Posted on 10/22/2009 9:53:36 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
China recently announced the decommissioning of "Submarine 303." This was a Type 33 boat (a copy of the Russian Romeo class). Romeo was the successor to the Russian Whiskey class boats, which were, in turn, based on the German Type XXI. The German design first showed up in 1943, and was the first modern submarine, in that it was designed to spend most of its time underwater (with just the snorkel device and periscope above water, to bring in air for the diesel engine and crew). The Type XXI was a 1,600 ton (on the surface) sub, compared to the 1,500 ton Romeos. Russia built over 500 Romeos, while China built over 80. Only about 7-8 of the Type 33s are still in service, used mainly for training. They rarely go to sea.
What was most interesting about this retirement was the official comment that the sub had steamed 38,000 kilometers at sea over its 20 year career. That comes out to less than a week at sea a year. This was not unusual. Chinese subs are not built well, and there have been many breakdowns and accidents at sea. The Chinese have preferred to keep their subs tied up at dock, and have the crew practice there. Not very good training, but it does reduce the risk of losing the boat at sea. And it is good for crew morale.
China has been trying to improve the quality of its subs, and warships in general. They stopped building Type 33s in the 1980s, and began producing 21 boats of an improved design (the Type 35), which they built until the end of the century. These were more reliable boats, and spent somewhat more time at sea than the Type 33s.
(Excerpt) Read more at strategypage.com ...
I believe we should have a military that is capable of kicking any two asses on Earth, at once. I just think Obama is making sure we don’t.
Our Boy Scouts can do that. we just blow stuff up for show. lol
Joke for you
Why doesn’t Texas fall into the Gulf of Mexico?
Because Oklahoma sucks.
I am Tahlequah and still think that joke is funny
I agree with the fact that China cannot field a bluewater navy or heavy lift support to a far away place, but Taiwan is just off their coast and virtually all of their military prep and upgrades go to assets that involve subjugating Taiwan. I don’t doubt we could hurt them, bad. I think we could take Taiwan if we wanted to. I just don’t think the American people will stomach the losses necessary to do it. Even with a Republican President. With zer0, he’d probably surrender on day one. They are getting stronger and we aren’t.
I understand what you are saying.
Still 1200 miles is a long way by boat or plane.
Loads of logistics and lots of fuel
think of the distance this way. San Francisco to Midland, over water.
A long, arduos and difficult trip.
unless you are on cruise ship with plenty of liquor and a few ladies.
From China to Taiwan? 1200 miles?
The coast of China to Taiwan is about 100 miles.
oops. I am at a disadvantage on my cell
Let me get back to in little while when I am on my computer.
bigger screen and keyboard
I have the same problem with mine.
You assume that an Obama administration will go to war to defend Taiwan (treaty or no treaty).
Yes, we have the physical ability to devastate China. Do we have the WILL?
Well I have to admit to you and the other posters that I was making the case that our capabilities, for a variety of very qualified reasons, is incredible.
In fact, it really is just stupid to go up against the USA unless you have a political strategy.
In terms of winning the one key factor in all confrontations is “The will to win”.
There is a saying “The early bird always gets the worm. But will take a brutal beating and go home hungry when confronted by the hungry bird”.
The message being, if you are hungry enough, you will beat sleep walkers and people of casual skill.
Why? You are focused on a goal and committed to achieving it, no matter what.
The key is desire to win. Think Rocky.
Obama is disjointed, discombobulated, panty waist. He continues to extol his virtue of not winning. That is, winning is not the goal, when he disusses Afghanistan.
This is an important “tell” and exposes America for it’s lack of a leader who has no desire to win. The reasons don’t matter, he is not a person that want to win but, desires to exist and give flowery speeches that make him feel good.
So you and the other posters are correct. He is not capable of winning as it is not a core requirement for him in any competitive engagement.
Except when he is climbing his personal corporate ladder.
The purpose of the military is to be an effective tool that your government can use to accomplish its political objectives, to enforce its will upon an opposing entity. I think China is not going to try going toe-to-toe against us in a conventional military sense. They have other options they can take to accomplish their political objectives.
One option that has concerned me for a while is the level of corruption in our political establishment. Why spend hundreds of billions of dollars to develop something that can match our F-22, when by spending a tiny fraction of that in "contributions" they can induce our politicians to kill our own program? Do you doubt that a working majority of our congress can be bought for a few billions of dollars?
Who is Diane Feinstein?
LoL
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.