China launches first aircraft carrier

2011-08-10 09:48:51

#26

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

Cybargs wrote:
Shocking wrote:
Cybargs wrote:

China doesn't need an Aircraft carrier to invade Taiwan, they're close enough anyway. Carriers are usually for overseas force projection. If they park it next to Taiwan and invade that's the first thing Taiwan would hit anyway.

Besides that carrier is tiny compared to the nimitz afaik.
That wasn't the point of what I said though.
I know but I'm just adding more shit to your quote.

I still don't get why China believes that Taiwan is part of China, shiiiet the commies never stepped foot on the island. The only thing Chinese about Taiwan is that a shit ton of nationalists fled in '49 and that's about it. Funny that the KMT (nationalists) party who fought against China during the civil war now is pretty pro-china.

I don't think Taiwan is in any real danger. It makes a nice nationalistic talking point for mainland China and unites the people behind a common enemy.

"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

2011-08-10 09:58:09

#27

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5732|Ventura, California

Trotskygrad wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
China has no real military allies.
truth

Aren't North Korea and Iran their allies?

AXIS! WW3!!!

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2011-08-10 10:03:38

#28

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6974

Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Shocking wrote:

That wasn't the point of what I said though.
I know but I'm just adding more shit to your quote.

I still don't get why China believes that Taiwan is part of China, shiiiet the commies never stepped foot on the island. The only thing Chinese about Taiwan is that a shit ton of nationalists fled in '49 and that's about it. Funny that the KMT (nationalists) party who fought against China during the civil war now is pretty pro-china.
I don't think Taiwan is in any real danger. It makes a nice nationalistic talking point for mainland China and unites the people behind a common enemy.

Economy is way too tied. China's using soft power to coerce Taiwan into voluntarily joining China. Taiwanese people get a "Taiwanese compatriot" passport/ID thing when they go to China (valid for 5 years) so it's nice not having visa restrictions. But what China doesn't realize the longer they try to get Taiwan to join, the harder it will be as most young people in Taiwan identifies themselves as Taiwanese rather than Chinese and have no ties to China unlike the older generation.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2011-08-10 10:17:14

#29

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6991|Cambridge, England

Cybargs wrote:
Shocking wrote:
Very likely I think. China is becoming more and more dominant and is showing that to its direct neighbours through excersises at sea, or say, intimidation of Taiwan. China still thinks that Taiwan = China.
China doesn't need an Aircraft carrier to invade Taiwan, they're close enough anyway. Carriers are usually for overseas force projection. If they park it next to Taiwan and invade that's the first thing Taiwan would hit anyway.

Besides that carrier is tiny compared to the nimitz afaik.

https://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53316000/gif/_53316848_china_aircraft_carrier_624.gif

Those last 28m make all the difference amirite?

2011-08-10 10:20:20

#30

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6974

mah bad coz I kept thinking they were on par with french/ british carriers. That's a pretty big carrier.

2011-08-10 10:22:15

#31

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6991|Cambridge, England

Cybargs wrote:
mah bad coz I kept thinking they were on par with french/ british carriers. That's a pretty big carrier.

Yeah I looked at it and wondered why we even both having one.

2011-08-10 10:23:04

#32

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6758|so randum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Eliz … ft_carrier

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2011-08-10 10:23:43

#33

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6758|so randum

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
mah bad coz I kept thinking they were on par with french/ british carriers. That's a pretty big carrier.
Yeah I looked at it and wondered why we even both having one.

invincible class was designed for north sea stuff really, not trundling around the globe

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2011-08-10 10:26:48

#34

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6257|...

FatherTed wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier

does anyone know why the displacement of the QE is so much less than the Nimitz? Is it missing a few decks? In size it's quite comparable.

inane little opines

2011-08-10 10:28:16

#35

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6758|so randum

it's not nuclear so i'd imagine that shaves a lot of weight away

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2011-08-10 10:28:22

#36

Beduin: Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid; +510|6008|شمال

China will grow larger

الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic

2011-08-10 10:30:01

#37

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6257|...

The inter-carrier years are gonna be fun. Almost a decade without for France & the UK, and then you can probably only send out 1 at a time because of maintenance.

inane little opines

2011-08-10 10:33:00

#38

menzo: ̏̏̏̏̏̏̏̏&#; +616|6704|Amsterdam‫

Beduin wrote:
China will grow larger

I am big!

https://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee37/menzo2003/fredbf2.png

2011-08-10 10:41:01

#39

SEREMAKER: BABYMAKIN EXPERT √; +2,187|6827|Mountains of NC

did they break a wine bottle against or were they afraid it might puncture a hole

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg

2011-08-10 10:44:36

#40

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

good for them. next.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-08-10 10:44:38

#41

Superior Mind: (not macbeth); +1,755|6951

Italy has two aircraft carriers.
One for each the gypsies and the Arabs.

x

2011-08-10 10:45:57

#42

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Shocking wrote:

That wasn't the point of what I said though.
I know but I'm just adding more shit to your quote.

I still don't get why China believes that Taiwan is part of China, shiiiet the commies never stepped foot on the island. The only thing Chinese about Taiwan is that a shit ton of nationalists fled in '49 and that's about it. Funny that the KMT (nationalists) party who fought against China during the civil war now is pretty pro-china.
I don't think Taiwan is in any real danger. It makes a nice nationalistic talking point for mainland China and unites the people behind a common enemy.

we nearly conflagrated the cold war into a hot war over taiwan, remember.

that nationalistic symbol was a big point of principle

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-08-10 12:27:31

#43

loubot: O' HAL naw!; +470|6836|Columbus, OH

I say the U.S. should give them a couple of carriers and call this debt even.

2011-08-10 12:37:21

#44

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6481|Escea

Wasn't the Varyag a sister ship to the Kuznetsov before it was scrapped?

2011-08-10 13:22:39

#45

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6991|Cambridge, England

FatherTed wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier

Not going to be operational until at least 2019...China might have another by then lol

2011-08-10 14:15:53

#46

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6925

The fact that we have 11 major aircraft carriers amazes me. Not so much the AC itself, but the required supporting fleet.

And then there's the Ford-class. Energy weapons..

2011-08-10 14:42:49

#47

coke: Aye up duck!; +440|6967|England. Stoke

M.O.A.B wrote:
Wasn't the Varyag a sister ship to the Kuznetsov before it was scrapped?

Yes

2011-08-10 14:44:23

#48

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6257|...

You won't be having 11 for long. Cuts and the fact that the next generation is going to be more and more expensive. Armies of the future are going to be smaller. Most EU armies are having quite significant problems already with the fact that top of the line tech is getting really expensive, one of many reasons to really start pooling resources more.

inane little opines

2011-08-10 15:05:11

#49

Little BaBy JESUS: m8; +394|6407|'straya

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Shocking wrote:
Very likely I think. China is becoming more and more dominant and is showing that to its direct neighbours through excersises at sea, or say, intimidation of Taiwan. China still thinks that Taiwan = China.
China doesn't need an Aircraft carrier to invade Taiwan, they're close enough anyway. Carriers are usually for overseas force projection. If they park it next to Taiwan and invade that's the first thing Taiwan would hit anyway.

Besides that carrier is tiny compared to the nimitz afaik.

Those last 28m make all the difference amirite?

That chart is a bit misleading though as many of those countries "Aircraft carriers" are no bigger or capable than America's Amphibious Assault ships (which would significantly increase America's number if they were included).

2011-08-10 15:38:06

#50

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6850

Jay wrote:
I wonder what the odds are of Chinese imperialism during our lifetimes.

To their mind, they are the Middle Kingdom. What's a 200 year low point, in a 10,000 year history?

Kissinger's On China is a pretty readable book.

BF2S Forums China launches first aircraft carrier

Cybargs wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Beduin wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Shocking wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Jay wrote:

Board footer