Chinese launch first locally designed and built aircraft carrier.

[Tangmo]

You typed:
'Since Xi Jinping came to power in 2012-13 his economy has gone from GDP growth in the area of 9% to its present 2% to 4%.'

And all you post are links to holding companies and investment banks FORECASTS?
Which mean NOTHING.



So you have no proof WHATSOEVER of what you said.
So...your point means NOTHING.

I will waste no more time on this with you as clearly you consider 'forecasts' as 'raw data'.
Which is a COMPLETE joke.

Bye now.

I said "Since Xi Jinping came to power in 2012-13 his economy has gone from GDP growth in the area of 9% to its present 2% to 4%."

This fact and reality is consistent with all forecasts from then to now as I'd thought most people knew the artificial CCP economy was always on the path to collapse. It's been said the banking system that is wholly owned and operated by the CCP is built on quicksand. Indeed, the CCP economy has not had a "correction" due to artificial juggling and fast footwork. An "economic correction" is indeed long overdue. We can see one on the horizon now btw.

So it could anyway look like you weren't born before 2012 either. Which would explain your still seeming to be a loud and spoiled brat.

 

[Tangmo]

Your posts on this subject are laughably ridiculous.

Link plse thx.

 

[PoS]

Thats were where the big boy UAV's come in such the navys MQ-4c Triton. They got the legs to track a sub straight out of its base and follow it by tag team it with a relay of a couple drones. The Tritons legs are about 30hrs depending how its flown.

Im not disagreeing, but in the event of a shooting war, those drones are gonna get knocked out of the sky like carrier pigeons by the hundreds.

 

[PirateMk1]

Im not disagreeing, but in the event of a shooting war, those drones are gonna get knocked out of the sky like carrier pigeons by the hundreds.

Guess they better be cheap huh. The satellites wont last long either.

 

[PirateMk1]

You are talking about - I assume - a Bernoulli hump.
That there is a minute difference in the height of a wave with a sub underneath it.

But this dissipates rapidly the deeper the sub dives.
And there is no known way to track a submarine - even near the surface - using this method.
Plus it is almost impossible to do so once the sub goes deep.

This is like the 'caterpillar drive'.
Sounds great.
But totally ridiculous in the real world (even though they built one - Yamato 1).
A magnetohydrodynamic drive would put out and ASTOUNDINGLY, HUGE magnetic field and render the submarine using it, easily detectable.

There is NO WAY to track a submarine using it's displacement.
ESPECIALLY once it goes deep.

Please post a link to back up your statement from a unbiased source.
BTW, you will not be able to as none exist.

The Navy's Next Mission: Detect Invisible Submarines From the Sky

See the cutting-edge radar that will make it possible.

www.popularmechanics.com

Non-Acoustic Submarine Detection

Non-acoustic submarine detection technologies are those that do not rely on the collection of soundwaves emitted or reflected by a submerged vehicle for location and tracking. · The act of deploying advanced detection technology is unlikely to disrupt current strategic stability unless an...

ontheradar.csis.org

ER Home: Software, Robotics, and Simulation Division - NASA

The mission of the Software, Robotics, and Simulation Division is to enable the human exploration of space, and contribute to the achievement of national

er.jsc.nasa.gov

These are being used now.
Didnt have look hard. By the way I am partners in a company that does aerospace engineering. We build sensor platforms amongst the other things we do. Hiding is not easy anymore even for a submarine.

Remember these are public ways of tracking submarines without sonar. Lidar for public consumption can detect objects at 200 meters or 656 ft. That covers quite a bit of depth over a large area as well as a fair bit of the thermoclines. Submarines typically operate near the thermal layers so they use them easily. Anywhere for 250ft to over 750ft for the deep layer thermocline. See the charts provided. Acoustical properties change and get disrupted at the boundaries. They are not going to typically operate near their crush depths because it too expensive and there is no real benefit.

 

[PirateMk1]

So what?
An American Carrier Strike Group (CSG) needs weekly refueling as well.
A CSG has a nuclear carrier.
But it also has at least one cruiser and two destroyers.
All three of which need regular refueling.
Plus, the carrier needs refueling for her aircraft.

That the Chinese carriers are not nuclear (though the next one - 004 - will be, apparently) means almost nothing.

Link?
I have never in my life seen ANY documentation from any decent source that said that China's Aircraft Carrier Program EVER officially called for 7 aircraft carriers.
I bet you cannot post a link to a reliable source to backup your statement.
Which proves it meant nothing.

And here is this racist, nonsense again.

I am not Chinese.
But if China can build a huge, manned, space station in orbit - which they are doing right now.

Tiangong space station - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I GUARANTEE you they are intelligent enough to properly use aircraft carriers.


The stupidity of your posts on this are truly hilarious.

Building them is one thing, learning the ins and outs and refining operations is another. Carrier operations and usage can be done without experience, but experience is what will allow those assets to be refined and used well.

 

[The Work Outing]

Building them is one thing, learning the ins and outs and refining operations is another. Carrier operations and usage can be done without experience, but experience is what will allow those assets to be refined and used well.

What are you talking about?

The Chinese studied aircraft carriers as far back as 1985 when they bought the HMAS Melbourne from the Aussies.
Their first carrier - the Liaoning - has been operational for ten years.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor - they did not have much more than 10-15 years of experience with aircraft carriers. And they had no more than 10 years of experience with massed, carrier operations. And they did fine.
The guy that lead the attack on Peral Harbor - Admiral Nagumo - NEVER even served on an aircraft carrier before he was made head of the First Air Fleet.
And he did alright - all things considered.

Chūichi Nagumo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is NOT rocket science.
You do NOT need decades of experience with aircraft carriers to be efficient at utilizing them for war.

Most people that serve on carriers are under 22.
They had NO EXPERIENCE in carrier ANYTHING, 5 years previously.
And now they are operating the things like pros.

This nonsense that Tangmo - and now you apparently - are spewing out about 'they don't understand carrier tactics/operations' is PURE NONSENSE.
And not backed up by anything but utter nonsense and hearsay.
Show me a link please - that scientifically proves that it takes more than ten years to learn how to properly operate an aircraft carrier?

All you do here is spew out theories - without a shred of proof.
Time to step up and prove some of the things you keep saying.
Or they mean...NOTHING.

 

[The Work Outing]

The Navy's Next Mission: Detect Invisible Submarines From the Sky

See the cutting-edge radar that will make it possible.

www.popularmechanics.com

Non-Acoustic Submarine Detection

Non-acoustic submarine detection technologies are those that do not rely on the collection of soundwaves emitted or reflected by a submerged vehicle for location and tracking. · The act of deploying advanced detection technology is unlikely to disrupt current strategic stability unless an...

ontheradar.csis.org

ER Home: Software, Robotics, and Simulation Division - NASA

The mission of the Software, Robotics, and Simulation Division is to enable the human exploration of space, and contribute to the achievement of national

er.jsc.nasa.gov

These are being used now.
Didnt have look hard. By the way I am partners in a company that does aerospace engineering. We build sensor platforms amongst the other things we do. Hiding is not easy anymore even for a submarine.

Remember these are public ways of tracking submarines without sonar. Lidar for public consumption can detect objects at 200 meters or 656 ft. That covers quite a bit of depth over a large area as well as a fair bit of the thermoclines. Submarines typically operate near the thermal layers so they use them easily. Anywhere for 250ft to over 750ft for the deep layer thermocline. See the charts provided. Acoustical properties change and get disrupted at the boundaries. They are not going to typically operate near their crush depths because it too expensive and there is no real benefit.

WRONG.
YOU SAID FROM ORBIT.
Not from an aircraft circling a few hundred feet over the water.
And these are ALL theories.
There is NO Factual proof that they actually do what they say.

And will you please think.
If the US has a radar that can find a submarine at ANY depth?
Obviously, that means other countries will have the same technology soon.
Why on EARTH would the US Navy still be spending hundreds of billions on submarines if their own equipment has rendered them obsolete?

Please, show me a link to UNBIASED, FACTUAL, SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT THESE RADARS DO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
AND...DO IT WHEN A SUBMARINE HAS GONE DEEP?

I do not much care about theories or guesses or articles in business magazines about this stuff.

 

[The Work Outing]

I said "Since Xi Jinping came to power in 2012-13 his economy has gone from GDP growth in the area of 9% to its present 2% to 4%."

This fact and reality is consistent with all forecasts from then to now as I'd thought most people knew the artificial CCP economy was always on the path to collapse. It's been said the banking system that is wholly owned and operated by the CCP is built on quicksand. Indeed, the CCP economy has not had a "correction" due to artificial juggling and fast footwork. An "economic correction" is indeed long overdue. We can see one on the horizon now btw.

So it could anyway look like you weren't born before 2012 either. Which would explain your still seeming to be a loud and spoiled brat.

You have shown NOTHING but estimates.

NO FACTS.
NO ACTUAL, HARD DATA.

Some f'ing, Japanese holding company makes a guess about Chinese growth this year?
That means NOTHING.

You made a matter-of-fact statement about present, Chinese GDP growth.
I am NOT saying their GDP will not one day reach 2-4%.
But there is NO hard data that it already has.

Whereas I posted several links to HARD DATA (whether you/I agree with it or not).

Until you post a link to HARD DATA to back it up?
Your statements on this means NOTHING.

Either post it or please stop wasting my time.

 

[The Work Outing]

Your Beloved Boyz in Beijing still don't know what they're doing.

DictatorTyrants in Beijing are notorious for changing their alleged minds about this weapons platform and that weapons platform that they confuse themselves. And you're very confused anyway which only makes riding herd on all of this worse. Indeed, you state in your post you never heard of any of this which makes it half your confused failing too.

China cuts planned aircraft carriers down to 4​

DECEMBER 12, 2019

China is reportedly ending plans for a six aircraft carrier fleet after the nation failed to overcome technical problems, and instead will continue with plans for four vessels. “There is no plan to build more aircraft carriers,” a military source said, according to the South China Morning Post. The original plans were to have six aircraft carriers, with two of them being nuclear powered. The four China plans to have will be conventionally powered. “ China doesn’t possess the nuclear technology required, although it has developed many nuclear-powered submarines,” a source told the SCMP

China cuts planned aircraft carriers down to 4

China is reportedly ending plans for a six aircraft carrier fleet after the nation failed to overcome technical problems, and instead will continue with

americanmilitarynews.com

Moreover the Chinese can't do or support vertical takeoff vehicles. The article below from the Diplomat states that Beijing's Type 075 assault ships that are expected to be in service by 2025 could also deploy specialized aircraft by that time to allow them to function as carriers, thus bringing the size of the PLAN’s carrier fleet up to seven. Terminology in these matters can be ambiguous however which might explain both your confusion and your ignorance.

Will China Have 7 Aircraft Carriers by 2025?​

June 30, 2018

While the four ship strong PLAN carrier fleet planned for 2025 is already a daunting prospect for the United States and its Asian allies, there is a considerable chance that a lower profile defense program currently underway could see this number rise to seven. Alongside the development of three carrier warships, the Type 001, Type 002 and Type 003, Chinese shipbuilders have also begun the construction of three amphibious assault ships — 40,000 ton warships approximately the same size as the French carrier Charles De Gaulle. The warships are highly similar to the U.S. Navy’s America and Wasp class amphibious assault ships, almost identical in size and appearance. The example set by the American warships could well give some indications as to the PLA’s intentions for the Type 075 class’ future. The U.S. Navy currently fields 20 aircraft carriers, 11 of which are 100,000 ton supercarriers and nine of which are amphibious assault ships – which the United States does not consider carriers, but which deploy fixed wing combat aircraft.

Will China Have 7 Aircraft Carriers by 2025?

The PLA Navy’s upcoming Type 075 assault ships may deploy fighter jets to better contend pacific naval superiority.

thediplomat.com

Given the dates of the reports and your ignorance of the matters presented it could look like your weren't born before 2018. Your temperament is a Trump temperament besides.

Well, at least you are posting links now.
That is progress.

But neither post bears out what you said before.

The first one does not even mention 7 carriers.
So that means nothing.
Last time I looked - 6 does not equal 7.

And the second one is a pure guesstimate on the part of the author of the article.

I asked for a link to proof that official policy of the Chinese Navy was EVER for 7 aircraft carriers - which you said they did.
And you still have not proven that.

Period.

 

[PirateMk1]

What are you talking about?

The Chinese studied aircraft carriers as far back as 1985 when they bought the HMAS Melbourne from the Aussies.
Their first carrier - the Liaoning - has been operational for ten years.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor - they did not have much more than 10-15 years of experience with aircraft carriers. And they had no more than 10 years of experience with massed, carrier operations. And they did fine.
The guy that lead the attack on Peral Harbor - Admiral Nagumo - NEVER even served on an aircraft carrier before he was made head of the First Air Fleet.
And he did alright - all things considered.

Chūichi Nagumo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is NOT rocket science.
You do NOT need decades of experience with aircraft carriers to be efficient at utilizing them for war.

Most people that serve on carriers are under 22.
They had NO EXPERIENCE in carrier ANYTHING, 5 years previously.
And now they are operating the things like pros.

This nonsense that Tangmo - and now you apparently - are spewing out about 'they don't understand carrier tactics/operations' is PURE NONSENSE.
And not backed up by anything but utter nonsense and hearsay.
Show me a link please - that scientifically proves that it takes more than ten years to learn how to properly operate an aircraft carrier?

All you do here is spew out theories - without a shred of proof.
Time to step up and prove some of the things you keep saying.
Or they mean...NOTHING.

I have already shut you down once and to be honest your posting style leaves something to be desired. How about you and I just not interact. I come here to have casual conversation. I am not interested in hard core debate. If what you want is hard core debate then I am not the guy to reply to.

 

[PirateMk1]

WRONG.
YOU SAID FROM ORBIT.
Not from an aircraft circling a few hundred feet over the water.
And these are ALL theories.
There is NO Factual proof that they actually do what they say.

And will you please think.
If the US has a radar that can find a submarine at ANY depth?
Obviously, that means other countries will have the same technology soon.
Why on EARTH would the US Navy still be spending hundreds of billions on submarines if their own equipment has rendered them obsolete?

Please, show me a link to UNBIASED, FACTUAL, SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT THESE RADARS DO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
AND...DO IT WHEN A SUBMARINE HAS GONE DEEP?

I do not much care about theories or guesses or articles in business magazines about this stuff.

Your obnoxious replies do little for me. Refer to post 486. Goodbye.

 

[The Work Outing]

I have already shut you down once

LOL...I recall no such conversation.
Please, post a link to where you 'shut me down once'?
Or I do not believe you.

and to be honest your posting style leaves something to be desired. How about you and I just not interact. I come here to have casual conversation. I am not interested in hard core debate. If what you want is hard core debate then I am not the guy to reply to.

Fine with me.
But all I am asking for is links to prove what you are saying.
You provided nothing but guesstimates.

Fine...you don't want to debate 'hard core'?
Fine
Though I hardly call me asking for you to post links to back up what you are saying is 'hard core'.
But whatever.

But if you are going to run around a debating forum?
And spewing out guesstimates as 'facts'.
Were I you?
I would not be surprised if someone actually calls you on them.

 

[The Work Outing]

Your obnoxious replies do little for me. Refer to post 486. Goodbye.

Fine.
I am obnoxious.
Though I regret if I offended you.
That was not my intent.

But a) I do not go around spewing out 'facts' without backing them up with links (generally).
And b) I do not go around saying I 'shut down people' without at least posting evidence to back it up.

This IS a debating forum.
It's in the title of the place.
Not a chat forum.
Perhaps you are in the wrong forum.

 

[Tangmo]

You have shown NOTHING but estimates.

NO FACTS.
NO ACTUAL, HARD DATA.

Some f'ing, Japanese holding company makes a guess about Chinese growth this year?
That means NOTHING.

You made a matter-of-fact statement about present, Chinese GDP growth.
I am NOT saying their GDP will not one day reach 2-4%.
But there is NO hard data that it already has.

Whereas I posted several links to HARD DATA (whether you/I agree with it or not).

Until you post a link to HARD DATA to back it up?
Your statements on this means NOTHING.

Either post it or please stop wasting my time.

Your "hard data" is the CCP Boyz in Beijing pumping blue smoke at mirrors -- right in your face besides. And you love it.

For one thing Boyz in Beijing have their GDP "data" ready in mid January whereas Western governments to include the US don't get there till the end of Q1. Only a CCP Rower would try to say the Boyz haven't already fudged it by Christmas ho ho.

GDP reckoning in the CCP-PRC comes from two aggregate sources. One is each province that reports its "hard data" GDP to the Boyz in Beijing. The other is the Beijing "hard data" the central Party-Government cooks up as the national sum total as they figure it, or misfigure it. Each year when the Boyz add up the GDP of the provinces it far exceeds the GDP cooked up by the Boyz in their CCP monastery. So what the Boyz do is work both ends to somewhere around the the middle and pronounce it. This is your "hard data" which in reality is fool's gold and mush for supper.

Current prime minister Li Keqiang who's a communist law lawyer fluent in English said to the US ambassador when in 2007 Keqiang was governor of Lioning province that Chinese GDP data are "man-made." He said this with the approval of then Pres. Hu Jintao so Western investors and bankers could know to proceed, yes, but proceed with their eyes open. It would be to the good for both sides.

Yet you Rumplestiltskin have been sleeping about China for almost a score of years. It's long past time you got woke.

 

[Tangmo]

Well, at least you are posting links now.
That is progress.

But neither post bears out what you said before.

The first one does not even mention 7 carriers.
So that means nothing.
Last time I looked - 6 does not equal 7.

And the second one is a pure guesstimate on the part of the author of the article.

I asked for a link to proof that official policy of the Chinese Navy was EVER for 7 aircraft carriers - which you said they did.
And you still have not proven that.

Period.

There's no guesstimate.

The links support that CCP DictatorTyrants in Beijing had originally conceived of 7 aircraft carriers though that never became the official decision. The official decision came out as 4 aircraft carriers and no more than 4.

Of the reasons 7 carriers never got off the drawing board, and despite the present 7% increase in military spending, seven would be too expensive. Additionally, and as the links stated, CCP Boyz in Beijing did not have the nuclear technology knowhow to put a nuclear power plant inside an aircraft carrier. CCP Boyz have nuclear powered subs but that's thanks too to the former USSR where they came to regret it.

Fact is the always grandiose Chinese wanted 7 carriers, until the Boyz recognized they'd have to settle for four. And as I'd said in my post, all the DictatorTyrants in Beijing want out of aircraft carriers is to intimidate their neighbors into also ignoring and dismissing the Hague international arbitration court unanimous ruling Beijing is in a total violation of UNILOS.

So you're rowing for a regime in Beijing that rejects the existing global order in favor of one run by the Chinese and their fortune cookie mentality.

 

[The Work Outing]

Your "hard data" is the CCP Boyz in Beijing pumping blue smoke at mirrors -- right in your face besides. And you love it.

For one thing Boyz in Beijing have their GDP "data" ready in mid January whereas Western governments to include the US don't get there till the end of Q1. Only a CCP Rower would try to say the Boyz haven't already fudged it by Christmas ho ho.

GDP reckoning in the CCP-PRC comes from two aggregate sources. One is each province that reports its "hard data" GDP to the Boyz in Beijing. The other is the Beijing "hard data" the central Party-Government cooks up as the national sum total as they figure it, or misfigure it. Each year when the Boyz add up the GDP of the provinces it far exceeds the GDP cooked up by the Boyz in their CCP monastery. So what the Boyz do is work both ends to somewhere around the the middle and pronounce it. This is your "hard data" which in reality is fool's gold and mush for supper.

Current prime minister Li Keqiang who's a communist law lawyer fluent in English said to the US ambassador when in 2007 Keqiang was governor of Lioning province that Chinese GDP data are "man-made." He said this with the approval of then Pres. Hu Jintao so Western investors and bankers could know to proceed, yes, but proceed with their eyes open. It would be to the good for both sides.

Yet you Rumplestiltskin have been sleeping about China for almost a score of years. It's long past time you got woke.

Just as I thought.

You have NO link to hard data.
Just to individuals/companies who are making predictions.

So your original, matter-of-fact point means nothing...just as I thought.

We are done on this.

 

[The Work Outing]

There's no guesstimate.

The links support that CCP DictatorTyrants in Beijing had originally conceived of 7 aircraft carriers though that never became the official decision. The official decision came out as 4 aircraft carriers and no more than 4.

Of the reasons 7 carriers never got off the drawing board, and despite the present 7% increase in military spending, seven would be too expensive. Additionally, and as the links stated, CCP Boyz in Beijing did not have the nuclear technology knowhow to put a nuclear power plant inside an aircraft carrier. CCP Boyz have nuclear powered subs but that's thanks too to the former USSR where they came to regret it.

Fact is the always grandiose Chinese wanted 7 carriers, until the Boyz recognized they'd have to settle for four. And as I'd said in my post, all the DictatorTyrants in Beijing want out of aircraft carriers is to intimidate their neighbors into also ignoring and dismissing the Hague international arbitration court unanimous ruling Beijing is in a total violation of UNILOS.

So you're rowing for a regime in Beijing that rejects the existing global order in favor of one run by the Chinese and their fortune cookie mentality.

Again...just as I thought.

You have no link to evidence that official Chinese policy ever included constructing a fleet of 7 aircraft carriers.

So, your original, matter-of-fact point on that means nothing.

We are done on this.

 

[fortune]

There's no guesstimate.

The links support that CCP DictatorTyrants in Beijing had originally conceived of 7 aircraft carriers though that never became the official decision. The official decision came out as 4 aircraft carriers and no more than 4.

Of the reasons 7 carriers never got off the drawing board, and despite the present 7% increase in military spending, seven would be too expensive. Additionally, and as the links stated, CCP Boyz in Beijing did not have the nuclear technology knowhow to put a nuclear power plant inside an aircraft carrier. CCP Boyz have nuclear powered subs but that's thanks too to the former USSR where they came to regret it.

Fact is the always grandiose Chinese wanted 7 carriers, until the Boyz recognized they'd have to settle for four. And as I'd said in my post, all the DictatorTyrants in Beijing want out of aircraft carriers is to intimidate their neighbors into also ignoring and dismissing the Hague international arbitration court unanimous ruling Beijing is in a total violation of UNILOS.

So you're rowing for a regime in Beijing that rejects the existing global order in favor of one run by the Chinese and their fortune cookie mentality.

"got a link?" is a sign of the times. We live in alt reality where google can find something that is the antithesis of a truth yet people want to know if you know what you are talking about by providing them with that link.

I stopped providing these posters links. They don't know how foolish they are by asking for one.

 

[Tangmo]

"got a link?" is a sign of the times. We live in alt reality where google can find something that is the antithesis of a truth yet people want to know if you know what you are talking about by providing them with that link.

I stopped providing these posters links. They don't know how foolish they are by asking for one.

Yeah completely true yet the PutinTrumpRowers got nothing else as all they can do is screw around trying to run us in circles while they avoid the data and true information that proves 'em wrong.

While I link all the time when I initiate something by an outside source, which I do regularly, I rarely provide a link on the demand of the PutinTrumpRowers and the CCP Fanbois. Their MO across the threads is to demand a link which they will do forever if you don't provide one, then if we do provide a link they automatically deny the source -- deny deny deny. We know this is their MO.

Meanwhile and as we see here yet again they holler for the HARD DATA WHERE'S THE HARD DATA. Like when a poster accepts instead CCP Boyz' make believe and "man made" magical figures as the hard data that refutes the actual hard data we provide that blows 'em out of the water. I quoted the CCP current prime minister saying to the USA ambassador that PRC GDP numbers are "man made" yet the CCP Fanbois deny that.

For years now anyway I've posted to the Board rather than to the closed minded fraud poster. I do this so readers can see, rather than have any delusional aspiration The Rower and The Fanboi see the light which is impossible, virtually every time and always, if not literally impossible interminably.

 

[The Work Outing]

"got a link?" is a sign of the times. We live in alt reality where google can find something that is the antithesis of a truth yet people want to know if you know what you are talking about by providing them with that link.

I stopped providing these posters links. They don't know how foolish they are by asking for one.

So asking for evidence of what someone says is foolish?

That is probably THE STUPIDEST thing I have read on here in a while.

I read that as you just post whatever nonsense you feel like.
And you hate it when someone calls you on the garbage you post.

I shall try to remember that about you.

Bye now.

 

[cpwill]

I am sure one of our aircraft carriers is worth four of theirs. There is no valid concern here.

I am very not sure of this, especially given that their carriers will be operating in concordance with an extremely robust anti area access denial capability, centered around hypersonics. Meanwhile, we are still recovering from having lost the edge when the Obama administration cancelled our own hypersonic programs and shut down the F22 factory line.

The Chinese likely have superior military force at the point of conflict, at this point. Aircraft carrier groups in drydock, in the Middle East, or which we are unwilling to take within range of them arent going to be much good. :-/

 

[fortune]

So asking for evidence of what someone says is foolish?

That is probably THE STUPIDEST thing I have read on here in a while.

I read that as you just post whatever nonsense you feel like.
And you hate it when someone calls you on the garbage you post.

I shall try to remember that about you.

Bye now.

So asking for evidence of what someone says is foolish? all telling bud. Links do not provide evidence of anything.


For small minded people links are, indeed, proof that anyone can write one but evidence of nothing. Us big boys still read trade journals and text books and go to lectures. I'll help you remember that about me