Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Japan unveils $1.2B not-an-aircraft-carrier aircraft carrier, biggest Japanese ship since WW2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by gribbler View Post
    This thread is about the inalienable right of the Ainu people to secede from Japan
    Fortunately, Japan has just the boat for them to sail away in.
    “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
    "Capitalism ho!"

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by kentonio View Post
      If they are a distinct group like the Kurds who are part of other nations due to conquest and who have been fighting for a separate homeland for this long, why would they be happy remaining under the authority of their existing governments?
      They wouldn't? You can't always get what you want.

      Comment


      • #78
        Coming back to the original topic of the thread, aircraft carriers...

        Originally posted by kentonio View Post
        Not really, we'll be buying F-35Bs.

        Yes, they scrapped the Harrier fleet which lots of people think was a poor decision.
        Not as poor as you might think. The Harrier is not a very capable fighter, especially operated off of a STOVL carrier. It's subsonic, it has crappy range and endurance, and it can't carry much in the way of weapons. Apaches are a huge step down obviously but they're much less of a maintenance hassle and they have two engines.

        The F-35B suffers from many of the same problems as the Harrier but it is at least supersonic, which gives it an actual air-to-air capability against modern jets that's worth talking about.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
          Not as poor as you might think. The Harrier is not a very capable fighter, especially operated off of a STOVL carrier. It's subsonic, it has crappy range and endurance, and it can't carry much in the way of weapons. Apaches are a huge step down obviously but they're much less of a maintenance hassle and they have two engines.

          The F-35B suffers from many of the same problems as the Harrier but it is at least supersonic, which gives it an actual air-to-air capability against modern jets that's worth talking about.
          It was a ****ty decision because it left us with a gaping hole in our capabilities until the F-35 is ready.

          Comment


          • #80
            That could be awhile.
            "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
            "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by kentonio View Post
              It was a ****ty decision because it left us with a gaping hole in our capabilities until the F-35 is ready.
              Not really. The Harrier was being used primarily for ground support and the Apache covers that nicely. In the past, the Harrier was useful against older air frames in an air superiority role, but most of the world has upgraded past those older airframes. Either way, having kept them or not, they did not provide the airpower projection that is needed.
              "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

              Comment


              • #82
                They are still useful against the kind of people we'd be likely to have conflict with in the next decade or so.

                Comment

                Working...
                X