PDA

View Full Version : China's first aircraft carrier starts sea trial: Xinhua



djones520
08-09-2011, 09:16 PM
China's first aircraft carrier on Wednesday left its shipyard in the country's northeast to start its first sea trial, the state news agency Xinhua said.
The revamped old Soviet ship's sea trial was in line with the schedule of its refitting project and would not take long, the news agency said, quoting military sources.

After returning from the trial, the carrier will continue its refit and test work, the report said, adding that the vessel had set sail from its shipyard in the city of Dalian.

Beijing last month sought to downplay the capability of its first aircraft carrier, saying the vessel would be used for training and "research", amid concerns over the country's military build-up.

The project has added to regional worries over the country's fast military expansion and growing assertiveness on territorial issues.



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9e214cd05d006bc55e2b5fc33bdea0f 3.f81&show_article=1

Not at all a major threat yet, but something we need to watch. A few carriers of this scale will not make them an international naval power like us, but it will make them huge in that region, in an area they've been relatively weak in.

SarasotaRepub
08-09-2011, 09:23 PM
A shame if it was to spring a leak or 12...wouldn't it???? :an:
:D

Novaheart
08-09-2011, 09:26 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9e214cd05d006bc55e2b5fc33bdea0f 3.f81&show_article=1

Not at all a major threat yet, but something we need to watch. A few carriers of this scale will not make them an international naval power like us, but it will make them huge in that region, in an area they've been relatively weak in.

Well if the mainland Chinese don't build airplanes any better than they build motor scooters, it will only last two or three years.

But seriously, it's about time China starts shouldering some of the world policing.

djones520
08-09-2011, 09:38 PM
Well if the mainland Chinese don't build airplanes any better than they build motor scooters, it will only last two or three years.

But seriously, it's about time China starts shouldering some of the world policing.

If China would "police" in our favor, then sure. But I'll be damned before I want them "policing" for themselves.

AmPat
08-09-2011, 09:45 PM
Well if the mainland Chinese don't build airplanes any better than they build motor scooters, it will only last two or three years.

But seriously, it's about time China starts shouldering some of the world policing.

Don't be Naive,China's first police action will be to grab as much wealth as possible. They'll start local, then regional, then ,,,,,,,.

fettpett
08-09-2011, 09:50 PM
Don't be Naive,China's first police action will be to grab as much wealth as possible. They'll start local, then regional, then ,,,,,,,.

They'd start with Taiwan in half a heart beat

Novaheart
08-09-2011, 09:56 PM
Don't be Naive,China's first police action will be to grab as much wealth as possible. They'll start local, then regional, then ,,,,,,,.

What part of China's history supports your accusation?

malloc
08-09-2011, 10:00 PM
What part of China's history supports your accusation?

:rotfl:


Just wikipedia it. Taiwan (Chinese Taipei to the Chinese) is considered by the Chinese as rightfully being a part of China, and currently a state in rebellion.

Novaheart
08-09-2011, 10:02 PM
They'd start with Taiwan in half a heart beat

What purpose would that serve? There was a good reason for China to retake Tibet. What is the reason to take Taiwan?

fettpett
08-09-2011, 10:07 PM
:eek::eek:
What purpose would that serve? There was a good reason for China to retake Tibet. What is the reason to take Taiwan?

http://nagukaz.comlu.com/gallery/Third-party-facepalm.jpg


seriously? dude, the ONLY thing keeping the Chinese from taking Taiwan now is the US fleet that protects it. Just to keep the Chinese placated we don't recognize them as a sovereign country. (I think only Israel and one other do).

Novaheart
08-09-2011, 10:08 PM
:rotfl:


Just wikipedia it. Taiwan (Chinese Taipei to the Chinese) is considered by the Chinese as rightfully being a part of China, and currently a state in rebellion.

That's simplistic. Lots of islands are "in dispute" and have been for a very long time for many different nations. His accusation was a much broader one than Taiwan, and while we do enjoy some rather high quality manufactures from Taiwan, in the greater scheme of things it simply doesn't matter. My point, beyond your simplistic take on it, was that China's history is not one of aggression outside long established borders. Every now and then, they have a dust up with a neighbor, like European countries haven't?

If China wanted to steam roll a neighbor, they wouldn't need an aircraft carrier to do it.

malloc
08-09-2011, 10:09 PM
:eek::eek:
seriously? dude, the ONLY thing keeping the Chinese from taking Taiwan now is the US fleet that protects it. Just to keep the Chinese placated we don't recognize them as a sovereign country. (I think only Israel and one other do).

On top of that, it would be a "Bad Thing(TM)" for Taiwan to fall back into Chinese hands because America does a whole lot of manufacturing business with them. If it did fall back into Chinese hands we'd have to go through the Chinese to get to the manufacturing of Taiwan, and American interests in Taiwan would suddenly become the property of the People's Republic of China.

Novaheart
08-09-2011, 10:11 PM
:eek::eek:

http://nagukaz.comlu.com/gallery/Third-party-facepalm.jpg


seriously? dude, the ONLY thing keeping the Chinese from taking Taiwan now is the US fleet that protects it. Just to keep the Chinese placated we don't recognize them as a sovereign country. (I think only Israel and one other do).


Face palm yourself. If China wanted to take Taiwan, we couldn't stop them. They could do it in row boats.

djones520
08-09-2011, 10:17 PM
Face palm yourself. If China wanted to take Taiwan, we couldn't stop them. They could do it in row boats.

Nova... just stop now. Please. This is one of those things you don't know what your talking about.

Mainly, we have an agreement with Taiwan to go to war with China if they did try to invade. Then there is Taiwans military ability to stop a Chinese invasion. The Chinese AF would not be able to establish dominance, and Taiwans Navy would be able to hold off China's and resist troop landings.

At best, China has the ability to level Taiwan with it's missiles, but I doubt they want to do that. Wouldn't be worth much to them then.

fettpett
08-09-2011, 10:28 PM
Nova... just stop now. Please. This is one of those things you don't know what your talking about.

Mainly, we have an agreement with Taiwan to go to war with China if they did try to invade. Then there is Taiwans military ability to stop a Chinese invasion.

At best, China has the ability to level Taiwan with it's missiles, but I doubt they want to do that. Wouldn't be worth much to them then.

probably not, their manufacturing base is probably far and away more efficient and higher quality that the mainland will ever be. Taiwan is what Hong Kong use to before it went back to the Chinese

djones520
08-09-2011, 10:31 PM
probably not, their manufacturing base is probably far and away more efficient and higher quality that the mainland will ever be. Taiwan is what Hong Kong use to before it went back to the Chinese

Exactly. China can destroy Taiwan, but they'd lose what they wanted it for by doing so. A ground invasion is not feasable. The Taiwanese AF is much more modern then the PLAAF, and their navy is built solely for the purpose of defending from a Chinese invasion. China would never be able to land ground forces in the necessary numbers to overcome the Taiwanese Army.

Novaheart
08-09-2011, 11:53 PM
Nova... just stop now. Please. This is one of those things you don't know what your talking about.

Mainly, we have an agreement with Taiwan to go to war with China if they did try to invade. Then there is Taiwans military ability to stop a Chinese invasion. The Chinese AF would not be able to establish dominance, and Taiwans Navy would be able to hold off China's and resist troop landings.

At best, China has the ability to level Taiwan with it's missiles, but I doubt they want to do that. Wouldn't be worth much to them then.

So far everyone disagreeing with me seems to be thinking about an old fashioned military taking of Taiwan. How would that make sense for China? Taiwan would be destroyed. The US and China would be official enemies for the first time in history, and who knows who else would try to take advantage of the situation? It's a European way of thinking, and I think it's way off.

Imagine hundreds of thousands of "refugees", pregnant women, families, old people, all civilian in wave after wave "escaping" from China, or with a really good PR firm and some basic and dishonest groundwork "returning to Formosa". Taiwan has 23 million people. China has 1.3 billion. Ten percent of Mexico's population is in the US illegally. Ten percent of 1.3 billion is 130 million people. It's the scale.

And who is going to fire on families in rowboats with ten horsepower engines and two days worth of food and fuel?

Give the Chinese some credit. They aren't stupid.

malloc
08-09-2011, 11:54 PM
That's simplistic. Lots of islands are "in dispute" and have been for a very long time for many different nations. His accusation was a much broader one than Taiwan, and while we do enjoy some rather high quality manufactures from Taiwan, in the greater scheme of things it simply doesn't matter. My point, beyond your simplistic take on it, was that China's history is not one of aggression outside long established borders. Every now and then, they have a dust up with a neighbor, like European countries haven't?

If China wanted to steam roll a neighbor, they wouldn't need an aircraft carrier to do it.

China believes that Taiwan is well within China's borders, that's the point. Seriously, just go read up on it, as well as the fallout scenarios. It's not something the USA really needs to get into right now. Just go read up on it.

Novaheart
08-09-2011, 11:59 PM
At best, China has the ability to level Taiwan with it's missiles, but I doubt they want to do that. Wouldn't be worth much to them then.

Exactly

Novaheart
08-10-2011, 12:00 AM
China believes that Taiwan is well within China's borders, that's the point. Seriously, just go read up on it, as well as the fallout scenarios. It's not something the USA really needs to get into right now. Just go read up on it.

See post 17, and think. Just go think.

Rockntractor
08-10-2011, 12:07 AM
A shame if it was to spring a leak or 12...wouldn't it???? :an:
:D

Yep, just send a diver down or a trained dolphin and have them pull the rubber stopper out of the back!

malloc
08-10-2011, 12:09 AM
See post 17, and think. Just go think.



AFP – Tue, Jul 19, 2011

China's military threat against Taiwan is bigger than ever, the island's defence ministry said Tuesday, despite three years of efforts by Taipei to pursue detente with the mainland.

In its national defence report, published every other year, the ministry summarised mounting endeavours by China to boost its already impressive military capabilities.

"The People's Liberation Army has continued to deploy various new weapons in the Fujian and Guangdong areas," the report said, referring to two Chinese provinces located directly to the west of Taiwan.

The report singled out "the enhancement of its long-distance combat projection capabilities", an apparent reference to more than 1,000 ballistic missiles deployed along the Chinese coastline.

"This indicates that the Chinese communists have not altered their thinking on military intimidation and invasion," it said.

Relations with Beijing have improved greatly since 2008 when Ma Ying-jeou of the China-friendly Kuomintang party was elected president of Taiwan on a platform of strengthening mainland ties, chiefly via economic measures.

Rest of Article (http://news.yahoo.com/china-threat-growing-despite-better-ties-taiwan-071843569.html)



Now go read about Germany's initial Blitzkrieg. The Chinese plan, as best as intelligence can tell is to remove military resistance as fast as possible. It's very well and good if you want to go find a hole and stick your head into it, but all evidence points to China wanting Taiwan back under it's government more than it wants good relations with the U.S. As a matter of fact, China would tell the U.S. and the world that it's an internal Chinese matter and we should look the other way. China can and will take Taiwan without complete destruction. It's more than possible, it's probable, especially, after they use their stockpile of U.S. dollars to modernize their military.

Novaheart
08-10-2011, 12:36 AM
Now go read about Germany's initial Blitzkrieg. The Chinese plan, as best as intelligence can tell is to remove military resistance as fast as possible. It's very well and good if you want to go find a hole and stick your head into it, but all evidence points to China wanting Taiwan back under it's government more than it wants good relations with the U.S. As a matter of fact, China would tell the U.S. and the world that it's an internal Chinese matter and we should look the other way. China can and will take Taiwan without complete destruction. It's more than possible, it's probable, especially, after they use their stockpile of U.S. dollars to modernize their military.

And if you will ply the internet, you will find articles dating back years and decades- all speculating on China's intent or predicting their inscrutable patience waiting for the precise moment to retake the precious Formosa. Some even gave a date when this would happen.

China doesn't like the US offshore. No argument there. China likes to play games and see if they can get our ships chopping up some water. China is in dispute about other islands as well, and does the same thing there.

Could I be wrong? Of course I could. I'm speculating as you are. China could have some irrational desire to throw Formosa and Western relations down the crapper. For what? Some buildings and a bit of land? Formosa has no significant natural resources. It doesn't give China any military advantage (like Tibet) over hostile neighbors.

Looks like the CS Monitor had this discussion pretty well balanced (as we have here) in a 2004 article.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0722/p06s03-woap.html

malloc
08-10-2011, 12:41 AM
I'm not giving a date, and I'm not saying that this Aircraft carrier is their green light. China is industrializing and upgrading. They are quickly becoming what the western world would think of a super power. Eventually they are going to want to come for what they think is theirs, period. That will be a very uncomfortable time for us. That's all I've been saying all thread.

Novaheart
08-10-2011, 12:54 AM
I'm not giving a date, and I'm not saying that this Aircraft carrier is their green light. China is industrializing and upgrading. They are quickly becoming what the western world would think of a super power. Eventually they are going to want to come for what they think is theirs, period. That will be a very uncomfortable time for us. That's all I've been saying all thread.

I understand your concern. BTW, the article I linked to covers a couple of perspectives.

Rockntractor
08-10-2011, 12:59 AM
Obama could trade Taiwan for our debt we owe them.

Zathras
08-10-2011, 07:23 AM
Face palm yourself. If China wanted to take Taiwan, we couldn't stop them. They could do it in row boats.

And once again you prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that you don't have a fucking clue about what you're talking about.

txradioguy
08-10-2011, 10:17 AM
Obama could trade Taiwan for our debt we owe them.

That and stipulate they get the hell out of the business of running the Panama Canal.

If the PLA and PLN did invade Taiwan and we did go to help...COSCO could shut down the canal and prevent us from sending say and extra carrier TF from the east coast to assist and force us to go the long way around.

noonwitch
08-10-2011, 11:31 AM
Don't be Naive,China's first police action will be to grab as much wealth as possible. They'll start local, then regional, then ,,,,,,,.


Yeah, they've been so helpful in keeping North Korea in check all these years.:rolleyes:

Molon Labe
08-10-2011, 11:36 AM
Now go read about Germany's initial Blitzkrieg. The Chinese plan, as best as intelligence can tell is to remove military resistance as fast as possible. It's very well and good if you want to go find a hole and stick your head into it, but all evidence points to China wanting Taiwan back under it's government more than it wants good relations with the U.S. As a matter of fact, China would tell the U.S. and the world that it's an internal Chinese matter and we should look the other way. China can and will take Taiwan without complete destruction. It's more than possible, it's probable, especially, after they use their stockpile of U.S. dollars to modernize their military.

great analogy. Personally I've said this before. I could give two craps about Taiwan's security. It's not worth one American soldiers life.

We still have a 13 to 1 advantage over the Chinese navy, plus our training is tops. We'll be fine if we can figure out how to reorganize our military into one that is defensive and lethal rather than offensive in nature. Hopefully we will someday get a CIC who understands this.

djones520
08-10-2011, 12:08 PM
great analogy. Personally I've said this before. I could give two craps about Taiwan's security. It's not worth one American soldiers life.


Yes, you've made it clear that you think the world is full of "second rate" humans not worthy of our protection in the past. :rolleyes:

Molon Labe
08-10-2011, 01:14 PM
Yes, you've made it clear that you think the world is full of "second rate" humans not worthy of our protection in the past. :rolleyes:

wat? Second rate? How do you get that? I guess you can take it that way if you wish. I prefer in actually practicing good old conservative individualism and fiscal responsibility. You know...where people quit relying on handouts and are responsible for their OWN security and not on the backs of the American taxpayer and soldiers, sailors and airmen. I guess if that means I think they are second rate...then guilty as charged. If you want to help a foreign country...donate to a charity. My country is in bad enough shape and American's come first. I won't apolgize for that.

Funny how some are all rah rah for rugged individualism domestically for the domestic dole....., but can't see the hypocrisy in it globally.

Bailey
08-10-2011, 01:31 PM
That and stipulate they get the hell out of the business of running the Panama Canal.

If the PLA and PLN did invade Taiwan and we did go to help...COSCO could shut down the canal and prevent us from sending say and extra carrier TF from the east coast to assist and force us to go the long way around.

I dont think our carriers can fit through there?

Novaheart
08-10-2011, 02:38 PM
I dont think our carriers can fit through there?

Looks like if the improvements are made by 2014, then the current Enterprise will be able to transit the canal.

"The new lock chambers will be 1,400 ft (426.72 m) long, by 180 ft (54.86 m) wide, and 60 ft (18.29 m) deep." - Wiki


Enterprise:
Length: 1,123 ft (342 m)[3][4]
Beam: 132.8 ft (40.5 m) (waterline)
257.2 ft (78.4 m) (extreme)
Draft: 39 ft (12 m) - Wiki

Bailey
08-10-2011, 03:09 PM
Looks like if the improvements are made by 2014, then the current Enterprise will be able to transit the canal.

"The new lock chambers will be 1,400 ft (426.72 m) long, by 180 ft (54.86 m) wide, and 60 ft (18.29 m) deep." - Wiki


Enterprise:
Length: 1,123 ft (342 m)[3][4]
Beam: 132.8 ft (40.5 m) (waterline)
257.2 ft (78.4 m) (extreme)
Draft: 39 ft (12 m) - Wiki



Too bad right around that time the Enterprise will be decommissioned for the new USS Ford to take its place, correct me if i am wrong but I think either 2013 or 2015 it will be decommissioned.


And do you think even if our carriers could fit through the canal the Chi-coms will allow us to use it to oppose them?

Odysseus
08-10-2011, 04:24 PM
great analogy. Personally I've said this before. I could give two craps about Taiwan's security. It's not worth one American soldiers life.

We still have a 13 to 1 advantage over the Chinese navy, plus our training is tops. We'll be fine if we can figure out how to reorganize our military into one that is defensive and lethal rather than offensive in nature. Hopefully we will someday get a CIC who understands this.

In order to be lethal, you have to be able to project power against your enemies' centers of gravity, which means that you have to be capable of offensive operations. A strictly defensive force is an impotent force, as the various other NATO powers regularly demonstrate when they are put in the position of having to fight someone. We've needed an offensive capability since the Barbary Pirate Wars, and we will continue to need one as long as we trade with or travel through the rest of the world.

malloc
08-10-2011, 04:45 PM
In order to be lethal, you have to be able to project power against your enemies' centers of gravity, which means that you have to be capable of offensive operations. A strictly defensive force is an impotent force, as the various other NATO powers regularly demonstrate when they are put in the position of having to fight someone. We've needed an offensive capability since the Barbary Pirate Wars, and we will continue to need one as long as we trade with or travel through the rest of the world.

A good analogy would be medieval siege warfare. If you are a lord, and you have a keep and a garrison, you are pretty well defended. The upkeep costs of the garrison are tiny, and the keep is paid for. Then you are attacked by a force who is capable of force projection. Their force can't get into the keep because of your walls manned by the garrison, but the defensive garrison isn't enough to the break the siege. You become isolated by the surrounding offensive army, and you can no longer trade. Eventually, your garrison is going to starve and break down, and then you'll lose the castle. That will happen unless you have a friend with an army capable of force projection who can come and break that siege.

The United States is that friend who can come and break the siege. The downside is a standing, superior and mobile army like that is way too expensive for us. I'm don't believe in dissolving our military power down into something like a glorified National Guard (i.e. making it a garrison force). However, I also don't believe that the DoD needs to get as big a check every year as they do. Most of our vessels, aircraft, and all manner of equipment is old, and still the best in the world. Do we need the JSF, the F-35 and the F-22's? Can't we figure out a way to upgrade the F-22's? How about upgrade the Enterprise instead of decomm it? Those are the types of things we should be doing with our military.

Like the JDAM program! That has got to be on of the best uses of resources our military has ever put together, it allowed us to use 99% of old, dumb bombs designed for carpet bombing, and with a few turns of a ratchet, create a laser or GPS smart bomb out of them, at a cost of about $2K per bomb.

djones520
08-10-2011, 04:51 PM
The United States is that friend who can come and break the siege. The downside is a standing, superior and mobile army like that is way too expensive for us. I'm don't believe in dissolving our military power down into something like a glorified National Guard (i.e. making it a garrison force). However, I also don't believe that the DoD needs to get as big a check every year as they do. Most of our vessels, aircraft, and all manner of equipment is old, and still the best in the world. Do we need the JSF, the F-35 and the F-22's? Can't we figure out a way to upgrade the F-22's? How about upgrade the Enterprise instead of decomm it? Those are the types of things we should be doing with our military.

Like the JDAM program! That has got to be on of the best uses of resources our military has ever put together, it allowed us to use 99% of old, dumb bombs designed for carpet bombing, and with a few turns of a ratchet, create a laser or GPS smart bomb out of them, at a cost of about $2K per bomb.

There is always a point at which upgrades cost more money then getting the new deal.

Our current airframes are getting there. It's not that our aircraft aren't still top notch. It's that the bodies are getting old. The F-15's have faced several groundings over the last decade because of that. It's cost prohibitive to build a whole new fleet of them.

Then we have the human cost to take into account. Russian and China are developing aircraft that are as good, if not better then the F-15. While our training may be better, is the life of those pilots worth the money saved putting them in "equal" aircraft?

malloc
08-10-2011, 04:58 PM
There is always a point at which upgrades cost more money then getting the new deal.

Our current airframes are getting there. It's not that our aircraft aren't still top notch. It's that the bodies are getting old. The F-15's have faced several groundings over the last decade because of that. It's cost prohibitive to build a whole new fleet of them.

Then we have the human cost to take into account. Russian and China are developing aircraft that are as good, if not better then the F-15. While our training may be better, is the life of those pilots worth the money saved putting them in "equal" aircraft?

My sister's new husband is in the Air Force, and we just had a long conversation about this. He's not too happy that the F-22 got scratched over the F-35. We spent a whole lot of money on just a few F-22's, then a whole lot of money on the F-35's and it all ended pretty stupidly. We would have been better off to retrofit the F-22's with some of the new technologies of the F-35's. That way, the Air Force would have had something new in quantity, rather than still have to fly F-15/16's because they don't have enough F-22's and aren't getting F-35's. It's kind of like Milton Friedman's statements on mandatory air bags and other safety precautions. Sure, these safety precautions save lives, but they increase the cost of the car so much that people keep their old cars as long as possible because they can't afford the new car. So all the touted safety benefits are simply theoretical at that point.

The military cannot keep demanding that the taxpayers give them more and more new stuff, because the taxpayers just don't have that kind of money any more.

For example, upgrades to the U.S.S. Enterprise might cost more than a new U.S. aircraft carrier, true. However, there isn't a country on the planet that has a Navy with a ship that can take on the U.S.S. Enterprise in it's current state. So why not keep it manned, and put it in a group supporing a new aircraft carrier? Or convert it to a big ass LHB and give it to the Marines like the Navy does with all it's old things?

I mean, we can still probably get a few more decades of service out of this investment, instead of just parking the thing. This way, the Marines won't need a new LHB, or a new cruiser won't be needed to be built to be put into a fleet support group or whatever. Hell, they should give this thing to the USMC just to test and advance seabasing theories.

Novaheart
08-10-2011, 09:06 PM
There is always a point at which upgrades cost more money then getting the new deal.

Our current airframes are getting there. It's not that our aircraft aren't still top notch. It's that the bodies are getting old. The F-15's have faced several groundings over the last decade because of that. It's cost prohibitive to build a whole new fleet of them.

Then we have the human cost to take into account. Russian and China are developing aircraft that are as good, if not better then the F-15. While our training may be better, is the life of those pilots worth the money saved putting them in "equal" aircraft?

Silly time here: I wish I could see the faces of some unfriendly folks when they see a US flag on an aircraft that zoom in, hovers, deflects anti-aircraft missiles, and fires particle weapons. Everything else seems just like another rehash of same-old same-old.

Back to serious. Some DOD guy said not too long ago, "Anyone can build a missile, it's the guidance systems which set us apart. We can send a missile through the open door of a building without scraping the door jams." That's pretty cool, not Star Trek, but pretty cool.

fettpett
08-10-2011, 09:16 PM
There is always a point at which upgrades cost more money then getting the new deal.

Our current airframes are getting there. It's not that our aircraft aren't still top notch. It's that the bodies are getting old. The F-15's have faced several groundings over the last decade because of that. It's cost prohibitive to build a whole new fleet of them.

Then we have the human cost to take into account. Russian and China are developing aircraft that are as good, if not better then the F-15. While our training may be better, is the life of those pilots worth the money saved putting them in "equal" aircraft?


The MIG-29 and Sukhoi Su-27is on par with the F15, I think you mean on par with the F-22, which never should have been canceled, another one of this asshat of a President's fuckups. F-35 should have been modified not to have V/TOL capability and with one engine type which would have made them far cheaper in development.

fettpett
08-10-2011, 09:18 PM
The United States is that friend who can come and break the siege. The downside is a standing, superior and mobile army like that is way too expensive for us. I'm don't believe in dissolving our military power down into something like a glorified National Guard (i.e. making it a garrison force). However, I also don't believe that the DoD needs to get as big a check every year as they do. Most of our vessels, aircraft, and all manner of equipment is old, and still the best in the world. Do we need the JSF, the F-35 and the F-22's? Can't we figure out a way to upgrade the F-22's? How about upgrade the Enterprise instead of decomm it? Those are the types of things we should be doing with our military.


The JSF became the F-35

malloc
08-10-2011, 09:32 PM
The MIG-29 and Sukhoi Su-27is on par with the F15, I think you mean on par with the F-22, which never should have been canceled, another one of this asshat of a President's fuckups. F-35 should have been modified not to have V/TOL capability and with one engine type which would have made them far cheaper in development.

If the requirement for a new mainstay aircraft is that they be uniform across all services, VTOL is a big deal though. The USMC and Navy both have requirements for that, (LHDs and the like) and the USMC is still using harriers to fill this role!

I thought at one time the JSF and F-35 were separate projects as well, but maybe they weren't.

fettpett
08-10-2011, 09:34 PM
If the requirement for a new mainstay aircraft is that they be uniform across all services, VTOL is a big deal though. The USMC and Navy both have requirements for that, (LHDs and the like) and the USMC is still using harriers to fill this role!

I thought at one time the JSF and F-35 were separate projects as well, but maybe they weren't.

Personally feel that they need a dedicated built from scratch as a V/TOL system, not one that was halfassed, that was my point about the F-35.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter

djones520
08-10-2011, 09:37 PM
If the requirement for a new mainstay aircraft is that they be uniform across all services, VTOL is a big deal though. The USMC and Navy both have requirements for that, (LHDs and the like) and the USMC is still using harriers to fill this role!

I thought at one time the JSF and F-35 were separate projects as well, but maybe they weren't.

No, the JSF was the program that became the F-35. Joint Strike Fighter, Joint meaning multi-service.

fettpett
08-10-2011, 09:40 PM
No, the JSF was the program that became the F-35. Joint Strike Fighter, Joint meaning multi-service.

Joint meaning MultiNATION

djones520
08-10-2011, 09:45 PM
Joint meaning MultiNATION

Not quite. The term was in use before any of our ally nations had signed on. The program was began as the Joint Advanced Strick Technology program. While F-22 and F/A-18E Super Hornets were to continue in production, it was designed to create an aircraft to take over the role of the F-16 and F/A-18C/D. The UK signed on later to become a formal partner and the program expanded to their Air Forces as well.

So it was originally designed for our forces, and expanded apon to be multi-national later.

Odysseus
08-11-2011, 09:49 AM
If the requirement for a new mainstay aircraft is that they be uniform across all services, VTOL is a big deal though. The USMC and Navy both have requirements for that, (LHDs and the like) and the USMC is still using harriers to fill this role!

I thought at one time the JSF and F-35 were separate projects as well, but maybe they weren't.

While the USMC and Navy need a VTOL fighter, the Air Force doesn't, and even the Marines and Navy don't need one for all missions. The F-22 was far better for many fighter missions, and a smaller fleet of JF-35s would meet the requirements for the far more specialized role that the Marines and Navy have in mind. A one-size fits all solution will end up fitting nothing. This is similar to the kind of thinking that stuck the Air Force with the F-16, and reduced the A-10 fleet. Not that the F-16 was a bad plane, but it wasn't a great ground support aircraft, which the A-10 was. Specialization isn't a weakness.

Molon Labe
08-11-2011, 12:42 PM
In order to be lethal, you have to be able to project power against your enemies' centers of gravity, which means that you have to be capable of offensive operations. A strictly defensive force is an impotent force, as the various other NATO powers regularly demonstrate when they are put in the position of having to fight someone. We've needed an offensive capability since the Barbary Pirate Wars, and we will continue to need one as long as we trade with or travel through the rest of the world.

Yes. I know people tend to defer to you as the expert, but let's look at plenty of others...very competant Officers who've graduated from War College with other ideas, who realize that our military is overextended and the balance has swung away from defensive in nature and is primarily offensive. There is a difference in being able to project, be lethal, be the best army in the world.....and having overextended yourself into 900 military bases globally.

Odysseus
08-11-2011, 03:12 PM
Yes. I know people tend to defer to you as the expert, but let's look at plenty of others...very competant Officers who've graduated from War College with other ideas, who realize that our military is overextended and the balance has swung away from defensive in nature and is primarily offensive. There is a difference in being able to project, be lethal, be the best army in the world.....and having overextended yourself into 900 military bases globally.

That 900 military base talking point is BS. It includes every FOB, COB or other temporary structure that houses troops. It also includes every National Guard armory or Reserve Center in the US.

We are overextended, but it's not because we're fighting offensive wars. The DOD has sustained huge cuts since the end of the Cold War while having to deploy more troops to more places than ever before under circumstances that are, at best, rather dubious. The armed forces shouldn't be in the "nation building" business. If our politicians want to set up Marshall plans for third world hellholes, they can go to the taxpayers and make the case for it, but sending us as if we were just a more belligerent Peace Corps is meant to put a patriotic spin on foreign aid (it's not as obviously welfare for kleptocrats if the military administers it), and is dishonest. We are supposed to fight and win wars, and anything that distracts us from that basic function is a waste of our limited resources.

AmPat
08-11-2011, 03:51 PM
Xinhua
Isn't this translated as the Chinese equivalent to:
The USS Clinton???:confused::rolleyes:

Odysseus
08-11-2011, 04:38 PM
Isn't this translated as the Chinese equivalent to:
The USS Clinton???:confused::rolleyes:

Nope. The USS Clinton would be a submarine. It's known for going down and it's full of seamen. :D

megimoo
08-11-2011, 05:48 PM
While the USMC and Navy need a VTOL fighter, the Air Force doesn't, and even the Marines and Navy don't need one for all missions. The F-22 was far better for many fighter missions, and a smaller fleet of JF-35s would meet the requirements for the far more specialized role that the Marines and Navy have in mind. A one-size fits all solution will end up fitting nothing. This is similar to the kind of thinking that stuck the Air Force with the F-16, and reduced the A-10 fleet. Not that the F-16 was a bad plane, but it wasn't a great ground support aircraft, which the A-10 was. Specialization isn't a weakness.

The Old story...Slow and Low Does the Job V.S Fast In And Out and Hope For The Best...
The A-10 ground attack par excellent aircraft...An Armored Beast with the pilot sitting in a titanium bathtub .

The cockpit and parts of the flight-control system are protected by 1,200 lb (540 kg) of titanium armor, referred to as a "bathtub"....

namvet
08-11-2011, 07:29 PM
ours replenish at sea. do they have it ??? not going very far without it

found this. dated today

Chinese Media Minimizes Military Value of Aircraft Carrier


China's state media are playing down the military threat posed by the country's new aircraft carrier, suggesting it may be 15 to 20 years before China has a combat-ready carrier.

link (http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Chinese-Media-Minimizes-Military-Value-of-Aircraft-Carrier-127510008.html)

Molon Labe
08-11-2011, 07:42 PM
That 900 military base talking point is BS.

lol...talking points. Those are Pentagon numbers my friend. Don't you know what your own Pentagon says?

Ok for the sake of argument it's around 700. Department of Defense’s 2010 Base Structure Report is maybe a bit more accurate than the Pentagon....but whose counting eh?

djones520
08-11-2011, 07:43 PM
lol...talking points. Those are Pentagon numbers my friend. Don't you know what your own Pentagon says?

Did you bother reading the rest of what he said?

Molon Labe
08-11-2011, 08:05 PM
Did you bother reading the rest of what he said?

Certainly I did, did you? He says it's BS in one breath and then validates it's truth in another, however, suggesting it's irrellevant because it just doesn't suit him because it's a FOB etc.

That Pentagon definition figure is everything over a 10 acre site and what the military values at over 10 million dollars. That's a pretty hefty figure to discount it as "irrelevant". For the sake of Playing the game.....let's include all the podunk installations and you get to around 1100.

megimoo
08-11-2011, 10:12 PM
ours replenish at sea. do they have it ??? not going very far without it

found this. dated today

Chinese Media Minimizes Military Value of Aircraft Carrier



link (http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Chinese-Media-Minimizes-Military-Value-of-Aircraft-Carrier-127510008.html)

They'll keep this hog close to shore to provide air cover......Our carrier strike groups would make short work of this thing if it ventured Into The deep water blue ocean...It's patrol route would go into The South China sea around the Paracel and Spratly islands west to Sulu Sea and Palawan north to Formosa,pass Hong Kong then Back to China.....

China has expanded it's Territorial claims to include most of the known gas and oil discoveries in the area...
Virtually all of the South China Sea is now,according to China, China's territory...

With a carrier,even a jump jet carrier,they will be able to project their air power into most of the area,especially the disputed islands.......That's why they're so desperate to keep America out of the South China Sea dispute....


...............................
Rivals push to rename the South China Sea


BEIJING, China — Amid the escalating dispute over territorial waters in the South China Sea, China’s rivals are toying with a simple idea: change the name of the sea.

A petition drive from Vietnam to change the South China Sea’s name to the Southeast Asia Sea is gaining followers. Meanwhile, the Philippines has another proposal.

“When people keep referring to the South China Sea, there is a subliminal message that this sea belongs to a country whose name appears in the name,” Commodore Miguel Jose Rodriguez, Armed Forces spokesman, said recently, according to the Philippines Inquirer. “We in the Philippines should call it West Philippine Sea.”

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/14/rivals-push-to-rename-the-south-china-sea-2/
.......................

Odysseus
08-12-2011, 09:26 AM
Certainly I did, did you? He says it's BS in one breath and then validates it's truth in another, however, suggesting it's irrellevant because it just doesn't suit him because it's a FOB etc.

That Pentagon definition figure is everything over a 10 acre site and what the military values at over 10 million dollars. That's a pretty hefty figure to discount it as "irrelevant". For the sake of Playing the game.....let's include all the podunk installations and you get to around 1100.

Oh, you did not want to go there...:nono:

The DOD's 2010 BASE STRUCTURE REPORT (http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/bsr2010baseline.pdf) lists a grand total of 662 sites managed by the DOD overseas. Of these, 20 are large sites (think Balad, in Iraq, or Ramstein in Germany), 12 are medium and the remainder are small sites.

Now, you claim that a small site is 10 acres and/or $10 million in property. Okay. Back when I was a 2LT, my scout platoon had six vehicles under the old J-Series MTOE, a combination of M113 and ITV, which were valued at a grand total of roughly $5 million two decades ago. Today's platoon leaders have similar responsibilities, with inflation-adjusted inventories of far greater values, well in excess of what I was signed for. Thus, a platoon FOB within a couple of miles of a major base constitutes one of these "sites", even if it is really just part of a larger base cluster. If a company commander has four platoons spread out over four FOBs in order to provide security for a larger base, or to maintain a presence at critical locations, that constitutes four FOBs per company, sixteen per battalion, forty-eight per brigade, etc. That number gets filled very quickly as our units get farmed out into their TASKORG. Also, it separates them by branch of service. Thus, Balad, which is an Air Force base, and LSA Anaconda, the Army's Logistics Support Area, are listed as two sites, even though they share the same location. The Fort Lewis/McChord AFB sites are in the same boat (or would be, if there were a Naval installation co-located with them). But, to the DOD, each of these is a separate "site" because each one is accounted for separately by one of the service branches. In other words, between the outlying security positions occupied by small units that secure larger base clusters and the joint bases which are accounted for as multiple sites for accounting purposes, the number is far smaller than what the DOD puts out.

You were saying...?
http://us.cdn4.123rf.com/168nwm/michaeldb/michaeldb0804/michaeldb080400015/2898170-a-good-attitude-wins-a-victory-a-winning-smiley-happy-face--a-tic-tac-toe-game.jpg

Molon Labe
08-12-2011, 11:30 PM
Oh, you did not want to go there...:nono:

Why the hell not? :D


The DOD's 2010 BASE STRUCTURE REPORT (http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/bsr2010baseline.pdf) lists a grand total of 662 sites managed by the DOD overseas. Of these, 20 are large sites (think Balad, in Iraq, or Ramstein in Germany), 12 are medium and the remainder are small sites.

So what. Nothing in any of that whether it's two different bases occupying the same space takes away from the sheer numbers. Whether it's 600 or 700 or 900... However someone wishes to count them. It's so complicated by equivocation that even our own government can't get it straight.

It's too bad that now 10 years on after when Rumsfeld destroyed the old guard upper echelon leadership of our military like Gen. Hoar, Shinseki...and Newbold...to name only a few, because he wanted it all his way. It seems there aren't many left who won't kiss the establishment butt and speak out against how overextended we are. At least you and I agree that we are overextended. I just wish there were a few more like those above who would stand up with their careers on the line and say "enough".

malloc
08-12-2011, 11:50 PM
While the USMC and Navy need a VTOL fighter, the Air Force doesn't, and even the Marines and Navy don't need one for all missions. The F-22 was far better for many fighter missions, and a smaller fleet of JF-35s would meet the requirements for the far more specialized role that the Marines and Navy have in mind. A one-size fits all solution will end up fitting nothing. This is similar to the kind of thinking that stuck the Air Force with the F-16, and reduced the A-10 fleet. Not that the F-16 was a bad plane, but it wasn't a great ground support aircraft, which the A-10 was. Specialization isn't a weakness.

Oh, trust me. I wasn't singing the praises of uniformity and generality, I was wondering why congress was! :confused:

Military spending is going to become a focal point very quickly. There was an article I read somewhere, the Daily Caller I think, which was talking about a choice America has to face. That choice being a strong military, or a European style welfare state, because we can't afford both. I think that's a bullshit false dichotomy, because we can't afford either the way we are going. Military spending is going to become a conservative Achilles heel I can hear the liberals now, "You'd rather spend money on a military that bails out other countries, and builds nations on foreign shores than take care of our own poor and elderly?"

Most people on this board would look at my above statement, shrug, and say, "well....yes." Most independents will not. That means we'll have the European style welfare state instead of the strong military, because independents will vote Democrat if Republicans play hypocrite about welfare spending versus military spending.

I know our military can do more with less, remain on top, and not only refrain from bankrupting the nation, but steal that aforementioned thunder right out from under the liberals. The key isn't to cut off our military advancement and the funding of new projects, the key is slow the rate of advancement by prioritizing projects and realizing that all new technologies in the inventory are a function of time. Basically, take it slower and stop all this rapid development nonsense. It seems all new military projects must be done yesterday, and that is an effect caused by the usual suspects who always end up with the contracts fleecing the taxpayers. We end up at F-22/F-35 dead ends when we go that route. The military industrial companies are realizing that there's more money in treatment than in cures if you get my drift.

Government should cast a wider net when looking for companies to implement a project. More importantly though, the military should express a role to be filled instead of a specification that fills the role, and give the private sector more leeway in solving problems.

I know a lot of what I just said was very general, but it's really difficult to describe this idea of how military dollars should be spent. Basically, instead of ideas for military tech flowing down from the government to the private sector, demand to fulfill a need flows down, and the ideas and prototypes for the solutions flow up from the private sector to the military.

Odysseus
08-13-2011, 12:09 AM
Why the hell not? :D
Because you got your ass handed to you?


So what. Nothing in any of that whether it's two different bases occupying the same space takes away from the sheer numbers. Whether it's 600 or 700 or 900... However someone wishes to count them. It's so complicated by equivocation that even our own government can't get it straight.

Except that our government does keep it straight. I had no problem finding the report online, getting the actual numbers and explaining why it's a BS talking point. And it does matter if there are 600, 700 or 900. My fellow troops are manning those installations. Our lives depend on them being accounted for and supported, and I consider that somewhat critical.


It's too bad that now 10 years on after when Rumsfeld destroyed the old guard upper echelon leadership of our military like Gen. Hoar, Shinseki...and Newbold...to name only a few, because he wanted it all his way. It seems there aren't many left who won't kiss the establishment butt and speak out against how overextended we are. At least you and I agree that we are overextended. I just wish there were a few more like those above who would stand up with their careers on the line and say "enough".

Yeah, a few more like Shinseki and we'd have had propellers to go with our berets. :rolleyes: In case you missed it, Rumsfield actually did a superb job of getting troops trained up, deployed and equipped. And he had to clear out the time-serving hacks who made their stars under Clinton and who were ineffectual warfighters, guys like Shinseki, who couldn't get armor to troops in Somalia, but knew that berets would make us look fabulous. I don't miss them. Petraeus, Odierno and McChrystol were a serious improvement, and they got results.

Yes, we are overextended, but only because politicians keep trying to economize on defense and cut out "non-essential" systems and units, only to find that they really were essential when things got hot. Clinton thought that he was getting a peace dividend, but what he really got was a reprieve, temporarily, which a person who knew and understood history would have seen as an opportunity to consolidate and enhance American power. Instead, he squandered it, and the result was a decade of vicious attacks on our embassies and troops overseas, culminating in 9/11. Now we have Obama, who claims to want to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but who doesn't understand the strategic issues, and wastes our strength on pointless asides like Libya, instead of focusing on the real threat, which is Iran. Speaking of Iran, did you know that they've just put their first satellite into orbit? Or that the capability to put a satellite into orbit is almost identical to the capability required to put a warhead on a target on another continent? That's right, Iran now has an ICBM capability, and is hell bent on getting nukes. If you think that we're overextended now, wait until they marry up a tactical warhead with a missile. We don't have the luxury of hiding behind two oceans and pretending the world can't get to us anymore. 9/11 demonstrated the folly of that, and nothing that we say or do will dissuade the bad guys from their chosen course of action, because ultimately, they want to usher in WWIII and the age of the Mahdi. Bush's mistake wasn't invading Afghanistan or Iraq, it was staying to try to turn two backwards, tribal pits into functioning nations, in effect rewarding them with our largess for having harbored our enemies and threatened our peace. He understood the threat, but lacked the ruthlessness to deal with it. Obama doesn't even understand that much. He thinks that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian mullahs are just dandy, but that Tea Partyers are dangerous ideologues. So, yeah, we're overextended, and we're operating with one hand and both feet tied behind our backs, while the world gets more chaotic and dangerous daily, and you want to bring us home? Nope. Not until we've done what we have to in order to secure the peace. We used to know how to do that, and the change in the Germans and the Japanese, from belligerent lunatic death cultists to hardcore pacifists was the result of one of the great attitude adjustments in history. We have the means to do it again, and we sure as hell have the need to do it, but we lack the will, because the left wants us defeated, and the libertarians don't get that nations and governments do have a basic, critical function, which is to protect their citizens from preventable evil. If we're not willing to do that, then we might as well pack it in and hope that the next global hegemon is as benign and enlightened as we were when we were the top dog.

Molon Labe
08-13-2011, 09:16 AM
Yeah, a few more like Shinseki and we'd have had propellers to go with our berets. :rolleyes: In case you missed it, Rumsfield actually did a superb job of getting troops trained up, deployed and equipped. And he had to clear out the time-serving hacks who made their stars under Clinton and who were ineffectual warfighters, guys like Shinseki, who couldn't get armor to troops in Somalia, but knew that berets would make us look fabulous. I don't miss them. Petraeus, Odierno and McChrystol were a serious improvement, and they got results.

I'll be real brief. Every officer who advised Rumy in a way that didn't fit his world view has been proven right by history, and most everyone he kept as "yes" men were wrong. Proofs in the pudding after 10 years. There are few officers I know who believe that the Army is the same organization of overall effectiveness presently as it was prior to OEF. I remember very well the logistic problems of body armor and getting vehicle armor up to standards. You remember Rumy very different from me. You can blame all this on Obama, and he has his share of blame, but we both know that nearly all of the restructuring and reorganization and brilliant battle planning was done under Rumy. He sucked..good riddance to this fool. If this had been WW2, FDR would have relieved him in 2004. This is not to say I don't somewhat agree with your assessment of Petraeus, McChrystol etc. It's to say these men don't nearly have the wherewithall to speak out like Hoar and Newbold did. Not gonna happen. Sometimes you need a few more Pattons who stick out their necks.

And if you think that one stupid beret decision, which it was, has anything to do with battlefield management, or defining a person's career overall, then....good grief. At least the new CSM Chandler got the soft cap back...but that doesn't mean that Obama is a success. :rolleyes:

Constitutionally Speaking
08-13-2011, 10:30 AM
What purpose would that serve? There was a good reason for China to retake Tibet. What is the reason to take Taiwan?


Their honor. They feel they are the rightful government of what used to be called Formosa - modern day Taiwan.

They have ALWAYS said they want it back - the only thing that has prevented this has been our promise to
defend Taiwan no matter what.

Now, if they no longer fear us or think we won't follow through on our promise - Free Taiwan is history.