美越南海軍演 中國軍艦跟蹤 南海

soli

中國少將警告：越若欲「挾美自重」會後悔 美越南海軍演 中國軍艦跟蹤

[2010-08-12]

■美軍「約翰‧麥凱恩」號驅逐艦在越南中部的峴港靠岸，與越南展開軍事交流。圖為越南軍官（左）與「約翰‧麥凱恩」號艦上的美國海軍軍官（右）在交談。 法新社

美國與越南11日展開歷來首次海軍聯合演習，美國出動包括「喬治‧華盛頓」號核動力航空母艦在內的多艘大型艦艇。有美軍軍官表示，「喬治‧華盛頓」號航行在越南東岸南海海域時，中國軍艦曾遠距離「跟蹤」。中國解放軍少將楊毅更表示，美國在利用越南牽制中國，越南如果認為可「挾美自重」，將來會後悔。


本報訊


繼美軍核動力航空母艦「喬治‧華盛頓」號8日抵達越南中部峴港附近的南海海域後，「約翰‧麥凱恩」號驅逐艦又於10日在越南峴港靠岸，展開軍事交流，並將聯合舉行持續約一周的海上演練。


宣稱演習非作戰目的


美方宣稱，美越演習是為了慶祝兩國邦交正常化15周年，重點是非戰鬥訓練，如海上救援、災害控制等。
美國在日本海與韓國軍演後，又在南海與越南軍演，引起外界關注。新華網報道，美媒援引「喬治‧華盛頓」號航空母艦指揮官邁爾斯的話說：「南海水域的戰略意義、重要性和航行自由，對越南和美國至關重要。」
對於中國就南海問題所採取的立場，邁爾斯說：「我認為，中國政府和中國民眾試圖維護他們的利益。但更重要的是，越南及其夥伴在南海地區也有發展經濟和維護和平的相同權利。」報道還另引述美國海軍軍官表示，當「喬治‧華盛頓」號航空母艦過去幾天航行在越南東岸的南海海域時，中國海軍在遠距離「跟蹤」。《聯合早報》也報道稱，多艘中國軍艦在遠處觀望「喬治‧華盛頓」號的動向。
越南與美國曾交戰長達15年，美方有5.8萬人死亡，越南更是有120多萬人喪生。戰後兩國關係冷落，直到1995年才恢復外交關係。近年來，美國與越南的關係發展迅速，近期還展開核能方面的合作。越南外交部發言人此前稱，美越核能合作是民用領域的合作，兩國目前正處於為啟動協定談判而「交換意見的階段」。美國國務卿希拉莉早前更在東盟外長會議上高調介入南海的爭端，使外界猜測越南會否成為美國新盟友。
法新社報道，美國參議員約翰‧麥凱恩對此表示，「越南已成為美國在亞太地區最重要和最具希望的新興夥伴之一」。


越南民眾反應平淡


不過越南民眾對此反應平淡。鳳凰衛視報道稱，越南不少媒體僅採用了越南通訊社的通稿，寫明美國海訓到越南訪問，就一些問題如海上活動交換意見。越南的民眾基本上對此也沒有很大關注。
儘管如此，國際輿論仍普遍認為，美越的說法不過是外交辭令。中國海軍少將楊毅認為，美國最近的舉動反映了美國對華政策新動向，最近的一系列舉動旨在試探中國。
未來美國航空母艦戰鬥群若繼續到黃海參與美韓軍演，將是對中國尊嚴的損害，也是對中國國家安全的威脅。相信中國政府將在繼續進行強烈交涉的同時，保留採取其他行動的權利，其中包括採取軍事上的措施。

美或動用核武對抗中國新導彈

美聯社報道稱，名為東風-21D的新型反艦導彈將徹底改變海上遊戲規則。美國《世界網絡日報》日前也刊登獨家評論文章，不無憂慮地指出，東風-21D可以穿透航空母艦現有的導彈防禦系統。
有匿名美國海軍上將稱：「中國目前擁有一種可能摧毀我們的21世紀航空母艦艦隊的武器。如果中國決定部署並向我們發射這種導彈，我們將被迫退到角落。我們將不得不動用核武庫來應對。」
楊毅另對鳳凰衛視表示，在南海地區，和中國爭議最多的是越南。越南希望能」挾美自重，「增加跟中國打交道的分量。
但他警告稱，美國的舉動實際上有地緣戰略的規劃，是利用越南達到自己的目的。他覺得將來再過一段時間恐怕越南會感到後悔。
與之相呼應的是，英國《金融時報》12日也發表題為「美中南海「過招」」的評論文章稱，美國國務卿希拉莉上月底在河內發表的精彩講話，突顯出這出正拉開帷幕的地緣政治大戲。
-------------------------------------------------------------------
美國要揭制中國真係無所不用其極﹐無恥到連越共都想拉攏﹐學中共想統一戰線?

peter236

回復  peter236

You are correct. Just lagging by 5-10 years in radar but 10+ years on airbrone and  ...
lo_pak 發表於 2010-8-18 08:58

According to what you posted, China is among the best in the world.
It seems the US is lagging, by some measure of specification.
So each country is leading or lagging, by different measure of specification.

lo_pak

回復 67# rockypath

Again and again, you are making confusion here...

On tactic level, there can be millions of possibilities... do you think there can be easy answer??

If you want me "solely" comment on the PLAs' aviation/navy weapons, I will say they are marginally good but still can't categorized as "advanced". But time will change - once China has built couples of aircraft carrier fleets she will know what she really needs...

lo_pak

回復 66# peter236

You are correct. Just lagging by 5-10 years in radar but 10+ years on airbrone and signal integration.

rockypath

回復  rockypath

I get lost from your reply again... What's the relationship?
lo_pak 發表於 2010-8-17 19:39

You believe fighting “high tech” with “low tech” is a stupid or crazy idea. What I asked you is whether you believe you are smarter than the military experts and generals who leading the department of defence of China.

Do you believe the “quality” and “technology” of warfare systems is the absolute determining factor of a war? It has been proven wrong again and again in history.

Fighting “high tech” with “low tech” is the reality China has to face under the current situation and it must find a way to achieve.

I already told you that China has clear goals and purposes to develop the systems and tactics to fight the wars which it would anticipates to enter.

Does China need to fight on foreign soils?                              Not likely.
Will China send its troops to cross the ocean to invade US?      I don’t think so.
Does China need to protect its alliance?                                  I don’t think so either.

What it needs at this stage is the ability to protect its own front yard and surrounding areas and defeat invaders who would dare to come to its front gate.

Yes, US’ air fighters are very sophisticated. However, why should China have to fight them in the air? The most effective way is to make them stay on ground or destroy them before they take off.

Yes, US’ carrier fleets are very powerful. However, why should China want to fight with them when China can keep them out of range?

Yes, US’ missile defence systems are very advanced. However, have you heard about “飽和攻擊”?

“Low tech” can effectively defeat “high tech” if it is used in a claver and creative way. And it has been proved successful many times in history.

peter236

回復  peter236

At least you can call it an AWAC system - That's why I call it "preliminary" - Impr ...
lo_pak 發表於 2010-8-17 23:55

All countries need to improve their AWACS. But China's AWACS are among the best, and not lagging by a lot.

lo_pak

回復 64# peter236

At least you can call it an AWAC system - That's why I call it "preliminary" - Improvements are required.

peter236

回復  peter236



Cutting oil supply from the normal South China Sea routing is possible, just like ...
lo_pak 發表於 2010-8-17 23:43

From this posting, it is clear that Chinese AWACS are among the best in the world, unlike what you claimed before.

lo_pak

回復 62# peter236



Cutting oil supply from the normal South China Sea routing is possible, just like the WWII.

However, in this posting, aren't we just discuss based on the current military systems? Otherwise there can be "millions" and "millions" of different assumptions - I can argue that oil can be imported from Alaska ...

peter236

回復  peter236

Preliminary means generation 'zero'.

You can check on the web and see how it's com ...
lo_pak 發表於 2010-8-17 17:41

Actually, the article says China's KJ-2000 system is two generations ahead of the US system.
The Chinese can easily cut off fuel supply to Japan and the Japanese will surrender soon.