Wat
One of THE sexiest pictures of ALL TIME
One of THE sexiest pictures of ALL TIME
Last edited by NeXuS (2011-08-11 18:35:39)
Already have done some joint CSAR exercises with them, IIRC. Force projection has to be tied to a requirement to do so. Right now, Chinese policy is focused on domestic expansion, not external expansion, thus no requirement. Their military buildup is suited to defense and projecting power about 150-200 miles off-shore. Hmmm...where would that put it?Shocking wrote:
I realise that at present the threat is non-existant, but I'm doubtful as to whether the US military would want to engage in joint excersises with the Chinese. As you said, their current stance is one of caution - as it is on the political side of things. There are many issues with China concerning domestic and foreign policy which are hard for us to accept or ignore (Tibet, Taiwan, accusations of China keeping the Yuan artificially low to name a few).FEOS wrote:
There are three distinct aspects to the US-Chinese relationship: economic, military, and diplomatic. Of course the military is watching and is concerned about the pace of Chinese military modernization--particularly because they historically underreport their defense expenditures. But the ability of China to project and sustain force over distance simply isn't there, and thus doesn't pose a threat...even with a single aircraft carrier. Of far greater concern is the economic relationship. And both have to be nurtured by the diplomatic relationship.Shocking wrote:
You sure about that? The relationship between the US and China isn't hostile sure but you're not exactly all that friendly with eachother either.
I'm quite certain that if China's growth maintains the pace it has for the last 10 years their force projection problems should be solved in a few decades.
@Spearhead: Yes, I'm in the middle of the "global security" block of a course. China was one lesson. Just finishing up South Asia tonight.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Yeah that and a few other incidents are on my mind. China has historically been rather belligerent at times towards Vietnam.Macbeth wrote:
I agree with the second part but off the top of my head I rememberCybargs wrote:
You talking bout the sino-viet war of the 1970s? I was more thinking bout the old dynasty days. What I'm getting at is the Chinese would not likely try to expand their borders.Spark wrote:
Vietnam disagrees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … AA_Dynasty
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Per previous 'Why are the carriers so close in length?', they have to fit through the Panama and Suez Canals.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Oh, didn't expect that. Their military buildup is changing rapidly though, the aircraft carrier itself significantly increases their range.FEOS wrote:
Already have done some joint CSAR exercises with them, IIRC. Force projection has to be tied to a requirement to do so. Right now, Chinese policy is focused on domestic expansion, not external expansion, thus no requirement. Their military buildup is suited to defense and projecting power about 150-200 miles off-shore. Hmmm...where would that put it?Shocking wrote:
I realise that at present the threat is non-existant, but I'm doubtful as to whether the US military would want to engage in joint excersises with the Chinese. As you said, their current stance is one of caution - as it is on the political side of things. There are many issues with China concerning domestic and foreign policy which are hard for us to accept or ignore (Tibet, Taiwan, accusations of China keeping the Yuan artificially low to name a few).FEOS wrote:
There are three distinct aspects to the US-Chinese relationship: economic, military, and diplomatic. Of course the military is watching and is concerned about the pace of Chinese military modernization--particularly because they historically underreport their defense expenditures. But the ability of China to project and sustain force over distance simply isn't there, and thus doesn't pose a threat...even with a single aircraft carrier. Of far greater concern is the economic relationship. And both have to be nurtured by the diplomatic relationship.
I'm quite certain that if China's growth maintains the pace it has for the last 10 years their force projection problems should be solved in a few decades.
@Spearhead: Yes, I'm in the middle of the "global security" block of a course. China was one lesson. Just finishing up South Asia tonight.
inane little opines
Yes, but it's only one carrier...and they still have to figure out how to employ it effectively. And outfit it with aircraft. And figure out how to employ them effectively from a carrier. Then there's the issue of national doctrine on a "blue water navy" and how far abroad it would operate, and for what purposes.Shocking wrote:
Oh, didn't expect that. Their military buildup is changing rapidly though, the aircraft carrier itself significantly increases their range.FEOS wrote:
Already have done some joint CSAR exercises with them, IIRC. Force projection has to be tied to a requirement to do so. Right now, Chinese policy is focused on domestic expansion, not external expansion, thus no requirement. Their military buildup is suited to defense and projecting power about 150-200 miles off-shore. Hmmm...where would that put it?Shocking wrote:
I realise that at present the threat is non-existant, but I'm doubtful as to whether the US military would want to engage in joint excersises with the Chinese. As you said, their current stance is one of caution - as it is on the political side of things. There are many issues with China concerning domestic and foreign policy which are hard for us to accept or ignore (Tibet, Taiwan, accusations of China keeping the Yuan artificially low to name a few).
I'm quite certain that if China's growth maintains the pace it has for the last 10 years their force projection problems should be solved in a few decades.
@Spearhead: Yes, I'm in the middle of the "global security" block of a course. China was one lesson. Just finishing up South Asia tonight.
Just having it doesn't mean they can do anything with it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
There's freaking cool names like Ticonderoga and stuff like that they could name the class after.Macbeth wrote:
Why did they name the aricraft carrier class after Ford? Such a waste.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Because if they'd named it "Chevy" or "Dodge", they'd have to double their insurance premium.Macbeth wrote:
Why did they name the aricraft carrier class after Ford? Such a waste.
Though a Clinton class ballistic missile submarine would be appropriate, on a few levels... (all sarcasm there)
Seriously, though.. If we ever bring back a modern version of the battleship, the class type should be the "Theodore Roosevelt"
Battleships are states, silly.rdx-fx wrote:
Because if they'd named it "Chevy" or "Dodge", they'd have to double their insurance premium.Macbeth wrote:
Why did they name the aricraft carrier class after Ford? Such a waste.
Though a Clinton class ballistic missile submarine would be appropriate, on a few levels... (all sarcasm there)
Seriously, though.. If we ever bring back a modern version of the battleship, the class type should be the "Theodore Roosevelt"
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
How many wars did Ford even lead? Should have named the class after Nixon.
Traditionally.Jay wrote:
Battleships are states, silly.
So, fine. We rename a state after him, then a battleship.
How about we split California into "Pelosi-land" and "Roosevelt"?
Last edited by rdx-fx (2011-08-12 14:55:02)
Damn straight it should be rdx! Freaking cool president.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
But then it would have to sink during its second tourMacbeth wrote:
How many wars did Ford even lead? Should have named the class after Nixon.
M.O.A.B wrote:
But then it would have to sink during its second tourMacbeth wrote:
How many wars did Ford even lead? Should have named the class after Nixon.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser-Sh1fty- wrote:
There's freaking cool names like Ticonderoga and stuff like that they could name the class after.Macbeth wrote:
Why did they name the aricraft carrier class after Ford? Such a waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … onventions
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
I know about that. Ticonderoga was an example of a cool name.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Ford was a naval officer with two bronze stars and an ex-president of the United States. What waste do you see?Macbeth wrote:
Why did they name the aricraft carrier class after Ford? Such a waste.
Former naval aviator, to boot.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Ford was a naval officer with two bronze stars and an ex-president of the United States. What waste do you see?Macbeth wrote:
Why did they name the aricraft carrier class after Ford? Such a waste.
Yeah...can't see why they would name an aircraft carrier after him.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The Chinese have perfected the art of Naval trolling though.NeXuS wrote:
Wat
One of THE sexiest pictures of ALL TIME
Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-08-14 03:42:07)
Fuck Israel
lol that is even worse than what russia is doing all the time with their bombers. they fly right to the edge of some countries airspace and then turn aroundDilbert_X wrote:
The Chinese have perfected the art of Naval trolling though.NeXuS wrote:
Wat
One of THE sexiest pictures of ALL TIME
Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise
Last edited by menzo (2011-08-14 04:38:39)
Years ago, the front gate to Elmendorf AFB (Anchorage, Alaska) had a sign; "Number of Soviet intercepts this year", with a replaceable number below it.menzo wrote:
lol that is ever worse than what russia is doing all the time with their bombers. they fly right to the edge of some countries airspace and then turn around
Some workplaces have "number of days without a safety violation".
Elmendorf had a running total of how many Soviet bombers they'd escorted back out of US airspace.
China could easily overrun the USA and the whole world with its infantry only. They got 360 million soldiers in duty at the moment. Strange!
Last edited by venom6 (2011-08-14 05:29:18)
No they don't.venom6 wrote:
China could easily overrun the USA and the whole world with its infantry only. They got 360 million soldiers in duty at the moment. Strange!
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
debt and debt...
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
Of course, only the Russians ever do that....rdx-fx wrote:
Years ago, the front gate to Elmendorf AFB (Anchorage, Alaska) had a sign; "Number of Soviet intercepts this year", with a replaceable number below it.menzo wrote:
lol that is ever worse than what russia is doing all the time with their bombers. they fly right to the edge of some countries airspace and then turn around
Some workplaces have "number of days without a safety violation".
Elmendorf had a running total of how many Soviet bombers they'd escorted back out of US airspace.
Fuck Israel