A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

China sub stalked U.S. fleet



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 17th 06, 08:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Perro Blanco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default China sub stalked U.S. fleet



--
When you discover that "they" really are out to get you, you may realise
that you're not quite as paranoid as you thought you were.

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
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


Sounds great. America could then solve its oil problems by re-colonising the
Philippines 60 years after they left, without having to invent any fantasies
about WMDs!

--
When you discover that "they" really are out to get you, you may realise
that you're not quite as paranoid as you thought you were.


  #22  
Old November 18th 06, 04:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
DDAY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default China sub stalked U.S. fleet

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

Check on their recent submarine acquisitions, diesel and nuclear.


Uh huh. How many? Two? Three?


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!


Well, The Heritage Foundation says the answer is--four. And also accuses
the US Navy of ignoring the threat. That's kinda funny, actually, because
the submarine service would be jumping all over this if it's true. I have a
glossy brochure that they produced over a decade ago warning about all the
submarines that the Russians were launching, and that didn't happen.

Something that frequently gets lost in the hype about Chinese "force
modernization" is that in many cases they are not really increasing their
numbers. They're simply replacing badly outdated equipment. Their sub
fleet is ancient, so they're modernizing it.

Don't believe all the hype. Yeah, they're building weapons, but it's not at
a great rate.



D


  #23  
Old November 23rd 06, 09:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
fudog50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default China sub stalked U.S. fleet

This is why I am happy to still be serving and attached to a "Carrier
Strike Group". i get to see the real truth. After 25 years nothing
has changed, just the players. After returning from the last cruise in
August on Lincoln, the status quo has not changed. People not in the
know tend to take what CNN, WT and other media org.'s publish as
"real". They do not publish "untruths", but rarely ever tell the whole
story. That being said, the most truthful comment read here so far is
that beyond a "shadow" of a doubt there was at least an LA class on
their ass the whole time waiting for an external hatch to open. Those
in the know realize there are "joint ops", acts of aggression and acts
of war. A sub trailing our fleet and allowing us to practice trailing
and getting valuable signature data was a joint op, beneficial to us
and was not an act of war or aggression. Opening a door is...this has
been going on for 30 years, Chinese and Russian,,enough said.


On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 03:40:13 GMT, "DDAY"
wrote:

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

Check on their recent submarine acquisitions, diesel and nuclear.

Uh huh. How many? Two? Three?


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!


Well, The Heritage Foundation says the answer is--four. And also accuses
the US Navy of ignoring the threat. That's kinda funny, actually, because
the submarine service would be jumping all over this if it's true. I have a
glossy brochure that they produced over a decade ago warning about all the
submarines that the Russians were launching, and that didn't happen.

Something that frequently gets lost in the hype about Chinese "force
modernization" is that in many cases they are not really increasing their
numbers. They're simply replacing badly outdated equipment. Their sub
fleet is ancient, so they're modernizing it.

Don't believe all the hype. Yeah, they're building weapons, but it's not at
a great rate.



D


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue Mike Naval Aviation 26 July 11th 06 11:38 PM
VQ-1's P4M-1Q crash off China - 1956 Mike Naval Aviation 0 May 6th 06 11:13 PM
F-105 and A-4 loss rates over North Vietnam KDR Naval Aviation 14 April 22nd 06 10:38 PM
C-130 on Navy Carrier W. D. Allen Sr. Naval Aviation 101 February 21st 05 05:40 PM
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII Mike Yared Military Aviation 4 October 30th 03 04:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.