Switch Theme:

China's first carrier enters service - Washington nervous  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Jihadin wrote:Do believe China has VTOL aircraft to operate off the carrier.
Even the Russians aren't using VTOL fighters on their carriers anymore and haven't since some time in the 80's when the Kievs stopped carrying them. The Kuznetsov class was envisioned with more conventional aircraft in mind. China does produce a version of the Su-33 so there's no real reason they can't use them.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.

Come check out my Blood Angels,Crimson Fists, and coming soon Eldar
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391013.page
I have conceded that the Eldar page I started in P&M is their legitimate home. Free Candy! Updated 10/19.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391553.page
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
 
   
Made in us
!!Goffik Rocker!!





(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

The phrase 'the real issue in the South China sea is India', is referring to how it is not the Vietnamese government and their naval capabilities which is to be considered with regards to a naval war, but rather those of India. Context is such a wonderful thing.


You may want to check up on your geography before jumping to correct, Ketara.



This is a map of the China Sea. Please note where the South China Sea is, and where Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Malaysia are in relation to it.
I'm sure a fellow as clever as you will quickly understand why the South China Sea is of great importance to them.

So no, it is not 'badly written'. It has not been 'fleshed out'. It was simply completely removed from context in order contradict me on something, and by involving things like shipping and expansionist policy, diverted and mutilated beyond all recognition.


You stated that the "Real issue in the South China Sea" is india. You used it in the context to mean Vietnamese efforts to exploit oil reserves, but my initial comment and the area I quoted were both in relation your claim of primacy of conflict in the South China Sea. It doesn't matter what context you use this in because it's hyperbolic and incorrect. I off handedly retorted with three other states that have major current issues within the south china sea and China relating to fishing.

You could have chosen to walk back what could be considered a rather ignorant and offensive statement (we don't have much in the way of Japanese or Indonesians on this board though, so you dodged that bullet), but instead you patronized me by implying that states without a border on a body of water don't have interests there and questioned if I know fething geography.

Having said that, I'm probably slightly to blame there, a patronising tone rarely garners a positive reaction, especially with you Shummie (judging by our past history).


Your patronizing tone, following my offhanded comment questioning (or at the least pointing out) the inelegance of your words certainly did turn this into a kerfufle, but I maintain that you probably shouldn't claim that there's an order of importance in conflicts or a dynamic of realness to them. Grammatically your two paragraphs (separated by a double line break) implies two separate, but somewhat interlinked thoughts. Vietnam can't exploit it's oil resources and India is the primary country of conflict in the south china sea due to that. You didn't contextualize India to be the divisive issue in sino Vietnamese relations, you contextualized it into being the primary area of conflict in the region.

That is plainly wrong.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/27 02:14:00


----------------

Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 ShumaGorath wrote:
The phrase 'the real issue in the South China sea is India', is referring to how it is not the Vietnamese government and their naval capabilities which is to be considered with regards to a naval war, but rather those of India. Context is such a wonderful thing.


You may want to check up on your geography before jumping to correct, Ketara.



This is a map of the China Sea. Please note where the South China Sea is, and where Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Malaysia are in relation to it.
I'm sure a fellow as clever as you will quickly understand why the South China Sea is of great importance to them.


You would be correct in your assumption. I would still however, query the relevance of the point, before moving on to counter the following reasoning.


You stated that the "Real issue in the South China Sea" is india. You used it in the context to mean Vietnamese efforts to exploit oil reserves, but my initial comment and the area I quoted were both in relation your claim of primacy of conflict in the South China Sea.It doesn't matter what context you use this in because it's hyperbolic and incorrect. I off handedly retorted with three other states that have major current issues within the south china sea and China relating to fishing.


No. Context is always important. You attempted to slate me earlier for ignoring context, its not something to turn on and off at will. A quote pulled out of context can always change the meaning considerably, as I believe this little incident has demonstrated. If I said, 'God is good at cooking', you can simply pull 'God is good', and then proceed to argue as to the morality of God, something which would not necessarily have anything to do with the original topic.

Similarly, if when referring to war between China and Vietnam I claim 'India is the real issue here', I am not necessarily referring to a broader analysis of Chinese foreign policy and its consequences.


Your patronizing tone, following my offhanded comment questioning (or at the least pointing out) the inelegance of your words certainly did turn this into a kerfufle


You claim my words are 'inelegant'. To me that says, 'I misread them'. But communication is a two way street. Tell you what. Shall we just agree on that one that it could have been phrased better, but the meaning was implicit if read carefully within context? Or something along those lines? Because there's really no productive point in arguing it any further.

I maintain that you probably shouldn't claim that there's an order of importance in conflicts or a dynamic of realness to them.


This would be a separate topic to my original point, and we've kind of half-arsedly gone into it. We should probably start it afresh with clearly delineated points if we're going to carry it on.


Although I would like to say here and now that you and I have been rather snarky and offensive to each other, both here and in the past. Would you care to call it quits there and declare a truce of mutual respect old bean? Gentlemanly debate is always far more interesting when both sides are more interested in learning than proving the other wrong, and when our arguments take their usual hostile air, I doubt either of us would ever care to admit to fault consciously or subconsciously, or give any ground whatsoever. You're an intelligent if slightly pernickety chap, and I'd rather have constructive discussions with you than insult laced arguments with a thin veneer of bare civility, if that's at all possible.



This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/09/27 02:50:48



 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






@ketara: bash.org quote # 23396

 Avatar 720 wrote:
You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.

Come check out my Blood Angels,Crimson Fists, and coming soon Eldar
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391013.page
I have conceded that the Eldar page I started in P&M is their legitimate home. Free Candy! Updated 10/19.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391553.page
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
 
   
Made in us
!!Goffik Rocker!!





(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

 AustonT wrote:
@ketara: bash.org quote # 23396




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:No. Context is always important. You attempted to slate me earlier for ignoring context, its not something to turn on and off at will. A quote pulled out of context can always change the meaning considerably, as I believe this little incident has demonstrated. If I said, 'God is good at cooking', you can simply pull 'God is good', and then proceed to argue as to the morality of God, something which would not necessarily have anything to do with the original topic.

Similarly, if when referring to war between China and Vietnam I claim 'India is the real issue here', I am not necessarily referring to a broader analysis of Chinese foreign policy and its consequences.


But you said "In the south china sea", not "here". That is a dramatic broadening of terms. To use a similar example to your own, there is a difference between saying "The real action is over at joes bar" and saying "the real action is downtown". Even in a conversation about Joes bar you have now created a hierarchy of importance for the locales within downtown. A fan of Mikes Bar might disagree with your statement since it's (perhaps unintended) implication is to lesson the significance of exterior players within the set you described. I didn't misread your statement, I was commenting on phraseology that implied this particular series of events was the central one within the south china sea by listing several other nations and a specific controversy.

You claim my words are 'inelegant'. To me that says, 'I misread them'. But communication is a two way street. Tell you what. Shall we just agree on that one that it could have been phrased better, but the meaning was implicit if read carefully within context? Or something along those lines? Because there's really no productive point in arguing it any further.


I will agree that it could have been phrased better, but that the meaning could have been directly parsed from within an understanding of the argumentative position you held. A careful and literal interperetation of your words doesn't bare that out, but a certain level of trust and assumption must be made for conversations like these to work. I could have simply asked you to rephrase or questioned your verbage more directly, rather than moving to snark or corrections.

This would be a separate topic to my original point, and we've kind of half-arsedly gone into it. We should probably start it afresh with clearly delineated points if we're going to carry it on.


I think in the meta-discussion we've already determined where our stumbling blocks were and what our points are, so I don't think it's really necessary for us to continue.

Although I would like to say here and now that you and I have been rather snarky and offensive to each other, both here and in the past. Would you care to call it quits there and declare a truce of mutual respect old bean? Gentlemanly debate is always far more interesting when both sides are more interested in learning than proving the other wrong, and when our arguments take their usual hostile air, I doubt either of us would ever care to admit to fault consciously or subconsciously, or give any ground whatsoever. You're an intelligent if slightly pernickety chap, and I'd rather have constructive discussions with you than insult laced arguments with a thin veneer of bare civility, if that's at all possible.


I will do my best to be obliging.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/27 03:07:15


----------------

Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad 
   
Made in us
Lesser Daemon of Chaos




Olympia, WA

Quick someone post the puppy GIF from the minecraft thread in the video game forum! It always works to cool things down over there...

I would, but alas my tab will not let me do anything but curse my man sized thumbs for not hitting the right keys.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/27 03:26:11


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Jihadin wrote:
Do believe China has VTOL aircraft to operate off the carrier.


They don't. There's only 2 VTOL fighters. First is the harrier, which they don't have. Second is the old Soviet Yak-38, which is no longer used by anyone and they don't have either. F-35B will be a 3rd type but obviously that's not in Chinese hands either.

The Chinese planned to operate the Russian Su-33 from the carrier but they cancelled the deal due to their anger with China illegally copying a number of Russian weapons in the past. China however seems to have managed to copy the Su-33 anyway as the J-15, but it won't be in service for a number of years.

For the time being the ship will operate as a research/training craft with potentially launching ASW/MPA Helicopters.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/27 03:25:50


My Armies:
5,500pts
2,700pts
2,000pts


 
   
Made in us
!!Goffik Rocker!!





(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

 Harriticus wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
Do believe China has VTOL aircraft to operate off the carrier.


They don't. There's only 2 VTOL fighters. First is the harrier, which they don't have. Second is the old Soviet Yak-38, which is no longer used by anyone and they don't have either. F-35B will be a 3rd type but obviously that's not in Chinese hands either.

The Chinese planned to operate the Russian Su-33 from the carrier but they cancelled the deal due to their anger with China illegally copying a number of Russian weapons in the past. China however seems to have managed to copy the Su-33 anyway as the J-15, but it won't be in service for a number of years.

For the time being the ship will operate as a research/training craft with potentially launching ASW/MPA Helicopters.


Aren't helicopters VTOL craft by definition? I was under the impression that an aircraft carrier that was only helicopter capable was still considered one. The Japanese carriers are Heli only, aren't they?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/27 03:27:55


----------------

Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Well VTOL aircraft usually refers only to fixed wing, but if you want to go into semantics I guess it would count.

A helicopter carrier and an aircraft carrier really mean completely different things. Helicopter carriers can provide ASW , maritime patrol, and limited interdiction support (if they're Heli's equipped with ASM's like the British Lynx) but it still can't come anywhere close to the capabilities of a full carrier.

The Japanese ones are helicopter only, yes. However there's a good chance the future class of planned JSDF helicopter carriers will operate fixed wing aircraft. They'll be well within the size to be able to, the Japanese have dabbled into the concept. It would probably;y be either the F-35 or a variant of their own upcoming stealth fighter, the Shinshin.

My Armies:
5,500pts
2,700pts
2,000pts


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Was under the impression without a S/VTOL plane like the jump jet F35(c?) those would remain heli only, but they have plans for even larger "destroyers" with flat decks.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.

Come check out my Blood Angels,Crimson Fists, and coming soon Eldar
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391013.page
I have conceded that the Eldar page I started in P&M is their legitimate home. Free Candy! Updated 10/19.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391553.page
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

Questions for those in the know:

Are aircraft carriers going the way of battleships?

Why would China need a carrier or two to invade Taiwan? Their airforce could provide cover, and drop a few paratroop divisions onto the island proper.

Will America hold true to its historical pledge to defend the Philippines?

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Questions for those in the know:

Are aircraft carriers going the way of battleships?

No.

Why would China need a carrier or two to invade Taiwan? Their airforce could provide cover, and drop a few paratroop divisions onto the island proper.

It'll be easier to invade if you have a carrier in the region...

Will America hold true to its historical pledge to defend the Philippines?

Yup.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Nerd fight!

Honestly, I thought I heard somewhere that the South China Sea is a pretty major trade route, and hence would interest more than just the people with a geographic connection.

Hence, that is why it is of interest to the US as well. Therefore, messing aroudn with claims to the South China Sea is essentailly poking a lot of people with a stick.

Also, the Indian Navy has been a big part of anti-pirate activity around the horn of Africa too right?

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Easy E wrote:
Nerd fight!

Honestly, I thought I heard somewhere that the South China Sea is a pretty major trade route, and hence would interest more than just the people with a geographic connection.

Hence, that is why it is of interest to the US as well. Therefore, messing aroudn with claims to the South China Sea is essentailly poking a lot of people with a stick.

Also, the Indian Navy has been a big part of anti-pirate activity around the horn of Africa too right?

They have been operating out of Madagascar at with a strength and optempo that makes thier African port all but an official station. They also have berthing rights in Na Trang Vietnam. The Indian Navy is absolutely involved in the SCS where they have considerable economic interests.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.

Come check out my Blood Angels,Crimson Fists, and coming soon Eldar
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391013.page
I have conceded that the Eldar page I started in P&M is their legitimate home. Free Candy! Updated 10/19.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391553.page
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

Are aircraft carriers going the way of battleships?


Maybe someday. They're more vulnerable now than they were 30 years ago, but the value of a mobile sea born airbase is hard to ignore.

Why would China need a carrier or two to invade Taiwan?


Constant air coverage. The distance between a carrier and Taiwan is significantly shorter than to China's nearest land base. This also means aircraft can spend more time in the air attacking before needing more fuel.

Their airforce could provide cover, and drop a few paratroop divisions onto the island proper.


The ability of China to deploy paratroopers I think is still in question. They have 3 divisions, but they don't have enough aircraft to deploy them all. The capability of their aircraft and their training is also suspect.

Will America hold true to its historical pledge to defend the Philippines?


Maybe. The conflict over the SCS though doesn't really need the Phillipinnes to get the US involved. Most of the world would be justified to intervene in China's attempt to claim international waters.

   
Made in us
!!Goffik Rocker!!





(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

Constant air coverage. The distance between a carrier and Taiwan is significantly shorter than to China's nearest land base. This also means aircraft can spend more time in the air attacking before needing more fuel.


This is probably counterbalanced by the fact that Taiwans primary purchases from the U.S. have been anti ship weaponry and short ranged accurate missiles. The PLA likely recognizes that their carrier would be sunk in the opening days of such a conflict if it was used in such a role. I doubt that they would commit it fully until after Taiwan had begun to expend it's strike capabilities or China had dismantled them. China doesn't have the anti missile or aircraft fleet assets that the U.S. navy attaches to every carrier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The ability of China to deploy paratroopers I think is still in question. They have 3 divisions, but they don't have enough aircraft to deploy them all. The capability of their aircraft and their training is also suspect.


Some well defended transport ships would probably be the preferred method of moving mass numbers of PLA troopers into Taiwan. They certainly have the naval assets to get them there. China doesn't have much for force projection, but almost everything that they have can get to Taiwan due to simple proximity.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/28 15:00:57


----------------

Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

Very true. I doubt any such attempt would ever come soon (it may never come). China's navy is still too young. The launch of this carrier is just step 1. I doubt it'll ever see combat actually. It's their test run. A practical model on which to begin developing for the future while their real carriers get built.

   
Made in us
!!Goffik Rocker!!





(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

 LordofHats wrote:
Very true. I doubt any such attempt would ever come soon (it may never come). China's navy is still too young. The launch of this carrier is just step 1. I doubt it'll ever see combat actually. It's their test run. A practical model on which to begin developing for the future while their real carriers get built.


True enough. I'm hesitant to think that the PLA will invest heavily into carriers though, their interest doesn't seem to be in force projection outside of their immediate coastal waters. Politically there is certainly little interest in interventionism, and they're happy to deal with the devil rather than promote specific ideologies. That's assuming they stay on a straight trajectory with foreign policy though, who knows what their populace may demand or how far the reclamation of historical territories will take them.

----------------

Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

I think they'll have carriers. Not as many as the US, cause frankly we're excessive by more than a small margin with our carrier force.

I think China is gonna build two. They will never need more than that practically, but I think they'll want them to be able to say they have them and to present their navy as modern.

   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




SE Michigan

 LordofHats wrote:
I think they'll have carriers. Not as many as the US, cause frankly we're excessive by more than a small margin with our carrier force.

I think China is gonna build two. They will never need more than that practically, but I think they'll want them to be able to say they have them and to present their navy as modern.


Exactly, they'll have enough to show they're a major power. But they wont build ludicrous amounts of them. It's the same reason you dont see France, Russia, or the UK having 10 super carriers. They can operate fine with only a few normal sized ones

www.mi40k.com for pickup games and tournaments
3000+


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 ShumaGorath wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
Very true. I doubt any such attempt would ever come soon (it may never come). China's navy is still too young. The launch of this carrier is just step 1. I doubt it'll ever see combat actually. It's their test run. A practical model on which to begin developing for the future while their real carriers get built.


True enough. I'm hesitant to think that the PLA will invest heavily into carriers though, their interest doesn't seem to be in force projection outside of their immediate coastal waters.

I cant say about their motivations but they seem pretty dedicated to moving forward with 2 55,000 +/- 8,000ton type 089 conventional carriers in 2015 and 2 type 085 90,000 ton nuclear carriers by 2020 assuming they cover the technology gap in powering such large ships.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LordofHats wrote:
I think they'll have carriers. Not as many as the US, cause frankly we're excessive by more than a small margin with our carrier force.

I think China is gonna build two. They will never need more than that practically, but I think they'll want them to be able to say they have them and to present their navy as modern.
Our carrier force is build like our boomer force. On the assumption it takes 3 comparable units in inventory to have one on station. Which is one on deployment, one returning for refit, one ending refit and deploying.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/28 15:48:58


 Avatar 720 wrote:
You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.

Come check out my Blood Angels,Crimson Fists, and coming soon Eldar
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391013.page
I have conceded that the Eldar page I started in P&M is their legitimate home. Free Candy! Updated 10/19.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391553.page
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
 
   
Made in th
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot






 Huffy wrote:
 AustonT wrote:
They are probably going to have to fight Japan for it, and Japan will probably have an offensive military by the time China is ready to take it to the show. Lets give Japan credit from seeing the writing on the wall and knowing Uncle Sam isnt going to be able to protect them in a relatively short period of time.


I also believe the general thought being that the Japanese Navy would beat the living stuffing out of the PLAN even if they went to war today. There's a FP article on the issue, which accounts for better training, tech, and experience


Does Japanese Self Defense Fleet has enough strengh to witstand Chinese naval offensive and even the odds. forcin' em to drop the claims over Diaoyu Daitang? the said fleet is NOT an IJN of the former Imperial self. China did have the 'Imperial' strengh. AND its shipbuilding industry is capable of doing military export. look at Royal Thai Navy Pattani class frigate.



^ HTMS Pattani by the time of its delivery


^ HTMS Pattani, present. noticed that naval main gun is added up later

This "offshore PT boat" (it looks closer to Destroyer IMAO) is made in China. but... many HITECH pieces added up to the ships are all from either European or American manufacturers. by the time this naval machine is being assembled. won't Chinese bother to reverse engineering many HITECH Import pieces? the ship itself is delivered by the time China was building the Carrier. so at this moment, Chinese Navy should have upgraded its hardware with these techs by now. many Destroyers they own should've been upgraded with technology gleaned from the construction of Pattani class warship.

the Pattani class warship did participate in the recent international joint campaigns against Somalian corsairs. its 'public-announced success' was the crew caught 'tagged' Somalian corsair speedboats. I doubt how could its full potential be? because the operations this ship partook has no amphibious assault operations. otherwise the RTN may release more HTMS Pattani P.R. things.

for anyone saying that 'Carrier is defensive-oriented warship' (And China is still focusing on defensive rather than offensive naval warfare). please review any facts relating to Pacific Campaigns of the WW2. Before the WW2 broke out (even as early as the roaring twenties). not many military sages aware the potential of the aircraft as an 'ammunition' by its own right rather than 'just another ordnance carrying machine filling the Hussars role', and very few aware that a flat deck 'warship' that's barely 'armed' but housing 20 or more warplanes are significantly superior to the victorian Dreadnought-style battleships evolving from baroque Ship of the Line (and expected to serve that function) and therefore can beat the 'most advanced Battleship any nation can possibly built'. the Aircraft carrier however, has no Ship 2 Ship secondary weapons (anti submarine weapons may be possible to add up later ) (which other classes of warships had, and still equipped that way), Carrier may be vulnerable if ALL aircrafts it houses are all destroyed before the ship is resupplied with the new fresh flights, (and other hostile warship is near :p). compare to other class of warships. carrier is NOT defense-oriented. so the new Chinese carrier being launched means that China will try to destroy Japanese self defense fleets and take the whole dispuited rocks by land forces. the USMC "Multifunction LCVP/Carrier/Gunboat hybrid" is considered 'fancy' for them (but they might working on the said warships by now o.O !!!)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/28 17:42:39




http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/408342.page 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
If you don't use a proper cat to launch your fighters you may as well not have a carrier frankly. *snorts* ski jumps! I swear it's military technology by way of Monty Python.

That said I do find it amusing that the Marine Corps 'gator fleet's LPDs and LHDs

(these things)

mount similar airpower to a lot of other nation's full size carriers, and we even stick a bunch of extra tanks, vehicles and extremely grumpy grunts in the bottom of ours.


Not to mention the long running leak in the Boxer that forced it into drydock finally after only.... 5 years of sailing around with a hole in the bottom of the ship as long as an Abrams...


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Lone Cat wrote:
 Huffy wrote:
 AustonT wrote:
They are probably going to have to fight Japan for it, and Japan will probably have an offensive military by the time China is ready to take it to the show. Lets give Japan credit from seeing the writing on the wall and knowing Uncle Sam isnt going to be able to protect them in a relatively short period of time.



This "offshore PT boat" (it looks closer to Destroyer IMAO)

I doubt how could its full potential be? because the operations this ship partook has no amphibious assault operations. otherwise the RTN may release more HTMS Pattani P.R. things.

It looks like a modern patrol unit, it fits into the mold of a corvette though in modern designation it is larger than a corvette but smaller than a frigate which is a wide and imprecise gap. What it's just plain not is a destroyer. It's full potential is relatively little in the scale of naval warfare, it's lightly armed and heavily crewed which indicates a lack of modern automation. By comparison the crew of the Pattani is larger than an Arliegh Burke destroyer that outmasses her by 6 times and has nearly twice the length and beam. This is not a ship designed with much more than patrol and interdiction in mind, and certainly not amphibious assault.

Edit:wtf

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/28 18:02:34


 Avatar 720 wrote:
You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.

Come check out my Blood Angels,Crimson Fists, and coming soon Eldar
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391013.page
I have conceded that the Eldar page I started in P&M is their legitimate home. Free Candy! Updated 10/19.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391553.page
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 AustonT wrote:
It's full potential is relatively little in the scale of naval warfare, it's lightly armed and heavily crewed which indicates a lack of modern automation. By comparison the crew of the Pattani is larger than an Arliegh Burke destroyer that outmasses her by 6 times and has nearly twice the length and beam. This is not a ship designed with much more than patrol and interdiction in mind, and certainly not amphibious assault.


I hate to point this out, but there are a few advantages to manual operation over automation. There's usually more crew aboard than there are autoloaders, in the event of emergency.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/28 19:03:28



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
!!Goffik Rocker!!





(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

 BaronIveagh wrote:
 AustonT wrote:
It's full potential is relatively little in the scale of naval warfare, it's lightly armed and heavily crewed which indicates a lack of modern automation. By comparison the crew of the Pattani is larger than an Arliegh Burke destroyer that outmasses her by 6 times and has nearly twice the length and beam. This is not a ship designed with much more than patrol and interdiction in mind, and certainly not amphibious assault.


I hate to point this out, but there are a few advantages to manual operation over automation. There's usually more crew aboard than there are autoloaders, in the event of emergency.


What kind of emergency is improved by having more people, likely untrained to deal with the specific emergency, in an enclosed space and with lives to lose?

----------------

Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad 
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Ontario

Are aircraft carriers going the way of battleships?


Yes and no, they definately are not as effective against land based opponents as they used to be, as can be seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 .

They are however they only current way of operating airplanes in the middle of the ocean, and of having a mobile airfield.

DCDA:90-S++G+++MB++I+Pw40k98-D+++A+++/areWD007R++T(S)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 BaronIveagh wrote:
 AustonT wrote:
It's full potential is relatively little in the scale of naval warfare, it's lightly armed and heavily crewed which indicates a lack of modern automation. By comparison the crew of the Pattani is larger than an Arliegh Burke destroyer that outmasses her by 6 times and has nearly twice the length and beam. This is not a ship designed with much more than patrol and interdiction in mind, and certainly not amphibious assault.


I hate to point this out, but there are a few advantages to manual operation over automation. There's usually more crew aboard than there are autoloaders, in the event of emergency.
I'd be interested to hear what advantage you think having 5x the crew of comparable vessels has in terms of combat capabilities.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.

Come check out my Blood Angels,Crimson Fists, and coming soon Eldar
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391013.page
I have conceded that the Eldar page I started in P&M is their legitimate home. Free Candy! Updated 10/19.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391553.page
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
 
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Ontario

I'd be interested to hear what advantage you think having 5x the crew of comparable vessels has in terms of combat capabilities.


Boarding actions.

DCDA:90-S++G+++MB++I+Pw40k98-D+++A+++/areWD007R++T(S)DM+ 
   
Made in us
!!Goffik Rocker!!





(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

 Ratbarf wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what advantage you think having 5x the crew of comparable vessels has in terms of combat capabilities.


Boarding actions.


This is the year 2012. Viking longboats haven't been sighted off the coast of china.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/28 22:01:18


----------------

Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: