:demon: so as not anger Sen. Biazon and the leftists groups....

source

By Juliet Labog-Javellana
Philippine Daily Inquirer, Visayas Bureau
First Posted 01:46:00 06/28/2008


NEW YORK (VIA PLDT)--Amid criticisms from Filipino militants, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan will keep out of Philippine territory and merely stay "at the edge" of its waters, President Macapagal-Arroyo said here.

In a speech to the Filipino community on Wednesday at the Hilton Hotel ballroom, Ms Arroyo thanked the United States for sending the carrier to help victims of Typhoon "Frank" in the Philippines.

"Kaya lang may taga-ating nagbatikos na naman. May nuclear weapons daw ang aircraft carrier, kaya bawal raw pumunta sa Pilipinas. Para na lamang iwasan ang intriga, mananatili na lang ito sa dulo ng territorial waters ng Pilipinas," Ms Arroyo said.

(But there are those who are criticizing it. Supposedly the aircraft carrier is carrying nuclear weapons so it is barred from going to the Philippines. To avoid controversies, it will just stay at the edge of the territorial waters of the Philippines).

Asked about the specific location of the Ronald Reagan, the spokesperson of the US Embassy in Manila, Rebecca Thompson, said in a text message Friday: "Still in Sulu Sea, international waters."

In the past, US officials were not known to disclose the locations of their Navy ships.

Statements from military spokespersons in Western Visayas, also issued Friday, appeared to clash with the official pronouncements. They said in separate telephone interviews that the Ronald Reagan was near Panay Island.

Lt. Col. David Tan, public information officer of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, Friday said the aircraft carrier was around 50 km off the coast of northwest Panay, near the boundary of Antique and Aklan provinces.

Capt. Lowen Gil Marquez, chief of the 32nd Civil Relations Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in Western Visayas, said the warship was "between 50 to 100 km west northwest of Panay."

Marquez said the vessel arrived around 2 p.m. Wednesday but was not able to go near Iloilo because of the shallow waters.

A good ally

In a report on Thursday, the British Reuters news agency said the carrier was "moored several miles off Panay island."

There was no immediate official explanation for the apparent disparities.

In her speech, Ms Arroyo recalled that after their White House meeting on Tuesday, President George W. Bush had dispatched the Ronald Reagan to help in the search and rescue of typhoon victims and the distribution of relief goods.

The carrier has about 6,000 sailors aboard.

"They sent the newest and largest Nimitz aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, the cruiser USS Chancellorsville, the destroyers USS Decatur, USS Gridley, and USS Howard, the frigate USS Thach, and other supporting vessels, not to mention the aircraft on top of the carrier, to assist in transporting cargo, aerial damage assessment, search-and-rescue, production and delivery of potable water, medical assistance, and machinery repair," Ms Arroyo said. "That is what a good friend and ally does."

Ms Arroyo told reporters earlier that the US vessels would be around for as long as they were needed.

Opposition Sen. Rodolfo Biazon had questioned the deployment of an aircraft carrier to help typhoon victims.

"An aircraft carrier is not designed for salvage. The USS Ronald Reagan is a strategic and combat vessel whose main assets are aircraft, F-18s. What will the F-18s do for the recovery [efforts]?" Biazon had asked.

Suspicions

Leftist groups in the Philippines were suspicious about the decision to send the battleship group to the typhoon-battered country.

They claimed it was meant to show military powers in Asia, like China and North Korea, that the United States was capable of rapidly deploying its military forces in the Asian region at any given time to counter any threat to US military supremacy.

"How sure is Malacañang that there will be no nuclear weapons inside Ronald Reagan?" Fernando Hicap of the fisherfolk group Pamalakaya asked.

The Philippine Constitution bars the presence of nuclear weapons in the country. It makes no explicit statement about nuclear-powered vessels.

The US Embassy has said that the carrier group will support rescue, recovery, relief efforts being carried out by Philippine authorities in the wake of the typhoon.
Ms Arroyo's 10-day US visit ends on Saturday. She is expected to return to Manila on June 30.

Press Secretary Jesus Dureza said that Ms Arroyo would fly to typhoon-ravaged Iloilo a day after her arrival to assess the disaster situation.
With a report from Nestor P. Burgos Jr., Inquirer Visayas

people who criticised the carrier's presence should shut thier mouths off :fire:
buti pang may tumutulong: e sila kaya ang gumawa? kaysa pumutak ng pumutak na parang puwet ng manok!

USS Ronald Reagan Sailor Returns to Devastated Home, Assists Typhoon Victims

navy compass

By Lt. Ron Flanders, Carrier Strike Group 7 Public Affairs

ILOILO, Republic of the Philippines (NNS) -- A USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) Sailor, Storekeeper Seaman Grace Geroche, a native of Iloilo City, Republic of the Philippines, returned home June 27 to assist the joint Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and U.S. Navy humanitarian efforts and console her family, who nearly lost their lives when Typhoon Fengshen struck the area.

Geroche's mother and 5-year-old brother were among the affected when the typhoon caused water levels in the city to increase by several feet in the span of just a few hours.

"We almost lost our lives," said Edna Geroche, Seaman Geroche's mother. "The water was up to our necks. We had to sleep in the rafters under our ceiling. We were lucky to survive, but the situation is still bad. There's mud everywhere, and there's no clean water for drinking or bathing."

Seaman Geroche is a member of Ronald Reagan's supply department, which provided more than 28,000 bottles of water and 9,060 lbs. of rice to residents of Panay, an island in the central portion of the Republic of the Philippines. Flown to her hometown aboard a C-2 Greyhound aircraft filled with non-perishable food items, Geroche -- a member of the U.S. Navy's humanitarian assistance team -- had an emotional reunion with her family before assisting U.S. Navy personnel and Philippine Army soldiers load and unload relief supplies.

"I'm so grateful to be assigned to USS Ronald Reagan right now," said Geroche. "I'm so thankful that we're here assisting the people of my hometown."

HH-60H and SH-60F Seahawk helicopters from Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (HS) 4, embarked aboard USS Ronald Reagan, SH-60B Seahawk helicopters from Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (Light) 43, embarked aboard the guided-missile destroyer USS Howard (DDG 83), and Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (Light) 37, embarked aboard the guided-missile frigate USS Thach (FFG 43) have spent the last four days delivering relief supplies brought to Panay by the AFP and non-governmental relief organizations. C-2A Greyhound aircraft from Fleet Logistics Support Squadron (VRC) 30 have also been instrumental in shuttling relief supplies to Iloilo's Santa Barbara airport, the central hub of relief operations.

The efforts have been a portrait of teamwork; AFP personnel are in each helicopter flight, and AFP officers are aboard USS Ronald Reagan, working with the ship's Crisis Action Team (CAT), which helps respond to humanitarian emergencies.

"The AFP commanders are telling me my mission," said Rear Adm. Phil Wisecup, commander of the U.S. Navy ships involved in the effort. "We're doing everything we can to support the Armed Forces of the Philippines. We'll stay here as long as the government of the Philippines requires it and no longer."

The mission is giving Filipino-Americans a chance to provide needed assistance in their native homeland, an emotional experience to say the least, considering the devastation caused by the typhoon, which left 540 dead on Panay and destroyed more than 100,000 homes.

"My mom saw me on TV," said Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Robert Catre, a medic and translator for the U.S. Navy humanitarian team. "I feel great about what we're doing here."

"I was terrified for my wife," said Storekeeper 1st Class Raymond Paguia of USS Howard, whose wife Mahrnee lives in Iloilo. "I was just waiting for the call, trying to get here. I'm so proud to be an American Sailor right now, doing this."

For Seaman Geroche, the emotions were strong. The 22-year-old Sailor helped load rice for delivery to her neighbors and countrymen, and was able to console her family at the same time.

"When President Bush sent us here, I was happy. I was hoping I'd get this chance to see my family. It felt good to hug my mom and tell her everything will be OK now," said Geroche.

With her mother's arms wrapped around her, tears streamed down Geroche's face. "I'm home Mommy," she said. "I'm home."

























:salute:

Yung mga leftist na yan walang ginawa kundi magreklamo at umangal, wala naman silang naitutulong.. nagpapadagdag pa nga sila sa gulo..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/12/china.submarine/index.html

Didn't the destroyer hear the submarine?
I thought the towed array sonar is supposed to be the best ASW sensor for surface ships?

other questions: or did the sub see the sonar array ? or was the sub captain playing mahjong ?

He cant possibly see the array if you mean visually. I think the implication is that the destroyer should have heard the submarine when it went near the array either that or the submarine must have been very silent which chinese subs are not known for.

what i meant is that the destroyer cannot do nothing if the sub hits the array acciddentally or purposely because it has no control over the actions of the sub or the sub's captain specially if the said sub was trying its best to avoid detection.

what i meant by the submarine did not see, is that the sub uses sonar and other electronic means to travel underwater so it can avoid obstacles. in this case the sub was not able to avoid hitting the array for who knows why. many factors such as sub's detection gear not working properly, sub captain took unneccesary risks in going to close to the destroyer, sub crew was negligent, etc.

in other words, walang kamalay malay yung sonar na hinihila ng destroyer tapos binunggo nung submarine intentionally or accidentally.

one scenario is that naasar yung sub captain kasi nahuhuli siya nung destroyer while they were playing cat and mouse(this is common between adversaries during the cold war till now) so ginawa niya , bunggo niya yung sonar. its a calculated risk that the sub can withstand the collision because sub hulls are very tough to handle the tremendous pressures underwater. one time an american sub surfaced suddenly and it did not know there was a fishing trawler which it hit and sunk.

other scenarios are either the detection gear not working properly, sub captain took unneccesary risks in going to close to the destroyer, sub crew was negligent, etc.

Is the submarine really gone inside our Territorial Waters? Thats a chinese intrusion and that sub should be apprehended.

The leaking of the news is awake-up call to our politicians! We have zero ASW capability!

I would not be surprised if the Chicom sub captain deliberately rammed the towed hydophone array as an expression of frustration or even mild intimidation.

What if the incident took place within twelve miles from the nearest Philippine coast! A possibility since this sub might have been practicing on monitoring shipping coming in and out of Subic Bay.

this news is very disturbing. the PLAN submarine is RIGHT INSIDE Philippine territorial waters and, worse, no one within the government and/or the AFP is doing anything about it. :armyroleyes:

the US Navy is just playing dumb here.

they probably saw the sub and was only trying to see if the Chicoms can see the towed sonar or what the skippers behavior on such scenarios.

with the news breakout, the Chicoms and the US Navy would change strategy.

one thing is sure though. the Chicom subs are still obsolete that it cannot detect the towed sonar.

the US on the other hand is happy that they now know, the Chicoms still believe they can sneak in just like that.

in the real war, the Chicom subs are sitting ducks to the powerful weapons suite onboard the modern ships like the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

probably, they will use the incident in making the towed sonar better.

moreover, they probably are now designing ways to make the cable break automatically if it is caught in the subs propeller. but i guess, that concern has been incorporated into the towed sonar system long before.

^ actually, Sir Flipzi, the Americans always have problems detecting diesel-electric submarines. they already borrowed a Swedish Gotland class submarine to train in detecting diesel-electric subs and, still, they are being eluded by the ChiCom subs, most of which are diesel-electrics.

still, the main issue here is the intrusion of PLAN vessels into Philippine territory (it happened near Subic Bay, which is deep inside Philippine territory) and we could not do anything about it. :armyroleyes:

the U.S, navy tracks commie submarines not only via shipboard and airborne sonars but also through sonars buried under the ocean floor in fixed underwater sites around the world called SOSUS including along the philippine coastline. There are now newer still classified more advanced systems installed underwater.

during the HUK rebellion, a philippine navy task force was sent to eastern luzon to check on reported chicom submarines, RPS Pangasinan was assigned to Casiguran Bay, RPS Cebu was assigned to San Miguel bay and RPS Samar to Lamon bay.

in 1952 RPS Samar spotted 2 chicom submarines and proceeded to depth charge one of the subs. luckily for the submarine the depth charges did not explode because it was set to explode at a deeper depth. when the submarine escaped to deeper waters, the BRP Samar gave chase and dropped depth charges again which this time exploded. its not sure if that sub was crippled or not but at least a landing of arms shipments to the HUKs was prevented.

There were other reports of OPFOR subs in philippine waters such as Russian subs during the cold war era. and so forth.

there was a second-hand story narrated that, once in the 1970s a philippine navy captain onboard a patrol vessel radioed an unknown submarine and told them to leave philippine waters or it will be depth-charged so the sub complied and left philippine waters. Unknown to the sub, the philippine patrol vessel did not carry any anti-submarine weapons .

Are all PN ships or boats equipped with Submarine-detecting sonar? How about those Peacock-class ships? Are they armed with Antisubmarine weapons like the Hedgehog/Squid or a Mortar that can fire Depth-charge small enough even our MPAC can be equipped with.

This is really outrageous coz if a submarine is watching at the mouth of Subic Bay
then all of the ships docking Subic bay port are sitting ducks.

http://www.ellentordesillas.com/?p=5867&cpage=2

I guess the PLAN is in our waters quite often with their subs.

What do they have to fear? Nothing.

Now we all know the delivery system for all those counterfeit Gucci, Lacoste, D&G, Levi's, and other China-made junk flooding the local markets. :armytwisted:


Joking aside, I think the Chinese sub is so silent (one of their new AIP/diesels?) that the US destroyer failed to hear it and reel in the TSA a bit?

all the PN ships such as the Auk, PCE class and cannon class used to have anti-submarine weapons but they were all removed. They are all classified now by OPFOR as OPV or fisheries patrol vessels because thats all they can do.

reading between the lines, there is a lot going on beneath our water. our govt has choosed to downplay the incident because there isnt much we can do aside from shout like a monkey. As usual our govt depends on uncle sam which is practical but at the same time is being used as a crutch like a disabled person, and shows a lack of self-respect . dont believe the press releases. first it says subic now scarborough shoal. whats clear is that there is a downplaying of the incident and a lot of missing info probably classified or can cause a diplomatic row, hence the missing info in the news. . Anyway, a strong AFP is a prerequisite not only for national security but also economic security. by burying our head in the sand and putting things off, our civilian leadership is showing their lack of decisive leadership. Short of a violent coup that will only cause instability, the only practical way to pressure the civilian govt is to form a Defense lobby that will threaten politicians with loss of votes in the elections from the retired and active AFP servicemen and families unless the govt allots more money for the AFP. The AFP retired and active have got to unite and organize themselves into a voting bloc and form an alliance with the philippine shipyards to pressure congressmen.

The local navy has confirmed reports that a Chinese submarine collided with
a device used by the US Navy to detect underwater threats.

A navy officer based in La Union, northern Philippines, told Gulf News in an
exclusive interview that the navy has dispatched vessels to investigate the
incident involving a Chinese submarine snagging a sonar array being towed US
Navy vessel, USS John McCain as the American destroyer was in the vicinity
of Subic Bay recently.

The incident has assumed importance as it occurred inside Philippine waters
- an area where the two ships should not have been present without
permission.

"We are trying to determine if the Chinese vessel is damaged and if it is
necessary to provide help to them since the incident apparently took place
inside our territorial waters," the official, who holds the rank of navy
commander, said.

International conventions prohibit foreign vessels from venturing beyond 12
nautical miles from the territory of another country without permission.

The Filipino naval officer said the incident took place inside the area of
responsibility of the navy station at Poro Point in La Union and that ships
had been dispatched to investigate the event.

"We are investigating why the Chinese submarine was inside Philippine
territorial waters and also why the US vessel was there in the first place,"
he said that he does not know of any possible reason why the American
destroyer would be in Subic, a former US naval base in Olongapo.

"We do not have information on whether there is a US naval exercise in the
area," he said.

Earlier, reports aired by the CNN quoted a US official as saying that the
incident was an "inadvertent encounter."

Sonar arrays are devices used by surface navy ships such as destroyers to
detect threats.
The CNN report said the US official had admitted that the array had been
left damaged by the incident while the condition of the Chinese submarine
was not clear.

The sonar array trails the towing vessel by several metres and only surfaces
when needed.

By Gilbert Felongco, Gulf News Correspondent

Is there any possibility that those PLAN subs are supplying weapons to Militants like the NPA and MILF?

Dapat i-confiscate yung submarine ... ... para atin na lang he he ... sarap mangarap bwahahaha

This is a re-post from the China Watch Thread

Chinese sub, US sonar collision accidental: report

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...GQ3o8AD98QSP400

BEIJING (AP) — A state-run newspaper said Monday that a Chinese submarine's reported collision with an underwater sonar apparatus towed by a U.S. destroyer last week in the South China Sea was likely an accident.

The official China Daily cited Chinese military experts as saying the submarine's collision with the sonar array connected to the USS John S. McCain while sailing near the Philippines probably occurred due to a misjudgment of distance.

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 carrying sonar arrays, according to the paper.

The sonar array scans and listens for foreign threats that also include mines and torpedoes.

Military officials would not confirm the incident. China's Defense Ministry did not respond to questions sent by fax Monday while calls to its offices rang unanswered.

U.S. Pacific Fleet spokesman Lt. Matt Galan said Sunday the multifunction towed array sonar attached to the USS John S. McCain was damaged Wednesday, but did not say how the damage occurred.

"All we know is that the towed array was damaged," Galan said. "There's some suspicion out about what it is, but that's really all we know."

CNN reported that the latest incident occurred near Subic Bay, off the coast of the Philippines. The network cited unidentified U.S. military officials as calling it an "inadvertent encounter" and that the Navy did not believe it was a deliberate act of Chinese harassment. The CNN report said the incident occurred Thursday.

Philippine Defense Undersecretary Alberto Valenzuela said the incident involving the McCain happened 125 nautical miles from Subic Bay in the northwestern Philippines, outside the country's territory.

The McCain took part in a military exercise in the Philippines and left May 22, the Philippine navy said.

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.

correct me if i am wrong but the US Navy long has issues as far as detecting diesel-electric submarines is concerned. the incident near Subic is not the first and the last time that the Americans were caught by surprise by Chinese submariners. i wonder now if the Americans had learned anything from their lease of one Swedish Gotland class diesel-electric submarine for their training.

however, my concern here really is the fact that Chinese military forces could easily penetrate Philippine territory and violate Philippine sovereignty. the incident involving the US Navy Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS John McCain and that PLAN submarine near Subic may not be the first time that the Chinese were able to get into Philippine territory.

what if the Chinese do it again, this time by putting a naval blockade of Manila Bay and other vital Philippine ports? what are we going to do? are we just going to act like cry babies by going to the United Nations and crying foul over Chinese actions within Philippine territory during a session of the UN Security Council, only to be vetoed and scorned in public by permanent member China? are we just going to accept the fact that we would just allow the Chinese or any other unfriendly military force to continuously violate Philippine territorial integrity and sovereignty?

China's growing military might and aggressive behavior, especially their desire to push their sphere of influence eastward into the vast Pacific Ocean, should be a concern for us. this is now the time for us to strongly consider doing the Colombian approach- invest on credible external defenses while dealing with internal problems being posed by the Chinese-sponsored NPA and the Malaysian-sponsored MILF and MNLF. we simply cannot allow China to trample upon us just like that.

Wow to think that they are that close to us right now i started crying today over it am not safe in my own home we should organized to small militant units and stock on ammo and supply don't even volunteer in the AFP its useless anyway this reminds me of per world war 2 philippines man talk about defenseless? anyway we should start doing all legal means to push for military and security reforms at all cost and prepare for the war to follow because those sick chincoms are coming just like the jap!!!!!!!

Even worse than Japs because they are commies. Sh#t!

At least in pre-ww2 time, we have MRFs, and MBTs. P40s and Stewarts. But now? It will be like, "The one with the rifle shoots! The one without follows him, If the one with the rifle gets killed, the one who is following picks up the rifle and shoots!

showbiz news - Singson's private submarine has now been unleashed to look for that sub hehehe. , anyway, good for Singson, at least he has got his own submarine.

‘Resolve external defense issues’

Business Mirror
Written by Estrella Torres / Reporter
Monday, 15 June 2009

THE collision involving US and Chinese military ships near the territorial waters off Subic Bay may not have happened within Philippine territory, but it signals the urgency of resolving external defense issues, especially since Manila has allowed an expansion of military exercises with America, senior diplomats said on Monday.

They also criticized what appeared to be an attitude of nonchalance by the defense department on the matter.

One source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said military rivals US and China playing “cat and mouse” near Philippine territorial waters should clearly indicate the need to establish strong external-security defenses.

“We are not gravely concerned because this incident took place outside Philippine territorial waters, but we would rather not have these cat-and-mouse games taking place in nearby waters,” said the official.

He explained that the presence of the Chinese submarine off Subic Bay, where US military ships are also present, indicate Beijing’s “resurgence as a military superpower.”

He added: “This incident opens us to the need to strengthen our external defenses and reconfigure our military policy.”

Another diplomat, meanwhile, blamed the government’s continuing military alliance with the US through the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) for putting the Philippines at risk of having to face outside security threats, especially coming from America’s security rivals like China.

“That’s the consequence of having the VFA here; that incident could not have happened near our territorial waters if we didn’t have that kind of agreement with the US,” said another senior diplomat.

Relatedly, Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) spokesman Eduardo Malaya said all that the department is aware of is the presence of the US navy ship, identified as the John McCain Sr., participating in the Carat 09 maritime exercises along with the Philippine navy.

“The joint military exercises started in May 21 and the Philippine authorities knew about the presence of this US navy ship within neighboring waters,” said Malaya in a news briefing at the DFA on Monday.

He said the US navy ship had a brief stop in Subic to refuel and for some logistical requirements.

“We knew about its presence and it had our clearance,” Malaya clarified.

But asked about the presence of a Chinese submarine near Philippine territorial waters and its near collision with the US boat, the DFA spokesman refused to comment.

Defense Undersecretary Alberto Valenzuela said the incident was not a cause for concern because it happened 125 nautical miles off Subic and is not within Philippine territorial jurisdiction.

Dangerous Seas

by Prof. Harry L. Roque, Jr., Chair, Center for International Law


The reported collision between a Chinese submarine and a sonar array being
towed by the American Destroyer John McCain late last week highlights a
security threat made possible by the recently enacted Philippine baselines
law.

Prior to the enactment of the said law, the waters in and around the islands
of our archipelago are "internal waters". Unlike territorial seas, foreign
vessels, including submarines and warships, could not "sail through" our
internal waters without our express consent.

Under customary international law, these vessels may only "sail through" in
that maritime zone known as the territorial seas or the waters within 12
nautical miles from our baselines.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), as
implemented by the 2009 Baselines laws, does away with this prohibition as
it now classifies the waters in and around our islands as "archipelagic
waters".

Under this legal regime, submarines and warships not only have the right to
innocent passage, but aircrafts may also exercise the right to overflight,
with our without our consent.

This is precisely why concerned citizens led by Prof Merlin Magallona of the
University of the Philippines College of Law impugned the constitutionality
of the said law.

Yet this is also perhaps why Philippine and American authorities, despite
wire reports quoting sources that the collision occurred "off the coast of
Subic ", now insist that the accident could have happened in international
waters.

To confirm that the collision happened where it was reported, a stone's
throw away from the former American naval facility, may yet convince the
magistrates of the Philippine Supreme Court of the folly that Philippine
legislators exposed the country to when they legislated to implement the
provisions of the UNCLOS relative to the regime applicable to archipelagic
states.

Certainly, the collision is one of the may dreaded possibilities that
opponents of the law have stated in their petition; that is, the security
implications of granting submarines and foreign warships access to all the
straits and channels comprising our archipelago. But beyond these
constitutional issues, this collision highlights even more difficult issues
that should now be the subject of intense public debates.

To begin with, while the UNCLOS grants submarines and warships the right to
exercise innocent passage through territorial seas and archipelagic waters,
such must nonetheless be exercised in connection with a continuous and
uninterrupted journey intended only to pass through these waters.

And yet, the question is : what were the Chinese submarine and the American
destroyer doing in our waters in the first place? The waters off Subic are
not used as established sea lanes precisely because the South China sea
already serves that purpose.

Moreover, what was an American destroyer with a sonar equipment intended to
detect specifically the presence of submarines, doing in such close
proximity to a Chinese submarine off the coast of Subic?

Philippine and American authorities would want us to believe that the
collision was purely accidental and that their proximity to each other was
coincidental. This, however, is contrary to human experience. The more
likely scenario was that, in fact, the John McCain, specially fitted to
detect submarines, could have been in pursuit of the Chinese submarine.

Philippine Navy officials have at least conceded that they did not receive
any request from either the Chinese or the Americans to have their vessels
sail through our waters. This was enough for the Philippine Navy to conclude
that in the absence of such a request that the collision could only have
happened in international waters. The problem with this theory is that it
accords the superpowers too much benefit of the doubt.

The more plausible scenario is that they were in fact in a dangerous naval
powers' game of hide-and-seek and could simply not care less that they were
doing it in Philippine waters for two reasons: one, the poor state of our
Navy; and two, the continuing subservience of the Arroyo government to both
Beijing and Washington DC would make any protest from our end wholly
immaterial and irrelevant.

Further, the 1987 Constitution provides for a state policy that declares the
Philippines to be a nuclear free zone. How do we now implement this policy
when Congress has just granted all vessels, including nuclear powered ones,
access to almost the entirely of our waters? Worse, in case of a radioactive
contamination as a result of collision such as this very recent one, who
will pay for the cost of clean up? An even more basic question is whether we
already have existing technology to deal with such radioactive contamination
in the first place?

Finally, the tendency of Philippine officials to again seek refuge under the
doctrine of classified information on ground national security in refusing
to divulge all facts relating to this collision is particularly worrisome.

The fact that our waters could already be used by superpowers as theatres of
war certainly makes this matter one imbued with intense public interest. And
yet, the refusal of all the countries concerned to even acknowledge where
exactly the collision occurred violates the right of the Filipino people to
information on matters involving public interest.

This is perhaps why the incident is living proof that our waters,
particularly with the Baselines law, have indeed become dangerous seas.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ???

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.

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).

Thank god for that destroyer...i hope that was a slap to us that Chinks can snuck a sub ryt under our noses

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?