Home » Aviation » Chinese Weapons That Worry the Pentagon


Chinese Weapons That Worry the Pentagon

By:
Published: • Updated:

china_Songs

The Pentagon released its 2014 report to Congress, Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China on Thursday. An annual requirement since 2010, the report outlines military technology advancements and the techniques and training the branches of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) have undertaken in the last year.

While the report seldom contains any earthshattering revelations on China’s military advancement, it does — in very broad strokes — give insight to the developments in China that give the Department of Defense the most concern.

The following is a selection of Chinese weapons that were highlighted in the report.

China’s Carriers

China's carrier Liaoning, PLAN Photo

China’s carrier Liaoning, PLAN Photo

No piece of Chinese hardware in the last decade has prompted more U.S. concern than the China’s first modern aircraft carrier — Liaoning.

The 55,000-ton ship is a former Ukrainian-built, Soviet-era ship the Chinese are using to learn the ropes of carrier operations — some of the toughest and most dangerous work at sea.
“The carrier most likely will conduct extensive local operations focusing on shipboard training, carrier aircraft integration, and carrier formation training for the next three to four years. The carrier conducted operations in the East China Sea and South China Sea in November may be used for other missions as needed,” read the report.

A People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) strike group formation operating in late 2013 almost collided with the Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Cowpens (CG-63).

The carrier is widely seen as a training ground for a domestic carrier program China first hinted at in 2010 and parts of the Chinese regional government dropped more hints in 2013.

“The first Chinese-built carrier will likely be operational sometime at the beginning of the next decade. The formation of carrier battle groups will enable the [PLAN] to conduct comprehensive sea control and power projection operations and enhance its long-range operational capabilities,” read the report.

Though the carrier grabs headlines, the actual military utility of the ship is still very much up for debate.

Liaoning currently is more of a political statement than a naval threat, posing little operational danger to the United States, its allies in East Asia, or even to smaller regional nations,” wrote Bernard D. Cole, a retired U.S. Navy officer and instructor at National Defense University, in USNI News in May.

China’s Stealth Fighters

Changes between prototypes of China's stealth fighter prototypes.

Changes between prototypes of China’s stealth fighter prototypes.

China continues development of the twin-engine Chengdu J-20 fifth-generation stealth fighter as part of an effort to “develop aircraft with low observable features, advanced avionics, super-cruise engines.” The Pentagon report insists that the aircraft will not enter service before 2018. The aircraft is described as a multi-role aircraft in the report rather than an air superiority fighter like the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The report notes “China faces numerous challenges to achieving full operational capability, including developing high-performance jet engines.”

China is also developing the smaller twin-engine Shenyang J-31 fifth-generation fighter, which bears a resemblance to the Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The report notes that it is unclear which branch of the People’s Liberation Army will operated the new aircraft or if it will be offered for export. “It is unclear if the J-31 is being developed for the PLAAF or the PLA Navy Air Force, or as an export platform to compete with the U.S. F-35,” the report notes.

China’s Flying Shark

An undated photo of Chinese J-15 fighter in tests aboard Liaoning. PLAN Photo

An undated photo of Chinese J-15 fighter in tests aboard Liaoning. PLAN Photo

The Chinese navy also conducted carrier-based operations with its new Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark unlicensed derivative of the Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker in 2013. By September of last year, the report notes that PLAN pilots flying the J-15 were conducting full-stops and takeoffs with weapon loads at full maximum gross weights onboard the carrier Liaoning. “Although the J-15 has a land-based combat radius of 1,200 km, the aircraft will be limited in range and armament when operating from the carrier, because the ski-jump design does not provide as much airspeed and, therefore, lift at takeoff as a catapult design,” the report notes.

Bigger Planes

Xian Y-20 airlifter. CCTV Screengrab

Xian Y-20 airlifter. CCTV Screengrab

The PLA is also continues development of the Xian Y-20 heavy strategic airlifter, which first flew at the beginning of last year. “The Y-20 could also acquire additional missions such as an airborne warning and control system (AWACS) and as an aerial refueling tanker,” the report notes.

China is modernizing its geriatric Tupolev Tu-16 Badger-derived Xian H-6 bombers with two upgraded variants that could pose a threat to the US carrier fleet and land bases in the Pacific. The upgraded H-6G has hardpoints capable of carrying four anti-ship cruise missiles. Meanwhile, the newer H-6K has new turbofan engines and room to carry six anti-ship or land attack cruise missiles. “Modernizing the H-6 into a cruise missile carrier has given the PLA Air Force a long- range stand-off offensive capability with precision-guided munitions,” the report notes.

Nuclear Submarines

An undated photo of a Jin-class Type 94 nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN). PLAN Photo

An undated photo of a Jin-class Type 94 nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN). PLAN Photo

The Chinese have three operational nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) which will likely start strategic deterrent patrols this year, according to the report.
The new 11,000-ton Jin-class Type 94 boomers have been under development by the People’s Liberation Army Navy for the last decade and are China’s first real entrée into the sea-based deterrent world.
“Three JIN-class SSBNs (Type-094) are currently operational, and up to five may enter service before China proceeds to its next generation SSBN (Type-096) over the next decade,” according to the report.

With five or six boats in the PLAN’s inventory, China could have a consistent strategic deterrent patrol parallel to France or the U.K. in the next few years, Eric Wertheim, author of Naval Institute’s Guide to Combat Fleets of the World told USNI News in February.

The new boomers replace the older Type 92 Xia-class submarines armed with the much less capable JL-1 submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM).

JL-2
jl2

Paired with the Jin-class is the new Chinese JL-2 SLBM, which is far more cable than the JL-1 missile that was paired to the Xia-class boomer.

The missile has an “estimated range of 7,400 km. The JIN-class and the JL-2 will give the PLA Navy its first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent,” according to the report.

The missiles could reach Alaska or the U.S. West Coast according to the estimate from a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) released earlier this year.

According to unconfirmed press reports, the JL-2 is a three-stage missile capable of carrying three to six warheads with a yield of 90 kilotons a piece or a single warhead with a yield of 250 to 1000 kilotons.

Air Defense

Russian S-400 SAM system.

Russian S-400 SAM system.

China continues to develop its already formidable integrated air defense system. “Defense against stealth aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles is also a growing priority,” the report notes. The force includes Russian-built SA-20 (S-300 PMU1/PMU2) and the indigenous HQ-9. China interested in the SA-X-21b (S-400). “Russian officials have stated China would not receive the S-400 until at least 2017,” according to the report. “Simultaneously [China is] developing its indigenous HQ-19 which appears to be very similar to the S-400.”

China is also bolstering it early warning systems with the addition of the Kongjing-2000 airborne early warning aircraft—similar in concept to the Boeing E-3 Sentry or Northrop Grumman E-2D. The aircraft would provide coverage at long ranges and low altitudes for faster response and command targeting to weapon systems, according to the report. China is also improving reconnaissance technologies to include infrared, multiple-spectrum, pulsed Doppler, phased array, and passive detection, the report says. The Chinese early warning systems are networked with their integrated air defenses.

Guided Missile Destroyers

The first of the People's Army Liberation Navy Type 052D Luyang III destroyer. PLAN Photo

The first of the People’s Army Liberation Navy Type 052D Luyang III destroyer. PLAN Photo

China is expanding its surface fleet with ships that look similar to the U.S. and Western allies, according to the report.

The Type-052D Luyang III guided missile destroyer is an expression of several advances in surface weapons technology.

“The first Luyang III, which will likely enter service in 2014, incorporates the PLA Navy’s first multipurpose vertical launch system, likely capable of launching ASCMs, land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and anti-submarine missiles. China is projected to build more than a dozen of these ships to replace the aging Luda- class destroyers (DD),” according to the report.

However, absent from the report is a discussion of ship’s radars.

The new ships field Type 346 AESA radar and a Type 518 L-band radar paired with the CPMIEC HQ-9B surface-to-air missile defense system, which maybe able to detect U.S. fifth generation stealth aircraft.

Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles

DF-21D

DF-21D

In the last several years, Chinese missile technology has been dominated by DF-21D so-called carrier killer missile.

“China is fielding a limited but growing number of conventionally armed medium- range ballistic missiles, including the CSS-5 Mod 5 (DF-21D) anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM),” read the report.
“The CSS-5 Mod 5 gives the PLA the capability to attack large ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean. The CSS-5 Mod 5 has a range exceeding 1,500 km and is armed with a maneuverable warhead.”

The missile — which U.S. officials claim is operational — has never been seen in use and there’s little evidence the PLA has developed the information, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) to guide the missile effectively to a moving carrier target.

The Chinese are also developing medium range missiles that are able to strike regional targets — including Taiwan.

  • Pete Sikes

    So they are 20-50 years behind us in technology, have what amounts to a training carrier, can’t use catapults and can’t deploy more than a handful of ships outside of local areas.

    • Marcd30319

      Technologies gaps can be closed more rapidly than human complacency, Pete.

      Please recall that it was a short four years between the illusion of an American nuclear monopoly and the Soviets lighting-off Joe-1 in 1949. U.S. intelligence had predicted the USSR would have the A-bomb for ten to twenty years, and during the Truman administration, our military planning was based on that assumption. SNAFU and FUBAR that!

      Also, American and European military planners were highly dismissive of the Japanese military prowess. It took Pearl Harbor, Manila, Corregidor, Singapore, etc., to dis-abuse us of our perceived technological and national superiority.

      And regardless of its current capabilities, like the Soviet Navy during the Cold War, the Chinese navy does reap political benefits by simply being a “fleet-in-being.” It can show the flag, and it adds a complication to our military planning that had not previously been a factor.

      • Diogenes_of_NJ

        And to think they got that leg up with just a few million contributed
        to a presidential campaign. I’m recalling ’94, Bernie Schwartz, Loral,
        et al. Bet that Hop Sing can scare you back to the 2nd island chain
        with the ASBM they built from Pershing II drawings.

        The country is much safer when the Democrats are merely scamming global warming. Oh wait – they’re sucking the Defense budget dry with that one too. Late 20th Century treason evolves into economic suicide in the 21st Century. Cloward & Piven makes all of this a moot point in any respect.

      • Pete Sikes

        The only reason Russia acquired nukes so soon was because of spies who gave them the information, it was neither a SNAFU nor was it FUBAR. (Do you know what those terms mean?) Same with naval advances in China, they may have it, but they can’t use it effectively any time soon. This is not racially motivated as it was before and during WWII about Japan. One single non-operational Chinese carrier is not a threat to our Navy, their destroyers are a much bigger threat.

        • Marcd30319

          Once again, Pete, this is article is about the future potential developments regarding Chinese naval and military forces. Nothing in either of your previous postings invalidate the dangers of being complacent, nor my argument for being being prepared. Nor does any of your posting invalidates the benefits that the Chinese reap by showing their flag and acting as a “fleet in being.”

          • Pete Sikes

            You could talk about the future potential of the Vietnamese Navy also…it still won’t be a threat any time soon.

          • Marcd30319

            Petr, that was a pretty astounding astonishing.

            Once again this article was about the future threat of Chinese military and naval development reported by the USNI news blag based on the DOD report to the Congress.

            Nor does your post in any way invalidates the current advantage that the China reaps when its warship show the flag and act as a “fleet-in-being.”

            BTW – A recent USNI news article by By: Scott Cheney-Peters dated June 2, 2014 reported that Japan will be supplying patrol ships to the Vietnamese Navy. Clearly, the Vietnamese are not being complacent about the Chinese military.

            Check it out.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Pete’s point is a valid and relevant one. We can all do these proverbial “what if, what if…” exercises all we want. Seeing how the future is the single most unknown quantity there is, then ANY country or even a quasi-government (like a terrorist organization) can be said to represent a ‘future threat’. Who knows, maybe Chile will once again be able to demonstrate its naval prowess as it did at times back in the 1800s?

          • Marcd30319

            Maybe the martians will return and finish the job they started as reported by H.G. Wells.

            Maybe Atlantis will rise and rule the world again.

            Maybe the Star Wars evil empire or the Klingons or Loki will return and destroy us.

            These are all “proverbial “what if, what if…” exercises,” too.

            Resorting to Reductio ad absurdum is never an effective approach in any discussion, nor is it a “valid and relevant one.”

            Let’s try to return to reallity.

            That reality is that this article is about the recent DOD report of future Chinese military trends and its potential threat to the United States.

            Give that at try.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            The reality of YO&U not being able to comprehend other views? THAT reality?

          • Marcd30319

            No. CG, as I have said repeatedly, my problem with you is that you base your reality based solely on you opinions that are devoid of facts, evidence, analysis, historical precedent, and most of all, reason. I am happy to engage you when you start bring something more to the discussion than this endless. mind-numbing nonsense.

        • Chesapeakeguy

          I don’t think Marc30319 has devoted any time or effort to research what our allies in that region bring to the table. The ChiComs have to deal with capable militaries in Japan, South Korea. and to lesser degrees Taiwan and Australia. All of those entities are capable of being expanded. Nobody has dismissed ChiCom potential, but some of us are smart enough to not buy into the scare-mongering that is usually a ploy to siphon yet more money out of us taxpayers for an already bloated and inefficient budget process. We’ve LIVED through this in the past.

          The dumbest single thing we are doing (IMHO) is NOT designing and building non-nuke subs to augment our nuke ones. There is a quality in quantity. There is a Nuclear Mafia within our Defense establishment that succeeds in derailing such initiatives. We should be building non-nuke subs for export, as well as for ensuring that we have enough of them to train AGAINST. A military confrontation with the ChiComs any time soon is not cause for worry in and of itself, BUT, it is what the RUSSIANS do, or don’t, that we must be prepared for. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that they will actively ally with the ChiComs in a military conflict, despite their past problems. Putin is a smart player on the world stage at present, if he senses opportunity he will try to grab it.

          • Marcd30319

            I have been a member of the Naval Institute since 1974, and I read both the Proceedings and Naval History cover to cover, including the monthly columns by Norman Polmar, Eric Wertheim, Edward J. Walsh, Norman Friedman, Don Walsh, etc.

            Recent book from the Naval Institute Press that I have read include Asian Maritime Strategies by Bernard D. Cole and Anti-Access Warfare by Sam J. Tangredi. I also own a number of editions of Combat Fleets by Wertheim.

            I am also a member of the Naval Submarine League, read the Submarine Review cover to cover, and have donated to the Dolphin scholarship program. I am also a member of the Naval Historical Foundation.

            Now what was this about not knowing anything about our allies? More to the point was this article or the DOD report about our allies? Yes, our allies do play a role, but that wasn’t the focus of this article and the DOD report. Seem like going off on a tangent.

            Now about nuclear submarine and why we don’t have non-nuke subs. The reason is simple — nuclear submarines give the US Navy global reach that non-nuclear submarine. For all practical purposes, the United States is an island in the middle of the world’s ocean operating from its own interior lines of communications over trans-oceanic distances to support our far-flung systems of allies. That is your basic Samuel P. Huntington. I am sure you have heard of him and his article about the post-war U.S. Navy and its challenges.

            Now, after World War Two, we attempted to produce cheap, small conventional-powered submarines to hold the GUIK gap in the event of a third battle of Atlantic with Soviet submarines. It didn’t work. As early as 1957’s Operation Strikeback show the value of nuclear submarine when the Nautilus ran circles around NATO’s ASW forces with impunity. Captain Edward L. Beach wrote in his 1999 memoir that his ship, the Triton, successfully evade Royal Navy ASW forces in 1960. What Beach did was simplicity in action — Triton went deep and stayed underneath the British flagship.

            In fact, the U.S. Navy ordered its last conventionally-powered attack submarine before the Nautilus was operational because Admiral Burke realized that nuclear submarines offered some many advantages. Admiral Rickover proved it could be done, and when Admiral Raborn proved ballistic missile could be launched from submarines, the nuclear submarine became a true capital ship. Read Norman Polar’s Cold War Submarines for the details.

            Why mess with success!

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Not the focus of the article? Your buddy KAB brought up cruise missiles, which weren’t part of it either. I noticed you didn’t see fit to comment about THAT! Now, to some of these latest ‘points’. Nobody argues that nukes are by FAR better platforms for most any mission over conventionally powered subs. I certainly haven’t. BUT, as even YOU keep pointing out, things have changed. The world, technology, etc. Nuke subs are being used for missions that they are way ‘over-qualified’ for, much like how Aegis-class surface ships are being employed in anti-piracy, anti- drug running, and other ‘missions’ that are a true waste of their capabilities. Our navy has to lease conventional subs from Sweden for crying out loud, to test and evaluate, and even train, against them.

            Nobody argues that we do not, and will not, have enough nuke subs if a major conflict breaks out. I say, AGAIN, that in the event that a conflict arises with the ChiComs, we do NOT know that the Russians will do. THAT is what we need to be prepared for, and conventional subs can play a role, a HUGE role, in that. So what about their lack of a global reach? We want them where they will be needed. The LCS is probably going to be forward deployed to bases in theater, and nuke subs today are forward based as well, in Guam, and in the past is Scotland and Rota, among other places. We have a nuke carrier in Japan. I expect that conventionally powered subs would be more readily accepted by the Japanese population than another nuke ship/boat.

            No one says REPLACE nukes with conventional boats, but they should indeed AUGMENT them. That will free up at least some of the nukes for what they do best. Everything does not need to be the proverbial silver bullet, the lead ones will do just fine against many, if not most, targets!

          • Marcd30319

            KAB’s post continues to rankle you because he disputed your post. His post about cruise missiles was an interesting point, but to conflate that posting when it come to the original focus of this article is misplaced.

            Regarding your assertion that somehow non-nuclear submarine would be more palatable to the Japanese for basing in Japan is odd. The principal objective that the Japanese always had to U.S. naval ship was the possibility of having nuclear warhead on board, and as policy, the refusal to neither confirm or deny that fact. That hasn’t been an issues since President George HW Bush ordered their removal from U.S. warship in 1991, some 23 years ago.

            Additionally, the Japanese did briefly operated a nuclear-powered merchant ship so nuclear propulsion is not nearly the issue that nuclear weapons had been over nuclear weapons. Also, the nuclear supercarrier George Washington has been based in Japan since 2008 with virtually no repercussion from the Japanese.

            You are not current regarding Rota or Scotland. Only ballistic missile subs wer based at Rota and Scotland, but not since the Cold War. Guam is U.S. territory so there are no complications with negotiating with a hosting country.

            Now I never suggested that you advocated replacing nuclear submarine with non-nuclear submarines. That said, there are a number of compelling reasons to stick with nuclear submarines.

            1. Non-nuclear diesel-electric submarines have limited operational capabilities.

            Non-nuke subs have to be refueled, and even with new materials and technologies, electric batteries have inherent limitations. Unlike surface ships, underway refueling at sea is highly hazardous for submarines. Consequently, non-nuke have t be based overseas to be effective, and that has problems.

            2. Given these operational limitations, non-nuclear diesel-electric submarines have to be forward based and subject to negotiation with the hosting countries.

            While basing overseas is an option, there are several problems. Negotiating basing rights with the hosting country can be complicated and drawn-out. Also, to base overseas, you will need to support those submarines with a submarine tender. Since we have only two tenders in commission, based in Guam and Diego Garcia, this make potential overseas basing of any submarine highly problematic. You could bring the USS McKee back into commission, but it would be time consuming, and with over 1000-man crew, far more expensive to do, especially if servicing non-nuclear diesel-electric submarines with limited operational capabilities.

            3. Non-nuclear diesel-electric submarines are highly hazardous.

            Ask the crew of the USS Bonefish. Sea water and battery fluid do mix, but the mixture is pretty toxic and flammable.

            4. Why buy when you can buy?

            In these times of tight defense budget, renting non-nuclear diesel-electric submarines for training purpose only make economic sense.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            I guess these boards are the proverbial “who you know and who you ____” joke that permeates so many other alleged ‘discussion boards’. I post on here, and Marc, aka Hillary, whines and sobs to the administrators to have them removed. If anyone cares, look up Stars and Stripes articles from just a couple of years ago to see that the Japanese are STILL protesting the “GW” being there, and the reasons WHY they protest. I had that link on here that exposed what Marc/Hillary was saying is a fraud, but obviously I don’t have the clout to keep them on here. So many other valid points wiped out because no doubt the same administrators are tired of seeing Marc/Hillary being schooled. On top of that, Marc/Hillary edited his original post AFTER he had the administrators take my reply down. His is almost entirely different from the one I responded to. Leftist America in all its glory, folks. Now even USNI is infected.

            To sum up, conventional boats, like nukes, need TENDERS, or some other FORWARD support. They (conventional boats) are not for ALL missions, but can certainly free up the nuke boats to do what THEY do best, and not be wasted on missions or areas best suited to something less capable, but still ABLE, to accomplish the job. Besides Japan, there are other basing options worth exploring around the world for deploying them (conventional boats) as efficiently as possible.

            Stand by for this post to disappear as well. Let’s see if USNI is more interested in perpetuating half-truths or out-and-out distortions than advancing a true dialogue about what best serves this nation!

          • Marcd30319

            CG, regarding the George Washington, I said “virtually no repercussion from the Japanese.” Are there the occasional, small-scale, Yankee go home protest?. Sure, but that comes from the far left and anti-nuclear groups which do not speak for the Japanese government that continues our basing there. And since the decommissioning of the USS Kitty Hawk, there are no non-nuclear carriers so the only thing available are the Nimitz-class carriers.

            Regarding conventionally-powered submarine, the fact that nuke subs and conventional subs require support from a submarine tender is axiomatic, but beside the point. For a number of sound reasons involving logistics, training, maintenance, tactics, etc., the U.S. Navy is not going to expend limited budgetary resources on weapon systems of limited utility like conventionally-powered submarine.

            As far of you not being able to post links, well, that’s USNI new blog policy. I had a number of links I wanted to post to prove my points but could not.

            Other than some vague, unsubstantiated references to Stars and Stripes “from just a couple of years ago” and links of unknown value, you still seem to think that just you opinion automatically carries the day.

            Sure, you can post anything you want, but don’t expect that it will automatically be accepted solely because you wrote. It will be examined and as justified, it will be challenged.

            Reasoned discussion requires more than just opinions, and nothing that you have posted to date have proven otherwise.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            You said that no protests had been staged since 2008. Any reseacrh of the subject shows that the ‘acceptance’ of the GW is universal over there, and furthermore, your contention that said protests are about weapons, and nothing else, flies in the face of the actual truth.

            Also, for someone who tries to pass himself off as some sort of expert on here, because you’ve supposedly ‘read’ some articles, you shoot yourself in the foot (yet again) with your claims. The USN is at this moment producing an entire class of surface ships (LCS) with limited and questionable utility. They exist for littorals only. Producing conventional subs to RELIEVE the nukes from missions and responsibilities they should not have to deal with makes eminent sense, economically and operationally. That you’re so challenged by that is on you, not anyone else.

            Oh, and unlike you, I am not threatened by other opinions, and (again) unlike you, I welcome them for the opportunities they offer for discussion. My opinion DOES count here, as do all who engage in a manner that is not described as ‘snark’, which of course excludes you.

          • Marcd30319

            The George Washington carrier strike group will remain based in Japan since we have based a carrier battle group since 1973 because the Japanese government want a forward-based carrier and its escorts in the neighborhood.

            That’s nearly 40 years of mutual cooperation that benefits both our countries, and no amount of wishful thinking and willful ignoring or the facts can erase.

            The littoral combat ship (LCS) is designed designed to operate in the littoral environment. The LCS would support special operation mission, in-shore mine-sweeping, and anti-submarine operations using specialized change-out mission modules

            But the LCS was not meant to replace a blue-water navy, just undertake missions in the littoral environment.

            As far as conventionally-powered submarine, beyond the historic and logistical consideration, I recommend you examine the history of the USS Cochino (SS-345) and the USS Gudgeon (SSi567).

            Interestingly, after its nearly-fatally mission, Gudgeon was sent on a around-the-world cruise as a cover story in 1957. From Dictionary of American Fighting Ships:

            Sailing from Pearl Harbor 8 July 1957, Gudgeon began a history-making cruise around the world, making the Pacific Fleet Submarine Force’s flagship the first American submarine to circumnavigate the globe. After exercises at Yokosuka, Gudgeon sailed west 26 August 1957. As she made her way around the world for the next 6 months, the submarine docked at Asian, African and European ports before a triumphal entry into Pearl Harbor 21 February 1958, 8 months and 25,000 miles since taking departure.

            Yet, two years later, another around-the-world cruise occurred. Unlike Gudgeon, this cruise was done entirely submerged, and it was completed in 84 days. The ship was the nuclear-powered radar-picket submarine Triton. I rest the case for not having non-nuke subs.

            I concur that your opinion DOES count here, but only because zero is a number.

          • Secundius

            We have one of two choices to make. We can either use the Littorals and have them used, either as Destroyer Escort class or use them as Interim Frigate class. The alternative choice is to use maybe 30% of or ARLEIGH BURKE class destroyers and use them, also as an Interim Frigate class. Neither solution is perfect. But its all we have to work with.
            Until, we can get our part-time congress of their collective ARSSES and give us the Navy we needed, Yesterday!!!

          • Marcd30319

            If I was going for an off-the-shelf approach for a littoral combat warship, without the multi-mission modules of the current LCS, I would go with either ”Sa’ar 5”-class corvette or the Austal Multi-Role Vessel (MRV).

            The ”Sa’ar 5”-class corvette was built for the Israeli Navy by Ingalls, and that contract was administered by NAVSEA so there is already ample technical knowledge.

            The MRV has not been built or sold, buy Austal designs and builts some excellent ship.

            In any case, they would have to be based overseas near vital choke-points.

            Regarding frigates, Lockheed is making a strong case for an up-sizing of its Freedom-class LCS for the replacement frigate for the venerable Perry-class FFGs. See the recent USNI news article by Sam LaGrone dated June 10, 2014.

            Also, see retired -Vice Admiral Barry McCullough response to Norman Polmar’s “Counting Warships” in the May 2014 Proceedings. Adm. McCullough estimates that using the current LCS design and up-scaling it would cut the delivery of the first new frigate to four years. He states that a clear-sheet design approach would take at least 12 years from start to delivery.

          • Secundius

            I agree with you 12-year assessment on your, from design-to-commission date assessment. The problem is, we don’t 12-years to fart-around with, we might have only halt that time. We can either by ships from the Australians, Japanese, South Koreans, or Spain. Which lean heavily on American Design Doctrine or we Reverse Lend-Lease from those same powers to be. And use those ships, as a stop-gap until we can get our US Navy house in order. And then return or transfer those same ships. Where as, as needed. It’s not the best solution. But, its the solution I can come-up with at this time. Unless you and the others have a better one.

          • Marcd30319

            The 12-year development timeline comes from retired Vice Admiral Barry McCullough, but it seems about right.

            That explains why we continued to buy Nimitz-class supercarriers and Burke-class destroyers — because the entire development, procurement, and acquisition takes too long.

            Again, I am sure Huntington-Ingalls still have have the tooling for the Sa’ar 5-class corvettes, and those designs went through NAVSEA.

            Austal has done LCS for NAVSEA and MRV can meet Navy requirements.

            Lockheed has shown plan for up-scaling the LCS design for a new frigate.

            So there are option, but we don’t have the luxury of time.

          • Secundius

            Its no so much the Tool Problem, its the Funding problem. Congress just doesn’t want too fund anything under the Obama administration. Obama is probably going to have to use the Nuclear Option, if he can’t get Congress too act.

          • Marcd30319

            If there is one area of the Federal budget that the Obama administration not going to use the nuclear option it is on national security or defense.

          • Secundius

            - Current Ship Strength of US Navy: 430 Ships of various classes.

            – Current Ship Strength of PLAN: 470 Ships of various classes.

            – Current Ship Strength of Russian Navy: Virtually non-existent. That not too say they don’t have a Navy, they do!
            The problem is, they can’t pay the people needed to man their Navy.

          • Marcd30319

            The figures are absolutely correct, but the telling thing is that the U.S. Navy must maintain a global presence, and the Chinese are not obligated.

            Recall the pre-war period when the Japanese was pegged at at approximately 70% of the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy. When World War Two started, the Imperial Japanese Navy controlled the Pacific because it had no responsibilities in the Atlantic Ocean and Indian Oceans.

            Setrh Cropsey’s book May Day discusses the pre-World War One naval arms race between Britain and Germany, and how pegging tonnage to presence proved to be a baseless means of comparing naval presence for the British.

          • Secundius

            1 January 1946, the official date of the end of WW2. The US. Navy had a standing ship strength of 71,009 Ship’s of various class, according to The Guinness of World Records. I can’t. rember what edition off hand. With a Homeland Population of approximately 130 million. Or 1,830.75 people per ship. Today with a population base of approximately 300+ million we have a Naval Strength of only 430 ship’s of various classes. Or 697,674.42 people per ship. That a 230.77% increase in population and 0.000060556% fleet strength, compared too WW2 total. “How, The Mighty Have Fallen.” There’s no accurate consensus on the ratio of Naval Ship’s per Population Base. But from all the data I compiled in run’s from 0.0000005667 ship’s per person on low end of the scale to 0.000016 ship per person on the high end of the scale. Which mean our US Naval Strength should be around 1,700 to 4,800 ships of various classes. And a Merchant Marine Strength of 1-2/3 times Naval Ship, or around 2,840 to 8,000 ships of various classes.

          • Marcd30319

            Those figures are all too true, but as the late naval historian Clark G. Reynolds once wrote me, number do not tell the whole story. It is what you do with those numbers that count. That is called strategy.

            The United States Navy had a very well thought-out, finely-tuned naval strategy that it used to encounter the Soviet Union. It emphasized naval strike along the USSR’s flanks — the Kola peninsula, the Black Sea through the Mediterranean, and the Soviet Far East.

            By doing so, it would force the USSR to not concentrate exclusively on NATO’s central European front. It presented the USSR with a radically revised correlation of forces that he had to consider in its strategic calculus and its attendant impact on its force structure and allocation of resources.

            Anther tenet was that the United States would seize the initiative and go on the offensive.

            If the U.S. Navy of World War Two was rightly called the “Fleet that stayed,” then the U.S. Navy during the Reagan years should be called the fleet that came back.

            We can that President Ronald Reagan, Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, and Admiral Thomas B. Hayward for this singular achievement that helped win the Cold War at sea.

            We need that kind of vision and courage now.

          • Secundius

            The problem with the “Sa’ar 5″ class Corvette, even though is an American design and built. I don’t think either the US Navy or US Congress will go for it. Because, it too foreign looking for the US Navy and too foreign sounding, for the US Congress to take-in and digest. The US Navy will most likely adopt the FREEDOM class as a Corvette, alternative.

          • Marcd30319

            Call it the Eagle or Congress.

            Maybe not Congress otherwise it will never be able to cast off.

          • Pete Sikes

            So you read a lot of articles? Have you ever read the real news? I spent 20 years in the navy working in Intelligence, Electronic Warfare, and Cryptology. Let me know which classified pubs you get YOUR information from.

            BTW, non-nuke submarines are far quieter than nukes and have a huge advantage in coastal waters.

            The only advantage the Chinese have with this carrier is the claim that they can almost operate a carrier they didn’t have the capability of designing or building.

            The Liaoning is not a threat and won’t be any time soon.

          • Marcd30319

            Thank you for your service.

            Having has the honor of knowing many naval veterans as family, friends, and co-workers, I am sure your have some wonderful stories. I regret not serving but my health prevented me from doing so. I am surprised that it took you this long to reveal past service to our country.

            Be that as it may, this discussion board is about the USNI news blog article about the future potential developments regarding Chinese naval and military forces. This was derived from the DOD annual report to the Congress. This is a non-classified intelligence assessment.

            So your assertion that the iaoning is not a threat and won’t be any time soon” is accurate, but beside the point. The DoD congressional report and this article is about future Chinese military and naval threats. I am sure you can see how valuable such reports and article are in keeping the general public aware of the global strategic environment that the United States finds itself.

            Regarding this article, I simply said that complacency is not justified, and I noted historical precedents to indicate that approach is a sensible one.

            Certainly the Chinese are reaping many current benefits with the navy by showing the flag, acting as a fleet-in-being to complicate military planning for the U.S. and her allies, as well as strong-arming Vietnam, the Philippines, and Japan over their various territorial claims in the South China and East China seas.

            I have to say that as a Navy veteran your attitude toward a civilian showing interest to the U.S. naval services to be unfortunate. In these tight budgetary times, the U.S. Navy needs all the support it can get.

            As my late friend Captain Tom B. Thamm would say, all the best!

  • Chesapeakeguy

    When I read stuff like this I always think “missile gap” that was all the rage when I was a kid. Turns out there never was a ‘missile’ or ‘bomber’ gap of any kind as far as our side was concerned. If anyone was on the wrong end of that, it was the Soviets! I don’t believe the ChiComs can sink our carriers or any other surface ship with a ballistic missile. I don’t think we have that capability, but if we do, THAT would be the only way the ChiComs could hope to acquire it, because they would have to STEAL it! Same as the Russians did with so much of their hardware. While I don’t minimize the strides the ChiComs have made, or what they hope to accomplish, the undeniable truth is that they are still a country overwhelmingly populated by what amounts to a peasant class. When I see ‘advanced’ ChiCom weaponry, I think of the line uttered by Donald Sutherland in the movie “The Dirty Dozen:”, when, while mascaraing as a general as he ‘inspects’ troops to get Lee Marvin’s nemesis off their backs, he says “very pretty colonel, but can they fight?”. That’s how I feel about the likes of both Red China and Iran and a host of others out there. China has been around for something like 5000 years as a society, so they obviously know how to stick around. But their strength is in manpower, not engineering from scratch sophisticated equipment that nobody knows will work when needed. Certainly being able to present a show can help a country in many ways, and if they can get away with intimidating those they wish to intimidate, then they are getting some bang for their yuans. But I don’t think anything they actually deploy out of their harbors survives a week if the shooting starts, and I will wager that for their air forces as well. What we need to ensure is that our ships and planes have the NUMBERS OF WEAPONS to employ, and to keep them re-supplied so they can finish the ChiCom air and sea and sub forces ASAP. We have an adequate budget for military matters now, though its obvious that money is not always spent wisely, or on what is truly needed. But our Defense industry, as well as some politicians, will use this to try to beef up the spending even more. I don’t think we need to do that!

    • KAB

      You obviously don’t know much about this subject. What this article should have mentioned was the gap in cruise missile technology.

      -Tomahawk missiles which have a range of well over 1,000km are only for attacking stationary land targets.
      -We only have subsonic cruise missiles but China and Russia already have supersonic cruise missiles. (Not still in development but fully operarional)
      -Our Navy’s primary ship launched anti-ship missile have a range of 124km but their Chinese and Russian counterparts (which they do export and our own simulations have shown are capable of penetrating our ships defenses) have a range of 200km.
      -Our figher launched anti-ship missiles also have a range of 124km but the Chinese Navy’s anti-air missiles have a range of 300km.

      The fact is right now our attack subs are the only thins that wouldn’t be blown away long before they could even shoot back and nothing anyone says about our military industrial complex (which I do believe exists and hate) can change that math. I should also mention that the navy did have an anti-ship version of the Tomahawk, but we got rid of them to save money during the 90’s because we figured we didn’t need them due to our overwhelming military superiority. You should try learning more about these things before running your mouth.

      • Marcd30319

        Ignorance is bliss, KAB, as Chesapeakeguy and Pete Sikes proves. Blissful and clueless. Like a replay of the 1990s.

        • Chesapeakeguy

          Ahh, what’s wrong fellas? Are you two employed by companies that might lose out if some common sense and historical prespective are applied here? Oh, and if you can’t have a civil discussion about the subject matter, I will be happy to dumb my remarks down so that you two can try to keep up, OK? If you want to get personal, I will be happy to oblige you! To paraphrase KAB’s own words, man up or shut up yourselves!

          That said, the article is NOT about cruise missiles. Did that escape your comprehension? I will be glad to remind you two that Russian and before that Soviet designed and produced equipment since WWII ended has a checkered performance history when looked at in the proper context. Yes, there have been some successes, the AK-47 comes to mind, as well as some of the Migs and the SA-2. American losses in Vietnam in the air war had more to do with flat-out stupid strategy and tactics than superiority in equipment performance. History shows that when the military WAS allowed to take the gloves off, the results were pretty impressive (in Vietnam). The ongoing conflict in the Middle East shows this even more. While those entities using Russian made gear have had SOME successes, over all the Israelis have more than held their own, to put it mildly.

          Regardless of the weapons and their dependability and/or effectiveness, they have to be able to LAUNCH them, and I truly believe that is problematic for the ChiComs. Land-based launches of such weapons might be the biggest challenge to counter. The USN and allied navies and air forces have FAR MORE experience and over all far better equipment than the ChiComs have or will have any time soon in their Navy or AF. That is indisputable.

          And about cruise missiles, all the speed and range in the world doesn’t help you unless you know EXACTLY WHERE your target is, and WHAT your target is. Firing cruise missiles to blindly home in on whatever might be ‘out there’ is something we should actually hope they do! I don’t see anything about the ChiComs that should cause fear among anyone that they have such capabilities. Not yet anyway!

          OK?

          • Marcd30319

            First, you accuse, then you insult, and finally, you claim superiority. Nice try at deploying your inner Saul Alinsky, but in the final analysis, it’s still pretty juvenile.

            Your last statement says it all:

            I don’t see anything about the ChiComs that should cause fear among anyone that they have such capabilities. Not yet anyway! OK?

            Well, isn’t that the point of this article, to be aware of the potential threat?

            By your own admission, you concur with the basic premise of this article, Chesapeakeguy.

            Thank you for participating.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Who did I accuse? I RESPONDED to YOUR (and your bud’s) juvenile utterings spewing on about ignorance and keeping one’s mouth shut! If you wish to conduct yourself, and selves, as punks, I will be happy to oblige you. What are you, 15? Are you even that old? Obviously you have a real problem with anyone who DARES to not see this world in the same light you do. That’s as leftist as you can get (you did bring up Saul Alinski, did you not? Hmmm?). I say again, if you and yours are not mentally equipped to have an adult conversation about military matters, I suggest you (and yours) seek other venues more suited to your (ahem) intellect! Maybe Nickelodeon or Disney offer something more suited to and for you!

          • Chesapeakeguy

            I see my original reply to your whine(s) was deleted . I guess attacking people, as you and your bud KAB have done, is something that you are able to do, you’re just not able to take it in return. I say again, if you and yours are not capable of conducting yourself as adults, you will be called out for it. Obviously, you can whine and sob to the administrators of this site, and if they wish to act on your behalf, that’s on them. I say AGAIN that perhaps Nickelodeon and Disney are more suited to your mental capacities! Why don’t you check them out? Leave the adult discussions to actual adults.

          • Marcd30319

            Take a guess about what’s going to happen to this post?

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Cowardice is what it is.

          • Marcd30319

            No, civility. Act like an adult, and you can have a seat at the grown-up’s table. It’s that simple. Keep your snark battened down, and try marshalling your posts with some facts, evidence, and historical precedents. A steady stream of just unsupported opinion gets to be tiresome and tedious.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Again, you can’t even be original. I guess we can assume that your postings (the ones that are not dripping with snark and personal attacks) are nothing original of yours as well. Right?

          • Marcd30319

            CG, if you took the time to read my posts, you will see that I presented facts, evidence, and historical precedents. I know it’s tough but sometimes you can’t coast through life hoping that just your unsupported opinions are good enough. Sometimes you get called on it.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Marc, if you had one iota of honesty, you would note how the snark and personal attacks originated with you. But your by-now usual efforts at deflection are noted. As has been pointed out, others on here have grown tired of your antics as well. You spew said attacks, then in true leftist fashion, you claim victimhood. Once again, man up! Absent that, why don’t you mosey on over to the channel showing the Jerry Springer re-runs. That appears to be as ‘deep’ as your thought processes run!

            Cheerio!

          • Marcd30319

            You are the one who sought out KAB and me because KAB’s prescient post suggested that you you didn’t know what you were taking about

            you are the one who impugned our integrity our intelligence, our sincerity.

            Your accuse me of being leftist and using deflection when That is your metier.

            Your accuse me of being a leftist, but you are the one using Alinsky-esque.

            You claim that everyone is complaining about my “antics” but that seems to be only you. Are your hearing voices?

            Meanwhile Mark below accused you of being a racist, which seems unjustified, and KAB suggested you were ignorant.

            I am starting to worry about you, CG. It seems you are on a ragged edge. Some rest may be in order.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            You are the one who spewed terms like “ignorant”. You’re best bud KAB spewed about ‘keeping your mouth shut’. This was BEFORE I directed anything your way, which I did in RESPONSE to those punkish displays of juvenile antics on your respective parts. You’ve been caught, you’ve been nexposed, and true to form, you continue to whine about being a victim. You introduced Alinski in all this (not me), and then whine (yet again) when your obvious leftist tendencies are pointed out. You are single-handedly ruining what was once a vibrant discussion board, but again, that’s beyond my power to control. But I can, and will, call you out for your inane behavior. Maybe you and KAB should get a room (if you haven’t already) and talk about it further. You reap what you sow in this life, and you are reaping what you yourself have opened up. Live with it.

          • Marcd30319

            You know, CG, when you accuse anybody, and then use a non-existent quote (“keeping your mouth shut”) that doesn’t appear anywhere on the discussion board, you really undermine your credibility.

            I did use “ignorant” in agreeing with KAB’s comment about your lack of knowledge on this article. Nothing you have done subsequently has made me change my assessment. What It has shown is how immature and irrational you are, as well as you inability to engage in adult conversation.

            I have never claimed to be the victim, but I will defend myself when anyone impugns me. This is what you did when you included me in your post to KAB that ended up impugning our integrity, our intelligence, and our sincerity.

            Actually, its was your actions that introduced Alinski into this discussion when you attempted to impugn KAB’s integrity, intelligence, and sincerity, as well as myself. That is vintage Alinski tactics.

            I merely identified your tactics as Alinski-esque and called you on it. Once exposed, you played the victim, ineffectually attempted to claimed the moral high ground, and basically had one titanic hissy fit because you could get your way.

            If anyone had ruined this discussion board, it is you, by your childishness and your inability to carry on a reasoned discussion or marshal facts to bolster your arguments.

            Quite frankly, all you have are your opinions, devoid of facts, reason, and logic, and that just does not cut it.

            Opinions without reason, facts, an logic is nothing but a lot noise, and you sure are noisy.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            OK Hillary! That’s all I can address you as from now on. You spew about so many things that none of them an be accepted as believable. I am more convinced than ever that you are not even a bonafide adult. Keep conducting yourself as a punk, and A dishonest one at that, it’s your life. I will just keep on hammering you for that.

            Be well, Hillary!

          • Marcd30319

            CG, you are the one who accused KAB of posting “keeping your mouth shut” presumably directed at you.

            Yet that phrasing does not appear anywhere on this discussion board.

            That is what a dishonest punk and a willful child does — spreading falsehoods and lies.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            You want to continue with the deflections based on semantics, and thus the accompanying lies that go with that, have at it. The ‘phrase’ you selectively ignore is “You should try learning more about these things before running your mouth”. That is EXACTLY the same as telling someone to shut up!. But when it comes to frauds and punks of your stripe, as we all have seen, you just lie about it.

            Also, when I encounter those (like you) who initiate personal attacks, I don’t wuss out and whine and snivel to the administrators, I address it head on. In other words, and unlike you yet again, I ‘man up’ and take it on. I’ve had something like replies deleted from these boards, all no doubt due to your whining about them. You spit in people’s faces, then you cry victimhood. If the USNI wants to had down this road, they will do so at the expense of their own credibility. But if they are going to let you take them there, all the more reason for them to get what they deserve!

          • Marcd30319

            CG, you discussing credibility is like Putin discussing diplomacy or Al Capone law and order.

            While KAB was plain-spoken, that so-called quote was less about shutting up and more about doing your homework and formulating a more reasoned, adult approach in discussing a topic, particularly on a message board like this when ignorance of subject matters are all too obvious.

            Finally, you are the one who supplied the “original” quote about KAB, and then accused me of bad faith. The fact that you screwed something that simple merely confirms how unreliable and sporadic you are.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Again Hillary, that honesty thingy! It isn’t part of your makeup. You spew your carp then whine when confronted about it. I don’t have much time or use for the self-proclaimed perpetual victims of this life, If you can’t deal with the consequences from what you and yours spew, I say again, check out Nickelodeon, or Jerry Sprineger for that matter. they appear to be better suited for your (ahem) ‘intellect’.

            Don;’t let the door hit you in the backside on your way out!

          • Marcd30319

            So, after four days to assembly your thoughts, we are back with “Nickelodeon, or Jerry Sprineger (sic)”

            And you accuse me for not being original. LMAO

        • Pete Sikes

          Marcd30319, after you get you TS/SCI/TK clearance we can talk, until then you can continue to speculate.

    • Mark

      Your analogy between the fighting abilities of the PLA/PLAN and Donald Sutherland’s “Dirty Dozen” line (“Very pretty Colonel…but can they fight?) reminds me of the condescending attitude Americans (including our military) had towards the Japanese people and their military in the 1930s and up to December 7, 1941. After all they were only little, yellow people with bad eyesight who could never make anything but copies of technologies/equipment produced by Occidentals. We were paid back in spades and blood for our arrogance on that fateful December morning and in the months and almost 4 years of carnage that followed. If you want to control the future, study and learn from the past and its mistakes. The ChiComs have proven they can fight…ask a Korean War vet.

      • Chesapeakeguy

        Who made this into a racial issue? It wasn’t me! The discussion is, or at least WAS, about the equipment the ChiComs are introducing. If you read ALL of my posting, you would have noted how I pointed out that the Chinese have been around for over 5,000 years, and that’s not an accident. How they fight ON LAND is not the issue, or whether they will fight at all, or how courageously. It’s about the PERFORMANCE of their naval and air hardware. It is not ‘condescending’ to point out the similarities to past efforts to glean yet more money from the taxpayers for what are, at present, false premises. It is common sense.

        • Marcd30319

          If history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

          — Ronald Reagan (1983)

          • Chesapeakeguy

            And who is saying appease them?

          • Secundius

            Americans, we tend to be short-term thinkers (e.i. 5 to 10- years). You know, “What’s in it for me know,” types. Whereas, the Chinese tend to be long-term thinkers (e.i. 50 to 100 years). As in. “I can wait and see.” If we don’t do anything within the next 2-years, 10-years max. We’re going too lose the next War. A harsh prediction for harsh times, ahead.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Secundius, our political realities are a big reason for that. Look at how quickly Iraq and Afghanistan were undone simply by a change in administrations. We are indeed a society of ‘instant gratification’, and looking down the road more than about 4 years at a time is well-nigh impossible. We were able to undertake long term projects in the past, the moon missions and other aspects of the space program are classic examples. But in those times past, some other realities contributed to that. Chief among it is that regardless of political party, or political ideology, most members of the Congress had a shared military background as a result of WWII, and later Vietnam. the acrimony was always there, but knowing threats and addressing them were also part of that dynamic. I agree that we can lose the future as opposed to an adversary winning it, but a reasoned, common sense approach to such matters will prevent that, if they’re allowed to!

          • Secundius

            @ Chesapeakeguy.

            With our current congress, that’s never going to happen. I mean, they want too and are going too reduce our Navy from 430-Ship’s to 306-Ship’s. Just because they don’t want too FUND our Navy. That’s Disqraceful and just plain Unpatriotic.

            Congress, keeps preaching about their Patriotism and their Love of this Great Country of Ours. To Congress the word “Patriotism” is just a Punch-Line, to a very bad joke.

          • Marcd30319

            I think “wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly” probably fits you better.

            In any case, this article is about future Chinese military developments, not current capabilities, the label of “usual scare-mongering” attempt to ignore the dangers of complacency, which can lead to appeasement.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Oh right, Let’s conjecture about this and that. STICK to the topic. The only one who has brought ‘appeasement’ into any of this is YOU! No one is saying appease them NOW, or LATER. What we ARE insisting on is a common sense approach that is NOT based on the fear mongering that has so successfully drained the coffers of this country in the past.

          • Marcd30319

            20 days later, and this is your response?

            Regarding staying on topic, you are the one who brought in building non-nuclear submarine and U.S. relations with our allies in the Far East which were not part of theme of this article, and most assuredly, off topic.

            Next, I brought Ronald Reagan into the discussion, who spoke about appeasement and wishful thinking.

            When addressed by you, I suggested wishful thinking, among other things, seemed to be your explicit motivation behind your continued postings here.

            In fact, that is exactly what I stated in the posting that your are responded to.

            And yet you harp on appeasement.

            Either your reading comprehension is severely deficient or you are willfully being obtuse.

            My vote is the latter.

            I look forward with utter indifference to you next feeble attempt at a reply 20 days from now.

          • Secundius

            @ Marced30319.

            Hey, I’m in 11 other discussion group, too. It take time to respond too all of them. As for Chesapeakeguy, I think he’s on at least three of them. But under a different username, I haven’t been able narrow-down the field too one yet!

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Building non-nuke boats and other possibilities is as germane to the actual discussion as is anything else. My point about ‘fear mongering’ was directed at those who will use these ‘assessments’ to bleed the taxpayers to combat capabilities that are more theory than real. Most everyone else on these boards seems to get that, but for some reason, you can’t! Ronald Reagan’s words are thus not relevant to anyone but yourself, because nobody but YOU (again) brought ‘appeasement into all this. Nobody (except YOU) said that. Our military and intel services HAVE been either wrong or misleading in this nation’s PAST about threats, the ‘missile gap’ I mentioned that caused you such heartburn is THE classic example of all that. there WAS NO missile gap, just like there was never a ‘bomber gap’ or a ‘warhead gap’. It was all for extracting even more dollars from the taxpayers over and above the huge amounts already budgeted for protecting the country! Again, everyone else on here gets that, except for YOU! Maybe all those books you claim to have read (and all the thinking you have ceded to others to do for you) just aren’t cutting it for you. Or is a comprehension problem on your part? Yeah, that’s what I vote for!

          • Marcd30319

            Congratulations, it only took six days to reply although it didn’t seem to warrant the wait.

            CG, Reagan also talked about “wishful thinking” in his quote, so his quote is still relevant because, when you declared you didn’t advocate appeasement, I responded that you were embracing wishful thinking, as stated here from my reply date June 21st at 7:25 PM:

            I think “wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly” probably fits you better.

            In your last post:

            My point about ‘fear mongering’ was directed at those who will use these ‘assessments’ to bleed the taxpayers to combat capabilities that are more theory than real. Most everyone else on these boards seems to get that, but for some reason, you can’t!

            Really? Posters on a message board of the United State Naval Institute, “an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write in order to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to national defense,” agree there is no need to be cognizant of the future potential of the Chinese military and its potential impact on our national security?

            Really? Sound like wishful thinking to me.

            Our military and intel services HAVE been either wrong or misleading in this nation’s PAST about threats, the ‘missile gap’ I mentioned that caused you such heartburn is THE classic example of all that. There WAS NO missile gap, just like there was never a ‘bomber gap’ or a ‘warhead gap’.

            Sure, mistakes have been made, such as the bomber gap, but you are incorrect about there never was a “missile gap” or a “warhead gap.”

            There were none in the 1950s thanks to President Eisenhower and the U-2 missions but, starting about 1967, we did see a “missile gap” and a “warhead gap” occur. This happened because of wishful thinking on the part of Robert McNamara who thought that if the US stopped building land-based ICBMs and Polaris missile subs that the USSR would take a hint and stop building up their nuclear arsenal. It never happened thanks to wishful thinking.

            In the last post date July 16th you wrote:

            Building non-nuke boats and other possibilities is as germane to the actual discussion as is anything else.

          • Secundius

            @Chesapeakeguy.

            I agree with about having none-nuclear submarines. And there some really great designs out there, all German of course. The problem is Congress won’t go for it, there’s no “Pork Fat” in the construction for them. And when you consider that 95% of them. Never spent one day in uniform, unless it was Halloween. And it was their turn to take the kids out. The German’s have one really great design, which uses a Stirling Steam Engine. Which allows them to stay underwater for up to six-weeks, without snorkeling. But, again Congress will never fund. Because the returns to their silk-lined pockets, excludes going in that direction. It’s only a matter of time when the Next Generation of Submarine, the US. Navy see. Will have a Yellow Rubber Duck, in the water with it!

        • Secundius

          @ Chesapeakeguy.

          The Chinese has had a Blue-Water Navy for at least 3,000 of those 5,000-years, you mentioned. Just ask the ancient people of Siam, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, India, etc. And believe it or not, the Romans. But not directly.

          At least one of ship’s made all the way to the California coast 50-years before Columbus discovered the New World.

      • Secundius

        @ Mark.

        I read Chesapeakeguy’s article 5-time now, If there were any racial comment made. I didn’t see one, Please point it out for me.

    • nbi agent

      why,many are worry china will attack america, china know it is a suicide. right, defense department are making story so that they can get bigger budget.

      • Secundius

        Look at the odd’s its 2,000,000,000 plus Chinese against 300,000,000 plus Americans, that almost 7 to 1 odds against us. Their probable saying to themselves what do they have to lose.

        • Marcd30319

          Actually, its 1.339 billion Chinese to 318 million of the USA, but point taken,

          • Secundius

            @ Marcd30319.

            I stand corrected, my bad. But, that still 4.210691824 to 1.0 odds against us. So, still having fun with Chesapeakeguy!

          • Marcd30319

            Chesapeakeguy is up the bay without a paddle.

          • Secundius

            @ Marcd30319.

            I just kicked the Hornets Nest on other Blog Sites. So keep your head down and your keyboard handy.

          • Marcd30319

            If it’s Chesapeakeguy, just give him a cookie.

      • Marcd30319

        This is a congressionally-mandated annual report from the Defense Department on future Chinese military trends and technology. This is only prudent.

        And if this is “fear-mongering” as some ill-informed posters here assert, then why is the DOD budget actually shrinking in both real terms and as a percentage of the overall GNP?

  • Secundius

    “Fear Is the Mind Killer”, to paraphrase Frank Herbert.

    This reminds me that Soviet Union May Day Parade back in the the ’60s. Where they flew around the same long-range, jet-powered heavy bomber. From several different directions, and western intelligence concluded, that the Soviets had hundreds of these bombers. When actually they only one. Your letting the the Chinese prey on your fears.

    As far the Anti-Shipping Missile Threat is concerned. I’ve discussed with others, that in possible too give a false radar return of a specific ship. Take one Chinese missile making a broadside tracking run, with is radar active. And return the radar signal of bow tracking run. You give the missile a smaller target to track on.

    And, I can’t see why you can’t use a LRLAP artillery round, as an interceptor round on a fast-moving object moving over the sea and/or the air. If you can do it against a fast-moving land target, you should be able to it at sea and/or the air. It would be hard to evade a near hyper-sonic projectile with long-range capabilities. All it is, is mathematics and high-speed computer program.

    • Marcd30319

      Ah, yes, it’s all “mathematics and high-speed computer program.” I am sure every fire-control techs in the Navy and Air Force can sleep soundly now. Thanks for the Frank Herbert quote, too.

      • Chesapeakeguy

        I notice you don’t have anything to offer on here except the by-now usual snarky responses. I’ll give you this, at least you spew it at all who dare not to view this world in the same skewed way you do! Maybe if and when you actually reach puberty this will all change. One can only hope!

        • Marcd30319

          I just didn’t take Secundius’ magic bullet theory seriously.

          No more than your predictably boorish, self-absorbed, immature diatribe.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Just whine to the administrators, which appears to be what you’re all about. You sit on here and spit in people’s faces because they dare to offer their OPINIONS about the subject matter, and you obviously do not have the mental makeup to be able to deal with that. A potential FUTURE threat does NOT represent a problem NOW! Again, that comprehending thingy that seems to escape you. Oh, by the way, how soon will your high school be holding it’s graduation ceremony? Maybe what passes to you as intellect will impress the ditzy cheerleader, on here, it just exposes you for how vapid and unprepared you are for the adult world. But like all leftists (you did bring Saul Alinski into this, right? Hmmm?), you cry and sob when you are subject to the very same treatment you dole out to others. Except you can’t refute anything, so your only recourse is to try to silence them. That pig won’t fly with me. Do with that what you will!

          • Marcd30319

            Friend, I have been a member of the Naval Institute since 1974, and I pay for the privilege of posting here.

            Now, either grow up and act like an adult, or expect this post to go bye-bye.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Amigo, I have been PAYING for my membership for DECADES now. YOU are the one who has proven to be unable to conduct a civil conversation. YOU and your pal (who mysteriously doesn’t post any more) have attacked any and all with juvenil, punkish vernacular, and all because we aren’t into the far-mongering you can’t escape. I EXPECT my posts to go ‘bye-bye’ because ads I pointed out, when confronted by their own antics, the American left will always opt to try to silence those doing it to them. You got caught, now you whine and sniff about it all. If you’re going to insult and vcall people names, man up for the blowback! OK? Hmmm?

            Oh, and try coming up with something original. Stealing from me isn’t becoming.

          • Marcd30319

            Really. How about some dates. My membership began in 1974 during my freshman years in colleges. And why didn’t you bring this us when I mentioned my long-time membership to the USNI?

            As far as juvenile vernacular, you are the one who asserted that KAB and I have nefarious motives, implying we are automatons of the American military industrial complex. shilling for the defense industry. The last time I was employed by a defense-related program was 1990, nearly a quarter of a century ago. That doesn’t hold any water for me.

            This is about civility. When you accuse people of bad faith or nefarious motives, expect push-bask.. The administrator take a dim view of flame-outs, and rightly so.

            Finally, try peppering your posts with some with some facts, evidence, and historical precedents. Like I said, a steady stream of just unsupported opinion gets to be tiresome and tedious.

            Unless you are a recognized experts like a Norman Polmar and Norman Friedman who possess informed opinions, then you can sit on just your opinions and expect to be taken seriously.

            BTW – I am not going to flag this posts of yours because I want the other posters here to see what this entire business. I do not looked upon myself as being the aggrieved party here, and if you can restrain yourself, you can have a seat at the grown-up’s table. It’s up to you.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Again, your absolute lack of comprehension jumps out at the world. I challenge you to revisit the time line of all that you purport has transpired. Of course, honesty has to be part of that as well, which you just showed to be utterly lacking in as well.

            And dates? Dates about what? Membership? I’ll oblige your attempt at deflection. 1987. OK? What happens now? Are YOU seriously trying to have us believe that YOU are a ‘recognized expert’ on anything? As for that ‘civility’ thing, which I have pointed out from the get-go, you score a bug, fat FAIL on that as well. Others on here are now calling you out for it as well. If you’re not MAN ENOUGH to discuss the issues on their merits, I can’t help you. But others on here are able to do so. Go whine and sniff to the administrators of this site, that’s all you seem capable of. Having an actual discussion just isn’t in your make up!

            Run along now.

          • Marcd30319

            The time line supports my contention because your responded to KAB’s original posting by suggesting that KAB and I had nefarious motives and were shilling for the U.S. defense industry. When called on that, you then act as the aggrieved party. How convenient.

            I never claimed I was a recognized expert, but once again you are trying to muddy the waters in your inept attempt to argue that I did. Talk about mis-direction

            BTW – I actually did cite Norman Polmar and Norman Friedman.

            My posting have been based on facts, analysis, and historical precedents while your post have been almost totally fact-free but filled with innuendo and falsehoods. And you accuse me of a lack of manhood.

            No, sir, I am not leaving.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Again Marc, you lie on here more than 10 Hillary Clintons ever could. Complete dishonesty, no comprehension skills whatsoever, and unable to conduct yourself on a simple discussion board that is all about people’s OPINIONS about the subject matter. And ‘the Normans’ you sited haven’t engaged in snide personal attacks on participants in here simply because those participants dare to not view this world in the same alarmist manner you and yours do.

            Just how DO you navigate through this life with all that going against you?

            Ahh, don’t bother to answer, as pointed out, we’ll never get an honest one. But for the record, going forward, I will ALWAYS openly question your manhood, your intellect, your honesty, virtually everything about you! You’ve EARNED that!

            For what it’s worth, I will be happy to send you some cheese to go along with your whine! Always happy to help someone out! You’re welcome!

          • Marcd30319

            Actually, Norman Polmar can be a bit prickly, especially when responding in the Comments and Discussion section of the Proceedings.

            I am sure you noticed that.

            Assuming you actually have read the Proceedings.

            Assuming you are an actual USNI member.

            Since 1987 you say.

            After being prompted twice by me.

            Again, I am not an alarmist, but I do advocate against complacency. Yet another alinsky-esque mis-characterization and mis-direction that fails.

            Getting back your latest post here, you can question anything you want.

            That doesn’t mean I will have to take you seriously.

            No one else seems to.

            Happy trails, CG.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Assume all you want about anything, you have already proven that nothing of substance registers with you. Perhaps if you put less faith in the Noam Chomskys of this life and more in the musings of those you ALLEDGE to have read would serve you better.

            Just trying to help, though learned long ago that you can’t help those who can’t help themselves. When you spewed “ignorance is bliss”, were you referring to your own contentment? That would certainly make some things, about you, more understandable. Get back with me about that if you will.

            Ciao for now.,

          • Marcd30319

            Noam Chomsky? Really? My hero?

            CG, you are the first to mention Comsky. Freudian slip, perhaps?

            Of course, this is on par with CG’s accusation that KAB posted something about “keeping your mouth shut.”

            I presume this alleged posting was directed at you, CG, but reading your posts are problematic.

            In any case, this alleged “keeping your mouth shut” posting by KAB never happened. Until CG posted that is here.

            Yes, CG made a false accusation and played the victim to claim the moral high ground. When I called this in my previous post, there was no response from CG.

            Everyone can draw their own conclusion about CG’s modus operandi although it seems sadly obvious.

            Now I do confess that I misspoke about “ignorance is bliss.”

            In CG’s case, it is a source of agitation.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            I’m loving watching you dig this hole deeper, Hillary. All this time and NOW you finally admit to LYING about what you said to initiate all this? Tsk tsk..

          • Marcd30319

            I did not initiate the post that accused KAB and me of acting as shills for the Defense Department and questioning our integrity, intelligence, and sincerity — you did that.

            I agreed with KAB that he was right that you being ignorant of the subject matter on this discussion, and nothing you have done since then has changed that assessment.

            You are not even consistent or rational when you accuse me of being a DOD booster and then as a fellow-traveler of “Leftist America in all its glory, folks. Now even USNI is infected.” I am sure that you are going to accuse me of being part of HYDRA next!

            LOL!

          • Chesapeakeguy

            No, you spewed about ignorance while your bud was spewing about shutting up. Hillary, keep digging. I’m loving watching you squirm. But, as always, you can continue to sob and snivel to the administrators. When you can’t refute, you can always try to silence, which of course you’ve been doing all along.

          • Marcd30319

            Ignorance is the lack of knowledge og a given subject that can be corrected by studying that subject in order to discuss it intelligently.

            There is a world of difference between being ignorant and being malicious when you impugned someone’s integrity, intelligence, and sincerity.

            I took issue with your lack of knowledge.

            You attacked KAB’s and mine’s character.

            Therein is the difference.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Well, as is said, “you can’t fix stupid!”. And if you or your bud HAD any character to begin with, this conversation wouldn’t have taken place. IF!

          • Secundius

            @ AS IS SAID.

            Also said. How far do you get on one engine, As far as the Crash Site!

          • Marcd30319

            20 days later, and this is your response?

            If anyone can’t fix stupid, look at the your nearest mirror to find the answer, CG.

            Again, you are the one who is keeping this never-ending conversation going, so spare everybody about discussion of character.

            Yours is no deeper than that shallow reflection you see in your mirror.

            I look forward with utter indifference to your next feeble attempt at a reply 20 days from now.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Unlike you, I actually have a life, so living on this thread to whine and deflect from what has taken place is something I won’t take part in. I’ll leave all that to you. If that means commenting every 20 days or so, oh well. You can always sob to the administrators, something you have demonstrated ad nauseum. Your limited intellect proves yet again your inability to follow ANY aspect of this discussion. For someone so ‘indifferent’ you sure make it a point to attempt to have the last word on everything. I can’t help it if I’m living within your small mind rent free. That’s juts the way it is!

          • Marcd30319

            Unlike you, I actually have a life, so living on this thread to whine and deflect from what has taken place is something I won’t take part in.

            And yet you continue to post here.

          • Secundius

            @ Marcd30319.

            What was the comment? Maybe I can put my 2-cents worth, in too.

          • Marcd30319

            Isn’t there a show comment link?

          • Secundius

            @ Marcd30319.

            Considering some of his other posting’s on other sites, I can believe it.

          • Marcd30319

            Persistence doesn’t make you correct.

          • Secundius

            @ Marcd30319.

            I don’t understand the question? Weren’t talking a Chesqpeakeguy?

          • Marcd30319

            I was talking about Chesqpeakeguy, Secindius, not you.

            My apologies if you thought otherwise.

            Chesqpeakeguy thinks that if he keeps posting and being loud and obnoxious, then that wins the argument.

          • Secundius

            @ Marcd30319.

            Ok then. Your message was kinda cryptic. I didn’t know whether it applied to me or somebody else. Chesapeakeguy is on at least three other sites that I know of. First, about DD-1000 class Advance Destroyers, Second, about the LCS classes. And, thirdly about BURKE/TICONDEROGA classes issues. On two of them, he’s like the way he is on this website. And the other, well its hard to say. More mello, in a surreal way.

          • Marcd30319

            Chesapeakeguy mello? Hmm, I am almost tempted to check that out. Almost.

            Stay happy, sir!

          • Secundius

            @ Marcd30319.

            The thing is, He mellowness seems to be a front or trap. Like I’m might be walking straight into an unseen Sucker-Punch.

          • Marcd30319

            Then people will catch on, and he will get the pounding that he richly deserves.

          • Marcd30319

            Secundius

            Looks like bpuharic has already struck!

          • Secundius

            @ Marced30319.

            Yes, I know. I just had one of my posting’s removed by USNI just a few minutes ago.

          • Secundius

            @ Marcd30319.

            Yup. At least five times NOW, This will be my third posting to you.

          • Secundius

            @ Marcd30319.

            8 times.

          • Secundius

            @ Marcd30319.

            I just put my laptop back on its charger, because the batteries went dead on me, while I was on one of the USNI Chat sites. Then I dug out my iPod Touch, and found (25) thread postings going back to Thurday of last week. This has me puzzled, because they should have been posted on my laptop as well. If your mad at because, I haven’t answered any of those posting’s, then I sorry. I didn’t know. I only use my iPod will I’m outside or in a medical office waiting room. I apologies, to you for any misunderstandings between us. From your last message to me, which it didn’t understand. I actually thought we were talking about the same thing. After reading through some of those threads, I realize I was wrong. I’m sorry!

          • Marcd30319

            Don’t worry about. Technology issues are old friend of mine, and to paraphrase Winston Churchill, English is a language that often inadvertently divides the people using it.

        • Marcd30319

          You admitted the future potential of this threat in your previous post, got hoisted on that, but insist there’s no problem.

          Yeah, that’s a serious discussion and mature analysis.

  • matimal

    Just make new weapons and stop the Chinese stealing the plans this time and we’ll be fine.

    • Secundius

      Consider this possibility, if you use a Lenovo brand computer. You might actually, but unknowingly providing Uunited States state secrets to the Communist Chinese, Lenovo brand computers, are a Mainland Chinese own computer company, Headquartered in Haidian District of Beijing, PRC.

      When you go to sleep a night, your Lenovo computer, may actually be downloading information about yourself, where you work and what you do at work. Everytime you your Lenovo computer, your actually spying for ChiCom.

      Does that make you a spy of a foreign government. By your standards, YES it does. Whether or not you know, THAT MAKE YOU A SPY!!! An unwilling or unwitting one YES. Consider That Possibility.

      • nbi agent

        very funny story. how do you know, are you a spy.

      • Mat Lock

        Wow! I never thought to consider that. Perhaps Agent Ethan Hunt from the MIF can get all the secrets that Lenovo computers are giving. I think your way out on this one but if you are correct, I am sure the Chinese are loving the nudie pics of your wife.

    • Secundius

      “Easier said, then done”.

      Its much easier to act on the New Weapons Acquisition Problem. Then too anything about the Chinese Spying Problem.

    • Secundius

      @ matimal.

      One way to stop the Chinese from getting US Technologies, is too stop doing business with the Israelis. After all Israel, is one of China’s main trading and Technologies Exchange Partners.

  • Secundius

    In responds to Mercd30319!

    Still getting your information from comic books I see. Do you read the Color Graphic ones, or, are reading the one that require you too get your box of CRAYONs. And Color-It-Yourself. I thing the other readers in this group really want to know!

    • Marcd30319

      Nope, I have been a member of the Naval Institute since 1974, and I read both the Proceedings and Naval History cover to cover.

      Nice try sneaking in this barb, but you got caught, sport. Have a nice day!

  • Secundius

    I tend to think not outside the Box, but outside the Cube!

    In WW2, US Military planners, had the tendency to look at the Japanese. Not at smart and intelligent people and look at the a knuckle-draggers, sub-human, and/or not even human, but something else. They also had the tendency too look at an situation that required Herculean strength and know-how as impossible. Well, the Japanese proved them wrong, over and over and over again. Just look at the Yamato class Super Battleship. Or their way of transport materials and supplies over impossibly rough terrain. The Laser, Gauss Gun (Mass Driver) and the PC, conceived, researched, designed and built. If people though only in the box.

    • Marcd30319

      No doubt you have heard Grace Hopper, Hyman Rickover, John S. Thatch, Wayne E. Meyer, John H. Towers. I am just scratching the surface of American naval personnel who have lead in innovation.

      Thanks for your contribution.

  • Secundius

    If I was go to say something about “the magic bullet theory”, I would have save that for Warren Report discussion group on the President Kennedy assassination.

    • Marcd30319

      A non-sequitur and a failed attempt to evade a response from me. A two-fer that fails.

      • Chesapeakeguy

        Or, to put it accurately, you cannot offer any refuting of what he has posted. But there’s always the personal attacks. Stand by for…..snark!

        • Marcd30319

          I actually did when he asserted the existence of “air launch a Tomahawk Cruise Missile” with “with ranges between 1,931-km. to 2,415-km” as being useful “in the anti-shipping role.”

          These versions were nuclear-armed, which explained their range (payload), and they are no longer the U.S. inventory.

          I think that qualifies as refutation.

  • Secundius

    You can also air launch a Tomahawk Cruise Missile and use it in the anti-shipping role too. And with ranges between 1,931-km. to 2,415-km. it make a very good Big Stick.

    • Marcd30319

      These versions were nuclear-armed, which explains their range, and they are no longer the U.S. inventory.

  • Secundius

    In response to Marcd30319!

    I find you to the Ultimate Form of Hypocrisy. You want everybody’s respect. But you can’t tell us why you deserve it. You talk about joining USNI Forum back in 1974? SO WHAT, that doesn’t get respect. You EARN Respect, you are not ENTITLED to be GIVEN respect because of your long time standing. You talk about CIVILITY, when you are the one INSTIGATING open HOSTILITY too others, within the the Discussion Forum Group. I tell you this, here and now. You don’t deserve any respect, and your not getting mine respect either. So make you stupid little pithy comments too me. After I post this comment!

    • Marcd30319

      Once again you try to avoid my responses. You want your cake and eat it, too. And you want respect. My goodness.

  • Secundius

    In responds to KAB!

    It’s simply put, it’s not possible. Unless a Chinese anti-shipping cruise missile, were made of some super strong metal, other than titanium. Flying at Mach 1.0 (1,234.852-kph) & at sea-level, it would break-up, because of heat being applied to the airframe of the missile. And, traveling at 1,609.347-kph (1,000-mph) the airframe
    would start to melt flying at sea-level or the distances your suggesting. The faster you go, the more friction you apply to the airframe. You would had to be relatively
    close to the target. Say no more than 30-kilometers too pull that feat off.

    • Marcd30319

      Secundus, KAB is correct about Russian and Chinese supersonic cruise missiles, and we, the Frech, and the British are developing supersonic cruise missiles.

      See the USNI Proceeding article by Edward J. Walsh dated October 1, 2012 and updated February 5, 2013 that is about the LRASM program and re-posted here at the news blog.

  • Secundius

    To Mercd30319!

    Your somewhat correct, again. From the time of launch and/or air drop, a superspnic cruise missile stays in the upper atmosphere where the air is the coldest. When terminal trajectory reach, it than drops around 20 to 50-feet above the ground and/or sea too the target area. Including the latest ChiCom Supersonic Cruise Missile.

    This is according to an Air Power Australian, by Australia’s Independent Defense Think Tank. I know how much you don’t like facts, even when it stares you right in the face.

    • Marcd30319

      Ignoring your attempt to not engage directly, thanking you for acknowledging that I was “somewhat correct” which suggests I actually can face facts. Maybe there is hope for us. Cheers!

  • Secundius

    The US. Navy has (1) Long-Range, Supersonic Anti-Shipping Missile called the LRASM-B, with an ~500-nm. range. (1) AGM-84K SLAM-ER, Supersonic Anti-Shipping Missile, Extended-Range. And (1) ASG 155mm/62-caliber (6.1-inch) Guided LRLAP Artillery Round, which can be used in the Anti-Shipping role. With an ~100-nm. range
    with a firing rate of 10-rpm. For a 85-inch long/235-lbs. projectile. A trio of Big-Sticks!

    It can also fire the US. Army/US. Marine Corps 155mm M982 Excaliber Guided Artillery Round, which can also be used in the Anti-Shipping role. Even, though it wasn’t
    meant too be used in that role.

    The Italian made 127mm/54-caliber Volcano Artillery Round only has an ~54-nm. range.

    • Marcd30319

      Like I said, check out the USNI Proceeding article by Edward J. Walsh dated October 1, 2012 and updated February 5, 2013 that is about the LRASM program and re-posted here at this news blog.

  • Secundius

    If read some of the USNI blog, more carefully. The US. Navy say they are considering ALL ITS POSSIBLE USES. Instead of reading with one eye SHUT, read with both eyes OPEN!

    • Marcd30319

      Secundius, ah, could you re-phrase or re-translate that? I tried Google Translate, and it still came out confused.

  • Secundius

    You really need to get a screen reader for yourself. Apparently you seeing-eye-dog, syntax speech pattern isn’t getting through to you. Or, just maybe you have Helen Keller Syndrome. And absolutely nothing gets through too you.

    • Marcd30319

      Once again, Secundius, you attempt to not directly respond to my posting requesting you fix this post of yours:

      If read some of the USNI blogs, more carefully. The US. Navy say they are considering ALL ITS POSSIBLE USES. Instead of reading with one eye SHUT, read with both eyes OPEN!

      Any way you read this, it makes no sense.

      I asked you to correct this because I was curious what you wrote. Your response was to demean me, with statement that some would thing are insensitive

      This really is unfortunate. Having worked closely with a Australian gentleman with an interest in submarines, this exchange seems quite out of character for a great and noble pioneering people of Australia.

      I hope you can re-evaluate this, and take it to heart.

      Cheers!

  • http://www.limsjournal.com John H. Jones

    Everyone understand that I have no expertise in these matters but I feel that we are required to keep a close eye on China and they worry me at more levels than I can enumerate. I personally believe that our Navy is our most important military asset.

    I feel we also need the ultimate high ground of defense (space). I am sure that my ignorance is showing with that statement but I feel that we need weapons in space to give us that edge that will be hard to compete with and will act as an ultimate deterent.

    Finally, our biggest threat is not military but economic but that is a whole different topic. The Chinese are not our partners or friends or even friendly trading partners. I see them as the enemy of our country but a sneaky one. I do not trust them and we are wise to keep a very close eye on them and to thwart them in any way possible, short of causing chaos and war.

    Again, understand that I am ignorant of these matters but this was a topic I have concern about so please do not be too harsh on me for my wild opinions. They are just opinions and I have no power in this world and there is no need to fear of my thoughts or motives. I am just a concerned citizen with an opinion. Just a final statement for the NSA or thought police who might come knocking. ;-)

    • Marcd30319

      Thank you, Mr. Jones, for taking the long view in such a constructive manner.

      The U.S. Defense Department annual report on the Chinese military is covered by another USNI news blog article dated June 6, 2014.

      While you can read it online, the actual document does not have a download with the article which USNI News typically provides. The link goes to Scrid which I think is a paid service.

      Also, you can locate the report on Google, and it is available in PDF format that can be downloaded for free. I would provide a link, but the USNI news blog does not seem to allow URL to be posted.

      Also, there is a Congressional Research Service research study about China’s naval modernization. It is available for download in a USNi news article dated March 5, 2014.

      Thank you for your contribution, and all the best!

    • Chesapeakeguy

      Mr. Jones, nobody is advocating for doing nothing, or not being vigilant. Some of us ARE advocating for not giving into the usual scare-mongering that has no basis in real fact at this time, and to employ some common sense and intelligence in not only how we deal with the ChiComs or (anyone else for that matter), but in how we indeed assess current trends and events, and how that SHOULD effect our military posture and the concurrent budgetary aspects of that.

      And you are right, the Navy is our most important asset in all that, at the present time. And space just might be the decisive factor, in that if we do go to war with the ChiComs, both sides ability to keep tabs on the other will be critical. And if any efforts are expended to render such capabilities ineffective by one side or the other, how will all that be viewed (and possibly acted upon) by the side being targeted? And where will the Russians be in all that?

      Nothing ‘ignorant’ in your post at all. These boards are about participants opinions pertaining to the subject matter. You’ve raised some good, valid points. Well done!

    • Marcd30319

      Also, I would recommend Mayday: The Decline of American Naval Supremacy by Seth Cropsey as an excellent overview on the current state of the U.S. Navy by a knowledgeable authority.

      The current June 2014 issue has a book review of The Dragon Extends its Reach by Larry M. Wortzel which looks interesting.

      The Naval Institute Press Fall 2014 book catalogue includes Fire on the Water by Robert Haddick which looks relevant. Also from the Naval Institute Press are Asian Maritime Strategies by Bernard D. Cole and Anti-Access Warfare by Sam J. Tangredi.

      Finally, the U.S. Naval War College has devoted a considerable research on China as part of their China Maritime Studies group. There are also a number of articles on their quarterly Review.

      Talk about scare-mongering seems over-blow and possibly self-serving. In any case, complacency is not a sound approach on any national security issues.

      All the best!

      • John Allard

        Thanks for those recommendations, I will check those out!

    • nbi agent

      what you should worry is if america attack china and china hit back, that will be a disaster to us all. in economic, you’re right to be worry , chinese look at there customers as VIP. business is all about customers.

  • Secundius

    Great commentary JHJ!

  • Secundius

    The Japanese are not Nuclear Stupid. They have their own Nuclear Weapons, except for the fact they don’t brag about them. And from a purely historical look, When United States, developed and detonated the First Atomic Bomb. The Empire of Japan, developed and detonated the Second Atomic Bomb, only a few days later. They detonated their Atomic Bomb, in Haiphong Harbor killing 70,000 Korean fisherman. They also had second Atomic Bomb to be used, but had no delivery system assets in place. Apparently all their I-400 class submarines were out fighting the war. After the war Japan dismantled their second Atomic Bomb and scattered the pieces, too prevent the Americans from find out about their shocking secret. They thought, and probably rightfully so, if the Americans found out about. There might not a country too be called Japan, today.

    • Marcd30319

      Yes, the Japanese certainly are nuclear savvy. They have a very extensive nuclear power plant system to provide electricity. Given their need to import fossil fuels, this make perfect sense.

      Regarding their possession of nuclear weapons, they have the technological know-how, but Japan is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Also, the Japanese Constitution prohibits offensive weapons which nuclear bomb certainly qualify. Finally, our 1960 security treaty with Japan includes our nuclear umbrella so having its own nuclear weapons may seem redundant to the Japanese.

      About Japanese wartime atomic program, I have read news article about this, and I watched a program on the History Channel. It seemed very vague. Japan did pursued an ambitious chemical and biological weapons program during World War Two. It could be possible but the evidence is highly speculative and hardly conclusive.

      Haiphong Harbor is located in Vietnam, not Korea. The I-400 submarines were designed to bomb the Panama Canal. Until the USS Triton was commissioned in 1960, the I-400s were the largest submarines ever built.

      • Secundius

        I stand corrected, It was Koman Korea at that time.

        • Marcd30319

          Again, I absolutely agree with you that Japan has a very extensive nuclear industry for power generation.

          Regarding their alleged wartime A-bomb program, what I recall of that History Channel program was that the evidence was at best circumstantial.

          One area the program made clear was that, if the Japanese successfully detonated an A-bomb, there is no way to confirm this event because it is part of North Korea and off limits to outside investigators.

          BTW – Koman is in Albania.

          • Secundius

            WW2 Konan Korea settle in 1662. NOW called Hungnam, North Korea, There also a Konan in India TOO, What don’t
            you like looking things UP. Or, do you read only what you want too read. And also, theres a Konan South Korea, TOO.

          • Marcd30319

            There appears to be a raft of places named Koan so the confusion is quite understandable.

            You are correct that the Korean place named Konan is now called Hungnam which also adds to the confusion.

            Hungham was also the site of a major evaluation of allied forces during the initial invasion of South Korea in 1950.

            From what I gather, the then Korean place called Konan (now Hungham) was the site of a huge Japanese cyclotron in the Japanese-occupied Korean peninsula.

            It therefore seems quite unlike this was the site for the alleged Japanese A-bomb at the close of World War 2 since that would have resulted in the lost of that facility.

            A Korea Times article dated 4 December 2009 examines this entire alleged Japanese A-bomb program during World War 2. It’s worth a look.

            Cheers!

          • Secundius

            Thank you, it takes an honorable man, to admit his mistake!

          • Marcd30319

            I try my best, and I trust everyone tries to do the same. That’s all we can do, keeping trying our best.

  • Secundius

    A catapult maybe archaic and obsolete, by today’s standards. But it still KILL YOU!

    • Marcd30319

      So can rock dropped from overpasses, slingshots, etc.

      What this has to do with this USNI news article and the DOD report on future Chinese military and developments presented to the United States Congress seems unclear.

      • Chesapeakeguy

        You ask this AFTER you defend your bud’s making this about cruise missiles only? Simply amazing…

        • Marcd30319

          At least KAB’s posting had something to do with present-day naval warfare, CG. Unless Secundius was talking about steam catapults or EMALS.

          • Secundius

            Actually I was responding to Pete Sikes comment, which I thought was kind of cryptic. It think I hit the wrong entry icon by mistake. My BAD!

  • Secundius

    I think we’ve drifted somewhat from the talking point. The topic is about China here-and NOW and China in the FUTURE. I think we should all continue that discussion point.

    • Marcd30319

      I absolutely agree, Secundius.

      • Marcd30319

        If history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

        — U.S. President Ronald Reagan (1983)

  • Secundius

    What’s funny about it. I just said, “That you might be spying for the Chinese and that your don’t know it.” I wrote it to your to STOP, PAUSE and THINK. There are possibilites. That what this discussion group is all about.

  • Secundius

    I’ve notice with great interest, that China is in process or has been stockpiling Rheniun. It’s a rare metal used in aircraft jet-engine construction. If their stockpiling, it means their probable up to something that were not going too like what coming down the pike.

  • Secundius

    just finished read an article that China is try to purchase LP (Liquid Propane) Compressors, That in its self is probably meaningless. But jet-engines can be fueled by Liquid Propane. In Fighters and Bombers, it takes up a lot of space and won’t be very useful in those types of aircrafts. But in Cruise Missiles, that’s another story. It means there trying to manufacture as many Possible? Cruise Missiles as they can.

  • matimal

    what the new u.s. weapons the Chinese are afraid of?

    • Secundius

      Is this a general question, or are directing it too a specific individual.

      • matimal

        this is a public forum open to all…..

        • Secundius

          Well to me its kind of a Loaded Question. I could say Lase Cannons (Lasers) and Gauss Cannons (Mass-Drivers). The problem there being they haven’t been deployed beyond the testing phase. So the only other possibility, would be the Grumman E-2D Hawkeye II. But, I’ll keep looking for other possibilities. That I’ve overlooked.

        • Secundius

          Could also be a Plasma Window. But, that test hasn’t even left the laboratory yet. And might be twenty-years, or more before it gets too a testing range

        • Secundius

          Hey Matimal, you posted me a question 20-hours ago, and I answered your question 18-hours ago. Why are taking so long to respond too my answer. It shouldn’t take this long, unless you never had the answer to begin with!!!

    • Secundius

      @ matimal.

      Our technology. That’s why their trying so hard too steal it from us!

  • http://www.progressive.com/ quantum insurance

    Howdy! I know this is somewhat off topic but I was wondering which blog platform are you
    using for this website? I’m getting fed up of WordPress because I’ve had problems with hackers and I’m looking at options for another platform.
    I would be awesome if you could point me in the direction of a good
    platform.

  • Jamie Clemons

    How long can we maintain a technological edge when we no longer manufacture anything in our country?

  • justice_first

    It is very clear that China has decided to pursue the most sophisticated weapons for its defense. This is an all out effort because of the painful lessons learned from the 19th and the early 20th century. The west should not be surprised if China is acting this way in its defense. I don’t believe China is interested in conquest after it has grown strong. After all, a strong offense is the best defense.

    • Secundius

      @ justice_first.

      I’m not convinced. Watch their Infrastructure Rebuilding Program for Natural Resources in Africa, very carefully.

  • Secundius

    I see, I got REDDIT again, last-night by the Fo-Police.

  • Secundius

    Isn’t it an oxymoron, when the subject matter is about the Chinese, but, you don’t let anybody talk negatively about the Chinese???

  • Khan Majeed

    Chinese research effort is getting bigure than USA – it will be USA which will catching up to China

  • Farinelli

    YOU ALL ARE SONS OF THE DEVIL..

    JEHOVAH GAVE US THE EARTH TO CARE FOR IT NOT TO DESTROY IT .

    JEHOVAH WILL TAKE IT BACK ..IT WON’T ALLOW YOU TO DESTROY HIS MASTERPIECE .BUT YOU ALL WILL HAVE PROVEN THAT ARE SONS OF SATAN.

    YOU WOULD HAVE NOT GAIN ANYTHING ,BUT YOUR DAMNATION!

    • Secundius

      Farinelli.

      WHAT ON EARTH, ARE YOU RANTING ABOUT. SIR…

  • Michael

    Small problem, lots of pictures but short on operational practicality. When the 747 went down somewhere in the far eastern ocean the Chinese had the right gear to find it on the bottom of the ocean but they did not deploy it because the ship was severely unreliable.
    In another unrelated event, the rust bucket Chinese aircraft carrier that is currently threating the entire world suffered some kind of catastrophic failure recently in the “oven room”, nobody has been able to translate the issue,relegating it a training vessel for its foreseeable future. Jet engine development has been little more than a catastrophe in China but that is of no consequence concerning the pictures, those of you who have been around P&W and GE, a little harder to steal things
    The scary part is not all of the pictures, they used to allow comments on the China Daily news web site, yes, the destruction of the US economy and the USA in general is a priority, their new leader is not doing very much to challenge notion, fanatical is an understatement, the world has never seen anything like it, their hatred actually originates in formal training.
    These pictures and paranoia are a good deal for the US arms industry, this is what drives it, During Putin’s brief absence from the Russian throne, his stand-in invited then Governor Schwarzenegger to help him build a Russian Silicone Valley, the LA Times got a kick out of it, their take on it, “the first thing you have to do is let all of your entrepreneur out of prison”!
    Your story is a joke, China has some serious problems, this is their shot, in ten years or so their population will be so old not a whole lot is going to get done other than take care of old people and all this stuff in the pictures will join all of the Russian gear rusting in harbors and buried in the sand in the middle east.

    • Secundius

      @ Michael.

      If I had to venture a guess too the phrase “oven room”, I’m probably thinking of a engineering compartment with little or no ventilation. Could also be one of the magazines, where they had a catastrophic “cook-off” (ordnance detonation)…

    • Secundius

      @ Michael.

      The PLAN, talks about a large “steam explosion”. It probably means one of its boilers to produce steam for the ship’s steam turbines had a “catastrophic failure”. What caused it, is unclear. As a friend of mine would say, “The problem was with ship’s steam engine “Fiddly Bits”…

  • JCWS1

    Now that American’s have re-built the Chinese economy they will become Russia’s biggest customer for military grade weapons.
    Clear back in the 60’s we were warned that when WWIII arrived it would be the US siding with the Soviet Union to defeat RED China. Since when did they drop the name RED ?

  • Secundius

    Fortunately, the People’s Republic of China (Red China) hasn’t. Unfortunately, those in this country that view, China as a “Cheap powerhouse of labor productivity” HAS.

  • Jim DiGiacomo

    The Chinese have come a long way militarily in the last 20 yrs. We on the other hand have spent most of that time just trying to field the F-35.

    • Secundius

      @ Jim DiGiacomo.

      Did you know that Israel is a Technology Trading Partner with China, and they tried without success in selling the Phalcon Airborne Early Warning System. Designed for the Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye to the Chinese. And that China has a Naval Base in Haifa, Israel. ALLIES, oxymoron.

  • Secundius

    Don’t you just love it when USNI News’s Fo-Police, Reddit’s your comments and replaces it with a earlier comment that has nothing to do with the current question…

  • Secundius

    Is Israel suppose to be an “Ally” of the United States, and yet the ChiCom’s has a Naval Base in Haifa, Israel. That seems kind of odd to me. Who’s allied to who?