China sub secretly stalked U.S. fleet

rick_reno

Moderator
While it's apparently unusual for this to happen - the interesting part of this story is this "military intelligence officials said Adm. Fallon has restricted U.S. intelligence-gathering activities against China, fearing that disclosure of the activities would upset relations with Beijing." Did someone put Bill Clinton in charge of the Navy? This reads like something that buffoon would do.

China sub secretly stalked U.S. fleet
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned.
The surprise encounter highlights China's continuing efforts to prepare for a future conflict with the U.S., despite Pentagon efforts to try to boost relations with Beijing's communist-ruled military.
The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving relations between the two nations' militaries.
Disclosure of the incident comes as Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, is making his first visit to China. The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military leaders during the weeklong visit, which began over the weekend.
According to the defense officials, the Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the carrier Oct. 26.
The surfaced submarine was spotted by a routine surveillance flight by one of the carrier group's planes. The Kitty Hawk battle group includes an attack submarine and anti-submarine helicopters that are charged with protecting the warships from submarine attack.
According to the officials, the submarine is equipped with Russian-made wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles.
The Kitty Hawk and several other warships were deployed in ocean waters near Okinawa at the time, as part of a routine fall deployment program. The officials said Chinese submarines rarely have operated in deep water far from Chinese shores or shadowed U.S. vessels.
A Pacific Command spokesman declined to comment on the incident, saying details were classified.
Pentagon spokesmen also declined to comment.
The incident is a setback for the aggressive U.S.-China military exchange program being promoted by Adm. Fallon, who has made several visits to China in recent months in an attempt to develop closer ties.
However, critics of the program in the Pentagon say China has not reciprocated and continues to deny U.S. military visitors access to key facilities, including a Beijing command center. In contrast, Chinese military visitors have been invited to military exercises and sensitive U.S. facilities.

Additionally, military intelligence officials said Adm. Fallon has restricted U.S. intelligence-gathering activities against China, fearing that disclosure of the activities would upset relations with Beijing.
The restrictions are hindering efforts to know more about China's military buildup, the officials said.
"This is a harbinger of a stronger Chinese reaction to America's military presence in East Asia," said Richard Fisher, a Chinese military specialist with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, who called the submarine incident alarming.
"Given the long range of new Chinese sub-launched anti-ship missiles and those purchased from Russia, this incident is very serious," he said. "It will likely happen again, only because Chinese submarine captains of 40 to 50 new modern submarines entering their navy will want to test their mettle against the 7th Fleet."
Pentagon intelligence officials say China's military buildup in recent years has produced large numbers of submarines and surface ships, seeking to control larger portions of international waters in Asia, a move U.S. officials fear could restrict the flow of oil from the Middle East to Asia in the future.
Between 2002 and last year, China built 14 new submarines, including new Song-class vessels and several other types, both diesel- and nuclear-powered.
Since 1996, when the United States dispatched two aircraft carrier battle groups to waters near Taiwan in a show of force, Beijing also has bought and built weapons designed specifically to attack U.S. aircraft carriers and other warships.
"The Chinese have made it clear that they understand the importance of the submarine in any kind of offensive or defensive strategy to deal with a military conflict," an intelligence official said recently.
In late 2004, China dispatched a Han-class submarine to waters near Guam, Taiwan and Japan. Japan's military went on emergency alert after the submarine surfaced in Japanese waters. Beijing apologized for the incursion.
The Pentagon's latest annual report on Chinese military power stated that China is investing heavily in weapons designed "to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific."
It could not be learned whether the U.S. government lodged a protest with China's government over the incident or otherwise raised the matter in official channels.
 
Those Submariners are a sneaky bunch aren't they?

Would not surprise me to find out that the US Navy had something following the Chinese sub around as they played games with our fleet... not that we'd come right out and say anything like that ever happens of course...
 
Actually, this is nothing new. I was stationed on a destroyer (USS Manley, DD-940) in the early 70's, and Soviet subs sometimes shadowed us in the North Atlantic. (but we detected them ;) )

On several occasions, they surfaced a quarter mile off our beam, trying to provoke an "international incident". The old man had us lock down our 5" guns so that no "hostile" movement would be seen.

It was a sort of game, nothing more. On one occasion, a few of their sailors came out on deck and we dropped our drawers and mooned 'em. :D
 
These type occurrances are an almost normal occurrance in modern Naval Ops. I Spent 45 years in the USN and this was a relatively common activity between many different nations. What was the source of this revelation and the source of the claim that the US did not know it was there?
 
I once read an article in USNI Proceedings that in war games, Norwegian diesel subs could get periscope, close up pictures of our carriers quite regularly.

The take away story is that carriers are at risk from modern subs. The Brits were quite concerned with the Argentine subs. If the latter had their planned full complement of subs and Exocet missiles for the Etendards, the recovery of the Falklands might have been more bloody.
 
Not surprising, the US has really sliped in anti-submarine warfare. Modern Diesel subs are about as quiet as nuke subs when they run their diesels. When on batteries they are all but undetectable. Sure they are not as fast as nuke boats though speed is not much of an advantage for something that relies on stealth.

There is an article oneline that goes into depth on how the US navy would not survive against a country with a decent navy and subs. The PDF of this article has been taken offline, I'll have to find it on my other computers and host it on my ISP webspace.
 
If a diesel is going to sit there on the bottom and wait for the carrier to pass by then try to tail it there is not much that can be done. Depending on the depth, MAD detection and pinging the snot out of the ocean you may or may not find him.

The question is...

Is the nation who owns that sub willing to sacrafice it to take a carrier out of action for some length of time?

Now if China wanted to remove our naval presence from a specific theater, or at least go a longgggg way towards evening the playing field (assuming they have continued to develop thier blue water nacy) do any of you think trading 1, 2, 5 Chinese subs for one carrier would be considerred cost effective to the Chinese? I would say YES.

Bloody our noses and make any attempt to liberate the newly reacquired province of Formosa appear to be a very costly affair and what do you think the outcome will be? I would see us sinking a bunch of Chinese boats and yelling. Things would then calm down and people would start yelling for their $30 DVD players again.
 
One thing that I found interesting is that we are abandoning the S-3 Vikings so that ASW will only be based on helios or ship bases systems (if you are away from the P3's or their future replacement).

Now, I know nothing about this really :D - but I've read also that tests of how we would do against a modern sub fleet have been hidden. There was supposedly a war game against Iran in the Persian Gulf that came out funky for the carriers. Who knows?

Such a battle would lead to a major escalation to a WWIII conflict pretty quickly if major carriers were sunk.
 
Yeah, I don't understand the big deal about the Chinese sub stalking the US fleet. The only thing unusual is that it surfaced and let itself be known to the carrier group. It was simply a nice bit of brinksmanship to show the US that if so desired, the Chinese can be stealthy.

I love statements like this...

Beijing also has bought and built weapons designed specifically to attack U.S. aircraft carriers and other warships.

They aren't designed to specifically attack US ships. They are designed to attack ships, maybe, but the country of flagging doesn't really matter to the weapons. It just so happens that since that time, China's #1 potential enemy is the US. No doubt said weapons would work just fine against a British carrier or Australian warship.
 
They aren't designed to specifically attack US ships. They are designed to attack ships, maybe, but the country of flagging doesn't really matter to the weapons.

The weapons in question were designed for penetrating the AEGIS defense network of a carrier battle group. That's what the Russians designed them for, and what the tactics regarding their deployment were developed for. The Chinese have been purchasing the same weapons and deploying them in the same manner. So, it stands to reason that the anticipated target remains the same.
 
Maybe we could get Sandy Berger to heist the intelligence documents from the Chinese?

Naahhh. They have better sense than to grant him access to top secret info.
 
What are these weapons? Wake-homing torpedoes? Cruise missles? They are designed, as noted, for use against ships that are armed. Period. The Soviets,and the Chinese, much as us, are ADAPTING weapons for use against emerging threats.

By the way, I believe that we heard the same doom and gloom about the American Abrams tank in Gulf War I. The Soviet T72 was supposedly a "superior design" that was "going to cause major losses amongst American tanks". It didn't quite turn out that way, did it? The Soviet Navy was a modern, advanced, force, but we never thought that they'd beat us. Ship for ship, the American Navy is generally superior to that of the Chinese, and Soviets. The man-power is aslo better trained, and generally more experienced. :)
 
By the way, I believe that we heard the same doom and gloom about the American Abrams tank in Gulf War I. The Soviet T72 was supposedly a "superior design" that was "going to cause major losses amongst American tanks". It didn't quite turn out that way, did it?
When did we ever fight Soviet T-72's? Last I checked, we only fought Arab T-72's that had both relatively poorly trained and no night fighting ability. I believe Iraq got export versions of the T-72's that used an older model autoloader as well as other older equipment. The Iraqis also did not invest in the nessisary tooling and training to keep the tanks fully maintained. (Arabs do the same thing with weapon systems they buy from us.) Russia is still improving its tanks and comparing an Arab tank and tank crew to a Russian one is simply silly.

Improvements in anti-tank weapons are making the Abrams much more vulnerable. Newer tandem-warhead RPGs are designed to defeat Chobham and have, on at least one occasion, penetrated the side armor of an Abrams. (Older RPG warheads could only penitrate the rear and top armor.) The Abrams is also very vulnerable to Javelin type anti-armor missles that attack from the top where there is very little armor. We may have a monopoly on them today, but in 10-15 years down the road every two bit country might have some of them, be it ours or a forign design.

The Soviet Navy was a modern, advanced, force, but we never thought that they'd beat us.
The Soviets never tried to beat us on a ship by ship basis. They instead invested in diesel and nuke subs as well as smaller surface ships that would quickly render a battle fleet combat ineffective. They also relied on their nuclear deterrent, be it in the form of boomer subs, bombers, or ICBM's, to deter attack.

Ship for ship, the American Navy is generally superior to that of the Chinese, and Soviets.
Numerous exercises have shown that diesel boats are very dangerous to surface ships, regardless of how "good" they are.

The man-power is aslo better trained, and generally more experienced.
Generaly that is because it REQUIRES better training and experienced to operate our ships. I have never been on a boat bigger than ferry or operated on a diesel bigger than a farm truck, but I could probably be trained to operate and maintain the engines on a diesel sub without much effort. Being trained to babysit a pile of uranium requires MUCH more training and effort.

Sorry to sound like a pessimist, but the only reson we are the biggest kid on the block is that nobody has seriously tried to take us on in the last 50 years. (In a shooting war.) We just sail around and bomb small countries, then say to everyone that we are the best.
 
buzz, what do you expect...if it is AEGIS that we are talking about per se? The US began negotations at least as far back as 2000 to sell AEGIS equipped ships to Taiwan, maybe before that. Talks have continued since then, going back and forth with the possibility. Taiwan, of course, does not have great relations with China. China would not like Taiwan to have such a capability.

Even so, AEGIS is not just a US technology. It is also on Japanese Kongo class destroyers and Spanish F-100 frigates.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/kongo.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/aegis.htm

So if it is AEGIS about which we are speaking that China is targeting, then it is NOT just a US ship issue. Once again, the flag being flown over the technology is not the determining factor.
 
This sort of thing happens all the time. The only thing that makes this incident strange is that The Navy is talking about it.

Diesel subs are quiet and the Chinese are very accomplished warriors.
 
Like others said this kind of stuff happens more often than you think.

WHen my dad's friend was serving on Nimitz, they spotted Russian subs all the time in International water.

One more reason to boost our "military industrial complex" and stay on top of the game.
 
I also believe that it is just a little show of force.

If there is going to be a war with China, its going to be an economic one... Oh wait, you mean we're already in one?

I don't foresee the U.S. and China ever going into actual war per se, but they are our USSR from 20 years ago. There has to be a balance of power and I don't think its going to be the EU. They have enough friggin economic problems with their idiotic socialistic governments. I don't foresee how they could come up with the budget to put together a decent military force that would come close to even matching the U.S. military.

I believe that our military spending is almost one sixth of our GDP. That is a serious chunk of change. I can say with a high degree of certainty that our weapons technology is FAR superior to that of any nation. Crosshair, I don't think you need to lose sleep over our nation's defense. First of all, the Atlantic and Pacific form a nice cozy moat around the U.S. and trying to move massive amounts of troops onto US soil undetected is pretty much impossible.

Besides, if we ever really went to war with China, it would probably turn nuclear pretty quick. Then the only thing that will save us is our missle defense shield. I just hope that it is already fully operational and the US gov justs want to keep it hush hush.
 
I think this announcement by the Navy is an effort to bring attention to the fact that ASW warfare has been far down on the list of priorities at DoD since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I personally find it hard to believe that the Chinese sub went undetected. The two best Diesel-Electric boats the Chinese have are the Kilo's they bought from the Russians and the Song class. The Kilo is very quiet, especially the Project 636 and 877 boats, but both are still loud enough to be detected by our equipment. The Song class should be as quiet as the Kilo's but has problems.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, allot talking heads said we don't need such a large, expensive Navy. I think this is more the Navy trying to bring attention to the fact that the Chinese are building up their fleet, and that we need to keep improving our capabilites.
 
When did we ever fight Soviet T-72's? Last I checked, we only fought Arab T-72's that had both relatively poorly trained and no night fighting ability. I believe Iraq got export versions of the T-72's that used an older model autoloader as well as other older equipment. The Iraqis also did not invest in the nessisary tooling and training to keep the tanks fully maintained. (Arabs do the same thing with weapon systems they buy from us.) Russia is still improving its tanks and comparing an Arab tank and tank crew to a Russian one is simply silly.

Nice, but not correct. If you were alive in the early 1990s, you DO remember the gloom and doom about the T72 tank that was going to face our Abrams. They were Arab crewed, and were going to make us take major casualties. It was even in Newsweek.

Where did the idea of Russian supermen come from? Other than the Spesnatz, the Russian Army was a force of conscripts, as were the other branches. They tended to be barely trained, as they were barely literate. Look at the Russians "success" in Afghanistan. Russia is improving it's overall weaponry, true, but the rate of improvement is extremely slow due to the financial state of Russia. There are many comparisons that can be made between Russian and Arab militaries. The Arab militaries are pretty much modeled after the Russians. The Russians had the same problems with poorly-educated peasants as do the Arabs.

The Soviets never tried to beat us on a ship by ship basis. They instead invested in diesel and nuke subs as well as smaller surface ships that would quickly render a battle fleet combat ineffective. They also relied on their nuclear deterrent, be it in the form of boomer subs, bombers, or ICBM's, to deter attack.

Checked Jane's Fighting Ships in the last couple of decades? The Russian Blue-water Navy was comprised of truly large ships. They were even building full-size carriers at the end. The ability to maintain station-keeping duties and patrols requires a larger ship than a coastal force. The Russian subs were mainly nuclear, with the preponderance of diesel boats being built for export.

Numerous exercises have shown that diesel boats are very dangerous to surface ships, regardless of how "good" they are.

Yes, they are. The quietest sub currently in service is of German design,and a diesel. Quiet is the only advantage that they possess, though. They are smaller, carrying fewer sensors and weapons (in the Russian Model), slower both submerged as well as surfaced, and noisier when charging batteries than just about anything else. They are ambush predators. You have to know where the enemy is going to be to attack, and the attack must be pulled off perfectly. The average cruising speed of a carrier is 23 knots, which will outdistance a diesel boat quickly. Heck, numerous exercises have shown that uncharted reefs are very dangerous to both surface and subsurface ships, regardless of how "good" they are. Diesel boats are a specific threat, not a death-ray.

Generaly that is because it REQUIRES better training and experienced to operate our ships. I have never been on a boat bigger than ferry or operated on a diesel bigger than a farm truck, but I could probably be trained to operate and maintain the engines on a diesel sub without much effort. Being trained to babysit a pile of uranium requires MUCH more training and effort.

If you think that training you to handle a diesel will make you part of a crew, you're wrong. Crews are trained in multiple disciplines. They learn damage control, and cross-training in other skills is encouraged, as well as required. The American Navy has men and women who have been practicing these skills for literally decades. It's that type of experience that allows our ships to sustain damage, yet continue to operate.

Sorry to sound like a pessimist, but the only reson we are the biggest kid on the block is that nobody has seriously tried to take us on in the last 50 years. (In a shooting war.) We just sail around and bomb small countries, then say to everyone that we are the best.

Not a pessimist, rather one who has zero experience in what it takes to serve in a successful Navy. It's insulting to the men and women of the Navy, or any other branch of the Armed Services, to state what you do. There may be a reason why nobody in the past fifty years has tried to "take us on". Had the Soviet Union though for a minute that they could have won, we'd still be living with vast areas of radioactivity in America.

WHO is your mysterious force to "take us on"? The Chinese? They've never fought a war beyond their borders in thousands of years. They've never fought a modern war. Even fifty years ago, they required massive aid and training to throw off the Japanese yoke. The Russians? The old USSR is gone. The Warsaw Pact is gone. What remains is a shadow of it's former self. Without the resources and manpower of the client states, the Russian Federation no longer possesses the industrial base, or the manpower to mount a credible threat.

We don't "just sail around and bomb small countries, then say to everyone that we are the best". The American Navy is much more likely to be "sailing around" these small countries after they've suffered a natural disaster, and helping them. With your obvious distaste for the military, you and Kerry should get together for a little "planning session".
 
buzz, what do you expect...if it is AEGIS that we are talking about per se?

You said the weapons weren't designed to defeat American vessels. The weapons were specifically designed for that purpose by the Soviets. They were purchased by the Chinese with minimal modifications (we aren't discussing reengineered Silkworms but SS-N-22 Sunburns). So, the design intent is still there, whether or not the target has changed.

And the Chinese certainly don't need these kind of weapons to take on Taiwan or Japan. China can't invade either country, but it's military capacity is certainly capable of taking out either fleet because the Taiwanese and Japanese do not have the numbers of ships nor the depth of protection one of our CBGs has. Adding the current generation of weapons is sort of like gilding the lily. Maybe it's designed just for show or to influence its neighbors, or maybe (as quite a few in the field are indicating) it's intended to inform the US that the CBG is no longer safe in what China considers its playing ground.
 
Back
Top