Chinese sub has U.S. military concerned

bhkad · 11-11-07, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Chinese sub has U.S. military concerned

Published: Nov. 10, 2007 at 4:29 PM

LONDON, Nov. 10 (UPI) -- U.S. Navy officials are concerned over the unexpected appearance of a Chinese submarine during a major military exercise in the Pacific Ocean.

Senior NATO officials said that since the Chinese vessel surfaced in the middle of the recent military exercise, U.S. Navy officials have been shocked by the advanced technology used by their Chinese counterparts, The Daily Mail said Saturday.

One official said that based on the ease at which the submarine avoided 12 U.S. warships to surface near a 1,000-foot carrier, Navy officials are reconsidering the potential dangers posed by Chinese subs.

While Chinese officials have said the entire incident was a simple coincidence, some U.S. diplomats have accused the vessel of "shadowing" the U.S. fleet during the exercise.

One former member of the British Royal Navy told the newspaper that such allegations could potentially be close to the truth.

"It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do," Commodore Stephen Saunders said, "which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan."

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New...oncerned/7525/

Is it a coincidence that the Chinese did the same thing in October 2006?

Quote:

Chinese Sub Came Close To U.S. Ships
Navy Commander Says Close Encounter Could Have Triggered 'Unforeseen' Incident

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Nov. 14, 2006

(AP) A Chinese submarine came close to the USS Kitty Hawk carrier group in the Pacific Ocean last month, a top U.S. naval commander confirmed Tuesday, adding the encounter could have triggered an "unforeseen" incident.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, however, said she had not heard of such an incident.

The aircraft carrier and its supporting ships were conducting exercises in an unidentified location when the encounter occurred, Adm. William Fallon, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told reporters.

The carrier group was not engaged in anti-submarine exercises, but if it had, "and if this Chinese sub came in the middle of this, then it could have escalated into something that could have been very unforeseen," he said.

Fallon, who is in Kuala Lumpur for a 23-nation Chief of Defense Forces meeting, did not give any other details. He was commenting on a report on The Washington Times' Web site that said a Chinese submarine "stalked" the Kitty Hawk and surfaced within torpedo firing range.

The newspaper said the carrier group was operating close to Okinawa at the time of the incident.

"It illustrates the primary reason why we are trying to push, to have better military-to-military relationships" with China, Fallon said.

"Because the fact is that you have military units that operate in close proximity to one another," he said, warning of "the potential for events that would not be what we'd like to see."

In Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu could not say if the incident had indeed occurred.

Chinese Sub Came Close To U.S. Ships, Navy Commander Says Close Encounter Could Have Triggered 'Unforeseen' Incident - CBS News

This is bull crap!

Hatuey · 11-11-07, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Is it a coincidence that the Chinese did the same thing in October 2006?

Chinese Sub Came Close To U.S. Ships, Navy Commander Says Close Encounter Could Have Triggered 'Unforeseen' Incident - CBS News

This is bull crap!

I'm surprised you didn't make a connection to Jihad.....

on that note....

Kitty Hawk? We need to come up with more intimidating names for our ships. Kitty Hawk sounds like a Japanese cartoon.

---------------------

Seriously though. Did the Chinese knew we were the at the time?

RightOfCenter · 11-11-07, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

I'm surprised you didn't make a connection to Jihad.....

on that note....

Kitty Hawk? We need to come up with more intimidating names for our ships. Kitty Hawk sounds like a Japanese cartoon.

---------------------

Seriously though. Did the Chinese knew we were the at the time?

I believe shadowing the ships of your closest rivals is a common occurence for submarine warfare. We did it with the Russians and they did it to us. The Navy needs a bigger budget! As much as I hate to say it, they and the Air Force need to be our strongest military branches, as they are the first lines of defense of the US from conventional warfare.

bhkad · 11-11-07, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

I'm surprised you didn't make a connection to Jihad.....

on that note....

Kitty Hawk? We need to come up with more intimidating names for our ships. Kitty Hawk sounds like a Japanese cartoon.

---------------------

Seriously though. Did the Chinese knew we were the at the time?

Yes, although they said it was a coincidence, you have to know that a submarine knows exactly where a dozen + US Navy warships happen to be. If they don't then they have no business having a submarine at all, much less a sub that is so advanced that it can defeat our normal defenses.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/milita...ource_101.html

Not meant as a slam, but here is a site sponsored by CBS News called, "Military 101."

jfuh · 11-12-07, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightOfCenter

I believe shadowing the ships of your closest rivals is a common occurence for submarine warfare. We did it with the Russians and they did it to us. The Navy needs a bigger budget! As much as I hate to say it, they and the Air Force need to be our strongest military branches, as they are the first lines of defense of the US from conventional warfare.

The Navy and the air force desperately need some serious upgrading. Not more networking - any BSG fan would know what I'm talking about. But quite simply just more upgrades for far more efficient machinary. Yes this is the environmentalists side here. More efficient turbines for both the navy and the air force are actually tactically sound (of course not to sacrifice power or performance). Longer ranges less refills. Why don't we have a fully nuclear naval fleet? It'd make sense maybe we wouldn't be able to port call a few places but still more sound. Extended range fighter aircraft capable of far longer range escorts.

But then it all comes down to this. Conventional war fare - seriously, who are we going to go head to head with via conventional warfare?? China? Given that they can just simply bankrupt us over night they already have the strategic advantage on that one. Russia? Hadn't for the last 50 years what's any different? The germans again maybe? doubtful.
So who?

jfuh · 11-12-07, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Yes, although they said it was a coincidence, you have to know that a submarine knows exactly where a dozen + US Navy warships happen to be. If they don't then they have no business having a submarine at all, much less a sub that is so advanced that it can defeat our normal defenses.

CBSNews.com

Not meant as a slam, but here is a site sponsored by CBS News called, "Military 101."

What's advanced about it?

winston53660 · 11-12-07, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

What's advanced about it?

because it is our billion dollar submarines that have allowed us to defeat AQ and protect you from terrorism.....

or maybenot?

akyron · 11-12-07, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

What's advanced about it?

Quiet skill III + sonar slip II

Sergeant Stinger1 · 11-12-07, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winston53660

because it is our billion dollar submarines that have allowed us to defeat AQ and protect you from terrorism.....

or maybenot?

---
Well, AQ was in Afgains so we should have stayed there instead of cut and running from Afgains.

RightOfCenter · 11-12-07, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

What's advanced about it?

The point of submarines is to be able to seek and destroy enemy subs without being detected. The levels of technology needed to avoid sonar as well as detect other submarines is mind boggling.