Russia Hands Over $1.5Bln Warship to China

#1
http://www.mosnews.com/money/2006/09/29/chinadestroyer.shtml


Concern about these ships in both Taipei and Washington is justified by the fact that Taiwan and perhaps even the U.S. Navy lacks an effective defense against the ship’s SS-N-22 Sunburn (3M-80E Moskit) supersonic anti-ship missile,” Washington-based think-tank the International Assessment and Strategy Center said on its Internet site www.strategycenter.net. “This missile travels at about three times the speed of sound and can perform violent manoeuvres that can defeat most defenses designed to ward off subsonic anti-ship missiles.”

Apart from anti-aircraft missiles, the destroyer also carries a Ka-28 helicopter armed with rocket-propelled antisubmarine torpedoes
In 2004-06 Russia built and sold to China six Kilo class diesel-electric submarines


NAVAL WAR COLLEGE REVIEW
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2006/spring/art4-sp06.htm

Nevertheless, Beijing is, by modernizing its military, ensuring that things will not go awry in Taiwan, that its policy of intimidation continues to work. The indisputable reality is that this military—the People’s Liberation Army (or PLA), and particularly its naval component, the PLA Navy (or PLAN)—is growing greatly in capability; further, it is a growing concern to defense and naval leaders in Washington, D.C., and other capitals, including Tokyo and Taipei. In a time of American preoccupation with the global war on terrorism, it is appropriate to draw attention to the crucial features of this modernization of components of the PLA. Beijing, if the “Taiwan problem” were to suffer a dramatic reversal, would have available an impressive force acquired for this purpose. If that force were effectively deployed, it would be sufficient in terms of hardware to undertake a two-pronged, PLA Navy–led campaign, with a big maritime component, against Taiwan and U.S. forces in a fashion that could be termed “jointness with Chinese characteristics
 
#2
It's a business, a profitable business.
 
#3
Russia Hands Over $1.5Bln Warship to China

If the US was doing the selling to, say, Iraq or Saudi, it would be called 'good business'.

I think this is what is considered as capitalism and free enterprise.

NEO_CON said:
Concern about these ships in both Taipei and Washington is justified by the fact that Taiwan and perhaps even the U.S. Navy lacks an effective defense against the ship’s SS-N-22 Sunburn (3M-80E Moskit) supersonic anti-ship missile,

Apart from anti-aircraft missiles, the destroyer also carries a Ka-28 helicopter armed with rocket-propelled antisubmarine torpedoes
So what? The US does NOT have the 'right' to technology, you know.

NEO_CON said:
NAVAL WAR COLLEGE REVIEW said:
Nevertheless, Beijing is, by modernizing its military, ensuring that things will not go awry in Taiwan, that its policy of intimidation continues to work. The indisputable reality is that this military—the People’s Liberation Army (or PLA), and particularly its naval component, the PLA Navy (or PLAN)—is growing greatly in capability; further, it is a growing concern to defense and naval leaders in Washington, D.C., and other capitals, including Tokyo and Taipei. In a time of American preoccupation with the global war on terrorism, it is appropriate to draw attention to the crucial features of this modernization of components of the PLA.
Your highlights, not mine. But thank you. Some of us for a rather long time have been questionning the sense in diverting so much of one's effort in first invading, then occupying a relatively stable state that did NOT present any threat to the US whatsoever, very little threat to its neighbours, and had absolutley NOTHING to do with 9/11 and global terrorism - when, arguably, there are significant threats lurking out there.

Are you beginning to see the light neo_com?
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#4
I start to detect 'zenith reached', what I don't understand is that people have been able to see this coming for years, tho' I thought it would be around 2020. Now I will sit by and watch all the people who rubbished the concept of Neo-Imperialism as the nation that isn't imperial ('don't be silly, neo-imperial :roll: ') throws progresively worse tantrums and paints global pictures that are abstract to anyone but themself in an attempt to maintain its hegemony. The best reflection on them, is that I truly believe they cannot see past the tip of their nose...
 
#6
Your highlights, not mine. But thank you. Some of us for a rather long time have been questionning the sense in diverting so much of one's effort in first invading, then occupying a relatively stable state that did NOT present any threat to the US whatsoever, very little threat to its neighbours, and had absolutley NOTHING to do with 9/11 and global terrorism - when, arguably, there are significant threats lurking out there.

Are you beginning to see the light neo_com?
If you are saying that Islamofascism is not the only security concern I agree , as to what should be the priorities be? Active combat operation have to take precedent ,

but transfers of New capable Russian warships and a Chinese military defense spending build up of 10 to 15 percent over a number years should be noted.
 
#7
NEO_CON said:
but transfers of New capable Russian warships and a Chinese military defense spending build up of 10 to 15 percent over a number years should be noted.
Yes, how dare the Russians sell military hardware to dodgy foreign regimes, that's the US's job.

Why should the Chinese military budget increase be particularly noted - how much has the US military budget gone up since T.W.A.T started? How much more than the rest of NATO put together does the US spend on defence?
 
#9
Yes, how dare the Russians sell military hardware to dodgy foreign regimes, that's the US's job.

Why should the Chinese military budget increase be particularly noted - how much has the US military budget gone up since T.W.A.T started? How much more than the rest of NATO put together does the US spend on defence?
US military spending is commented all the time .Ad nauseum,
Perhaps then NATO countries should spend more on defense.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#10
NEO_CON said:
Perhaps then NATO countries should spend more on defense.
...or time to put NATO to bed and focus on a Pan European Organisation including the 'Muscovite state', after all post the Warsaw Pact its obvious that Russia feels excluded (even threatened) by US interests on our mainland and beyond veiled as NATO. As well as securing European geopolitical worries it seems they might be perfectly positioned in our diplomatic and economic dealings with China given such a large part of Russia is Asia...

(edit: oh and the fact they are selling them ships :twisted: )
 
#11
Up early this morning neo_com. Or, have you had a good night and now taking yourself off to bed?

Or, is there a 3rd option? Best not to discuss that now. All hush hush you know. Walls have ears and all that...
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#12
Actually while we are at it can we move the UN to the Caucasus for the 21st/22nd Centuries ;) All the relevant town needs is a park and a 5th Avenue equivalent and all the diplomats (and wives/husbands) will be happy...


(edit: I'm thinking Samarkand here :twisted: )
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#13
merkator said:
Up early this morning neo_com. Or, have you had a good night and now taking yourself off to bed?

Or, is there a 3rd option? Best not to discuss that now. All hush hush you know. Walls have ears and all that...
Hmmm, just did an IP trace and got some place called Menwith Hill, are you actually in the UK NEO_CON? :twisted:
 
#14
NEO_CON said:
Perhaps then NATO countries should spend more on defense.
I can understand it from your point of view, but just why would they want to do that? I mean, why should European NATO countries have to put more into defence just to bail out the US military from US foreign policy fcuk-ups?
 
#15
As far as I'm concerned, letting the slanty eyed fcukers take possession of the 'Sunseeker' system means that now 2 countries have the ability to take out anything in any Western navy and that's two countries too many.

And how long will it be before the Chinese sell this technology on to the Irania's or Syrians?
 
#16
I don't understand what all this fuss about. If our American or British friends would like to buy such a ship then only ask about it. I'm sure it would be sold with pleasure.
 
#18
Nehustan said:
merkator said:
Up early this morning neo_com. Or, have you had a good night and now taking yourself off to bed?

Or, is there a 3rd option? Best not to discuss that now. All hush hush you know. Walls have ears and all that...
Hmmm, just did an IP trace and got some place called Menwith Hill, are you actually in the UK NEO_CON? :twisted:
That's the directory enquires, Im sure it is :D :D
 
#19
Rev_Bumjoy said:
KGB_resident said:
I don't understand what all this fuss about. If our American or British friends would like to buy such a ship then only ask about it. I'm sure it would be sold with pleasure.
Was that humour? Or just irony? :roll:
It is a serious proposition in the form of ironic remark.

Suppose that our American friends would say: Russians, we will adopt you in NATO, open NATO weapon markets for you but in return you would not sell weapons to China.

It would be a serious business approach.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#20
Might not be such a bad idea either Serg, with all the Chinese stocking up and dipping their feet in the water and such. Someone needs to keep a close eye on them.
 

Latest Threads

Top