want to believe it's a lie and a coverup, go right ahead. But that is YOUR burden of proof, not mine.

No, the obvious is CIWS isn't as perfect as you claim. I'll push it even further... no weapon is. Never said that CIWS sucks. Are you sticking to that even after admitting I didn't say that in order to avoid how your claim CIWS would easily take on these missiles is wrong? You need no conspiracy to be in denial. Just look at yourself. I know you're a lone operator. Got proof it was turned off? Like I said at first they denied there were any casualties. I mentioned in here when it happened and people didn't believe it then. Ask the New York Times about publishing there were WMDS in Iraq. Now that's "the paper of record" as they say and they got that wrong.

 

[Iron Man]

No, the obvious is CIWS isn't as perfect as you claim. I'll push it even further... no weapon is. Never said that CIWS sucks. Are you sticking to that even after admitting I didn't say that in order to avoid how your claim CIWS would easily take on these missiles is wrong?

Oh, is that the whole point of your tempest in a teapot? So my claim that CIWS would "easily" take on these missiles is wrong specifically because the Saar-5 got hit by antiship missile? LOL do you even read your own claims? If my claim is wrong because a ship got hit by an antiship missile then the proper conclusion would be for all navies to stop equipping their ships with CIWS. Clearly if an antiship missile can hit a Saar-5 then something is wrong with CIWS. Or, NOT.

Nothing is actually wrong with CIWS, and it doesn't matter a horse's fart that a Saar-5 was hit by an antiship missile. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too by claiming that it's a massively huge deal that a missile struck a ship equipped with CIWS but at the same time claim that no weapon is perfect. I'm guessing you are unable to process the mutually exclusive nature of your humorous rants. And you continue to ignore the published reports of the CIWS being turned off because you are no doubt one of those people who like to look for "patterns" in the "chaos" to find "secret knowledge" that mere mortals miss but only you can see. LOLOLOLOL

You need no conspiracy to be in denial. Just look at yourself. I know you're a lone operator.

Not sure what lone operator means in this context, but I expect it's some kind of slight. Watch yourself here or you will be reported to admin.

Got proof it was turned off? Like I said at first they denied there were any casualties. I mentioned in here when it happened and people didn't believe it then. Ask the New York Times about publishing there were WMDS in Iraq. Now that's "the paper of record" as they say and they got that wrong.

I've got more evidence than you have, which is NOTHING AT ALL.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The Saar-5 class is equipped with very advanced defensive systems. However, these were not in operation at the time of attack, partly because of the number of IAF aircraft operating in the area. It was feared that if the system was in operation, it would mistakenly identify friendly aircraft as enemy targets and engage them. The Navy has already issued new orders to its vessels operating off Lebanon."

Got proof that it was turned ON? I didn't think so. You literally have nothing but your own conjecture.

 

[antiterror13]

please be respectful to other members @Iron Man

This forum is the best forum in the world because of excellent Moderators and we respect each others

 

[AssassinsMace]

Oh, is that the whole point of your tempest in a teapot? So my claim that CIWS would "easily" take on these missiles is wrong specifically because the Saar-5 got hit by antiship missile? LOL do you even read your own claims? If my claim is wrong because a ship got hit by an antiship missile then the proper conclusion would be for all navies to stop equipping their ships with CIWS. Clearly if an antiship missile can hit a Saar-5 then something is wrong with CIWS. Or, NOT.

Nothing is actually wrong with CIWS, and it doesn't matter a horse's fart that a Saar-5 was hit by an antiship missile. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too by claiming that it's a massively huge deal that a missile struck a ship equipped with CIWS but at the same time claim that no weapon is perfect. I'm guessing you are unable to process the mutually exclusive nature of your humorous rants. And you continue to ignore the published reports of the CIWS being turned off because you are no doubt one of those people who like to look for "patterns" in the "chaos" to find "secret knowledge" that mere mortals miss but only you can see. LOLOLOLOL


Not sure what lone operator means in this context, but I expect it's some kind of slight. Watch yourself here or you will be reported to admin.


I've got more evidence than you have, which is NOTHING AT ALL.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The Saar-5 class is equipped with very advanced defensive systems. However, these were not in operation at the time of attack, partly because of the number of IAF aircraft operating in the area. It was feared that if the system was in operation, it would mistakenly identify friendly aircraft as enemy targets and engage them. The Navy has already issued new orders to its vessels operating off Lebanon."

Got proof that it was turned ON? I didn't think so. You literally have nothing but your own conjecture.

Wow you have your undies in a bunch. I guess you ignored the thing about the New York Times being wrong. Yeah I read an article that said the defense systems could tell IAF aircraft by the IFF system. Wow another contradiction. Who would've guessed it?

 

[Iron Man]

please be respectful to other members @Iron Man

This forum is the best forum in the world because of excellent Moderators and we respect each others

Wow, you're saying this to me? Have you even read the last several posts?

 

[Iron Man]

Wow you have your undies in a bunch. I guess you ignored the thing about the New York Times being wrong. Yeah I read an article that said the defense systems could tell IAF aircraft by the IFF system. Wow another contradiction. Who would've guessed it?

What does the NYT being wrong have anything to do with Haaretz? So Haaretz is wrong because NYT is wrong? Your rationalizations are getting more convoluted and tenuous by the microsecond. And go ahead and post this article of yours. Let's see it. Oh wait, no never mind. We don't need to see this article of yours because NYT was wrong. LOLOLOLOL

 

[AssassinsMace]

What does the NYT being wrong have anything to do with Haaretz? So Haaretz is wrong because NYT is wrong? Your rationalizations are getting more convoluted and tenuous by the microsecond. And go ahead and post this article of yours. Let's see it. Oh wait, no never mind. We don't need to see this article of yours because NYT was wrong. LOLOLOLOL

Because you believe if it was published it has to be true. Going to go against the idea that a military would have IFF protect its aircraft from being attacked by their own systems like believing during wartime they would turn off their systems?