Posted on 12/02/2010 2:49:26 AM PST by ssugasl231
Check out the latest from the Air Show China. This year, China is showcasing numerous models of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones); most of which are for sale.
Look closely at the WJ600 model:
"The Chinese drone of greatest potential concern to the U.S. is the one with several missiles and a jet engine—called the WJ600—which was displayed by China Aerospace Science & Industry Corp., or Casic, one of China's top weapons makers.
Casic officials declined to comment, but a video and a two-dimensional display by the company showed Chinese forces using the WJ600 to help attack what appeared to be a U.S. aircraft carrier...
(Excerpt) Read more at libradex.com ...
Because we won. But perhaps you are right. The carrier groups just let us win to make us feel good.
By this logic a tank, costing 5 million dollars, is useless because a guy with a $2,000 shoulder fired missile can destroy it. I mean you people are ridiculous.
I never said anything about scuttling the surface fleet. I just post as I see it. If you have problems with my opinions, put them out but don't put words in my posts that I have not opined.
There is a lot you don’t know, that is all I can say.
What I have to say cannot be discussed on open forums.
I agree. There is a lot I don't know.
And you are so kooky, judging from your posts, you may want to increase your meds. Really. Your comments are coming completely out of left field; complete non sequitiers.
You were a Naval officer? I'm damned glad I didn't serve with you.
I share that sentiment about you.
I love the you people remark, as though anyone who questions your logic is automatically an idiot.
The tank is not useless, but it CAN be taken out and it doesn’t hold 5,000 people.
You seem to think that it is an impossibllity and when I point out that it isn’t , I become a “You people”
Meanwhile you have decided that with their defense force they are impregnable.
The Titanic was unsinkable too.
To surrender air superiority because of perceived vulnerability when their is no alternative is stupid. Tell me, how to have air power in the middle of the ocean or against a hostile land force far away from any ally. There is risk yes, but what else is there? Sub launched aircraft?
And I didn't even see his reference to being a ring knocker.
PS: Re: that picture, you should of seen the other guys flattops.
Remember what I said about your meds.
Exactly. Or the U.S.S. Stark.
I don’t remember saying we should do away with the Carriers, my only comment was that they make great targets, and that they can be hit.
Your argument was that their escorts would make that virtually impossible. I disagree , but I am no expert.
I also stated the possibility that modern weapons could make them vulnerable enough that they go the way of WW2 Battleships. I see that as a possibility in the future.
We have been lucky in the past 5 decades in that we have not fought anyone with weapons comparable to ours. If and when we do we will find the answer.
The British found in the Falklands that French Missiles made a mess of aluminum ships. I hope we never have to learn a lesson like that.
A few days ago an incident off our west coast described by some as a missile, by others as a contrail, shook up a few people. North Korea has Nukes ,Pakistan has Nukes. Iran is trying to build a Nuke. These outlaw countries are working together on platforms to carry these Nukes to their enemy, Their enemy is us friend.
China and Russia appear to have few qualms about delivering technology to these people.They learn from it and in Irans case are learning fast.
Just today Putin made a threat to build new Nukes if we didnt ratify a phony treaty that Obama screwed up and made.
The world is a dangerous place.
You are obviously enamored of Libraderm or what ever the hell the name of this blog is you are flogging ... why not just go there to read content that is already available here and let us use this forum for original content? This is what we do here - we find articles of interest to a conservative forum and post them. And we pay for the privilege of doing so, while keeping it interesting and blessedly ad free. Except for the blog pimps.
My point was the "volume of fire" doctrine, and how well this ancient tactic still serves to overwhelm the latest, most cutting-edge technologies. It has served lesser forces on many continents in many ways.
One could even view a tactical nuke as an extension of the "volume of fire" concept -- one nuke delivered aboard something like a Shkval torpedo, and it's adios, carrier group.
And as for subs, well, we did have a ChiCom sub surface right alongside one of our carriers during an exercise three years ago. A carrier group needs to be able to detect that sort of thing at any time, not just when on a war-footing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.