This is not news...except to those just finding out about it.
We have known about the CV-16 life sized mockup for years.
And the article is not accurate...we do know exactly where it is at the Wuhan Naval Research Institute.
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
We have known about the CV-16 life sized mockup for years.
And the article is not accurate...we do know exactly where it is at the Wuhan Naval Research Institute.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I was being sarcastic. If you do a search in the Business Insider's archives they have a story of this mock-up years ago. So Jeremy Bender and his editors should be doing their jobs if they were real journalists. Unless they know he's lying about the facts for effect.
Last edited:
Good enough...that explains it.
You might consider the "sarcasm" and "/sarcasm" tags to be sure...LOL!
Anyhow, those who published this are simply out of touch and not doing their research.
Again, I think judging people based off their degrees isn't the right way of looking at it. Looking at what they write is a much better way of judging their credibility.
In any case, even if China has removed discussion of the second carrier off the net it doesn't really mean anything.
The text posted was not bad...it was pretty factual actually.
I would not say that this man is "out of his league," simply because of his background. If he posted nonsense, we would call it that.
in this case, based simply on the text of his article posted to this thread, I would certainly not call it a bad article.
Of course, it is nothing new in terms of information to us here on SD...but most people would find the information of some interest and at least informative.
But we were not talking just about the headline if you are referring to the recent article under discussion (it's hard to understand your meaning when you just post a one-liner like that). In this instance, we are referring to the entire article and its merits.
asif iqbal
Banned Idiot
Future Chinese carrier strike group
Ultra
Junior Member
I got a question - I was reading Jeff's excellent compilation of world aircraft carriers and I noticed the Chinese Liaoning only has 3 CWIS - 2 at the back and one at the front right side.
(See picture below)
This raised the question - why do they think it is good idea to only have 3?
Why leave the front left side to attack? Why not put a CWIS there besides the FL-3000N like in the starboard bow?
If the FL-3000N fail to intercept the missiles coming at the front left side the CWIS would be the last line of defence, and since it is not there I think any OPFOR would concentrate their firepower (AShM) from that side since it is the weakest part of the defence.
(See picture below)
This raised the question - why do they think it is good idea to only have 3?
Why leave the front left side to attack? Why not put a CWIS there besides the FL-3000N like in the starboard bow?
If the FL-3000N fail to intercept the missiles coming at the front left side the CWIS would be the last line of defence, and since it is not there I think any OPFOR would concentrate their firepower (AShM) from that side since it is the weakest part of the defence.
Last edited:
- Status