Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Sunday, November 12, 2006

USS Kitty Hawk And The Chinese Sub

The Drudge Report has a headline up right now saying: "PAPER: CHINA SUB STALKS USS KITTY HAWK". There's no link yet, and my search of my standard link sources doesn't turn anything up. So, this is pretty much a placeholder until something comes in. Of interest, the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), with portions of her Strike Group, just pulled into Sasebo last week as part of their group's "fall deployment". I expect the article will be some breathless claim that a Chinese sub was trailing the carrier. Absent from the article will be any indication that it's not tough at all for a submarine to trail a carrier; what's tough is doing it when they're at a heightened alert level and have a friendly submarine attached to them, without having the friendly submarine ready to take you out at any time.

Staying at PD...

Update 0513 13 Nov: Here's the article, from the Washington Times' Bill Gertz. It's even lamer than I thought; the Song-class diesel boat was spotted on the surface about five miles from the Kitty Hawk. So, either the Chinese were trying desperately to let us know that they could get that close to us, or this is another of a series of attempts by the Chinese to send their submarines farther afield where they just can't seem to stay undetected and/or submerged. Since they have nothing to gain by taunting us like that, I vote for the second option.

For some background: the Chinese were probably interested in checking out preparations for the Annualex 18G exercises taking place south of Kyushu. The media will probably try to make a big deal out of the presence of Asheville and Seawolf in the exercise, and claim that even our vaunted nuclear attack subs couldn't stop the Chinese sub from approaching the carrier. Even if that is true, it's more likely that the subs would have been some distance off, tasked with preparing for the exercise. To re-iterate: any decent diesel boat could approach this close to a carrier during peacetime. This doesn't mean they could do it during periods of heightened tensions. The Chinese Song-class sub is a tiny little 2,250 ton boat that is the first indigenously-designed Chinese boat; it's probably about two generations behind Western or Russian diesel boats.

Staying at PD...

Update 2303 13 Nov: It looks like ADM Fallon confirmed the basic accuracy of the facts presented in the story. Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit at Hot Air, and Daily Pundit collected some more reactions that are worth a read. Some of the comments to those posts are pretty good, and some are hilarious.

While I stand by my basic theory that this isn't necessarily something to get our panties in a wad about, there's one group I wanted to address specifically. If you're a Congressional staffer who's stumbled upon this post, you should forget everything I said above; your take-away should be: "I have to tell my boss to vote for more money for the Sub Force to counter the dangerous Chinese submarine threat."

Update 2359 13 Nov: Eric at The Sub Report blog adds his thoughts to the debate.

Update 2246 19 Nov: Vigilis at Molten Eagle has more thoughts.

58 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes it happened. Pilot on apporach "noticed" it.

11/12/2006 10:21 PM

 
Anonymous ew-3 said...

Remember the time a ChiCom Han class sortied and went through the Ryukyu Islands. The Japanese defense minister commented that they had tracked the sub from it's pier.
While something of a foolish thing to say in public, you know that area has to be wired for sound. All those islands to work from. The Japanese even list the cable laying ships in the JMSDF. Not to mention the O class subs and our subs tagging theirs.
My guess would be that we know what days the ChiCom cook served beans.

11/12/2006 10:27 PM

 
Anonymous ew-3 said...

Bill Gertz at the Washington Times. He must be getting ready to put another book on the market...
Have to wonder how a diesel sub could track a carrier group for several days. At some point it had to crank up the knots to keep up.
And this particular CBG had the Asheville and the Seawolf with it.
It is quite the battlegroup.
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2348713.php

11/12/2006 10:48 PM

 
Anonymous TCO said...

I've done exercises on both ends (carrier and submarine) of the diesel sub versus CVBG contest: All you need to do if you are a CVBG is drive fast and zigzag. And you've got plenty of horses to do it. This reduces the chances of a successful approach to very little (even discounting all your ASW assets). The funny thing is that (this is from 1990 time frame) most CVBG guys have no clue that this is the case and will sometimes just not even bother. And then you get the people who think everything is technology and stacking dots and discount a simple aspect like that. But I'm telling ya...drive fast and zigzag. Heck...that would have saved the Indy in WW2.

11/13/2006 7:29 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Bubblehead,

Michelle Malkin Linked to you!!!

Expect a few hits.



Rat Bastard

11/13/2006 8:26 AM

 
Anonymous 4butnomorethan30characters said...

I had the same intial reaction to the report. The only concern for the US as it relates to China's sub-fleet is simply quantity. Their sonar capability is a joke, and once you deal with the fishing nets, you could shoot spitballs as far onto their land as you want to. Getting back out is hell, but hey, if payload is delivered...that's what you signed up for :)

It should also be noted that we were actually there after a joint sharing with them and it was basically an after action report as we met with them. Much less dramatic.

11/13/2006 9:06 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I never had the pleasure of conducting ops with Chinese submarines, but if they drive their boats like they drive their fighters, the biggest concern would be for a collision. Oh wait, Bush administration diplomacy worked in THAT case so the MSM has forgotten it.

Tom B.
USS Louisville (SSN724) '91-'93

11/13/2006 9:59 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course I have seen "somebody else's" diesel subs show up in the carrier's baffles unannounced on several occasions as well.

I might add too this tended to be in periods of heightened tension as well with the carrier at MODLOC.

The subs would divine where the carrier would be during flight cycles and slowly put themselves in the way.
Carrier comes charging by and ...voila..."Where the hell did THAT come from?!"

What is troubling is that the Chinese appear to be doing their to perfect the art.

11/13/2006 11:40 AM

 
Blogger Subsunk said...

"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." - Gertz

My response would be, "bring it on". Now we're talking a target rich environment.

The ultimate in protection, as previously noted by ew-3 and tco, is speed of the battle group. The China Man better be swift and proficient at firing in less than 2 minutes or he'll miss anyway it works out. How many of you guys missed the 20 knot Alfa cruising past you in a close encounter? Over half of you always did.

What is interesting to me is that count of 40 to 50 modern submarines. He must mean diesel boats because there is no way they'll have 40 to 50 nukes in a few years. And are they actually building that fast. That would alarm me. And then my observation remains the same. Skimmers zigzag and go fast if you want to survive. Send the SSN to sanitize and keep the SS on the bottom. None shall survive if they stick their nose up. SSNs better maintain proficiency.

Remember when we thought the Soviets were ten feet tall and bulletproof? The Chinese aren't as good.

I think Bubblehead is correct when he asks why the SS surfaced. Trouble maintaining depth control, eh? Also could the encounter have occurrec near a choke point? Pretty easy to sit and wait when you know where we have to drive. Doesn't mean you get the hit when the fat cat drives by.

Subsunk

11/13/2006 12:12 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The ultimate in protection, as previously noted by ew-3 and tco, is speed of the battle group."

Sure it is, however in the usual scenario the the ability range far and free is constrained by the Presence mission, and speed and maneuver is of little benefit.

sid

11/13/2006 12:19 PM

 
Blogger Neil Cowley said...

>>My response would be, "bring it on". Now we're talking a target rich environment.<<

Man its fun to read your mil perspectives! You guys rock - and you know it. Keep, keepin us on top.

11/13/2006 1:29 PM

 
Blogger Solomon2 said...

any decent diesel boat could approach this close to a carrier during peacetime

Maybe the sub was there before the carrier was.

11/13/2006 1:54 PM

 
Blogger Zorfwaddle said...

Reminds me of the time on the Carl Vinson in the late 80's when the CO came over the 1MC to congratulate the VS squadron for their detection of a Russian Foxtrot class submarine. The fact that it was on the surface, rusted over (therefore pink) and being towed to South Korea didnt enter in to it....

We have been zoofed before, but I think that this time, this Chinese boat had been "had" long before it got within 5 miles.

George

11/13/2006 5:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

11/13/2006 5:53 PM

 
Anonymous Paul said...

I think the Chinese are playing the long game. We believe they are less than competent because we find them after they surface accidentally. We then have our prejudices reinforced. They continue to have a potential enemy misunderestimate them. Big win for them.

11/13/2006 7:08 PM

 
Anonymous BlackBeard said...

We might find it useful to remember budget positioning. If you have no threats, your funding must be adequate. If you have lots of problems to deal with and are in danger of 'losing the game' you can pry more bucks from the fist...

11/13/2006 7:30 PM

 
Blogger Skippy-san said...

It was on CNN today in the Lou Dobbs show. Suspect its not a good day to be a NAvy PAO.

I can't help believe there are things that the Navy can't say here because of security. So its stuck having to take lumps it probably does not deserve.

11/13/2006 8:37 PM

 
Anonymous ew-3 said...

Word is that the sub was a Yuan class sub. these are very up to date subs, possibly with an AIP system.
What continues to intrigue me is that, even by our accounts, the sub "stalked" the CBG. The only way I can interpet "stalked" is as in a prolonged engagement, which by it's very definition would imply we were aware of it before it surfaced.

11/14/2006 11:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My son is on that carrier. Pray.

11/14/2006 4:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's pretty funny that the hysterical media never even considers the possibility that we were tracking the Chinese sub the entire time.

Best that we not reveal that capability and let the world think the PRC Navy caught us with our pants down.

And you know, I don't rule out the possibility that we've figured out a way to force boats to surface that involves some kind of penetration of their information systems; a sort of sub-surface analog to what we are able to do with land based information systems.

Wouldn't that be a pisser?

How about an underwater EMP weapon that leaves no trace of its usage? Short out every non-shielded system, render a boat a useless hollow steel tube.

Ok...I'm entering x-files land here.

RJ
93/93

11/14/2006 5:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RJ dude,

An electromagnetic pulse "isn't" once it hits a conductive media. Like, say, saltwater.

Better way to force them to the surface in a hurry would be a "countermeasure" containing a simple, pre-recorded, FM-sonar-broadcast in Chinese: "Frooding (sic) in the Engine Room...!"

11/14/2006 7:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the above commenter, the Chinese language has both r's and l's. Japanese and Korean only have r's (which sound like l's).

Be more informed before making asinine jokes like that.

11/14/2006 7:42 PM

 
Anonymous km said...

I'm a veteran submarine officer and I think this is sigificant. I think the surfacing was a deliberate act. One of the beauties of submarines is that we can turn on and turn off stealth. Clearly this represents a propagnada coups for the Chinese. he carrier would not have let that sub within 10Kyds if it had know about it, plain and simple.

SONG's, like most diesels, can be difficult to track. This guy must have slipped through our net and we've been humbled a bit. All good things during peacetime. Learn the lessons now and live to fght another day.

11/14/2006 8:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lighten up, assbite. It's a joke...like what you woke up with in your hand this morning.

11/14/2006 8:47 PM

 
Blogger Bubblehead said...

KM,
I disagree. I think he inadvertantly broached, or they had a casualty. The North Koreans need "propaganda coups", the Chinese don't.

11/14/2006 10:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Geez, all you submariners and no one considered the possibility that the Chinese sub was sitting there BEFORE the CBG got there and surfaced so that it won't get shot at?

If the Chinese skipper wanted to taunt the carrier, shouldn't he send off a couple of active pings and let the carrier know that he's got a firing solution right before he surfaced?

11/15/2006 12:30 AM

 
Anonymous ew-3 said...

The question I wonder about is the use of the term stalking. Stalking implies something done over time. Also implies motion.
Maybe I'm being too pedantic about the wording, but without anything else to go on, it's all we have.

11/15/2006 5:06 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Over at Lex I posted this. Lots of retired, ex-ASW types don't know HOW far things have deteriorated. You sub guys have a unique perspective but I submit the ASW team ain't the same size nor have the same robustness many remember. What if y'all bubbleheads, professionally competent assumptions, are wrong? Is it possible?:

"You older guys who have an inherent faith in the old ASW system-capability you were familiar with may feel comfortable about this situation.

But what IF you’re wrong gentleman?

Quote from an expert on the ASW situation in todays 4-5 ship CSG (not called Battle Groups anymore notice the number of combatants assigned)on the Air ASW differences YOU might remember:

“My first readyroom air anti-submarine warfare lesson onboard the FID was: the P-3 guys had the outer screen and would detect, track and attack 80% of all evil soviet submarines and we the hoov guys in the middle screen would detect, track and attack 80% of all evil soviet submarines, finally the helos and DDs would detect, track and attack 80% of all evil soviet submarines in the inner screen. thus unless the evil soviets attacked with more than 240% of their submarines the CVBG was safe…..seems to me the chicoms need less than 1% of their subs to do something the soviets couldn’t do with 240% of theirs”

Badbob

11/15/2006 6:48 AM

 
Anonymous ew-3 said...

Badbob - KH battlegoup is the biggest one we have. While we don't know who was with her on the 26th, for this excercise they were loaded for bear. Two subs, the Asheville and the SeaWolf.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=26569

11/15/2006 8:42 AM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

KW-

I disagree. Songs aren't all that hard a target. I know for fact that quieter boats have been tracked at longer ranges than 5nm by US subs. Bubblehead is probably pretty close to truth with his call.

11/15/2006 12:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

EW-3,

OK. If all you sub guys say the Hon was covered I'll calm down. I'm on your team, too.

Think about this though. If there was more than one ChiCom sub and it was a normal sized CSG how effective would we be?

Look, I know our SSNs are STILL clearly superior especially in sensors, technology and professionalism. Y'alls discussion reminds me of that fact...but even 1, or even 2 SSNs can only be in one place at a time looking for a DP contact. Even with tipper info y'all can only go XX knots and if it's max speed probably blindly...

AIR ASW WAS viable at one time and so was surface ASW. What happened to THE TEAM? That's right- the team. 40 SSNs to cover the world and do ALL the ASW that needs to be done bothers me is all....

Sometimes silence can be interpreted as arrogance; and sometimes arrogance is a bluff (I wrote that not SunTzu...)

B2

11/15/2006 2:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

EW-3,

OK. If all you sub guys say the Hon was covered I'll calm down. I'm on your team, too.

Think about this though. If there was more than one ChiCom sub and it was a normal sized CSG how effective would we be?

Look, I know our SSNs are STILL clearly superior especially in sensors, technology and professionalism. Y'alls discussion reminds me of that fact...but even 1, or even 2 SSNs can only be in one place at a time looking for a DP contact. Even with tipper info y'all can only go XX knots and if it's max speed probably blindly...

AIR ASW WAS viable at one time and so was surface ASW. What happened to THE TEAM? That's right- the team. 40 SSNs to cover the world and do ALL the ASW that needs to be done bothers me is all....

Sometimes silence can be interpreted as arrogance; and sometimes arrogance is a bluff (I wrote that not SunTzu...)

Badbob

11/15/2006 2:27 PM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

B2-

I posted it over at Lex's, but it bears repeating:

Yes, US Subs are still the big dog on the block. But you are right, the surface and air sides of ASW have taken some noticable hits of late. Add to that the smaller sub fleet, so small and overtasked that CVBG's no longer get dedicated sub screens, and yes, there is a problem.

Solution? A) Allocate the time and money to get our air and skimmer buddies back on track for constant ASW training - it is the only way to stay effective. B) More subs. It can not be said enough. If you have 10 subs that are 100 times better than anything in the ocean, cool, but you will still have some gaping ASW holes. It is better to have 75 subs that might not be the best the US can produce, but still have great capability, and have them where they are needed, rather than playing catchup like johnny-come-lately.

11/15/2006 3:21 PM

 
Anonymous ew-3 said...

Badbob - FWIW - I was a skimmer sailor on a DE in the Atlantic...
The newer trend in ASW is to use remote operated systems. Google on WLD-1 and GDRS and you'll see what I mean. Even subs now are using UUVs to increase their sensor capability. Another tool that is in the works is "Advanced Deployable System" (Google will find it)

11/16/2006 9:20 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
RJ dude,

An electromagnetic pulse "isn't" once it hits a conductive media. Like, say, saltwater."

EMP can be done using microwaves, or similar effect of frying electronics. Can microwaves penetrate conductive medium?

Not sure, don't know, it's speculation.

RJ
93/93
http://www.seduction.com
Get laid NOW!
Ask me how!




Better way to force them to the surface in a hurry would be a "countermeasure" containing a simple, pre-recorded, FM-sonar-broadcast in Chinese: "Frooding (sic) in the Engine Room...!"

11/16/2006 1:23 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RJ dude: microwaves, EMP, etc. will not penetrate a conductive intermedium. That's how EMP shielding is built...via a Faraday shield (Google for that).

PigBoatSailor: if you're implying diesel boats, I sympathize with your line of thinking, but it's just not right. No diesel boat is going to keep up with a CVBG. Ostensibly, protecting the CVBG is the reason that the Navy created the 688 class and stuffed the D1G powerplant (renamed S6G) into the them: to go fast, and keep up with the floating airports.

11/16/2006 5:29 PM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

Anon (11/16/2006 5:29 PM):

Diesel boats? If you mean the US having ASW holes due to too few subs, and super-capable subs playing johnny-come-lately, I was not specifically implying that Diesels would be keeping up with a CVBG, trust me, I know better. However, considering our current likely threats, a sub, diesel or no, does not need to keep up with a BG. The Persian Gulf, NK, China waterspace are all defined by a series of chokepoints. And without a dedicated sub screen, and perhaps a sub or two to sanitize the area ahead of time, a CVBG is left with the hope, hope mind you, that if needed, a sub will be able to hurry itself over in time from Guam, or more likely, Hawaii, if it is needed. The Pacific is huge - if a sub is needed, it needs to be *there*, not en route. But that is not the case at the moment.

And yes, the 688 was envisioned as primarily as carrier escort sub. However, carriers don't always go to sea with one now, as I said. However, you are a bit confused. D1G was the first core type in the overall S6G powerplant. Most boats, however, now have a D2W core, either since newcon, or post-refuel.

11/16/2006 9:00 PM

 
Anonymous TCO said...

688's?! You mean the "reduced capability platform"? Sheesh. Give me the last Sturgeon headed north instead...

11/17/2006 11:37 AM

 
Anonymous km said...

Bubblehead, I love you like a brother, but you've missed the mark on this one. Inadv broach or not, here's a Chinese diesel sub in open ocean within torpedo range of a US aircraft carrier. Believe the worst, he was vectored to the carrier by Chinese Intel, and got within weapons range undetected. ASW is hard. Had the carrier known about him, he would have gone somewhere else.

As for the SONG just hanging out and coming across the carrier like one poster suggested? Pass the doobie, I don't take piss tests anymore.

Why is this so hard to believe? Believe it, the SONG got the CK and he's feeling good about it. He's feeling even better that it was the headline on the DRUDGEREPORT for two days running. The carrier? Do you think the CV CO is happy that he made the DRUDGEREPORT? Obviously Adm Fallon thought it was serious, although I found his response a bit disingenuous for obvious reasons...

I maintain this is a good thing to have happened in peacetime. Should bolster our ASW budget and maybe even get us a few more VA class boats. Aw shoot, now I'm smoking the doobie...

11/17/2006 11:37 PM

 
Anonymous TCO said...

If a Sturgeon operating with diesel restrictions (snorkeling, etc.) AND and NAU, can pump green flares all over a CVBG, why can't a SONG. Only reason not is training. I'd take a shot at a US crew of submariners going after a battelgroup with a diesel. Frigging skimmers.

11/18/2006 10:09 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I don't have the expertise in ASW I do want to point out a couple of issues.

The HMS Gotland has been operating off the west coast since 2004 and in doing 160 day a year exercises to detect it, and our most advanced personnel have been unable to.

Whether we know the chinese sub was "stalking" us or not is irrelevant. The Chinese's economy (which in less than 10 years will be bigger than our own) thought enough of it to build 40 or more. If they were so ineffective, why build 40? Also no one mentioned in the early 2000's Australia less than advanced diesel electric sub successfully "killed" LA class nuclear powered subs in war games more than once.

The best solution the US Navy has for combating diesel electric subs has been to upgrade the underwater sensors off the coast. This is evident by looking at the press releases of Northrop Grumman. It's also evident that the only reason we don't build our own Diesel Electric Subs is because we only have one true ship builder, Northrop. If we were to build solely Diesels there would be a lot of people without jobs. Hence sticking with Nuclear Powered Submarines.

There's no doubt that Nuclear Powered Subs are great for getting somewhere strategically but in the end if Carriers or Virginia Class Subs are unable to detect it, the gains are counterproductive and very expensive.

Another Note is that I heard a couple people mention is that KH possibly knew the sub was there all along? Well that would make sense except for a few problems. If it's clear we've had a problem in the past detecting diesel electric subs for the reasons I've given above than why risk further embarrasement? Is it to give them a false positive that Diesel Electric Subs are a formidable force against American Technology?

That would make some kind of sense if it weren't for the fact that the US Navy leased the HMS Gotland solely for Advancing ASW capabilities. When in the past 10-15 years have we been so savvy with the media that we're lying to the rest of the world to "THINK" we have a problem detecting diesels? We can't even win a propaganda war in Iraq and now we're "duping" the rest of the world into thinking we have a problem with Diesels? I don't buy it.

11/20/2006 11:45 PM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

Anon (11/20/2006 11:45 PM)

The HMS Gotland has been operating off the west coast since 2004 and in doing 160 day a year exercises to detect it, and our most advanced personnel have been unable to.
Reeaaallly? For someone that doesn't "have the expertise in ASW," that is a pretty definitive statement. You base that on, what, the press? Because the Navy is known for revealing capabilities and excercise results to the press all the time.

If they were so ineffective, why build 40?
Swarm kills. We can defeat a single Chinese sub. As someone who HAS ASW experience, you'll have to trust me. However, our ASW forces are not up to beating a whole lot of them, just due to sheer numbers. Check CDR Salamander if you want more details, just look for the Kitty Hawk post and comments.

Also no one mentioned in the early 2000's Australia less than advanced diesel electric sub successfully "killed" LA class nuclear powered subs in war games more than once.
True, we didn't mention it - that should tell you something. Mainly, the excercise was set up to conserve time - not conducive to sub hunting. The whole thing gave a massive advantage to the Aussies. I am not taking anything away from them, they have fine boats, but they would not do that well, by a long shot, in a realistic scenario.

The best solution the US Navy has for combating diesel electric subs has been to upgrade the underwater sensors off the coast. This is evident by looking at the press releases of Northrop Grumman.
You base this statement on a corporate press release? You are either hopelessly naive or a shill for SOSUS and her follow-ons. SOSUS and similar are not a perfect solution, and in fact, not all that great a solution for the littorals. I don't just speak as a submariner here, my wife was an OTA who worked SOSUS arrays while she was in tha Navy, trust me, we know of what we speak.

It's also evident that the only reason we don't build our own Diesel Electric Subs is because we only have one true ship builder, Northrop. If we were to build solely Diesels there would be a lot of people without jobs. Hence sticking with Nuclear Powered Submarines.
Wow, you were right, you don't know a lot. Electric Boat, anyone? They are a subsidiary of General Dynamics, and have been our *primary* sub builder for years - oh, and they are short work at the moment, and begging for new construction. So building diesels would actually create jobs. Twisted logic on your part, to say the least.

the gains are counterproductive
As opposed to, what, a diesel that is still vainly chugging away to get to the scene days and days after the CVBG has been attacked? Those gains were chosen for a reason. They are hardly counterproductive.

If it's clear we've had a problem in the past detecting diesel electric subs for the reasons I've given above
Which all look rather silly now, eh?

why risk further embarrasement? Is it to give them a false positive that Diesel Electric Subs are a formidable force against American Technology?
Why risk further embarassment by doing what? Allowing the sub to surface? While I may not fully believe the following line, follow along - if a sub approaches a BG, well, the nautical rules of the road don't apply under the water like they do on the surface - what would we do if he just plowed forward, ram him? Shoot him? Harass him? Oh wait, it is very likely the subs with the CVBG did that last one. So why would the diesel surface? WHat does a sub do when it gets harassed and doesn't like it? It runs. What happens to a diesel when it runs for too long? Its battery gets depleted? What then? Oh, up to the roof to run the diesel and recharge the battery. Why do you think the old noisy diesel surfaced again?

We can't even win a propaganda war in Iraq and now we're "duping" the rest of the world into thinking we have a problem with Diesels? I don't buy it.
Oh, I get it, it all ties into Iraq! Of course!
Seriously, though, you can't have it both ways. You spend an entire post summing up how defecient you think we are ASW-wise, only to say, no wait, thanks to the Gotland, we are actually ASW experts, and we are faking a diesel problem for PR purposes. Your conclusion is not supported by your thesis or the body of your arguement. You fail basic composition.

11/21/2006 4:51 AM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

Or I could be misreading your last paragraph - I blame poor writing. SO:
When in the past 10-15 years have we been so savvy with the media that we're lying to the rest of the world to "THINK" we have a problem detecting diesels? We can't even win a propaganda war in Iraq and now we're "duping" the rest of the world into thinking we have a problem with Diesels? I don't buy it.

So, perhaps you think we do have a problem with diesels, which, if you'll read carefully, no one who actually knows of what they speak completely denies. However, neither do we think that one 1980's-type technology diesel surfacing nearby signals the beginning of the end. Is ASW a problematic issue? Definitely, the CNO called it our number one priority a few years back for a reason.

But if this is what you are saying, what is your proposal? More underwater sensors? Hard to deploy, not always in the right depth stratum, not always in just the right area. More diesels? The sub fleet argues that amongst itself on an almost yearly basis. However, budget constraints make building a sub, of any kind, well nigh impossible, and when we do manage to scrape up enough money to build a sub, we are going to spend it on a jack-of-all-trades nuke, rather than a diesel, which is, in the end summation, a specialist, as it cannot escort a carrier, conduct long-term ISR, or stay on station indefinitely waiting for strike tasking, all of which are big sub missions.

So, unless you are going to petition for significantly more money for our ASW forces, sit down and let us do our jobs with what we do have.

11/21/2006 5:09 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am one angry Mama Bear, over this sub incident.......what was the Navy thinking? They need to keep alert at all times, regardless of what may be the flavor of the day. My son is on that ship, along with other people's precious cargo.....lets protect our fighting men and women. After all, they are defending this country. I give the commander of the Navy two thumbs down on this one. Protect my son on board, or step down and let someone more competant run the ship! Thank you very much!

11/22/2006 9:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting to see how fearful, aggressive and arrogant you all are at the same time about this Chinese Sub threat.

First of all, the western world should not underestimate the shrewdness of the Chinese. In China it is not about showing that you are stronger, it is about winning the war. And if you talk to them it seems they simply want to rule the world.

And don't forget, this is not a David-Goliath fight! The Chinese are already seriously outnumbering the US. It is only a matter of time before they are also stronger from a military perspective! (with all the western money and knowledge entering their country they will soon have the means to catch up!)

The biggest mistake the US (and the rest of the world can make) is to underestimate their cunningness. In China it is more honorable to win a fight by stabbing someone in the back than by facing your opponent in an honest fight.

Strange thing is also that the Chinese tell me over and over again that the war in the middle east is an excuse for having US troops close to their country.

And last but not least. When speaking about the Vietnam war, they will always say that this was their victory over the Americans.

Indeed, the Chinese think we are stupid and probably, if you look at it from their perspective, we probably are

Good luck America, and let's pray for 2 things:

1. That the rest of the western world wakes up soon.
2. That US will have a very wise president very soon.

12/03/2006 6:56 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd jst like to say that I'm on a canadian sub and even with our old 1960's era Oberon class subs we had no trouble killing LA's on a regular bases. Killing an skimmer isn't even a sport. It's a mercy kill! It's just that easy from a diesle platform. True, your not going to keep up to ANYTHING on the serface but in the end you kill us if you can't hear us. Hell we have hull shots of LA's that we have lovingly sent off to there CO's. In the end all I realy want to say is don't underestimate the Chinese just because you don't understand them.

12/22/2006 9:41 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't believe people are saying, and others are believing, that the sub was first noticed when she surfaced.

Not even the Chinese, though it's a tossup who the bullshit artists are trying to convince, the congress critters to get money, or the Chinese to make them believe they are as invisible as they would like to be.

The American public? Yes, plenty dumb enough to buy it.

11/12/2007 7:23 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your loose lips will sink more ships than the ChiCon.

11/29/2007 7:25 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

History repeating itself?? Last Thursday USS Kitty Hawk was declined entry into Chinese port. Could this be a manic response, or some sort of paranoid gesture in reference to the US spy plane mid-air collision with China in 2001?

12/10/2007 2:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

USA’s military budget is 600 bajillion dollars? 50 times that of China's budget?

“The military budget of the United States leads in this increase; U.S. purchases account for 47 percent of world military expenditures in 2003, which totaled about US$956 billion.”

I find this articles are really biased. This didn't happen anywhere near US soil but more like right next to China? That many US warships traveled that far just to be near China to do an “exercise” seems fishy? Pretty sure the Chinese were just using the sub to say oi.. don’t invade us.

Also the use of the word stalked?? media spin-off? If the sub stalked that means the battle group already knew about sub.

Chinese sub was in chinese waters? If a man knowing walked into a tigers lair would you call it "Tiger stalkers Man"? Get what I'm saying? The sub was undetected probably because it was there in the first place not because it has some super advanced technology.

And you guys shouldn't be thinking China is some kind of evil overlord out to f ya up. Every aspect of China's military is defensive. (from their ammunition to battle plans and exercises) They just want to live in peace. :)

10/02/2008 7:14 AM

 
Anonymous Mo said...

Hiding one's head in the sand? Sounds like it.

Really enjoyed reading that. Ho ho!

2/05/2009 4:23 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I spoke with the crew of the Kitty Hawk while in Hong Kong. As it turns out, the technology on the sub was far more superior than what they had guessed. It was a very ballsy thing for our Chinese friends to have done something like that.

11/27/2009 9:51 PM

 
Blogger EW1 Fernando Cruz said...

I'll admit, I'm only now reading about this supposed incident and the attached comments from those who clearly enjoy having the U.S. feel embarrassment over any event deemed as a situation where our Military Forces are humbled by any other nations military but having spent 10 years as part of the incredible fraternity that is the American armed forces I can say with conviction that there isn't a snowballs chance in Hell of any nations vessel getting within 200 miles of a CVBG
(Carrier Battle Group)
under any condition without several assets knowing about it, this is the continual objective of every sailor involved with the the CVBG from top to bottom, Our naval forces are the most capable and professional men and women to ever sail the surface of the earth and none of them care who is President
of the United States, they are professionals, first and foremost.

I served as an Electronic Warfare
Technician, my Job was the classification and analysis of electronic emissions by any and all platforms as well as the use of installed shipborne equipment to degrade and/or defeat the effectiveness of those systems and deny anyone the use those systems to gather any useful information that would allow the successful employment of an enemy's weapons
against Allied Forces under all
conditions, the time and money invested by our country in the development of sensors for the timely detection of threats is withour peer, the use of these sensors by the young men and women of the US Navy is an art developed during long and continual training under the watchful eays of career minded veterans who maintain a high standard of ability and skill.

The supposed incursion by an aggressor into the CVBG's area of operations is not unprecedented there have been many such events over the years, especially during the cold war when soviet surrveilance assets such as AGI's were tasked with trailing CVBG's in an attempt to provide the kremlin with advanced warning of an Agressive posture by the American government, That these assets were allowed to observe is far more likely to be the case than that they successfully infiltrated the perimeter defences of a National Asset like a CVBG, especially a pile of noisy junk like a chinese song class Sub, get real, I expect they were allowed to observe and served as a useful training aid for our more junior sonarmen in providing a live target.

Area Denial is the Mantra of the US Navy and when "WE" choose to, During actual combat operations,No manned vessel gets in alive, During peace time excersises however, even a sailboat can have access to the oceans of the world and the ability to get close, again, If we allow it and we frequently do, most of our training excercises are useful in providing a window to all nations as to our capability and effective use of weapons, this have served to deter many leaders into more reasonable discourse and alternative responses as opposed to direct engagement and the consequences that follow.

Feel free to believe we were bested if that is what you need to feel better about your country,
I happen to know better.

Former
Electronic Warfare Technician
1st Class, Fernando Cruz
US Navy 80-90

Uss Lasalle AGF-3
Uss Leftwich DD-984
Uss Samuel B. Roberts FFG-58

Combat Veteran of operation
Praying Mantis and Earnest Will
Aboard FFG-58

1/23/2010 6:20 PM

 
Blogger GJ Tryon said...

It's not hard to spot the American commenters here. Typical jingoist hubristic denial. These Song class subs, BTW, are equipped with optional electric motors and can run silent, run deep. Get over it Yanks, your arrogant navy was bested at their own game!

11/11/2010 11:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee Tyron,
You Sound well informed.
Imagine that, Electric propulsion
on a sub, what a Revelation.
The US Navy better check into that
soon.

3/25/2011 7:32 PM

 
Anonymous www.guadalajara-3d.com said...

I found a great deal of helpful info in this post!

11/25/2011 12:48 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You Americans are so full of yourselves.. looking for excuses and reasons why a Chinese sub surfaced when it did.. they're testing their capabilities AND LETTING YOU KNOW "Hey, we can do this".. a much better and cheaper deterrent than testing nuclear bombs..Americans need to come off their high horse and come down to GROUND ZERO, if you catch my drift.. get off this whole, "Nobody can beat us because we are Americans"..

1/18/2012 7:18 AM

 
Blogger SHB Cuttingtools said...

What to say i praise of this blog, which contains a lot of amazing information as well as the thoughtful writes.


Gear hob cutters

12/28/2013 3:38 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home