View Full Version : Pentagon says Chinese vessels harassed U.S. ship
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/09/us.navy.china/index.html
A Pentagon (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/the_pentagon) spokesman called the incident "one of the most aggressive actions we've seen in some time. We will certainly let Chinese officials know of our displeasure at this reckless and dangerous maneuver."
He said the Chinese crew members used poles to try to snag the Impeccable's acoustic equipment in the water.
Cheeky bastards.
As an aside, I've never seen such a ship as the Impeccable. That's quite a ship!
A Very Super Market
03-10-09, 12:35 AM
Man, China is getting more paranoid by the second.
Actualy, USN vessels with aqustic equipment could hardly expect warm welcome at Chineese nuclear submarine playground.
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/3109/soustov.3b/0_25928_90688ef8_XL.jpghttp://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/3212/soustov.3b/0_25927_ee8bf659_XL.jpg
When did they release those photos?
Enigma, you should have looked before you posted, and posted in the correct forum. Now we have two threads on the same event.
Mods, can you merge the two threads together?
I have found them on some Russian naval news pages But originaly they were released at www.navy.mil (http://www.navy.mil)
Here's another one from navy.mil
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_090308-N-0000X-004.jpg
Description: A crewmember on a Chinese trawler uses a grapple hook in an apparent attempt to snag the towed acoustic array of the military Sealift Command ocean surveillance ship USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS-23).
goldorak
03-10-09, 05:31 AM
Man, China is getting more paranoid by the second.
Paranoid no, realistic yes.
Americans don't like foreign surveillance ships going around in the gulf of mexico. Why do you think China would accept something like this in its own backyard ? :D
Man, China is getting more paranoid by the second.
Paranoid no, realistic yes.
Americans don't like foreign surveillance ships going around in the gulf of mexico. Why do you think China would accept something like this in its own backyard ? :D
Just cause we don't like it does not mean that we almost ram ships when it happens, or make and obviously purposeful attempt to destroy their equipment, as in what is scene in the photo I posted.
The idea of China protesting ships operating in International Waters is laughable. :rotfl:
goldorak
03-10-09, 06:33 AM
Just cause we don't like it does not mean that we almost ram ships when it happens, or make and obviously purposeful attempt to destroy their equipment, as in what is scene in the photo I posted.
The idea of China protesting ships operating in International Waters is laughable. :rotfl:
C'mon be serious.
History has shown time and again that the USA doesn't care one bit about international laws when its supremacy is questioned (and this is true of every superpower in the 20th century, and colonial empires in the 19th century).
Cuba is not in american territorial waters is it not ? But some missiles installed on the island 50 years ago prompted a planned invasion, a maritime blocus and god forbid even a nuclear confrontation (this one didn't come to pass fortunately) .
Central America is not american territory, nontheless its considered america's backyard.
China is a regional superpower and still growing, and you bet all you want we are going to see more and more incidents like this one. You can't fault China for doing what its doing in its own backyard. It may displease america, but what are americans going to do ? :hmmm:
Just cause we don't like it does not mean that we almost ram ships when it happens, or make and obviously purposeful attempt to destroy their equipment, as in what is scene in the photo I posted.
The idea of China protesting ships operating in International Waters is laughable. :rotfl: It may displease america, but what are americans going to do ? :hmmm:
Probably the same thing, ships will bump, diplomatic protest and telegrams will be sent both ways, and it'll be business as usual.
The only question here is why civil trawlers but not coast guard or naval patrol, if China wanted to prevent US vessel from continuing its surway in the area? Reminds me 1988 accident when US ships were ramed by Border guards from Soviet waters on Black sea, as well as old joke about Soviet agricultural tractors (Chineese trawlers) capable to wanish the Kingdom of Belgia with rare gunfire (as their numerous flags on masts look like old fashioned combat flags.
http://4room.surgut.info/data/files2//633088-c2ebe1d148c6bc24f2270c6a462a20b5.jpg
Kaye T. Bai
03-10-09, 02:49 PM
This whole thing reminds me of the 2008 incident between the U.S. Navy and the Iranian "maritime force."
Here is something somebody said on an Iranian "news" website. It is paraphrased, but the main message is still there.
"All armchair warriors think the U.S. Navy is the most powerful Navy. The truth is that China and Russia are unstoppable. Russia and China are easily capable of sinking all ships in the U.S. Navy, at a fraction of the cost. They are at least two generations ahead of the U.S. in missile technology and they intend to easily destroy the U.S. Navy. When the time comes, they will do it."
What do you guys think about the above statement? I personally think it's ridiculous and absurd.
goldorak
03-10-09, 02:57 PM
Missiles ahead 2 generations beyond what americans have I doubt it.
The question is whether the us navy has anti-missile capabilities against these threats. Can they intercept a mach 2+ sea skimming missile when its launched from very near.
Historically US navy vessels have been hit by missiles. Wasn't the Stark hit by 2 exocets ? And those missiles are no where near the performance of the new russian antiship missiles.
Although, the style the message is too pothetic its meaning isn't far from truth.
Here is a good reference on Russian/Soviet naval messiles. USN got used to relay on air power rather than cruise missiles and don't have anything like Sovet surface-to surface messiles engeneered for attacking CV groops from distances beyond their effective air defence range (for CV armed with F-18 it is eprox.300 km now). Harpoon and Tomahawk which can't reach supersonic speed, change direction and altitude while at range, as well as act automaticaly in groups are weaker.
http://www.dtig.org/docs/Russian-Soviet%20Naval%20Missiles.pdf
Kaye T. Bai
03-10-09, 03:07 PM
Wasn't the USS Stark hit by two Exocets?
Well, the USS Stark's Phalanx CIWS was not armed at the time.
If it were, it would've had a chance of shooting down the Exocet missiles.
The WW3 tactics would show combined massive missile attacks of Soviet Surface vessels, Subamarines and Air forces against US CV groups like in this movie. Unfortunately, I don't know the title. Looks very natural but definately filmed not in Russia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhj8ITvp-pw
geetrue
03-10-09, 04:28 PM
"All armchair warriors think the U.S. Navy is the most powerful Navy. The truth is that China and Russia are unstoppable. Russia and China are easily capable of sinking all ships in the U.S. Navy, at a fraction of the cost. They are at least two generations ahead of the U.S. in missile technology and they intend to easily destroy the U.S. Navy. When the time comes, they will do it too, I believe."
What do you guys think about the above statement? I personally think it's ridiculous and absurd.
The Russians are so good at developing a fast torpedo ... they have already sunk a one billion dollar submarine ... their own.
Kaye T. Bai
03-10-09, 04:48 PM
The WWIII tactics would show combined massive missile attacks of Soviet surface vessels, submarines and air forces against U.S. carrier groups like in this movie. Unfortunately, I don't know the title.
That video is from "The Sum Of All Fears," which is a 2002 American movie. The scene in that movie was a great one. :)
It shows Russian bombers attacking the USS John C. Stennis with super-sonic anti-ship missiles. They fire enough missiles to overwhelm and bypass the ship's defenses.
In my opinion, it was fairly accurate.
Skybird
03-10-09, 05:02 PM
If a Russian or Chinese special sonar ship would start to track the area close to a major Us submarine base, the US Navy hardly would give it a warm welcome.
So if you behave like this in their playground, don't expect to be given special status.
I also want to remind everybody that a year ago, when the Iranian rubber boats provoked an american flotilla in the Strait of hormuz and reports were released that they radioed they would desztroy the american ships, later the Navy had to step back and take back these reports as well - things seem to have happend a bit different than how the Navy described them.
The time between wars - sees the war of propaganda.
Skybird
03-10-09, 05:13 PM
The WWIII tactics would show combined massive missile attacks of Soviet surface vessels, submarines and air forces against U.S. carrier groups like in this movie. Unfortunately, I don't know the title. Looks very natural but definately filmed not in Russia.
That is from "The Sum Of All Fears," which is a 2002 American movie. The scene in that movie was a great one. :)
It shows Russian bombers attacking the USS John C. Stennis with super-sonic anti-ship missiles. They fire enough missiles to overwhelm and bypass the ship's defenses.
In my opinion, it was fairly accurate.
The only way to defeat the flooding of the battlespace with active weapons is to make the enemy running out of ammunition. as long as he has enough ammuntiion, flooding defeats every anti-missile defence system, no matter how expensive it has been. The two winners are the atacker, and the company selling the missile defence to the military. The defender not really wins anything - just some additional seconds.
These hightech things are nice against inferior opponents who by definition cannot stage large scale attacks. Against strong and determined opponents - their value still is unproven. What admiral knowing his business would attack the enemy with just let's say four missiles per ship? Admiral Gorshkow of the Red Banner fleet said the war at sea in WWIII would be very short and very bloody. Attacks at enemy fleets would almost always be staged with guaranteed overkill capacity (regarding weapon quantities).
Max2147
03-10-09, 10:20 PM
The US Navy probably cannot be defeated through conventional tactics. But the Millennium Challenge exercise in 2002 showed that the Navy is still vulnerable to unconventional attacks.
That wargame simulated an American attack on Iran. The US Navy tried to sail through the Straits of Hormuz and was annihilated by a combination of Iranian missiles and suicide speedboats. An aircraft carrier and two helicopter carriers were sunk, plus an assortment of escort ships. US casualties would have been around 20,000. The Navy basically had to start the wargame over again, which led to the 'red force' commander resigning in disgust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm
That video is from "The Sum Of All Fears," which is a 2002 American movie. The scene in that movie was a great one. [/quote]Thanks. I am really inpressed with quality of this scene and going to find this movie for my collection if it is still availible. Though Tom Clansy's fiction about Russians sometimes go wild and I more prefere Harrison Ford as Jack Rayan.[qoute]It shows Russian bombers attacking the USS John C. Stennis with super-sonic anti-ship missiles. They fire enough missiles to overwhelm and bypass the ship's defenses. Overkill was the most favorite tacktic as well as strategy during the Cold war. 50-60 cruise misseles with conventional or nuclear warheads flying below effective radar sight could overhelm every possible air defense.The only way to defeat the flooding of the battlespace with active weapons is to make the enemy running out of ammunition. Or you can make your weapones less visible in enemy radars which makes enemy airdefense uneffective as you can't hit what you can't detect.
And heres the possible reason for all that mess. Satellite images have captured the two Type 094 SSBNs docked at the Bohai Shipyard, and one of the submarines was also spotted inside the PLA Navy’s only known nuclear submarine base at Xiaopingdao, Liaoning Province. In April 2008, Federation of American Scientists (FAS) website revealed that a Type 094 SSBN has been deployed to a newly-built nuclear submarine base near Sanyang City on the southern Hainan Island [1].http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/images/type094jin_01.jpghttp://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/type094jin.asp
Kaye T. Bai
03-11-09, 03:11 AM
Never heard about it Max2147, but it seemed very interesting after reading up on it.
20,000.
Wow.
rubenandthejets
03-11-09, 07:01 AM
A lot of the hitech wizardry the US relies on might well be offline due to massive hacker / virus attacks.
Kaye T. Bai
03-11-09, 01:38 PM
A lot of the hi-tech wizardry the U.S. relies on may go offline due to massive hacker/virus attacks.
That is a possibility, albeit a slim one.
MrYenko
03-12-09, 12:16 PM
Bottom line; the Impeccable had ears on one of Chinas new boomers (Survey ship, my ass. Thats a SURTASS vessel, sure as hell,) and someone up the PLAN totem pole told a zealous underling to see if they couldn't be made to go away.
As for destruction of the Impeccable's towed array, again... I dont buy it. How much do you think the Russians, or hell, how much do you think the PLAN wants a towed array from a SURTASS? Enough to risk starting a war over?
International waters = international waters. If you think the chinese and the russians dont do the same thing in international waters surrounding Pearl Harbor, you're fooling yourself.
Seriously, though. This IS how wars start. China needs to calm the hell down.
Kaye T. Bai
03-12-09, 01:43 PM
Well said, MrYenko.
It was kinda funny to see the Chinese "ships" that were trying to "intercept" the T-AGOS-23.
Poor craftsmanship is not even close.
Well unfortunatly, I have looked up additional information, and the USNS Victorious was tailed by a PLAN Frigate, and buzzed by a PLAAF aircraft a couple days prior to the events that occured with teh USNS Impeccable. And there is some arguement whether those were civilian ships, or actual PLAN ships, depending on what news source you listen to. Either way, the next planned outing, the US has announced will be escorted by a DDG.
Now this is a game of brinkmanship, woes going to step down first, who is going to relinquish the sea-lanes?
Max2147
03-13-09, 09:27 AM
You have to wonder where the orders came from to harass the ship. I think it was JFK who made the comment "There's always some son of a b*tch who doesn't get the memo" after a U2 was shot down over Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was right - the Soviet commander on the ground was acting without authorization.
This incident with China sounds like a similar case. Some local commander got a bit too big for his boots, and the higher ups in the PLAN have turned a blind eye to it until now.
bottomcrawler
03-13-09, 05:26 PM
An air defence ship could have a tethered aerostat with a radar device. It could be used both as a single radar unit, or bistatically with both a mast-mounted radar on the mothership, or identical units on other ships (say in a carrier group).
That would both increase detection range and improve resolution, so that incoming skimmers could be detected earlier and hopefully neutralised earlier as well.
If the aerostat is hit, the radar unit would deploy a parachute and slowly descend, to be recovered by the mothership. A new aerostat would be connected and inflated as soon as possible. A large ship could carry several as backups.
Kinda funny to see China laying claim to international waters. Actualy they are claiming for Exclusive Economic Zone which according international agreement spreads national legislation of ashore country 200 miles away to sea.
The area of South-China sea is disputed by several nations.
Malaysia: Part of the state of Sabah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabah) (also claimed by the Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines));
Philippines: Part of Palawan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palawan) province;
People's Republic of China: Part of the Paracels, Spratlys, and Zhongsha Islands Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Province_Paracels,_Spratlys,_and_Zhongsha_I slands_Authority), Hainan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan) province;
Republic of China: Part of Kaohsiung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaohsiung) municipality
Vietnam: Part of Khanh Hoa Province (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanh_Hoa_Province);
Brunei: Claims Louisa Reef (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louisa_Reef&action=edit&redlink=1) as an Exclusive Economic Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone) (EEZ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEZ))[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands#cite_note-EEZ-1);http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/36/Spratly_with_flags.jpg/778px-Spratly_with_flags.jpg
Spratly islands map showing occupied features marked with the flags of countries occupying them.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines) Philippines
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China) Taiwan/ROC
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Flag_of_Vietnam.svg/22px-Flag_of_Vietnam.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam) Vietnam
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Flag_of_Malaysia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Malaysia.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia) Malaysia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China) China/PRC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands
It is not a problem for international shipping and air lines, since they are established by international agreements and have international status even in territorial whaters.
The problem is with US which doesn't respect Parcels, Spratlys ets as islands, as islands owned by People's Republic of China and the other, neither UN approved international agreements launching provocative missions in zones other nations assume their own. ;) Actualy what we see is the begging of competition between China and US for influence zones in Pacific region which will boost in this century.
Ah, the Spratly Island Group, has reared it's ugly head yet again.
However, these islands are far to the south of the events where the USNS Impeccable and Victorious were harassed, and followed.
Those Islands have been in dispute, in some cases well before WWII, between the different legal entities in the region. Some of the Nations claim only part of the island group, while others make claims on it in its entirety. Last I had read on it, there was a moritorium on making active claims, and that they were going to use ASEAN as the forum which to work out the disagreements. Either way. There are disputing claims, all questionable to the others concerned parties, and the US has only stated that they hope that it comes to a peaceful conclusion without siding with any particular countries claims. Therefore, you are right to some extent, that the US doesn't recognize anyones claims on any particular island, so it can remain politically neutral in the matter.
Like I said, the events regarding the two US flagged vessels in International Waters, is unconnected to the PRCs (and other countries) claims to the Spratly and Parcel Island Groups.
Even if we are talking about EEZs, an EEZ is an are of extended regulation of vessel in regards to the exploitation of the marine fisheries and materials that originate from the seabed underneath it, and doesn't stop foreign flagged vessels from sailing within it when they aren't doing either of the two mentioned. Imagine if that was the case where EEZs were treated as Territorial Waters; that would be rediculous, and laughable at face value.
By the way, there is a Harpoon Scenario that pits the 1990s PLAN against the other regional nation's navies in a combined force over the PRC forcing its claim by armed annexation. It's interesting as you have to manuever around those small islands, there is very little aircraft involved, and the largest size vessel of any significant combat capability is in the size of a frigate.
So lets not bring up matters in the region that are completely unrelated.
owever, these islands are far to the south of the events where the USNS Impeccable and Victorious were harassed, and followed.So lets not bring up matters in the region that are completely unrelated.
News said the accident took plays within 100 milies to south of Hainan island :ping: Thus acording to this map with each grid line marking ~60 miles distance it should be somewhere in deeper waters between the continent and Spratly islands. Am I wrong?
I posted this map just to illustrate that PRC reaction isn't connected to territorial waters rater than EZZ. But it isn't very important too since China uses this claim just to formalaze reason to keep USN aways from Hainan base and nearby testing area, one shouldn't consider this reaction as just result of penetration in EZZ.
But as I have posted above, I suppose the event is much more connected to 2 PLCN SSBNs rather than location. And I called USNS Impeccable mission provocative not because it violates something but just because such reaction on such mission and such area could be well expected in advance.
Map from maps.google.com (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=paracel+islands&sll=16.762468,116.103516&sspn=21.512108,39.111328&ie=UTF8&ll=17.811456,112.478027&spn=5.62531,9.777832&t=h&z=7) of the area.
When I first read about this event, I read that the event occured roughly 75 miles from Hainan Island, which would have placed the events of the USNS Impeccable and USNS Victorious somewhere between Hainan Island and the Paracel Islands (which I mispelled earlier).
I think we can all agree that this in no way is connected to their actual recognized territorial water limit, but more so is related to their view of what control an EEZ allows them, which appears to be far greater than internationally accepted norms. However, what the PLAN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy) needs to understand is that international waters, are just that, not owned or controlled by any specific nation-state. And if they want to test their SSBNs, like any other nation that has them, that means that other vessels will be out their to listen (and as other's have said, they are pretty sure it happens all the time). Following at a distance, buzzing is one thing, directly interfering with the safe navigation of another in international waters is a completely different story all together.
Futhermore, even if PRC were to claim that the vessel were violating its EEZ by exploiting the fisheries or mineral wealth within it, the five vessels, that the USN released pictures of did not clearly show that they were of any authoritiy by which to make an inspection. Rather they appeared to be PRC flagged merchant vessels, actively engaging in navigation disruption of a US flagged Government vessel. Of course depending on your news source, some say they were PLAN vessels, while other only claim that they are PRC flagged vessels without being specific to being connected to the government or not of said nation-state.
Full Sized image of one of the vessels interfering with the USNS Impeccable. (http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/090308-N-0000X-004.jpg)
Note that it wasn't flying a customs ensign (http://flagspot.net/flags/cn-custm.html#prc), which some claim its usage has been discontinued. Even if they were customs vessels, I don't believe that the action shown in that picture can been seen as legitimate.
When I first read about this event, I read that the event occured roughly 75 miles from Hainan IslandThan I am right with placing the accident.Yeap, you are absolutely right with details. But events shall always be viewed in context. I believe we wouldn't see such accident if it wasn't a USN ship with such aqustic capabilities or it wasn't USN ship at all. There wouldn't be problem niether with rutine civil line for sure, nor with other navies which would stay away of that area on their own because sending surv. vessel into area where other nation test their newest equipment is hostile act and no good way to demonstrate freedom of seas. USN had no other reason of being there besides collecting secret information and showing to PLAN that they can control waters next to China even the last one unwills it. In its own part of this play China used their claim on islands and EEZ to formalize their claim to withdraw US vessels, but as China didn't relay much on that and had to use civil 'protesters' rather than its fleet. As for US, if one have a right to do smth it doesn't mean one is to use this right with no actual reason, especialy knowing that someone else may concider it abusive. It is the primary rule for having good neibours. If one knows that such action will likely to cause negative reaction he provokes it. With all my respect salute.gif, US got used to demonstrate their legal rights all over the globe by violating interests of other nations, which brings such events here and there from time to time.
Please don't misunderstand me. I completely see why PRC doesn't like US Flagged Government owned and US Navy vessels in international waters within their non-disputed EEZ. There is very little question as to why the vessel was there, or what it was doing. However, it is the case, that this occurs to US vessels during testings with foreign flagged vessels within the US EEZs doing the same thing, gathering intel. The US recognizes though that it cannot stop it, because of international laws and customs, so doesn't try (that is unless you believe the conspiracy theories saying that that unfortunate accident with that Japanese training ship was not an accident).
Imagine though if the US were to act the way that the PRC acted towards the USNS Impeccable, and used the EEZ arguement that the PRC is doing. There would be cries from the international community that would be so much louder against the US, then the near silence from the international community regading the PRCs actions.
In fact, during the cold war, it is my understanding that it was very common for foreign flagged vessels to be within the US EEZ for the specific purpose of listening in on US movements, as well as to tail any USN task forces that did leave port.
Please don't misunderstand me... . Imagine though if the US were to act the way that the PRC acted towards the USNS Impeccable, and used the EEZ arguement that the PRC is doing. There would be cries from the international community that would be so much louder against the US, then the near silence from the international community regading the PRCs actions.
You are absolutely right. This situation can be easily reverted back to US or any other nation. Press react on such events whether it is USN vessel harrased by trawlers outside China's whaters or Russian bomber intercepted and escorted by nato fighter outside of Norwegian aerospace. It always happens with nations that have global interests and there is no difference berween them. I was rather explaining reasons to those who wondered how China deared to claim something in international waters. Original news said that China claims for South-China sea as its territorial waters which was misleading from real facts.
In fact, during the cold war, it is my understanding that it was very common for foreign flagged vessels to be within the US EEZ for the specific purpose of listening in on US movements, as well as to tail any USN task forces that did leave port.
Yeap, and it was a common practice and not a problem at that time since both sides had been keeping an eye on each other and were avoiding powerful confrontation. Though unlike thier Soviet counterparts US ships and planes didn't avoid penetrating national borders in their recon missions refering to different counting of international laws or even without regarding it at all (especially in 1950s and 1980s). But currently it is only US that continious doing that, thus attracting bashing on itself. Such missions are absalutely legal from formal point of view internationaly and reasonable for US, but not acceptable by those who don't want to be whatched by 'Big Brother'. Becides it israther annoying when spy missions are explained by protection of universal democratic principals.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.