Japan unveils largest warship since World War II

[IND151]

Good ship

Still far behind Yamato

 

[Wholegrain]

Look at "An Nam Guo" map in old Chinese book printed in China, kid.

Your circled the words "south east sea". Mind telling me what that is supposed to prove?

 

[shuttler]

I said it because your claim of the SC sea as yours is worthless. Get it?

House rule not to feed the TROLL!

 

[USAHawk785]

YES, show the wannabe bully Chinese that the U.S. is the Superpower. Send them a message: don´t mess with America!
By the way, Vietnam welcomes more engagement from you in the region.

Picture: WASHINGTON, D.C. – JULY 25: President Barack Obama meets with President Truong Tan Sang of Vietnam in the Oval Office on July 25, 2013 in Washington, D.C.

We also welcome closer ties and warmer relations with Vietnam.

 

[Tshering22]

Good ship

Still far behind Yamato

little drops of water, make the mighty ocean.

60 years they've rusted in pacifism. Give them some more time to return to their militaristic nature.

Soon even Yamato will be dwarfed.

 

[Beast]

We also welcome closer ties and warmer relations with Vietnam.

Vietnamese is still wary of how American B-52 unilaterally bomb Hanoi and killed hundred thousands of vietnamese children and civilian...

That is why they seek peace with China and any visit of Vietnamese representative in USA is only symbolic. If Vietnam depends on US to help them counter China. Pig can fly....

 

[EastSea]

Your circled the words "south east sea". Mind telling me what that is supposed to prove?

There is Vietnam map printed in China old time. Your ancestors stated clearly its 安南国 An Nam Emperor (Vietnam today) and also bordering with 東南海 (East South Sea) of Vietnam.

No where was South China Sea. Claim of China with nine dash 1948 recently is worthless.

 

[Wholegrain]

There is Vietnam map printed in China old time. Your ancestors stated clearly its 安南国 An Nam Emperor (Vietnam today) and also bordering with 東南海 (East South Sea) of Vietnam.

No where was South China Sea. Claim of China with nine dash 1948 recently is worthless.

The CHINESE NAME for the South China Sea is is "South Sea" 南海.

Its WESTERNERS AND JAPANESE who call it the "South China Sea". China never said it was the south china sea and doesn't claim the sea as its territorial waters. China claims the spratly islands, and the surrounding waters as its EEZ.

China has never claimed that the nine dashed line were its maritime boundaries. It claimed the islands and their EEZs.

The map shows the geographic features and political boundaries of southeast asia. It doesn't show the spratly islands as part of Annam.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

The 7th Fleet, alone, could wipe out the entire PLAN. It is preposterous to even consider the PLAN a threat to the USN. The enemy's naval assets are of absolute inferior quality. In open water, we would ravage their fleet within a week's time. Air supremacy would be established and the enemy would sue for peace. Most probably their old regime would collapse and US-backed riots in China would ensure the supplantation of the CCP with a more democratic-friendly government.

If there is a war, China will certainly not fight a symmetrical such navy vs navy, it will be an unresitrcted warfare or Asymetrical warfare : US won't dream to get away unharmmed.

Thank to Chinese colonels theory that Talibans know how to use unrestricted warfare for the 911. They didn't even need expensive navy to deal with America.

PLA Senior Colonels on Unrestricted Warfare: Part I

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/unresw2.htm

YES, show the wannabe bully Chinese that the U.S. is the Superpower. Send them a message: don´t mess with America!
By the way, Vietnam welcomes more engagement from you in the region.

Picture: WASHINGTON, D.C. – JULY 25: President Barack Obama meets with President Truong Tan Sang of Vietnam in the Oval Office on July 25, 2013 in Washington, D.C.

That's how Vietnam was Cheerleading U.S.S.R but uneffective and now try cheerleading a new potential mentor.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

I dont know what the problem is?
China is like godzilla and the other asian/east asian countries are like Tokio.
So it means they need to protect themselves.

Indeed China is godzilla, the other Asian/east Asian countries are like little monsters, we need to protect ourself indeed.

 

[EastSea]

The CHINESE NAME for the South China Sea is is "South Sea" 南海.

Its WESTERNERS AND JAPANESE who call it the "South China Sea". China never said it was the south china sea and doesn't claim the sea as its territorial waters. China claims the spratly islands, and the surrounding waters as its EEZ.

China has never claimed that the nine dashed line were its maritime boundaries. It claimed the islands and their EEZs.

The map shows the geographic features and political boundaries of southeast asia. It doesn't show the spratly islands as part of Annam.

Islands in Paracel and Spratly ware in territory of Vietnam and controlled by Nguyen warlords and Nguyen Dynasty of Vietnam from ancient time.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Islands in Paracel and Spratly ware in territory of Vietnam and controlled by Nguyen warlords and Nguyen Dynasty of Vietnam from ancient time.

Stop showing map wich chinese character, the more you show the more i have feeling to live in the tributary state period of vietnam.

 

[gambit]

@jhungary the more you write the easier you are making yourself another record breaking joke of the world pretending no more than a wishful thiinking wikipedia "professional". @gambit is marginally better.

I am not dealing with you directly because you are writing trashes all along all the time. Hate to see your trash again. They are so negligible and you keep on harping your "professionalism" and offering a "lecture" to the forum.

Now if you are not pretending you are blind at the moment, what do you see in the vids:

Harrier:

F-35:

Me "Afraid " of a comedian? yeah because the jokes are so vile and the pretentious "professional" and impudent attitudes just make us SICK!

you dont like my dealing with you before then you are asking for a beating and now you are seeing how you are trying make yourself the mega-sized arse of the universe !!



and who is the "armchair General". I never proclaim I am proficient in military. You consistently hold yoursellf to be the "military" professional and now you are embarrassingly revealed as no more than a couch amature whose ‘professionalism“ is gained by clicking a lot harder into the wikipedia webpages PLUS your claiming of military deployment in mid east

You continues to show how utterly incompetent you are at doing basic research and the real joke is STILL on you, kid...

So what if the video shows the F-35B can take off vertically?

But here is the catch...

F-35B performs first vertical take-off

The US Marine Corps' short take-off and vertical landing variant had a requirement to perform vertical take-offs right from the outset of the JSF programme. However, the capability is not emphasised because the F-35B would not be able to carry a tactically significant payload in that configuration.

Operationally, the USMC envisions its F-35Bs performing short rolling take-offs carrying a full load of ordnance and fuel, and then performing a vertical landing once the aircraft returns to the amphibious assault ship or expeditionary airfield.

The B variant can do a vertical take off. BUT NOT LIKELY IN FULLY LOADED COMBAT CONFIGURATION.

Same for the Harrier...

Harrier at Miramar MCAS 2009

With a combat load, the Harrier is more likely to do a rolling takeoff, as it uses a lot of fuel to do a vertical take off (and it may not actually generate enough lift as well)!

The Pulitzer Prizes | Far From Battlefield, Marines Lose One-Third of Harrier Fleet

In 31 years of flight, however, the Harrier's vaunted ability to take off vertically has never been used in combat -- only in training exercises, air shows and the 1994 film "True Lies," when Arnold Schwarzenegger commandeers a Harrier to save Miami from a terrorist attack.

So even for a current aircraft capable of VTOL -- Harrier -- the reality is that a fully combat loaded configuration severely discouraged vertical take off if simply out of fuel (range) consideration. The F-35B will be the same.

You think that just because you can hunt up that F-35B vertical take off vid and use it to make a couple of Americans look stupid? No. It actually made you look even MORE stupid than you already are.

Here is a little bit of critical thinking for you...

If we designed the Harrier to land vertically, it stands to reason that we should make it powerful enough to take off vertically. But it also stands to reason that IF a Harrier is to land vertically, MOST LIKELY it will be far lighter when it left, as in less weapons and less fuel. When a helo comes in for landing -- vertically -- he must be able to take off again in the event of an emergency. Same for the Harrier. As he returns from a combat mission, he will be lighter -- weapons and fuel -- and he will be confident that if he needs to maneuver -- fore, aft and/or laterally -- while jockeying for a landing spot, he will have enough engine power to lift himself up again, if necessary.

And that is why we perform vertical take off tests for the Harrier and the -35B. So that make post 207 technically correct.

And who is really getting an intellectual beating now?

YOU.

 

[gambit]

@USAHawk785

Funny, how Gambit mentions guns control in China and totally ignores the fact that South Korea and Japan also have heavy gun controls paws in place, most Japanese and South Koreans will not see a handgun in their lifetimes, LOL.

You missed the point. No surprise there.

The point is that not one of you ever gotten close to a bullet, let alone a nuclear weapon, so how can any of you Chinese ever know what it is like to be in fear of and in war and combat? You do not. It is no wonder that you guys talk so easy about 'nuking' someone.

War is not even an intellectual abstraction for you because the word 'intellectual' imply an objective and impartial analyses of why we fight each other, how we fight each other, and the consequences of conflicts, national and personal level. Do you know any Chinese soldier who suffers from PTSD or lost a limb? Have you ever attended a military funeral for a combat death? I will answer for you: No.

I have no problems saying that if ever a PLA missileer officer meet you or any of the Chinese members here the way you are, he would laugh in your face for the pathetic way you guys carry yourselves on the Internet about 'nuking' people, if he is kind.

 

[shuttler]

You continues to show how utterly incompetent you are at doing basic research and the real joke is STILL on you, kid...

So what if the video shows the F-35B can take off vertically?

But here is the catch...

F-35B performs first vertical take-off

The B variant can do a vertical take off. BUT NOT LIKELY IN FULLY LOADED COMBAT CONFIGURATION.

Same for the Harrier...

Harrier at Miramar MCAS 2009


The Pulitzer Prizes | Far From Battlefield, Marines Lose One-Third of Harrier Fleet

So even for a current aircraft capable of VTOL -- Harrier -- the reality is that a fully combat loaded configuration severely discouraged vertical take off if simply out of fuel (range) consideration. The F-35B will be the same.

You think that just because you can hunt up that F-35B vertical take off vid and use it to make a couple of Americans look stupid? No. It actually made you look even MORE stupid than you already are.

Here is a little bit of critical thinking for you...

If we designed the Harrier to land vertically, it stands to reason that we should make it powerful enough to take off vertically. But it also stands to reason that IF a Harrier is to land vertically, MOST LIKELY it will be far lighter when it left, as in less weapons and less fuel. When a helo comes in for landing -- vertically -- he must be able to take off again in the event of an emergency. Same for the Harrier. As he returns from a combat mission, he will be lighter -- weapons and fuel -- and he will be confident that if he needs to maneuver -- fore, aft and/or laterally -- while jockeying for a landing spot, he will have enough engine power to lift himself up again, if necessary.

And that is why we perform vertical take off tests for the Harrier and the -35B. So that make post 207 technically correct.

And who is really getting an intellectual beating now?

YOU.

that is why I said you are only marginally better that the joke!
get your medication presciptions ready when you try to debate with me

I fully understand it will be big asks of the F-35B and the Harrier to operate with full load for combat missions

In my earlier comment, I said ：

F-35 naval version allows vertical take off like the Harrier
It can also carry Ospreys

（locate and check with above post)

why is wrong with this statement? Are F-35B and Harrier not capable of vertical take offs?

I guess according to both: you and the other wikipedia professional that the comment from this newspaper is not up to your class:

Some military experts believe that the new Japanese ship could potentially be used to launch fighter jets or other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically.

Since the end of WWII, the country has not wanted to build aircraft carriers because of constitutional restrictions that limit its military forces to a defensive role.

http://www.maritime-executive.com/a...argest-Warship-SInce-World-War-II-2013-08-06/

I wonder what the aircraft that the "experts" have in mind when they comented in the media!

Even disregardig the vertical take-off options, what is the length of the japanese warship? what is the min requirement of runway length for the aircraft (in the experts mind) to take offf? What is the japanese technical potential in having all the parameters met?

Is it a huge take to separate the real experts from the "fake" professionals? Do you know what is "visionary" assessment than cut-and-paste comments from wikipedia or from other sources by the "marginal better" one!? And do you understand now due to your limitations you form your "shortsightedness"? That was why I thrashed you real hard asking "are you in 100% agreement of the comment 207"!

Dont say next time why I take the beating on you. and not the "balls" to take on the poster of comment 207!

You stick your neck out this time as if you have found treasures out of your trough trying to demonstrate your "professionalism"!

Now take your pills!