075 LHD thread
- Thread starter nosh
- Start date
2012-11-15 – On November 13, CCTV Commentator, Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo, says China is developing a large amphibious assault ship which is similar to the Landing Helicopter Assault ship in United States Navy on CCTV-4 “Today’s Focus” Interview program. Yin’s voice is China’s first time publicly expression on amphibious assault ship development and attracts media attentions.
In the CCTV program, when the host asking that PLA new WZ-10 helicopters would be deployed on the aircraft carrier, Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo replied: “WZ-10 and WZ-19 may deployed in China’s future amphibious assault ship. And China now is developing a new generation of amphibious ship, 40000 ton displacement, like U.S. Navy Landing Helicopter Assault LHD ship. The heavy transportation helicopters on this amphibious assault ship will be escorted by armed choppers like WZ-10 and WZ-19.”
There were indications that the Chinese Navy amphibious assault ship has displacement of 48,000 tons. When PLA Navy has these warships, China will be able to deploy armed forces in any country of the Western Pacific area. Analysts pointed out that, once the Sino-Japanese military conflict breaks, Chinese warships will use this type of amphibious assault ship on Okinawa and the Japan four largest islands landing operations.
An amphibious assault ship (also referred to as a commando carrier or an amphibious assault carrier) is a type of amphibious warfare ship employed to land and support ground forces on enemy territory by an amphibious assault. The design evolved from the helicopter carrier, but includes support for amphibious landing craft, with most designs including a well deck.
The America class amphibious assault ship is the newest amphibious assault ship of U.S. Navy. The America class LHA has displacement of 45,000 long tons and uses helicopters and MV-22B Osprey V/STOLs, supported by AV-8B Harrier or F-35 Lightning II V/STOL fighter planes and various attack helicopters.
In the CCTV program, when the host asking that PLA new WZ-10 helicopters would be deployed on the aircraft carrier, Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo replied: “WZ-10 and WZ-19 may deployed in China’s future amphibious assault ship. And China now is developing a new generation of amphibious ship, 40000 ton displacement, like U.S. Navy Landing Helicopter Assault LHD ship. The heavy transportation helicopters on this amphibious assault ship will be escorted by armed choppers like WZ-10 and WZ-19.”
There were indications that the Chinese Navy amphibious assault ship has displacement of 48,000 tons. When PLA Navy has these warships, China will be able to deploy armed forces in any country of the Western Pacific area. Analysts pointed out that, once the Sino-Japanese military conflict breaks, Chinese warships will use this type of amphibious assault ship on Okinawa and the Japan four largest islands landing operations.
An amphibious assault ship (also referred to as a commando carrier or an amphibious assault carrier) is a type of amphibious warfare ship employed to land and support ground forces on enemy territory by an amphibious assault. The design evolved from the helicopter carrier, but includes support for amphibious landing craft, with most designs including a well deck.
The America class amphibious assault ship is the newest amphibious assault ship of U.S. Navy. The America class LHA has displacement of 45,000 long tons and uses helicopters and MV-22B Osprey V/STOLs, supported by AV-8B Harrier or F-35 Lightning II V/STOL fighter planes and various attack helicopters.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Google it.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Read up on what? China fanbois will deny, deny, deny, and cry unfair treatment from Jap and Western media (justifiable point of view, IMHO). Anti-China fanbois do the exact opposite. Since information is controlled by the security organs in China and less so in the West, it's not unreasonable to tilt towards Western sources, even if we have to get a bunch less-reliable info from Japan.
It's a thread on this forum, independent from Chinese '"security organs" or "Western media". This is really OT now, just read up and don't bring this incident up again; that thread was closed for a reason.
usaf0314
Junior Member
well, first of all, the Japanese are being ridiculous about their territory all the time. 2nd, fire-control radar are sensitive instruments, using it outside of full blown conflict you risk data gathering by your potential foul to jam and disable the radar signature, and why would China do that? 3nd, why is this even here... it has nothing to do with the thread and is old news...
Don't be so certain, my friend. The former Secretary of the State, Powell represented the United States said, Iraq had WMD. So, please tell me, it was a less-reliable info or just a lie?
Blackstone
Brigadier
It was a colossal brain fart by U.S. and all other Western Intelligence Agencies. Mistake happens, and that was a big one.
They couldn't find any nuclear weapons, or any portions that had been constructed or were being constructed. They thought he was further along. I have no doubts however that he had a program, and that whatever portions of it were sensitive were moved out well before the invasion.
As to WMDs. Saddam did have some. In terms of Chemical Weapons and even a rudimentary biological program. A lot of evidence was found of the chemical weapons...we know he used them against his own people and in the Iran war. And the Coalition found those.
So it is not correct to say he had no WMDs, it is correct to say that they could find no evidence of any nuclear weapons, or any program at any advanced stage of production.
IMHO, Bush made a bigger mistake then justifying the invasion on WMDs of any type. Saddam had flaunted and thumbed his nose at the agreements he signed to end the 1st Guld War and had been doing so almost 10 years. His activities in that regard were more than enough cause to go in and finish the job that was halted back then as regards Saddam and his regime.
The 2nd mistake, and it was even more costly in US life, was to then allow a vacuum to develop which bred the level of insurgency that ultimately had to be defeated. You do not take out such a totalitarian ruler and not replace the police and internal security with something that can keep the order while the constitution is developed and then elections held. The Bush administration started off, after handily defeating Saddam and his army, doing just that.