Chinese sub surfaces undetected behind USS Kitty Hawk

A testament to US damage control. This ship was saved.

USS Franklin.

adeptitus said:

If I were doing the planning for PLAN subs, I'd prolly allocate more funds toward SSBN's and SSG/SSGN's. The US doesn't have "no first strike" policy, so the PRC can only hope to deter the conflict from going nuclear with true MAD capability. A fleet of 8-12 SSBN's, each armed with 16-24 SLBM's with MIRV warheads, would offer that level of MAD deterrance by sea. For the PLAN to hit a USN carrier and cross their fingers in hope the US wouldn't retaliate is sheer folly.

Click to expand...

Please read ALL my posts here carefully.

For sinking a carrier at sea, I'd go with SSG/SSGN's.
The new Type 94 SSBN is said to carry 16 x JL-2 SLBM's. If each SLBM is replaced by 6 AShM's, that's 16 x 6 = 96 missiles. Borrowing specs from the 3M-54E1 specs, each missile has 300km range and carries 400kg warhead. If the SSGN is able to fire its 96 missiles payload at distance, you only need a small % to penatrate the defenses and score a hit. Something on the scale/size of a 100,000 ton super carrier would prolly require multiple hits to disable it.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I wouldn't rely only on submarines- please see ALL my posts here.

Kilo636 said:

I bet is a wrong time to get funding. With the democrat in house,the first thing they will do is to cut down military expenditure to keep US debt from further rising. Unless US can get out of Iraq quickly,or else US military wil be hard on fund...

Click to expand...

Agree with you, mainly because of the Iraq war, the Republican fellout of the people's favour...

I think the stalk also do mean something, what if:

1) the stalk was to test how an US carrier battle group would take how long to response to a sub threat?

2) to see if how long does it take for the carrier group to detect the sub's present?

3) the stalk is to see how a Song class will fare, and compare the length of the detected timing with the Kilo class and evaluate the situation if it was a Kilo instead of a Song involve.

Just my opinion...

:china:
China ministry of foreign affairs department denied chinese sub surfaces undetected behind USS Kitty hawk carrier.
"< Wastington times > report is incorrect," the chinese speaker said in a news conference.
this news is from 2006.11.15

I just found an article on globalsecurity regarding this incidence.
It states KH was shadowed by the sub, it was undisclosed but don't say by whom.
What I was not fully aware of is the fact that the Commander of the US Pacific Fleet is currently in China for talks with his counterparts for an exchange programm. So, if true, it has some political significance.

The article doesn't say much more about the event, but contains some info on the socg-class subs.

maozedong said:

:china:
China ministry of foreign affairs department denied chinese sub surfaces undetected behind USS Kitty hawk carrier.
"< Wastington times > report is incorrect," the chinese speaker said in a news conference.
this news is from

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2006.11.15

Click to expand...

Could someone please, pretty please translate this article in to English? I want to read the PRC version of the event.

Thanks!!!!

What I was not fully aware of is the fact that the Commander of the US Pacific Fleet is currently in China for talks with his counterparts for an exchange programm. So, if true, it has some political significance.

Click to expand...

I just posted some pics of the visit in the PLAN pic thread.

Scratch said:

I just found an article on globalsecurity regarding this incidence.
It states KH was shadowed by the sub, it was undisclosed but don't say by whom.
What I was not fully aware of is the fact that the Commander of the US Pacific Fleet is currently in China for talks with his counterparts for an exchange programm. So, if true, it has some political significance.

The article doesn't say much more about the event, but contains some info on the socg-class subs.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Well, GS does not cite sources and the info is essentially the same as has been reported in the news. I personally find it extremly hard, if not impossible, to believe that the Song actually "shadowed" the KH CSG. The carrier and its group simply move too fast for the Song to shadow it. I am more than prepared to believe that the Song was waiting in a position to be close to the carrier when it passed, or conducted operations where the Song was lurking.

I have heard everything from the Song surfacing close-in to the carrier completely undetected to the Song having been detected and ordered to surface. Apparently, according to the article referenced a couple of posts above, the Chinese are now denying that the Song was shawoing the carrier and remained undetected.

Either way...IMHO, it will be extremely difficult in wartime conditions for a diesel/electric to shadow and intercept a Carrier Strike Group. They simply move too fast and if the diesel electric puts on too much speed, they will be heard and tagged. It is much more likely that the DEs will wait in areas where a carrier is expected to pass and seek an engagement opportunity should the carrier try and use those waters where the sub is waiting.

Just my opnion.

Sure, that KH was shadowed is just what was written there. The truth may, as in many cases, lie somewhere in the middle (does that phrase even exist in english )

Scratch said:

Sure, that KH was shadowed is just what was written there. The truth may, as in many cases, lie somewhere in the middle (does that phrase even exist in english )

Click to expand...

Yes! That is an english saying that the truth lies somewhere in between. I believe the Song was clearly there, and that it was too close for comfort for the US Navy when it surfaced. The PLAN will understandably view very positively.

I also believe that since the US Navy announces and posts its exercises and the basic information regarding the departures and destinations of its peace time deployments, that it makes it easier for such nations to have their subs in place to conduct such missions/operations. In this instance, these US Navy/JMSDF exercises are held about the same time and in the same place from year to ear.

In war time, of course, that would not be the case.

i know this sound kinda of stupid, but could it be possible that the sub just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, may be it was just a coincident. And when the sub discovered the suface fleet, it surfaced to show that it has no hostile intent.

i mean this is possible, right?