Chinese sub trailing US carrier again

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
those kind of people that did such a huge mistake and allowed that to happen are not good sailors imho.

I think thats a huge assumption. The issue is the ROE's and SOPs at that event.

The USA and China are not at Cold War levels. The USN is in international waters, short of the PLAN engaging in threatening manouvres, then as long as Int'l marritime law is not breached on issues of rights of way, etc.. then there's not a lot that can be extrapolated.

People forget that 2007 is not 1987. If China is perceived to be the same level of threat, then the behaviour pattern would be different.

If it is the case that the PLAN commander was making a point, then IMO thats just plain dumb, as it does nothing except provide the USN with marketing ammo. From a USN perspective, the PLAN commander has probably done them a favour.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Gary one aspect that disturbs me is the tendencies to embrace superiorities based on technology and dismiss PLAN capabilities measured on technology. As a naval centric community we have certain expectations based on what we believe are the limitations of PLAN of capabilities, but at every turn we are given further evidence that their capabilities are greater than expected. That is a product of a number of things, including the lack of transparency of the PLAN, but should also include the lack of specifics released or discussed by our own governments on what they are seeing in China.

SSBNs discovered by open source IMINT observers is one example, but we tend to forget what we learn in other examples. The Japanese were not happy in 2004 when they discovered a Chinese submarine in their territorial waters, and when that Ming class caught fire in 2005, people were too busy laughing at the Chinese for having 2 Ming class submarines with problems in a span of two years to take note where the problems were occurring, which turned out to be much further out to sea than anyone would normally expect to see the PLAN conventional subs.

To me the tendency to discount the PLAN submarine force lends itself to disinformation and misguided expectations that play right into the deception aspect of Chinese strategy. The Ming example above is a perfect example, most people were too busy staring at the fire to realize that where there was smoke was a much bigger concern.

Agree, hence my comments about hubris. On the other hand, I've never come across any USN submariner at various UDT events who makes cavalier statements. They're confident of capability, but they don't make pompous statements.

The "we can kill 'em all, anytime, anywhere...." comments usually come from other quarters.....

I'm more concerned about a "left field" response
 

Tracer

New Member
Why are these stories relating the Song class and not the type 636?. Surely the Chinese would have sent the Kilos in fear of the USN leaking embarrassing details of how easy it was to detect their old Song class. Maybe they have reason to confident in the Song or they don't want the USN to know too much about their Kilos.
 
Does anyone else get the feeling this story, regardless whether it is a new event or a rehash of an old event, is reported as an intentional plant to undermine the efforts of USN/PLAN cooperation?
No, I just think it was some burk making a very bad mistake. The Daily Mail couldn't care less about the power balance in the Pacific - it isn't part of any "international media conspiracy" to undermine Sino-American relations.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #25
Why are these stories relating the Song class and not the type 636?. Surely the Chinese would have sent the Kilos in fear of the USN leaking embarrassing details of how easy it was to detect their old Song class. Maybe they have reason to confident in the Song or they don't want the USN to know too much about their Kilos.
The newer constructed Songs are viewed to be more capable within PLAN. I can't comment on the accoustic level, but the combat system in Song seems to be newer, torpedo/missiles are better + they have flank sonar.
No, I just think it was some burk making a very bad mistake. The Daily Mail couldn't care less about the power balance in the Pacific - it isn't part of any "international media conspiracy" to undermine Sino-American relations.
Chinese sources are saying that this did happen and it was to show Songs ability to operate outside of East Sea. Take it for what you will.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Chinese sources are saying that this did happen and it was to show Songs ability to operate outside of East Sea. Take it for what you will.
the unsubstantiated info I'm getting from the discussion group that Gertz belongs to is that "One difference is the range - the last year one was "within 5000 yards" and this one was "within torpedo range." 5000 yards is too far for a Song torpedo shot to have much of a chance."

Thats from someone who is an optimistic Sino analyst (he's always overstating capability so as to stifle any hubristic comments from others in the group)

But, unsubstantiated and unable to show source for various reasons.
 

Delphinus84

New Member
I think if this event did really occur and not some BS from newspaper it can mean a few things.........

The PLAN is trying to show the USN that it has some substantial capabilities in terms of assets or naval operating confidence in contesting or checking US influence in the Asia, Pacific. This includes send firm messages that PLAN will not hesitate to use submarine force to attack USN carrier groups located in the east in times of a conflict, eg. Taiwan or spratley. The Chinese may also be probing or testing US's resolve and responsiveness towards such potential naval showdown which will be forseeable in the future as PLAN modernise herself.
On the other hand, USN might be deliberately masking and downplaying her ASW capability so as to confuse or throw PLAN's counter tactics off track by hiding USN's true ASW doctrines, manuvers
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #28
the unsubstantiated info I'm getting from the discussion group that Gertz belongs to is that "One difference is the range - the last year one was "within 5000 yards" and this one was "within torpedo range." 5000 yards is too far for a Song torpedo shot to have much of a chance."

Thats from someone who is an optimistic Sino analyst (he's always overstating capability so as to stifle any hubristic comments from others in the group)

But, unsubstantiated and unable to show source for various reasons.
just wondering, against a US carrier. What would be considered an effective range for something like MK-48 ADCAP?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
just wondering, against a US carrier. What would be considered an effective range for something like MK-48 ADCAP?
Its not going to be available. Public domain numbers on systems like this are meaningless anyway as they don't reflect actual capability. eg, it was pretty common place to feed recognised publications like Janes spurious data. I think the first recognised pattern of this occurring was just after the development of the Dreadnoughts, then at the Washington Treaty etc.....

On another note, I was under the impression that chinese torpedoes were still legacy russian if not soviet in design?
 
Chinese sources are saying that this did happen and it was to show Songs ability to operate outside of East Sea. Take it for what you will.
Given this already happened last year I find it just too convenient that the report is almost on the anniversary of the first event and involves the same US carrier, yet the USN apparently learnt nothing?
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #31
Its not going to be available. Public domain numbers on systems like this are meaningless anyway as they don't reflect actual capability. eg, it was pretty common place to feed recognised publications like Janes spurious data. I think the first recognised pattern of this occurring was just after the development of the Dreadnoughts, then at the Washington Treaty etc.....

On another note, I was under the impression that chinese torpedoes were still legacy russian if not soviet in design?
I think most of the recent ones like Yu-6 and Yu-7 are based on Western designs. Yu-4 would be something that they copied off the Russians, but that's no longer in use. We also saw a mysterious wake homing torpedo, but have received no further information on it.

Generally, I think PLAN doesn't have too high of a regard for the Russian torpedo, because their kinetic performance are just not good compared to an equivalent sized American torpedo. Whereas current Yu-6 and Yu-7 are expected to match the kinetic performance of recent variants of MK-46 and MK-48.
 

Kharkov

New Member
Turnabout is Fair Play - Isn't it?

As a teenager in the 80's, I remember many stories of USN vessels hounding/harrassing/following closely any Soviet vessels that pushed out of the Norwegian/Black Sea/North-Western Pacific and tried to 'show the flag' close to US/Western Interests.

Now the USN is showing the flag close to the Chinese coast. Why is it a surprise to ANYONE that the PLAN would at least TRY to show that the USN shouldn't take it for granted that they can go anywhere?
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
Good point! The EP-3E incident that made headlines was also a replay of the Cold War arial confrontations.
The Kilos and other newer boats are probably as good or even quiter than the Songs- by using them for a show of force, the PLAN says: we may have something even more capable up our sleeve!
The Chinese, unlike U.S. policymakers and admirals, are not fixated on nuclear-only naval power, either above or below the waves.
http://www.upi.com/International_Se.../defense_focus_a-sub_passions_--_part_2/1294/
 
Last edited:

crobato

New Member
Actually its the Songs that are newer. They got digital sensor, control and command systems as well as flank sonars and recently a new TAS is fitted. I am not sure and I don't think the Kilo has even a flank sonar. The last batch of Kilos though delivered in 2006 has digital systems from the Amur. Songs had a mixed history but the third and definitive version introduced in the middle of 2004 they finally got of right. Dunno if the PLAN has the same confidence they have on other sub types as much as they have on the Song.

PLA Daily just lauded a sub commander of the East Seas Fleet for penetrating escorts in recent training exercises held in late Autumn. Gave np details about it or the sub but the name of the commander .
 
Last edited:

Tracer

New Member
[Songs had a mixed history but the third and definitive version introduced in the middle of 2004 they finally got of right.]

Really? How could one know this?
 

crobato

New Member
They were making the first few Songs (320, 321, 322, 323) at a rate of once a year. So uncertain they are they ordered those 8 new kilos. But after 2004 they were making them 3 to 4 per year and these subs have some visible changes over the early models. At this point they also begun serious exercises for the type.
 
Last edited:

kilo

New Member
I wouldn't know anything about this but my guess is that for every PLAN sub that makes it through to the carrier there might be a greater number that try and are detected before they are in attack range.
 

Rossiman

Banned Member
I wouldn't know anything about this but my guess is that for every PLAN sub that makes it through to the carrier there might be a greater number that try and are detected before they are in attack range.
It wouldn't surprise me at all. And no one knows if this is true yet, it could be just more propaganda. I don't see how we would let it happen a "second" time.
I will wait for the official report to come out though, before i start pointing fingers.
 

aricho87

New Member
Chinese Subs

It doesn't come at any surprise to me that this incident could have happened, its been known to happen before and i'm sure it will happen again, that is forces not allied to the US shadowing or spying on war games or exercises.

Given chineses new subs, i would imagine they would be more than happy to test out their capabilities in evading USN anti-sub forces. These deisel subs may not be the modern fighting machines but they don't need to be to allude carrier ASU foreces.

One of the Aussie subs sunk a USN carrier in war games off the coast of Hawaii a few years back, that is a collins class, which was thought to be obsolete and overly noisy by the time it was commissioned.

What we have to realise is by putting all your eges in one basket with these big, expensive and powerful carrier battle groups is that all it takes is one sub to penetrate the defences and your King is out of the game. China and russia have both realised this with their naval planning by designing navies to strike at the carrier groups not directly but with subs that have a higher chance then any surface confrontation.
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
One of the Aussie subs sunk a USN carrier in war games off the coast of Hawaii a few years back, that is a collins class, which was thought to be obsolete and overly noisy by the time it was commissioned.

Err, no, not obsolete, pretty much up to date. These Collins class boats were commissioned between 1996 and 2003, you may have been confusing their age with the Oberon class 60's to late 90's. Sure, initially the Collins class boats were noisier than specified, but that was rectified years ago.
 
Top