|
|
Post by shadoom2 on Jun 8, 2011 19:34:10 GMT -5
A few days ago one of China's 'retired' generals confirmed that the Chinese navy (or People's Liberation Army Navy) has almost completed an aircraft carrier, the one that they've been saying didn't exist until recently. Here's the BBC article about the announcement: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13692558And here's another one with analyses of what this could mean: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13693495And here is a comparison of quotes that I find interesting: “ Germany is a young and growing Empire. She has world-wide commerce, which is rapidly expanding, and to which the legitimate ambition of patriotic Germans refuses to assign any bounds. Germany must have a powerful fleet to protect that commerce, and her manifold interests in even the most distant seas.” -Kaiser Wilhelm II, 1908, on the growth of the German navy. “ The development of [China's] armed forces is connected with the development of our economy … In energy supplies and trade we now have interests that span the globe. There are vital shipping routes in Asia, the Indian Ocean, Africa, and both sides of the Pacific that we need to protect. So our military strength needs to match the range of our economic and diplomatic activity.” -Gen Xu, 2011, on the growth of the Chinese navy. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 8, 2011 22:23:09 GMT -5
Yes, but you could pretty easily get a quote from some US navy founder saying the same deal. New, successful states aren't necessarily Nazi evil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iosa the Invincible on Jun 8, 2011 22:53:25 GMT -5
Am I the only one who read that and thought, "Well, since it hasn't been completed yet, it technically doesn't exist as an aircraft carrier"? I'm horrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 8, 2011 23:05:01 GMT -5
In the current age of pinpoint accurate, long range ship-to-ship missiles, aircraft carriers aren't nearly as important as they were back in WWII. I'm not saying they're not useful, but in terms of ship to ship combat, cruisers are largely where its at now.
Not only that, this is just a old Soviet ship that was never fully completed by the Russians before the collapse of the USSR. Not exactly state of the art by any means.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadoom2 on Jun 8, 2011 23:10:57 GMT -5
Yes, but you could pretty easily get a quote from some US navy founder saying the same deal. New, successful states aren't necessarily Nazi evil. The Nazi's didn't exist in 1908, the quote was said during the German Empire shortly before World War 1. And really, another World War would be just as unwelcome as Nazis. But I get the point your making about successful states. I just found the quote from Gen Xu eerily familiar when I read the article. |
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 10, 2011 10:05:09 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks that for an old Cold War hulk it looks pretty fuckin' cool?
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jun 10, 2011 21:27:38 GMT -5
Am I the only one who read that and thought, "Well, since it hasn't been completed yet, it technically doesn't exist as an aircraft carrier"? I'm horrible. That was my first thought as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Jun 10, 2011 23:10:35 GMT -5
In the current age of pinpoint accurate, long range ship-to-ship missiles, aircraft carriers aren't nearly as important as they were back in WWII. I'm not saying they're not useful, but in terms of ship to ship combat, cruisers are largely where its at now. Not only that, this is just a old Soviet ship that was never fully completed by the Russians before the collapse of the USSR. Not exactly state of the art by any means. Aircraft carriers are intended more for fucking up ground targets than they are for naval skirmishes. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 10, 2011 23:38:40 GMT -5
Yes, but you could pretty easily get a quote from some US navy founder saying the same deal. New, successful states aren't necessarily Nazi evil. Not to mention 1908 is kind of a neutral point in time for germany. Kinda like pointing to a random point in any nation's history and saying that this is bad |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 11, 2011 3:56:31 GMT -5
In the current age of pinpoint accurate, long range ship-to-ship missiles, aircraft carriers aren't nearly as important as they were back in WWII. I'm not saying they're not useful, but in terms of ship to ship combat, cruisers are largely where its at now. Not only that, this is just a old Soviet ship that was never fully completed by the Russians before the collapse of the USSR. Not exactly state of the art by any means. Aircraft carriers are intended more for fucking up ground targets than they are for naval skirmishes. That's largely my point. Since carriers aren't much of a threat in naval combat these days and there's an entire ocean between China and the US, this isn't really a threat to US naval superiority. A sign that the US should be on its toes about any Chinese ambitions, certainly, but not a direct threat. |
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jun 11, 2011 15:03:58 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks that for an old Cold War hulk it looks pretty fuckin' cool? Cold War shit is always cool. |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jun 11, 2011 16:39:03 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks that for an old Cold War hulk it looks pretty fuckin' cool? Cold War shit is always cool. Including nuclear bomb shelters. Unfortunately, my apartment doesn't have one for me to secretly make into a supervillain lair. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Jun 11, 2011 17:20:27 GMT -5
Aircraft carriers are intended more for fucking up ground targets than they are for naval skirmishes. That's largely my point. Since carriers aren't much of a threat in naval combat these days and there's an entire ocean between China and the US, this isn't really a threat to US naval superiority. A sign that the US should be on its toes about any Chinese ambitions, certainly, but not a direct threat. Battleships are what has been rendered obsolete. Carriers are intended for you to be able to park your ship 100 miles away from shore and then send in the jets to fuck shit up. Which is still a somewhat useful thing. There's a reason they still get used. |
|
|
|
Post by arrowdeath on Jun 11, 2011 20:38:23 GMT -5
That's largely my point. Since carriers aren't much of a threat in naval combat these days and there's an entire ocean between China and the US, this isn't really a threat to US naval superiority. A sign that the US should be on its toes about any Chinese ambitions, certainly, but not a direct threat. Battleships are what has been rendered obsolete. Carriers are intended for you to be able to park your ship 100 miles away from shore and then send in the jets to fuck shit up. Which is still a somewhat useful thing. There's a reason they still get used. Really any ship that can no longer be parked several hundred miles away and still unload it's payload accurately enough to trim their opponent's nosehairs is probably considered not very useful by modern navy standards. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 11, 2011 21:49:21 GMT -5
Battleships are what has been rendered obsolete. Carriers are intended for you to be able to park your ship 100 miles away from shore and then send in the jets to fuck shit up. Which is still a somewhat useful thing. There's a reason they still get used. Really any ship that can no longer be parked several hundred miles away and still unload it's payload accurately enough to trim their opponent's nosehairs is probably considered not very useful by modern navy standards. Well, US battleships were still able to accomplish that, but the price tag to keep a few 60 year old ships in their prime and modernized outweighs the price to just build a few cruisers to take its place. Though the marines still think the current amphibious support role isn't filled as well as it would with the Big Mo or the Mighty Wisconsin somewhere offshore slamming the beaches with 16 inch rounds |
|
