Implications of China’s Naval Modernization for the US
-
Hearing on “The Implications of China’s Naval Modernization for the United States”.
-
China sub collides with array towed by U.S. ship: report
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55C00220090613
Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:21pm EDT
Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]
1 of 1Full SizeFeatured Broker sponsored link
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Chinese submarine accidentally collided with an underwater sonar array being towed by a U.S. military ship, CNN reported on Friday, quoting an unnamed military official.
The incident occurred on Thursday near Subic Bay off the coast of the Philippines, according to the CNN report.
The destroyer USS John S. McCain was towing the array, deployed to track underwater sounds.
"The John S. McCain did have a problem with its towed array sonar. It was damaged" on Thursday in Subic Bay, a Pentagon spokesman told Reuters in a telephone interview.
The spokesman, who asked not to be identified, would not confirm other details of the CNN report, including whether the array collided with a Chinese submarine. He said the U.S. destroyer was not damaged and was not hit by another vessel.
The U.S. Navy does not view the incident as a deliberate move by Beijing to harass military ships operating in the region, CNN reported.
(Reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Peter Cooney) -
I read the news. The Cat and Mouse game still continue.
Nevertheless, It make me wonder if the PLN is following the US naval ship so close to Subic bay. can I assume that it too follow US Naval ship all the way down Changi?
-
China's strategy of modernisation of her military seems to have taken on a two prong approach.
Its planning seem to be improving the technological quality, as well as the quantity of the new technologically advanced equipment.
Even though China's military technological quality may not be comparable nor equal to that of the US - when based on the level of Chinese military technological achievements that have been established todate - it will still bring China's military quality a few steps closer to the standards of the US Military when compared to a decade ago.
To compensate for her lower technological quality, China will depend on quantity to overwhelm whatever technological advantage the US Military may enjoy.
It is a strategy of using superiority in numbers to overwhelm the technological capabilities of the various high tech military hardware and platforms that the US military can possess.
It is a strategy borrowed from the past - attacks in wave after wave - this time with equipment and not sacrificing the human life.
It will be a challenge for the US Military to maintain its technological edge, and find a solution to this concept of "overwhelming quantity vs quality".
If ever the USA should clash with China - over Taiwan or in the Korean Peninsular - the US Military will have to find a solution to have sufficient manpower, equipment and armaments to sustain the battles against being swamp by the massive waves after waves of China's low tech assault.
At some point of the battle, in order to prevent itself from being swamped, the US Military will require a sustained and secure resupply of equipment, ammunition, and spares to withstand and carry the battle into China.
-
- The Peoples Liberation Navy and Air Force have this as their indigenous fighter standard aircrafts both have advance weapons systems,guidance.
- J-8IIM (2006)
- At Zhuhai Air Show 2006, a new variant "J-8IIM" was put on display with upgraded systems similar to the J-8H. [7] The most significant improvement is the radar upgrade with a new Type 1471 domestic radar used by the J-8H. In comparison to F-8IIM's Russian Zhuk-8II radar, the Type 1471 radar has a number of performance enhancements:[citation needed]
- Type 1471 radar has 75 km maximum range for targets with 3 square meters RCS, in comparison to Zhuk-8II's 70 km maximum range against target of 5 square meters RCS.
- Additional ability to handle sea-borne target that Zhuk-8II does not have. For sea targets with 50 square meters RCS, the max range is greater than 100/80 km for sea state 1/2.
- Simultaneously tracking 10 targets and display 8 most threatening ones out of the 10 on displays, engaging 2 out the 8.
- Air-to-Air modes: VS (Velocity Search), RWS (Recon./Search while Scan), TWS (Track While Scan), STT (Single Target Tracking), Air Combat Mode (ACM). AMTI, (aerial moving target indication) mode which is used to discover hovering helicopters can be added upon customer request, though this does not come as standard feature.
- Air-to-Ground modes: Mapping (Real Beam Mapping RBM), Mapping Expansion/Freezing (EXP/FRZ), Doppler Beam Sharpening (DBS), Ground Moving Target Indication (GMTI), Sea Single Target Tracking (SSTT), Air-to-Ground Ranging (AGR).
- An improved beacon navigation (BCN) and weather (WX) capability.
The Xian JH-7 (Jian Hong-7; NATO reporting name Flounder[1]), also known as the FBC-1 (Fighter/Bomber China-1) Flying Leopard, is a two-seater (tandem), twin-engine fighter-bomber in service with the People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force (PLANAF), and the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). The main contractors are Xian Aircraft Industry Corporation (XAC) and the 603nd Aircraft Design Institute,now named First Aircraft Institute of AVIC-1. The first batch of JH-7 aircraft were delivered to the PLANAF in the mid-1990s for evaluation, and the improved JH-7A variant entered service in 2004.[2]
-
copied this pic from another forum. If this picture is real than they are learning how to take off.
![[linked image]](http://i32.tinypic.com/r2lssw.jpg)
http://tuku.military.china.com/military/html/2005-12-16/23526.htm
-
It will be a long time before Chinese navy can be a real threat to the blue ocean US Navy. The Soviet Navy took thirty years of concerted effort and considerable expense to build a navy which cud only challenge only to a certain extent US blue ocean naval supremacy.
However, in the seas closer to the Chinese landmass, the Chinese navy can pose a serious and real threat in the future.
-
"However, in the seas closer to the Chinese landmass, the Chinese navy can pose a serious and real threat in the future."
This sentence sounds funny leh. Closer to China the chinese navy is a threat to who? Which navy is suppose to operate near china?
-
I think PLAN no need to challenge USN. They just need USA to go bankrupt and USN shrink itself. For USN to have 10 aircraft carriers is totally not presently is not sustainable.
-
Originally posted by Gaosung:
"However, in the seas closer to the Chinese landmass, the Chinese navy can pose a serious and real threat in the future."
This sentence sounds funny leh. Closer to China the chinese navy is a threat to who? Which navy is suppose to operate near china?
true, when someone goes near China and say that chinese navy is a threat to them, that's funny. who is threatening who?
-
Originally posted by zenden9:
I think PLAN no need to challenge USN. They just need USA to go bankrupt and USN shrink itself. For USN to have 10 aircraft carriers is totally not presently is not sustainable.
China doesn't really need to win in the traditional sense, that of reducing the enermies' numbers to near or exactly 0.All it has to do is inflict enough damage that would affect the ability of the US to project its forces in other parts of the world.
The Chinese do not need to actually have a fleet of comparable strength, just the ability to destroy the carriers. Without the carriers the US pretty much lose the ability to pose any serious threats to the Chinese mainland.
I don't think the Chinese have the ability to stand toe to toe with the USA fleet, but if the objective is just the carrier i think they do have the capability.
Of course,all my assumptions are based if the USA's invading China. But personally i doubt the US had the ability to pursue a war on the Chinese mainland, nukes would probably already be used by that point.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
China doesn't really need to win in the traditional sense, that of reducing the enermies' numbers to near or exactly 0.All it has to do is inflict enough damage that would affect the ability of the US to project its forces in other parts of the world.
The Chinese do not need to actually have a fleet of comparable strength, just the ability to destroy the carriers. Without the carriers the US pretty much lose the ability to pose any serious threats to the Chinese mainland.
I don't think the Chinese have the ability to stand toe to toe with the USA fleet, but if the objective is just the carrier i think they do have the capability.
Of course,all my assumptions are based if the USA's invading China. But personally i doubt the US had the ability to pursue a war on the Chinese mainland, nukes would probably already be used by that point.
Interesting observation. Would US forces target PLA nuke launch capabilities from the word "go" in a taiwan war? That's a very likely scenario, imho.
-
if nukes used, it would be escalation man. instead, it probably would be proportionate response.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Interesting observation. Would US forces target PLA nuke launch capabilities from the word "go" in a taiwan war? That's a very likely scenario, imho.
That would be difficult i reckon, you may intercept some of them but i doubt the USA could conceivably take out every one of PLA's nuke launch capabilities without compromising the ability of its conventional forces to conduct warfare.Too big of an operation, too much possibilities of something going wrong.
And that is assuming that the PLA is led by complete incompetents, who would not exploit the constant changing stituations which i find doubtful.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Interesting observation. Would US forces target PLA nuke launch capabilities from the word "go" in a taiwan war? That's a very likely scenario, imho.
hmmm...don't think the US would take such as risk for Taiwan, probably not even for Japan.
imagine Chinese making suitcase bomb, and there are thousands of overseas Chinese who are pro PRC, or for that matter, act in the name of Chinese; and what if they just supply the necessary weapons to anybody who are against the US.
by then you won't be able to blame the north korean for being naughty. If pakistan extremists use the nuclear bombs supplied by china on India, ....hell breaks lose.
there is no way the US president, with the right mind would ever consider such an option.
-
if china unfortunately have to go to war with taiwan, the US wont dare to take on china cos it is not in their interest as taiwan is part of china.
-
Originally posted by Gaosung:
"However, in the seas closer to the Chinese landmass, the Chinese navy can pose a serious and real threat in the future."
This sentence sounds funny leh. Closer to China the chinese navy is a threat to who? Which navy is suppose to operate near china?
A threat to everyone China is near... They've yet to back down from their 200 nmile restricted EEZ claims. Nobody's restricting foreign vessels from passage through EEZs nor even requiring them to "seek permission." International Maritime Laws sure doesn't require that... that's something only privileged for territorial waters.
On the other hand, the Chinese Navy probably won't pose a "threat" in the present and near future. They'd be swimming with the fishes if they decide to challenge the USN.
-
Originally posted by Gaosung:
if china unfortunately have to go to war with taiwan, the US wont dare to take on china cos it is not in their interest as taiwan is part of china.
That I agree, for a different reason. China can instantly devalue the USD badly if they decided too. Of course, thats also a whole pile of bad debt that China can't get back... heh!
-
Yeah, if China devalue USD, US will be laughing. Everybody will be buying from the US. In fact, US has been trying for ages to get renmingbi to go up against USD!
And as for China, suddenly they just see their US treasury bond devalue and incur big loss in investment.
-
China can only have limited of "Any" projection....even if they start operating a few of the Casino Carriers...the thing is China are surounded by too many neighbours that have competing interest in the sealane. Not to mention that China has historical border and ethnic dispute with the land neigbours.
Just too many players.
-
China has been encouraging US to sustain USD rates so no issue.
As to "too many players", that's precisely US strategy. Make China expansion a regional issue rather than a China vs Taiwan/US issue only.
On the other side, China has been trying to contain the issue. Russian+India border agreements. Signing treaty of amity to allay fears in the Spratleys.
The key headache, other than Taiwan, is still diaoyu dao with Japan. The diplomatic battlegrounds are Vietnam and Korea. US-Vietnam relations has been on the up. China-Korea relations have been getting cosy. Its interesting to see the competing tactics.
-
Well as you have point out various headache even if China appear to have "agreements" these agreements will mean nothing if shooting start.
basically China had some kind of issued one way or the other with all its direct neighbors.