• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

China stalks the US fleet

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Instigator

Banned
A preview of things to come?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061113-121539-3317r.htm

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 13, 2006

A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned.

The surprise encounter highlights China's continuing efforts to prepare for a future conflict with the U.S., despite Pentagon efforts to try to boost relations with Beijing's communist-ruled military.

The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving relations between the two nations' militaries.

Disclosure of the incident comes as Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, is making his first visit to China. The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military leaders during the weeklong visit, which began over the weekend.

According to the defense officials, the Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the carrier Oct. 26.

The surfaced submarine was spotted by a routine surveillance flight by one of the carrier group's planes.

The Kitty Hawk battle group includes an attack submarine and anti-submarine helicopters that are charged with protecting the warships from submarine attack.

According to the officials, the submarine is equipped with Russian-made wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles.

The Kitty Hawk and several other warships were deployed in ocean waters near Okinawa at the time, as part of a routine fall deployment program. The officials said Chinese submarines rarely have operated in deep water far from Chinese shores or shadowed U.S. vessels.

A Pacific Command spokesman declined to comment on the incident, saying details were classified. Pentagon spokesmen also declined to comment.

The incident is a setback for the aggressive U.S.-China military exchange program being promoted by Adm. Fallon, who has made several visits to China in recent months in an attempt to develop closer ties.

However, critics of the program in the Pentagon say China has not reciprocated and continues to deny U.S. military visitors access to key facilities, including a Beijing command center.

In contrast, Chinese military visitors have been invited to military exercises and sensitive U.S. facilities. Additionally, military intelligence officials said Adm. Fallon has restricted U.S. intelligence-gathering activities against China, fearing that disclosure of the activities would upset relations with Beijing.

The restrictions are hindering efforts to know more about China's military buildup, the officials said. "This is a harbinger of a stronger Chinese reaction to America's military presence in East Asia," said Richard Fisher, a Chinese military specialist with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, who called the submarine incident alarming.

"Given the long range of new Chinese sub-launched anti-ship missiles and those purchased from Russia, this incident is very serious," he said. "It will likely happen again, only because Chinese submarine captains of 40 to 50 new modern submarines entering their navy will want to test their mettle against the 7th Fleet."

Pentagon intelligence officials say China's military buildup in recent years has produced large numbers of submarines and surface ships, seeking to control larger portions of international waters in Asia, a move U.S. officials fear could restrict the flow of oil from the Middle East to Asia in the future.

Between 2002 and last year, China built 14 new submarines, including new Song-class vessels and several other types, both diesel- and nuclear-powered.

Since 1996, when the United States dispatched two aircraft carrier battle groups to waters near Taiwan in a show of force, Beijing also has bought and built weapons designed specifically to attack U.S. aircraft carriers and other warships. "The Chinese have made it clear that they understand the importance of the submarine in any kind of offensive or defensive strategy to deal with a military conflict," an intelligence official said recently.

In late 2004, China dispatched a Han-class submarine to waters near Guam, Taiwan and Japan. Japan's military went on emergency alert after the submarine surfaced in Japanese waters.

Beijing apologized for the incursion. The Pentagon's latest annual report on Chinese military power stated that China is investing heavily in weapons designed "to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific."

It could not be learned whether the U.S. government lodged a protest with China's government over the incident or otherwise raised the matter in official channels.
Click to expand...
 
G

GilloD

Banned
Even if armed only with forks, China would overrun us so quickly. We're TEH DONEZ FOR.

On the other hand, there's some Chinese sub commander going "LOL get closer".
 
C

Callo Merlose

Banned
Instigator said:
A preview of things to come?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061113-121539-3317r.htm
Click to expand...
You got it wrong. It's:

CTSHANG1.GIF


"And now, for a taste of things to come."
 
E

Escape Goat

Member
GilloD said:
Even if armed only with forks, China would overrun us so quickly. We're TEH DONEZ FOR.

On the other hand, there's some Chinese sub commander going "LOL get closer".
Click to expand...


China may have alot of troops but they're usuing technology that is at least 10-15 years old if not older than that.
 
G

GilloD

Banned
Teh Hamburglar said:
China may have alot of troops but they're usuing technology that is at least 10-15 years old if not older than that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but slap some swimmies on a billion of those suckers, give 'em forks and toss them into the Pacific and you've got a CALIFORNIA INVASION, ya know what I mean?

Winning a war against China would take a very, very long time.

EDIT: Also, consider what the provacateurs in Iraq are using. It's not about the tech, I'm afraid.
 
R

ronito

Member
I've talked to several navy and coasties and they say stuff like this isn't too out of the ordinary. We do it all the time, track non US ships and see how close the sub can get. Wasn't there a case where a russian sub ran into an american ship on accident? Too lazy to look up the article, or am I just dreaming? Outside of surfacing, which seems out of the norm, doesn't seem like all that big of a deal to me.
 
J

JayDubya

Banned
Instigator said:
Or that all money has been useless so far?
Click to expand...

Ah. So you're saying we should just cut all military research and let the Chinese out-tech us, then?

Seriously though, do I have to be intentionally obtuse just to draw your opinions out?

I generally like to know why people post a given article, and it isn't self-evident here. The article is clearly cause for some kind of concern, though I think we're all drawing vastly different conclusions.
 
G

GilloD

Banned
JayDubya said:
Ah. So you're saying we should just cut all military research and let the Chinese out-tech us, then?

Seriously though, do I have to be intentionally obtuse just to draw your opinions out?

I generally like to know why people post a given article, and it isn't self-evident here. The article is clearly cause for some kind of concern, though I think we're all drawing vastly different conclusions.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's wise to cut the funding and let them out-tech us, but I do think the article is a fine demonstration of the fact that you can spend 20 gazillion dollars on a super ship that turns into a tank and a boat and a space shuttle and sometimes an old rusty Cold War sub can sneak up on you. The US Cole fell prey to a couple of guys in a motorboat with explosives on board. Tech, and money, don't really win wars by themselves.
 
I

Instigator

Banned
JayDubya said:
Ah. So you're saying we should just cut all military research and let the Chinese out-tech us, then?

Seriously though, do I have to be intentionally obtuse just to draw your opinions out?

I generally like to know why people post a given article, and it isn't self-evident here. The article is clearly cause for some kind of concern, though I think we're all drawing vastly different conclusions.
Click to expand...

No, the point (as far as you see it, I on the other hand just posted an article to cater to the more paranoid among the GAF members) is the US military budget is bloated and apparently not offering much bang for the buck. To take a popular conservative talking point, throwing money at the problem is not a solution!
 
ManaByte

ManaByte

Rage Bait Youtuber
ronito said:
I've talked to several navy and coasties and they say stuff like this isn't too out of the ordinary. We do it all the time, track non US ships and see how close the sub can get. Wasn't there a case where a russian sub ran into an american ship on accident? Too lazy to look up the article, or am I just dreaming? Outside of surfacing, which seems out of the norm, doesn't seem like all that big of a deal to me.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who runs sonar on subs in the Navy and he helped out with that Russian sub rescue last year and he said that Russia does this ALL THE ****ING TIME because as far as they are concerned they're still living in the Cold War.
 
K

Krowley

Member
if a serious war ever broke out between america and china, we would probably quickly resort to the nuclear option. As far as i know, we still have a huge advantage over them in that area and a standard war against china would be way too difficult and costly.

edit// not that i'm advocating using nukes or anything, but i just can't imagine us ever getting down in the trenches and fighting fair against the chinese. There's too much of a chance of getting pounded.

that's also the reason that any war between us and china will have them being the aggressors. We'll want a lot of cover on the world stage before we resort to the big guns. We will bend over backwards to try to maintain a peacfull relationship and hopefully china will come around.
 
I

Instigator

Banned
Hundreds, if not thousands of nukes, going off anywhere is no good news for anyone in the world.

that's also the reason that any war between us and china will have them being the aggressors.
Click to expand...

Aren't you assuming too much?
 
ManaByte

ManaByte

Rage Bait Youtuber
WOLVERINES!!!!

Col. Andy Tanner: ...The Russians need to take us in one piece, and that's why they're here. That's why they won't use nukes anymore; and we won't either, not on our own soil. The whole damn thing's pretty conventional now. Who knows? Maybe next week will be swords.
Darryl Bates: What started it?
Col. Andy Tanner: I don't know. Two toughest kids on the block, I guess. Sooner or later, they're gonna fight.
Jed Eckert: That simple, is it?
Col. Andy Tanner: Or maybe somebody just forget what it was like.
Jed Eckert: ...Well, who *is* on our side?
Col. Andy Tanner: Six hundred million screaming Chinamen.
Darryl Bates: Last I heard, there were a billion screaming Chinamen.
Col. Andy Tanner: There *were*.
Click to expand...
 
K

Krowley

Member
Instigator said:
Hundreds, if not thousands of nukes, going off anywhere is no good news for anyone in the world.



Aren't you assuming too much?
Click to expand...


we won't attack china or do anything to piss them off for the very simple reason that our only legitimate response in a war against them would be a nuclear response. We don't want to get into that kind of a war.

edit// I also can't imagine that china would want to face our potential response. At least for the forseeable future.
 
E

emomoonbase

I'm free 2night after my LARPing guild meets.
I dont think this means a whole lot. As someone else said I had a friend in the navy who worked a sub and they'd tail other countries boats around all the time. It was basically practice since there isn't jack shit else to do out there for months at a time. They'd sneak up on ppl and you'd ping the **** out of them with the sonar to let them know you got 'em and then it would just start all over again.
 
S

S. L.

Member
Suburban Cowboy said:
War and Occupation are 2 different things
Click to expand...
but they usually come together unless you plan to nuke the enemy nation into an eternal winter
 
K

Kung Fu Jedi

Member
Invading China is one thing, meeting them on an open battlefield is another. The U.S. Navy would make short work of the Chinese Navy, as would the Air Force. Now, invading mainland china would be foolhearty indeed.
 
N

Nicodimas

Banned
China has modernized faster then any other country.

They took United States industry from us. They have all the machines to make advanced stuff now. They steal the plans they need.

I heard its five years max and they are caught up. Five years is very fast.
 
N

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
JayDubya said:
What you're saying is that clearly we need to spend more on our military research budget, right?
Click to expand...

wait, aren't you some self-professed super libertarian? nice :lol
 
P

Poody

What program do you use to photoshop a picture?
The surprise encounter highlights China's continuing efforts to prepare for a future conflict with the U.S., despite Pentagon efforts to try to boost relations with Beijing's communist-ruled military.
Click to expand...
:lol more propaganda to increase US defense funding. I've said it before and i'll say it again, there is no way China and the US can afford a war. Our economies are too interwined and politics would prevent that from ever happening.
 
G

GilloD

Banned
Suburban Cowboy said:
DING DING DING! First dumbass to bring up Iraq. Congrats!

War and Occupation are 2 different things
Click to expand...

YOU LOSE AT READING COMPREHENSION.

What you have in Iraq is the world's most well funded, well equipped military power fighting a rag tag bunch of rebels with AK 47s, propaganda and the Anarchist's Cookbook. What I meant was that technology and military might is no garuntee of success. Most people expected us to be in and out of Iraq. Who would could stand up to a Bunker Buster? But it hasn't been that was and likely won't be in the future, either.

I made no political gesture with my previous statement, so LOL, first dumbass to overreact when he sees the word "Iraq".
 
A

Archer

Member
GilloD said:
Winning a war against China would take a very, very long time.
Click to expand...

Actually, maybe not. Infect rodents, farm/house animals with bio/chem toxins and you'd clean up. They have bomb shelters that can fit a large portion of the urban population and they're already prepared for fallout and EM pulse attacks. Black plague ftw.
 
K

Kastrioti

Persecution Complex
There would never be a war with China. There would be to much at stake.

However nuclear weapons aside, if the U.S. were to go to war with China there is no way the Chinese would win. The Chinese navy and air force pales in comparison to ours.
 
J

JayDubya

Banned
Nerevar said:
wait, aren't you some self-professed super libertarian? nice :lol
Click to expand...

/shrug

Our uber expensive aircraft carriers need to not to be sunk without a fight, losing all those uber expensive planes along with them. National security means having the best toys, period, because America certainly doesn't have any other real advantages over the other kids in the schoolyard.

We shouldn't be bullies but that doesn't mean we should let anyone else be, either. We're on top of the food chain in terms of military technology, and that shouldn't change. It's much less expensive to keep on top of R&D and maintain superiority than it is to fight conventional wars all the time. If the other guy knows you've got something like the F-22 in the air, they won't be as quick to try and take you on. All things being equal, that bird can smoke all would-be contenders without really breaking a sweat, if the opposition even knew it was there at all. Worth every penny.

This is one role government actually does have. If I didn't like strong national defense, wouldn't that pretty just much make me an anarchist / anarchocapitalist (note: defense, not offense, Iraq was a mistake, yadda, yadda, yadda, same things I have to repeat myself saying every damn thread)?
 
Z

zon

Member
Swedish submarines of type "Gotland" are capable to sneak up so closely to US ships that they can take photos of the ship's hull and still remain undetected. I think the distance was around 500 metres. The US borrows a Gotland sub and it's crew at times so there's no real danger involved but the thought of fighting these kind of subs are considered to be the second most dangerous scenario for the US Navy.

Can't give any sources to this as it was a Swedish General that told us about it when he and one of his subordinates visited our class and held a lecture about the military's information system for a few hours.
 
M

Matt

Member
China has no real power to project their military outside of continental Asia. Hell, they could barely handle invading Taiwan right now, war between the US and them would not be an issue that had to be decided by nukes.

What has been said so far is right, the US would make short work of their Air Force and Navy, and then we would just be staring at each other across the Sea of Japan until someone blinked (all the while US planes would be bombing the crap out of the military and industrial centers in China).

However, economically, war is not something that makes sense to either side, so these points are mute.
 
J

Javaman

Member
Poody (in november whoopsie) said:
:lol more propaganda to increase US defense funding. I've said it before and i'll say it again, there is no way China and the US can afford a war. Our economies are too interwined and politics would prevent that from ever happening.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Instead of mutual assured destruction during the cold war with the USSR, China and the USA are facing mutual assured economic destruction. At least for now. I fully expect China to be the top dog world power within 150 years. They stand to gain much more by holding off hostilities until then rather then doing something rash like taking back Taiwan tomarrow.
 
M

MrNibbles

Banned
A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned.

The Chinese sub surfaced within range of the AIRCRAFT CARRIER.
People are reading this as if the sub could have "ganked" the carrier.
The sub was the one that could have been fired upon.

(Both were possibly in range, but one is specified and the other isn't, and the US has a longer range anyway.)
 
C

Chairman Yang

if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Matt said:
Well, then I guess we're all lucky that it's no longer 1914, and times have changed.
Click to expand...

Not as much as you think with regard to economic integration of the world's countries. Yes, war between China and the US would be incredibly painful, economically, but the same situation held true in 1914. Countries can go to war anyway.
 
D

DarthWoo

I'm glad Grandpa porked a Chinese Muslim
MrNibbles said:
A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned.

The Chinese sub surfaced within range of the AIRCRAFT CARRIER.
People are reading this as if the sub could have "ganked" the carrier.
The sub was the one that could have been fired upon.

(Both were possibly in range, but one is specified and the other isn't, and the US has a longer range anyway.)
Click to expand...

Since when do aircraft carriers mount torpedo launchers? If you're referring to the ASW aircraft aboard, then the effective range would have been so vaguely large as to make this almost a non-event. As the OP article says, it surfaced within five miles and only then was detected by an aircraft. Five miles seems like a reasonable range for a Russian-made (or reverse engineered by the Chinese) torpedo.

Oh, and someone asked about a Russian sub accidently hitting a US ship - apparently the Kitty Hawk has some bad luck with subs, as it was the ship in question that a Russian sub accidently surfaced underneath. Fortunately it came out none the worse for wear, other than a screw stuck in its hull and a few scrapes apparently.
 
X

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
I don't see what the big deal with this is, the US and USSR did this to each other's fleets all the time.
 
K

KidGalactus

Member
Somewhat related question:

Does anybody know how many nuclear explosions, the size of the ones at Hiroshima and Nagasaki it would take to exhaust the planet's oxygen supply?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Rumors of U.S. Secretly Harboring Top China Official Swirl
Rumor
13
2K
fran.fernandez replied
  • Locked
Aliens and UFOs
146 147 148 149 150
7K
450K
EviLore replied
  • Locked
China responds to Mattis remarks on East China Sea islands
2
94
13K
Tarydax replied
  • Locked
China's Navy seizes American underwater drone in South China Sea
0
1K
studyguy replied
  • Locked
China may have been practicing preemptive missile attacks against U.S. bases
2
57
5K
mreddie replied
Top Bottom