View Full Version : chinese sub sneaks up
Just thourt you guys might be interested in this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=492804&in_page_id=1811
This incidence is from 2006 methinks?
Mmmh, i always thought that Carrier Battle Groups are relatively safe from Diesel submarines due to the high cruising speed of the first and the limited top-speed endurance of the latter. Obviously this is not the case and those diesel-electrics are in fact almost impossible to detect by passive means. I wonder if this could be the renaissance of active sonar ...
If that's true then LMAO, a bit like the dit on an RN Oberon boat that 'sank' a US carrier in the 70's.
Skybird
11-11-07, 02:32 PM
How often have I said that America is too drunk of technology, and too ignorrant to the capabilities of states like china and Inida, and that Russian and chinese missiles and submarines and fighters are far more capable and thus threatening for a US force than america believes is possible...?
Even if luck may have played a role here, I am not surprised. If there would be a future war between China and the US, about Taiwan for example, or ressources fields in the ocean, I would never take American victory for granted: it is a 50:50 issue, and the baöance is shifting to america'S disadvanatge, slwoly but surely. Hitech has not helped America to defeat enemies using most primitive, improvised weapons in the current two wars, nor seems the fact that the US spends as much or even more on military then the rest of the world together result in a comparable ammount of superiority.
And generally speaking, technological superiority can compensate for numerical inferiority only to a certain degree - and not beyond. Russian tank doctrine reflects that, and it was successful in WWII. the same debate was around number of fighterplanes during the cold war - where the numbers of assumed superior western fighters suffient to fight off the numerically superior Eastern fighter and bomber armada? I always had doubts on that.
Do I wish to say that america should spend even more on it's military? Hell, no. I just would plan to make wiser choices which wars to fight, and which ones we should better pass on in the future. Vietnam let america loose it's face, from all desasters, this was still relatively cheap. But Afghanistan let it loose the military respect for the nimbus of being invincible (after 91), like israel lost that nimbus in Lebanon löast year. And Iraq let America loose serious strategical options and longtermed strategic interests and perspectives - it has been the most costly of all American defeats ever. But a defeat against china could be far more costly than all these earlier desasters together. And I would say that continental china is no longer attackable anymore by conventional means.
Zayphod
11-12-07, 04:41 PM
How often have I said that America is too drunk of technology, and too ignorrant to the capabilities of states like china and Inida, and that Russian and chinese missiles and submarines and fighters are far more capable and thus threatening for a US force than america believes is possible...?
Even if luck may have played a role here, I am not surprised. If there would be a future war between China and the US, about Taiwan for example, or ressources fields in the ocean, I would never take American victory for granted: it is a 50:50 issue, and the baöance is shifting to america'S disadvanatge, slwoly but surely. Hitech has not helped America to defeat enemies using most primitive, improvised weapons in the current two wars, nor seems the fact that the US spends as much or even more on military then the rest of the world together result in a comparable ammount of superiority.
And generally speaking, technological superiority can compensate for numerical inferiority only to a certain degree - and not beyond. Russian tank doctrine reflects that, and it was successful in WWII. the same debate was around number of fighterplanes during the cold war - where the numbers of assumed superior western fighters suffient to fight off the numerically superior Eastern fighter and bomber armada? I always had doubts on that.
Based on the above, I can point to the Empire's Death Star: Defenses built around a large scale attack. A single snub fighter managed to get through.
As Mr. Scott was once heard saying: "The more they overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
Truer words were never spoken.
Despite the fact that I agree with the sentiment that the US military is often too ready to dismiss the technology of foreign powers, this event does not necessarily mean that Chinese subs will be able to sneak up on US carriers at will. For one thing, even a notoriously quiet diesel sub is noisy at the speeds needed to intercept a carrier battle group, which is often travelling at 30-plus knots into the wind to launch and recover aircraft. Then you have to consider the tactics of the sub defence screen.
Typically, the subs will screen the route ahead, and the flanks but not the rear, as to approach the baffles of a carrier would require a sub to be absolutley hammering it at 35 knots, something that the towed sonars on the surface fleet screen would almost certainly detect, even if the sub could make such a speed. So that leaves the possibility of the sub, 'lying in wait' or more likely having the carrier group roll over it purely by chance. In such a circumstance, the carrier's submarine escorts might possibly miss it purely by fluke, as they usually have very clearly defined operating areas. One example of this would be when a sub detects a possible threat; in order to warn the carrier without breaking off contact, it will invariably release a buoy signalling where the contact is, and if it chooses to allow the surface fleet to engage it, the sub will usually proceed to a pre-designated area near the carrier which is a 'no attack zone' so that the surface ships know that any contact in that area is friendly. Which means, if the Chinese sub had somehow chanced to be in that area, it would not have been actively sought. This is speculation of course, but it might explain things.
Regardless of whether that is the reason, there is a big difference between knowing where a carrier group is, and will be, in peacetime, to knowing these details in wartime. Often on exercises of this nature, the route is advertised quite a bit for safety reasons. An example of this is when military exercises take place in the North Sea, often this includes GPS signals being jammed as part of the exercise or some related test. Since this presents a danger to aircraft which may be using GPS for navigation, the information is released to pilots in the form of special NOTAMs (notices to airmen), which are available to Joe Public if he cares to go on the Civil Aviation Authority's website, as well as by other means, the same is true for the US and the FAA. The info is also made available to shipping too. So you don't have to be James Bond to work out that when you see one of those NOTAMs, there will likely be some navy ships in the affected area.
It's hard to imagine a military force releasing this kind of specific helpful information in a time of potential conflict.
Most military planners will probably welcome this news, as scaremongering like this tends to loosen budgetary purse strings for some piece of hardware the military have been wanting that was denied to them, and the release of this story may well have that motive behind it.
:D Chock
SUBMAN1
11-12-07, 06:14 PM
Exactly Chock - and in wartime, there would be a state of high alert - something not neccesarily present during a normal exercise. The fact that you can be shot at and killed seems to have an effect on crew performance during time of war.
Of course, SB's anti US rhetoric will tell me I'm wrong even though he knows I am right.
-S
PS. Germany was not beat by superior numbers - she was beat by lack of production capability - thanks to the Allies constant factory bombing bonanza. If Germany were able to replace its losses at maybe even 50% of it's manufacturing capacity, Russia would not have had the same chance. It may have been a much different war.
PPS. Cold and under-equipped was what cost Germany the war in the East. Not superior numbers.
Skybird
11-12-07, 06:47 PM
SB's anti-US rethoric, yeah, sure... how could it be anything else...
Like a frog sitting at the bottom of the well shaft, you will always believe the small round blue up there, high above your head, is all the world, nothing beyond it.
What Chock said in detail, and what I said in general, is not exclusive to each other.
SB's anti-US rethoric, yeah, sure... how could it be anything else...
Like a frog sitting at the bottom of the well shaft, you will always believe the small round blue up there, high above your head, is all the world, nothing beyond it.
What Chock said in detail, and what I said in general, is not exclusive to each other.
Yup.....Chock and SB are both right, get out of the well people. :up:
Most military planners will probably welcome this news, as scaremongering like this tends to loosen budgetary purse strings for some piece of hardware the military have been wanting that was denied to them, and the release of this story may well have that motive behind it.
Just like the space it took the USSR's program for us to start the space race. We had a working rocket and satellite built and ready for launch for a over a year before Sputnik was even launched. Eisenhower focused more a establishing the Corona program and allowed Russia to stet the legal president for flying satellites over foreign nations. It wasn't until after the dog in space congress started funding the space and started NASA.
Mmmh, i always thought that Carrier Battle Groups are relatively safe from Diesel submarines due to the high cruising speed of the first and the limited top-speed endurance of the latter. Obviously this is not the case and those diesel-electrics are in fact almost impossible to detect by passive means.
It was the Kitty Hawk (she is the last and only conventionally fueled aircraft carrier still in active service and will be diminished soon) Her top speed is 35 Knots but will cruise at around 20.
I'm also will to bet the navy knew the sub was there the entire time. The US is great at playing poker we rarely show our hand. During the cold war the Navy thumb on just about every sub leaving Russia.
Skybird
11-12-07, 07:25 PM
Yes, but the cold war is - history, and a longer time ago. I think some technological gaps are not as wide anymore as they once have been. Not necessarily focussing onon this incident when saying this.
High numbers have their charm, too.
waste gate
11-12-07, 07:29 PM
How does it go.....quantity has a quality all of its own.
Ishmael
11-12-07, 11:32 PM
We all have read of the exercises the US Navy did with the Goteborg-class D/E boat and the problems faced with detecting it. So I am looking at this report from a tincan sonarman's perspective. Obviously advances in D/E technology and anechoic coatings has fostered the growth of new classes of D/E subs virtually invisible to modern passive equipment. The incident reminds me of an exercise I was on aboard Elmer Montgomery with the Forrestal and a boomer from Charleston as the OPFOR. I had picked up a strong contact about 20 miles out from the carrier and had helos vectoring in to drop a sonobuoy pattern when a green flare popped up behind the carrier and the boomer popped up with a "we got you" message. We immediately asked who the guy we were pinging was. It turns out we found the Victor I that was shadowing the boomer.
The important thing to remember is how these subs would be used tactically. I would conjecture that the plan would be to station them as a picket line at the north and south entrances to the Taiwan Straits in the event of an invasion of Taiwan. It would be a similar strategy I would expect Iran to use in the Hormuz Straits in the event of a US attack.
Regarding countermeasures, all I can say is, "Bridge, sonar. Request permission to go active."
But make no mistake. This was a message to Washington from Beijing. "You're fleet is vulnerable."
We immediately asked who the guy we were pinging was. It turns out we found the Victor I that was shadowing the boomer.
Woah cool story there.
Europeans say "the chinese will be the next superpower"
Americans say "hahaha no way, whats a communist country with a poor population of rice farmers gonna do to our hightech godgiven military"
The chinese say nothing.
They act instead.
Americas nuclear arsenal is probably the one thing detering china from playing tougher. Their navy buildup in recent years, i think, is partly to control the pacific in any future conflicts. Their only real oppenents are the american bases in asia, and american ICBMS. And i doubt america would unleash their ICBMs unless backed into a corner.
Skybird
11-13-07, 06:52 AM
We all have read of the exercises the US Navy did with the Goteborg-class D/E boat and the problems faced with detecting it. So I am looking at this report from a tincan sonarman's perspective. Obviously advances in D/E technology and anechoic coatings has fostered the growth of new classes of D/E subs virtually invisible to modern passive equipment. The incident reminds me of an exercise I was on aboard Elmer Montgomery with the Forrestal and a boomer from Charleston as the OPFOR. I had picked up a strong contact about 20 miles out from the carrier and had helos vectoring in to drop a sonobuoy pattern when a green flare popped up behind the carrier and the boomer popped up with a "we got you" message. We immediately asked who the guy we were pinging was. It turns out we found the Victor I that was shadowing the boomer.
The important thing to remember is how these subs would be used tactically. I would conjecture that the plan would be to station them as a picket line at the north and south entrances to the Taiwan Straits in the event of an invasion of Taiwan. It would be a similar strategy I would expect Iran to use in the Hormuz Straits in the event of a US attack.
Regarding countermeasures, all I can say is, "Bridge, sonar. Request permission to go active."
But make no mistake. This was a message to Washington from Beijing. "You're fleet is vulnerable."
My thoughts exactly.
Skybird
11-13-07, 07:03 AM
Europeans say "the chinese will be the next superpower"
Americans say "hahaha no way, whats a communist country with a poor population of rice farmers gonna do to our hightech godgiven military"
The chinese say nothing.
They act instead.
Americas nuclear arsenal is probably the one thing detering china from playing tougher. Their navy buildup in recent years, i think, is partly to control the pacific in any future conflicts. Their only real oppenents are the american bases in asia, and american ICBMS. And i doubt america would unleash their ICBMs unless backed into a corner.
There still is Japan. They are not too huge in size of their fleet, but they are amongsat the ost modern militaries on the planet. They are modern enoigh to have a say in any future war in the area - and they are wise enough nevertheless to try establishing at least neutral relations with their big, huge neighbour. If this always could be maintained, remains to be seen. They could have their bites out of the Chinese navy. But the Chinese probably could chew the Japanese up, by numbers.
the more modern an army, the smaller in size it tends to be, and the greater the costs. You can't evade that formulal for infinite time. Ammo stocks in naval warfare are said to be spend very fast and quickly. The more a modern navy needs to fight, the more the balance is shifting against it, and the more the chances for the technically inferior but numerically superior faction are growing. This is especially true for China, since it is so huge in size that practically it cannot be threatened or attacked on land, and which is almost autark with reagard to food and basic industrial capacities - with the only exception of pil imports. Oil and gas are most likely the two factors that could trigger them to go to war. It then may be wrapped into a story of "freeing Taiwan", but Taiwan itself is third place in their strategic priorities only. The ressource areas in the Chinese sea are of far more concern to them.
Friedmann
11-13-07, 09:04 AM
Old story.
Diesel electric subs have been sinking US carriers in war games for decades its nothing new.
Australians
Germans
Chileans
Amongst others have done it on a number of occasions.
Just recently a canadian diesel electric sunk a British carrier during exercises.
I wonder whether naval warfare is starting to change to a point where carriers much like battleships at the start of the second world war are nothing but a big liability.
JSLTIGER
11-13-07, 10:15 AM
I wonder whether naval warfare is starting to change to a point where carriers much like battleships at the start of the second world war are nothing but a big liability.
In an entirely naval engagement, possibly. However, there is nothing like them in terms of their support of land operations. No other platform provides such options as an aircraft carrier, and no other platform allows for such a projection of force anywhere in the world even remotely near an ocean.
Well, carriers these days are a means of projecting power around the globe, which is fine against a tinpot regime that you can outgun and back into being afraid to even launch sorties. But in a global conflict, if it ever happened, I imagine they would be littering the bottom of the ocean in a matter of days, if not hours. Air burst a nuke within twenty miles of the thing and it would be game over for a carrier, if it didn't sink it, then it would probably fry every circuit on board the thing, which would be almost as effective, tactically.
In realistic terms, losing a carrier in such a conflict would be a moot point really, as it's not as if you'd be cruising back to San Fransisco for some pleasant shore leave after a global thermonuclear war. Still, the Navy likes big, powerful-looking ships, and they remain useful for localised conflicts, as evidenced by the UK getting two shiny new ones, these are only marginally smaller than the biggest US ones, and will certainly be more mission-capable for limited regional conflicts once they have the JSF issue resolved, although interestingly, they are not as fast as a big US carrier by a couple of knots or so.
But subs themselves initially have bigger fish to fry in a projected global conflict, for example, in the Cold War WW3 scenario, virtually all the US Hunter-Killer subs would have been heading straight for the Soviet bastions under the polar ice to try and locate the Soviet boomers before they could find somewhere to come up through the ice and loose off their nukes. There would sure as hell not be any F-18s trying to nip under the radar to strafe a Soviet missile base 500 miles inland.
:D Chock
Tchocky
11-13-07, 10:35 AM
There would sure as hell not be any F-18s trying to nip under the radar to strafe a Soviet missile base 500 miles inland.
Certainly not! The range of a legacy F-18 is about three big steps out the door.
Konovalov
11-13-07, 10:40 AM
There would sure as hell not be any F-18s trying to nip under the radar to strafe a Soviet missile base 500 miles inland.
Certainly not! The range of a legacy F-18 is about three big steps out the door.
Which makes me wonder why my governement acquired the old Hornet to defend the tiny country which is Australia. The Super Hornet is what the original should have always been. Sorry about that bit off topic.
Friedmann
11-13-07, 11:00 AM
Which makes me wonder why my governement acquired the old Hornet to defend the tiny country which is Australia. The Super Hornet is what the original should have always been. Sorry about that bit off topic.
Glad I am not the only Australian around who shakes his head at some of our defence procurements :)
SUBMAN1
11-13-07, 12:04 PM
...Regarding countermeasures, all I can say is, "Bridge, sonar. Request permission to go active."...There is your answer right there.
-S
Friedmann
11-13-07, 02:53 PM
...Regarding countermeasures, all I can say is, "Bridge, sonar. Request permission to go active."...There is your answer right there.
-S
Its not really that easy, what if you are in littoral waters? Heavy sea state? If active sonar was such an easy solution to this problem the USN wouldn't be leasing Swedish submarines and crews to try and work out how to combat them.
In the Australian documentary Submariners (awesome series btw) HMAS Rankin used volcanic walls and shore noise to avoid USN active sonar.
With increasingly advanced Anti-Shipping missiles (supersonic, stealth) and what seems to be pretty stagnant CIWS development you have to wonder whether at some point a carrier is going to get nailed.
Konovalov
11-13-07, 03:07 PM
In the Australian documentary Submariners (awesome series btw) HMAS Rankin used volcanic walls and shore noise to avoid USN active sonar..
Ah, I remember that episode. :rock: I remember how non-plussed many of the crew were with the news of a female sailor joining the crew in one episode. Haven't seen the whole series but I'm sure Sky will screen it again here in the UK.
SUBMAN1
11-13-07, 03:30 PM
Its not really that easy, what if you are in littoral waters? Heavy sea state? If active sonar was such an easy solution to this problem the USN wouldn't be leasing Swedish submarines and crews to try and work out how to combat them.
In the Australian documentary Submariners (awesome series btw) HMAS Rankin used volcanic walls and shore noise to avoid USN active sonar.
With increasingly advanced Anti-Shipping missiles (supersonic, stealth) and what seems to be pretty stagnant CIWS development you have to wonder whether at some point a carrier is going to get nailed.
Too a point, it is that easy. The only problem is the animal rights groups will have a field day if you went around pinging all the time like the US Navy used to. In time of war, I can bet you that active pinging will be the norm.
What people are forgetting here is that a ship cruising at a set speed of 30 knots is not listening on passive very well. That is the problem - turn the ping on and catch the DE sub sneaking up on you, or tick off the whale people?
As with everything, nothing works 100% of the time. THat is war. You will lose some assets. The ideal war however will involve the enemy loosing most of his assets with as little loss to your own as possible.
It is simply chess. Can the pawn take the queen? Sure it can. In this case however, one side of the table has a lot more peices to play with.
-S
Penelope_Grey
11-13-07, 04:00 PM
You make it sound so... harmless.
Chess? that's peoples sons and husbands and brothers not playing pieces.
SUBMAN1
11-13-07, 04:11 PM
You make it sound so... harmless.
Chess? that's peoples sons and husbands and brothers not playing pieces.What do you think the game of chess is based on? Never thought of that did you?
-S
Penelope_Grey
11-13-07, 04:23 PM
You make it sound so... harmless.
Chess? that's peoples sons and husbands and brothers not playing pieces.What do you think the game of chess is based on? Never thought of that did you?
-S
Is the second question rhetorical?:hmm:
I know Chess is based on war and tactics of...
But to say war is like chess, it just cheapens human life. I feel personally. Chess is ancient and was invented in a time when war was part of everyday life almost.
I don't think using a relic of the past to compare to modern day situations is right. That is my view personally.
SUBMAN1
11-13-07, 05:07 PM
Is the second question rhetorical?:hmm:
I know Chess is based on war and tactics of...
But to say war is like chess, it just cheapens human life. I feel personally. Chess is ancient and was invented in a time when war was part of everyday life almost.
I don't think using a relic of the past to compare to modern day situations is right. That is my view personally.There is no difference. That's the problem. THe chess board represents the battlefield. It was and is a tool to teach the warmaker the art of out strategizing. These same mentallities transfered to the war room. The chess peices were simply replaced with divisions of tanks, and air force's, etc. When a squad dies, an aircraft is shot down, ship sunk - the piece is removed from the board - just like chess. It is no different than chess. Peoples lives come down to a simple chess board - in real life.
Chess has not changed since the medieval times, just the maps are a little larger and the peices a little different looking.
As for the carriers, there ar 15 of them in this country so even though you may not like the idea, we can spare one or two in a major armed conflict. To the war planners, they would just remove that piece from the board and then try to work around the problem - chess on a much larger scale.
-S
Skybird
11-14-07, 07:06 PM
Haven't seen the whole series but I'm sure Sky will screen it again here in the UK.
Will I? :hmm:
:lol:
Konovalov
11-15-07, 06:00 AM
Haven't seen the whole series but I'm sure Sky will screen it again here in the UK.
Will I? :hmm:
:lol:
:lol: Ah, so you are Rupert Murdoch? :)
Friedmann
11-15-07, 10:56 AM
In the Australian documentary Submariners (awesome series btw) HMAS Rankin used volcanic walls and shore noise to avoid USN active sonar..
Ah, I remember that episode. :rock: I remember how non-plussed many of the crew were with the news of a female sailor joining the crew in one episode. Haven't seen the whole series but I'm sure Sky will screen it again here in the UK.
Its bloody fantastic, my favourite moment has to be when they win that exercise despite the USN cheating and start piping "Land Down Under" through the sub for the benefit of US sonar operators :)
bookworm_020
11-15-07, 05:04 PM
Haven't seen the whole series but I'm sure Sky will screen it again here in the UK.
Will I? :hmm:
:lol:
:lol: Ah, so you are Rupert Murdoch? :)
You can buy it on DVD from the ABC shop in Australia, just make sure your DVD player can cope.
http://shop.abc.net.au/browse/product.asp?productid=735300
Back to the thread topic, Even though it's old news about the chinese sub, you have to wonder about the wisdom of the USN in removing the S-3B Viking from the carriers. It's could cost them in the long run. Helicopters don't always have the speed or the range to deal with subs before they become a big threat.
waste gate
11-15-07, 05:22 PM
This is an old story (about a year ago), beyond that I very much doubt that if the Chicom navy had found a vulnerability, the sub would have surfaced without some coaxing. I suspect the sub was forced to the surface. The kill would belong to the ASW forces.
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
11-15-07, 07:00 PM
This is an old story (about a year ago), beyond that I very much doubt that if the Chicom navy had found a vulnerability, the sub would have surfaced without some coaxing. I suspect the sub was forced to the surface. The kill would belong to the ASW forces.
Not really if you surface within effective killing range. That's called a "too late".
waste gate
11-15-07, 07:20 PM
This is an old story (about a year ago), beyond that I very much doubt that if the Chicom navy had found a vulnerability, the sub would have surfaced without some coaxing. I suspect the sub was forced to the surface. The kill would belong to the ASW forces.
Not really if you surface within effective killing range. That's called a "too late".
Just because that is where the sub surfaced doesn't mean that is where it was detected or would have been killed in a war time scenerio.
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
11-15-07, 08:04 PM
Just because that is where the sub surfaced doesn't mean that is where it was detected or would have been killed in a war time scenerio.
One wonders, if it was a US sub doing the penetration, will you give the Soviet/Russian or Chinese navies that much credit?
Sea Demon
11-15-07, 08:56 PM
One wonders, if it was a US sub doing the penetration, will you give the Soviet/Russian or Chinese navies that much credit?
The thing is, I wonder if U.S. subs still do this. And if they do it frequently. Has the U.S. sub force tailed the new Chinese ships and subs? I hope they have. I'm confident that they still collect this type of intel. Fortunately, we'll never really know.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.