China sub stalked U.S. fleet

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

"Ricardo" wrote in message
.uk...

SNIP!
SNIP!
SNIP!

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.

The press in US is not controlled by the government nor is it a government
agency.

If you mean the US Navy, as the origin of the press release, I would wager
that it contained the correct information.

The US press in its efforts to "sell the news", is not noted for its
accuracy in reporting. If a few facts are left out, distorted, or
sensationalized, it doesn't really matter to them as long as it SELLS!

----------
In article , Ricardo
wrote:

"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.

Er... maybe not.

There's a lot of hyperbole about the "Chinese defense buildup." If you read
the aviation press, there have been some pretty good articles in recent
issues of Combat Airpower about the Chinese air force. In short, the
aviation geeks are not impressed. The Chinese have bought a fair amount of
new equipment, but they are also wedded to a lot of old and inferior
equipment as well. And their flight hours are awful, averaging something
like 40-60 per year. In other words, their pilots are getting in an average
of about one hour of flight time a week.

As far as the Chinese navy is concerned, people make a big deal out of their
purchase of some modern Russian destroyers. But how many did they actually
buy? Four? It's not a lot. One would think from the hyperbole that they
now have a massive navy. They don't. It's not much bigger than it was ten
years ago.




D

DDAY wrote:
----------
In article , Ricardo
wrote:


"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.


Er... maybe not.

There's a lot of hyperbole about the "Chinese defense buildup." If you read
the aviation press, there have been some pretty good articles in recent
issues of Combat Airpower about the Chinese air force. In short, the
aviation geeks are not impressed. The Chinese have bought a fair amount of
new equipment, but they are also wedded to a lot of old and inferior
equipment as well. And their flight hours are awful, averaging something
like 40-60 per year. In other words, their pilots are getting in an average
of about one hour of flight time a week.

As far as the Chinese navy is concerned, people make a big deal out of their
purchase of some modern Russian destroyers. But how many did they actually
buy? Four? It's not a lot. One would think from the hyperbole that they
now have a massive navy. They don't. It's not much bigger than it was ten
years ago.




D
Check on their recent submarine acquisitions, diesel and nuclear.

Ricardo

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

"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 , Ricardo
wrote:


Check on their recent submarine acquisitions, diesel and nuclear.

Uh huh. How many? Two? Three?




D

DDAY wrote:
----------
In article , Ricardo
wrote:



Check on their recent submarine acquisitions, diesel and nuclear.


Uh huh. How many? Two? Three?




D
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Asi...fic/wm1001.cfm

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3134-8152r.htm

Have a look - and think about it!

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