Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KV7

  1. There are some reports that during the early testing target vessels were hit while moving. There is some speculation that 884 Jingpoho was retired recently to be used as a target ship, due to presence of 5 members of the PLARF at the decommissioning ceremony:
  2. It was tested. They hit the hulk of Yuan Wang 4 in November 2011 for one.
  3. AI can be done relatively cheaply now and the hardware required to run it on some disposable drone can also be quite cheap. The biggest expense will be training the AI. You will want to run the drone through at least tens of thousands of simulated attacks in very varied conditions in order to get any sort of well calibrated AI.
  4. Okay that it a big limitation. Though the power was to actually be reduced on the Montana class, so maybe it isn't such a big deal.
  5. Of course there is no free lunch. Thought the extended bow ahead of the barbette need not be armored as there need be nothing of great value or risk in that space. It may have even be possible to increase power, reorganise the machinery and compartmentalise it, via spending internal volume created by moving stowage (eg. of fuel) from spaces around the machinery into the new forward volume.
  6. It would then be wider though across the two front turrets, where the width of the barbette is the limiting factor to the depth of protection. Like this:
  7. Rather than widening them, they could have been lengthened by extending the bow, so even with it's fineness, the hull would have been approaching it's maximum near the front turret. That would have solved the front buoyancy problem and helped torpedo protection around the front turrets.
  8. I tend to agree with the analysis of Richard Koo - beyond the debacle of the late 80's liquidity trap there was excess fiscal tightening which had strongly adverse growth effects, and perversely, even adverse effects on the deficit:
  9. Sorry I was being a bit too cryptic. Japan may well have geopolitical ambitions, but as far as I can tell there is no great economic ambitions of the sort that would cause them to want to integrate with China and break with US policy. So for example if Japanese policy became more bellicose towards China under US direction or encouragement, and this led to tariffs on Japanese exports or restriction on Japanese FDI into China, I cannot see this leading to a shift in the Japanese position. In an alternative world with a more ambitious Japanese economic 'imperialism' of the sort talked a
  10. Japan is key partially because they have no real ambitions, and so would be happy to suffer economic damage in return for US vassalage. Australia is quite similar in this respect. India is unpredictable as they have ambitions but also a strong Hindu chauvinist movement, and it is not clear whether Sing style economic developmentalism and BRICism will return.
  11. The big blockage for a long time to European independence has been the importance of NATO to European political class ideology. There has always been, and especially so in the UK, this sort of 'We are the very serious people ruling you because we are the big boys sitting down with the Americans and planning some collective defense'. With the end of the Cold War this obviously was less compelling, but at the same time by then the prevailing neoliberal ideology took away much of the other ways that the political class could claim credit for themselves - for a long time they actually played some
  12. There is no real question of defending 'Europe' with the possible exception of the Baltic edge case, rather the open question is the commitment to the resources and posture required for continued or consolidated westward expansion, for example the extensive commitments that would make threats to come to the defense of Ukraine credible.
  13. They are talking about the Turkish air to surface missiles MAM-L and MAM-C.
  14. I think the price of airburst munitions can be bought down a lot, if there is a big push for them. Drones capable of air to air engagement vs other drones using cheap munitions may also be possible.
  15. The barrel only split, the injuries were burns from hot gasses escaping from the split.
  16. Both of them need an approximately multi polar world to exist in order for them to meet their core objectives. For Russia it is the very modest one of being a regional power able to deal with the threat of 'regime change' destabilisation attempts around it's borders. For China it is more ambitious (being a global trading power whose various economic projects that cannot be frustrated by US hegemony). China has until recently done quite well by keeping a low profile and letting US attention focus on Russia, and various 'axis of evil' bullshit games. But they are now too big for this to wor
  17. China wants Eurasian integration, and for that it needs Russia, and preferable a prosperous and strong Russia able to resist US led pressures and sanctions. If anything, their policy has been insufficiently generous towards Russia, in particular in weapons contracts. There is a huge realisable gain from closer cooperation, given Russian technical leads in some areas, that is partially not being realised due to Chinese behavior. Chinese territorial ambitions towards Russia are non-existent and would make no sense, given the ability to purchase and if needed even finance the development of
  18. Nona-K can even fire a HEAT round, good for 650mm @ 90 deg.
  19. Markus is correct. Another factor was fear about cross-racial popular revolts, such as Bacon's rebellion, which was met with an attempt to forge cross class racial solidarity among whites via degrading blacks. This is still a successful strategy though obviously tempered - in countries with considerable racist, nativist, and nationalist sentiment the pressure for egalitarian redistribution is weaker.
  20. I think Stalin supported the permanent revolution policy till the final defeat of the German revolutionary wave (which only fully petered out in 23 or so with the tiny Hamburg uprising) and the defeat at the Hungarian revolution and Warsaw campaign. His 'socialism in one country' was a concession to reality and not his first choice.
  21. They made some target drones from them some time ago.
  22. The big difference is that much of the US workforce was working in firms near the productivity frontier 1945, whereas only a small minority of the Chinese workforce is there now. Even if we have a pessimistic view of Chinese innovation (which isn't really sustainable - they have a huge number of STEM PhD's and large R&D budgets) if they simply continue to move out to the frontier rapidly their growth will continue to be strong. There is a rather simple process of taking the parts of the economy that are 30 years behind the frontier and upgrading the capital stock(and hiring new more e
  23. Japan got the same treatment - assistance in rebuilding as a bulwark. In some ways WW2 tarnished socialism even as there was a pro-socialist sentiment after it across much of Europe, because it further shifted the USSR into a cynical and militaristic mindset. And the USSR soon struggled to go beyond the 'big push' extensive industrialisation model towards one more suitable for a somewhat higher level of economic development. Khrushchev's idiocy didn't help much either (he understood the need for 'reforms' but made a total mess of them, and ignored the decent proposals by Kantorovich et
  24. In 30-40 years time China's economy will be so large that replacing any obsolete ships in a new construction wave will be a triviality. They likely think they need them quickly too, as the critical period for them is the next few decades. Once the Chinese economy is about double that of the US, they will probably be safe from all but a massive nuclear strike on their cities, and by that time the US would be crippled too (leaving aside the possibility of a US attack triggering Russian launch on warning). Certainly the US would be mad to play a Cold War arms race game against a much larger econo
  • Create New...