返回列表 發帖
回復 10# peter236

對你來講, 任何人都是反中,

實際你連用中文都唔用, 用英文! 你都表現出媚英得很.

TOP

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-8-26 14:37 編輯

回復 7# peter236

Have you count on how many aircrafts they can carry? In addition, what are they?? And what are the usages...

For British, they have F35B backup in the lineup...
For French's Charles de Gaulle, it's nuclear powered... Although they are thinking going back to regular power, which is not in their original proposal...
For Brazil, they are just... fooling around near the coast...

One of the very important issue of having catapult is to launch fixed wing AEW aircraft... Why do they choose fixed wing? One is, they can stay in the air for "LONG", second, they can carry heavier load....

TOP

回復  peter236

Have you count on how many aircrafts they can carry? In addition, what are they?? A ...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-8-26 14:23


The trend is to use smaller remote control planes on aircraft carriers. That is why the US is now cutting cost and shelving the big aircraft carriers.

TOP

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-8-26 14:54 編輯

回復 7# peter236

No idea if China will put the nuclear core on the aircraft carrier... It very well depends on conditions... You can tell why Russia has so many nuclear powered submarine but they don't even have one nuclear aircraft carrier in deployment... From French's case, you know how dangerous it is to put a nuclear core on an aircraft carrier...
"Veni, Vidi, Vici"
竹乃清,竹乃霸道

TOP

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-8-26 14:57 編輯

回復 13# peter236

Yes, there is a trend. Smaller remote planes can do some works, but not all... And, it doesn't relate to why US scale down the size of the big aircraft carrier... Otherwise they will think of building medium size aircraft carrier.
"Veni, Vidi, Vici"
竹乃清,竹乃霸道

TOP

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2011-8-26 14:59 編輯
回復  peter236

No idea if China will put the nuclear core on the aircraft carrier... It very well  ...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-8-26 14:50

China will wait until they have successfully built 2-3 aircraft carriers, before they will use nuclear power.
For Russia, it is because of the lack of funds, that's why they are not building larger aircraft carriers.

TOP

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-8-26 15:03 編輯

回復 16# peter236

I think what you have missed is the term "efficient"...

For China, for sure, they will try putting the nuclear core on the ships, but it will be difficult because of the confined space and maintenance... It may not be as wise as using conventional power...

TOP

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-8-26 15:27 編輯

回復 16# peter236

And, other than the size that can carry more equipments/planes, what're the advantages of larger aircraft carrier versus medium size aircraft carrier?

Hint: Why Russia submarines SSGN/SSBN are usually larger than their US counterpart...

More explicit hint: Yorktown at Midway warefare...

P.S. - One of the problem you have for your view in China's development..."又要馬兒好, 又要馬兒不吃草..." To me, I'm more neutral...

TOP

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2011-8-26 16:06 編輯
回復  peter236

I think what you have missed is the term "efficient"...

For China, for sure, they  ...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-8-26 15:00

The second and third Chinese aircraft carriers will be larger than the current, but not too large.

Please update your knowledge. The trend is for smaller aircraft carriers. The US is now researching on smaller remote control fighters and spy planes. Large aircraft carriers of 100,000 tons will become obsolete soon.

Chinese is now researching on new generation of nuclear power plants.

Hint for you:
-new technology is safer than those Japanese nuclear power plants
-smaller in size, so an be adapted for use on aircraft carriers

TOP

回復 18# lo_pak


    佢完全唔理人地中途島既實戰經驗!!!好野!
人地多又做多過你,沉都沉得多過你,落到場乜鬼野new tech ,theory都係廢物

TOP

返回列表