PLA Navy news, pics and videos

Bltizo said:

All the people -- yes, I consider that fairly reasonable. .
All the ordnance -- probably not.
All the aircraft -- probably not.

Let's not exaggerate my position here.
There is a difference between saying that a carrier may try to evacuate the flight deck of as many personnel, ordnance and aircraft as they can, versus saying that a carrier would be able to get literally everything below decks.

Click to expand...

Let's not exaggerate my position here. Where did I say all the aircraft?

Let me make it very simple for you. Please point to any evidence that rapid evacuation of aircraft, crew, and ordinance has ever happened (or even been practiced) during active flight ops in the history of the US or any other navy. If you can't even pass this pathetically low bar, your incredibly fantastical scenario has no chance of passing the sniff test.

Iron Man said:

Let's not exaggerate my position here. Where did I say all the aircraft?

Click to expand...

My apologies, I misread your post.

In that case:
All the people -- yes, I consider that fairly reasonable. .
All the ordnance -- probably not.
Most of the aircraft -- possible, depends on how many aircraft there are on deck at the time.

Let me make it very simple for you. Please point to any evidence that rapid evacuation of aircraft, crew, and ordinance has ever happened (or even been practiced) during active flight ops in the history of the US or any other navy. If you can't even pass this pathetically low bar, your incredibly fantastical scenario has no chance of passing the sniff test.

Click to expand...

I don't think I'm required to do that, because agreeing to that would mean an underlying assumption that the previous generations of threats to aircraft carriers where continued flight operations was a sensible tactical decision, is equal to continuing flight operations as a sensible tactical decision against a credible AShBM threat.

Bltizo said:

My apologies, I misread your post.

In that case:
All the people -- yes, I consider that fairly reasonable. .
All the ordnance -- probably not.
Most of the aircraft -- possible, depends on how many aircraft there are on deck at the time.





I don't think I'm required to do that, because agreeing to that would mean an underlying assumption that the previous generations of threats to aircraft carriers where continued flight operations was a sensible tactical decision, is equal to continuing flight operations as a sensible tactical decision against a credible AShBM threat.

Click to expand...

So in other words, it is a fantasy scenario of yours with, let's not bandy about with words: ZERO evidence behind it.

Iron Man said:

So in other words, it is a fantasy scenario of yours with, let's not bandy about with words: ZERO evidence behind it.

Click to expand...

It's a speculative position based on what I believe are logical premises.

Bltizo said:

I don't think I'm required to do that, because agreeing to that would mean an underlying assumption that the previous generations of threats to aircraft carriers where continued flight operations was a sensible tactical decision, is equal to continuing flight operations as a sensible tactical decision against a credible AShBM threat.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

It's a speculative position based on what I believe are logical premises.

Click to expand...

So Japanese kamikaze attacks and even general multi-plane dive-bombing attacks during WWII do not qualify as enough threat to result in evacuations of the flight deck? After all, I was helping you out by asking for any evidence from all of human history, not just in recent years. We have reams of photos showing the utter devastation on the flight deck after even a single kamikaze or dive bomb hit. Here's just a few:

China's Navy Djibouti Military Base Illustration

@Iron Man @Bltizo

If a US carrier is planning a launch operation and is in the middle of it, they wil try and get the airraft off the deck by launching them so that they are in the fight.

To do that, the deck personnel will continue working to try and make that happen right up to the moment they take a hit.

It is VERY unlikely that the captain will stop everything to try and get the deck clear. He is there to get aircraft off the deck on on target to the enemy. To do that, he will try and rush the people as the attack is incoming to get as many aircraft off the deck and into the air as he can before it gets there.

Now, if he is not in the middle of such an operation and there is an attack, general quarters will be sounded as soon as the attack is detected, and the personnel will all head to their duty stations, establishing water tight integrity as they do, setting into battle damage and assessment positions, getting into rescue positions, and getting to their battle stations to fight the ship.

As I say, if that involves launching aircraft, that is what they will do until ordred not to, or until an enemy action prevents them from doing so...at which time they will be fighting fires and trying to get the ship ready to stay in the fight if at all possible.

These sailors know this. it is hammered into them in training, and then once they are on the ship, constantly through as realistic aof training exercises as they can conduct.

Both sides understood this in world War II. Sometimes...they got caught with many aircraft on the deck and the results were very difficult. Carriers were lost as a result.

Other times the attacks, or parts of them got off and went after the opposing forces.

THings have sped up now. it is likely that we will see an attack coming from a lot further off (shrt of a sub getting in range undetected and launching missiles from close in).

But even with more range, it wil be less time because the aircraft and missiles move so much faster now.

but that basic doctrine holds.

Better to get an extra five to ten aircraft launched in the 3-4 minutes (or more) that you may have, then to try and use that same short space of time to simply try and get them into the hanger...where they are still vulnerable and may not be able to use the deck after the attack

I just noticed at Jane's
China’s CASC unveils D3000 unmanned oceanic combat vessel concept
18 September 2017

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) has revealed plans for an autonomous multirole surface vessel designed specifically for high-end naval operations at the 2017 International Ocean Science and Technology (OST) Exhibition in Qingdao.

Under development by the Beijing-based 13th Research Institute of CASC’s Ninth Academy – the latter also known as China Aerospace Times Electronics Corporation (CATEC) – the D3000 unmanned oceanic combat vessel is presently envisioned to be a 30 m-class unmanned surface vessel (USV) that is capable of operating out to a range of 540 n miles for up to 90 days, although its size can be further scaled up for greater range or payload capacity should there be a customer requirement.

...

Click to expand...

... and the rest is behind paywall; is that thing being discussed somewhere around here?

Jura said:

I just noticed at Jane's
China’s CASC unveils D3000 unmanned oceanic combat vessel concept
18 September 2017

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... and the rest is behind paywall; is that thing being discussed somewhere around here?

Click to expand...

While the idea is interesting, I am skeptical that these guys have much expertise in the naval field. I think the concept model shows their lack of expertise: it resembles a fanboi's wet dream.

Four non-stealth-optimized CIWS units on a small stealthy boat like this? And what's up with the tandem arrangement of the front two CIWS units? And check out what I can only assume to be torpedo launchers integrated into the hull sides. Well, that sure has survivability written all over it: if one (semi-exposed) torpedo is hit while still in the launcher, the whole boat is guaranteed to go belly up.

Again, I'm not dismissing it entirely, and if China were to pursue such a vessel, I'm sure these guys would not be in charge of it.

by78 said:

...

Click to expand...

LOL got it, thanks