PLAN breaking news, pics, & videos


The swarming boats in this video is not the same model, but they are made by the same company, Oceanalpha/Yunzhou. Strap one anti ship missile on each and a pack of 20 would be extremely dangerous. Much like the type022 swam envisioned in the late 90s/early2000s, except way more expendable and aggressive.
#2247 Hendrik_2000, Jun 1, 2018
after
now I watched the footage (sorry if it's being discussed elsewhere) from inside of the tweet
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!





A Chinese manufacturer conducted a collaborative test with 56 unmanned vessels near the Wanshan islands of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, showing the potential of unmanned vehicles for naval operations.
 
wow, Top US Navy officer tells China to behave at sea

9 hours ago
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
has called on China to return to a previously agreed-upon code of conduct for at-sea encounters between the ships of their respective navies, stressing the need to avoid miscalculations.

During a Nov. 1 teleconference with reporters based in the Asia-Pacific region, Adm. John Richardson said he wants the People’s Liberation Army Navy to “return to a consistent adherence to the agreed-to code that would again minimize the chance for a miscalculation that could possibly lead to a local incident and potential escalation.”

The CNO cited a case in early October when the U.S. Navy’s guided-missile destroyer Decatur reported that a Chinese Type 052C destroyer came within 45 yards of the Decatur as it conducted a freedom-of-navigation operation in the South China Sea.

However, he added that the “vast majority” of encounters with Chinese warships in the South China Sea “are conducted in accordance with the Code of Unplanned Encounters at Sea and done in a safe and professional manner.” The code is an agreement reached by 21 Pacific nations in 2014 to reduce the chance of an incident at sea between the agreement’s signatories.

Richardson also said “the United States Navy is committed to resuming the rotational deployments of littoral combat ships to Singapore and Southeast Asia, and we look forward to using these platforms to engage with our allies and partners.”

He added that the Navy is looking forward to future deployments of the LCS, but is currently “focused on ensuring future deployments of the LCS incorporates the lessons learned from earlier deployments.” The last LCS to deploy to the region was the Coronado, which returned stateside in December 2017 following an 18-month deployment.

However, Richardson did not provide a date for the next LCS deployment. He also declined to confirm reports in Taiwanese media that U.S. Navy ships will make a port visit to the Taiwanese port of Kaohsiung sometime in November, saying that it was “not a good idea to talk about future operations.”

The CNO is currently in New Zealand as part of a regional tour to regional allies and partners. He previously visited the Philippines, Indonesia and Australia during the tour.
 
Its a pity we are only seeing the last few pictures of the incident so we don't know what went on in the preceding minutes. What i find rather strange is the lack of a video recording which were the norm in recent past incidences.
now inside
Exclusive details and footage emerge of near collision between warships in South China Sea

UPDATED ON 5 Nov 2018
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




Oct 3, 2018
it would've been in the great tradition of this Forum to assume it had been the US warship about to ram the Chinese LOL
 
Last edited:

Strategic Analyst

New Member
Registered Member
Breaking PLAN news is the PLAN Type 052 destroyer captain knew the law of the sea. Any ship aft of 112.5 degrees of the center of the leading ship has the onus to yield right of way. US Navy ship was aft of 112 degrees and thus had sole responsibility to not collide.

Good to see the PLAN training their captains on the exact degrees of the rules of the sea. Using GPS or Baidu sat nav systems, and computer controlled thrust, it is quite possible to construct a precision sea navigation rule enforcement.

PLAN computers and sea law training is impressive.
 

asif iqbal

Brigadier
Breaking PLAN news is the PLAN Type 052 destroyer captain knew the law of the sea. Any ship aft of 112.5 degrees of the center of the leading ship has the onus to yield right of way. US Navy ship was aft of 112 degrees and thus had sole responsibility to not collide.

Good to see the PLAN training their captains on the exact degrees of the rules of the sea. Using GPS or Baidu sat nav systems, and computer controlled thrust, it is quite possible to construct a precision sea navigation rule enforcement.

PLAN computers and sea law training is impressive.
Any link for such procedures ?
 

Terry Cotter

New Member
Registered Member
Breaking PLAN news is the PLAN Type 052 destroyer captain knew the law of the sea. Any ship aft of 112.5 degrees of the center of the leading ship has the onus to yield right of way. US Navy ship was aft of 112 degrees and thus had sole responsibility to not collide.

Good to see the PLAN training their captains on the exact degrees of the rules of the sea. Using GPS or Baidu sat nav systems, and computer controlled thrust, it is quite possible to construct a precision sea navigation rule enforcement.

PLAN computers and sea law training is impressive.
Your assertion is fundamentally wrong – a clear case of a little knowledge being used to justify what you want to be true, rather than an unbiased analysis of the situation.

The “law of the sea” that you refer to is articulated in the “International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972” (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
), colloquially known as the Rule of the Road or the ColRegs, which it appears the Captain of the Lanzhou contravened in at least 3 respects.

I have not seen a plot of the ships' tracks annotated with time, which would enable the relative positions to be conclusively determined – the nearest I have seen is that reproduced in the SCMP which was probably produced by the USN as part of a briefing and is shown below:

Taking Point 1 as the start of the interaction, the 2 destroyers are potentially in a crossing situation with the ensuing risk of collision, Decatur being on Lanzhou's stbd bow. ColRegs Rule 15 states “When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.” The Rules require the stand-on vessel (Decatur) to “keep her course and speed” and the give-way vessel (Lanzhou) to “take early and substantial action to keep well clear”. This should have been effected by Lanzhou turning to stbd; instead she turned to port.

The photo below shows that Lanzhou positioned herself on Decatur's port quarter which is reflected at Point 2 in the track plot.

At that stage, Lanzhou is more than 22.5 deg abaft Decatur's beam (>112.5 relative to ship's head) so the situation has become a potential overtaking manoeuvre. ColReg Rule 13 requires the overtaking vessel (Lanzhou) to “keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken”.

Rule 13 further states “Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.” The significance of this is that once Lanzhou got ahead and Decatur was more than 22.5 deg abaft Lanzhou's beam rather than Decatur having “sole responsibility to not collide” that you state, the requirement remains with Lanzhou to keep well clear until it had fully overtaken.

You are also wrong to assert that either ship has the sole responsibility not to collide – it always remains the responsibility of both ships to avoid collision. Consequently ColRegs states that when “the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.” This is reflected in the turn to stbd executed by Decatur at Point 4, even though she was the stand-on vessel, but complied with ColRegs by taking such action as was necessary to avoid a collision – Lanzhou did not.

In summary, there is no evidence that Lanzhou's captain “knew the law of the sea” and that the PLAN's “sea law training is impressive” – rather Lanzhou flagrantly disregarded ColRegs and deliberately created a situation in which there was a high risk of collision.

The ColRegs are intended to ensure that ships in relatively close proximity continue to navigate safely. I do not fully understand what you are saying in “Using GPS or Baidu sat nav systems, and computer controlled thrust, it is quite possible to construct a precision sea navigation rule enforcement” but if you are suggesting that deliberately creating a close quarters situation can be done whilst adhering to the ColRegs, you are wrong. The onus remains on all bridge watchkeepers not only to avoid collision but also to avoid the risk of collision.

I don't know in what sense you are a “Strategic Analyst” but the conclusions of your analysis of this tactical encounter are wholly wrong.
 

Top