New Japanese Carrier Delivered Today

[DarwinDoubter]

New 27,000-ton Japanese carrier KAGA (184) delivered
today, joins sister IZUMO as largest naval ships
since WW2
pics
https://twitter.com/CavasShips/status/844549457572249600


short video at the link

Second of MSDF’s largest warship comes into service
THE ASAHI SHIMBUN
March 22, 2017 at 16:40 JST


The Maritime Self-Defense Force’s new destroyer Kaga is commissioned in
Yokohama on March 22. (Eiji Hori)
Photo/Illutration

YOKOHAMA--The Maritime Self-Defense Force’s Kaga helicopter carrier, its
joint-largest warship, was commissioned here on March 22.

The ceremony to deliver the new destroyer to the Defense Ministry was
held in a Yokohama shipyard that day.

The Kaga is 248 meters long, equivalent to the Izumo, which went into
service in 2015, and has five helipads.

According to the MSDF, the Kaga’s construction costs totaled about 120
billion yen ($1.1 billion). It will be deployed to the No. 4 Escort
Flotilla, based in Kure, Hiroshima Prefecture.

The Kaga can carry 14 or more helicopters, which will mainly patrol for
submarines. Those patrol helicopters will search for Chinese submarines,
which are becoming difficult for Japan to detect due to improvements in
their capabilities.

The Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft that is scheduled to be introduced by the
Ground Self-Defense Force can also land on and take off from the Kaga.

The MSDF now possesses four helicopter carriers: the Kaga, the Izumo and
two 197-meter-long destroyers.


http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201703220067.html

[RonO]

I guess this demonstrates that Darwin Doubter is Jonathan. I wonder if
he could have restrained himself much longer from quoting Emily.

Ron Okimoto

[Robert Camp]

I think you're probably right, but I hope not. I find DarwinDoubter even
less sensible than Jonathan.

[Burkhard]

In some of the posts was definitely the his hallmark, the gratuitous use
of "..." that he probably thinks about as symbolizing deep thought, but
reads like stutter.

[raven1]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:14:03 -0400, DarwinDoubter
<Born...@ChristisKing.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>New 27,000-ton Japanese carrier KAGA

Presumably named in tribute to the carrier of the same name that was
sunk at the Battle of Midway, but is there a reason you posted this to
talk.origins? It's not even remotely on-topic.

[Burkhard]

raven1 wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:14:03 -0400, DarwinDoubter
> <Born...@ChristisKing.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> New 27,000-ton Japanese carrier KAGA
>
> Presumably named in tribute to the carrier of the same name that was
> sunk at the Battle of Midway, but is there a reason you posted this to
> talk.origins? It's not even remotely on-topic.

Doesn't it prove the Ark was real? See, big ships can float!

[J. J. Lodder]

Headers say he is.

At least 'DarwinDoubter' is a more honest nick,

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:14:03 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DarwinDoubter
<Born...@ChristisKing.net>:

>New 27,000-ton Japanese carrier KAGA (184) delivered
>today, joins sister IZUMO as largest naval ships
>since WW2

This and other off-topic subjects brought to you by DD...

And BTW, the quote is incorrect; this may be the largest
*Japanese* Naval ship since WWII, but it's far from the
largest Naval ship.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:14:03 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by DarwinDoubter
> <Born...@ChristisKing.net>:
>
> >New 27,000-ton Japanese carrier KAGA (184) delivered
> >today, joins sister IZUMO as largest naval ships
> >since WW2
>
> This and other off-topic subjects brought to you by DD...

Now known to be a new nick of 'Jonathan'.

> And BTW, the quote is incorrect; this may be the largest
> *Japanese* Naval ship since WWII, but it's far from the
> largest Naval ship.

Indeed, dwarfed by the standard American supercarrier.
Even her namesake, sunk at Midway, was bigger.

And Kaga isn't even an aircraft carrier,
just a helicopter carrier for anti-submarine warfare.
(an oversized destroyer, in fact)

It is incapable of the agressive missions
for which American carriers are built,

Jan

[Jonathan]

God dammit~



s

[RonO]

Did Emily ever write that?

[Jonathan]

Nope, but she was way ahead of her times
writing about lesbian sex. Which is why
she was shunned in her time. I think
she even coined the term 'in the closet'.

A few smoking hot examples <g>



I showed her Heights she never saw
"Would'st Climb," I said?
She said -- "Not so" --
"With me --" I said -- With me?
I showed her Secrets -- Morning's Nest
The Rope the Nights were put across
And now -- "Would'st have me for a Guest?"
She could not find her Yes

.............


If she had been the Mistletoe
And I had been the Rose --


...........


They shut me up in Prose
As when a little Girl
They put me in the Closet
Because they liked me "still"


...........


Whatever it is -- she has tried it --
Awful Father of Love --
Is not Ours the chastising --
Do not chastise the Dove --

Only lest she be lonely
In thy beautiful House
Give her for her Transgression
License to think of us --


.............



She dealt her pretty words like Blades --
How glittering they shone --
And every One unbared a Nerve
Or wantoned with a Bone --


............



Precious to Me -- She still shall be --
Though She forget the name I bear --
The fashion of the Gown I wear --
The very Color of My Hair --


............



No Notice gave She, but a Change --
No Message, but a Sigh --
For Whom, the Time did not suffice
That She should specify.

She was not warm, though Summer shone
Nor scrupulous of cold
Though Rime by Rime, the steady Frost
Upon Her Bosom piled --



...............



We learned the Whole of Love --
The Alphabet -- the Words --
A Chapter -- then the mighty Book --
Then -- Revelation closed --

But in Each Other's eyes
An Ignorance beheld --
Diviner than the Childhood's --
And each to each, a Child --

Attempted to expound
What Neither -- understood --
Alas, that Wisdom is so large --
And Truth -- so manifold!


...............




You love me -- you are sure --
I shall not fear mistake --
I shall not cheated wake --
Some grinning morn --
To find the Sunrise left --
And Orchards -- unbereft --
And Dollie -- gone!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:49:05 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:14:03 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by DarwinDoubter
>> <Born...@ChristisKing.net>:
>>
>> >New 27,000-ton Japanese carrier KAGA (184) delivered
>> >today, joins sister IZUMO as largest naval ships
>> >since WW2
>>
>> This and other off-topic subjects brought to you by DD...
>
>Now known to be a new nick of 'Jonathan'.
>
>> And BTW, the quote is incorrect; this may be the largest
>> *Japanese* Naval ship since WWII, but it's far from the
>> largest Naval ship.
>

>Indeed, dwarfed by the standard American...

....or other...

>... supercarrier.

>Even her namesake, sunk at Midway, was bigger.

Yep.

>And Kaga isn't even an aircraft carrier,
>just a helicopter carrier for anti-submarine warfare.
>(an oversized destroyer, in fact)
>
>It is incapable of the agressive missions
>for which American carriers are built,

So submarine hunting isn't aggressive? Maybe the Japanese
just want to invite the sub crews to a Kabuki drama when
they find them...

Perhaps you meant "force projection", as in acting as the
world's police department?

[Robert Carnegie]

And helicopters aren't aircraft?

Come now - this obviously is convergent evolution.
They bred aircraft which can land on a short boat.

[J. J. Lodder]

Nothing new. The Brits already built Harriers (±1970)
because they could no longer afford an aircraft carrier,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:49:05 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:14:03 -0400, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by DarwinDoubter
> >> <Born...@ChristisKing.net>:
> >>
> >> >New 27,000-ton Japanese carrier KAGA (184) delivered
> >> >today, joins sister IZUMO as largest naval ships
> >> >since WW2
> >>
> >> This and other off-topic subjects brought to you by DD...
> >
> >Now known to be a new nick of 'Jonathan'.
> >
> >> And BTW, the quote is incorrect; this may be the largest
> >> *Japanese* Naval ship since WWII, but it's far from the
> >> largest Naval ship.
> >
> >Indeed, dwarfed by the standard American...
>
> ....or other...
>
> >... supercarrier.
> >Even her namesake, sunk at Midway, was bigger.
>
> Yep.
>
> >And Kaga isn't even an aircraft carrier,
> >just a helicopter carrier for anti-submarine warfare.
> >(an oversized destroyer, in fact)
>

> So submarine hunting isn't aggressive? Maybe the Japanese
> just want to invite the sub crews to a Kabuki drama when
> they find them...

I fully agree with you.
That poor admiral Doenitz for example has been much maligned.
He merely sent his U-boot wolfpacks into the Atlantic,
on purely defensive missions of course.
And next all those agressive Americans, Canadians and Brits
started depth bombing and destroying them.

> >It is incapable of the agressive missions
> >for which American carriers are built,

> Perhaps you meant "force projection", as in acting as the
> world's police department?

Go tell it to the rest of the world:
No you are quite mistaken about being bombed by us.

You merely have some force projected at you,

Jan

[jillery]

>Nothing new. The Brits already built Harriers (ą1970)

>because they could no longer afford an aircraft carrier,
>
>Jan

That's not it. It's because they would so much rather say "Harrier
Carrier".
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:09:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

They are (in a sense; some say they only get off the ground
because they're so ugly the Earth rejects them...), but not
the traditional sort. IIRC the ones used for Harrier ops are
in a similar category.

>Come now - this obviously is convergent evolution.
>They bred aircraft which can land on a short boat.

Yep. Like Harriers.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:h7jidctgtdapr4ae6...@4ax.com...

Is a "traditional sort" also a "category" of aircraft?

[J. J. Lodder]

Come on, Da Vinci invented them, they can't be really ugly,

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:16:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

Sure. An informal one, but easily recognizable to nearly
anyone. If you'd like I can provide a description.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:56:25 +0100, the following appeared

Sure they can; original concept source doesn't imply beauty.
;-)

[Robert Carnegie]

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/north_by_northwest ?

(Was gonna go with King Kong; whatever.)

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:45:01 -0700 (PDT), the following

Yep; either one exhibits aircraft with all the expected
characteristics. ;-)

[Robert Carnegie]

Specifically, the traditional characteristics.
Except that these examples don't have a line of
chorus-girls putting on a performance on the
upper pair of wings - I apologise for the oversight.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:06:47 -0700 (PDT), the following

Correct.

>Except that these examples don't have a line of
>chorus-girls putting on a performance on the
>upper pair of wings - I apologise for the oversight.

Well, see that it doesn't happen again! ;-)

(BTW, looks like Glenn fell off in flight...)

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:aqiqdc5ocgdki7qtk...@4ax.com...

Just provide a reference to where, informally or formally, "traditional sort" is a category of aircraft.
Or just provide a reference that supports airplanes as being "traditional" aircraft.
Educate me.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:41:30 -0700, the following appeared

>Just provide a reference to where, informally or formally, "traditional sort" is a category of aircraft.

Sure. Just look up a few lines.

>Or just provide a reference that supports airplanes as being "traditional" aircraft.

Define "airplanes", and I'll be happy to accommodate you,
although IMHO it's in the name.

>Educate me.

Probably impossible.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:e6ctdcdfhr2cu4lj9...@4ax.com...

Is something like this what you might have wanted to reference?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane

>
>>Educate me.
>
> Probably impossible.
> --

Of that I have little doubt. Surprise me.

[Robert Carnegie]

Actually we were talking about
"<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft>"
where the two /most/ traditional varieties
are... kite-flying and gas-bags. Okay.

And when the specific purpose of a sea (or air!)
vessel is to accommodate aircraft, often for
warfare, then, yes, you don't immediately think
of helicopters. Or, perhaps, biplanes (tri, etc)
- I don't quite know the history.

The Harrier has a jet engine whose output can be
pointed /down/ to lift the plane vertically off
the ground, which of course hasn't caught on in
aviation generally.

[Glenn]

"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message news:24950f64-8875-4702...@googlegroups.com...

That may be the general context, but you asked a specific question about helicopters,
not what is considered historically and in modern times as an "aircraft carrier", and what
category of aircraft is included.

Bob replied that helicopters are not "aircraft" in the "traditional" sense, which is horsehockey.

>
> And when the specific purpose of a sea (or air!)
> vessel is to accommodate aircraft, often for
> warfare, then, yes, you don't immediately think
> of helicopters. Or, perhaps, biplanes (tri, etc)
> - I don't quite know the history.

In American vernacular, "aircraft carrier" might apply. Helicopters have been carried on aircraft carriers though, since before WW2.

>
> The Harrier has a jet engine whose output can be
> pointed /down/ to lift the plane vertically off
> the ground, which of course hasn't caught on in
> aviation generally.
>

Harrier's may be regarded as non-traditional, but that has nothing to do with whether the Harrier is an "aircraft", and what category.

[Glenn]

"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message news:24950f64-8875-4702...@googlegroups.com...

I missed your idea of a reference.

Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_carrier
"A helicopter carrier is a type of aircraft carrier whose primary purpose is to operate helicopters."

Okay now?

[Robert Carnegie]

Well - are you going to argue that the helicopter
carrier isn't a different species, since despite
any evolution it is still an aircraft carrier?

Or do we have to debate "intelligent design"?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:42:05 -0700, the following appeared

It does a fair job; the first line in your referenced
article:

"An airplane or aeroplane (informally plane) is a powered,
fixed-wing aircraft that is propelled forward by thrust from
a jet engine or propeller."

See the "fixed-wing" part? How do you suppose that might
apply to whether a helicopter is a "traditional aircraft"?
And what do you suppose the related implication of the
"plane" part is?

>>>Educate me.
>>
>> Probably impossible.

>Of that I have little doubt. Surprise me.

You might want to start by reading the references you
provide to make sure they support your contentions.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:dhtvdc9h5iq9mqhrd...@4ax.com...

I'll just call you the question guy.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 18:04:09 -0700, the following appeared in

Well, that's one way to run away from your errors, I
suppose...

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:msd2ectl9q4dvcl9n...@4ax.com...

Don't you usually wait for three crickets to chirp at midnight before making a "running away" claim? If so, what did I do to be honored with special treatment?
In a way though, I have made what some might call errors, by not debunking your silly claims outright, but instead letting you dig yourself deeper into
a hole with each post. I could start with your reply to the OP post, where you snipped context, incorrectly claimed the headline was inaccurate, that
your implication that "aircraft carrier" meant excusively for fixed-wing aircraft, that helicopers are "sort of" aircraft, the list goes on and on.
You're full of shit, Bob, and you always have been.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 11:37:37 -0700, the following appeared in

Only when there's no response at all; the sort of evasion
you posted allows me more leeway.

> If so, what did I do to be honored with special treatment?
>In a way though, I have made what some might call errors, by not debunking your silly claims outright, but instead letting you dig yourself deeper into
>a hole with each post. I could start with your reply to the OP post, where you snipped context, incorrectly claimed the headline was inaccurate,

....which it was, since no mention was made *anywhere* in the
OP of the fact that it applied solely to Japanese ships.
IOW, an overgeneralization error...

> that
>your implication that "aircraft carrier" meant excusively for fixed-wing aircraft, that helicopers are "sort of" aircraft, the list goes on and on.

Nope; sorry. I provided, from your own reference, a quote
which agreed with my contention that "traditional aircraft"
are fixed-wing; the fact that you missed that (or failed to
understand what "fixed-wing" means) isn't my problem. And
when I did so your response ignored it in favor of one of
your usual one-liners.

So yes, the list does indeed "go on and on".