<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Chinese Navy Requires Supercruising Fighter</title> <atom:link href="http://defensetech.org/2009/04/28/chinese-navy-requires-supercruising-fighter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/28/chinese-navy-requires-supercruising-fighter/</link> <description>The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:06:43 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Sgt. flower</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/28/chinese-navy-requires-supercruising-fighter/#comment-213479</link> <dc:creator>Sgt. flower</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:02:39 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4465#comment-213479</guid> <description>Hoorah </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hoorah</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: chinese warplanes</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/28/chinese-navy-requires-supercruising-fighter/#comment-196109</link> <dc:creator>chinese warplanes</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:48:12 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4465#comment-196109</guid> <description> j-11 warplane : &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?num=100&amp;hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&amp;q=site%3Adefensetech.org+j11+fighter&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;gs_rfai=&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.google.com/search?num=100&amp;hl=en&amp;am...&lt;/a&gt; j-10 warplane : &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=site:defensetech.org+j10+fighter&amp;num=100&amp;hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;filter=0&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.google.com/search?q=site:defensetech.o...&lt;/a&gt; shenyang warplane : &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adefensetech.org+shenyang+fighter&amp;btnG=Search&amp;num=100&amp;hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&amp;sa=2&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adefensetech...&lt;/a&gt; </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>j-11 warplane :<br /> <a href="http://www.google.com/search?num=100&amp;hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&amp;q=site%3Adefensetech.org+j11+fighter&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;gs_rfai=" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?num=100&amp;hl=en&amp;am…</a></p><p>j-10 warplane :<br /> <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=site:defensetech.org+j10+fighter&amp;num=100&amp;hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;filter=0" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?q=site:defensetech.o…</a></p><p>shenyang warplane :<br /> <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adefensetech.org+shenyang+fighter&amp;btnG=Search&amp;num=100&amp;hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&amp;sa=2" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adefensetech…</a></p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: paul</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/28/chinese-navy-requires-supercruising-fighter/#comment-88783</link> <dc:creator>paul</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:13:04 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4465#comment-88783</guid> <description>&#039;obama is working with china now:The new world order....&quot; Or the &quot;cashless system.&quot;harmegidon stuff. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>‘obama is working with china now:The new world order.…” Or the “cashless system.“harmegidon stuff.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jake</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/28/chinese-navy-requires-supercruising-fighter/#comment-88782</link> <dc:creator>Jake</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 20:18:38 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4465#comment-88782</guid> <description>Odds are you guys referring to American &#039;greed&#039; and people shopping at Walmart are typing on keyboards, sitting in chairs or using a mouse made in China.  How about you look in the mirror first. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Odds are you guys referring to American ‘greed’ and people shopping at Walmart are typing on keyboards, sitting in chairs or using a mouse made in China.  How about you look in the mirror first.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: sputnik</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/28/chinese-navy-requires-supercruising-fighter/#comment-88781</link> <dc:creator>sputnik</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 18:11:49 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4465#comment-88781</guid> <description>The chinese have the shipbuilding capacity right so why arent they trying to build at least some small vtol or helicopter carriers first?-- a helo carrier? check and done.. The Type 071 LPD is the largest indigenously designed combat ship of the PLAN to date, with an estimated full displacement of 17,000~20,000 tonnes. The cargo capacity of the Type 071 is thought to be in the same range as the U.S. Navy Austin class LPD. If this estimation was correct, the Type 071 LPD can carry a marine corps battalion, including 500~800 troops, 15~20 amphibious armoured vehicles, and their associated logistic supplies. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The chinese have the shipbuilding capacity right so why arent they trying to build at least some small vtol or helicopter carriers first?–<br /> a helo carrier? check and done..<br /> The Type 071 LPD is the largest indigenously designed combat ship of the PLAN to date, with an estimated full displacement of 17,000~20,000 tonnes. The cargo capacity of the Type 071 is thought to be in the same range as the U.S. Navy Austin class LPD. If this estimation was correct, the Type 071 LPD can carry a marine corps battalion, including 500~800 troops, 15~20 amphibious armoured vehicles, and their associated logistic supplies.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: jglacken</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/28/chinese-navy-requires-supercruising-fighter/#comment-88780</link> <dc:creator>jglacken</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:57:43 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4465#comment-88780</guid> <description>to CoD:4MW thank you, you get it. i fear we have already lost, our greed was our downfall. we have met the enemy and he is us... our adversaries will only have to allow us to borrow our way into their control. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>to CoD:4MW thank you, you get it. i fear we have already lost, our greed was our downfall. we have met the enemy and he is us… our adversaries will only have to allow us to borrow our way into their control.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Wayne</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/28/chinese-navy-requires-supercruising-fighter/#comment-84127</link> <dc:creator>Wayne</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:51:45 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4465#comment-84127</guid> <description>Don&#039;t sell or give them a d@# thing! </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don’t sell or give them a d@# thing!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: jglacken</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/28/chinese-navy-requires-supercruising-fighter/#comment-88778</link> <dc:creator>jglacken</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:48:38 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4465#comment-88778</guid> <description>if i were them i would come over here and ask the governor of va how much it would cost to get one of those brand spaken new carriers. with all the money they have, just let us build one for you, we would do it in a new york minute. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>if i were them i would come over here and ask the governor of va how much it would cost to get one of those brand spaken new carriers. with all the money they have, just let us build one for you, we would do it in a new york minute.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: M.J. Kern AVCM</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/28/chinese-navy-requires-supercruising-fighter/#comment-88777</link> <dc:creator>M.J. Kern AVCM</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:26:46 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4465#comment-88777</guid> <description>Let the Chinese build a Carrier. We have been using them since the 1920&#039;s and we still learn new things every day. I&#039;d pay top dollar to watch their Plat films for the first couple years it will be outrageous. Just because you can build a ship with a deck on it capable of operating aircraft doesnt make it an Aircraft Carrier. Until you have pilots who are capable of operating from the deck and a highly trained ground crew  to run the deck all you have is a highly flamable parking garage. Shore based operations do not train people to operate at Sea. If that was true the USAF would be able to operate with the Carrier Battle Groups and we all know that would be a failure. Just in ordanance handling alone the USAF couldn&#039;t cope. there&#039;s no SATS loaders at sea just hernia bars [haha] Carriers are the most feared Non Muke weapons ever deployed, its 4.5 acres of Soverign Terroritory requiring no landing rights or operating rights from a host nation. It can pop up anywhere in a 1000 mile circle and wreck havoc with shore forces. Sorry USAF waiting around for the diplomats to grant uou a base to operate is generally not an option. Every President since FDR at one time or another during his term of office has had to ask the question, Where is the closest US Carrier Battle Group??? Nah let the Chinese build their &quot;Toy&quot; it will make for some wild crash footage if nothing else. And as for the F-22 come on fellows it was a cool plane like all hot rods but lets face it the only reason you got it was you were too important to wait for the JSF. Its done and over put a fork in it. Honest to god we know we need an Air Force but many of us still don&#039;t buy that you won WWII single handedly with Daylight bombing. HAHA Have a Fine Navy Day!!! </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let the Chinese build a Carrier. We have been using them since the 1920’s and we still learn new things every day. I’d pay top dollar to watch their Plat films for the first couple years it will be outrageous. Just because you can build a ship with a deck on it capable of operating aircraft doesnt make it an Aircraft Carrier. Until you have pilots who are capable of operating from the deck and a highly trained ground crew  to run the deck all you have is a highly flamable parking garage. Shore based operations do not train people to operate at Sea. If that was true the USAF would be able to operate with the Carrier Battle Groups and we all know that would be a failure. Just in ordanance handling alone the USAF couldn’t cope. there’s no SATS loaders at sea just hernia bars [haha] Carriers are the most feared Non Muke weapons ever deployed, its 4.5 acres of Soverign Terroritory requiring no landing rights or operating rights from a host nation. It can pop up anywhere in a 1000 mile circle and wreck havoc with shore forces. Sorry USAF waiting around for the diplomats to grant uou a base to operate is generally not an option. Every President since FDR at one time or another during his term of office has had to ask the question, Where is the closest US Carrier Battle Group??? Nah let the Chinese build their “Toy” it will make for some wild crash footage if nothing else. And as for the F-22 come on fellows it was a cool plane like all hot rods but lets face it the only reason you got it was you were too important to wait for the JSF. Its done and over put a fork in it. Honest to god we know we need an Air Force but many of us still don’t buy that you won WWII single handedly with Daylight bombing. HAHA Have a Fine Navy Day!!!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Tenn Slim</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/28/chinese-navy-requires-supercruising-fighter/#comment-88776</link> <dc:creator>Tenn Slim</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:33:25 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4465#comment-88776</guid> <description>ALL Recently reviewed an article on CNS Net News, re: China&#039;s ability to produce a 2000km Missle,(?) for offense vs USN Carriers. Add to that, this article, re: the Super Cruise aircraft &quot;need&quot; to support offshore and long range conflicts, and one gets the message, clear. China is coming out of the economic phase into the aggressive phase of rattling sabers.... Now, OBNA cuts the F22, guts the F35 and the USN re considers the need for a future Carrier force greater than 12,,,, Just what are we doing? 1. Getting ready to close the Left Coast ports, abandon the Med, stop convoying merchants, and as the Brits did in the 60s simply come home? 2. Is the long range FP of projecting sea power to the shores of the rest of the world to decay into only Humanitarion Ships abroad on the Blue Ocean? The obvious implications are: A&gt; USA Isolationism effected over the next 4 years. B&gt; Redirection of fiscal controls, and funds to support the re clarification of the USA Electorate life style in line with the Left. Folks, the whirlwind is upon us. Semper Fi end </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ALL<br /> Recently reviewed an article on CNS Net News, re: China’s ability to produce a 2000km Missle,(?) for offense vs USN Carriers. Add to that, this article, re: the Super Cruise aircraft “need” to support offshore and long range conflicts, and one gets the message, clear. China is coming out of the economic phase into the aggressive phase of rattling sabers.…<br /> Now, OBNA cuts the F22, guts the F35 and the USN re considers the need for a future Carrier force greater than 12„„ Just what are we doing?<br /> 1. Getting ready to close the Left Coast ports, abandon the Med, stop convoying merchants, and as the Brits did in the 60s simply come home?<br /> 2. Is the long range FP of projecting sea power to the shores of the rest of the world to decay into only Humanitarion Ships abroad on the Blue Ocean?<br /> The obvious implications are:<br /> A&gt; USA Isolationism effected over the next 4 years.<br /> B&gt; Redirection of fiscal controls, and funds to support the re clarification of the USA Electorate life style in line with the Left.<br /> Folks, the whirlwind is upon us.<br /> Semper Fi<br /> end</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using apc (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 2/7 queries in 0.004 seconds using apc
Object Caching 743/747 objects using apc
Content Delivery Network via images.defensetech.org

Served from: defensetech.org @ 2012-02-10 04:10:08 -->
