055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Blitzo]

So I guess you didn't say this:

"I wasn't aware of myself trying to claim any sort of right to possess default assumptions" and
"Actually I think I do have some rights to default assumptions here" don't really fit well together in our universe, but whatever. I look forward to your next feat of gymnastics here.

Fair enough, in the many back and forth posts I must have forgotten that one.
However, in the context of what I was replying to, it is still about making "default assumptions" based on my own interpretations of the information and rumours that we have -- in this case being my original post which mentioned the "strong indications" of 055's first batch and so on.

After all I've never claimed my default assumption or position cannot be challenged, and you and others are free to disagree.

We don't have to wait for "completion" of the entire program, just the first ship. I don't know when this latest program started. I only provided a quote from an article listing two ships in 2015 and 2016, when the program itself could have started in 2014, 2013, or even earlier. Of course there has been an expectation that such an upgrade was in the works. If you count the articles from the last decade in addition to the ones from the last few years, this exact upgrade has been in the works for quite a long time, so you trying to claim the default assumption here is about as humorously futile as it gets. Just because it's been so protracted doesn't give you the right to claim away the default assumption without any shred of evidence to the contrary.

As far as I know, the USS Cowpens, and then the USS Gettysburg were the first ships to enter the CG PMP in 2015, and both are scheduled to return to the fleet in 2020.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The US Navy's Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Cowpens (CG 63) is set to undergo a modernisation effort at Naval Base San Diego, under the CG Phased Modernization Program.

It is the first ship under the class to receive significant capability upgrades to enhance its performance in multiple mission areas."


edit: as for "expectation" that such an upgrade was in the works -- I see it differently. I see it as such an upgrade having been mentioned/proposed a few times over the past decade or more in various upgrade packages, but was never carried out in the past for some reason. So yes, it would be reasonable to cast some skepticism if such an upgrade will be undertaken as part of the latest upgrade package as well given the history of this particular upgrade, and it definitely should not be viewed as an upgrade that is the default position.

Again, this is irrelevant because there are a minimum of two articles from recent years saying the crane is or will be getting deleted, so if the cranes weren't deleted then, it certainly doesn't have any impact on them getting deleted NOW.

... sure, but you can appreciate how much easier it makes our job, by showing that we only have to concentrate on the cruisers possibly getting the cranes deleted "now" rather than also having to consider whether they might have been deleted in the past or not?

Showing those photos helps to narrow down our search parameters to only more recent developments.

If a crane got removed but the module itself was not yet upgraded, it wouldn't necessarily make news. The difficulty is almost certainly not merely the crane removal itself but rather the upgrade from the dedicated 5-cell module to the dedicated 8-cell module, which would probably have to be done during refit. If it was so easy as removing the crane and replacing it with 3 VL tubes, it would already have been done long ago. What I assume is going on in the news sector is the conflation of the crane removal with a simultaneous 8-cell module replacement, while this may or may not actually be the case in practice.

Sure,that's possible. But it's also possible that such an upgrade was just never carried out at all, and that the intermittent mentions of crane deletion in a handful of articles were just mentions that didn't get carried out as each programme modernization package advanced.

I already told you those upgrades aren't necessarily coincident in time and space (in fact they are definitely not), and I also did NOT in fact state that the first paragraph is "recent", or more specifically that all of the upgrades in the first paragraph are "recent". In fact though there is a vaguely distinguishable trend towards later dates towards the bottom of the article, the dates actually skip around frequently in that article, so being placed at the top or bottom isn't some kind of judge of "recentness", at least as far as that article is concerned.

There's not a "vaguely distinguishable trend towards later dates" -- each paragraph moves towards later dates as you go down, and describes upgrade packages of various systems that we know were present for about their time period. In this case, the first paragraph lists the crane deletion along with the Mk 38/Mk 88 turret upgrade which occurred many years ago considering the Ticos have been using Mk 38 mod 2s for many years before today.
I think you are really reaching if you want to argue that the mention of the crane deletion in that global security article is "recent".

But okay, upgrades aren't coincident in time and space... I'm not sure what this means in practice.

As I stated above, you don't have ANY articles to support your position that the default should be no crane deletion, whereas I have multiple articles to support mine that crane deletion has been in the works for over a decade, and is likely coming to fruition now.

Crane deletion has been thrown around over the last decade or even more in a handful of articles, yes, with varying degrees of credibility, however we do not have any evidence that it never actually carried out. Therefore, simply because the possiblity of a crane deletion has been suggested in the past does not mean it is reasonable to expect that a crane deletion should be considered always on the cards and always going to happen. If anything, the fact that the crane deletion was brought up so long ago along with the same upgrade package of Ticos with Mk 38 turrets, and mentioned again in the CCP modernization statement in 2002/3 and still weren't carried out, should show a trend that the "not deleting the crane" should be seen as the norm.

Also, the past pattern of mentions of crane deletions and not carrying them out, should further make it logical for the USN to say "okay, this time we're really doing it" if such a crane deletion was actually going to be done for the CG PMP modernization or any other potential VLS alone crane replacement that you suggest may be occurring recently.


Overall, I have no problem with saying that it might be possible that the CG PMP modernization or any other recent modernization might include VLS crane deletion, and I'm happy to wait for photos to see if that may eventually be the case or not.
However, if you're saying that the current lay out of the evidence and past events both recently and going back further into the past suggests that a crane deletion occurring should be seen as the "default position," and saying that the burden of evidence should be to prove that there is "no crane deletion," then I can't agree with that logic at all.

 

[Iron Man]

Fair enough, in the many back and forth posts I must have forgotten that one.
However, in the context of what I was replying to, it is still about making "default assumptions" based on my own interpretations of the information and rumours that we have -- in this case being my original post which mentioned the "strong indications" of 055's first batch and so on.

After all I've never claimed my default assumption or position cannot be challenged, and you and others are free to disagree.

You have not, but you have claimed that you have "rights" to the default assumption, which I did call you out on. If you are not claiming this, then it's just a matter of yourself and myself having different opinions.

As far as I know, the USS Cowpens, and then the USS Gettysburg were the first ships to enter the CG PMP in 2015, and both are scheduled to return to the fleet in 2020.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The US Navy's Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Cowpens (CG 63) is set to undergo a modernisation effort at Naval Base San Diego, under the CG Phased Modernization Program.

It is the first ship under the class to receive significant capability upgrades to enhance its performance in multiple mission areas."

Well then 2019 is going to be the first time we may have visual evidence one way or the other. This of course does not in any way preclude written evidence suggesting one way or the other.

edit: as for "expectation" that such an upgrade was in the works -- I see it differently. I see it as such an upgrade having been mentioned/proposed a few times over the past decade or more in various upgrade packages, but was never carried out in the past for some reason. So yes, it would be reasonable to cast some skepticism if such an upgrade will be undertaken as part of the latest upgrade package as well given the history of this particular upgrade, and it definitely should not be viewed as an upgrade that is the default position.

Skepticism about the crane deletion is NOT the same as claiming the right to have the default assumption be that it will NOT happen, since recent articles have claimed otherwise. Once again, you STILL have NO articles saying that the Navy brass changed their minds about the crane. Something as banal as financing would easily be enough to account for all the delays on the crane.

... sure, but you can appreciate how much easier it makes our job, by showing that we only have to concentrate on the cruisers possibly getting the cranes deleted "now" rather than also having to consider whether they might have been deleted in the past or not?

Showing those photos helps to narrow down our search parameters to only more recent developments.

Fine, as long as you acknowledge those photos are not any kind of evidence against the more recent developments.

Sure,that's possible. But it's also possible that such an upgrade was just never carried out at all, and that the intermittent mentions of crane deletion in a handful of articles were just mentions that didn't get carried out as each programme modernization package advanced.

I'm of the opinion that in fact this upgrade has NOT yet been carried out, though here I want to distinguish between "upgrade" (5-cell module to 8-cell module) and "crane deletion" which may or may not have happened, possibly on a sporadic basis, in between the first mentions about the crane (early 2000's) and the articles from the last few years.

There's not a "vaguely distinguishable trend towards later dates" -- each paragraph moves towards later dates as you go down, and describes upgrade packages of various systems that we know were present for about their time period. In this case, the first paragraph lists the crane deletion along with the Mk 38/Mk 88 turret upgrade which occurred many years ago considering the Ticos have been using Mk 38 mod 2s for many years before today.
I think you are really reaching if you want to argue that the mention of the crane deletion in that global security article is "recent".

But okay, upgrades aren't coincident in time and space... I'm not sure what this means in practice.

Nope, I see numerous skips backward in time as you go along. Like I said, there is a trend towards later dates as you scroll down the page but this is not universal and certainly not something you can try and pull out to use and individually claim the crane update was somehow anywhere in the period of the 90's. The first mentions of the crane outside of this article were in the early 2000's. Even in the first paragraph the various upgrades mentioned happened at different times. The only future upgrades in that paragraph were the Bushmaster and crane upgrades, and so far only the Bushmaster has happened. This is not some kind of evidence that since the Bushmaster happened and the crane hasn't, therefore the crane won't happen ever.

Crane deletion has been thrown around over the last decade or even more in a handful of articles, yes, with varying degrees of credibility, however we do not have any evidence that it never actually carried out. Therefore, simply because the possiblity of a crane deletion has been suggested in the past does not mean it is reasonable to expect that a crane deletion should be considered always on the cards and always going to happen. If anything, the fact that the crane deletion was brought up so long ago along with the same upgrade package of Ticos with Mk 38 turrets, and mentioned again in the CCP modernization statement in 2002/3 and still weren't carried out, should show a trend that the "not deleting the crane" should be seen as the norm.

Also, the past pattern of mentions of crane deletions and not carrying them out, should further make it logical for the USN to say "okay, this time we're really doing it" if such a crane deletion was actually going to be done for the CG PMP modernization or any other potential VLS alone crane replacement that you suggest may be occurring recently.


Overall, I have no problem with saying that it might be possible that the CG PMP modernization or any other recent modernization might include VLS crane deletion, and I'm happy to wait for photos to see if that may eventually be the case or not.
However, if you're saying that the current lay out of the evidence and past events both recently and going back further into the past suggests that a crane deletion occurring should be seen as the "default position," and saying that the burden of evidence should be to prove that there is "no crane deletion," then I can't agree with that logic at all.

Again, let's review the evidence. I see the score as at minimum 2-0 in terms of evidence in favor of my position. If you count the early 2000's articles, even higher. You have zero articles which mention any kind of changes to the original plan of crane deletion/upgrade. The passage of time is not some kind of win for you without additional evidence to support your case that minds have been changed, especially since we have more recent articles suggesting cranes are still an active issue. I think at this point the only way for you to actually prove your point is if ships come out of the most recent modernization WITH cranes intact or at least without 8-cell modules in place of the 5-cell modules, OR prior to 2019 somebody reliable puts out an article saying the crane upgrade in fact got scratched at some point.

 

[Blitzo]

You have not, but you have claimed that you have "rights" to the default assumption, which I did call you out on. If you are not claiming this, then it's just a matter of yourself and myself having different opinions.

I think this is a case of different interpretations of the meaning of certain words that may have some connotations but which may not be meant.

Well then 2019 is going to be the first time we may have visual evidence one way or the other. This of course does not in any way preclude written evidence suggesting one way or the other.

Mhmm.

Skepticism about the crane deletion is NOT the same as claiming the right to have the default assumption be that it will NOT happen, since recent articles have claimed otherwise. Once again, you STILL have NO articles saying that the Navy brass changed their minds about the crane. Something as banal as financing would easily be enough to account for all the delays on the crane.

The entire point about "skepticism towards the crane deletion" is that it determines what the burden for evidence is.

Fine, as long as you acknowledge those photos are not any kind of evidence against the more recent developments.

Those photos were never meant as any kind of evidence against the supposed more recent developments you have spoken of, only against the articles from the early 2000s and before that (the global security and the forecast international pdf).

I'm of the opinion that in fact this upgrade has NOT yet been carried out, though here I want to distinguish between "upgrade" (5-cell module to 8-cell module) and "crane deletion" which may or may not have happened, possibly on a sporadic basis, in between the first mentions about the crane (early 2000's) and the articles from the last few years.

Okay, so are you saying that you think the crane deletion has occurred, but that the "upgrade" has yet to occur/may be about to occur with the CG PMP or another potential recent or upcoming upgrade?

Nope, I see numerous skips backward in time as you go along. Like I said, there is a trend towards later dates as you scroll down the page but this is not universal and certainly not something you can try and pull out to use and individually claim the crane update was somehow anywhere in the period of the 90's. The first mentions of the crane outside of this article were in the early 2000's. Even in the first paragraph the various upgrades mentioned happened at different times. The only future upgrades in that paragraph were the Bushmaster and crane upgrades, and so far only the Bushmaster has happened. This is not some kind of evidence that since the Bushmaster happened and the crane hasn't, therefore the crane won't happen ever.

I'm not saying that because the Bushmaster upgrade happened and the crane hasn't that it means the crane "won't happen ever". I am saying that because the Bushmaster upgrade happened (from that global security article) and the VLS "upgrade" didn't happen as part of the same package, and because the VLS "upgrade" didn't happen as part of the 2002/3 CCP upgrade package either (neither allowing for the six total extra cells that the global security article and the forecastinternational pdf described), it means that we cannot assume that a VLS "upgrade" is definitely happening.

The most I will concede to is that the possibility of a VLS upgrade may be occurring or part of CG PMP or another upgrade effort of its own, but I will not agree with the notion that the reasonable default position to believe it is happening, not with the limited evidence and history we have so far.

Again, let's review the evidence. I see the score as at minimum 2-0 in terms of evidence in favor of my position. If you count the early 2000's articles, even higher. You have zero articles which mention any kind of changes to the original plan of crane deletion/upgrade. The passage of time is not some kind of win for you without additional evidence to support your case that minds have been changed, especially since we have more recent articles suggesting cranes are still an active issue. I think at this point the only way for you to actually prove your point is if ships come out of the most recent modernization WITH cranes intact or at least without 8-cell modules in place of the 5-cell modules, OR prior to 2019 somebody reliable puts out an article saying the crane upgrade in fact got scratched at some point.

Actually I would say the score is about 0-0, because the original early 2000s articles from both global security and forecastinternational describing the freeing up of space for those 6 extra cells did not come to fruition which we can see by photos.
I would even argue that it should be 1-0 in my favour because the fact that the addition/upgarde of 6 extra cells from the two early 2000s articles didn't occur despite what they wrote, means that we should have vigilance towards any more recent claims about an upgrade/addition of 6 cells. If such an upgrade is thought to be happening we should have clear unequivocal statements that it is happening and eventually photos of a full 64 cell bank, rather than assuming that just because they considered the upgrade/addition of 6 cells over a decade ago means that they are going to persist with such an upgrade today.



Personally, I think it's very possible that they might be upgrading/adding the 6 VLS with CG PMP. From the sounds of it it is a pretty substantial update so upgrading each VLS bank with three cells each shouldn't be a big deal. But based on the evidence and history regarding various modernization programmes over the years and including past descriptions of a VLS upgrade being on the cards yet not being carried out, logically speaking I cannot agree with the idea that the default position is to believe the VLS upgrade/addition is happening.
Instead, I think at this stage the most reasonable position to take is that the VLS upgrade/addition is possibly going to happen or possibly not going to happen and will have to wait for photos of the cruiser after CG PMP to settle the matter. I do not think the evidence is stacked in a way which makes the VLS upgrade/addition likely happening as a default position to be logical.

 

[Jura The idiot]

except of fanbois, sources give info to this effect:
"Also, a CG has 122 VLS cells, not 126 as stated in the article. Both launchers are arrayed in eight modules of eight, but there are three slots taken up both fore and aft by the loading cranes, which are no longer used but were not replaced by additional missile cells."

these sentences are from the discussion below

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and this info has been accepted by the author:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

52ndstate

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Thanks for the correction, I have no idea why I thought 126.

now
Iron Man
I'm all ears

LOL what? You can't possibly be serious trying to use the random comment of a random internet nobody as some kind of authoritative "source" for your claim. Need you sink so low?

[referring to
Bltizo
in the rest of the post]

LOLOL I knew the battle over two times three cells would go on

(if anybody else wanted to follow this:
I (and wiki claim Ticos currently have the capacity of 122, because after the removal of the cranes, the six cells have not been used;
Iron Man and fanboish sources claim 128)

so later yesterday I visited Facebook pages of three Ticos; if I recall correctly, these were the San Jacinto, Lake Erie, and Anzio, but it doesn't matter as most of the pictures were food-related and I didn't find a recent view like this:

the space I put in the red rectangle (behind the visitor) show the three cells now empty (there's plenty of similar pictures like this in Internet, but I admit they're not recent) ... OK I claim:

NO TICO HAS THE ABOVE SPACE NOW FILLED BACK WITH VLSS

if anybody posts a current picture with the the above space IN ANY TICO filled back with VLSs, I lost

Iron Man
do you accept this challenge?

 

[Iron Man]

Okay, so are you saying that you think the crane deletion has occurred, but that the "upgrade" has yet to occur/may be about to occur with the CG PMP or another potential recent or upcoming upgrade?

I don't know how many cruisers the crane deletion has already happened to. It really depends on how you interpret the 2014 article, which certainly seems to imply this is what is happening, +/- the actual 8-cell module upgrade. The deletion is simple enough given that the 3-cell crane could simply be lifted out of the module without too much expense; I would guess the entire contraption weighs no more than 3-4 tons tops. But the 8-cell module upgrade may or may not have happened yet, and probably will need at least pierside facilities at a stateside naval yard to complete.

I'm not saying that because the Bushmaster upgrade happened and the crane hasn't that it means the crane "won't happen ever". I am saying that because the Bushmaster upgrade happened (from that global security article) and the VLS "upgrade" didn't happen as part of the same package, and because the VLS "upgrade" didn't happen as part of the 2002/3 CCP upgrade package either (neither allowing for the six total extra cells that the global security article and the forecastinternational pdf described), it means that we cannot assume that a VLS "upgrade" is definitely happening.

The most I will concede to is that the possibility of a VLS upgrade may be occurring or part of CG PMP or another upgrade effort of its own, but I will not agree with the notion that the reasonable default position to believe it is happening, not with the limited evidence and history we have so far.

Well the limited evidence is in my favor while there is no evidence at all in yours, save the passage of time, which again is merely a logical fallacy waiting to be committed.

Actually I would say the score is about 0-0, because the original early 2000s articles from both global security and forecastinternational describing the freeing up of space for those 6 extra cells did not come to fruition which we can see by photos.
I would even argue that it should be 1-0 in my favour because the fact that the addition/upgarde of 6 extra cells from the two early 2000s articles didn't occur despite what they wrote, means that we should have vigilance towards any more recent claims about an upgrade/addition of 6 cells. If such an upgrade is thought to be happening we should have clear unequivocal statements that it is happening and eventually photos of a full 64 cell bank, rather than assuming that just because they considered the upgrade/addition of 6 cells over a decade ago means that they are going to persist with such an upgrade today.

"Vigilance towards" recent claims is not any kind of evidence against them, especially if it is quite reasonable to posit various factors as to why the crane upgrade hasn't yet happened. ACTUAL evidence against them would be claims to the contrary, and instead of negating them would just add a point to your side, which currently stands at zero.

Personally, I think it's very possible that they might be upgrading/adding the 6 VLS with CG PMP. From the sounds of it it is a pretty substantial update so upgrading each VLS bank with three cells each shouldn't be a big deal. But based on the evidence and history regarding various modernization programmes over the years and including past descriptions of a VLS upgrade being on the cards yet not being carried out, logically speaking I cannot agree with the idea that the default position is to believe the VLS upgrade/addition is happening.
Instead, I think at this stage the most reasonable position to take is that the VLS upgrade/addition is possibly going to happen or possibly not going to happen and will have to wait for photos of the cruiser after CG PMP to settle the matter. I do not think the evidence is stacked in a way which makes the VLS upgrade/addition likely happening as a default position to be logical.

Well I don't think it would be a simple matter of adding three cells. The USN could have done that very thing anywhere in the world at one of its numerous naval bases. It's far more likely IMO that it involves removing a non-upgradeable 5-cell module and replacing it with an 8-cell module. As for the "default" assumption I think it is obvious by now we aren't going to agree on this.

LOLOL I knew the battle over two times three cells would go on

(if anybody else wanted to follow this:
I (and wiki claim Ticos currently have the capacity of 122, because after the removal of the cranes, the six cells have not been used;
Iron Man and fanboish sources claim 128)

so later yesterday I visited Facebook pages of three Ticos; if I recall correctly, these were the San Jacinto, Lake Erie, and Anzio, but it doesn't matter as most of the pictures were food-related and I didn't find a recent view like this:

the space I put in the red rectangle (behind the visitor) show the three cells now empty (there's plenty of similar pictures like this in Internet, but I admit they're not recent) ... OK I claim:

NO TICO HAS THE ABOVE SPACE NOW FILLED BACK WITH VLSS

if anybody posts a current picture with the the above space IN ANY TICO filled back with VLSs, I lost

Iron Man
do you accept this challenge?

You clearly have not been following the discussion, and I am most definitely NOT going to repeat all of what I said to Bltizo back to you. You should just read the thread, especially the parts about logical fallacies.

 

[Jura The idiot]

...


You clearly have not been following the discussion, and I am most definitely NOT going to repeat all of what I said to Bltizo back to you. You should just read the thread, especially the parts about logical fallacies.

Iron Man
do you accept this challenge?

Yes or No would do it

 

[Blitzo]

I don't know how many cruisers the crane deletion has already happened to. It really depends on how you interpret the 2014 article, which certainly seems to imply this is what is happening, +/- the actual 8-cell module upgrade. The deletion is simple enough given that the 3-cell crane could simply be lifted out of the module without too much expense; I would guess the entire contraption weighs no more than 3-4 tons tops. But the 8-cell module upgrade may or may not have happened yet, and probably will need at least pierside facilities at a stateside naval yard to complete.


Well the limited evidence is in my favor while there is no evidence at all in yours, save the passage of time, which again is merely a logical fallacy waiting to be committed.


"Vigilance towards" recent claims is not any kind of evidence against them, especially if it is quite reasonable to posit various factors as to why the crane upgrade hasn't yet happened. ACTUAL evidence against them would be claims to the contrary, and instead of negating them would just add a point to your side, which currently stands at zero.


Well I don't think it would be a simple matter of adding three cells. The USN could have done that very thing anywhere in the world at one of its numerous naval bases. It's far more likely IMO that it involves removing a non-upgradeable 5-cell module and replacing it with an 8-cell module. As for the "default" assumption I think it is obvious by now we aren't going to agree on this.

Yes, I think we've both said our parts now. I have no more to add to this.

 

[Iron Man]

Iron Man
do you accept this challenge?

Yes or No would do it

Your challenge is useless. The answer is no. Read the effing thread already.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Your challenge is useless. The answer is no. Read the effing thread already.

thought you're a Player, Iron Man, but whatever

 

[Iron Man]

thought you're a Player, Iron Man, but whatever

I'm a player hater, actually.