Commie chinks do not have a good track record of building any thing that lasts. Did you not know that already?
Well, except the CCP virus which seems to be very long lasting leh.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Thailand delays $724m China submarine deal
- Thread starter glockman
- Start date
Well, except the CCP virus which seems to be very long lasting leh.
Buying weapon in Thailand is a form of getting extra money nothing to do with defending the country.
Scuk you China hating penis.
All U.S. Navy Submarines are Nuclear Powered (But That Could Change)
Sebastien Roblin
November 12, 2019, 7:00 am
Key point: AIP subs are affordable and, when piloted by a competent crew, can sink carriers.
Nuclear-powered submarines have traditionally held a decisive edge in endurance, stealth and speed over cheaper diesel submarines. However, new Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology has significantly narrowed the performance gap on a new generation of submarines that cost a fraction of the price of a nuclear-powered boat.
A conventional submarine’s diesel engine generates electricity which can be used to drive the propeller and power its systems. The problem is that such a combustion engine is inherently quite noisy and runs on air—a commodity in limited supply on an underwater vehicle. Thus, diesel-powered submarines must surface frequently to recharge their batteries.
The first nuclear-powered submarines were brought into service in the 1950s. Nuclear reactors are quieter, don’t consume air, and produce greater power output, allowing nuclear submarines to remain submerged for months instead of days while traveling at higher speeds under water.
These advantages led the U.S. Navy to phase out its diesel boats in favor of an all-nuclear powered submarine fleet. However, most other navies have retained at least some diesel submarines because of their much lower cost and complexity.
In the 1990s, submarines powered by Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology entered operational use. Though the concept dated back to the 19th century and had been tested in a few prototype vessels, it was left to Sweden to deploy the first operational AIP-powered submarine, the Gotland-class, which proved to be stealthy and relatively long enduring. The 60-meter long Gotlands are powered by a Stirling-cycle engine, a heat engine consuming a combination of liquid oxygen and diesel fuel.
Since then, AIP powered-submarines have proliferated across the world using three different types of engines, with nearly 60 operational today in fifteen countries. Around fifty more are on order or being constructed.
China has 15 Stirling-powered Yuan-class Type 039A submarines with 20 more planned, as well as a single large Type 032 missile submarine that can fire ballistic missiles. Japan for her part has eight medium-sized Soryu class submarines that also use Stirling engines, with 15 more planned for or under construction. The Swedes, for their part, have developed four different classes of Stirling-powered submarines.
Germany has also built dozens of AIP powered submarines, most notably the small Type 212 and 214, and has exported them across the globe. The German boats all use electro-catalytic fuel cells, a generally more efficient and quiet technology than the Stirling, though also more complex and expensive. Other countries intending to build fuel-cell powered submarines include Spain (the S-80), India (the Kalvari-class) and Russia (the Lada-class).
Finally, France has designed several subs using closed-cycle steam turbine called MESMA. Three upgraded Agosta-90b class subs with MESMA engines serve in the Pakistani Navy.
Nuclear vs. AIP: Who Wins?:
Broadly speaking, how do AIP vessels compare in performance to nuclear submarines? Let’s consider the costs and benefits in terms of stealth, endurance, speed and cost.
Stealth:
Nuclear powered submarines have become very quiet—at least an order of magnitude quieter than a diesel submarine with its engine running. In fact, nuclear-powered submarines may be unable to detect each other using passive sonar, as evidenced by the 2009 collision of a British and French nuclear ballistic missile submarines, both oblivious to the presence of the other.
However, there’s reason to believe that AIP submarines can, if properly designed, swim underwater even more quietly. The hydraulics in a nuclear reactor produce noise as they pump coolant liquid, while an AIP’s submarine’s engines are virtually silent. Diesel-powered submarines can also approach this level of quietness while running on battery power, but can only do so for a few hours whereas an AIP submarine can keep it up for days.
Diesel and AIP powered submarines have on more than one occasion managed to slip through anti-submarine defenses and sink American aircraft carriers in war games. Of course, such feats have also been performed by nuclear submarines.
Endurance:
Nuclear submarines can operate underwater for three or four months at a time and cross oceans with ease. While some conventional submarines can handle the distance, none have comparable underwater endurance.
AIP submarines have narrowed the gap, however. While old diesel submarines needed to surface in a matter of hours or a few days at best to recharge batteries, new AIP powered vessels only need to surface every two to four weeks depending on type. (Some sources make the unconfirmed claim that the German Type 214 can even last more than 2 months.) Of course, surfaced submarines, or even those employing a snorkel, are comparatively easy to detect and attack.
Nuclear submarines still have a clear advantage in endurance over AIP boats, particularly on the long-distance patrols. However, for countries like Japan, Germany and China that mostly operate close to friendly shores, extreme endurance may be a lower priority.
Speed:
Speed remains an undisputed strength of nuclear-powered submarines. U.S. attack submarine may be able to sustain speeds of more than 35 miles per hour while submerged. By comparison, the German Type 214’s maximum submerged speed of 23 miles per hour is typical of AIP submarines.
Obviously, high maximum speed grants advantages in both strategic mobility and tactical agility. However, it should be kept in mind that even nuclear submarines rarely operate at maximum speed because of the additional noise produced.
On the other hand, an AIP submarine is likely to move at especially slow speeds when cruising sustainably using AIP compared to diesel or nuclear submarines. For example, a Gotland class submarine is reduced to just 6 miles per hour if it wishes to remain submerged at maximum endurance—which is simply too slow for long distance transits or traveling with surface ships. Current AIP technology doesn’t produce enough power for higher speeds, and thus most AIP submarines also come with noisy diesel engines as backup.
Cost:
Who would have guessed nuclear reactors are incredibly expensive? The contemporary U.S. Virginia class attack submarine costs $2.6 billion dollars, and the earlier Los Angeles class before it around $2 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. Mid-life nuclear refueling costs add millions more.
By comparison, AIP powered submarines have generally cost between $200 and $600 million, meaning a country could easily buy three or four medium-sized AIP submarines instead of one nuclear attack submarine. Bear in mind, however, that the AIP submarines are mostly small or medium sized vessels with crews of around 30 and 60 respectively, while nuclear submarines are often larger with crews of 100 or more. They may also have heavier armament, such as Vertical Launch Systems, when compared to most AIP powered vessels.
Nevertheless, a torpedo or missile from a small submarine can hit just as hard as one fired from a large one, and having three times the number of submarine operating in a given stretch of ocean could increase the likelihood chancing upon an important target, and make it easier to overwhelm anti-submarine defenses.
Key point: Air Independent Propulsion technology has significantly narrowed the performance gap on a new generation of submarines
While AIP vessels may not be able to do everything a nuclear submarine can, having a larger fleet of submarines would be very useful in hunting opposing ships and submarines for control of the seas. Nor would it be impossible to deploy larger AIP powered submarines; China has already deployed one, and France is marketing a cheaper AIP-powered version of the Barracuda-class nuclear attack submarine.
It is no surprise that navies that operate largely around coastal waters are turning to cheap AIP submarines, as their disadvantage are not as relevant when friendly ports are close at hand. The trade off in range and endurance is more problematic for the U.S. Navy, which operates across the breadth of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. This may explain why the U.S. Navy has shown little inclination to return to non-nuclear submarines. However, AIP submarines operating from forward bases would represent a very cost-effective and stealthy means to expand the Navy’s sea-control mission.
Sébastien Roblin holds a Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring. This first appeared in December 2018.
Image: Reuters.
Sebastien Roblin
November 12, 2019, 7:00 am
Key point: AIP subs are affordable and, when piloted by a competent crew, can sink carriers.
Nuclear-powered submarines have traditionally held a decisive edge in endurance, stealth and speed over cheaper diesel submarines. However, new Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology has significantly narrowed the performance gap on a new generation of submarines that cost a fraction of the price of a nuclear-powered boat.
A conventional submarine’s diesel engine generates electricity which can be used to drive the propeller and power its systems. The problem is that such a combustion engine is inherently quite noisy and runs on air—a commodity in limited supply on an underwater vehicle. Thus, diesel-powered submarines must surface frequently to recharge their batteries.
The first nuclear-powered submarines were brought into service in the 1950s. Nuclear reactors are quieter, don’t consume air, and produce greater power output, allowing nuclear submarines to remain submerged for months instead of days while traveling at higher speeds under water.
These advantages led the U.S. Navy to phase out its diesel boats in favor of an all-nuclear powered submarine fleet. However, most other navies have retained at least some diesel submarines because of their much lower cost and complexity.
In the 1990s, submarines powered by Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology entered operational use. Though the concept dated back to the 19th century and had been tested in a few prototype vessels, it was left to Sweden to deploy the first operational AIP-powered submarine, the Gotland-class, which proved to be stealthy and relatively long enduring. The 60-meter long Gotlands are powered by a Stirling-cycle engine, a heat engine consuming a combination of liquid oxygen and diesel fuel.
Since then, AIP powered-submarines have proliferated across the world using three different types of engines, with nearly 60 operational today in fifteen countries. Around fifty more are on order or being constructed.
China has 15 Stirling-powered Yuan-class Type 039A submarines with 20 more planned, as well as a single large Type 032 missile submarine that can fire ballistic missiles. Japan for her part has eight medium-sized Soryu class submarines that also use Stirling engines, with 15 more planned for or under construction. The Swedes, for their part, have developed four different classes of Stirling-powered submarines.
Germany has also built dozens of AIP powered submarines, most notably the small Type 212 and 214, and has exported them across the globe. The German boats all use electro-catalytic fuel cells, a generally more efficient and quiet technology than the Stirling, though also more complex and expensive. Other countries intending to build fuel-cell powered submarines include Spain (the S-80), India (the Kalvari-class) and Russia (the Lada-class).
Finally, France has designed several subs using closed-cycle steam turbine called MESMA. Three upgraded Agosta-90b class subs with MESMA engines serve in the Pakistani Navy.
Nuclear vs. AIP: Who Wins?:
Broadly speaking, how do AIP vessels compare in performance to nuclear submarines? Let’s consider the costs and benefits in terms of stealth, endurance, speed and cost.
Stealth:
Nuclear powered submarines have become very quiet—at least an order of magnitude quieter than a diesel submarine with its engine running. In fact, nuclear-powered submarines may be unable to detect each other using passive sonar, as evidenced by the 2009 collision of a British and French nuclear ballistic missile submarines, both oblivious to the presence of the other.
However, there’s reason to believe that AIP submarines can, if properly designed, swim underwater even more quietly. The hydraulics in a nuclear reactor produce noise as they pump coolant liquid, while an AIP’s submarine’s engines are virtually silent. Diesel-powered submarines can also approach this level of quietness while running on battery power, but can only do so for a few hours whereas an AIP submarine can keep it up for days.
Diesel and AIP powered submarines have on more than one occasion managed to slip through anti-submarine defenses and sink American aircraft carriers in war games. Of course, such feats have also been performed by nuclear submarines.
Endurance:
Nuclear submarines can operate underwater for three or four months at a time and cross oceans with ease. While some conventional submarines can handle the distance, none have comparable underwater endurance.
AIP submarines have narrowed the gap, however. While old diesel submarines needed to surface in a matter of hours or a few days at best to recharge batteries, new AIP powered vessels only need to surface every two to four weeks depending on type. (Some sources make the unconfirmed claim that the German Type 214 can even last more than 2 months.) Of course, surfaced submarines, or even those employing a snorkel, are comparatively easy to detect and attack.
Nuclear submarines still have a clear advantage in endurance over AIP boats, particularly on the long-distance patrols. However, for countries like Japan, Germany and China that mostly operate close to friendly shores, extreme endurance may be a lower priority.
Speed:
Speed remains an undisputed strength of nuclear-powered submarines. U.S. attack submarine may be able to sustain speeds of more than 35 miles per hour while submerged. By comparison, the German Type 214’s maximum submerged speed of 23 miles per hour is typical of AIP submarines.
Obviously, high maximum speed grants advantages in both strategic mobility and tactical agility. However, it should be kept in mind that even nuclear submarines rarely operate at maximum speed because of the additional noise produced.
On the other hand, an AIP submarine is likely to move at especially slow speeds when cruising sustainably using AIP compared to diesel or nuclear submarines. For example, a Gotland class submarine is reduced to just 6 miles per hour if it wishes to remain submerged at maximum endurance—which is simply too slow for long distance transits or traveling with surface ships. Current AIP technology doesn’t produce enough power for higher speeds, and thus most AIP submarines also come with noisy diesel engines as backup.
Cost:
Who would have guessed nuclear reactors are incredibly expensive? The contemporary U.S. Virginia class attack submarine costs $2.6 billion dollars, and the earlier Los Angeles class before it around $2 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. Mid-life nuclear refueling costs add millions more.
By comparison, AIP powered submarines have generally cost between $200 and $600 million, meaning a country could easily buy three or four medium-sized AIP submarines instead of one nuclear attack submarine. Bear in mind, however, that the AIP submarines are mostly small or medium sized vessels with crews of around 30 and 60 respectively, while nuclear submarines are often larger with crews of 100 or more. They may also have heavier armament, such as Vertical Launch Systems, when compared to most AIP powered vessels.
Nevertheless, a torpedo or missile from a small submarine can hit just as hard as one fired from a large one, and having three times the number of submarine operating in a given stretch of ocean could increase the likelihood chancing upon an important target, and make it easier to overwhelm anti-submarine defenses.
Key point: Air Independent Propulsion technology has significantly narrowed the performance gap on a new generation of submarines
While AIP vessels may not be able to do everything a nuclear submarine can, having a larger fleet of submarines would be very useful in hunting opposing ships and submarines for control of the seas. Nor would it be impossible to deploy larger AIP powered submarines; China has already deployed one, and France is marketing a cheaper AIP-powered version of the Barracuda-class nuclear attack submarine.
It is no surprise that navies that operate largely around coastal waters are turning to cheap AIP submarines, as their disadvantage are not as relevant when friendly ports are close at hand. The trade off in range and endurance is more problematic for the U.S. Navy, which operates across the breadth of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. This may explain why the U.S. Navy has shown little inclination to return to non-nuclear submarines. However, AIP submarines operating from forward bases would represent a very cost-effective and stealthy means to expand the Navy’s sea-control mission.
Sébastien Roblin holds a Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring. This first appeared in December 2018.
Image: Reuters.
Sorry I missed your post. Pls explain what you wrote.
especially when they squat to shit, then flush. it’s only in the pla navy that sailors are taught to flush.
Propulsion system can be heard on sonar. China submarine very low tech.
US is best UK France and Russia also good
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...as-nuclear-subs-too-noisy-for-their-own-good/
Are China’s Nuclear Subs Too Noisy for Their Own Good?
An incident in the East China Sea has observers wondering if China’s nuke boats have a noise problem.
BY KYLE MIZOKAMI
JAN 29, 2018
JAPAN MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
Earlier this month, a Chinese nuclear-powered attack submarine surfaced in the East China Sea. The submarine, flying a huge Chinese flag, surfaced after being followed by Japanese naval forces. The incident raises a question: Are Chinese nuclear submarines too loud for their own good?
China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy operates between six and thirteen Shang class nuclear attack submarines. Also known as the Type 093 class, the Shang boats are 361 feet long, displace 7,716 tons of water submerged, and can dive to up to 2,296 feet. The submarines are powered by two pressurized water nuclear reactors, allowing them to make 30 knots submerged, and have six 533-millimeter torpedo tubes for anti-ship and anti-submarine attacks and vertical launch silos for land attack cruise missiles.
On January 12th, a Shang-class submarine surfaced within the Exclusive Economic Zone around Japan’s Senkaku islands. (See image above.) The islands, which China claims and calls the Diaoyu islands, have been a bone of contention between the two countries since 2010. The two countries mostly enforce their competing claims by sailing coast guard vessels near the islands. This was the first time a submarine is known to have operated in the area.
The South China Morning Post, in an article on the incident, states the Shang-class submarine involved in the incident had been followed for the previous two days by ships and aircraft of the Maritime Self Defense Force, Japan’s navy. The submarine operated submerged within 24 miles of the Senkaku islands, technically Japanese waters. It then moved out of Japanese waters, surfaced and proudly flew a large Chinese flag, and went home. The incident led the SCMP to ask whether the submarine surfaced because it had been detected or if the event was a publicity stunt on behalf of the Chinese government?
In the world of submarines, quietness is everything and can make the difference between being the hunter or the hunted. The Shang class, according to Chinese sources, is about as quiet as the improved Los Angeles class attack submarines, nuclear attack boats produced for the U.S. Navy between 1985 and 1996. The U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence estimates the Shang is noisier than the Russian Victor III class submarines, 25 of which were produced between 1977 and 1991. Only four remain in service today, replaced by quieter, more modern designs.
Being only twenty years behind U.S. subs may not sound like a bad place to be, especially for a rising power like China, but the U.S. made some major advances in submarine quieting technology during the late 1980s and 1990s. The latest Virginia class submarines are so quiet they’re described as “quieter at 25 knots than the Los Angeles class at pierside.”
A Chinese Navy submarine in Hong Kong in 2004, flying a much smaller and more typically sized national flag than the one recently flown in the East China Sea.
The SCMP’s experts are divided as to what caused the sub to surface, with some thinking it was intentional and others disagreeing. But clearly, if Japanese air and naval forces had been able to track the submarine for two days before the surfacing, the Shang class is too noisy. A more suitable question might be, was it the Chinese government’s intention for the submarine to surface, or was the submarine forced to surface due to technical problems?
Either is a possibility, as China’s military is prone to excessively displays—such as flying an unusually large flag the first time a nuclear-powered submarine sails near the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands—and China’s military equipment, particularly complex systems, often don’t meet Western standards for safety and quality. In 2003, all 70 Chinese sailors aboard a Chinese diesel electric submarine died during a training accident. The submarine reportedly drifted for days before a fishing boat came upon the lifeless vessel.
Regardless, the fact that Japanese forces were able to track China’s latest nuclear attack submarine continuously for two days does not exactly instill confidence in the submarine’s abilities. Still, a public failure like this does have an upside. As one SCMP expert pointed out, “It’s not so bad that they’ve been exposed, it could push the Chinese to work harder on making the submarines quieter.” And China, which is in the middle of an unprecedented military modernization, is undoubtedly working on a design to replace the Shang-class.
no matter how quiet the next generation of pla subs will be, it’ll still be noisy with tiong submariners clearing their throats after waking up from their wet dreams.Propulsion system can be heard on sonar. China submarine very low tech.
US is best UK France and Russia also good
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...as-nuclear-subs-too-noisy-for-their-own-good/
Are China’s Nuclear Subs Too Noisy for Their Own Good?
An incident in the East China Sea has observers wondering if China’s nuke boats have a noise problem.
BY KYLE MIZOKAMI
JAN 29, 2018
JAPAN MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
Earlier this month, a Chinese nuclear-powered attack submarine surfaced in the East China Sea. The submarine, flying a huge Chinese flag, surfaced after being followed by Japanese naval forces. The incident raises a question: Are Chinese nuclear submarines too loud for their own good?
China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy operates between six and thirteen Shang class nuclear attack submarines. Also known as the Type 093 class, the Shang boats are 361 feet long, displace 7,716 tons of water submerged, and can dive to up to 2,296 feet. The submarines are powered by two pressurized water nuclear reactors, allowing them to make 30 knots submerged, and have six 533-millimeter torpedo tubes for anti-ship and anti-submarine attacks and vertical launch silos for land attack cruise missiles.
On January 12th, a Shang-class submarine surfaced within the Exclusive Economic Zone around Japan’s Senkaku islands. (See image above.) The islands, which China claims and calls the Diaoyu islands, have been a bone of contention between the two countries since 2010. The two countries mostly enforce their competing claims by sailing coast guard vessels near the islands. This was the first time a submarine is known to have operated in the area.
The South China Morning Post, in an article on the incident, states the Shang-class submarine involved in the incident had been followed for the previous two days by ships and aircraft of the Maritime Self Defense Force, Japan’s navy. The submarine operated submerged within 24 miles of the Senkaku islands, technically Japanese waters. It then moved out of Japanese waters, surfaced and proudly flew a large Chinese flag, and went home. The incident led the SCMP to ask whether the submarine surfaced because it had been detected or if the event was a publicity stunt on behalf of the Chinese government?
In the world of submarines, quietness is everything and can make the difference between being the hunter or the hunted. The Shang class, according to Chinese sources, is about as quiet as the improved Los Angeles class attack submarines, nuclear attack boats produced for the U.S. Navy between 1985 and 1996. The U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence estimates the Shang is noisier than the Russian Victor III class submarines, 25 of which were produced between 1977 and 1991. Only four remain in service today, replaced by quieter, more modern designs.
Being only twenty years behind U.S. subs may not sound like a bad place to be, especially for a rising power like China, but the U.S. made some major advances in submarine quieting technology during the late 1980s and 1990s. The latest Virginia class submarines are so quiet they’re described as “quieter at 25 knots than the Los Angeles class at pierside.”
A Chinese Navy submarine in Hong Kong in 2004, flying a much smaller and more typically sized national flag than the one recently flown in the East China Sea.
The SCMP’s experts are divided as to what caused the sub to surface, with some thinking it was intentional and others disagreeing. But clearly, if Japanese air and naval forces had been able to track the submarine for two days before the surfacing, the Shang class is too noisy. A more suitable question might be, was it the Chinese government’s intention for the submarine to surface, or was the submarine forced to surface due to technical problems?
Either is a possibility, as China’s military is prone to excessively displays—such as flying an unusually large flag the first time a nuclear-powered submarine sails near the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands—and China’s military equipment, particularly complex systems, often don’t meet Western standards for safety and quality. In 2003, all 70 Chinese sailors aboard a Chinese diesel electric submarine died during a training accident. The submarine reportedly drifted for days before a fishing boat came upon the lifeless vessel.
Regardless, the fact that Japanese forces were able to track China’s latest nuclear attack submarine continuously for two days does not exactly instill confidence in the submarine’s abilities. Still, a public failure like this does have an upside. As one SCMP expert pointed out, “It’s not so bad that they’ve been exposed, it could push the Chinese to work harder on making the submarines quieter.” And China, which is in the middle of an unprecedented military modernization, is undoubtedly working on a design to replace the Shang-class.
WOW Comrade Tan of the CCP I notice that you PRCs are very upset and sour all the time. It seems you dont understand what happiness is. Must be total hell being a PRC like you, but funny for us to watch
Yahlah... CCP Comrade Pei when did u get dumped by CCP? Nowadays kpkb at CCP become they fuck yr wify is it.
But Comrade Tan, its not good to denounce your masters as such - the CCP will remember you for a long time and lets hope they dont treat you like this
Now now Comrade Tan of the CCP dont try to deflect, we know your CCP tricks, wont work, but instead here is another one for us to laugh at your expense
Comrade Pei, is that yr dotter or wify get shot?
Jintulan CCP now siboh .... How can we help you?
Jintulan CCP now siboh .... How can we help you?
Now now Comrade Tan of the CCP no deflection, wont work we know your CCP tricks, why the PRCs like to smuggle drugs so much ? Drugs traffickers very bad you know
US sanctions Chinese national accused of trafficking fentanyl
US Treasury says Taotao Zhang, a chemist and chemical supplier, had shipped illicit synthetic opioids to the US.
25 Aug 2020
![The US accuses China of being the main source of illegal fentanyl, a charge Beijing rejects [File: Brian Snyder/Reuters]](https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdxxlarge/mritems/Images/2020/8/25/aee1552f86f94902858e4e0ccbef81b7_18.jpg "The US accuses China of being the main source of illegal fentanyl, a charge Beijing rejects [File: Brian Snyder/Reuters]")
The US accuses China of being the main source of illegal fentanyl, a charge Beijing rejects [File: Brian Snyder/Reuters]
MORE ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
- Teva poised to face US charges in drug price-fixing probelast week
- US states seek $2.2 trillion from OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma2 weeks ago
- Doctor's Note: Are vaccine efforts against COVID-19 succeeding?3 weeks ago
- Trump to sign exec order aimed at reshoring drug production to USlast month
Taotao Zhang, a chemist and chemical supplier, had shipped illicit synthetic opioids to the US, Treasury said in a statement. The Treasury also blacklisted Hong Kong-based Allyrise Technology Group Co, Limited, of which Zhang is director, accusing it of being a front-company for his financial transactions.
Fentanyl is a cheap opioid painkiller 50 times more potent than heroin that has played a significant role in an addiction crisis in the US, where more than 28,000 synthetic opioid-related overdose deaths were recorded in 2017.
US officials say China is the main source of illicit fentanyl. President Donald Trump has accused Chinese President Xi Jinping of failing to meet promises to help stop the flow of the drug into the US, a charge Beijing rejects.
"The United States remains committed to protecting vulnerable Americans by targeting individuals peddling this deadly drug," Treasury Deputy Secretary Justin Muzinich said.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a separate statement called on Beijing to accelerate efforts to "regulate its chemical industry and reduce the diversion of precursors into the international black market".
"The United States continues to seek cooperation with the PRC to tackle this supply chain threat," Pompeo said.
Tuesday's action freezes any US assets of Zhang and the Hong Kong-based company and generally bars Americans from dealing with them.
The Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control said it coordinated the move with the US Attorney's Office for New Jersey and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
SOURCE: REUTERS NEWS AGENCY
Now now Comrade Tan of the CCP no deflection, wont work we know your CCP tricks, why the PRCs like to smuggle drugs so much ? Drugs traffickers very bad you know
US sanctions Chinese national accused of trafficking fentanyl
US Treasury says Taotao Zhang, a chemist and chemical supplier, had shipped illicit synthetic opioids to the US.
25 Aug 2020
The US accuses China of being the main source of illegal fentanyl, a charge Beijing rejects [File: Brian Snyder/Reuters]
MORE ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
The US Treasury Department on Tuesday imposed sanctions on a Chinese national whom it accused of trafficking fentanyl to the United States.
- Teva poised to face US charges in drug price-fixing probelast week
- US states seek $2.2 trillion from OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma2 weeks ago
- Doctor's Note: Are vaccine efforts against COVID-19 succeeding?3 weeks ago
- Trump to sign exec order aimed at reshoring drug production to USlast month
Taotao Zhang, a chemist and chemical supplier, had shipped illicit synthetic opioids to the US, Treasury said in a statement. The Treasury also blacklisted Hong Kong-based Allyrise Technology Group Co, Limited, of which Zhang is director, accusing it of being a front-company for his financial transactions.
Fentanyl is a cheap opioid painkiller 50 times more potent than heroin that has played a significant role in an addiction crisis in the US, where more than 28,000 synthetic opioid-related overdose deaths were recorded in 2017.
US officials say China is the main source of illicit fentanyl. President Donald Trump has accused Chinese President Xi Jinping of failing to meet promises to help stop the flow of the drug into the US, a charge Beijing rejects.
"The United States remains committed to protecting vulnerable Americans by targeting individuals peddling this deadly drug," Treasury Deputy Secretary Justin Muzinich said.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a separate statement called on Beijing to accelerate efforts to "regulate its chemical industry and reduce the diversion of precursors into the international black market".
"The United States continues to seek cooperation with the PRC to tackle this supply chain threat," Pompeo said.
Tuesday's action freezes any US assets of Zhang and the Hong Kong-based company and generally bars Americans from dealing with them.
The Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control said it coordinated the move with the US Attorney's Office for New Jersey and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
SOURCE: REUTERS NEWS AGENCY
Peiwah is LaoTze who loved copy long cut and paste texts creating bad user experiences here.
Now now Comrade Tan of the CCP here is an oldie but goodie for you. The simple fact that PRC lied to us and now we have to wear masks
A
The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced
thumbnail
American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.
By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.
According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.
The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.
One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.
The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.
Scroll down for more ... {4}
The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.
And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.
According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.
It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.
Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard".
The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels.
Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.
Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.
He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.
"It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan."
In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.
Ah tiongs that bad meh .?It because all PRC subs are crap
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...as-nuclear-subs-too-noisy-for-their-own-good/
Are China’s Nuclear Subs Too Noisy for Their Own Good?
An incident in the East China Sea has observers wondering if China’s nuke boats have a noise problem.
The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced
thumbnail
American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.
By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.
According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.
The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.
One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.
The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.
Scroll down for more ... {4}
The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.
And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.
According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.
It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.
Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard".
The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels.
Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.
Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.
He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.
"It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan."
In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.
Similar threads
