What's new

Japan unveils largest warship since World War II

Status
Not open for further replies.
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....
.

We should watching how US take China to the yard with fence place like idiot pigs and give up such dirty dream.

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

It's good thing when we stated with Han Ji in our map that Islands belong to us, idiot chinese can read it no need to make translation. Japanese used Han Ji but they have been enslaving you recently.
 
.It's good thing when we stated with Han Ji in our map that Islands belong to us, idiot chinese can read it no need to make translation. Japanese used Han Ji but they have been enslaving you recently.

You can't even read and understand of your ancestor's map written in Chinese and still dare to show something that you don't even clue of what it said :lol:. As for Japanese, if they still use Kanji prove that our writting is still superior to any crap writting they have invented such Hiragana and Katakana. I defy them not to use Kanji to prove their superiority.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwVmzW1yz6M
 
@gambit

dont rush

I havent finished writing (with subsequent edit)

now read again take your pills
Har...You are done for, kiddo. In fact, you were done a long time ago.

Here is post 207...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...arship-since-world-war-ii-14.html#post4611354

There is NOTHING technically or logically wrong there. But you thought that since there is an F-35B vertical take off video floating on the Internet, may be you could turn an Air Force guy against an Army guy.

Here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...arship-since-world-war-ii-16.html#post4611714

...Was where you began to needle me into that imaginary disagreement. No matter that I said the man is correct and how many times I said it, you continued pestering me about agreeing with him 100% or not. What you tried to do was pathetically transparent. You wandered round and round and round pointlessly, all the while you thought you were being clever holding back that F-35B video.

Then when you finally broke it out, it backfired spectacularly in your face because there are plenty of public information that combat load vertical take offs are NOT PRACTICAL. Not even the venerable Harrier ever done a combat load vertical take off. It is not impossible, but simply not practical. So what the Army guy said is technically and logically true: That this latest Japanese helo carrier cannot LAUNCH the F-35B without serious structural modifications.

The Army guy did his homework. You did not.

You can write all you want but nothing is going to salvage your sorry loss of face.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everything you said also applies to the Japanese and their new ships as well.
The problem for your argument here is that the Japanese have much more MODERN naval warfare experience than China does. Whatever naval warfare institutional memory China have, it ended with the tall ships era, the kind with sails. Not only that, the Japanese Navy also have far more international exercise experience with other navies, particularly with US. And you simply do not turn down an invite from the US Navy, if you know what is good for your own navy. Currently, the Japanese Navy will teach the PLAN many lessons and with the South Koreans, they will sink the PLAN.

As for not letting people near the guns, conscription in mainland has ended but conscription is mandatory for all males in Taiwan. The government ensures almost everyone except the sons of officials get to hold a rifle at least once in their life and get subjected to the worst abuses by the officers. Almost everyone hates it and does their best to avoid it if they can. My father, all of my uncles on both sides of the family served as conscripts and some of them were stationed at Jinmen (not during the battle) and my great uncle served at Jinmen (Kinmen) during both of the battles over the island (the so called "strait crises"). People would shoot themselves while stuck there even during peacetime. I'm pursuing my higher studies here, nobody can drag me into the ROC military as long as I'm staying here and there is plenty of civilians with guns and bullets in America so I've been near a few.
And I bet that all those who avoided, by hook or by crook, conscription service would not talk as tough as you are. What is even worse for you is that you, by admission, is a member of that avoidance club and SHOULD refrain from talking smack about warfare and combat. And I do not care if you even if you actually shot a firearm. I used that bullet analogy to make a rhetorical point, not to be literal.

This is what make you even worse than your fellow Chinese from the mainland. At least they are conscript rejects while you actively avoided service. The irony is eminently tasty: A Taiwanese who works hard to avoid compulsory military service while at the same time side with the mainland Chinese talking big about 'nuking' other countries.

At least the mainland Chinese, being conscript rejects, have a good excuse...:lol:
 
Yes, because we dare to take the risk such as enter Korea war knowing that U.S was the winner of WWII, not only possessed Nukes but nuked Japan as well, we still didn't back down, you can imagine if we reach the parity. But I'm not quite sure about U.S if Americans will back down or not knowing that their own homeland will turn into dust as well in order to stir trouble for China.

No matter what, reaching parity is crucial for China to deal with U.S, than make alliance will be next to get even

It's not the matter of YOU DARE TO TAKE RISK, actually, do you understand your own point to begin with??you are talking about America not using Proxies to restrain China, and we simply don't care what China dare or dare not to do.

Fact is, what you refer to is called "Bluffing" meaning you say you do something to throw off your opponent means. To either discourage your opponent or scare them from doing something, very widely use in Poker.

Bluffing cannot be used once the action of "Threat" were carry out, once we did it, we expect you to attack us as a possible consequence. Once the action is taken, we are taking in the bluff

For US, we don't really care what China want to do or dare to do, we do according to our own interest, it's American second interest to look after other people interest. We WILL and have used Japan or other country as pawn even if that could mean an all out war. It's not the matter of China dare to do what but instead it should be What did the American dare to do.

All I know is, if you want a fight, WE WILL FIGHT BACK, it has been like this for the last 100 years, and it will never changes.

And I laugh out really hard on your comment

reaching parity is crucial for China to deal with U.S, than make alliance will be next to get even

IN the first paragraph, you insulted the Russia for calling them a paper tiger (By implying they don't dare to do anything) yet in the last sentence, you suggesting China will form an alliance with that paper tiger and topple the US.........


I do not play video games. Even though am Air Force, I do not even have Flight Simulator. The last video game I played was 'Missile Command' in the nickel arcade in pre historic (Internet) era. :lol:

But I do know enough of today's video games that all weapons are perfect. If I missed, it is my fault, never the weapon. That is what these guys grew up with -- perfect weapons from video games. Not one of them has ever been in the military, sometimes forced to rely upon your wits to solve a problem. In the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, literally lives were at stake and lives were lost because of mechanical doo-dads that failed to work at a crucial time. You and I know that, albeit in different times, and in your case, the fear of weapons failure is much more intense and real. The most fearful feeling I ever had was take the M4 off safety and hope this Air Force issued rifle would work. These ya-hoos do not have these knowledge and feelings, not even like mine. Ever. To them, war and combat, the way they talk about them, is no more real than a video game. Hence the juvenile 'thermonuclear' this or 'megaton' that.

I have stood in front of a pair of B61s hung on an F-111E. They look plain and ordinary. Almost like external fuel tanks or even harmless travel pods. The Chinese members here do not know what the totality of fear -- emotional, physical, and intellectual -- is like. For me, when I stood in front of those B61s, the fear was intellectual. In my hands holding a WSO navigation cartridge, I had the fate of millions of human beings who never knew that their homes were at one time in history marked for nuclear destruction. China does not allow these guys proximity to a .22 caliber bullet, let alone a nuclear bomb, so how are they to know even at the intellectual level, the horror of what they so casually talk about in dealing out nuclear destruction to the 'inferior' Asiatics they believe we are?

They do not even know how pathetic they look as a group in front of the world.

There were this phase called "A day short and a dollar late", this phase keep getting out OVER AND OVER again during my trip in the middle east. People never see real battle will come out and expect everything falling into plans and you did your battle according to the stuff that you plan way before hand, tragedy is, some soldier have a difficulty to even achieve the most basic plan that they lay ahead before entering a battlefield, that is to get out alive.

Soldier do die from ill preparedness, most likely thru some one else fault, the problem is, result is one and the same, you died.

Civvies tend to overlooking the harsh stuff that real battle have to offer, and trying to take technology for granted, in reality it was, they have absolutely

I don't know how the fear materialized 30 thousand feet in the air, but 0 feet into the ground, your fear is very real. Time to time you get carry away with all the technology and you started to rely them on saving your behind, it may be true 30 thousand feet in the air (Actually I don't know) but on the ground, technology DOES NOT MATTER everytime you kick down a door or when you trying to clear a house.

And LOL on the Air Force Issue M4 comment, I know by looking at my AFO how you fly boy would handle a carbine, it is not that scary for us as we know for sure our rifle work as we wish, maintaining the carbine is the first thing they teach us in the Army, and it's the only thing you need to remember and actually do regularly in the field..

Well said, my friend. ;)

Thank you


...snip...

well, can't online for 14 hours and all the fun was gone. I was so psyched when I want to debunk your post, but then gambit burst it before I can get online.......

this is my post as of #207, I HAVE NOT CHANGE ANYTHING

People should need a lecture before they post technical post here......

Many things is simply wrong, with either deliberate wrong interpretation of facts or omission of some facts..

1.) F-35B is NOT a VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) aircraft, its a STOVL (Short Take Off, Vertical Landing)

You cannot operate a fully fuelled and fully armed STOVL planes off a LHD like Hyuga or Izumo, you either need a long flight deck or Ski Jump to operate a fully fuelled and armed STOVL Craft.
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

F-35B is most likely to replace AV-8B or BAe Harrier II with navy operating long flight deck LHA or Ski Jump mini carrier, Izumo and Hyuga have NEITHER

HMS Ocean and HMS Illustrious both have similar general characteristic, both 200 (+ Change) meters long and with 32 meters beam and both weighted about 20000 tonnes, the only fact that HMS Ocean are not certified for Harrier Operation simply because they do not have Ski Jump.

2.) Japanese have their own say on what they want, they are bounded by "THEIR OWN" constitution, which they can change as they wish. They are not bounded by any treaty nor International Governance.

3.) I keep seeing people say "Carry", what you can carry DOES NOT MATTER, what you can launch did, you can carry F-35B with a Cargo ship, does that mean you can launch a F-35B on a cargo ship deck??

Please do get the facts right before you make any post here.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...ship-since-world-war-ii-14.html#ixzz2bXdCQ7dE

Notice the red bolded fonts........

You can of course perform a Vertical Take off on a F-35B or Harrier, the term "STOVL" means Short Takes Off, VERTICAL LANDING, meaning the craft can perform a Vertical landing. In theory, how you go down you can use the same way to come up, but do you realise you need to factor in ONE TINY BIT OF DIFFERNECE when you are doing combat launch? YOU NEED FUEL AND MUNITIONS.

With fuel and Munitions, the aircraft is much heavier and require a bigger lift (or Thrust) to push the F-35B into the air, Thrust provided by the giant fan is NOT ENOUGH for said lift off. Hence F-35B can never perform a Vertical Takes off with combat load.

Just because they can take off vertically empty loaded does not make a Fighter Jet VTOL.. Or maybe when JMSDF decided to use a "Casino Carrier", they may try to issue it with F-35B for Air Show. :lol:

Again, I don't even need to tell you my brother was in the Air Force in the 80s and now a test engineer for Boeing responsible for the Trent Engine used in Boeing 747 and 767. Have you got any more question for me??

Damnit, missed the chance to laugh at you hard first. @gambit, save me some next time :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Battle of Yalu River (1894)

800px-Battle_of_the_Yellow_Sea_by_Korechika.jpg


The Battle of the Yalu River (simplified Chinese: 黄海海战; traditional Chinese: 黃海海戰; pinyin: Huáng Hǎi Hǎizhàn; Japanese:Kōkai-kaisen (黃海海戰 lit. Naval Battle of the Yellow Sea)), was the largest naval engagement of the First Sino-Japanese War, and took place on September 17, 1894, the day after the Japanese victory at the land Battle of Pyongyang. It involved ships from the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Chinese Beiyang Fleet. The battle is also known by a variety of names: Battle of Haiyang Island, Battle of Dadonggou, Battle of the Yellow Sea and Battle of Yalu, after the geographic location of the battle, which was in the Yellow Sea off of the mouth of the Yalu River and not in the river itself. There is also no agreement among contemporary sources on the exact numbers and compositions of each fleet.


Admiral Sukeyuki Ito had his flag aboard the cruiser Matsushima with two dispatch vessels as escort; the converted-liner Saikyo Maru, British Captain John Wilson commanding; and the gunboat Akagi. The Japanese Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Kabayama Sukenori was on a tour of inspection and aboard Saikyo. The rest of the main body consisted of the cruisers Chiyoda, Itsukushima, Hashidate, Fusō and Japanese corvette Hiei. A flying squadron, composed of the cruisers Yoshino, Takachiho, Akitsushima and Naniwa, led the Japanese vessels. The Japanese advanced on the Beiyang Fleet in a column with the flying squadron leading in line astern formation with the dispatch vessels off to the port of the second squadron where the flagship was sailing.

Admiral Ding attempted to form his fleet into a southward facing line abreast with the strongest ships (Dingyuan, Zhenyuan) in the center. Newer Jiyuan, Guangjia, Chih Yuen, Jingyuan, Laiyuan, Jingyuen, and obsolete Chaoyong, Yangwei, lined from left to right. The 4-ship group led by Pingyuan had to catch up from having escorted a convoy upriver and only joined around 14:30, in time to chase off the Saikyo.

With his main squadron to the left of the Chinese, Admiral Itoh ordered the Japanese flying squadron to strike at the weak right Chinese flank. Observing his enemy's tactical movements, Admiral Ding realized that his formation prevented the Chinese battleships in the center from firing, because their smaller cruisers were between them and their opponents, and also exposed the smaller, more lightly armored ships to prolonged fire from the larger Japanese warships. In addition, with the Japanese squadrons split, the Chinese were forced to divide their fire between the two groups.

Several different explanations have been put forward as to why the Beiyang fleet did not change their formation to react to the Japanese tactics more effectively. Per Royal Navy Lieutenant William Ferdinand Tyler, stationed on Dingyuan, Admiral Ding ordered his ships to change course in such a way that would have exposed his ship, the flagship, but put the rest of the squadron in a good position to fire on the Japanese fleet; however, that Dingyuan’s captain out of cowardice deliberately did not acknowledge this order or pass it on to the rest of the fleet. Instead, he ordered Dingyuan to fire its main guns before the Japanese were in range. As captain, he was aware of the consequences – when the German Navy took Dingyuan out for gun trials in 1883, it was discovered that firing the main battery directly forward resulted in the destruction of the flying bridge. In what is now known as fragging, Admiral Ding’s legs were crushed under the wreckage of the flying bridge from the opening shot of his own vessel, and was thus out of combat for the remainder of the battle.[1] Most of his staff officers on the bridge were likewise injured or killed. The situation was worsened when the Japanese destroyed Dingyuan’s foremast, making it impossible for the flagship to signal the rest of the fleet. The Chinese fleet, with some foresight, had anticipated something like this happening and formed into three pairs of mutually supporting vessels to carry the fight on.

According to an account from James Allan, an officer aboard the U.S.-flagged supply ship Columbia, who witnessed the battle, rumors abounded that Admiral Ding deferred command to Major Constantin von Hannecken. He opined that it was not surprising that the Chinese had suffered such losses if an Army officer was directing a Naval fleet.[3]

The Chinese fleet opened fire on the Japanese fleet as they passed from port to starboard, across the bows of the Chinese vessels. They failed to score any significantly damaging hits on the Japanese with their 12 inch (305 mm) and 8.2 inch (208 mm) guns. At about 3000 yards (2700 m) (the Chinese had been steadily closing the range), the Japanese concentrated their fire on the right flank of the Chinese line, with devastating barrages poured into the Chaoyong and Yangwei. Both those vessels burst into flames, because of their heavily varnished and polished wooden surfaces[4]. Burning fiercely, both tried to save themselves by beaching.

As the Japanese ships opened fire, the Jiyuan turned and fled, followed by the Guangjia. The Jiyuan was hit only once, while the Guangjia got lost, ran aground and was scuttled a few days later by its own crew.

The Japanese had intended on swinging the flying division around the right flank of the Chinese line in an encirclement but the timely arrival of the Kuang Ping and Pingyuan and torpedo boats Fu Lung (built at Schichau) and Choi Ti, a Yarrow built vessel diverted this maneuver.

The Japanese fast cruisers veered to port and were then dispatched by Admiral Itoh to go to the assistance of Hiei, Saikyo and Akagi which had been unable to keep up with the main line, and had then been engaged by the left-hand vessels of the Chinese line when Saikyo tried to finish off the beached Yangwei.

The Japanese fleet had a numerical and tactical advantage in their more reliable, better-maintained ordnance over the Beiyang fleet, which fought with limited stocks, consisting of older foreign ammunition and shoddy domestic products.[5] Japanese shells set four Chinese vessels ablaze, destroying three. However, firefighting was well organized on the Chinese vessels. For example, the Laiyuan burned severely, yet kept firing[6]. Dingyuan stayed afloat and had a casualties of 14 dead and 25 wounded, but a total of about 850 Chinese sailors were lost in the battle with 500 wounded.

The remnants of the Beiyang Fleet retired into Lüshunkou for repairs, but was withdrawn to Weihaiwei to avoid a second encounter with the Japanese fleet during the Battle of Lushunkou. The Japanese did not pursue the retreating ships, as Dingyuan and Zhenyuan were only slightly damaged, and the Japanese had no way of knowing that the battleships suffered from a lack of ammunition.[1] The Beiyang Fleet was finally destroyed by a combined land and naval attack during the Battle of Weihaiwei.

The defeat of the Beiyang Fleet at the Battle of Yalu River was a major propaganda victory for Japan, with many major European newspapers, including the London Times, Le Temps and Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti providing front page coverage and crediting the Japanese victory to its rapid assimilation of western methods technology.[1] Many credited the prompt action of foreign advisers in the Beiyang Fleet (most notably McGiffin) from keeping the fleet from total annihilation, and for keeping even the most heavily damaged Chinese ships fighting till the very end of the engagement. Some military analysts, notably U.S. Secretary of the Navy, Hilary A. Herbert called the battle ‘nearly a draw’ – although the Chinese had lost several warships, the Japanese had suffered considerable damage, and if the Chinese ammunition had been of higher quality, the outcome might have been different.[1]

The Qing dynasty government, after initially denying that its fleet had been defeated laid the blame for the Chinese defeat on the shoulders of Viceroy Li Hongzhang and Admiral Ding Ruchang, both of whom were demoted and stripped of honors. Their subordinates and relatives also suffered from the same fate. However, both men remained in their posts, and would oversee the final destruction of the Beiyang Fleet at Waihaiwei. While it was not the first battle involving pre-dreadnought technology on a wide scale (the Battle of Foochow in the 1884 Sino-French War predated it), there were significant lessons for naval observers to consider.


RESULT: Decisive Japanese victory


Reference: Wikipedia

LOL!! You are taking a 100 years old example as current reference? Do you want me to bring up 2000 years old thing when American and Japan were barbaric and still uncivilised? :lol:

Now! China has a industry that outpace Japan... Now China is world second largest economy power. Please live in the real world now and not 100 or even 50 years old thing.
 
And LOL on the Air Force Issue M4 comment, I know by looking at my AFO how you fly boy would handle a carbine,...
The funny thing is that after I got out, I became far more proficient with my FAL 308 than with the M4 when I was active duty. I still would like to budget for an M4, though.
 
We WILL and have used Japan or other country as pawn even if that could mean an all out war. It's not the matter of China dare to do what but instead it should be What did the American dare to do.

This is what I always said. When I read the the history of Japan and particularly the period starting from the Opium Wars as illustrated in the Kaigai Shinwa up to the point of Japan's surrender to USA chronologically, I quickly realized this fact. I don't know, may be, my brain allows me to analyze matters instantly.

But Chinese won't get it. Their brains don't make them understand such simple matter. You need to read Arthur De Gobineau to know why Chinese don't and won't get it.
 
LOL!! You are taking a 100 years old example as current reference? Do you want me to bring up 2000 years old thing when American and Japan were barbaric and still uncivilised?
The problem for your argument is the question how many conflicts between China and the Europeans or between China and Japan 2000 yrs ago? :lol:

Now! China has a industry that outpace Japan... Now China is world second largest economy power. Please live in the real world now and not 100 or even 50 years old thing.
Money cannot buy experience, especially combat experience. Which 'real world' are you living in?
 
The problem for your argument is the question how many conflicts between China and the Europeans or between China and Japan 2000 yrs ago? :lol:


Money cannot buy experience, especially combat experience. Which 'real world' are you living in?

When did I say money can buy experience but without money. You cant buy fanciful toys and not to even mention provide fuel for training... Do you want me to give you an example like Greece is facing? While Turkey is growing? I can be sure Hellanic Block 52 F-16 is rotting in hangar and their pilot skill is as rusty as sea water tin can..
 
When did I say money can buy experience but without money. You cant buy fanciful toys and not to even mention provide fuel for training... Do you want me to give you an example like Greece is facing? While Turkey is growing? I can be sure Hellanic Block 52 F-16 is rotting in hangar and their pilot skill is as rusty as sea water tin can..
Then given Japan's recent history of besting Russia and China in naval warfare, you should think twice before boasting about China's wealth. If the Japanese want to, they call allocate more funds from other national programs to gain more and better training from US. This is where China's wealth is irrelevant.
 
Then given Japan's recent history of besting Russia and China in naval warfare, you should think twice before boasting about China's wealth. If the Japanese want to, they call allocate more funds from other national programs to gain more and better training from US. This is where China's wealth is irrelevant.

100 years old and you called recent? Are you high on drugs? :lol:
 
The problem for your argument here is that the Japanese have much more MODERN naval warfare experience than China does. Whatever naval warfare institutional memory China have, it ended with the tall ships era, the kind with sails. Not only that, the Japanese Navy also have far more international exercise experience with other navies, particularly with US. And you simply do not turn down an invite from the US Navy, if you know what is good for your own navy. Currently, the Japanese Navy will teach the PLAN many lessons and with the South Koreans, they will sink the PLAN.


And I bet that all those who avoided, by hook or by crook, conscription service would not talk as tough as you are. What is even worse for you is that you, by admission, is a member of that avoidance club and SHOULD refrain from talking smack about warfare and combat. And I do not care if you even if you actually shot a firearm. I used that bullet analogy to make a rhetorical point, not to be literal.

This is what make you even worse than your fellow Chinese from the mainland. At least they are conscript rejects while you actively avoided service. The irony is eminently tasty: A Taiwanese who works hard to avoid compulsory military service while at the same time side with the mainland Chinese talking big about 'nuking' other countries.

At least the mainland Chinese, being conscript rejects, have a good excuse...:lol:

you are getting closer to the core of the mentally challenged

so you have taken your pills and come back? yes?

If I havent done my homework which is not quite necessary anyway but to bust fake wiki / marginally better 'professional" some clicks on the internet and readings have been done

who quoted the "marinetime-executive" link and statement and the youtube videos on which you keep your diatribes

Of course the experts have done their homeworks and gave insightful visions in just a few concise words, whereby our wiki professional / marginally better 'professional' have written pages of rubbish only to further confirm ther levels as the wike and marginally better "professional"s respectively!

are you ready to joint the ranks of cheerleading? Time to take your pills.

Now you people almost spoil my time of watching some matches and the latest indian Sindhu lost to the Thai girl Ratchanok Intanon [seeded 4] 0-2. indians can now pack their bags and go home.

100 years old and you called recent? Are you high on drugs? :lol:

exactly. The guy has missed his "pill" time!
 
It's not the matter of YOU DARE TO TAKE RISK, actually, do you understand your own point to begin with??you are talking about America not using Proxies to restrain China, and we simply don't care what China dare or dare not to do.

Fact is, what you refer to is called "Bluffing" meaning you say you do something to throw off your opponent means. To either discourage your opponent or scare them from doing something, very widely use in Poker.

Bluffing cannot be used once the action of "Threat" were carry out, once we did it, we expect you to attack us as a possible consequence. Once the action is taken, we are taking in the bluff

For US, we don't really care what China want to do or dare to do, we do according to our own interest, it's American second interest to look after other people interest. We WILL and have used Japan or other country as pawn even if that could mean an all out war. It's not the matter of China dare to do what but instead it should be What did the American dare to do.

All I know is, if you want a fight, WE WILL FIGHT BACK, it has been like this for the last 100 years, and it will never changes.

And I laugh out really hard on your comment



IN the first paragraph, you insulted the Russia for calling them a paper tiger (By implying they don't dare to do anything) yet in the last sentence, you suggesting China will form an alliance with that paper tiger and topple the US.........




There were this phase called "A day short and a dollar late", this phase keep getting out OVER AND OVER again during my trip in the middle east. People never see real battle will come out and expect everything falling into plans and you did your battle according to the stuff that you plan way before hand, tragedy is, some soldier have a difficulty to even achieve the most basic plan that they lay ahead before entering a battlefield, that is to get out alive.

Soldier do die from ill preparedness, most likely thru some one else fault, the problem is, result is one and the same, you died.

Civvies tend to overlooking the harsh stuff that real battle have to offer, and trying to take technology for granted, in reality it was, they have absolutely

I don't know how the fear materialized 30 thousand feet in the air, but 0 feet into the ground, your fear is very real. Time to time you get carry away with all the technology and you started to rely them on saving your behind, it may be true 30 thousand feet in the air (Actually I don't know) but on the ground, technology DOES NOT MATTER everytime you kick down a door or when you trying to clear a house.

And LOL on the Air Force Issue M4 comment, I know by looking at my AFO how you fly boy would handle a carbine, it is not that scary for us as we know for sure our rifle work as we wish, maintaining the carbine is the first thing they teach us in the Army, and it's the only thing you need to remember and actually do regularly in the field..



Thank you




well, can't online for 14 hours and all the fun was gone. I was so psyched when I want to debunk your post, but then gambit burst it before I can get online.......

this is my post as of #207, I HAVE NOT CHANGE ANYTHING



Notice the red bolded fonts........

You can of course perform a Vertical Take off on a F-35B or Harrier, the term "STOVL" means Short Takes Off, VERTICAL LANDING, meaning the craft can perform a Vertical landing. In theory, how you go down you can use the same way to come up, but do you realise you need to factor in ONE TINY BIT OF DIFFERNECE when you are doing combat launch? YOU NEED FUEL AND MUNITIONS.

With fuel and Munitions, the aircraft is much heavier and require a bigger lift (or Thrust) to push the F-35B into the air, Thrust provided by the giant fan is NOT ENOUGH for said lift off. Hence F-35B can never perform a Vertical Takes off with combat load.

Just because they can take off vertically empty loaded does not make a Fighter Jet VTOL.. Or maybe when JMSDF decided to use a "Casino Carrier", they may try to issue it with F-35B for Air Show. :lol:

Again, I don't even need to tell you my brother was in the Air Force in the 80s and now a test engineer for Boeing responsible for the Trent Engine used in Boeing 747 and 767. Have you got any more question for me??

Damnit, missed the chance to laugh at you hard first. @gambit, save me some next time :lol:


oh any long passage of no more than wiki level of comments from a "wki" professional

dont give "lectures" when you are just as good as that level!

if you are capable read this from another link

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130806/NEWS08/308060008/Photo-gallery-Japan-unveils-largest-warship-since-World-War-II

which confims the same statement:

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom