China sub secretly stalked U.S. fleet

Not being a fool that underestimates the enemy is being a pansy ass cracker ... Dude ... you've got a problem , Seriously.

We were going to go into Iraq and win the war with ease. Mission accomplished a few weeks later , right. Time to spread democracy.

How's that working out again ?
 
I said :
The Russian Torpedoes are the VA-111 Shkval capable of radar evasion and travel at 220+ mph.

JR47 reponds :
In the water? Otherwise, they sound like slow Harpoons.


Well , I've never heard of a torpedoe that doesn't operate in the water , but what do I know .. :cool:

You're not the only one "conversant in military matters" .

This is something I have great interest in and look into daily.

Iran ran tests on these Russian designed torpedoes this past spring ... 233mph was the exact figure ... I looked it up. That's about 3 times faster than most any conventional torpedo and it's said to be nearly impossible to stop.

They also tested the multiple warhead radar evasive maneuvering Fajr-3 missiles.

Once again , I stress , it's foolish to underestimate the enemy. That's when you get your butt handed back to ya.

Consider this ... Pearl harbor . The surprise alone was enough to destroy our entire fleet in Hawaii.

What do you think might have happened had the Chinese desided to lauch a few of these torpedoes at the Kitty Hawk and then disappear .

I'll tell you what ... we'd be wondering what hit us and we'd be reading about 100's or even 1000's of our boys dead and the Kitty Hawk at the bottom of the ocean.

Never underestimate your enemy.

Arrogance is an enemy.
 
The carrier was not engaged in anti-submarine warfare exercises at the time and thus did not have active patrols for submarines, the Navy official said.
Guys, I think that's the big issue here. They closed within range without being detected. That is very scary. But we weren't looking, either.

Had we been conducting an active anti-sub exercise, or been exercising normal wartime care, the group's outer picket would have detected it.

Anyone doubt our ability to detect an enemy sub when we're looking for one?
 
I was wondering, as you said that they couldn't be detected by radar.

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

Unless they were sea-skimmimg missles, similiar to the Harpoon, how would radar detect them? Sonar perhaps, but anything going that fast in the water would be quite easy for sonar to track. I had read of the supposed super torpedoes, but they were short-range, and rocket-propelled, and had problems with guidance, and porposing in all but the calmest waters.

As for ICBMs, the MIRV'd warheads of the US, since the 1970s, have had jammer pods in the section of warheads delivered. Nothing new. Electronic jamming is a dynamic science, and improvements are usually evolutionary, rather than revolutionary.

Nowhere in this discussion have I read anything, by anyone, that advocates underestimating an enemy. What I object to is the assumption that the United States military is either unaware of developments, or chooses to ignore them. Nor are any innovations of the military ever discussed.

As for the Chinese sub, and it's "overwhelming" superiority against a Battle Group, where does this come from? We know, and have known for decades, that the military does not always allow all their features to be revealed. It's quite possible that the Chinese sub had been detected, shadowed, and the "routine patrol" that found it was just "around them" by happenstance. Why would we allow the Chinese to realize just what we could, and could not, be capable off?

Does anyone here truly believe that the Russians, or the Chinese, could field a 230+ mph torpedoe without one of the various intelligence agencies knowing about it? The Russian sailors would sell that info to get out of Mother Russia.:)
 
Who has submitted the V-22 to the FAA for civilian use flight certification?
OK, my mistake. The V-22 has not been submitted for FAA approval because it won't pass FAA certification. If this is such a great aircraft they would have tried to sell it to the civilian market.
Since when is "it will not work in combat" a reason for the FAA to refuse a type certification?
It has not been. But an aircraft that is to be used in combat SHOULD be able to pass FAA certification.
Who says, "it will not work in combat"?
Quite a few people. Just looking at the V-22 specs compared to other air transports and you will see that it is a bad idea. The Navy doesn't want to use them because the engine exaust damages the helo decks of the ships. The V-22 is a great idea, but the V-22 doesn't work and isn't save.

Here is just one of many places that takes a critical look at the V-22.
 
Peter,

Please point out where the Iraqi opposition has large cohesive units in the field.

Oops, that's right, those were taken care of in the opening stages of the Iraqi war.

What's being fought now is completely different from a war -- in essence, it's a case of losing the peace once the war is won.

It's an insurrection. The enemy has no cohesive, easily identifable command structure, unit organization, TOE, heavy equipment, etc.

History is rife with examples of highly structured and well-equipped military organizations taking serious grief from such unorganized combatants.

The Germans all across Europe (especially Russia) during World War II.

The British in Kenya, Malaysia, South Africa, Afghanistan, Egypt, and quite a few other places where those chose to colonize.

The French in Morocco, Algeria, and Vietnam.

The Soviets in Afghanistan.

The United States in Vietnam and Iraq.

The list goes on and on.

In regards to this incident, we're not talking about small, unorganize groups of essentially militia fighting with hit and run guerilla tactics.

We're talking about the organized military of another, possibly hostile, nation.

Entirely different scenario. Try to stay on track.
 
The Shkval is a sort of hybred rocket-topedo. It has a tank of gas that vents from the front (bow?) of the device and creates a veil of bubbles around it. This reduces friction and allows it to move at impressive velocity. They had a problem with guidance as the gas-barrier tended to interfere with the effectiveness of fins used for steering. Also, it was tough to put any sensors up front as that is where the gas system is located.

I would be willing to bet they have fixed these problems by now, though.
 
We're talking China , along with Russia and Iran.

If you were refering to me , "Entirely different scenario. Try to stay on track."

As for Iraq ... have we won that war ? Large cohesive units ? What , is that the only way to win a war ?
 
If they have solved the sensor problem, these would be in service today. So far, there's been no sign of them. These require the larger Soviet style torpedoe, as the tanks and "bubble-screen" take up space. The processor function for the torpedoe will also require additional space, as these are "fire and forget", with no wire guided capabilities. They will also be limited in explosive warhead capacity, as there are limits in existing torpedoe tubes.

These were originally designed as Sea Darts, a close-in defensive system against enemy torpedoes. They were to be small, quick, things, like the Stinger missle idea.

The entire evolution is being watched. There are several other NATO countries doing similiar work today. :)
 
I'd like to hear the qualifications of those in this thread who are so arrogant that they think that they're in a position to either underestimate or overestimate China or any other perceived "enemy." :D
 
Gee, and your qualifications would be? For myself, I subscribe, as was noted if you've read the posts, to the usual assortment of technical journals for the defense industry. I have a working relationship with Picatinny Arsenal, and speak on a routine basis with the crew assigned to design and implement the Navy's Standard Missle Systems. It goes on. I am conversant with the Naval systems mostly, as they were a prime consideration to me for years. I also delve into the research and development of native and foreign small-arms design. I am a court certified expert witness on small-arms, as well.

Good enough for you? So, how about you? I've noticed your supposed experience on several diverse subjects. Open up those storehouses of military treasures for us.
 
Dave R said:
Guys, I think that's the big issue here. They closed within range without being detected. That is very scary. But we weren't looking, either.

Had we been conducting an active anti-sub exercise, or been exercising normal wartime care, the group's outer picket would have detected it.

Anyone doubt our ability to detect an enemy sub when we're looking for one?

Dave,

Maybe we should always be looking. Besides, we did detect the sub. According to the article, they did not announce themselves. One of our choppers spotted it. I seriously doubt that the Chinese are stupid enough to do something that may start a major world war.

They are economic giants and they sell their products to everyone. Why reduce their industrial capacity to create weapons that are a "waste of money" in my opinion. Unless they can conquer us and take our resources, what benefit is there for them to engage in a war that they cannot win. like I mentioned in my earlier post, how would they plan a land invasion and how would they move enough people over here to achieve a victory? I'm not saying we should stick our heads in the sand, but China has a great thing going for it right now. They certainly are not going to attack one of their most important trading partners.

If their sub got within firing range, good for them. That means we weren't looking. Should we spend the money to constantly look when there is no "real enemy" in a time of peace or is that a possible waste of money and resources. For example, using active sonar and helicopters to constantly monitor for sub threats? Maybe should spend the money on sub escorts for all carriers. It all comes down to cost vs. benefits. We can do it, but is it worth it.
 
Ausserordeutlich. I'm still waiting for you to impress us by offering your expertise. You started it, now put up, or shut up.

It isn't a matter of arrogance, but is a matter of knowledge and experience. Unless you possess either, don't try to make fun of those who's knowledge extends into areas where yours doesn't.

Lot more danger from urban Democrats than from the Chinese!
Maybe the Chinese captured one of our Stealth Fighters and converted it to submarine use.
I'd like to hear the qualifications of those in this thread who are so arrogant that they think that they're in a position to either underestimate or overestimate China or any other perceived "enemy."
JR47: Rest assured that I am appropriately impressed with your qualifications and experience.

All you've managed to contribute to this thread is drive-by drivel. So, trot out those credentials, or are you just another little troll?:barf: :barf:
 
If you think that the US military budget has pork built into it, just look at the Chinese budget, or the Russian budget.

350px-WorldMilitarySpending.jpg


cdi-defense.png


I'm going to have to use Occam's Razor and say that there is quite a bit of pork built into the US military budget. (No I didn't use just the charts to get my info.:rolleyes: )
 
Not hardly. But still, it's pretty much what could be expected of a wannabe drive-by drivel expert. :barf: :barf:
 
I'd add that a "wannabe" is most likely the kind of guy who professes to have inside knowledge of top secret U.S. Navy detection devices, by the "wannebe's" having read non-classified trade journals. Flash: Headlines from Blue Ridge News: "Local Firearms Expert Cracks Hogpen Gap Serial Killer Case!!!" Will, no doubt, be called on to testify in U.S. Senate hearings regarding U.S. Navy's top secret weapons programs. ;)

Blah, blah, blah, yawn...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
 
Once again. You seem to have overlooked the credentials you were asked for in your case. I'm sorry if mine embarrass you, but please don't try to twist them with stupid references to unclassified journals. It would appear that arrogance is your stock-in-trade, as you seldom find yourself able to contribute more than a "sez you" to anything that your history of posts reveals. To denigrate those who actually attempt to research, and understand, matters that you obviously have no clue in regards to, is overwhelmingly childish and indicative of a petty, immature, and underwhelming grasp of reality.

At no point have I, or anyone else on this thread claimed knowledge of any generation U.S. Navy "secret projects". If you'll actually read the thread, or have someone read it to you, you'll find that most of what has been discussed was declassified in the 80s and 90s. Other than a reference by another poster to the fact that, many times, the release of other information could be indicative to the extent of capability. This is routinely screened against.

Your little diatribe about a firearms expert has nothing to do with anything but the Rules of the Board's admonishment against personal attacks. Again, a childish tantrum on your part.

You've once again proven how little actual knowledge you possess. Your inability to respond to a simple request for credentials without resorting to insult simply reinforces your reputation as a troll.:barf: :barf: :barf:
 
Back
Top