In other words, stuff you would rather keep separate from the hull of your ship! :o

You will probably find that the CVBG was on a transit so its not on a high standing of alert, war time it would be diffrent yes the song is quiet but not that quiet, the powerplant of the kilo in a customised chinese hull and sail and its loud its about as quiet as a romeo maybe a little quieter which to a nuclear submarine like the 688i or even a seawolf would be easy prey.

Personally I would put more faith in the air defence capabilities of an entire AEGIS-networked carrier screen then I would in that same screen's abilities to evade a full spread of torpedos fired at near point blank range. Better to make them fight on your terms; force them to resort to the same Soviet-style missile salvo tactics that you spent half the Cold War and many billions of dollars training to defeat.

What I fail to understand is how these slow, low-endurance SSKs keep managing to sneak up on fast, high-endurance carrier groups. The SSK is a weapon of position, not manouever. At sprint speed they can only maintain a charge for a dozen miles. I would not characterize this as event as a failure of U.S. anti-submarine capacities. Moreso I would characterize it as failures of a.) intelligence, failing to localize and track the SSK during its most acoustically vulnerable moments i.e. snorting (representing poor waterspace management and maritime domain awareness and is a good reason to build more subs of your own), and also b.) the blue fleet's manouever, staying still long enough to allow a slow-ass lumbering submarine to knock on your front door.

As far as im aware of only the early versions of Shkval's were unguided with current generation ones using fins in contact with the water on the edge of the gas bubble the torpedo runs in to change direction.
Allso unless its fired from allmost point blank range (relatively speaking) even the speed these torpedos travel at there is plenty of time for avoidance since detection of the weapon takes place at launch.

I've seen somewhere that the latest generation of Shkval's would run out then slow down for periods of time to allow acoustic or active search, then re-enable towards a target if they found something. These types apparently are only built in prototypes by and for the Russkies. As far as this stuff is concerned, I'm not happy about this happening. I would certainly hope that our naval ships would always operate in a high state of ASW operations around the clock. The fact that we're not currently at war is a big reason for a lower state of ops though. I think during war, the US Navy would operate differently. I'm hopeful that our Virginia SSN's, and Seawolf's with their new offboard sensors and MK-48 CBASS will be able to deal with the diesel threat adequately. That's why they're being designed. I'm also hoping that in the event of a build-up to a flashpoint crisis, we prepare and be ready to conduct pre-emptive ASW by just destroying China's subs in port before they can deploy in any type of numbers. That would be the best option.

Sounds like the U.S.N. is going to miss the S-3's even more now.

That's true. They should also consider speeding up the P-8 MMA. :yep:

What ever happenned to a good destoyer screne for a carrier task force? You know, destroyers and subs and guarding the perimeter. It worked in WWII, and Vietnam, so why not deploy the same tactics now?

I assume the (unneeded) surfacing was less a political message (no need to let the opponent have a look into your cards), but to trigger an american reaction to study fleed behavior. Maybe they hope to learn from that how a sub should behave once it attacked a US battle group.

The Chinese navy is in a process of getting beefed up since years now, and alreayd two years ago, I think, a US study or commissions doubted that the US navy can be so sure anymore to have naval domination in case of a war in or near chinese claimed territories: in the links I remember, the survivability of CBGs within striking range to China was publicly put in doubt.

The Song incident should not be opver-interpreted, but one better should worry about those developements and progresses the chinese without doubt do acchieve - without these being printed in public media.

Absolutely agree. Based on my informations, the surfacing is just a friendly gesture, as a submarine remaining submerged is equivalent to being armed and ready to attack, while surfacing, losing its stleath, is showing that the sub is not hostile at all

The Chinese navy, along with navies around the world, is constantly improving. We have been testing on AIP for a few years on the Song class subs and Kilo class subs. As a modernizing country, it is vital for us to improve our arms. This race will never stop, will it?

Finally, I believe some of our improvements originates from USA, ironic but factual. The Yu-4 (fish 4) torpedo in the Chinese navy is a reverse engineered version of Mk. 46. Why Chinese gets a Mk 46? It's because the USA wanted China to hinge against USSR in Cold War, and deliberately let this precious fish fall in our hand as a gift. Why would a torpedo, unarmed, without self-destruction mechanism (to prevent any cloning in case it falls into enemy hands), and floats on the water so that a fisherman without any information about arms can recover it?

p.s. the news is already a very old one, by the way

The cynicism is strong in this one :p