Surely you can't be serious?
Posted on 08/12/2011 10:29:30 PM PDT by robertvance
On August 14th, 1912, the United States launched its first aircraft carrier, the USS Langley. This 11,500 ton ship served during both World Wars until its luck ran out near Java in 1942 and had to be abandoned and sunk in order to avoid capture by the Japanese.
Almost one hundred years later, China has just launched its first aircraft carrier and the U.S. State department is demanding to know why.
"We would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment," said Victoria Nuland, a State department spokeswoman.
Let me give you the explanation, Victoria. China is the world’s largest country and has recently become the second largest economy behind the United States. China is also the undisputed powerhouse in Asia. Is that a good enough explanation for you?
(Excerpt) Read more at teachabroadchina.com ...
Fear why? Bush made them a permanent favorite trading partner so we could send them the money to build it. ‘If we pay them, they will build’.
“He will have his hard-left policies or he will set the house on fire before he leaves.”
A concise and accurate description, that needs to be repeated until people get it!
I don’t see any aircraft on the aircraft carrier.
You said exactly the same thing as me except you argued the teacher wasn’t a dim bulb....why bother?
“Building a carrier, even taking one to sea is one thing. Effectively operating it is entirely another.”
I noticed that too, but apparently that is beneath us as the United States (According to the Democrats)
Korean War....human wave attacks..that was pure blunt force.
It is amazing what someone will do to their own people to achieve victory. Yes, they have a brutal resourcefulness.
1. USS Ranger isn’t a modern carrier
2. Modern carriers can operate for years out at sea and have operated up to 9 months at sea.
We we first were bringing carriers into the gulf, they weren’t allowed into the ports. Too dangerous. They would have to stay out there for the 4 months they were deployed underway.
I was really wasn’t trying to be condescending. Sometimes people use the “why don’t they just use pencils” story without asking, why not? There are a million stories about the thousand dollar piece of equipment— comparable to what seems to be on a common desktop.
But what the average folks don’t usually think about are the tolerances built into some of this stuff.
In a full gravity environment pencil dust just falls to the floor. In zero g it floats all over the place and gets into electronics and lungs. Again, not such a big deal when floating around for a day or two—but over months it could be a problem.
Really, I am not crticizing YOU, but rather encouraging folks to understand why these stories may sound reasonable, but when they are thought through, there is a reasonable explanation.
My point is that no matter how mechanically sound and wonderful our carriers are, they still have human beings operating them (which is part of why they are so wonderful) and you can’t keep that many people out at sea without some downtime.
OK, I dated myself with reference to the USS Ranger. At the time, she WAS omne of our most modern carriers.
I agree, and I’m not offended. Thank you for your thoughful post.
Along the same lines, my initial post was not to say “Look how smart the Soviets were and we weren’t” but to say that often the small things are overlooked (and that superior technology isn’t always reliable—as you pencil shavings references points out...the best laid plans, as they say). I was misinformed about the fact that we both used pencils, and both stopped around the same period, admittedly, but the fact remains, we have to look at the big and small pictures, because both are important.
Also of note is that often while we come up with costly (arguably “better”) solutions and fixes, we come up with new technology and applications by accident, which is why the cutting of the space program is a mistake in the opinion of many.
Those modern carriers have downtime facilities on them now.
The Ranger was like people packed into a sardine can compared to the new ones.
They only need unrep and virtrep to give them food and fuel and they are good to go.
We even saw a F18 hit the back of the Abraham Lincoln and they didn’t pull into port, everything proceeded as normal as if it didn’t even happen.
Surely you can't be serious?
This is sounding like the refurbishment was rushed. I'm thinking baling twine and duct tape.
That's a compliment BTW.
Thanks. Just trying to put things in context of the “bigger picture”.
Wasn’t “Uncle Bill” that little clay figure from the old Saturday Night Live that was always getting beat up by bully “Slugo”? No wait, that was ((MR.)) Bill! :)
Thanks for the information, but as you pointed out in your post, the IJN defeated the world’s third largest navy in 1904.
So while I was misinformed about the IJN’s history, I was still correct in that the IJN had already established itself as a naval power long before WWII, during the Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905), correct?
Here (I think from last week) the JBDs are in place 
Here the upper set of articulation arms are fitted 
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
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.