Chinese submarines, destroyers spotted in high seas near Okinawa

[mDumb]

<I am native American.....and yes we have >

You got a name that's similar to Sitting Bull or Broken Arrow? Do you live in a reservation? If both false then you don't count.

What's the percentage of your native American blood? If it's < 100&#37; then you also don't count.

Is your last name Irish, German, French, Scottish, etc.? If it's true then you also don't count.

<You do know what a rhetorical question is right?> Sure, that was my rhetorical response to you rhetorical question.

 

[applesauce]

Only 10 ships?

From wiki:

...According to ancient Chinese sources[citation needed], Zheng He commanded seven expeditions. The 1405 expedition consisted of 27,800 men and a fleet of 62 treasure ships supported by approximately 190 smaller ships.[18][19] The fleet included:
· Treasure ships (Chinese:&#23453;&#33337, used by the commander of the fleet and his deputies (nine-masted, about 126.73 metres (416 ft) long and 51.84 metres (170 ft) wide), according to later writers[citation needed]. This is more or less the size and shape of a football field. The treasure ships purportedly could carry as much as 1,500 tons. 1[20][21] By way of comparison, a modern ship of about 1,200 tons is 60 meters (200 ft) long,[22] and the ships Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492 were about 70-100 tons and 17 meters (55 ft) long.[23]
· Equine ships (Chinese:&#39340;&#33337, carrying horses and tribute goods and repair material for the fleet (eight-masted, about 103 m (339 ft) long and 42 m (138 ft) wide).[20]
· Supply ships (Chinese:&#31918;&#33337, containing staple for the crew (seven-masted, about 78 m (257 ft) long and 35 m (115 ft) wide).[20]
· Troop transports (Chinese:&#20853;&#33337, six-masted, about 67 m (220 ft) long and 25 m (83 ft) wide.[20]
· Fuchuan warships (Chinese:&#31119;&#33337, five-masted, about 50 m (165 ft) long.[20]
· Patrol boats (Chinese:&#22352;&#33337, eight-oared, about 37 m (120 ft) long.[20]
· Water tankers (Chinese:&#27700;&#33337, with 1 month's supply of fresh water.[20]
...

So 62+190=252 ships. Behold!

all in good time my friend...all in good times

 

[Kinetic]

Two submarines and 8 Destroyers???

Now that's a lot for normal patrolling.

Projection of Power is what I'd like to say. China is testing Japan. China likes to test other nations. Nothing new. They know they are powerful enough to do that. So they'd like to show it as well.

Can't agree with you here. Chinese naval capabilities depends on number while Japanese naval capabilities depends on technology. This is not called Projection of Power. I think you know about US or Russian CBGs, they are the real projection of power. One carrier with two DDG and one fleet tanker is much more than enough to destroy these Chinese eight DDGs and two submarines. Other than regional navies Chinese don't have any superiority. South Korea also very strong. Taiwan is fully backed by the US. ASEAN countries have their cooperation.

If Chinese are going to mess up with the Japanese, than the CPC doing its greatest mistake.

 

[Thomas]

<I am native American.....and yes we have >

You got a name that's similar to Sitting Bull or Broken Arrow? Do you live in a reservation? If both false then you don't count.

A Zimbabwe American Indian expert......... that's funny.

The fact that you think all 100% American Indians have names like Sitting Bull or Broken Arrow shows your ignorance. No I am 50% but I am a full member of the Cherokee Nation. And believe it or not tribal membership does not require you to live on a reservation.

 

[below_freezing]

Can't agree with you here. Chinese naval capabilities depends on number while Japanese naval capabilities depends on technology. This is not called Projection of Power. I think you know about US or Russian CBGs, they are the real projection of power. One carrier with two DDG and one fleet tanker is much more than enough to destroy these Chinese eight DDGs and two submarines. Other than regional navies Chinese don't have any superiority. South Korea also very strong. Taiwan is fully backed by the US. ASEAN countries have their cooperation.

If Chinese are going to mess up with the Japanese, than the CPC doing its greatest mistake.

sometimes having low numbers doesn't mean you're technologically superior - it may just mean you're inferior in all aspects.

no one would say the smaller iraqi navy was "technologically superior" to the USN and that the USN "can only win with numbers." same with the indian navy. it's not that you're going for "quality over quantity" its that you have neither.

heres a hint why Japanese Navy, despite its strength, would not fare well vs. China in a war:

none of their ships carry land attack cruise missiles; they are all anti-air or anti-sub ships.

all of our ships carry them.

in a real war, with the push of a button major airfields, ports, supply dumps and even their naval headquarters in southern japan would go up in flames, before the japanese navy could fire one shot.

then add that the japanese type-90 SSM is inferior to our YJ-83, our ships carry more and we have more ships on top.

 

[oceanx]

in a real war, with the push of a button major airfields, ports, supply dumps and even their naval headquarters in southern japan would go up in flames, before the japanese navy could fire one shot.

That's when you remember Japan sits on 30 tons of fissionable plutonium ...

Now I agree with your comment that Japan as a nation still has "undischarged" debt to China as a nation.

Remembrance and vigilance are yours to possess. However, "vengeance" belongs to He - who repays ...

 

[below_freezing]

That's when you remember Japan sits on 30 tons of fissionable plutonium ...

Now I agree with your comment that Japan as a nation still has "undischarged" debt to China as a nation.

Remembrance and vigilance are yours to possess. However, "vengeance" belongs to He - who repays ...

depends. if japan uses nuclear weapons first, then all bets are off, and the only outcome of a sino-japanese nuclear war is, china suffers major losses and japan is remembered only in history books. that is assuming of course that Japan would be able to launch a preemptive strike using nuclear weapons on china. the probability of them having both the capability and willpower to do so is not very optimistic.

designing and manufacturing cruise and ballistic missiles are a very complicated and long term process. japan does not possess the capability to manufacture these offensive munitions within a short time. thus even if they have the nuclear warheads created, they would have no way of delivering them within any meaningful time frame without a major north american nation supplying the missiles to do so.

 

[ao333]

Can't agree with you here. Chinese naval capabilities depends on number while Japanese naval capabilities depends on technology. This is not called Projection of Power. I think you know about US or Russian CBGs, they are the real projection of power. One carrier with two DDG and one fleet tanker is much more than enough to destroy these Chinese eight DDGs and two submarines. Other than regional navies Chinese don't have any superiority. South Korea also very strong. Taiwan is fully backed by the US. ASEAN countries have their cooperation.

If Chinese are going to mess up with the Japanese, than the CPC doing its greatest mistake.

1) It's not that the Chinese navy depend on numbers, but that it has numbers.

2) Just when did Japan's military technology came into equation? The Americans forced Japan to import its Aegis system for the Japanese navy and a 40&#37; core technology share on Japan's best indigenous fighter -- F-2. They did so to inhibit any domestic R&D. I guess since Indians believe everything sold to them becomes "Indian-indigenous", the same should also apply for Japan... Though, I don't blame the Indians since their Russian navy is still in the soviet-era and their indigenous airforce well into the 90s. Even the Japanese are ashamed of their current indigenous military technology and their American base in Okinawa. I don't think they need some Indian, complimenting their navy.

3) Weren't the Chinese just ironing out their home-grown AESA Aegis system? Oh wait, does India even have its own shipborne SAM or PESA?

4) Why did you bring the Russians and Americans into this? You're neither.

5) Umm, so just when did South Korea suddenly side with Japan? The last time I checked, their navy was stationed in the Korea Strait and Sea of Japan. If you had any geographical knowledge beyond Arunachal Pradesh, you would realize that one is pointed towards Japan and the other at North Korea+Japan. If America's control in East Asia were to falter, Japan and Korea would be the first to go into war.

6) ASEAN is simply a political and economic association, not even an union like the EU. Just when was their an "AESAN Navy?"

7) The world is against China in the eyes of Indians...

 

[below_freezing]

a shame for the japanese. their once feared navy is just the US's coast guard now.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Two submarines and 8 Destroyers???

Now that's a lot for normal patrolling.

Projection of Power is what I'd like to say. China is testing Japan. China likes to test other nations. Nothing new. They know they are powerful enough to do that. So they'd like to show it as well.

Just to make sure no pirate goes to Japan

 

[gpit]

ok so go and send 500 ships there......happy....lol..

On the other side, no one gives Indian laughable carrier a damn $hit except the Indians.

No one knows why you need a carrier except to boost you empty ego. We know India was invaded from the sea, but if there were a strong land army... In addition, your enemy number 1 from the north will invade you from south? In addition, there is another 2 billion+(!) laughing stock.

You never stop entertaining us, the world.

 

[RAHUL INDIAN]

On the other side, no one gives Indian laughable carrier a damn $hit except the Indians.

No one knows why you need a carrier except to boost you empty ego. We know India was invaded from the sea, but if there were a strong land army... In addition, your enemy number 1 from the north will invade you from south? In addition, there is another 2 billion+(!) laughing stock.

You never stop entertaining us, the world.

what u urself want that back....dnt u..?....ok send 1000 ships....happy now....lol....
that is why u posted that article....

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Chinese Submarines, Destroyers Spotted in High Seas near Okinawa

 

[faithfulguy]

depends. if japan uses nuclear weapons first, then all bets are off, and the only outcome of a sino-japanese nuclear war is, china suffers major losses and japan is remembered only in history books. that is assuming of course that Japan would be able to launch a preemptive strike using nuclear weapons on china. the probability of them having both the capability and willpower to do so is not very optimistic.

designing and manufacturing cruise and ballistic missiles are a very complicated and long term process. japan does not possess the capability to manufacture these offensive munitions within a short time. thus even if they have the nuclear warheads created, they would have no way of delivering them within any meaningful time frame without a major north american nation supplying the missiles to do so.

The result could be both japan and China both disappear from history. If Japan is attacked, US will launch 10 boat load of Tridents against China plus some minutemen III. US would be damaged by a few DF-31A and maybe 1-2 DF-5 even with MIRVs. So US would suffer many casualties but China would suffer complete destruction.

In the next 10 years, US might perfect mid course missile defense or use laser mounted planes or satellites to shoot down attacking ICBMs.

But in all likelyhood. No war between Japan, China and US would happen. These are the 3 largest economies in the world. In 20 years, these three countries would account for over half of the world economy. I think these 3 countries would want to expand ties than fight a war.

 

[below_freezing]

The result could be both japan and China both disappear from history. If Japan is attacked, US will launch 10 boat load of Tridents against China plus some minutemen III. US would be damaged by a few DF-31A and maybe 1-2 DF-5 even with MIRVs. So US would suffer many casualties but China would suffer complete destruction.

In the next 10 years, US might perfect mid course missile defense or use laser mounted planes or satellites to shoot down attacking ICBMs.

But in all likelyhood. No war between Japan, China and US would happen. These are the 3 largest economies in the world. In 20 years, these three countries would account for over half of the world economy. I think these 3 countries would want to expand ties than fight a war.

the burden of launching any nuclear war is on japan and the US, not on china. if japan reacts to a conventional attack with nuclear weapons then all bets are off.

the US would likely not act preemptively on behalf of japan. but if it does we are ready. not only a few DF-31 and DF-5s, but 6 boatloads of JL-2 can also be launched. needless to say, losing most US population centers will result in a major decline of relative US power.

the US should start lying low like Britain did in the 50's when it prepared for its collapse. After the end of the British Empire in the 60's, britain was no longer a hated country. If the US continues down its current track, the fate of the Soviet Union could seem very benign.