Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shot Across Our Bow
Investors Business Daily ^ | 1/2/2007 | Editorial Board

Posted on 01/04/2007 3:31:25 PM PST by Paul Ross

Defense: China's president announces that the world's most populous nation is preparing to challenge U.S. naval supremacy on the high seas by building a blue-water navy. The dragon sets sail.

In comments made last week to Communist Party delegates and published in the People's Liberation Army Daily, Hu Jintao, Chinese president and commander in chief, urged his country to build a "powerful navy that adapts to the needs of our military's historical mission in this new century and at this new stage."

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: bluewater; china; navy; plan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
Now if only the Wall Street Journal, snug in the pocket of the China Lobby, woke up.
1 posted on 01/04/2007 3:31:28 PM PST by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

If true, we need to rebuild our Navy. Since Clinton it has been going downhill.


2 posted on 01/04/2007 3:33:57 PM PST by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (We are going to win!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; ALOHA RONNIE; maui_hawaii; Travis McGee; JohnHuang2; doug from upland; cva66snipe
FYI.

Additional Datum: the first Chinese carrier is expected to be commissioned in 2010...

3 posted on 01/04/2007 3:34:52 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
If true, we need to rebuild our Navy.

Forts became obsolete with the invention of the cannon.

A billion dollar naval vessel can be taken out with a $100,000 missile.(Approximate numbers)

It doesn’t make sense to build a big navy.

4 posted on 01/04/2007 3:48:35 PM PST by FatherofFive (Choose life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
If true, we need to rebuild our Navy. Since Clinton it has been going downhill.

I don't think its legitimately doubted anymore what Chinese quantitative and qualitative intentions are...the only remaining issue is can they pull it off? As the IDB Editorial Board noted:

In February 2005, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld commented that the size of the Chinese submarine fleet could surpass the U.S. Navy's within a decade. "It is an issue," he said, "that the (Defense) Department thinks about and is concerned about and is attentive to." We hope so.

5 posted on 01/04/2007 3:50:13 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
It doesn’t make sense to build a big navy.

And pray tell us just how that magical $100,000 missile gets within effective range and gets properly targetted without something like a comprehensive Blue Water navy?

It isn't that Big Navies are obsolete. It is just that the advantage will go to whomever's Navy is inclined to shoot first.

Just who would you bet on in that regard, h'mmmm?

6 posted on 01/04/2007 3:53:24 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
It doesn’t make sense to build a big navy.

We have twelve carrier groups. Another being built. China will (maybe) have their first and only in several years. We can have three in refit at any time and still project major force. It makes a lot of sense to build a big Navy. Think "away game."

7 posted on 01/04/2007 3:54:31 PM PST by Aeronaut (Hebrews 13:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
A billion dollar naval vessel can be taken out with a $100,000 missile.(Approximate numbers)

Yeah but as of right now, that $100,000 missile must still be launched from a mobile platform (another ship or an aircraft) that can get within effective range (pretty much undetected). I just say that to illustrate that it isn't a straightforward accounting decision. Unless there is some new revolution in propulsion or automation the US will still need fairly large-displacement vessels with good sea-keeping capabilities to project power across the sea lanes.

China wants to be able to control the sea lanes to the Gulf on its own on the theory that the US Navy can shut off it's economic lifeline pretty much effortlessly at present.

8 posted on 01/04/2007 3:55:54 PM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

to be named the "Sitting Duck"


9 posted on 01/04/2007 3:59:29 PM PST by APRPEH (id theft info available on my profile page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
"And pray tell us just how that magical $100,000 missile gets within effective range and gets properly targetted without something like a comprehensive Blue Water navy?"

Maybe this?

Hypersonic Cruise Missile: America's New Global Strike Weapon

10 posted on 01/04/2007 4:00:01 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

Your comments reveal your ignorance of the capabilities and importance of Naval Forces!!


11 posted on 01/04/2007 4:01:53 PM PST by PISANO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blam
Nope. Nice toy. But otherwise kind of a waste of a perfectly good Trident missile. Rather significantly more expensive than $100,000.

Still need the Big Navy. Of which the Trident is definitely a part.... The Rods from God idea is not a substitute for it. May or may not be a supplemental tool in the arsenal, but certainly no substitute for the Fleet itself.

12 posted on 01/04/2007 4:10:56 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
They will pay for their Navy with proceeds from Wal-Mart .
13 posted on 01/04/2007 4:13:19 PM PST by chainsaw (We are going to take things away from you. - H. Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: APRPEH
to be named the "Sitting Duck"

You sure about that? Check in with Jeff Head about that.

Or the Heritage Foundation, as I note in this post here

14 posted on 01/04/2007 4:14:27 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Aeronaut
We have twelve carrier groups. Another being built.

The Plan was for the GHWB to replace the Kitty Hawk, and a renovated JFK kept in service. Apparently the JFK's renovation has been cancelled by the White House, and it, and implicitly the Kitty Hawk will both be decommissioned. So we go down from the Congressionally-mandated 12 carrier battle groups to only 10, perhaps getting back to 11 when the GHWB is commissioned. Until then, if the Kitty Hawk is rushed into retirement as they intend for the JFK, we will be down to only 10...

15 posted on 01/04/2007 4:20:40 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
And What will by flying off this Carrier?

China is also believed to be developing a suitable multirole fighter for its future aircraft carrier. Sources inside Russia stated that China may be intent to acquire the thrust-vectoring control (TVC)-equipped AL-31FN engines in order to develop a carrier-capable version of the Chengdu J-10 fighter. The TVC would enable the fighter to take-off from a Russian-style ski-jumping flight deck and to reduce the aircraft’s landing speed, an important safety concern for carrier aircraft. It is also possible that China will purchase the Russian Su-33 naval fighter aircraft or its improved variant for its future carrier. The Su-33, developed from the Su-27 fighter which has been serving with the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) for over a decade, is deemed to be more suitable for Varyag since the fighter was originally developed for Kuznetsov class and is 100% compatible with the Russian-designed carrier.
AIRCRAFT CARRIER PROGRAMME
16 posted on 01/04/2007 4:29:21 PM PST by APRPEH (id theft info available on my profile page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
And pray tell us just how that magical $100,000 missile gets within effective range and gets properly targetted without something like a comprehensive Blue Water navy?

A bomber that can circumvent the globe on a one leg route and is impervious to detection.

17 posted on 01/04/2007 4:29:43 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chainsaw
They will pay for their Navy with proceeds from Wal-Mart.

But will never compare to our Navy because of the likes of Walmart.

18 posted on 01/04/2007 4:32:39 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
A bomber that can circumnavigate the globe on one leg route and is impervious to detection?

You mean like the B-2 that the Chinese just stole a whole passel of stealth-secrets on? [Undoubtedly compromising it or any other follow-on]

And that Clinton stopped production of at a meager 22 way too few to be called a bomber fleet?

19 posted on 01/04/2007 4:32:58 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
The large navy is a thing of the past. We could sink them all from thousands of miles away.

China is still in the past, and the large Navy is more for public consumption then a worry to us. they know this, but it sells good to the peon countries they are courting, and gives them bragging rights that they need domestically.

20 posted on 01/04/2007 4:36:15 PM PST by Cold Heat ("Ward!.........Go easy on the beaver"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson