My god... it's BEAUTIFUL

It's boxy in all the wrong ways. They need to streamline that shit, make it an F-35 of the sea.

Right up until you need to use the ship for a useful role like interdiction, instead of implessive wanking.

Honest question, as I’m not an expert, what role in interdiction does an artillery cannon perform that either CIWS or a missile can’t? I can understand the arguments for using guns for shore bombardment, but when it comes to naval interdiction, if you can’t sink it with CWIS, wouldn’t you want to be pretty far away?

>American MH-60R
>German Swinehebel Camcopter
>Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS

Don't get it...Since when Communist China got her filthy hands on those hardware?

You can blame Reagan for this, he thought that if we throw some money to commies they will suddenly turn to democracy.

amazing what economic espionage does no?

I’m pretty sure we sold them MH-60s back when we thought economic prosperity would make China less of an authoritarian shithole. Presumably the same thought process for the other 2 as well. Obviously, this was a mistake on the part of the west as a whole.

Way before Reagan bud, try Nixon. They were using US tech by the Sino-Vietnamese war. It was a good enough plan at that time, too, considering the USSR was much more of an existential threat.

We're blameless to be fair. Before China, there were literally zero (0) cases of non-democracies being economically successful.

Why WOULDN'T you assume that as a country capitalizes it would also democratize?

Attached: 1200px-Rail_map_of_PRC.svg.png (1200x1032, 408K)

Trying to sink ships with guns meant to swat missiles out of the air sounds like it'd be pretty fucking harsh on your ammo stocks.

Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, and the Soviets were a much more pressing concern than the potential for China to unfuck itself in the future, but the irony in helping to create our greatest potential enemy is still somewhat funny. I guess that’s sort of how the Germans felt when they sent Lenin back to Russia to destabilize the Tzar’s govenrment.

Well, a secondary role of CIWS is point defense against small vessels, so I doubt it’d be too problematic.

>funding authoritarian communist dictatorship to fight another authoritarian communist dictatorship
Brilliant idea! What can possibly go wrong?

I mean, isn’t that sort of what we did with the Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese? Or the Chinese and the Vietnamese? Or the Communist Kurds and the Syrians? Yeah, I think we might need to reconsider that at some point.

Chang, are you even allowed to have weapons? Why are you here, aside from shit posting? Can't you make more running a Bitcoin farming operation or something? I'm actually genuinely curious.

I'm from Finland. And triggering sensitive burgers grants me joy.

Eh, as an American, that whole incident was pretty bad. Hopefully it’ll force the navy to unfuck 7th fleet. At the same time, shit happens when you have a higher ops tempo than any other navy on earth.

Not that guy but a Middle Eastern country once bought Soviet Fast Attack Crafts, they had missiles and CIWS (AK-630). At first they did good, but then an incident happened. A couple of these guys located some Israeli ships. They fired their missiles but were jammed. The Israeli ships did not have missiles but they had their speed and main guns. The Israelis caught up to the Arab crafts and the crafts can't fight back against longer ranged and more powerful guns. The Soviets then made sure all their newer ships will be designed with a gun.

Nah, trust me, it will surely work this time.

Attached: 52a1c37869bedd476f5aaefd-750-501.jpg (750x501, 107K)

>I'm actually genuinely curious.
Whoever uses this phrase is just butthurt.

>mfw reading about how we backed the Khmer Rouge even well into the Killing Fields shit

Thank god this part of history gets downplayed...

Attached: Anton (2).jpg (711x619, 85K)

Interesting. That makes sense. Sort of as a contingency like guns on a fighter aircraft.

Yep. What always surprised me was how long Western academics gargled Pol Pot’s cock, even after he started targeting Cambodia’s intelligentsia.

>how the Germans felt when they sent Lenin back to Russia to destabilize the Tzar’s govenrment.
Well that worked at least, just a little well is all. Remember when it was revealed Soros was the main financier behind the Tiananman protesters?

washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/08/08/funds-representatives-arrested-in-china/24e8b72c-d6fe-4753-a007-51d181239cb6/

He almost made it happen too, he literally almost got the chinks to go full Western democracy. Just didn't count on the CCP being uncompromising af.

To be honest, no one really was aware about scales of mass killings before fall of Khmer Rouge.

Definitely not an expert, but weren’t the Tiananmen protests relatively unorganized (like the yellow vest movement), with a healthy majority actually being against the few liberal reforms that had been made and wanting to return to stricter communism?

Many yes, the main idea though was to disrupt/overthrow the standing government. Who knows what could've happened after that? They probably wouldn't be the threat they are now.

The yellow vests are rural and suburban, mostly middle aged working class.

Tiananmen was college students drunk on ideology.

Looking at it through an ideological lens is misleading. It was forces of stability suppressing a fresh breakout of political cancer.

>uses a cgi picture
>with a seahawk carrying some kind of payload
>and a random UAV that does not exists in the backround

The CIA had a pretty good idea. It's all declassified now but at the time they were just banking on the world never finding out.

>It was forces of stability suppressing a fresh breakout of political cancer.
Ahh yes, 100,000 college students killed. Yes this makes perfect sense.

>10,000
Literally an asspull figure like the 6 gorillion. It was obviously more than a few hundred like the chicoms say but 10k is a number plucked from thin air.

Yes, it does when you look at the history. Hu Yaobang's death opened the floor for conflict, the protestors tried to enter the stage and make ideology more important than stability, and grown-ups who remembered what happened last time that was tried (the Red Guards) slapped them down.

There are actual photos available now.

Attached: D48zSY5XoAEpjr2.jpg (1200x801, 107K)

I thought that 10,000 was the number from the British embassy that allegedly came from sources within the Chinese government? If it was inflated for propaganda purposes, I’m not sure why they would have kept it classified for 30 years.

Oh yes, its all propaganda if its anti Chinese! Thats why it was classified for so long!

Nothing says propaganda like decades of keeping it secret!

Yes, 100,000 geroge soros funded liberal hippy college students died. They were a cancer of course, hence why they were gunned down in the streets.

American embassy reports on the other hand do not support these numbers.

Attached: Tiananmen Myth Japan Times.jpg (1278x947, 212K)

>2011
>Japan times
>Gregory Clark

""""News""""

>Made in china
L O L

Yeah, denying the Tiananmen Square massacre isn’t a good look. There really isn’t any question as to if it happened, only how many were killed.

>t...they were a cancer, thats why they were killed!
>no wait...it never even happened lol

Get your story straight, shills.

I mean, from the perspective of the Chinese government, suppressing the movement was absolutely vital. Anyone actively denying that a massacre took place is pretty transparently arguing in bad faith, though.

Garbage taste my dude

The chinese government perspective is absolutely schizophrenic to be honest.

Implessive! All modern warships have no character to them.

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1280x936, 277K)

I disagree with them from a moral standpoint, but I can understand why they did it. Stability was their biggest concern, and killing the protestors has clearly achieved that stability. No one protests things in China anymore.

>No one protests things in China anymore.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hong_Kong_protests

Sorry, I meant mainland China. Hong Kong was independent at the time of the massacre, and they’re still somewhat independently-minded today, though China is doing its best to change that.

Not really. They did what they had to do at the time, and then covered it up because the people can't handle the truth.

>Falun gong practitioners
>attacking anyone

Attached: 1546792144958.jpg (447x406, 53K)

>they had to kill 100,000 people, they had to!

No, not really. Not even to maintain sovereignty of the CCP. They just had to discredit and ignore them. They choose the heavy handed approach.

The CCP IS schizo. Look at their stance on taiwan.

Not just the government. The ordinary people also agree.

Tiananmen is for China like the LA riots. Noone with a brain questions the legitimacy of its suppression.

Attached: Chinese support the Tiananmen Crackdown.png (588x791, 308K)

I jizz'df

They discredited themselves when the protestors attacked unarmed riot police first.

>100,000 people attacked the police, thus resulting in their death.
>oh, and they were all college hippys funded by George soros.

loven every laugh

You dont even know what the fuck you are talking about.

>The CCP IS schizo. Look at their stance on taiwan.

What's weird about it? They use it as a external enemy to help justify military modernisation, but don't go full retard and actually invade it, because gradual economic assimilation will get them Taiwan without starting a war with the USA.

Literally, since every party head with any sway is gunning for the top, and the rest save a few are loyal to whoever seems stronger at the time. So they are quite literally schitzo.

>What's weird about it?
Its not that they are using it as a justification, its HOW they use it for justification. Are you seriously asking whats weird about the CCP's stance on Taiwan, and how fucking retarded and non nonsensical it is?

They were cancer and needed to be killed, but the massacre sadly never happened on the square, where the student leaders were assembled (they fled immediately before the massacre via convenient US visa). The riots were in the streets beside the square and it wasnt a one-sighted massacre, but an actual armed riot with deaths on both sides. The students even hung and gutted soldiers during the riots in the side streets.

Attached: tiananmen-square-massacre-p-2.jpg (220x330, 25K)

Explain it to me. I don't understand how it's retarded. It looks like normal, semi-competent politics to me.

Their justification: Taiwan as a state doesnt exist, and the ROC is a defeated party of the civil war and should surrender to the CCP and end their occupation of the island of Taiwan.

What's so wrong about it? It is literally like the same justification the North used to conquer the South during the American Civil War.

>some criminals kill a few soilders
>the government kills 100,000 people
>oh wait it was not a massacre
>but it tottaly was a massacre

lel, this is core china posting.

>we are the rightful rulers of taiwan and have control of it
>They are/have neither

Fantasy numbers do not count.

And also, what "massacre" is it when you, as an army, lose entire tank platoons to the "peaceful protestors"?

Attached: 1465902514618.jpg (1003x703, 179K)

So you answered your own question. Since the ROC doesnt want to surrender Taiwan to the CCP and accept their defeat in the civil war, the CCP's only option is either violent reunification with the final crushing of the ROC, or a negotiated reunification with the ROC becoming a semi-autonomous province of the CCP like Hong Kong.

That's basic politics. You have to say it's right to establish political dominance before doing operations. Like how the US invented WMD dangers before invading Iraq.

Yes, while this is true, that is not the stance of the CCP.

They dont go, this is occupied territory of the CCP, they go this IS the CCP, we HAVE control of it.

They do NOT have control of it. It is NOT the CCP.

The stance of the US prior to invading iraq was not "we have current control of iraq". Its non nonsensical. And when it is routinely ignored (as is the case with taiwan) it makes the CCP look weak and incompetent.

the first responders during the protests were literally unarmed riot police.

Attached: tiananmensquareprotest3.jpg (900x675, 154K)

>the first responders were unarmed riot police
>thats why 100,000 died
>oh wait nobody died lel
>oh wait only the government troops died
>no, wait, the government troops died thats why 100,000 died
>but there was no massacre

>what is legitimacy

The reason doesn't matter, user. It's about establishing the right to intervene. The easiest and strongest way is to say you're intervening in your own territory.

>To establish legitimacy you must say you control territory you very clearly do not, and have not since around WWII.

Are YOU a schizo poster?

No, it doesnt work like this.

The CCP and ROC quitely agreed on one single condition in regards to international relations: There is only ONE China, not Two. Both sides agreed back then, because both sides considered themselves to be the ONLY China in existence, and their mutual warfare as an internal matter, not an external conflict.

This is why the ROC still have maps with whole of China (inlcuding Mongolia, whose independence they have never acknowledged) and still have nominal governours of mainland provinces even though they never ruled them for 60 years.
Same as with China, who claims sovereignity over Taiwan, while acknowledging that Taiwan is currently ruled by an "enemy government".

Attached: roc_administrative_and_claims.jpg (847x674, 145K)

>basic politics is schizo

Doesn't matter, had sex.

read:
And the Wikileaks diplomatic cables of the US embassy.

You can pretend to be retarded or get learned.

Look at this binary-brained retard and laugh. He's never heard of escalation.

False, only the KMT agrees with the one china policy.

Yes, and so does the ROC.
Even with the DPP in power and not wanting to endorse the 1992 consensus, the official ROC policy is still the claim over whole of China. This is something the DPP couldnt get through the parliament, even with all those pan green supporters outside.

Because this would be a change of the constitution

>unarmed riot police
So this is the power of American education

China did nothing wrong.
Deng Xiaoping did nothing wrong.

Nope, the DPP thinks the constitution is just fine the way it is, and is interpeting that "China" means ROC only, aka Taiwan.

What you DONT see taiwan doing is claiming they have control over the CCP. Becuase that would be schizophrenic.

A stretched Burke-based cruiser wouldn't be half bad
wouldn't even need all the currently installed hp to reach 35kts, can switch to IEP
apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a524619.pdf
3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/6b762ef1-ba38-4eb3-8495-d68710798540/IEP-Extended-Burke-Cruiser-WIP

Attached: IEP DDG-CG.png (1240x642, 163K)

But they do. Take any official ROC map and you will see that it is whole of China and not just Taiwan.

The DPP's end goal is to establish the ROT, the Republic of Taiwan. And this would mean a change of the constitution.

>But they do.
No, they do NOT. They claim that they have a right to the territory, not that they currently control it.

One is logical FP, the other is pure fucking insanity.

Wrong again. Taiwan still has official provincial governors for Beijing and Shanghai, even though they know that this is silly. China, on the other hand, has no governor for Taiwan, just a "Taiwan Relations Office", that functions as !notEmbassy for Taiwan.

Dont mistake Chinese misgivings about USN warship cruises through the Taiwan strait as the claim that China actually controls Taiwan. This anger comes from the fact that China considers the entire Taiwan issue an internal matter.

I’m still hoping they take the lessons from the Zumwalt and convert the concept from a naval gunfire support platform to a CG.

>confusing ceremonial state offices for actual FP
Odd, i dont see Taiwan freaking out every time somebody makes a treaty with the CCP. Yet, the CCP does every single time.

That is because this is part of China's state policy to isolate Taiwan by making them unable to function as a proper sovereign country.

Let me remind you how the Union screeched when they found out that France did business with the confederates. This is all about delegitimizing the other side.