Page 88 – Key Publishing

google

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,306 through 1,320 (of 2,193 total)

← 1 2 3 … 87 88 89 … 145 146 147 →

Author

Posts
March 24, 2004 at 8:11 pm in reply to: Cool F-4 Pic (I think) #2655412

google
Participant

Are you sure the first pic fo the Phantom isn’t photoshopped? It looks rather surreal….

March 24, 2004 at 8:01 pm in reply to: MiG-29SMTs, Yemen & "huge" MiG contracts #2655453

google
Participant

How do the Yemenese? or Yemeni? even have the dollars to buy anything? What is their primary export anyhow, oil?

March 24, 2004 at 8:23 am in reply to: China to build 3 Aircraft Carriers #2077046

google
Participant

Originally posted by jkw
CVBG by 2010
Soth Sea Fleets
1CV 48,000T
DGG 170/171
DDG 188/189
FGG T54

188,189? 2010? I thought your evidence of a carrier group, as you mentioned with Fisher’s article, was in the present. The PLAN commander is a submarine guy, not a carrier fan. It will more probably be headed in the direction of a submarine-centric force in the near term.

March 24, 2004 at 5:54 am in reply to: China to build 3 Aircraft Carriers #2077054

google
Participant

Originally posted by jkw
Action: The screen shows a list of the number and type of ships and their primary role for a typical carrier battle group:

1 Carrier (CV/CVN) — Strike warfare
2 Cruisers (CG) — Air warfare (TBMD)
3 Destroyers/Frigates (DD(G)/FFG) — Surface and undersea warfare
2 Attack submarines (SSN) — Surface and undersea warfare
1 Fast Combat Support (AOE) — Replenishment

You do that, and there will be no ships left over for the North/South Sea Fleets. No one denies that China has carrier ambitions; but that time is not now.

March 24, 2004 at 3:55 am in reply to: China to build 3 Aircraft Carriers #2077070

google
Participant

So, how much for a ticket and a meal on the Minsk? Is that venture going to pay itself off?

How did this thread get rated as a 1 star?

March 24, 2004 at 3:39 am in reply to: China to build 3 Aircraft Carriers #2077079

google
Participant

Originally posted by jkw
Building an ageas class destroyer, and building frigates that are over 3,000 tons have really nothing to do with building an air craft carrier. (A little sarcasm here)

It didn’t mention anything about building a carrier, did it? So it’s an expansion in their naval forces- still not enough for a carrier battle group.

March 24, 2004 at 2:18 am in reply to: China to build 3 Aircraft Carriers #2077086

google
Participant

Originally posted by jkw
CHINA ACCELERATES NAVY BUILDING

By Richard D. Fisher, Jr.

What does this have to do with building carriers? Nothing.
What’s more interesting than carriers is the quiet increase in landing craft, and the possible construction of a new LPD.

March 24, 2004 at 1:42 am in reply to: Does anyone have more info on the Henschel 129B3? #2656055

google
Participant

[i]I have examples of both of these cartridges sitting by my desk at the moment.

[/B]

You must have a big desk.:p

March 23, 2004 at 9:32 pm in reply to: Does anyone have more info on the Henschel 129B3? #2656179

google
Participant

Originally posted by Arthur
The H also had a sh.tload of machineguns, the G had far less. [/img]

Lol, arthur. Yes, I think the -H had four fixed in the nose, two in blisters on both sides of the fuselage, two in the dorsal turret, two in a new tail turret, and two in waist positions.

Nice pic of the Henschel.

March 23, 2004 at 9:18 pm in reply to: Does anyone have more info on the Henschel 129B3? #2656221

google
Participant

Originally posted by PhantomII
Actually I think it was the B-25H that was fitted with the 75-mm gun.

Just checked. The B-25G was the first to have the M4 75mm cannon, and the -H had a lighter-weight 75-mm T13E1 cannon, and 8 forward firing MGs.

March 23, 2004 at 6:56 pm in reply to: russian nuclear cruiser Kirov class Peter the Great could explode #2656357

google
Participant

Update to story item!

If by blow up, you mean need maintenance, then yeah, I was wrong. Russian admiral gets a little ‘re-education’.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=10&u=/nm/20040323/ts_nm/russia_navy_dc

March 23, 2004 at 4:57 pm in reply to: San Francisco bridge #2656411

google
Participant

will this do?:p

minus the shark of course.

March 23, 2004 at 4:53 pm in reply to: russian nuclear cruiser Kirov class Peter the Great could explode #2656412

google
Participant

The commander of the battle cruiser in question is a niece of the admiral who testified.

Ah, that makes sense now. It’s a chick that’s driving the thing. She probably ignored the ‘change oil’ light that came on. 😀

March 23, 2004 at 4:49 pm in reply to: russian nuclear cruiser Kirov class Peter the Great could explode #2656414

google
Participant

Fantastic idea of the Ohio SSGN conversion. Whoever thought of that should be promoted. Wonder why they’re sitting on their hands now.

March 23, 2004 at 4:43 pm in reply to: russian nuclear cruiser Kirov class Peter the Great could explode #2656452

google
Participant

Originally posted by SOC
What we need to do is take out 8 SLBMs and fill 4 of the tubes with Tomahawks, two of the tubes with SLAM-ER, and two of the tubes with some sort of SAM system.

Last I heard they were proceeding down that route, no?
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,306 through 1,320 (of 2,193 total)

← 1 2 3 … 87 88 89 … 145 146 147 →