Warship Discussions

[octopusonhead]

You are the first who did that, so don't get hurt when i speak out the truth.

Your the one who first said:

"This is the US technology, those South Koreans cannot build anything with their own.

Meanwhile, this ship is overweighed, it is almost 2000 tons more than the Arleigh Burke Flight IIA, but the gas turbine is the same."


Yeah, talking about how South Koreans can't build anything on their own? And I started it?

Your pretty delusional, I don't know what kind of lala land your off living in, but I'm living in reality. Everything I've stated has been fact, your words have been lies, like venom spilling off the fangs of a cobra.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

lol, not only do you have a crap attitude, your a f'ing liar. Your saying I'm the one who first started it?

Your the one who first said:

"This is the US technology, those South Koreans cannot build anything with their own.

Meanwhile, this ship is overweighed, it is almost 2000 tons more than the Arleigh Burke Flight IIA, but the gas turbine is the same."


Yeah, talking about how South Koreans can't build anything on their own? And I started it?

Your pretty delusional, I don't know what kind of lala land your off living in, but I'm living in reality. Everything I've stated has been fact, your words have been lies, like venom spilling off the fangs of a cobra.

The MK41 vertical launch system is American, the Aegis radar is American, the gas turbine is American.

Pretty much everything crucial is American, all South Koreans can build is the ship hull.

See, i was telling the truth.

 

[octopusonhead]

Yeah and so what?

You think every single thing in the Chinese military was originally designed and created in China?

NO, China copies the crap out of technology they get from other countries like the US, Russia, and the list goes on.

So why do you go around crapping on other countries for doing what your country does? Sounds like what a hypocrite would do.

You still haven't addressed your lies, how you said I started this, when your the one who did, and how your a hypocrite for ragging on other countries what your country does too.

The more I talk to you, the more I see how imbecilic and delusional you are.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Yeah and so what? You think every single thing in the Chinese military was originally designed and created in China?
NO, China copies the crap out of technology they get from other countries like the US, Russia, and the list goes on.

So why do you go around crapping on other countries for doing what your country does? Sounds like what a hypocrite would do.

You still haven't addressed your lies, how you said I started this, when your the one who did, and how your a hypocrite for ragging on other countries what your country does too.

You have to prove with concrete evidence that we stole the military technology from others.

Just because our aircraft has two fixed-wing and a landing gear like any other aircrafts, it doesn't mean we have copied from others, since all aircraft derived from the same fundamental design concept. A re-invention is not copying.

But talking about you South Koreans, you can't build anything without American, that's why you are pretty militarily incapable. This is the price being a small vassal state of other foreign nation.

It does hurt the national pride, but it is the truth.

 

[octopusonhead]

lol, theirs no need for concrete evidence. Because everyone in the world copies what they can
and then they try to improve on it.

For you to sit all high and mighty like the Chinese are too great to copy technology from other
countries is ludicrous.

How can you tell me I need concrete evidence when the evidence is apparent in the technology
that is in the Chinese military. Look at the jets that China copied from Russia, not to mention
anti-air missile technology.

China buys SU-27's from Russia and soon afterwards a very similar looking J-11 starts being produced.
Haha that's not copying?

I have national pride, but I don't let my pride blind me into being a fool.

Your so high up China's rear end I'm surprised you can breathe.

As far as South Korea being a small vassal state? Yeah I can agree to that.
But you know what the funniest part is? China is a f'ing vassal state too!!
China only survives because it is following the rules that have been setup
by western powers, IE the United States of America.

So for you to go around calling other states vassals and what not is so funny
because your country's a vassal as well. Look at the way China's bullied around
getting land taken away from them, still unable to get Taiwan back, yeah if China
wasn't a vassal state it probably would be able to do something about it. But alas
China is a vassal state which is why it sits and is unable to reclaim what once
belonged to her.

The worlds run by the US they decide on the policies that are dictated throughout the whole
world. Don't believe me? Then why is the US able to do whatever the F it pleases, in regards
to invading other countries, getting the whole world to set embargoes on whatever country
they decide deserves to be embargoed.

That's what you need to get into your thick skull, everything is dictated by the US, and
the countries that get out of line will have a regime change one way or the other.

You as a Chinese person aspire for your country to be in that position, maybe it will
one day, but probably not.

 

[applesauce]

As far as South Korea being a small vassal state? Yeah I can agree to that.
But you know what the funniest part is? China is a f'ing vassal state too!!
China only survives because it is following the rules that have been setup
by western powers, IE the United States of America.

i think your definition of vassal state differs from everyone else's, for one, no American bases sit inside china, no american is going to take over command of chinese soldiers during war, American concerns are much further down the list in the minds of the chinese leadership than the korean leadership. and as we all know China and the US butt head over many issues from WTO to the envioronment, hardly the behavior of a vassal state.

and the biggest difference, china follows the world rules because it benefits from it, it willing follows them, if it didnt, china might be poorer but would still exist and would still be china(case in point see after sino-soviet split but prior to US-China honeymoon, where china didnt fit in either camp and didnt follow either ones rules but china was still there) south korea on the other hand would not exists were it not for the US intervention(immediately after ww2 in the negotiations, then in the korean war) and to this day needs to count on US assistance.

and and new word of the day for ya, CO-DEPENDENCE , thats the most used current description of US-China relations, the other being competitor

 

[octopusonhead]

i think your definition of vassal state differs from everyone else's, for one, no American bases sit inside china, no american is going to take over command of chinese soldiers during war, American concerns are much further down the list in the minds of the chinese leadership than the korean leadership. and as we all know China and the US butt head over many issues from WTO to the envioronment, hardly the behavior of a vassal state.

and the biggest difference, china follows the world rules because it benefits from it, it willing follows them, if it didnt, china might be poorer but would still exist and would still be china(case in point see after sino-soviet split but prior to US-China honeymoon, where china didnt fit in either camp and didnt follow either ones rules but china was still there) south korea on the other hand would not exists were it not for the US intervention(immediately after ww2 in the negotiations, then in the korean war) and to this day needs to count on US assistance.

and and new word of the day for ya, CO-DEPENDENCE , thats the most used current description of US-China relations, the other being competitor

Hahaha, calling servitude co-dependence does not make it true.

On estimate China exports close to 17% of it's total 1.904 trillion dollar export total to the US.
That amounts to 300+ billion dollars of goods every year that is made from very low wages
just so the spoiled American people can continue to buy goods for cheap cheap prices.

What does China receive in return for 300+ billion dollars worth of goods sent to the US?
THEY GET DOLLARS!! Woot!! Dollars that every day continues to depreciate, because of the
economic policies implemented by the Federal Reserve, which is to create trillions of dollars
out of thin air to lubricate the anuses of their fellow crooked politicians and banker friends.

Year after year, the Chinese people working for what almost amounts to slave wages to make goods
that will be shipped off for American consumers who continue to demand lower and lower prices, which
only helps to keep working conditions low for the Chinese people.

When the majority of your people continue to work like serfs in low wage factory jobs just so spoiled
western countries can continue to benefit off the hard worked back of your people, yeah be blind and
call it co-dependence, lol, after my analysis can you truly call it that? It's laughable.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

lol, theirs no need for concrete evidence. Because everyone in the world copies what they can
and then they try to improve on it.

For you to sit all high and mighty like the Chinese are too great to copy technology from other
countries is ludicrous.

How can you tell me I need concrete evidence when the evidence is apparent in the technology
that is in the Chinese military. Look at the jets that China copied from Russia, not to mention
anti-air missile technology.

China buys SU-27's from Russia and soon afterwards a very similar looking J-11 starts being produced.
Haha that's not copying?

J-11B only copied the airframe of Su-27, but the avionics and engines are different now.

Since the 4th gen fighters were already obsolete compared to the F-22, thus we didn't have much time to redesign a new aircraft, instead of wasting time on 4th gen, we are focusing on 5th gen.

Now you can see that J-20 resembles neither to F-22 or T-50.

We are flexible and pragmatic, that's why we are getting better every year.

 

[Penguin]

Stop the fight guys!:sos:

Dudes, the bickering has to stop.

Russian industry wary of Su-35 sale to China
By Reuben F Johnson

3/16/2012

Russian fears that China would copy its Sukhoi Su-35 fighter aircraft may yet scupper a deal that Moscow and Beijing are reportedly close to signing for an export sale of the fighter to the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF).

A source in the Russian government told the influential Moscow daily Kommersant : "The two sides are in practical agreement regarding the delivery to the PRC [People's Republic of China] of 48 Su-35s at a cost of USD4 billion."

However, reports on this sale continue with the additional detail that "an unanticipated obstacle to the deal has emerged. Moscow is requiring that Beijing provide a legally binding guarantee that it will refrain from making reverse-engineered copies of the Russian fighter - largely so that this does not create a potential competitor in the market to sell the aircraft to other countries. China is no hurry to provide this guarantee."

Russian sources close to the Federal Service for Military-Technical Co-operation (FSVTS) state that such a guarantee "is an essential condition" of the sale. Some of the same industry sources point out that the Chinese have used their assistance from Russia or have copied designs to create competitors for almost every class of combat aircraft that Russian industry offers for export and they do not want a repeat of this experience.

Russian industry wary of Su-35 sale to China

Reverse engineering is NOT a non-issue.

The South Korean Ministry of National Defense (MND) has selected a version of the US Navy's (USN's) AEGIS combat system to equip the Republic of Korea Navy's (RoKN's) new KDX-3 anti-air warfare destroyers, once again favouring a US solution over a rival European offer.


The government-to-government Foreign Military Sales (FMS) deal is worth around US$1 billion. An initial three KDX-3 destroyers are planned, with the first due to enter service with the RoKN in 2008.

The complete article appears in the following publication:
Publication Title Jane's Navy International
Publication date Sep 12, 2002

South Korea selects AEGIS for KDX-3 destroyer - Jane's Navy International

Clearly South Korea buys/imports some systems

SOUTH KOREAN KDX DESTROYER FLEET GROWS, INTERNATIONAL DEFENCE DIGEST


South Korea has taken the first major step to grow its fleet of KDX guided missile destroyers through a Pds46 million (US$76.5m) contract with newly formed British Aerospace (BAe) Defence Systems Group. The deal covers KDCOM 2 combat management systems (CMS) to equip the initial three ships of an enhanced-capability Batch 2 KDX-class. The contract was awarded to BAe by Samsung, in-country prime contractor for the Batch 2 KDX combat system, the UK company announced last month. Under contracts awarded in 1994, BAe (then BAeSEMA) in partnership with Signaal and local companies Samsung and GoldStar, has already supplied KDCOM 1 commmand and fire control systems for the three-ship Batch 1 KDX class (see IDR 8/1998, p22). The first of these, King Kwanggaeto, entered service last year. The second, Ulchinmondo, was completing its combat system sea acceptance trials (SAT) as this issue went to press. The combat system SAT for the third ship is scheduled for late this year. Measuring approximately 5,000 tonnes, the Batch 2 KDX ships will be more capable than the smaller (4,000 tonnes) Batch 1 ships. They will have an area air defense capability through US-supplied 150km-range Standard Missile SM-2 Block IIIAs, installed in what is believed will be a 32-cell Mk 41 vertical launching system (VLS). The Batch 1 KDX has a 16-cell Mk 48 VLS armed with 15km-range RIM-7P SeaSparrows. Other combat system boosts include: - two Signaal STIR 2.4 tracking and illumination radars instead of the smaller STIR 1.8s on the Batch 1; - the replacement of one of the Batch 1's pair of Signaal 30mm Goalkeeper close-in weapon systems by a short-range surface-to-air missile system (candidates being


The complete article appears in the following publication:
Publication Title Jane's International Defence Review
Publication date Mar 01, 1999

SOUTH KOREAN KDX DESTROYER FLEET GROWS - Jane's International Defence Review

But clearly, local companies (co-)produce and/or (co-)develop systems too

 

[Penguin]

This is the US technology, those South Koreans cannot build anything with their own.

Meanwhile, this ship is overweighed, it is almost 2000 tons more than the Arleigh Burke Flight IIA, but the gas turbine is the same.

You could say the same about the Japanse, looking at their Kongo and Atago classes. And, personally, I think you would be wrong (see other classes in the JMSDF).

Sejong the Great Displacement:
8,500 tons standard displacement
11,000 tons full load

Atago Displacement:
7,700 tons standard
10,000+ tons full load

Kongo Displacement:
7,500 tons standard
9,500 tons full load

Arleigh Burke variations
Displacement, Fully loaded:
Flight I: 8,315 t (8,184 long tons; 9,166 short tons)
Flight II: 8,400 t (8,300 long tons; 9,300 short tons)
Flight IIA: 9,200 t (9,100 long tons; 10,100 short tons)
Flight III: 10,000 t (9,800 long tons; 11,000 short tons)

All data above from Wiki. Sources? Let's check first which metric was used, then compare.

lol, you haven't hurt jack, I mean I don't see anything wrong with what I said.

Thus is why your not even trying to refute my statements because you know it's true. The Chinese are Copy Cats = fact

Instead you childishly talk about hurt prides? OK you do that... : D

Dear Noob, don't let yourself be baited and don't set yourself up.

Ahhh, i must hurt your Korean pride here, but sorry, you guys now need to copy the North Korean rocket technology from the debris you got from them.

As elite member, it is not very sportsmanlike to pick on a noob.

 

[Fsjal]

Yeah and so what?

You think every single thing in the Chinese military was originally designed and created in China?

NO, China copies the crap out of technology they get from other countries like the US, Russia, and the list goes on.

So why do you go around crapping on other countries for doing what your country does? Sounds like what a hypocrite would do.

You still haven't addressed your lies, how you said I started this, when your the one who did, and how your a hypocrite for ragging on other countries what your country does too.

The more I talk to you, the more I see how imbecilic and delusional you are.

Just because something looks the same doesn't mean it's a copy. The inside would be different.

Do not be ignorant.

 

[octopusonhead]

Just because something looks the same doesn't mean it's a copy. The inside would be different.

Do not be ignorant.

Do not be ignorant? I was replying to the ChineseTiger's post because he was saying that
the Chinese military complex is above copying from other countries.

Yeah, and I'm very sure the inside can be different, but if they copied the outside I wouldn't
be too surprised if they copied some of the inside, it's only logical.

How is me posting examples of China's copied military hardware ignorant?

Seems like you got it completely backwards, cus you sound like the tard here.

lol, at Penguin for saying I'm the noob that's getting baited? All I did was make a post
about the Sejong destroyer cus I like the ship. I get some Chinese nut hugger just
bashing the ship and South Koreans, saying SK's only copy and can't make anything
on their own. To which I reply that the Chinese do a lot of copying themselves and
I'm getting baited and setting myself up? Yeah, OK, you sure your not the noob?

 

[Fsjal]

Do not be ignorant? I was replying to the ChineseTiger's post because he was saying that
the Chinese military complex is above copying from other countries.

Yeah, and I'm very sure the inside can be different, but if they copied the outside I wouldn't
be too surprised if they copied some of the inside, it's only logical.

How is me posting examples of China's copied military hardware ignorant?

Seems like you got it completely backwards, cus you sound like the tard here.

lol, at Penguin for saying I'm the noob that's getting baited? All I did was make a post
about the Sejong destroyer cus I like the ship. I get some Chinese nut hugger just
bashing the ship and South Koreans, saying SK's only copy and can't make anything
on their own. To which I reply that the Chinese do a lot of copying themselves and
I'm getting baited and setting myself up? Yeah, OK, you sure your not the noob?

Your the ignorant tarded person here. A copy is when you got everything the same, including the inside. 100% accurate. It would be almost impossible to make it a copy, since you need it to be the exact same.

Not all Chinese stuff are copied. When they make their own, it is quite advance, like their new Type 052D destroyer, Chinese version of AEGIS system.

BTW, I hate wasting time with ignorant nut hugging troll like you.

 

[gambit]

Your the ignorant tarded person here. A copy is when you got everything the same, including the inside. 100% accurate. It would be almost impossible to make it a copy, since you need it to be the exact same.

Not all Chinese stuff are copied. When they make their own, it is quite advance, like their new Type 052D destroyer, Chinese version of AEGIS system.

BTW, I hate wasting time with ignorant nut hugging troll like you.

No, it is NOT.

In engineering, a 'copy' is not a 'clone', the latter is what you are talking about. It is about using the same structures under the same design. I can copy an F-16 and uses a different ejection seat, for example, and every aviation engineers and pilots would consider it a copy, not a clone. I can even have the that copy with a different engine and it would still be a copy.

As far as the Type 052D ship goes, while it is not a true copy of the American AEGIS ships, its intended functions are the same and as such, its design are compelled to have very similar structures, features, and capabilities as the American AEGIS ship. The PLAN recognized the flexibility and usefulness of the concept and adopted it. The PLA, which includes all branches, can have Chinese industries build ships, tanks, and aircrafts to suit, but so far there has yet to be a single innovative idea in warfare and technology from China.

 

[Fsjal]

No, it is NOT.

In engineering, a 'copy' is not a 'clone', the latter is what you are talking about. It is about using the same structures under the same design. I can copy an F-16 and uses a different ejection seat, for example, and every aviation engineers and pilots would consider it a copy, not a clone. I can even have the that copy with a different engine and it would still be a copy.

As far as the Type 052D ship goes, while it is not a true copy of the American AEGIS ships, its intended functions are the same and as such, its design are compelled to have very similar structures, features, and capabilities as the American AEGIS ship. The PLAN recognized the flexibility and usefulness of the concept and adopted it. The PLA, which includes all branches, can have Chinese industries build ships, tanks, and aircrafts to suit, but so far there has yet to be a single innovative idea in warfare and technology from China.

Last part is true but China has developed some innovative technology from last year. They are growing powerful