Chinese sub trailing US carrier again

[tphuang]

well, I didn't think this would happen again this soon, but apparently another Song surfaced while a US carrier group was conducting an exercise? What's the purpose? I guess annoyed at Americans doing things in its backyard? Who really knows. I wonder if the USN tracked it this time like it did last time.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/11/10/chinese_sub_has_us_military_concerned/7525/

LONDON, Nov. 10 (UPI) -- U.S. Navy officials are concerned over the unexpected appearance of a Chinese submarine during a major military exercise in the Pacific Ocean.

Senior NATO officials said that since the Chinese vessel surfaced in the middle of the recent military exercise, U.S. Navy officials have been shocked by the advanced technology used by their Chinese counterparts, The Daily Mail said Saturday.

One official said that based on the ease at which the submarine avoided 12 U.S. warships to surface near a 1,000-foot carrier, Navy officials are reconsidering the potential dangers posed by Chinese subs.

While Chinese officials have said the entire incident was a simple coincidence, some U.S. diplomats have accused the vessel of "shadowing" the U.S. fleet during the exercise.

One former member of the British Royal Navy told the newspaper that such allegations could potentially be close to the truth.

"It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do," Commodore Stephen Saunders said, "which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan."

 

[Incognito129]

its more military propaganda.

Song class isn't capable of the stuff these articles claim. Its technology is 20 years behind.

 

[qwerty223]

its more military propaganda.

Song class isn't capable of the stuff these articles claim. Its technology is 20 years behind.

Submarine is an interesting asset. A well plan tactic plays a roll as important as the advance tech incorporates in the submarine.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Contrary to what the story implies, I think the Chinese sub was detected before it was in attack range and forced to surface. Somehow I don't buy the story that a conventional sub with outdated technology could penetrate the ASW barriers of American carrier battlegroups. The whole story seems like another attempt to grab more money from congress.

 

[icelord]

Could it be the USN stalks the Chinese sub more then the chinese stalks the US ships to ensure they have the advantage. Most USN Excercises would use Subs and they would'nt miss a chinese sub coming into the area. Hell it would even be used as an unexpected twist and used in part of the Ex. provides great ASW training more then a western Collins class would(not that they can find it!)
I'd agree with Pathfinder-X, the USN probabley released this to keep up the China bloc of the Pentagons argument for better conventional platforms, and an increase to Sub Corps budget.

 

[RubiconNZ]

There is nothing to say if a Nuke Sub was present that it wasn't tracking since it left port, obviously the USN is not in the habit of shouting about the location of any Nukes, OTOH theres nothing to say that there hasn't been a degradation of USN ASW with the perceived reduction of threat after the Cold War, i don't think it is the case but I can't rule it out 100% maybe some of the more in "the know" could I supose.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[RubiconNZ]

The other option is that the US cannot detect Chinese submarines and their much vaunted carrier battle groups should get a technological upgrade fast.

Or at least rethink confining all aircraft borne ASW to Helo's and leave the still good Vikings in service.

Obviously we should not know if they can or cannot detect potential enemy submarines. Anyone who knows that for sure is not going to publish the fact on a public forum.

Agreed.

 

[tphuang]

I personally think it was tracked the entire way and USN is getting annoyed by this and that's why it's allowing people like Bill Gertz having a field day with this. But, I would like to hear Gary's take on this.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I personally think it was tracked the entire way and USN is getting annoyed by this

I agree with that view. Clearly the Yanks are getting annoyed by this Chinese gamesmanship. Does the PLAN expect the USN to allow submarines to follow/pop-up around its carriers all the time? Is it so inconceivable to them that one day an armed response could be provoked, especially if tensions between China and a state friendly to the US were reaching a war-footing?

 

[Pathfinder-X]

I agree with that view. Clearly the Yanks are getting annoyed by this Chinese gamesmanship. Does the PLAN expect the USN to allow submarines to follow/pop-up around its carriers all the time? Is it so inconceivable to them that one day an armed response could be provoked, especially if tensions between China and a state friendly to the US were reaching a war-footing?

American recon flights get close to Chinese airspace often for ELINT purposes, and Chinese in turn send out fighters to intercept. It is also no secret that U.S. actively attempt to track the movement of China's submarine force. Both sides may push each other's button, but they both know not to cross the line considering the stakes.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

American recon flights get close to Chinese airspace often for ELINT purposes, and Chinese in turn send out fighters to intercept.

True, but it's not as if one ELINT flight could cripple a significant portion of the Chinese navy. On the other hand, one Chinese submarine firing off a brace of torpedoes against a USN carrier could cripple a US response to something like a war over Taiwan.

By the way is this really confirmed - maybe someone repeating last year's article?

 

[Truculent]

I believe that this incident took place last year and somebody in the Daily Mail has made an almighty XXXX -up with the dates!

 

[Galrahn]

A general statement not targeted at anyone in particular.

I'm a bit amazed by the combined mindset of the infallibility of the USN and the incapability of the PLAN. Not to bust anyones bubble, but the Germans typically had better technology in battle in WWII, and yet somehow they didn't win every battle. The over emphasis of technological capability is slowly becoming a crutch in naval analysis, and I fear that mindset is beginning to show itself here more often than it should.

The assumed piety in understanding the USN and PLAN based solely on technological capability is really beneath the level of discussion and analysis usually found on this forum. It reminds me a phrase recently directed to those in discussion of naval technology in strategy, "Amateurs talk technology, professionals talk conditions."

We as professionals should understand more clearly than the novice that the assumption of sea superiority is in itself a myth, evident by the constant struggle of opposing forces, and the absence of such a struggle is contrary to the entire theory of war itself.

Do we have all the details of this event? Surely not, but do we discount what has happened? We would be fools to assume it couldn't or didn't happen as reported without evidence contrary, of which none exists yet.

 

[Galrahn]

By the way is this really confirmed - maybe someone repeating last year's article?

While not confirmed by a US government person yet, it has that feel of true in my opinion. There is a pattern to the media leaks as well, and this one fits the pattern.

If you recall, the leak last time came when USN officials were visiting China for high level talks. It isn't a coincidence that USN officials are visiting China for high level talks this weekend.

There will be more details on this story once Bill Gertz sits at his typewriter, this subject is made for him.

 

[FSMonster]

I believe that this incident took place last year and somebody in the Daily Mail has made an almighty XXXX -up with the dates!

Precisely. This is fake news.

 

[gf0012-aust]

While not confirmed by a US government person yet, it has that feel of true in my opinion. There is a pattern to the media leaks as well, and this one fits the pattern.

If you recall, the leak last time came when USN officials were visiting China for high level talks. It isn't a coincidence that USN officials are visiting China for high level talks this weekend.

There will be more details on this story once Bill Gertz sits at his typewriter, this subject is made for him.

I'm part of a China discussion group that includes Mr Gertz, so I'm waiting for additional traffic before comment.

One of the things worth remembering is that hubris kills just as many people ...... There are a few relevant examples, the germans always thought that they had technological superiority over the english - they didn't in ASW. The torpedo development wars in the US, Germany, Japan in the 1930's to mid 1940's, the NIH attitude by US Army towards putting 17pdrs on their Shermans when they already had British intel that their low velocity 75mm guns were useless against heavy armour etc......

I'm tempted to exercise caution because "oriental" messages are more than just is whats displayed on the surface. timing is just as important as demonstrating capability.

Just as the PLAN subs got a wake up call in December 2004, I think they're reciprocating.

Apart from that, too few validated details are coming out.

 

[Truculent]

While not confirmed by a US government person yet, it has that feel of true in my opinion. There is a pattern to the media leaks as well, and this one fits the pattern.

If you recall, the leak last time came when USN officials were visiting China for high level talks. It isn't a coincidence that USN officials are visiting China for high level talks this weekend.

There will be more details on this story once Bill Gertz sits at his typewriter, this subject is made for him.

The Daily Mail is a right wing tabloid newspaper that likes to run scare stories for its readership.I would like to know where the journalist got his story from.I suspect that it was just lazy writing but,there may be another party's agenda to consider.

 

[Galrahn]

The Daily Mail is a right wing tabloid newspaper that likes to run scare stories for its readership.I would like to know where the journalist got his story from.I suspect that it was just lazy writing but,there may be another party's agenda to consider.

Which is part of what I mean. 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? It seems a bit beyond coincidence that PLAN and USN officials are having high level talks this weekend when this story is put out there.

Honestly, that is the first thing I thought when I noticed the source. There are a lot of people who would prefer the US to treat China as the next Soviet Union today, as opposed to what it is, a unique relationship of economics with ambiguity in the relationship at the strategic level.

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.

 

[XaNDeR]

Whilst I agree that it is very hard for any submarine to penetrate a Carrier Battle Group its not impossible , it was done before and Song class that runs on electric motors can be extremly quiet especialy when the CBG are conducting operations and don't expect something like this , but I agree if its true then its a big mistake from the US , just imagine someone penetrating a CBG and attacking your Carrier that is worth imense loads of money , those kind of people that did such a huge mistake and allowed that to happen are not good sailors imho.