AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Since no mechanical problems were sighted by the US Navy, to which I'm sure would've been noted in the article if there were, the Song must've surfaced intentionally to be spotted.
Chinese sub surfaces undetected behind USS Kitty Hawk
- Thread starter AssassinsMace
- Start date
- Status
Since no mechanical problems were sighted by the US Navy, to which I'm sure would've been noted in the article if there were, the Song must've surfaced intentionally to be spotted.
I don't think the insinuation is that the Song had any malfunction. I believe they surfaced intentionally with no problems on their part. I'm just curious as to why. And also I believe they may have been actually tracked, due to the fact that the aircraft knew exactly when and where to find it. Too coincidental. Especially when talking about low intensity naval operations in international waters.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Well the article said the Song was spotted by routine patrol after it surfaced. Personally I believe if the PLAN wanted to let the US Navy know they can silently trail their fleets, they weren't giving away their most advanced capabilities and tactics because certainly the US Navy would work to counter. So maybe the PLAN was testing out something else and used the Song as bait to make it look like a "lesser" sub had that capability while something else was a work. If so whatever it is had to be something coordinated in a network to time it correctly.
The Song did not trail the carrier during normal opertions. It does not have the speed to do so. If it tried it would be far too noisy. I believe the Song knew where the carrier would be and quietly waited for it. That's possible in the current threat conditions and scenarios where the USN is announcing where its carriers will be. Just my opinion.
However your point, that something else may have been there is certainly worth considering. Perhaps a 93 was in the area too.
No network is needed or used. The USN conducts ANNUALEX here at the same time and the same place every year. I think more importantly, the Pentagon and US leaders can see this as "Well, so much for Sino-U.S. relations." I don't find it amazing that the PLAN could put a sub where it's known that the USN conducts ops at every year at the same time. The USN will never say whether they detected it beforehand or not. But I'm guessing they did, due to the reaction and displacement of aircraft in this type of exercise. For certain, I am not. All I know is that this headline and story will not tell 1/10th of the story.
The sub crew may be capable but if I were the PLAN, I would roast the captain's ass for this sort of displays.
Pointblank
Senior Member
Then again, the PRC would want to send a statement to the USN: Your not invincible. We got one of our subs into firing position on your carrier. Watch your back next time, if you decide to cross us.
BLUEJACKET
Banned Idiot
Right on! No matter how you look at it, the seas around China from Korea to the Gulf of Tonkin are confined between the mainland, peninsulas, shallows, reefs and islands, with numerous straits. It won't surprise me a bit if there is a submarine cable with acustic sensors crisscrossing the bottom in all directions, or at least in the most likely spots were CSG may transit/operate. Maybe their escort SSNs are quiet, but other surface ships aren't, plus we all know how noisy helos, catapults and fighters are!
Dear Sirs:
This incident and the tactics the submarine commander utilized remind me of World War II submarine operations against enemy warships, essentially it consisted of and elaborate ambush, that is, predict the future course of the enemy, place yourself there, wait and hope you were right!
To quote a famous submariner "yee gods! A flat top!"
It must be recalled that half the carriers lost in that war were lost to enemy submarine action, so history suggest that with enough subs available one can do considerable damage to major elements of the opponent's fleet.
Both the Soviet Union before and the PLAN now are aware of this and probably rate subs as their best naval weapon. I would look to see a greater expansion of China's submarine fleet.
By the way someone mentioned that the Song had a seven-blade propeller, however I do believe that only the lead sub - which was rated unsatisfactory and had to undergo extensive modification before being accepted - had this.
All the new build subs in fact have a much smaller (and hence faster-turning) brass propeller - its quite prominent in many pictures of the new Song's. I have always wondered as to why the PLAN decided on this apparently retrogressive step, as the smaller, faster propeller should be noisier and less efficient.
Anyone care to comment?
Best Regards,
Dusky Lim
This incident and the tactics the submarine commander utilized remind me of World War II submarine operations against enemy warships, essentially it consisted of and elaborate ambush, that is, predict the future course of the enemy, place yourself there, wait and hope you were right!
To quote a famous submariner "yee gods! A flat top!"
It must be recalled that half the carriers lost in that war were lost to enemy submarine action, so history suggest that with enough subs available one can do considerable damage to major elements of the opponent's fleet.
Both the Soviet Union before and the PLAN now are aware of this and probably rate subs as their best naval weapon. I would look to see a greater expansion of China's submarine fleet.
By the way someone mentioned that the Song had a seven-blade propeller, however I do believe that only the lead sub - which was rated unsatisfactory and had to undergo extensive modification before being accepted - had this.
All the new build subs in fact have a much smaller (and hence faster-turning) brass propeller - its quite prominent in many pictures of the new Song's. I have always wondered as to why the PLAN decided on this apparently retrogressive step, as the smaller, faster propeller should be noisier and less efficient.
Anyone care to comment?
Best Regards,
Dusky Lim
not exactly the same issue, but I guess this incident might have coincided with this latest statement
On the issue itself, the incident is reported by Bill Gertz. I honestly take stuff that he reports with little credence. I remember the media reported several incidences where a Chinese sub supposedly went undetected and surfaced outside its usual operating circle. But then gf0021-aust from DT said that it was pretty much tracked the entire way. So, for me, it's a little hard to believe something by a China threat guy like Bill Gertz. Besides, what the heck is this sub doing trying to show up a carrier?
On the issue itself, the incident is reported by Bill Gertz. I honestly take stuff that he reports with little credence. I remember the media reported several incidences where a Chinese sub supposedly went undetected and surfaced outside its usual operating circle. But then gf0021-aust from DT said that it was pretty much tracked the entire way. So, for me, it's a little hard to believe something by a China threat guy like Bill Gertz. Besides, what the heck is this sub doing trying to show up a carrier?
- Status