Is this the design of China's currently building aircraft carrier?

a reply to: muzzleflash

And what makes you think that's not being done?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muzzleflash

And those guys in those offices have a hell of a lot more knowledge and understanding of what's out there than the average Internet general and planner.

You just said that half of them are clueless about their own tech.

I bet I'm as well off as anyone who reads a lot.

a reply to: muzzleflash

It's called sarcasm. Because I constantly read about how this weapons system and that weapon system is obsolete, and someone on the Internet has a better idea.

That's my point. As someone who reads a lot. What black projects is China working on? What black projects do we know the actual specs on, either ours or theirs? The people that make the decisions on buying these weapons systems don't have to sit and guess what the next few years are going to bring, they're the ones helping to shape those next few years. And they're still confident enough to plan ships that won't be built for the better part of a decade.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Getting an accurate portrait of Chinese military spending is tough. The Chinese economy is now comparable to the US.

By nominal GDP:

en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)

By PPP:

en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)

China can afford their military, even one comparable to the US.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muzzleflash

And what makes you think that's not being done?

China's best hope is to pick a few strategic technology areas and dump their $ into getting the most advanced version of that.

Then in conjunction with a clever strategy and with newly developed tactics to exploit their new tech advantages, they could whoop us easily.

I don't see them doing that. Not in a big way at least. They are burning their money on old ideas.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You should look up Dark Sword.

They are doing what they know works and new things.

a reply to: muzzleflash

China knows what they're doing, and what works. Contrary to Internet opinion they're not stupid. Arrogant as hell, but far from stupid.

I just don't see China being the big threat everyone's been expecting.

They will dominate south and east Asia and project force into Africa more, but this whole big dream of the carrier group is silly.

This is a great thing though. I was hoping they didn't realize they could make Terminators yet. Now that'd be scary.

a reply to: muzzleflash

China will be a bigger threat than you think. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean they won't be.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muzzleflash

China knows what they're doing, and what works. Contrary to Internet opinion they're not stupid. Arrogant as hell, but far from stupid.

Arrogance leads to the most decisive and earth shattering military disasters.

It's the number 1 factor in losing a war against your fellow man.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muzzleflash

China will be a bigger threat than you think. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean they won't be.

I'm a skeptic.

a reply to: muzzleflash

And I would say the US is displaying a vast amount of arrogance, especially by those online.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: muzzleflash

And I would say the US is displaying a vast amount of arrogance, especially by those online.

That's the weakness the US has that China could have exploited.

Instead they are just playing the same old game we are.

a reply to: muzzleflash

OK. Sure.

a reply to: muzzleflash

That's the weakness the US has that China could have exploited.

Perhaps they are exploiting that weakness:

“Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.” ― Sun Tzu

The Chinese are an ancient culture that takes the long view. We must never underestimate their capabilities and their resolve.

-dex

Ok in 1979 China invaded North Vietnam, it was the Sino-Vietnamese War.

People always remark about how impressive China's ground forces are - but this short conflict shows the reality.

Yes China's Navy and Air Force stayed out of the conflict for the most part due to tensions with the Soviets and because the Vietnamese air defense was robust.

However if you look at the numbers, the Chinese armor got ripped up in guerilla ambushes and they were paying a heavy toll against the very experienced - well trained - battle hardened Vietnamese.

It ended in a near stalemate and China realized they weren't going to risk a protracted and costly conflict.

a reply to: muzzleflash

And the US, with a much better military, suffered a similar fate. So how does that fit your narrative?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muzzleflash

And the US, with a much better military, suffered a similar fate. So how does that fit your narrative?

It fits perfectly because I argued that China's carrier concept represents a boondoggle and a failure to anticipate the changing battlefields of tomorrow.

The US and China went into Vietnam, and the Soviets into Afghanistan - with outdated concepts of war. This happens quite often as the history of conflict goes.

I'm just saying China should rethink this from alternative perspectives.

I also gave yall a reason to talk and discuss this against devil's advocate.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Again, OK, sure. I'm out.

a reply to: muzzleflash


Oh, they might find a way. Or might be trying it at least.

"An empire toppled by its enemies can rise again. But one which crumbles from within? That's dead... forever."

a goofy source, but not a completely wrong...