Two More Chinese SSBNs Spotted

[merocaine]

Galrahn

It may be politically driven rather than economically driven, two factors in play for US politics. Labor on the left and security on the right. When both sides have a card to play, the potential exists for a political action.

If the shift comes from the US it is more likely to be to South America than Africa. New emerging markets combined with cheaper delivery adds up on wall street. Only if the economics force a shift will it play to India or Africa.

It will take a while before they add up, Chinese economic fundamentals are strong, cheap labor, large market, economies of scale, easy access.
By the time those change Chinas economy will be evolving into a consumer/service orientated market, the relocation of foreign manufacturing will not have the catastrophic effect it would now.

Something for people to think about... with Russian defense focused on strategic weapons, everyone assumes it is because of the US. The US is spending less than 1 billion of its 500+ billion defense budget on nuclear tech, so who is Russia defending itself against?

If you think Russia and China are traditionally pals, you either failed history or are ignorant of it.

When did I say there Pals? I am neither ignorant of History nor did I fail it.
Is this a response to something I said or am I misconstruing something.

I imagine much of the recent Russian development of new delivery vehicles is amoung other things, in response to US development of missile defense. How much has beeen spent on intercepter tech?

 

[Firehorse]

Nations do not hold sovereignty over the 200 nm EEZ - they are "administrators" and hold the rights to the resources. Nations do hold sovereignty over the 12 nm limit.
So a nation cannot ask a CTF/CSG to shove off inside their exclusive economic zone.

Then, how come the UK warned Argentina to stay away 200mi radius from the Falklands back in 1982 and to the present day? Any other state will do the same to protect its interests.
As for communication with SSBNs, if they get longer range SLBMs there will be little or no need for specialized 4 engine aircraft- Il-76 (A-50) AWACSes can probably be adopted for it since the maritime areas they'll patrol will overlap anyway. Even if we are talking about 11,000 kilometers instead of miles it will equal 6,835.083 miles- enough to reach, at the minimum, portions of CONUS from the W. Pacific. At least in the US, there is currently work being done to use a different method alltogether:

Making waves: solutions for communications at depth
The use of acoustic waves offers a possible solution to the age-old problem of keeping submarines in the loop when operating at speed far below the surface
RELATED ARTICLE
Deep Siren holds key to US submarine communications problem

I guess that if/when the new system is ready, the USN TACAMO fleet will retire and airworthy planes will be assigned to other tasks!
More on new Russian spaceport:

Sergei Ivanov said that a new Russian space port would be built near the town of Uglegorsk, the previous disposition of a space troops division. On November 6, 2007 President Putin signed a decree about the building of a new space port in Russia. Construction and test works will take about two years. First launches will be possible to make in 2015, whereas the launches of manned spacecraft will begin in 2015. It is not ruled out that the new space port will replace Baikonur - the main launching pad of the Russian and Soviet space industry. http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/22-11-2007/101452-space_port-0

 

[Grand Danois]

Then, how come the UK warned Argentina to stay away 200mi radius from the Falklands back in 1982 and to the present day? Any other state will do the same to protect its interests.

Unilaterally declared vs int'l recognised plus context. EEZ has nothing to do with exclusion zones.

The Falklands example is a precedent if China goes to war with the US. Exclusion zones are a political tool in conflict situations, EEZ is recognised right to resources of a given area.

For instance, the US could declare exclusion zones around Taiwan, where PLA will be attacked if they enter. This to contain the conflict.

 

[Firehorse]

Well, the PRC cited her EEZ violation by the US during EP-3 incident. I don't think it will be easy to turn a blind eye if/when a CSG/TF chooses to operate inside a given non-US allied nation's EEZ. Here is another precedent: the former Soviet Union claimed a huge piece of the Arctic for itself, and closed it to all foreign shipping (Northeast Passage, a.k.a. "The Great Northern Sea Route") until the Cold War ended.
This is off topic, but somehow relates to SSBNs:

..Brazil's Defense Minister, Nelson Jobim, spoke at a military conference in Rio de Janeiro in support of building a nuclear submarine, claiming that such a weapons system was needed to defend recently discovered off-shore oil reserves.
"When you have a large natural source of wealth discovered in the Atlantic, it's obvious you need the means to protect it," Jobim said.
The Brazilian military had sought the development of a nuclear submarine during the period of the dictatorship, which ruled the country from 1964 to 1985. .. Last July, Lula announced the appropriation of US$ 540 million to fund the navy's nuclear enrichment program, the first installment of what is expected to be more than US$ 1.2 billion for the building of a nuclear submarine.
http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/10003/1/

So, will they too get boomers once they get nukes (please read the whole article)? How about India? IMO, for them it will make a lot of sense to get more survivable 2nd strike platforms, given that the PLAN already has a few!

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, the PRC cited her EEZ violation by the US during EP-3 incident. I don't think it will be easy to turn a blind eye if/when a CSG/TF chooses to operate inside a given non-US allied nation's EEZ.

Well, the EP-3 didn't violate PRC sovereignty, and certainly did not violate the EEZ though it was geographically in it. The reason as the EEZ was not violoated, was because the EP-3 was not illegally fishing or harvesting minerals. The EEZ does not grant sovereignty, hence there is no jurisdiction to intervene.

For instance the Bears and Blackjacks that the Russians have traversing the North Atlantic and the Baltics air space, have turned around before entering sovereign air space (12nm), but they have been followed outside of that airspace by F-16s, Tornados and Typhoons to show presence and to make sure they don't cross into sovereign airspace (12nm).

They can do that perfectly legally, including in the EEZ (which doesn't cover airspace).

This makes it weird that the PRC said something that is obviously wrong, as the presence of an EP-3 in the EEZ is a violation. Perhaps a case a poor journalism.

 

[Firehorse]

I was also surprised that they invoked the EEZ issue, but the reason was to show that they were very uncomfortable being spied on from such close range. They've got a saying: "don't tie your shoelaces in a watermelon patch"- i.e. lest it will be looking like you are in the process of stealing- and that may/will get you in trouble.

 

[gf0012-aust]

the reason was to show that they were very uncomfortable being spied on from such close range.

I think the US is well aware of the risks that they take in running ferret or peripheral missions.

Since the end of WW2 they have lost in excess of 158 aircraft from violent response from the Soviets, China and North Korea.

 

[Wooki]

re EEZs

Further; I think you will find that the USA has declared it's 200NM EEZ as sovereign territory (same as the old 12 mile limit).

So it follows that China would claim the same as they want to be perceived as the big boy on the block in Asia.

This is also one reason why Libya made extension claims way back when in the 80's and how the JKF ended up with 2 kills painted on the island. i.e. If its good enough for the USA to make such claims, then it is good enough for us.

International law is not common law. So while the USA can make claims out to 200NM, it is in a unique position of having the muscle to back it up. Technically it is invalid, but if your foreign crew (for whatever reason) end up in a US court, then there is going to be a problem as the US court will regard them as being under the bounds of US law.

To make changes in International law you must make a stand on issues (adopt a posture). Then decades later, it might be adopted (ratified under the UN).

In the meantime 12' is the recognized limit and that is why the USA prosecuted it's presence in the Libyan incident. We were basically looking to make a point at the time. At the same time you can expect China to take a posture that supports their claims too.

Australia on the other hand is a bit of an enigma, making claims on Antarctic waters, but not taking a posture that backs up the claim. I think you will find that is the case because they simply can't afford to do it.

Argentina and Chile make claims on Antarctic territory too and have done things like have children born on the continent, etc, etc that makes their claims more valid then anyone else under International law.

Then you have treaties that suspend claims and the like. All very interesting and I must say exciting in a geeky lawyer way as it is mercurial.

And (as an aside) for all those wanting to put GW on trial for being an international war criminal in invading Iraq, the USA has not ratified the International court (IIRC) and while it can be argued that it was a war crime, it can also be argued that it wasn't.

But re China, they are moving towards a blue water presence. The most significant aspect of that presence is the way they are recruiting new officers and ratings, and the way these recruits are being trained. I would argue the SSBNs are a symptom of the new skill levels being slowly (but surely) achieved in the PLAN. The next sign of improvement will be patrol rates, and that is when a tangible new capability will come into play, especially if they manage to do it carefully and not have an accident while increasing their patrol rates.


my 2c


cheers


w

 

[Grand Danois]

Further; I think you will find that the USA has declared it's 200NM EEZ as sovereign territory (same as the old 12 mile limit).

...

I do know that the U.S. has views similar to that if the PRC, i.e. the last argument of kings. But I would not agree that they could do claim sovereignty to their EEZ per the Convention on the Law of the Sea (which the U.S. has not ratified anyway). So it would be a unilateral claim. The realm of posturing and challenges.

An endless number of examples could be pulled forward and discussed; the U.S./Can issue over the NW Passage; China/Japan in the East China Sea...

All have their own history and context.

As I believe you suggest, the concept of putting GW on trial is similar. There may be a lot of genuine indignation over the Iraq War out there, but trying to push an universalism like a int'l war crimes court not recognised by all parties, is a manifestation of disconnect to both the judicial side and the reality of it. Such a court may be a normative win, but a loss at any other count. It is quite simply an ineffective tool for making this world a better place (IMV). So the feel-good that some people may have from putting GW on trial is of marginal value. Effort is better vested to reinforce success than failure and go for the victories that represent real value.

 

[Wooki]

I do know that the U.S. has views similar to that if the PRC, i.e. the last argument of kings. But I would not agree that they could do claim sovereignty to their EEZ per the Convention on the Law of the Sea (which the U.S. has not ratified anyway). So it would be a unilateral claim. The realm of posturing and challenges.

An endless number of examples could be pulled forward and discussed; the U.S./Can issue over the NW Passage; China/Japan in the East China Sea...

All have their own history and context.

As I believe you suggest, the concept of putting GW on trial is similar. There may be a lot of genuine indignation over the Iraq War out there, but trying to push an universalism like a int'l war crimes court not recognised by all parties, is a manifestation of disconnect to both the judicial side and the reality of it. Such a court may be a normative win, but a loss at any other count. It is quite simply an ineffective tool for making this world a better place (IMV). So the feel-good that some people may have from putting GW on trial is of marginal value. Effort is better vested to reinforce success than failure and go for the victories that represent real value.

Oh man, the NW passage. That is a good example and is literally hotting up by the day. I was taken aback by the 2005 summer melt, but absolutely stunned by this years (2007) September ice melt figures. Now they have congressman on the hill talking about shuttling tankers from Alaska to the East Coast and it isn't a silly idea anymore! Screw the environment, lets make some serious cash right?

cheers

w

 

[Firehorse]

international strait?

Well, even if Canada eventually agrees that the NW Passage is an international strait, she can still charge shipowners and foreign governments for using it, just like Turkey does in the Bosporus!
The US may also ratify the new sea convention, to enable them to claim continental shelf off Alaska. That's also why Russia did it- now they can claim more (together with other areas) than that big piece of the Arctic in the Soviet period. BTW, the Bering strait is "international", but for all intents & purposes will be managed by both RF & USA.

Admin: Text Deleted. Stay on Topic instead of using it as a soap box for debate thats already in play in other threads.

 

[suddendeath]

these good submarine and its a ssbn china is really accelerating its submarine development

 

[crobato]

I don't know where you get this analysis of trying to fire SLBMs from the South China seas to the continental US, but you are looking at it from a flat map. Using a globe, the true closest trajectory from China to the US actually arcs to the north through Alaska, and vice versa. Thus, stationing SSBNs in the South China seas is inconceivable as a trajectory that arcs across Guam will arc much of the south Pacific then up into the southern US. This distance is much greater the northern route. Even with improvements in range of the missiles, that is going to be a much greater range barrier to overcome. Try taking transpacific flights direct from Beijing to a destination in the US like Seattle or San Francisco. These flight routes take you over Siberian Russia then Alaska then down Canada before.

Will the Russians be alarmed if the missiles fly over their area? Certainly but they could see from the trajectories they are not the targets. This is not to mention this can also be cleared or declared to the Russians before hand. Trajectories reaching over Japan or Korea isn't an issue to base boomers in the south China seas because ABM systems generally intercept in the terminal or reentry phase, not in the initial rising phase.

So you are now faced with a much greater range problem to overcome. In other words, the SSBN basing in the South China seas is not going to happen unless either you are targeting a different country or your missile ranges have to improve even much further.


Basing of boomers in Hainan simply isn't happening right now as a matter of fact. There is no Chinese BBS report to collaborate that, there is no photo to collaborate that despite that we have photos to prove that 091G Improved Han, 093 Shang, Kilos and Yuans are definitely stationed in Hainan. No image from GE.

Because of the greater range needed to overcome, boomers stationed in Hainan would have to slip through Philippine littoral waters but once in the Pacific they would have to go north to close the range gap before they can fire their missiles in range. That would make them vulnerable to US hunter killers in the event of war, and its much harder to hide your sound in deep water, where sound propagates the farthest. On top of that, its going to be a much longer journey.

I am going to take back what I said in the bold text. The latest leaked pictures are all indicating not just one, but perhaps has many as two or three 094s are in Hainan right now.

 

[Firehorse]

This article is full of contadictions, but actually, having boomers based there would give them more flexibility. In the event of trouble with Russia or Japan they would be harder to reach & could hide in the Indian Ocean while still being able to target both!

 

[gf0012-aust]

This article is full of contadictions,

The idea of participation in these debates is to give detail.

What contradictions?? - and not a cut and paste of some other sites view - your own view.

This post has been inactive since Feb 08. If you can't add coherent comment then it will be closed as we don't want to suffer from a spate of dead posts being thrust back into activity.

They're dead for good reason.

 

[Firehorse]

I mean it talks about the PLAN working on sub ops in the Pacific but also is interested in the Bay of Bengal to possibly outflank India. They are just guessing like many others watching the PLAN.