Inside China: Admiral says China can destroy destroyers? true or not?

Mysterre said:

Actually if you want to get technical the Stark was hit by two Exocets, one of which did not explode and only imparted its kinetic energy and unburnt fuel to the target. So that's more like one and a half missile hits.

Click to expand...

Your comment further supports my point. It is the human element in the USN that gives it the ability to control the seas. When you look at how the ship's crews responded to the USS Stark attack and the suicide attack on the USS Cole you see that excellent ship construction and no nonsense damage control procedures were the difference between survival and losing the boat.

Others talk about what capabilities their navies may possess but the USN has been battle tested and combat hardened. Having that experience is what makes the US Navy the standard all others must compare themselves to.

NikeX said:

Your comment further supports my point. It is the human element in the USN that gives it the ability to control the seas. When you look at how the ship's crews responded to the USS Stark attack and the suicide attack on the USS Cole you see that excellent ship construction and no nonsense damage control procedures were the difference between survival and losing the boat.

Others talk about what capabilities their navies may possess but the USN has been battle tested and combat hardened. Having that experience is what makes the US Navy the standard all others must compare themselves to.

Click to expand...

I was just being nitpicky with the details, but what I said does not "further" support your point. It detracts slightly from the otherwise praiseworthy efforts of the Stark's crew when you say 1.5 instead of 2. But that's just what it was. Don't try to spin my words please.

@Mysterre: You overlooked the USS Cole and the blast that ripped a giant hole in her side and nearly caused her to sink. Excellent damage control by her crew and smart construction saved her. The navies of today who are boasting about their new ship construction have never been tested and no one knows how their ships and crews will perform during a combat damage at sea.

For example the Russians are notorious for poor ship design and ineffective damage control. The Project 61 'KASHIN' class destroyer Otvazhnyy burned and sank in the Black Sea, 30 August 1974. The Russian helicopter carrier Moskva suffered a severe fire in the late 1970s and nearly sank. Several Russian submarines have been lost at sea because of poor damage control. The K-152 Nerpa of the Russian Pacific fleet suffered major loss of crew in an accident on 27 October 2008.

It is a mystery as to how the PLAN ships and crews will perform during emergencies and damage control as they have not been tested in real world conditions

There was actually a documentary on this, it's call Battle Plan Under Fire, by NOVA. I watched it, quite enlightening.

Here is the link to Riper's interview

I came late to this thread so I think most good points have already been made. The main thing I have to add is that suicide (or highly likely suicide) tactics are never good for morale for the side employing them, especially if it's a proper military and not just some terrorist or rebel group. It smacks of desperation and it better pay off really well the first few times it's tried otherwise anyone with half a brain will decide that it's better to live to fight another day another way, or not to fight at all.

It's one thing to sacrifice equipment, fishing boats equipped to launch missiles or even cheap missile boats have a fair chance of survival and can in the worst case be deliberately abandoned after firing off its armory; it's another thing to sacrifice people or asking them to sacrifice themselves, a la kamikaze speed boats.

In terms of likelihood of success a missile saturation attack is definitely feasible but kamikaze speedboats have to be a gamble. Might as well invest in mines, armed mini-subs, or even special ops sabotage which probably have equal or higher chances of success.

NikeX said:

@Mysterre: You overlooked the USS Cole and the blast that ripped a giant hole in her side and nearly caused her to sink. Excellent damage control by her crew and smart construction saved her. The navies of today who are boasting about their new ship construction have never been tested and no one knows how their ships and crews will perform during a combat damage at sea.

For example the Russians are notorious for poor ship design and ineffective damage control. The Project 61 'KASHIN' class destroyer Otvazhnyy burned and sank in the Black Sea, 30 August 1974. The Russian helicopter carrier Moskva suffered a severe fire in the late 1970s and nearly sank. Several Russian submarines have been lost at sea because of poor damage control. The K-152 Nerpa of the Russian Pacific fleet suffered major loss of crew in an accident on 27 October 2008.

It is a mystery as to how the PLAN ships and crews will perform during emergencies and damage control as they have not been tested in real world conditions

Click to expand...

If the Chinese coal mining is an index, then China does have great potential and knowledge about doing things right (they have the longest history of large scale coal mining), including safety measures and fighting underground fires, but the Chinese don't seem to be to keen on having safety come into their way of perceived chances for profit. The result is a very deadly economic sector. The same could be said about environmental damage China tries to fight, for example regarding the rare earth elements where it has an almost monopoly to enforce them.
In my opinion, China has cultural elements that allow to create great machines with all safety precautions, but the current general mindset is likely not suited for this task. It's rather similar to the Russians due to the shared economic system history and corresponding outlook on handling problems. There may be some high watermarks of safety concerned individuals and leaders, but they might have a hard time among a pragmatism that tries to make short term simple solutions.

swarm of small ship will not work. just look at kimakaze attack in wwii by japanese, the plane was much faster/manuver than boat. send in few heli with 50cal, speed boat will be like turkey shooting. speed boat only good at littoral water. any navy will not move their ship near coastal region before securing the port/coast first, so there is no place for a swarm of speed boat to hide nor can they coordinate the attack simultanouslly without proper communication.

How do Chinese coal mines and PLAN ship crew performance during emergencies / damage control tie together?

China has the surface combatants and submarines and aircraft and cruise missiles and ballistic missiles and torpedoes and etc to sink even larger vessels. So whats the point of this debate?

Igor said:

China has the surface combatants and submarines and aircraft and cruise missiles and ballistic missiles and torpedoes and etc to sink even larger vessels. So whats the point of this debate?

Click to expand...

The point is people found some Chinese TV program (which happens to invite professional TV stars who happens to wear a gold star on the shoulder) very shocking, and decide to voice out the points that shocks.

My own understanding is Mr. Zhang Zhao Zhong knows what's his professioncy, but he always try to speak the point out in the worst way (or, you can say it's the most subtle way) - I said it, you didn't get it, it realized in a little off but mainly "to the point" way in certain future, so that I "decleared" certain information without leaking any information before those relative information has been wildly published.

One example, 2009 year end, he "clarified" China is indeed working on "4th Generation Fighter", but he implys J-10B is "our standard for 4th Generation Fighter", you may laugh about it at that point, but when J-20 shows up, you would realized Zhang has convoyed the message "we have 4th Gen Fighter program working", hiding behind false information "J-10B kind of fighter is the standard" - way before the "publicity" of J-20 itself.

In this case, he never said anything "suicide attack", but "swarm" Zumwalt's deployment. I see this very feasible, in peace time, when China don't want Zumwalt getting too close to some places; not to mention as early as post #2 has already mentioned, in combat, it works to a degree that the high-end navy bleeds more than the swarmer. And the last thing is China can always attack an opponent THAT MUCH EASIER when they are bleeding, with China's own high-end means.

These are all theoriatical analysis without actual intention of provoking (and damn, true strategists do not getting provoked by this kind of stuff) - but I believe Mr. Zhang dose convoyed the message he intended, to the audience he intended.