China says will use a fishing boat to destroy costly $3billion super-stealth warship.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Grandluxe, Jun 4, 2012.

  1. SINGAPORE (AP) — A super-stealthy warship that could underpin the U.S. navy's China strategy will be able to sneak up on coastlines virtually undetected and pound targets with electromagnetic "railguns" right out of a sci-fi movie.

    But at more than $3 billion a pop, critics say the new DDG-1000 destroyer sucks away funds that could be better used to bolster a thinly stretched conventional fleet.

    But the destroyers' $3.1 billion price tag, which is about twice the cost of the current destroyers and balloons to $7 billion each when research and development is added in, nearly sank it in Congress. Though the Navy originally wanted 32 of them, that was cut to 24, then seven.

    Now, just three are in the works.

    They point to the problem-ridden F-22 stealth jet fighter, which was hailed as the most advanced fighter ever built but was cut short because of prohibitive costs.

    Its successor, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has swelled up into the most expensive procurement program in Defense Department history.

    One outspoken admiral in China has scoffed that all it would take to sink the high-tech American ship is an armada of explosive-laden fishing boats.

    Rear Adm. Zhang Zhaozhong, an outspoken commentator affiliated with China's National Defense University, scoffed at the hype surrounding the ship, saying that despite its high-tech design it could be overwhelmed by a swarm of fishing boats laden with explosives. If enough boats were mobilized some could get through to blow a hole in its hull, he said.

    "It would be a goner," he said recently on state broadcaster CCTV's military channel.

    By ERIC TALMADGE | Associated Press – 10 hrs ago

    <img src=''>
  2. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    He's technically correct. The "swarm" tactic can be used to overwhelm any enemy if done correctly, and if losses aren't a problem (in China, life is cheap).
  3. Ricter


    Zerg rush ftw!
  4. jem


    something tells me fishing ships will never get close...
  5. Lucrum


    I dunno about fishing boats but in principle you're right.

    During WWII in the European theater the Germans tanks were overall superior to the allies Sherman tank by far and away. One on one wasn't even a contest. But the German tanks were also complex and expensive to build and consequently relatively few were produced. Between Allied air superiority and shear weight of numbers of Sherman tanks we still dominated the battle field. A lesson I fear we've forgotten.
  6. They wouldn't make it past the horizon
  7. 377OHMS


    This is a very good example to cite when discussing the F-22 and F-35. They are complex and expensive to build and their performance did not merit abandonment of the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Falcon. The F-15 was *never* defeated in combat and we should simply build large numbers of them and recruit more pilots. The whole philosophy of having fewer numbers of aircraft and having those aircraft be extremely capable but horrifically expensive is a flawed philosophy that is not upheld but what has happened in war historically.

    The F-35 is the worst boondoggle by far. At least the F-22 is actually superior in combat.

    This stealth warship is just more of the same flawed philosphy. We should build lots of conventional battleships, destroyers and missile frigates for far less money and then stand up a larger force of men and women to staff those vessels.

    Sooner or later we're going to end up in a proxy war with the US supplying arms to a proxy country and China supplying arms to an opposing proxy country and they are going to show up with massive numbers of vessels, aircraft and personnel.
  8. #1) I don't think ships are nearly as plentiful in china as cannon fodder.
    #2) Speaking of cannon fodder quad 50cals and 20 mm cannons would make quick work of any fishing fleet.
    It would be an awesome tactic to let them try.
    I wonder if this general has considered the repercussions of economic loss and starvation that tactic would have? (I suspect it could be more devastating than the original primary mission).
  9. 377OHMS


    Thats absolutely correct. Apparently that Chinese Admiral has never heard of Phalanx which is a 20mm gatling cannon lashed to a very capable radar. Nothing is going to approach a USN vessel without being hosed down with 20mm. So much for the explosive fishing vessel fleet idea.

    Boom. :D
  10. Well, then no US Navy ship is safe. But I doubt it.

    However, it does raise a practical problem for the US Navy:

    Supposing you are out in this stealth ship in the South China Sea and you order for delivery Chicken & Broccoli, Vegetable Dumplings, Hunan Duck, and Hot & Sour Soup for the crew and at the same time that the Chinese restaurant sends out its delivery boat with dinner Admiral Hu Yu Fuk launches his fishing boat attack. How do you tell the delivery boat apart from the explosive laden fishing boats so you can kick ass and still chow down?
    #10     Jun 4, 2012