dark light

19kilo10

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 782 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Rebuilding UK Carrier Strike after a decade's gap #2036151
    19kilo10
    Participant

    Would having more crew members be better for damage control? I would think that would probably be the only advantage.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2036190
    19kilo10
    Participant

    And on the US side….we had “dugout” Doug!

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2036232
    19kilo10
    Participant

    ‘Unlike yours which did a fantastic job of protecting Pearl from the Japs’

    you want to believe with all your heart that I was making an anti British Navy comment, but EVERYBODY that went up against the Japanese from Dec 41 to about May 42 got their (censored) handed to them. And as much as you may not like it, IF a RN fleet carrier had accompanied Force Z, the most likely end result would have been the loss of that valuble asset in addition to the battleships/cruisers. Not neccesarily on Dec 10 but surely within a few weeks. I’m sorry, but credit where its due, the Japanese were at the top of their game while the Allies (ESPECIALY the Americans) just couldnt seem to get it together.

    in reply to: Countering a CBG(s) with CBG(s) #2036275
    19kilo10
    Participant

    It was HMS Spartan, and it’s probably fair to say that for a good portion of that time she couldn’t be found because she’d returned to port :diablo:

    Yep. She did return to port. But she got within about 100 miles of the TG and the only thing that stopped her from launching an air strike was a lack of wind. The point I was kinda trying to make was: SSNs ARE formidable things…….but they are not the end all solution to the CVBG problem……..

    in reply to: Countering a CBG(s) with CBG(s) #2036357
    19kilo10
    Participant

    Was it one or two modern SSNs that couldnt fint the 25 de Mayo? (yep, I went there:diablo:)

    in reply to: Countering a CBG(s) with CBG(s) #2036383
    19kilo10
    Participant

    You could use the Holy Hand Grenade.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2036387
    19kilo10
    Participant

    Considering the state of FAA fighters at the time, its probably a good thing a CV wasnt there.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2036472
    19kilo10
    Participant

    I’v heard the Brits may change the PoW to Ark Royal.

    in reply to: China Aircraft Carrier Trials #2036543
    19kilo10
    Participant

    Any thoughts on weather the PLAN will develop catapults for their CVs?

    in reply to: China Aircraft Carrier Trials #2036632
    19kilo10
    Participant

    As I said I have no problem with China building carriers, and will be very interested to see her next one come out. However, I would also be very interested to see China’s reaction if Taiwan gets the AEGIS system a few more modern submarines in the next couple of years.

    in reply to: China Aircraft Carrier Trials #2036935
    19kilo10
    Participant

    I don’t think anyone is but it seems that a few posters believe that there are no threats to China, therefore any semblance of having a modern military let alone an aircraft carrier, is unacceptable.

    In my mind China has to build ships for its own needs. And China’s military needs are descided by China. I know there is no love lost between China and Japan, and that is completely understandable. And I think, no matter how good relations between them are today, China has a certain amount of…..”distrust”….with Russia. So if China feels they need CVs…..then they should build CVs.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2036940
    19kilo10
    Participant

    I dont know……leasing a multi-million dollar fully functional strikefighter……and then only using it as a tanker? I cant see that happening no matter how much better the money situation gets.

    in reply to: China Aircraft Carrier Trials #2036954
    19kilo10
    Participant

    I think it will be quite some time befor China uses a CV to project power anywhere. Right now, they are running sea trials with the ship, basically just seeing how the sip itself operates. How long this will take I couldnt say. Once those are complete, they will begin the first real “experimental” phase of operations, having guys fly on and off it. This will take some time, a year? Two? Three? Again, I couldnt say. In the mean time, the PLAN will be figuring out just how they want to operate her and any others they may aquire. All in all, it is an exciting time for the PLAN, but I dont think the west should get hysterical just yet.

    in reply to: China Aircraft Carrier Trials #2037145
    19kilo10
    Participant

    It is really funny. The US can’t find money to fund better schools, a decent healthcare system, sort out the pensions shortfall, and have a universal social welfare system. For some reason th United States needs an ever bigger military budget, more ships, submarines, fighters, ect. This is despite the fact that none of its neighbors or anyone in the world are ever likely to attack it unless the US attack first. Apologized to American members, I just can’t help it.

    Your double standard and hypocritical statement are just amazed

    Why does a post about China by a member in the UK launch you into an anti American……….oh never mind! More power to you!:D

    in reply to: China Aircraft Carrier Trials #2037148
    19kilo10
    Participant

    Now that a potential enemy has a carrier, New Zealand might want to think about getting some combat aircraft.

    It will be interesting to see how much this changes the balance of power in the Pacific…and if/how other nations react.

    I had not even considered that. Its interesting tho. Any thoughts on which type? JAS-39 would probably be pretty reasonable……

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 782 total)