China sub secretly stalked U.S. fleet

Somebody's basing all their "theories" on information from "A Hunt for Red October", which was fraught with technical fallacies.

Do you guys really think that the U.S. Navy depends on passive listening devices for detecting underwater threats?? Anybody here ever use a fishfinder? How much noise does a minnow make @ 300'? Do you really think that the Chinese sub WASN'T detected, just based on a news report? Gimme a break!
 
I wonder if the Chinese subscribe to Defensewatch...lol

The article triggered a memory of a column done back in Feb 2002.

http://www.sftt.org/dw02062002.html

In particular, the HDW and MESMA systems are extremely quiet - far quieter than any nuclear/steam plant. Combined with a state-of-the art sensing system and appropriate weapons, such a sub would be a formidable opponent for any nuke.

When operating in littoral waters, ice margins, straits, and other global "choke points," AIP submarines can be particularly formidable. New underwater weapons will help equalize any remaining differences between AIP and nuclear subs. The U.S. Navy may wish to reassess its plan to build a fleet of 18 new Virginia class subs for a total of about $29 billion, when, for about half this cost, it could build a fleet of 30 AIP subs and the four already budgeted Virginia class subs.

One of the points made in the article is that the new submarines are being designed for multi mission capability to save money. Anybody remember the F-111, it was supposed to the the all purpose plane for the Air Force and Navy. When you design stuff for multiple capacities you paly a little give in take. In the game of submarine warfare too much take and you could be drinking coffee with Davey Jones....arrrrrrr
 
"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."

I certainly remember it. The implication was that the United States wouldn't have enough body bags to contain all of the US tankers killed when the super sophisticated T-72, manned by highly trained, super effective Arabs walked all over it.

And, if you're old enough, you'll also remember the furor over the Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the 1970s and 1980s. According to the military pundits, the Bradley would, if brought into a combat theater, immediately go super critical and detonate, and would kill hundreds, if not thousands, of US troops. God forbid that the enemy actually shoot at one. Then the carnage would be unimaginable, probably square miles of desolation and destruction...

Tom Clancy books are fun fantasy.

But I fear that they have really contributed to the unrealistic expectations that so many have of the US military and its capabilities.
 
"They've never fought a war beyond their borders in thousands of years."

Last time I looked, Korea wasn't inside of China's borders.

In October 1950 the Chinese, in response to what was seen as American agression, and out of fear of an American-backed unified Korea on its border, pushed nearly half a million soldiers across the Yalu River and into Korea.

Over the next several months the combined Chinese army (led by their own Generals and fighting as distinct units), pushed UN forces totally out of North Korea, and Chinese forces occupied Seoul.

Chinese troops fought in Korea until the armistice in 1953.
 
The fear of the Soviets was not mainly the superiority of equipment but the numbers of tanks and troops they could field at one time. Take into account that it would have taken days to get our troops from the US to Europe to fight.

Now Arabs in Soviet equipment is an entirely different.
 
There are analyses out there that the real threat to Taiwan is a missile bombardment of its ports and facilities such that their economy and further foreign investment is ruined. That is the deterrent to declaring independence.

The ability to deter our carriers is so that if we decided to attack Chinese costal or reasonably inland missile batteries, air fields, etc. in the course of the attack on Taiwan, we would be deterred as the carriers are too vulnerable.
 
China wants Taiwan back. The question is how to get it back without killing the cash cow. Taiwan has about 100 billion invested in mainland China. I wonder how much Taiwan brings into China above the investments? What about the stuff that China exports from Taiwan indirectly? Bombing Taiwan would be like shooting yourself in the foot if you were the Chinese. yes they would hinder the Taiwanese economy but China would take a hit too in the pocketbook.
 
Sorry, Mike, I'll edit that to say that the Chinese haven't fought a war more than 500 miles outside of their borders, and then only one.

Modern warfare is a mess. The life expectancy of most systems is measured in minutes after contact.

The use of AIP craft is great, and they have the advantage in littoral waters. However, they lack the speed, endurance, and overall stealth of a nuclear boat. They have to recharge batteries, not as often, but they still do. They are slower in all modes, requiring longer to get on station. They still require refueling, and the vessels to do that. With today's satellite coverage, any of those could cause recognition and destruction. The nuclear boats provide an anti-sub coverage for the Battle Group, and can easily keep up. They also are a strong offensive capability for the same Battle Group.

Every time that the military establishes a standard, somebody is telling us that they are too big, too vulnerable, too expensive, and so on. Truth be known, they tend to work better then the naysayers ever imagined.:)
 
Anti Sub Warfare capabilities were removed from the S-3 Viking years ago. Their function now is as an aerial refueler, radar platform and a device for converting jet fuel into smoke. The new F/A-18 E&F "Super Hornet," performs all of the functions of the S-3, cheaper, better, faster, more efficiently, the list goes on and on. I have a bit of knowledge in this subject, I am a retired USN Aerospace Engineering Tech who was an Engineering Field Rep for the S-3 and my last major project, prior to retirement, was working to make the Super Hornet's Tanking capability a reality.
 
Sorry, Mike, I'll edit that to say that the Chinese haven't fought a war more than 500 miles outside of their borders, and then only one.

JR47, that needs to be changed to two. Remember the Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1979. The Vietnamese beat their asses.:D
 
Anti Sub Warfare capabilities were removed from the S-3 Viking years ago. Their function now is as an aerial refueler, radar platform and a device for converting jet fuel into smoke. The new F/A-18 E&F "Super Hornet," performs all of the functions of the S-3, cheaper, better, faster, more efficiently, the list goes on and on.


tegemu,

Can the Super Hornet carry sono-buoys and MAD? Just curious.
 
The Chinese were not just fighting the Vietnamese in the 70's...

They fought them on-and-off for several hundered years before the British and French moved into the neighborhood temporarily.

The Chinese already have the capability to scare off our carrier battle-groups. Our own wargames have shown that we have no way to deal with large numbers of cruise missiles and, to a lesser extent, aircraft. Of course it's not like we learned anything from that wargame considering that it was called off, restructured, and restarted as soon as it became obvious that the simulated US force was loosing. I believe the commander of the OpFor was chastised and reassigned.

Once the Naval version of the JSF is brought into the game things may improve. Hopefully, we can keep our tactics up-to-date with the new technology.
 
Can the Super Hornet carry sono-buoys and MAD? Just curious.

I'm not engineer, but I'm pretty sure that would be a negative.

With the retirement of the S-3, CBGs will be restricted to onboard sensors and ASW helicopters. The fixed wing assets (until/unless an ASW variant of the Osprey comes on line) will be the P-3 and its replacement.
 
It appears we're a little more concerned about China's ability to stalk us then the earlier in this thread suggesting it was just another game played out at see that happens all the time ...

----------

Defenses on subs to be reviewed

By Bill Gertz

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 14, 2006


Navy officials confirmed yesterday that an aircraft carrier battle group failed to detect a Chinese submarine that surfaced within weapons range of the USS Kitty Hawk. Anti-submarine defenses for the carrier battle group will be reviewed as a result, they said.

"It was not detected," said one Navy official of the encounter with a Chinese diesel-powered attack submarine. "And we're concerned about that, obviously."

The Chinese Song-class attack submarine surfaced near the carrier in deep waters off Okinawa on Oct. 26. It was armed with wake-homing torpedos and anti-ship cruise missiles.

The officials said it was unusual for the submarine to be operating in deep ocean waters, but the incident was not like the April 2001 collision of a U.S. EP-3 surveillance aircraft and Chinese F-8 jet that ruptured military ties.

"We were operating in international waters, and they were operating in international waters," the official said. "From that standpoint, nobody was endangering anybody. Nobody felt threatened."

However, other defense officials said the submarine surfacing was a provocative action by the Chinese military, which has placed a high priority on practicing anti-aircraft-carrier operations against U.S. carriers and warships in preparation for a possible future conflict over Taiwan.

The carrier was not engaged in anti-submarine warfare exercises at the time and thus did not have active patrols for submarines, the Navy official said. As a result, submarine defenses for the carrier and its accompanying warships will be reviewed, he said.

The submarine was spotted by carrier-based aircraft conducting routine surveillance.

The submarine encounter also took U.S. intelligence agencies by surprise because of years of analyses that continue to portray a benign China, said a defense official.

"Our China analysts appeared to be stunned that China would shadow a U.S. carrier as far away as Okinawa," the defense official said.

The Japan-based Kitty Hawk and associated warships are the only Asia-based battle group and would be the first to respond to a crisis concerning Taiwan, which China has threatened with force in the past.

The encounter also was unusual because Chinese submarines normally do not operate in deep waters, both officials said.

"From our standpoint, ... it shows that they continue to develop blue-water capabilities," the Navy official said.

Pentagon and military officials initially declined to discuss anything about the submarine incident, claiming details were classified. Some details were then disclosed after The Washington Times reported the encounter in yesterday's editions.

Disclosure of the submarine encounter comes as the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Adm. Gary Roughead, is visiting China for meetings with Chinese military officials.

A Pacific Fleet spokesman said Adm. Roughead could not be reached yesterday on whether he planned to raise the submarine encounter during talks with the Chinese.

Adm. Roughead told reporters in Beijing yesterday that he hopes to better understand the intentions behind China's naval buildup during his weeklong visit.

"When asked if the PLA navy is a threat, I've been on the record as saying no," the four-star admiral said, referring to Chinese forces, the People's Liberation Army. "But I really would like to know what the intent is in some of the developments that I see in the PLA navy."

Adm. Roughead is in China as the U.S. and Chinese militaries conduct a joint search-and-rescue operation exercise.

The visit is part of an ambitious program being promoted by the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, to develop closer ties with the Chinese military.

The program has been plagued by a lack of reciprocity on the part of China's military, which continues to refuse U.S. military visitors to key military facilities or to observe military exercise. By contrast, the U.S. military has given Chinese military visitors access to sensitive U.S. facilities and military exercises.

Also, China is continuing to block U.S. military officials from visiting a secret underground command center in Beijing known as the Western Hills.

Adm. Roughead is scheduled to meet Chinese navy commander Vice Admiral Wu Shengli and the commander of the South China Sea Fleet. Those talks could shed light on China's aggressive naval buildup.

"Clearly, the growth in the capacity and capability of the navy since I've first been exposed to it in the '90s, the ability to go into the blue water is very, very clear," he said. "I look forward to having discussions about what the vision is and perhaps what some of the operating doctrine might be."

William Tripplett, a former Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff specialist on China, said the failure to track the submarine was alarming.

"China's tracking of the Kitty Hawk, undetected by U.S. Navy anti-submarine warfare assets, is a shocking development," he said.
 
Id tend to believe the chinese sub was the one being watched.Id believe that they knew it was there and if it were to arm its weapons and begin to open a door, it would have been deep six'd.
 
The encounter also was unusual because Chinese submarines normally do not operate in deep waters, both officials said.

"From our standpoint, ... it shows that they continue to develop blue-water capabilities," the Navy official said.

That is what has them nervous. Historically, the PLAN (the Peoples Liberation Army Navy) was accurately portrayed as being a glorified coastal patrol. They are gaining experience and expertise that is allowing them to project force. Unfortunately, we've been dedicating ourself to littoral combat, while the Chinese have been working on blue water capability.

I wonder how much longer before their SSBNs and cruise missile subs are actually going to be able to go on patrol.
 
Old news. For decades a state of war has existed below the surface between the US and USSR. It would occasionally break into the open. USSR is gone replaced by Russia who is now supplier of arms to China. There is no reason to think the US deals with Chinese subs any differently than they did with USSR subs. Every single one was ID'd, catalogued, and fingerprinted. They were routinely followed. Popular theory is Chinese subs are typically brown water. Now we have one in blue water. Did the Chinese just change doctrine, or did the US just get to follow around a genuine blue water sub. IIRC every deployed US carrier has one to two subs roaming about for the purpose of anti-sub operations.

I smell a little disinformation in the article. Yes, a Chinese sub surfaced within missile range of a carrier. Yes, a "routine" surveillance flight spotted the sub. Did anyone ask about our guard subs or have we stopped the practice. Lemme ask a question. Who benefits from a story of this kind? China? maybe so. But so does the navy if indeed anti-sub operations have been cut back. Is it possible the pentagon now wants to go public with the FACT that China is a military threat to the US. What better way stoke interest in additional funding than to tell 'Muricans one of their carriers was taken by surprise. Carriers are a symbol of US power and for that reason the Chinese would love to sink one. ;)
 
One should have a long view of history. The Chinese, IIRC, had a period of blue water exploration where they reach Africa with some mighty impressive ships and then they gave it up.

The Japanese had no blue water navy in the 1840's. By the 1900s they beat the Russian Navy, by the 40's they gave us a run for our money.

It's not really rocket science, over time the Chinese could be a blue water threat. However, with an increasing global economy, one hopes that pure military aggression on the WWII invasion scale is on the way out for the major powers. Taiwan is a unique situation.

Can one really see Midway like battles anymore?
 
I agree with you ,waitone


It's also kinda odd the US attack/hunter wouldnt have detected it neither.They all make noise.This "new design" is no exception,unless its props fell off.:D
 
Back
Top