Pentagon says Chinese vessels harassed U.S. ship

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: wwswimming
what a bunch of bullsh*t. the US vessel was a 300 foot sub-watcher, military & military
contractors working for various intelligence agencies. positioned directly off the Chinese
Coast. here's a pic
http://antiwar.com/justin/impeccable.jpg

the Chinese boats were 4 small boats and one 100 foot trawler.
http://antiwar.com/justin/chinaboat1.jpg
http://antiwar.com/justin/chinaboat2.jpg

what would the US do if the tables were reversed, and China stuck a 300 foot
sub watcher 100 miles off the shore of San Diego, where the Navy has numerous
bases ?

I think the issue is how the Chinese behaved.

Trying to create an incident by stopping in front of the vessel forcing evasive action.

Had the US ship rolled over the Chinese vessel, the Chinese would have raised a stink (similar to the P3 incident).

Cat & mouse is acceptable and understood in the military intelligence gathering arena.
The gentleman's agreement is that you do not endanger your vessel or any that is shadowing you.

Collisions were avoided during the cold war with Russia - yet the Chinese have now twice created the an incident - once to it's loss of an aircraft - the other could have coasted a ship.

The rules of the sea is that the larger ship has the right of way. The Chinese deliberately broke that rule in international waters.

Not only did the 2001 incident result in the loss of an airplane for both sides, the Chinese went through the systems with a fine-toothed comb, learning quite a bit about our intelligence gathering abilities from that aircraft.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

I think the issue is how the Chinese behaved.

Trying to create an incident by stopping in front of the vessel forcing evasive action.

Had the US ship rolled over the Chinese vessel, the Chinese would have raised a stink (similar to the P3 incident).

Cat & mouse is acceptable and understood in the military intelligence gathering arena.
The gentleman's agreement is that you do not endanger your vessel or any that is shadowing you.

Collisions were avoided during the cold war with Russia - yet the Chinese have now twice created the an incident - once to it's loss of an aircraft - the other could have coasted a ship.

The rules of the sea is that the larger ship has the right of way. The Chinese deliberately broke that rule in international waters.

The rule of the sea is NEVER the larger ship has right of way. The Colregs (Rules of the road) are quite extensive and clear about who gives way to whom. Size has nothing to do with it.

Briefly, a power driven vessel always gives way to a sailing vessel and among power driven vessels there are rules for every situation - head on, crossing, overtaking, narrow channels, constrained by draught, fishing, dredging, surveying, minesweeping etc. - as to which vessel will keep out of the way. These rules are followed by EVERY description of ship on the high seas.

From a rule of the road perspective the Chinese vessels were wrong to obstruct the course of the surveying vessel and should have kept out of her way, provided she was displaying the correct shapes (or lights at night) for a vessel conducting a survey.

Agree with the rest of your post. The Chinese seem to have little respect for the gentlemen's agreement in these cat and mouse games.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

I think the issue is how the Chinese behaved.

Trying to create an incident by stopping in front of the vessel forcing evasive action.

Had the US ship rolled over the Chinese vessel, the Chinese would have raised a stink (similar to the P3 incident).

Cat & mouse is acceptable and understood in the military intelligence gathering arena.
The gentleman's agreement is that you do not endanger your vessel or any that is shadowing you.

Collisions were avoided during the cold war with Russia - yet the Chinese have now twice created the an incident - once to it's loss of an aircraft - the other could have coasted a ship.

The rules of the sea is that the larger ship has the right of way. The Chinese deliberately broke that rule in international waters.

The rule of the sea is NEVER the larger ship has right of way. The Colregs (Rules of the road) are quite extensive and clear about who gives way to whom. Size has nothing to do with it.

Briefly, a power driven vessel always gives way to a sailing vessel and among power driven vessels there are rules for every situation - head on, crossing, overtaking, narrow channels, constrained by draught, fishing, dredging, surveying, minesweeping etc. - as to which vessel will keep out of the way. These rules are followed by EVERY description of ship on the high seas.

From a rule of the road perspective the Chinese vessels were wrong to obstruct the course of the surveying vessel and should have kept out of her way, provided she was displaying the correct shapes (or lights at night) for a vessel conducting a survey.

Agree with the rest of your post. The Chinese seem to have little respect for the gentlemen's agreement in these cat and mouse games.

The larger ship might never have the right of way, but I assume that's more for cases where planned courses will result in a collision instead of some asshat intentionally moving into the path of a large, moving ship.

If I'm driving a motor boat parallel to a super tanker and then decide to swerve into its path and stop 100 feet in front of it, then it would be my fault that my boat was destroyed since the tanker would never be able to stop in 100 feet.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

I think the issue is how the Chinese behaved.

Trying to create an incident by stopping in front of the vessel forcing evasive action.

Had the US ship rolled over the Chinese vessel, the Chinese would have raised a stink (similar to the P3 incident).

Cat & mouse is acceptable and understood in the military intelligence gathering arena.
The gentleman's agreement is that you do not endanger your vessel or any that is shadowing you.

Collisions were avoided during the cold war with Russia - yet the Chinese have now twice created the an incident - once to it's loss of an aircraft - the other could have coasted a ship.

The rules of the sea is that the larger ship has the right of way. The Chinese deliberately broke that rule in international waters.

The rule of the sea is NEVER the larger ship has right of way. The Colregs (Rules of the road) are quite extensive and clear about who gives way to whom. Size has nothing to do with it.

Briefly, a power driven vessel always gives way to a sailing vessel and among power driven vessels there are rules for every situation - head on, crossing, overtaking, narrow channels, constrained by draught, fishing, dredging, surveying, minesweeping etc. - as to which vessel will keep out of the way. These rules are followed by EVERY description of ship on the high seas.

From a rule of the road perspective the Chinese vessels were wrong to obstruct the course of the surveying vessel and should have kept out of her way, provided she was displaying the correct shapes (or lights at night) for a vessel conducting a survey.

Agree with the rest of your post. The Chinese seem to have little respect for the gentlemen's agreement in these cat and mouse games.

The larger ship might never have the right of way, but I assume that's more for cases where planned courses will result in a collision instead of some asshat intentionally moving into the path of a large, moving ship.

If I'm driving a motor boat parallel to a super tanker and then decide to swerve into its path and stop 100 feet in front of it, then it would be my fault that my boat was destroyed since the tanker would never be able to stop in 100 feet.

No. Size has nothing to do with it. See Rule 18: Responsibility between vessels . A vessel conducting a survey will typically come under the definition of 'a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver'. Note: when she is not doing survey work she is a normal power driven vessel.

In the example you state you are clearly the 'overtaking vessel' and it remains your responsibility to keep clear of ANY vessel you are overtaking till you are finally past and clear. That is covered by rule 13.

RULE 13
OVERTAKING

(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules [of Part B, Sections I and II / 4 through 18], any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.

(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with a another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

(d) 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.

Although common sense will tell you that if you hit a supertanker your boat stands no chance of survival. Incidentally there are a couple of concepts called 'ordinary practice of seamen' and 'special circumstances of the case' (rule 2) which could also be applicable in your example.

But size itself is not addressed anywhere in the sailing and steering rules.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

I think the issue is how the Chinese behaved.

Trying to create an incident by stopping in front of the vessel forcing evasive action.

Had the US ship rolled over the Chinese vessel, the Chinese would have raised a stink (similar to the P3 incident).

Cat & mouse is acceptable and understood in the military intelligence gathering arena.
The gentleman's agreement is that you do not endanger your vessel or any that is shadowing you.

Collisions were avoided during the cold war with Russia - yet the Chinese have now twice created the an incident - once to it's loss of an aircraft - the other could have coasted a ship.

The rules of the sea is that the larger ship has the right of way. The Chinese deliberately broke that rule in international waters.

The rule of the sea is NEVER the larger ship has right of way. The Colregs (Rules of the road) are quite extensive and clear about who gives way to whom. Size has nothing to do with it.

Briefly, a power driven vessel always gives way to a sailing vessel and among power driven vessels there are rules for every situation - head on, crossing, overtaking, narrow channels, constrained by draught, fishing, dredging, surveying, minesweeping etc. - as to which vessel will keep out of the way. These rules are followed by EVERY description of ship on the high seas.

From a rule of the road perspective the Chinese vessels were wrong to obstruct the course of the surveying vessel and should have kept out of her way, provided she was displaying the correct shapes (or lights at night) for a vessel conducting a survey.

Agree with the rest of your post. The Chinese seem to have little respect for the gentlemen's agreement in these cat and mouse games.

The larger ship might never have the right of way, but I assume that's more for cases where planned courses will result in a collision instead of some asshat intentionally moving into the path of a large, moving ship.

If I'm driving a motor boat parallel to a super tanker and then decide to swerve into its path and stop 100 feet in front of it, then it would be my fault that my boat was destroyed since the tanker would never be able to stop in 100 feet.

No. Size has nothing to do with it. See Rule 18: Responsibility between vessels . A vessel conducting a survey will typically come under the definition of 'a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver'. Note: when she is not doing survey work she is a normal power driven vessel.

In the example you state you are clearly the 'overtaking vessel' and it remains your responsibility to keep clear of ANY vessel you are overtaking till you are finally past and clear. That is covered by rule 13.

RULE 13
OVERTAKING

(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules [of Part B, Sections I and II / 4 through 18], any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.

(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with a another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

(d) 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.

Although common sense will tell you that if you hit a supertanker your boat stands no chance of survival. Incidentally there are a couple of concepts called 'ordinary practice of seamen' and 'special circumstances of the case' (rule 2) which could also be applicable in your example.

But size itself is not addressed anywhere in the sailing and steering rules.

Okay, I think I get it. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

I think the issue is how the Chinese behaved.

Trying to create an incident by stopping in front of the vessel forcing evasive action.

Had the US ship rolled over the Chinese vessel, the Chinese would have raised a stink (similar to the P3 incident).

Cat & mouse is acceptable and understood in the military intelligence gathering arena.
The gentleman's agreement is that you do not endanger your vessel or any that is shadowing you.

Collisions were avoided during the cold war with Russia - yet the Chinese have now twice created the an incident - once to it's loss of an aircraft - the other could have coasted a ship.

The rules of the sea is that the larger ship has the right of way. The Chinese deliberately broke that rule in international waters.

The rule of the sea is NEVER the larger ship has right of way. The Colregs (Rules of the road) are quite extensive and clear about who gives way to whom. Size has nothing to do with it.

Briefly, a power driven vessel always gives way to a sailing vessel and among power driven vessels there are rules for every situation - head on, crossing, overtaking, narrow channels, constrained by draught, fishing, dredging, surveying, minesweeping etc. - as to which vessel will keep out of the way. These rules are followed by EVERY description of ship on the high seas.

From a rule of the road perspective the Chinese vessels were wrong to obstruct the course of the surveying vessel and should have kept out of her way, provided she was displaying the correct shapes (or lights at night) for a vessel conducting a survey.

Agree with the rest of your post. The Chinese seem to have little respect for the gentlemen's agreement in these cat and mouse games.

The larger ship might never have the right of way, but I assume that's more for cases where planned courses will result in a collision instead of some asshat intentionally moving into the path of a large, moving ship.

If I'm driving a motor boat parallel to a super tanker and then decide to swerve into its path and stop 100 feet in front of it, then it would be my fault that my boat was destroyed since the tanker would never be able to stop in 100 feet.

No. Size has nothing to do with it. See Rule 18: Responsibility between vessels . A vessel conducting a survey will typically come under the definition of 'a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver'. Note: when she is not doing survey work she is a normal power driven vessel.

In the example you state you are clearly the 'overtaking vessel' and it remains your responsibility to keep clear of ANY vessel you are overtaking till you are finally past and clear. That is covered by rule 13.

RULE 13
OVERTAKING

(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules [of Part B, Sections I and II / 4 through 18], any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.

(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with a another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

(d) 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.

Although common sense will tell you that if you hit a supertanker your boat stands no chance of survival. Incidentally there are a couple of concepts called 'ordinary practice of seamen' and 'special circumstances of the case' (rule 2) which could also be applicable in your example.

But size itself is not addressed anywhere in the sailing and steering rules.

You are incorrect. I had to go through a lot of testing for 42'+ open keelboat certification (including powerboat instruction).

The manuevaribility of a ship plays a large role in who has technical right of way. In a head to head situation, if you are in some po-dunk 100 ft. boat you are getting the fuck out of the way of a oil tanker. It doesn't matter whatsoever if you technically have the right of way course.

With regards to overtaking, from reading about the incident, it appears the Chinese deliberately placed themselves in the path of the US boat. This isn't an "overtaking" situation if they manuevered to get infront of the U.S. boat's course, and definitely wouldn't be the U.S. boat's fault if it's manuevaribility was such that it couldn't have avoided them.

Of course the number one rule of the sea is avoid collision, it doesn't matter who has right of way if you have the manuerability to avoid an accident and you don't take such steps, your ass is grass. Not that any of this really matters but I felt like responding to the claim that size doesn't matter "at all".

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
what a bunch of bullsh*t. the US vessel was a 300 foot sub-watcher, military & military
contractors working for various intelligence agencies. positioned directly off the Chinese
Coast. here's a pic
http://antiwar.com/justin/impeccable.jpg

the Chinese boats were 4 small boats and one 100 foot trawler.
http://antiwar.com/justin/chinaboat1.jpg
http://antiwar.com/justin/chinaboat2.jpg

what would the US do if the tables were reversed, and China stuck a 300 foot
sub watcher 100 miles off the shore of San Diego, where the Navy has numerous
bases ?

The US would observe and keep tabs on the vessel while keeping a good distance away. The Soviets had trawlers all the time during the Cold War off the US. Actually if the Chinese had a sub watcher 100 miles off the shore of San Diego they would probably try and spy and the trawler to learn more about is capabilities. Surrounding it and harassing it would be out of the question.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: wwswimming
what a bunch of bullsh*t. the US vessel was a 300 foot sub-watcher, military & military
contractors working for various intelligence agencies. positioned directly off the Chinese
Coast. here's a pic
http://antiwar.com/justin/impeccable.jpg

the Chinese boats were 4 small boats and one 100 foot trawler.
http://antiwar.com/justin/chinaboat1.jpg
http://antiwar.com/justin/chinaboat2.jpg

what would the US do if the tables were reversed, and China stuck a 300 foot
sub watcher 100 miles off the shore of San Diego, where the Navy has numerous
bases ?

I think the issue is how the Chinese behaved.

Trying to create an incident by stopping in front of the vessel forcing evasive action.

Had the US ship rolled over the Chinese vessel, the Chinese would have raised a stink (similar to the P3 incident).

Cat & mouse is acceptable and understood in the military intelligence gathering arena.
The gentleman's agreement is that you do not endanger your vessel or any that is shadowing you.

Collisions were avoided during the cold war with Russia - yet the Chinese have now twice created the an incident - once to it's loss of an aircraft - the other could have coasted a ship.

The rules of the sea is that the larger ship has the right of way. The Chinese deliberately broke that rule in international waters.

Not only did the 2001 incident result in the loss of an airplane for both sides, the Chinese went through the systems with a fine-toothed comb, learning quite a bit about our intelligence gathering abilities from that aircraft.

an example of "American exceptionalism" - which means it's OK for the US to do stuff that the US would not allow other nations to do.

it's not an issue of how one country behaved - it's an issue of how both countries behaved.

it sounds like the Chinese played "chicken" by parking their boats in the way of the larger US boat.

what would the US do if China stationed a sub-watcher 100 miles off the San Diego coast, which would put it in the vicinity of Cortez Bank ? ( a great place for big-wave surfing separate subject)

at the very least, the US would forcibly move the Chinese boat.

the US vessel was a 300 foot sub-watcher, the US crew was military personnel & defense contractors working for various intelligence agencies. positioned directly off the Chinese Coast. stacked full of fancy receivers and other electronic warfare equipment made by companies like Northrop Grumman and the British Dobson Park (which has/had a division named Elgar, an American maker of Uninterruptible Power Supplies for shipboard power & shipboard test benches.)

does China have a right to position an equivalent vessel at Cortez Bank ?

if not, what gives the US the right to position the sub-watcher off the Chinese coast ?

this is a normal cat & mouse game, where there are no genuine rules of international law, other than "might makes right". the US and China are both seeing what they can get away with, and at the same time doing all the electronic sniffing they can manage.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

I think the issue is how the Chinese behaved.

Trying to create an incident by stopping in front of the vessel forcing evasive action.

Had the US ship rolled over the Chinese vessel, the Chinese would have raised a stink (similar to the P3 incident).

Cat & mouse is acceptable and understood in the military intelligence gathering arena.
The gentleman's agreement is that you do not endanger your vessel or any that is shadowing you.

Collisions were avoided during the cold war with Russia - yet the Chinese have now twice created the an incident - once to it's loss of an aircraft - the other could have coasted a ship.

The rules of the sea is that the larger ship has the right of way. The Chinese deliberately broke that rule in international waters.

The rule of the sea is NEVER the larger ship has right of way. The Colregs (Rules of the road) are quite extensive and clear about who gives way to whom. Size has nothing to do with it.

Briefly, a power driven vessel always gives way to a sailing vessel and among power driven vessels there are rules for every situation - head on, crossing, overtaking, narrow channels, constrained by draught, fishing, dredging, surveying, minesweeping etc. - as to which vessel will keep out of the way. These rules are followed by EVERY description of ship on the high seas.

From a rule of the road perspective the Chinese vessels were wrong to obstruct the course of the surveying vessel and should have kept out of her way, provided she was displaying the correct shapes (or lights at night) for a vessel conducting a survey.

Agree with the rest of your post. The Chinese seem to have little respect for the gentlemen's agreement in these cat and mouse games.

The larger ship might never have the right of way, but I assume that's more for cases where planned courses will result in a collision instead of some asshat intentionally moving into the path of a large, moving ship.

If I'm driving a motor boat parallel to a super tanker and then decide to swerve into its path and stop 100 feet in front of it, then it would be my fault that my boat was destroyed since the tanker would never be able to stop in 100 feet.

No. Size has nothing to do with it. See Rule 18: Responsibility between vessels . A vessel conducting a survey will typically come under the definition of 'a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver'. Note: when she is not doing survey work she is a normal power driven vessel.

In the example you state you are clearly the 'overtaking vessel' and it remains your responsibility to keep clear of ANY vessel you are overtaking till you are finally past and clear. That is covered by rule 13.

RULE 13
OVERTAKING

(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules [of Part B, Sections I and II / 4 through 18], any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.

(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with a another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

(d) 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.

Although common sense will tell you that if you hit a supertanker your boat stands no chance of survival. Incidentally there are a couple of concepts called 'ordinary practice of seamen' and 'special circumstances of the case' (rule 2) which could also be applicable in your example.

But size itself is not addressed anywhere in the sailing and steering rules.

You are incorrect. I had to go through a lot of testing for 42'+ open keelboat certification (including powerboat instruction).

The manuevaribility of a ship plays a large role in who has technical right of way. In a head to head situation, if you are in some po-dunk 100 ft. boat you are getting the fuck out of the way of a oil tanker. It doesn't matter whatsoever if you technically have the right of way course.

With regards to overtaking, from reading about the incident, it appears the Chinese deliberately placed themselves in the path of the US boat. This isn't an "overtaking" situation if they manuevered to get infront of the U.S. boat's course, and definitely wouldn't be the U.S. boat's fault if it's manuevaribility was such that it couldn't have avoided them.

Of course the number one rule of the sea is avoid collision, it doesn't matter who has right of way if you have the manuerability to avoid an accident and you don't take such steps, your ass is grass. Not that any of this really matters but I felt like responding to the claim that size doesn't matter "at all".

I'm going to have to disagree with you. But first my background: I have spent 23 years working as a ship's officer including 5 years as Master. I hold an unlimited and unrestricted Master Mariners certificate with dangerous cargo endorsement as majority of my sea time was spent on tankers - as big as a 260,000 DWT VLCC.

If a 100 ft vessel was head on with my ship, we would alter our course to starboard to avoid collision. I'm not talking theory, rather that is what we actually did do. The only way to avoid confusion at sea is to follow the rules. If another vessel is crossing from starboard to port, we would alter. Even for small boats we see in the distance we take avoiding action. And you'll be surprised how many small boats disregard the rules, just because they can turn at the last minute, and keep heading towards big ships. There are places in the world where small fishing boats (maybe 20-25 feet long) will deliberately converge towards the ship to fish in it's wake.

Also consider this, in poor visibility you cannot make out the size of the vessel by looking at its radar target so you take avoiding action for any target you see. There have been times when the target turns out to be a small boat with a radar reflector once it comes within visible range.

You said, "The manuevaribility of a ship plays a large role in who has technical right of way". That is correct which is why you have categories such as
- sailing vessel
- not under command
- restricted in her ability to maneuver
- constrained by her draft
- fishing vessel
- minesweeper
etc.
These vessels are by virtue of their circumstances or nature of their work not as maneuverable as a power driven vessel and therefore get to 'stand on'.

I suggest reading rules 1 to 19 and see if you can find any reference to size. Except for rules 9 & 10 where a vessel less than 20 meters in length shall not impeded the passage of a vessel which can only use the narrow channel or the traffic separation scheme, but these are special circumstances because the bigger ships would be considered constrained in their ability to take avoiding action and these rules are not applicable in open waters.

Having said that I've had a case where we were in a river with 10 meters channel, our draft 9 meters, with pilot embarked, carrying 40,000 Tons of gasoline and jet fuel, a sail boat with 2 feet draft tried to play chicken with us and then complained to the harbor master that we should have kept out of his way because he was a sailing vessel and we were power driven. We got to know this because the Harbor Master was a good friend to our Marine Manager. (Yes it was the home port of the vessel).

So there are a lot of stupid people who either don't know the rules or choose to ignore them. Your comment indicates you would rather play safe than sorry when confronted by a bigger ship but my advise would be to follow the rules first before taking action which might be misunderstood.

As far as the Chinese incident the Chinese ships were downright stupid and dangerously disregarded any rules. The US ship took avoiding action to avoid collision. Imagine the hue and cry if the ships had collided. Overtaking did not come into the picture. My comment on overtaking was in response to the situation that Brainonska511 presented (running parallel to a tanker and then parking in front of it).

 

[MadRat]

The chinese do try to listen to our subs, its a fact of life. They want to play cat & mouse games to prove their legitimacy as a navy. They don't exactly have a legacy on the open water as a powerhouse.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: MadRat
The chinese do try to listen to our subs, its a fact of life. They want to play cat & mouse games to prove their legitimacy as a navy. They don't exactly have a legacy on the open water as a powerhouse.

They are certainly catching up

link

Center Stage for the 21st Century

Power Plays in the Indian Ocean

March/April 2009
Robert D. Kaplan

ROBERT D. KAPLAN, a National Correspondent for The Atlantic and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, in Washington, D.C., is writing a book on the Indian Ocean. He recently was the Class of 1960 Distinguished Visiting Professor in National Security at the U.S. Naval Academy.

For better or worse, phrases such "the Cold War" and "the clash of civilizations" matter. In a similar way, so do maps. The right map can stimulate foresight by providing a spatial view of critical trends in world politics. Understanding the map of Europe was essential to understanding the twentieth century. Although recent technological advances and economic integration have encouraged global thinking, some places continue to count more than others. And in some of those, such as Iraq and Pakistan, two countries with inherently artificial contours, politics is still at the mercy of geography.

So in what quarter of the earth today can one best glimpse the future? Because of their own geographic circumstances, Americans, in particular, continue to concentrate on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. World War II and the Cold War shaped this outlook: Nazi Germany, imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, and communist China were all oriented toward one of these two oceans. The bias is even embedded in mapping conventions: Mercator projections tend to place the Western Hemisphere in the middle of the map, splitting the Indian Ocean at its far edges. And yet, as the pirate activity off the coast of Somalia and the terrorist carnage in Mumbai last fall suggest, the Indian Ocean -- the world's third-largest body of water -- already forms center stage for the challenges of the twenty-first century.

The greater Indian Ocean region encompasses the entire arc of Islam, from the Sahara Desert to the Indonesian archipelago. Although the Arabs and the Persians are known to Westerners primarily as desert peoples, they have also been great seafarers. In the Middle Ages, they sailed from Arabia to China; proselytizing along the way, they spread their faith through sea-based commerce. Today, the western reaches of the Indian Ocean include the tinderboxes of Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and Pakistan -- constituting a network of dynamic trade as well as a network of global terrorism, piracy, and drug smuggling. Hundreds of millions of Muslims -- the legacy of those medieval conversions -- live along the Indian Ocean's eastern edges, in India and Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia.

...

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: MadRat
The chinese do try to listen to our subs, its a fact of life. They want to play cat & mouse games to prove their legitimacy as a navy. They don't exactly have a legacy on the open water as a powerhouse.

They are certainly catching up

Not only are they catching up, they're becoming bolder. Now they are demanding that US stop spying in international waters (albeit in their back yard).

We keep buying Chinese goods and they keep getting more and more powerful.

China demands end of US Navy surveillance

By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN ? 11 hours ago

BEIJING (AP) ? China's Defense Ministry has demanded that the U.S. Navy end surveillance missions off the country's southern coast following a weekend confrontation between an American vessel and Chinese ships.

In its first public comment on the Sunday episode, the ministry repeated earlier statements from the Foreign Ministry that the unarmed U.S. ship was operating illegally inside China's exclusive economic zone when it was challenged by three Chinese government ships and two Chinese-flagged trawlers.

"The Chinese side's carrying out of routine enforcement and safeguarding measures within its exclusive economic zone was entirely appropriate and legal," ministry spokesman Huang Xueping said in a statement faxed overnight to reporters.

"We demand the United States respect our legal interests and security concerns, and take effective measures to prevent a recurrence of such incidents," Huang said.

Despite the sharp remarks, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met in a private meeting Wednesday in Washington D.C. to say the countries agreed on the need to reduce tensions and avoid a repeat of the confrontation.

But neither side yielded in their conflicting versions of events, even as they prepare for a much-anticipated first meeting between Hu and President Barack Obama at next month's G20 summit in London.

The U.S. says that Navy mapping ship USNS Impeccable was operating legally when it was harassed by Chinese boats in international waters about 75 miles (120 kilometers) off China's southern island province of Hainan.

Defense Department officials say the Impeccable was on a mission to seek out threats such as submarines and was towing a sonar apparatus that scans and listens for subs, mines and torpedoes. With its numerous Chinese military installations, Hainan offers rich hunting for such surveillance.

Of particular interest is the new submarine base near the resort city of Sanya that is home to the Chinese navy's most sophisticated craft.

Satellite photographs of the base taken last year and posted on the Internet by the Federation of American Scientists show a submarine cave entrance and a pier, with a Chinese nuclear-powered Jin class sub docked there.

While little else is known, its location on the South China Sea offers the Chinese navy access to crucial waterways through which much of the shipping bound for Japan and Northeast Asia must travel.

The Hainan base shows how China is paying increasing attention to the South China Sea and other important waterways that are vital to its booming international trade and the delivery of oil and other natural resources for the expanding economy.

China's nuclear submarines have up until now largely operated out of the Northern Fleet base near the port of Qingdao, said Hans M. Kristensen, the FAS researcher who first identified the Jin sub's presence from satellite photos.

"The base is attaining new importance ... this is the first time a large facility in the South China Sea is being used," Kristensen said.

High-seas encounters such as the Impeccable incident are likely to grow more common because China wants to assert its right to protect its secrets in the area, while the U.S. wants to gain as much knowledge as possible about China's subs and the underwater terrain, according to maritime policy analyst Mark Valencia.

"Thus such incidents are likely to be repeated and become more dangerous and they do not pertain to China and the U.S. alone," Valencia wrote in an article posted Wednesday on the Web site of the Far Eastern Economic Review.

China's claim to the entire South China Sea and its hundreds of islands and reefs overlaps with those of a half-dozen other nations, leading to occasional clashes and standoffs. Increasingly, China's rapid naval upgrade, exemplified by the Hainan base, is putting muscle behind its arguments.

President and Communist Party leader Hu Jintao, who also heads the commissions overseeing the armed forces, called on the military Wednesday to pick up the pace of modernization to "resolutely safeguard the country's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity."

China's territorial claims are sharpened still more by Beijing's interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. China sees the convention as giving it the right to ban a broad range of activities within its exclusive economic zone. That grates against the U.S. position that the Navy ships were in international waters and therefore have the right to conduct surveying.

Those dueling claims also lay at the heart of the last major confrontation between the two militaries, a 2001 midair collision between a Chinese fighter jet and a U.S. spy plane in international air space south of Hainan.

This time, Beijing appears to be pressing its stance even harder, citing both the U.N. convention and its own domestic laws and regulations.

Link

Anything beyond 12 miles is international waters. this is agreed by all countries. The 200 mile EEZ is only for fishing and mineral resources. Spying is neither.

 

[OCGuy]

Question to Democrats:


How do you feel about this issue now, since Obama has provided an armed escort for future missions?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

The Chinese crewmembers disrobed to their underwear and continued closing to within 25 feet.

Wtf!

No kidding, is this standard operating procedure?

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Question to Democrats:


How do you feel about this issue now, since Obama has provided an armed escort for future missions?

:thumbsup:
Good. These are international waters where spying is not prohibited. The Chinese think they can bully everyone around and it's good to keep them at bay. If they want to react let them bring one of their ships 75 miles off the US coast. Fun and games!!