We need some kind of ChiCom smile.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12917338
QuoteChina white paper highlights US military 'competition'
By Michael Bristow BBC News, Beijing
China says the United States is increasing its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, which is becoming more "volatile".
It also says there has been a rise in operations directed against China.
The views were made in China's National Defence white paper, issued by the government.
The paper outlines the country's current views on security issues and gives an overview of its military forces.
Fierce competition
In the document, released on Thursday, China gives a downbeat assessment of the regional security situation.
"Profound changes are taking shape in the Asia-Pacific strategic landscape. Relevant major powers are increasing their strategic investment," it says.
"International military competition remains fierce."
The document singles out the United States. According to China, it is reinforcing military alliances and getting more involved in regional affairs.
Beijing also says foreigners are now more suspicious of China - and have increased "interference and countering moves" against it.
Relations between China and the United States, particularly on military matters, have been strained over recent years.
That tension eased slightly following Chinese President Hu Jintao's state visit to the United States earlier this year.
But the potential for disagreement remains high.
"We admit that our military ties continue to face difficulties and challenges," said Col Geng Yansheng, spokesman for the Ministry of Defence, at a press conference to launch the white paper.
No issue threatens the relationship more than US support for Taiwan, a self-governing island off China's eastern coast that Beijing considers its own.
"The United States continues to sell weapons to Taiwan, severely impeding Sino-US relations," says the white paper.
Col Geng made it clear that the two countries must respect each other's core interests. For China, that includes Taiwan.
"China is willing to work with the US, based on respect, trust, equality and mutual benefits," he said.
The United States and some of China's neighbours occasionally express their concerns about the ultimate aim of Beijing's military modernisation.
But the white paper reiterates that no one has anything to fear.
It says China's armed forced, known as the People's Liberation Army, are there purely to defend the country.
China, it says, has a strategy of "attacking only after being attacked".
QuoteBeijing also says foreigners are now more suspicious of China - and have increased "interference and countering moves" against it.
Gee, I wonder why?
Are the Chinese really surprised that their bullying and superiority complex towards their neighbors drives them away from China and into the arms of the US?
When the Chinese invaded US territory (the EP-3 that was forced to land on Hainan Island after a crazed Chinese fighter pilot rammed it and crippled it) that pretty much ended any pretense that the PRiCk government is anything but an enemy of the US. I will grant that the Chinese people are not hostile, but that government has to go, Mubarak-style. I'd prefer Ceaușescu-style but will live with Mubarak-style.
Unfortunately the people are extremely nationalistic, and while they might not be particularly hostile to the US, they certainly will be to US allies and interests. It could be like trading Mubarak for Mullah Omar.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 02, 2011, 01:01:46 AM
Unfortunately the people are extremely nationalistic, and while they might not be particularly hostile to the US, they certainly will be to US allies and interests. It could be like trading Mubarak for Mullah Omar.
I don't agree. Having spent some time in HK, having been to school with a number of Chinese, and having taught a number of them, I have not found them to be more nationalistic than Americans (who are more nationalistic than the global average, but still short of "extremely nationalistic"). I offer no guarantees that my experience is representative, but I think history shows that there is a wide disconnect between the people of China and their government.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchinadigitaltimes.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F06%2F89-63_tank_man_-_web.jpg&hash=41761f3d33ace79ca36d4c27b06f43ec8d522098)
How many guys in one of those things? 5? So basically you're showing a pic where people support the government 20-1. Was there a point in there you were trying to make? In that case consider it shot down in flames.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 01, 2011, 10:49:57 PM
QuoteBeijing also says foreigners are now more suspicious of China - and have increased "interference and countering moves" against it.
Gee, I wonder why?
Are the Chinese really surprised that their bullying and superiority complex towards their neighbors drives them away from China and into the arms of the US?
Which neighbours of China have been bullied by it?
Tibet comes to mind :lol:
I thought this was going to be a paper on China White, the celeb night club.
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2011, 02:36:48 AM
Which neighbours of China have been bullied by it?
History aside in more recent times they're being dicks towards Japan, Vietnam and the Phillipines over 'disputed' (to varying degrees) islands.
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2011, 12:53:25 AM
When the Chinese invaded US territory (the EP-3 that was forced to land on Hainan Island after a crazed Chinese fighter pilot rammed it and crippled it) that pretty much ended any pretense that the PRiCk government is anything but an enemy of the US. I will grant that the Chinese people are not hostile, but that government has to go, Mubarak-style. I'd prefer Ceaușescu-style but will live with Mubarak-style.
I would prefer Goldwater-style. They still use liquid fuel for their ICBMs that take 24 hours to ready for launch. All I need is a single SSBN for a pre-emptive strike.
But you're former Navy. Please explain to me why that EP-3 pilot was not courtmartialed for not splashing the plane.
"Oh no, we're in trouble...I guess we'll just have to LAND IN THE COUNTRY WE'RE SPYING ON WITH ALL THIS LEET SURVEILLANCE GEAR AND UP TO DATE CRYPTO CODES"
At least he splashed a Mig.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 02, 2011, 07:07:42 AM
At least he splashed a Mig.
They splash themselves, so that's no big deal.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2011, 07:30:58 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 02, 2011, 07:07:42 AM
At least he splashed a Mig.
They splash themselves, so that's no big deal.
You are implying that Maverick and Iceman didn't have to work for their spurs?
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2011, 01:24:11 AM
I don't agree. Having spent some time in HK, having been to school with a number of Chinese, and having taught a number of them, I have not found them to be more nationalistic than Americans (who are more nationalistic than the global average, but still short of "extremely nationalistic"). I offer no guarantees that my experience is representative, but I think history shows that there is a wide disconnect between the people of China and their government.
I disagree. The HK mentality is generally much different from that of the mainland - and even those mainland Chinese who go abroad tend to be among the most open minded and liberal of Chinese (whether initially or by virtue of living overseas).
If anything, there is a *significant* segment of the Chinese population that is far more nationalistic and aggressive than the PRC government. Many of these types are fueled by a massive victim and inferiority complex, intense national pride and desire to "make China strong and respected". These people frequently tend to believe the most ridiculous things. And what is worrisome in China today is that, generally speaking, the younger people are, the more fiercely jingoistic they tend to be.
What I don't understand is that it seems to me that China's action don't even really make sense from a foreign policy perspective. I suspect that most of their foreign policy decisions seem to be driven almost completely by domestic consumption concerns.
They do not like the many military alliances that the US has all around them, and (reasonably so) find it rather threatening that the US has military alliances with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc., etc. Yet their actions over the last 10+ years have been such that their neighbors feel MORE inclined to look to the US for security against an aggressive (or at least seemingly aggressive) China.
If you aren't happy that other countries are entering into or strengthening military ties with the US, why act like d-bags and make them think they need those ties?
China's actions are all designed for a single purpose: Taiwan.
1) SSM expansion in the South China Sea to hammer the Taiwanese into submission,
2) diesel boat expansion to secure the sea lanes and choke Taiwan in a blockade, and
3) anti-carrier, ASAT and assymetrical cybermeasures development to interdict and counteract the 7th Fleet's ability to project its power forward in the unlikely event the US would want to assist Taiwan.
The answer is that for the PRC government, building ties with its neighbours takes a definitive backseat vs. other priorities - the primary one being simply to continue to shore up its domestic legitimacy so as to stay in power.
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2011, 10:18:47 AM
What I don't understand is that it seems to me that China's action don't even really make sense from a foreign policy perspective. I suspect that most of their foreign policy decisions seem to be driven almost completely by domestic consumption concerns.
I think that this is correct
QuoteThey do not like the many military alliances that the US has all around them, and (reasonably so) find it rather threatening that the US has military alliances with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc., etc. Yet their actions over the last 10+ years have been such that their neighbors feel MORE inclined to look to the US for security against an aggressive (or at least seemingly aggressive) China.
Insert Quote
What I don't understand is that it seems to me that China's action don't even really make sense from a foreign policy perspective. I suspect that most of their foreign policy decisions seem to be driven almost completely by domestic consumption concerns.
They do not like the many military alliances that the US has all around them, and (reasonably so) find it rather threatening that the US has military alliances with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc., etc. Yet their actions over the last 10+ years have been such that their neighbors feel MORE inclined to look to the US for security against an aggressive (or at least seemingly aggressive) China.
If you aren't happy that other countries are entering into or strengthening military ties with the US, why act like d-bags and make them think they need those ties?
I don't think that the government minds all of the alliances around it too much. They serve a useful purpose in justifying the repression of the peoples' freedoms.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2011, 07:00:42 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2011, 12:53:25 AM
When the Chinese invaded US territory (the EP-3 that was forced to land on Hainan Island after a crazed Chinese fighter pilot rammed it and crippled it) that pretty much ended any pretense that the PRiCk government is anything but an enemy of the US. I will grant that the Chinese people are not hostile, but that government has to go, Mubarak-style. I'd prefer Ceaușescu-style but will live with Mubarak-style.
I would prefer Goldwater-style. They still use liquid fuel for their ICBMs that take 24 hours to ready for launch. All I need is a single SSBN for a pre-emptive strike.
But you're former Navy. Please explain to me why that EP-3 pilot was not courtmartialed for not splashing the plane.
"Oh no, we're in trouble...I guess we'll just have to LAND IN THE COUNTRY WE'RE SPYING ON WITH ALL THIS LEET SURVEILLANCE GEAR AND UP TO DATE CRYPTO CODES"
This, any insight grumbs?
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 03, 2011, 12:21:07 PM
Quote
But you're former Navy. Please explain to me why that EP-3 pilot was not courtmartialed for not splashing the plane.
"Oh no, we're in trouble...I guess we'll just have to LAND IN THE COUNTRY WE'RE SPYING ON WITH ALL THIS LEET SURVEILLANCE GEAR AND UP TO DATE CRYPTO CODES"
This, any insight grumbs?
The Navy doesn't require its crews to suicide themselves rather than land at a potentially hostile airport. Naturally, it does require that the crypto be destroyed (as was done) and the self-destruct charges be set (which was done, but which only partially worked). Luckily for USN aviation recruiting, the rules of behavior are not written by middle-aged anonymous internet dweebs with epeen issues (not that I am saying this describes Seedy, exactly...).
But we all know Seedy is a retard.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2011, 02:29:29 PM
The Navy doesn't require its crews to suicide themselves rather than land at a potentially hostile airport. Naturally, it does require that the crypto be destroyed (as was done) and the self-destruct charges be set (which was done, but which only partially worked). Luckily for USN aviation recruiting, the rules of behavior are not written by middle-aged anonymous internet dweebs with epeen issues (not that I am saying this describes Seedy, exactly...).
I'm sure they had chutes,was just following his thinking that it would have been better to just eject it in to the ocean than land it on an 'enemy' runway.
Crew were probably card-carrying Communists.
More than likely the pilot landed rather than risk the life of his on-board closet homosexualist butt partner.
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 03, 2011, 03:16:51 PM
I'm sure they had chutes,was just following his thinking that it would have been better to just eject it in to the ocean than land it on an 'enemy' runway.
Take a guess at the survival rate of aviators who bail over water.
:hmm: Somewhere in the range of 0-100%?
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2011, 03:33:57 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 03, 2011, 03:16:51 PM
I'm sure they had chutes,was just following his thinking that it would have been better to just eject it in to the ocean than land it on an 'enemy' runway.
Take a guess at the survival rate of aviators who bail over water.
If GHWB can do it, anyone can. :mad:
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 03, 2011, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2011, 03:33:57 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 03, 2011, 03:16:51 PM
I'm sure they had chutes,was just following his thinking that it would have been better to just eject it in to the ocean than land it on an 'enemy' runway.
Take a guess at the survival rate of aviators who bail over water.
If GHWB can do it, anyone can. :mad:
Have you ever wondered why there is never any interview footage with the other two members of Bush's crew from that flight? No books by them, no reunions with the Big Guy?
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2011, 03:33:57 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 03, 2011, 03:16:51 PM
I'm sure they had chutes,was just following his thinking that it would have been better to just eject it in to the ocean than land it on an 'enemy' runway.
Take a guess at the survival rate of aviators who bail over water.
If they ditched over land, how likely would it be that all sensitive stuff would be destroyed on impact?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 03, 2011, 06:21:35 PM
If they ditched over land, how likely would it be that all sensitive stuff would be destroyed on impact?
On impact with a bunch of civvie's homes? Highly likely, not that it would make the pilots responsible for all those deaths feel much better.
There's no way I'd jump out of a P-3 over the damn ocean if the option to just land the thing was there. Yeah, my water survival training at NACCS was great and all, but seriously: fuck that.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2011, 06:18:19 PM
Have you ever wondered why there is never any interview footage with the other two members of Bush's crew from that flight? No books by them, no reunions with the Big Guy?
Interesting... for some reason I always assumed he was flying solo on that mission.
Quote from: wikiAfter Bush's promotion to Lieutenant (junior grade) on August 1, the San Jacinto commenced operations against the Japanese in the Bonin Islands. Bush piloted one of four Grumman TBM Avenger aircraft from VT-51 that attacked the Japanese installations on Chichijima.[6] His crew for the mission, which occurred on September 2, 1944, included Radioman Second Class John Delaney and Lieutenant Junior Grade William White.[1] During their attack, the Avengers encountered intense anti-aircraft fire; Bush's aircraft was hit by flak[7] and his engine caught on fire.[1] Despite his plane being on fire, Bush completed his attack and released bombs over his target, scoring several damaging hits.[1] With his engine afire, Bush flew several miles from the island, where he and one other crew member on the TBM Avenger bailed out of the aircraft;[7] the other man's parachute did not open.[1] It has not been determined which man bailed out with Bush[1] as both Delaney and White were killed as a result of the battle.[7] Bush waited for four hours in an inflated raft, while several fighters circled protectively overhead until he was rescued by the lifeguard submarine USS Finback.[1] For the next month he remained on the Finback, and participated in the rescue of other pilots.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2011, 06:18:19 PM
Have you ever wondered why there is never any interview footage with the other two members of Bush's crew from that flight? No books by them, no reunions with the Big Guy?
Maybe they got AIDS and died because of Reagan's anti-homo policies in the 80s?
:rolleyes: Like any of our WWII heroes were homosexuals. Homosexuality didn't exist till they abolished the Hays Code. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2011, 06:39:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2011, 06:18:19 PM
Have you ever wondered why there is never any interview footage with the other two members of Bush's crew from that flight? No books by them, no reunions with the Big Guy?
Interesting... for some reason I always assumed he was flying solo on that mission.
The only time you'll see a solo Avenger is in the computer game Dive Bomber.
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2011, 06:45:45 PM
:rolleyes: Like any of our WWII heroes were homosexuals. Homosexuality didn't exist till they abolished the Hays Code. :)
Then perhaps they were beaten to death by crazed hippies at the Democratic Convention in 1968?
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2011, 06:39:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2011, 06:18:19 PM
Have you ever wondered why there is never any interview footage with the other two members of Bush's crew from that flight? No books by them, no reunions with the Big Guy?
Interesting... for some reason I always assumed he was flying solo on that mission.
As had I...I stand corrected.
But I was being facetious, of course. I'd figure the number of survived water-landings would be rather low. Which is why that New York water landing incident in a commercial aircraft show just that much more how awesome that pilot was.
Quote from: Tyr on April 02, 2011, 07:00:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2011, 02:36:48 AM
Which neighbours of China have been bullied by it?
History aside in more recent times they're being dicks towards Japan, Vietnam and the Phillipines over 'disputed' (to varying degrees) islands.
Japan has conflicts with South Korea, Russia and China on different islands. The China-Japan conflict is hardly unique. On Vietnam and Phillipines, pretty much all nations around the South China Sea islands claim those as their own. Other involved countries include Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on April 02, 2011, 09:18:44 AM
I disagree. The HK mentality is generally much different from that of the mainland - and even those mainland Chinese who go abroad tend to be among the most open minded and liberal of Chinese (whether initially or by virtue of living overseas).
If anything, there is a *significant* segment of the Chinese population that is far more nationalistic and aggressive than the PRC government. Many of these types are fueled by a massive victim and inferiority complex, intense national pride and desire to "make China strong and respected". These people frequently tend to believe the most ridiculous things. And what is worrisome in China today is that, generally speaking, the younger people are, the more fiercely jingoistic they tend to be.
I share the same impression. Some of the antics by the mainland youths scare me as well.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 03, 2011, 08:49:34 PM
Japan has conflicts with South Korea, Russia and China on different islands. The China-Japan conflict is hardly unique. On Vietnam and Phillipines, pretty much all nations around the South China Sea islands claim those as their own. Other involved countries include Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei.
The difference is that China and Russia are the enemies of civilization.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 03, 2011, 08:51:39 PM
I share the same impression. Some of the antics by the mainland youths scare me as well.
Confess your crimes! Kaotao to Chairman Mao!
The Russia-Japan dispute:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute
The SK - Japan dispute (which is remarkably similar to the Japan-China one, except that here it is the Koreans who maintain a military presence on the island) -
QuoteLiancourt RocksMain article: Liancourt Rocks dispute
The Liancourt Rocks, called Dokdo (독도; "solitary island") in Korean and Takeshima (竹島; "bamboo island") in Japanese, are a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) whose ownership is disputed between Japan and South Korea. There are valuable fishing grounds around the islets and potentially large reserves of natural gas. Although Liancourt Rocks are claimed by both Korea and Japan, the islets are currently administered by the Republic of Korea (South Korea), which has its Korean Coast Guard stationed there.[63]
The territorial dispute is a major source of nationalist tensions. Many Korean nationals have placed the dispute in the context of the history of occupation, so that ceding the territory to Japan would be an unthinkable affront to national dignity: a renewal of past Japanese subjugation.[64] Korean tourists visit the remote, inhospitable island, in order to show national solidarity.[64] In Japan, schoolchildren are instructed that the islands belong rightfully to Japan, and in 2005 Japanese officials declared "Takeshima Day", to highlight their territorial claim to the islands.[64]
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2011, 09:04:10 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 03, 2011, 08:51:39 PM
I share the same impression. Some of the antics by the mainland youths scare me as well.
Confess your crimes! Kaotao to Chairman Mao!
I only kowtow to HR :lol:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on April 03, 2011, 06:37:04 PM
There's no way I'd jump out of a P-3 over the damn ocean if the option to just land the thing was there. Yeah, my water survival training at NACCS was great and all, but seriously: fuck that.
Actually, P-3 crews would rather land the bird in the ocean than jump out airborne anywhere. I don't remember off the top of my head what it is, but something about the design and aerodynamics of the P-3 makes it a very dangerous aircraft to bail out of.
Edit:
Looking at a picture of the plane jogged my memory. Its the location of the aft door relative to the horizontal tail surfaces. The tail is so wide and low that if the crew doesn't jump out just the right way they'll hit it.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2011, 02:29:29 PM
The Navy doesn't require its crews to suicide themselves rather than land at a potentially hostile airport. Naturally, it does require that the crypto be destroyed (as was done) and the self-destruct charges be set (which was done, but which only partially worked). Luckily for USN aviation recruiting, the rules of behavior are not written by middle-aged anonymous internet dweebs with epeen issues (not that I am saying this describes Seedy, exactly...).
Splash the plane.
And I'm not middle-aged yet. :P
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 03, 2011, 09:14:08 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on April 03, 2011, 06:37:04 PM
There's no way I'd jump out of a P-3 over the damn ocean if the option to just land the thing was there. Yeah, my water survival training at NACCS was great and all, but seriously: fuck that.
Actually, P-3 crews would rather land the bird in the ocean than jump out airborne anywhere. I don't remember off the top of my head what it is, but something about the design and aerodynamics of the P-3 makes it a very dangerous aircraft to bail out of.
Edit:
Looking at a picture of the plane jogged my memory. Its the location of the aft door relative to the horizontal tail surfaces. The tail is so wide and low that if the crew doesn't jump out just the right way they'll hit it.
They would've done a water landing just fine. Open the doors, let the fucker sink, and paddle back to Honoruru.
Bailing out...and grumbler says
I'm talking out of my ass. People watched too many Looney Tunes growing up.
My impression is that there are a fair number of Chinese who approach foreign policy the same way as CdM or as Timmy does, but from a Chinese rather than American perspective.
Quote from: Siege on April 03, 2011, 02:40:43 PM
But we all know Seedy is a retard.
My testicles work. How's yours?
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2011, 09:24:43 PM
My impression is that there are a fair number of Chinese who approach foreign policy the same way as CdM or as Timmy does, but from a Chinese rather than American perspective.
So true :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2011, 09:24:43 PM
the same way as CdM or as Timmy does,
That's pretty fucked up, man.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 03, 2011, 09:14:08 PM
Actually, P-3 crews would rather land the bird in the ocean than jump out airborne anywhere. I don't remember off the top of my head what it is, but something about the design and aerodynamics of the P-3 makes it a very dangerous aircraft to bail out of.
Edit:
Looking at a picture of the plane jogged my memory. Its the location of the aft door relative to the horizontal tail surfaces. The tail is so wide and low that if the crew doesn't jump out just the right way they'll hit it.
Yeah, bailing out is just not a good thing to do no matter what. Then when you're doing it over the water, there's even more that can go wrong, etc. Only something to do when you absolutely have to, and damn that would really suck and I wouldn't bet on everyone getting out okay. If it can be landed, especially if there's a nice runway to use, that's what needs to happen.
Here's a pretty good picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/P-3B_DN-SC-82-02246.JPEG
I wonder what the Poseidon is going to be like when it comes to those sorts of things.
Fundamentally, China is trying to maintain the status quo, both domestically and internationally. Ideally, it would like to see a reunification with Taiwan, and having full sovereignty over all disputed islands. But it knows full well that those are nothing but dreams, and it won't make any substantial moves toward them. China's foreign policy goal is to maintain the ambiguous status quo. There is one catch though - it takes two to tango. The counterparties need to maintain a similar position. That involves Taiwan not declaring independence, and Japan not stationing troops on the disputed island, etc. As long as those conditions hold true, China can stick to rhetoric for domestic consumption.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2011, 09:26:38 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 03, 2011, 02:40:43 PM
But we all know Seedy is a retard.
My testicles work. How's yours?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg145.imageshack.us%2Fimg145%2F4677%2Fdscn0418bc.jpg&hash=2c91e954d3dc6cabe3804d9cdbd2a7eb553059f2)
:lol: Awesome.
You're a douchebag, but your my douchebag instrument of war. :cheers:
I don't see anything controversial in the OP article. :mellow:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2011, 09:24:00 PM
They would've done a water landing just fine. Open the doors, let the fucker sink, and paddle back to Honoruru.
Did it hurt when you pulled this out of your ass?
QuoteBailing out...and grumbler says I'm talking out of my ass. People watched too many Looney Tunes growing up.
Bailing isn't a great option, but ditching isn't one, either.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/05/nyregion/crash-flight-111-risks-crash-landings-ocean-surface-can-be-less-forgiving-than.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/05/nyregion/crash-flight-111-risks-crash-landings-ocean-surface-can-be-less-forgiving-than.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm)
QuoteCrash landings at sea tend to end badly, even if the pilot has control of the craft, and are considered even riskier than such landings on land, crash investigators and aviation engineers said.
''Even in the best circumstances, landing on water is very, very risky,'' said Gary Frings, who directs research into the ''crashworthiness'' of airplanes at the Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center, in Atlantic City.
]http://www.vpnavy.com/vp47ditch.html] (http://www.vpnavy.com/vp47ditch.html)
QuoteI could not get control of the aircraft and we did not have time to put on our parachutes to bailout. Even if we would have had time to don our parachutes, the main cabin door was facing the sky, which made bailing out impossible.
In other words, this guy 9an actual naval aviator) would have bailed out if he could. Note that the P-3 landed intact in coastal and calm waters, so all survived.
http://www.vpnavy.com/vp9586.html (http://www.vpnavy.com/vp9586.html)
QuoteGrigsby had to face the gnawing possibility that to stop the prop before its blades ripped loose, he might have to ditch in the open sea, near where the Aleutian trench sinks for 26,000 feet. No such ditch by a P-3C, he knew, had ever yielded survivors.
In a more typical "lucky" ditching, only five lives were lost. In this case, bailing wasn't even considered, apparently because the crew would have needed the rafts to survive.
Bottom line; no one lightly ditches a plane, and no one should count on getting everyone out when one does. Smart money says you land the plane, if you can. The chance exists that the Chinese will commit an act of war and invade US territory, but even if they do, your people survive and the plane has plenty of self-destruction equipment.
Harumph. :mad:
This thread reeks of faggotry.
Quote from: Siege on April 03, 2011, 10:27:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2011, 09:26:38 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 03, 2011, 02:40:43 PM
But we all know Seedy is a retard.
My testicles work. How's yours?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg145.imageshack.us%2Fimg145%2F4677%2Fdscn0418bc.jpg&hash=2c91e954d3dc6cabe3804d9cdbd2a7eb553059f2)
:D
I worked on P3 aircraft when I was in the Reserves. Trying to remember what doors and egress points are on the plane. It has one door in the rear of the fuselage, I forget but doubt if any others. The crew can probably bail out through the bomb bay, after open the floor hatches. I think that's about it; but I could be forgetting something. Not a great set up for bail outs, but I'd say the bomb bay would be the best. That's even tricky since it has bars lengthwise, as I remember, so with a chute on it might be a tight fit going through on either side of the bay. I was never air crew (thought about it), so I don't know what the procedures for bail out are.
I know what the first step is, at least for aircraft like these:
1. Bend over and kiss your ass goodye.
From what I recall, it goes kinda like this: you gotta try to put your gear on while everything is all broken and fucked up, then hope you can even get out the damn door (don't know about the bay), then if you can, hope you don't hit anything on the way out, then hope your chute opens and you don't just fall, then hope your shit works when you hit the water (and try to remember not to hit that button thing to drop out of the chute until a foot hits the water so you don't kill yourself by leaving it at 500 feet or something crazy: apparently the water can look a lot closer than it actually is if there aren't any reference points) and you don't get tangled up and drown, then hope you don't get eaten by something while you're trying to find/get into the raft (assuming you can even find it), then hope someone shows up to pick you up.
This is just what I remember from several years ago now. A lot of this would be accompanied by some weirdo AW1 cackling about how we're totally fucked if this actually goes down (hey thanks buddy). I ruined my knees before having to go much further than this in the training though. Got through all the fun stuff, A school, etc, then cross rated (just took the test for a different rating) for the crow after hurting myself. Welp.
You don't even get the option to bail out in a helo. Just ride it down and hang on + pray, then try to get out of it while it rapidly rolls over and sinks. The dunker was kind of a fun little exercise until you think about what it's for and why you have blackout goggles on. All of Disney week was like that, really.
I should have stuck with ATC and never listened to the MEPS dude about Aircrew. :lol: When I would hang out with the ATC guys while I was at Pensacola SAR, they all seemed pretty chill, would let me hang out in the tower and down where they...do their thing...some room with a bunch of radar screens...forget what it's called. Nice comfortable chairs, air conditioned, nothing falling off or catching fire or blowing up around you, none of this parachute shit, etc.
Quote from: Berkut on April 04, 2011, 11:54:32 AM
I know what the first step is, at least for aircraft like these:
1. Bend over and kiss your ass goodye.
Or this, yeah.
Ok, you guys convinced me, I'm going to try to avoid bailing out of a plane over water.
Quote from: KRonn on April 04, 2011, 11:29:20 AM
I worked on P3 aircraft when I was in the Reserves. Trying to remember what doors and egress points are on the plane. It has one door in the rear of the fuselage, I forget but doubt if any others. The crew can probably bail out through the bomb bay, after open the floor hatches. I think that's about it; but I could be forgetting something. Not a great set up for bail outs, but I'd say the bomb bay would be the best. That's even tricky since it has bars lengthwise, as I remember, so with a chute on it might be a tight fit going through on either side of the bay. I was never air crew (thought about it), so I don't know what the procedures for bail out are.
I've flown in the Orions (though not the EP-3s, which could be slightly different than the P-3Bs I flew in), and i recall an aft escape hatch in the floor, several in the ceilings, the door (which isn't that far aft and certainly no one mentioned to me any special risk of hitting the tail, which is raised and far aft of the door). The forward crew had top and bottom egress as well - dunno if the bottom access was through the bomb bay or not.
There were also exits over the wings.
For bailouts, I think the floor hatch was the recommended way out.
Thanks for the clarification Grumbler. Been too long since I was on those planes. So for bailing out, they have the rear floor hatch, the rear door, and an egress up front, probably not the bomb bay.
I don't remember an aft floor hatch or any "people" floor hatch for that matter. :unsure: The ones I remember are the two up forward (overhead and side), the two over the wings, and the aft door, and I remember the aft door being the one to leave through, assuming there isn't fire/death there. I may be losing it though.
Edit: http://air.top81.cn/others/gfx/p3/p3c_cv.jpg
41, 46, 48, 127, and 128 are the ones I'm babbling about.
Can we pretend that airplanes in the night sky are like shooting stars?
Quote from: Monoriu on April 03, 2011, 10:16:47 PM
Fundamentally, China is trying to maintain the status quo, both domestically and internationally. Ideally, it would like to see a reunification with Taiwan, and having full sovereignty over all disputed islands. But it knows full well that those are nothing but dreams, and it won't make any substantial moves toward them. China's foreign policy goal is to maintain the ambiguous status quo. There is one catch though - it takes two to tango. The counterparties need to maintain a similar position. That involves Taiwan not declaring independence, and Japan not stationing troops on the disputed island, etc. As long as those conditions hold true, China can stick to rhetoric for domestic consumption.
Such ambiguities aren't good for stable relations. Legal ambiguities were a major cause for the 30 years war. Just because the leadership of China believes something now, doesn't mean the leadership of China will believe it 50 years from now.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on April 04, 2011, 04:26:27 PM
I don't remember an aft floor hatch or any "people" floor hatch for that matter. :unsure: The ones I remember are the two up forward (overhead and side), the two over the wings, and the aft door, and I remember the aft door being the one to leave through, assuming there isn't fire/death there. I may be losing it though.
Edit: http://air.top81.cn/others/gfx/p3/p3c_cv.jpg
41, 46, 48, 127, and 128 are the ones I'm babbling about.
My recollection (not having been a crew member, just an observer, and on the P-3B to boot) was that there was a floor hatch just behind the sonobouy launchers (about where the 32 is on that drawing). It was a while ago, though.