• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Ship Photo of the Day

While the Chinese navy is building warships like crazy, they have not neglected fleet support auxiliaries. If you postulate that their naval mission will be from the coast to the mid-Pacific, their need for unrep vessels would presumably be less than the USN's. Nevertheless, they have built nine replenishment oilers of a bit less than 24,000 tons each. They accommodate fuel oil, weapons and general stores and have but a single helicopter. Here is CNS Gaoyouhu (AOR-966) at Pearl Harbor.


PLAN AOR-966.jpg
 
Llarry said:
While the Chinese navy is building warships like crazy, they have not neglected fleet support auxiliaries. If you postulate that their naval mission will be from the coast to the mid-Pacific, their need for unrep vessels would presumably be less than the USN's. Nevertheless, they have built nine replenishment oilers of a bit less than 24,000 tons each. They accommodate fuel oil, weapons and general stores and have but a single helicopter. Here is CNS Gaoyouhu (AOR-966) at Pearl Harbor.


View attachment 44590
Click to expand...
PLAN is deploying Z-20J on this platform for VERTREP operations - unsurprising.

1771699247547.png
 
Llarry said:
While the Chinese navy is building warships like crazy, they have not neglected fleet support auxiliaries. If you postulate that their naval mission will be from the coast to the mid-Pacific, their need for unrep vessels would presumably be less than the USN's. Nevertheless, they have built nine replenishment oilers of a bit less than 24,000 tons each. They accommodate fuel oil, weapons and general stores and have but a single helicopter. Here is CNS Gaoyouhu (AOR-966) at Pearl Harbor.


View attachment 44590
Click to expand...
I’m not understanding why we let Chinese military ships in our country.🤔
 
AIRMMCPORET said:
I’m not understanding why we let Chinese military ships in our country.
Click to expand...

It's been a decade since this occured and these were goodwill/diplomatic/cultural in nature.

I do not think China is an enemy. IMHO, Our economies and economic prosperity are closely tied.

I think the best thing to happen for American consumers would be for relations to warm with China, and increase trade and reduce trade barriers. Granted that's opposite of current policy but hopefully the pendulum will swing back towards center.
 
Last edited:
ChuckMK23 said:
It's been a decade since this occured and these were goodwill/diplomatic/cultural in nature.

I do not think China is an enemy. IMHO, Our economies and economic prosperity are closely tied.

I think the best thing to happen for American consumers would be for relations to warm with China, and increase trade and reduce trade barriers. Granted that's opposite of current policy but hopefully the pendulum will swing back towards
Click to expand...
Many have said the same about other wars.

As for the PRC and Xi, sounds like you’re looking for a piece of paper declaring peace in our time. Good luck. Also, see Putin.
 
hscs said:
Many have said the same about other wars.

As for the PRC and Xi, sounds like you’re looking for a piece of paper declaring peace in our time. Good luck. Also, see Putin.
Click to expand...
I want abundance and economic prosperity for myself and my family - I think most of us want that.

Is that too much to ask of our political leaders?
 
ChuckMK23 said:
I want abundance and economic prosperity for myself and my family - I think most of us want that.

Is that too much to ask of our political leaders?
Click to expand...
You have to ask them - the other countries. Recent article in the Guardian (I think) about Putin’s decision to invade 4 years ago showed Putin’s desires. Good read, but can’t find the link now. Given the recent sackings in the PRC, I would offer that Xi is no different.

I’ll bet their opaqueness vs having unfettered access to cheap Temu products.
 
Last edited:
ChuckMK23 said:
It's been a decade since this occured and these were goodwill/diplomatic/cultural in nature.

I do not think China is an enemy. IMHO, Our economies and economic prosperity are closely tied.

I think the best thing to happen for American consumers would be for relations to warm with China, and increase trade and reduce trade barriers. Granted that's opposite of current policy but hopefully the pendulum will swing back towards center.
Click to expand...

Nixon called, he wants his policy back.

If China wasn’t openly stealing all the IP they can get their hands on, ripping off good products and undercutting them, and pumping our economy full of cheap crap that won’t last until Christmas, I might agree.

What you suggest isn’t prosperity, it’s giving a drunk a drink. China is out to get us totally hooked on their stuff so they can control the entire game, and they want it soon, before their demographic situation completely collapses (age crisis). If we lean into that, we get less prosperity with more dependence, and it’ll be exactly what we deserve. That same demographic crisis will lead to shortages here when the Chinese workforce can no longer support the level of consumption we’re used to. Even without Chinese dominance ambitions, it’s unsustainable.

We need to be looking at China with more skepticism as consumers and business leaders. While decoupling is unrealistic, some guardrails and limits are necessary to keep our agency.
 
Last edited:
sevenhelmet said:
Nixon called, he wants his policy back.

If China wasn’t openly stealing all the IP they can get their hands on, ripping off good products and undercutting them, and pumping our economy full of cheap crap that won’t last until Christmas, I might agree.

What you suggest isn’t prosperity, it’s giving a drunk a drink. China is out to get us totally hooked on their stuff so they can control the entire game, and they want it soon, before their demographic situation completely collapses (age crisis). If we lean into that, we get less prosperity with more dependence, and it’ll be exactly what we deserve. That same demographic crisis will lead to shortages here when the Chinese workforce can no longer support the level of consumption we’re used to. Even without Chinese dominance ambitions, it’s unsustainable.

We need to be looking at China with more skepticism as consumers and business leaders. While decoupling is unrealistic, some guardrails and limits are necessary to keep our agency.
Click to expand...
The problem is that basically none of our policies offer an answer to this; slapping 39% tariffs on Switzerland of all countries isn't going to keep the Chinese economy from our door.
 
hscs said:
And hammer the PRC’s ability to increase reliance on robots to build things to offset said population crisis.
Click to expand...
Significant percentage of senior engineers technical managers and executives in PRC were trained through or by Apple....

This trained workforce has made its way into every major corporation in China from BYD to DJI and to many defense and aerospace concerns.
 
Lawman said:
Im gonna call BS that a main battery of WWI era guns bolted to a similar era ship built in fits and start would be equal the ones we had even if Iowa wasn’t what the Navy actually wanted and was in reality just the North Carolina/South Dakota we would have designed outside treaty limits if allowed. Furthermore it’s not the armor thickness or gun caliber that makes those ships actually effective. The Brit’s were adopting the US developed fire directors for both AA and rifled guns across their fleet towards the end of the war. We were allies afterall….

The 3 inch prox fused AA and fire directors is well known but of the secondary armament was what made vanguard so lethal in these tests, the Navy Mk37 fire directors is the reason it worked.
Click to expand...
Been a lot of fun watching the losers bracket over the last couple of months. Iowa fought her way through the bracket for the rematch. Even though Drachinifel himself commanded the Vanguard, Iowas speed and super heavy 16” shells emerged victorious.
 
One of the first steel warships of the US Navy was the protected cruiser USS Boston. Commissioned on 2 May 1887, she was brought in and out of service multiple times to include a tour on loan to the Oregon Naval Militia before finally being scuttled in 1946.

In 1893, she carried a landing party which helped overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy. After that, she participated in the Battle of Manilla Bay firing the first shots from her 8” cannons (these guns were saved and are on display at Hamlin Park in Washington State.

Originally designed with 8 coal fired boilers powering a single shaft, she was capable of 16 knots, with the sails being removed around 1899.

While reading about the Boston, it led to writings from Captain A.T. Mahan who was a strong advocate of overturning the Hawaiian government and annexing the territory due to its strategic location against not only European powers but also Mahan’s deep concern about the rise of China.

If one is interested, here are some of Mahan’s writings to include his letter to the NYT.

CONTENTS.​




1773706038549.jpeg
USS Boston in 1891

1773706360816.jpeg
Boston during speed trials

1773706428750.jpeg
The two 8-inch, 30-Caliber guns displayed in Hamlin ParkShoreline, Washington, seen in 2020.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top