Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Near our waters; PLAN vs USN
Topic Started: Jun 28 2008, 08:06 AM (7,239 Views)
israeli
Member Avatar


sad to say this, guys, but it's really disappointing to read some of the posts here. while i recognize the fact that we are completely defenseless as far as detecting intrusions into Philippine territory by the Chinese and other hostile foreign military forces just like the rest of us here, i am so pissed at the fact that almost no one here wanted to change our "defenseless" circumstance.

instead of merely resigning to the reality that we are forever clueless and defenseless as far as towards intrusions by the Chinese and other hostile forces, why don't we have a change of perspective by changing that same reality that most of us here are have resigned into? why don't we give ourselves the capacity to fight back at the Chinese or any hostile military force out there that keeps on trampling on Philippine territorial integrity and sovereignty while, at the same time, engaging the proxy forces that the Chinese (NPA) and other hostile military forces (e.g. Malaysia-backed MILF and MNLF) have been supporting to destabilize the Philippines from within?

let us take the case of the Colombians, who are able to put up credible external defense capabilities while, at the same time, dealing with the coke-growing, Venezuela-backed FARC rebels. sure, some of us here would argue that the Colombians had the Americans backing them up through Plan Colombia but, still, it all boils down to the fact that the Colombians had the initiative to invest on both their external and internal defenses because they put their country's interests first unlike Filipinos who would first think of how to enrich themselves and get the American Green Card as their exit strategy should trouble brews within the Philippines. the Colombians faced a two-front dilemma: they do not want a vast area of their country to be taken over by the Venezuela-supported, coke-growing FARC rebels and, at the same time, they do want the growing Venezuelan sphere of influence to encroach deep into Colombia's territory.

to put things simply, let us all have the mindset of the Colombians in terms of dealing with both external and internal defense at the same time instead of us having an attitude of a loser by merely resigning to the reality of things and not doing anything to change it. if the Colombians were able to do it, so can we.
"To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
truegrit


If detecting diesel-electric submarines is really head-ache even for a Top-class USN Destroyer then what chance do we have in our Philippines Navy.

With regards to Anti-submarine weapons, Is it possible to install a delay fuse on
a Mortar round so that it will detonate at certain Water-Depth Level? If its possible then, we can make use of our 60mm and 81mm Mortar as DepthCharge Launcher using a Delayed-Fused Mortar round.

Add some modifications like installing a small Electric Motor to speed up its sinking speed and place some magnet material so that when it hits the hull of the submarine it sticks there till the timer reaches its detonation time. (Teka I need to file a Patent for this one)

I know sounds very crude but its an Initiative on how to maximize the weapons that we have for other purposes, simple and yet effective.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
israeli
Member Avatar


an interesting article about China's naval build-up.


Publication: Semaphore - Issue 2, February 2009
Newsletter of the Sea Power Centre Australia - Issue 2, February 2009


China's Re-emergent Sea Power



The traditional Western view of Chinese history has treated China as a continental power with only a sporadic concern with maritime affairs. In part, this view originated due to the European-imposed maritime dominance of China starting in the late-eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. China’s seaborne achievements – perhaps most well known are the ‘treasure fleets’ of Zheng He – are all too often overlooked in the face of her capitulation at the hands of mercantilist Western powers. In fact, international sea trade has contributed significantly to China's prosperity for over two thousand years, so when discussing the modern People’s Liberation Army – Navy (PLA-N), it is important to recognise China as a reemerging sea power.

Soon after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, the need for a maritime defence was well understood as the nascent nation faced a hostile regional outlook. The threat of invasion by the Chinese nationalists from the island of Taiwan was foremost in the minds of the PRC leadership, as was the strong United States (US) military presence, especially after witnessing the effective use of joint and combined sea power during the Korean War. The few littoral craft the PRC operated were no match for either of these more powerful navies. Planning to counter these threats, the infant PLA-N was modelled to become a force essentially dedicated to sea denial and coastal defence.

During the 1980s the PLA-N received increased attention from military policy makers in Beijing, as the utility of modern, efficient navies became much more visible. This turn to the sea also owed much to the ability of Chinese Navy leader Liu Huaqing to cast off land-centric strategic philosophies and bring credibility to the concept of offshore defence and protecting the 'first island chain'. This new generation of Chinese visionaries promoted the growth of the PLA-N, but their task was helped by the strengthening Chinese economy and increased liberalism within the PRC.

The last decade has seen a concerted push by China to modernise and consolidate her naval capability. A strong focus has been the promotion and development of indigenous capabilities, while bridging any capability gaps with acquisitions of foreign platforms and technology. In many instances, reverse- engineering has been used to develop in-country expertise which in turn generates an even greater self-reliance in naval capabilities. Significant updates to naval combat and weapon systems have resulted. The Chinese fleet of ten years ago might not have been significantly different in size, but it did not have many of the important technologies that the PLA-N now fields. These include an effective indigenous nuclear submarine program, stealth enhancement technologies, advanced indigenous sensor suites and an increasingly sophisticated command and control infrastructure. The PLA-N’s modernisation is backed by a robust and evergrowing manufacturing base and an increasingly capable design, research and development sector.

Human factors, such as improved military training and professionalism, have also made major contributions to PLA-N advancement. China’s sailors and officers are increasingly well trained and educated; they are regularly at sea and continually practicing their trade. Any analysis of the PLA-N must recognise the professional and technical proficiency of Chinese naval personnel.

Changes in the PLA-N’s existing and planned force structure 1997-2008 (reserve numbers not shown).3 China’s nuclear deterrent capability is being supplemented by the new Jin class nuclear ballistic missile submarines. Meanwhile, the PLA-N’s next generation of nuclear attack submarines – the Shang class – will improve its long range submarine capability. Complementing this has been the further development of conventional submarines including the Yuan class, which reportedly uses air-independent propulsion. The PLA-N has also acquired 12 Kilo class submarines from Russia, an example of covering a perceived capability gap by importing foreign platforms.

The PLA-N maintains a large and diverse surface fleet. Significantly, it has removed from inventory many of its aging, shorter endurance vessels, whose effectiveness in modern maritime conflict was somewhat questionable. Instead, the PLA-N is developing its next generation of surface combatants, with new indigenous and Russianbuilt warships rapidly replacing those which are obsolete.

Arguably, the most impressive jump in PLA-N capability can be seen in the destroyer force. The acquisition of the Russian designed and manufactured Sovremenny class destroyer marks a great leap forward. Similarly, the Luzhou and Luyang classes represent a ‘coming of age’ in indigenous destroyer design and construction. The development of the destroyer force, especially air warfare capable destroyers, is suggestive of the PLA-N's determination to protect its seaborne trade further afield than was previously possible.

Like the destroyers, Chinese frigates have also been the focus of recent attention. Indigenous design has advanced significantly with the advent of the Jiangkai class. Larger and more robust than its predecessors, the newest frigate in the PLA-N boasts improved air defences and stealth enhancing technologies as well as an organic helicopter for anti-submarine warfare.

The sharp decline in the numbers of active fast attack and patrol craft (FAC) over the last ten years (a 60 per cent reduction), clearly reflects the Chinese shift away from coastal defence towards offshore defence. The PLA-N’s remaining FACs are generally less capable than comparable vessels in other modern navies. However an exception to this is the Houbei class of fast attack catamaran; the PLA-N is the only navy to operate an advanced, heavily armed, vessel of this type.

Amphibious warfare vessels are an important PLA-N capability with large numbers of ships and watercraft in service. While many of these vessels are restricted to coastal or limited duration operations, they do provide China with a number of strategic options. Indeed, the recent development of the 20,000 tonne Type 071 assault ship may be an early step towards a much more flexible and perhaps expeditionary PLA-N. Also noteworthy are the fleet auxiliaries, which are essential for naval operations in the Pacific. The PLA-N maintains an increasing number of tankers and replenishment ships giving Chinese warships far greater endurance and hence reach. The three hospital ships might also suggest that the PLA-N is willing to contemplate conducting ‘soft power operations’, such as humanitarian tasks outside home waters.

Notwithstanding these varied developments, the PLA-N continues to rely upon land-based air support and does not appear to be developing forces similar to the US Navy’s aircraft carrier battle group (CVBG). This does not mean that such a capability can be ruled out in future. China has been studying carriers for a number of years and has acquired three non-operational carriers for disposal; HMAS Melbourne (II) and the ex-Soviet Navy’s Varyag and Minsk. Varyag has been under conversion at the Dalian shipyards for some years, and despite a repaint and repairs to the superstructure, seems unlikely to be recommissioned any time soon. Until recently, it was doubtful that Chinese shipbuilding industry had the facilities or technical expertise to build an indigenous carrier. The newly completed Changxing shipyards, however, could be used to construct a carrier from the keel-up, if desired.

Even if China does not pursue the construction of carriers, the PLA-N is fast becoming a more capable and credible force. The last decade has seen much consolidation and refinement in the fleet. Sea denial operations, to protect home waters from maritime incursions, no doubt remain an important part of Chinese naval doctrine, but the emphasis has most certainly changed. During the 1980s and 1990s the PLA-N developed a capability to defend the 'first island chain'. More recently, the desire to protect China’s maritime approaches has led to the development of a fleet for operations further afield into the Pacific, and into a 'second island chain'. In fact, elements of the PLAN have already demonstrated a capability for effective operations in the Indian Ocean.

China's next generation nuclear attack submarines and air defence destroyers are equally capable of providing a defensive ‘bubble’ around commercial shipping, military sea-lift ships, or a sea control force. This need not, however, suggest that the PLA-N is developing an aggressive power projection and sea control force to dominate the Pacific, or planning to challenge other regional navies for sea supremacy in a Mahanian sense. Indeed, the 2008 PRC Defence White Paper states the Navy has been striving to 'gradually develop its capabilities of conducting cooperation in distant waters and countering non-traditional security threats.'

The growth and modernisation of the PLA-N is a fascinating insight into how a modern China sees it place in the world and deals with its geo-strategic realities. The PLA-N now has the potential to play an important and stabilising role in the region and, in partnership with other navies, across the globe.
"To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
City Hunter
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Nasa web na even back then na kasama ang Philippine waters sa mga patrol areas ng mga ChiCom subs. I opine this is to do surveys and practice come the time when they need to block or stop a US response.

Ang problem lang mukhang government natin walang action on this. Puro cha-cha and batikos on each other - useless politicians.
Command is about authority, about appointment to a position. Effective leadership is different. It must be learned and practiced in order for it to rise to the level of art. You must love those you lead before you can be an effective leader. You can certainly command without that sense of commitment but you cannot lead without it; and without leadership, command is a hollow experience. .. a vacuum often filled with mistrust and ignorance.

Gen. Eric K. Shinseki
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
israeli
Member Avatar


China-US naval incident part of a rising trend
By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN, Associated Press Writer
Yahoo! News
Tuesday, June 16


BEIJING – China has called the latest collision between Chinese and U.S. naval vessels an accident, but many of the elements echo previous altercations that have raised concerns that China's navy is growing increasingly aggressive in its patrols of the waters off its coast.

In last week's incident, as before, a Chinese submarine was found to be shadowing a U.S. Navy ship _ possibly undetected by sonar equipment being towed behind the American destroyer.

The South China Sea, where the collision occurred and where the U.S. Navy operates amid a complex patchwork of competing territorial claims, is also a familiar backdrop for such incidents.

Even the damaged sonar array that was hit by the Chinese submarine has featured in past confrontations.

While not every incident gets reported, analysts say evidence suggests they're happening more frequently as Beijing flexes its improved naval capabilities and asserts its objections to U.S. Naval activity in disputed waters.

"We're seeing an upswing in incidents that reflects an increasingly aggressive Chinese capability, especially in what it considers to be its own territorial waters," said Alex Neil, head of the Asia Program at the Royal United Services Institute in London.

Chinese state-run newspapers on Monday labeled last week's collision as an accident, with the official China Daily citing Chinese military experts as saying that it probably occurred due to a misjudgment of distance.

No injuries were reported either aboard the sub or on the destroyer USS John S. McCain, and the extent of the damage to the towed radar was unknown.

Yin Zhuo, a senior researcher with the People's Liberation Army's Navy Equipment Research Center, said the American destroyer appeared to have failed to detect the submarine, while the Chinese vessel set its distance from the McCain assuming it was not towing sonar arrays, according to the paper.

The sophisticated and expensive arrays are used to remotely detect the presence of submarines, mines and other underwater objects. They are connected to ships and submarines by cables up to a few miles (kilometers) long.

Although the incident occurred in international waters reportedly northwest of Subic Bay in the Philippines, China vigorously opposes all U.S. Naval activity and intelligence gathering in the region.

Eyewitnesses to a March confrontation in the South China Sea say sailors aboard Chinese ships wielded a boat hook in an apparent attempt to snag a U.S. surveillance ship's sonar array tow line.

China regards the entire South China Sea and island groups within it as its own and interprets international law as giving it the right to police foreign naval activity there.

The U.S. doesn't take a position on sovereignty claims to the sea but insists on the Navy's right to transit the area and collect surveillance data.

Neither military would say much about last week's incident.

China's Defense Ministry did not respond to questions sent by fax Monday, while calls to its offices rang unanswered. The U.S. Pacific Fleet added nothing to its brief statement Sunday that merely confirmed that the sonar had been damaged last Wednesday.

The Chinese reports did not discuss the direct cause of the collision or the nature of the Chinese sub's mission.

Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan, a frequent commentator on military matters, appeared to blame the U.S., reiterating standard rhetoric that its actions pose a threat to Beijing.

"The best way to avoid such collisions is for the Pentagon to stop its unfriendly mores toward China in this region," Luo was quoted as saying in China Daily.

Pentagon officials have said there were four incidents earlier this year where Chinese-flagged fishing vessels maneuvered close to unarmed U.S. ships crewed by civilians and used by the Pentagon to do underwater surveillance and submarine hunting missions.

And about three years ago, a Chinese submarine surfaced just five miles (eight kilometers) away from the U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk and its escorts during exercises off Okinawa. It still isn't clear whether the sub, which was within torpedo firing range of the carrier, had been detected.

Such incidents are expected to grow as the 225,000-sailor People's Liberation Army Navy boosts both the size and quality of its submarine fleet. China already operates more subs than any other Asian nation, with up to 10 nuclear-powered vessels and as many as 60 diesel-electric subs, while a major new submarine base is reportedly under construction on the island province of Hainan in the South China Sea.


China has so far largely rebuffed U.S. calls for greater transparency and operational communication to avoid such incidents. China's military has only recently begun to drop its veil of secrecy and limits most military exchanges with other nations to arms sales and ceremonial visits.

Neil, of the Royal Institute, said that without greater efforts between the navies to reach an agreement on how to avoid misunderstandings and improve communication, the sides risk the possibility of a far more serious collision or clash resulting in the loss of life or vessels.

"We're going to see more of the same and the potential for a serious incident will rise. There needs to be a discussion about standing operating procedure," he said.
"To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zero wing
Member Avatar
ZAFT Sepcial Forces Operative for SEA
[ *  *  * ]
Wow so who really wins here china? America? how about us the country in the middle of the area that china claims anyone in the forum afraid of this new development? I am

are anyone in the forum doing something about it ???

"No sacrifice is too great in the service of freedom."

“As long as we are not willing to provide an adequate, suitable and capable defense for this country, we will be oppressed, demeaned and dishonored. We will be the stepping mat of every country in this region,”(Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile)

“Just because we are a very weak country militarily, we should not be taken advantage of by more powerful countries" (Senate committee on national defense and security chairman Panfilo Lacson)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
al'Lan Mandragoran
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
What's with the hysterics, Israeli, zero wing?

China will not invade us, not now, not even in the next decade.

China is just exercising its right to sail in waters it considers its backyard. Accidents happen and if a Chinese sub entangles itself in international waters with a sonar array doesn't mean its on its way to Subic for a sneak attack a la Pearl Harbor.

US and Chinese warships are playing their cat and mouse games (or should I say shark and sardine games) and as long as they do it in international waters and not in Manila Bay then we should not meddle.
"In wars, boy, fools kill other fools for foolish causes."

"Run when you have to, fight when you must, rest when you can."

- Robert Jordan; The Wheel of Time
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
israeli
Member Avatar


history has, time and again, taught us that complacency or thoughts that neutrality or an alliance with a more powerful nation (e.g. the United States) would not help any country or entity at all. some of them

* during World War I, Belgium's neutrality was of no use when Germany invaded it as part of the Schlieffen Plan, a strategic plan by the Germans for victory on the Western Front. the lessons learned by the Belgians: neutrality does not guarantee safety.

* during World War II, the French thought that the Germans could not penetrate the Maginot Line, that heavily fortified line that they set up on their border with Germany. they were proven wrong by the Germans, who were able to push through the Maginot Line and deeper into France. the Germans were able to occupy France until the Normandy Invasions of 1944.

it would be utterly foolish for us Filipinos to think that although the incident involving the USS John McCain and the PLAN submarine occurred on "international waters" off the coast of Luzon, we should not be bothered at all or we should just resign to the fact that we could not do anything about countries like China which blatantly violate Philippine territorial and EEZ integrity and sovereignty. the mere fact that China is aggressively enforcing its "ownership" on everything that has the name "China" on it (e.g. East China Sea, South China Sea) and that the Philippines is, still, America's proxy army in this part of the world (no thanks to Filipinos plundering national funds which were supposedly slated for defense needs while continuously licking @sses in Washington to get garbage military hardware such as junk UH-1Hs and worn out M16 assault rifles) should be a wake up call for all of us in this country to start beefing up our external defenses while we deal with internal adversaries, the Chinese proxy army New People's Army, and the Malaysian proxy armies Moro Islamic Liberation Front and Moro National Liberation Front, all at the same time.

it is not that i am calling for the Philippines to become an instant global superpower just like the United States or even something of a regional warlord like China by arming the AFP to the teeth. what i want to see in the AFP is for the military organization to adopt the Colombian approach- have credible external defenses that could, at least, enforce Philippine territorial and EEZ integrity, and sovereignty, and fighting the China-backed NPA and Malaysia-backed MILF and MNLF at the same time.

yes, we need to have multi-role fighter aircraft, missile-equipped warships, naval helicopters that could do ASW and ASuW, land-based air defense missiles and other similar external defense weapons and equipment despite the fact that we have yet to completely vanquish the NPA, the MILF and the MNLF. the reason: while the Philippines is being destroyed from within by proxy forces backed by China and Malaysia, our country is involved in territorial disputes that could erupt into a full-blown war at any time. guided by lessons from history, we Filipinos should prepare for the possibility of getting ourselves into war with another country as we enforce our ownership and sovereignty over our territory and EEZ. we just can't be like the Belgians who believed too much on neutrality or the French who were betrayed by their overconfidence and complacency.

i do not want to see the day that we Filipinos would learn our lesson really hard the way Belgians and the French learned theirs all because we are too complacent (that no country would invade the Philippines anytime soon), too overconfident (that China or any other country will not invade us when the Chinese are already on their way with their creeping invasion of South China Sea territory while funding the NPA to destroy the Philippines from within) and too corrupt (we pocket national funds and stash them away in Swiss bank accounts instead of using them to fund the needs of the military, most especially in dealing with the already existing threat from within the Philippines and the fast growing threat from the outside, no thanks to China's increasingly aggressive and imperialistic stances).

in conclusion, let me again an analogy of how the Philippines is like in terms of external and internal threats:

the Philippines is comparable to a house that is already on fire (internal threats being posed by NPA, MILF, MNLF, Abu Sayyaf and other terrorist groups) and, at the same time, already being raided by looters (external threats such as China and Malaysia).
"To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lorenz_Mallari
Member Avatar
Frustrated Airsoft Player
[ *  *  * ]
Thank god for that destroyer...i hope that was a slap to us that Chinks can snuck a sub ryt under our noses
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zero wing
Member Avatar
ZAFT Sepcial Forces Operative for SEA
[ *  *  * ]
no that the last scenario that came to my head but this is about our country's sovereignty and its rights but invasion is also an option for them damn any supper power can that the bad part of it they can but its the last option but do we need to what for it or we can show them that if they try to do something about it?
"No sacrifice is too great in the service of freedom."

“As long as we are not willing to provide an adequate, suitable and capable defense for this country, we will be oppressed, demeaned and dishonored. We will be the stepping mat of every country in this region,”(Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile)

“Just because we are a very weak country militarily, we should not be taken advantage of by more powerful countries" (Senate committee on national defense and security chairman Panfilo Lacson)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Philippine Navy · Next Topic »
Add Reply