Chinese Submarine Stalked U.S. Aircraft Carrier WTF?????

[John Anderson]

Chinese Submarine Stalked U.S. Aircraft Carrier
AP and Reuters, AOL Wire Services

WASHINGTON (Nov. 13) - A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and was undetected until it surfaced within firing range, The Washington Times reported on Monday.
Report say a Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine was seen within five miles of the carrier Kitty Hawk, above, and its accompanying warships on October 26.
The Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine was seen within five miles of the carrier Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships on October 26, the newspaper said, citing defense officials.

The surfaced submarine was spotted by a routine surveillance flight by one of the U.S. carrier group's planes, the report said.

A Navy spokeswoman in Washington had no comment on the report.

Disclosure of the surprise encounter comes as the commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, Adm. Gary Roughead, was making his first visit to China which began over the weekend, The Washington Times said.

The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military leaders during the weeklong visit, the paper said.

"When asked if the PLA navy is a threat, I've been on the record as saying no," Roughead told reporters. "But I really would like to know what the intent is in some of the developments that I see in the PLA navy."

Washington, which has long complained of a lack of transparency in China's military modernization, has been pressing Beijing to reciprocate by giving U.S. forces more access to Chinese military exercises and sites.


11-13-06 18:03 EST


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

[herrmill]

I wonder who got spanked after allowing a diesel sub to come within 5m of one of our carriers without being detected??

Am certain there were a few PLN brass broke out the Maotai to celebrate after that acheivement!

[expfcwintergreen]

From "The Stupid Shall Be Punished"...


USS Kitty Hawk And The Chinese Sub

The Drudge Report has a headline up right now saying: "PAPER: CHINA SUB STALKS USS KITTY HAWK". There's no link yet, and my search of my standard link sources doesn't turn anything up. So, this is pretty much a placeholder until something comes in. Of interest, the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), with portions of her Strike Group, just pulled into Sasebo last week as part of their group's "fall deployment". I expect the article will be some breathless claim that a Chinese sub was trailing the carrier. Absent from the article will be any indication that it's not tough at all for a submarine to trail a carrier; what's tough is doing it when they're at a heightened alert level and have a friendly submarine attached to them, without having the friendly submarine ready to take you out at any time.

Staying at PD...

Update 0513 13 Nov: Here's the article, from the Washington Times' Bill Gertz. It's even lamer than I thought; the Song-class diesel boat was spotted on the surface about five miles from the Kitty Hawk. So, either the Chinese were trying desperately to let us know that they could get that close to us, or this is another of a series of attempts by the Chinese to send their submarines farther afield where they just can't seem to stay undetected and/or submerged. Since they have nothing to gain by taunting us like that, I vote for the second option.

For some background: the Chinese were probably interested in checking out preparations for the Annualex 18G exercises taking place south of Kyushu. The media will probably try to make a big deal out of the presence of Asheville and Seawolf in the exercise, and claim that even our vaunted nuclear attack subs couldn't stop the Chinese sub from approaching the carrier. Even if that is true, it's more likely that the subs would have been some distance off, tasked with preparing for the exercise. To re-iterate: any decent diesel boat could approach this close to a carrier during peacetime. This doesn't mean they could do it during periods of heightened tensions. The Chinese Song-class sub is a tiny little 2,250 ton boat that is the first indigenously-designed Chinese boat; it's probably about two generations behind Western or Russian diesel boats.

[Goliat]

OMG. Why is this such a surprise?? A diesel sub is very quit when submerged, even chinese ones.
Diesel sub's from many nations have several times sunk US carriers during exercises. Not a big deal. But in a real conflict i doubt a diesel sub could keep track of a carrier, because of the carrier's speed. Some diesel subs can reach above 20 knots submerged, but not for long time.

[John Anderson]

OMG. Why is this such a surprise?? A diesel sub is very quit when submerged, even chinese ones.
Diesel sub's from many nations have several times sunk US carriers during exercises. Not a big deal. But in a real conflict i doubt a diesel sub could keep track of a carrier, because of the carrier's speed. Some diesel subs can reach above 20 knots submerged, but not for long time.

I guess by this you never served? There is more to then what you posted.
We are talking about a noisy early type deisel here guy not a AIP one. If you ever served on a sub you would realize my shock.

[Goliat]

What do you mean John? Is it the embarrasment you are talking of....?
Like I said, there are many reported examples of US carriers beeing "sunk" by diesel subs in exercises.. Why such a big surprise?
Btw, a diesel with AIP makes just as much noise as a sub without AIP when submerged. AIP only makes it possible for a diesel to stay submerged for longer time. Of course when a diesel operates on the surface with her diesel running, that makes noise.

I doubt this story is true anyway.. The Chinese denies it. (And why would they if this was true? Would prob brag of it in all the papers..) Probably a story inventet in order to make the government pay more money for the Navy...

[DavieTait]

I think what John was saying is that the Chinese subs are 2 generations behind the best the west has. That means less efficient propellors ( more noise ) , less efficient hull designs ( less submerged endurance and again more hull flow noise ) and less efficient noise damping mounts for the motor ( this is what can really project sound into the water if the motor mounts don't dampen the noise then the sub just acts like a big loudspeaker !! )

Yes CVN's have been "sunk" in wargames by AIP SSK's , BUT , don't forget these are the latest design's and are far quieter than any Chinese sub has ever been.

In a time of war an SSK wouldn't get within firing distance of a CVN if the Airboss has his Helo's out using active dunking sonar all the time. One sniff of a target and a torpedo would be dropped end of a few whales sometimes but definately the end of an SSK. I'd doubt that the best AIP SSK in the west ( 212/214 German class for example ) would be able to get any closer in real wartime conditions.

Davie

[Gerwalk]

I'd doubt that the best AIP SSK in the west ( 212/214 German class for example ) would be able to get any closer in real wartime conditions.

Davie

Maybe not in open waters or by a single SSK, but a wolf pack of them in coastal waters (or even on a continental shelf) during the critical stages of a disembarkment or an air attack (if you want to hit inland China you will need to get closer to the coast) could make a mess of carrier group. I remember a book called "Dragon Strike" that was a mix between a novel and a "what-if " geostrategic analysis: a pack of Kilos lurking in shallow waters in the China sea sunk a Tarawa class ship and some of its scorts. Of course only a few of them survived after the attack but their mission was a success.

China is incresing the number and quality of her SSKs and they have no worries about losing some of them in exchange of a carrier...

[Gerwalk]

BTW: Talking about wartime conditions I had the impression that the US was at "war" at this very moment. If so the state of alert of a carrier group should be something better than that (i.e. letting a SSK surface at only a few miles from the carrier)...

[Goliat]

I think what John was saying is that the Chinese subs are 2 generations behind the best the west has. That means less efficient propellors ( more noise ) , less efficient hull designs ( less submerged endurance and again more hull flow noise ) and less efficient noise damping mounts for the motor ( this is what can really project sound into the water if the motor mounts don't dampen the noise then the sub just acts like a big loudspeaker !! )

Yes CVN's have been "sunk" in wargames by AIP SSK's , BUT , don't forget these are the latest design's and are far quieter than any Chinese sub has ever been.

In a time of war an SSK wouldn't get within firing distance of a CVN if the Airboss has his Helo's out using active dunking sonar all the time. One sniff of a target and a torpedo would be dropped end of a few whales sometimes but definately the end of an SSK. I'd doubt that the best AIP SSK in the west ( 212/214 German class for example ) would be able to get any closer in real wartime conditions.

Davie

Not only latest designs of sub which has "sunk" US carriers. You are thinking of the Gotland right? There are others..
Very naive to say that an SSK would never get within firing distance of a CVN in war-time. SSK's are getting better and better, in silencing technology, endurance, weaponloads (greater range/speed and harder to counter) speed etc. Why do you think the US has leased the Gotland for a year now?
Let us say that there are 4-5 SSK. Affordable to loose 3-4 of them if one of them could get a hit on a carrier..

I admit it is hard to get whitin firing range, but not impossible. Not even for a SONG (or 4-5 of them :wink: )

[John Anderson]

What do you mean John? Is it the embarrasment you are talking of....?
Like I said, there are many reported examples of US carriers beeing "sunk" by diesel subs in exercises.. Why such a big surprise?
Btw, a diesel with AIP makes just as much noise as a sub without AIP when submerged. AIP only makes it possible for a diesel to stay submerged for longer time. Of course when a diesel operates on the surface with her diesel running, that makes noise.

I doubt this story is true anyway.. The Chinese denies it. (And why would they if this was true? Would prob brag of it in all the papers..) Probably a story inventet in order to make the government pay more money for the Navy...


Goliat I have no idea where you get your ideas but they come across as being second or thrid hand knowledge derived from a Clancey type novel.
You are totally mistaken about AIP's sure when the diesel is fired up they will radiate a certain level of noise and other signatures. But submerged it is a different animal then the diesels you are thinking of.
Any modern surface group that allows a second gneration diesel boat to close shows poor command and control on the part of the Battle group command.
As far as "Carrier groups being sunk by diesels in excersizes" sure but consider this...In these excersizes the US battle group was working with TOP shelf front line ALLIED opponents trained by the US in tactics. In reality true life op forces in a live fire situation are on dissimlar grounds. Ask the Iraqi Republican guard ooops I forgot they are all dead.
Your last line is very revelling as to your true feelings. As far as naval spending goes every dime is returned multi fold to the taxpayer and then some. Consider this ...
90% of the worlds trade goods travel by bulker be it oil, food, your designer 250 dollar a pop nikes, Game boys, PC's both flavors, buiding materials, textile goods, ores, furnture, stereos and on and on and on. bottom line if you own it it arrived either in raw material or finished goods in a ship.
Due to where deep water ports are located most of this shipping pass through waters that are in dispute between shall we say warlord controled nations. These routes are easily reached by Fast moving gunboats. The majority of the merchant ships due to international trade agreements are not carrying ANY type of weaponry at all no shotguns no RPGS nothing. Easy pickings for piracy.
Piracy since the dissolution of the Soviet fleet is on a Global increase. Britan does not have the resources to feild a large blue water fleet nor does any other nation at this point in time except the US. Thus to keep the main deep water shipping routes open who does this fall on? And given the amount of off shore produced goods the US consumes it is in it's and it's trade nations best interest to allow the Us to keep those routes open. I wonder how fast Japans economy or certain other nations economies could survive the US halting it's global Naval patrols and allowing Piracy to run unchecked. The US would survive in fact our economy would most likely florish since we would restart producing goods we invented and farmed out in trade agreements.
By the way I live in an active trade port and know first hand the impact shipping has on my local economy. Plus PNSY is across the river from me and also know the impact it has on my local economy. Without eother one my area would be a ghost town most of the year. Tourists do not bring in enough revenue to equal the amount one frieghter does.

[DavieTait]

Its not that the UK cannot afford a Blue Water fleet John its just this idiotic Labour government we've had for 9 years has scrapped or sold the bulk of the fleet we had. We won't even have 28 surface warships in a year thats about 1/2 the amount we sent to the Falklands !!!! As for subs well we did have 14 SSN's at one point but they decided we can live with 8 ( if we get them if not 6 ).

I agree with Pablo a modern well crewed and run SSK in Litoral waters will make a mess of any battlegroup , but ( and this is a BIG BUT ) , the top navies only need apply for that job and do it. I read in a book once that the worlds Navies deeply respect a US Captain in a US SSN but they truely Fear a RN Captain in an S or T boat. Training makes all the difference with the UK training a lot of the worlds submarine captains ( helps keep the costs reasonable for our own perisher's I guess ).

If truth be known i'd guess a Type XXI with G7e torps with a modern sonar set and a top rate crew could get close in shallow waters but wouldn't live long once they fired tho.

Davie

[John Anderson]

Its not that the UK cannot afford a Blue Water fleet John its just this idiotic Labour government we've had for 9 years has scrapped or sold the bulk of the fleet we had. We won't even have 28 surface warships in a year thats about 1/2 the amount we sent to the Falklands !!!! As for subs well we did have 14 SSN's at one point but they decided we can live with 8 ( if we get them if not 6 ).

I agree with Pablo a modern well crewed and run SSK in Litoral waters will make a mess of any battlegroup , but ( and this is a BIG BUT ) , the top navies only need apply for that job and do it. I read in a book once that the worlds Navies deeply respect a US Captain in a US SSN but they truely Fear a RN Captain in an S or T boat. Training makes all the difference with the UK training a lot of the worlds submarine captains ( helps keep the costs reasonable for our own perisher's I guess ).

If truth be known i'd guess a Type XXI with G7e torps with a modern sonar set and a top rate crew could get close in shallow waters but wouldn't live long once they fired tho.

Davie

Davie by not being able to afford it I was more refering to the will of politcalleadership not the nation as a whole. Sorry it came across the other way.
Hell I respect the Rn had a hell of a good time witha crew off one of the RN destroyers that was visiitng Charleston when I was based there. learned the fine art of "Racing" form them (grabbing/stealing/trading for souveniors and who ever had the best won some cash and swag. Stimson patches took the day LOL. ) I totally agree litoral waters as a challenge to an "invading" force as the defender knows the shallows like the back of ones hand. With the proliferation of low cost effective shallow water boats being sold by "friendly" nations to nations of questionable motives it is a challenge to not only military operations but merchant shipping as well. A questionable motive nation or group could easily strangle hold the over all global economy by putting a few container ships on the bottom as they passed close at hand in "shallow areas". My money however lies with the best trained crews of boats and skimmers of Britan, Germany, Sweden and the US Navy and some razor sharp Russian crews to prevent this catastrohe from ever happening.
Sure Pablo may be correct but the whole idea of a Carrier battle group is air power and sea dominace from stand off distances as well as CAP over a beachhead. the carrier itself would not even be that close in in an actual combat situation like that. Even in the Gulf US carriers were several hundred miles away from the littoral waters during combat ops. Carriers by their very nature nedd manuvering room to put wind across the deck to lower take off speeds and increase the effective combat load a strike fighter can carry off the deck. I'm not saying thye are invincable but they would be a very hard nut to crack indeed. When properly deployed their is defense in depth from not only subs but satillite coverage, aerial recon units and surface support combatants all employing sophisticated sensor arrays jammers, decoys and weaponry. And with the fairly rapid development of Metalstorm which is a facinating system the odds are in the battler groups favor. On the other hand a Amphibous assault ship such as the USS New York is far more vunerable in a littoral situation as it has to be close in to deliver her regiment of troops and equipment.

Wouldn't a suprise attack happen when one side is not at war or on high alert? I think there must be more to the story. Why would a boat surface? They could have done other things to show their presence? Could the Song have been forced to surface? Any conjecture?

[HorribleHarry]

Has anyone here considered that we may have "let" it get that close on purpose? Give the PLAN some false ideas about our capability of detection? We all know that the navy will fudge some intel if it makes us more capable? Perhaps we were listening VERY carefully to that boat as it was snooping around.
Just a thought,
CH