Chinese sub pops up in US Navy exercise...
Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced
By MATTHEW HICKLEY -
Last updated at 00:13am on 10th November 2007
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.
By MATTHEW HICKLEY -
Last updated at 00:13am on 10th November 2007
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.
0
-
So, the Chinese have a Klingon cloaking device installed on their subs?
rider0 -
or the USN pretended to be caught off guard, knowing that the media would tell the world and that the Chinese would believe it 0 -
Same thing happened last year.
For the first time they allowed the Chinese Military Commanders to come and watch our military exercise in the Pacific last year. They wanted to impress the Chinese with our superior military. The Chinese must have had a smile bigger than the KittyHawk when their submarine popped up in firing range of America's flagships.
You all under estimate the Chinese.
The story on last years Chinese submarine popping up that could have sunk the fleet:
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/tag/U.S.+military+ties
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200606/19/eng20060619_275215.html0 -
Did it say "Compliments of Walmart" on the conning tower?[:)][:)] 0 -
of course they could pop in for a looksee....clinton gave them the technology for shaping propellers among other things while we have out sourced a lot of our electronics to foreign builders so why wouldn't the chinese have info on both sides of the equation...a lot of navy heads should roll like the airforce carrying nukes across the U.S. unknowingly.....so much of our policy is just plumb stupid... 0 -
I'll bet it was the lead in their paint! 0 -
Reminds me of the Japs in 1940.
One Asian power, and the U.S., struggling to see who would be boss of the Pacific.
One day, they are going to fight.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ljwrench
Did it say "Compliments of Walmart" on the conning tower?[:)][:)]
Compliments of Johnny Walker and Moscow Bill. Both still up and about and able to take nourishment.0 -
There is nothing to prevent the Chicom sub from surfacing near a battle group. We are not at war, and there is a little thing called the freedom of the seas. I am sure that the battle group was not at General Quarters, was not using active sonar, etc. Having said that, I am also sure that they knew where the sub was. 0 -
[:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
There is nothing to prevent the Chicom sub from surfacing near a battle group. We are not at war, and there is a little thing called the freedom of the seas. True, but the Navy dropped the ball in not detecting the sub. The article states the "military chiefs have been left dumstruck by an undetected sub..."
I would assume that having active sonar would be standard operating procedures at all times.
IMO, this is either gross negligence by the sonar crews of ALL ships in the carrier battle group OR that the Chinese have perfected their technology and our Navy can not detect their subs.
With a crew of 4500 sailors and airmen on board a carrier and the zillions of dollars invested in a carrier and its aircraft, the Navy better work on this problem. Iran has submarines too!0 -
so much for rooting for the good guys in america, you fellow americans. [xx(]
do you think our team is as stupid as you make them out to be?
if you had mice, would you let the mice know you had a cat in your home?[8]
let them think theyre surprising us.
when it comes down to brass tacks in the big war, youll see what toys have been kept from the idiot public....and world.[:I]
i BELIEVE in AMERICA.0 -
The continuation of China's rapid economic growth depends on our stability as a nation thanks to Wal Mart and likely importers of Chinese goods. This was just an act of humiliation and a "gotcha" in the war of Commie vs. Capitalism propoganda. 0 -
it wasn't a "coincidence". if the chinese sub "didn't know what was going on" and just happened to surface where it did, then they would have had to have been unaware of the other ships in the area, and careless in their maneuvering enough to have been detected. I'm sure they weren't unaware of the other ships in the area.
yet again it is shown that low tech stuff, when designed and implemented properly, can be almost as effective as the high tech stuff that took years to develop and costs thousands of times as much money. to ignore that is a waste of valuable resources on our part. maybe the Navy should invest in a few more deisel/electric subs like that.
the chinese must have wanted to help restock the aircraft carrier. they came to the surface and said "supplies!"0 -
Just a couple of points...
China has yet to field a true blue water navy. Given what little I know about operations, I sincerely doubt that we were unaware of the sub, nor he of us. I fully expect that there was an attack sub on this boy's tail that he remained totally unaware of. After all, it's in our best interest NOT to make known just how long we knew their sub was in the vicinity and what our capability might be.
This being said, there is one scenario where we might be (or have been) caught flatfooted. It's highly unlikely because our carrier group wouldn't normally be operating there...
Diesel subs are quiet in the extreme. Should one hide on the bottom in shallow waters near the continental shelf, or in waters such as the Sea of Japan, then there might be a chance of surprise. Tom Clancy brought this exact subject in one of his books.
The problem being that a diesel sub is limited by battery life and degrading atmosphere once submerged. Thus, range and duration are limiting factors in the sub's ability to carry out offensive operations. This is further complicated by the fact that charging batteries requires surface time and an engine start. Not something even a deaf US sonarman could miss. Certainly not anything I'd expect a radar operator to overlook when the snorkel broke surface.
The Russians had decades to perfect their submarine fleet. They built some great machines. Some faster than our subs, some stronger, and many bigger. What they were never able to do is gain blue water without one of our attack subs on their 12 o'clock. They hated that.
China will have the exact same problem and be four decades behind the game. They'll learn quickly, but so will we. For all concerned I hope that neither side will be required to test the other. If it comes, then I'd be more comfortable on a US warship.0 -
My only comment is.... NO COMMENT....[B)] 0 -
US force commander: "To the captain of the submarine that has been shadowing our exercise - our destroyers have you bracketted. You have two choices. 1) Surface immediately and show peaceful intent. 2) Say hello to Mr Depth Charge." 0 -
NORD, Amen!!! 0 -
I thought we had sonar prop signatures of their boats. 0 -
Did anyone think to order some moo-goo Guipan and egg rolls while the Chinese were so close? [:o)] [:I] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dolfan
IMO, this is either gross negligence by the sonar crews of ALL ships in the carrier battle group OR that the Chinese have perfected their technology and our Navy can not detect their subs.
The Chinese perfected United States technology, except they didn't perfect it, they bought it, and very cheaply.0 -
I wonder if that SUB had LEAD PAINT? 0 -
Sorry James, should've worded it differently.
I do agree with your earlier post that a couple of turncoats sold them the tech...all for a few dollars.0 -
quote:Originally posted by rider
So, the Chinese have a Klingon cloaking device installed on their subs?
rider
Romulan cloaking devices have always been better.0 -
IF they were unaware of the Chinese sub somebody should be relieved of command. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by bobski
so much for rooting for the good guys in america, you fellow americans. [xx(] With all due respect, that "elitist mentality" will get us killed. We are rooting for America but if we see a chink in our armor, we need to correct it. If a technological OR human error caused the failure to detect this sub, then the military must find a solution and make sure it never happens again!
The Navy can not let its guard down while plying the mean oceans.0 -
P-3's sanitize the area ahead of carrier task groups in sensitive areas, like off the Asian mainland. We're [general public] not being told all, folks. Joe 0 -
30 years ago, I worked on some stuff in this field - I vote with NORD and givette on this - it cannot be otherwise, at least from what I know. 0 -
Why, in the article, does it keep refering to senior NATO members?
I thought NATO was for the Atlantic?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
45 comments