Chinese Sub Pops Up Amid US Navy Exercise

One NATO figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik." 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 USS Kitty Hawk. By the time it surfaced, the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine had sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier. The incident caused consternation in the US Navy, which had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication.

Simple solution:

Time to spend a few billion $ on R&D for new submarines!

Re:Simple solution:

Not really. Our submarines are far superior to the Chinese even now, but the problem is the crews.

One of the reasons I got out of the submarine business is how far the standards have fallen even in the 6 short years I was on a submarine.

Modern submariners are a joke compared to their cold war predecessors.

Re:Simple solution:

Mwuh? Blue-green laser? For communications, but for detection?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.global-defence.com%2F2000%2Fpages%2Fantisub.html&ei=dQQ5R9ONCZqmpwSDpri5DA&usg=AFQjCNFurOKcHV-O93WzeGxSR3G52nZNHA&sig2=nQgPQgY1Z_CHW9fPYsT5_A [google.com]

I'm not up to current events with subs, but check these out:

http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2007/05/co-of-uss-helena-relieved-for-cause.html [blogspot.com]

http://makeyourdepth.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_33/virginia_2.html [navy.mil]

As long as a sub can hide and wait for a CVBG to cross within, say, 5 NM to any side, a hidden sub can vertical launch or float into a vertical launch one or more missiles, mines, decoys or other devices as a ruse or means to disperse the fleet and weaken the shield/umbrella.

Sure, they'll face retaliation, but for any rogue/stateless assailants wanting to damage or merely startle a CVBG (which may or may not end up in the press), this might be something we see more of -- by state-funded, stateless actors.

Re:Simple solution:

any rogue/stateless assailants wanting to damage or merely startle a CVBG (which may or may not end up in the press), this might be something we see more of -- by state-funded, stateless actors.

state-funded, stateless actors

Let's say Osama bin Laden buys a Chinese sub. He drives it into the middle of a battle group, "pops up," says hi to the closest ships with a full complement of surface-to-surface missiles, and scores some decent hit points.

Meanwhile, US reconnaisance, within the group, in the sky and in orbit, are busy snapping hires photos of a Chinese sub. Doesn't matter who was driving it, it all points back to Beijing.

In a matter of minutes, the US is in total retaliation mode - against China.

Submarines aren't in any way comparable RPGs or dusty Soviet-era rockets sold through arms merchants. To keep an expensive, complex piece of hardware like an attack sub running, you *must* have parts, a fully-trained crew, ad naseum. That means a steady supply large coin going to the seller, with supply lines, technical support, and giving the crew access to military nav sat so they can actually navigate. That makes China a de-facto partner in the operation.

What are you smoking? You sound much like a wild-eyed neocon who fully expects the brown-skinned, foreign-sounding guy at the checkout counter to pull an AK-47 and smoke some Americans.

I'm not up to current events with subs

'Nuff said.

Re:Simple solution:

Dear Mr Bush,

This is just a cordial visit to remind you that you owe us $200,000,000,000. Nothing to be alarmed about. Have a nice day.

China

Re:Simple solution:

You do know that's a reason for them not to attack us, right? I mean, it's not like we'd honor their treasury bonds if they declared war on us.

Re:Simple solution:

Well only 25% of US debt is foreign owned and 47% of that is owned by Japan or China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Consequences_of_foreign_ownership_of_U.S._debt [wikipedia.org]

Looking at this

http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt [ustreas.gov]

About 40% of that is owned by China. So China owns 25% * 47% * 40%, or about 5% of US debt. Even if by some magical process it evaporated overnight the US would survive. If they sold, the dollar would fall which would improve the trade balance from a US perspective, the US economy would be dinged but China would be desperately short of money. And once they started to sell the price of the remaining bonds would fall - they'd actually cause a crash in the price of the ones they still held.

None of that is the Chinese interest. Plus the actual money is in the US. So the US government actually owns a chunk of money which China needs.

Now I hate the Chinese government, but them lending money to the US government doesn't seem like a problem to me. In fact as people have pointed out if China attacked Taiwan I'd expect the US Treasury to seize the money in some way so it acts as a stabilising factor on them.

What's that aphorism?

If you owe the bank 1000 dollars and can't pay, you're in trouble.
If you owe the bank a billion dollars and can't pay, they're in trouble.

Re:What's that aphorism?

If you owe the bank a billion dollars and can't pay, you're both in trouble.

Re:Simple solution:

The goggles do nothing!

Re:Simple solution:

Modern submariners are a joke compared to their cold war predecessors.

Do we need to up to cold war standards? I'm sure that the current army soldiers are a joke compared to WWII era hardened veterans.

Submarine warfare is limited to those nations that have the ability to have submarine fleets. Those countries aren't terribly hostile towards the United States. It's extremely doubtful we're going to fight a big naval battle anytime soon.

Re:Simple solution:

Submarine technology is actually way less relevant to the threats of the modern world than even freaking tanks.

This is one of the stupidest statements I have ever read on Slashdot.

Two points (and there are many more that I won't discuss):

1. Just because there isn't fighting on the seas today doesn't mean that there couldn't be. It would be wise to look at how submarines were used in WWII (axis and allied submarines). The use of submarines in the Pacific Theatre was particularly devastating. I'll give you a hint on how they might be used today if a major war broke out: submarines might be used to attack the transportation routes of a certain precious substance that starts with an 'O' and ends with an 'L'. It also might have the middle letter 'I.' This same tactic was used in the past to bring the Japanese empire to its knees in WWII long before US bombers were in range.

2. You were talking about "the threats of the modern world" and nuclear SLBMs didn't cross your mind? Really? Then you are dumber than a doorknob.

Re:Simple solution:

The US and the rest of the world are fighting enemies that don't have submarines, or any navy at all. Al-Queda doesn't have a navy. These are small, dedicated groups of people who remain hidden. You can't fight people like that with a tank, much less a submarine.

Al Quaeda are not a threat to the the United States. Not in the way that an actual army is. Al Quaeda are just the logical response to a long history of US support for the nasty regime of Saudi Arabia. Unchecked, they will cause deaths, but the only real threat they pose to the US itself, is one of respect which harms the government and its foreign bad-ass image. But not a threat to the American way of life or culture (those have come solely in the government's response). The two reasons that Al Quaeda are played up by the US government and media are (a) as a part of a campaign of confusing issues to justify an occupation of Iraq and (b) to excuse the diversion of vast funds into the military sector. A dubious reason to increase government surveillance and power is also a pleasant (for the authorities) bonus.

Of course this isn't to disagree with your main arguments. Trying to restart the Cold War is massively misguided and the US can't afford to do it anyway. I'm just observing that Al Queada is a reactionary force to US policy, not an independent force. They fight primarily off US territority and could not pursue a war on US territority. All the US needs to do to stop the resistance is to stop pushing. But the powers that be in the US can't countenance such an idea because they have so much riding on being the big tough guy, both before the US people's (Slashdotter's excepted) drilled in faith in their country's superiority and on the international stage where they have pushed other countries around for a long time (mostly with a complete lack of awareness of the situation on the part of the population who I've usually found to be very friendly).

The swollen armed forces of the US have been unnecessary for quite some time. I'm surprised people haven't cottoned on a long time before now.

Re:Simple solution:

Hi there. Ex-Submariner myself. And, no, I didn't miss your point, either.

However, those Trident Missile class submarines are pretty much nothing more than 16/24 huge political statements. Add a few MIRVs for good measure.

As for electric boats? they're quite. Scary quite. They run on batteries while submerged which is far quieter than nuclear reactors. Granted their range is rather limited; but, that's beside the point. When you're running within the 12 NM national coastline, who do you think has the advantage?

I'd put money on a diesel sub any day.

On your other points, I think you are correct. The US needs an electric boat division - one devoid of nuclear reactors for inner coastline defense. These aren't the platforms that are going to do intel gathering but hunter-killer packs like the German U-Boat tactics of WWII. American technology in this field is unsurpassed; though I'd lay bets the chicoms are right behind us.

Why? Their recent statements suggest they've been attacking our networks for years. I'm not going to dig up the link but it's out there if you search the net. One of their leaders recently stated that the next war with China's involvement will be a technological war which, according to them, no country can protect against.

Besides, a statement like a sub popping up in the middle of an exercise say a few things:
1) We're good enough to sneak up on you both.
2) We're good enough to sneak *our* missile subs close to your shores, too. (Remember them Trident class subs from above?)
3) Sleight of hand, if you will, maneuvering. The chicoms *want* you to see them and focus your energies elsewhere while they, perhaps, focus on placing a new satellite/orbiter in orbit for the start of our new space race with Asia.
4) or, the boat was simply having an emergency and had to surface. (*very* un-likely - I just threw this in for the pacifists.)

Choose your conspiracy. However, keep this in mind - no power shows a card as powerful as detailing how vulnerable you are to their attack without drawing you toward a conclusion they'd *like* you to draw or spend your energies trying to figure out. Meanwhile, they're out getting or doing what they think needs getting done.

Re:Simple solution:

USS Hartford grounding (I was onboard for that one)

It's hard to describe, but the attitudes changed as the old-timers who were on the ship when I was the new guy left. People lost pride in their jobs. Basic DC (damage control) skills evaporated. For all those reading this where were/are on a submarine: can you find all the EAB manifolds between shaft alley and the watertight door blindfolded? Did you every try?

It is a requirement that a submariner earn his warfare pin within one year. If he couldn't do it, then he was sent to the surface fleet. Now people routinely go past the 1 year mark and it is almost unheard of for a person to not qualify, no matter now little they know. If another major submarine fire happens underway, I really expect the ship to be lost because no one took that training seriously.

The worst part is that for all the bad things that happened on our ship, many of the other ships were even worse.

Re:Simple solution:

For all those reading this where were/are on a submarine: can you find all the EAB manifolds between shaft alley and the watertight door blindfolded? Did you every try?

Nah, but I can find all the EPS conduits in the jeffries tubes between engineering and the holodeck.

Re:Simple solution:

Bollocks.

All China has to do is release it's US funds to the open market. Pop goes the US financial system, no money no Navy, Army, Air Force or USMC. China grabs Taiwan before the US recovers.

The only thing that the US can hope for is that the US economy is worth more to China than Taiwan.
 

Re:Simple solution:

All China has to do is release it's US funds to the open market. Pop goes the US financial system,

Right. An then pop goes the Chinese financial system. And if China did something like that, the US would be far more likely to aggressively respond to any Chinese military moves.

no money no Navy, Army, Air Force or USMC

The military is the last thing to get cut. Even if their budget were reduced, it would have the capacity to crush China for years, if not decades.

Much better for China if they can suggest, by demonstrations like this, that confronting them militarily would be an expensive exercise, and that the US and China should just do business as usual if China decides to invade Taiwan (after some token protests).

Re:Simple solution:

In all that RAMBLING, what I forgot to mention re: the first para was that USN bubbleheads were like, "We're being depth-charged and mines are being place around us for the fucking CIA???!!?"

So, not necessarily in DROVES, but certainly in high enough numbers, SSn sailors started using various illicit narcotics in an attempt to become discharged or transferred to shore, brig or not, but ANYWHERE except fighting the CIAs for them. They'd joined to fight sub-to-sub, militarily, as sailors, not errand boys for an organization that had a budget without a limit but didn't want to buy their OWN conveyance. Some sailors claimed homosexuality, and more.

Once the morale issues were addressed (more and better/interesting assignment rotations ashore; increased hazard/at-sea/sub duty pay, etc...), retention was dramatically improved. This coincided with my not receiving orders to Great Mistakes. It wasn't personal, or that my math grades were crappy (the navy has ways of educating people, even marginally-graduating individuals), it just was that retention must have also coincided with a sudden drop-off of the spy missions that were risking these $250M to $700M boats and their fancy gear.

Why a drop-off? It was conceded that for the amount of risk taken on by the Navy, all the CIA was getting was information about gambling, illegal/excurricular weapons deals, sexual exploits and other dubious acts of ranking Soviet officers. It just wasn't WORTH it anymore to imperil these boats when they were constantly ever complex, expensive, and politically monitored. You can't explain to the American public that they died doing their duty when cracked, emotionally distraught sailors return home, unable to tell their wives or parents WHY they are cracking up, going nuts, and so on. Presumably, the CIA resorted to humint, techint, sigint, and other -ints to get what they needed.

And STILL, those Masters of the Universe didn't see the Berlin Wall coming down!

Oy vey...

Re:Simple solution:

Every now and then...just sometimes...Slashdot comes roaring right on through. Boy there are some good people that post here.

Drafting isn't egalitarian.

Those with the connections will always be excused. You'll be left with only those who cannot find any way to avoid it.

The all volunteer force is supposed to give us professional, dedicated warriors. But it doesn't seem to work out that way.

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

"for fear that some Luke Skywalker wannabe would fly my transport into a mountain."

Sadly this actually did happen. Pilot and copilot were on the voice recorder giggling about how someone actually paid them to have so much fun as they were flying low and pretending to be ace pilots. Too bad they didn't fly their flight plan. After hitting a mountain and killing almost everyone on board (an Air Force crew), the fact that they were nowhere where they said they would be doomed the survivors as no rescuers came before they died of exposure and their injuries.

Blackwater sucks. Hard. They kill our own military with their recklessness. Morons.

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

Ah yes, the infamous Blackwater Flight 61. Pilot got caught in a box canyon at 4600m in the Hindu Kush Mountains of Afghanistan. He only realized that screwing around on a flight, in high mountain valleys, could get someone hurt when there was no longer room left to climb.

The following is from a TV and radio interview with the attorneys for the families of the three Army soldiers killed on that flight [democracynow.org]:

"Look, there is an expression in aviation, that you plan your flight, and you fly your plan. That didn't happen here. Instead of flying a recognized route to the west, the crew went sightseeing in the mountains to the north of Bagram. They got into a box canyon. The plane they were flying could not climb above the 16,000-foot peak. They were in a canyon where they could not turn around, and tragically all six souls on board died." (Robert Spohrer)

One of the soldiers actually survived the flight, and lived long enough to smoke some cigs, before he died of exposure.

It's not only Blackwater who allows goofballs to pilot their planes. February 3, 1998, Mt. Cermis, Italy: A low-flying U.S. Marine surveillance jet on a training flight, whose joy-riding pilot must've been high or something, was deliberately flying *below* the mountain's ski lift cables. He "accidentally" clipped one of the cable-car lines, which freed the gondola to the effects of gravity, and caused all 20 people aboard to fall some 260 ft to their deaths.

A jet ain't a hot-rod. Drive with care.

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

'Fortunately' for the idiot flying into the ski lift cables, he was cleared of charges by the US military court. Guess not only Blackwater protects their own incompetents.

The EU was pretty pissed off about this:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:51999IP0272:EN:HTML [europa.eu]

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

That's what's actually wrong with the army today. It's sold as a cool job where you can toy around with cool hardware.

I remember my training. And while I was no pilot (I hate my eyes), our instructors made one thing certain: This ain't a game. If you think it is, you're wrong here, there's the mop, there's the bucket, they're now your toys, return that gun and get the fu.. out of here! He was actually pretty laid back (well, as laid back as a drill sergeant gets, at least after the initial months), cracked a joke from time to time and could even take a joke. But as soon as a weapon was the topic (and that included the knife), he was business. No joke. No smile. No nonsense. He made a point that now we're serious. That thing can kill, that's what it's here for, and you better sober up now too, sonny.

You could literally feel that this was different than our "normal" training. Wisecracking was usually grounds for a humiliating joke at your expense and some pushups. In the presence of a weapon, it was a fair lot different, including a tinnitus. You don't joke with weapons.

It worked, to say the least. Even our stupidest people got their act together when handling potentially dangerous items. And, personally, I'd say that's lacking here. People don't realize that what they do is far beyond stupid. Nobody ever told them.

The principle applies to civvies, too

When it comes to being disciplined around weapons, the principles apply broadly. Many decades ago, Jeff Cooper sponsored/ran a shooting instruction class for juvenile delinquents (as they were called in those days). The principle was simple. He felt that kids going bad needed to have at least one part of their lives where they are trained and responsible, where they can enjoy the rewards of their labor yet be instantly responsible for their screwups. He felt they needed one circumstance where they would succeed at having good self-discipline. He felt that a lack of self-discipline was a root cause of juvenile delinquency. The idea was that success in being self-disciplined under one limited set of circumstances could lead to them employing more self-discipline in other parts of their lives and, thus, screwing up less.

The drill was simple. On the firing range, the kids were told that they could have some good fun and learn something if they did what they were told and consistently maintained the self-discipline necessary to obey range rules. If they wanted to goof around, though, they were welcome to shoot themslves in the foot. (Not really, of course. The actual punishment was temporary or permanent banishment from the program and loss of an opportunity to play with the guns. To those kids, that was a serious consequence.)

There were some amazing success stories from that program. Oddly, nowadays the idea of reforming a kid gone bad by giving him a rifle or pistol and teaching him to use it seems unthinkable. Sad, really. There are some fine life lessons that can best be learned with a rifle in hand. Nowadays, people don't seem to remember that. Really, really sad.

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

"The all volunteer force is supposed to give us professional, dedicated warriors. But it doesn't seem to work out that way."

It give you mostly professional, dedicated warriors, but they are still ordinary humans. The lessons of conscription have been learned. Enjoy:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/heinl.html [montclair.edu]

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

No really? Why could that be? Let me tell you a story.

A friend of mine is currently serving in Iraq. Is he convinced the military is the place to be? Hell no. But he's poor. And he wants to escape the "paper or plastic" world. He wants to get out of the gutter or die trying. Quite literally.

And he ain't the only one if the stories I get to hear are true.

And that's the "smart" guys. Of course you'll also get a lot of people who simply can't get another decent job due to ... let's say inadequate supplies in the cranial department.

A draft won't change that one bit, though. How willing is someone who is forced to do something? How reliable will he be? And how likely to just duck and cover when the bullets start flying? It's not really a comfortable feeling when bullets dig up roughcast around you. Die for my country? I woudln't even die for myself.

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

Having been in an army that functions based on a draft, and having been none to eager to be in said army, Let me tell you, you get really good, competent, useful, smart, reliable soldiers, from a draft. (You also get lots of cannon fodder. But you get lots of EVERYTHING with a daft.)

The fact that they don't want to be there doesn't really come into play. The myth that it does, is just a lie that we rich kids tell to keep us out of the army. Soldiers in WWII were wholly competent. Vietnam gave us a draft of people (not rich enough)/(without the connections) to get out, and too stupid to keep a minimum GPA in university.

Look, the vast majority of smart, capable people will almost always look at an army and say "oh, wait, Getting Killed? For a little Bronze DooDad? No. I don't think so." And they will find something better to do (unless they have an inordinate amount of patriotism, or REALLY believe STRONGLY in the cause of the war. And even then, not so much). The only way you are going to get them into the army is to draft them. And really, for that to work, you have to have a strong draft, that doesn't leave people many outs (either because socially it is unacceptable (how many people went to the army and made out with another guy VS. Going to Canada?), or because it is virtually impossible to get out of.

Once you have that, you get all kinds of people, and you have to categorize them. Most armies already do this (you don't have many stupid/unmotivated people in any elite force. Cannon fodder exists, are poorly trained, and serve a roll). How willing a person is to die doesn't really factor in, here, either. Given a challenge, and given training, smart/motivated people WILL meet that challenge. They wont admit it to themselves, people are great at rationalizing stuff away. But once in the situation, being given the training, those same smart motivated people who would never willingly join the army will learn the skills of soldiering as well as the smart motivated people who are all Gung Ho. And they will learn them far far better than the Gung Ho unmotivated stupid people.

Surround a smart/capable person with other smart/capable people, even if they don't approve of the organization they are in, they will develop a bond with each other.

And, once you give someone a skill, however vile a skill it is. Well. We like to use our skills. We really do. And when we can frame that skill in terms of it being a good thing to do (save our buddies, bring democracy to the people, help the majority of the people in this town have running water, blah blah blah) well, that makes using my horrible skills all the more appealing. The end Vs. the Means. Cutting out a cancer from the society. Pick your metaphor. People are great at rationalizing.

This isn't to mention that the vast majority of skills the army imparts have nothing to do with combat. Tooth to Tail in the US (someone who knows more about the US army needs to correct me here) is something like 7:1. So most people in the army aren't involved in the combat side of things at all. Food prep, ordering supplies, cleaning camp, filling trucks with gas, etc. etc. etc.. (Cannon fodder aren't all in combat, ya know). Some of those things need smart, motivated people too (translation, reading local newspapers, listening to the radio, gathering Intel. Making sure you have the resources to feed 3000 people today etc.).

And another thing. The vast majority of people make really crappy combat soldiers. Take a well trained (but not battle exposed) soldier, and shoot at him, and most of them will cower. It takes someone INCREDIBLY disciplined/motivated/(the right kind of cerebral) to grab cover, stick their head up and start shooting back. Funny thing is that that combination of discipline/motivation/(right kind of cerebral) ALSO has almost nothing to do with how much you wanted to be in that situation, in the first place. Because ONCE YOU ARE THERE, if you want to live, the correct response is to shoot back. And

Re:Simple solution:

Part of the problem is something very simple (in a Freakonomics sort of way):

Laser eye surgery is destroying the Navy

Every single officer* who joins the Navy wants to be a pilot. In the past, many smart people with less-than-perfect vision joined the Navy and many were sent to submarines. Now, all the smart ones get surgery and become pilots. It almost makes me cry to remember the type of people who now make "nuclear officers".

* (not much of an exaggeration)

Re:Simple solution:

Laser eye surgery is destroying the Navy

As a Naval Reserve squid, I'd like to gently refute this.
The decline of the US Navy is related to the lack of any nation that can go toe-to-toe with the US in a blue-water fight. Which is a Good Thing: engagements like Leyte Gulf [wikipedia.org] ain't cheap. If the US has deterred opposing Navies from even showing up, then the job has been done.
The Soviet Navy has, happily, rusted away at the pier for the most part.
The Chinese Navy, while up-and-coming, hasn't really got the blue-water muscle.

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

For comparison, the US SSN-688 (Los Angeles [wikipedia.org] class) is over twice as long and has ~three times the displacement.
Electric motors are indeed quiet. No mention on Wikipedia of any bottoming capability, an even more scary possiblity.
Interestingly, the Wikipedia page notes that this incident occured in October 2006 "in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan", at a range of 5 nautical miles (less than half the distance to the horizon) off Okinawa. One wonders if the Kittyhawk was conducting flight ops (the tone of the article would seem to indicate no).
If you've been on one of her escorts and had to be plane guard for an aircraft carrier, you know her for a fickle wench out chasing a breeze. If the submarine commander wasn't really comfortable with his knowledge of the sea bottom, that surfacing could have had everything to do with fearing for his life. Trading paint with 84,000 tons of US diplomacy underway going full-tilt-boogy is not going to be a career enhancer.
Not that this wipes the egg off the face of whoever was in charge of the escort screen, if the Chinese presence was indeed the surprise that the article touts it as.

Why do the Chinese give away this capability?

I find your theory interesting on why the Chinese submarine even surfaced.

Correct me on this, but I have long imagined there to be a Mad Magazine "Spy vs Spy" quality to the Cold War confrontations. One one hand, you might want to put the fear into the other side that you have a certain capability (i.e. ultra quiet sub). On the other hand, you may not want to tip your hand that you can do a certain thing.

There is this account of a Russian attack sub tailing a U.S. super carrier, and the captain of the carrier ordering increasing amounts of speed to see if the sub could keep up. There was a certain sobering factor that the sub was able to match whatever speed the carrier could reach. Above a certain speed, the sub was going so fast and making so much noise that there was no longer any sub stealth involved, but there was a command decision about whether to go even faster to see if the sub could keep up. On one hand, the sub is giving up intel about how fast it can go, but the carrier is giving up intel on its speed, and the account was that the captain of the carrier gave up on attempting to outrun the sub to not reveal what the carrier could do.

There must be also a factor that any of this sea-going machinery must have a "short time rating" and that one can push the capabilities of the power plant in exchange for shortening its life or needing repairs. I heard an account that when the SS United States (one of the last of the great passenger liners) made a record Atlantic crossing on its maiden voyage, the machinery was never quite the same after that.

So why would the Chinese sub surface. One explanation is that is close to home waters and it was to "teach the Americans a lesson" about messing around in Chinese near-territorial waters. Another explanation, as you have offered, is that the Chinese sub captain panicked, and in so doing gave up some information of about Chinese capabilites that they might want to keep secret.

Re:Why do the Chinese give away this capability?

"Spy vs Spy" is certainly an interesting way to put it, but it is indeed a poker match. Multiple audiences exist:

• The opposing navy
• The opposing government
• The friendly navy
• The friendly government

You'd need to do a full http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory [wikipedia.org] treatment of each combination to wring out a full analysis of whether the Chinese 'won' or 'lost' in the encounter.
Looking historically, most assessments of opposing capabilities end up inflated. Consider the US assessments of Iraq, or of Soviet Capabilities. That's all well and good: you've got the hindsight working for you. Alas, we live in the present tense. Do you really want to low-ball your investments in, say, sonar development, just because you "guess" that the Chinese "really" wouldn't pickle off a round at one of your aircraft carriers?
Subsurface warfare preparation is really like studying for final exams in an unloved course. It really gets in the way of partying, which is why an event like this surfacing tends to be accompanied by a chorus of sphincters slamming shut like water-tight doors as the ships in the battlegroup go to general quarters.
Thus, my cynical guess is that the real audiences for this sort of article are the governments. In the US case, the subsurface Navy is more wallpaper than usual, based upon the previously mentioned lack of blue-water opponents, the (appropriate) mind-share commanded by Iraq, and the overall "un-shiny-ness" of subsurface warfare.
My knowledge of the Chinese is essentially 0. Can't hazard a guess as to how the event plays in Beijing.

There is this account of a Russian attack sub tailing a U.S. super carrier, and the captain of the carrier ordering increasing amounts of speed to see if the sub could keep up. There was a certain sobering factor that the sub was able to match whatever speed the carrier could reach. Above a certain speed, the sub was going so fast and making so much noise that there was no longer any sub stealth involved, but there was a command decision about whether to go even faster to see if the sub could keep up. On one hand, the sub is giving up intel about how fast it can go, but the carrier is giving up intel on its speed, and the account was that the captain of the carrier gave up on attempting to outrun the sub to not reveal what the carrier could do.

Yes, it's a poker match, played with information as chips, as the two sides see who will be the first to say 'uncle' (probably due to equipment problems). I'll venture that the concern from the US side was not so much the carrier as her escorts. Even with an airwing embarked, the Kittyhawk (the remaining non-nuclear powered US carrier) is simply an impressive piece of engineering.
For all I punted on a full active career in the US Navy (personal reasons), I still have a "moment" when I come out of the Norfolk VA tunnel, look South to the carrier piers, and see two or three of those ladies moored. Mahan [wikipedia.org] would nod in approval. Conversely, the decline of the United States in world historical importance will likely be proportional to the state of her Navy, if you'll permit a blatantly partisan observation.

Re:Why do the Chinese give away this capability?

Subs can indeed travel faster underwater than on the surface, however their props are designed for stealth first and speed second. That priority almost guarantees that the prop would cause cavitation at high speeds, which would basically destroy a very expensive item, so even if a captain *could* push his boat that fast, he would likely cripple it.

There's one notable exception, which was probably involved in that story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_class_submarine [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why do the Chinese give away this capability?

There is this account of a Russian attack sub tailing a U.S. super carrier, and the captain of the carrier ordering increasing amounts of speed to see if the sub could keep up. There was a certain sobering factor that the sub was able to match whatever speed the carrier could reach. Above a certain speed, the sub was going so fast and making so much noise that there was no longer any sub stealth involved, but there was a command decision about whether to go even faster to see if the sub could keep up. On one hand, the sub is giving up intel about how fast it can go, but the carrier is giving up intel on its speed, and the account was that the captain of the carrier gave up on attempting to outrun the sub to not reveal what the carrier could do.

An alternative theory on commander's decision to give it up:

Non-encrypted depeche received aboard carrier on SLF channel:
PLEASE STOP YOUR ENGINES STOP WE ARE HOOKED ON YOUR ANCHOR STOP THANKS MATE STOP YOURS TRULY YURI END

Re:Simple solution:

As a former ASW (anti-submarine warfare) pilot, I would like to point out that, in 1998-2000, the Navy decided that "we don't need ASW to be a primary mission for the carrier." So, they assigned the carrier helos additional duty as an ASW platform ("They can handle anything inside 50 miles"), P-3s to take care of the long range stuff ("They're available"), and F/A-18s to do surface search ("They're always around, anyway").

Now, don't get me wrong, a helo can be an excellent ASW platform...if its crew is given time to train, if the carrier has enough of a "heads-up", and if they aren't doing plane-guard 90% of the time (hovering near the carrier to pick up an wrecked pilots.)

F/A-18s can't spend the time down low (they use too much gas and would rather drop bombs or shoot aircraft, not to mention that's a lot of work for one guy in a cockpit), P-3s are great, but there are only so many and they have a huge area to cover, and they have a big crew with lots of run-up for a mission...plus, they are usually based far away from where the carriers actually are. ("We just spotted a sub! Get your boys out there!" "Roger that, we'll be on station in 4 hours...")

Not being a bubblehead (submarine guy), I can't speak to any limitations on subs, but there are only so many, and a kamikaze diesel sub can and will cause a lot of tight sphincters on any ships in his area.

As the parent pointed out, no one has really tried to challenge the US for a long time, and we've gotten soft in this area (think ASW during WWII, mine warfare, brown water ops in Vietnam, etc, ad nauseum.) It usually takes either a big scare or a smoking hole in the water before anyone dusts off the old books and starts to really think about how the job needs to be done.

ASW is a highly-developed skill, and when you start to dismantle that skill, you suffer for a long time. If we haven't reversed those decisions to downgrade the ASW mission, maybe this will be an early enough wakeup call to undo the damage before someone decides that we're weak enough to slap us where it hurts.

It only takes one carrier with a hole it the side to win the public affairs war.

Background/Disclaimer: My experience was as an S-3 pilot, a carrier-based ASW aircraft. I've been out of the Navy for 3 years now, so all my points may be hopelessly out of date. On the other hand, I doubt the war on "terrah" has had any admirals sweating enemy subs, and people (as a group) don't really change, do they?

Re:Simple solution:

What the hell does all this mean? Could someone translate in proper English for us non-native-English-speaking /.ers?

1) Aircraft carriers may change directions (getting lined up with the wind) in ways that are not predictable to the captain of a Chinese submarine.

2) It would be really bad to be hit by a carrier, they are very large.

3) But the vessels that are supposed to be guarding the carrier should have detected the "enemy" sub.

Re:Simple solution:

It seems to be in simple English to me...but let me try to explain.

"If you've been on one of her escorts and had to be plane guard for an aircraft carrier, you know her for a fickle wench out chasing a breeze." Sea breezes constantly change direction. A carrier will try to steam into the wind whenever launching or landing aircraft. As a result the carrier changes directions quite frequently. This forces the surrounding escorts to change direction. I may be wrong but it is my understanding is that passive detection methods are hindered during these changes of direction.

"Trading paint with 84,000 tons of US diplomacy underway going full-tilt-boogy is not going to be a career enhancer." Being in command of a submarine when it gets run over by a U.S carrier running at top speed will not make you a top candidate for the next Admiral slot that opens up.

"Not that this wipes the egg off the face of whoever was in charge of the escort screen [...]" The escorts screwed up bu not properly anticipating the carrier's movements. The escorts should have changed their direction in a way that would have minimized any reduction in the effectiveness of the task forces passive sonars.

Re:Simple solution:

Regarding your claim that laser eye surgery is destroying the navy...

At the US Naval Academy summer seminar a few years ago, I was informed by some officers that having laser eye surgery would immediately disqualify me from being a pilot. This is due to the uncertain effect of altitude/pressure/high g-forces on the vision of someone who's had laser surgery. I was disappointed by this policy because my vision is not perfect, and I was told that the best I could aim for was being a "back-steater", like Goose in Top Gun. I decided not to apply to the Academy. But if what you say is true and the surgery is now allowed, I might reconsider my decision and go for some Lasik... wait, did I just prove your point?

And here's a quote as true today as it was then.

"The war wasn't meant to be won or lost, it was simply meant to be fought. The war was never meant to end, merely to go on."

Do you folks actually think that both sides of this conflict hate each other as much as the peons do? Sheesh. When the rich meet at the country club, the boys from Company A, and the boys from Company B, regardless of nationality, are friends.

The same is true of "presidents", "bankers" and anything else. Gentleman's rules, to all games. Gentlemen don't KILL each other. They get proxies, peons, idiots and fools to slaughter each other in their names. After all, only fools would hate someone they've never had a chance to get to know, or witness first hand their deeds (and their motivation, of course). Short of aggression carried out against the individual in question, "fighting a war" generally involved mass psychosis, usually cultivated by carefully trained and prepared "superiors" and "intelligence personnel."

This stuff's as old as the world. The wars will go on, the arms races will go on, and humanity will go on. All the fears and the doomsayers are merely meant to up the ante, and keep the peons scurrying about, frittering their lives away doing nothing at all interesting or worthwhile, other than what they have been TOLD to do by someone else, for someone else's benefit and minor, if any, benefit to themselves.

Welcome to the future :)

The only reason I keep watching this mess is because it is, frankly speaking, fun to watch. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:so would be the Bush

What Stalin did was to hold Russia together. If he was soft Russia would have been wiped by the Nazi Germany

Oh, give me a fucking break! Do you have ANY knowledge whatsoever about that of which you speak?

Stalin bears zero credit for "holding Russia together" during the Great Patriotic War (WW2). Stalin's paranoid purges of the Red Army prior to the war weakened his forces to the point that Finland was able to hold them off. Stalin's attempts at military "leadership" (pushing offenses against the advice of Zhukov) all ended in disaster. Stalin's sole saving grace over Hitler is that he eventually realized this and allowed his military men to conduct the war.

Why don't you go to Russia today and try to sell people on the idea that Stalin was the savior of Russia. Let me know how that works out for you.

If he was so psychotic, why was he helped by the USA then?

Because he was slightly better then Hitler and the USA couldn't allow the Soviet Union to be conquered by Germany?

Re:Simple solution:

And that's assuming that it ever came to war. I don't want to be blasé about the risk of conflict, but keep in mind that US debt [brillig.com] isn't quite critical but has become very, very large. A good portion of that debt is to China (another big chunk is borrowed against the public via social security, et al). The US government has essentially mortgaged the country. There doesn't have to be a war before a US citizen finds she's working for a Chinese company and renting from a Chinese landlord.

Now the US has an enormous military (there had to be something to show for all that borrowing and it certainly wasn't in education and health care, yes?). You could say that the US could tell the rest of the World to go and fuck itself and renege on the debt. But that's extremely unlikely because (a) the richest people of the US who have the greatest influence to bring about such a thing are those who would lose the most in any sort of international isolation or chaos, (b) the whole economic structure of the US would go into freefall and (c) it would be hard to fund the US military in an economic crisis anyway, at least for any sustained period.

Besides, it's not in the USA's creditor's interests for the US to default on debt or go bankrupt or turn into a military dictatorship. The percentage is in keeping it just sufficiently under the economic thumb that it can be milked in perpetuity and nudged into selling off its institutions and resources group by group. That's one of the nice things about a heavily privatised society. It makes it convenient for the country to be sold without non-radical means of preventing it.

Re:Simple solution:

Enjoy. [economist.com]

It's a myth that our debt is large or crippling. Doubly so when you look at historical levels of the national debt.

Triply so when you consider that as the dollar looses value, so does our debt, while our cheaper currency drives exports and growth.

It's true that the U.S. economic situation is not perfect. We don't print money on trees, and our growth rate isn't good, there are class issues, and inefficiency is growing. However, our environmental situation is _pretty good_ these days, and for the most part (at least in terms of environmental contaminants, and deforestation) there is a good deal of substance (read "balls") to the U.S. economy. Watch the yuan continue to grow in value, and renewables continue to be ever more viable in the face of escalating oil prices, and you'll see that the U.S. shall continue as a strong economy for the forseeable future.

We're hardly pawning off our assets to pay our debts. The only thing that's happening now is that foreign countries no longer value our debt as AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, driving the value of the dollar down; which makes sense, as it was overvalued. Our purchasing power shall decline, however, our incentive to work hard, produce, and sell to the rest of the world grows. All we have to do is a)ride out the occasional correction, as we are doing now, and b)find politicians willing to exercise fiscal restraint and work towards budget surpluses, as well as a sustainable, cheap source of energy.

Hopefully, the market will take care of the second part, and the 2008 election will take resolve the first.

Re:Simple solution:

The problem isn't so much that the debt is large or that the Dollar is losing value. The problem is that in the Euro there is now a viable and quite attractive alternative to it.

What makes the Euro so attractive is, funny enough, the "weakness" of the kinda-sorta government behind it. The EU is a conglomerate of countries with very different agendas. There is no chance in hell that they will ever agree on a radical point of view and change economic policies or foreign relationships radically over night. That means stability. Together with a very strong economic power backing the currency, it becomes incredibly attractive as a currency to use for international trade.

And that is a big problem for the US. What if China suddenly demands Euros for its goods instead of Dollars?

Re:Simple solution:

"There are good reasons to have a draft"

Such as?

I'm too lazy to parapharase this post I made elsewhere, so I'll just edit to reflect retiring recently:

Rant mode on:
My opinion as a 26-year Air Force NCO is that a return to conscription will cost lives for nothing, would be a financial disaster, weaken the armed forces, not build any sort of (positive) shared national identity among the victims, and otherwise is a terrible idea.
Conscription instantly builds justifiable, bitter resentment among the tiny minority of victims. By the time you filter the physically and mentally fit out of the pool, you have an even smaller slice of the youth population. Not being totally stupid, some of these folks wake up to the fact that THEIR sacrifice is to appease some other fellows desire for SHARED sacrifice, whatever THAT is. These bitter humans form a pool of first-termers who will not re-enlist. Guess where the investment in training them went? Out the gate along with their ability to train brand new people, who must suffer learning by (KABOOM!) experience instead of mentoring.
Training the rotating victim pool falls to the career enlisted, who are exhausted thereby, and saddened at the deterioration of the military they had worked so hard to build. More career people quit...depleting the mid-career ranks, later depleting the senior ranks...
The blast radius of this stupidity isn't limited to Army units. Conscription was famous for scaring those unwilling to be bullet catchers into the Air Force and Navy. I came in a few years after the draft ended, but the horror stories were still fresh and I believe them. Drug use (not healthy for quality aircraft maintenance or fighting aircraft carrier fires...Forrestal, cough, cough..), discipline problems (hard to threaten someone who WANTS to be discharged!), morale in the shitter, you name it.
Effectiveness goes down, costs go up, waste goes up, experience goes away, and the downward spiral goes on unless a Ronald Regan shows up to un-fuck it.
Rich folk still dodge service as they always have and always will, because there is no SOCIAL censure for doing so. Poor folks who don't want to be there, led by inexperienced supervisors, die and are wounded in greater quantities than in the highly effective Volunteer Force. Surviving conscripts, shanghaied by a government that took them, fucked them, and chucked them end up homeless and ruined, just like the last time.
World War II is over, and that massive level of shared service is not economically supportable or necessary or intelligent due to technology. Army service is not a viable substitute for parenting either, because the kind of harsh discipline that is necessary to control the actively unwilling no longer exists and the public will not tolerate it. Society has changed, and I respectfully submit that proponents of conscription either have no clue or deliberately want it as a spoiler to damage the military.
Consider the Volunteer Force. It rebuilt itself during the 1980s into an effective war machine, won the (conventional) Gulf War battles with minimum loss and impressive speed, withstood the first drawdown, and is doing surprisingly well at simultaneously managing drawdown/transformation/the mess in Iraq.
Do we REALLY want to toss conscripts into the mix? Why would putting less-committed, less-professional, less-trained people into incredibly stressful situations be better for anyone?
Anyone out there with substantial recent US military experience favor a draft? Very few I've heard from.
The lessons of conscription have been learned.
Read and heed:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/heinl.html [montclair.edu]

Re:Simple solution:

We need a commander-in-chief that doesn't abuse his position. Many are probably afraid to sign up, not wanting to be stuck on a ten-year tour-of-duty. We should have been in and out of Afghanistan in a few months, and we shouldn't have entered Iraq at all. We didn't have a single good reason to invade. Why would anyone want to sign up for an pointless war? Our soldiers should have the right to protect our country with honor.

Re:Simple solution:

Bah! I'm tired of all the naysayers! We had plenty of good--dare I say great--reasons to invade Iraq. The problem with our strategy was that no good reason was also true.

Oh hell no

I'm beyond draft age, but there's no way I'd subject my younger relatives to being drafted for another BS war-of-choice like Iraq or Vietnam.

I would trust them to be patriotic enough to join up if they were needed to fight a *real* threat like WWII.

PR ploy

Of course, if they're trying to throw the Chinese off, they'll say that.

PR inside the USA is more important

The minitary need to keep their internal PR machine going. The military soak up a huge amount of the US budget, yet are slipping up. They need to keep selling to the US public to keep getting funding and keeping the generals and admirals from getting fired.

Why?

While it was no doubt lots of fun to put some egg on the face of the US Navy, I have to wonder why the Chinese did this. Why tip your hand? Now that the Navy knows how sophisticated they Chinese subs are they'll be much more careful in the event of an actual conflict. No doubt there's people thinking of new counter measures even as I type this.

Re:Why? Why? Well, the wanted to ...

"Sinnnng, Sing a song...."

On VETERAN'S day, no less (unless it happened on the other side of the IDL...).

"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."

----

*I* will venture to say that "consternation" is a POLITE, GENEROUS description. The USN/DOD probably are having a major cataleptic fit. They're probably throwing chairs higher, harder and faster than Steve Ballmer, and HE already throws them faster than the speed of light...

Of course, the USN WILL, as obliged, say some shit like, "Well, if this had been the Enterprise, or the new George H.W. Bush, with their CVN ASW/CVIS suite, this would NEVER, NEVER happen. Why, our technological sophistication by FAR outstrips anything the Reds... Umm, are we on tape? Strike that... Correction all after Reds... Chinese Navy has in its inventory. Why, Our USS Virginia and Jimmy Carter boats are quieter at FLANK, above 500 below sea level than a ANY LA SSN or follow-on boat is just sitting at the pier with recirc pumps on minimal output..."

That may be, but you STILL got your ass embarrassed.

But, I don't for one SECOND believe China WOULD attack. They are just saying, TAG. Here's realism for your fake-ass scenarios and drills.

Why am I talking this way? Cuz I'm an ex Sailor, from 1984-1988, and after playing the "Terrorists" in security alerts aboard my second ship (an FFG), I grew to despise TYCOM Longbeach for the shitty scenarios we had. Sure, the "Nav" upgraded since 87, but I was still bored with and tired of officers who cheated their way into regaining control of the ship when I denied them with REALISTIC scenarios.

Also, I don't CARE that drones COST money. You have CIWS to do a TASK, not SIMULATE. That's why the Stark was popped, cuz her CIWS was BROKE DICK, NOT performing to manufacturer's claims. My ship deployed from Long Beach, as part of the NRF in Nov 87, to the Gulf, to in-chop by some date in Jan 88, and we had SIMA, Fleet this and Fleet that and I think Norden or NavElex and a other "experts" aboard, and that fucking GE gun failed to cooperate UNTIL we we're almost done transiting the Strait of Hormuz (Silworm Alley). It woke up to our surprise. Nobody in Long Beach, Pearl, Subic, or on-board could get that goddam gun to do jack shit in defensive mode.

I FIRMLY believe the Stark was a victim of lies all over the place. The ship's captain was a scapegoat. I believe MY ship's captain felt the same, because MANY of us in the crew donated funds to the victims and their families. Few other ships did that. I think our CO was making or allowing us to make a statement.

I also at the time, well, around June 87 as an E-4 Radioman, but not Gunner's Mate or weapons person, told several of the GM's (who were loading the DU (depleted Uranium) rounds into the gun (they were wearing asbestos gloves, but no respirators...tsk tsk...), "This gun isn't worth shit. All the Soviets need to do is pickle our asses from high altitude with a self-guided or corrected set of bombs. They don't even need a direct hit. Just defoliate our masts and antennas. Hell, they could come from zenith and attack the CVNs, BBs and anything else IF they can break through CAP (Combat Air Patrol) for CVNs or sqwack (fake being CommAir (commercial aircraft) and close in on us."

The Gunner's Mate, Guns (as opposed to Missiles)

But, China's stated policy (like the US') is not to fire first. However, China recently stated to the Naval Community worldwide this:

"China will not fire the first shot. But if a shot is fired AT us, the shooter will not fire a SECOND shot."

THAT will keep the smugness, arrogance and cheekiness ou

Re:To get us to spend money.

I am guessing that China is a lot closer to a war with the west then is assumed in the west.

I think the message is more "Don't fuck with us if we invade Taiwan". China doesn't want war with the West. They're getting rich selling stuff to the West now. But at the same time, the Chinese military is chafing to take back the "rogue province" of Taiwan.

Sub Captain had an Advantage

The exercise was presumably planned, so all he had to do was sit by the bottom and wait for the fleet to go overhead.

I won't be able to remark any more on the issue though (at least not on /.) as I'm about to read the article.

Re:Already Heard About It

More like a YEAR! [iht.com]

Re:Already Heard About It

Also seen in 2006 posts:
http://www.sinodaily.com/reports/Chinese_Sub_Approached_US_Aircraft_Carrier_Undetected_999.html [sinodaily.com]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/14/world/main2179694.shtml [cbsnews.com]
http://madhousethought.blogspot.com/2006/11/chinese-submarine-stalked-uss-kitty.html [blogspot.com]

Re:What better way than this...

diesel-Electric subs noisy? what are you smoking? and do you share it with US submariner's.

The Standard Diesel-electric is quieter than Nuclear Subs. Do you know why? because Electric motors are very quiet. While both types of subs use electric drive motors the nuclear reactors also turn steam turbines which make noise all the time. While quieter than a diesel engine by several orders of magnitude it is louder than a pure electric motor running on batteries.

Nuclear Power has several other advantages, including no need for consumable fuel, or exhausting harmful gases. A nuclear sub can also stay down on the bottom for the entire duration of it's mission, while diesel subs have to come up high enough to run the diesel motors to recharge the battery packs.

Quite an achievement

Given the amount of lead they use I'm amazed it could float.

Re:Quite an achievement

Good thing it did not dissolve into a date-rape drug...

don't worry though

There's a trojan pre-installed on the submarine's main data drive.

The danger of diesels

Though an older technology, diesel-electric submarines can actually be quieter than nuclear submarines. A nuclear reactor has constant motion. There are usually pumps, valves, turbines, all sorts of things that are moving. The US submarine fleet was designed from the beginning to be as quiet as possible, but there's still some noise. It's not practical to shut down and turn on the reactor, so there's always SOME noise being produced.

A diesel electric submarine, on the other hand, only makes noise when the diesel is on. Running on batteries, in absolute quiet mode, a modern diesel-electric can be a hole in the water.

Combine this technology with good intel, and you could conceivably station a submarine dragnet in the path of a carrier group a day in advance and sit on the bottom absolutely quiet. When your target approaches, pump some ballast out (at the risk of making noise) and begin an ascent. The dive planes can convert some of that bouyancy into forward motion, and you could fine tune your course and potentially be within torpedo range before being detected.

The defense against this is to use active sonar. This is anathema to modern sub doctrine, so surface ships might do it, but it's akin to shining a flashlight in a dark room, it will let everyone else know where you are too.

There are russian diesel-electric subs being tested with part-time reactors for extending the underwater life for minimal noise footprint. It will be interesting to see how these develop.

The future of submarine warfare might end up being loud and fast. Google 'supercavitating torpedo' or 'schkval torpedo' to see more. Teaser: Underwater missiles that travel hundreds of miles per hour. Kablooey!

Re:The danger of diesels

Funny thing about the schkval is that in the 50s/60's, we were designing and about to build a Mach3 bomber ( B-70 valkrye). About the time of go-no go, the Powers was shot down, and USSR had their ICBM. Kennedy wisely decided that it would be a waste of money to pursue these, though he kept the research going for faster planes (which Nixon killed) and better rockets (NASA). Now, we see a torpedo that is KNOWN to be fast. Of course, it is not accurate, but who cares. If you can get it close with a small nuke (which russia owns), you own the ship. The real problem is that supposedly Russia has turned over that info to China. So now what do we do?

Back in the 70's, Carter predicted that the day and age of large ships needed to end due to the ease that USSR (and other nations) could get to them. His goal was to push for small ships that worked together, basically a parallel system. Sadly, reagan killed that and pushed us back to the day of the battleships. Now, we have the ddx, but we are still pushing major ships. It strikes me that we will need to have automated or remotely controlled ships that can do the search and destroy missions. But just as the Air force fought that, the Navy is fighting that as well.

Signs point to surface ship obsolesence

It seems like submarines are outpacing the ability of anti-submarine warfare to keep up with them. While it is somewhat surprising that the Chinese have evolved a quiet submarine, the threat of modern hybrid electric submarines is not new.

Indeed, there are numerous and famous stories of Dutch and German sailors sending back pictures of various US Aircraft carriers through their periscopes. This indicates that they successfully penetrated the US Navy ASW screen, made it to periscope depth, snapped a picture, and then got back out, all undetected. In response to this, the US Navy has actually asked NATO allies equipped with such submarines to drill with the American teams, in order to bolster the US ASW capability. This incident, then, suggests that the US Navy has a lot more to do.

In general, rumours abound that submarines are now operating at close to the ambient noise level of the ocean. If genuinely operated so quietly, and given the difficult acoustic environment of the underwater world, it remains difficult to understand just how one might actually detect a submarine. Certainly, passive detection is difficult, and active detection only gives your own position away.

What's really troubling about all of this is that, doctrinally, the US Navy does not have much in passive armor against weapons at all. Aircraft carriers, destroyers, and more are generally not armoured as doctrinally, the idea is to keep the enemy from engaging your assets to begin with by forming a screen around the capital ships. Thus, we are operating a Navy that has a reduced ability to absorb damage from an enemy increasingly able to inflict it.

If the US does not adjust, then, it is very likely setting itself up for an enormous defeat in a naval engagement against a determined opponent.

Re:Signs point to surface ship obsolesence

One thing to keep in mind is that during training the anti-submarine aspect has its hands tied. Certain types of active sonar are forbidden due to the belief that they can maim/kill sea animals (namely whales).

The other issue to keep in mind is that it is one thing to break in on a scheduled training mission. It is another thing to catch an aircraft carrier cruising around at 40+ knots. Diesel/electric boats have almost no capacity to hunt on the modern stage. They really need to move into position, wait, and hope that a target comes by. The sea is big, and airplanes with refueller aircraft have very long ranges.

In a sea engagement the Chinese navy really is not much of a threat. The real threat comes from the Chinese missile and rock batteries, and to some extent, their air force. In a battle over Taiwan, China has a base to fly from that can be heavily guarded so as to make anything that isn't a stealth fighter weary about entering their airspace. That isn't to say that the Chinese airforce wouldn't take horrific losses, just that they could do some damage before bleeding their airforce away on the combined US/Taiwan air defense.

The real place where China is still screwed is in the actual crossing. A Chinese boat could get lucky and whack a carrier if they positioned themselves just right, but US hunter killer subs could do horrific damage against any sort of invasion force. What the subs don't eat, the aircraft would once they leave the AAA cover of the main land. An army a few million strong doesn't do any good if it can't get to land.

Carriers, so big, so beautiful, so dead

Our fleet hasn't seen real naval combat since WWII. Anti-ship missiles are incredibly lethal and it costs far more to defend against them than it does to fire them. It will only take a few hits to ruin the day for any American task force. Sure, start a war with Iran. After the first carrier takes a hit that knocks it out of action for a two year repair, our fleets will be kept so far out at sea that their tactical usefulness will be zero. Score one for the Iranians.

The whole concept of the super-carrier is very vulnerable at this point given the kinds of weapons available to potnetial hostiles. The only reason why they persist with such glowing reputations is that they have not been put to the test in battle, their vulnerabilities not made clear. In this case they are like the battleships of WWII, or possibly more apt, the battle-cruisers. The battle-cruisers were up-gunned so they could fight with the big boys but they lacked the armor to stay in the fight. Very expensive viking funerals, they were.

The only development that will save the carrier is if active defenses can be improved to the point that nothing but nothing will get through the wall of fire. As it stands, our current ships are simply not survivable. Frigates and destroyers will get goatse'd if hit by a serious cruise missile. The torps out there these days can break a ship in two. The Russians, of course, designed torps that were supposed to be able to bust a carrier's keel in one hit.

Our whole military aparatus is still stuck in the 20th century and is still trying to bring forward concepts that saw their genesis back in the Cold War. It's going to take a serious kicking of our collective asses to force the Pentagon to reevaluate our military and put together something that's realistic and sane. But I'm not sure how big of an ass-kicking it'll take. We're getting a good one in Iraq and the lessons don't seem to be sinking in.

Re:Carriers, so big, so beautiful, so dead

Well, we have the airport, but the security lines are a bitch :)

Re:Carriers, so big, so beautiful, so dead

Carrier's don't float alone. Don't underestimate the knowledge and abilities of the USN. The US played cat and mouse with the soviets for 30 years. It just means the USN is going to start playing cat and mouse with the Chinese now that their sub-tactics are improving. Chances are they were trying to surface to see if they could surface for a strike and re-submerge without being detected. In fact it would surprise me if there was a Los Angelos class sitting behind the Chinese when they did it. If not the Los Angeles class sub's will be getting their cat-n-mouse time with the Chinese in the near future.

The USN is well aware of supersonic attack missiles and torpedoes, it's the entire reason that AEGIS exists and has the ability to track and fire on 100's of incoming targets simultaneously from every vessel in the fleet. The first principle of carrier doctrine is that carriers are huge slow moving targets, but they are also huge slow moving targets with 20 support ships and hundreds of aircraft aboard. For example, in a conflict with Iran the carriers aren't going to start the conflict while in the gulf, it will start with them outside the limits of the Iranians weapons while they bomb the living hell out of every defensive emplacement within 100 miles of coast. Then you move the carrier groupings in further so the aircraft can strike further. The carrier isn't there to sail up to the coast so the sailors can fire their machine gun at the ground or so the destroyers can fire their 12" guns, the carrier exists to support the aircraft which are the extension of the carrier's power (and that range is in the 100's of miles). I don't think you would dare argue that the Iranian's air defenses could withstand full assault by modern warplanes. Iraq had the best air defenses outside Russia in '91 (with the best systems the Russians sold) and it was picked clean in less than 100 days.

The same is true of submarines, even diesels, given modern anti-sub warfare the Chinese wouldn't approach a carrier let alone fire on one, active sensors would be well outside the limits of the grouping actively pinging such that a yellowfin couldn't sneak up on the grouping. And no submarine can actively defend against helicopter based torpedoes and active floating sensors (except for sitting on the bottom next to something that conceals their shape), and fortunately the USN is smart enough to keep a couple anti-sub ships with two helicopters each and a hold full of sensors in every grouping. In the event of a conflict there would be a sensor net all the way from the Philippines to Alaska that would track every submarine in the water.

Re:Carriers, so big, so beautiful, so dead

It's going to take a serious kicking of our collective asses to force the Pentagon to reevaluate our military and put together something that's realistic and sane. But I'm not sure how big of an ass-kicking it'll take. We're getting a good one in Iraq and the lessons don't seem to be sinking in.

That's a joke, right? The entire death toll in Iraq is less than the number of allied lives lost on any one day of major offencive ops in WW2. You lost 3 times as many soldier in one year of operations in Vietnam as you did in 4 years of ops in Iraq. Even Korea cost you 30,000+. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Iraq has given you "a good ass kicking", but you couldn't be more silly if you tried.

The first time is easy...

It's not clear whether the sub actually navigated its way into the heart of the carrier group, or whether it was just sitting there waiting for the other ships to sail by. It's a cheap and easy tactic, and they could have had subs stationed along the common navigation channels or the exercise area (which is no secret) long before the exercise, just in case they got lucky and the carrier group sailed over their heads. Worked for the U-boats, still works today.

But it's not quite so easy the second time. Were the US ships using any active sonar? It doesn't say, but my guess is they weren't, because this is a fairly provocative thing to do -- especially if you're in waters that another country is claiming are its territory. But now that the Chinese have made a provocative move of their own, they'll have the picket ships and helos pinging away and dropping sonobuoys. And it wouldn't surprise me if the Chinese subs all find themselves with a silent new shadow the next time they leave port...

Ah, the bad old days are back again.

Another possibility...

It's entirely possible that the Chinese subs are good enough to escape detection by our fleet, or that we didn't detect it due to user error.

Or, perhaps, it was seen and detected all along but we're just saying it wasn't so that we don't give out an idea of what our tech is or isn't capable of.

There are two kinds of ships....

Submarines and targets.....

No Surprise.

There are two kinds of seagoing vessels: submarines and targets.

--
BMO

An optimistic alternative

While waiting for informed responses to trickle in here, I found this [google.com] on Google Groups (UseNet):

When the incident first happened I commented that we would never know if the Chinese boat was detected and being tracked, which would provide far more intel than flushing it when first detected.

Considering they were in international waters and responses were limited. My comment was that the telling factor would be determined by how many, if any heads rolled. The USN does not forgive such lapses without someone being sacrificed. As far as I can tell, no one has been punished. That would indicate to me that they had a solution on the Chinese boat and were gaining intel.

We do not know why the Chinese Sub surfaced when they did. What happens below the water is rarely shared with the general public. It's entirely possible that once the Chinese got within a certain distance the American boat 'encouraged' them to surface. Just as when a fighter plane can signal it's non-hostile intents by lowering its gear, a Sub surfaces.

If the Chinese were truly undetected they could have gained far more by staying undetected than the minor political points garnered by surfacing.

Just for laughs

Not directly related, but here is a nice picture a German submarine took of the USS Enterprise during a NATO exercise. http://rula.de/marktplatz/files/zielfoto_u24_enterprise.jpg [rula.de]

And IIRC, that was during an antisubmarine drill.

How News Is Made

I would caution everyone to note first of all that the FA is from the Daily Mail and so most of the facts contained therein are subject to question.

As some have noted this incident took place approximately a year ago and in fact it's not even the first time [pqarchiver.com] that the Chinese have stalked the Kitty Hawk - albeit from a greater distance that time.

Essentially what the Mail have done here is to raise an issue that ticks all their usual buttons.

• It takes a dig at the Americans - note the use of "dumbstruck", "embarrassment" and "red-faced".
• It is a cheap article to do - dig up old news, stick some cheap stock pics in and you're done.
• It's about the Chinese - who are scary and foreign.

Consequently, on behalf of all Brits, I apologise for the existence of the Daily Mail - plainly we should do more to end it. On the other hand, however you have given the world Fox News and Ann Coulter - although they do hold a certain amusement value.

As an exercise use google news to see how many other 'articles' have now sprung up which in places basically copy the DM article word for word.. :)

Rather straightforward solution...

Reading the comments, it seems like the consensus is that given sufficient time, motivation, and technology it's hard to passively detect a well designed and built submarine in the open ocean, if it's built for quiet (i.e. non-nuclear) and active detection is the electronic version of wearing a "KICK ME" sign.

Well, the solution to that is obvious - do just what satellites have done for surface bases; map the oceans with automated sonar/other detection grids until we know what's going on everywhere, and the dark (unobserved) areas are points of interest simply by appearing - if someone removes our ability to see it's an automatic point of interest.

The environmental impact of doing something like that would not be trivial of course, but probably given sufficient time, money and resources it could be done. It would mean WE couldn't move quietly either, most likely (we wouldn't be the only ones doing it, once it started) but it would make a "sneak attack" rather more unlikely.

Happens quite a bit

I don't have the reference to hand so feel free to claim it never happened, but this occurred a few years ago with an Australian Collins-class diesel electric. It also happened a few decades ago with an Australian Oberon-class sub, and ISTR some European sub managed a similar trick.

The problem seems to be that US sub crews simply aren't accustomed to going up against diesel-electric subs, which *are* much quieter than the US nukes. There may also be a hubris effect going on, in that the crews *assume* they and their technology will easily detect interlopers, and therefore aren't as much on guard as they should be.

The worrying bit is that (for want of a better term) "rogue states" are much more likely to be using a diesel-electric sub than anything else.

Collision avoidance

My guess is that the submarine sensed the flotilla sailing on a collision course and surfaced to identify and save itself. That still doesn't excuse the US Sonar Operators for not sensing it.

the Kitty Hawk

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.

The Kitty Hawk is not a super-carrier. Its the last conventional carrier left in the US Navy. Japan won't allow a Nuke powered aircraft carrier to be home ported in Japan.

Considering the Kitty Hawk has no S3 Viking (Anti-Submarine) Wing, this is a non-story except for people who want to bash the USA. http://www.kittyhawk.navy.mil/Air%20Wing/cvw5.htm [navy.mil]

The Daily Mail in the UK can't report this?

Cheers to the Chinese Navy though. Job well done.

Enjoy,

What are the Chinese trying to say?

They demonstrate an anti-satellite weapon. They show off a quiet sub. The second isn't as impressive as it sounds. As any hardcore Discovery Channel watcher will tell you, several of our European allies already have super-quiet subs. But the Chinese show off these new technologies in public. What are they trying to do?

When they look as us, what do they see? Remember, these guys aren't stupid, they listen when Bush speaks, they watch when he acts. They see a president completely disdainful of alliances and diplomacy, dependent upon military force and dedicated to unilateral, unprovoked military actions. They see an American administration encouraging rash behavior in its allies. Remember the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon? The Bush administration, according to some news reports, encouraged the Israeli government in its invasion plans. What might Bush do next? The Chinese wish to show our president that not every problem has an "easy" military solution. Bush doesn't listen to words, maybe he'll pay attention to deeds.

As Cap'n Jack Sparrow would say: "They put a shot across our bow, matey!"

Russian VA-111 torpedo

Some years ago the Russian torpedo VA-111 [wikipedia.org] using supercavitating technology managed to reach speeds of more than 200 knots (370 km/h), multiple times the speed of any NATO torpedo. That, too, was a yellow shower.

Re:The Clinton Legacy

What do you mean by 'the Clinton Legacy'? Getting caught with one's pants down?