Japan unveils largest warship since World War II

[jhungary]

When he posted that video of the vertical take off -35B, and I was actually waiting for him to do so, it was not a white flag but a white sheet. Like the kind they used to cover the face of a dead person, which in his case is his failure to do basic research and exercise critical thinking. This guy is an intellectual zombie. He can use the keyboard to search for information, but like the movie zombies that can only stumbles about, he can only stumbles around the sources he found.

LOL, you need to give him some time to try and dig up some remotely creditable resource and try to spin it his way, even then, you will still come out laughing out loud and he would have eventually turn himself into a corner.

Every body know about the video he post, in fact when said video (The one that he post) was linked in PDF, I remember me and you had already comment on the video. And yet he is trying to get "FACE SAVING MEASURE" and try to say we neglect to know that video exist, I almost drop to the ground when I read his line.......

Gold stars work for an internet "worrior", all speculation, no hindsight. He probably think all the other people in this forum can't actually read, like him

What i was trying to get at is: even we nothing we dare to fight U.S with stones and primitive arms, when we reach the parity, Japan is Cuba for us, we will risk everything as how Americans did with Cuba crisis. And Americans are not the only one who know how to defend its interests: China only have regional interest to defend unlike U.S has to defend it interest on every corner of this world, if it's in American's interest to use proxy against China then we will put American's global domination on check such as Africa, Middle East, Central Asia and even their own backyard South America, U.S will not have a smooth sail with it foreign policy and quest for global domination...I think Americans already feel China's gravity weight around the world...that how AFRICOM was created.

As for Russia I have never said that it was a paper tiger, you just insinuated that and sneakly try another opportunity to stir up trouble? And I have never suggest to form alliance with Rusisa, you just make your own assumption.

Fair Enough, I wasn't trying to do anything, again, if your country feel the need to develop said weapon, I can't do anything about it, it's your money, not mine.

Same goes with Japan and whatever the hell they wanted to develop is on them, not on the Chinese, you guys don't really need to jump up and down about this ship.

 

[yusheng]

China and US Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) July 10-11, 2013

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/07/211862.htm

China and US strategy talking including

"Build healthy, stable, and reliable military-to-military ties: Senior civilian and military officials used the July 9 Strategic Security Dialogue to address some of the most sensitive issues in the bilateral relationship, expanding their discussion this year from cyber and maritime security to missile defense and nuclear policy. To build confidence, our two militaries agreed to actively explore a notification mechanism for major military activities and continue to discuss the rules of behavior for air and maritime activities."

In some kid eye, we are all independent country, we can do whatever we like, so such talking between China and US is nothing, bloody ignorant of world politics.

 

[yusheng]

Fair Enough, I wasn't trying to do anything, again, if your country feel the need to develop said weapon, I can't do anything about it, it's your money, not mine.

Same goes with Japan and whatever the hell they wanted to develop is on them, not on the Chinese, you guys don't really need to jump up and down about this ship.

it is our right that we Chinese can jump up and down with reason about that ship, but you don't need to jump up and down with us and automatically defend Japanese, do you have reason ，why are you so happy to jump up and down with us ? or just maybe you have jap blood in your body since you are so crossbred?

take a look about how American jumping up and down about Chinese military expension.

 

[+4vsgorillas-Apebane]

Yes, I do. A person's lifetime is one generation. Japan defeated Russia and China on the waters not too long ago, eh? Am sure you can find a few old timers in China who will remember.

Your old but not THAT old and have no entitlement to call that war 'recent'. That was a long time ago by all human standards, unless you have transcended you humanity like you've let go of your Vietnamese heritage.

If your going to talk about a naval war over a century ago, you might as well start talking about the battle of Noryang point where Ming and Korean naval forces decimated the Japs in Korea. Or add in the battle of Baekgang where a tiny Tang navy destroyed the much larger Yamato fleet. Whats a few century to a hard and learned old man like you?

 

[shuttler]

Not anything regarding to technical rebuttal of my Post 207



Not anything regarding to technical rebuttal of my Post 207



Not anything regarding to technical rebuttal of my Post 207

So you have no technical point AT ALL to rebut my post 207 in your last post. I see hot air, but I don't see anything technical, then I consider this CASE CLOSED, end of story, thank you for trolling, now please make like a tree. Thank you

Next time when you have to doubt other Professional in this forum, please do make some technical sense, otherwise it will be you who come out sounding like an idiot, but being a 9 to 5 Chinese (Worrior), I guess being technical is not your primary concern

you keep on acting in cockiness like you're struggling to get out from a pool of quick sand! still presuming you're a professional made out of hard clicking sources from wikipedia?

I have made my statements very clear. Trace them back if you can.

Challenge any technical mistakes mentioned per my quotes from Navytime.com and the other about the same statement from maritime-executive.com which I quoted for gambit. Go ahead!

You are sucking into deeper holes of no salvation but more intensive humiliation created by your impudence and arrogance!

Want to give us a lecture again? wikipeidia professional?

Still delusional about some of the forumers are "armchair generals" and you are a true professional? Have you gotten any interviews from any media,? Have you written any articles, books or literature on military technicalities? are you a consultant on military affairs? Have you been summoned to court giving your affidavit as an expert witness on military technology?

I declare once more I am an amateur in military affairs and technologies and I am having fun reading postings related to these matters on PDF. Haha I feel ultra funny when the arrogant self-proclaimed "professionals" are acting up so much arguing with me on military technology when I can also find easily about the same sources from wikipedia as reference for strengthening my expertise!

Same goes with Japan and whatever the hell they wanted to develop is on them, not on the Chinese, you guys don't really need to jump up and down about this ship.

You are acting like a nanny!

Let's see how far the japanese can go for this. No need for you to jump up and down, side by side blowing trumpets where not many people will like to listen to!

 

[gambit]

you keep on acting in cockiness like you're struggling to get out from a pool of quick sand! still presuming you're a professional made out of hard clicking sources from wikipedia?

I have made my statements very clear. Trace them back if you can.

Challenge any technical mistakes mentioned per my quotes from Navytime.com and the other about the same statement from maritime-executive.com which I quoted for gambit. Go ahead!

Kid...Your own sources challenged YOU...

Here is post 207...

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

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.

Here is YOUR navytimes.com source...

Photo gallery: Japan unveils largest warship since World War II | Navy Times | navytimes.com

And here is what YOUR source says, if you had bothered to read the entire article...

Though technically a destroyer, some experts believe the new Japanese ship could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically. That would be a departure for Japan, which has one of the best-equipped and best-trained naval forces in the Pacific but which has not sought to build aircraft carriers of its own because of constitutional restrictions that limit its military forces to a defensive role.

Japan says it has no plans to use the ship in that manner.

The Izumo does not have catapults for launching fighters, nor does it have a “ski-jump” ramp on its flight deck for fixed-wing aircraft launches.

The phrase 'some experts' in the quoted first paragraph DOES NOT equate to US Navy experts. DOES NOT. You are still ignoring that 'critical thinking' skill I pointed out many times. The highlighted sentence is what you missed. MISSED. And you missed it because you were so eager to prove you are correct.

Those 'some experts' said:

'...could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically...'.

You have been shown that vertically launching a combat loaded Harrier is impractical because of fuel consumption during that vertical take off process that cut into combat considerations such as range and loiter time. So when those 'some experts' said: '...other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically...' They mean FUTURE fighters that can take off vertically without affecting those crucial combat considerations.

Get it?

And the last sentence that I quoted from the navytimes.com article fully support post 207 in all technical aspects, that the Izumo -- for now -- cannot launch the current crop of V/STOL aircraft like the Harrier or the Lightning II -- in their combat load configurations -- because of the lack of a ramp.

Your own source debunked YOU. Not us.

You are sucking into deeper holes of no salvation but more intensive humiliation created by your impudence and arrogance!

No. It has been YOU who have been digging his own hole and now the readers are looking down at you in that hole, shaking their heads in pity for you and the rest of the Chinese crowd here.

Want to give us a lecture again? wikipeidia professional?

We have been lecturing you and trying to educate you -- in vain. You proved you are too stupid to understand what we have presented to you even when we did it in bits and pieces, the way a special education teacher normally does to a special education need child.

I declare once more I am an amateur in military affairs and technologies...

And we declare you to be, not just an amateur in basic research and critical thinking, but utterly INCOMPETENT at them. An amateur can improve and usually amateurs do improve. But you and the rest of the Chinese crowd here proved INCOMPETENT which is far worse because the word 'incompetent' implies inability which also implies character trait.

Let's see how far the japanese can go for this. No need for you to jump up and down, side by side blowing trumpets where not many people will like to listen to!

The Japanese can and will go farther, quicker, and sooner with this new ship than you Chinese conscript rejects think possible.

 

[shuttler]

Kid...Your own sources challenged YOU...

Here is post 207...

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

Here is YOUR navytimes.com source...

Photo gallery: Japan unveils largest warship since World War II | Navy Times | navytimes.com

And here is what YOUR source says, if you had bothered to read the entire article...

The phrase 'some experts' in the quoted first paragraph DOES NOT equate to US Navy experts. DOES NOT. You are still ignoring that 'critical thinking' skill I pointed out many times. The highlighted sentence is what you missed. MISSED. And you missed it because you were so eager to prove you are correct.

Those 'some experts' said:

'...could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically...'.

You have been shown that vertically launching a combat loaded Harrier is impractical because of fuel consumption during that vertical take off process that cut into combat considerations such as range and loiter time. So when those 'some experts' said: '...other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically...' They mean FUTURE fighters that can take off vertically without affecting those crucial combat considerations.

Get it?

And the last sentence that I quoted from the navytimes.com article fully support post 207 in all technical aspects, that the Izumo -- for now -- cannot launch the current crop of V/STOL aircraft like the Harrier or the Lightning II -- in their combat load configurations -- because of the lack of a ramp.

Your own source debunked YOU. Not us.


No. It has been YOU who have been digging his own hole and now the readers are looking down at you in that hole, shaking their heads in pity for you and the rest of the Chinese crowd here.


We have been lecturing you and trying to educate you -- in vain. You proved you are too stupid to understand what we have presented to you even when we did it in bits and pieces, the way a special education teacher normally does to a special education need child.


And we declare you to be, not just an amateur in basic research and critical thinking, but utterly INCOMPETENT at them. An amateur can improve and usually amateurs do improve. But you and the rest of the Chinese crowd here proved INCOMPETENT which is far worse because the word 'incompetent' implies inability which also implies character trait.


The Japanese can and will go farther, quicker, and sooner with this new ship than you Chinese conscript rejects think possible.

chill out marginal
repeating the same damn things a million times wont improve your marginal status

try to challenge the validity of the statement that I quoted from marinetime-executive. com

if you are boring to find someone to talk so as to live out of your boredom, blow your trumpets with the "wiki" professional again!

dont forget to take your pills!

 

[gambit]

chill out marginal
repeating the same damn things a million times wont improve your marginal status

try to challenge the validity of the statement that I quoted from marinetime-executive. com

if you are boring to find someone to talk so as to live out of your boredom, blow your trumpets with the "wiki" professional again!

dont forget to take your pills!

We are STILL waiting for that supposedly long post from you that supposedly will prove beyond any reasonable doubts that you are correct. Where is it?

How pathetic for any debater...Your own source proved you wrong...

 

[shuttler]

We are STILL waiting for that supposedly long post from you that supposedly will prove beyond any reasonable doubts that you are correct. Where is it?

How pathetic for any debater...Your own source proved you wrong...

go back to my comments where it contained the link. you are such a nuisance!

 

[hurt]

Kid...Your own sources challenged YOU...

Here is post 207...

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

Here is YOUR navytimes.com source...

Photo gallery: Japan unveils largest warship since World War II | Navy Times | navytimes.com

And here is what YOUR source says, if you had bothered to read the entire article...

The phrase 'some experts' in the quoted first paragraph DOES NOT equate to US Navy experts. DOES NOT. You are still ignoring that 'critical thinking' skill I pointed out many times. The highlighted sentence is what you missed. MISSED. And you missed it because you were so eager to prove you are correct.

Those 'some experts' said:

'...could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically...'.

You have been shown that vertically launching a combat loaded Harrier is impractical because of fuel consumption during that vertical take off process that cut into combat considerations such as range and loiter time. So when those 'some experts' said: '...other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically...' They mean FUTURE fighters that can take off vertically without affecting those crucial combat considerations.

Get it?

And the last sentence that I quoted from the navytimes.com article fully support post 207 in all technical aspects, that the Izumo -- for now -- cannot launch the current crop of V/STOL aircraft like the Harrier or the Lightning II -- in their combat load configurations -- because of the lack of a ramp.

Your own source debunked YOU. Not us.


No. It has been YOU who have been digging his own hole and now the readers are looking down at you in that hole, shaking their heads in pity for you and the rest of the Chinese crowd here.


We have been lecturing you and trying to educate you -- in vain. You proved you are too stupid to understand what we have presented to you even when we did it in bits and pieces, the way a special education teacher normally does to a special education need child.


And we declare you to be, not just an amateur in basic research and critical thinking, but utterly INCOMPETENT at them. An amateur can improve and usually amateurs do improve. But you and the rest of the Chinese crowd here proved INCOMPETENT which is far worse because the word 'incompetent' implies inability which also implies character trait.


The Japanese can and will go farther, quicker, and sooner with this new ship than you Chinese conscript rejects think possible.

Idiot

 

[gambit]

try to challenge the validity of the statement that I quoted from marinetime-executive. com

Sure...Here is what the maritime-executive.com article said...

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

The launch of the gigantic Japanese destroyer, Izumo, has also reportedly sparked concern in China because it strongly resembles a conventional aircraft carrier. Work on Izumo has been ongoing since 2009.

Yes. The Izumo is large and large enough that it gives the impression that it is NOT a helo carrier whose main operational capability is amphibious assault support.

But here is the clincher that agreed with the navytimes.com article...

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.

See that? It says the same thing as the navytimes.com article, especially with that 'other aircraft' phrasing. It means the Izumo cannot launch the current crop of V/STOL fighters in their combat load configuration.

What is the use of vertically launching a Harrier or a Lightning II if you can only launch it with no weapons? But if you do so launch them with their combat load, and both fighters can, and if the fuel consumption is great enough that it cuts into range and loiter time, then what use is it anyway?

Is that critical thinking process too difficult for you?

You brought on two sources that you failed to read and exercise critical thinking about them in respect to what we have given you. Both articles debunked YOU. Not us.

Leave the discussion. It can only get worse for you.

Idiot

You are correct. Your fellow Chinese is an idiot in continuing to pursue this when his own two sources debunked him. Not us.

 

[gambit]

And by the way, the use of the word 'gigantic' in the maritime-executive.com article indicate the article was written by no 'expert' but a hack. A length of 820 ft is 'gigantic'?

 

[shuttler]

Sure...Here is what the maritime-executive.com article said...

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

Yes. The Izumo is large and large enough that it gives the impression that it is NOT a helo carrier whose main operational capability is amphibious assault support.

But here is the clincher that agreed with the navytimes.com article...


See that? It says the same thing as the navytimes.com article, especially with that 'other aircraft' phrasing. It means the Izumo cannot launch the current crop of V/STOL fighters in their combat load configuration.

What is the use of vertically launching a Harrier or a Lightning II if you can only launch it with no weapons? But if you do so, and both fighters can, and if the fuel consumption is great enough that it cuts into range and loiter time, then what use is it anyway?

Is that critical thinking process too difficult for you?

You brought on two sources that you failed to read and exercise critical thinking about them in respect to what we have given you. Both articles debunked YOU. Not us.

Leave the discussion. It can only get worse for you.

I dont think your arguments and credentials are better than the stated links

Your opinion does not have as good an impact as the sources from quoted links

In fact the same comments can be found in hundreds of reputable media. Click and you can find pages over pages of it being quoted

If you do not agree then write to the editors one by one.

I believe the experts whom the media quoted are real experts. Accept the fact you are marginal and take the pills!

I still have another source. But the above is enough to deal with the marginals. What the heck!

Dont spoil my fun reading other threads on PDF! There are many better ways to kill your boredom!

 

[gambit]

I dont think your arguments and credentials are better than the stated links
You opinion does not have as good an impact as sources from quoted links
In fact the same pattern can be found in hundreds of reputable media. Click and you can find pages over pages of it being quoted
If you do not agree then write to the editors one by one.

I believe the experts whom the media quoted are real experts. Accept the fact you are marginal and take the pills!

I still have another source. But the above is enough to deal with the marginals. What the heck!

Wrong. My arguments are exactly in line with your own sources. I did not said those sources were technically incorrect in anyway. Rather, I pointed out they agreed with us. Not with you.

 

[hurt]

Wrong. My arguments are exactly in line with your own sources. I did not said those sources were technically incorrect in anyway. Rather, I pointed out they agreed with us. Not with you.

technically? A IAD talk about technically?