China sub secretly stalked U.S. fleet

Once again, guys, how much noise does a fish make? Surely, you don't think that the only way to detect an enemy sub is by the noise it makes?
Click to expand...

Nope. You can locate it via MAD, active sonar, or simply by looking for a hole in the water. It's possible to be too quiet.
 
Alakar, I don't think that the Vietnamese incursion would rate as a war. It lasted what, two months? It was also a punitive expedition that was handed it's head. I don't think that they actually penetrated more than a couple of hundred miles at that.

The Chinese are liberally hated by Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Korea, and any other small nation in SE Asia for their propensity to invade them. This occurred over a period of hundreds of years. :)
 
Guys, everybody seems to be blaming this on a technology failure. Could it be something as simple as a sonar operator being asleep at the switch? ;)
 
I finaly found a copy of the article I wanted to post. Here is the best link of it that I can find right now. The PDF version of it isn't online anymore.

http://www.combatreform.com/itsgindex.htm

The article starts a ways down the page. Just do a text search for "5.1" and that will take you to the top of the article. It is a very good read,
 
I suspect we may have developed a few objects floating around in the vacuum of space that may help us spot subs...

Of course this is speculation, but it would not surprise me at all if we have a few new toys in the sensor-bin.

Would ground-penetrating radar work over ocean areas? Differences in salinity and the thermocline may make things more complicated but error-correction data analysis is one of the wonders of the digital age...
 
- Admiral Sir John Woodward, R.N. (ret.) on the sinking of an American carrier by a diesel submarine in the novel Nimitz Class.
Click to expand...

The author seems to feel that ANY other Navy will be able to outmanuver the Americans. He also speaks of the "professional" crews of the Canadians. Let's have a reality check here.

The initial quote was taken from the article, and quotes an admiral on the sequence of events of a NOVEL. If you have to use adventure books to make a point, you've pretty much lost it.

This is yet ANOTHER British writer downplaying the Americans as amareurs. At this point, a single .22 Short cartridge garners HUGE space in the daily news, I guess that he knows what he's talking about?:barf: :barf:
 
The author seems to feel that ANY other Navy will be able to outmanuver the Americans. He also speaks of the "professional" crews of the Canadians. Let's have a reality check here.
Click to expand...
A potential enemy does not have to outmanuver us. They just have to lob a torpedo into the aircraft carrier and damage it enough/sink it and the task force is combat ineffective. They know that as long as they don't actualy use nukes that we won't. (Or that at least know that if we do use nukes that we will be seen as the bad guy.) Launch a few Sunburns and you can make things very difficult.

We spend several times more than anyone else does and I don't see a heck of alot. We have a V-22 that isn't airworthy, who knows how many fighters being designed, bases in Germany that really shouldn't be there anymore, missile defence that doesn't work. I keep hearing about black projects that supposedly exist and keep us safe and that you don't need to worry, everything is OK.

As for the Canadians, how exactly do you know that the Canadians arn't professional. We used to think that the Japanese where inferior and would be at a constant disadvantage in the 1920's and 30's. We thought the Serbs would be easy to take care of in Kosovo. Heck we nearly lost two ships to third rate forces. One to an Iraqi Exocet and another to nutjobs with boats filled with C4. Heck 3,000 people died because of some guys with boxcutters where devoted to doing us harm.

The initial quote was taken from the article, and quotes an admiral on the sequence of events of a NOVEL. If you have to use adventure books to make a point, you've pretty much lost it.
Click to expand...
What is wrong with using a quote from a novel? People use quotes from novels and movies all the time to make a point. Heck, we still use quotes from Greek and Roman literature to make points. What exactly is wrong with using a quote from a book to MAKE A POINT. The author is not using the novel for sources and information.

This is yet ANOTHER British writer downplaying the Americans as amareurs.
Click to expand...
In ASW, yes we have slipped as the article mentions. Diesel subs of today are not the same as the ones from WW2. Even active sonar or SOSUS might not detect a sub as there are many ways to reduce the possibility of detection or at least mask the subs sound signature. Get into shallow and things get even more difficult.
 
Underestimating the enemy is a common mistake. A F-117 was surprised in the Balkans. The Apaches were at risk there and then unpleasantly surprised by the Iraqis.

It is hubris to think that we are the top dog just because ...
 
I completely agree Glenn E.M.

China is recognized as the number 4 economic power in the world , the CIA has them as number 2. They've created strong alliances with Russia , N. Korea , Iran and Venezuela. They keep technological secrets close to the vest , but it's clear they are working with and sharing technologies with Russia who may soon introduce a fighter jet that rivals our F-22's at a 1/3 of the cost per jet. They also claim to have missle technologies that we cannot defend against and torpedoes that cannot be stopped as well. I wouldn't ignore these claims.

Numbers win wars ... they have the numbers on many fronts , especially when it comes to troops.

China holds $1 TRILLION US Dollars in their reserves , simply dumping these would send our economy into a tailspin. We won't even get into the difference in trade between the USA and China.

People argue that China needs the USA , this is a fallacy. WE NEED CHINA at this point just as much as they need us.

War with Iran would be a disaster if China and Russia shows up to back them , which seems to be happening at every turn or any mention of sanctions or other actions.

Chinese philosophy for war ...

All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

Where they are making alliances , we are losing ours . Even Britain has started backing away from the US position on Iran , leaving us standing nearly alone.
 
If Russia and China were actually able to field these super-weapons, we'd all be speaking Mandarin or Russian. Why is it that the enemy is always given superior powers? A competitor to the F-22, and at 1/3 the price? Great, we can buy them ourselves from the Russians.

They also claim to have missle technologies that we cannot defend against and torpedoes that cannot be stopped as well. I wouldn't ignore these claims.
Click to expand...

Ok, yet we always assume that the US weapons systems will never work as well. The Osprey, the Bradley, the MLRS, the Abrams, were all impugned in the popular press as boondoggles. Yet, they have become world-class systems. There are a number of weapons systems being developed in other countries that show promise, but our own people are also doing pretty well.

The F117 that was surprised was flying in the rain. The early stealth design of the F-117 had it's capabilities badly degraded by rain. So..........did that mean that the Serbs were suddenly able to develop rain clouds to search for stealth fighters?

As for China holding money on us. In many cases, as terrible as it seems, the other countries of the world, when faced with similiar circumstances, responded by freezing, then nationalizing, the assets of the country holding the debt. It's been done to us. Besides, the Chinese agreed to pay for our supplies in WWII, and we're still waiting on the first payment.

The United States isn't perfect, nor is it's military, but to declare them incompetent and poorly equipped is ridiculous.:barf:
 
The V-22 Osprey simply will not work. It can fly, yes. However the FAA will not certify it for civilian use as they too know that it is not safe and it will not work in combat. We would be better to spend our money on new helos.

As for the Bradly, it is not the BEST design. However it does work and do the job. There are other newer designs that are better, however it then becomes an issue of is it worth switching over and does it give any significant advantage.

The fact is that we have alot of pork in our military and we should try and cut that.
 
JR47 says ...
If Russia and China were actually able to field these super-weapons, we'd all be speaking Mandarin or Russian. Why is it that the enemy is always given superior powers? A competitor to the F-22, and at 1/3 the price? Great, we can buy them ourselves from the Russians.


Quote:
They also claim to have missle technologies that we cannot defend against and torpedoes that cannot be stopped as well. I wouldn't ignore these claims.

Ok, yet we always assume that the US weapons systems will never work as well. The Osprey, the Bradley, the MLRS, the Abrams, were all impugned in the popular press as boondoggles. Yet, they have become world-class systems. There are a number of weapons systems being developed in other countries that show promise, but our own people are also doing pretty well.

The F117 that was surprised was flying in the rain. The early stealth design of the F-117 had it's capabilities badly degraded by rain. So..........did that mean that the Serbs were suddenly able to develop rain clouds to search for stealth fighters?

As for China holding money on us. In many cases, as terrible as it seems, the other countries of the world, when faced with similiar circumstances, responded by freezing, then nationalizing, the assets of the country holding the debt. It's been done to us. Besides, the Chinese agreed to pay for our supplies in WWII, and we're still waiting on the first payment.

The United States isn't perfect, nor is it's military, but to declare them incompetent and poorly equipped is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you don't keep up with current foreign military or economic affairs ...


Missles and torpedoes have already been verified and the Sukhoi SU-47 Jet fighter has already seen ma ny itterations that can out fly our planes.

The Russians were the first to use 3D Thrust Vectoring technology ... they invented it. It's what we now use on the Raptor F22 only ours is 2D ... the first 3D version is still in developement called the X-44 Manta based off the Raptor.

The Russian Torpedoes are the VA-111 Shkval capable of radar evasion and travel at 220+ mph.

The Missles are Russia's intercontinental ballistic missile, a variation of the TOPOL which are extremely difficult to jam or defend against as it's said they make counter defensive maneuvers before impact.

The Chinese are holding actual Dollar reserves , not debt. There's a difference as it's considered an actual commodity.

As for declaring the USA incompetent or poorly equipped ... I don't recall ever saying that. I recall suggesting that we don't sleep on the enemy in a state of arrogance.
 
The Osprey is undergoing a very difficult birthing process. Are they in use, yet? I don't think so.

I've also read that we were surprised by the Russian shorter range AAMs and their helmet mounted sights and range of target acquistion. We are playing catch up with them.

Also, wasn't it the case that Indian Sukhois gave F-15s a run for their money.

Hubris is what led idiots like Rumsfeld into the current mess. It is lesson that has been known for 1000's of years. We were also surprised by the Japanese Long Lance torpedo, so getting cocky is a way to lose.

The Israelis made that mistake in the initial days of the 1973 war and their current tanks were handled severely by new Soviet AT missiles in Lebanon.
 
Crosshair:
The V-22 Osprey simply will not work. It can fly, yes. However the FAA will not certify it for civilian use as they too know that it is not safe and it will not work in combat. ...
Click to expand...

Who has submitted the V-22 to the FAA for civilian use flight certification?

Since when is "it will not work in combat" a reason for the FAA to refuse a type certification?

Who says, "it will not work in combat"?

We need some sources.
 
The Russian Torpedoes are the VA-111 Shkval capable of radar evasion and travel at 220+ mph.
Click to expand...

In the water? Otherwise, they sound like slow Harpoons.

Actually, I'm conversant in current military matters. More than all but the most current, in fact. I read the popular press, the printed professional journals, and the less available foreign and native journals, as well. The impression given by these gentlemen, who have no axe to grind, is that many of these "discoveries" are managed by the foreign powers. They also point out that most of the supposed advantages shown against current US and NATO equipment are circumstance related, and not system superiority. That was exemplified by the F-117 detection in the Balkans.

It should also be noted that the current thinking of the US Navy is away from the use of multi-purpose surface combatants in many areas, and towards the use of sub-surface craft for these areas. Now, we've already seen in this thread where we shouldn't be building multi-purpose sub-surface craft, but AIP submarines. It would appear that we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

The largest problem seems to be that our self-appointed experts have no real grasp of combat tactics, tactical or strategic. Most have a single point of focus, and consider anything else to be of little importance.

If you think that the US military budget has pork built into it, just look at the Chinese budget, or the Russian budget. :D
 
Sounds like a bunch of you pansy assed crackers are ready to declare defeat, throw up your hands, and surrender.

You'all French or something? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top