09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[manqiangrexue]

So, it's possible to assume PLAN was confident on 093B's noise level.

With insufficient data, it's possible to assume many things. What does confident mean? Confident that it won't be detected in stealth mode in the open ocean or confident that it can go into shallow waters infested with enemy ships and remain undetected? Those are different. USA is confident that you can't pick up F-22 from 500km away but not likely confident you won't see it at barely BVR with multiple aircraft radars from every direction.

If there was not hot pursuit, why didn't Chinese government blame JMSDF's chase of 093B in high seas outside Senkaku's contiguous zone?

Blame what? A ship for following you from a distance? Is that illegal? Did the US blame Chinese ships for tailing them in the SCS?

Generally speaking, at least in textbook theory, any submarine's operation based on assumption that the sub will be easily detected is ridiculous.

Generally speaking, you don't send your submarine into very shallow waters controlled by a hostile nation. We've already established that this is not a normal case.

I ask you again:
Could you address this? Especially the last paragraph. https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/pl...r-submarine-thread.t6883/page-161#post-496905

 

[SARB033]

With insufficient data, it's possible to assume many things. What does confident mean? Confident that it won't be detected in stealth mode in the open ocean or confident that it can go into shallow waters infested with enemy ships and remain undetected? Those are different. USA is confident that you can't pick up F-22 from 500km away but not likely confident you won't see it at barely BVR with multiple aircraft radars from every direction.

Blame what? A ship for following you from a distance? Is that illegal? Did the US blame Chinese ships for tailing them in the SCS?

Generally speaking, you don't send your submarine into very shallow waters controlled by a hostile nation. We've already established that this is not a normal case.

I ask you again:
Could you address this? Especially the last paragraph. https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/pl...r-submarine-thread.t6883/page-161#post-496905

When PLAN commissioned the sub 093B maybe around in 2015 or 2016, if PLAN knew the sub was super noisy, it's ridiculous. Any Navy should not commission noisy subs. So, presumably, PLAN thought it was quiet, and commissioned. Is it possible that PLAN recently suddenly changed mind, and now PLAN thinks 093B is not quiet enough?

 

[SARB033]

With insufficient data, it's possible to assume many things. What does confident mean? Confident that it won't be detected in stealth mode in the open ocean or confident that it can go into shallow waters infested with enemy ships and remain undetected? Those are different. USA is confident that you can't pick up F-22 from 500km away but not likely confident you won't see it at barely BVR with multiple aircraft radars from every direction.

Blame what? A ship for following you from a distance? Is that illegal? Did the US blame Chinese ships for tailing them in the SCS?

Generally speaking, you don't send your submarine into very shallow waters controlled by a hostile nation. We've already established that this is not a normal case.

I ask you again:
Could you address this? Especially the last paragraph. https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/pl...r-submarine-thread.t6883/page-161#post-496905

If it wasn't Hot Pursuit based on UNCLOS Article 111, what was the legal basis of JMSDF's chase of 093B in high seas outside Senkaku's contiguous zone?

 

[manqiangrexue]

When PLAN commissioned the sub 093B maybe around in 2015 or 2016, if PLAN knew the sub was super noisy, it's ridiculous. Any Navy should not commission noisy subs. So, presumably, PLAN thought it was quiet, and commissioned. Is it possible that PLAN recently suddenly changed mind, and now PLAN thinks 093B is not quiet enough?

You have a problem reading English. You question was previously addressed here:

"What does confident mean? Confident that it won't be detected in stealth mode in the open ocean or confident that it can go into shallow waters infested with enemy ships and remain undetected? Those are different. USA is confident that you can't pick up F-22 from 500km away but not likely confident you won't see it at barely BVR with multiple aircraft radars from every direction."

If it wasn't Hot Pursuit based on UNCLOS Article 111, what was the legal basis of JMSDF's chase of 093B in high seas outside Senkaku's contiguous zone?

It doesn't need a legal basis. It's not illegal to follow another ship from a distance in international waters as long as you don't perform dangerous maneuvers that risk a collision.

Why do you keep ignoring this?
"Could you address this? Especially the last paragraph. https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/pl...r-submarine-thread.t6883/page-161#post-496905"
Because you don't have any good answer?

You claimed that the sub was forced to surface. How would you do that? There is no known way to force a sub to surface. So did you read that from the report, proving that the Japanese lied, or did you make that up in your head, proving that you don't know enough about subs to have a meaningful debate? It's one of these 2.

 

[SARB033]

With insufficient data, it's possible to assume many things. What does confident mean? Confident that it won't be detected in stealth mode in the open ocean or confident that it can go into shallow waters infested with enemy ships and remain undetected? Those are different. USA is confident that you can't pick up F-22 from 500km away but not likely confident you won't see it at barely BVR with multiple aircraft radars from every direction.

Blame what? A ship for following you from a distance? Is that illegal? Did the US blame Chinese ships for tailing them in the SCS?

Generally speaking, you don't send your submarine into very shallow waters controlled by a hostile nation. We've already established that this is not a normal case.

I ask you again:
Could you address this? Especially the last paragraph. https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/pl...r-submarine-thread.t6883/page-161#post-496905

JMSDF's destroyer and helicopter continuously chased 093B in hot pursuit, and used active sonar's pinging for nearly 24 hours, then the sub 093B surfaced and showed flag. It looks like "please, stop pinging".

 

[manqiangrexue]

JMSDF's destroyer and helicopter continuously chased 093B in hot pursuit, and used active sonar's pinging for nearly 24 hours, then the sub 093B surfaced and showed flag. It looks like "please, stop pinging", isn't it?

No, the submarine willingly surfaced to display its flag. It means, "This is the flag of who you're following. This is not a North Korean sub. Go home while you still can."

So back to this:
"You claimed that the sub was forced to surface. How would you do that? There is no known way to force a sub to surface. So did you read that from the report, proving that the Japanese lied, or did you make that up in your head, proving that you don't know enough about subs to have a meaningful debate? It's one of these 2."

Is it your fault or the paper's fault?

 

[SARB033]

It doesn't need a legal basis. It's not illegal to follow another ship from a distance in international waters

why do you think it was "from a distance"? usually, anti-sub helicopter can hit active sonar's ping from very short distance.

 

[manqiangrexue]

why do you think it was "from a distance"? usually, anti-sub helicopter can hit active sonar's ping from very short distance.

What distance were you led to believe it was at (by the report) and where is the law that says that that distance is illegal?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here's an article about a US prospective submarine following drone. This drone has a radar/sonar that can follow enemy subs while remaining a legal maritime distance away, whatever that is. This demonstrates that you do not have to be illegally close to an enemy sub to follow it.

 

[SARB033]

No, the submarine willingly surfaced to display its flag. It means, "This is the flag of who you're following. This is not a North Korean sub. Go home while you still can."

your theory is ridiculous. the photo of 093B must be precious info for Japan and US. Since US and Japan can know that the acoustics is 093B's. And the sub 093B had no obligation to surface. for Navies, usually, it's considered as shame and humiliation.

 

[SARB033]

What distance were you led to believe it was at (by the report) and where is the law that says that that distance is illegal?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here's an article about a US prospective submarine following drone. This drone has a radar/sonar that can follow enemy subs while remaining a legal maritime distance away, whatever that is. This demonstrates that you do not have to be illegally close to an enemy sub to follow it.

perhaps, you are confusing "follow" and hot pursuit.