This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

China And Russia Hold "Massive" Joint Naval Drill: This Is What It Looked Like

Tyler Durden's picture




 

A month ago, when the fate of the historic (and now concluded) gas deal between Russia and China was still unknown we wrote that "Isolated Russia Makes Friends: To Hold Military Drill With China", a drill titled "Maritime Cooperation-2014", and which, coincidentally, is taking place in the northern part (ahem Japan and Taiwan) of the East China Sea, just as Russia is conducting another massive airforce drill along its border with Ukraine on the weekend of Ukraine's presidential election.

As part of the drill, which is taking place between May 20 and 26, the Chinese and Russian naval vessels conducted maneuvers in the exercise area covering such missions as joint escort, joint rescue the hijacked ship, a joint verification of identification and joint air, sea assault on joint exercises and other subjects.

Here are some snapshots of what has taken place so far

Chinese and Russian warships lined a single column appeared and began firing drills.

More ships sailing in single line.

Russian warships appeared.

Chinese and Russian warships lined up in a column appeared, ready for sea, air and underwater targets firing.

Destroyer "Zhengzhou" , the supply ship "Qiandaohu"  and destroyer "Ningbo"

Ship missile destroyer Harbin firing guns

Missile destroyer Ningbo.

Missile destroyer Ningbo fires its auxiliary ship-to-air gunds

Missile destroyer Ningbo firing its gun

Resulting rocket depth

Russian cruiser Varyag, flagship of the Pacific fleet

Russian warship Admiral Panteleev

Varyag again, with Ka-27 helicopter in background

Liuzhou ship missile frigate conducting real fire drill. At 8:00 on the 24th of May, the first surface ship fleet ship missile destroyer Ningbo, again sounding the alarm combat exercises, joint anti-submarine exercises in full swing. The formation was composed of three warships conducting the submarine search.

The Zhengzhou missile destroyer first discovered the "enemy" submarines, reported the fleet command, guiding Russia "Admiral Panteleyev" large anti-submarine ship-borne helicopters sent successfully implemented on the target submarine attack.

Source: mil.cnr.cn

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:27 | 4791728 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

I believe the millitary exercise was called: "Sink da Amedican Freet."

 

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:30 | 4791732 svayambhu108
svayambhu108's picture

China need to be sure that she can take her money back, imagine how hard is for Gazprom to take 3.4 billions from Ukraine, multiply that by 1000 de amount of money, and 1000 de amount of miles

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:31 | 4791735 knukles
knukles's picture

This Just In

Cannon blast and sound barrier overpressure, leads to thousands of broken windows, Krugman disabled with massive woody

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:32 | 4791740 max2205
max2205's picture

Ihow wok photoshop

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:40 | 4791748 So What
So What's picture

Joint military activities are full of shit. Unless you have binding treaty, it's nonsense. Will Russia go to war with China against the US? Not a chance. All these joint activities do is to let them gauge one another's capability. The Russians are probably thinking; these Chinese are nothing, they can be taken down really easily.
They're allies until they are not. Just look at the fifties and sixties.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:43 | 4791756 outofideas
outofideas's picture

So is this what people with no aircraft carriers do to show strength?

I'm not saying the US navy is invincible, but sailing some cruisers and destroyers in a line in shooting deck guns at detritus does not make a particular threatening scene

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:02 | 4791779 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Photos of most ships are just advertisements for future fish condominiums.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:12 | 4791803 kliguy38
kliguy38's picture

Nuland to Kerry......"we're gonna need a bigger boat"

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:57 | 4791892 mjcOH1
mjcOH1's picture

"I believe the millitary exercise was called: "Sink da Amedican Freet.""

Thank you for your cooperation in SUBPACFLT exercise 2014 "Happy Lucky Golden Putin".   We were not here.   You did not see us.

Have a fortune cookie.    And a Baltika.   Same time, next year.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 20:20 | 4792181 RevRex
RevRex's picture

It's a good thing BathHouse Barry and the other great negro thinkers of the day are ready to preserve America's place of leadership in the world......oh wait, that wasn't in 'Dreams From My Father'.....

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 21:56 | 4792387 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

with regard to the comparison of missile destroyers and aircraft carriers, i am reminded of the day that will live in infamy, when the battleships, stars of ww1, were attacked at port while the carriers, stars to be of ww2, were at sea on "exercises".

how many russian missile destroyers can be built for one u.s. aircraft carrier? between four and eight.

 

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 02:16 | 4792463 Lore
Lore's picture

Anybody else read some of the comments and get the feeling that a few posters are plants intended to make ZHers seem like a bunch of lamebrains?

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 09:18 | 4792982 Bendromeda Strain
Bendromeda Strain's picture

Nah, there are some legit bubbleheads on here I would imagine. These guys see ships as nothing more than targets, but isn't it ridiculous to assume that our subs weren't being tracked by - wait for it - their subs? They had to know we would be in the area - it was pure catnip.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 02:24 | 4792750 boogerbently
boogerbently's picture

Did Russia send it's entire fleet of O N E aircraft carrier ?

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 20:30 | 4792208 docmac324
docmac324's picture

All above photos taken courtsey of SSBN Alabama.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 21:37 | 4792344 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

That's probably not going to be a popular comment around here, but I gave you an up-arrow.

There does seem to be a bit of a "hey, look how badass we are!" element to this.  More to the point, this is the follow-up to the recent pipeline deal.  "Hey, look how much on the same side we are!"  They're not gearing up to take on the US Navy, they're making a joint political statement.

 

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:02 | 4792395 Drifter
Drifter's picture

They don't plan taking on the US navy.  Just The US dollar.  Much easier target, very exposed, no protection, even sabotaged by its owners.

"We'll just kill the dollar."  Americans said that.  Russia/China just help the process along.

Once the dollar is sunk, US navy can't operate anymore.  Nor the army, marines, air force, special forces, CIA, black ops, al-CIAda, regime change, and all the rest of the US govt.

And no shots fired.  Not one.  Silent currency war, US loses easily, dollar is our weakest point.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:41 | 4792466 Lore
Lore's picture

You nailed it. The greatest threat to the security of the American people is the financial complex.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 09:21 | 4792987 Bendromeda Strain
Bendromeda Strain's picture

Ding ding ding - they aren't looking to provoke anything beyond "we will not be bullied by your putrid dollar". It's certainly true that Bretton Woods survived longer than it should have on the back of gunboat diplomacy. Well, here is some right back at us...

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 23:27 | 4792559 813kml
813kml's picture

At some point the US will be in the position of "use it or lose it" and there will be shots fired, probably many.  The dollar will not go gentle into that good night.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 23:59 | 4792603 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

Thats what everyone thought about the Soviet military too....One morning it turned into an arms bazaar.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 01:01 | 4792674 813kml
813kml's picture

The major difference is that the ruble wasn't reserve currency, there are still a few more tricks up the FED's sleeve to keep reality at bay a while longer.  The US spent trillions building a siege apparatus to protect dollar hegemony, it will get used at some point.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 09:24 | 4792991 Bendromeda Strain
Bendromeda Strain's picture

The FED has built the world's largest Iron Maiden, and will deploy it on us in due time.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 00:07 | 4792617 Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

you may be right. get ready for ARMEGGEDON.  The End of Days could happen soon. The maniacs are in control.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 00:04 | 4792608 Aussie V
Aussie V's picture

The best way to destroy the Capitalist system is to debauch the currency

Vladimir Lenin

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 23:17 | 4792539 Spanky
Spanky's picture

-1

For...

SSBN Alabama would be nowhere near those exercises for the obvious reason. The fact that you don't know why simply shows how uninformed your comment is...

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 01:18 | 4792691 imbtween
imbtween's picture

he was joking. he just forgot the /sarcasm tag.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 09:26 | 4792996 Bendromeda Strain
Bendromeda Strain's picture

Exactly - everybody knows that Alabama is on the Gulf of Mexico. Some people, huh?

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:39 | 4791857 blentus
blentus's picture

The whole point is - there are no aircraft carriers there.

If you don't understand why, you really shouldn't comment on it.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 00:17 | 4792632 Seek_Truth
Seek_Truth's picture

Aircraft carriers are so 20th century.

Weapons technology has drastically changed the way war is conducted (excluding 3rd world "threats").

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 13:37 | 4792718 MrPalladium
MrPalladium's picture

Aircraft carriers are floating coffins. I compare them to Pershings horse calvalry at Fort Jackson just before WWII. In fact all surface vessels will be floating coffins in the next major war.

Ballistic anti ship missiles, satellite weapons, submarines and drones will achive quick global dominance of the seas.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:47 | 4791868 wanderintheland
wanderintheland's picture

Hmmm. That was a blind spot in my knowledge, until now:

We (US) got 10 in service, 2 in reserve, and 3 under construction.

Russia and China both have one (with only China having another under construction).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:15 | 4791919 angel_of_joy
angel_of_joy's picture

Aircraft carriers are obsolete. They are too vulnerable in case of conflict. Americans are using them to show off but they know very well that an adversary like China or Russia would sink most of them in the first days of a serious conflict.

The future lies in small stealthier ships, and high speed long range missiles (and torpedoes). From the first weeks of the Falkland War it was clear that the days of the big ships are gone. Carriers are just big fat targets of opportunity, waiting to be hit & sunk... just like battleships during WWII.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:38 | 4791963 Gaius Frakkin' ...
Gaius Frakkin' Baltar's picture

My armchair strategery leads me to believe aircraft carriers are convenient for taking on 2nd rate powers... and that's about it.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:51 | 4791988 Matt
Matt's picture

Even then, in a war game simulating a battle with Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, it was shown that small fast attack boats could be loaded with explosives and ram the aircraft carriers. Really only useful in totally one-sided conflicts where the enemy cannot get anything in the air or into the water.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:03 | 4792402 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

i.e what "our" commander in chief understands to be the definition of war.  i.e. the circumstances under which he has found, to his modest surprise, that he is really good at killing people.

perhaps he should put an extensively detailed book about the battle of stalingrad on his night table.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:02 | 4792403 ObamaDepression
ObamaDepression's picture

You're not even close to correct.

But in a real conflict a US carrier would not be in such a small space as the Persian Gulf, which might explain why they were stationed to the South and West (Mediteranian) during both Guld Wars.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:37 | 4792434 Drifter
Drifter's picture

Era of aircraft carrier speriority is over thanks to hypersonic ship-killing missiles, which Russia/China happen to be quite advanced at.  Surface-skimming radar-evading, US carriers wouldn't even see 'em coming.

It's the missile era now, and US is the knife at the gun fight, still stuck in carrier mode.  We spend hundreds of billions developing new carrier-based fighters (so multi-task they don't work well for any particular task), while Russia/China develop advanced missiles to sink that carrier those new multi-task fighters must come back and land on. 

And then there's Ruusia's new supersonic torpedo.  Underwater missile.  US ships totally indefensable against it, especially those big slow carriers.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:50 | 4792487 Lore
Lore's picture

Fellow truth seeker, you are at this very moment in the midst of the most important battleground: the Battle For The Mind. Fortunately for us, truth is the natural enemy of psychopaths.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 00:06 | 4792614 medium giraffe
medium giraffe's picture

Moar pheer!  Cower, mortals.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:49 | 4792491 potato
potato's picture

What about those guns whose computers can target an immense number of targets (maybe 32 or even more?). it's all over youtube. A .5cal through the engine block, and the "fast ship" loses propulsion.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 00:20 | 4792637 Seek_Truth
Seek_Truth's picture

Ever heard of EMP?

Apparently not.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 05:01 | 4792848 IronForge
IronForge's picture

Carriers probably won't be in the Gulf in a conflict vs Iran.

They weren't "in there" during the Iran-Iraq War for similar reasons.

 

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:57 | 4792003 Itgoestoeleven
Itgoestoeleven's picture

If we can get them into a chineese or Russian port and then sunk we can contaminate the entire area. Carriers are nothing more than mobile fukushimas.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:16 | 4792041 snowlywhite
snowlywhite's picture

your armchair strategy is... armchairish.

 

in any conflict carried out in a "blue water" environment(not close to coast where you can provide support with land based airforce) carriers > everything else. You have air support, the other side is sitting duck. You'd be like the Kaisermarine in WW1.

 

even without carriers, the us navy has more firepower than chinese + russian navies combined(it still puzzles me why Russia insists in sinking money in a navy despite not needing one). That without counting RN/rest of Commonwealth navies or the japanese navy.

 

Those navies are a worst joke than the Kaisermarine. At least that could go out a couple of hundred miles from Wilhelmshaven to Heligoland. These can't, since they'd be outside air support...

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:33 | 4792094 angel_of_joy
angel_of_joy's picture

Blue water air support is on its way to meet the Dodo bird.

Aircraft themselves are vulnerable to missiles. Carriers, even more so. You can add torpedoes to that.

On top of everything conventional, one low yield tactical nuke could wipe out an entire Task Force centered around a carrier. You will not nuke an enemy city to answer such an attack, unless you are ready for a total war of anihilation. The good old days of USN roaming the seas with impunity are long gone.

Your analysis was pretty good... about 70 years ago !

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:02 | 4792405 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

Golly, no one brings up the DF-21D?

VIA Wiki:

China has reportedly developed and tested its first anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) called DF-21D, with a maximum range exceeding 1,450 kilometres (900 mi), according to the U.S. National Air and Space Intelligence Center. The Intelligence Center did not believe it was deployed in 2009.[9] The guidance system is thought to be still in an evolutionary process as more UAV and satellites are added.[11]

The US Department of Defense stated in 2010 that China has developed and reached initial operating capability [12] of a conventionally armed[13] high hypersonic[14] land-based anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21. This would be its first ASBM and weapon system capable of targeting a moving aircraft carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers...

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:51 | 4792495 indygo55
indygo55's picture

Yeah but all these expensive carriers and support ships are really good for the Military Industrial Complex. They make billions on this shit. Thats the plan and that seems to be all that matters. These Washington morons just cannot see past their own complexes. 

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 00:12 | 4792626 angel_of_joy
angel_of_joy's picture

Bingo ! We have a winner...

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 04:51 | 4792844 snowlywhite
snowlywhite's picture

Sure you have land based missiles and land based aircrafts which can actually reach. The problem is that both can be shot down. And not that hard given enough distance.

 

it's like the guy above you with his tac. nuke. Sure, you can use one; but betting that the other side won't dare bomb a city as retaliation isn't very smart...

 

chinese navy might take on the IJN and stand a chance; and even that is pretty close.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 06:49 | 4792877 effendi
effendi's picture

snowlywhite. You forget that aircraft carriers are sitting ducks for subs armed with underwater missiles (AKA torpedoes). How do you stop a sub that can operate across the 7 seas from firing a swarm of torpedoes at you? If the hostile sub gets within firing range then nothing will stop those torpedoes and the USN has had Chinese subs pop up unanounced within the carrier fleet before.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 08:50 | 4792940 snowlywhite
snowlywhite's picture

subs and torpedos are something that exist for over a century. In that century there were two world wars, countless of other regional wars and a ton of occassions where carriers still proved useful(much like any other surface ship). According to your theory noone should ever build a surface ship again; yet all the navies in the world keep poping them.

 

I don't think an aircraft carrier is the ultimate weapon of doom or anything like that. It's something that has a role, the role is nowhere near obsolete and that role is also circumstantial. If you're US where your two neighbours are the Atlantic and Pacific ocean(since nothing on the American continent matters) than yes, you need carriers. If you're China or Russia, well, you have more pressing needs. It boils down to geography in the end...

 

I don't even think that the decission to build additional carriers by the USN makes much sense given their current overwhelming superiority. But probably it's more political than economics anyway. And well, if you want to retain the ability to pop a couple/year in a war situation, guess you need to throw the industry a bone from time to time. Otherwise, even the RN in their heydays wanted to be just above the combined power of 2nd and 3rd navies; the current USN is probably above all of the other fleets combined(leaving aside that more than half of those are allies). So additional investment definitelly looks dubious; but again, don't think it's a matter of economics.

 

p.s. - people are talking about df-21 as being something new and game changing, yet Pershing(US)/SS-x(SU) are stuff developed in the 60s. Heck, they disposed them "only" 20 years ago...

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:36 | 4792099 Carpenter1
Carpenter1's picture

Powers like china and russia don't need to be in the "blue water" to hit things there. China took out one of its own satellites with a beam recently, as demonstration to the US just how long its Star Wars weapons would last.

 

If they can hit a satellite,  think maybe they can hit a 200 yard long carrier thats less than half the distance away? 

 

 

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:05 | 4792409 ObamaDepression
ObamaDepression's picture

It was a missile genius.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 20:59 | 4792276 acommenter
acommenter's picture

Yes. The U.S. navy is DEFINETELY the strongest in the world. But they have not be tested in a MAJOR war with a major adversary like Russia. Just as a reminder, those Ruskies can get a plane cruising armed throughout half the globe. Why can't they sink a carrier? Anyway I am not a strategist or a scientist in this field.

Also the objectives from all sides are: a multi basket currency coin reserve for Russia, a global government for the US gov and full spectrum dominance for the US army. I don't see something clashing here, just some folks should lower their standards...

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:22 | 4792449 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

really? what war is that? the only country to have been fully engaged in a "real war" 12 years running is the United States of America. "And we're doing so well we're ramping it up with China and Russia" I might add.

That sans draft and a now totally obliterated middle class i might add.

the vitriol in the USA right now is barely contained...basically "we have met the enemy and he is us."

so far we've been able to pretty much buy everything off...but these prices moonshotting this past winter i think are the breaking point.

Europe and Japan will not move unless the USA says go. You never know about the Koreans...they mean business. But that's about it in my book.

The US Navy was ready to full on Syria...and that got shot down. So instead we have Ukraine...which will not be a Naval conflict i'm afraid but "the mother of all Long Range Reconnaisance Patrols."

Obviously the Pacific is the US Navy's purview...and that is precisely how Secretary of Defense Panneta oriented US force structure after he departed.

Looks to be "war everywhere" right now. "Just because we didn't like the Taliban."
Go figure.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 08:30 | 4792937 InvalidID
InvalidID's picture

 

 Can you name one Navy anywhere that's been engaged in a major conflict with a major adversary in the last 50 years?

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:58 | 4792006 813kml
813kml's picture

Excellent point.  Aircraft carriers are the monster trucks of military hardware, intimidating but not very practical.

But they only cost about $7 billion each and sure do make Amerikuns proud.  And they're keeping the world safe so Amerikuns are free to drive their F350 duallies to the dollar store.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:51 | 4792132 sushi
sushi's picture

They are also grear for air strikes on failed states full of goat herders trying to get married.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:08 | 4792418 ObamaDepression
ObamaDepression's picture

With what? Their newly French built warships?

Russia can't even build their own Aircraft Carrier let alone kill one.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/18/ukraine-france-warns-russia...

 

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:54 | 4792501 indygo55
indygo55's picture

"Russia can't even build their own Aircraft Carrier let alone kill one."

 

Building one and killing one are two completely different things.


Sun, 05/25/2014 - 04:34 | 4792838 thestarl
thestarl's picture

They employ plenty of people building them and keeping them in service and keep the MIC happy but i agree obsolete in todays operating environment.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 05:00 | 4792847 Wile-E-Coyote
Wile-E-Coyote's picture

"Carriers are just big fat targets of opportunity, waiting to be hit & sunk... just like battleships during WWII". http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?114533-Battleships-sunk-in-World-War-2

My thoughts exactly, WW11 battleships were made obsolete by dive bombers, 21st century carriers will be made obsolete by ballistic missiles.

US aircraft carriers are only useful for beating up on third world countries that can't defend themsleves anyway.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:25 | 4791939 Mark Urbo
Mark Urbo's picture

Chinese military buildup is utter BS !!! China has not built and commissioned a aircraft carrier from the keel up [yet]. China has not built an operational aircraft carrier fighter from the ground up. China has not operated an aircraft (even one) carrier [the Russian one they have is not fully operational]. China has no operational combat history with carrier operations. When is the last time China sent a aircraft carrier to any conflict ? Never! No carriers, no naval projection and no air control. Its an effing JOKE ! And don't confuse hardware they have bought from Russia either...

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:52 | 4791994 Matt
Matt's picture

Where exactly would China be fighting, that it would need aircraft carriers? It seems most of its contested areas are pretty close to the homeland.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:09 | 4792424 ObamaDepression
ObamaDepression's picture

If you search a recent ZH post they (China) are building an airstrip on top of a reef by the Philipines because they have no functional aircraft carrier.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:46 | 4792486 Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

And because they want to claim that reef as Chinese territory, with accompanying 'EEZ'

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:57 | 4792508 ptolemy_newit
ptolemy_newit's picture

squatters rights only in the south china sea. on the surface anddeep in the water.

if you look into China expansion it is not buy force, they do business.

 

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:33 | 4792092 Volkodav
Volkodav's picture

looks main purpose of carrier is to go far away from defense of homeland and bother other people...

is that what you really meant to say?

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 21:36 | 4792339 Peanut Butter E...
Peanut Butter Engineer's picture

@Mark Urbo

I hate to say this but doesn't this all means China was very peaceful in her younger days and that she has no army or navy back in those time and never go to war except for self defense of her own border? And as such you have also imply that US has so much weapon capabilities that no one will ever take US for a joker since it is all over the world bullying other country and killing for resources?

You can't have it both ways, either admit China has weapon capabilities or that she is actually seeking peaceful rising of her economy since she was pretty much defenseless before and that it is countries like USsa that is provoking her with all sort of military dance right in front of her house that caused her to seek same military build up for PROTECTION sake.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 08:35 | 4792943 InvalidID
InvalidID's picture

 

 I dunno, lets ask a Tibetan...

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 01:59 | 4792732 MrPalladium
MrPalladium's picture

China has as many submarines as the U.S. and they are all newer. Subs matter. Surface vessels are history. China is not stupid enough to put real money into aircraft carriers.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:31 | 4791955 Stripey Magee
Stripey Magee's picture

Aircraft carriers are a big fat target.

 

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:18 | 4792015 813kml
813kml's picture

They are kept around to keep the MIC properly porked, and in case WW2 breaks out again and the US needs to retake Iwo Jima.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 23:25 | 4792557 Spumoni
Spumoni's picture

Yeah. Let's see you run out and hurt one.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:42 | 4791974 August
August's picture

Carriers are useful in certain situations, particularly in intimidating third-world governments.

In an all-out war, though, carriers are large, high value targets. They won't last long, at least not on the surface.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:21 | 4792061 Bollixed
Bollixed's picture

True dat. Carriers are great as long as nobody is shooting back at them. They're great for parking an air force off shore of one of those third world countries. At least the ones that won't fire their missles at you.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:52 | 4791992 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

 

 

Whoa … a little more than barefoot men hiding in caves half way around the world or small goat herder children collecting firewood out in the pasture.

 

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:06 | 4792019 TheSecondLaw
TheSecondLaw's picture

So is this what people with no aircraft carriers do to show strength?

There's this cool thing called a search engine...You might want to go take a look at these pictures outofideas.  http://tinyurl.com/m6m3346

 

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 21:15 | 4792304 Omen IV
Omen IV's picture

you dont need aircraft carriers given distance from china mainland in south china sea - carriers are sitting ducks for subs - all will be taken out in next theather of war games

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:50 | 4792492 Dickweed Wang
Dickweed Wang's picture

With the missile technology available to any medium size power these days aircraft carriers are steel coffins for 5,000.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 12:42 | 4793414 GardenWeasel
GardenWeasel's picture

I guess you haven't heard how easy it is to takedown aircraft with hand-held armaments??  Welcome to the 20th century!

 

Mon, 05/26/2014 - 08:00 | 4795024 Againstthelie
Againstthelie's picture

But if the North Atlantic Terror Organization does that, it's effective, right?

 

You obviously have no clue. Russia and China are just beginning to deepen their strategic partnership. First joint maneuvers need to show that the communication systems and command & control structures work. These are two souvereign nations, not a bunch of plutocratic vassals where each telephone call is recorded by USrael and sent to Tel Aviv.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:49 | 4791767 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

Russia: "Their dicks are smaller, but their balls are bigger."

China: "Their dicks are bigger, but our balls are bigger."

DC US: "Got a Viagra to spare?!"

 

"I staged a joint guillotine-exercise with my neighbor. His cuts faster, but mine cuts cleaner"

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:02 | 4791782 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

Mine is rusty and blunt. Deliberately so.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:41 | 4792109 BurningFuld
BurningFuld's picture

Excellent! If it does not go all the way through the first time you can give her another four or five tries. It's not like they can get their neck out of there.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:05 | 4791789 q99x2
q99x2's picture

I had a binding treaty with all 3 of my ex-wives. Now I live on planet Q99X2

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:42 | 4792113 BurningFuld
BurningFuld's picture

It's number four that is always the hardest one.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:14 | 4791807 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Think it though.

If Russia and the US go to war, it will end up nuclear. It will destroy both countries.

If China sits and watches, they will end up the sole superpower.

The US definitely will not allow that, they will attack China.

China, not being stupid, will attack anyone who lobs a missile at them.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 20:56 | 4792268 Mitzibitzi
Mitzibitzi's picture

"If China sits and watches, they will end up the sole superpower."

So the 200+ nuclear warheads that France, the UK and Israel have each don't count, then? Or the 100+, each, that India and Pakistan have? And we're totally discounting the fact that, at least Japan, Australia, Brazil, Sweden, Germany, Ukraine, South Africa, Iran and probably Malaysia have the technical ability and resources to build a small but useful number at a few weeks notice? And there's North Korea, who certainly claim to be able to do it (though the evidence is debatable). And the other 30+ countries that have the technical ability but probably not the materials on hand right this moment... what about them?

It's a game that no-one can win. Building a functional nuclear weapon is NOT THAT HARD. When they did the Manhattan Project, it was cutting edge, but it ain't now. Every principle involved is already used, and well documented, in other aspects of modern technology. You can't build a magnetic accelerator, or a whole variety of medical imaging technologies without knowing 90% of what you need to know to build a bomb. Smart people all over, who can figure it out if they really want to.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 13:46 | 4793532 MrPalladium
MrPalladium's picture

No need. All of the U.S. testing results were transmitted to China along with the engineering plans for each warhead tested by patriotic multiculturals at los alamos and other sites. The data is all over the world now and for sale. Why do you think nations can build nukes without having to test? They just copy ours which have already been tested!!

The benefits of diversity!!

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 23:00 | 4794580 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

There are tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.

The only real players are Russia and the US. China is in play because it is possibly the future world economic power.

http://www.ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/images/World-Nuke-Graph-...

ttp://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report?gclid=CMGWgN_DyL4CFY...

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 23:37 | 4792575 CoolClo
CoolClo's picture

It is argued in some circles that the 1950s and 60s problems between China and the Soviets was a pyo-op, so the Communist Block at the time was NOT seen as  large and powerful as it was.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 11:26 | 4793247 caconhma
caconhma's picture

So What,

You are correct. Presently they both explore each other. Geopolitically and historically China and Russia always were/are enemies.

Hitler’s Germany and Stalin's USSR also were very close allies. They even together invaded Poland in 1939. But we know where it all ended.

The same is going with Fascist Putin's Russia and Fascist China. Remember that not all fascists are the same. There were big differences between Hitler, Mussolini, and General Franco. I would say that Putin is more a Latin American dictator of 1950s than a “real fascist”. Hitler and Franco cared about their people but Putin don’t. He is just a thug and a thief.

We are living in a world where there are no "good guys". It is the world of international gangsters and murderers.

Is Syria Assad is good for its people? No but he is definitely “more humane" than thugs trained and paid by the USA and Saudis.

Are Iranian ayatollahs “more humane" than thugs trained and paid by the USA and Saudis? May be.

Is Putin any better for his people than Obama for Americans? Well, it is a very difficult question. However, very few Americans would like to live in Putin's Russia. Americans are still much freer than Russians but we are losing our liberties and our way of life very fast.

 

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:40 | 4791749 So What
So What's picture

.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:39 | 4791747 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

If that only meant beaten into a coma with a baseball bat.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:45 | 4791760 lotsoffun
lotsoffun's picture

knukles - usually love your stuff - but krugman only gets a woody when yellen is comparing his grubby beard to bennie's.

 

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:47 | 4792485 Dickweed Wang
Dickweed Wang's picture

Krugman gets a woody because Yellen is a man.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:50 | 4791878 TeamDepends
TeamDepends's picture

"Massive woody".  Figures will no doubt be revised downward when reality sets in.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:31 | 4791738 max2205
max2205's picture

Raytheon is watering at the mouth

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:40 | 4791751 bunzbunzbunz
bunzbunzbunz's picture

Raytheon is frothing at the mouth.

You're welcome.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:45 | 4792480 Dickweed Wang
Dickweed Wang's picture

Fuck Raytheon and the rest of the military/security/industrial cabal that is ruining this country.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:14 | 4792037 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

If there was ever a company who's very name made it sound evil, it was Raytheon.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 21:46 | 4792081 813kml
813kml's picture

I think 'Death Machines, Inc.' was already taken.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:32 | 4792090 cossack55
cossack55's picture

I don't know, Vaquie,  

Monsanto

SERCO

Black(water,ridge,river,hills..some shit I can never remember)

McDonalds

General Electric (who made him a general, why not a captain)

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 21:48 | 4792367 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 21:51 | 4792373 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

  Billy , you know how 'descerning' I am. That's an absolutely perfect rendition of PBoC theology.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:55 | 4792504 Sambo
Sambo's picture

Shit is the word...Bernanke.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 23:27 | 4792560 Spumoni
Spumoni's picture

Her sea wolf howls in G-Flat Minor... Great work as ever WB!

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 01:04 | 4792676 813kml
813kml's picture

Ahhh, if only I were an aircraft carrier.  She looks like she knows how to pluck a few strings...

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:30 | 4791734 Dazman
Dazman's picture

Is it just me or does the image of the big gun firing look photoshopped: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014...

 

I'm far from an expert, but there is some blending/blurring around the smoke plume, and uneven ocean on the horizon.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:31 | 4791737 svayambhu108
svayambhu108's picture

look at the negative

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:36 | 4791744 Dazman
Dazman's picture

Good tip... Negative looks good to me so I guess it's legit. (don't see any hacking, which I guess is what I'm supposed to be looking for)

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:43 | 4791755 bunzbunzbunz
bunzbunzbunz's picture

I think it's the heat causing light distortion that makes it look funny. They probably took a burst of photos and liked that one.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:17 | 4791815 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

It's a good photo, photographically speaking.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:41 | 4791753 Salt
Salt's picture

No.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:55 | 4791771 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

Looks to me that the "blending/blurring" is distortion caused by the heat from the blast. One sees this close to the surface of hot pavement in the summer as well.

And/or could be distortion cause by the air being compressed by the blast of the gun.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:23 | 4791828 kill switch
kill switch's picture

Same outfit that did Obama's birth certificate...

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 20:09 | 4792164 Trogdor
Trogdor's picture

The blurring you're seeing is caused by the pressure wave created by the muzzle blast.  That high-pressure wave compresses the air creating a difference in air density.  The air acts like a lens, and thus, the light that passes through it is "bent" giving you a kind of warped/blurry look. The picture is legit - you can even see the projectile ;)

You can observe a similar effect if you hold up a can of Dust Off in front of a bright window and gently squeeze the trigger.  If you look at the nozzle, you'll see that distortion caused by the mixing of different densities of liquid (which by definition, air is).

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:37 | 4791743 ShrNfr
ShrNfr's picture

And in other news, we have a picture of the naval exercises held by Obama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh85R-S-dh8 My hat is off to everyone that served their country in spite of that asshole.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:38 | 4791746 blindman
blindman's picture

psychotic revelation stands as the
single prognostication as all sanity
remains mute

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:16 | 4792039 Goldilocks
Goldilocks's picture

THE THORIUM PROBLEM - Danger of existing thorium regulation to U.S. manufacturing and energy sector
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyqYP6f66Mw (29:00)

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8 (55:16)

Motherboard TV: The Thorium Dream (Documentary)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ9Ll5EX1jc (28:25)

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:41 | 4791752 Holistic
Holistic's picture

No problem, USA can print money and give it to rich people so poor people feel wealthy.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:52 | 4791770 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

These surface ships are just for show. The real role of the Russian and Chinese navies is "Sea Denial". That is to prevent the US Navy from controlling waters inside the security zones of Russia and China. For this role, the big surface ships are not part of the plan. The real strength the USN would confront would be long range naval aviation, long range anti shipping missiles and the submarine fleets of Russia and China, using both anti shipping missiles and torpedoes. The only role of these forces is to sink US navy assets as they try and enforce control in sea areas the Chinese and Russians want to keep out of US control. For this role the submarine is the supreme weapon, as is the naval attack aircraft firing anti shipping missiles, and the very long range shore based anti shipping missile batteries. Add the new types of naval mine warfare to the mix, that is where the real power lies. I enjoy seeing the big ships show off, but that is not what the navies of Russia and China are really all about.

 

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:05 | 4791781 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Very true, well said.

And that said, Russian ships are just amazing machines, I speak from first hand experience. Their Kashin class destroyers...formidable.

All their stuff is really hardy. Incredible mechanical Fire Control Computers. High EMI/EMC resistance.

Plus, they look like fighting machines...

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:57 | 4791895 nightshiftsucks
nightshiftsucks's picture

Not being a smartass Oh but what makes you and expert ? Do you design or build navy ships ?

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:11 | 4791918 Terminus C
Terminus C's picture

He was a high ranking naval officer in the Indian Navy,  No shit.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:25 | 4791944 Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

"In all, twenty ships were built for the Soviet Navy, one ship (ORP Warszawa) was later transferred to Poland, while five similar ships were built to a modified design for the Indian Navy as the Rajput-class destroyers."

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 00:47 | 4792664 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Thanks Herd, them exactly.

 

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:09 | 4792025 Volkodav
Volkodav's picture

that seems kinda a smartass way to go at not being a smartass..

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:40 | 4792474 Dickweed Wang
Dickweed Wang's picture

. . . what makes you and expert ? Do you design or build navy ships ?

You can get started learning about Russian military equipment by reading any of the Jane's publications on military hardware.  Russian gear has always had a good reputation for being simple, reliable and effective . . . . . exactly what you need in combat.  High tech gear is not always the best solution in war time.

You don't have to be a designer of something to have knowledge about it.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 07:34 | 4792893 thestarl
thestarl's picture

Not only that but they can still send people/satellites into space on the other hand Uncle fucked up Sam presently can't.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:07 | 4792023 Volkodav
Volkodav's picture

Yes  ORI.....I remember your older posts expressing this subject.

Russian stuff is made to function and last longest for lowest practical cost.

Is why the lesser military expenditures go much further than western nations

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 01:16 | 4792690 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

It is Volko. 

Anyone just has to see the Ekarnoplan to understand where i am coming from :-)

It wasn't a war machine, but it was a heck of a machine...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan

 

Those Design Bureaus.....

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 05:11 | 4792852 Wile-E-Coyote
Wile-E-Coyote's picture

Exactly look at WW11 and the T34 tank mass produced, simple construction good armour and gun, against the high tech Panzers which were expensive to build in time and resources and unreliable through complexity.

Sun, 05/25/2014 - 05:08 | 4792850 Wile-E-Coyote
Wile-E-Coyote's picture

Umm yes look how the British navy suffered in the Falklands in 1982, if the Argies could have got hold of more Exocet missiles it would have been game over.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:57 | 4791772 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Let's see, they intend to go up against 500 oligarchical families, whose occupied nations can't wait for China and Russia to bring the western oligarchs to justice. And they are demonstrating a bunch of physical hardware. Why don't they just offer the Mexican drug cartels a reward to bring the oligarchs in and hand them over.

Seems a bit retarted the way they go about things. Unless of course it is to show the people that live in the occupied nations something.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:24 | 4791832 McMolotov
McMolotov's picture

I ate a Pop-Tart this morning but was still hungry, so I retarted.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:30 | 4791954 WillyGroper
WillyGroper's picture

Hooker re-capitulating.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:33 | 4792462 Dickweed Wang
Dickweed Wang's picture

Why don't they just offer the Mexican drug cartels a reward to bring the oligarchs in and hand them over.

Then who are the cartels going to launder their drug money through?  HSBC? Oh, wait a minute . . . .

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 16:58 | 4791774 One And Only
One And Only's picture

The US held a really cool military exercise.  it was called Iraq and Afghanistan. Back then we didn't have the smartest President but he had a set a balls, can't deny him that. I wouldn't trust Obama with my daughters pet hamster so I'm not sure where that leaves us.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:34 | 4791849 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

I think it leaves us to know we can't leave our pets unattended with Back Door Barry around.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 19:21 | 4792056 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

Yes assholes spew shit, but they also suck things up.  Like hamsters.  I just hope you or your daughter don't have a pit bull.  

 

And while it is illegal to threaten the president's life, it is not illegal to wish anal cancer upon him.  It would consume his entire body in a matter of weeks.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:02 | 4791780 foxmuldar
foxmuldar's picture

Can we call this Hunt for Red October 2? Too bad Tom Cruise wasn't around to buzz over these commies. We let Russian jets brazenly pass over a few of our warships not long ago and ofc our Commander in shit once again gave the order to stand down. 

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 22:30 | 4792453 Dickweed Wang
Dickweed Wang's picture

We let Russian jets brazenly pass over a few of our warships not long ago . .

Actually the word from several sources on the net is the Russians completely disabled the US radar and tracking systems with some new  technology during the incident in the Black Sea where they circled our AEGIS radar ship several times.  We did nothing because we couldn't do anything . . . . apparently we didn't see them coming until they were right on top of the ship.  This was the equivilent of them flipping us the bird for being in their back yard.

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 17:03 | 4791788 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

All these comments and no one has yet mentioned the issues.

1) China gets its oil by tanker.  They'll need escorts at some point.

2) All those ships burn oil. 

Never let yourself be distracted.  It's all about oil.  The emphasis is not the word "oil".  It's the word "all".

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:17 | 4791928 MontgomeryScott
MontgomeryScott's picture

I agree with the point that it's all about oil.

Every 'strategic' move within the last 15 years from the PTB in the CONUS has been to control, manipulate, or keep the supply of oil. Actually, if you think about it, either directly or indirectly this has been the case since 1971.

What did Hitler want with North Africa? How about the oil embargo on Japan? The 'Greater east Asian Co-prosperity Sphere'?

I wouldn't be so sure that the oil that China uses will continue to be shipped there. After the NAFTA superhighway was brought to light, and the plans to build the pipeline from canada to the Gulf oil refineries, and then shipping the refined product to the coast of Mexico, where it would be taken to China seem to have been 'put on hold' (barry IS a Muslim, and wants his freinds to continue reaping the outrageous oil prices), China and Russia are making rapid moves to build pipelines and trans-ship oil and gas. I'm SURE you've seen the deal.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/21/us-china-russia-gas-idUSBREA4K...

Russia is the world's largest exporter of natural gas, and the second-largest of oil.

Some comments are talking 'blah blah blah' about which methods of destroying America's naval forces would be used. The FACT is that an aircraft carrier is basically a sitting duck when the capabilities of such things as Sunburn missiles are considered. LOTS of missiles can be launched from airplanes, submarines, and the guided missile destroyers as shown in the article.

You DO recall the forcing down of the AWACS plane by China in, what was it, 2000? Reverse engineering is a real BITCH when it can be used against you.

AH, the Bankster elite are playing one side off of the other, just like they ALWAYS do. BORROW MONEY to keep up the 'MILITARY BALANCE' by building ships and planes and tanks. IF 'war' starts, BORROW MOAR to pay for the 'DEFENCE' OF THE HOMELAND/MOTHERLAND/FATHERLAND/POLLUTED CESSPOOL (The last one was for our Communist Chinese readers).

HURT NOT THE OIL, AND THE WINE. I read this somewhere once.

Yeah, it's ALL about OIL. You DO know that it is ABIOTIC, after all, don't you?

Sat, 05/24/2014 - 18:34 | 4791958 WillyGroper
WillyGroper's picture

Nah. Read the other day we've crossed the rubicon on "Abiotic Resistance".

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!