Skip to comments.
Japan to have first aircraft carriers since World War II
cnn ^
| 12/18/2018
Posted on 12/17/2018 10:59:27 PM PST by BenLurkin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: BenLurkin
Only 77 years later.
21
posted on
12/18/2018 4:14:35 AM PST
by
Bonemaker
(invictus maneo)
To: Fai Mao
All of Asia is and will always be scared shitless of the Japanese.
22
posted on
12/18/2018 4:17:52 AM PST
by
Bonemaker
(invictus maneo)
To: Bonemaker
They better upgrade their birthrate pronto, or maybe they’ll have robots manning these ships.
23
posted on
12/18/2018 4:43:40 AM PST
by
onona
(It is often wise to allow a person a graceful path.)
To: JustaTech
They did have the BAKA bomb.
24
posted on
12/18/2018 4:44:59 AM PST
by
HANG THE EXPENSE
(Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
To: BenLurkin
Kaga and
Izumo (also spelled
Idzumo), which are named after Japanese provinces, might give American WWII veterans a sense of
déjà vu.
The aircraft carrier Kaga took part in the attack on Pearl Harbor but was sunk half a year later at Midway.
In 1905, Izumo, a cruiser, took part in the Battle of Tsushima Strai in which the Japanese wiped out the Russian Baltic Fleet. In 1937, it was stationed in Shanghai when a Chinese bomber that was attacking it accidentally dropped its bomb on a nearby residential area killing nearly 1,000 people and making headlines around the world. In his memoir Way of a Fighter (New York: Putnam's, 1949) General Claire L. Chennault, who was advising the Chinese air force at the time, claimed that Izumo was sunk by a Chinese bomber shortly afterwards. However, it returned to Japan and served as a training ship before being sunk by US naval aircraft in July, 1945.
To: BenLurkin
They’ll get great gas mileage!........................
26
posted on
12/18/2018 6:30:59 AM PST
by
Red Badger
(We are headed for a Civil War. It won't be nice like the last one....................)
To: DesertRhino
Well, After Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima it’s no wonder!..............
27
posted on
12/18/2018 6:31:57 AM PST
by
Red Badger
(We are headed for a Civil War. It won't be nice like the last one....................)
To: BenLurkin
KagaCan the Soryu, Hiryu and Akagi be far behind?
28
posted on
12/18/2018 6:38:17 AM PST
by
Stentor
To: BenLurkin
Here is the Kaga. Not very modern looking.... : )
To: DesertRhino
Look for the Japanese to go big on their next carrier, something approaching the Forrestal or Kitty Hawk class.
30
posted on
12/18/2018 1:30:38 PM PST
by
sarge83
To: cpdiii
Another land lubber talking about "killing" a carrier. That term "kill" doesn't apply to naval warfare. One missile will not "kill" a carrier. To "kill" a carrier you have sink it. To sink a carrier requires under water hull damage. This requires a torpedo(s) or mines, not a missile(s). It takes two torpedo hits to sink an FFG weighing 5,000 tons. A carrier is 20 times that size so it would take 40 torpedoes to SINK a carrier.
The biggest threat to carriers are the lack of naval repair facilities and dry docks, not missiles. If a carrier limps back to port and there is no place to repair it then that is a soft kill. Thanks to Free Traitors our industrial base is not capable of sustaining a protracted naval war. Thanks Free Traitors.
31
posted on
12/18/2018 1:46:14 PM PST
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
To: minnesota_bound
32
posted on
12/18/2018 1:46:40 PM PST
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
To: sphinx
Actually the latest Jap aircraft were every bit as good as ours but they came too late. KI-84 and N1K2 being the two best examples.
33
posted on
12/18/2018 1:50:07 PM PST
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
To: DesertRhino
Nuclear carries are waste of money. Build two conventionals for one nuke.
34
posted on
12/18/2018 1:51:03 PM PST
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
To: central_va
How about a 10 kT warhead half a mile away?
35
posted on
12/18/2018 1:59:09 PM PST
by
Jim Noble
(Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4)
To: Jim Noble
How about a 10 kT warhead half a mile away?If Navy ships are shooting nukes at each other then the world is a cinder and what happens at sea is irrelevant.
36
posted on
12/18/2018 2:00:51 PM PST
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
To: central_va
See, I dont agree.
No American President is going to kill millions of civilians over an attack on a purely military target. Nuking carriers in port would be a no-no.
2000 miles at sea, with zero collateral damage? Thats different.
37
posted on
12/18/2018 2:09:20 PM PST
by
Jim Noble
(Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4)
To: Jim Noble
Listen why would ships even have conventional weapons?
38
posted on
12/18/2018 2:10:34 PM PST
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
To: central_va
The Jap Zero, unrivaled among carrier based fighters at the start of the war, weighed about as much as your SUV and produced 940 horsepower. If you can imagine driving an SUV with 940 hp, that’s what handling the Zero was like.
39
posted on
12/18/2018 2:41:28 PM PST
by
sparklite2
(See more at Sparklite Times)
To: sparklite2
They zero had no sealing fuel tanks and no pilot armor. They sucked, really. I read Samurai! by Sakai and he had nothing but admiration for the toughness of USN planes even the lowly f4f wildcat.
40
posted on
12/18/2018 2:47:11 PM PST
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson