That video is just fascinating to me bc it's supposed to make china look good, but the cinematography is telling the opposite story. The chink drone is presented as this inhumane threat while the carrier and its crew are the valiant defenders. They show individuals like when they cut to the pilot. That's what you do if you want your audience to root for the good guys. Same reason we get a close up of porkins when he's blown up in star wars but no similar shot of a tie fighter pilot getting incinerate. This could be a trailer for some vidya where you're supposed to save the world from whoever is controlling the evil drone. Why does their propaganda make them seem like they're the baddies? Is that some kind of subversive act by the director of that clip?
This.
Then again, chinks generally don't grasp that because of the low cultural value of the individual, so the fact of presenting a population group as empathetic through being able to see individuals from them might genuinely be lost to them.
Depressing to see my fellow bongs fail to notice yet another crucial maxim of procurement: don't build something too big to lose. Already lost one for the foreseeable future. I'm sure china is absolutely quaking in its cute little feet.
Not literally "lost", as in Moskva cigarette malfunction which can happen in any navy really it's no reflection on fine traditions of stronk Russian navy
>Build 2 carriers >Lose one >Other one steps in
Thats literally the reason you have two, if Frances carrier went down (which lol it does..alot) they would be left with none. How can one be so moronic?
I always thought picrel was a odd design (ever for sci fi) to have to tower-bridges, one for fighters and one for command of the ship. But here it is IRL.
Is that the reason UK carriers have two bridges? If not, what's the purpose?
Your mudda is even cheaper!
This, your right OP. Carriers are obsolete relics of WW2
Even a drone can take down a carrier easily
That video is just fascinating to me bc it's supposed to make china look good, but the cinematography is telling the opposite story. The chink drone is presented as this inhumane threat while the carrier and its crew are the valiant defenders. They show individuals like when they cut to the pilot. That's what you do if you want your audience to root for the good guys. Same reason we get a close up of porkins when he's blown up in star wars but no similar shot of a tie fighter pilot getting incinerate. This could be a trailer for some vidya where you're supposed to save the world from whoever is controlling the evil drone. Why does their propaganda make them seem like they're the baddies? Is that some kind of subversive act by the director of that clip?
This.
Then again, chinks generally don't grasp that because of the low cultural value of the individual, so the fact of presenting a population group as empathetic through being able to see individuals from them might genuinely be lost to them.
From your perspective, sure. But their internal audience looks at American carriers like they are mobile oppression palaces.
Seems more like the carrier fricked up even letting that thing get that close without planes in the air. It's like 5 miles away tops.
I've seen this exact thread before, bot posting detected.
makes me wonder what the Ruskies just lost
>makes me wonder what the Ruskies just lost
Yeah, ruskies...
>Source: My ass
wow such advanced warfare, china stronk!!!!
how many carriers were sunk by how many missiles?
I really need to compile a list of shit takes by people throughout history just to post in threads like these.
Do it so I can add them all to my filter list.
>are more cheaper
Come on man, at least try.
China is still rushing to make as many as they can. Let that sink in for moment.
YOU JUST DID THIS SAME THREAD WITH THE SAME OP FRICK YOU
The AP shell that kills a Tiger tank was cheaper than the Tiger
>Missiles are more cheaper than carriers
So are ukrainians and taiwanese.
Your point ?
We need the "missiles never sank anything Torpedos only sink stuff etc" autist in here.
boolets are more cheaper than soldiers
Let that sink in for a moment
Depressing to see my fellow bongs fail to notice yet another crucial maxim of procurement: don't build something too big to lose. Already lost one for the foreseeable future. I'm sure china is absolutely quaking in its cute little feet.
>for the foreseeable future
For a few weeks until the shitty American made shaft bearing is replaced.
It's what you get for putting it on a shitty excuse for a carrier.
Woah, the British lost a carrier!?
How was it sunk?
Not literally "lost", as in Moskva cigarette malfunction which can happen in any navy really it's no reflection on fine traditions of stronk Russian navy
>Build 2 carriers
>Lose one
>Other one steps in
Thats literally the reason you have two, if Frances carrier went down (which lol it does..alot) they would be left with none. How can one be so moronic?
>more cheaper
Ivan is more smarter.
Missiles need to be launched from somewhere. Missiles can't project power.
Ahh yes soldier. But don't you know? Launching a missile means pushing a button.
No go on. Demonstrate for me.
I have unironically never seen the british carriers until now and they look weird
the HMS Queen Elizabeth was crafted by his majesty (Johnson) and is an impenetrable force to all foreign meddling, like the UK pound
And lasers are cheaper than Missiles. You loose CHI COMS!
You can just post pictures of classified vehicles anon
What if the Russians see what is at the right corner of the first ship?
Ocean is cheaper than land, let that sink in
Carriers carry missiles and things to fire missiles
sigh, this thread again.
You were wrong before, you are wrong again, and you will be wrong in the future.
Just give it a rest, and remember that China and Russia will never be great military powers without some major reforms.
I swear I’ve seen this exact thread before
Still just as moronic now as it was then
>Missiles are more cheaper than carriers
Carriers carry jets with missiles which gives them a greater range to project power and dominate the battlespace.
Let that sink in.
I always thought picrel was a odd design (ever for sci fi) to have to tower-bridges, one for fighters and one for command of the ship. But here it is IRL.
Is that the reason UK carriers have two bridges? If not, what's the purpose?
>Is that the reason UK carriers have two bridges? If not, what's the purpose
Ease of operations, one bridge is for day to day ship operations and the other for air control.
Also it divides the ventilation system from 1 stack to 2, it helps with heat dissipation I believe.
Is there a disadvantage to this, in their being physically separated, i.e. slower to get from one to the other? I know zero about carriers or ships.
Butter knives are cheaper than rifles. Better equip your army with butter knives than.