Ramps are OK, don't listen to Burgers

File: Chinese J-15 Fighter Jet YJ-83 C803 ANTISHIP MISSILE CV16 Liaoning Aircraft Carrier People's Liberation Army Navy (PLA Navy) j-15 16 17 18 19 j-20 j-31 z-8 z-9 z-10 z-19 z-15 z-16 z-17 aewc pl-12 pl-98asr 10 bvr c8023yj (4).jpg (59KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x360px

>>33799902
The anti ship load out in question.

>>33799902
two yen deposited in your account, commerade

the ability of the human brain to rationalize is truly a miracle. you are an example of this miracle.

File: gOhP3Of.gif (381KB, 466x273px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 466x273px

>>33799908
Launching the YJ-83 AShM.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XCNfJ3xZ-Ok

File: cztyhw4xcaaranz.jpg (49KB, 1080x594px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1080x594px

>>33799918
Impacting on target ship.

File: J-15_YJ-83K.jpg (61KB, 980x345px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 980x345px

According to Burgers, pic related isn't possible with ski jump carriers.

>>33799923
>>33799918
>>33799902


>chinese fighters can do stuff

amazing, can you next time make a tread after you successfully wipe your ass ?

File: THAWK.jpg (269KB, 800x585px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 800x585px

>>33799902
Still waiting on you to mctwist an AWACS or fixed-wing SSC off thatmighty hooknose you have there, Mr. Chan.

File: PLN CV-001A - 20170426 official launch - XL 4.jpg (360KB, 1502x960px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1502x960px

As such, it is almost sure that the Shandong will be a very powerful carrier with a capable carrier wing.

32 J-15s, each equipped with a load out of eight BVRAAMs (PL-12 or PL-15) will give the fleet defense CAP at least 256 missiles to shoot down incoming Harpoons and LRASMs with. And that is before the naval SAMs come into action.

It can be said that a Chinese carrier group is basically unsinkable by the air attacks of an opposing carrier strike group.

My scenario (still) stands.

File: carrier_02.jpg (30KB, 550x357px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 550x357px

>>33799960
Nothing inherently hard with that.
China is developing CATOBAR carriers now for AWACS, but even without, rocket assisted takeoff from the short position, or normal takeoff from the long position is entirely possible with wind over deck.

After all, if even a C-130 can takeoff unassisted from a flat deck, there is no reason a much lighter Yak-44 can't.

>>33799965
Cool. So which of your neighboring countries do you think you'll start bombing first to convince them they should let you build a naval base first? Vietnam, Japan, or the Phillipines?

>>33799960
The hook nose is a feature that gives more lift to planes. Flat deck without catapults is also possible, but you would need a long runway for it.

Ski jump discrimination needs to end. Ski jump is your friend and helper.

>>33799988
Duterte, in any case, is already in China's pocket.

Just as Trump is, who can't get enough of praising Xi Jinping.

>>33800001
But that's not what I asked, PRC-anon. You're going to need to test that force projection out somewhere. Maybe off the coast of Africa?

>>33799988
the correct answer is INDIA

or have you not been paying attention

>>33800021
I would think India is more worried about the PLANs subs though.

>>33799902

Because most ameritards have a mentality of "we`re numbuh one!" while in retality their defence budget is wasted on controversial weapons and systems

>>33799988

China isn`t aggresor in the Eastern Asia, USA is.

File: yak-44.jpg (107KB, 1000x483px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1000x483px

>>33799960
>Hurr durr can't have AWACS without CATOBAR
This meme needs to die a painful death.

>>33799902
>With over 20 knots wind over deck
Good luck. I hope it's windy during your war.

>>33800097
> China isn`t the aggressor in the Eastern Asia, USA is.

Won't deny that. But we both know you aren't building the Laoling and Shendong to fight off Nimitzes and Fords.

So, who are you going to test those swanky new J15s on. Someone has to either have a no-fly zone declared, or lose some valuable infrastructure. It's like an entry into the big boy club.

I'm thinking political fallout from Vietnam may be too risky, so probably some rebel uprising in Africa around one of your oil projects in Ghana?

>>33799902
No info whatsoever on the fuel quantity carried

It's funny after years of

>Carrier are useless weapons! We will destroy them with our magic missiles!

Now these Broken Branches spout

> We have carriers now! We are the one ture superpower! We will peacefully conquer our neighbors.

>>33800129
You either rely on wind, or you simply sail with 20 knots.

>>33799902
>It carries two YJ-83K Anti ship missiles, each weighting 715kg, as well as two PL-8 Short range air to air missiles, weighting 115kg each. This is the minimum strike load out of this large carrier fighter. With over 20 knots wind over deck, it would be able to carry much more.
You have no indication or reliable information as to how much fuel it is also carrying. If it gets off the deck with that but only has a quarter fuel load, it's still pretty useless.

>>33800134
Fuel quantity and range isn't important if you just have to launch 250km ranged missiles at enemy ships, or 100km ranged AAMs for fleet air defense.

Hell, the Flankers can just have 200km combat radius and it would still be quite effective for fleet defense.

>>33800212
It's not. You don't need to loiter if you are only conducting anti ship strikes or missile defense missions while being cued by AEW helos.

File: Carriers VS SUW.png (72KB, 937x686px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 937x686px

>>33800215
>Fuel quantity and range isn't important if you just have to launch 250km ranged missiles at enemy ships, or 100km ranged AAMs for fleet air defense.
This is the most retarded sentence I've ever read.

If this were true, you wouldn't need naval aviation at all and instead would simply use the similarly or better ranged VLS munitions in your surface warfare ships.

Pic related is why fuel load and combat radius very fucking much does matter.

>>33799902
>Meanwhile, Rafale M can take off from the CdG with up to 11 550kg of fuel and ordnance.
>6850kg of ordnance with full tanks.
Hahaha

>>33800249
This, although the Rafale's internal range is pretty short

>>33800205
Are you implying carriers aren't answering bells during flight ops?

>>33800228
Range extension is fine, but China doesn't really need that, since their carrier is fleet air defense and light anti ship only. Their job is just to extend the sea-skimmer defense umbrella outside the range of their naval SAM, and with that, even quarter fuel is enough.

>>33800272
That avoids the point though; if it's just for local defense, why spend all this money on a carrier at all?

>>33800272
>but China doesn't really need that, since their carrier is fleet air defense and light anti ship only
Jesus Christ. Then why even bother with the expense? Land-based aircraft and surface warfare assets would do the job far better and at lower cost. Your back-assward reasoning makes no goddamn sense.

>Their job is just to extend the sea-skimmer defense umbrella outside the range of their naval SAM, and with that, even quarter fuel is enough.
So what you're saying is China doesn't have the faintest fucking idea what to do with a carrier, how to get the most out of it, or how to employ it as a force multiplier. Check.

File: 07-minister.jpg (10KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x225px

>>33800097
>China isn`t aggresor in the Eastern Asia

File: Antoine-Dodson-Dumb.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>33800097
>China isn`t aggresor in the Eastern Asia, USA is.

>>33800284
Nobody believes the spin that China isn't stepping up their local hegemony game. They watched the US and Russia pull that shit across the globe for the better part of a decade. Now they want their cut.

God, I hope they treat Vietnam, Philippines, and Malaysia better than we did South America in the 60s/70s and much better than Russia has ever treated any of their neighbors.

>>33800228
Tomahawks can also be used as anti-ship missiles.

>>33800286

>why bother with the expense?

because having a fleet of JF-15s able to deploy from anywhere in the world as a defensive measure is a fucking necessity in modern warfare? Even if it's purely to create a portable jet focused anti-AShM platform that can also be used for AShM and recon then it's a beneficial investment.

Being able to deploy a 8x250km missiles on a platform that can reach a 250km combat radius means you effectively have a 500km umbrella with which you can have either force denial or an anti-missile envelope.

Plus it adds an extra layer ontop of your CIWS and other anti-missile/AA projection and more layers is always a good thing.

>>33800286
You are reaching. Expected nothing more from Burgers.

The Su-33 has a combat radius of 1500km. Make it quarter and you still have over 350km combat radius. This is more than enough for fleet air defense and extending the range of their carried 250km ranged anti ship missiles, whilst keeping their own fleet outside the range of the enemy missiles.
There is no magic involved with carrier operations or their missions. Stop claiming otherwise. The advantage of a carrier is merely that it can conduct strikes or AAW with its air-wing against enemies without having to move your own fleet into the combat zone.

For China, adding 350km to their 250km ranged AShM by using their carrier fighters is already a huge force multiplier. And this is using your absolutely unsubstanciated claim that they take off with quarter fuel, while the Chinese themselves have already tested with maximum 32 ton takeoff at 25knots wind over deck.

>>33800337

Tomahawks also fly so slow that any CIWS will just massacre any attempt.

>>33800342
>what is a saturation attack

>>33800338
>Being able to deploy a 8x250km missiles on a platform that can reach a 250km combat radius means you effectively have a 500km umbrella with which you can have either force denial or an anti-missile envelope.
Not without AWACS it doesn't, junior.

>Plus it adds an extra layer ontop of your CIWS and other anti-missile/AA projection and more layers is always a good thing
There are literally a dozen other far more cost effective ways to get that done without using J-15s as extremely short-legged AA defense.

Admit it. You really didn't have any fucking clue what you were talking about when you made this thread, and now all you've got is this pathetic damage control.

>>33800117
It was just a mockup, Yak-44 was supposed to be launched from catapult.

>>33800215
>fuel quantity and range isn't important


this might be the sinle dumbest sentence anone ever typed in the entire history of threads about carrier aviation. Congratulations.

>>33800339
>The Su-33 has a combat radius of 1500km. Make it quarter and you still have over 350km combat radius. This is more than enough for fleet air defense and extending the range of their carried 250km ranged anti ship missiles, whilst keeping their own fleet outside the range of the enemy missiles.
That would still be 60% of the range of a fucking legacy Hornet, much less an F-35B, F-35C or superbug. Fucking pathetic.

>>33800117

the one where Ross was on a E-2 and landed it on the wrong carrier

>>33800315

>China isn't aggressor in the Eastern Asia
>Joos without a proper carrier group are

>>33800355
Moving the goalpost now?

Well, even without fixed wing AWACS, the Z-18J AEW helo with its 400km ranged AESA radar will be able to support the J-15 air wing adequately. A 3000m service ceiling and about 200km away from the carrier grouo, it takes advantage of its maximum radar range to early detect incoming enemy missiles. Not to mention that the J-15 themselves have their own AESA radars.

File: south-china-sea-may-11-2015.jpg (576KB, 650x915px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 650x915px

>>33800381
USA isn't making territorial claims on their neighbors and reinforcing those claims by stationing missiles and building bases there.

>>33800227

No but you do need to get in range and if your flight time is measured in seconds after lift off, well you might not make to launch point and back.

>>33800291
>>33800315
No, China is not really the aggressor, just America propaganda like to portrait them as bad guy as usual.
All present border or territory issues are old, some of them can even be traced back to 19th century, nothing new! No territory exchange and military conflicts actually happened. In contrast, America is not an Asian country but constantly send their entire fleet and missiles to China's backyard and front door, it's very obvious who is real aggressor in such situation. Furthermore, I recall US just launched a missile attack last week in middle east to someone who unable to fight back, aggressive and slef-righteous as always.

File: south_china_sea_20140904_700_1-lr_1.jpg (41KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 700x500px

>>33800413
>China is not really the aggressor,

>>33800212
>If it gets off the deck with that but only has a quarter fuel load, it's still pretty useless.

patently ridiculous. you dont send a truck out on deliveries with a full tank of fuel, and you dont send a plane up with a full tank. in-flight refueling is a thing for a reason.

you send the truck out fully laden with half a tank so when it gets to its furthest point from home base, it refuels. lrn2logistics.

>>33800406
But USA constantly bully and attack people in middle east, and put missiles in front of other country's doorway, and USA's neighbors won't make territorial claims to their territory and pretend to be innocent.

>>33800413
so you're saying USA is building those islands, and bases on india?

china doesn't honestly believe its biggest trading partner is hostile. this isnt about usa. without usa dollars, china is nothing more than russia. a giant 3rd world country with a second world army and nukes. china needs usa more than usa needs china...

>>33800440
>ISIS, Assad, Saddam, and Iran dindu nothin!
wow great argument

>>33800430
>you dont send a truck out on deliveries with a full tank of fuel
Uh, yes. Yes you fucking do. Especially when the entire point of the truck is to get your goods out as far as possible.

>in-flight refueling is a thing
Not for Chinese naval aviation, it isn't. I'm sorry, were you unaware that you had no tankers in your naval aviation, and nothing capable of launching off that ramp?

>you send the truck out fully laden with half a tank so when it gets to its furthest point from home base
So you're saying the combat aircraft should... refuel over it's fucking targets? At the most dangerous possible phase of it's mission? I really don't think you have any clue how this machine works.

File: 0_13ada4_e9c4b15_orig.jpg (309KB, 856x717px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 856x717px

>>33800339
>The Su-33 has a combat radius of 1500km. Make it quarter
How about no? But then again, with shitty Chinese production...
>>33800362
>Fucking pathetic.
Think again.

As predicted, Americans ruin everything

>>33800440
>and put missiles in front of other country's doorway
at the request of the people who have the missiles
it's not like south korea is just totally unaware of THAAD and the USA just quietly started setting up shop there

>>33800430
>>33800396
>>33800339
>>33800338
Holly shit. The asshurt damage control is real.

File: SEA Dindu Nuffin.png (71KB, 729x620px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 729x620px

>>33800416
Yeah, almost like every other countries around there are so innocent and Dindu Nuffin. The good-old America just like to stir shit up.

File: an-71 in flight.jpg (105KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 800x532px

>>33800356
No, the very purpose of its development was no create AWACS for STOBAR. The whole idea that having AWACS requires CATOBAR is just a pointless idiotic meme.

>>33800477
50 cent shills get BTFO every fucking time.

>>33800470
What were you expecting on 4chan? You kicked out the witty congenial Anglos back in the 90s.

>>33800470
>make stupid thread
>with ridiculous assertions
>when flaw in your argument is pointed out, engage ridiculous levels of damage control
>continue making outrageously flawed assertions about basic naval aviation tactics and principles

Yup. Sure. We ruined it.

Next time, maybe do five minutes of research before making a thread.

>>33800396
>Moving the goalpost now?
Who's moving goalposts? You claimed the J-15 could launch with a useful load. It was pointed out that there is no indication that it's carrying enough fuel to in fact be very useful. Now you're arguing that range somehow doesn't matter at all in naval aircraft. Are you retarded?

>>33800359
It really all depends on mission requirement.

Do you need a long loiter time and range if you want to knock out the air force of Saddam or fly CAS for moderate terrorist in Lybia? Yes, absolutely.

But do you need long loiter time and range if you were sent by the forward AEW helo pickets to intercept an incoming swarm of Harpoons? No.
Do you need that loiter time if you are sent to launch long range anti ship missiles at stand off distance against enemy ships? Also no.

All depends on mission requirement.

China, as it is now, has no interest in supporting any moderate terrorists with carrier borne CAS. And knocking out the Taiwanese airforce requires no carrier wing. So, why should they use their carriers the way the US uses them?

File: dredgers-pouring-sand-1500x1000.png (685KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 1500x1000px

>>33800496
We have literally nothing to do with territorial claims in the South China Sea. Also, China is the only one that is building fucking artificial islands so they can build massive military bases and claim the land and it's surrounding waters as their territory.

>>33800517
>Do you need that loiter time if you are sent to launch long range anti ship missiles at stand off distance against enemy ships? Also no.
>standoff distance

If their legs are that short, the carrier would be within range of VLS LRASMs, much less air-launched LRASMs from F-35Cs or superbugs.

Why is it muh scenario fiddycenters can't into the basic concepts of naval warfare?

>>33800536
Because China is literally applying theory and engineering from the occidentals without having a concrete doctrine of their own to filter it through? They are fake it till you make it, the nation.

>>33800440
>in front of other country's doorway

Those missiles are also in some country. The country in front of whose doorway that is doesn't get to dictate the relationships between their neighbour and the USA. In fact, the desire to do so is probably why the host country wanted them there in the first place.

Russia's neighbours want to be part of NATO because they spent most of the previous century under USSR dictatorship. Seoul wants THAAD coverage because Beijing gave its pet too loose a leash, and the damn thing came home with a bunch of nuclear warheads.

There's certainly room for improvement in US foreign policy, but China and Russia sure as hell are ones to speak here. And frankly I doubt they think any number of people worth talking about abroad will be stupid enough to buy the bullshit. This is all for the home front, where you paint your country as a victim of those damn, mean foreigners. Everything that's wrong is their fault! The dictatorship that has ruled supreme for ages is in no way responsible for anything. (Compare with Turkey, Hungary, Germany in the thirties, it's the same song and dance. Trump and the Brexit bunch happily follow this tune as well.)

>>33800536
And your USB carrier group is within range of Chinese DF-21Ds and 26s, no matter how long range your superbugs and F-35 are. Your point?

Chinese YJ-100 long range anti ship missiles inside he 052Ds VLS based on the 2500km ranged CJ-10 will also put the US strike group within range. What about it? Would you claim that the US carrier fighters are ineffective now, because enemy weapons outrange their combat radius?

>>33800560
Look at the complaints the US made when Russia put nukes in Cuba

Hypocritical faggots

So they launch a coup in Ukraine, start a civil war in Syria, bomb Lybia, and then wonder why Russia is upset

>>33800564
*USN

>>33800564
>And your USB carrier group is within range of Chinese DF-21Ds and 26s
Holy shit. He actually swallowed the meme whole. No mention of kill chain, no mention of ISR on target, only absolute range. Fucking genius.

You know, I think China's military capabilities worry me less and less every day. If they can't even get simple naval warfare concepts into their tiny little minds, they really shouldn't be much to worry about, should they?

>>33800571
>and are you hanging negros, with that tin foil special sauce
And now the thread is complete.

>>33800564
Pretty soon we'll have stealth air-refueling drones. Their entire purpose is to extend the range of our F35s and keep the carrier out of range of those missiles.

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/cno-new-stingray-drone-will-be-a-tanker

>>33799979
>After all, if even a C-130 can takeoff unassisted from a flat deck, there is no reason a much lighter Yak-44 can't.
Except for the fact that a Chinese carrier is piss tiny compared to a US carrier. Good luck launching an AWACs on a ramp with a tiny runway.

Also
>relying on the weather of the day to launch an aircraft on a carrier
LMAOing at your life

>>33800588
Yeah, and the US somehow doesn't need ISR when they launch 900km ranged LRASM against moving targets, eh? Fuck you too, man.

Seriously, China has enough reconnaissance satellites in orbit and underwater sonar networks in place, as well as OTH radars to form a decently redundant kill-chain for their ASBM. Inform yourself first. Google Yaogan and Gaofen series of satellites, as well as China's surface wave radars.

>>33800571
>launch a coup in Ukraine, start a civil war in Syria
>implying those events were not a direct result of Russia's incompetence at maintaining their vassals

>>33800607
You think we don't have that shit too?

>>33800560
>>33800475
>>33800445
>>33800443
>>33800416
>>33800406
>>33800291
>>33800315
All these butthurt burgermen, so precious, you look kinda mad. Remember, Americans single-handed create today's rapefugee problem, IS problem and Syria problem. American is the major culprit of the entire chaos in middle east.

>>33800620
>Assad dindu nothin
Wow, I've never heard that before.

>>33800606
You do know that there is a 200m plus long runway on the Liaoning as well, right?

The Liaoning isn't much smaller in terms of deck length compared to the Forrest's.

>>33800607
>Yeah, and the US somehow doesn't need ISR when they launch 900km ranged LRASM against moving targets, eh? Fuck you too, man.
Well, one of the two of us has long ranged theatre AWACS aloft, and will soon have CATOBAR VLO drones not to mention all the VLO STOVL and CATOBAR manned aircraft. What were China's VLO naval aircraft again? Oh, right. And that's before we get to the massive ISR advantage platform by platform in every other area the US enjoys over China.

So, yeah. We need it. Difference is, we actually have it.

>reconnaissance satellites in orbit
Not a single RORSAT, nor anything else that would provide real-time target track grade info

>underwater sonar networks in place
Really? For fucking weapons track ISR? Are you fucking kidding me right now with this bullshit?

>OTH radars
I really don't think you understand how this works.

>Google Yaogan and Gaofen series of satellites, as well as China's surface wave radars.
You are clearly the one who needs a better understanding of what, specifically, those instruments are capable of.

>>33800606
Wind over deck isn't weather. It means speed.

If you finished school, you will know that you can generate wind speeds over a surface if you move fast. But I don't expect you to know, Tommy.

>>33799902
2 AShMs is shit tier.

>>33800625
>Saudi Arabia dindu nuffin, also greatest ally
Wow, I've never heard that one before.

>>33800657
I didn't say that.

>>33800644
You don't really know anything I see.

Google "Chinese satellite tracks flying airliner in real time" on live leak.

There you will have your answer.

You are just ignorant and throw around with technobabble that makes it appear that the US uses magic to fucking heat water.
I tell you something: All your magic ISR and satellites couldn't help you fucking Scud-hunt in a fucking desert after achieving air supremacy. This is the real face of US capabilities kek.

>>33800636
Until the Chinese show some proof they can launch AWACS with their carrier, it's just a worthless point defense ship. Can't even project power and relies on imaginary super satellite as part of a kill chain.

>>33800666
>Google "Chinese satellite tracks flying airliner in real time" on live leak.
Yes, yes, we've all seen that fine piece of state propaganda bullshit. It's been debunked at least 4 times on /k/ alone. Sell it to someone dumb enough to buy it. You idiots literally took a series of pictures of an aircraft whose exact speed, location and destination you knew and passed it off as some sort of revolution in ISR. Fucking pathetic.

>>33800644
No Chinese RorSats?

Fucking Yaogan constellation. Google it.

And to add to that, Gaofen 4. Geostationary spy satellite with 50 resolution, confirmed with tracking oil tankers in real time.

Git gud, kiddo.

>>33800679
Show your evidence that it is debunked.

Kek, you are grasping at straws now.

Man, ameributthurt is so delicious. I should come here to troll you fucks more.

>>33800686
>Fucking Yaogan constellation. Google it.
>500+km orbits
>RORSAT
tip top fucking kek

>Gaofen 4. Geostationary spy satellite with 50 resolution
Are you kidding me with this bullshit right now?

>confirmed with tracking oil tankers in real time.
Yet no confirmed tracking on anything that can't be fucking looked up on any merchant hull registry site, current GPS track and all. I'll ask again, are you retarded?

>>33800666
>I tell you something: All your magic ISR and satellites couldn't help you fucking Scud-hunt in a fucking desert after achieving air supremacy. This is the real face of US capabilities kek.

BTFO

That burned.

>>33800666
>Google "Chinese satellite tracks flying airliner in real time" on live leak.
That's not proof of anything. It's like saying I can see an eagle a mile in the sky and say I can shoot it. You'll still need a weapons grade tracking radar, which China has none of because their carrier based AWACS don't exist. Why are Chineseboo so retarded that they think a satellite is enough to hit a carrier?

>>33800725
What? You use your carrier AWACS to detect enemy ships? Kek. How primitive. Meet the Chinese long range air to air missile.

>>33800249

>Can only carry a single ASM

It's a decent maritime fighter, but give me a Super Hornet or F-35B/C any day.

>>33800692
You're absolutely fucking retarded, slanteye.

He just said
>You idiots literally took a series of pictures of an aircraft whose exact speed, location and destination you knew and passed it off as some sort of revolution in ISR. Fucking pathetic.

It was of a commercial airliner with a predetermined flight path.

Congrats, it still doesn't help you hit it without a half decent weapons grade radar, and pro tip
>China cannot into AWACS

>>33800742
>Meet the Chinese long range air to air missile
>Chineseboo still retarded and don't understand how missiles work
Yea, those missiles will certainly hit a carrier with some satellite photos and terminal guidance. KEK.

>>33800750
>It's a decent maritime fighter
It'd be excellent on a CATOBAR carrier with fixed wing AWACS support. It's got great legs and payload, and while it's not 5th gen, it'd still go toe to toe with any naval fighter in the world not USN or RN. Off the Type 001 or 001A? Not worth a whole hell of a lot.

>>33800752
More grasping at straws.

A Carrier group is fuck huge and will be seen from thousands of kilometers, not to mention that their home bases aren't unknown either. China knows the location of all your carriers and they have enough redundant surveillance measures to track and kill them.
You have already lost enough face with the Carl Vinson getting stuck between the Philippines on their way to Both Korea. Don't make me laugh about your ability to hide your carriers in the South China Sea or the West Pacific.

>>33800779
If the Russians, with infinitely more experience and actual peer technology, couldn't keep track of them during the Cold War, what makes you think the Chinese maintain target track grade ISR on all US carriers? Are all squints really this stupid?

File: chinese-awacs.jpg (58KB, 690x419px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 690x419px

>China can't into carrier AWACS

???

>>33799902
Now imagine that fighter with a full load of internal fuel, and either drop tanks or a second pair of AShM.

>>33800762

>Rafale
>Toe to toe with a Super Hornet or F-35

This is what Frogs actually believe.

>No BVR
>Tiny radar
>Can only carry a single ASM
>Limited munitions choice, missing several key types
>No dedicated ECM plane or F-35 tier ECM on board

It's better than what China and Russia has, but lets not get silly.

>>33800792
>plane for the Type 002 carrier, which is expected to have cats instead of a ramp

>>33800785
Russians are shit tier compared to China nowadays. Seriously.
Especially in terms of sensors and space based assets. Holy shit, do you even know that we aren't in the 1960s anymore?

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/15/asia-pacific/chinese-weapons-warplanes-reaching-near-parity-west-study/

The one with the bigger economy usually has better stuff than Slavs that still rely on a third world economy of resource export.

>>33800839
>Russians are shit tier compared to China nowadays. Seriously.
Reading comprehension, dipshit. I was referring to the Cold War, and especially the 80s.

>>33800839
>The one with the bigger economy usually has better stuff than Slavs that still rely on a third world economy of resource export.
As ridiculous as the Russians are, at least they can lay claim to having won a single fucking war in their entire history that wasn't against themselves. China? Not so much. Shit, even in WWII they spent almost the whole war plotting to backstab, assassinate and buttfuck each other.

>>33800795
>>33800762

Wait, sorry. I misread you entirely there.

>>33800873
It was my bad. I thought you were talking about the J-15 when you were responding to a post about the Rafale.

>>33800498
>those engines
I am both disgusted and turned on.

File: V-22-slides-from-USMC-Aviation-Plan.jpg (72KB, 638x487px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 638x487px

>>33799960
there are other options than CATOBAR for many of these roles, like the Sea King AEW2, EH101AEW, KA31, or a variant of the Osprey

File: Royal_Navy_AEW_Seaking_Helicopter_from_849_Naval_Air_Squadron_MOD_45152082.jpg (538KB, 3600x2400px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 3600x2400px

>>33801365

>>33801365
>Medevac in an Osprey
Anon, the idea is to rescue them.

>>33801373
>>33801365
Tell us more about how the range, speed and altitude of a these compare to an E-2D.

And that is before comparing the radars.

>>33801380
Given that Osprey's have the best safety record of rotary craft since they entered service, exactly.

File: Russian_Navy_Kamov_Ka-31.jpg (427KB, 1024x679px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1024x679px

>>33801373

>>33799902

bullshit

>>33800620
The Middle East is a house of cards, you could sneeze over there and cause a small conflict to break out.

The Americans could have dealt with things better, but anything you try with Arabs is bound to turn to shit.

>>33801398
>moving goalposts

muh catapults, also the US Navy already selected the V22 for COD, where is your god now?

>>33800861

literally this

id trust slavs miles before id trust ChiCom

File: hires-Bell+Boeing+Refueling+-+CV3A2768_med.jpg (67KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 450x300px

>>33801442
>yfw the Navy will finally have carrier based AAR again, but it will be STOVL

>>33800215
In that case, why are you building a carrier?

Why not just use ASCMs with 450km+ range?

Sheesh.

>>33801482

because chinese naval penis envy

duh

Just saw some dumb shit about the Chinese not being the aggressors in the Pacific because the USA is.

Has it not crossed anyone's mind that aggression is not mutually exclusive? That maybe BOTH are aggressive?

>>33801523

not in china's mind,they dindu nuffin wrong and USA satan bully

File: lpdhmascanberra20140313ran8538476026_ran.jpg (151KB, 1200x821px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1200x821px

will Straya operate F35's from their LPH's? They have the ramps from the Spanish-based design

>>33801407
Except when the Japanese fly them.

>>33799902
>>33799918
>>33799923
>>33799927
>>33799965

Mr. Chink shill, you have to understand that we're not saying that your aircraft carrier can't launch aircraft that can drop payloads.

We're simply pointing out that our aircraft carriers and aircraft are better in every possible way, and the stuff that you post that's somehow meant to be impressive is laughable baby shit compared to our capabilities. Especially considering that all of your aircraft carriers are manned by poorly trained conscripts from a country that hasn't yet mastered the technical complexities of the escalator.

>>33801523

Fuck off, alright? Has it not crossed your mind, that USA is posturing aggresively everywhere to secure its foothold in all region - and if someone doesn`t dance according to their melody, they hit them with a stick. It is natural for other powers to build defensive and offensive capabilities and form alliances to repel american aggresors

File: kamov_ka27_helix.jpg (60KB, 600x374px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x374px

>>33801373
>>33801413
daily reminder that the Ka-27 is the cutest AWACS aircraft ever built.

>>33801753
>No U!

This is essentially your post.

Also, nobody wants to live under shitty chinese dominion, which is why the vast majority of ASEAN countries view the chinese as a menace and side with the US.

Remember, fifty years ago the chinese murdered 20 million of their own people through sheer incompetence, how well do you think they would treat the populations of other countries?

The Chinese don't have respect for freedom of speech or democracy or any of the fundamental human rights that are universally accepted in western countries. And they have a long track record of overtly trying to conquer other countries. Like they're trying to do, in a more subtle way, in the south china sea. These chink shills can't even name a single legitimate reason as to why the chinese should own it, and yet they carry on spouting bullshit

>>33801753
Ask Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, and to some extent India about how happy they are with China's regional antics. This discussion wasnt about America throwing its military weight around everywhere, its one concerning China's SCS buildup and people ITT need to stop running away from this issue by screaming BUT M-MUH AMERICAN HEGEMONEEEE!

>>33799927
What's the fuel load?

(probably near empty)

>>33801753
There he goes again, blatantly sidestepping a question about unwelcome Chinese activity in international waters by blurting out inanities about America.

The Russians taught you well.

Wait, if the Chinese love brainlet ramps so much, then why are their next few planned carriers rampless CATOBARs?

>>33801753
>ANUUU ITS DA FIRTHY AMRERICRANS MAKING RHINA SO NERVOUS CHING CHONG DING DONG TING TANG WALLA WALLA BING BANG

>>33801906
>TING TANG WALLA WALLA BING BANG
Holy fuck i haven't heard that song in YEARS

>>33799902
Amazing. The ingenuity and practicality of the Chinese people and their government truly knows no bounds.

>>33799965
>60,000 tons
>carries 32 planes

Forrestal class
>60,000 tons
>can carry 90 planes

Is China really so far behind in carrier design they can't beat a 1950s American design?

>>33801953
ooh ee ooh ah ah

>>33801977
tbeh China isnt competing with America directly right now as they still have an admittedly long way to go before we can claim true parity with America in all areas. So far the build up is to ensure thay they are Asia's top dog, and to that end its worked phenomenally as Russia is a fallen nation and India is just India, whereas Japan isnt really much of a threat or a challenge.

>>33800353

>what is wasting millions and having the world laugh at you

This is why we have submarines. No need for AShMs.

File: 16864813_1619993221361047_8134088222616631573_n.jpg (51KB, 500x625px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x625px

>>33801977
The "carrier" was also a compromised design in the first place to allow for transit of the Straights of Izmir.
The Bosphorus.

Due to Aircraft carriers not being allowed through them, the original designation was as a Missile Cruiser with capability to launch aircraft, thus, launch tubes were placed flush with the deck and on the other class of carrier the Russians had, they were offset to the starboard side in front of the conning tower.

>mfw, not knowing WHY the URSS designs had less capacity.

>>33800692
To get the resolution shown in the photograph on a near continuous basis you'd need 120,000 satellites in the 150kg range or 80 in the 15,000kg range.

China has neither the lift capacity or the money to put that constellation up.

>>33799902
The laws of physics have already proven you wrong. Feel free to blow your brains out as soon as possible.

>>33802284
So how many granit launchers do Chinas carriers have?

>>33802284
That's just a myth. They have heavy aircraft carrying missile cruiser designation because that's what they are.

>>33800703
>>33800666
samefag

>>33800339
Considering any prospective enemy will be able to do the exact same thing, it is quite important to have range. Considering the most likely prospective enemy, that range becomes effectively meaningless

File: 1492893351668.jpg (30KB, 540x402px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 540x402px

>>33800097
>China isn`t aggresor in the Eastern Asia, USA is.

Yeah, you can't be the aggressor if you consider all of South East Asia yours by sovereign right.

>even the Chinese shills missing the point of their carrier
The Liaonang and Liaonang 2: Electric Boogaloo aren't supposed to be competitive with the West at all. The whole point of getting these in service so fast was so China can gain the experience they need to build up a carrier force as quickly as possible. Sure, they're not completely useless - they can still be used to project power against less capable neighbors, but even the PLAN knows that these carriers will never have parity with anything the USN has. If they're lucky, the *might* get them as effective as the QE class, but with no USN holding their hand and no naval tradition, I wouldn't count on it.

The Chinese carriers right now are glorified training ships along the lines of Hosho or Argus. The CATOBAR coming up next is probably going to be their first attempt to make a truly competitive carrier, and even then they're not going to be looking for something directly competitive with the USN for quite some time.

>>33801398

Enough to spot Hypersonic sea skimming missiles with several minutes warning.

Tell me more about how the E3 hawkeye can't be deployed from any picket ship with a helicopter pad.

Also please do start talking about the Radar, because you'll find you have 0 sources to back up any of your claims.

File: EH101-112ASuW.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>33804323
>Tell me more about how the E3 hawkeye can't be deployed from any picket ship with a helicopter pad.
>dat flexibility

File: 1458801388249.jpg (205KB, 468x623px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 468x623px

>mfw a strong "communist" China that is anti American, is good for white nationalism

Remember folks, America and the kikes are the true enemy of Eurasian peoples.

T. American

>>33804323
>tiny helicopter radar in any way comparable to the giant aircraft radar

>>33800620

> implying US drew up the Middle East border map after WWI
> definitely not Britain and France that fucked them over

>>33799902
That's why China isn't building any more of them, right?

>>33804323
>Enough to spot Hypersonic sea skimming missiles with several minutes warning.

>Mach 5 seaskimming

If you wanted to say you had no fucking clue what you're talking about, thats a pretty good way to go.

But humoring your retarded statement, Mach 5 for 3 minutes is over 200 miles. A Merlin AEW at service ceiling where its not going to last long due to fuel reserves is going to see less than 200 miles (~180mi) due to Radar Horizon.

>>33800339
fucken chinks, delusional

>>33801730
Besides AWACS support, what else can the American carriers do that Chinese carriers can't ?
Also, what can the current planes do that the chinese cant "

>>33799902
>There has been the myth that STOBAR carriers cant launch aircrafts with useful payloads. Well, this is wrong.

Burgers know this. It is 100% shitposting and trolling. Take it from a burger, just don't feed 'em.

>>33799979

Or just use a chopper or - get this, guys, get this - LAND-BASED AWACS. From the Chinese mainland. Which actually have the range. And even with China's minuscule fleet of air tankers, they can at least handle that much.

It's almost like their carriers are meant for regional dominance and enhancing fleet air defense... like the ship they were based on...?

>>33804323
>Hypersonic

These aren't a thing yet. Nor are hypsersonic defenses (hypersonic cannon shells and railguns.) Why are we talking about this...?

>>33806236
>Nor are hypsersonic defenses

You would be wrong. Fully 100% operational.

>>33806261

Hypersonic *speed* defenses? That's what I was talking about. In other words, all the next gen shit.

>>33806300
Yes. As in, hypersonically fast defenses.

It exists, and is currently used.

>>33806300
Sprint has been around since the 70s, not that you actually necessarily need a hypersonic interceptor to combat a hypersonic weapon.

File: doubting.jpg (112KB, 335x409px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 335x409px

>>33806315

.... please describe.

>>33806329

I was thinking specifically in terms of fleet-based defenses.

>>33800461
>Uh, yes. Yes you fucking do. Especially when the entire point of the truck is to get your goods out as far as possible.
no you dont. you send the truck out with enough fuel to reach its farthest point and have it refuel there unless the fuel tax is higher. dont fucking argue with me, this is what i do for a living.

sending a fully loaded truck out with a full load of fuel is wasteful

File: 1478828452826.jpg (55KB, 500x322px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x322px

>>33806220
jesus why do we worry about the chink military again? If they are related to this chink we have nothing to worry about.

What are the Chinese trying to accomplish by trying to [spoiler]and failing[/spoiler] BTFO Western military shit and flaunting her projects like it's hot shit?

>>33799902

Well that just settles it. I always look to China's example when I want to make sweeping statements about naval aviation. If there's one thing the PRC knows, it's how to conduct flight ops off carriers.

>>33806340
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3

>>33806340
>.... please describe.
>In aerodynamics, a hypersonic speed is one that is highly supersonic. Since the 1970s, the term has generally been assumed to refer to speeds of Mach 5 and above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3
>3 km/s (Mach 10.2) Block IA/B
>4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25) Block IIA

As the only hypersonic weapons which might conceivably be targeted on a CSG atm are ballistic missiles, I feel this is quite appropriate.

>>33806361
>this is what i do for a living.
Yet you continue to completely fail to understand just how flawed this is a metaphor for any kind of military aviation refueling.

Protip: there's about a dozen reasons NO MILITARY IN THE FUCKING WORLD does aerial refueling the way you describe it.

>>33806175
Loiter.

File: On 5 November 1915, Lieutenant Commander Henry C. Mustin, USN, in an AB-2 flying boat, made the first catapult launch from a ship, USS North Carolina.jpg (73KB, 960x702px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 960x702px

>>33799979
>China is developing CATOBAR carriers now for AWACS

The U.S. has over one hundred years experience in Naval Aviation. Having developed, trained, went to war several times, and honed such capabilities through time and experience.

To such a point that it will take awhile for China to develop to such an experience level as the U.S. has now.

>>33806379
>As the only hypersonic weapons which might conceivably be targeted on a CSG atm are ballistic missiles, I feel this is quite appropriate.

Oh. Think the guy was talking about the next-generation stuff, like Zircon and shit. Which don't exist yet. Just like the hypersonic weapons that would be very well suited to taking them out, like the HVAP shells and railguns and lasers and shit. So, y'know... whatever.

>>33806361
>sending a fully loaded truck out with a full load of fuel is wasteful

A truck can always pull over to the shoulder if the refueling station has an engine problem, or for some reason it can't refuel where it should. A plane, on the other hand, has to be able to make base again if its tanker should somehow be unable to service it.

Airplanes are hard, basically.

>>33799923
Waitwaitwat.
That looks like a missle boat/corvette. Basically any anti-ship missile I'm aware of would have fucking vaporised that thing. Are they, like, Maverick-equivalents, or something?

>>33801398
The v-22 has a higher payload than the groundhog.

>>33799902
This is an obvious troll, but I'll respond anyway. The main issue with weight limits isn't payload limitations but range, because most of the aircraft's load will be in fuel weight. This is a recurring concern for the J-15. When fully fueled, the J-15 can only carry 2 tons of weaponry.

http://greendef.blogspot.com/2013/09/chinese-media-takes-aim-at-j-15-fighter.html

The load out you're claiming is the minimum is actually the maximum when operating with full tanks. This severely limits the combat effectiveness of the J-15, requiring that it be either able to attack ships or aircraft effectively, but not both at the same time lest it limit its range. Beyond that, it's severely limited in land attack owing to the same factors

In addition to all of that, ramps mean the Laioning is unable to launch full-sized AEW&C aircraft, and the CAW is stuck with shitty helos instead.

So yeah. Ramps suck ass.

File: 1492997308997.png (134KB, 600x601px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 600x601px

>>33799902

>>33800925
It's actually a very good design feature that i'm surprised more aviation companies don't attempt to do because of costs.

Pros:
-More lift, especially at takeoff / landing speeds.
-Engines are kept away from FOD on runways.
-Engines don't "catch" the surface in emergency landings, making belly landings safer.

Cons:
-expensive heat resistant alloys needed for wing surface behind engines.

>>33801607
They thought about it, but decided there was more important things to spend the money on.

>>33799965
>32 J-15s, each equipped with a load out of eight BVRAAMs (PL-12 or PL-15) will give the fleet defense CAP

Are you really going to put your entire air wing on CAP? That should be interesting. By the time you finish launching the last plane, the first one is at bingo.

That also eliminates any offensive capability you may have wanted to throw into the mix. What happens if a mixed strike package comes your way? A squadron of Superbugs with AShMs, escorted by 2 more squadrons with AMRAAMs? Your CAP takes some hits, your ships take some hits, and the follow on package just wrecks your shit.

It's almost like we have nearly a century more of experience at this than you do.

>>33800097
>defence budget is wasted on controversial weapons and systems

For example?

File: 1493344726070.jpg (151KB, 388x443px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 388x443px

>>33799902
Maybe if the Chinks could develop some way to take off vertically...they would need to build fucking Islands to stage aircraft.

>>33808321
Due to the way the FAA calculates takeoff and landing speeds and certifies aircraft, the advantages to the over-the-wing jet aren't actually realized in American commercial aviation. The concept in the USA died decades ago, and the USA's dominance in aircraft manufacturing means that it tends to dictate the direction the industry goes.

>>33800430
>you dont send a truck out on deliveries with a full tank of fuel,

You said it yourself. Patently ridiculous. It's obvious that you have no concept whatsoever of logistics, or for that matter, truck driving.

>>33800470
It's what you pay us for. Don't start pissing and moaning just because we're doing our jobs.

>>33800666
>couldn't help you fucking Scud-hunt in a fucking desert after achieving air supremacy.

You mean 26 years ago? Sure, because we declared a moratorium on tech development so you guys could catch up.

At least try to keep your shitposting in the current millenium.

>>33806361
>dont fucking argue with me, this is what i do for a living.

And your dad works for Freightliner, right?

I don't know what fucked up Third World donkey cart outfit you work for, but where I come from we refuel when we get below half a tank. The reason we top off at the beginning of the shift is so we can make more stops without having to take time out of the schedule to tank up.

Am I getting too technical for you? Do you understand scheduling? Google it if you don't, you'll learn something.

Anyhow, the idea is to do as many deliveries and drops as possible before refuelling. If you're really clever, you'll plan your route so that you're within a mile or so of a truckstop when the gauge gets to a half tank. That's called planning. Do you understand planning? Google it if you don't...

but still to qualify as a real country you need at least 3 aircraft carrier.

>>33809373
I'm still gobsmacked that anyone would make an absolute argument about military aerial refueling tactics and strategy based on nothing more than driving a fucking delivery truck for a living, and seemingly nothing else.

As long as we're arguing about it, there's basically no situation besides takeoff (where runway available dictates gross weight) where having more fuel is disadvantageous for a fighter aircraft. Having more fuel gives you more options with no downsides: you can loiter, you can use the reheat, you can recover somewhere far away, and if you ever realize that you somehow have too much fuel... you just dump the extra. Aircraft on combat missions live the thug life, they do what they want and don't have to ask permission, and it's a government so money is no object. There's no combat situation where "oh fug I have way too much fuel" is a real thing.

File: dc46eee0f6-1486797190325.png (289KB, 650x365px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 650x365px

>>33799902
a fucking ramp

>>33810152
Anon, bless your little heart, you're literally trying to give rational response and discussion to a truck driver who thinks he understands aerial refueling better than the USAF, USN, USCM, RN and pretty much everyone else in the world with the capability.

Save yourself the carpal tunnel, let it go and thank me later.

>>33808321
The biggest con is that you need more / bigger support infrastructure (cranes instead of scissor lifts, elevated work platforms, etc) - not much of an issue for the military, but for commercial operations that stuff is a killer.

File: ymc130h.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>33800606
Anything is possible if you have enough thrust.

Literally what is the point of ski Jumps? Can't you achieve the same angle of attack by just you know...pitching up?

>>33810352
No

>>33800097
>while in retality their defence budget is wasted on controversial weapons and systems
Is this what China STRONK types tell themselves so they can feel like they're on top?

>>33800356
"The aircraft was stressed to allow catapult launching and arrested landings, but was also capable of operating from the ski-jump ramps of the Project 1143.5 carriers (later to become known as the Admiral Kuznetsov class)"

>>33810352
The point of the jump not to increase AoA. If that was all it took, they'd just make carrier aircraft have longer nose gear. In fact some carrier planes do have long nose gear but that's still not all it takes.
The point of the jump is to basically increase the effective runway length so the engines can get the aircraft up to a flying airspeed: the aircraft can launch off the ramp below stall speed and go "ballistic" while the engines add enough speed to safely fly.

>>33810415
That makes sense.

>>33800272
You're going to have shit all loiter time on 1/4 tank. Defensive aircraft are only useful in the air.

I guess you could have a fighter count halved again by using them to buddy tank up the fuel on the few with a useful payload.

Meanwhile the catobar carrier is launching 2-4 times the planes per minute. A nimitz or ford can launch 4 fighters at once. The ski ramp is one at a time.

>>33805498
America has bombed/embargo'd all right wing countries in the world

Too many brainwashed retards who think stuff like the constitution matters more than your nation/race.

>>33810786
>Too many brainwashed retards who think stuff like the constitution matters more than your nation/race.
It's the people like you America doesn't need. If you can't understand the primacy of the Constitution, you have no place here.

>>33810838

See, another retard.

>>33810786
>Too many brainwashed retards who think stuff like the constitution matters more than your nation/race.
First of all, without the fucking Constitution, we don't have a fucking nation you sisterfucking donkey felator.

Secondly, I never understood retards like this. If race is more important than the Constitution (or, more likely the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, because Stormfags are too retarded to even learn what specifically it is they object to), then why the fuck don't these idiots simply fuck off back to whatever European country their family originally came from? Surely they'd be much, much happier surrounded by their own "race" in the land of no guns, the EU, parliamentary systems and zero fucking military protection for the nation.

>>33810786
>Too many brainwashed retards who think stuff like the constitution matters more than your nation/race
The Constitution is the nation you knuckle dragging retard.

>>33810901
>>33810969
>The Constitution is the nation
How stupid can you be to think something like this?

A nation is a people, not a fucking constitution(which is changed constantly), or a flag, or a country.
Mexico has a fucking constitution too, didn't make Mexico into a first world country.

It will be Democrat rule for eternity when the non-whites are the majority.
Which will happen in 10 years.

>>33811228
>A nation is a people
In our case disparate, and possessing of a hundred different cultures, social mores and religion, not even counting black, brown, red and yellow folks.

>not a fucking constitution
Which is exactly why our country in particular was special at foundation for bringing so many with such differences together under one ideological statement of the absolute rights and expectations a people should have of their government and each other. This is literally civics 101. Did you fail out before middle school, stormfag?

>(which is changed constantly)
Last changed (by amendment) in 1992 - by finally voting in an amendment proposed in 1789. Before that, in 1971. In the last 50 years (a bit less than a quarter the life of the entire country), it has literally changed 3 times, and two of the three changes were almost bureaucratic - one addressing line of succession and the other pay raises in congress.

>didn't make Mexico into a first world country.
This has precisely fuckall to do with anything. If you think the Constitution, the nation or race made America prosperous (what I'm assuming your ridiculously ignorant ass means by first world, instead of what the term actually means - google it), then you're partially right on all three but still completely missing the forest for the trees and need to go back to middle school world and American history classes.

>It will be Democrat rule for eternity when the non-whites are the majority.
As long as vocal retards like you haunt the GOP, I can't say I blame them for voting blue, damn shame though it is. If I was brown or black, why the fuck would I vote with loud, aggressive, ignorant assholes who don't even learn their own history or political system, hate me and don't want me in their party? You bitch about things which your own actions perpetuate.

>Which will happen in 10 years.
In roughly 30 years. Are you incapable of getting even BASIC FUCKING FACTS correct?

File: 1458434401670.jpg (193KB, 600x739px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 600x739px

>>33811402
Nothing like the smell of curbstomped stormfags in the morning. Cheers, m8.

>>33811402
>As long as vocal retards like you haunt the GOP, I can't say I blame them for voting blue, damn shame though it is. If I was brown or black, why the fuck would I vote with loud, aggressive, ignorant assholes who don't even learn their own history or political system, hate me and don't want me in their party? You bitch about things which your own actions perpetuate.
Winner winner chicken dinner. This shit pisses me off so much about the Republican party in general. If the dumb fucks running the party could figure out how to keep from constantly stomping on their own dicks and actually engage with minority communities, we wouldn't have to fucking worry about keeping the military funded or the 2A.

>>33811451

aka pandering. As normal honest sane human beings, the GOP expects immigrants to integrate and assimilate.
So pandering would achieve the exact opposite result that is desired.
Blacks cant even talk the same english as whites, it literally goes above their heads.

>>33811466
>pandering
Holy fucking kek. Look at this child over here. As if dog whistle politics, bullshit about walls that will never get built, bullshit about muslim bans that will never get enacted/stand, bullshit about giving a fuck about Roe V Wade with the religious right, etc. ad nauseum weren't pandering. That's what politics is, you fucking mongoloid.

Republicans losing once all the scared old white folks die off is something only republicans can be blamed for. If we can't even make a basic case for why minorities should vote with us (not to mention avoid calling them niggers, etc. for five goddamn minutes), then maybe we deserve the shellacking to come.

>Blacks cant even talk the same english as whites, it literally goes above their heads.
I'm packing up and going home. You are too fucking stupid to even try and talk sense into.

File: ginsburg.jpg (129KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1000x1000px

>>33810838
Try telling that to the courts.

>>33811680
Hm. Shocker. Our own tailor-crafted 200+ year old founding document might not be the best fit for Egypt in 2012, a mostly religiously and culturally monoglot country halfway around the world. Go figure. If you'd bothered to actually look into the context of that quote, you would have discovered it was a passing remark as she was directing Egyptians to look to the South African constitution as a closer model as it was more recent AND more culturally, geographically and temporally relevant to their own struggle to build a founding document.

>>33811451
>If the dumb fucks running the party could figure out how to keep from constantly stomping on their own dicks and actually engage with minority communities, we wouldn't have to fucking worry about keeping the military funded or the 2A.

Meanwhile for DECADES the Democrat party that the "minorities" vote for has wanted to abolish the 2nd amendment, and always to cut the military.

Strange how you'll babble about how the constitution brings us all together as a Nation, while ignoring the actual beliefs/politics of the non-whites.
But I guess thats what being a liberal is all about, flagrant denial of reality.

>>33811960
First of all, I'm a fucking republican. Just not an alt-right moron.

Secondly, I really don't think you have any fucking clue what the political beliefs of minorities are. I can't tell you how much of the black and brown (of all types) and especially asian folks I've run across have been rabidly pro-2A. Shit, just on social issues alone the Republican party should be a perfect fit for the Hispanic community, but noooooo, we can't shut the fuck up about the supposed tsunami of Mexican criminals crossing the border, raping, pillaging and murderizing everything in sight.

>>33811402
>In our case disparate, and possessing of a hundred different cultures, social mores and religion, not even counting black, brown, red and yellow folks.

It is a nation of white european settlers. Of various branches of Christianity.
Keeping the country white was an explicit goal up until the 60's.

>so many with such differences together
What a stupid fucking statement, they were almost all protestant northern Europeans
They most especially AGREED on all this, or the individual sovereign states would not have joined the union.

The constitution is changed every time an activist judge invents a right, or reinterprets a passage.

>but still completely missing the forest for the trees and need to go back to middle school world and American history classes.
A country is defined by it's people, if America had been colonized by the spaniards, who then race mixed with blacks/indians, then America would be some shithole.
If it had been Brazil who had been colonized by the British, who didn't race mix, then it would be Brazil who would be the most powerful country in the world.
The idea that constitutions & rights & freedoms is something unique to America is utter fantasy.

>I can't say I blame them for voting blue

I don't blame them for voting blue either, of course they will, they get trillions of dollars in handouts voting blue, they will eventually take over the country voting blue.
I blame utter retards like yourself who refuse to acknowledge reality or history, because doing so would be "racist".

At the end of the day the whole fucking point of the American revolution was self-determination/self-government of the American people, this is what your kind are throwing away with your love of the non-whites.

File: Carriers_Cavour_(550)_-_Harry_S._Truman_(CVN-75)_and_Charles_de_Gaulle_(R91)_underway_in_2013.jpg (4MB, 4693x3503px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4693x3503px

why don't you fags take your flirting elsewhere and stop derailing a good ramp troll thread?

>>33812023
>People I meet at the shooting range are pro-2nd amendment

You don't say

>>33812054
>Keeping the country white was an explicit goal up until the 60's.

Wrong on its face. Learn the difference between explicit and implicit.

Furthermore, the declaration of independence says ALL men, not just white.

Fuck off with your revisionist shit. I bet you are unironically a fascist.

>inb4 GOMMIE!!!!

Fuck communism. Fuck anarchism too.

>>33812054
>It is a nation of white european settlers
I love how utterly, retardedly simplistic this meme is.

>Keeping the country white was an explicit goal up until the 60's.
All. Men. Created. Equal. Right there in the very first document what would become our government ever drafted:
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

>they were almost all protestant northern Europeans
Then why don't I hear you pissing and moaning about the Irish, Italian, Eastern European or Spanish immigration waves?

>They most especially AGREED on all this
It says nothing anywhere that you had to be northern European and protestant. In fact, some very serious and explicit language details a complete freedom of religion AND separation of church and state. Go the fuck back to school.

>The constitution is changed every time an activist judge invents a right, or reinterprets a passage.
Prove it. Go on. Cite your "changes".

>if America had been colonized by the spaniards, who then race mixed with blacks/indians, then America would be some shithole.
Jesus tittyfucking Christ. Florida. Texas. California. New Mexico. Louisiana. Arkansas. Oklahoma. Kansas. Missouri. Nebraska. Iowa. Minnesota. Wyoming. Colorado. Montana. North and South Dakota. EVERY FUCKING ONE EITHER FOUNDED BY OR OWNED BY THE SPANISH AT SOME POINT.

You are one incredibly ignorant little shit.

>the British, who didn't race mix
Have you ever actually visited a former British colony aside from the US? Fuck that, in fact, half our fucking founding fathers were having "natural children" as they were called then with their slaves. Jesus. Fuck, just look at the massive numbers of different races in the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars.

You are completely full of fucking shit on this.

>>33812101
A country is its people, when its people no longer exist(or are now a minority in a democracy), then that country is no more.

It may still carry the name of America, but the country will be dead.

Yes they explicitly passed laws preventing non-white immigration, and encouraging white immigration.

>First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.
>—Ted Kennedy, chief Senate sponsor of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

In the end they had to blatantly lie to pass the law that started mass non-white immigration. Just as they have blatantly lied about enforcing border security to allow the tens of millions of illegals in.

>>33812166
>Yes they explicitly passed laws preventing non-white immigration, and encouraging white immigration.
>—Ted Kennedy, chief Senate sponsor of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Holy fucking kek. This has to be lazy trolling at this point. Did you really think you could pull this that ridiculously far out of context and no one would notice? REALLY?

Also, declaration of independence VS some remarks Ted Kennedy spoke during bill turnaround on the house floor? DoI wins every fucking time.

>>33812054
I wish stormautists would go and fucking stay go.

Get back in your goddamn containment board.

>>33812166
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

>all
>men

Can you read?

furthermore, Ted was implicitly stateing white only immigration. Explicitly he was stateing the makeup of immigration would remain the same...

furthermore, one congressman =/ America or it's law faggot.

>>33812166
>the founders meant something different than what they said

Fascist gungrabber confirmed. Git.

>>33812211
>furthermore, Ted was implicitly stateing white only immigration. Explicitly he was stateing the makeup of immigration would remain the same...
He wasn't even doing that. He was responding to reactionary idiots who were trying to sink his bill through racial theatrics and scaremongering. If you read the quote closely, all he's saying is that the racial makeup of immigration influx would remain the same as it was before. He's literally responding to a charge that he was bringing in nothing but brown and black people to flood our cities.

This moron just took it so far out of context that you can't even tell what the fuck he's really saying.

>>33811680
(((Ginsburg)))

>>33810325
Why don't we already have dropships by now?

>>33812158
>That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

Why do you skip this second part? It is not the government or the constitution that matters, it is the people.
They derive their powers from the consent of the governed, NOT by importing a foreign people with foreign loyalties & foreign political sentiments to bypass that.
It is idiocy to focus on a compromise phrase like "All men are created equal", which is obviously untrue on its very face. It meant a different thing to what you or modern courts intend it to mean anyways.

>It says nothing anywhere that you had to be northern European and protestant.
They passed laws later restricting migration to the US to be white only, favoring Northern European & Protestant.

>EVERY FUCKING ONE EITHER FOUNDED BY OR OWNED BY THE SPANISH AT SOME POINT.
They were more or less empty territories, idiot.

>Prove it. Go on. Cite your "changes".
How about all the bullshit they pulled with the commerce clause. Or the bullshit they pulled with forcibly integrating school systems

>Have you ever actually visited a former British colony aside from the US?
Canada was white, only the french engaged in lots of race mixing.
Australia was white, NZ was white, South Africa was white. The people in the past didn't tell themselves fairy tales about the "equality of all men", and sought to preserve their race/ethnicity.

Not wanting to include large amounts of "lesser races" in their country is the whole fucking reason the US didn't annex large chunks of central/south America

>>33812334
>"All men are created equal", which is obviously untrue on its very face.

It means it in the view of the government, that it will not hold the view of one man over another (for example, nobility).

But, you ignore this because it kills your ethnocentric point.

It's pretty simple, all men are created equal and the government gets its power from said equal men.

You are using gungrabber tier logic. Same shit they try to pull with the 2nd. Fuck off with that shit.

Gah you messed up this thread with your political BS, I was having fun trolling the slant eyed truck driver

>>33806175
Run indefinitely on nuclear fuel and carry up to 99 aircraft.

>>33812334
>the consent of the governed;
That's the craziest thing in all this. This complete fucking fruit loop actually believes his views represent a majority of Americans.

>They passed laws later restricting migration to the US to be white only, favoring Northern European & Protestant.
Then you should have no trouble at all citing these laws. I'll wait.

>They were more or less empty territories, idiot
Holy shit, the damage control on this. I can smell the bullshit through my fucking monitor.

>How about all the bullshit they pulled with the commerce clause. Or the bullshit they pulled with forcibly integrating school systems
Those aren't citations. They vague concerned handwaves about general issues. CITE AN ACTUAL CHANGE.

>Canada
>Australia
>NZ
>South Africa
You know, including the US, you do realize that you're talking about 4 prison colonies and a naval base with mineral rights, don't you? You make it seem like it was some grand British design when the reality was they installed a governor, gave land away to political cronies as plums, sent a regiment in to garrison it and then started shipping people sentenced to transportation by the tens of boatloads per year. Regardless of race, religion or social status. This fantasy meme about a completely white British colony doesn't exist anywhere in history.

>>33812334
>Not wanting to include large amounts of "lesser races" in their country is the whole fucking reason the US didn't annex large chunks of central/south America
I'd love to see you actually prove this.

Protip: you won't, and when you go back to your stormfront daddy to give you the ammunition you need to prove it, he'll only make some vague hand waving motions about "what they really meant".

File: 14043568.jpg (8KB, 209x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 209x200px

>>33801432
>you could sneeze over there and cause a small conflict to break out.
Never forget
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/monkey-attack-sets-deadly-tribal-clashes-libya-161120162450750.html

>>33811402

It's amazing we have so may racists and assholes on /k/ when there's people still fighting the good fight here.

Keep it on, anon. /k/ needs you like never before.

>>33812334
Man, you sound like a shithead.

>>33813571
Nigger nigger nigger nigger

File: skateuphill.jpg (33KB, 600x315px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x315px

>>33799902
hey, eastern fucks: pic related is you. Literally trying to push mass vertically, against those 9.8 m/s^2 of constant acceleration for no goddamn reason.