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

[gf0012-aust]

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?

I'm kind of sceptical about some of the hype being generated by some on both sides.

the reality is that both sides sniff whenever the other side is running an Ex. Its of mutual convenience. That means that the harvesting is two sided. The training areas are known quantities, so the assumption is that someone else other than the USN would try to have a nose around. Its common sense to assume so. A contact would be expected.

if the USN was asleep at the wheel then you'd question capability - but the USN has historically played against a far more enthusiastic foe (soviets) in the halcyon cold war days - so they know what to expect. The Soviets used to try and steal sonabuoys etc... . I genuinely don't believe that they were t-boned by a surprise guest.

the fact that the sub popped up mid task force is just plain dumb. there is more merit in staying submerged and to continue to harvest data rather than give away your position, and give away potential capability. It makes no sense at all to telegraph latent competency.

I do strongly suspect that this has been overplayed by some as representing either a respective increase or decrease in competency by whoever side they favour.

Just because an intruder is detected, doesn't mean that you react - the USN and NATO regularly didn't react to a presence as there was more benefit in "watching".

What that sub did legitimise was for any "opposing vessel" to visibly react - that does not auromatically signal surprise.

From a purely academic perspective, I'd argue that it creates a vehicle of opportunity for the USN to legitimise a greater spending spree - and that was a pretty stupid thing to trigger (if you're the PLAN).

Ditto for the PLAN - in that the existing Adm (or more correctly General) of the PLAN can now argue for greater spending on subs and undermine the argument for a Carrier (as the pet project for prev PLAN commander, Liu)

 

[Big-E]

the fact that the sub popped up mid task force is just plain dumb. there is more merit in staying submerged and to continue to harvest data rather than give away your position, and give away potential capability. It makes no sense at all to telegraph latent competency.

It's called overconfident commander wants bragging rights.

I do strongly suspect that this has been overplayed by some as representing either a respective increase or decrease in competency by whoever side they favour.

Just because an intruder is detected, doesn't mean that you react - the USN and NATO regularly didn't react to a presence as there was more benefit in "watching".

So you think USN was watching them the whole time to underplaying it to hide current capabilities? I would have pinged the hell out of him.

What that sub did legitimise was for any "opposing vessel" to visibly react - that does not auromatically signal surprise.

From a purely academic perspective, I'd argue that it creates a vehicle of opportunity for the USN to legitimise a greater spending spree - and that was a pretty stupid thing to trigger (if you're the PLAN).

The further I read into your post it makes me think you believe USN detected the Song long before, recorded accoustic data and played dumb to further defense spending. The problem I have with this scenerio is it makes the Fleet look incompetent and uncapable in a time when our hegemony is facing it's biggest challenge. Looking weak is not on DoDs to do list right now. I would suggest not looking too deep into it and take it at face value.

Commander of Battle Cat Group most likely messed up as stated by CINCPAC with these comments "I am told they were not engaged in anti-submarine exercises, so they were not looking for submarines." Everyone in the naval community from Admirals to anyone who has read a Clancy novel knows this is not SOP. If he expects us to be stupid and lie about sitting on data collection there are certainly better ways to go about it. It isn't hard to track them when they are comming out of Qingdao if you want data collection. The Navy wouldn't dirty the rep of a good man unless there was some fire under the smoke. The Washington Times quoted Navy officials saying "It was not detected... and we are concerned about that obviously" which leads me to believe Rear Admiral Douglas L. McClain is in trouble over the incident because SECNAV's office says the groups submarine defenses "will be reviewed." I think maybe the current COMCARSTRK GROUP 5 is in T-R-O-U-B-L-E. :shudder

 

[gf0012-aust]

With their lastest naval vessles, imported and indigeous made jet fighters and various anti-ship missles, does China stand a chance cripppling US CSF's in their door step?

the dumbest thing that any power could do would be to take on china within range of land based air and without dislocating her capability to project that airpower from those land bases.

all things being equal, any country on home ground is blessed with the defenders advantage.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Commander of Battle Cat Group most likely messed up as stated by CINCPAC with these comments "I am told they were not engaged in anti-submarine exercises, so they were not looking for submarines." Everyone in the naval community from Admirals to anyone who has read a Clancy novel knows this is not SOP. If he expects us to be stupid and lie about sitting on data collection there are certainly better ways to go about it. It isn't hard to track them when they are comming out of Qingdao if you want data collection. The Navy wouldn't dirty the rep of a good man unless there was some fire under the smoke. The Washington Times quoted Navy officials saying "It was not detected... and we are concerned about that obviously" which leads me to believe Rear Admiral Douglas L. McClain is in trouble over the incident because SECNAV's office says the groups submarine defenses "will be reviewed." I think maybe the current COMCARSTRK GROUP 5 is in T-R-O-U-B-L-E. :shudder

then the time for commencing overhaul should have been triggered 12-18 months ago after the event off of Angola.

its a failure then of process and craftwork - not of capability per se. if the former, then its an indictment on the TF commander.

 

[Big-E]

then the time for commencing overhaul should have been triggered 12-18 months ago after the event off of Angola.

its a failure then of process and craftwork - not of capability per se. if the former, then its an indictment on the TF commander.

From my experience it is most certainly an indictment of process. It is the same kind of language that was used right before CO Greenville Cmdr. Waddel was drummed out of the service. The only difference is no one was killed but there appears to be gross negligence as was the case for Mr. Waddel. McClain's position certainly insulates him from the press and the fact no one died certainly helps his career but I wouldn't doubt if there was some sort of reprimand on the books.

I agree it was not a failure of capability... he was just snoozing when he should have had his eyes wide open. I thought it was kind of telling that this years ANNUALEX focused purposefully on ASW. No more bombing demostrations this year Admiral McClain, we are going to teach you how to hunt Oscar. :nutkick

 

[Schumacher]

Agree that it makes little sense militarily for the sub to pop up & give away its capability. So it'd appear the decision was politically motivated.
However, how about this scenario ? There were more PLAN subs involved so one popped up to announce their presence to force the carrier task force to fully activate its ASW assets so as to see if the task force can find them. The US commander did say they were not originally engaged in full ASW exercises.

 

[Big-E]

Agree that it makes little sense militarily for the sub to pop up & give away its capability. So it'd appear the decision was politically motivated.
However, how about this scenario ? There were more PLAN subs involved so one popped up to announce their presence to force the carrier task force to fully activate its ASW assets so as to see if the task force can find them. The US commander did say they were not originally engaged in full ASW exercises.

Now that I think about it I believe this is the correct assumption. No commander with any sense would pop his boat up in the middle of a CBG. Countries the world over are trying to test the US with her patience and capabilities, This only fits into those rungs of political decisions that adversarial nations make everyday.

As to your second scenario... while one sub could hide in the thermals waiting for the group to run over them I doubt if they would have risked detection of an entire PLAN sub squadron. Talk about letting the cat out of the bag... they aren't that provacative, YET!

 

[wp2000]

I'm kind of sceptical about some of the hype being generated by some on both sides.
...
Ditto for the PLAN - in that the existing Adm (or more correctly General) of the PLAN can now argue for greater spending on subs and undermine the argument for a Carrier (as the pet project for prev PLAN commander, Liu)

I don't want to comment on other things, but I think indirectly this incident shows that PLAN still has some unknown UNKNOWNS to outside world.

At least, PLAN's commander has changed already. And the former north sea fleet commander who had been deposed because of the 361 sub incident has come back. Now he's deputy commander of PLAN. He's regarded as one of the strongest supporter of aircraft carrier.

 

[icelord]

I don't want to comment on other things, but I think indirectly this incident shows that PLAN still has some unknown UNKNOWNS to outside world.
.

I think that this needs to be added to your point
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

 

[wp2000]

I think that this needs to be added to your point
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

I tried to add that, but it's too hard, too many unknowns

 

[icelord]

Its a piece of Genius to come out with something like that, i bet you can't repeat it when someone stumps you with a question! this is my fav.
"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."

 

[Big-E]

Its a piece of Genius to come out with something like that, i bet you can't repeat it when someone stumps you with a question! this is my fav.
"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."

Rummy really sounded like a tard when he said that... not clever.

 

[ever4244]

I don t want to comment on this but would rather give some fact

1 PLAN is mission is mainly focus on defence--if not coast defence anymore

2 the ballistic missile research are true, for even though it does not seems to have the accuracy to hit a moveing target on the ocean today ,it was not forbided tomorrow. because ballistic missle has much greater speed and range than cruise missle which means you can hit a carrier anywhere---even in US ,any time you want. If that kind of tech developed , the carrier time will certainly end. but that project is a long term one , which mean the fruit would not be harvest untill 10 year or more.Many institution in china are cooperate to develop this tech, it needs faster process unit , data chain , and special spy-satelite and a new sensor to guide it in attack period. but if US can let a metal bar hit a ballistic missle, why could n t we use a ballistic missle to hit a moveing playground in the future. It s very promising .

there is other programme like robot mine also under develop, we are in an advantage that US has to use carrier to deal with everything, and we can use every thing to deal with carrier.

3 recent report show that an old type conventionality submarine (type Song) show up no farther than 4mile beside US carrier.

 

[tphuang]

I don't want to comment on other things, but I think indirectly this incident shows that PLAN still has some unknown UNKNOWNS to outside world.

At least, PLAN's commander has changed already. And the former north sea fleet commander who had been deposed because of the 361 sub incident has come back. Now he's deputy commander of PLAN. He's regarded as one of the strongest supporter of aircraft carrier.

not sure, but submarine development still has a huge lead inside PLAN. We know that the components for 095 SSN is already in the production stage (it's officially listed as part of the 11th 5 year plan) and 093 SSN hasn't even been revealed yet, lol. The money they spent on aircraft carriers in the recent years is really peanuts compared to that of submarine.

 

[wp2000]

not sure, but submarine development still has a huge lead inside PLAN. We know that the components for 095 SSN is already in the production stage (it's officially listed as part of the 11th 5 year plan) and 093 SSN hasn't even been revealed yet, lol. The money they spent on aircraft carriers in the recent years is really peanuts compared to that of submarine.

No, I am not saying that Airccraft carrier has won upper hand etc...

What I said was to HINT that, for many years, outside observers tend to use "who's the boss of PLAN" to guess PLAN's future. That's only a very indirect and remote indicator. To me, the real picture is PLAN has been trying to develop a balanced navy, that's why they are working on almost all areas, subs, carriers, LPD, LHD, Medic,..., you name it. This is not going to be changed by an individual commander, because it has been the common understanding among them.

 

[zoolander]

A direct hit by a ballistic missile is unlikely but what if a ballistic missile carried like 10 anti ship missiles and when it got about a 10 miles to its target it releashes those those missiles. Is that possible?

 

[swerve]

A direct hit by a ballistic missile is unlikely but what if a ballistic missile carried like 10 anti ship missiles and when it got about a 10 miles to its target it releashes those those missiles. Is that possible?

What you're talking about is a submunitions dispensing re-entry vehicle in which the submunitions are guided missiles. Possible, but you'd have to slow down the re-entry vehicle a great deal to enable them to survive dispersion. However, that also has to be done for chemical warheads, so work has been done on it. Guidance would also need modifying, to allow for you coming in from above. And slowing the RV would make it vulnerable to SAMs.

 

[icelord]

A direct hit by a ballistic missile is unlikely but what if a ballistic missile carried like 10 anti ship missiles and when it got about a 10 miles to its target it releashes those those missiles. Is that possible?

Its a good idea, but the speed is the problem. plus, would they be guided, or just random rockets from the sky?

 

[swerve]

Its a good idea, but the speed is the problem. plus, would they be guided, or just random rockets from the sky?

No point unless they're guided. If they aren't guided, I think you're better off with unguided MRVs relying on kinetic energy. Like a bloody big shotgun.

 

[ever4244]

A direct hit by a ballistic missile is unlikely but what if a ballistic missile carried like 10 anti ship missiles and when it got about a 10 miles to its target it releashes those those missiles. Is that possible?

No, because no turbo engine on anti-ship missle can suffer an 10mach, and to slow it donw means it can be easily shoot down by defence missle. The kinetic energy is a gift to ballistic missile and why waste it(even a 10 mach brick can sink a ship) . To let a ballistic missile hit a moveing playground is not as difficult as building NMD system,but the problem is also focus on how to control a 10 mach missle in last 5km. maybe a tougher empennage or more
accurate thrust pulse control. I believe this kind of tech can be developed in 10 years.When carriers can not find a secure shelter anywhere in the world.Just Imagining: push a button , and enemy vessel sink 20min later . It s really a good investment .More promising thing is 1000 that kind of ballistic missile will still cheaper than a carrier and it won t cost soldier s life.