US, China aircraft carriers could cross paths in January

>>32544070
Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense (MND) Wednesday declined to comment on speculation regarding the Liaoning's return route, but maintained that it has been keeping a close eye on the aircraft carrier's movement.

The MND said it would respond to situations arising from the Liaoning's voyage.

A PRC foreign ministry spokesman on Tuesday declined to elaborate on the motives of the Liaoning exercises when asked whether they were meant to assert Beijing's sovereignty claims to the South China Sea.

"You can ask the military for details about the aircraft carrier. As for China's position on the issue of the South China Sea, it is very clear and there is no need for me to repeat it here," said the spokesman, Geng Shuang, at a regular press conference.

The CNA cited Geng as declining to confirm the return route of the Liaoning. Geng said the Liaoning was carrying out plans to conduct scientific research and training in the South China Sea and to examine the capabilities of its weaponry systems.

>>32544070
If the Kuznetsov deployment has one lesson, it is that simply having a carrier and planes is 1/5th of what you need to be able to run day to day carrier operations at a competent level. Let alone at the level the Americans do.

The Brits chickened out and went the STOVL variant due to cost and personnel training. The Chinese have bigger ambitions but they are funny if they think this is anything more than valuable training.

File: 1457318431073.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>mfw an Asian country wants to get into carrier fights with us again

LIKE OLD TIMES

>>32545223
What do you mean?
Considering china will be deploying it within the South China Sea running AAW ASW and air refuel runs should just be easer than it currently is
It will just give more range to ASF than if they have to use main land runways

>>32545223
>The Brits chickened out and went the STOVL variant due to cost and personnel training.

There's more reasons than that, but working to a budget and timescale isn't retarded buddy. That's like suggesting the USN pussybitched out of NGFS because of cutting the Zumwalt class to three.

>>32544070
Its funny how misleading that image is, most likely made by the chinese government.

>>32545223
>The Brits chickened out and went the STOVL variant due to cost and personnel training.

actually it was so that we could afford two carriers rather than just one

>>32545688

It's actually a little more complex than that. But yes, affordability was one of the issues.

File: 184058zge7ca2rc7fchdr8.jpg (340KB, 1600x955px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1600x955px

Bet that it will probably be a friendly meeting.

PLAN to USN relationship is actually pretty good. Chinese Coast Guard and Fishery Militia on the other hand...

>>32544070
>Liaoning
>only carries 40 aircraft
Shameful

File: USN carrier strike group.jpg (424KB, 2048x1024px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 2048x1024px

>>32547026
24-26 fixed wing J-15, rest are helicopters of all sorts, inlcuding 4 Z-18J AEW.

Nimitz-class carries only 48 Superbugs and Growlers. Aside of the E-2s, the rest is unimportant.

Only the fixed wing fighters are important, as they kill stuff.

And as my simulations show, even the full complement of 48 Superbugs and Growlers are unable to penetrate the Liaoning CBG's SAM and J-15 screen.

>>32544070
>literally ships passing in the night
HOLY SHIT STOP THE PRESSES AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>32547096
>And as my simulations show
I'm crying, my sides. Thanks anon I needed a laugh.

and who are you, exactly?

File: 20. All Vampires defeated - 96 Harpoon ICRs and 10 HARMs.jpg (468KB, 1665x719px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1665x719px

>>32547096
>>32547116

Scenario still stands.

After 2 years.

>>32547096
>>32547122
Hi do u have with Df-21D ? Thank

File: 26. limited numbers of SM-3 cannot stop the ASBM.jpg (717KB, 1916x915px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 1916x915px

>>32547134
Was testing the DF-26 ASBM, but that CMANO version was lazy and gave them DF-21D reentry vehicles (ten ASBMs were intercepted before RV release).

80 DF-21D (2 brigades, each with 40 launchers and another 40 reloads, China reportedly has seven brigades) vs CBG penetrated the SM-3 after exhausting them and SM-6 defenses by simply rushing through (SM-6 are terminal interceptors, hence they have little reaction time to shoot down all leakers).

Will probably try a test with an ASBM brigade more against more SM-3s per ship soon.

>>32547096
And when someone competent repeats your scenario, they sink the Liaoning battle group with half the assets you used.

>>32547179
>CBG penetrated the SM-3 after exhausting them and SM-6 defenses by simply rushing through (SM-6 are terminal interceptors, hence they have little reaction time to shoot down all leakers).
So carrier was defeat ? thank u

>>32547188
>competent

yeah, by not putting any Z-18J AEWs infront of the group as normal carrier commanders would, and not launching any J-15s to intercept the enemy when they detect either any jamming going on or a big swarm of planes coming.

My scenario still stands: 450 nmi distance between both groups, AEW and satellites allowed. Slugfest to be done by the carrier fighters only.

Noone managed to bring that scenario down.

And USNI agreed: You need at least 2 carrier groups to defeat the single chinese one, even if the Chinese one cannot sink any of the USN's.

Which is why the US is training for that:

https://news.usni.org/2016/09/12/stennis-co-details-deployment-highlights-dual-carrier-ops-international-interactions

>>32547179
>hence they have little reaction time

Want to know why you admitted engineering your results?

>>32547227
Like I said, your scenarios never stand when someone competent repeats them.

>>32547247
Bro, do you know what "terminal interception capability" means?

It means that you can spot those ASBM coming for you hours before, but you can just intercept them when they are entering the atmosphere and inside the engagement envelope of the SM-6. And this translates in a reaction time counted in seconds for a Mach 10 RV.

You can have over 9000 SM-6. It still means shit, if you only have 20 seconds to intercept merely 80 ASBM RVs.

File: 1471038432300.jpg (60KB, 426x426px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 426x426px

>>32547096
>And as my simulations show, even the full complement of 48 Superbugs and Growlers are unable to penetrate the Liaoning CBG's SAM and J-15 screen.
Oh fuck, he's back again

>>32547268
>Mach 10 RV.
Mach 10 in the lower atmosphere? Is that the terminal velocity..?

File: 8. Strike Pagacke on the way, Growlers Jam Chinese AEW&C pickets.jpg (767KB, 1917x913px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 1917x913px

>>32547261

Growlers even jammed and shot down those AEW pickets in my scenario. And they launched all their HARMs against the Chinese carrier group.

I was being lenient, as no J-15s were actually launched to intercept that air group, since only a few air-superiority fighters launching their BVRAAMs against Superbugs fully loaded with Harpoons and drop-tanks would prompt the AI to simply jettisson all non-air-combat related ordnance so that they can evade the AAMs coming for them. And this would mean that China achieved a mission kill against the Superbugs.

>>32547268
>It means that you can spot those ASBM coming for you hours before,

You have hours of reaction time.

>>32547293
Yes, but your terminal stage missile interceptors only have seconds.

You better stock up your entire carrier escort group with SM-3 and SM-6 only. But better forget all those ESSM, Tomahawks, ASROC, LRASM etc.

File: 1115423-powerranger2486.jpg (51KB, 750x563px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 750x563px

>>32547096
>>32547122
>>32547179
>>32547227
>>32547292
>My scenario still stands

And so we enter a new age.

>>32547292
You can stop pretending you haven't been caught incorrectly using USN assets in every scenario you post.

>>32547321
Holy shit, Scenario Stands-guy is still around?

>>32547330
>incorrectly

tell me your magic about how to conduct a proper anti-carrier group strike at 450 nautical miles with your complement of F/A-18E and Growlers.

>>32547311
Hence your engineered results, you are only allowing them a few seconds window to take action.

>>32547350
Do we really need to go over how you misused them in the past, or are you going to pretend that never happened?

File: took only three hits for 88 percent damage and flooding.jpg (512KB, 1902x847px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 1902x847px

>>32547346
The original.

I made this scenario for the Iowa-fags.

Aren't we still lacking an explanation on how these warheads are being targeted

>>32547351
"I" didnt allow them to, it's the database and the specs of the SM-6 missiles that forces them to. Hell, even the recent SM-6 tests against MRBMs simulating the DF-21D were only terminal interceptions.

SM-6 isnt the be all and end all for anti ASBM defense. SM-3 are needed for mid-course defense and I have included them as well.

Maybe not as many as /k/ would be satisfied with, but the Chinese side in that scenario also just used two ASBM brigades against an entire Carrier Group. Next time I make an imaginary CBG with only SM-3 and SM-6, both numbering in the hundreds, and I can pretty much guarantee that the results will be the same when facing against five instead of two ASBM brigades.

File: communicating through plasma sheath.jpg (67KB, 640x617px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x617px

>>32547382

>Carriers pass by each other
>American sailors stand on the rim and moon the chinese
>Chinese throw rotten fish and moon back

How it should be

>>32547413

And has this been implemented?

>>32547413
Something that is not applicable.

Didn't scenariostands get butthurt recently in a scenario where the USN had to disable two ports because an anon used SSGN?

>>32547413
plasma really shouldn't be able to be used as an antenna given our current understanding of high energy particle physics, any information would be lost in a massive amount of random noise inseparable from the actual message
but it's not like I'm an authority or anything, it'd be neat if they're right

>>32547482
Was it the one where he opened with a massive, Pearl Harbor x 10 first strike with a massive ballistic missile attack on every American base in the western pacific? I'm not one of those types who will claim ded carrier = automatic nuclear counterattack but it seems a lot more likely in that scenario.

>>32547541
I believe so, is was a USN carrier group and a PLAN surface group. Anon Tomahawk spammed the naval bases with SSGN because scenariostands wanted to allow China the use of land assets while denying them to America.

>>32546757
>PLAN to USN relationship is actually pretty good

Really?

File: hggnnn.jpg (805KB, 2324x1416px) Image search: [Google]

805KB, 2324x1416px

How pathetic is it when countries outside of the US have had almost 60 years now to come up with a carrier that is on par if not better than USS Enterprise and the Nimitz class and yet they're still building utter garbage.

The best they can do is a carrier with a 3rd of the jets embarked 2/3rds the size and will only operate 1/2 the time.

I mean the French get points for at least trying to copy the nimitz with a flattop nuclear carrier
The brits get points for building two and having that automated weapons system
India is trying but when they're shitting in the streets maybe they should have other priorities than building floating nuclear reactors

And this is nothing more than a cheap chinese knock off of a russian pile of shit.

>>32547586
>scenariostands wanted to allow China the use of land assets while denying them to America.
What kind of land assets does the US have in the region? All I can think of are the ports, the airbases, and some SAM batteries.

>>32547835
Nobody else NEEDS aircraft carriers because they don't need to do more power projection beyond very small war scenarios. Nobody else needs freedom of the seas either, and it's highly debatable the US does since we don't require trade for actual national survival.

If you don't need to project power, why waste the money?

>>32547403
Hi, can you answer terminal velocity in sea level of Df-21D warhead? Is Mach 10?

>>32547730
The USN and PLAN have a good relationship.

>“Every day a US ship is down here, we interact with the Chinese…It’s not uncommon for one of my officers of the decks to pick up the radio and start talking about stuff with the Chinese sailors.”

>officers had spoken to the Chinese warship about dinner plans and Halloween: “We picked up the phone and just talked to him about ‘What are you guys doing this Saturday? We got pizza and wings. What are you guys eating? We’re planning for Halloween’.”

>the officers cordially bid farewell to each other: “When they left us they said, ‘Hey, we’re not going to be with you anymore. Wish you a pleasant voyage. Hope to see you again’.”

https://qz.com/543261/in-the-south-china-sea-us-and-chinese-navies-chatted-about-pizza-and-chicken-wings/

>>32547978
How inspiring

They die last

>>32547889
Stop this.
A strong navy has always been important for any nation wanting to look after trade across the oceans.
In the past the Royal/Spanish and French navies controlled the seas with ever escalating warships, culminating in the First rate line of battle ship then onto the carriers we have today representing international power and dominance.

Aircraft carriers are symbols of conventional military might on par with a nuclear deterrence.
Denying this is being either ignorant or naive.

>>32547889
>since we don't require trade for actual national survival
You're out of your postmodern little fucking mind.

File: 1481344159580.png (577KB, 901x889px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 901x889px

>>32545307
>That's like suggesting the USN pussybitched out of NGFS because of cutting the Zumwalt class to three.

Isn't that exactly how people would describe it though? It's not like we're here for a well reasoned discussion.

>>32547835
FUCK OFF IOWA FAG

>>32547403
Only one problem with that plan, china does not have 5 ASBM brigades worth of DF-21D's.

They dont have more than 150 TELs for ALL the DF-21 varients, and they dont have the operational mobility of a ship. (You cant mass them easily).

Given a perfect hit for the static target, there was still some near misses witch means not every missile will hit (not to meantion the fact its completely untested vs a moving target)

>>32548112

Oh, and sauce.


https://books.google.com/books?id=sSmoCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT247&lpg=PT247&dq=DF-21D+inventory&source=bl&ots=mNx9Jrgkzk&sig=lQwjj9Q0zmYWSp85kT3_s52Q8k8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTi6_u_6vRAhUZ0IMKHTgoCH8Q6AEIHTAH#v=onepage&q=DF-21D%20inventory&f=false

File: unnamed.jpg (57KB, 1013x631px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1013x631px

>>32548071
>Fuck of iowa fag
>Linked post doesn't mention battleships or iowas at all
What did he mean by this?

>>32547860
>All I can think of are the ports, the airbases, and some SAM batteries.
>the airbases

>>32547227
>And USNI agreed: You need at least 2 carrier groups to defeat the single chinese one, even if the Chinese one cannot sink any of the USN's.

You're as full of shit as a Christmas goose. There was no mention of a Chinese carrier in that article that you linked. It briefly discussed the types of joint training the Stennis and Reagan did, as well as the exercises they did with allied nations.

Your biggest mistake is in assuming that the USNI speaks for the USN in some way, shape, or form. It doesn't. The 2 entities have nothing in common, other than similar sounding names.

>>32548472
and besides, bringing OVERWHELMING FORCE is just America's Hat. Of course we'd throw two CVG's at the chinese, we want to make doubly sure they're dead

File: US_Navy_Battle_Force_Zulu_carriers_overhead_view_in_1991.jpg (315KB, 904x544px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 904x544px

>>32548494
The us brought 4 for saddam, not counting gators. China thinking they rate less than that is cute.

Pic related.

File: image.png (234KB, 606x622px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 606x622px

I can't believe I missed the return of the Scenerio guy.
Fucking job, making miss the best shitposter in years.

anyone have the original scenario screencap?

>>32547096
>>scenario still stands
Has it really been 2+ years?

>>32547096
The meme that the USN has 10 carrier battlegroups all out at sea needs to die.

>>32548614
They only have one right now until February.

>Be sometime in late January/early February 2017
>Chinese carrier group gets in a scuffle with a US carrier group
>It's a minimal scuffle with no real engagement. Just some political stand off where both sides agree to disagree and walk away.
>North Korea doesn't get the full story and jumps the gun on South Korea.
>China doesn't want to get involved.
>North Korea gets btfo'd
Whats the likelihood of this happening?

>>32548627
zero

>>32548203
To be fair, it did have a picture of an Iowa there; we've honestly been having too much of that shit here lately.

>>32548656
>lately
I'm not a battleshipfag, I think they're equally neat and relevant as first rates are.
It's a pity there isn't more fans of early battleships here from before the US entered WW2, when battleships were at both their peak and the end of their era

>>32548614
Who claimed this?

>>32548816
that infographic

>>32548855
But it doesn't

>>32547268
>if you only have 20 seconds to intercept merely 80 ASBM RVs.

Which becomes a lot easier if you were able to generate a firing solution before the RVs came into range. I guess you've never been duck or goose hunting.

>>32550820
Duck and Geese have nothing to do with missile intercepts, His Scenario Stands Despit The Work Of An Enemy Stand

>>32550884
>Duck and Geese have nothing to do with missile intercept

They both involve generating a firing solution on airborne targets which are prone to random and erratic movement in a hostile environment.

In both cases, it's a lot easier if you can begin tracking the target before it comes into range.

>>32550884
and why can't they intercept earlier

Anyways, the US can match China missile for missile easily enough

The problems the US is facing come from demographic decline and a majority non-white US Navy

>>32548855
Infograph says the US has 10 battle groups, not 10 deployed battle groups, learn to read

>>32548512

And there were 2 more out at sea in different regions as well.

There were also the same number out deployed as recently as the Iraq/Afgh conflicts.

6 seems to be the high tempo number that the USN can operate when it has to.

>>32551309
>majority non-white US Navy

33.8% minorities is not a majority.

>>32547730
PLAN has a good relationship with US Navy vessels armed with guns because they know we can fuck them up. When they interact with unarmed intelligence ships they act like total dicks because they know they can get away with it.

>>32547292
umm no you didn't. Because in the original scenario you posted >>32547122
the only losses to the Chinese side were missiles. And if the picket was shot down it would appear in losses.

File: 6328.jpg (58KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x600px

>>32544070
>ramp

File: 46624264.gif (2MB, 260x260px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 260x260px

>>32545237
SOURCE?????

is this the Enterprise?

>>32548656
>we've honestly been having too much of that shit here lately
You sound like an utter neet faggot that needs to get a job and go outside.

>nobody has brought up the time muh scenario had hornets launching thier missiles from like 40,000 feet in the air so they could be picked off by Chinese missiles defenses

File: 1482808963800.png (495KB, 800x602px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 800x602px

>>32547889
>we don't require trade for actual national survival

File: 1480464926176.jpg (143KB, 1148x1100px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1148x1100px

>>32545237
There's always the chance that China's expectation of a realistic engagement is closer than America's expectation though.

I wonder which is more delusional, the PLA or the US Navy?

So throw on-the-deck picnics at the same time.

>>32553558
>I wonder which is more delusional, the PLA or the US Navy?

I dunno, but some general recently threatened to shoot down Australian planes doing freedom-of-navigation flights in the South China Sea.

>>32553567
Do they underestimate the US Navy?
Do they consider themselves exceptional for some reason? I know there's lots of PLA propaganda going on, just wondering if they were convinced they were supermen or something.

File: 1481177883308.gif (360KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 500x375px

>>32553558

>tfw the 2nd Pacific War ends up proving Iowafag right

>>32553580

They intend to draw the USN into fighting off their littoral where they hope land-based aviation and missiles will mitigate the disparity of forces.

The reason they want to pick a fight isn't that they think they can take us so much as that they view the SCS as a vital strategic interest. The PLAN wants to follow a Soviet Bastion strategy for protecting its second-strike capability, and it can't do that if a bunch of US allies have shit inside the bastion that allows us to hold their nuclear deterrent at risk. If it comes down to it they will fight us rather than accept this.

>>32553558

The PLA.

The US Navy has access to more sources of information and wasn't subjected to "patriotic education" their whole life in a one-party state.

Of course the unknown now is America's Commander-In-Chief of said Navy. Virtually all the Republicans with experience in Asia have refused to serve Trump, so that leaves newbies.

>>32553580
I don't know if they underestimate the US Navy, but I think that they're being pushed into a corner with their (((territorial claims)))

>>32553613

China's problem with its "lines in the sand" is that it has drawn up a ridiculous number of them and too far into other nations' own claims.

It's only a matter of time before Asia's neighbors team up in the name of mutual interest.

>>32553653
Unlikely.

Japan's still useless, despite Shogun Abe trying to rearm. South Korea is in turmoil and they've been quietly sucking up to the PRC since Bush ignored Asia. The Philippines are run by the Chinese version of Trump and firmly in their pocket. Malaysia too has been bought out.

Vietnam is desperately trying to find allies, but nobody really wants to give it a go. Our big shot was to form a trading bloc, so those nations rely on us to feed their little factory workers, but with TPP dead and the Chinese pushing their own trade deals our influence in the region will be at an all time low.

>>32553604
Anyone with experience in asia right now is at fault for this whole situation

>>32553751

I question the wisdom of having total novices handle policy in a complicated region.

>>32553764
I dont see how complicated it is. It seems like all this complexity is just excuses to try and obfuscate the simple fact that conflict with the PRC is inevitable along this course, and they are arming up.

Now the chinese economy is doing badly as evident by them recently having to pull out all the stops in number fudging to report something favorable, so maybe they will colapse. What we need are people capable of analyzing the situation and determining if we go for economic victory, revolution, or war. Those are the only options, peace is impossible with the PRC, its structure fosters paranoia and ego to thrive in, meaning its external interactions will reflect its internal ones, deceit and the attempt to accumulate more power whatever the cost. You cant coexist with that.

>>32553723

Killing TPP was seriously the blunder of the century.

>b-but muh anime torrents

fuck your torrents and fuck coal country too it was about underpinning the hegemony which keeps the entire American world order going

I'm still mad

>>32553603
China will not ever fight America, unless America has more pussy weak presidents like Obama

>>32553764
Anything is better than fucking neo-cons

If the US communists weren't calling the shots in WW2 & after, the US would have helped the nationalists win the civil war.

>>32553938

>wasting more money on Ching Chong Chiang the magnificent yellow fuckup

just give the Shermans directly to the ChiComs, they'd capture the fucking things anyway

CCTV - China Carrier Strike Group J-15 Naval Fighters Flight Testing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoS1FyE6Wa8

>>32547122
> I can't into naval strike, the legendary post

>>32552021
I am seriously very worried about the recent announcement of an operational pause for the USN
apparently ALL the carriers were in port, doing maintenance, earlier this month
looks like preparations for war, to me

>>32553903
If you want some shit ass trade deal dropped, you add a bunch of stupid ass clauses to it that literally no one actually wants, which is exactly what happened.
The TPP wasn't a step for American hegemony, it was just globalism with a distinctly Hollywood flavoring.

>>32553723
>South Korea is in turmoil and they've been quietly sucking up to the PRC since Bush ignored Asia.

Now that's a joke if i ever heard one.

Somebody get the chicoms to post images of SK leaders with chinese leaders, as if it is relevent.

>>32554057

Enjoy your globalism-free economy when the Chinks make the Cis-Pacific Trade Pact in which we have no influence

fucking stupid protectionist memes have destroyed this country

>>32553936
how can you say he's weak? He made the shift towards the Pacific and ramped up rotations and deployments there.

>>32554136
>china trade pact with Japan

try again

>>32554111
As a worst gook, there is some truth to that; the current president tried to be more friendly with fucking china of all countries. It's ok though. We'll hang her soon, and then remind ourselves of the 4000 times that China has invaded our country.

I don't know what we're going to do without the US. I'm not sure if we could last 3 years.

I'd be willing to accept ~10 million casualties if it meant freedom from China.

>>32548627
North Korean leadership knows plenty well that their comfortable lifestyle and family's lifestyle will end horribly the moment they start real shit. Unless they are absolutely 110% sure that the US is completely btfo and something is fucking up SK's military, they would be grade A retards if they jump the gun from the slightest news.
They just occasionally give a little push in order to get attention and aid for their starving population.
The past thing China wants is possible malnutritioned and dumb refugees swarming into their already full-as-fuck country.

>>32554933
Sk bro, we are not going anywhere.

Our militarys are too close, you put in more than your fair share, and you have our backs.

Never forget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident#Operation_Paul_Bunyan

>>32554136
TPP was just SOPA on a grander scale.
Fuck the treaty, its a shit ass trade deal that only empowers select corporations while everyone else gets fucked.

>>32555057
>fuck yo tree nigga, fuck. yo. tree.

>>32553613
>being pushed into a corner

More like painting themselves into a corner.

>>32554136
>Cis-Pacific Trade Pact

Is that like the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere?

I bet it ends the same way.

>>32555061
Literally no one got fucked by the TPP but China. What the fuck are you talking about.

>>32555206
Holy fuck, anon. Did you have any goddamn idea what was actually in that fucking thing?

>>32547096

24 Hornets
4 Harpoons each

4 DDGs with 8 Harpoons

2 CGs with 8 Harpoons

There is zero way a Chink CVBG could shoot down the amount of Harpoons coming there way.

Hornets will hover on maximum SAM range spamming HARM at your radars....

>>32547096
>Nimitz-class carries only 48 Superbugs and Growlers.

not entirely accurate, in wartime they can stick another squadron on it.

>>32548040
>>32553553
>His nation cant survive on its own

cuck

>>32555509
its about imposing will, cuck

>>32545237
Dong Fengs are the Zeros of the 21st century.

>>32553653
China also has a tendency to draw the line as far as it can and than come to an agreeable compromise to appear magnanimous.

>>32555487

>J-15 has significantly longer range than F-18.
>Harpoon. USN stuck in the disco era.

File: manlet sighting.gif (2MB, 400x206px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x206px

>>32553984
>a ramp