If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Chinese "Aircraft Carrier" that at present carries no aircraft, and isn't seaworthy, sucessfully upgraded to "floating runway"   (reuters.com) divider line 200
    More: Interesting, floating runway, Liaoning Province, Iranian Navy, military sciences, People's Liberation Army, aircraft, Hu Jintao  
•       •       •

14343 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2012 at 12:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



200 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-26 02:59:01 PM  

spawn73: Magorn: Honestly, an air-craft carrier is SO 20th century-at this point why not build something that can launch thousands of cruise missile and drones? Same bang- a whole lot less buck

Because the aircraft carrier isn't designed to fight a war.

It's designed to look big when you project force.


Well, it also helps that a single Aircraft Carrier has more planes than the Air Force of most nations.
 
2012-11-26 03:00:19 PM  

NephilimNexus: Chinese jet taking off from their carrier


It's a chinese knock-off of the SU-33, illegally produced without license. The F/A-18 was specifically designed to kill them and MIG-29s.
 
2012-11-26 03:04:40 PM  
It was originally the Soviet carrier "Riga" ... I think I sank that ship in a rousing game of Red Storm Rising once.

www.gb64.com

/Hot like using a Stinger on an annoying helo
 
2012-11-26 03:18:30 PM  

BronyMedic: It's a chinese knock-off of the SU-33, illegally produced without license. The F/A-18 was specifically designed to kill them and MIG-29s.


So? The Chinese military has no interest in fighting with the US. We're their biggest customers, remember? Unlike the USA, however, they're capable of thinking past the next financial quarter. They are an emergent economy that is going through explosive growth. The USA is a crumbling economy that is slowly imploding upon itself. Fifty years from now the UN is still going to need peacekeepers to keep random wacko dictators in check. Fifty years from now the USA isn't going to be in any shape to do it for them. China is simply getting a head start for their future role as the world's leading nation in a few decades (or less) and making sure that they'll be ready for all the responsibilities that entails.

There is nothing new about this, either. In the 19th century Great Britain was still the globe's biggest superpower. By the 1980s the USA had eclipsed all rivals and took center stage. Now it's our turn to get passed up by China. The only thing worth speculating as this point is who is going to be passing China come the 22nd century or so (my money is on Africa).

1.bp.blogspot.com

All empires fall in the end. New ones take their place. The cycle repeats.
 
2012-11-26 03:19:56 PM  

Lego_Addict: I tried but never got into the manual targeting.


If you can remember high school geometry, you can do manual targeting. It's all just triangles.
 
2012-11-26 03:21:27 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: dittybopper: SuperNinjaToad: this is GRREAAT NEWS for the American.........

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x196] 


OTOH it is also quite upsetting that so many Americans (as evident here) view China as a mortal enemy when the opposite is not true.

The average Chinese definitely do not desire or dream of an sort of sinking or destruction everytime a new American Navy ship gets commissioned, a new plane flies etc.

Neither did the average German or Japanese citizen back in the 1920's and 1930's. That doesn't mean their armament programs weren't a potential future threat.

so your argument is let's hate them first in case they hate us later? huh?

/confuse!


Hu said anything about hating? We're armchair wargaming against a potential future opponent. Nothing wrong with that.
 
2012-11-26 03:24:25 PM  

zarberg: It was originally the Soviet carrier "Riga" ... I think I sank that ship in a rousing game of Red Storm Rising once.

[www.gb64.com image 320x200]

/Hot like using a Stinger on an annoying helo


Are there any good (but still reasonably simple) sub games out there anymore?
 
2012-11-26 03:27:36 PM  

Frogfoot: China is not a paper tiger.


they are. china has the resources and population to be better but not the mind set. the nation as a whole is about getting things done at the cheapest cost, which usually ends up sacrificing quality. they can build as many ships and airplanes as they want, but they'll probably cut corners and use the lowest rust proof materials, making it all worthless after a few years.
 
2012-11-26 03:31:11 PM  

NephilimNexus: BronyMedic: It's a chinese knock-off of the SU-33, illegally produced without license. The F/A-18 was specifically designed to kill them and MIG-29s.

So? The Chinese military has no interest in fighting with the US. We're their biggest customers, remember? Unlike the USA, however, they're capable of thinking past the next financial quarter. They are an emergent economy that is going through explosive growth. The USA is a crumbling economy that is slowly imploding upon itself. Fifty years from now the UN is still going to need peacekeepers to keep random wacko dictators in check. Fifty years from now the USA isn't going to be in any shape to do it for them. China is simply getting a head start for their future role as the world's leading nation in a few decades (or less) and making sure that they'll be ready for all the responsibilities that entails.

There is nothing new about this, either. In the 19th century Great Britain was still the globe's biggest superpower. By the 1980s the USA had eclipsed all rivals and took center stage. Now it's our turn to get passed up by China. The only thing worth speculating as this point is who is going to be passing China come the 22nd century or so (my money is on Africa).

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

All empires fall in the end. New ones take their place. The cycle repeats.


It's cute you think that.

Really, it is. That's all I have to say to that.

China is a friend of the United States as long as it continues to be profitable to do so.

China will never become the type of country you describe as long as they maintain borderline tolterian control of the populace, continue to aggressively posture and commit acts of overt industrial and international espionage with it's neighboring nations (Taiwan and Russia), and scarce resources terrestrially will either force them to look upwards, or to look outwards to other countries. The funny thing is, the idea of resource wars are no longer the realm of speculative and science fiction, but a burdoning reality. Peak oil, combined with the scarcity of rare earth and metal element sources for use in high technology and construction industries are going to fuel them.

The China of 2100 will look nothing like the China today. But the United States is nothing like the British Empire you compare it too, and the factors which caused it's collapse, and a comparison with the Roman empire is equally as fallicious.
 
2012-11-26 03:33:59 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: They aren't trying to go toe-to-toe with the u.s........yet.


Why would China want to go toe to toe with their best customer?
That would be like Wal-Mart attacking the local trailer park.
 
2012-11-26 03:39:41 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Two small problems. First, the Marus weren't even legitimate escort carriers, they were glorified Army ferries that couldn't top 20 knots. Not exactly the type of vessel a navy uses for force projection.


The flip side of that is that the submarines they faced had underwater speeds measured in the single digits. Usually, the *LOW* single digits.

And secondly, the Yorktown is highly misleading, because the I-168 was effectively a kill-stealing biatch. CV-5 was put out of commission by Hiryu's bombers - I-168 hit a ship that was under tow with only a damage assessment party aboard.


OK, so that's 1 that's iffy.
 
2012-11-26 03:59:12 PM  

NephilimNexus: There is nothing new about this, either. In the 19th century Great Britain was still the globe's biggest superpower. By the 1980s the USA had eclipsed all rivals and took center stage. Now it's our turn to get passed up by China. The only thing worth speculating as this point is who is going to be passing China come the 22nd century or so (my money is on Africa).


The US has a number of advantages Britain never did -- primarily that it's not located on a rocky, resource-poor island and isn't dependent upon far-flung colonies under dubious administrative control.
 
2012-11-26 04:02:58 PM  

This text is now purple: NephilimNexus: There is nothing new about this, either. In the 19th century Great Britain was still the globe's biggest superpower. By the 1980s the USA had eclipsed all rivals and took center stage. Now it's our turn to get passed up by China. The only thing worth speculating as this point is who is going to be passing China come the 22nd century or so (my money is on Africa).

The US has a number of advantages Britain never did -- primarily that it's not located on a rocky, resource-poor island and isn't dependent upon far-flung colonies under dubious administrative control.


Plus, we speak English, unlike the English.
 
2012-11-26 04:03:00 PM  

NephilimNexus: BronyMedic: It's a chinese knock-off of the SU-33, illegally produced without license. The F/A-18 was specifically designed to kill them and MIG-29s.

So? The Chinese military has no interest in fighting with the US. We're their biggest customers, remember? Unlike the USA, however, they're capable of thinking past the next financial quarter. They are an emergent economy that is going through explosive growth. The USA is a crumbling economy that is slowly imploding upon itself. Fifty years from now the UN is still going to need peacekeepers to keep random wacko dictators in check. Fifty years from now the USA isn't going to be in any shape to do it for them. China is simply getting a head start for their future role as the world's leading nation in a few decades (or less) and making sure that they'll be ready for all the responsibilities that entails.

There is nothing new about this, either. In the 19th century Great Britain was still the globe's biggest superpower. By the 1980s the USA had eclipsed all rivals and took center stage. Now it's our turn to get passed up by China. The only thing worth speculating as this point is who is going to be passing China come the 22nd century or so (my money is on Africa).

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

All empires fall in the end. New ones take their place. The cycle repeats.


It's been Europe for 2000 years, and it'll be Europe for the next 2000 years.

You don't think USA is Europe? Think a bit. It is.
 
2012-11-26 04:12:23 PM  

WGJ: If the Chinese really wanted to cripple the US, all it would have to do is seize all of the factories that are owned by US companies. The job creators have completely destroyed this country's ability to maintain itself in this scenario and we would be crippled in less than a month.


Except for all the US debt they've purchased becoming worthless that's a flawless idea. Oh and the removal of almost all foriegn investment seeing as it could be taken at any moment. Then you have the US and its allies locking out Chinese companies over seas. Then you have the whole WW3 thing to deal with which they are in no way capable of fighting. China doesn't want to deal with the US they want to flex nuts in their backyard not across the ocean.
 
2012-11-26 04:13:31 PM  

Misconduc: mjohnson71: baronvonzipper: U.S. Pacific carrier supremacy was lost when the Chinese navy surfaced an undetected sub in the middle of the Kitty Hawk battle group, within torpedo range.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

Twice in the 1990s Russian Akula and Typhoon class submarines were spotted less then a mile from an American carrier group, neither were detected until they surfaced to "show off" and be escorted away.


None of these "sub in the middle of the fleet" stories make any sense. There's no reason for a sub to surface to "show off." If you have penetrated the outer escorts, the last thing you want to tell the US Navy is that you really do have that ability. Better for them to be surprised when it really matters. And if you're the US you have no reason to make it clear to the sub you know where they are at all times. I'm guessing the reality is the destroyers just hung around to when the sub got within x miles and then made it clear that they were detected.
 
2012-11-26 04:21:59 PM  

dittybopper: This text is now purple: NephilimNexus: There is nothing new about this, either. In the 19th century Great Britain was still the globe's biggest superpower. By the 1980s the USA had eclipsed all rivals and took center stage. Now it's our turn to get passed up by China. The only thing worth speculating as this point is who is going to be passing China come the 22nd century or so (my money is on Africa).

The US has a number of advantages Britain never did -- primarily that it's not located on a rocky, resource-poor island and isn't dependent upon far-flung colonies under dubious administrative control.

Plus, we speak English, unlike the English.


Considering they invented the language they sure can't speak it very well.
 
2012-11-26 04:29:13 PM  
So,,, Did I miss the obvious ?

Plane isn't landing... but taking off... In the pics.... and not a whole lotta fuel doing it as well...
Like the theater ropes around the plane and the body guard.

I call shenanigans.
 
2012-11-26 04:31:01 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Two16: styckx: Just read up on the carrier itself. Pretty amazing actually and a hell of a deal for China.. That thing was built in Russia and never completed (like most things in Russia).. Then it just sat around with no engines or electronics for ever.. China basically got a empty shell for a bargain price.

So it's a "Romney" then?

The election is over. You can crawl back under your bridge.


Election is, in fact, over. Statement is still true.

/#100lbs test
 
2012-11-26 04:53:35 PM  

ronaprhys: Meh - it's probably a cheap copy that'll only work in the store. One they get it home, it'll stop working and contaminate their children with lead.


Scratch one frattop.
 
2012-11-26 04:59:43 PM  

dittybopper: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: dittybopper: BronyMedic: Well, isn't that quaint.

[www.military-today.com image 600x399]


Heh. Aircraft carriers make nice, juicy sub targets:

[www.history.navy.mil image 700x500]
[warandgame.files.wordpress.com image 800x545]
[www.fas.org image 700x480]
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x250]

Naval aviators might disagree...

The naval aviators on this boat no doubt disagreed also:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 614x480]

Their job was to specifically go out to hunt and kill German U-boats, using things like air-dropped homing torpedoes. Nonetheless, their ship was sunk out from underneath them by a U-boat.


You guys seem to keep showing pictures of carriers from 60 years ago. Im fairly sure that our sub detection capabilities have gotten a bit better in 6 decades. Another bit to note...we spent several of those decades equipping and training to fight a nearly equal enemy...something that China is not.
 
2012-11-26 05:04:12 PM  

dittybopper: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: dittybopper: BronyMedic: Well, isn't that quaint.

[www.military-today.com image 600x399]


Heh. Aircraft carriers make nice, juicy sub targets:

[www.history.navy.mil image 700x500]
[warandgame.files.wordpress.com image 800x545]
[www.fas.org image 700x480]
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x250]

Naval aviators might disagree...

The naval aviators on this boat no doubt disagreed also:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 614x480]

Their job was to specifically go out to hunt and kill German U-boats, using things like air-dropped homing torpedoes. Nonetheless, their ship was sunk out from underneath them by a U-boat.


Damn, that's a tiny deck!
 
2012-11-26 05:09:28 PM  

Sultan Of Herf: You guys seem to keep showing pictures of carriers from 60 years ago. Im fairly sure that our sub detection capabilities have gotten a bit better in 6 decades. Another bit to note...we spent several of those decades equipping and training to fight a nearly equal enemy...something that China is not.


Don't bother, he'll just post more pictures of world war II carriers and declare himself right.
 
2012-11-26 05:10:40 PM  

Gone In 26 Minutes: darch: I think I might have to play that game later. If you invest in salvage corvettes early in the single player campaign, you can end up with a mass of more than a hundred ion cannon frigates in a sphere of death formation. Quite entertaining.

lolwut?

[Homeworld]


Tried that but found the learning curve rather steep, probably give it another try when I have more time to invest in learning the nuances of the game.

Sasquach: Are there any good (but still reasonably simple) sub games out there anymore?


i.imgur.com
If you want modern this one is decent (Sonalysts conducts sonar research for the USN), but I highly recommend installing one of the community patches that make it more stable. Not very popular so it can be found in the $10 game section at Wal-Mart and so on.
 
2012-11-26 05:40:58 PM  
s1.reutersmedia.net
"Home-grown J-15" from TFA

www.rusarmy.com
Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker launching from the Admiral Kusnetsov Ca. 1998 

Congrats, China. You're now officially 15 years behind the times.
 
2012-11-26 05:56:02 PM  
Those who are pooh-poohing China's initial steps into aircraft carrier operations are making a huge mistake. They are rapidly learning what it take to operate carriers and their aircraft. In 20 years, they'll have at least 5 operational carriers and a full complement of quality aircraft to fly on them. Why shouldn't they? With a trade surplus on the order of $25B per month, they could afford to build one every other week if they decide to do so.

Why are they doing it? I doubt it's simply to secure oil supplies as some have suggested. They can just buy that; as can anyone else. Like the USA, they'll use their carrier forces to apply pressure wherever they feel they need to; regionally at first and later globally. If I were going to bet on a specific purpose for the carriers it would be Taiwan; which they very much want. 20 to 50 years from now they're going to send a large naval force to Taiwan and say to the world "We're taking this. You might be able to stop us but are you prepared to pay the price?"
 
2012-11-26 06:19:20 PM  

skullkrusher: I didn't know Chinese people rolled their r's. "Aircrraft Carrier" is hard to say. Stupid Mandarin.


Actually, it's a double l, so it's "ailcllaft". Then, if spoken by a Mexican, the double l becomes an i becoming "ailciaft".
 
2012-11-26 06:28:15 PM  

GoSlash27: Congrats, China. You're now officially 15 years behind the times.


i.imgur.com
36 years behind the times, and a 95-0 air to air record.
 
2012-11-26 06:38:21 PM  

rv4-farker: they'll have at least 5 operational carriers and a full complement of quality aircraft to fly on them


They will have 5 operation carriers based on a thirty year old carrier platform they reverse engineered from the Russians. And they will not have quality planes. They'll have 40 year old aircraft which were illegally copied off the Russians (HAHEHEH. TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY, EH?) which the latest generation of US Navy Fighters employed TODAY were built specifically to kill in the late 80s.
 
2012-11-26 06:56:48 PM  
I was very satisfied with Reuters' slideshow.
 
2012-11-26 06:59:12 PM  

BronyMedic: rv4-farker: they'll have at least 5 operational carriers and a full complement of quality aircraft to fly on them

They will have 5 operation carriers based on a thirty year old carrier platform they reverse engineered from the Russians. And they will not have quality planes. They'll have 40 year old aircraft which were illegally copied off the Russians (HAHEHEH. TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY, EH?) which the latest generation of US Navy Fighters employed TODAY were built specifically to kill in the late 80s.


And more importantly, no way to replenish them underway. Also no way to operate their aircraft in IFR/ night conditions. There's a reason why America is the only nation that actually uses it's carriers to project power while everyone else keeps their carriers close to home.
 
2012-11-26 07:59:56 PM  
Please do not taunt billions of Chinese males into a who's military peener is bigger contest, for cryin out loud.
 
2012-11-26 08:47:55 PM  
"Assumption is the mother of all fark-ups". More specifically, underestimating ones adversary is the quickest way to lose a contest.

BronyMedic: rv4-farker: they'll have at least 5 operational carriers and a full complement of quality aircraft to fly on them

They will have 5 operation carriers based on a thirty year old carrier platform they reverse engineered from the Russians. And they will not have quality planes. They'll have 40 year old aircraft which were illegally copied off the Russians (HAHEHEH. TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY, EH?) which the latest generation of US Navy Fighters employed TODAY were built specifically to kill in the late 80s.


Why would you assume they're going to base their own carrier designs on the Russian ship they have? They're just using that ship to learn about carrier operations. When they start building their own ships they'll be very good and will incorporate the best ideas from around the world. Maybe, at first, not quite on a par with the best of what the USA has to offer but still formidable weapon systems. Same with the aircraft, they've taken a low-cost, low-risk approach by copying Russian planes. Meanwhile, away from the news headlines, they're working on their own designs. They're not building some of the highest performance supercomputers for nothing.

GoSlash27: And more importantly, no way to replenish them underway. Also no way to operate their aircraft in IFR/ night conditions. There's a reason why America is the only nation that actually uses it's carriers to project power while everyone else keeps their carriers close to home.


Apparently, since there haven't been any news articles about Chinese development of tankers and other carrier group support vessels, it means that no one there has thought of these issues. And 20 years from now, they're going to launch a carrier full of airplanes into the wide ocean and say "Oops. Why didn't anyone tell me we couldn't operate these things in clouds and darkness?"

Such assumptions are either willfully ignorant rationalizations to avoid dealing with a difficult problem or just plain racism.
 
2012-11-26 09:14:27 PM  

Sultan Of Herf: dittybopper: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: dittybopper: BronyMedic: Well, isn't that quaint.

[www.military-today.com image 600x399]


Heh. Aircraft carriers make nice, juicy sub targets:

[www.history.navy.mil image 700x500]
[warandgame.files.wordpress.com image 800x545]
[www.fas.org image 700x480]
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x250]

Naval aviators might disagree...

The naval aviators on this boat no doubt disagreed also:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 614x480]

Their job was to specifically go out to hunt and kill German U-boats, using things like air-dropped homing torpedoes. Nonetheless, their ship was sunk out from underneath them by a U-boat.

You guys seem to keep showing pictures of carriers from 60 years ago. Im fairly sure that our sub detection capabilities have gotten a bit better in 6 decades. Another bit to note...we spent several of those decades equipping and training to fight a nearly equal enemy...something that China is not.


Don't forget that while sub detection has gotten better over the last sixty years, so have the subs. If anything, carriers are more vulnerable. Back in 1944 a U-boat had limited underwater endurance, it was very slow underwater (max 7 knots, normal cruise 3 knots), and they totally overwhelmed by aerial assault. The Allies even had an air dropped antisubmarine homin torpedo.

Since then, even conventional subs have 20+ knot underwater speeds, AIP systems allow them to travel silently for weeks, and sub sonar is better by leaps and bounds over what it was in WWII.

In other words, it balances out, and WWII ASW is the only real large scale naval at where subs fought carriers. I think it would be stupid to ignore the lessons just because it was a few decades ago.
 
2012-11-26 09:16:52 PM  

GoSlash27: There's a reason why America is the only nation that actually uses it's carriers to project power while everyone else keeps their carriers close to home.


The British and French might take offense to that remark. Granted their carriers aren't fully on our level, but the British would have been boned without theirs during the Falklands War, and the de Gaulle put in a stellar performance during Libya.
 
2012-11-26 09:45:10 PM  

Gleeman: GoSlash27: There's a reason why America is the only nation that actually uses it's carriers to project power while everyone else keeps their carriers close to home.

The British and French might take offense to that remark. Granted their carriers aren't fully on our level, but the British would have been boned without theirs during the Falklands War, and the de Gaulle put in a stellar performance during Libya.

The British force contingent in the Falklands operated from a civilian container ship and they didn't stick around. Mostly because the Argentinians sunk it.
And the DeGaulle did a fine job... In their back yard.

My point is that it's one thing to land a plane on a boat, but quite another to take a boatload of airplanes anywhere on the globe and use it as an instrument of war. It took us decades to figure it out, and we're still the only ones that can do it.
 
2012-11-26 10:03:16 PM  

GoSlash27: Gleeman: GoSlash27: There's a reason why America is the only nation that actually uses it's carriers to project power while everyone else keeps their carriers close to home.

The British and French might take offense to that remark. Granted their carriers aren't fully on our level, but the British would have been boned without theirs during the Falklands War, and the de Gaulle put in a stellar performance during Libya.
The British force contingent in the Falklands operated from a civilian container ship and they didn't stick around. Mostly because the Argentinians sunk it.
And the DeGaulle did a fine job... In their back yard.

My point is that it's one thing to land a plane on a boat, but quite another to take a boatload of airplanes anywhere on the globe and use it as an instrument of war. It took us decades to figure it out, and we're still the only ones that can do it.


EXACTLY.. so why are there all these pivoting and projecting about this entire drama? It seems like Americans are the only one butthurting and using insane strawmen arguments about the 'lameness' etc of this ship, it's aircraft etc...
hmm almost reminds of a certain political party running up to the election.

Last I check PLAN never said anything about the ship operational, ready to conduct serious flight operations nor have they said anything about challenging USN or heck they never even bragged about their accomplishments but yet it is always the Americans who like to project and wax discontent.
 
2012-11-26 11:34:45 PM  
China's biggest goal isn't conflict with the United States right now, it's about establishing supremacy in Asia, especially regarding resources and border disputes. Every single country with the exceptions of North Korea and Cambodia are afraid of the Chinese due to the belligerent way they're pressing their territorial claims- whether it's against the Vietnamese and Filipinos in the South China Sea or the Japanese with the Senkaku islands. Even the Indian government has registered complaints with Beijing over a new passport which shows disputed Indian territories as "part of China."

That's always the phrase the CPC goes to, "part of China," as a way to express legitimacy and ownership. The US should be very, very concerned with increasing Chinese belligerence- not out of any "yellow peril" sense of jingoism or cold war fears, but because of the very devious and untrustworthy way the CPC does business in China. Taiwan has been an ally for decades- because DC can trust a democratic government with a vested interest in being friendly to the US.

The authoritarian, cliquish, and frankly neurotic Beijing government is only afraid of one thing- losing power. That's why Xi Jinping talked about corruption so much in his Party Congress speech- the Party is afraid of turning into the Kuomintang of the 40s and 50s and losing the support of the people, and if they can't rein in corruption or the economy slows down, it's a sure bet the sand will shift beneath their feet.

I live in mainland China and most of the people I talk to will quietly say, "I love my country but I hate my government." They want China to be strong, but they want a chance to help run their country- and not just quietly go along with what the Party tells them to do.
 
2012-11-27 04:21:02 AM  

styckx: The J-15 looks amazingly similar to an F-15 Eagle.


It looks more like a SU-33.

Aircraft designs have been converging for a while because they're all subject to the same set of physical laws.
 
2012-11-27 04:30:52 AM  

GoSlash27: My point is that it's one thing to land a plane on a boat, but quite another to take a boatload of airplanes anywhere on the globe and use it as an instrument of war. It took us decades to figure it out, and we're still the only ones that can do it.


That's because an aircraft carrier by itself is pretty helpless. It only works as one piece in a larger unified battle group. The costs of a single carrier are insane; those for a battlegroup are astronomical, and you're lucky if you can keep it at sea 1/3 or 1/2 the time... so if you want a CVBG at sea year round you need to have another one or two back in port getting refit.
 
2012-11-27 06:14:13 AM  

clyph: styckx: The J-15 looks amazingly similar to an F-15 Eagle.

It looks more like a SU-33.

Aircraft designs have been converging for a while because they're all subject to the same set of physical laws.


... and physical spies.
 
2012-11-27 07:13:58 AM  

Kuroutesshin: China's biggest goal isn't conflict with the United States right now, it's about establishing supremacy in Asia, especially regarding resources and border disputes. Every single country with the exceptions of North Korea and Cambodia are afraid of the Chinese due to the belligerent way they're pressing their territorial claims- whether it's against the Vietnamese and Filipinos in the South China Sea or the Japanese with the Senkaku islands. Even the Indian government has registered complaints with Beijing over a new passport which shows disputed Indian territories as "part of China."

That's always the phrase the CPC goes to, "part of China," as a way to express legitimacy and ownership. The US should be very, very concerned with increasing Chinese belligerence- not out of any "yellow peril" sense of jingoism or cold war fears, but because of the very devious and untrustworthy way the CPC does business in China. Taiwan has been an ally for decades- because DC can trust a democratic government with a vested interest in being friendly to the US.

The authoritarian, cliquish, and frankly neurotic Beijing government is only afraid of one thing- losing power. That's why Xi Jinping talked about corruption so much in his Party Congress speech- the Party is afraid of turning into the Kuomintang of the 40s and 50s and losing the support of the people, and if they can't rein in corruption or the economy slows down, it's a sure bet the sand will shift beneath their feet.

I live in mainland China and most of the people I talk to will quietly say, "I love my country but I hate my government." They want China to be strong, but they want a chance to help run their country- and not just quietly go along with what the Party tells them to do.


Eloquently said.
 
2012-11-27 08:00:39 AM  

Kuroutesshin: China's biggest goal isn't conflict with the United States right now, it's about establishing supremacy in Asia, especially regarding resources and border disputes. Every single country with the exceptions of North Korea and Cambodia are afraid of the Chinese due to the belligerent way they're pressing their territorial claims- whether it's against the Vietnamese and Filipinos in the South China Sea or the Japanese with the Senkaku islands. Even the Indian government has registered complaints with Beijing over a new passport which shows disputed Indian territories as "part of China."

That's always the phrase the CPC goes to, "part of China," as a way to express legitimacy and ownership. The US should be very, very concerned with increasing Chinese belligerence- not out of any "yellow peril" sense of jingoism or cold war fears, but because of the very devious and untrustworthy way the CPC does business in China. Taiwan has been an ally for decades- because DC can trust a democratic government with a vested interest in being friendly to the US.

The authoritarian, cliquish, and frankly neurotic Beijing government is only afraid of one thing- losing power. That's why Xi Jinping talked about corruption so much in his Party Congress speech- the Party is afraid of turning into the Kuomintang of the 40s and 50s and losing the support of the people, and if they can't rein in corruption or the economy slows down, it's a sure bet the sand will shift beneath their feet.

I live in mainland China and most of the people I talk to will quietly say, "I love my country but I hate my government." They want China to be strong, but they want a chance to help run their country- and not just quietly go along with what the Party tells them to do.


/Smart Buttoned
 
2012-11-27 08:50:17 AM  

dittybopper:Eloquently said.

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: /Smart Buttoned


Yay! That degree in Asian history is finally paying off!
 
2012-11-27 09:11:38 AM  

dead: ... and physical spies.


Not as much as you'd think as it applies to external appearances. Engines, avionics, weapons... that's a different story.
 
2012-11-27 11:10:26 AM  

Kuroutesshin: dittybopper:Eloquently said.

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: /Smart Buttoned

Yay! That degree in Asian history is finally paying off!


Here is another thing to consider, and a possible reason for the PRC to be interested in developing a blue water navy:

For the foreseeable future, the country that controls the sea controls not only China's energy supply (from the Middle East and elsewhere) but its food supply as well.

Apparently, the PRC is increasingly relying on imports to feed its population.
 
2012-11-27 12:43:25 PM  

purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: NOBODY has the ability to make an offensive move against the USA. Nobody.
Which makes a scenario of being invaded like the movie Red Dawn a joke.
[www.globalsecurity.org image 850x1076]


God Bless you, farker
 
2012-11-27 01:06:06 PM  
I forgot to mention, anyone saying that the J-15 looks a lot like the F-15 should be reminded that the F-15 looks suspiciously like the MiG-25.
 
2012-11-27 01:08:23 PM  
Kuroutesshin: China's biggest goal isn't conflict with the United States right now, it's about establishing supremacy in Asia, especially regarding resources and border disputes.............(cont) I live in mainland China and most of the people I talk to will quietly say, "I love my country but I hate my government." They want China to be strong, but they want a chance to help run their country- and not just quietly go along with what the Party tells them to do.

well put! Not to get on my soapbox and I would say that the very greatest weapon the US has against China isnt its military, but on the principle with which it was founded on, freedom. Freedom is a very real, and very powerful psychological weapon, and is our strongest force multiplier. So many people hate us for it, because those in the lead are afraid of it, because they know their "regimes" would collapse with it. Say what you want about the direction of America, but we will always be free. We will not risk the death of millions with an all out war with China, we will simply prey on the biggest fears of the Chinese gov't and that is to overwhelm its people with our culture, they are already massive reports of this fear coming from alternative news outlets. This is why so many things are restricted, they dont want the people having power, because when the few rule the many, you keep the few ignorant. This is how we beat the Russians, overwhelm them with our culture and capitalism and watch the corruption cripple them from within, we are a selfish species that has survived through this very instinct.

But, never underestimate any gov't when faced with the loss of power as evidenced by what we are seeing now in Syria, and look how weak (relatively speaking) they are compared to us.

Can of worms
 
2012-11-27 01:11:55 PM  
note to self, read a long post before you post it, grammar nazi, please feel free to kill my paragraph
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report