In reply to Bobzilla:
There is a reason the terms of the museum ship agreements are to maintain them to a certain extent should they be needed again....partially because they aren't outclassed, simply outdated.
As far as the chicoms locking missles on our boats......how many/what types of ships carry the phalanx system?
Pic for amusement and reference 
Try 2700lb AP projectile 24+ miles, not 10 miles. Or 1900lb HE or Mk 23 Nuclear projective 24 miles if you just want to blow it up not make giant holes in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16%22/50_caliber_Mark_7_gun
Bobzilla wrote:Appleseed wrote: In reply to keethrax:I love that picture. Even though I know they were outdated, outclassed and slow by modern standards, there's just something intoxicating anout throwing out 2,000lb shells 10 miles and leaving football field craters in their wakes.
Surface ships... meh.
They are all just targets for what was likely a very active game of hide and seek (on both sides) going on under the surface while that was all happening. Likely wildly more aggressive then anyone will admit.
Kind of like a game of water polo where all sorts of nasty stuff is going on just under the surface where no one can see.
referring to S China Sea or WWII, aircooled? S China Sea, I agree. Guarantee there were more than a few destroyers on scene there.....
aircooled wrote: Surface ships... meh. They are all just targets for what was likely a very active game of hide and seek (on both sides) going on under the surface while that was all happening.
There have been recent news reports about Russian subs loitering around trans-Atlantic fiber optic cables.
Bobzilla wrote:Appleseed wrote: In reply to keethrax:I love that picture. Even though I know they were outdated, outclassed and slow by modern standards, there's just something intoxicating anout throwing out 2,000lb shells 10 miles and leaving football field craters in their wakes.
how 'bout closer to 30 mi ?
the 8" guns on the heavy cruiser that I served would shoot ~ 20 mi … but all we could fling were 250 lb. shells … though we could fire one ever 6 sec per barrel
RFloyd wrote: referring to S China Sea or WWII, aircooled? S China Sea, I agree. Guarantee there were more than a few destroyers on scene there.....
No, not WWII. You would NOT want to be on a sub in (especially late Atlantic) WWII!
Talking about sniffing around cables in subs, I am guessing you know about the time the US tapped into a USSR under sea communication cable!
BTW - I was thinking.... if you know someone is going to be filling a big hole and building a base on top of it.... wouldn't it be a cool idea to drop something in that hole before they fill it? Shhhhhhh.
We tapped several cables several times. Google USS Halibut and USS Seawolf. Spy subs supreme.
aircooled wrote:RFloyd wrote: referring to S China Sea or WWII, aircooled? S China Sea, I agree. Guarantee there were more than a few destroyers on scene there.....No, not WWII. You would NOT want to be on a sub in (especially late Atlantic) WWII!
Oh, heck I know that's the truth. Our sub losses were atrocious. U-boat losses were as well, as you said, especially late in the war.
wbjones wrote:Bobzilla wrote:how 'bout closer to 30 mi ? the 8" guns on the heavy cruiser that I served would shoot ~ 20 mi … but all we could fling were 250 lb. shells … though we could fire one ever 6 sec per barrelAppleseed wrote: In reply to keethrax:I love that picture. Even though I know they were outdated, outclassed and slow by modern standards, there's just something intoxicating anout throwing out 2,000lb shells 10 miles and leaving football field craters in their wakes.
My Father still has the papers they dropped afterwards.. He was in Vietnam in 68 and 69 in the Mobile Riverine Forces. They were taking heavy fire and called in for air support. Shortly after pulling back, he says the most god-awful screaming sound came flying overhead and completely annihilated the area near the bunker they were taking fire from.
The propaganda leaflets that a spotter plane read thus: You have just received one salvo from the USS New Jersey, the world's most powerful battleship. Surrender in the next ten minutes or another will be fired"
Seems the Jersey was in-shore at the moment and in range..
The Vietcong all came running out of the jungle with their hands up.
I do agree with the rest, we more than showed China that we do not care for the "12 mile" limit around these man made islands. They did not chase us off, they did not escort us out, they followed and bitched
This was how the Soviets showed their displeasure of us entering their waters: Yorktown rammed
In reply to mad_machine:
The comments on that video made want to go punch a Russian.
mad_machine wrote: ...This was how the Soviets showed their displeasure of us entering their waters: Yorktown rammed
How very "Soviet" of them!
Looks a bit more like "Soviet destroyer runs into and almost gets capsized and pulled under much larger and heavier US Carrier"!
It wasn't a ramming, its what happens when two ships get close. The venturi pulls them together. Its what makes underway refueling snd replenishments so interesting.
The US Navy is damn good at it. The Russians less so.
We used to UnRep in the Indian Ocean. We were a merchant oil tanker and we would refuel the fleet oilers. We had 26 people on our ship. The Navy ship had 26 people on the bow, 26 on the stern, 26 on the bridge, 26 on the manifold.... It isn't really that hard. You just set a course, the squids come up next to you, throw lines, pull hoses, they maintain position against you, not you against them. I suppose I should have taken pics. Probably didn't care.
Not hard as far as line tossing goes, but the helmsmen and bridge officer tend to be having a very intense time. The faster or closer the ships, the stronger the venturi pull.
RoadRaceDart wrote: Amidst all the hullabaloo, not a peep from the environmentalists or the MSM about all the critical marine habitat the Chi-Comms destroyed while piling tons of sand on those reefs. If the US was building islands in the Carribian and trying to block off the Gulf of Mexico (exactly what the Chinese are doing in the South China Sea), the screaming would be ear shattering.
While I agree that it is a damn shame what they are doing to the environment, total lack of environmental protection is pretty standard for them
In reply to foxtrapper:
My father has a story about Russians and refueling. At least back in the 70's, the Russians did stationary refueling. While on the Miller(FF 1091) they where is sight of Russian vessels refueling. It was a novelty to them so every sailor not at a post was on the one side watching.
During this a fire broke out on the Miller. Smaller ships didn't have a dedicated fire alarm/response so procedure was to call General Quarters. The Russian ship heard this so they called general quarters as well, not knowing it was just a fire. Back on the Miller, upon the realizing the Russian response, the captain immediately order "Do NOT touch those guns!"
And that is the story of how Russian stationary refueling and small vessel fire response nearly started WW3, and the only time my Father was called to general quarters in 20 years in the navy, including serving in the first gulf war.
Having brought myself a little more up to speed on this subject, I'm convinced the Chinese are just building some vacation resort areas. There's no reason to think they are military installations. Why would China need a heavily armed and fortified island in the middle of the ocean? Gotta admit, 8 acres a day is pretty impressive. Can't help but think this won't end well. As far as the environment goes, aren't they doing a good thing by building a new one? I guess it depends on how you look at it.
Might be good for some sea birds (which they will likely kill to keep them away from aircraft) but it's destroying a large amount of sea life rich reef area. In the large scope, it's probably not a big deal, just a trend you would not want to go widespread.
I am curious what consideration they have for sea level rise (if that does indeed occur as expected)? They of course can add more land, but once you start putting blacktop down, it becomes pretty difficult. Then again, they probably have at least 40-100(?) years, so maybe that is enough.
When we UnRep'ed, it was at around 8-10 Knots or so, if I recall. We could MAYBE go 15-16 Knots down hill with the wind behind us on a good day. Oil tankers are not built for speed. There was also enough ocean between us to not worry too much about the venturi effect.
when we would UnRep the spacing wasn't all that far apart … keeping in mind that we often would be high lining personal to or from each ship …
now that was a "trip" as it were .. got my one and only chance at it when I was being transferred from the USS Newport News to the Savannah for transport to Subic Bay and then onward home
There's a Reuters article covering this, explaining what I thought a lot better than I did:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0SV2QK20151107?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
Basically we pulled off an "innocent passage" in maritime law.
No. Innocent passage does not apply to undamaged warships with the ability to navigate around claimed waters.
Innocent passage can not be prejudicial to the security of the nation claimin those waters. A US Navy destroyer is very prejudicial, even with fire control radars switched off.
It's a bit like having a dude walk across your front lawn with an m-16 at his hip. You should feel threatened.
If China felt threatened by the destroyer's presence (and sense they shadowed it with two other warships, it's pretty clear they did) then it's not innocent passage as defined by maritime law.
In reply to ThunderCougarFalconGoat:
Thank you, I was about to add that until I read your post. Innocent passage is mainly for vessels that are incapacitated or in distress. Using that as a reason also could validate the chicom claim, which isn't valid. They want to fish there? Go for it, they want to whine like 3yo's because they can't shut down an entrance to the South China Sea, lol China, lol
You'll need to log in to post.
