Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship

bd popeye said:

US Navy dispatches USS Chung-Hoon DDG-93 to ride shotgun for Impeccable.

Click to expand...

Hmm...now we're at a new crossroad, further escalation with actual PLAN deployment instead of trawlers or as others have suggested, being more sophisticated in disrupting the intelligence gathering via acoustic white noise (noisy motors, other sources of low frequency, depth charges, etc)?

bd popeye said:

US Navy dispatches USS Chung-Hoon DDG-93 to ride shotgun for Impeccable.



RADM Chung-Hoon US Navy;

Click to expand...

The USS Chung-Hoon is a Burke flight IIA ship. Top of the line.

The US Navy is punctuating with this deployment that the Impeccable is operating in international waters and can and will continue its surveillance mission.

Here's a pic of the USS Chung-hoon, DDG-93.



And her specs:

Propulsion: Four General Electric LM 2500-30 gas turbines; two shafts, 100,000 total shaft horsepower

Length: 509½ feet (155.29 meters)

Beam: 59 feet (18 meters)

Displacement: 9,496 L tons (9,648.40 metric tons) full load

Speed: In excess of 30 knots.

Crew: 276 (24 officers)

Armament: Standard Missile (SM-2MR); Vertical Launch ASROC (VLA) missiles; Tomahawk®; six Mk-46 torpedoes (from two triple tube mounts); Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)

Aircraft: Two LAMPS Mk III MH-60 B/R helicopters with Penguin/Hellfire missiles and Mk 46/Mk 50 torpedoes.

Jeff Head said:

The US Navy is punctuating with this deployment that the Impeccable is operating in international waters and can and will continue its surveillance mission.

Click to expand...

It will be interesting to know what they mean by that. Is the Impeccable now operating in international water and that it will be escorted, but it will not go into EEZ? Or are they not recognizing EEZ at all and the Impeccable will be escorted up to 12 nm of from Hainan?

Had they used the excuse that ships are free to pass through EEZ as PointBlank and Bigstick did, then they would be more credible. However, now it seems like the US is trying to pick a fight, and would have sailed the Impeccable up to 12 nm from Hainan anyway had it not been harassed. If this is true, then they are trying to do what Bush couldn't achieve before 911...

Engineer said:

It will be interesting to know what they mean by that. Is the Impeccable now operating in international water and that it will be escorted, but it will not go into EEZ? Or are they not recognizing EEZ at all and the Impeccable will be escorted up to 12 nm of from Hainan?

Had they used the excuse that ships are free to pass through EEZ as PointBlank and Bigstick did, then they would be more credible. However, now it seems like the US is trying to pick a fight, and would have sailed the Impeccable up to 12 nm from Hainan anyway had it not been harassed. If this is true, then they are trying to do what Bush couldn't achieve before 911...

Click to expand...

Of course, the US does not believe it is picking a fight. It believes it is vouchsafing safe passage for its vessels in international waters.

Clearly the Impeccable is a surveillance vessel with long range detection and identification capabilities for submarines. Thats' what has the PRC and PLAN all in a hissy over this...no matter how far off shore they were. The Impeccable does not have to come any where near 12 miles of shore to complete its mission.

So, now the US is escorting its vessel that it believes was harrassed in international waters to make the point.

I pray that is the end of it.

Jeff Head said:

Of course, the US does not believe it is picking a fight. It believes it is vouchsafing safe passage for its vessels in international waters.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying US believes in picking a fight. I'm saying it could be trying to pick a fight.

Here is the issue. The incident occurred inside EEZ as EEZ extends up to 200 nm from the coast line. By saying EEZ is international water, the US is basically unilaterally redefining terms in International Law. Of course, we don't know US's intention right now since their statement is ambiguous. However, if the US doesn't even put efforts in justifying its action, then it should ring some alarm bells.

Consider this. If the US didn't mention anything about 75 miles at all and just said that the Impeccable was in "international water", that would have been fine because for all we know, it could have been in international water as there are no other witnesses except the Chinese and the Americans. Even if the US has mistakenly leaked "75 miles", they still could have covered themselves by mentioning their rights of passage in someone's EEZ (or even in territorial water).

However, the situation now is that the US is essentially saying "oh yeah, we ARE in China's EEZ (75 miles) and we ARE in international water." Well, you can't be in someone else's EEZ and be international water at the same time, because there are clearly distinction between the two terms in international law. So, if the Impeccable doesn't stay in actual international water in the near future, then it is very likely that the US is trying to pick a fight.

Engineer said:

I'm not saying US believes in picking a fight. I'm saying it could be trying to pick a fight.

Here is the issue. The incident occurred inside EEZ as EEZ extends up to 200 nm from the coast line. By saying EEZ is international water, the US is basically unilaterally redefining terms in International Law. Of course, we don't know US's intention right now since their statement is ambiguous. However, if the US doesn't even put efforts in justifying its action, then it should ring some alarm bells.

Consider this. If the US didn't mention anything about 75 miles at all and just said that the Impeccable was in "international water", that would have been fine because for all we know, it could have been in international water as there are no other witnesses except the Chinese and the Americans. Even if the US has mistakenly leaked "75 miles", they still could have covered themselves by mentioning their rights of passage in someone's EEZ (or even in territorial water).

However, the situation now is that the US is essentially saying "oh yeah, we ARE in China's EEZ (75 miles) and we ARE in international water." Well, you can't be in someone else's EEZ and be international water at the same time, because there are clearly distinction between the two terms in international law. So, if the Impeccable doesn't stay in actual international water, then it is very likely that the US is trying to pick a fight.

Click to expand...

Or...it can also be likely, as the many explanations on this thread attest, the the US knows exactly what its rights are in the 75 mile range as regards this type of activity, that it did not violate any LOST provisions and that it will now protect those rights with its escort.

Either way, I doubt that there is going to be any agreement on this issue from the two camps...we can only hope that it does not further escalate and will settle down now.

Jeff Head said:

Or...it can also be likely, as the many explanations on this thread attest, the the US knows exactly what its rights are in the 75 mile range as regards this type of activity, that it did not violate any LOST provisions and that it will now protect those rights with its escort.

Click to expand...

Then why doesn't the US just say that instead of claiming themselves to be in international water? That's my question.

I don't know Impeccable's elint capabilities but if they pull the ship out to 200 nm from Hainan island and have an escort, it would provide a face saving exit for both sides.

Engineer said:

Then why doesn't the US just say that instead of claiming themselves to be in international water? That's my question.

Click to expand...

Because most Americans believe that the right of passage in an EEZ is pretty much the same as saying international waters. LOST has not been ratified in the US and so the distinction is not as refined in the minds of most of the people, or even the lower level politicians.

But the professional diplomats do know and their "official" explanation is not worded as directly.

It is unlikely that it is a plot, more likely just a misundertsanding or miscommunication regarding the specifics of that partcular aspect of this.

:china::china::china:

China Sends Fishery Patrol To South China Sea After U.S. Skirmish

BEIJING, March 12 (Bernama) - China sent its largest fishery patrol ship to police its economic exclusive zone (EEZ) in the South China Sea, two days after a skirmish between Chinese ships and an United States navy ship, state media reported.

The China Yuzheng 311, which is converted from a retired warship, set sail Tuesday from Guangzhou, capital of southern Guangzhou province.

"The patrol ship will safeguard China's sovereignty in the South China Sea and protect the nation's marine rights and interests," Wu Zhuang, director-general of the Administration for Fishing Affairs and Fishing Ports on South China Sea, was quoted as saying by China Daily.

"We will expand the fishery patrol ship fleet in the next three to five years," he added.

Wu said the patrol would "protect fishing vessels around Nansha, Xisha and Zhongsha Islands on China's southernmost maritime territory as well as demonstrate Beijing's sovereignty over its island."

China is constructing a new 2,500-tonne fishery patrol ship that can carry helicopters for the first time, and expected to be ready by next year, Wu said.

A senior military official who declined to be named told China Daily Wednesday that U.S naval activities in the "sensitive area of the South China Sea" had escalated recently.

The U.S said five Chinese ships had harassed the USNS Impeccable in international waters of the South China Sea on Sunday.

China struck back, saying the Impeccable was inside the country's EEZ and had broken international and Chinese laws. Beijing also lodged a protest with Washington.

Nansha, Xisha and Zhongsha are the Chinese names for the Spratlys, Paracels and Macclesfield Bank which are part of a chain of islands, reefs and atolls straddled on one of the world's busiest sea lands and also reported to be rich in resources.

The archipelago and its surrounding waters are wholly or party claimed by China, Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

--BERNAMA