China's new aircraft carrier.

Maggot

Maggot

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood"
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Supporter
    • Jul 27, 2007
    26,104
    29,832
    Virginia
    #1
    08382133f09a351b010f6a7067009376.jpg


    DENVER (AP) — A commercial U.S. satellite company said it has captured a photo of China's first aircraft carrier in the Yellow Sea off the Chinese coast.

    DigitalGlobe Inc. said Wednesday one of its satellites photographed the carrier Dec. 8. A DigitalGlobe analyst found the image Tuesday while searching through photos.

    Stephen Wood, director of DigitalGlobe's analysis center, said he's confident the ship is the Chinese carrier because of the location and date of the photo. The carrier was on a sea trial at the time.

    DigitalGlobe, based in Longmont, Colo., sells satellite imagery and analysis to clients that include the U.S. military, emergency response agencies and private companies. DigitalGlobe has three orbiting satellites and a fourth is under construction.

    The aircraft carrier has generated intense international interest because of what it might portend about China's intentions as a military power.

    The former Soviet Union started building the carrier, which it called the Varyag, but never finished it. When the Soviet Union collapsed, it ended up in the hands of Ukraine, a former Soviet republic.

    China bought the ship from Ukraine in 1998 and spent years refurbishing it. It had no engines, weaponry or navigation systems when China acquired it.

    China has said the carrier is intended for research and training, which has led to speculation that it plans to build future copies.

    China initially said little about its plans for the carrier but has been more open in recent years, said Bonnie S. Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    "It wasn't until the Chinese actually announced they were sending it out on a trial run they admitted, 'Yes, we are actually launching a carrier,'" she said.

    China publicly announced two sea trials for the carrier that occurred this year, she said.

    The carrier's progress is in line with the U.S. military's expectations, said Cmdr. Leslie Hull-Ryde, a Defense Department spokeswoman.

    A Defense Department report to Congress this year said the carrier could become operationally available to the Chinese navy by the end of next year but without aircraft.

    "From that point, it will take several additional years before the carrier has an operationally viable air group," Hull-Ryde said in an email.

    She declined to comment on the DigitalGlobe photo, saying it was an intelligence matter.
     
    #4
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    And what could they possibly do with one marginally operational carrier? Let me guess, threaten the west coast? Its not nuclear so it has to maintain fuel for itself and the jets so its range will probably be less than a Burke class destroyer. Which means it has no ability to roll out of home port and head anywhere across the world non stop which is our CVN's claim to fame. So it would seem it is for the purpose of pumping up China's dick while it walks around its own neighborhood.

    Just because its underway doesnt mean much. It takes quite a bit of time and infrastructure to have effective and operational air wings. Something that is probably 10 years off for them. Much less a cohesive offensive capability with that old POS.

    I fail to see what difference another party holding the white house would bring? More defense spending to make our economy collapse faster?

    Did we think that we were going to be the only ones with carriers?
     
    #7
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GMZ</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And what could they possibly do with one marginally operational carrier? Let me guess, threaten the west coast? Its not nuclear so it has to maintain fuel for itself and the jets so its range will probably be less than a Burke class destroyer. Which means it has no ability to roll out of home port and head anywhere across the world non stop which is our CVN's claim to fame. So it would seem it is for the purpose of pumping up China's dick while it walks around its own neighborhood.

    Just because its underway doesnt mean much. It takes quite a bit of time and infrastructure to have effective and operational air wings. Something that is probably 10 years off for them. Much less a cohesive offensive capability with that old POS.

    I fail to see what difference another party holding the white house would bring? More defense spending to make our economy collapse faster?

    Did we think that we were going to be the only ones with carriers? </div></div>

    Ah yes, deisel technology in a nucleur world. China's one upmanship. At least mesing with this keeps them from doing any real damage.
     
    #8
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ah yes, deisel technology in a nucleur world. China's one upmanship. At least mesing with this keeps them from doing any real damage. </div></div>

    IIRC they are oil fired boilers which are worse from my experience than marine diesels.
     
    #9
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    Who's to say it's not n uclear, they've been working on it since 1998....and they made clear they want a blue water navy.

    Assume the worst...but they are still a couple years out in training pilots etc. We have 80 years up on them.
     
    #11
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OYOzUHnPJvU"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OYOzUHnPJvU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
     
    #12
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: long-shot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looks a lot like the Brit's carrier for their AV-8B. Makes more sense than our Nimitz class and Mobile Chernobyl (CVN-65). </div></div>


    In what way does it make more sense? If it's about the powerplant and why nuclear is not a good idea for carriers, then please, oh pretty please, enlighten me.

    If I recall, we toyed with the idea of small carriers in the 70s and realized (as we previously learned in Jefferson's day) that small ships are not a wise investment. Of course, now someone has convinced Congress that LCS is a good idea...
    I'm going to stop now before I really get started.


    edit: ok, re-reading this thread, I probably misconstued the quoted post, which I now think is commenting on classification of what the ship is, not merits of a potential design (or lack thereof)...sorry that I was rather confrontational. I just get my neck hairs raised when someone starts talking anti-nuclear, and most people that mention the Prize's other nickname tend to not do so in the appropriate jocular manner.
     
    #13
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TNT</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: long-shot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looks a lot like the Brit's carrier for their AV-8B. Makes more sense than our Nimitz class and Mobile Chernobyl (CVN-65). </div></div>


    In what way does it make more sense? If it's about the powerplant and why nuclear is not a good idea for carriers, then please, oh pretty please, enlighten me.

    If I recall, we toyed with the idea of small carriers in the 70s and realized (as we previously learned in Jefferson's day) that small ships are not a wise investment. Of course, now someone has convinced Congress that LCS is a good idea...
    I'm going to stop now before I really get started.


    edit: ok, re-reading this thread, I probably misconstued the quoted post, which I now think is commenting on classification of what the ship is, not merits of a potential design (or lack thereof)...sorry that I was rather confrontational. I just get my neck hairs raised when someone starts talking anti-nuclear, and most people that mention the Prize's other nickname tend to not do so in the appropriate jocular manner. </div></div>

    Brother,

    It's hard for me to be anti-nuclear. I was a nuclear operator on SSBN's for 7 years and an instructor on Naval Nuc plants for 3 years.

    My comment came from the fact these huge machines we love so much require an entire battle group to protect itself, require top speed to launch their birds, thousands of people to operate the boats and additional thousands to operate the air wing.

    The are far greater at influencing politics than they are an actual weapon. They're impressive, but insanely expensive to operate and quite vulnerable when you really think about it. If it can't launch birds... and if it requires 30+ knots to launch birds....

    I actually have a lot of respect for "1/2 Mile Island". Fastest boat of her day with the right props, no lack of reactors, and it's been around longer than almost everything except USS Constitution. It just won't be the same without her.
     
    #14
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's time for a Republican in the White House. </div></div>

    What would that change?
     
    #15
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    Having something is not the same as knowing how to use it, when the time comes to, put up or shut up.
    No one buys a carrier an is up to speed, the same day.
    Like many other things in life, thinking you can buy your way into the game, will result in a educational experience, when it gets real.
     
    #16
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    I don't think we should be worried:

    <object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ayKOlLhlQsc"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ayKOlLhlQsc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
     
    #18
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tucker301</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's time for a Republican in the White House. </div></div>

    What would that change? </div></div>

    For starters we might bomb our classified drone when it goes down in Iran, rather than telling the guy in the press conference that we aren't going to discuss "classified matters".

    If it's down in Iran, and not fully destroyed it's the opposite of classified.

    Its all the little things that create the security of the nation, or the lack thereof.

    Slashing the defense budget doesn't help.

    Obviously the Chinese are a long way off, but it's always good to be moving forward.
     
    #22
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Doug.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe we put that drone in Iran on purpose? </div></div>


    You give our leaders too much credit.
     
    #23
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    Former MM1(SS) here, carriers even ours, are not all that impressive after you penetrate the escorts and simulate sinking or at least putting some really big h0oles in them, them a few times.

    On top of that now all they have to do is BUILD a carrier based air wing. The engineering and logistics for that little piece of the puzzle is somewhat different and unique to the class.

    Bears watching, (finally, something for our subs to do since the USSR took their gear and went home) but I wouldn't worry yet.
     
    #24
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: High Binder</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Doug.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe we put that drone in Iran on purpose? </div></div>


    You give our leaders too much credit. </div></div>


    ^^^^^
    This.
     
    #25
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Former MM1(SS) here, carriers even ours, are not all that impressive after you penetrate the escorts and simulate sinking or at least putting some really big h0oles in them, them a few times.

    On top of that now all they have to do is BUILD a carrier based air wing. The engineering and logistics for that little piece of the puzzle is somewhat different and unique to the class.

    Bears watching, (finally, something for our subs to do since the USSR took their gear and went home) but I wouldn't worry yet. </div></div>

    Amen!
     
    #27
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    As I recall this was the same class as the Kiev and the Minsk, and those only carried Jump Jets and Helos, like our LHA's and LHD's. China has demands on Islands in the South China Sea almost down to Indonesia, and close to there and Vietnam and the P.I. They want the Oil and Natural gas that is there, and are willing to take it. they have been having conflicts with Vietnamese Oil Exploration vessels and Viet Navy for a while now. They even want the islands that include Okinawa back. Both are based on old, and even ancient claims. Chinese were all over the South and North Pacific, usually as merchants, and like a thousand years ago they ruled the place briefly so they want it back. Just like with the Muslims, if there ever where Chinese there they claim it as theirs by historical right.
    They don't need a actual "Blue Water" navy like ours. They need control of the region. Their subs are scary, because there are so many wrecks there from WW II, and they have been mapping them, so they can snuggle their Diesel Subs up next to them and pop up like that one did to the Carrier a few years ago. The salinity, Thermoclines, and magnetic fields from all the volcanic rock play hell with sub detection.
    if they can use Land Based air power and subs to keep us away they can use the carrier, and limited as it is, to provide close support or amphib groups to land on those tiny rocks in the South China Sea, and once they militarize them dare us to come close and try to drive them out. The locals, like the Vietnamese and the residents of Java or Borneo are incapable of doing it. The UN is useless, and China is on the Security Council. Russia will side with them, at least politically.
    And with out navy being cut back again, and another Marine Brigade being Riffed, what are we gonna do about it?
    Losing a carrier, especially one like this, is fine with them if it gets them ashore where they want first.
    All ships, including our Nuke Carriers, have to be considered as being expendable, because we are gonna lose some in a shooting war, likely with all hands.
     
    #28
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    I see that supposedly Russia hasn't sold them arrestor gear yet. I don't know what kind of aircraft they intend to fly off it, but making carrier Planes is no easy task, even with stolen technology. Neither are catapults.
    We have Lakehurst still operating in training deck crews to operate those systems, and developing them. They got only what they could steal. No experience whatsoever.
     
    #30
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    thats pretty funny
    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">from the top view with the clouds it sure looks nice... just like some of the Tapco stuff I have seen from afar. </div></div>
     
    #31
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tucker301</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's time for a Republican in the White House. </div></div>

    What would that change? </div></div>

    For starters we might bomb our classified drone when it goes down in Iran, rather than telling the guy in the press conference that we aren't going to discuss "classified matters".

    If it's down in Iran, and not fully destroyed it's the opposite of classified.

    Its all the little things that create the security of the nation, or the lack thereof.

    Slashing the defense budget doesn't help.

    Obviously the Chinese are a long way off, but it's always good to be moving forward. </div></div>

    Yep, cutting our defense budget and our space program while others are ramping up theirs... great idea...
    confused.gif
     
    #32
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    i think there's a lot more to operating an aircraft carrier than just flying an air group off it. Every day China's Navy spends operating that vessel is another day of training and experience they gain in all those other things it takes to project Air/Sea power.

    The questions regarding what this threatens and doesn't threaten are getting answered by the simple fact that there are a lot fewer things that aren't being threatened than were threatened previously. No matter what that turns out to be, it's not good news for anyone who's newly threatened.

    While China may be where we were 80 years ago, I think it's a safe bet that it won't take anywhere near that time for them to be up to speed and doing a workmanlike job of it. For one thing, simply studying our own history in this field will allow them to cut straight to the chase in getting to our level of achievement. It will spare them a multitude of costly lessons in the process, too. I suspect there are few technological issues left that they are not already prepared to face squarely.

    Never sell China short. Never make assumptions about China, either pro or con.

    We tell them a lot more about ourselves than they tell us about themselves. That's simply the difference between open and closed societies.

    With sincere respect to all views, China may still make a better ally than enemy in tomorrow's world; and I, for one, don't begin my assessment by throwing any sort of bias into that potential.

    I don't like 'em especially, but I'm not quite ready to hate 'em either; and I'm open to other viewpoints as well.

    Greg
     
    #33
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    I think it's hard for me to consider what's going on with defense spending as a budget cut in the usual sense. Our expenditures are shrinking respectably in the light of the Iraq drawdown. I honestly believe it's both possible to reduce spending and still fund needed measures with a more generous hand. War is basically an arterial bleed. Plug that one, and less can go a lot farther.

    The thing that bothers me most about recent history is that it parallels the sort of thought exercises I occasionally entertain regarding how one might go about constraining the world's last superpower without actually engaging in direct confrontation.

    We are being subjected to a persistent series of aggravations that invariably escalate into a massive and unprofitable drain on the Nation's energy, treasure, and precious human resources.

    I tend to think of this sorta like a repetitive exercise of "Let's you and him fight...". Decades ago, this would have been done through client states; but more recently, we are being engaged far more directly.

    I think that's in part because we don't respect ourselves enough, in part because we respect others far too much, and in part for reasons that nobody on this continent is willing to face squarely.

    We're a Nation, and not Mount Olympus. We are not institutionally bound to treat other nations with self-deprecating altruism. We are not prohibited from considering that our hard earned might is not diametrically opposed to our being right when others disagree. We have the right to hold our own interest before those of all others. We earned it at least in part by hauling their chestnuts out of the fire, time and again, and by bankrolling their current capacities to plow us under with their shiny new plowshares.

    We are treated by them as their lackies precisely because we have chosen to behave as their lackies. It ls only fair that they do so.

    Sometimes we're wrong, and being so does not condemn us to anything. Being wrong is not a mandate for condemnation. It happens. You try to do better next time. Hand wringing is optional, and to my mind, inconsequential.

    If anything it proves our humanity far better than our currently slavish commitment to a utopian and unswerving devotion to some arbitrary fairness doctrine.

    It almost makes one wonder whether the featherheads who incessantly and loudly demand we manage such a course are not being deliberately influenced by some less than altruistic outside sources.

    We simply cannot sustain this practice on a continuous basis, and if it's even partly the consequence of somebody's deliberate and hostile intent, they have us soundly by the short and curlies.

    This nation has gradually and insidiously lapsed into a continuous cycle where our wealth is being systematically being drained offshore. How better to constrain the last superpower without undertaking a direct confrontation?

    Somebody up on high needs to be thinking, at least in part, in these terms. I don't honestly believe it's paranoia to be entertaining such ideas.

    Greg
     
    #34
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    As for cutting the space program; maybe it's best not to get me started on that.

    I had some small part in that in the past, and it remains dear to my heart. I could lament such cuts very legitimately for just such a reason, but simply put, there are far better reasons for some such lamentations.

    However, even seen in such a light, there is a time when somebody needs to swim alongside the lifeboat for a turn.

    Space flight is amazingly expensive, especially manned space flight. There are good reasons for this, but there are also ones that are less good.

    American, and maybe other, manned space flight programs are intensively risk aversive. More than some others, I suspect.

    Such intense risk aversion is not cheap. Much of it is driven by a reasonable desire to prevent avoidable risk, but some of it is also driven by national pride and political butt coverage. I'm not saying it's all bad, but I am saying that if the same degree of risk aversion was practiced in military aviation, the costs would be prohibitive, and military options would be restricted to the an absolutely ludicrous level.

    In some ways this is already happening, as with the emergence of drone aviation and drone warfare.

    The risk avoidance is genuinely commendable, but is it cost effective?

    With due respect, that depends on what your price tag is for a highly trained and motivated young patriot's life. I'm not sure, but I'm wondering if that young patriot is being given a reasonable opportunity to add their own views to that discussion; or whether other folks are overriding such input for reasons thet could have more to do with political and economic values than military ones.

    Moreover, part of the economic pressures that drive such decisions are being heavily and unquestionably influenced by ongoing overseas military expenditures; and then, in sequence, that also goes back to my own area of potential paranoia given just previously. Taking a broader view, is the demise of our space flight programs yet another, slightly more remote, consequence of somebody else's hostile but shrewd thinking?

    I wouldn't blame folks for considering me paranoid about this; but all I really want from this suggestion is to get more people thinking about whether or not it's a healthy paranoia.

    Greg
     
    #35
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    It seems this thread has evolved as most do when highly controversial topics are being discussed. My personal opinion of aircraft carriers is they are a very specialized tool much like SSBNs. They are/were the most powerful tool in the toolbox, but are so specialized they are rarely used for their intended purpose. That makes their return on investment very low.

    This may not be popular but I trade with China weekly and manufacture components in main land China and have for a decade. I am also a veteran and a business man. I can't ignore what they are good at, and quite frankly what we as American's are not so good at.

    As for worrying about the next war I think the tools of that war will be economic and no matter what uniform the solders of that war are wearing they will both be in suits and not BDU's.
     
    #36
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    The thing with China, is they have a thousand year goal, us, if we can see past the tip of our nose (govt wise) we are seeing far into the future. We have become a nation of pussies, no Superpower can be a pussy and survive.
     
    #37
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    The Cheenas have no arrestor gear, or planes that can take off of a carrier, unless they buy some from Russia and reverse engineer. And Russia only has about 30 of the Sukhois that can do it, and they are worn out. The Mig-29 they are trying to adapt isn't coming along well because the MIg wans't designed to take off heavy with fuel and arms at 75 MPH under the wings, or land at 80 MPH on half a tennis court.
    Do they have any air to air refueling on the carrier? So the planes can stay up, what, a hour, if they ever do make this work?
    This carrier is just a testbed for them. They will build from scratch with what they learn and what they buy and what they steal. If they had to employ it for something they will, but this ship is a Missile Cruiser first and very limited in anything else.
    Russia sold them the hulk on the condition it not be militarized. It was built in the Ukraine, and when the USSR broke up Russia lost access to the docks and ways and couldn't finish it. If they left it there and tried the Ukis would have kept it.
     
    #38
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    The multitude of easily researched falsehoods here bothers me.
    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donttrytorun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I recall this was the same class as the Kiev and the Minsk, and those only carried Jump Jets and Helos, like our LHA's and LHD's.</div></div>
    While the Kievs were similar in size to the Wasp class LHDs. The Varyag was an Admiral Kuznetsov class carrier when laid down, more than a football field longer and displacing half again the size of a Wasp. Where the Kievs only opereated helis and VTOL fixed wing Kuznetsovs were designed from the get go to launch fixed wing naval fighters of the more mainstream variety. She is in fact comparable in size and displacement to Britain's Elizabeth class supercarriers now in progress.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donttrytorun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Cheenas have no arrestor gear, or planes that can take off of a carrier, unless they buy some from Russia and reverse engineer. And Russia only has about 30 of the Sukhois that can do it, and they are worn out.</div></div>
    Considering the production of Chinese Sukhoi copies both 27 and 33s are internationally confirmed. The J11 and J15 respectively. This point seems fairly moot.
    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Mig-29 they are trying to adapt isn't coming along well because the MIg wans't designed to take off heavy with fuel and arms at 75 MPH under the wings, or land at 80 MPH on half a tennis court.</div></div> First as I pointed out above the Chinese are developing Su-33 copies as the basis of their future carrier air wing. Second had the Chinese pursued the MiG-29K they would have had an airplane purpose built to land on that deck, as it made it's first take off and landing on the Kuznetsov in 1989, and continued testing until 1991. Where we to continue on the assumption you made earlier that the Chinese were operating a Kiev class carrier the Mig-29 would STILL be a proven aircraft as the Indians are in the process of purchasing them for operation of their (heavily modified) Kiev.
    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do they have any air to air refueling on the carrier? So the planes can stay up, what, a hour, if they ever do make this work?</div></div>
    The Su-27/33 series is capable of buddy tanking. You know like the US Navy does with F-18s since the retirement of fleet S-3s and the full retirement of dedicated A-3/A-6 Tankers.
    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This carrier is just a testbed for them. They will build from scratch with what they learn and what they buy and what they steal.</div></div>
    This at least is true.
    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If they had to employ it for something they will, but this ship is a Missile Cruiser first and very limited in anything else.</div></div>
    this is not the Kuznetsovs were first and foremost carriers; very different from Western carriers, but a carrier nonetheless. It is in fact a carrier first, as previously mentioned these ships are roughly equivalent in size to the planned Brit carriers, and larger than the French nuke De Gaulle which as an interesting side note is the same size and displacement as a Wasp LHD and *gasp* operates non VTOL air superiority fighters.

    The operation of this carrier and the valuable experience earned by both crew and eventually the carrier air wing demonstrates a rise in the capability of the PLAN. It's a dangerous step towards China exerting actual military power in the South China Sea and beyond.
     
    #39
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's time for a Republican in the White House. </div></div>

    YEah and that worked out so well for 8 years. 2 wars, bombing the shit out of a country that had nothing to do with 911 and more jobs going to China, more oil spills, more deregulation, unemployment rate skyrocketing, price of fuel at its highest, more tax breaks for BIG business, the list goes on. Oh before i forget a VP that shoots a guy and the guy he shoots says I'm sorry for standing in front of your barrel and you not paying fucking attention and shooting me.. Yeah that was some of the best years the US has had in a long time Reminds of the era when the turd movie star RR was in office..
    At least when blowjob Bill the road scholar was in, everyone who wanted a job had one and was making decent money and had plenty of spending money. Just my 2 cents.
     
    #40
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: matthewusmc8791</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's time for a Republican in the White House. </div></div>

    YEah and that worked out so well for 8 years. 2 wars, bombing the shit out of a country that had nothing to do with 911 and more jobs going to China, more oil spills, more deregulation, unemployment rate skyrocketing, price of fuel at its highest, more tax breaks for BIG business, the list goes on. Oh before i forget a VP that shoots a guy and the guy he shoots says I'm sorry for standing in front of your barrel and you not paying fucking attention and shooting me.. Yeah that was some of the best years the US has had in a long time Reminds of the era when the turd movie star RR was in office..
    At least when blowjob Bill the road scholar was in, everyone who wanted a job had one and was making decent money and had plenty of spending money. Just my 2 cents.</div></div>

    I don't know what's worse, the fact that you're so full of shit or that you actually believe everything you just typed.
     
    #41
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    Greg,

    I wholeheartedly respect damn near everything you say...

    Does not disarming our space program, putting to bed our nukes and cuts in defense spending all go hand in hand..with...Does this not put us in to a position where we are so vulnerable that some other county who wants so badly to "make us come in second" has the opportunity it's been waiting for?

    I'm asking a question here not making a statement.
     
    #42
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cocadori</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Greg,

    I wholeheartedly respect damn near everything you say...

    Does not disarming our space program, putting to bed our nukes and cuts in defense spending all go hand in hand..with...Does this not put us in to a position where we are so vulnerable that some other county who wants so badly to "make us come in second" has the opportunity it's been waiting for?

    I'm asking a question here not making a statement. </div></div>

    This is exactly the point. We are putting ourselves in a vulnerable position we can't afford to be in. We have to put PC in check, and do the right thing for our country.
     
    #43
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    At this point, my participation in this thread ends. I see my central points have been grasped; and besides, I don't like where some of this is heading.

    Greg
     
    #44
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    simple:::

    the worlds largest airforce
    +the worlds largest population
    +the worlds largest work forse
    +the largest possible army
    +the will
    +the way
    +the want
    -------------------------------
    =bad news any way you cut it


    i dont think its an imedent danger
    but they never liked us and dont like many i dont know im on the fencebut may eye brows are raised but what you going to do we cant just go over an sink the dam thing.

    by the way isnt the parts for most of our HIGH TEC stuff made in china???
     
    #45
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cowboy1978</div><div class="ubbcode-body">simple:::

    the worlds largest airforce
    +the worlds largest population
    +the worlds largest work forse
    +the largest possible army
    +the will
    +the way
    +the want
    -------------------------------
    =bad news any way you cut it


    <span style="font-weight: bold">i dont think its an imedent danger
    but they never liked us and dont like many i dont know im on the fencebut may eye brows are raised but what you going to do we cant just go over an sink the dam thing.</span>

    <span style="font-weight: bold">by the way isnt the parts for most of our HIGH TEC stuff made in china???</span></div></div>

    Yes, it is. Doesn't that make you feel good about our technology? (sarcasm)
     
    #46
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    China's history isn't one of invading/attacking other nations... killing millions of civilians. I think the old insane cabal that has the keys to the printing press are a far scarier threat.
     
    #47
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At this point, my participation in this thread ends. I see my central points have been grasped; and besides, I don't like where some of this is heading.

    Greg </div></div>


    I concur Greg, but one last thing before I get back to work!!! You gotta love this republican regardless of their inablility to comprehend common sense and the real facts of history along with the reality that they screw the working man ALL DAY LONG....God bless em'.
     
    #49
    Re: China's new aircraft carrier.

    The new style of air wing - no catapults - ready to run :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE

    * USS Wasp *

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
    08382133f09a351b010f6a7067009376.jpg


    DENVER (AP) — A commercial U.S. satellite company said it has captured a photo of China's first aircraft carrier in the Yellow Sea off the Chinese coast.

    DigitalGlobe Inc. said Wednesday one of its satellites photographed the carrier Dec. 8. A DigitalGlobe analyst found the image Tuesday while searching through photos.

    Stephen Wood, director of DigitalGlobe's analysis center, said he's confident the ship is the Chinese carrier because of the location and date of the photo. The carrier was on a sea trial at the time.

    DigitalGlobe, based in Longmont, Colo., sells satellite imagery and analysis to clients that include the U.S. military, emergency response agencies and private companies. DigitalGlobe has three orbiting satellites and a fourth is under construction.

    The aircraft carrier has generated intense international interest because of what it might portend about China's intentions as a military power.

    The former Soviet Union started building the carrier, which it called the Varyag, but never finished it. When the Soviet Union collapsed, it ended up in the hands of Ukraine, a former Soviet republic.

    China bought the ship from Ukraine in 1998 and spent years refurbishing it. It had no engines, weaponry or navigation systems when China acquired it.

    China has said the carrier is intended for research and training, which has led to speculation that it plans to build future copies.

    China initially said little about its plans for the carrier but has been more open in recent years, said Bonnie S. Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    "It wasn't until the Chinese actually announced they were sending it out on a trial run they admitted, 'Yes, we are actually launching a carrier,'" she said.

    China publicly announced two sea trials for the carrier that occurred this year, she said.

    The carrier's progress is in line with the U.S. military's expectations, said Cmdr. Leslie Hull-Ryde, a Defense Department spokeswoman.

    A Defense Department report to Congress this year said the carrier could become operationally available to the Chinese navy by the end of next year but without aircraft.

    "From that point, it will take several additional years before the carrier has an operationally viable air group," Hull-Ryde said in an email.

    She declined to comment on the DigitalGlobe photo, saying it was an intelligence matter.
    </div></div>
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Similar threads

    lash
    China Restricts Export of Nitrocellulose and Antimony
    Replies
    74
    Views
    3K
    Edsel
    Edsel
    Graywolf.260
    Chinese network
    Replies
    29
    Views
    1K
    pmclaine
    pmclaine
    pineoak
    Chinese military balloon explained
    Replies
    28
    Views
    2K
    highbclowgr
    highbclowgr
    sirhrmechanic
    Let's get our terminology straight: They are not Chinese!
    Replies
    30
    Views
    2K
    mosin46
    M
    PatMiles
    WEF: Biometric Digital ID Cards Could Track Vaccination Status, Dutch Queen Máxima Says at Davos
    Replies
    24
    Views
    930
    atomic41
    atomic41
    Top Bottom
    Back
    Home
    Forums
    Merch
    Alerts