|
|
Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
Last post 02-26-2008, 12:40 AM by palahubug99. 22 replies.
-
07-01-2007, 9:39 AM |
-
palahubug99
-
-
-
Joined on 11-11-2006
-
Milpitas, CA
-
Posts 1,310
-
-
|
Uh-oh...It appears that the US Navy lacks a defense against this Russian-designed missile used by the Chinese.
If the US Navy 7th Fleet intervenes in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, one of the most likely future flashpoints, the PLAN/Chinese Navy may have a way of destroying a carrier battlegroup...
Definitely something to worry about... http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070323/pl_bloomberg/ako7y_orw538 Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile Tony Capaccio Fri Mar 23, 12:18 AM ET
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.
The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.
The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.
``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''
``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.
A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.
Fast and Low-Flying
``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile.''
The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.
``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.
`A Major Issue'
``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''
The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.
The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler ``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.
Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a layered defense capability that can defend against various missile threats,'' Mann said.
Raising Concerns
McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8, 2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.
In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the $36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6 billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.
Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.
Final Approach
On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.
The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.
McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.
`Aggressively Marketing'
The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said.
Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the missile.
Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to comment.
McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler ``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.
That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines ``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''
The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.
``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.
Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It's the courage to continue that counts.
|
|
-
07-04-2007, 5:46 PM |
-
bobo_joe
-
-
-
Joined on 02-21-2007
-
-
Posts 46
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
What do you expect from the idiots who control the Whitehouse? They spend all the resources in Iraq to make their defence contractor friends richer. No money left to update technology. Typical Nazi mentality. Have a good day,
|
|
-
07-05-2007, 1:02 AM |
-
prince
-
-
-
Joined on 11-11-2006
-
-
Posts 8,647
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
can someone explain to me why the russians are afraid of US defense missiles shield na ilagay sa europe?
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.
|
|
-
07-05-2007, 1:29 AM |
-
palahubug99
-
-
-
Joined on 11-11-2006
-
Milpitas, CA
-
Posts 1,310
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
bobo_joe: What do you expect from the idiots who control the Whitehouse? They spend all the resources in Iraq to make their defence contractor friends richer. No money left to update technology. Typical Nazi mentality. Have a good day,
Hehehe. What the report doesn't tell you is that the countermeasures being developed for the Sizzler missile are classified. But just for the sake of argument the Chinese fire sizzlers from land across the Taiwan Strait. At Mach 3, they can't be all that maneuverable. All Aegis has to do is to throw a wall of slugs between the missile and its intended target when it "pops-up" to get a radar lock. That's something a CIWS/Phalanx gatling gun can accomplish at 3000 rounds per minute. Btw, did you know Thailand has an aircraft carrier now? I just picked up this interesting tidbit from Jane's Fighting Ships. Only the Filipens is stuck with antiquated equipment from the middle ages. Our "flagship" is the frigate (note it's not even a destroyer) Rajah Humabon which is not equipped with antiship missiles at all - just 3 3-inch (76mm) guns and 6 40mm bofors AA cannon. Compare this with the tiny island of Singapore which is taking delivery this year of 6 Formidable-class "stealth" frigates armed with Harpoon missiles. Meanwhile, Taiwan is not waiting around for an invasion from Red China. It has retired its 8 aging Knox-class frigates and acquired 4 Kidd-class destroyers that are Aegis capable from the US (Taiwan has 7 other Kwang Hwa-class destroyers). The Kidd-class is very capable and the equivalent of the top of the line Arleigh Burke-class destroyers of the US Navy. The Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force has 17 submarines (4 are nuclear-powered) and 43 Spruance-class destroyers.
Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It's the courage to continue that counts.
|
|
-
07-05-2007, 1:09 PM |
|
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
palahubug99: bobo_joe: What do you expect from the idiots who control the Whitehouse? They spend all the resources in Iraq to make their defence contractor friends richer. No money left to update technology. Typical Nazi mentality. Have a good day,
Hehehe. What the report doesn't tell you is that the countermeasures being developed for the Sizzler missile are classified. But just for the sake of argument the Chinese fire sizzlers from land across the Taiwan Strait. At Mach 3, they can't be all that maneuverable. All Aegis has to do is to throw a wall of slugs between the missile and its intended target when it "pops-up" to get a radar lock. That's something a CIWS/Phalanx gatling gun can accomplish at 3000 rounds per minute. Btw, did you know Thailand has an aircraft carrier now? I just picked up this interesting tidbit from Jane's Fighting Ships. Only the Filipens is stuck with antiquated equipment from the middle ages. Our "flagship" is the frigate (note it's not even a destroyer) Rajah Humabon which is not equipped with antiship missiles at all - just 3 3-inch (76mm) guns and 6 40mm bofors AA cannon. Compare this with the tiny island of Singapore which is taking delivery this year of 6 Formidable-class "stealth" frigates armed with Harpoon missiles. Meanwhile, Taiwan is not waiting around for an invasion from Red China. It has retired its 8 aging Knox-class frigates and acquired 4 Kidd-class destroyers that are Aegis capable from the US (Taiwan has 7 other Kwang Hwa-class destroyers). The Kidd-class is very capable and the equivalent of the top of the line Arleigh Burke-class destroyers of the US Navy. The Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force has 17 submarines (4 are nuclear-powered) and 43 Spruance-class destroyers.
I doubt Bush knows Thailand has an aircraft carrier because he hasn't invaded them...yet.  Baboo!
|
|
-
07-05-2007, 8:15 PM |
-
prince
-
-
-
Joined on 11-11-2006
-
-
Posts 8,647
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
lone_haranguer: palahubug99: bobo_joe: What do you expect from the idiots who control the Whitehouse? They spend all the resources in Iraq to make their defence contractor friends richer. No money left to update technology. Typical Nazi mentality. Have a good day,
Hehehe. What the report doesn't tell you is that the countermeasures being developed for the Sizzler missile are classified. But just for the sake of argument the Chinese fire sizzlers from land across the Taiwan Strait. At Mach 3, they can't be all that maneuverable. All Aegis has to do is to throw a wall of slugs between the missile and its intended target when it "pops-up" to get a radar lock. That's something a CIWS/Phalanx gatling gun can accomplish at 3000 rounds per minute. Btw, did you know Thailand has an aircraft carrier now? I just picked up this interesting tidbit from Jane's Fighting Ships. Only the Filipens is stuck with antiquated equipment from the middle ages. Our "flagship" is the frigate (note it's not even a destroyer) Rajah Humabon which is not equipped with antiship missiles at all - just 3 3-inch (76mm) guns and 6 40mm bofors AA cannon. Compare this with the tiny island of Singapore which is taking delivery this year of 6 Formidable-class "stealth" frigates armed with Harpoon missiles. Meanwhile, Taiwan is not waiting around for an invasion from Red China. It has retired its 8 aging Knox-class frigates and acquired 4 Kidd-class destroyers that are Aegis capable from the US (Taiwan has 7 other Kwang Hwa-class destroyers). The Kidd-class is very capable and the equivalent of the top of the line Arleigh Burke-class destroyers of the US Navy. The Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force has 17 submarines (4 are nuclear-powered) and 43 Spruance-class destroyers.
I doubt Bush knows Thailand has an aircraft carrier because he hasn't invaded them...yet.  Baboo!
Why need to invade taiwan or thailand?
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.
|
|
-
07-05-2007, 11:48 PM |
-
palahubug99
-
-
-
Joined on 11-11-2006
-
Milpitas, CA
-
Posts 1,310
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
prince: lone_haranguer: palahubug99: bobo_joe: What do you expect from the idiots who control the Whitehouse? They spend all the resources in Iraq to make their defence contractor friends richer. No money left to update technology. Typical Nazi mentality. Have a good day,
Hehehe. What the report doesn't tell you is that the countermeasures being developed for the Sizzler missile are classified. But just for the sake of argument the Chinese fire sizzlers from land across the Taiwan Strait. At Mach 3, they can't be all that maneuverable. All Aegis has to do is to throw a wall of slugs between the missile and its intended target when it "pops-up" to get a radar lock. That's something a CIWS/Phalanx gatling gun can accomplish at 3000 rounds per minute. Btw, did you know Thailand has an aircraft carrier now? I just picked up this interesting tidbit from Jane's Fighting Ships. Only the Filipens is stuck with antiquated equipment from the middle ages. Our "flagship" is the frigate (note it's not even a destroyer) Rajah Humabon which is not equipped with antiship missiles at all - just 3 3-inch (76mm) guns and 6 40mm bofors AA cannon. Compare this with the tiny island of Singapore which is taking delivery this year of 6 Formidable-class "stealth" frigates armed with Harpoon missiles. Meanwhile, Taiwan is not waiting around for an invasion from Red China. It has retired its 8 aging Knox-class frigates and acquired 4 Kidd-class destroyers that are Aegis capable from the US (Taiwan has 7 other Kwang Hwa-class destroyers). The Kidd-class is very capable and the equivalent of the top of the line Arleigh Burke-class destroyers of the US Navy. The Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force has 17 submarines (4 are nuclear-powered) and 43 Spruance-class destroyers.
I doubt Bush knows Thailand has an aircraft carrier because he hasn't invaded them...yet.  Baboo!
Why need to invade taiwan or thailand?
I don't know about Thailand but Red China has more than once threatened to recapture the renegade province of Taiwan. The argument that Taiwanese investors have large holdings in China as the main reason why China will not invade does not hold water. Red China does not need an excuse. They already laid claim to Taiwan a long time ago. China is using its newfound wealth to quietly upgrade the capabilities of its blue water navy. To date the People's Liberation Army Navy has 22 ballistic missile submarines with 14 more under construction, 41 patrol submarines, 25 destroyers and 45 frigates. They also have the license to build the MiG-35 super fulcrum for their naval aviation. Once they upgrade their sealift capability to transport marines, well then my friend you can expect Chinese marine landings in Taiwan. They just have to get past the Taiwanese navy and the US 7th Fleet.
Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It's the courage to continue that counts.
|
|
-
07-06-2007, 12:33 AM |
|
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
<prince> I see you haven't yet acquired the American sense of humor. The statement that Bush hadn't "invaded Thailand" because they have an aircraft carrier, was a reference to the insane paranoia of the present administration. You need to watch Leno & Letterman more. Baboo!
|
|
-
07-06-2007, 1:30 AM |
|
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
palahubug99: prince: lone_haranguer: palahubug99: bobo_joe: What do you expect from the idiots who control the Whitehouse? They spend all the resources in Iraq to make their defence contractor friends richer. No money left to update technology. Typical Nazi mentality. Have a good day,
Hehehe. What the report doesn't tell you is that the countermeasures being developed for the Sizzler missile are classified. But just for the sake of argument the Chinese fire sizzlers from land across the Taiwan Strait. At Mach 3, they can't be all that maneuverable. All Aegis has to do is to throw a wall of slugs between the missile and its intended target when it "pops-up" to get a radar lock. That's something a CIWS/Phalanx gatling gun can accomplish at 3000 rounds per minute. Btw, did you know Thailand has an aircraft carrier now? I just picked up this interesting tidbit from Jane's Fighting Ships. Only the Filipens is stuck with antiquated equipment from the middle ages. Our "flagship" is the frigate (note it's not even a destroyer) Rajah Humabon which is not equipped with antiship missiles at all - just 3 3-inch (76mm) guns and 6 40mm bofors AA cannon. Compare this with the tiny island of Singapore which is taking delivery this year of 6 Formidable-class "stealth" frigates armed with Harpoon missiles. Meanwhile, Taiwan is not waiting around for an invasion from Red China. It has retired its 8 aging Knox-class frigates and acquired 4 Kidd-class destroyers that are Aegis capable from the US (Taiwan has 7 other Kwang Hwa-class destroyers). The Kidd-class is very capable and the equivalent of the top of the line Arleigh Burke-class destroyers of the US Navy. The Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force has 17 submarines (4 are nuclear-powered) and 43 Spruance-class destroyers.
I doubt Bush knows Thailand has an aircraft carrier because he hasn't invaded them...yet.  Baboo!
Why need to invade taiwan or thailand?
I don't know about Thailand but Red China has more than once threatened to recapture the renegade province of Taiwan. The argument that Taiwanese investors have large holdings in China as the main reason why China will not invade does not hold water. Red China does not need an excuse. They already laid claim to Taiwan a long time ago. China is using its newfound wealth to quietly upgrade the capabilities of its blue water navy. To date the People's Liberation Army Navy has 22 ballistic missile submarines with 14 more under construction, 41 patrol submarines, 25 destroyers and 45 frigates. They also have the license to build the MiG-35 super fulcrum for their naval aviation. Once they upgrade their sealift capability to transport marines, well then my friend you can expect Chinese marine landings in Taiwan. They just have to get past the Taiwanese navy and the US 7th Fleet. I doubt theres a justification to defend Taiwan. Its probably still the corrupt gov. as when we defended Chang's Opium Armies. If I remember correctly the president or his wife on Taiwan was indicted for corruption not too long ago. The Chinese wouldn't move on Taiwan unless they were prepared to fight a WW with the U.S. And we can't win a major conventional war against China or any other country. And no one can win a nuclear exchange. I'm not convinced the Chinese won't be seduced by the obvious evils of capitalism and opt to make more money, rather then start a war. And they have serious internal social problems to solve before taking on Taiwan. Its a matter of timing and how much influence the next generation of Chinese leaders can acquire. Whatever the case its pure insanity for the U.S. to oppose a mainland invasion of Formosa (Taiwan) I was one of those guys defending that corrupt little island state when the reds threatened Quim. & Matsu (islands claimed by Taiwan) If you think Hurricane katrina, Twin Towers attack & Iraq was bad, try war with China. Now Taiwan is of no strategic value as it was during the cold war. So it seems to be a local political issue to me. Forget the treaties and the U.S. financial interests that want protection. Let them hire mercinaries..opps. They already have that (the U.S. military)  Baboo!
|
|
-
07-07-2007, 1:34 AM |
-
palahubug99
-
-
-
Joined on 11-11-2006
-
Milpitas, CA
-
Posts 1,310
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
lone_haranguer:I doubt theres a justification to defend Taiwan. Its probably still the corrupt gov. as when we defended Chang's Opium Armies. If I remember correctly the president or his wife on Taiwan was indicted for corruption not too long ago. The Chinese wouldn't move on Taiwan unless they were prepared to fight a WW with the U.S. And we can't win a major conventional war against China or any other country. And no one can win a nuclear exchange. I'm not convinced the Chinese won't be seduced by the obvious evils of capitalism and opt to make more money, rather then start a war. And they have serious internal social problems to solve before taking on Taiwan. Its a matter of timing and how much influence the next generation of Chinese leaders can acquire. Whatever the case its pure insanity for the U.S. to oppose a mainland invasion of Formosa (Taiwan) I was one of those guys defending that corrupt little island state when the reds threatened Quim. & Matsu (islands claimed by Taiwan) If you think Hurricane katrina, Twin Towers attack & Iraq was bad, try war with China. Now Taiwan is of no strategic value as it was during the cold war. So it seems to be a local political issue to me. Forget the treaties and the U.S. financial interests that want protection. Let them hire mercinaries..opps. They already have that (the U.S. military)  Baboo!
It's what I've been saying all along. Every dollar you spend at Wal-Mart indirectly contributes to the Chinese military. The US Congress will not sit idly by in case of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Taiwan is one of those tiny US protectorates (like Israel and South Korea) that warrants an immediate knee-jerk military reaction if threatened.
Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It's the courage to continue that counts.
|
|
-
07-07-2007, 9:42 PM |
-
dovs
-
-
-
Joined on 11-27-2006
-
-
Posts 1,413
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
stop all these war's talk. China will not need all those war equipments, if they want to take the world. mind you this country probably starting planting themselves in every country in the world. Some are pretending as a "born citizen" in that country. Then they will start occupying the sensitive position in the government. What next? figure that out folks.
believe and be honesst within yourself, the rewards " is living without fear "
|
|
-
07-12-2007, 11:58 PM |
-
palahubug99
-
-
-
Joined on 11-11-2006
-
Milpitas, CA
-
Posts 1,310
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
New Chinese Ballistic Missile Sub Detected Norman Polmar | July 10, 2007 A commercial satellite image appears to have led to revelation of details of the new Chinese nuclear-propelled ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) of the Jin or Type 094 class. The new submarine was initially photographed by the commercial Quickbird satellite in late 2006 and the image was available on the Google Earth web site. Coupled with later satellite photography, the submarine was identified by Hans M. Kristensen, Director, Nuclear Information Project of the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, D.C. The Type 094 submarine has long been expected by Western analysts and intelligence experts. China has previously constructed only a single SSBN, the Xia or Project 092 submarine, launched in 1983. That submarine has twice test fired the JL-1 Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM), but is not considered an operational submarine. The improved JL-2 SLBM will probably arm the Type 094 submarine, with that missile expected to become operational between 2007 and 2010, according to U.S. officials. The lead Type 094 submarine is apparently undergoing trials. One or more units may be under construction with U.S. naval intelligence estimating that up to five will be built. That number could enable the Chine Navy to maintain at least one SSBN on continuous patrol. The Type 094 appears to be a modification of the Type 093 nuclear-propelled attack submarine (SSN) now in production. The Chinese have added a missile compartment and other equipment to the SSN design, similar to the approach taken by the U.S. Navy in developing the George Washington (SSBN 598) missile submarine from the Skipjack (SSN 585) design. China’s long delay in developing a “modern” SSBN indicates that China’s strategic offensive goal is for regional nuclear strike capabilities with primarily long- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles launched from land sites. Still, many Westerners have long believed that SSBNs would be a major component of China’s long-range strike forces.
Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It's the courage to continue that counts.
|
|
-
08-11-2007, 4:07 PM |
-
youdiehard
-
-
-
Joined on 11-12-2006
-
-
Posts 711
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
China will soon invade the Philippines... the biggest mistake of Spain, Japan and America... Sakit ng ulo ang abot nila...
Nothing happens to any man that he is not formed by nature to bear.   http://youdiehard.blogspot.com Everyone is necessarily the hero of his own life story.
|
|
-
09-03-2007, 8:30 PM |
-
ling nam
-
-
-
Joined on 09-03-2007
-
-
Posts 2
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
Check out the ff site: http://drno.homeip.net/military.shtml http://www.sinodefence.com http://cnair.top81.cn/Luyang_Luhai_Luhu.htm
|
|
-
09-04-2007, 6:09 PM |
-
ling nam
-
-
-
Joined on 09-03-2007
-
-
Posts 2
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
China hacked into Pentagon computer network
BEIJING (AFP) - China's military successfully hacked into the
Pentagon's computer network, raising fears it could disrupt the US
defence department's systems, the Financial Times reported Tuesday.
The Chinese military's cyber attack was carried out in June following
months of efforts, the London-based newspaper said, citing unnamed
current and former US officials.
While the Pentagon declined to say who was behind the hacking, which
led to the shutdown of a computer system serving the office of Defence
Secretary Robert Gates, officials told the paper it was China's
People's Liberation Army.
"The PLA has demonstrated the ability to conduct attacks that disable
our system," the paper quoted a former US official as saying.
One senior US official reportedly said the Pentagon had pinpointed the exact origin of the attack.
The paper quoted another person familiar with the event as saying there
was a "very high level of confidence... trending towards total
certainty" that the PLA was responsible.
The paper said both the US and Chinese militaries were widely assumed to conduct computer espionage on each other.
"But US officials said the penetration in June raised concerns to a new
level because of fears that China had shown it could disrupt systems at
critical times," the Financial Times reported.
A spokesman for the Chinese defence ministry declined to comment on the report when contacted by AFP on Tuesday.
China's foreign ministry also declined to comment immediately, asking for questions to be faxed through.
Reports of China hacking into German government systems were also
raised last week between Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and visiting German
Chancellor Angela Merkel.
German weekly Der Spiegel reported that espionage programmes traced to
the PLA had been detected in computer systems at Merkel's office, the
foreign ministry and other government agencies in Berlin.
"We in the government took (the reports) as a matter of grave concern," Wen said after meeting Merkel.
|
|
-
09-30-2007, 4:03 AM |
-
palahubug99
-
-
-
Joined on 11-11-2006
-
Milpitas, CA
-
Posts 1,310
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
| Taiwan develops missile targeting China | By ANNIE HUANG Associated Press Writer News Fuze | | Article Launched:09/29/2007 01:11:24 AM PDT | | | TAIPEI, Taiwan—Taiwan's program to develop missiles capable of hitting Chinese cities could be hampered because of U.S. objections, an analyst said on Saturday. Defense experts have noted that Taiwan is clandestinely developing cruise missiles with a range of up to 620 miles that could hit Shanghai, the financial capital of China. Taiwan tested the long-range Hsiungfeng 2E missile earlier this year, according to recent Taiwanese media reports. But Wang Kao-cheng, a defense analyst, said the U.S. could pull the plug on the missile program by withholding sophisticated satellite guidance technology from the Taiwanese military. Without the provision of the technology, the program could founder, he said. "The U.S. has objected to Taiwan developing mid- to long-range missiles, fearing it could embolden the island's authorities to take more provocative policies toward China," said Wang, professor of strategic studies of Tamkang University. The U.S. could further cut back on its weapons supply to Taiwan as tensions rise across the Taiwan Strait over President Chen Shui-bian's perceived attempts to push for Taiwanese independence, Wang said. Defense experts say Taiwan is developing the long-range missiles to counter the mainland's aggressive military buildup in recent years. Taiwanese leaders say China has deployed some 900 missiles targeting the island off its eastern coasts. Taiwanese officials say the island is only developing a tactical shore-based missile restricted to hitting Chinese airfields and radar stations. The missile will be used in counterattacks against China's ballistic missiles, they say. Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949, and Beijing continues to regard the self-governing island as part of its territory and has threatened to attack if it makes its de facto independence permanent. |
Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It's the courage to continue that counts.
|
|
-
10-01-2007, 4:28 PM |
-
braindead
-
-
-
Joined on 09-18-2007
-
-
Posts 45
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
palahubug99: Uh-oh...It appears that the US Navy lacks a defense against this Russian-designed missile used by the Chinese.
If the US Navy 7th Fleet intervenes in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, one of the most likely future flashpoints, the PLAN/Chinese Navy may have a way of destroying a carrier battlegroup...
Definitely something to worry about...
If the "sizzler" is so worrisome, why was it not in the CNN or Fox News? Anyway, after playing a lot of computer war games in internet cafes , I don't think the U.S. carriers would have any problem defending Taiwan. I don't think the U.S. carriers would have any problem defending Taiwan. The U.S. will just have to shoot the "diesel submarines", thereby sizzling them, including whatever "sizzler" missiles they are carrying. The shooter could be a submarine (U.S.-made submarines are far more superior than Russian-made submarines), a plane (pilotless or otherwise), or the carrier (with its sophisticated radars). Remember, a navy does not consist only of ships. Thus, there would be no need to nuke China, as other bloggers suggest. Or, the carriers could just leave the area. Leaving the Chinese submarines no U.S. carrier to attack. But the Chinese armed forces would just "walk into Taiwan" . In which case, the Philippines would be deluged with Taiwanese "tourists" (good for us ). Better yet, Taiwan could request the U.S. to establish a military base on its soil. Simple solution to a complicated problem.
|
|
-
10-22-2007, 11:26 PM |
-
dovs
-
-
-
Joined on 11-27-2006
-
-
Posts 1,413
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
youdiehard: China will soon invade the Philippines... the biggest mistake of Spain, Japan and America... Sakit ng ulo ang abot nila...
you got a sense of humour. oo nga ano sa katitigas ba naman ng mga kukuti natin makayanan pa kaya tayo ng mga intsik. pero napakadami ng mga intsik baka aapakan na lang nila tayo.
believe and be honesst within yourself, the rewards " is living without fear "
|
|
-
10-23-2007, 7:06 AM |
-
prince
-
-
-
Joined on 11-11-2006
-
-
Posts 8,647
-
-
|
Re: Chinese Navy vs. US Navy
dovs: youdiehard: China will soon invade the Philippines... the biggest mistake of Spain, Japan and America... Sakit ng ulo ang abot nila...
you got a sense of humour. oo nga ano sa katitigas ba naman ng mga kukuti natin makayanan pa kaya tayo ng mga intsik. pero napakadami ng mga intsik baka aapakan na lang nila tayo.
watch out iran and russia...best friend sila ngayon....
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.
|
|
|
|