China launches 'Fujian,' its most advanced aircraft carrier:
China launched its largest and most advanced aircraft carrier on Friday at a shipyard in Shanghai, in what state media called a "short but festive ceremony."
The 80,000-ton Fujian, named for the southern coastal province opposite Taiwan, is the first of China's three carriers to be fully designed and built domestically. Unlike China's Liaoning and Shandong carriers, which use ski-jump ramps, Fujian will launch planes using electromagnetic catapults, the technology used on current U.S. carriers.
"Although it will be years before the [carrier] enters military service and achieves initial operating capability, its launch will be a seminal moment in China's ongoing modernization efforts and a symbol of the country's growing military might," said analysts from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington, in an article earlier this month.
China launches third aircraft carrier: State media - Times of India:
[...] However, it will take years before it reaches operational capacity, as the Ministry of Defence has not announced a date for entry into service. "Sailing and mooring tests will be carried out as planned after the ship is launched," CCTV reported. China has two other aircraft carriers in service. The Liaoning was commissioned in 2012, and the Shandong entering service in 2019.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Saturday June 18 2022, @08:29PM (5 children)
That the Pop-goes-the-weasel tank isn't the best design is a given. But we can see here that a modern MANPADS can take out a tank fairly reliably. That the US crews have a higher survival rate because their ammo blows out to the back rather than into their face is nice for the crew, but the tank is toast either way.
I'm also not talking about tank vs tank. I'm talking MANPADS vs tank. Or, if you want it more provacative, $150k vs. $6.2m. One of them needing a three man crew that takes a few years to train properly, the other one taking a two men crew (one man in a pinch) with a few weeks of training. You can outfit 40 anti-tank crews for the price of a single tank. And you can train them consecutively if you so please and still come out ahead in terms of training time. In other words, you need to accompany the tanks with infantry to protect it against infrantry. And that in turn means you give up the key advantage the tank gives you on the battlefield. In other words, what justification to exist do these things still have?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2022, @10:10PM (2 children)
You forgot to count the price of solder's lives here. Very typical for Nazi psycho you are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 19 2022, @04:19PM
What's your problem with Malthusianism? We need breathing room!
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday June 20 2022, @07:28AM
3 tankers vs 2 infantrists, where the latter have the higher survival chance? I'd put my money on the infantry.
Also, please can the bleeding-heart bullshit. It's kinda laughable when you do that, Ivan.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20 2022, @05:52AM (1 child)
It still provides teeth and protection to an infantry column. This actually has historical precedent. Russian armor units in the Second World War started with a similar mix. It's not great in a mobility fight, like against the first rush of Nazi units in 1941, but when things are near stagnant it does ok. They can overrun trenches, for example, while artillery just doesn't work that well.
Later the Russians put together more mobile tank units and started doing the same maneuver tactics as the Germans.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday June 20 2022, @07:34AM
Overrunning trenches doesn't work anymore. You have anti-tank weapons today that shoots further than any anti-infantry weapon, especially infantry based anti-infantry weapons. Your tanks get popped long before they could become a threat to entrenched troops.