• China puts refurbished soviet carrier into service
    115 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Swebonny;37794014] You gotta tell us more.[/QUOTE] There isn't much to tell apart from such wild stories, I wasn't really welcome at the command posts and "field" HQs, no one was entitled to give me any details, so I just was wandering around with two bored MP guys, asking people about excercises and tech side of things. Just some pictures and a nice overalls of how it all went great and how joint excercises demonstrated the will of two countries to co-operate in a possible military scenario. I wasn't too dedicated either, as I knew I was sent there "just to cover it all somehow". Some of our assets put us to shame as they were breaking, some of their assets put Chinese to shame as they were performing poorly. Major diffirence between Russian and Chinese tech is that their assets are over-complicated, read: compilation of so much diffirent tech fused together. Works somehow, but with no means of fixing anything on the run. At least, that's what supervising expert officer told me, and he was accompanying Chinese reporters too, so I believe he knew what he's talking about.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;37793199]Back to the topic at hand: Will this mean that the Chinese will lend more towards the international effort against piracy on the high sea? [editline]25th September 2012[/editline] Also I'm pretty sure Soviet wave tactics are dead. It is rather weird that they didn't build their own ship, though. What possible reasons could they have for not designing ships of their own? Or building ships of their own? They have nuclear power, and they know damned well how to build a ship, so what's the issue? Was this just a proof of concept?[/QUOTE] They don't have the tech base to build their own ship. Notice how this is also a carrier that's at least a generation behind standards. It's also a small carrier.
Wasn't it mentioned part of the reason China was so interested in the carrier in the first place is that they'd learn something useful from it to make their own carriers?
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37793053]Sourced: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-19710040[/url] Basically they bought some rusting carrier from the Ukraine and refurbished it with "Quality" so now its officially in the Chinese navy.[/QUOTE] They're using it to train personnel for carrier operations while they build their own. Why does everyone think China being on its way to a world player militarily as well as economically is so funny??
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;37794704]Wasn't it mentioned part of the reason China was so interested in the carrier in the first place is that they'd learn something useful from it to make their own carriers?[/QUOTE] That was speculated, not mentioned.
[QUOTE=Useful Dave;37793551]They've [i]only[/i] got helicopters, which isn't quite as effective as even a air-wing of Harriers.[/QUOTE] Well thank Christ the UK didn't bin our carriers and flog off the Harrier fle- Wait shit.
[QUOTE=Matriax;37795125]Well thank Christ the UK didn't bin our carriers and flog off the Harrier fle- Wait shit.[/QUOTE] If it helps any, the GR9s were incapable at anything but dogfighting within visual range when it came to aerial combat, the true screwing came when we dropped the virtually brand new Sea Harrier FA2s awhile back.
Indeed. Funny how the media mostly missed the FA2 being binned. Some of the airframes were 8 years old when they went...
[QUOTE=ewitwins;37793180]I know exactly what you said, thus my reply. How can you even start to know how they operate, what their internal policies are like, or what their state of readiness is? I understand that they don't necessarily have a technological advantage, but we have no idea what their training regiment is like. Don't pretend like you do. You have this habit of being an armchair soldier who claims to know the quality of any armed force that's the topic at hand.[/QUOTE] being the grandchild of a PLA soldier I can say with confidence that the PLA is pretty incompetent. [/sarcasm] If you take a look at operations in the 1970s, such as the 1979 sino-vietnamese war you can see that Chinese forces took a disproportionate amount of casualties. No but really their latest line of bullpup assault rifles was a failure, I remember reading that they were rolling back to the old AK clones. Also most of the military helos are commercial ones and not dedicated military designs (or designs based on older things, like the A129). I know, my mom used to watch a Chinese drama about the PLA :v:
[QUOTE=Matriax;37795125]Well thank Christ the UK didn't bin our carriers and flog off the Harrier fle- Wait shit.[/QUOTE] Good thing it won't be too long before the Queen Elizabeth Class super carriers hit the water.
[QUOTE=Flyboi;37796060]Good thing it won't be too long before the Queen Elizabeth Class super carriers hit the water.[/QUOTE] Good thing its a massive waste of money considering you're probably never ever going to use them and are going to be using F-35's, yes out of all the aircraft you could of used.. F-35's.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37796079]Good thing its a massive waste of money considering you're probably never ever going to use them and are going to be using F-35's, yes out of all the aircraft you could of used.. F-35's.[/QUOTE] Just the fact that they exist and are operational actually makes them usefull. As they can potential act as amazing power projection and give a stronger british presence in areas where it might not be the strongest.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37795846]being the grandchild of a PLA soldier I can say with confidence that the PLA is pretty incompetent. [/sarcasm] If you take a look at operations in the 1970s, such as the 1979 sino-vietnamese war you can see that Chinese forces took a disproportionate amount of casualties. No but really their latest line of bullpup assault rifles was a failure, I remember reading that they were rolling back to the old AK clones. Also most of the military helos are commercial ones and not dedicated military designs (or designs based on older things, like the A129). I know, my mom used to watch a Chinese drama about the PLA :v:[/QUOTE] On the other hand, western armies tend to be the most complacent in the world >.>
[QUOTE=just-a-boy;37796136]On the other hand, western armies tend to be the most complacent in the world >.>[/QUOTE] well really that applies to europe mostly
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37797348]well really that applies to europe mostly[/QUOTE] In Michael Herr's Dispatches, he said the biggest factor for casualties amongst American forces was complacency, discipline and fatigue. Like not bothering to do up flak jackets properly or keeping watch on sentry duty.
[QUOTE=dunkace;37793074]Island depute with Japan... Just finishes refurbishing a carrier, How convenient![/QUOTE] A carrier is useless without aircraft to fly from it...
[QUOTE=NoDachi;37798041]In Michael Herr's Dispatches, he said the biggest factor for casualties amongst American forces was complacency, discipline and fatigue. Like not bothering to do up flak jackets properly or keeping watch on sentry duty.[/QUOTE] we're talking about armies not individuals, european armies are more complacent about old gear, etc. While American procurement definitely isn't efficient, it's better than most of European procurement.
[QUOTE=David29;37798067]A carrier is useless without aircraft to fly from it...[/QUOTE] Fly some shitty civilian helicopters onto the deck, strap missiles onto them and call it a "gunship". Instant helicopter carrier!
[QUOTE=Flyboi;37796060]Good thing it won't be too long before the Queen Elizabeth Class super carriers hit the water.[/QUOTE] super-ish
I think Russia is being the smart one with its carriers, they're waiting for the next generation instead of building more current generation carriers thus may give them a tactical advantage in the future when offshore oil becomes a bigger then then it already is, seeing as Carriers are a massive one time investment.
Looks like the Chinese Government thought the movie Battleship was a documentary.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37798716]we're talking about armies not individuals, european armies are more complacent about old gear, etc. While American procurement definitely isn't efficient, it's better than most of European procurement.[/QUOTE] still amounts to complacent training and leadership.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37793633]Nukes are for civilians. Military bases can be destroyed with conventional munitions as they are relatively small.[/QUOTE] There's both tactical and strategic nuclear weaponry. Normally military targets would be first before industrial areas.
The idea behind a first strike is to cripple the enemy's nuclear weapons before they have a chance of launching a retaliatory strike. Nuclear weapons, at least initially, are almost always going to be used towards military installations.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;37800725]The idea behind a first strike is to cripple the enemy's nuclear weapons before they have a chance of launching a retaliatory strike. Nuclear weapons, at least initially, are almost always going to be used towards military installations.[/QUOTE] There's no point in crippling the enemy's retaliatory strike. Since 70s, when launch detections systems became automated. Retaliatory strike will be launched immediately once enemy missiles tragectory is no longer a secret - and that's long before they have a chance to hit the surface.
[QUOTE=thisispain;37793383]are you high why would he even climb into the barrel haha[/QUOTE] to shoot themselves out obv
[QUOTE=GunFox;37793250]Can't fight China. They are nuclear armed with an estimated 20 nuclear armed ICBM's capable of striking the US, and a great many more capable of hitting Japan. In the event of a nuclear war between the two, Japan would likely be utterly destroyed and the US would be severely crippled. China of course would be wiped completely from the map. That is a death toll probably in excess of at least one billion, so yeah, nobody is willing to risk that road. Not even a little bit. The US and China going toe to toe would be a very bad day for [I]everyone. [/I][/QUOTE] [IMG]https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/videogames/detail-page/fallout3_3_lg.jpg[/IMG] yeah probably
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37800437]I think Russia is being the smart one with its carriers, they're waiting for the next generation instead of building more current generation carriers thus may give them a tactical advantage in the future when offshore oil becomes a bigger then then it already is, seeing as Carriers are a massive one time investment.[/QUOTE] Russia's not gonna plunk down cash for next gen anything.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;37805806]Russia's not gonna plunk down cash for next gen anything.[/QUOTE] They are though.. they're going to be the 2nd* country with a large number of 5th generation fighters.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37805833]They are though.. they're going to be the first country with a large number of 5th generation fighters.[/QUOTE] After United States.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.