Satellite Spots China's First Aircraft Carrier 449
Hugh Pickens writes "Commercial satellite company DigitalGlobe Inc. has announced that it has an image of the People's Republic of China's first functional aircraft carrier, taken during the carrier's first sea trials in the Yellow Sea. The carrier was originally meant for the Soviet navy, but its construction was halted as the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and engineers in the Ukraine disarmed it and removed its engines before selling it to China in 1998 for $20 million. The vessel, an Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier measuring 304.5 meters long, and having a displacement of 58,500 tons, has been refitted for research and training in China. The Ministry of National Defense says the steam-powered aircraft carrier has completed all refitting and testing work as scheduled after its first sea trial in mid-August, and was heading back out to sea for additional scientific research and experiments. According to Andrew S. Erickson at the US Naval War College, China's long term strategic dilemma is whether to focus on large-deck aviation or on submarines (PDF)."
Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Informative)
The US uses steam catapults, which are even better but are more expensive and are fairly involved to design.
Ford class carriers (2 currently under construction) will use magnetic launch rather than steam launch.
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Funny)
The US uses steam catapults, which are even better but are more expensive and are fairly involved to design.
Ford class carriers (2 currently under construction) will use magnetic launch rather than steam launch.
To be followed in 20 years by the Obama class which use Hope
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Funny)
"To be followed in 20 years by the Obama class which use Hope"
And works indistinguishably from its predecessor....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Insightful)
Magnetic launch puts less stress on aircraft, requires a smaller physical space on the ship, and requires less manpower to operate and maintain.
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect part of the reduced stress comes from not having most of the acceleration at the start, as the magnetic rail allows for the same amount of force to be applied along the whole distance.
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why they did this at all. A steam catapult is relatively simple mechanically, and any pipefitting company can work on it as long as they have the appropriate government qualifications. Our carriers are going to have nuclear reactors for a long time, and that means a readilly-available source of steam. Going to magnetic launchers just hints to me that the principal contractor wanted to drive up the costs in order to increase their profit, and the ability for them to charge out the ass for aftermarket service and parts.
From what I understand, the magnetic catapults are much more reliable and preform much better than using extremely high pressured steam. Components tend to break when place them under high pressure, release the pressure in an instant and the slowly pressurize it again.
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Or you can just turn the plane into the skid and only have the plane as the moving part. I.E. maglev sort of thing.
That would more-or-less qualify as having "no moving parts" considering the only moving part is the one you wish to move in the first place.
- Toast
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Informative)
The ford is designed with more powerful nuclear reactors to provide for the magnetic launchers, and potentially rail guns and directed energy weapons. Yes. This will be bad-ass.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. The electromagnetic catapults [wikipedia.org] are powered by an energy storage subsystem:
The induction motor requires a large amount of electric energy in just a few seconds - more than the ship's own power source can provide. EMALS' energy-storage subsystem draws power from the ship and stores it kinetically on rotors of four disk alternators. Each rotor can store more than 100 megajoules, and can be recharged within 45 seconds of a launch, faster than steam catapults.
The larger reactors are likely for the 'all-electric' ships that the Navy plans on building. It is less efficient to convert steam energy to kinetic energy to electric energy to kinetic energy than it is to convert steam energy to kinetic energy, as would be the case with the main engines, which use the majority of the reactor's power.
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Insightful)
In practice, carriers are not used by U.S. today to attack enemy carriers; they are used to house aircraft that hit ground targets, just off the coast so that they have short turnaround.
And you can probably replace fighter planes with drones for the kinds of missions that they perform in Afghanistan, or even the kinds that they would be hypothetically performing in Iran; but, for the latter, you really need larger and heavier drones. So you'd still need large carriers to launch them.
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Funny)
Nimitz isn't traditional.
Traditional is naming carriers after battles (also stinging insects), not after people.
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Informative)
The USS Nimitz was named after Flt. Adm. Chester Nimitz who died in 1966 and is the only US military vessel ever to be named after him so far as I can find. A single vessel doesn't make for a tradition.
Re: (Score:3)
Forrestal committed suicide (or was murdered, depending on who you listen to) in 1949. The USS Forrestal was not even ordered until 1951.
Further, Forrestal did not particularly like being in the public eye and strove for obscurity. It's highly unlikely that he would have approved his name being attached to the ship had he been asked while alive.
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Insightful)
President's names don't make very good aircraft carrier names in my opinion
They also seem somewhat antithetical to our republican traditions. One can understand when a monarchical state starts to idolize its leaders but why should a democratic republic do the same?
By the way, I heard there's a petition to rename the second Gerald Ford-class carrier "Enterprise", since the old one (CVN-65) is supposed to be decommissioned by whenever the new one is finished
A lot of people will be ticked off if the Enterprise goes to the breakers without a new carrier being named after her. CV-6 was the most decorated US warship of all time. She fought in nearly every major Pacific engagement and stood ALONE against the Japanese towards the end of the Guadalcanal campaign when every other US carrier was sunk or laid up for repairs. Her accomplishments were such that she was the only non-British ship ever awarded the British Admiralty Pennant.
Anybody with any sense of history really needs to be writing letters to their Congressman and the Secretary of the Navy on this subject. Seriously, they'd better not replace the Enterprise with a ship named after another politician that hasn't even been dead long enough for history to render a judgment. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush weren't even dead when their namesake ships were commissioned. How pathetic that we idolize politicians in such a manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Informative)
Better to have your nose straight at Vstall, than have your angle of attack inclined at Vstall. Ski-jumps don't work for heavier ASW/AWACS aircraft, and they deprie you of landing space for helicopters.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ramps limit the types and weight of aircraft and external loads. Anything a ramp can do a flat-top can do. The reverse is not true. The US navy has never accepted that compromise.
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Interesting)
almost hitting water if you don't have enough speed. Ski-jump gives you much more vertical speed on take off.
With flat launch, you do hit the water in high seas [youtube.com] if they don't time the catapult launch correctly.
Re: (Score:3)
almost hitting water if you don't have enough speed. Ski-jump gives you much more vertical speed on take off.
With flat launch, you do hit the water in high seas [youtube.com] if they don't time the catapult launch correctly.
That video was of a non-catapult launch, and in fact instances such as that depicted were quite the reason for introducing catapults in the first place.
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:4, Informative)
Large, heavy aircraft cannot take off from ski jumps. That makes them mostly unsuitable for US carriers as the Super Hornet is one of the mainstays of the airborne fleet.
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Informative)
Russia operates Mig-29s and Su-33s off of carriers with ski jumps - and the Su-33 is heavier than a Superhornet.
The USMC also doesn't use a ski jump for it's AV-8B carrier platforms, despite that aircraft operating very well off of the UKs (now retired), Indian and Italian ski jump equipped carriers. It's an operational decision taken by US military planners rather than a limitation with the design, as the RAF GR.7 and GR.9s could launch with a heavier weight than the Marines aircraft because of that ski jump.
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the main reason the Navy doesn't put ski jumps on the gator carriers that the USMC takes off from is because they don't want to sacrifice the space that could be used for helicopter operations. Those carriers are mainly used for landing troops with the Harrier playing a supporting role.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Russians use helicopters in that role, similar to the Roal Navy's capability before their carriers were retired recently.
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Informative)
Russia operates Mig-29s and Su-33s off of carriers with ski jumps - and the Su-33 is heavier than a Superhornet.
But they can't be loaded to full weight when launching off a ramp. they needs to be either light on armament or be air refueled.
Smaller carriers that only use VSTOL aircraft could benefit from a ski jump, I don't know why it hasn't been implemented there.
Not first, just first functional (Score:4, Interesting)
So they've finally figured out they have to Build them in the OCEAN?!?!?!? [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why don't U.S. carriers also use ski-jump? (Score:5, Funny)
Ski jump technology is doomed as global warming will limit the latitudes where it can be operational
Re: (Score:3)
Solution to US debt problem (Score:5, Funny)
China's aircraft carrier sounds like pretty old tech. Our aircraft carriers are the most advanced in the world, with nuclear power and now electromagnetic launchers. At something like $5 billion apiece, they aren't cheap. Maybe we can get back some of those dollars we've sent to China by selling them a fleet of our new Reagan-class aircraft carriers.
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:5, Interesting)
This was sold as a research vessel only, not to be converted back for active military use. Who knows if China is going to follow that, but being an old design and stripped of many useful things, they'd be better off building a fresh one with new design, tech and materials, and keep using this as a "research" ship.
Also sell the one superpower that could actually give us a run for our money the equipment we use? That would be VERY stupid, also they wouldn't take it - they'd want to make sure none of it was sabotaged. (As we've done several times with commercial gear when the Soviets would buy it through 3rd parties)
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:5, Funny)
That's actually what US Navy Submarines do, also--"oceanic research."
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:5, Insightful)
AC is a fool.
There is at least one fast attack shadowing this ship already.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia also says this:
I'm not sure what the trend is, but I'd guess that the manufacturing sectors of China and some other countries are growing faster than ours. A lot of it depends on what you are measuring. By d
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:5, Informative)
Reagan-class aircraft carriers.
Such a thing does not exist. The new class of carrier is Ford class. The USS Ronald Reagan is Nimitz class.
Re: (Score:3)
why on earth did they name the newest, most advanced aircraft carriers on the planet after a President who was never elected by anyone (he was appointed, first as VP and then inherited the Pres position when Nixon quit), and who was a complete failure? Maybe it's supposed to be an acknowledgement that our powerful government isn't a democracy at all, but really a plutocracy where a small cabal controls who gets appointed into powerful positions through rigged elections, much like in Saddam's Iraq.
Gerald Ford served on aircraft carriers during WW2. The Navy names its big ships after prominent Naval vets.
Re: (Score:3)
There was also another Enterprise (CV-6), but that didn't stop them from reusing the name.
Personally, I think they should stop naming them after Presidents altogether, because most of the Presidents in the last 100 years have sucked. We should go back to the WWII-era names: Hornet, Constellation, Enterprise, etc. Those were cool names, especially Hornet. The British definitely hold the record for the best ship names though, with all kinds of cool names like Invincible, Ambush, Conflagration, Dagger (soun
Re: (Score:3)
Are you actually this thick, or are you trolling?
The naming convention is obvious:
1. Presidents - Not every president, obviously, since there are only 12 carriers.
2. Navy officers - Nimitz
3. Prominent navy supporters in congress - Vinson, Stennis
4. Past famous warships - No longer in use after retirement of Kitty Hawk.
Gerald Ford fits into at two of those categories, maybe three. I don't know how you think he doesn't deserve one.
The real outcast is Nixon, who will probably never get one due to Watergate. Ma
Re: (Score:3)
China's aircraft carrier sounds like pretty old tech. Our aircraft carriers are the most advanced in the world, with nuclear power and now electromagnetic launchers. At something like $5 billion apiece, they aren't cheap. Maybe we can get back some of those dollars we've sent to China by selling them a fleet of our new Reagan-class aircraft carriers.
They'll probably use it for harrassing Japan, Taiwan and South Korea over disputed islands, fishing areas and oil exploration.
China has fish to fry close to home, before they think about projecting power.
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:4, Insightful)
China's aircraft carrier sounds like pretty old tech. Our aircraft carriers are the most advanced in the world, with nuclear power and now electromagnetic launchers. At something like $5 billion apiece, they aren't cheap. Maybe we can get back some of those dollars we've sent to China by selling them a fleet of our new Reagan-class aircraft carriers.
$5 billion? The Ford Class is expected to hit $15 billion apiece. Which is why the Navy is planning to stretch carrier construction from 5 year cycles to 8 or even 9 year cycles. They simply can't afford as many at those costs. The DDG-1000 may be $7 billion dollars apiece for a destroyer. The F-35 is now as expensive as the F-22, with much less capability. We're pricing ourselves out of a Navy with any significant numbers of ships.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really; China's been making a lot of noise about taking Taiwan back, and they're slowly but surely developing a blue-water navy. They're trying to turn themselves into a superpower, and they're succeeding by the looks of it. A fleet of aircraft carriers would help them greatly in their ambition to be a superpower.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:5, Interesting)
The US has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the entire world combined. China's one ancient soviet carrier is nothing.
The point of this carrier isn't to challenge the US carrier fleet. The point of this carrier is to learn how to build and operate carriers. Once they do that, China will start building much larger and more capable carriers and in greater numbers, while the US Navy is trimming it's fleet. If I was Taiwanese, I'd be nervous.
Re: (Score:3)
China doesn't really need carriers. They aren't offensive country like the U.S., they mostly need defensive forces. And carriers don't do much in that.
China doesn't need big, expensive carriers because they'd be fighting big, expensive carriers of the US. They want submarines [usnwc.edu] for that.
Re: (Score:3)
China doesn't need big, expensive carriers
Expensive? No, no; it's practically free to them. The Chinese government holds enough US government debt that this carrier is paid for by US taxpayers.
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:5, Informative)
Learn some fucking facts. Seriously.
The US debt is a little over 15T(Trillion). China holds 1.134T. That's 7.5%
China holds a meager 7.5% SEVEN POINT FIVE PERCENT of the US debt. That's it. Japan, the next highest creditor, holds 6.4%.
The grand total of all foreign debt is 4.6T. That's 30% of all the US debt.
Foreign countries -- all of them -- hold THIRTY PERCENT of the US Debt. The rest is owed to the US, either to the Federal Reserve or the US public.
Here are the stats on foreign ownership of the US debt. [treasury.gov]
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:5, Funny)
What are you talking about? Carriers have an offense of 1, a defense of 9, and 4 hit points (1/9/4)! About the only thing that has any hope of destroying one is a submarine (10/2/3) or stealth bomber (14/5/2).
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:5, Funny)
You mean land locked Tibet?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean land locked Tibet?
The point isn't whether they used (or could use) aircraft carriers to invade Tibet, the point is that they invaded Tibet. Responding to the claim that China is not "an offensive country", not utility in relation to Tibet specifically.
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the likely use of aircraft carriers would be to enforce their claims in places like the South China Sea, where there have been numerous recent confrontations with the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam. You know, the same use the
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:5, Funny)
I guess countries like Spain, Italy and even Thailand are "offensive countries"? They all have aircraft carriers.
Remember the ships the Empire used in Star Wars?
That's right, Thai fighters.
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly. The Soviet Union classified them as aviation cruiser for treaty reasons (Montreux Convention, 1936: aircraft carriers aren't allowed through the Dardanelles). At about 65,000 tons full load, it's larger than the French de Gaulle and roughly equivalent the the Royal Navy's planned carriers.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm willing to buy that it is a research vessel, as long as you call "figuring out how to build and operate a military aircraft carrier" research.
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:5, Insightful)
And as additional food for thought, consider this: nowadays there are cruise missiles specifically designed to take down supercarriers being sold for around 2 million euros a pop, such as Russia/India's BrahMos [wikipedia.org]. This means that for the price of a single US fighter, any enemy can purchase two dozens or so missiles capable of sinking a multi-billion dollar supercarrier such as those from the Gerald Ford-class. These are missiles which can pretty much be launched from anything, from submarines to planes and possibly a donkey cart as well. So, why is it a good idea to waste money on these massive bullseyes?
Re:Solution to US debt problem (Score:5, Insightful)
So, why is it a good idea to waste money on these massive bullseyes?
Why? Not all conflicts are against enemies who have the wherewithal to attack you from 1000 miles away. If you're going up against a small country in another part of the world, you can park it far enough away that they can't bring it down with their resources and you can still fly your aircraft over them with impunity.
Why else? Because they let high-ranking military personnel feel important when they're allowed to drive one.
Want more reasons? Transfer payments to corporations and other associated entities. Jobs.
I could go on but, chances are, I've proved my point. There are many reasons (both good and not) for building these dinosaurs.
Re: (Score:3)
A half dozen ships were lost in the Falklands conflict. Besides ARA General Belgrano and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS Coventry and MV Atlantic Conveyor were also sunk. HMS Argonaut and HMS Brilliant were also badly damaged, and this by a military which was known to be incompetent.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that exactly how effective these missiles really are against modern, well-deployed carriers is going to be one of the big questions of 21st century warfare. Of course the nations and companies making them are crowing about how effective they are, but as far as I know, they've never actually been fired against a large warship deployed for combat with modern missile-defense gear, not to mention the problem of figuring out where the carriers are in the first place. I'm a bit skeptical that they will be
Re: (Score:3)
Operation Big Switch [wikipedia.org]
"Ceasefire talks had been going on between Communist and UN forces since 1951, with one of the main stumbling blocks being the Communist insistence that all prisoners be returned home, with the UN insisting that prisoners who wished to remain where they were be allowed to do so. After talks dragged on for two years, the Chinese and North Koreans relented on this point...
Over 22,600 Communist soldiers, the majority of w
Why do we still build weapons? (Score:4, Interesting)
"According to Andrew S. Erickson at the US Naval War College, China's long term strategic dilemma is whether to focus on large-deck aviation or on submarines "
Does it really matter? Are we expecting WW3 anytime soon?
Re:Why do we still build weapons? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it really matter? Are we expecting WW3 anytime soon?
You can't rattle your saber if you don't have a saber!
And nuclear powered mobile military bases are great for rattling
Re: (Score:3)
"According to Andrew S. Erickson at the US Naval War College, China's long term strategic dilemma is whether to focus on large-deck aviation or on submarines "
Does it really matter? Are we expecting WW3 anytime soon?
It's the job of the US military to prepare for just about anything. We've even got plans for war against England and France. They'd be completely derelict if they didn't have information about what the world's 2nd or 3rd superpower is up to.
During World War II, Churchill ordered English ships to fire upon French ships because they didn't want them to be captured by the Germans, and the French commander didn't want to turn them over, even to an ally.
Re:Why do we still build weapons? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does any of this not apply to China?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US can barely handle a bunch of tribespeople with AK47s living in caves.
So they've discovered flight and have oil! (Score:5, Funny)
Steam powered? (Score:2)
Just curious, what would they burn in an application like this to power its boilers? Oil? Diesel? Coal? (Lead-lined cadmium? Child laborers?)
Re:Steam powered? (Score:4, Informative)
Brilliant! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)
We'll just continue to spend China's money. They can't win the cold war if they're paying for both sides of it!
I for one welcome (Score:3, Funny)
our floating Chinese overlords.
Another odd decision from China's government (Score:4, Insightful)
They've got thousands of young unemployed engineers, recent advances in the design of hulls and they invest in um, the height of Ukranian technology (OK, maybe borrowed Russian technology). Surely they could have done much better starting from scratch.
Three gorges dam is another strange project. Yes, you can build ONE BIG DAM or 1 hundred little ones that are cheaper, achieve better flood control, yield as much or more power and are easier to dredge when they silt up. And if one of a hundred dams break, it's not as big a deal. If the three gorges dam breaks, we have a real problem.
Re:Another odd decision from China's government (Score:4, Interesting)
On a side note, they turned the decommissioned 1970's era Soviet carrier Minsk into a military theme park called "Minsk World [wikipedia.org]"! They did the same thing with the Kiev, but it's name isn't nearly as amusing...
Aircraft carriers (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're fighting a real enemy who can shoot back, a carrier fleet is just a target-rich environment for cheap missiles. This is the modern equivalent of building battleships before WWII only to see them sunk by cheap aircraft.
Re:Aircraft carriers (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really.
1. It is not easy to get within range of a us carrier group with Aircraft. They have E-2s which give you great radar coverage plus F-18s armed with AIM-120s.
2. If you manage to get past the CAP then you have to deal with the escorts. Both the DDs and CGs classes in use today have great air defense systems. Not to mention a lot of SAMs.
3. You then have to get past the point defenses of the ships to hit a carrier. It could be done but you better bring about 100+ aircraft to the party.
As far as using a surface ship? The Carrier can reach out and hit you from a long way.
4. Subs? well they are actually slow. A fast sub is a loud sub and likely to be a dead sub.
As long as the carrier is out to see it will be tough nut to crack. Now if you can get it close to shore and used shore mounted weapons you may have a chance.
The only reason that the Brits lost any ships was they lacked any AEW assets like the E-2 and only had Sea Harriers.
Re:Aircraft carriers (Score:4, Informative)
Carriers provide force projection, e.g. intimidation of smaller militaries by sending a capital ship and battle group in their direction.
As I said, they're only of use if the other side can't shoot back. Otherwise they'll be scrap on the sea-bed within a few days.
Even the British carriers in the Falklands only survived because the Argentian Air Force ran out of Exocets.
Re:Aircraft carriers (Score:4, Interesting)
Sticker on bottom of ship... (Score:5, Funny)
they only have one now.. (Score:3, Insightful)
but considering they now are the source of a lot of stuff made in the world. if their leader went out and said. "i want 20 more in less then ten years" they will be able to build them in less then 5. and it takes us what about 2 to 3 years to build a single one of ours?
congratulations, the united states is like the early ww2 german war machine. were more advanced but it takes longer for us to build our tanks, ships, and planes while our enemies will be able in a short while replace that one much cheaper and faster made one with 2 or more every time we knock one down.
Unintended consequences. . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
What even a modest carrier can do in the near term caught the Chinese by surprise in early 2005,when they watched in horror as Indian and Japanese carriers conducted post-tsunami relief operations. Thus, in reconceptualizing the PLAN carrier, China’s two potential role models—and competitors—are not the United States and the former Soviet Union but rather India and Japan. [Andrew S. Erickson and Andrew R.Wilson, "China's aircraft carrier dilemma [usnwc.edu]," Naval War College Review, Autumn 2006, Vol. 59, No. 4, p. 36.]
Would that this were true -- it would be nice to see countries build military weapons platforms to compete with each other to provide the best humanitarian assistance possible. [/pollyanna] However. . . .
Just a few details... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ukraine (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ukraine (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, you went from a geographical style of reference in English that has been used throughout my lifetime and is fairly common, to including racial slurs, and holocaust denial all in just 3 paragraphs.
You may take offense at use of "The Ukraine" rather than "Ukraine" but the use of that form in English probably dates back to the Crimean war, and there is no insult attached to it in meaning that I am aware of as an English speaker.
As someone else pointed out there are a lot of geographical locations that Eng
Re:Ukraine (Score:4, Informative)
Slavic languages do not have articles.
Re: (Score:3)
It's one of the side effects of the semi-permanent Russian/Ukrainian linguistic flamewar. In Russian, when you speak about something happening in Ukraine, you use the preposition that is normally reserved for generic nouns rather than names, different from most other countries.
This is because the word "Ukraine" (warning: academically most popular, but contested theory follows) comes from historical Slavic "oukraina", meaning "borderlands" ("krai" means "edge") - it was precisely that for both Muscovite Russ
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you mean arm chair Admirals? Or would that be Bathtub Admirals?
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't seem to be carrying an air wing.
That seems to be the fashion these days: the new British carriers aren't going to have any planes either.
Re:Backed by (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Offhand, I would not say that they are doing this slowly.
Re: (Score:3)
But even the most conservative candidates (like Ron Paul - who ironically is very isolationist) don't speak much to cutting the US defense budget
"The Department of Defense would see $832 billion disappear from its budget during Paul's first term in office"
(source) [go.com]