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

Skip to comments.

Navy Officer Warns of Chinese Subs
Taipei Times ^ | July 26, 2005 | Charles Snyder

Posted on 07/28/2005 12:24:00 PM PDT by Paul Ross

Navy officer warns of Chinese subs

BUILDUP: China is boosting its submarine force with the eventual aim of preventing the US from coming to the aid of Taiwan, a retired US military official said
By Charles Snyder
STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON
Wednesday, Jul 27, 2005,Page 3

A former senior US naval officer warned Monday that within 20 years, China will have the ability to wreak havoc on US naval forces going to Taiwan's defense against a Chinese attack.

Such a defeat of the US navy by a Chinese force "will ruin America as we know it today," Vice Admiral Al Konetzni said. He was testifying before a hearing of a commission formed by the Pentagon earlier this year to probe plans for closing dozens of US military bases in a bid to save money.

Konetzni was testifying at a hearing in Boston on plans to close the Naval Submarine Base in New London, Connecticut, one of 33 major bases slated for closure under the Defense Department's base closure initiative.

He made his comments less than a week after the Pentagon released its annual report to Congress on China's military buildup, which warned of a grave threat to Taiwan stemming from China's military modernization and of its submarine force expansion.

A key role for Chinese submarines, the report and US military experts note, would be to prevent the US from coming close enough to aid Taiwan by essentially closing off the Taiwan Strait to US vessels and troops, allowing China to complete its attack on Taiwan without US interference.

"I see one punch in the nose [from the Chinese], and it will ruin America as we know it today."-- Former US navy vice admiral Al Konetzni

China's submarine force is larger than the US', and "in the year 2025, they'll have three times [as many as the US] at the rate we're doing business," Konetzni told the base closing commission hearing.

"I see a problem with Taiwan," he added.

"I see us putting our white hats on and going across the world and getting there" in the case of hostile Chinese military action against Taiwan requiring a US response, he said.

"And I see one punch in the nose, and it will ruin America as we know it today," Konetzni told the commission.

Until his recent retirement, Konetzni was the deputy commander of the naval command that covered Europe, the Atlantic and the Pacific. Before that he spent three years as commander of submarines in the Pacific and before that, three years in Japan and South Korea.

He testified in opposition to the closure of the New London submarine base.

There are 400 submarines in the world today, he said. China now has a larger force than the US' and in 10 years China will have twice as many submarines as the US. By 2025, the gap will rise to three-to-one, he testified.

Konetzni said that the US has fewer submarines in the Pacific than it has needed, even with the stationing of additional subs in Guam at the end of the 20th century.

"Today, we can deploy nine -- we can stretch it to 10 -- submarines at a time. Our [combat commanders] ... have a requirement for critical requirements of up to 13," he said.

"The fact is, over 30 percent of critical peacetime missions are missed annually. That means we didn't know much about the Chinese [or their] Yuan-class being launched last year," he said.

Ironically, the New London facility is one of the shipbuilding sites that could be involved in building the diesel subs that the Bush administration has been pressing Taiwan to purchase since 2001.

The Electric Boat Division of the defense contracting giant General Dynamic Corp has a variety of docks reserved for ship building, refitting and repair, which builds submarines for the US navy and for sale abroad under US official foreign arms sales programs.

General Dynamics has been named as a potential supplier of the eight submarines that are part of the NT$410.8 billion (US$12.8 billion) arms-sales package that has been held up in the legislature by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and its allies.



TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: armsbuildup; china; chinesemilitary; navy; submarines; subs; taiwan; threat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: Paul Ross

61 posted on 07/28/2005 3:42:12 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mi-kha-el

No we are not...it's free trade, it's good for the country, you're being an alarmist....don't you know that Republicans are for it and you should be to??? How dare you rock the boat...you better get back in line and swear your allegiance to all the Bush Bots on FR....because in short time...someone will drag Hillary Clinton in front of you and threaten to use her on you unless you are in total agreement with every aspect of Bush's 2nd term....they will also point out how stupid you are......you better get it together or they will lash you and call you a DUmmy, lib or even possibly a tinfoil hat wearer....a side not, also make sure you understand that illegal immigration is not so bad....cause Bush turns the great eye the other way, so therefore we should not worry....Hillary might win is the trump card...don't forget these things...///i'm just here to help//// rant off ;)


62 posted on 07/28/2005 3:53:58 PM PDT by chasio649
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Czar
This country is in decline and/or conversion and has been for quite some time.

A sure sign is the down sizing of the military.

See what happened to Great Britain. Then see what happened the Soviet Union.

We have ceased to be an independent self- sufficient nation and have become dependent on others.

I think it is part of a deliberate plan that has been in place to bring us into the global community where no one nation is capable of independent military or financial action without the approval and support of those global bodies which will control world markets and economies.

Can't have powerful loose cannon running around acting independently upsetting world trade. It's bad for business.

I think Iraq is the last time you will see the U.S. act without the approval of the major players in the global community except on a small defensive scale.

I think the New World Order or Globalist plan for relative peace, stability and prosperity is to have each nation dependent on the other for survival.

Banding together for trade and common defense is what got us where we are as a country.

It was through trade agreements that the states and people gave up their power and freedom to our centralized government.

What we have been witnessing is the same plan put in place on a global scale.

We are and will continue to give up our national power and freedom to a loosely formed centralized government of nation states.

63 posted on 07/28/2005 4:12:04 PM PDT by mississippi red-neck (You will never win the war on terrorism by fighting it in Iraq and funding it in the West Bank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hattend
"Okay, for the zoomies in the bunch, what does "Plank-Owner" mean?"

It's a Navy thing; it means you were on the original commissioning crew. It is/was considered great duty for lots of reasons.
64 posted on 07/28/2005 4:43:18 PM PDT by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: IonImplantGuru
"I was a plank-owning RO on Seahorse SSN-669 (after 3 other boats) before going to shore duty in Pearl and getting out in 1973

I was a forward type I&C. That's why Big Al was such a great officer, he treated everyone the same and loved to hang out in AMR-1 especially while we were baby sitting the Oxygen bomb. Even the TM's loved the guy. LOL
65 posted on 07/28/2005 4:56:35 PM PDT by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: mississippi red-neck
"I think the New World Order or Globalist plan for relative peace, stability and prosperity is to have each nation dependent on the other for survival."

That may well be the plan. I predict many problems and objections on the road to implementation. This is not going to be acceptable to loyal American conservatives because it means the dilution if not complete elimination of American sovereignty. That is completely unacceptable and a breach of the oath of office taken by the President and the members of Congress, unless and until the American people have voted to approve such action.

Without the consent of the American people, and once those oaths are breached, we will have a government that has lost its moral authority to govern, and will no longer be entitled to govern.

"We are and will continue to give up our national power and freedom to a loosely formed centralized government of nation states."

We shall see.

66 posted on 07/28/2005 5:29:07 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
Taiwan needs to become a nuclear power.

I agree. And we need to start using nuclear armed torpedoes and anti-submarine rockets again.

67 posted on 07/28/2005 5:34:24 PM PDT by Paul_Denton (Get the U.N. out of the U.S. and U.S. out of the U.N.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: alfiehilder
The point of having the 1,000 or so cheapo fighters is to knock the Chinese Air Force into the dirt, followed quickly thereafter by the Chinese Army and Navy. And the reason the fighters would be cheap is that they're light, have fewer systems than a multirole bird like the F-16, and are built to turn and burn--they can carry bombs, but only if they have to.

China will eat Taiwan unless we have airsuperiority on Day One. That's all I got for that tune.

68 posted on 07/28/2005 6:07:12 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback ("These people ARE the 72 virgins."--CzarNicky describes DU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

But wouldn't it take a long time for subs to reach southeast Asia from Connecticut?


69 posted on 07/28/2005 6:31:11 PM PDT by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #70 Removed by Moderator

Comment #71 Removed by Moderator

To: Paul Ross

Good Grief - what else?


72 posted on 07/28/2005 7:00:22 PM PDT by AnimalLover ( ((Are there special rules and regulations for the big guys?)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

Oh, I suppose we'd have to mouth a few protests about Taiwan going nuclear, pro forma.

But nobody but the Red Chinese (and I guess the NK, if they had something to bomb) would really care about a nuclear Chinese.

Heck, Japan would probably fund it, so they don't have to do it.


==And you don't worry about China selling its nukes to anybody who needs nukes?


73 posted on 07/28/2005 7:08:36 PM PDT by aperturePriority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

The point of having the 1,000 or so cheapo fighters is to knock the Chinese Air Force into the dirt, followed quickly thereafter by the Chinese Army and Navy. And the reason the fighters would be cheap is that they're light, have fewer systems than a multirole bird like the F-16, and are built to turn and burn--they can carry bombs, but only if they have to.
China will eat Taiwan unless we have airsuperiority on Day One. That's all I got for that tune.


==1000 fighters was not even enough to take out the Viet Congs, not to mention China. Try 5,0000 and 10 years.


74 posted on 07/28/2005 7:13:01 PM PDT by aperturePriority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

That is the outrageous truth.

The Chicoms and Ruskies can just kick back and watch our own politicians wage war against America. They will win the war by watching us kill ourselves.

It is the people of this nation that are to blame. They are allowing the politicians to destroy our nation and fail to revolt, as our founders did.


75 posted on 07/28/2005 7:18:11 PM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
There are many people who don't think China is a threat, despite their numerous and recent threats to nuke our cities.

Aren't these the same people who keep telling us Islam is a "religion of peace?"

76 posted on 07/28/2005 7:20:19 PM PDT by Uncle Vlad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: aperturePriority

As oppossed to now?

(You did see the correction of China to Taiwan in the next post, right?)


77 posted on 07/28/2005 7:44:00 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Two comments on this:

The best way to kill submarines is to have the intelligence that they are about to go to war and then eliminate them before they make it out to sea. The Ohio SSGNs are a near perfect system for sitting off of the PRCs shore and taking out the PLAN sub bases through saturation attacks. There's a reason, folks, why the Navy is going to Blue/Gold crew them and is thinking about forward-deploying two to Apra in Guam. The idea that the ChiComs could do the preparations and staging necessary to successfully close the strait and successfully invade Taiwan is ludicrous at face value.

The second-best way to kill a submarine is to detect it while at sea and have another sub eliminate it. I find it difficult to believe that PLAN quieting techniques will ever really match advances in US hydrophonic detection/analysis technology. Beyond that, I recall that there was an awful amount of attention and money going into the use of blue-green lasers (including from satellites) to detect the movement of submerged subs ... back in the mid-1980s. 20 years on, I have to wonder what ever became of the program...


78 posted on 07/28/2005 8:07:00 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Thanks for the ping!


79 posted on 07/28/2005 8:42:45 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
Interesting...and I agree.

The PRC's posturing is bluff. They've got some bucks now and are upgrading assets, but I seriously doubt they'll be able to sustain their military endeavors.

80 posted on 07/28/2005 9:20:38 PM PDT by BIGLOOK (I once opposed keelhauling but recently have come to my senses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last

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

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

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