Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chinese sub surprises 7th fleet, within range of sinking the Kitty Hawk.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Link


WASHINGTON (AFP) - A Chinese submarine approached a US aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has reported.

The newspaper said the encounter highlighted China's continuing efforts to prepare for a possible future conflict with the United States despite the administration's efforts to try to boost relations with the Chinese military.

The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its battle group also is an embarrassment to the commander of US forces in the Pacific, Admiral William Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China, the report said.

Citing unnamed defense officials, the paper said the Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the carrier on October 26.


www.washtimes.com...


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."


This is a big mistake not to spy on the Chinese, since the Chinese are doing it to us. The admiral should not have restrict the U.S. military's ability to spy on the Chinese. Not to mention that the Chinese refuse to allow access to some of its facilities while we let them into ours. In any case, this event shows China wants to test its new submarine against an American carrier to see its performance. They know the U.S. will not attack them since we are not in a conflict and the submarine has the right to be there in international waters. However, shadowing the carrier could increase tensions.




[edit on 13-11-2006 by deltaboy]




posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   
The leadership in this country is sound asleep at the wheel... or are they? With Russia gone, the military lacks a boogeyman to scare the American people into record spending. Looks to me as if they may have found one.

Secondary to that, it is and has been evident that China is, in fact, a genuine threat to American security. As long as the dolts in government continue to pretend that the Chinese are our friends needs to take a good long look at a book called "Assymetrical Warefare" written by two top Chinese Generals and details exactly how they intend to cripple us. Strange how they continually reference 9/11 type attacks against our infrastructure and economy!

Sadly, the military is likely to get the ability to spend itself into a new arms race only this time against China - all at tax-payer's expense. But sadly, the bleeding heart liberal contingency and the soft-on-security Democrats are likely to ensure that the spending is pointless and lacks any real teeth. In fact, the Democrats will probably ensure that any new technology that we develop as a result of the spending will be given directly to the Chinese!!



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Well said....well said...

Thanks ...
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
But sadly, the bleeding heart liberal contingency and the soft-on-security Democrats are likely to ensure that the spending is pointless and lacks any real teeth. In fact, the Democrats will probably ensure that any new technology that we develop as a result of the spending will be given directly to the Chinese!!


Way to turn this into a Democrat-bashing thread.

And kudos on how you perfectly mimic your party line's canned phrases. I am so very proud of your accomplishments. It must have taken you all of 30 seconds to go look up what Rush Limbaugh's phrase of the day was. Seriously, why do people like you even exist, except to make the USA even more divided?

You want to know why we'll eventually lose to the Chinese? It won't be because they outnumber us, it won't be because of a superior military, and it won't be because one country spent more than the other. It's because people saying crap like what you just regurgitated are going to eventually going to send this country into a civil war because you just can't STAND the idea of someone with different ideas than yourself living in th same country as you.

So the next time you want to find someone to blame as to an uncertain future, how about you either look in the mirror, or maybe start realizing that MULTIPLE political parties are how we balance out between the right and the left. After all, what good is security without liberty, or liberty without security. The political front is (hopefully) starting to grow up after too many years of blind-partisan bickering. It'd be nice if the civilian front could do the same.

Now, as for your statement about how we're "foolishly trying to be friends" with China, what would you suggest as an alternative? Just lob some nukes over there? Maybe declare war on almost a fifth of the world's population? Perhaps we'll do an operation Shock and Awe against them? After all, we did so fantastically in Iraq, that we can only be certain to win China in mere days. Hell, I don't know why we didn't conquer it sooner!

Oh, or maybe we'll just blockade their country? You know, all 9.59 MILLION square miles of some of the harshest, nastiest terrain the Earth has to offer, plus the entire eastern seaboard of Asia...we'll just block that right off.

No sane or rational person can possibly blame the situation on Democrats. They haven't been in power for over 6 years, and before then they only had an 8 year stint in the period dating back to President Gerald Ford. So maybe, just maybe, if you want to try and find someone to blame failed Chinese policies on, how about you examine the party that's actually been in power FIRST, and worry about what your little boogeyman might do SECOND.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
Way to turn this into a Democrat-bashing thread.

And kudos on how you perfectly mimic your party line's canned phrases. I am so very proud of your accomplishments. It must have taken you all of 30 seconds to go look up what Rush Limbaugh's phrase of the day was. Seriously, why do people like you even exist, except to make the USA even more divided?

You want to know why we'll eventually lose to the Chinese? It won't be because they outnumber us, it won't be because of a superior military, and it won't be because one country spent more than the other. It's because people saying crap like what you just regurgitated are going to eventually going to send this country into a civil war because you just can't STAND the idea of someone with different ideas than yourself living in th same country as you.

So the next time you want to find someone to blame as to an uncertain future, how about you either look in the mirror, or maybe start realizing that MULTIPLE political parties are how we balance out between the right and the left. After all, what good is security without liberty, or liberty without security. The political front is (hopefully) starting to grow up after too many years of blind-partisan bickering. It'd be nice if the civilian front could do the same.

Now, as for your statement about how we're "foolishly trying to be friends" with China, what would you suggest as an alternative? Just lob some nukes over there? Maybe declare war on almost a fifth of the world's population? Perhaps we'll do an operation Shock and Awe against them? After all, we did so fantastically in Iraq, that we can only be certain to win China in mere days. Hell, I don't know why we didn't conquer it sooner!

Oh, or maybe we'll just blockade their country? You know, all 9.59 MILLION square miles of some of the harshest, nastiest terrain the Earth has to offer, plus the entire eastern seaboard of Asia...we'll just block that right off.

No sane or rational person can possibly blame the situation on Democrats. They haven't been in power for over 6 years, and before then they only had an 8 year stint in the period dating back to President Gerald Ford. So maybe, just maybe, if you want to try and find someone to blame failed Chinese policies on, how about you examine the party that's actually been in power FIRST, and worry about what your little boogeyman might do SECOND.



WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! I'm sorry, did I hurt your widdle feewings? I apologize for injecting a jolt of reality into the discussion. In the future, I will simply try to ignore the historical facts and attempt to parrot the Democrat line on this matter. After all, Clinton and the Democrats had NOTHING to do with N. Korea getting nukes, right? And he had nothing to do with the Chinese getting a hold of our nuclear warhead designs or our satellite communications or guidance systems technology - or even advanced stage rocket technology, right? And he certainly did his best to shut down that silly little Pakastani nuclear secrets trader, didn't he?

Now, whereas I am fair and honest, I will also throw the Democrats some bones and bring up the likes of Oliver North and Iran-Contra and ensure that everyone understands that ALL politicians are dangerous where weapons are involved. I also think I am intelligent enough to objectively look at the historical evidence and state, unequivocably that it is usually the Democrats that put us in comprising positions regarding national security and the disposition of weapons systems. Don't believe me? Look it up - the Stealth fighter is simply one example of a capable weapons platform that Democrats attempted to shut down in the early '90s. Sorry again thelibra, As I said, I will surely attempt to parrot the party line for you in the future.

Now, as far as suggesting an alterantive? Um, how about a NEUTRAL POLICY, with BALANCED TRADE and NO MILITARY SECRETS BEING SOLD OR GIVEN AWAY in some glib attempt at political showmanship. It's interesting how you doves see everything one dimensionally - either kiss their asses or enter into all out war! That's what you suggested I was thinking. I advocate the course of caution and skepticism. After all, there is evidence to suggest that China views US that way!



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! I'm sorry, did I hurt your widdle feewings?


No, I'm an Independent. I'm just sick of seeing Republicans parrot Limbaughesque bullsh-t and trying to demonize an entire half of the population with short nonsense 1984ish newspeak phrases.

You did, however, make me question just now whether or not I'm wasting my time with someone who would enter that kind of a response. Still, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and try to steer this towards an adult discussion and not something out of an after-school special. I'll give it one more post. If I see more crap like the line above, I'm done with this thread, or at least your replies to it.



Originally posted by kozmo
After all, Clinton and the Democrats had NOTHING to do with N. Korea getting nukes, right? And he had nothing to do with the Chinese getting a hold of our nuclear warhead designs or our satellite communications or guidance systems technology - or even advanced stage rocket technology, right? And he certainly did his best to shut down that silly little Pakastani nuclear secrets trader, didn't he?


I don't know, to be honest. I really didn't pay much attention to politics when Clinton was in office. Did he? Would you mind giving me some non-partison links, timetables, or something to that effect to back those allegations up? And if he did do those things, would you be willing to consider that, at the time, they may have seemed like a good idea at the time? Would you say those are good reasons to currently condemn the entire Democratic party and its constituants?


Originally posted by kozmo
Sorry again thelibra, As I said, I will surely attempt to parrot the party line for you in the future.


I don't have a party line. I'm not a member of any party. If you want to tote my line, I suggest you stop demonizing roughly 1/2 of your fellow citizens because some fatm pill-popping shock-jock told you to.


Originally posted by kozmo
Now, as far as suggesting an alterantive? Um, how about a NEUTRAL POLICY, with BALANCED TRADE and NO MILITARY SECRETS BEING SOLD OR GIVEN AWAY in some glib attempt at political showmanship.


That'd be swell. In a perfect world, I'm sure it would work that way. It's a pity you haven't quite reached the stage of deep thought where you can consider there might just be an alterior motive for giving them military technology we've already deemed obsolete. Certain items require certain parts, in specific amounts, to be processed at specific types of facilities.

Now say your enemies (or potential enemies) want access to this technology. What do you do? Do you leave them be, and let them figure out their own, very secret, very hard to trace process, and perhaps even come up with new and brilliant innovations along the way?

Or, do you give them tried and true and obsolete plans where you can trace how much they have and where they are producing it, based upon the market purchases of the needed items and locations of the possible facilities, while simultaneously snipping any little brilliant innovations they may have had along the way right out of the picture. And then, to top it off, they think you're doing them a favor! More to the point, since it's your technology, you've already had plenty of time to figure out how to counteract it as well.

So I can see some situations where the trade of military technology, while not neccessarily a "good thing", is sometimes the best choice of a lot of bad choices.


Originally posted by kozmo
It's interesting how you doves see everything one dimensionally - either kiss their asses or enter into all out war!


Again, I'm not a Democrat, but I think it's amusing you consider a "dove" to be a repulsive term. God forbid anyone attempt peaceful relations, eh? Next thing you know you'll be saying "human rights" with that same little sneer.

Now, I would be interested in continuing this discussion if you can talk like an adult. Otherwise, I'm done.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Sneaking one sub up on an aircraft carrier in peace time conditions isn't hard.
The Russians were doing this 30 years ago.

I doubt its mission was to surface and say hello.
Probably got a bunch of sonobuoys dropped around it or sprang a leak.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden
Sneaking one sub up on an aircraft carrier in peace time conditions isn't hard.


the problem with that line of thinking is that war can be delared unilatraly, and with out warning .

just look at the delay between the japanese attack @ peral harbour , and the diplomatic " ultimatum " , bear in mind that the japanese had intended that thier comunique be delivered before the bombs started to fall - but we all know the plan is the first casualty


you cannot rely on the assumption " we are at peace " , as to be certain you really are at peace , you must know the intent of all potentional enemies .



The Russians were doing this 30 years ago.


were they really ? by readings of cold war naval operations must be different to yours

as i understand the situation , both NATO and soviet block navies in the cold war gave thier all , giving as good as they got - with soviet numeric advantage being countered by western superior technology [ for the most part ]

both sides tracked or attempted to track every opposing vessel 24/7 - risking unsafe manouvers , collisions , " bumping " , risk of accidental weapons discharge etc etc all in an attempt to maintain a 24/7 tactical advantage over enemy forces in his locale .

as if every commander on every vessel could maintain tactical advantage over all the enmemy forces in his vicinity - this translated to a global strategic advantage .

thus the constant brinksman ship , as neither side knew when the war orders would be recieved - and wanted to be in the most favourable position when they did .

just my ignorant [ public schooled ] opinions - YMMV :p



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Schaden is right.

The Russians were shadowing carrier groups 30 years ago, and the odd sub had to surface in the odd embarrasing place due to leaks / engine malfunctions ect.

But also Ape your right too... The cold war was a real dangerous one under water for the sub boys. Many times ships went into dangerous waters and nearly never came back due to underwater games of chicken with the enemy forces.... Many presidential Unit Citations are still classified due to the fact that the Submarine crews recieved honours for missions that even today could cause massive massive harm / embarresment to the powers that be.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
were they really ? by readings of cold war naval operations must be different to yours


Well I'm going off what the old timers used to tell me when I was on a submarine.
I probably shouldn't say anymore.

My point is that any sub, even a low tech one, has a sizable advantage against a carrier battle group. The fact they got one within 5 miles isn't revealatory or surprising IMO.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
This is ridiculous. China is not a friend. And while money is being spent to combat the sand raccoons and military people are dying, China is sitting back building up their military capabilities.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   
None of us know what actually happened, its called the Silent Service for a reason. Its possible there was a 688 following the Chinese sub from when it left port, and the USN was with it the whole time. Or possibly the Chinese skipper guess where they would go, it was there first and stationary, waiting on the carrier group.

But whatever it is, its probably quite classifed and we will not know the real story



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   
firepilot, that's what I was thinking too.


The real story is not going to be put in the news. The thing that frightens me is WHY was this NEWS? I am sure that this is common for the US and other nations. International waters, military exercises, the like. Anyway, what was really being said with putting it on the drudereport and other news outlets? Is this really so significant? A chinese sub getting within five miles of a US navy ship - is it really a big deal?



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by uplander
firepilot, that's what I was thinking too.


The real story is not going to be put in the news. The thing that frightens me is WHY was this NEWS? I am sure that this is common for the US and other nations. International waters, military exercises, the like. Anyway, what was really being said with putting it on the drudereport and other news outlets? Is this really so significant? A chinese sub getting within five miles of a US navy ship - is it really a big deal?


exactly, it's international water anyways, what's so strange about a chinese sub showing up? Naval vessels traving in internation water all the time, it's not like they are going to fire at each other or something.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Actually I do not see the problem here;

Boys with Toys will always want to play togather - and since the cold war is over, the mighty USNavy is left alone in the sandbox. Buhuhuhuhuuu! The vast International Waters are actually for ALL Navies to use if I am not mistaken, and the USNavy has to get used, that they do not own the World Oceans.

And you can be happy, that the sub actually Showed itself and that they did not get away, not telling the entire world, that they can get into firing range of a USNavy carrier group. Well perhaps MANY Chinese subs have performed that manouver several times in the past, and this is the first time they went "public" with it?

Waddayaknow...



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I agree with firepilot, there is more to the story.
If it surfaced on purpose without provocation or counterdetection from the US Navy, it must have been some kind of political message. Odd timing it occurred when CINCPACFLT is visiting China.

From a military standpoint, it would be stupid to give yourself away. Even if they were just observing. Better to remain underestimated.

Maybe they just want to let us know they're watching us.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I am willing to be that the last thing the Commander of the PLAN wanted was one of his newer subs surfacing near a US CVBG.

One does not send political messages by exposing one of your most important and sensitive naval assets in front of your biggest enemy. We never did that to the Soviets, and they never did that to us, unless there was gross miscommunication or a major technical malfunction.

If there is any truth to these reports, it smacks of either a) major incompetence on the part of the sub skipper, or b) bull-in-a-chinashop diplomacy on the part of the Chinese. Either scenario is completely plausible based upon the track record of the CHICOMs.

If anything, it must have provided our sailors with some pretty good laughs, photography, and acoustic intelligence.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Three points.

First, this forum really isn't very political, and it is better that way. Whether people like it or not, the Washington Times story was little more than a political drop in the bucket for the Navy to make the case for its ASW technologies in an emerging era of tightening budgets. Its smart to advertise this stuff. You have to be nieve to believe 100+ US and JMSDF ships gather 400 miles from China and they don't send a sub, of coarse they do it, every time it happens, which means every year.

The reason you hear about it this year and not previous years is because this year the US had a major election.

Second, the Washington Times article appears to have some problems with it, so in many ways it might be disinformation or perhaps assumption on the part of the author. There are several photographs of the incident by both USN and JMSDF, and pictures plus the press coverege in Japan revealed two different stories.

Which leads me to my third point. It wasn't a Song class sub. The sub was tracked long before it surfaced and the sub did not have 7 blades, while a Song has seven blades. The Japanese leaks report the sub reportedly had 2 stablizer fins, but a Song has 4 fins.

In other words, it looks like this was a Yuan, not a Song, and since there are photographs we may one day learn that not only is the Washington Times inaccurate, but China is advancing faster than the DoD was previously aware.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
People are making a bigger deal out of this then what needs to be. Cool china creeped up 5 miles on the 7th fleet. I bet the US was following the damned thing as soon as it left its harbor. But you wont catch the US saying that.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by darksided
..but China is advancing faster than the DoD was previously aware.


Can you elaborate on this point?






top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join