Foolish Comments by PLA Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong

[Ray]

You're guessing. i'm telling you with certainty. If you doubt my post's authenticity, look it up, its that simple. It was an actual exercise with actual ships. The word war games doesn't imply that no actual equipment is used. red flag is a war game. And of course you don't sink your own ships in exercises genius. How do you think ASW is practiced? By lobbing actual depth charges and torpedoes against YOUR OWN warships and personnel? Even in live-fire drills, no one actually sinks their active ships, maybe old hulks are turned into reefs but that's it.

If the exercise was soooo useless, why did it lead to the pivot of US navy focus towards the littoral combat zone? No one does drills and war games for fun Ray, they're expensive and very useful, if it was as you say: "Blueland always wins over the Redland", there would be no point to war games. How else would the US Navy have discovered their CBG's weakness against SSK's had they not borrowed a Swedish sub and carried out exercises against it? How would they have discovered the need for a Littoral combatant had they not had these very "small boat vs large surface combatant in the littoral" excercises?

Just to humour you since you wanted to know about ASW exercises, maybe this will help

MULTI-NATIONAL
SUBMARINE AND
ANTI-SUBMARINE
EXERCISE MANUAL

http://info.publicintelligence.net/NATO-SubmarineManual.pdf

 

[J20!]

Key Words : Blue water battleships that are big are intended to fight on deep waters, nobody would use there a swarm of small boats, plenty of space, plenty of time to locate them and destroy.

Littoral Combat Ships are designed to fight on littoral waters, so why the hell send them big battleships that have weaponary designed to fight on long distances and also destroying land targets from long range?

It seems that someone here do not know what logic is. If US have big battleships with long range weapons they do not need to bring them to littoral waters where they can be endangered by these swarm attacks of small boats. And if there is need to send some vessels to littoral waters then there are LCS ships. So it seems that for some people war is like a wargame where there are rules and everyone need to stick to them stricktly.

What are the Zumwalts replacing? the Iowa class battleships. And where did the iowa's operate in order to provide fire support with their main guns? Littoral waters. Where will the Zumwalts operate when fulfilling their land attack missions, using their 155 mm munitions? In the littorals. Are the Zumwalts particularly maneuverable? Due to their tumble-home hull design used primarily for stealth, NO. They are thus very susceptible to being harrassed by small boat action. Admiral Zhaozhong's comments were really quite accurate. But because most people do no know the findings of millenium Challenge, they will obviously consider them 'foolish". Ray is exhibit A.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Chinas massive fishing boat navy will sink useless USN!!

This guys smokes some serious stuff for sure.

 

[Ray]

This is how requirement of the LCS came into being

After the end of the Cold War, the United States faced a sharply diminished threat in the ocean commons. The Navy moved to refocus itself to meet the post-Cold War environment in September 1992, when the Secretary of the Navy signed "...From the Sea." This white paper outlined a "fundamental shift away from open-ocean warfighting on the sea toward joint operations conducted from the sea." It was followed in November 1994 by "Forward...From the Sea," another Navy-Marine Corps paper that elaborated on the importance of peacetime forward presence operations. While retaining its ability to maintain strategic dominance in the ocean commons, the Navy was adopting a new, interventionist outlook that focused strongly on what was taking place on shore. This focus on influencing operations ashore drew the Navy into the littoral. The littoral is the area through which an expeditionary military force must pass and in which supporting Naval forces must operate. Operating in the littoral presents a complex collection of challenges. These threats include mines, sea-skimming cruise missiles, and tactical ballistic missiles, armed coastal crafts and diesel submarines.

Such systems enable even relatively unsophisticated adversaries to adopt a strategy of anti-access and area denial. The strategic need to gain access and operate in and around the littorals was taken up by the Chief of Naval Operations' Strategic Studies Group (SSG). From 1998 to 2000, the SSG focused on how the Navy should operate in and dominate the littoral.

It gave birth to the LCS.

The programme was announced in 2001 and orders placed in 2004.

On November 1, 2001, the Navy announced that it would issue a revised Request for Proposal (RFP) for its future surface combatant program. Formerly known as DD-21 (for 21st Century Destroyer), the new program would be known as "DD(X)", and it would comprise a family of three new ships: a large multi-mission destroyer from which the family took its name (DD(X)); a large multi-mission guided missile cruiser (CG(X)); and a small "focused mission" Littoral Combat Ship, or LCS.

 

[nrj]

Nobody knows, it could be done that way, that ships could not use close range defences. However as far as I seen on photos, on all US vessels, turrets and pintle mounts for automatic cannons and heavy machine guns are standard. In a real war I doubt that small vessels without thick armor could survive fire barrage from these weapons.

I know, I was being rhetoric because I am being questioned if I have ever been on the ship.

A scenario based on limited public information leading to some assumption can please people like Zhang or others. And they refuse to question the possibility of intentional info disclosure to paint a deceptive feed as far as capability of the said machinery is concerned.

The firepower of the Zumwalt destroyers against fishing boats carrying explosives which will be manually planted on ship's hull itself talks about the self-convincing outcome. Had it been so easy, countries wouldnt have wasted their resources in building naval defense in littoral waters. They would have just lined up mass production of zillion fishing boats with crude explosives.

 

[J20!]

Just to humour you since you wanted to know about ASW exercises, maybe this will help

MULTI-NATIONAL
SUBMARINE AND
ANTI-SUBMARINE
EXERCISE MANUAL

http://info.publicintelligence.net/NATO-SubmarineManual.pdf

Thank you, for the info, but lets stay on topic, the ASW comment was an apt example, but there's no need to go off the thread's main topic.

 

[J20!]

I know, I was being rhetoric because I am being questioned if I have ever been on the ship.

A scenario based on limited public information leading to some assumption can please people like Zhang or others. And they refuse to question the possibility of intentional info disclosure to paint a deceptive feed as far as capability of the said machinery is concerned.

The firepower of the Zumwalt destroyers against fishing boats carrying explosives which will be manually planted on ship's hull itself talks about the self-convincing outcome. Had it been so easy, countries wouldnt have wasted their resources in building naval defense in littoral waters. They would have just lined up mass production of zillion fishing boats with crude explosives.

*rolls eyes* Of course a fishing boat is no match for a full blown warship. That's no the point. You cant kill what you cant see... Are you going to kill every fishing boat crew you come across? Are you going to board and search every fishing vessel you come across? Are you going to detect every fishing vessel in the area? And all this while still fighting the opposing force's navy at the same time. Don't forget the USS Cole bombing, they never saw it coming, despite it being a small boat powered by an outboard motor. Stop being difficult and be practical.

 

[Ray]

Thank you, for the info, but lets stay on topic, the ASW comment was an apt example, but there's no need to go off the thread's main topic.

Since you were so keen! And you were totally at sea, notwithstanding your bluff and bluster, I thought I should help a novice, masquerading as a Knowall.

So I gave you the real McCoy! That is how it is done in other Navies..

But if you say that the Chinese navy depth charges its subs in an exercise, who am I to contest you on that!

 

[Damian]

What are the Zumwalts replacing? the Iowa class battleships. And where did the iowa's operate in order to provide fire support with their main guns? Littoral waters. Where will the Zumwalts operate when fulfilling their land attack missions, using their 155 mm munitions? In the littorals. Are the Zumwalts particularly maneuverable? Due to their tumble-home hull design used primarily for stealth, NO. They are thus very susceptible to being harrassed by small boat action. Admiral Zhaozhong's comments were really quite accurate. But because most people do no know the findings of millenium Challenge, they will obviously consider them 'foolish". Ray is exhibit A.

Typical talk of guy like You. DDG-1000 have both missiles for logn range engagements and 155mm AGS guns with long range capabilities and in the long term 155mm AGS will be replaced with electromagnetic railgun with even grater range. And DDG-1000 destroyers also have like all USN warships, close range defences.

It's typical talk for Chinese, they are less advanced, can't develop something similiar, so they try to use propaganda to make negative PR... and if You come here with J-20 stealth aircraft... making such big plane makes it's less Stealth, it looks more like a bomber or fighter bomber than airsuperiority fighter than should be small to reduce RCS to maximum.

I know, I was being rhetoric because I am being questioned if I have ever been on the ship.

A scenario based on limited public information leading to some assumption can please people like Zhang or others. And they refuse to question the possibility of intentional info disclosure to paint a deceptive feed as far as capability of the said machinery is concerned.

The firepower of the Zumwalt destroyers against fishing boats carrying explosives which will be manually planted on ship's hull itself talks about the self-convincing outcome. Had it been so easy, countries wouldnt have wasted their resources in building naval defense in littoral waters. They would have just lined up mass production of zillion fishing boats with crude explosives.

Indeed.

*rolls eyes* Of course a fishing boat is no match for a full blown warship. That's no the point. You cant kill what you cant see... Are you going to kill every fishing boat crew you come across? Are you going to board and search every fishing vessel you come across? Are you going to detect every fishing vessel in the area? And all this while still fighting the opposing force's navy at the same time. Don't forget the USS Cole bombing, they never saw it coming, despite it being a small boat powered by an outboard motor. Stop being difficult and be practical.

Again, try to spend some time on using brain. On open waters there is a bufor, if some vessel will cross that bufor then it can be destroyed, be it civilian or neutral military one. As for USS Cole, that ship was in port, not on open waters, it is easier to get close unnoticed in port than on open waters.

As for detecting threats, US have most advanced C4ISR, C3I and C2 systems in the world, only because China don't have such, do not means others do not have.

 

[nrj]

It seems that spy-3's all-horizon-search fire control along with automatic detection & tracking of low-altitude threats coupled with VSR assisting in high-speed object detection, target engagement in dense environment & sub-clutter visibility means nothing on RADAR goals. Maybe they are just a show-piece.

Also the multi-mission seahawk and the Firescout meant for reconnaissance, precision targeting and situational awareness aboard Zumwalt are 'no-good'. Ofcourse these systems can not see the chinese boats and obviously the destroyers are doomed!

 

[Ray]

they're expensive and very useful, if it was as you say: "Blueland always wins over the Redland", there would be no point to war games.

But on Millennium Challenge 2002 (if that is what you mean), Blueland did win!

Check the details.

Like virtually every military exercise, Millennium Challenge was scripted allowing only the U.S. to be victorious.

 

[Ray]

*rolls eyes* Of course a fishing boat is no match for a full blown warship. That's no the point. You cant kill what you cant see... Are you going to kill every fishing boat crew you come across? Are you going to board and search every fishing vessel you come across? Are you going to detect every fishing vessel in the area? And all this while still fighting the opposing force's navy at the same time. Don't forget the USS Cole bombing, they never saw it coming, despite it being a small boat powered by an outboard motor. Stop being difficult and be practical.

It is difficult to explain naval warfare in a post.

When there is naval warfare ensuing, do you think fishing vessels will be coasting along to catch fish? Every unidentified vessel will be taken to be hostile and action deemed fit to identify or destroy will be taken.

It might be worthwhile to mention that today's naval manoeuvres are Mission oriented with compatible vessels in formation. The array of detection systems are adequate and are in a three dimensional search mode. That apart aerial recce and surveillance is built in.

Any hostile move by any aerial, surface, sub surface platform will be engaged with weapon systems that are applicable.

In so far as USS Cole is concerned, it was harboured in a port for a routine stop for refuelling. In peacetime, it is not feasible to stop small crafts moving on routine business, just because a naval vessel is at anchor. Therefore, a suicide attack could take place.

In so far as Millennium 2002 unless one knows in detail the aim, mode of conduct and the activities of the exercise, one cannot draw concrete conclusions. Opinions expressed could be motivated.

 

[Oblaks]

@ Ray:


Stop with the ridicule. Are you implying that you somehow have more naval knowledge than an Admiral who has served at sea for decades?

And of course there will be rivalry. Did you expect him to praise it and congratulate the Americans for a ship well designed? Rivalry aside, his points are in no way foolish Ray, they are naval realities, stop presuming to know more than a man who is, you cant disagree, an expert in his field ie naval warfare.

I beg to disagree but the man is not battle tested and so is the PLAN. You cannot blame everybody for not believing

 

[badguy2000]

Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong is the chief of CHina's National Foolyou administration.

 

[Yusuf]

Hehehe. The Chinese are acting like Iranians. Send small speed boats against US CBG. Yeah it's not a bad idea on the face of it. USS Cole was damaged badly by a small boat attack. But that was in a peacetime and probably the captain on board discounted it as a thread.

In a war, how many small boats would the Chinese send? 100? The US destroyer will easily machine gun them all.

 

[blueblood]

If Chinese can sink a ship like Zumvalt class with fishing trawlers then they are mighty fools spending billions on frigates and destroyers.

As for the "Millennium Challenge", it was envisioned for a closed space like persian gulf not for the largest sea in world.

Chinese are some real funny people. Another masterpiece produced by Chinese ingenuity is this guy.

http://cdt.chinadigitaltime.netdna-...09/b_vip_C178BFCF30056E9D42907789B2E33DB0.jpg

 

[nrj]

Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong is the chief of CHina's National Foolyou administration.

We have no doubts. But J20 here advocates that Zhang is a far intelligent creature who has served the PLAN for decades!

 

[Dovah]

 

[panduranghari]

Forrest Gump is a must watch for these 50 centers. It will teach them the importance of growing up.

 

[ice berg]

Forrest gump is about growing up?
I suggest you watch that movie again. Obviously you havnt learned anything.