What's new

Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise

Using your quote


It does not deny the possibility of non-destructive tests (the alleged first and second tests) that I postulated, does it?

So it actually has supported my argument that only need arises will the Chinese actually destroy the object, otherwise they'd keep the technologies secret.

Test is real stuff. Announcement is only for political purposes. Hope you are mature enough to understand that.
Test is real stuff ? What the hell does that mean? How can you have a non-real test? Are testings only for when the objective is achieved?

This just goes to further show how your arguments are fundamentally flawed, that you irrationally persists in refusing to admit it and now must resort to mental gymnastics to try to save some face with that nonsensical statement.
 
Stop twisting facts! Use your brain to understand what I said:


Is there any indication of my proposal for "abolishment of driver's education"?

Please stop lying blatantly in public. Even if you're driven to lie so badly and urgently, can't your brain tell you to use some technique. :lol:
I use my brain far better than you have done so far...
No, you don't have to actually drive a car to be able to drive a car,
There are many discrete activities in driving a car, such as putting the transmission in gear, and if the transmission is a manual shift, the operator must synchronize other actions, the driver must also take in sensory inputs, such as visual and/or auditory, from his surroundings. He must be able to turn the steering wheel. He must be able to use his feet to depress certain pedals at the appropriate time, etc...etc...All of these must be integrated seamlessly as he negotiate traffic. You cannot simply be proficient in all these actions as discrete actions and call yourself a 'driver'. That is why we have trainings, testings and certifications.

Likewise, in order to have a valid ASAT capability, China cannot be successful in all discrete actions such as target acquisition, tracking, alignment, intercept trajectory calculations without conducting a test that will actually destroy a satellite.

Say that an interceptor is designed for a head-on approach and ONLY a head-on approach. Closing speed is a problem even for current air-air missile engagement, but orbital closing speed can be around 12-15km/sec. Not only that, if there is a miss, an interceptor is wasted and China must wait for the next orbit to attempt again, provided that China have one ready. That mean your claim of a possibility of a 'non-destructive' test regime is outright expensive, time consuming and too much of an adverisement to the world as to what China is trying to do. Either make every attempt a genuine intercept to destroy the target, or do nothing.
 
I congratulated China for a very strong confronting on US's faces. It is US backbitting on China's backyards. Don't think that US is only country in the world to detach any movements 24/7. Some of other country like China are fully capable to defeat it. It is time for China to sneak into US's own backyards soon. Russia did it smoothly.

:china:

:yahoo::yahoo:

Popping up in the middle of water is AMAZING and SHOCKED !!
There are two main problems I see in this discussion.

First is how Internet sources can be misleading. One source has an interesting news item regarding the US. Other websites then either linked to this one source or in their own ways, reporting the same event, only that they changed a few words and phrases here and there, each trying to distinguish itself from the others. The result is that people are misled into believing that each actually does his own fact checks and analysis.

Second is events like this is when people should be at their best 'armchair general' or admiral and ask objective questions. Yet I see critical thinking skills are discarded. That people here, supposedly interested in military affairs, are more interested in humiliating the US in any way possible than to act like a military figure they wanted to be.

Assuming this actually happened...

Is it impossible to sneak up on a US aircraft carrier battle group? It is very possible but it require a lot of patience for a sub crew, especially for a diesel boat. The US and China are currently not at war against each other, so there are no secrecy as to when any US aircraft carrier battle group is scheduled to leave port. The local news at every port usually make an event out of it. All this Chinese boat has to do is stationed itself ahead and in the path of the fleet, switch to battery power and simply wait for the fleet to pass overhead. This tactic worked in peace as well as war time. The difference here is that there is knowledge of the fleet's journey.

But what if there is a war between the US and China?

In 1984 the USS Ranger, after leaving port in California, entered Emission Control (EMCON) Alpha, meaning no emissions of any kind, and for two weeks, the Ranger conducted air strikes against Hawaii with no one able to find the carrier and escorts.

If there is a war between the US and China any US aircraft carrier battle group would have its sub escorts sweep ahead of the fleet. Batteries will last two may be three or perhaps even four days if the diesel crew is willing to endure harsh living conditions. But the three days mark is generally the accepted line where the sub will have sufficient power to surface and run the diesel engines to recharge its batteries. Once that diesel engine start, the diesel sub will be found, targeted and sunk. Diesel fuel quantity, hence range, is why diesel subs are usually limited to littoral waters, not deep waters where nuclear subs is the rule.

If a Song-class Chinese sub did surfaced near the Kitty Hawk battle group it could be because this diesel sub was on its last battery gasp and had to surface. The Kitty Hawk group commander really had no choice but to allow the Chinese sub to surface, even if his fleet is within the Chinese sub's weapons range. What else could he have done? The US and China are not at war against each other. The US Navy have conducted war games against other Western submarine forces before. The Australians have taken pictures of US ships through their periscopes, what is there a need for a full surface when a picture will be just as effective as far as submariners are concerned?

Here is the hearbreaking news for those who believed in this tall tale that a Song-class Chinese sub can actually shadowed undetected a US aircraft carrier battle group...

Global Beat: U.S.-China Confidence-Building More Important Than Detargeting
Beginning on October 27, 1994, the aircraft carrier U.S.S Kitty Hawk was involved in a rare three-day encounter with a Chinese Han class nuclear attack submarine in the Yellow Sea, some 100 nautical miles west of Kyushu, Japan and--according to the U.S.--in international waters. U.S. anti-submarine aircraft spotted the Chinese sub about 450 nautical miles northwest of the Kitty Hawk, and continued to track it. The Chinese dispatched jet fighters which intercepted the U.S. planes. No shots were fired--but there was no communication between the two forces. The cat-and-mouse game continued as the sub came to within 21 miles of the carrier, then ended when the Chinese submarine returned to base.
No...This incident did not involved a Song-class diesel sub but a nuclear Han-class. Nevertheless, it illustrate the point that even though a US aircraft carrier battle group is not invincible, it is hardly with ease that a diesel submarine can slip past the group's outer defenses. The Australians and other European navies did it with great difficulty and they remained submerged with only pictures from their periscope as evidence of their successes. So why would China do something so stupid as to reveal this capability when the US is considered a potential adversary? It make no logical and military sense.

It is also hilarious to read how many people here warned US not to underestimate the Chinese military but does not reciprocate. It is more likely that IF the Chinese sub was indeed shadowing the group, the group's commander ALLOWED the Chinese sub to come as close as safety permit under peacetime relations, all the while studying and recording the sub's behaviors for future reference. This cat-and-mouse game was done against Soviet subs for decades. So my advice is 'Do not underestimate the US Navy.'
 
Then, tell us, please, your or your colleges' experience of "pinged" the Chinese subs, or any Chinese subs to surface.

We are listening, attentively.
Easy...One tactic against a diesel boat to force him to surface is to run at speed. Even underwater, a diesel engine can still be ignited for a short time, once the Chinese skipper decided to fire up his diesel in trying to keep up with the surface ship and rise to snorkel depth, his engine noise will reveal his location and the US sub will bombard him with active sonar at maximum power, effectively blinding and deafening the Chinese skipper. Once the Chinese skipper found out that he has been found out, he has to shut down his diesel, give up the chase and slink home with his tail between his legs. If he is smart, he and his officers would cook the logs to save their lives and their careers. But since this Chinese sub was on the surface, more likely the Chinese skipper panicked by the active sonar he was receiving and blew his ballast for a quick surface. By that time, the Kitty Hawk commander, his senior officers and the US sub commander were probably laughing their behinds off. The Pentagon then issued a story of humiliation on behalf of the US Navy. Who cares if some kids on some anonymous Internet forum have some harmless fun at our expense? The mentality of anti-US critics is odd in that if the US military said something positive about its accomplishments, everybody has doubts about the claims, but if something is negative, it is gospel and is a sign of the decline of the US military.

:lol:
 
it's real funny,US media reported this unsure news to prove their "china threat" theory ,after months their said PLA is nothing compare to US army,similar news reported over and over again in the last 10 years. if PLA is nothing to US army, why do you always report these news like frightened chicken ?
 
Last edited:
it's real funny,US media reported this unsure news to prove their "china threat" theory ,after months their said PLA is nothing compare to US army,similar news reported over and over again in the last 10 years. if PLA is nothing to US army, why do you always report these news like frightened chicken ?
The reason you ask this kind of questions is because you are used to living with state media control. In the US, the government does not dictate what CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, FNC, MSNBC, CNBC or any local media on what to report. The American media can say whatever they want of the US military and there is nothing the Pentagon can do about it. Do you remember when the New York Times ran an ad that call General Petraeus as General Betray US? Did the Pentagon sent hitmen to the NY Times? Do try to think outside of whatever box you are in.
 
There are two main problems I see in this discussion.

First is how Internet sources can be misleading.


and what about ur source ???

BBC ?? CNNN ??? NEWYORK TIMES ?? full of BS news

Vitenam (Slap on US)
Iraq (Slap on US)
Afghanistan (Slap on US)
Pakistan (Military already control over Swat successfully) once again SLAP ON US

Wth with US ???? Call our PA for good military Training for ur US Marines....

world very well kno about US and US MEDIA Propganda!

Biggest Failed State i have ever seen (UNITEDSTATE)
 
The reason you ask this kind of questions is because you are used to living with state media control. In the US, the government does not dictate what CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, FNC, MSNBC, CNBC or any local media on what to report. The American media can say whatever they want of the US military and there is n
 
Last edited:
I use my brain far better than you have done so far...There are many discrete activities in driving a car, such as putting the transmission in gear, and if the transmission is a manual shift, the operator must synchronize other actions, the driver must also take in sensory inputs, such as visual and/or auditory, from his surroundings. He must be able to turn the steering wheel. He must be able to use his feet to depress certain pedals at the appropriate time, etc...etc...All of these must be integrated seamlessly as he negotiate traffic. You cannot simply be proficient in all these actions as discrete actions and call yourself a 'driver'. That is why we have trainings, testings and certifications.

Likewise, in order to have a valid ASAT capability, China cannot be successful in all discrete actions such as target acquisition, tracking, alignment, intercept trajectory calculations without conducting a test that will actually destroy a satellite.

Say that an interceptor is designed for a head-on approach and ONLY a head-on approach. Closing speed is a problem even for current air-air missile engagement, but orbital closing speed can be around 12-15km/sec. Not only that, if there is a miss, an interceptor is wasted and China must wait for the next orbit to attempt again, provided that China have one ready. That mean your claim of a possibility of a 'non-destructive' test regime is outright expensive, time consuming and too much of an adverisement to the world as to what China is trying to do. Either make every attempt a genuine intercept to destroy the target, or do nothing.


See how pathetic this is: My original sentence is
…
No, you don't have to actually drive a car to be able to drive a car, as long as you have the means (which would be more expensive than to actually use a car) to train yourself to drive.
…

And you quote:
No, you don't have to actually drive a car to be able to drive a car,
to serve your weird purpose. No wonder you have problem in understanding my simple statement.... Amazing. Wondering if that guy will ever got 500 in SAT reading…

More amazing is that, you fact-denial is ferociously clownish. As facts stand, a lot capability can be acquired with the help of simulation or semi-simulation, in some cases, for cost concerns; in other cases, for safety concerns; in yet other cases, for political concerns.

My driving case is just an illustrative example, which we don’t see the need to do that even we can do that, because to learn with actual car drive is much cheaper than to use simulation. It is, however not always the case, for instance, in astronaut trainings.

As long as people have resources, such as money and brain (not your type, of course), many situations can be simulated, no matter how complex they appear to be, how many correlations among parameters they have. EVA is yet another typical example where people use only simulation before their first execution of actual EVA or space-walk.
 
Last edited:
Easy...One tactic against a diesel boat to force him to surface is to run at speed. Even underwater, a diesel engine can still be ignited for a short time, once the Chinese skipper decided to fire up his diesel in trying to keep up with the surface ship and rise to snorkel depth, his engine noise will reveal his location and the US sub will bombard him with active sonar at maximum power, effectively blinding and deafening the Chinese skipper. Once the Chinese skipper found out that he has been found out, he has to shut down his diesel, give up the chase and slink home with his tail between his legs. If he is smart, he and his officers would cook the logs to save their lives and their careers. But since this Chinese sub was on the surface, more likely the Chinese skipper panicked by the active sonar he was receiving and blew his ballast for a quick surface. By that time, the Kitty Hawk commander, his senior officers and the US sub commander were probably laughing their behinds off. The Pentagon then issued a story of humiliation on behalf of the US Navy. Who cares if some kids on some anonymous Internet forum have some harmless fun at our expense? The mentality of anti-US critics is odd in that if the US military said something positive about its accomplishments, everybody has doubts about the claims, but if something is negative, it is gospel and is a sign of the decline of the US military.

:lol:

Is this your experience? Rather, this is more like rumor-mongering. :rofl:

I'm no anti-USA. I anti foolish yet arrogant people, be them American or Chinese.
 
The reason you ask this kind of questions is because you are used to living with state media control. In the US, the government does not dictate what CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, FNC, MSNBC, CNBC or any local media on what to report. The American media can say whatever they want of the US military and there is nothing the Pentagon can do about it. Do you remember when the New York Times ran an ad that call General Petraeus as General Betray US? Did the Pentagon sent hitmen to the NY Times? Do try to think outside of whatever box you are in.

True that CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, FNC, MSNBC, CNBC are all corporate controlled media. And US government is controlled by corporates. :lol:
 
Is this your experience? Rather, this is more like rumor-mongering.

I'm no anti-USA. I anti foolish yet arrogant people, be them American or Chinese.
Any less than the rumor that a Song-class Chinese sub was able to elude US sonars?

:rofl:

So far the readers have YET to see any reasonably plausible explanation from YOU as to how that would be possible. They had to see one such explanation from ME.
 
See how pathetic this is: My original sentence is


And you quote:

to serve your weird purpose. No wonder you have problem in understanding my simple statement.... Amazing. Wondering if that guy will ever got 500 in SAT reading…

More amazing is that, you fact-denial is ferociously clownish. As facts stand, a lot capability can be acquired with the help of simulation or semi-simulation, in some cases, for cost concerns; in other cases, for safety concerns; in yet other cases, for political concerns.
Semi-simulation? Is that anything like semi-sex? Either you simulate or you do not. Either you have sex or you do not. There is no such thing as 'semi-simulation'.

My driving case is just an illustrative example, which we don’t see the need to do that even we can do that, because to learn with actual car drive is much cheaper than to use simulation. It is, however not always the case, for instance, in astronaut trainings.

As long as people have resources, such as money and brain (not your type, of course), many situations can be simulated, no matter how complex they appear to be, how many correlations among parameters they have. EVA is yet another typical example where people use only simulation before their first execution of actual EVA or space-walk.
My brain type is quite conservative. I demand that no matter how many simulations you run, you cannot declare yourself to be capable of doing something until you actually do the deed under real world conditions. Simulations often lack environmental influences, or those environmental factors are too tightly controlled, or many reasons in between.

So let us take astronaut training as you like. Looks to me it should be your SAT scores that should be in doubt. We can induce motion sickness. We can induce brief periods of weightlessness. But to date we cannot or have a very difficult time inducing BOTH at the same training period. Not impossible, but very difficult and not for a very long time, like a real EVA could require a couple hours. Astronauts have reported that the actual experience far transcends any simulations, or in your fantasy world of semi-simulations, we have on Earth. By your arguments, if China have enough 'semi-simulations' of Moon landing, China should declare herself to be among the Moon walkers list. Good luck convincing the world of that. Talk about arrogance.
 
Semi-simulation? Is that anything like semi-sex? Either you simulate or you do not. Either you have sex or you do not. There is no such thing as 'semi-simulation'.


My brain type is quite conservative. I demand that no matter how many simulations you run, you cannot declare yourself to be capable of doing something until you actually do the deed under real world conditions. Simulations often lack environmental influences, or those environmental factors are too tightly controlled, or many reasons in between.

So let us take astronaut training as you like. Looks to me it should be your SAT scores that should be in doubt. We can induce motion sickness. We can induce brief periods of weightlessness. But to date we cannot or have a very difficult time inducing BOTH at the same training period. Not impossible, but very difficult and not for a very long time, like a real EVA could require a couple hours. Astronauts have reported that the actual experience far transcends any simulations, or in your fantasy world of semi-simulations, we have on Earth. By your arguments, if China have enough 'semi-simulations' of Moon landing, China should declare herself to be among the Moon walkers list. Good luck convincing the world of that. Talk about arrogance.

Not impossible,

This concludes all. Thanks man. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom