China sub stalked U.S. fleet

Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...

In article ,
wrote:


China sub stalked U.S. fleet
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published 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.

Where's the evidence that the US fleet did not detect it?
For all the WT knows there was a LA class sub sitting 500 yards astern
the Chinese sub the whole time.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur


Even better, the Chinese probably don't know if they were detected either.
Making no public comment is a very clever move by the Navy. Maybe the
Chinese got close to a nuke carrier with a sub and it didn't get detected.
On the other hand, maybe it was detected and tracked for a week beforehand.

The Chinese will probably never know. Which would make it that much harder
for them to decide how to use their subs if a conflict erupted...




Of course, the balancing thing is that until America provokes a conflict
with China, she won't know either!

It was in July when we were told of the despatch of the US aircraft
carrier USS Bonhomme Richard to the Pacific - just one of 41 vessels
and 160 aircraft - as a 'warning' to China!

I'm sure China really appreciated that - if they had done something
similar the USA would still be cowering in its bunkers.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

"Ricardo" wrote in message
o.uk...
Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...

In article ,
wrote:


China sub stalked U.S. fleet
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published 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.

Where's the evidence that the US fleet did not detect it?
For all the WT knows there was a LA class sub sitting 500 yards astern
the Chinese sub the whole time.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur


Even better, the Chinese probably don't know if they were detected
either. Making no public comment is a very clever move by the Navy. Maybe
the Chinese got close to a nuke carrier with a sub and it didn't get
detected. On the other hand, maybe it was detected and tracked for a week
beforehand.

The Chinese will probably never know. Which would make it that much
harder for them to decide how to use their subs if a conflict erupted...


Of course, the balancing thing is that until America provokes a conflict
with China, she won't know either!

It was in July when we were told of the despatch of the US aircraft
carrier USS Bonhomme Richard to the Pacific - just one of 41 vessels and
160 aircraft - as a 'warning' to China!

I'm sure China really appreciated that - if they had done something
similar the USA would still be cowering in its bunkers.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

You don't have a clue! The USS Bonhomme Richard is an Amphibious Assault
Ship, not an aircraft carrier. It carries a battalion of Marines,
helicopters, landing craft, and occasionally a few AV-8 Harriers (called the
jump jet by some). I doubt China is worried about being invaded by just one
battalion of Marines.

Diamond Jim wrote:
"Ricardo" wrote in message
o.uk...

Kyle Boatright wrote:

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...


In article ,
wrote:



China sub stalked U.S. fleet
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published 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.

Where's the evidence that the US fleet did not detect it?
For all the WT knows there was a LA class sub sitting 500 yards astern
the Chinese sub the whole time.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur


Even better, the Chinese probably don't know if they were detected
either. Making no public comment is a very clever move by the Navy. Maybe
the Chinese got close to a nuke carrier with a sub and it didn't get
detected. On the other hand, maybe it was detected and tracked for a week
beforehand.

The Chinese will probably never know. Which would make it that much
harder for them to decide how to use their subs if a conflict erupted...



Of course, the balancing thing is that until America provokes a conflict
with China, she won't know either!

It was in July when we were told of the despatch of the US aircraft
carrier USS Bonhomme Richard to the Pacific - just one of 41 vessels and
160 aircraft - as a 'warning' to China!

I'm sure China really appreciated that - if they had done something
similar the USA would still be cowering in its bunkers.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."


You don't have a clue! The USS Bonhomme Richard is an Amphibious Assault
Ship, not an aircraft carrier. It carries a battalion of Marines,
helicopters, landing craft, and occasionally a few AV-8 Harriers (called the
jump jet by some). I doubt China is worried about being invaded by just one
battalion of Marines.


I was merely quoting a press release at the time! It's not my fault if
US Government agencies get their arses in a twist with facts - I was
just passing it on. Presumably this is the same group that the Chinese
have been shadowing and the relevant aircraft carrier is the Kitty Hawk.
The fact that America is sufficiently frightened of China to send 41
naval vessels of any type to "warn" them sends its own message.

To quote from my original posting:

"China, which has a rampant economy, has raised military spending by
more than 10 per cent a year for 15 years. That has given the People's
Liberation Army a bristling array of high-tech weaponry, including
carrier-killing weapons. They threaten the vessels that have kept the
Pacific a United States lake for more than half a century and that could
block China's long-cherished dream of snuffing out the small democratic
breakaway state of Taiwan.

Mr Schmidt suggested that the growing rivalry had parallels with the
dreadnought-building race between Britain and Germany in the years
before the First World War. He said the Chinese, after watching this
summer's demonstration of American power, had probably concluded: "Yes,
we see how powerful you are and that is going to make us work twice as
hard."

"Michael Pillsbury, a China expert who advises Donald Rumsfeld, the
defence secretary, and who helped to craft the hedging strategy said:
"There is no real explanation for why China is doing all this, what the
limit is, or how much longer it will go on. What is the purpose of it?""

Proof of American inability to understand 'the real world' is in Michael
Pillsbury's comment: "There is no real explanation for why China is
doing all this, what the limit is, or how much longer it will go on.
What is the purpose of it?"

The reason is patently obvious: the Chinese will not tolerate American
bullying or intimidation and seek to defend themselves in event of
attack - or perhaps they are ready to take on the role of the 'world's
policeman'. "

By the way, the AV8 Harrier was called the "jump-jet" by its British
inventors.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:48:52 GMT, Ricardo
wrote:


I was merely quoting a press release at the time! It's not my fault if
US Government agencies get their arses in a twist with facts - I was
just passing it on.

It may be"'fact" that a Cbinese sub surfaced within it's weapon range
from a U.S. carrier. What is not "fact" is the question of its
detection (or lack thereof). You also might ask, "why?" If they did
get there undectected why would they disclose this capability? They
just gave away some intel that they didn't have to. The CHICOMS tend
to play stuff close to the vest. This doesn't really track.

Presumably this is the same group that the Chinese
have been shadowing and the relevant aircraft carrier is the Kitty Hawk.
The fact that America is sufficiently frightened of China to send 41
naval vessels of any type to "warn" them sends its own message.

If we have increased naval activity in WESTPAC I doubt we are trying
to "warn" the Chinese. More likely we are looking at the North
Koreans.

Like it or not China is, today, a "player" on the world stage. They
have not not been expansionistec, externally, since about the 12th
Century. So there's not much of a "track record" on a national basis
that we can look at. Maybe they are going to follow the "Japanese
Model" and act like Japan did after the U.S. forced the opening of
Japanese ports in the mid-19th Century. Maybe they'll pick some other
model.

While they might look with suspician at us, they REALLY don't trust
the Russians, with whom they have a VERY long border and who, in the
past, forced some territorial concessions upon them. They have never
been happy with that and there is some evidence that they would like
the land back.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:48:52 GMT, Ricardo
wrote:



I was merely quoting a press release at the time! It's not my fault if
US Government agencies get their arses in a twist with facts - I was
just passing it on.


It may be"'fact" that a Cbinese sub surfaced within it's weapon range
from a U.S. carrier. What is not "fact" is the question of its
detection (or lack thereof). You also might ask, "why?" If they did
get there undectected why would they disclose this capability? They
just gave away some intel that they didn't have to. The CHICOMS tend
to play stuff close to the vest. This doesn't really track.

Presumably this is the same group that the Chinese

have been shadowing and the relevant aircraft carrier is the Kitty Hawk.
The fact that America is sufficiently frightened of China to send 41
naval vessels of any type to "warn" them sends its own message.


If we have increased naval activity in WESTPAC I doubt we are trying
to "warn" the Chinese. More likely we are looking at the North
Koreans.

Like it or not China is, today, a "player" on the world stage. They
have not not been expansionistec, externally, since about the 12th
Century. So there's not much of a "track record" on a national basis
that we can look at. Maybe they are going to follow the "Japanese
Model" and act like Japan did after the U.S. forced the opening of
Japanese ports in the mid-19th Century. Maybe they'll pick some other
model.

While they might look with suspician at us, they REALLY don't trust
the Russians, with whom they have a VERY long border and who, in the
past, forced some territorial concessions upon them. They have never
been happy with that and there is some evidence that they would like
the land back.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

Much the same as Mexico and the USA!

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:47:03 GMT, Ricardo
wrote:

While they might look with suspician at us, they REALLY don't trust
the Russians, with whom they have a VERY long border and who, in the
past, forced some territorial concessions upon them. They have never
been happy with that and there is some evidence that they would like
the land back.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

Much the same as Mexico and the USA!

Indeed. But that has nothing to do with a Chinese sub shadowing a
U.S. carrier.


Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

In article , wrote:

Like it or not China is, today, a "player" on the world stage. They
have not not been expansionistec, externally, since about the 12th
Century.

Except for the Spratleys, which are roughly equidistant from Philippines,
Vietnam, and Indonesia, but a LONG way from China.
Perhaps because it's called the South China Sea they think that everything
in it belongs to them?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

Like it or not China is, today, a "player" on the world stage. They
have not not been expansionistec, externally, since about the 12th
Century.

Except for the Spratleys, which are roughly equidistant from Philippines,
Vietnam, and Indonesia, but a LONG way from China.
Perhaps because it's called the South China Sea they think that everything
in it belongs to them?

Aren't the Spratleys sitting on top of some nice oil reserves?

Glenn D.

Glenn Dowdy wrote:
"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...

In article ,
wrote:


Like it or not China is, today, a "player" on the world stage. They
have not not been expansionistec, externally, since about the 12th
Century.

Except for the Spratleys, which are roughly equidistant from Philippines,
Vietnam, and Indonesia, but a LONG way from China.
Perhaps because it's called the South China Sea they think that everything
in it belongs to them?


Aren't the Spratleys sitting on top of some nice oil reserves?

Glenn D.


Oh, dear, not another WMD and the need to remove an evil leader
situation coming up! (All in the interests of spreading "democracy and
freedom", of course, albeit at the point of a gun!)

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

In article , "Glenn Dowdy"
wrote:

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

Like it or not China is, today, a "player" on the world stage. They
have not not been expansionistec, externally, since about the 12th
Century.

Except for the Spratleys, which are roughly equidistant from Philippines,
Vietnam, and Indonesia, but a LONG way from China.
Perhaps because it's called the South China Sea they think that everything
in it belongs to them?

Aren't the Spratleys sitting on top of some nice oil reserves?

Yes. And certain nearby countries have a much more valid claim on it than
China. I think the Philippines probably need it more in many ways than
Big Red.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur