The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 1, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise
AdamB    11/11/2007 2:07:10 PM
The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

By MATTHEW HICKLEY
10th November 2007
Daily Mail



When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.

At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.


That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.


By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.


According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.


The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.


One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.


And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.


According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.


It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.


Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard".


The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels.


Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.


Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.


He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.


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

In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.

dailymail.co.uk
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
Nanheyangrouchuan       11/11/2007 3:59:04 PM
Well, we can thank any number of MNCs for supplying the hardware and software to China, a few European "allies" for helping China submarine training and lastly and most significantly our doormats in State for hampering intel efforts and forcing the Pentagon to allow PLAN unfettered access to everything.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       11/11/2007 5:03:01 PM
The problem with US shipbuilding industry and USAF's aging fleet makes the situation growingly bleaker.
 
If there's any conventional naval warfare between the US and PRC, it would be a sub war, subs vs subs, and the first of its kind. Traditional surface warships is going to be nothing but targets in this kind of warfare. Nazi Germany operated about 300 U-boats and the USN had about 260. Nazis failed to cut-off allied shipping due to the fact that allied fleet 1. built ships faster than Germans can sink and 2. had at least three times more frigates/DDs/DEs to protect convoys with help from hundreds of land based patrol aircrafts and sub-hunting TFs. IJN didn't have such luxury, had too few destroyers and too many of them were sent to deliver troops and supply in Guadacanal and lost, so they lost the shipping and the war.
 
Please note that subs are things you can build with speed. Germans built 118 Type XXI and 61 Type XXIII boats in the last two years of WW2. I wonder how fast US can build SSNs.
 
Strategically, the situation of Japan is no different than Great Britain during WW2. The primary mission of USN to protect Japan is to provide her with security of sea lanes. Land-based missiles and aircrafts can deter and destroy any commie surface ships in hostile posture, and the ones that slipped through can be traced and destroyed by major surface combatants as well as SSNs. Neither did Nazi Kriegmarine nor Kaiserlische Marine ships operated away from Germany survived long enough to do enough damage.
 
Taiwan is not in strategic danger unless Japan is in danger. If Japan and Guam are safe, then Taiwan is just a strategic trap for commie ships, surface or underwater.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/11/2007 6:14:42 PM
this has been discussed on a few other forums, the general view is that paper has screwed up an earlier sighting and is about 12 months out.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    GF is right;    11/11/2007 6:39:06 PM
This is OLD news from a naval debacle off Guam.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

EW3       11/11/2007 6:44:37 PM

this has been discussed on a few other forums, the general view is that paper has screwed up an earlier sighting and is about 12 months out.

 

 



UK papers seem to bring this up every month or so and leave the date it occurred out of the article. 
Rather strange.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    Oct 07 - Okinawa   11/12/2007 11:59:07 AM
Yellichink posted that this happened in OCT 07 off Okinawa.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3       11/12/2007 8:31:50 PM

Yellichink posted that this happened in OCT 07 off Okinawa.



What year? 
As I recall it happened in '06. 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

locutus    Other Considerations   11/13/2007 6:13:42 AM
Article raises some other questions besides possible poor ASW.
 
link
 
Quote    Reply

locutus    ???   11/13/2007 6:16:44 AM
Don't know why the link isn't working. Trying again.
 
 
 
link
 
Quote    Reply

locutus    One last time   11/13/2007 6:17:28 AM
ht*p://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/11/song-class-submarine-resurfaces-again.html
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       11/13/2007 9:42:36 AM

ht*p://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/11/song-class-submarine-resurfaces-again.html


Aside from the quite correct caution the article author noted, I also noted this:

 
[quoting from the trackbacks]
 
Mrs. Davis,

Am I missing something? That looks like a copy of the Hot Air article, which was about the content of the Daily Mail article.

Personally, I'm waiting to see the comments of Gary (gf0012-aust) over at DefenseTalk. When it comes to current or recent Pacific submarine activity, he's the best source online. Period.
 
 Vir est summa of notitia.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

ASL       11/13/2007 7:11:33 PM
First of all, this is an old article.  This incident occurred about this time last year.  Second of all:
 
We weren't looking for subs. Ships typically do not set condition II AS unless they've got a reason to. Most of the time, there is no sub threat, so SONAR is not active and the tail is stowed. Whether or not you believe that a surface ship can reliably track a sub, I think we can all agree that if you're not looking for one, you won't find one. The call to set various weapons postures and conditions of readiness is based on the likelihood of a credible threat. If the only nation we're at war with is 1) on the other side of the world and 2) doesn't have a Navy then we're not going to be looking for subs. If we don't think the Chinese or the Russians are going to have a sub snooping around our exercise area, then we won't be looking for a sub. It's that simple and frankly I think that there was a whole lot of overreaction RE: US ASW capability.

The only thing this incident demonstrated is that poor intelligence could lead to a catastrophic outcome in the event a war breaks out suddenly with a country like China. It did not demonstrate that the US is incapable of defending its carriers, provided appropriate conditions of readiness are set.

I'd also like to point out that the nominal Carrier Strike Group that the article describes (and assumes was operating with the Kitty Hawk) rarely materializes. Carriers frequently gets underway with only one or two escorts, especially when they're not going into harms way. I will not go into exact detail on exactly how many/what type of ships were operating with her at the time for obvious reasons.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/13/2007 8:00:28 PM
 
I don't see the point in flagging this as a doom and gloom event when there are so many variables that aren't in the public domain.
 
The USN is not at a Cold War footing - this isn't 1987.
 
As such if you're tooling around in international waters, if there is no declared exclusion zone around the fleet, then the hard reality is that short of breaching maritime conventions on issues of right of way, then anyone can do anything (within reason)
 
This is the same kind of beat up that was used with the Russian overflights.  Lots of noise but of minimal realtime significance. (and fundamentally the same international legal issues can be used)
 
You don't have to actively prosecute to "defend" the Carrier.  There is just as much benefit in not "running around like a jack russell terrier in a room full of rats" as there is in flogging the water to make sure that the "intruder" has been spotted.
 
IMO, these kinds of events are over analysed and judicious prudence is of more benefit ....
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       11/13/2007 11:48:41 PM
"The USN is not at a Cold War footing"

That might be part of the problem, we are still sputtering around, chasing goat herders with AKs while the PLAN spends and trains.

My take on this:  The PLAN knew about the exercise and had a Song sitting at the bottom before the exercise began, it listened and recorded.  Then came time to surface, take a pic and return home to a heroes' welcome.

We have far too many panda-lickers and pansy asses in the US military and US gov't when it comes to China.  It is of a threat than the USSR and we treat it like France (annoying but friendly). 

 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       11/14/2007 1:21:09 AM
A PC US federal court has also forbade the use of active sonar during training, and it is pretty hard to track a diesel sub without it.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy