Is China capable of crippling US CSF's in Chinese ses?

[icelord]

The Times said Chinese submarines rarely have operated in deep water far from Chinese shores or shadowed US vessels.

Thats still no excuse to go to smoko while they're out at sea, you would think 24/7 coverage would mean, 24/7. I know our little Diesal-electric collins class manage to evade the USN at excercises, but this is a joke if the Chinese Can do it, everyone can. Guess China knows what to do with it fleet expansion...Buy a fleet of Diesals and let the games begin.

 

[radiosilence]

admiral Fallon chief of U.S. forces in the Pacific, commenting on the reported chinese sub stalking the Kitty Hawk.

"The characterization of stalking an aircraft carrier is rather sensational and I think it's probably not close to being accurate," Fallon told reporters in Malaysia, where he is attending an annual meeting of Asia-Pacific defense chiefs.

But he added: "The fact that you have military units that would operate in close proximity to each other offers the potential for events that would not be what we would like to see -- the potential for miscalculation."

"Now it turns out that the aircraft carrier and its escorting ships were out doing some exercises. I am told they were not engaged in anti-submarine exercises, so they were not looking for submarines. But if they had been, and this Chinese submarine happened to come in the middle of this, then this could well have escalated into something that was very unforeseen"

link

 

[Big-E]

"Now it turns out that the aircraft carrier and its escorting ships were out doing some exercises. I am told they were not engaged in anti-submarine exercises, so they were not looking for submarines. But if they had been, and this Chinese submarine happened to come in the middle of this, then this could well have escalated into something that was very unforeseen"

When operating in foreign waters the CINCPACFLEET knows that his strike groups should always be hunting for contacts. I sure as hell hope it wasn't a Han... that would be embarrassing. If you see a new commander of Kitty Hawk Strike Group you can bet that's what it was. That is just incompetent.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I sure as hell hope it wasn't a Han...

It was originally thought to be a Yuan, it is now regarded as a Song.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thats still no excuse to go to smoko while they're out at sea, you would think 24/7 coverage would mean, 24/7. I know our little Diesal-electric collins class manage to evade the USN at excercises, but this is a joke if the Chinese Can do it, everyone can. Guess China knows what to do with it fleet expansion...Buy a fleet of Diesals and let the games begin.

I'm still reserving my judgement on this. The bottom line is that we do know a lot about PLAN submarine capability - and they have tried to sneak up on our own exercises such as Talisman Sabre. They were quickly detected.

They've also beein tagging Indian subs based around the Andomans - so they are not as "stealthy" as implied.

A conventional cannot keep up with a CT/SF in normal transit - and that seems to me to indicate that they were already in a known training area (as the area has to be declared in advance)

I'm more inclined to think that the USN is trying the F-22 PR stunt of trying to talk up an event to secure funds. There has been some persistent grief penned about the lack of build consistency for the Virginias - and the best ASW is another sub (eg Virginia).

If its not, then its a wakeup call that degrading ASW capability just because war with the soviets is over was convenient accounting indolence.

IMV they should be increasing the build rate of the Virginias and bring back fixed wing ASW through a rebirthed S3 (or whatever else is suitable)

 

[abramsteve]

I agree with gf. If nothing else comes from this, surley it should see the return and upgrade of the S-3, and if it has to be replaced then so be it, but hopefully not with another Hornet variant!!!

 

[Big-E]

I agree with gf. If nothing else comes from this, surley it should see the return and upgrade of the S-3, and if it has to be replaced then so be it, but hopefully not with another Hornet variant!!!

I could just see myself carrying torpedoes... :shudder

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm more inclined to think that the USN is trying the F-22 PR stunt of trying to talk up an event to secure funds. There has been some persistent grief penned about the lack of build consistency for the Virginias - and the best ASW is another sub (eg Virginia).

If its not, then its a wakeup call that degrading ASW capability just because war with the soviets is over was convenient accounting indolence.

IMV they should be increasing the build rate of the Virginias and bring back fixed wing ASW through a rebirthed S3 (or whatever else is suitable)

I tend to agree with GF, the USN has been weakening/reducing it's ASW capability. IIRC, the USN was projecting a decrease in total USN SSN fleet to around 35-40 subs worldwide around 2020. This planned as part of a decrease in certain defence areas. From what I remember, certain members of Congress became concerned about this because the projected number of PLAN SSNs & SSKs were expected to be 50+ in the same timeframe. In the Pentagon, the planners were not apparently concerned about a potential PLAN sea denial capability around Taiwan.

While I'm not sure about an S-3 replacement, since from what I've heard from a former sub crewman that airborne ASW assets are of little use, I do think the USN is making a mistake in reducing total numbers of SSN. I am uncomfortable with the notion that the USN could engage the PLAN in/near Chinese waters at a 2:1 disadvantage for subs and win. :shudder

 

[Todjaeger]

I could just see myself carrying torpedoes... :shudder

Don't forget sonobouys, and how about a nice long MAD tail!

-Cheers

 

[Big-E]

Don't forget sonobouys, and how about a nice long MAD tail!

-Cheers

To be honest I don't think it would be such a bad idea to pick up a squadron of S-2 Trackers... we have plenty of room and they are cheap as anything to operate.

 

[gf0012-aust]

While I'm not sure about an S-3 replacement, since from what I've heard from a former sub crewman that airborne ASW assets are of little use, I do think the USN is making a mistake in reducing total numbers of SSN. I am uncomfortable with the notion that the USN could engage the PLAN in/near Chinese waters at a 2:1 disadvantage for subs and win. :shudder

Its not just ASW capability that they bring to the table though. Fixed wing ASW expands the interrogation real estate and speed of interrogation by some substantial degree.

If you can push your interrogation radii out another 50-100km, then you are also reducing potential cruise missile launch range etc.... Presence can equal harrassment.

 

[Todjaeger]

Its not just ASW capability that they bring to the table though. Fixed wing ASW expands the interrogation real estate and speed of interrogation by some substantial degree.

If you can push your interrogation radii out another 50-100km, then you are also reducing potential cruise missile launch range etc.... Presence can equal harrassment.

As a means of reducing potential cruise missle launch range or increasing detection, would an E-2 Hawkeye work better? Or is it that the conditions necessary to launch a cruise missile (near to surface, etc) ease the difficulties aircraft have in detecting subs? Or by extension, enable airborne ASW to launch attacks upon the firing sub?

From what I had gathered, the sonobuoy systems and dipping sonars were considered ineffective and could be ignored. Granted this was by a Los Angeles class SSN where the crew knew not to allow the ship to cavitate or drop a toilet seat, or some other noise generating event.

That is what I'm uncertain on. Are the sub detection abilities of aircraft sufficient to either engage subs, or at least restrict sub operations enough to really hamper them?

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

As a means of reducing potential cruise missle launch range or increasing detection, would an E-2 Hawkeye work better?

Thats already part of their job

Or is it that the conditions necessary to launch a cruise missile (near to surface, etc) ease the difficulties aircraft have in detecting subs? Or by extension, enable airborne ASW to launch attacks upon the firing sub?

all things being equal - the closer a sub gets to the surface the easier it may be to sniff it out...

From what I had gathered, the sonobuoy systems and dipping sonars were considered ineffective and could be ignored. Granted this was by a Los Angeles class SSN where the crew knew not to allow the ship to cavitate or drop a toilet seat, or some other noise generating event.

That is what I'm uncertain on. Are the sub detection abilities of aircraft sufficient to either engage subs, or at least restrict sub operations enough to really hamper them?

-Cheers

It all gets down to lots of variables - but the singularly most important always is competency of the crew - be it sub or hunter...

 

[Simon9]

I'm still reserving my judgement on this. The bottom line is that we do know a lot about PLAN submarine capability - and they have tried to sneak up on our own exercises such as Talisman Sabre. They were quickly detected.

What can you tell us about this Talisman Sabre thing, gf? A Chinese sub trying to get close to Shoalwater for ELINT, perhaps a periscope photo or two, and just the desire to see if they could do it?

And who detected them, the USN?

I was supposed to go on TS but my unit got kicked off when it was scaled back.

 

[RubiconNZ]

In thought TS 07 was going to be the biggest exercise in years, are they scaling back because of op tempo, or other reasons? Like Enviro Weenie problems with the upgrades, local impact etc?

 

[Simon9]

In thought TS 07 was going to be the biggest exercise in years, are they scaling back because of op tempo, or other reasons? Like Enviro Weenie problems with the upgrades, local impact etc?

I'm talking about TS 06... It was scaled back because of op tempo. It was nowhere near as big as its predecessor, Croc 03 (which, btw, was absolutely AWESOME fun!)

 

[radiosilence]

When operating in foreign waters the CINCPACFLEET knows that his strike groups should always be hunting for contacts. I sure as hell hope it wasn't a Han... that would be embarrassing. If you see a new commander of Kitty Hawk Strike Group you can bet that's what it was. That is just incompetent.

yea the admiral's comments seems a little inconsistent but i figure he is trying to take the heat off the commander of kitty hawk strike group.

 

[tphuang]

I'm still reserving my judgement on this. The bottom line is that we do know a lot about PLAN submarine capability - and they have tried to sneak up on our own exercises such as Talisman Sabre. They were quickly detected.

They've also beein tagging Indian subs based around the Andomans - so they are not as "stealthy" as implied.

A conventional cannot keep up with a CT/SF in normal transit - and that seems to me to indicate that they were already in a known training area (as the area has to be declared in advance)

I'm more inclined to think that the USN is trying the F-22 PR stunt of trying to talk up an event to secure funds. There has been some persistent grief penned about the lack of build consistency for the Virginias - and the best ASW is another sub (eg Virginia).

If its not, then its a wakeup call that degrading ASW capability just because war with the soviets is over was convenient accounting indolence.

IMV they should be increasing the build rate of the Virginias and bring back fixed wing ASW through a rebirthed S3 (or whatever else is suitable)

Hey Gary,

We were thinking at SDF that it was pretty stupid for PLAN to have a SSK that close to carrier group, since USN can get more accoustic readings on it. I guess what you are saying is that they already have enough knowledge on the capability of Song, that this incident doesn't show more?

 

[zoolander]

is this possible? a ballistic missile with multiple reentry vericles. expect.... that the reentry vericles are actually anti ship missiles. CAn that be done and has it been considered?

 

[dioditto]

is this possible? a ballistic missile with multiple reentry vericles. expect.... that the reentry vericles are actually anti ship missiles. CAn that be done and has it been considered?

No, I don't think so. Currently, the most advance ballistic missiles (eg. Trident, Topol-M) have an average CEP of 90m. For a ballistic "ANTI-SHIP" missile to work (with conventional explosive - NOT NUCLEAR TIPPED) you basically have to make the missile 10x to 100x times more accurate than current ballistic missile, coming down from a hypersonic ballistic trajectory.