The French Navy Stands Up to China

[jhungary]

I saw that you had strong military background. But I do not directly see how that is correlated to your understanding of physics in many of your postings. Actually, what you had posted is that strong knowledge in military intelligence does not correlate to strength in knowledge of science.

How about I minored applied physics? And I have offered a PhD Studies with computer science? I don't want to say that because it feel like I have been using my academic background to outrank you.

You have to come from Physics and Mathematics background to get in the Military Intelligence field, because a lot of their work are either EM related (Such as EMCON or ISSM/SIGNIT) or encryption/decryption related. You cannot be consider to be in the Military Intelligence branch if you are not good in Physics or Mathematics or both.

So, to answer your question, you have to be good in science otherwise you will have a hard time graduating from AIC, that is if you get in AIC in the first place at all.

I do see lots of mudslings between you and the other members who pointed out your misstatements of facts. Such as general relatively cover the science of quantum mechanics. I know that this is patently false. Please at least read up on Wikipedia on what are going to post next time because it shows your lack of basic understanding of physics.

I don't see how the other person have a high level of education to begin with, let alone in the field of physics. And you know what? So do you.

I did not see him explain why a missile can travel in High G turn when the graph he supplied did not even have enough variable to calculate the actual value. On the other hand, my brother is a Mechanical Engineer and work with Boeing, even he said Missile cannot proceed with a High G turn without because the structural strength of a missile cannot endure it. Yet, he claim it can do it without provide facts or how.

I am not interested in yours, his, or anyone background, you can be a Wikipedia nerd and with no educational background, as long as you try to argue with me in detail with creditable evidence. But he is not actually doing that.

If you can provide creditable reference and said I am wrong, I am more than happy to look at it and if I was indeed wrong, I will admit I am wrong.

Also, a lot of his comment is unattainable militarily. Such as he claim China can use Merchant Navy and supplies the whole fleet all the way to France without any port call along the way, which is not doable because normal commercial shipping does not design with underway replenishment at sea. Nor was he even understand the meaning of replenishment. He also did not understand missile limitation and the warfighting technique, nor how ISTAR delay can affect DF-series missile accuracy.

Yet, he still think all his point in the aforementioned military related topic is correct and I am wrong, even tho if you have any remote military experience in any given branch on any military service, you would probably laugh out loud on his answer right the way.

He also failed at general aviation knowledge, as @gambit pointed out.

LOL. Doesnt require guts to bust you anywhere

As I told you: go ahead, you can repost your funy physics, and your nonsense opinion regarding missiles etc that we are debating here, then invite me to join; we'll see the outcome.




LOL. Dream on... as the matter of fact I F you up here till your credibility and dignity stripped away, and you've become laughing stock.

I hope you still can focus on your work, as I know feeling of defeat is uneasy while the shame is unbearable.

Thank you for entertaining us ... and let me sleep a log ..

LOL. I did, you can search it on PDF and reply to me, I have written 27 articles that feature in this forum, it should not be hard to find, if you really have the guts to go against me, you would have done so already.

And again, you should really get your head check because if you think my creditability and dignity is stripped away, you are quite seriously mistaken. First of all, I did not see you as my peer, I see you as a kid, and you probably are. Secondly, I don't really care about what you think or you said to begin with.

And finally, the very fact that you cop the negative rating and I didn't, didn't that already suggesting I am more creditable than you? As I said, I have people all over these forum, most of them I don't even know, quote me and ask me for advice and my input, how many had asked you lately? I had one just 5 days ago.

Se Bastante Bien?

I am not going to reply to you on this thread anymore, as I said, you are my entertainment, I come F you upif and when I have time, if not, you are not that important to me to make fun of. And unlike you, I have a job so, adios.

 

[faithfulguy]

How about I minored applied physics? And I have offered a PhD Studies with computer science? I don't want to say that because it feel like I have been using my academic background to outrank you.

You have to come from Physics and Mathematics background to get in the Military Intelligence background, because a lot of their work are either EM related (Such as EMCON or ISSM/SIGNIT) or encryption/decryption related. You cannot be consider to be in the Military Intelligence branch if you are not good in Physics or Mathematics or both.

So, to answer your question, you have to be good in science otherwise you will have a hard time graduating from AIC, that is if you get in AIC in the first place at all.



I don't see how the other person have a high level of education to begin with, let alone in the field of physics. And you know what? So do you.

I did not see him explain why a missile can travel in High G turn when the graph he supplied did not even have enough variable to calculate the actual value. On the other hand, my brother is a Mechanical Engineer and work with Boeing, even he said Missile cannot proceed with a High G turn without because the structural strength of a missile cannot endure it. Yet, he claim it can do it without provide facts or how.

I am not interested in yours, his, or anyone background, you can be a Wikipedia nerd and with no educational background, as long as you try to argue with me in detail with creditable evidence. But he is not actually doing that.

If you can provide creditable reference and said I am wrong, I am more than happy to look at it and if I was indeed wrong, I will admit I am wrong.



LOL. I did, you can search it on PDF and reply to me, I have written 27 articles that feature in this forum, it should not be hard to find, if you really have the guts to go against me, you would have done so already.

And again, you should really get your head check because if you think my creditability and dignity is stripped away, you are quite seriously mistaken. First of all, I did not see you as my peer, I see you as a kid, and you probably are. Secondly, I don't really care about what you think or you said to begin with.

And finally, the very fact that you cop the negative rating and I didn't, didn't that already suggesting I am more creditable than you? As I said, I have people all over these forum, most of them I don't even know, quote me and ask me for advice and my input, how many had asked you lately? I had one just 5 days ago.

Se Bastante Bien?

I am not going to reply to you on this thread anymore, as I said, you are my entertainment, I come F you upif and when I have time, if not, you are not that important to me to make fun of. And unlike you, I have a job so, adios.

When you talk about how you don’t want to use your background to brag about yourself. You did exactly that. Also, we should only be judged by our statements. Not about our background, as that can be made up. In any case, since you have not make any more assertions on physics in your last post except talk about your background or your family, I have no further comments. But I wish the best for you and your family and I admire your background as your life stories can easily be made into a great movie.

I will also refrain from comment on what you assert about what others have said as well.

 

[jhungary]

When you talk about how you don’t want to use your background to brag about yourself. You did exactly that. Also, we should only be judged by our statements. Not about our background, as that can be made up. In any case, since you have not make any more assertions on physics in your last post except talk about your background or your family, I have no further comments. But I wish the best for you and your family and I admire your background as your life stories can easily be made into a great movie.

I will also refrain from comment on what you assert about what others have said as well.

Oh well...…

In any case, we can all just empty talk here, since I don't know who you are and you don't know who I am, best we can do is to keep the discussion civilize.

Anywho, talk to you later.

 

[j20blackdragon]

The Royal Navy has a grand total of 6 Type 45 guided missile destroyers.

Type 45 at Scotstoun Dry Dock.

Compare to the dry dock at Dalian Shipbuilding.

3 cruisers and 5 destroyers under construction at the same time. The ships in this one picture outgun the entire Royal Navy destroyer fleet.

For those that don't know, Dalian double launched 2 cruisers simultaneously yesterday.

 

[nalan]

AAM can have high g turn,else it does not make sense.if I am not wrong,it has a derivation relation.
g=v·v/r

 

[j20blackdragon]

See the 4 control fins on the Pershing II's maneuverable reentry vehicle?

That characteristic has long existed on the DF-15B.

 

[antonius123]

How about I minored applied physics? And I have offered a PhD Studies with computer science? I don't want to say that because it feel like I have been using my academic background to outrank you.

We are talking basic physics which is the subject in junior high school.

If you have wrong understanding and difficult to understand the basic how come you are eligible for PHD?

Your friend gambit and you keep accusing me fraud, while your funny physics has busted your fraud.

You have to come from Physics and Mathematics background to get in the Military Intelligence field, because a lot of their work are either EM related (Such as EMCON or ISSM/SIGNIT) or encryption/decryption related. You cannot be consider to be in the Military Intelligence branch if you are not good in Physics or Mathematics or both.

So, to answer your question, you have to be good in science otherwise you will have a hard time graduating from AIC, that is if you get in AIC in the first place at all.

If that is the case, then we wonder how come you could be accepted in the military intelligence field?

Your funny physics and nonsense prove you must be lying.

I don't see how the other person have a high level of education to begin with, let alone in the field of physics. And you know what? So do you.

Strong Evidences in this thread prove the opposite, you are the one who doesnt have high level education to begin with.

I did not see him explain why a missile can travel in High G turn when the graph he supplied did not even have enough variable to calculate the actual value. On the other hand, my brother is a Mechanical Engineer and work with Boeing, even he said Missile cannot proceed with a High G turn without because the structural strength of a missile cannot endure it. Yet, he claim it can do it without provide facts or how.

Either you are denial, or you dont have enough education and intelligence to grasp.

It doesnt take a genius to see that surface control can make turn, the higher the speed the higher G force. If you cant understand that then you are not eligible for university.

I had given explanation above, you did not say why you dont agree or what make you difficult to understand, even you cant response at all.

I am not interested in yours, his, or anyone background, you can be a Wikipedia nerd and with no educational background, as long as you try to argue with me in detail with creditable evidence. But he is not actually doing that.

LOLs. It is you who talk nonsense and bring no evidence, what a delusional

Also, a lot of his comment is unattainable militarily. Such as he claim China can use Merchant Navy and supplies the whole fleet all the way to France without any port call along the way, which is not doable because normal commercial shipping does not design with underway replenishment at sea. Nor was he even understand the meaning of replenishment. He also did not understand missile limitation and the warfighting technique, nor how ISTAR delay can affect DF-series missile accuracy.

Evidence say the opposite:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2015/09/26/canada-to-lease-commercial-vessel-to-refuel-navy-ships/

Dont say i havent given this to you. You didn't response that as usual. You always ignore evidence.

LOL. I did, you can search it on PDF and reply to me, I have written 27 articles that feature in this forum, it should not be hard to find, if you really have the guts to go against me, you would have done so already.

LOLs. If that is the case then you are the chicken

If you have gut, why dont you put your nonsense physics and argument to other thread wherever you want, then invite me there? Dare you?

And again, you should really get your head check because if you think my creditability and dignity is stripped away, you are quite seriously mistaken. First of all, I did not see you as my peer, I see you as a kid, and you probably are. Secondly, I don't really care about what you think or you said to begin with.

LOLs. You are not good at lying

Evidence said you care about me and what I have been saying. Otherwise you want come back to me with petty debate, even you shouldnt have responded me at all. LOL

And finally, the very fact that you cop the negative rating and I didn't, didn't that already suggesting I am more creditable than you? As I said, I have people all over these forum, most of them I don't even know, quote me and ask me for advice and my input, how many had asked you lately? I had one just 5 days ago.

Well all people disagree with you.

This is evidence that your good rating is not in line with your capacity.

I must remind you again: Your funny physics and nonsense become laughing stocks

Se Bastante Bien?

I am not going to reply to you on this thread anymore, as I said, you are my entertainment, I come F you upif and when I have time, if not, you are not that important to me to make fun of. And unlike you, I have a job so, adios.

Oww I have heard that several times before .. and you still keep coming to me pushing me with petty debates in the mid of your busy job - even if you cant response my evidence and core discussion; even you were still talking about me when you were discussing with others. That shows I am very important for you as I have busted you - dignity is torn and the shame is unbearable

As I said you are not a good liar

 

[gambit]

Evidence say the opposite:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2015/09/26/canada-to-lease-commercial-vessel-to-refuel-navy-ships/

This is why we laugh at you.

Gary said UNDERWAY REPLENISHMENT. Your source above say nothing about being 'underway'. Do you understand the meaning of the word 'underway'?

Here it is...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underway_replenishment

It means the target vessel and the resupply vessel are at speed, not stationary. Underway replenishment requires unique hardware set up that not every ship can be converted. The Asterix was converted. What Gary was saying was that you cannot simply take any civilian ship and turn it into a resupply ship for UNDERWAY replenishment.

From your source...

...it would take around 15 months to complete the conversion of Asterix so it can be used to refuel and resupply Navy vessels.

That is over one yr of modification. That is not what we are talking about.

Your failure to read and understand your sources is why you continue to prove yourself an idiot.

 

[antonius123]

This is why we laugh at you.

Gary said UNDERWAY REPLENISHMENT. Your source above say nothing about being 'underway'. Do you understand the meaning of the word 'underway'?

Here it is...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underway_replenishment

It means the target vessel and the resupply vessel are at speed, not stationary. Underway replenishment requires unique hardware set up that not every ship can be converted. The Asterix was converted. What Gary was saying was that you cannot simply take any civilian ship and turn it into a resupply ship for UNDERWAY replenishment.

From your source...

That is over one yr of modification. That is not what we are talking about.

I dont care Gary meant underway replenishment or not and he did not argue anything, while I am talking about replenishment though not underway but China can do with her own speed, and her navy can circle earth.
https://www.wired.com/2013/01/china-new-oiler/

LOL. You really have problem with your ability to comprehend the context of debate as terrible as your funny physics and your other nonsense claims

Your failure to read and understand your sources is why you continue to prove yourself an idiot.

You are talking about yourself

@Davos see how your friend with such a title use that kind of word. Dont you want to give advice and request penalty for him to moderator?

 

[jhungary]

@gambit

He have a tendencies NOT TO READ HIS OWN source.

If you read the whole page of his quote

https://www.wired.com/2013/01/china-new-oiler/

NOT ONCE did the page mentioned China can circle the globe because of these small ship beside the title. In fact, the article is actually talked about how Chinese did not have enough of these AORs to resupply the fleet they had and forcing their own Carrier in home water....

LOL

I am really busy as of now to go do a lot of research and argue with this mambo. If you want, keep at it lol

 

[antonius123]

@gambit

He have a tendencies NOT TO READ HIS OWN source.

If you read the whole page of his quote

https://www.wired.com/2013/01/china-new-oiler/

NOT ONCE did the page mentioned China can circle the globe because of these small ship beside the title. In fact, the article is actually talked about how Chinese did not have enough of these AORs to resupply the fleet they had and forcing their own Carrier in home water....

LOL

I am really busy as of now to go do a lot of research and argue with this mambo. If you want, keep at it lol

LOLs. You still show same low quality, poor in reading comprehension and intelligence

Keyword: "did", "had" and it was written in 2013

So yes now china should be capable to circle the earth.

When will you be a little bit smarter?
Otherwise you will fail with your current research

 

[antonius123]

@gambit @jhungary @Davos

According to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Fleet_Auxiliary#Replenishment
Britts only has 6 replenishment ship and 9 auxiliary ships

While according to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_ships#Auxiliaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Fleet_Auxiliary#Replenishment
China has 18 replenishment ship + 232 auxiliary ships

Tell me if Britts navy with only 6 replenishment ships + 9 auxiliary ships can circle earth, why China navy with 18 replenishment ships + 232 auxiliary ships can't?

 

[jhungary]

@gambit @jhungary @Davos

According to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Fleet_Auxiliary#Replenishment
Britts only has 6 replenishment ship and 9 auxiliary ships

While according to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_ships#Auxiliaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Fleet_Auxiliary#Replenishment
China has 18 replenishment ship + 232 auxiliary ships

Tell me if Britts with only 6 replenishment ship + 9 auxiliary ships can circle earth, why China with 18 replenishment ships + 232 auxiliary ships can't?

First of all, Chinese does not have 232 aux ship, China have 7, as I said before Commercial Ship cannot be used to supply fleet, without onboard crane and gantry, unless you want to load 20 tons of beer, meat, fruit munition box by box with hands, you have to be able to open the bulkhead to unload supplies.

And if you have to count Chinese Merchant Ship, then UK did not just have 6 replenishment + 9 aux ship, UK have 504 1000+ GRT ship in her merchant navy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Navy_(United_Kingdom)

Second of all, something UK have and China don't have, overseas bases.

UK have the following Permanent Overseas Naval Base outside UK mainland

UK Mainland (North Atlantic)
Ascension Island (Mid Atlantic)
Falkland Island (South Atlantic)
Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean)
Gibraltar (Mediterranean Sea)
Cyprus (Mediterranean Sea)
Bahrain (HMS Jufir) (Persian Gulf)

All these bases are owned by the UK and in UK Overseas territories (except Bahrain) and that is before UK invoke the commonwealth status. Which basically give UK the access of all commonwealth country bases in the world, that included Canada, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and so on.

 

[antonius123]

First of all, Chinese does not have 232 aux ship, China have 7, as I said before Commercial Ship cannot be used to supply fleet, without onboard crane and gantry, unless you want to load 20 tons of beer, meat, fruit munition box by box with hands, you have to be able to open the bulkhead to unload supplies.

And if you have to count Chinese Merchant Ship, then UK did not just have 6 replenishment + 9 aux ship, UK have 504 1000+ GRT ship in her merchant navy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Navy_(United_Kingdom)

Second of all, something UK have and China don't have, overseas bases.

UK have the following Permanent Overseas Naval Base outside UK mainland

UK Mainland (North Atlantic)
Ascension Island (Mid Atlantic)
Falkland Island (South Atlantic)
Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean)
Gibraltar (Mediterranean Sea)
Cyprus (Mediterranean Sea)
Bahrain (HMS Jufir) (Persian Gulf)

All these bases are owned by the UK and in UK Overseas territories (except Bahrain) and that is before UK invoke the commonwealth status. Which basically give UK the access of all commonwealth country bases in the world, that included Canada, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and so on.

Why you always deny fact and insist BS? This is your bad habit that you consistently demonstrate in every section of this forum and make people who doesnt share same opinion & belief with you get frustrated to have discussion with you.

Listen the following figure carefully! and count them by yourself:

Chinese 18 Replenishment ship (Evidence) :

Fleet replenishment has been an expanding element in PLAN auxiliaries. The PLAN view the need of replenishment ships as vital for blue water fleet operations:

• Type 901 fast combat support ship (NATO designation) - 1 in active service, 1 on sea trial
• Type 903 replenishment ship (NATO designation Fuchi-class) - 8 in active service.
• Type 904 general stores issue ship (NATO designation Dayun-class) - 6 in active service.
• Type 908 replenishment ship (NATO designation Fusu-class) - 1 in active service.
• Type 905 replenishment ship (NATO designation Fuqing-class) - 2 in active service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_Surface_Force#Fleet_replenishment​

Chinese 232 Auxiliary Ships (Evidence) :

List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships is a list of ships currently in active service with the People's Liberation Army Navy. There are approximately 496 ships listed in the tables below that constitute active ships, but this figure does not include the 232 various auxiliary vessels of the PLAN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_ships#Auxiliaries

You can count by yourself here:

List of Chinese Auxiliary Ships
Hospital ships (3 ships)

• 1 Type 920 hospital ship (NATO designation Peace Ark)
• 1 Chinese medical evacuation ship Zhuanghe (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Qiongsha-class ambulance transport (NATO designation Qiongsha-class)

Icebreakers (6 ships)

• 2 Type 272 icebreaker (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 210 icebreaker (NATO designation Yanbing-class)
• 3 Type 071 icebreaker (NATO designation Yanha-class)

Barracks ship (1 ship)

• 1 Chinese barracks ship Xu Xiake (NATO designation unknown)

Troop transport/ferry & cargo (6 ships)

• 5 Qiongsha-class cargo ship (NATO designation Qiongsha-class)
• 1 Beidiao 990

Type 679 training ship (Daxing-class) (3 ships)

• 1 Type 680 training ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 679 training ship (NATO designation Daxing-class)
• 1 Type 0891A training ship (NATO designation Shichang-class)

Cargo transport (27 ships)

• 3 Yantai-class (NATO designation Yantai-class)
• 5 Type 081 cargo ship (NATO designation Hongqi-class)
• 13 Danlin-class cargo ship (NATO designation Danlin-class)
• 4 Dandao-class (NATO designation Dandao-class)
• 2 Galați-class cargo ship (NATO designation Galați-class)

Coastal oil tankers (29 ships)

• 9 Leizhou-class tanker (NATO designation Leizhou-class)
• 8 Fulin-class oil tanker (NATO designation Fulin-class)
• 2 Shengli-class oil tanker (NATO designation Shengli-class)
• 7 Fuzhou-class tanker (NATO designation Fuzhou-class)
• 3 Jinyou-class oil tanker (NATO designation Jinyou-class)

Yuan Wang-class ballistic missile tracking ship (6 ships)

• 6 Yuan Wang-class tracking ship (NATO designation Yuanwang-class)

Type 815 spy ship (Dondiao-class) (8 ships)

• 1 Type 813 spy ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 814A spy ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 6 Type 815 spy ship (NATO designation Dondiao-class)

Oceanographic surveillance ships (3 ships)

• 2 Type 595 ocean surveillance ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 639 oceanographic surveillance ship (NATO designation unknown)

Oceanographic research, meteorological and hydrographic survey ships (27 ships)

• 1 Chinese oceanographic research ship Xiangyanghong 5 (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 645 oceanographic research ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 8 Type 625 research vessel (NATO designation unknown)
• 5 Type 614 research vessel (NATO designation unknown)
• 5 Type 635 hydrographic survey ship (NATO designation Yanlai-class)
• 6 Type 636 hydrographic survey ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 988 hydrographic survey ship (NATO designation unknown)

Type 925 submarine support ship (Dajiang-class) (11 ships)

• 1 Type 930 submarine rescue ship (NATO designation Hudong-class)
• 3 Type 946 submarine rescue ship (NATO designation Dazhou, Dadong-class)
• 3 Type 925 submarine support ship (NATO designation Dajiang-class)
• 3 Type 926 submarine support ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 648 repair ship (NATO designation unknown)

Torpedo trials/retriever (9 ships)

• 1 Type 906 torpedo trials craft (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 907A torpedo trials craft (NATO designation unknown)
• 7 Type 917 torpedo retriever (NATO designation unknown)

Weapons trials (3 ships)

• 3 Type 909 weapon trials ship (NATO designation Wuhu-B-class

Sonar trials (1 ships)

• 1 Chinese sonar trials ship Beidiao 993 (NATO designation Beidiao-class)

Experimental ships (1?)

• Chinese target ship Experiment 216 (NATO designation unknown)

Rescue and salvage (8 ships)

• 6 Type 922 rescue and salvage ship (NATO designation Dalang-class)
• 2 Type 917 rescue and salvage ship (NATO designation unknown)

Dive tender (2 ships)

• 2 Type 904 dive tender (NATO designation unknown)

Tug boats (60 ships)

• 4 Tuozhong-class (NATO designation Tuozhong-class)
• 1 Daozha-class (NATO designation Tuozhong-class)
• 15 Type 802 tug (NATO designation Gromovoy-class)
• 3 Type 830 tug (NATO designation unknown)
• 18 Type 837 tug (NATO designation Hujiu-class)
• 19 Type 852 tug (NATO designation Roslavl-class)

Degaussing & deperming (10 ships)

• 2 Type 911 degaussing/deperming ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 8 Type 912 degaussing/deperming ship (NATO designation unknown)

Cable laying (8 ships)

• 1 Type 890 cable layer (NATO designation Youzheng-class)
• 7 Type 991 cablelayer (NATO designation Youdian-class)

Buoy tenders (7 ships)

• 6 Type 744 buoy tender (NATO designation Yannan-class)
• 1 Type 999 buoy tender (NATO designation unknown)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_Surface_Force#Auxiliaries​

As you can see those 232 auxiliary ships are not commercial ships!! And that figure obviously dwarf Britts only 6 replenishment and 9 auxiliary vesells .

If you are still denial after reading this fact, then I have no more words for a proper discussion with you, as you cant see fact palpably brought into infront of your eyes while u keep pushing your delusion.

 

[jhungary]

Why you always deny fact and insist BS? This is your bad habit that you consistently demonstrate in every section of this forum and make people who doesnt share same opinion & belief with you get frustrated to have discussion with you.

Listen the following figure carefully! and count them by yourself:

Chinese 18 Replenishment ship (Evidence) :

Fleet replenishment has been an expanding element in PLAN auxiliaries. The PLAN view the need of replenishment ships as vital for blue water fleet operations:

• Type 901 fast combat support ship (NATO designation) - 1 in active service, 1 on sea trial
• Type 903 replenishment ship (NATO designation Fuchi-class) - 8 in active service.
• Type 904 general stores issue ship (NATO designation Dayun-class) - 6 in active service.
• Type 908 replenishment ship (NATO designation Fusu-class) - 1 in active service.
• Type 905 replenishment ship (NATO designation Fuqing-class) - 2 in active service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_Surface_Force#Fleet_replenishment​

Chinese 232 Auxiliary Ships (Evidence) :

List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships is a list of ships currently in active service with the People's Liberation Army Navy. There are approximately 496 ships listed in the tables below that constitute active ships, but this figure does not include the 232 various auxiliary vessels of the PLAN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_ships#Auxiliaries

You can count by yourself here:

List of Chinese Auxiliary Ships
Hospital ships (3 ships)

• 1 Type 920 hospital ship (NATO designation Peace Ark)
• 1 Chinese medical evacuation ship Zhuanghe (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Qiongsha-class ambulance transport (NATO designation Qiongsha-class)

Icebreakers (6 ships)

• 2 Type 272 icebreaker (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 210 icebreaker (NATO designation Yanbing-class)
• 3 Type 071 icebreaker (NATO designation Yanha-class)

Barracks ship (1 ship)

• 1 Chinese barracks ship Xu Xiake (NATO designation unknown)

Troop transport/ferry & cargo (6 ships)

• 5 Qiongsha-class cargo ship (NATO designation Qiongsha-class)
• 1 Beidiao 990

Type 679 training ship (Daxing-class) (3 ships)

• 1 Type 680 training ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 679 training ship (NATO designation Daxing-class)
• 1 Type 0891A training ship (NATO designation Shichang-class)

Cargo transport (27 ships)

• 3 Yantai-class (NATO designation Yantai-class)
• 5 Type 081 cargo ship (NATO designation Hongqi-class)
• 13 Danlin-class cargo ship (NATO designation Danlin-class)
• 4 Dandao-class (NATO designation Dandao-class)
• 2 Galați-class cargo ship (NATO designation Galați-class)

Coastal oil tankers (29 ships)

• 9 Leizhou-class tanker (NATO designation Leizhou-class)
• 8 Fulin-class oil tanker (NATO designation Fulin-class)
• 2 Shengli-class oil tanker (NATO designation Shengli-class)
• 7 Fuzhou-class tanker (NATO designation Fuzhou-class)
• 3 Jinyou-class oil tanker (NATO designation Jinyou-class)

Yuan Wang-class ballistic missile tracking ship (6 ships)

• 6 Yuan Wang-class tracking ship (NATO designation Yuanwang-class)

Type 815 spy ship (Dondiao-class) (8 ships)

• 1 Type 813 spy ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 814A spy ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 6 Type 815 spy ship (NATO designation Dondiao-class)

Oceanographic surveillance ships (3 ships)

• 2 Type 595 ocean surveillance ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 639 oceanographic surveillance ship (NATO designation unknown)

Oceanographic research, meteorological and hydrographic survey ships (27 ships)

• 1 Chinese oceanographic research ship Xiangyanghong 5 (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 645 oceanographic research ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 8 Type 625 research vessel (NATO designation unknown)
• 5 Type 614 research vessel (NATO designation unknown)
• 5 Type 635 hydrographic survey ship (NATO designation Yanlai-class)
• 6 Type 636 hydrographic survey ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 988 hydrographic survey ship (NATO designation unknown)

Type 925 submarine support ship (Dajiang-class) (11 ships)

• 1 Type 930 submarine rescue ship (NATO designation Hudong-class)
• 3 Type 946 submarine rescue ship (NATO designation Dazhou, Dadong-class)
• 3 Type 925 submarine support ship (NATO designation Dajiang-class)
• 3 Type 926 submarine support ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 648 repair ship (NATO designation unknown)

Torpedo trials/retriever (9 ships)

• 1 Type 906 torpedo trials craft (NATO designation unknown)
• 1 Type 907A torpedo trials craft (NATO designation unknown)
• 7 Type 917 torpedo retriever (NATO designation unknown)

Weapons trials (3 ships)

• 3 Type 909 weapon trials ship (NATO designation Wuhu-B-class

Sonar trials (1 ships)

• 1 Chinese sonar trials ship Beidiao 993 (NATO designation Beidiao-class)

Experimental ships (1?)

• Chinese target ship Experiment 216 (NATO designation unknown)

Rescue and salvage (8 ships)

• 6 Type 922 rescue and salvage ship (NATO designation Dalang-class)
• 2 Type 917 rescue and salvage ship (NATO designation unknown)

Dive tender (2 ships)

• 2 Type 904 dive tender (NATO designation unknown)

Tug boats (60 ships)

• 4 Tuozhong-class (NATO designation Tuozhong-class)
• 1 Daozha-class (NATO designation Tuozhong-class)
• 15 Type 802 tug (NATO designation Gromovoy-class)
• 3 Type 830 tug (NATO designation unknown)
• 18 Type 837 tug (NATO designation Hujiu-class)
• 19 Type 852 tug (NATO designation Roslavl-class)

Degaussing & deperming (10 ships)

• 2 Type 911 degaussing/deperming ship (NATO designation unknown)
• 8 Type 912 degaussing/deperming ship (NATO designation unknown)

Cable laying (8 ships)

• 1 Type 890 cable layer (NATO designation Youzheng-class)
• 7 Type 991 cablelayer (NATO designation Youdian-class)

Buoy tenders (7 ships)

• 6 Type 744 buoy tender (NATO designation Yannan-class)
• 1 Type 999 buoy tender (NATO designation unknown)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_Surface_Force#Auxiliaries​

As you can see those 232 auxiliary ships are not commercial ships!! And that figure obviously dwarf Britts only 6 replenishment and 9 auxiliary vesells .

If you are still denial after reading this fact, then I have no more words for a proper discussion with you, as you cant see fact palpably brought into infront of your eyes while u keep pushing your delusion.

First of all, as I said. type 901 and type 904 are both not replenishment ship, 904 is general store, which by the way, lacking the crane, would not be class as even underway ship. 901 is a Combat Support Ship.

And if you count all this (Tug, Ice Breaker, troopship and everything), then British does not just have 9 auxiliary vessel like you said Because.

RFA :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Fleet_Auxiliary

Tide Class Replenishment (1 ship)
Wave Class Replenishment (2 ships)
Fort Victoria Class Replenishment (1 ship)
Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment (2 ships)
Bay Class Dock Landing Ship (3 Ships)
Aviation Training Ship (RFA Argus) (1 ship)
Point Class Sealift (4 ships)
Royal Research Ship (4 Ships)
Tanker (MV Maersk Rapier) (1 ship)

RFA total - 19 ship

Royal Navy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Royal_Navy_ships

Ice Breaker (HMS Protector)
Ocean Survey (HMS Scott)
Survey Launch (HMS Magpie)
Echo Class Multipurpose Survey (2 ship)

Royal Navy Total : 5

Serco Marine Service

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_Serco_Marine_Services

Worldwide support ship (1)

• SD Victoria Based at Portsmouth

Multi-purpose ship (1)

• SD Northern River

Anchor handling tug (1)

• Kingdom of Fife

Heavy lift ship (1)

• Cameron

Moor-class diving support vessels (2)

• SD Moorfowl Based at Kyle of Lochalsh
• SD Moorhen Based at Kyle of Lochalsh

Multicat 2510-class recovery vessels (2)

• SD Navigator Based at Portsmouth
• SD Raasay Based at Kyle of Lochalsh

Multicat 2613-class utility boat (1)

• SD Angeline Based at Faslane

Recovery vessels (2)

• SD Inspector Based at Portsmouth
• SD Engineer Based at Devonport

Coastal oilers (4)

• SD Teesdale Based at Portsmouth
• SD Oilman Based at Faslane
• SD Waterpress Based at Faslane
• SD Oceanspray Based at Portsmouth

Damen ART 80-32 tug (1)

• SD Tempest Based at Portsmouth, designated tug for Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers

Impulse-class tugs (2)

• SD Impulse Based at Faslane
• SD Impetus Based at Faslane

ASD 2509-class tugs (2)

• SD Independent Based at Portsmouth
• SD Indulgent Based at Portsmouth

ATD 2909-class tugs (4)

• SD Reliable Based at Faslane
• SD Bountiful Based at Portsmouth
• SD Resourceful Based at Faslane
• SD Dependable Based at Faslane

Twin Unit Tractor Tugs (5)

• SD Adept Based at Devonport
• SD Careful Based at Devonport
• SD Faithful Based at Devonport
• SD Forceful Based at Devonport
• SD Powerful Based at Devonport

STAN 2608-class tugs (3)

• SD Hercules Based at Devonport
• SD Jupiter Based at Faslane
• SD Mars Based at Devonport

ASD 2009-class tugs (4)

• SD Christina Based at Portsmouth
• SD Deborah Based at Devonport
• SD Eileen Based at Devonport
• SD Suzanne Based at Portsmouth

Felicity-class water tractors (4)

• SD Florence Based at Devonport
• SD Frances Based at Devonport
• SD Genevieve Based at Portsmouth
• SD Helen Based at Portsmouth

Pushy Cat 1204-class tugs (2)

• SD Catherine Based at Portsmouth
• SD Emily Based at Devonport

STAN 1405-class tug (1)

• SD Tilly Based at Devonport

Trials vessels (2)

• SD Warden Based at Kyle of Lochalsh
• SD Kyle of Lochalsh Based at Kyle of Lochalsh

Storm-class tenders (2)

• SD Bovisand Based at Devonport
• SD Cawsand Based at Devonport

Newhaven-class tenders (3)

• SD Newhaven Based at Devonport
• SD Nutbourne Based at Portsmouth
• SD Netley Based at Portsmouth

Padstow-class tender (1)

• SD Padstow Based at Devonport

Oban-class tenders (3)

• SD Oban Based at Devonport
• SD Oronsay Based at Faslane
• SD Omagh Based at Faslane

Personnel ferries (2)

• SD Norton Based at Portsmouth
• SD Eva Based at Faslane

Fleet tenders (3)

• SD Melton Based at Kyle of Lochalsh
• SD Menai Based at Falmouth
• SD Meon Based at Falmouth

STAN 1505-class tenders (3)

• SD Clyde Racer Based at Faslane
• SD Solent Racer Based at Portsmouth
• SD Tamar Racer Based at Devonport

STAN 1905-class tenders (3)

• SD Clyde Spirit Based at Faslane
• SD Solent Spirit Based at Portsmouth
• SD Tamar Spirit Based at Devonport

Serco Marine Service (62 Ships)

Total combine would be 86 ships just between Royal Navy, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and Serco Marine Service. There are unknown number of Merchant Navy ship operating in RN capacity. + all the UK Overseas bases around the world, while its common knowledge Chinese Navy is YET to break the first island chain.

LOL at you try to count ALL the ship in PLAN and just count selected supply ship with the Royal Navy, EITHER YOU ARE TOO MAMBA TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF REPLENSIHMENT AS SUGGESTED, OR YOU LIED OUTRIGHT.

Either way, I rest my case, liar

LOL