PDA

View Full Version : Australia Needs 12 Large Subs For Security



megimoo
11-09-2010, 01:39 PM
"Sounds Like They Need A Mix Of Boomers And Fast Attack Boats Against China And Russia !"

"I doubt that Australia Has The Resources or The Infrastructure To Build Boats Like These In Australia !"

AUSTRALIA will need 12 big, long-range submarines to help it shape its own strategic future.

The region will be increasingly dominated by China, says Paul Dibb, author of the 1987 defence white paper.

In the wake of warnings about China's growing military power at the Ausmin talks, Professor Dibb will tell a Submarine Institute conference in Perth today it is time Australians took their strategic outlook much more seriously.

"We ignore our own unique strategic geography at our peril in the decades ahead," he will say.

Having a large, more potent submarine force must be a central strategic priority for Australia and there should be bipartisan agreement politically about that, Professor Dibb will tell the conference.

The boats should be built in Australia, he will say, and they should be fitted with powerful long-range weapons such as cruise missiles.

The current white paper has called for 12 long-range subs to be built in South Australia at an estimated cost of $36 billion, with the first of the boats to be operational from 2020.

"Too much of the defence debate in this country is preoccupied with the short term. There is a blindness in Australia towards the need to do our utmost to shape our own strategic future.

"We need to return to the fundamental importance of our strategic geography and focus on the potentially threatening historical changes that are about to occur to the geopolitical landscape in our part of the world."

Professor Dibb will stress that Australia needs a larger submarine force and a potent air force and he will deride the purchase for the navy of two giant military transports.

"We do not require two 27,000-tonne amphibious assault ships that will require protection by most of our surface, sub-surface and combat air patrol forces so they can put a token land force ashore."

By 2030, China could have 100 quiet, modern submarines.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/australia-needs-12-large-subs-for-security/story-e6frg6nf-1225950362509

Nubs
11-09-2010, 02:35 PM
Sounds like they have decided the US will no longer be depended on. Why else would they feel the need for self protection??? Sounds like Barry is fundementally changing the US.

megimoo
11-09-2010, 03:05 PM
Sounds like they have decided the US will no longer be depended on. Why else would they feel the need for self protection??? Sounds like Barry is fundementally changing the US.I think they reasoned out that they have to build up their own defenses .They had F-111's and Lockheed P-2 Neptune's for Maritime patrol and ASW before China started to build up their Navy but by now both types are obsolete .

The Chinese are acting very aggressive in the region and are now challenging Japan for control of an Island chain they lost during WW2 .

The Chinese Navy has been most actively building up their subs and surface forces and intend to dominate the region both economically and militarily for what they call ' The new Chinese Century' .The Chinese have warned America to stay out of the South China Sea and with Obama in the White House we may just kiss their asses ?

China and her puppet North Korea may well go to war with Japan if push comes to shove.If they can keep America out of the region they will retake Formosa and 'face down' the smaller nations in the region.

Japan and Australia will try to build up their forces but without America to back them up all is lost and China will win.China has an old score to settle with Japan and Japan being without Nuclear forces makes them weak against China !

Sonnabend
11-09-2010, 06:29 PM
"Sounds Like They Need A Mix Of Boomers And Fast Attack Boats Against China And Russia !"

As usual, megimoo isnt thinking. We have no need for missile submarines. Attack boats yes, but we have no need or wish for nuclear missile subs.


"I doubt that Australia Has The Resources or The Infrastructure To Build Boats Like These In Australia !"

And you'd be wrong. As usual. What you don't know about this country far exceeds the little you do know. We can and could build them, if we so chose....we're not some primitive backwater.


The boats should be built in Australia, he will say, and they should be fitted with powerful long-range weapons such as cruise missiles.

Will never happen. Australia has no need for a nuclear force, and never will.

fettpett
11-09-2010, 06:36 PM
Japan and Australia will try to build up their forces but without America to back them up all is lost and China will win.China has an old score to settle with Japan and Japan being without Nuclear forces makes them weak against China !

It's entierly possible that the Japanese have Nuclear weapons, there have been rumors of them having em for years, was well as subs.

If China went to war with Japan, then N. Korea would take the oppertunity to go after S. Korea, the whole thing could turn into a GIANT mess, possibly even a World War if it got too out of hand

megimoo
11-09-2010, 07:28 PM
As usual, megimoo isnt thinking. We have no need for missile submarines. Attack boats yes, but we have no need or wish for nuclear missile subs.



And you'd be wrong. As usual. What you don't know about this country far exceeds the little you do know. We can and could build them, if we so chose....we're not some primitive backwater.



Will never happen. Australia has no need for a nuclear force, and never will.Then tell me what you critters will do when China's Navy shows up off your beaches and comes ashore in the thousands ?

m00
11-09-2010, 10:23 PM
Then tell me what you critters will do when China's Navy shows up off your beaches and comes ashore in the thousands ?

Withdraw? There's far more beaches in Australia than Australians. :D I imagine invading Australia would be a lot like invading Russia... except you have no avenue of land retreat. Let the Chinese fight snakes and giant spiders all day.

Sonnabend
11-11-2010, 02:25 AM
Then tell me what you critters will do when China's Navy shows up off your beaches and comes ashore in the thousands

1. They won't because we will see them coming, contrary to that strange imagination of yours, they cannot launch an attack fleet and troops in a day, satellites would see the buildup, we have over the horizon radar and will see them coming, they'd have to pass other nations on the way..who'd see them and tell us.

Not to mention that we have "other assets" that would feed us intel on any amphibious assault...and they'd take WEEKS to get here by sea.

2. China isn't that stupid. You, on the other hand, are.

3. Our own diplomatic staff would be also kept advised, and they'd be well aware of any insane idea of launching an amphibious assault halfway around the world..what, do you think that assembling that many troops and sea assets and air assets woukdn't be noticed by anyone?

4. What the hell would they want to do that for anyway? We're a huge trading partner...you think they are that stupid to slit their own throats by turning the entire Pacific Rim into an enemy?

For God's sake , megi...give it a rest :rolleyes:

djones520
11-11-2010, 03:53 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Submarine_Corporation

Just to show Australia does have the infrastructure to build the Subs.

megimoo
11-11-2010, 08:21 AM
It's entierly possible that the Japanese have Nuclear weapons, there have been rumors of them having em for years, was well as subs.

If China went to war with Japan, then N. Korea would take the oppertunity to go after S. Korea, the whole thing could turn into a GIANT mess, possibly even a World War if it got too out of hand

Take a look at this.It's written by a couple of Greenies with the Anti Nuclear Greenpeace International .

Japan's Nuclear Twilight Zone
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/57/3/58.full

Japan has a large stockpile of weapons grade plutonium on hand .

Watch out for Mr Australia, he will bode no talk of Australia going Nuclear even to defend itself .:rolleyes:

megimoo
11-11-2010, 09:01 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Submarine_Corporation

Just to show Australia does have the infrastructure to build the Subs.There's a whole lot of difference between a little Collins class sub and 688 Los Angele's class let alone a bomber.
You neglected to read the whole thing .:D

"Each submarine was constructed in six sections, each consisting of several sub-sections.[37] One of the main criteria of the project was that Australian industries contribute to at least 60% of the work; by the conclusion of the project 70% of the construction and 45% of the software preparation had been completed by Australian-owned companies.

Work was sub-contracted out to 426 companies across twelve countries, plus numerous sub-sub-contractors.In many cases, components for the first submarine were constructed by companies outside Australia,

while those for the following five boats were replicated by an Australian-owned partner or subsidiary.[38] The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500."

ironhorsedriver
11-11-2010, 09:59 AM
Having served alongside Australian's once, I would do so again. They are tough, resourceful, and damn good war fighters. I gotta admit, I love the Country also, best liberty I ever had. Damn good people.

djones520
11-14-2010, 01:52 AM
There's a whole lot of difference between a little Collins class sub and 688 Los Angele's class let alone a bomber.
You neglected to read the whole thing .:D

"Each submarine was constructed in six sections, each consisting of several sub-sections.[37] One of the main criteria of the project was that Australian industries contribute to at least 60% of the work; by the conclusion of the project 70% of the construction and 45% of the software preparation had been completed by Australian-owned companies.

Work was sub-contracted out to 426 companies across twelve countries, plus numerous sub-sub-contractors.In many cases, components for the first submarine were constructed by companies outside Australia,

while those for the following five boats were replicated by an Australian-owned partner or subsidiary.[38] The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500."

Right... well the Aussies aren't planning on building 12 Los Angeles subs. Their planning on building 12 subs similar to the Collins Class, which those yards are fitted to handle.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-14-2010, 03:00 AM
Take a look at this.It's written by a couple of Greenies with the Anti Nuclear Greenpeace International .

Japan's Nuclear Twilight Zone
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/57/3/58.full

Japan has a large stockpile of weapons grade plutonium on hand .

Watch out for Mr Australia, he will bode no talk of Australia going Nuclear even to defend itself .:rolleyes:

Jesus christ megimoo its 2010 not 1942.

Sonnabend
11-14-2010, 06:11 AM
Take a look at this.It's written by a couple of Greenies with the Anti Nuclear Greenpeace International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace_International) .Who are only slightly more looney than you...but it's a close thing


Japan's Nuclear Twilight Zone http://bos.sagepub.com/content/57/3/58.full

Japan has a large stockpile of weapons grade plutonium on hand .

Watch out for Mr Australia, he will bode no talk of Australia going Nuclear even to defend itself .:rolleyes:We have no need for nuclear deterrence, and Japan is no threat to us in any sense.

Madisonian
11-14-2010, 08:11 AM
If you are going with a franchised shop, Quizno's is better than Subway in my opinion.
But my experience has been that independents beat the franchises hands down.

Bubba Dawg
11-14-2010, 09:29 AM
If you are going with a franchised shop, Quizno's is better than Subway in my opinion.
But my experience has been that independents beat the franchises hands down.

Ever had a Firehouse sub? They're pretty good too.

Odysseus
11-14-2010, 12:28 PM
Will never happen. Australia has no need for a nuclear force, and never will.


We have no need for nuclear deterrence, and Japan is no threat to us in any sense.

Never say "never." Australia's nuclear deterrent is us. That's not to say that they are at a high risk for a nuclear attack from China, but if our nuclear umbrella went away, they might find themselves having to rethink their posture. And China is far from the only threat, although I agree with you about Japan. North Korea is focused on us and the south, but they aren't likely to forget the Australian contingent that came with the UN troops, and the Islamists consider Australia part of Dar al Harb, not the Great Satan, but still an adversary.

The problem is that a strong, dominant USA keeps the peace throughout the world, even if we aren't engaged in operations everywhere, just the fact of our existence keeps a lot of evil in check. Unfortunately, the community organizer in chief doesn't get that. His ideological blinders have him focused on the few instances in which America hasn't been on the side of the angels, and he cannot conceive of us as a force for good, so he is abdicating the role, and the resulting vaccuum must be filled. Expect a lot of our allies to start shoring up their defenses in the face of our withdrawal from the world.

CueSi
11-14-2010, 12:55 PM
In which case, Australia has to do more than launch giant spiders and deadly crabs at her enemies, though I think it's a GREAT start! :D

Because there's ALOT of shit in Australia that can kill you. (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/australia.html)

~QC

megimoo
11-14-2010, 02:53 PM
Right... well the Aussies aren't planning on building 12 Los Angeles subs. Their planning on building 12 subs similar to the Collins Class, which those yards are fitted to handle.
If only you were able to read You would have noticed that they were only assembled in Australia,not built there.Here sound each word out........ s l o w l y .You're getting as bad as Mr Australia !!

"Work was sub-contracted out to 426 companies across twelve countries, plus numerous sub-sub-contractors.In many cases, components for the first submarine were constructed by companies outside Australia,".....Rather like tinker toys .

The Collins class are rather small to travel very far.They carry American MK48 ADCAP torpedo's and Cruise missiles .They are about twelve years old and about due for replacement .They aren't AIP so they need to frequently surface to change batteries.


Collins class Diesel-electric submarine
Six build but only three in service .

Crew Originally 42 (plus up to 12 trainees)
Increased to 58 in 2009

Payload: 22 torpedoes, mix of:
• Mark 48 Mod 7 CBASS torpedoes
• UGM-84C Sub-Harpoon anti-ship missiles

Endurance:70 days at sea
480 nautical miles (890 km; 550 mi) at 4 knots (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) (submerged)

Contract for the Replacement of Batteries and Technical Support for Collins Class Submarines
“The Acquisition Contract is valued at more than $81 million for the provision of five Collins Class Submarine battery sets and will support 56 local jobs over the next six years,” Mr Combet said.
.........................
The first submarine, HMAS Collins, was laid down in February 1990. Collins' launch was originally planned for 1994, but was later set for 28 August 1993.

Although launched on schedule, she was not complete: the design of the submarine had not been finalised, important internal pipes and fittings were not installed, the components of the combat system had yet to be delivered, and some hull sections were actually sheets of timber painted black so the submarine would appear complete in photographs of the launching ceremony.

Within weeks of the launch, Collins was removed from the water, and it was not until June 1994 that the submarine was completed.Progress on the other five submarines was delayed by the extra effort required to meet Collins' launching date and the subsequent work to complete her.

Collins was not commissioned into the RAN until 27 July 1996; eighteen months behind schedule, because of several delays and problems, most relating to the provision and installation of the combat data system software. Collins was not approved for operational deployments until 2000.

megimoo
11-14-2010, 03:42 PM
Never say "never." Australia's nuclear deterrent is us. That's not to say that they are at a high risk for a nuclear attack from China, but if our nuclear umbrella went away, they might find themselves having to rethink their posture. And China is far from the only threat, although I agree with you about Japan. North Korea is focused on us and the south, but they aren't likely to forget the Australian contingent that came with the UN troops, and the Islamists consider Australia part of Dar al Harb, not the Great Satan, but still an adversary.

The problem is that a strong, dominant USA keeps the peace throughout the world, even if we aren't engaged in operations everywhere, just the fact of our existence keeps a lot of evil in check. Unfortunately, the community organizer in chief doesn't get that. His ideological blinders have him focused on the few instances in which America hasn't been on the side of the angels, and he cannot conceive of us as a force for good, so he is abdicating the role, and the resulting vacuum must be filled. Expect a lot of our allies to start shoring up their defenses in the face of our withdrawal from the world.

You should taker our young 'balloon launcher' under your wing and teach him a bit about military warfare.Her's spent so much time looking at weather displays that he's not much on military technology.If he were a Jar Head instead of Air Force they would have re cycled him through a rifle company by now.

I have come to the conclusion that the launch on the West Coast was a Chinese show of force,In your face America.They pulled another Tour de Force in the middle of the seventh fleet manuvers recently.

The Song Class diesel-electric boats are very quiet about the same noise signature As The Old Russian Kilo class .They are too small to carry SLBM's so the launch must have been a dummy anti ship cruise missile .
The Military is keeping quiet about it for fear of a major public panic but heads will roll .

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier

Uninvited guest: A Chinese Song Class submarine, that sufaced by the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk They were able to get through our protection screens around the Kitty Hawk and rub crap in our faces.The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

hampshirebrit
11-14-2010, 04:16 PM
I have come to the conclusion that the launch on the West Coast was a Chinese show of force,In your face America.They pulled another Tour de Force in the middle of the seventh fleet manuvers recently.


Interesting.

Your conclusion has changed drastically from this (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=333109&postcount=27) (no Chinese capability without the US going ballistic (sic))* and from this (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=333523&postcount=37) (it was a trick of the light).

You posted both of these statements on the original thread dealing with the CA launch "event". I thought that they were reasonable positions for you to take, particularly as a former Navy E8.

Let us know, if you will, what has led you to such a dramatic volte face.

*Good metaphor, by the way.

megimoo
11-14-2010, 05:57 PM
Interesting.

Your conclusion has changed drastically from this (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=333109&postcount=27) (no Chinese capability without the US going ballistic (sic))* and from this (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=333523&postcount=37) (it was a trick of the light).

You posted both of these statements on the original thread dealing with the CA launch "event". I thought that they were reasonable positions for you to take, particularly as a former Navy E8.

Let us know, if you will, what has led you to such a dramatic volte face.

*Good metaphor, by the way.

It's quite obvious. The Chinese are taking an aggressive posture in several places just now.They feel that this will be their turn to be the worlds major power .From their view point The previous century was England's,last century was Americas and as they see it the next will be China's.

They staged their little 'pop up' in the middle of an American Carrier Battle groups maneuvers to demonstrate their prowess at penetrating Americas much vaulted sea power.

It follows that the launch off the California coast is just more of 'in your face America' Chinese taunting and a warning to America of China's new sea power.

They are 'flexing their muscle's' in the South China sea and warning America to keep away.They are 'pushing 'Japan over ownership of Senkaku Islands that Japan lost to America during WW2 .

They staged a collision between a Chinese Fishing Boat and A Japanese Patrol Boat off of the islands that was captured on Video by the Japanese Patrol boat.Japan has backed down in fear of a conflict with China and China is taking full advantage of Japans weakness.

They are contesting ownership over the islands and oppose US offer for three-way talks with Japan .
China is also contesting ownership of several oil and gas producing islands in the South China sea.

Unlike the Indian Ocean region, the South China Sea region is perceived as China’s home turf. Yet China has several challenges even here. Most of these relate to the contested ownership of the South China Sea,
especially its islands and their surrounding waters, which boast of immense untapped natural resources, especially natural gas and oil.

Thus, the battle is over natural resources as well as the critical shipping sea ways in South China Sea region.

China has long been perceived as being weak against American mighty sea power so a show of force against the 'Paper Tiger' was in order.

China also feels that it has 'purchased' America and demands subservience from America as a debtor nation .We owe them so they feel that they own us so to speak .

hampshirebrit
11-14-2010, 06:27 PM
It's quite obvious. The Chinese are taking an aggressive posture in several places just now.They feel that this will be their turn to be the worlds major power .From their view point The previous century was England's,last century was Americas and as they see it the next will be China's.

They staged their little 'pop up' in the middle of an American Carrier Battle groups maneuvers to demonstrate their prowess at penetrating Americas much vaulted sea power.

It follows that the launch off the California coast is just more of 'in your face America' Chinese taunting and a warning to America of China's new sea power.

They are 'flexing their muscle's' in the South China sea and warning America to keep away.They are 'pushing 'Japan over ownership of Senkaku Islands that Japan lost to America during WW2 .

They staged a collision between a Chinese Fishing Boat and A Japanese Patrol Boat off of the islands that was captured on Video by the Japanese Patrol boat.Japan has backed down in fear of a conflict with China and China is taking full advantage of Japans weakness.

They are contesting ownership over the islands and oppose US offer for three-way talks with Japan .
China is also contesting ownership of several oil and gas producing islands in the South China sea.

Unlike the Indian Ocean region, the South China Sea region is perceived as China’s home turf. Yet China has several challenges even here. Most of these relate to the contested ownership of the South China Sea,
especially its islands and their surrounding waters, which boast of immense untapped natural resources, especially natural gas and oil.

Thus, the battle is over natural resources as well as the critical shipping sea ways in South China Sea region.

China has long been perceived as being weak against American mighty sea power so a show of force against the 'Paper Tiger' was in order.

China also feels that it has 'purchased' America and demands subservience from America as a debtor nation .We owe them so they feel that they own us so to speak .

Yes, yes, you may be correct, and all this may or may not be true.

The question I asked you though, was what you have discovered since posting this (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=333109&postcount=27) and this (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=333523&postcount=37) that would lead you to make what seems to be quite a major change in your previous position.

megimoo
11-14-2010, 06:54 PM
Yes, yes, you may be correct, and all this may or may not be true.

The question I asked you though, was what you have discovered since posting this (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=333109&postcount=27) and this (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=333523&postcount=37) that would lead you to make what seems to be quite a major change in your previous position.

I just stated it ,It all follows simple logic.
If they were able to demonstrate their ability to penetrate a carrier battle group in the middle of the Pacific while it was running at flank speed while surrounded by a Aegis Sonar Screen and two Nuclear subs providing underwater protection to the carrier whats left ?

If you were a Chinese Leader and wished to 'tweak' Americas nose and make them very nervous about operating in the South China Sea what better way to show your new sea power then to launch a missile just off the California coast ?

The risk of war was minimal.The chances of detection were small.The ability to bait America in its own backyard and the subsequent loss of face for America was great and the best part they would never be able to prove it was China.

hampshirebrit
11-14-2010, 07:05 PM
I just stated it ,It all follows simple logic.
If they were able to demonstrate their ability to penetrate a carrier battle group in the middle of the Pacific while it was running at flank speed while surrounded by a Aegis Sonar Screen and two Nuclear subs providing underwater protection to the carrier whats left ?

If you were a Chinese Leader and wished to 'tweak' Americas nose and make them very nervous about operating in the South China Sea what better way to show your new sea power then to launch a missile just off the California coast ?

The risk of war was minimal.The chances of detection were small.The ability to bait America in its own backyard and the subsequent loss of face for America was great and the best part they would never be able to prove it was China.

So you think that the CA event was a Chinese- originated SLBM? This is a very long reach from your 11/11 posts.

You have made quite a shift in your logic in just three days. I would like to know what has led you to change your 11/11 position to your 11/14 one.

megimoo
11-14-2010, 07:20 PM
This is the type the Chinese would use.It actually was a rather cheap shot.The missile they launched was no doubt an anti-ship missile and not an ICBM but it will serve .

These things are a very small diesel boat and are about the same size as the Russian Kilo class.In the Song China appeared to be attempting to build the Russian Kilo .

Apart from indigenously developed submarine weapon systems such as indigenous active/passive-hoyuan torpedo and the YJ-8 (C-801) submarine-launched anti-ship missile, the Yuan class may also be capable of launching the latest Russian weapons (or their Chinese copies) such as the TEST-71MKE wire-guided torpedo, the 53-65KE wave-hoyuan torpedo, and even 3M-54E Club supersonic submarine-launched anti-ship missile.

China will no doubt go into AIP for their next class submarine design and by then hopefully America will have come up with a new detection method .

Type 039 Song-class Design

The SONG is China's first new-design, conventionally powered submarine. The SONG is a blend of Chinese and Western technology and has several key features that point to a major shift in diesel submarine design philosophy. It is the first Chinese submarine to have a skewed propeller.

The SONG also is the first Chinese submarine designed to carry the developmental YJ-82, China's first encapsulated ASCM capable of launching from a submerged submarine. SONGs are probably fitted with flank-array sonars of French design. Chinese diesel submarines are fitted with German MTU diesel engines.

megimoo
11-14-2010, 07:57 PM
So you think that the CA event was a Chinese- originated SLBM? This is a very long reach from your 11/11 posts.

You have made quite a shift in your logic in just three days. I would like to know what has led you to change your 11/11 position to your 11/14 one.
Not A SLBM but an anti ship missile.SLBM's are usually MIRVED Nuclear missiles.Anti ship missiles could also be nuclear but most are conventional warhead sea skimmers after their initial boost launch stage.

They all launch like a boomer but after their booster stage shuts down they drop to the sea's surface .Remember the Song class is a very small boat,For example an American D5 SLBM is 44 feet (13.41 meters) long and weighs 130,000 pounds (58,500 kg).It takes a big boat to fire an SLBM .


As I acquire more information the conclusion may also change .

Without the the fleet intrusion by the Chinese a missile shot by the Chinese off the American West Coast ports didn't make much sense.

China is much interested in driving America out of the South China Sea .They are thwarted by Americas 'show of force 'just off their coast.

They wish to expand their sphere of influence in the area but America constantly hold's them in check.They need to drive America out of the region but how.

Their surface navy is inadequate and they can't afford to complete directly with Americas carrier force by building their own.

The only way is by building up an advanced submarine force and sinking some of the American fleet.If they can instill fear into the carrier groups and drive them further off shore they can control the South China seas and retake Formosa. And if they can convince America that they can strike the American homeland they will have gone a long way in their drive for National Recognition as an equal to America .

Madisonian
11-14-2010, 08:17 PM
I think China is learning from the mistakes of the former USSR and increasingly forcing the US to make the same ones.

If they can rattle their sabres enough and ally with other governments not friendly to our government to keep US forces scattered around the globe picking up the cost of providing a deterrent force, they can bankrupt us.

How many hundreds of bases for all service branches do we pay to maintain and why are those we are protecting or playing Team America World Police for not picking up the tab?

megimoo
11-14-2010, 09:30 PM
I think China is learning from the mistakes of the former USSR and increasingly forcing the US to make the same ones.

If they can rattle their sabres enough and ally with other governments not friendly to our government to keep US forces scattered around the globe picking up the cost of providing a deterrent force, they can bankrupt us.

How many hundreds of bases for all service branches do we pay to maintain and why are those we are protecting or playing Team America World Police for not picking up the tab?Haven't they already put us in hock to them by their buying all of those 'T' Bills ?We owe them the better part of a trillion already and that fool in the Federal Reserve is busy printing more.Some of our carrier fleet is getting old and although we have eleven super carriers .

USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63): 60,000 ton, non-nuclear carrier. Commissioned 21 April 1961. Due for retirement in 2008.

USS Enterprise (CVN-65): 85,600 ton unique nuclear-powered supercarrier, commissioned 25 November 1961. First nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in service.

USS Nimitz (CVN-68): 104,000 ton Nimitz class nuclear-powered supercarrier in active service, commissioned 3 May 1975.

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69): 104,000 ton Nimitz class nuclear-powered supercarrier in active service, commissioned 18 October 1977.

USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70): 104,000 ton Nimitz class nuclear-powered supercarrier. Commissioned 13 March 1982.

USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71): 104,000 ton Nimitz class nuclear-powered supercarrier in active service, commissioned 25 October 1986.

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72): 104,000-ton Nimitz class nuclear-powered supercarrier. Commissioned 11 November 1989

USS George Washington (CVN-73): 104,000 ton Nimitz class nuclear-powered supercarrier in active service, commissioned 4 July 1992.

USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74): Nimitz class nuclear-powered supercarrier in active service, commissioned 9 December 1995.

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75): 104,000 ton Nimitz class nuclear-powered supercarrier in active service, commissioned 25 July 1998.

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76): The ninth 104,000 ton Nimitz-class nuclear powered supercarrier, in active service, commissioned 12 July 2003.

djones520
11-14-2010, 09:43 PM
I think China is learning from the mistakes of the former USSR and increasingly forcing the US to make the same ones.

If they can rattle their sabres enough and ally with other governments not friendly to our government to keep US forces scattered around the globe picking up the cost of providing a deterrent force, they can bankrupt us.

How many hundreds of bases for all service branches do we pay to maintain and why are those we are protecting or playing Team America World Police for not picking up the tab?

Japan picks up quite a bit of that tab.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/4.html