It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chinese aircraft carrier

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

why do you think so highly of the US???


I think highly of the US we have the best tech out there. and Our DOD budget is around 500Billion we have 5 branches so each branch ahs roughly 100billion a year. Only one of our military branches has more than any other county in the world, that is pretty sad.


- No it isn't Westy. What on earth is so sad about a situation where the rest of the world won't play dangerous little 'arms race' games?

I think it's a very very good thing.


China is cutting it Army form 2mil down to 1.5 cuz of cost to maintain it. Devil just try to equip 200mil people with weapons you cant cost too much. And china don't have enough weapons for them. Another this is we have air superiority so if china has 200mil men oh well we will just bomb them till they are down to 2 mil before we go in with our ground troops. Like shooting fish in a barrel.


- Yet on another thread you complained......" these same people are not concerned about the build up of other countries. That is hypocrite and it poses me off, causing me to have the FU its my money foreign policy."

Nothing contradictory in your view here at all, huh?




posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
noooo China has a medium sized carrier! Run to the hills!

except just in my backyard (figurativly) in Norfolk there are 5 Nimitz carriers and groups, plus the 1st fighter wing in langly that will be equiped with the first Raptors in two months and the GHW being built in NN and two wings of fighter attack squadrons at Oceanna. This is only in the Eastern half of Virginia, so I laugh at the prospect of two dated carriers scarring the US. India has them, and you dont consider them a huge threat.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   
The biggest carrier after the Nimitz, I think is the French De gaul(sp). Which is pretty sad considering they only have one and they will never use it in war
: China could build carriers from merchant ships like in WWII which can hold about 6-8 modern jets



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 12:55 AM
link   
wow cv77 is quite impressive
.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The biggest carrier after the Nimitz, I think is the French De gaul(sp).


- Correct (until the new UK carriers come along?)


Which is pretty sad considering they only have one and they will never use it in war
:


- What is wrong with you Westy? Are you like 5 or something?

Why is it "sad" that France, having not been attacked not using it's carrier in a war?

Surely the carrier will have served it's purpose (along with the rest of French arms) in deterring attack?


China could build carriers from merchant ships like in WWII which can hold about 6-8 modern jets



- What for?

Just so you can indulge your war fantasies and consider yourself 'threatened' and justified in wanting your gov to go buying absurd numbers of the latest 'wang' substitute?

Phwoooaarrr, eh, eh, eh?



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 07:31 AM
link   

- Correct (until the new UK carriers come along?)


Umm...no the new British carrier will still be the size they are now which is about half the size of the NImitz. the only thing the new British carriers will have is new technology on board the size will remain the same. The brits have 3 carriers now which will be replaced by 2 new carriers. By the way every one on here knows the French weapons are for show cuz they wont use them in any war for obvious reasons



[edit on 13-8-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The biggest carrier after the Nimitz, I think is the French De gaul(sp).


Umm, I think that Kuzentov, or whatever the Russians are calling it these days, is bigger than the De Gaulle.

At least it carries more aircraft.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

- Correct (until the new UK carriers come along?)


Umm...no the new British carrier will still be the size they are now which is about half the size of the NImitz. the only thing the new British carriers will have is new technology on board the size will remain the same.


- Really? How come the RN is saying this then?

"The design continues to evolve but CVF is expected to displace 55,000t to 65,000t, a size between the USA's 100,000t Nimitz class and France's 43,000t Charles de Gaulle class aircraft carriers, and three times larger than the 20,000t UK Invincible class carriers."


The brats have 3 carriers now which will be replaced by 2 new carriers.


- Yes, you see we Brits work on the basis of affordability and actual need, not in sad 'wang-waving' attempts to impress.

(and as for "brats", I think you'll find the young upstarts are yourselves....what with your idea of heritage and high culture being anything around 200yrs old. LOL)


By the way every one on here knows the French weapons are for show cuz they wont use them in any war for obvious reasons



- Er, no. The French forces serve their purpose. The French have not been attacked and therefore do not charge around the globe attacking others.

The fact that France has not used her carriers in anger is something for the French to be proud of; it is not in the least bit "sad" to any sane person..



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Coming soon, if the money doesn't run out.






posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Yes, you see we Brits work on the basis of affordability and actual need, not in sad 'wang-waving' attempts to impress.

(and as for "brats", I think you'll find the young upstarts are yourselves....what with your idea of heritage and high culture being anything around 200yrs old. LOL)


Umm still only 55.000 pounds come on the Brits can do better than that and can i see alink for that info
Umm the Brits have a small county the US has thousands of miles of coast, and we need to have mobile bases in case of war. The US needs to project power where we want and by having the Nimitz and 12 carriers this allows us to do that.

The "brats" was a mistype I meant to type Brits I have now corrected that word.

waynos your jets don't even have working cannons on them cuz lack of funding you think your going to get what's on that picture.

[edit on 13-8-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
But Westy, Britains coastline is never ending!

Here's a comparative table for you;





posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm still only 55.000 pounds come on the Brits can do better than that


- why would we want to "do better than that" if we have no need to?

Do you think our tax-payers are thrilled at foregoing several schools, colleges and/or hospitals for these things for fun!?

You see? Here it is the difference between us.....we buy according to any rational calculation of actual 'need' you lot buy on the basis of attempting to impress.....which ironically enough isn't really all that.


and can i see alink for that info


- sure. www.naval-technology.com...


Umm the Brits have a small county the US has thousands of miles of coast, and we need to have mobile bases in case of war. The US needs to project power where we want and by having the Nimitz and 12 carriers this allows us to do that.


- Yeah, yeah, yeah. You carry on. Any old way to justify your blatent power games Westy.....and don't forget the old guff about freedom and democracy huh?


The "brats" was a mistype I meant to type Brits I have now corrected that word.


- Fair enough.


waynos your jets don't even have working cannons on them cuz lack of funding you think your going to get what's on that picture.


- don't believe everything you read Westy.

......you don't really think our eurofighters suddenly doubled in price do you? Ways and means Westy, ways and means.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Im not sure about the British carrier defense systems, but the US has the Phalanx system desigend to combat incoming terminal missles. Anything that an enemy can fire will be intercepted. It is a last line of defense. And im hearing rumors of a laser system as also future defense systems for US carriers. The Chinese carriers wont stand a chance, they will have to start from scratch to design shipborne aircraft, and we have pretty much mastered that field. A US carrier is not alone in the seas by itslef, it also has support ships and subs not to mention instant satellite communications. The key is Network Centric Warfare. If anyone attempts to bully a Nimitz class carrier, they will be fried t an extra crispy crust, skinned and sold.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
Im not sure about the British carrier defense systems, but the US has the Phalanx system desigend to combat incoming terminal missles.


Actually the Phalanx was deemed marginal aginst some of the newer Mach 2+ Russian sea skimming ASM's They are fielding what they call RAM or Rolling airframe missile. Its basically a sidewinder missile with a stinger seeker on the head. It is supposed to be able to get those missiles and it can be retrofitted to existing Phalanx systems.
www.globalsecurity.org...

That being said, as you pointed out a carrier is the biggest target but its also the best protected. From the Ageis system to SSN's its got defence in layers.

The laser hold promise but is years away.....



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Er, no. The French forces serve their purpose. The French have not been attacked and therefore do not charge around the globe attacking others.


Sminkley Come on, Lets ask the Algerians about the French eh? And fear not, if Germany overruns them again, we will still come and bail them out.....



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Sminkley Come on, Lets ask the Algerians about the French eh?


- Hmm, I hate to say it Fred (and believe me I really do, there's nothing amusing to me about it and I get no pleasure from the horrors that are currently going on) but yes, I suggest a chat with the French (and us Brits after if you like, although we seem to be forgetful about it at times) about the wisdom of being in countries where you are most definitely not wanted.


And fear not, if Germany overruns them again, we will still come and bail them out.....


- Those days are thankfully long long over now Freddy.


[edit on 14-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
Im not sure about the British carrier defense systems, but the US has the Phalanx system desigend to combat incoming terminal missles.


- IIRC the UK bought Phalanx for the current Sea Harrier carriers, I don't know which version or about any up-dates though.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 05:49 AM
link   
People seam to have a sick mind. At times they see WMDs other times China using too much of their oil, other times aircraft carriers... Shall we call it The Powell Syndrome?



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 06:15 AM
link   
The (CVF) British carriers are not here yet if you want to compare carriers that re still in the Drawing board compare the US CVNX future carriers then you will se some differences. I'm sorry but I find this so funny the smallest carrier there is like a goldfish compared to the others, and its called the invincible class
Talk about being optimistic



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The (CVF) British carriers are not here yet


- True but the orders have been placed. They are coming.


if you want to compare carriers that re still in the Drawing board compare the US CVNX future carriers then you will se some differences.


- so what?

You claimed the new UK carriers were the same size as the current ones. I showed you otherwise.

Who was talking about having the biggest carriers? (other than yourself?)


I'm sorry but I find this so funny the smallest carrier there is like a goldfish compared to the others, and its called the invincible class
Talk about being optimistic



- 'Invincible' is a fine historic name in the RN fleet going way back to 1747 (you know, before you guys even formed your USA).

Westy don't take the piss about this.

It would be like me insulting the names of some of the USA's famous ship names, which I have not and would not do. There's real men suffered for those names show some respect.

The Invincible class carriers were indeed small by the standards of ever our own Ark Royal (that carried Phantom and Buccaneer squadrons).

But, as the Faulklands war proved, they met the British requirement they were designed for, in full.

= They were fully up to the job asked of them...... and since when was that not the point?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join