Ask anything Thread


Dante80

New Member
Registered Member
hi everybody, asking a favor. Can somebody post some pics on LHD/LHAs (other than US ones) receiving solid cargo from replenishment ships? like Juan Carlos I class and so on. Thx! Or can somebody tell me where is the solid cargo receiving set (and what is the formal name for this thing?) on HMAS Canberra?
For the fundamentals of Replenishment At Sea (RAS or UNREP),
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. It is a decent starter.

For HMAS Canberra in particular, the ship uses a solid station operating via sliding eyebolt. This is situated at the rear point of the castle superstructure in the ship. I cannot find a photo but here is a video.

 

szbd

Junior Member
For the fundamentals of Replenishment At Sea (RAS or UNREP),
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. It is a decent starter.

For HMAS Canberra in particular, the ship uses a solid station operating via sliding eyebolt. This is situated at the rear point of the castle superstructure in the ship. I cannot find a photo but here is a video.

thx very much

but I didn't see the solid station on HMAS Canberra in the video, and there was no ship to ship solid replenishment.

I do know there's a solid station behind rear of island on Juan Carlos I, and there's a liquid station next to it on the rear of island. I believe these two staions are for replenishing other ships. not sure where is the reception solid station
L61-Juan-Carlos-I-04.jpg

but these two stations are not on HMAS Canberra.
20190321ran8562953_198.jpg
 

Dante80

New Member
Registered Member
You are correct, I was thinking of the system in Juan Carlos (you can see it in the picture behind the island).
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
hi everybody, asking a favor. Can somebody post some pics on LHD/LHAs (other than US ones) receiving solid cargo from replenishment ships? like Juan Carlos I class and so on. Thx! Or can somebody tell me where is the solid cargo receiving set (and what is the formal name for this thing?) on HMAS Canberra?

Can we stay on topic since this is a "ask anything" for the PLAN thread!

As such any questions concerning other navies or regular certain types should be asked here:

 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
Firstly, there are no real life historical scenarios where there are competing AWACs according to the meaning of “real life”. Name me one and we can have a conversation. Speculation of hypothetical scenarios do not count as real life because they are a product of your own imagination on CONOPs and how certain assets may be deployed.
Speculation and simulations of hypothetical scenarios is the entire basis of comparison.

But you seem to be unable to articulate realistic scenarios.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
You don’t know how the USN intends to employ its ISR assets in a high-end conflict because it continues to evolve. You are simply speculating. For example, 5 E-2D’s are typically deployed with a carrier as compared to 4 E-2C’s in the past. The USN is evolving in how it deploys its E-2D in a networked centric CEC environment. Two E-2D’s are normally on station during operations. I would expect the number of E-2Ds deployed will be more than 5 per carrier in a wartime mode and operating in multi carriers configuration.
Now you're stating a scenario with multiple carriers.
But the same logic applies, irrespective of the number of E-2s and the specific CONOPs.

Sure, US carriers could deploy twice as many E-2s. But that would cost twice as much.

And if we're comparing AWACs aircraft like the E-2 or KJ-500, it's still the same ratio in terms of cost and capability.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
I only stated endurance and on station time. The rest of the stuff is your own concoction of what that might translate to in terms of range based on your own assumptions. In other words, it is your own product, not what I said.

You are unbelievably dishonest in your interactions even when the facts are contrary to your claims. This is a recurring feature with you.
When you state endurance and station times, the speed of the E-2 is a publicly known factor.
So an operating distance of 500km is not an assumption.
It is the only conclusion available from the 2 scenarios that you picked.

Operating at a distance of 500km from the carrier makes the *superior* abilities of the E-2 pretty irrelevant - because the USN publicly acknowledges they won't operate carriers closer than 1000km from a hostile coastline.

Again, it's not my fault you don't realise what you have written, when you're trying to argue that the E-2 is a better platform.

---

Yes, I agree your scenarios aren't necessarily the actual CONOPs of endurance versus station time.

But it is perfectly valid to compare different AWACs platforms in terms of endurance versus station time - in notional locations.

And furthermore, there is always a budget, so cost must be a factor when comparing the relative capabilities of different platforms.
 

Brumby

Major
Speculation and simulations of hypothetical scenarios is the entire basis of comparison.

But you seem to be unable to articulate realistic scenarios.
Now you're stating a scenario with multiple carriers.
But the same logic applies, irrespective of the number of E-2s and the specific CONOPs.

Sure, US carriers could deploy twice as many E-2s. But that would cost twice as much.

And if we're comparing AWACs aircraft like the E-2 or KJ-500, it's still the same ratio in terms of cost and capability.
This is an example of your tendency to engage in black hole conversations i.e. no scope, no objective and ever changing goal post. The genesis of this topic was a product comparison between different AWAC platforms and the assertion that the E-2 is inferior.

It is not a discussion about hypothetical scenarios on how AWACs might be employed in a broader conflict and nether is it about cost benefit analysis across platforms. You simply don't have the data for such conversation and more importantly you are way off course.

I will not entertain any more such conversation and this will be my last reply on this topic.

When you state endurance and station times, the speed of the E-2 is a publicly known factor.
So an operating distance of 500km is not an assumption.
It is the only conclusion available from the 2 scenarios that you picked.

Operating at a distance of 500km from the carrier makes the *superior* abilities of the E-2 pretty irrelevant - because the USN publicly acknowledges they won't operate carriers closer than 1000km from a hostile coastline.

Again, it's not my fault you don't realise what you have written, when you're trying to argue that the E-2 is a better platform.
You still don't get it after repeated attempts at pointing out to you your problem.

You are clearly entitled in making your own determination based on available data. However you do not have free rein in misrepresenting something that I did not say as if I did. That is lying on your part.

Did I say that the E-2 has an operating distance of 500 km? It is a simple binary question. Yes or No?
 

Hadoren

New Member
Registered Member
Why don't we at SDF ever talk about the PLAAF's mines?

Mines have been utilized effectively throughout the history of modern naval warfare. Mining areas near Taiwan, the South China Sea, or Okinawa could be a very effective A2/AD tool in warfare (in my opinion). It could be a great way to counter the existing superiority of the American navy.

Is there substantial development of PLAAF mines going on? Do we not discuss it because it's impossible to see that secret development? Or is it because mines aren't as sexy as aircraft carriers?
 

by78

Brigadier
Why don't we at SDF ever talk about the PLAAF's mines?

Mines have been utilized effectively throughout the history of modern naval warfare. Mining areas near Taiwan, the South China Sea, or Okinawa could be a very effective A2/AD tool in warfare (in my opinion). It could be a great way to counter the existing superiority of the American navy.

Is there substantial development of PLAAF mines going on? Do we not discuss it because it's impossible to see that secret development? Or is it because mines aren't as sexy as aircraft carriers?
Mines are a relatively neglected area at SDF, likely due to a relatively lack of current information and mindshare compared to the breakneck development of more visible platforms. I recall mine warfare being talked about as a means of area denial some 15-20 years ago. Back in 2009, Andrew Erickson wrote a report for the Naval War College on China's mine warfare, probably the most definitive English-language source on the topic.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

From what I gathered over the years – admittedly I wasn't looking very hard – is that PLAN has quite an extensive mine warfare program. The PLAN has dedicated minelayers, and most – if not all – of its submarines can lay mines. With minor modifications, the civilian fishing fleet can also be pressed into laying mines. On the flip side of the coin, the PLAN also operates one of the largest – if not the largest – minesweeper fleets in the world.

The Chinese strategy for mine warfare is geared toward area denial, namely to obstruct critical sea lanes and deny potential adversaries freedom of movement. If I recall correctly, mine warfare is envisioned as a critical component of a potential blockade of Taiwan. I'd imagine mines can also prove useful in other areas of potential disputes. I won't go into them for fear of attracting fanboys and derailing the thread.

China also possesses a large variety of mines that includes both dumb and smart ones, including self-navigating and remotely controlled types. I have no information on the number and composition of the mine inventory or specifications and model designations. Again, I haven't been looking hard.

There are several threads related to mine warfare here, so you might want to take a look there for more information. Maybe it's time to aggregate them into a unified Chinese mine warfare thread and keep it updated.
 

Top