Presenting the First Chinese Aircraft Carrier

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Yes.

Since the chinese have done it many times before. That doesn't count licensing russian military technology to build it themselves, or taking something apart to reverse engineer it.


Why would you do it yourself when you can benefit by the prior experience of those who have it? Do you remember that the Soviet design philosophy defeated the Wehrmacht one in the end? Why on earth would you want to remake the wheel when you merely have to copy or refine what works fine already? In fact China can afford more mobility at the expense of armor as they have manpower capabilities ( admittedly dependant on many other factors) that the Russians most certainly did not have after the bloodletting of the second world war. Russian tanks were by no means inferior during the cold war and the Abrams in it's first incarnation (m1, 1980) were certainly no great improvement given it's very limited mobility in the projected European battlefields. The fact that the Iraq managed to get their EXPORT models ( you get a tank but it's much like the entry level car no one but those who can't afford anything buys) blown to bits IN THE DESERT ( they were designed for 500-1000 meter combat ranges of Central Europe) proves absolutely nothing.


Still, for the most part, we are NOT seeing much if any chinese original thinking on any of this. Going further, check out how much a chinese space capsule looks like a russian soyuz ...


Sure and like planes space capsules tend to look the same because physics/aerodynamics demand as much!
I remember you being able to come up with slightly more notable objections and criticisms a few years ago so what has happened since?

Stellar




posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


IMO it's going to have pretty much exactly the same role as the USS Langley (CV-1) had in the USN in the 1920's - establishing the base of experience for the later expansion of the USN carrier arm.

Only the chinese are also going to be able to look at the history books to help their learning curve - something the USN & RN didn't have in the 1920's & 30's.



The USS Langley from 80 or 90 years ago ...

So, even if the chinese are able to cut their learning curve by 50%, that still means it would take them 40 to 45 YEARS to get to where the U.S. is NOW, not where the U.S. will be in 40 to 45 years.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX



Still, for the most part, we are NOT seeing much if any chinese original thinking on any of this. Going further, check out how much a chinese space capsule looks like a russian soyuz ...


Sure and like planes space capsules tend to look the same because physics/aerodynamics demand as much!


But no U.S. designed space capsule looks like a soyuz ... Which is a good thing.


I remember you being able to come up with slightly more notable objections and criticisms a few years ago so what has happened since? Stellar


As you alluded to earlier in the thread when you said "The fact that you may need to explain to many on this board that they will be flying modern aircraft off it's decks merely means that weapons discussion on this forum is at a very basic level. ", it's a function of the audience I am speaking to.

BTW, I gave you a star for the first paragraph of that post.

edit on 4/8/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


IMO it's going to have pretty much exactly the same role as the USS Langley (CV-1) had in the USN in the 1920's - establishing the base of experience for the later expansion of the USN carrier arm.

Only the chinese are also going to be able to look at the history books to help their learning curve - something the USN & RN didn't have in the 1920's & 30's.



The USS Langley from 80 or 90 years ago ...

So, even if the chinese are able to cut their learning curve by 50%, that still means it would take them 40 to 45 YEARS to get to where the U.S. is NOW, not where the U.S. will be in 40 to 45 years.



What many seem to forget is that the RN and the USN wrote the book on carriers. The Japanese gave both the RN and USN a run for their money during WWII. Hell, I have more respect for the Russian Navy on this topic. At least they designed, engineered and built their own {Although the ski-jump design was borrowed from the RN} The Chinese on the other hand are just doing what they do, Copying, Stealing and or Mimicking the ideas of others. {in this case a copy of a copy}

I said it before and I'll say it again.

Copying, Stealing and or Mimicking others military hardware/technology is a lousy way to attempt the building of a state of the art military. It means you will always be a step or two or more behind the creators of said hardware/technology.
edit on 8-4-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Not sure if I posted this already, but it fits for a post here regardless.

I was at the Chinese buffet a couple months ago and one of the workers called me "master". It was eerie, as I could feel a cloud of foreshadowing irony overtake my entirety. His mannerism and inflection spoke "until the tables are turned" far louder than his single uttering of "master".



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by elpistolero1
why always u north americans so arrogant?


First, tell us where you are from and then we can discuss the relative contributions, to science, technology, art, whatever. Better yet, start your own thread on that subject.

Just throwing insults accomplishes nothing.



Erhm.

Theory of Gravity.
Lightbulbs
Jet Engines
Stephen Hawking
Disc Brakes
Electro Magnets
Electric Motors
Fax Machines
Gas Mask
Internal Combustion Engine
Penecillin
Periodic Table
Radar
Submarines
Seismographs
Steam Engines
TV
Vaccum Cleaners
Waterproof Clothing

And the World Wide Web.

All British inventions.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


And your comparing American culture and Art to Chinese Culture and Art?

Wow... Bit of a difference.

America is a European Fart.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Tomahawks can easily be mowed down by a CIWS. The SN-22 Moshkit is the US carrier killer. It is much much faster than the tomahawk and performs evasive and confusing maneuvers at the last stages of its attack as it rips through a US carrier and shreds it to pieces rendering all flight ops useless.


So much for the "great" SN-22 and other supposed weapons capable of "ripping U.S. ships to shreds" ...

source


A futuristic laser mounted on a speeding cruiser successfully blasted a bobbing, weaving boat from the waters of the Pacific Ocean -- the first test at sea of such a gun and a fresh milestone in the Navy's quest to reoutfit the fleet with a host of laser weapons, the Navy announced Friday.

"We were able to have a destructive effect on a high-speed cruising target," chief of Naval research Rear Adm. Nevin Carr told FoxNews.com.


and


In a video of the event, the small boat can be seen catching fire and ultimately bursting into flames, a conflagration caused by the navy's distant gun. Some details of the event were classified, including the exact range of the shot, but Carr could provide some information: "We're talking miles, not yards," Carr said.


edit on 4/8/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haydn_17
reply to post by centurion1211
 


And your comparing American culture and Art to Chinese Culture and Art?

Wow... Bit of a difference.

America is a European Fart.


Wasn't talking to you - unless you are admitting to using multiple ATS accounts - a T&C no-no.

Also guess you missed the part about throwing insults.




posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


IMO it's going to have pretty much exactly the same role as the USS Langley (CV-1) had in the USN in the 1920's - establishing the base of experience for the later expansion of the USN carrier arm.

Only the chinese are also going to be able to look at the history books to help their learning curve - something the USN & RN didn't have in the 1920's & 30's.



The USS Langley from 80 or 90 years ago ...


He shoots....up it goes...and he completely misses the point!


You have to start somewhere to build a carrier fleet - it doesn't just magically appear out of shipyards.

This carrier will enable the Chinese to build up expertise with their aircrews, their command crews, their ship crews.


So, even if the chinese are able to cut their learning curve by 50%, that still means it would take them 40 to 45 YEARS to get to where the U.S. is NOW, not where the U.S. will be in 40 to 45 years.


They won't only cut their learning curve, they are starting it at about 1990.

Certainly it might take them 1/2 a century to get a sizeable carrier fleet.

But you know what? They are willing to wait that long in order to do so.

edit on 8-4-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


See my previous post.

In the not too distant future, looks like the U.S. will be using solid state and FEL (free electron lasers) to melt "love notes" in the hulls and decks of obsolete chinese ships - if any decide to come out and "play".



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


I saw the post, and I don't see the relevance.

China being "behind on carriers" doesn't make one whit of difference to what they may or may not be doing with directed energy weapons.

And of course one of the main things about carriers is that they are not supposed to be within line of sight of the enemy anyway - they have these things called "aircraft" ....



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
One Tomahawk missile... Goodbye.


I didn't know that Tomahawks could be used as anti-ship missiles



Either way, they have the same thing on us.

They've already popped up next to one of our aircraft carriers during one of our wargames, totally undetected until it surfaced.

If the US doesn't address that, one Chinese sub per aircraft carrier... They could take our navy out pretty quickly too.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
They've already popped up next to one of our aircraft carriers during one of our wargames, totally undetected until it surfaced..



I'm sure the US Navy will return the favor if China ever gets their Russian Hand me down rust bucket out of Dry dock



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


True, but I don't think a war with China would be the cakewalk most Americans seem to think it would be.

What would our objectives even be? Control the seas that surrounds China? Why? We could bomb them to hell but we would never be able to occupy them, given how much trouble we have even trying to occupy Afghanistan. It would be a mess.


China has the capacity to put a lot more industry and money into its military, if it really wanted. The US just spends more money on its own military than any other country in the world, by far. We're militarized as hell. That's where the bulk of our industry seems to be, and that seems to be what this country rose to wealth on. It seems to me like China is only reacting in response to our own aggression, in their seas.
edit on 8-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Who said anything about a war? Or being a cakewalk?

Many here including yourself apparently think that the US Navy would be a cake walk to defeat. Submarine Cat and Mouse games have been going on for decades At least since the end of WWII. We hear all about the mistakes and failures but what nobody hears about are the many times US subs tailed other subs undetected.

Why?

Because that's Top secret.

I"m sure after that embarrassment of the Chinese sub coming up the navy went through all the sonar logs and have that subs motor and screw information stored, logged and dispersed among the various fleet vessels in other words they now know what to listen for.

That's how the game is played and that's what everybody either doesn't know or simply ignores.


edit on 8-4-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


So why would that be any different for the Chinese?

I mean they're obviously doing something right if they were able to surface undetected at all in the first place.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


That's ego on their part and to demonstrate they were able to pull it off. I'd be more afraid of the unknown. The Soviets thought their subs were fool proof until to their horror they found out through their spy network we could track them almost unmolested.

Why were they surprised?

Because we never showed our hand.

The Chinese just showed theirs for a headline.
edit on 8-4-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


How can you say on one hand that we don't know what all the US has up its sleeve, but at the same time, you think you already know everything the Chinese have up their sleeve?

Sorry man but a lot of this is coming across to me as you just being prideful of the US military. Apparently the US is the god of war and does everything right, and no other country can stand a chance, and we already know all about everything everyone else is doing. That's not what Afghanistan is saying.


At the same time, I realize saying this in a US military circle would be akin to treason. That's the US military mentality for you. I guess it has to be that way.
edit on 8-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


It's not prideful. I love how that hamster wheel in your head is spinning and you make assumptions.

I'm talking about how the Cat and Mouse Sub game has been played. I'm sorry you're not aware of it and make another assumption about what the capabilities of the various navies of the world are or are not capable of.

If you doubt what I've written I'm sure you can look up the fairly long history of Sub warfare.





 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join