What's new

The French Navy Stands Up to China

faithfulguy said:
I saw that you had strong military background. But I do not directly see how that is correlated to your understanding of physics in many of your postings. Actually, what you had posted is that strong knowledge in military intelligence does not correlate to strength in knowledge of science.
Click to expand...

How about I minored applied physics? And I have offered a PhD Studies with computer science? I don't want to say that because it feel like I have been using my academic background to outrank you.

You have to come from Physics and Mathematics background to get in the Military Intelligence field, because a lot of their work are either EM related (Such as EMCON or ISSM/SIGNIT) or encryption/decryption related. You cannot be consider to be in the Military Intelligence branch if you are not good in Physics or Mathematics or both.

So, to answer your question, you have to be good in science otherwise you will have a hard time graduating from AIC, that is if you get in AIC in the first place at all.

I do see lots of mudslings between you and the other members who pointed out your misstatements of facts. Such as general relatively cover the science of quantum mechanics. I know that this is patently false. Please at least read up on Wikipedia on what are going to post next time because it shows your lack of basic understanding of physics.
Click to expand...

I don't see how the other person have a high level of education to begin with, let alone in the field of physics. And you know what? So do you.

I did not see him explain why a missile can travel in High G turn when the graph he supplied did not even have enough variable to calculate the actual value. On the other hand, my brother is a Mechanical Engineer and work with Boeing, even he said Missile cannot proceed with a High G turn without because the structural strength of a missile cannot endure it. Yet, he claim it can do it without provide facts or how.

I am not interested in yours, his, or anyone background, you can be a Wikipedia nerd and with no educational background, as long as you try to argue with me in detail with creditable evidence. But he is not actually doing that.

If you can provide creditable reference and said I am wrong, I am more than happy to look at it and if I was indeed wrong, I will admit I am wrong.

Also, a lot of his comment is unattainable militarily. Such as he claim China can use Merchant Navy and supplies the whole fleet all the way to France without any port call along the way, which is not doable because normal commercial shipping does not design with underway replenishment at sea. Nor was he even understand the meaning of replenishment. He also did not understand missile limitation and the warfighting technique, nor how ISTAR delay can affect DF-series missile accuracy.

Yet, he still think all his point in the aforementioned military related topic is correct and I am wrong, even tho if you have any remote military experience in any given branch on any military service, you would probably laugh out loud on his answer right the way.

He also failed at general aviation knowledge, as @gambit pointed out.

antonius123 said:
LOL. Doesnt require guts to bust you anywhere :laugh:

As I told you: go ahead, you can repost your funy physics, and your nonsense opinion regarding missiles etc that we are debating here, then invite me to join; we'll see the outcome. ;)




LOL. Dream on... as the matter of fact I F you up here till your credibility and dignity stripped away, and you've become laughing stock.

I hope you still can focus on your work, as I know feeling of defeat is uneasy while the shame is unbearable. :omghaha::omghaha:

Thank you for entertaining us ... and let me sleep a log .. :enjoy:
Click to expand...

LOL. I did, you can search it on PDF and reply to me, I have written 27 articles that feature in this forum, it should not be hard to find, if you really have the guts to go against me, you would have done so already.

And again, you should really get your head check because if you think my creditability and dignity is stripped away, you are quite seriously mistaken. First of all, I did not see you as my peer, I see you as a kid, and you probably are. Secondly, I don't really care about what you think or you said to begin with.

And finally, the very fact that you cop the negative rating and I didn't, didn't that already suggesting I am more creditable than you? As I said, I have people all over these forum, most of them I don't even know, quote me and ask me for advice and my input, how many had asked you lately? I had one just 5 days ago.

Se Bastante Bien? :omghaha::laugh:

I am not going to reply to you on this thread anymore, as I said, you are my entertainment, I come F you upif and when I have time, if not, you are not that important to me to make fun of. And unlike you, I have a job so, adios.
 
Last edited:
jhungary said:
How about I minored applied physics? And I have offered a PhD Studies with computer science? I don't want to say that because it feel like I have been using my academic background to outrank you.

You have to come from Physics and Mathematics background to get in the Military Intelligence background, because a lot of their work are either EM related (Such as EMCON or ISSM/SIGNIT) or encryption/decryption related. You cannot be consider to be in the Military Intelligence branch if you are not good in Physics or Mathematics or both.

So, to answer your question, you have to be good in science otherwise you will have a hard time graduating from AIC, that is if you get in AIC in the first place at all.



I don't see how the other person have a high level of education to begin with, let alone in the field of physics. And you know what? So do you.

I did not see him explain why a missile can travel in High G turn when the graph he supplied did not even have enough variable to calculate the actual value. On the other hand, my brother is a Mechanical Engineer and work with Boeing, even he said Missile cannot proceed with a High G turn without because the structural strength of a missile cannot endure it. Yet, he claim it can do it without provide facts or how.

I am not interested in yours, his, or anyone background, you can be a Wikipedia nerd and with no educational background, as long as you try to argue with me in detail with creditable evidence. But he is not actually doing that.

If you can provide creditable reference and said I am wrong, I am more than happy to look at it and if I was indeed wrong, I will admit I am wrong.



LOL. I did, you can search it on PDF and reply to me, I have written 27 articles that feature in this forum, it should not be hard to find, if you really have the guts to go against me, you would have done so already.

And again, you should really get your head check because if you think my creditability and dignity is stripped away, you are quite seriously mistaken. First of all, I did not see you as my peer, I see you as a kid, and you probably are. Secondly, I don't really care about what you think or you said to begin with.

And finally, the very fact that you cop the negative rating and I didn't, didn't that already suggesting I am more creditable than you? As I said, I have people all over these forum, most of them I don't even know, quote me and ask me for advice and my input, how many had asked you lately? I had one just 5 days ago.

Se Bastante Bien? :omghaha::laugh:

I am not going to reply to you on this thread anymore, as I said, you are my entertainment, I come F you upif and when I have time, if not, you are not that important to me to make fun of. And unlike you, I have a job so, adios.
Click to expand...

When you talk about how you don’t want to use your background to brag about yourself. You did exactly that. Also, we should only be judged by our statements. Not about our background, as that can be made up. In any case, since you have not make any more assertions on physics in your last post except talk about your background or your family, I have no further comments. But I wish the best for you and your family and I admire your background as your life stories can easily be made into a great movie.

I will also refrain from comment on what you assert about what others have said as well.
 
faithfulguy said:
When you talk about how you don’t want to use your background to brag about yourself. You did exactly that. Also, we should only be judged by our statements. Not about our background, as that can be made up. In any case, since you have not make any more assertions on physics in your last post except talk about your background or your family, I have no further comments. But I wish the best for you and your family and I admire your background as your life stories can easily be made into a great movie.

I will also refrain from comment on what you assert about what others have said as well.
Click to expand...

Oh well...…

In any case, we can all just empty talk here, since I don't know who you are and you don't know who I am, best we can do is to keep the discussion civilize.

Anywho, talk to you later.
 
The Royal Navy has a grand total of 6 Type 45 guided missile destroyers.

Type 45 at Scotstoun Dry Dock.
FtPmIHt.jpg


Compare to the dry dock at Dalian Shipbuilding.
Mycwwe1.jpg


3 cruisers and 5 destroyers under construction at the same time. The ships in this one picture outgun the entire Royal Navy destroyer fleet.
Z7Y11fM.jpg


For those that don't know, Dalian double launched 2 cruisers simultaneously yesterday.
FDRCm7I.gif
 
Last edited:
AAM can have high g turn,else it does not make sense.if I am not wrong,it has a derivation relation.
g=v·v/r
 
jhungary said:
How about I minored applied physics? And I have offered a PhD Studies with computer science? I don't want to say that because it feel like I have been using my academic background to outrank you.
Click to expand...

We are talking basic physics which is the subject in junior high school.

If you have wrong understanding and difficult to understand the basic how come you are eligible for PHD? :laugh:

Your friend gambit and you keep accusing me fraud, while your funny physics has busted your fraud.


You have to come from Physics and Mathematics background to get in the Military Intelligence field, because a lot of their work are either EM related (Such as EMCON or ISSM/SIGNIT) or encryption/decryption related. You cannot be consider to be in the Military Intelligence branch if you are not good in Physics or Mathematics or both.

So, to answer your question, you have to be good in science otherwise you will have a hard time graduating from AIC, that is if you get in AIC in the first place at all.
Click to expand...


If that is the case, then we wonder how come you could be accepted in the military intelligence field?

Your funny physics and nonsense prove you must be lying.

I don't see how the other person have a high level of education to begin with, let alone in the field of physics. And you know what? So do you.
Click to expand...


Strong Evidences in this thread prove the opposite, you are the one who doesnt have high level education to begin with.

I did not see him explain why a missile can travel in High G turn when the graph he supplied did not even have enough variable to calculate the actual value. On the other hand, my brother is a Mechanical Engineer and work with Boeing, even he said Missile cannot proceed with a High G turn without because the structural strength of a missile cannot endure it. Yet, he claim it can do it without provide facts or how.
Click to expand...

Either you are denial, or you dont have enough education and intelligence to grasp.

It doesnt take a genius to see that surface control can make turn, the higher the speed the higher G force. If you cant understand that then you are not eligible for university.

I had given explanation above, you did not say why you dont agree or what make you difficult to understand, even you cant response at all.


I am not interested in yours, his, or anyone background, you can be a Wikipedia nerd and with no educational background, as long as you try to argue with me in detail with creditable evidence. But he is not actually doing that.
Click to expand...

LOLs. It is you who talk nonsense and bring no evidence, what a delusional :laugh:


Also, a lot of his comment is unattainable militarily. Such as he claim China can use Merchant Navy and supplies the whole fleet all the way to France without any port call along the way, which is not doable because normal commercial shipping does not design with underway replenishment at sea. Nor was he even understand the meaning of replenishment. He also did not understand missile limitation and the warfighting technique, nor how ISTAR delay can affect DF-series missile accuracy.
Click to expand...


Evidence say the opposite:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2015/09/26/canada-to-lease-commercial-vessel-to-refuel-navy-ships/

Dont say i havent given this to you. You didn't response that as usual. You always ignore evidence. :lol:


LOL. I did, you can search it on PDF and reply to me, I have written 27 articles that feature in this forum, it should not be hard to find, if you really have the guts to go against me, you would have done so already.
Click to expand...


LOLs. If that is the case then you are the chicken :laugh: :omghaha:

If you have gut, why dont you put your nonsense physics and argument to other thread wherever you want, then invite me there? Dare you? :lol:

And again, you should really get your head check because if you think my creditability and dignity is stripped away, you are quite seriously mistaken. First of all, I did not see you as my peer, I see you as a kid, and you probably are. Secondly, I don't really care about what you think or you said to begin with.
Click to expand...


LOLs. You are not good at lying :lol:

Evidence said you care about me and what I have been saying. Otherwise you want come back to me with petty debate, even you shouldnt have responded me at all. LOL :laugh:

And finally, the very fact that you cop the negative rating and I didn't, didn't that already suggesting I am more creditable than you? As I said, I have people all over these forum, most of them I don't even know, quote me and ask me for advice and my input, how many had asked you lately? I had one just 5 days ago.
Click to expand...


Well all people disagree with you.

This is evidence that your good rating is not in line with your capacity.

I must remind you again: Your funny physics and nonsense become laughing stocks :sarcastic:

Se Bastante Bien? :omghaha::laugh:

I am not going to reply to you on this thread anymore, as I said, you are my entertainment, I come F you upif and when I have time, if not, you are not that important to me to make fun of. And unlike you, I have a job so, adios.
Click to expand...


Oww I have heard that several times before .. and you still keep coming to me pushing me with petty debates in the mid of your busy job - even if you cant response my evidence and core discussion; even you were still talking about me when you were discussing with others. :wave: That shows I am very important for you as I have busted you - dignity is torn and the shame is unbearable :omghaha: :lol:

As I said you are not a good liar :laugh:
 
antonius123 said:
Evidence say the opposite:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2015/09/26/canada-to-lease-commercial-vessel-to-refuel-navy-ships/
Click to expand...
This is why we laugh at you.

Gary said UNDERWAY REPLENISHMENT. Your source above say nothing about being 'underway'. Do you understand the meaning of the word 'underway'?

Here it is...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underway_replenishment

It means the target vessel and the resupply vessel are at speed, not stationary. Underway replenishment requires unique hardware set up that not every ship can be converted. The Asterix was converted. What Gary was saying was that you cannot simply take any civilian ship and turn it into a resupply ship for UNDERWAY replenishment.

From your source...
...it would take around 15 months to complete the conversion of Asterix so it can be used to refuel and resupply Navy vessels.
Click to expand...
That is over one yr of modification. That is not what we are talking about.

Your failure to read and understand your sources is why you continue to prove yourself an idiot.
 
gambit said:
This is why we laugh at you.

Gary said UNDERWAY REPLENISHMENT. Your source above say nothing about being 'underway'. Do you understand the meaning of the word 'underway'?

Here it is...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underway_replenishment

It means the target vessel and the resupply vessel are at speed, not stationary. Underway replenishment requires unique hardware set up that not every ship can be converted. The Asterix was converted. What Gary was saying was that you cannot simply take any civilian ship and turn it into a resupply ship for UNDERWAY replenishment.

From your source...

That is over one yr of modification. That is not what we are talking about.
Click to expand...


I dont care Gary meant underway replenishment or not and he did not argue anything, while I am talking about replenishment though not underway but China can do with her own speed, and her navy can circle earth.
https://www.wired.com/2013/01/china-new-oiler/

LOL. You really have problem with your ability to comprehend the context of debate as terrible as your funny physics and your other nonsense claims :lol:


Your failure to read and understand your sources is why you continue to prove yourself an idiot.
Click to expand...

You are talking about yourself :laugh: :lol:

@Davos see how your friend with such a title use that kind of word. Dont you want to give advice and request penalty for him to moderator?
 
Last edited:
@gambit

He have a tendencies NOT TO READ HIS OWN source.

If you read the whole page of his quote

https://www.wired.com/2013/01/china-new-oiler/

NOT ONCE did the page mentioned China can circle the globe because of these small ship beside the title. In fact, the article is actually talked about how Chinese did not have enough of these AORs to resupply the fleet they had and forcing their own Carrier in home water....

LOL :omghaha:

I am really busy as of now to go do a lot of research and argue with this mambo. If you want, keep at it lol
 
jhungary said:
@gambit

He have a tendencies NOT TO READ HIS OWN source.

If you read the whole page of his quote

https://www.wired.com/2013/01/china-new-oiler/

NOT ONCE did the page mentioned China can circle the globe because of these small ship beside the title. In fact, the article is actually talked about how Chinese did not have enough of these AORs to resupply the fleet they had and forcing their own Carrier in home water....

LOL :omghaha:

I am really busy as of now to go do a lot of research and argue with this mambo. If you want, keep at it lol
Click to expand...


LOLs. You still show same low quality, poor in reading comprehension and intelligence :lol:

Keyword: "did", "had" and it was written in 2013

So yes now china should be capable to circle the earth.

When will you be a little bit smarter? :omghaha:
Otherwise you will fail with your current research :laugh: :laugh:
 
Last edited:
@gambit @jhungary @Davos

According to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Fleet_Auxiliary#Replenishment
Britts only has 6 replenishment ship and 9 auxiliary ships

While according to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_ships#Auxiliaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Fleet_Auxiliary#Replenishment
China has 18 replenishment ship + 232 auxiliary ships

Tell me if Britts navy with only 6 replenishment ships + 9 auxiliary ships can circle earth, why China navy with 18 replenishment ships + 232 auxiliary ships can't? :lol:
 
Last edited:
antonius123 said:
@gambit @jhungary @Davos

According to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Fleet_Auxiliary#Replenishment
Britts only has 6 replenishment ship and 9 auxiliary ships

While according to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_ships#Auxiliaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Fleet_Auxiliary#Replenishment
China has 18 replenishment ship + 232 auxiliary ships

Tell me if Britts with only 6 replenishment ship + 9 auxiliary ships can circle earth, why China with 18 replenishment ships + 232 auxiliary ships can't? :lol:
Click to expand...

First of all, Chinese does not have 232 aux ship, China have 7, as I said before Commercial Ship cannot be used to supply fleet, without onboard crane and gantry, unless you want to load 20 tons of beer, meat, fruit munition box by box with hands, you have to be able to open the bulkhead to unload supplies.

And if you have to count Chinese Merchant Ship, then UK did not just have 6 replenishment + 9 aux ship, UK have 504 1000+ GRT ship in her merchant navy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Navy_(United_Kingdom)

Second of all, something UK have and China don't have, overseas bases.

UK have the following Permanent Overseas Naval Base outside UK mainland

UK Mainland (North Atlantic)
Ascension Island (Mid Atlantic)
Falkland Island (South Atlantic)
Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean)
Gibraltar (Mediterranean Sea)
Cyprus (Mediterranean Sea)
Bahrain (HMS Jufir) (Persian Gulf)

All these bases are owned by the UK and in UK Overseas territories (except Bahrain) and that is before UK invoke the commonwealth status. Which basically give UK the access of all commonwealth country bases in the world, that included Canada, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and so on.
 
jhungary said:
First of all, Chinese does not have 232 aux ship, China have 7, as I said before Commercial Ship cannot be used to supply fleet, without onboard crane and gantry, unless you want to load 20 tons of beer, meat, fruit munition box by box with hands, you have to be able to open the bulkhead to unload supplies.

And if you have to count Chinese Merchant Ship, then UK did not just have 6 replenishment + 9 aux ship, UK have 504 1000+ GRT ship in her merchant navy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Navy_(United_Kingdom)

Second of all, something UK have and China don't have, overseas bases.

UK have the following Permanent Overseas Naval Base outside UK mainland

UK Mainland (North Atlantic)
Ascension Island (Mid Atlantic)
Falkland Island (South Atlantic)
Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean)
Gibraltar (Mediterranean Sea)
Cyprus (Mediterranean Sea)
Bahrain (HMS Jufir) (Persian Gulf)

All these bases are owned by the UK and in UK Overseas territories (except Bahrain) and that is before UK invoke the commonwealth status. Which basically give UK the access of all commonwealth country bases in the world, that included Canada, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and so on.
Click to expand...


Why you always deny fact and insist BS? This is your bad habit that you consistently demonstrate in every section of this forum and make people who doesnt share same opinion & belief with you get frustrated to have discussion with you. :frown::smokin:

Listen the following figure carefully! and count them by yourself:

Chinese 18 Replenishment ship (Evidence) :
Fleet replenishment has been an expanding element in PLAN auxiliaries. The PLAN view the need of replenishment ships as vital for blue water fleet operations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_Surface_Force#Fleet_replenishment​

Chinese 232 Auxiliary Ships (Evidence) :

List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships is a list of ships currently in active service with the People's Liberation Army Navy. There are approximately 496 ships listed in the tables below that constitute active ships, but this figure does not include the 232 various auxiliary vessels of the PLAN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_ships#Auxiliaries

You can count by yourself here:

List of Chinese Auxiliary Ships
Hospital ships (3 ships)
Icebreakers (6 ships)
Barracks ship (1 ship)
Troop transport/ferry & cargo (6 ships)
Type 679 training ship (Daxing-class) (3 ships)
Cargo transport (27 ships)
Coastal oil tankers (29 ships)
Yuan Wang-class ballistic missile tracking ship (6 ships)
Type 815 spy ship (Dondiao-class) (8 ships)
Oceanographic surveillance ships (3 ships)
Oceanographic research, meteorological and hydrographic survey ships (27 ships)
Type 925 submarine support ship (Dajiang-class) (11 ships)
Torpedo trials/retriever (9 ships)
Weapons trials (3 ships)
Sonar trials (1 ships)
Experimental ships (1?)
Rescue and salvage (8 ships)
Dive tender (2 ships)
Tug boats (60 ships)
Degaussing & deperming (10 ships)
Cable laying (8 ships)
Buoy tenders (7 ships)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_Surface_Force#Auxiliaries​


As you can see those 232 auxiliary ships are not commercial ships!! And that figure obviously dwarf Britts only 6 replenishment and 9 auxiliary vesells .:dirol:

If you are still denial after reading this fact, then I have no more words for a proper discussion with you, as you cant see fact palpably brought into infront of your eyes while u keep pushing your delusion. :cuckoo:
 
Last edited:
antonius123 said:
Why you always deny fact and insist BS? This is your bad habit that you consistently demonstrate in every section of this forum and make people who doesnt share same opinion & belief with you get frustrated to have discussion with you. :frown::smokin:

Listen the following figure carefully! and count them by yourself:

Chinese 18 Replenishment ship (Evidence) :
Fleet replenishment has been an expanding element in PLAN auxiliaries. The PLAN view the need of replenishment ships as vital for blue water fleet operations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_Surface_Force#Fleet_replenishment​

Chinese 232 Auxiliary Ships (Evidence) :

List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships is a list of ships currently in active service with the People's Liberation Army Navy. There are approximately 496 ships listed in the tables below that constitute active ships, but this figure does not include the 232 various auxiliary vessels of the PLAN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_ships#Auxiliaries

You can count by yourself here:

List of Chinese Auxiliary Ships
Hospital ships (3 ships)
Icebreakers (6 ships)
Barracks ship (1 ship)
Troop transport/ferry & cargo (6 ships)
Type 679 training ship (Daxing-class) (3 ships)
Cargo transport (27 ships)
Coastal oil tankers (29 ships)
Yuan Wang-class ballistic missile tracking ship (6 ships)
Type 815 spy ship (Dondiao-class) (8 ships)
Oceanographic surveillance ships (3 ships)
Oceanographic research, meteorological and hydrographic survey ships (27 ships)
Type 925 submarine support ship (Dajiang-class) (11 ships)
Torpedo trials/retriever (9 ships)
Weapons trials (3 ships)
Sonar trials (1 ships)
Experimental ships (1?)
Rescue and salvage (8 ships)
Dive tender (2 ships)
Tug boats (60 ships)
Degaussing & deperming (10 ships)
Cable laying (8 ships)
Buoy tenders (7 ships)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_Surface_Force#Auxiliaries​


As you can see those 232 auxiliary ships are not commercial ships!! And that figure obviously dwarf Britts only 6 replenishment and 9 auxiliary vesells .:dirol:

If you are still denial after reading this fact, then I have no more words for a proper discussion with you, as you cant see fact palpably brought into infront of your eyes while u keep pushing your delusion. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

First of all, as I said. type 901 and type 904 are both not replenishment ship, 904 is general store, which by the way, lacking the crane, would not be class as even underway ship. 901 is a Combat Support Ship.

And if you count all this (Tug, Ice Breaker, troopship and everything), then British does not just have 9 auxiliary vessel like you said Because.

RFA :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Fleet_Auxiliary

Tide Class Replenishment (1 ship)
Wave Class Replenishment (2 ships)
Fort Victoria Class Replenishment (1 ship)
Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment (2 ships)
Bay Class Dock Landing Ship (3 Ships)
Aviation Training Ship (RFA Argus) (1 ship)
Point Class Sealift (4 ships)
Royal Research Ship (4 Ships)
Tanker (MV Maersk Rapier) (1 ship)

RFA total - 19 ship

Royal Navy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Royal_Navy_ships

Ice Breaker (HMS Protector)
Ocean Survey (HMS Scott)
Survey Launch (HMS Magpie)
Echo Class Multipurpose Survey (2 ship)

Royal Navy Total : 5

Serco Marine Service

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_Serco_Marine_Services

Worldwide support ship (1)
Multi-purpose ship (1)
Anchor handling tug (1)
Heavy lift ship (1)
Moor-class diving support vessels (2)
Multicat 2510-class recovery vessels (2)
Multicat 2613-class utility boat (1)
Recovery vessels (2)
Coastal oilers (4)
Damen ART 80-32 tug (1)
Impulse-class tugs (2)
ASD 2509-class tugs (2)
ATD 2909-class tugs (4)
Twin Unit Tractor Tugs (5)
STAN 2608-class tugs (3)
ASD 2009-class tugs (4)
Felicity-class water tractors (4)
Pushy Cat 1204-class tugs (2)
STAN 1405-class tug (1)
Trials vessels (2)
Storm-class tenders (2)
Newhaven-class tenders (3)
Padstow-class tender (1)
Oban-class tenders (3)
Personnel ferries (2)
Fleet tenders (3)
STAN 1505-class tenders (3)
STAN 1905-class tenders (3)
Serco Marine Service (62 Ships)

Total combine would be 86 ships just between Royal Navy, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and Serco Marine Service. There are unknown number of Merchant Navy ship operating in RN capacity. + all the UK Overseas bases around the world, while its common knowledge Chinese Navy is YET to break the first island chain.

LOL at you try to count ALL the ship in PLAN and just count selected supply ship with the Royal Navy, EITHER YOU ARE TOO MAMBA TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF REPLENSIHMENT AS SUGGESTED, OR YOU LIED OUTRIGHT.

Either way, I rest my case, liar :omghaha::omghaha::laughcry::laughcry:

LOL
 

Similar threads

Viet
Vietnam said to plan military buildup on South China Sea footholds
Replies
1
Views
346
REhorror
R
Viet
Vietnam rapidly builds up South China Sea reef
Replies
0
Views
255
Viet
Viet
Reashot Xigwin
Philippines Removes Sea Barrier Set up by China
Replies
10
Views
613
KAL-EL
KAL-EL
Hamartia Antidote
US, Indonesia and 5 other nations hold war drills amid China concerns
Replies
0
Views
305
Hamartia Antidote
Hamartia Antidote
auspice
Australian, US, Filipino forces practice retaking an island in a drill along the South China Sea
Replies
2
Views
393
Reashot Xigwin
Reashot Xigwin

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom