Home » Foreign Forces » Report: Chinese Navy Warship Rammed Two Vietnamese Fishing Vessels

Report: Chinese Navy Warship Rammed Two Vietnamese Fishing Vessels

An undated photo of a Chinese Type Yuting II Type 072A tank landing ship (LST). PLAN Photo

An undated photo of a Chinese Type Yuting II Type 072A tank landing ship (LST). PLAN Photo

A People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) amphibious warship allegedly rammed two Vietnamese fishing vessels operating near the disputed Spratly Islands in July, according to local press cited in an Office of Naval Intelligence threat to shipping report.

According to accounts of the fisherman, reported in the Nguoi Lao Dong newspaper, about 15 nautical miles off the western coast of the Spratlys on July 21 “a strange iron-clad Chinese ship numbered 994 suddenly appeared and approached [the fishing vessel] sounding its horn.”

The ship then sprayed the vessels with water cannon and precipitated a 30-minute chase.
“In order to avoid a possible collision, I tried to steer my boat away, but the strange ship still chased after and then rammed it on the right side,” captain Nguyen Nhat Ngoc said to the paper.

Ngoc descried the heavily armed Chinese vessel hit the ship twice more before breaking off the pursuit.

“Bui Thanh Ninh, another local fisherman, said his boat with 13 crew members suffered a similar attack also in the area on [July 23], by the same Chinese ship with code number 994,” reported Thanh Nien News.

According to the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) recently published PLAN and Chinese maritime law enforcement guide, the only vessel with the hull number 994 is the 4800-ton Yuting II Type 072A tank landing ship (LST) Daiyun Shan (994). The landing ship is more than 100 meters long.

Screen grab of ONI's Chinese ship identification guide. ONI Image

Screen grab of ONI’s Chinese ship identification guide. ONI Image

Reports of the incident were collated in the July ONI Worldwide Threat to Shipping (WTS) Report. The report did not connect the hull number to a PLAN ship.

Navy officials told USNI News on Friday the inclusion of the incident in the report — a collection of open source information — carried with it no change in the U.S. stance toward Chinese actions in the South China Sea.

Vietnamese fishermen have reported an increase in confrontations with Chinese coast guard and civilian ships since a standoff between Beijing and Hanoi over the presence of a Chinese owned oil-rig for two months in Vietnamese claimed waters in 2014.
“The flare-up in incidents of Chinese vessels ramming Vietnamese fishing boats in recent weeks has come as Vietnam increases high-level contacts with the United States,” reported the The Diplomat in mid-July.

On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry gave an unvarnished criticism of China’s growing expansion into the South China Sea and the ongoing campaign to restrict access in the region.

“Freedom of navigation and overflight are among the essential pillars of international maritime law,” Kerry told the East Asia Summit in Kuala Lumpur according to a report in Reuters.

“Despite assurances that these freedoms would be respected, we have seen warnings issued and restrictions attempted in recent months.”

In addition to the uptick in maritime presence, China has also continued a campaign of land reclamation in the Spratlys, most notably constructing a 3,000 meter runway on reclaimed land on the Fiery Cross Reef near the Philippines.

  • sferrin

    Chinese diplomacy at work.

    • Bob

      USA diplomacy = War……..Hipocrisy…Democracy

      • sferrin

        Shouldn’t you be out campaigning for Hillary?

        • Bob

          You assume that people are American that post here, not even close..just an outsider that is getting tired of all the political American Hipocrisy….

          • Reality Check

            On one hand you are saying “USA diplomacy = War……..Hipocrisy…Democracy”, on Japan Times, you urged them to ramp up Japan’s military, where 60% of the population are up against such a move by Shinzo Abe.
            Do you suffer from multiple personality disorder, a type of Schizophrenia?
            Are you the Bob I crushed, a few month ago? You account looks new though.

          • muzzleloader

            So ‘outsider”, how about manning up and letting us know where you are from?

        • redgriffin

          No Trump.

      • NavySubNuke

        Jealous much? It’s ok, soon enough America will stop wasting time and effort defending ungrateful folks like you and leave you to what you deserve. Once we pull back in on ourselves we will see what happens to you and the rest of those in NATO who aren’t willing to spend their own money to defend themselves.
        The good news is that if you survive long enough you can count on America eventually feeling bad enough to save you and your incompetent countrymen yet again.
        Feel free to keep sneering though – it makes you look like you actually have a backbone.

  • NavySubNuke

    But remember – China desires nothing but peace. The peace where all of their neighbors live in complete subservience to their wishes of course – but hey who in the current administration wouldn’t want deal for peace in our time……
    But I’m sure this is somehow just the fault of the Bush administration – he probably personally ordered the fishing boats into those waters or something.

    • PolicyWonk

      The current administration is making an effort to standi up to China, whereas the previous simply kow-towed to the Communist Chinese after they rammed one of our airplanes out of the sky.

      And lets not forget the massive transfer of dual-use technologies (plus the manufacturing base, manufacturing techniques, the 8M+ jobs, and the tax revenues) that the US National Intelligence Estimate classified as a massive national security disaster (not just for the USA, but also for every other S. Pacific nation as well), far surpassing that of any if the previous administrations.

      The money the ChiComs made from these transfers is exactly what has been fueling their massive military build-up and diplomatic belligerence, according to Patrick Buchanan (and the NIE, for that matter). Whereas they Chinese might’ve eventually ended up in this position anyway, the administration of GWB massively accelerated their efforts by giving them the technologies and wherewithal to do it far sooner than they would’ve otherwise. The warnings for these events were thoroughly documented by Buchanan from 2002-2008, where he begged the administration and their GOP supporters to cease and desist, lest we cause exactly what we’re all seeing the Chinese doing now.

      There aren’t many things I agree with Pat Buchanan on – but during that time period he was totally on target when he accused the administration for selling out the jobs, US national security, and the manufacturing base of the nation out solely for the short term gains of their campaign donors – by simply giving it away to the ChiComs.

      Obama isn’t without his faults by any stretch – but he simply hasn’t done even a decent fraction of the damage to our national security (or foreign policy) his predecessor did.

      • Reality Check

        Come on, without the Chinese market, do you think GM would be resurrect from the ashes?
        There are not so many technology transfers. Don’t stretch it. Today, even rockets are commodities, and the U.S. has imported many engines from Russia. The ones made in the U.S., keep failing one after another.

        • PolicyWonk

          I’m basically summarizing the findings of the US NIE, and they considered and classified the massive technology transfers as a major national security disaster – far in excess of any previous administration. And they didn’t merely complain about the technology transfers: they also complained about the wholesale loss of the strategic manufacturing base.

          The editorials written by Patrick Buchanan complaining about this very topic were many during the time period. Lamentably – all of Buchanan’s predictions came true.

      • NavySubNuke

        If you really want to talk about a president handing over the crown jewels to China you should really start with Clinton and national labs allowing a warhead designs to make it out the door to china. Never mind all the other technologies they managed to grab including satellite based radar systems.
        And to say Obama has done a fraction of the damage to national security and foreign policy did is a pure opinion point we can’t even accurately judge for another 20 – 30 years. Considering all that has gone wrong under Obama – especially when it comes to assuring our allies such as Israel and Japan – it is certainly a point that is open for debate. One thing that is almost certain is that whoever comes in to office after Obama is going to inherent a better economy but a much more fractured and chaotic world than Obama did.

        • PolicyWonk

          I advise you read through the NIE’s to find the same descriptive terms (under Obama) used in the NIE’s to describe what happened to this nation under the previous administration. They aren’t there.

          Major national security problems for Obama aren’t there – at least not yet. But they showed up continuously under the previous administration.

          Israel can pound sand: that clown Netanyahu is one of the most dishonest, and pathological liars on the face of the planet: he deliberately LIED to the HoR when he stupidly came to the US in an effort to torpedo the talks with Iran (both the IDF’s intelligence agency and the Mossad refused to support his assertions). Netanyahu also committed acts of war against this nation via a long “false flag” campaign that attempted to provoke a military confrontation between Iran and the USA. And, that creep also gave top-secret jet engine technology away to the communist Chinese, from a supposedly secure air base in Israel.

          Israel has been trying to sucker the US into doing their hallucinated dirty work for them: and under GWB, he did their bidding and we got screwed for it. Massively.

          That doesn’t include him obnoxiously trying to order the POTUS to attack Iran in public (something the US JCS are united in opposition to). I advise you look at Netanyahu’s history of predictions – whether its where Iran is w/r/t developing a nuclear device, or regarding the invasion of Iraq – and you’ll see he’s just as thick as the neoconservative dolts that advised the disinterested GWB into causing the worst string of foreign policy and national security disasters in history.

          For once we have a POTUS that looks out for American interests before Israel’s. I’m an American FIRST, and I want America to prevail – long before I’d give Bibi the time of day. If anyone deserves to have their funding vetoed, its Israel: that would end Netanyahu’s career instantly, and then there’d be an opportunity to get the relationship with Israel squared away.

          And Japan? What are you talking about?

          • NavySubNuke

            You should pay more attention about what is coming out of Japan. It is really quite interesting. There are retired government and military officers actually stating in public that japan should consider acquiring nuclear weapons – this is quite unprecedented. Japanese government officials also admitted at the STRATCOM deterrence symposium last year that their new helicopter carrier was built because more passive means of deterring Chinese aggression have utterly failed and they need to become more overt in how they are deterring the Chinese from violating their territory. That raised more than a few eyebrows among those of us in the room.
            As to the rest it is clear you aren’t ready to objectively considering the security situation as it exists today under Obama vs. the situation under Bush. But that is ok – we can agree to disagree on that. have a great night!

          • PolicyWonk

            Fair enough, we can certainly agree to disagree on this topic – normally (from what I recall) we agree more often than not.

            I happen to agree with the assessments of the NIE, and you don’t – and that’s ok.

            Either way, we both want the very best for the nation, and that’s what important.


      • DevilDocNowCiv


        Except for:
        1) ignoring all respected policy advice to not abandon our military combat presence in Iraq, he imposed a requirement for SOFA continuation that couldn’t reasonably be expected to be met (parliamentary approval), and then acted like Bush before him, making public statements and actions like he was trying to get Maliki to agree – Maliki was then the Pres or Premier – the Executive. With one week to go befoe SOFA expiration, Maliki agreed after holding out for years in negotiation. Instead of accepting an executive agreement SOFA which is in place in many countries, Obama claimed it was impossible because of the requirement for parliamentary approval. No non-Fox media-and seldom Fox-notes that it was Obama’s self imposed condition that he could disregard if he wanted to, which means it was his choice to leave. So, in disragarding all respected warnings not to leave as he did, he left. Until ISIS made the news, he and Biden several times boasted about thier “great achievement” in “ending the war.” A lie, as Bush had won it, and left Obama an improving country that had several internationally recognised national and regional elections post war, and clearly needed us to keep it improving. Once ISIS blew up, he blamed it on-wait for it-yes, Bush. So, Polyphonic-ISIS, the current refugees, and a now mostly devastated Syria and Iraq-a disaster, as the advice he ignored warned about. Presumably, you blame Bush.

        • PolicyWonk

          Look, the reality is that the current administration tried to renegotiate the SOFA with the Iraqi’s negotiated by GWB. The end result (regardless of who advised who) was that the Iraqi’s were adamant in denying immunity for our soldiers that would’ve remained behind (traditionally a part of this kind of agreement).

          Everyone involved, at that point, decided that the only thing to do at that point was to leave – lest our soldiers be left at the mercy of the Iraqi court system (and Iraqi politics).

          That obviously made it easier for Obama to leave, and say that he fulfilled his campaign promise. And if the shoe had been on the other foot, the GOP would’ve done exactly the same thing.

          And Bush didn’t “win” anything: according to the US National Intelligence Estimates, we not only suffered one of the worst foreign policy and national security disasters in history (let alone US history), we also suffered a massive defeat in the GWOT.

          The only one’s who “won”, were the Communist Chinese, who that administration stupidly borrowed the money from, and then got the vast majority of the major oil processing deals after we got kicked out of the country (the Iraqi’s final diplomatic kick in the crotch to the US on our way out the door).

          Make all the excuses you want – the Invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated, and deeply expensive disaster.

          • DevilDocNowCiv


            You are incorrect when you say “the Iraqi’s were adamant” about not agreeing on a new SOFA. Factually wrong-as I noted in the post you replied to, Maliki caved with one week left in the old agreement. Obama could have made an executive level agreement SOFA at that point with Maliki.

            Instead, he claimed to be unable to do so because of a condition that couldn’t be met, which was that the SOFA required the Iraqi parliament to approve it. What makes this dishonest, is that Obama had the executive authority to disregard that requirement, since he himself imposed it.

            He both took credit for pulling out our troops, and contradicting himself by blaming the Iraqi’s for not letting him stay. So, PolicyWonk, reality is something you have to disregard to maintain your high regard for Obama.

            And before Obama’s self-imposed pull-out, Iraq was a great success, which both Obama and Biden were taking credit for. But go ahead and have it both ways – you have no choice, if you want to support Obama.

          • PolicyWonk

            Lamentably, all 16 US Intelligence Agencies unanimously disagree with your assessment of “great success”.

            The terms “massive national security disaster”, “tremendous defeat to Al Qaida in the Global War On Terror”, and “Foreign Policy Disaster” seemingly have ZERO in common with your “great success” comment.

            According to every other nation on the planet, regardless of friend or foe, views the Invasion of Iraq to be a massive foreign policy blunder. And in fact, the worlds population (according to Pew Research), by the time the previous incumbent left office, considered the USA to be a larger threat to world peace than IRAN.

            There is simply no way any claim you make regarding “great success” in the context of the Invasion of Iraq can be considered valid. Unless of course you are an adversary of the United States, or working directly for Al Qaida (for them, and the Taliban, it was a tremendous success).

            And thats according to every other nation on the planet, and every US Intelligence Agency.


    • stevr

      Obviously,you don’t know anything about this issues..I rather suggest that you never stop reading information and self knowledge,because if you do ignorance sets in with you.

      • NavySubNuke

        Sweetie I’d work on your English skills a little bit – maybe once you have improved those you will have some idea about what the rest of us are saying and can then comment intelligently. Have a nice night.

  • Pingback: Chinese Navy Warship Rammed Two Vietnamese Fishing Vessels | NOSI – Naval Open Source Intelligence™()

  • TDog

    Interesting that now we’re standing up for the Vietnamese… I guess all the servicemen they tortured in POW camps was just for laughs, huh?

    When the media tells you to jump, it’s sad how many supposed patriots will ask “how high?”

    • Dave Perry

      It makes you feel good that China is beating them like a drum?

      • TDog

        Why not? Vietnam conducted itself atrociously against the French and us, so if someone’s going to knock them around a bit? Let’s just say I’m not going to lose any sleep that a bunch of totalitarian freaks are getting beat up by another bigger bunch of authoritarian bullies.

    • NavySubNuke

      So should we also leave Japan to the mercy of China because they also tortured and murdered US POWs during WWII? At what point do you forgive the past and move forward?

      • TDog

        Sometime after the body’s turned cold might be nice.

        • Secundius

          @ TDog.

          Don’t forget Gitmo, Sir. Because I pretty sure the Detainees there WON’T any time soon, either…

    • Taco43

      Search for “Agent Orange birth defects” and you’ll see why the POW’s were tortured.

      • TDog

        Those birth defects didn’t happen during the war.

  • aloxxley

    Side note: the US Navy does not currently have an aircraft carrier in the Western Pacific.

    • Bruce Archibald

      Nor do they have one in the middle east. All a part of the Obama doctrine.

      • USNVO

        And yet, nothing has happened! The sky has not fallen, chaos has not broken out, cats aren’t sleeping with dogs, nothing!

      • Don Bacon

        CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt is currently in the Middle East, one of the two forward deployed carriers (of ten).

  • Pingback: Report: Chinese Navy Warship Rammed Two Vietnamese Fishing Vessels | Peace and Freedom()

  • Don Bacon

    This emergency calls for LCS, comparable in size to the Yuting.
    “LCS is a fast, agile, focused-mission platform designed for operation in near-shore environments yet capable of open-ocean operation. It is designed to defeat asymmetric “anti-access” threats…”
    (Just kidding.)

  • Pingback: Russians Keep $490M US Space Shuttle Contract LexLeader()

  • olesalt

    It happened, and more of this ramming will take place not only to Vietnamese vessels but also to the Philippines & others smaller claimant nations that encroached into China’s so-called 9 dotted lines – territorial waters of about 90% of the South China Sea. What can Vietnam do? What can the US do to help Vietnam & other claimants against the antagonistic/bullying Chinese? Who will blink? The events are unfolding. Walk the Talk Mr Obama & Mr Kerry.

  • Secundius

    I suspect before the week is out, that this ChiCom PLAN Gator-Freighter. Is going to have an Unfortunate Encounter with one of Vietnam’s New Submarines, somewhere in the South China Sea…

  • Rob C.

    Chinese are liers. How can you cover up a major warship running down two fishing ships?? Unless political establishment press the right buttons and actually convinces that Chinese that US is actually serious. Its going to be Demolition Ship Derby with actual national ships. It’s only matter time. No one wants war, but sound like China thnks it can get away with it.

  • Don Bacon

    On SCS, the US replacing Hagel and Locklear with the more hawkish Carter and Harris hasn’t changed the basic situation. (Kerry can always be discounted.) The PRC has a far greater security interest in SCS than the US does, and US bluster has no effect except to make the US look silly and powerless. Most of the SCS shipping is to & from China, and China has important strategic submarine facilities on adjacent Hainan island.

  • Ruckweiler

    The Chinese and Vietnamese have been killing one another for thousands of years. Next round coming up.

  • Pingback: AP investigation: Slave fishing boats tracked to Papua New Guinea after … |()

  • John B. Morgen

    The PLAN is just following the (Admiral) Mahan Doctrine by building up a modernized navy and projecting naval power into areas that the Chinese wish to control. Nothing really new here, its’s just China’s turn in history.

  • John B. Morgen

    The Chinese are following the (Admiral) Mahan Doctrine, and President Obama’s administration and our Pacific allies better wise-up to this fact. The PLAN is planning to turn the South China Sea into a Chinese pond.

  • Kevin Dougherty

    If our weak a$$ muslim president would have grown a pair, we would have cut this off before they completed it. In effect, our president just gave this island, and control of the area, to the Chinese.