Chinese submarines thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Re: Chinese sub thread

Hey guys,

"In November 2006 the Washington Times reported that a Chinese Song class submarine "stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific" and "surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected". The submarine was seen on the surface within 5 miles of the carrier USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)."

Do you think the Song Class "surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected" or do you think that this is misinformation by the USN?

I personally think it is misinformation due to the fact the Song Class has suffered significantly from: (wikipedia)

"Problems with noise levels and underwater performance led to revisions in the design and only a single boat was ever built to the original specification. However, according to the official Chinese claim that was finally released in 2006 and quoted by many domestic Chinese military websites, the primary problem encountered was the integration of various Chinese built subsystems of western origins, and problems previously reported such as noise were the results of the integration problem."

Also there is the fact that in 2004 the USN leased the HMS Gotland crew from Sweden for ASuW exercises until at least 2008 and would have gotten a lot out of AsuW tactics and countermeasures to evade the (already) ageing Song class.

I would personally guess that the CVBG battle group detected the Song early on, and blasted the Song with active sonar when it came 'too close' (ie. close enough to take hull shots) from the carrier escorts or even from the 1-2 LA Subs that ride 'escort' and forced it to surface-because if the Song's commander wanted to stalk the Kitty Hawk like the Soviets in the Cold War, he would have waited for the Kitty Hawk to pass overhead or near and then take his shots.

What do you guys think?

Reading your post I have the feeling that you have axe to grind against Mainland China all I heard is either China copy or doing miserably in anything she does

I guess you can believe whatever you want to believe but that doesn't make it true either

The truth is maybe not you want to wish
 
Last edited:

RedMercury

Junior Member
Re: Chinese sub thread

This has been discussed to death in other threads. Don't start another flame war over this idiocy.
 

hongkongpride

New Member
Re: Chinese sub thread

Hey hendrik_2000

I didn't say anything about "china copy" or "doing miserably" in my post and I DONT have an axe to grind against anyone except maybe that idiot Goldenpanda because he posts stuff from BF2 on this forum.

I just said based on documented sources that the Song Class may have problems

I'm not an expert on Submarine Warfare so I asked you guys for more info.

I could be wrong but you (hendrik) have to prove it using evidence.

My apologies for inadvertedly causing a potential flame war,

However, can someone direct me to another thread where this has been discussed?

Thanks
 
Last edited:

eecsmaster

Junior Member
Re: Chinese sub thread

Well, maybe you should dig a little deeper.

Song's first of class boat indeed suffered from design problems, but now it has entered mass production, which means most of these problems, if not all, are gone.

PLAN might not be the USN, but they certainly don't compromise much over intended design specifications on mass produced models.


And to clarify something.

The whole Song incident is overblown. The entire "within missile and torp range" thing is publized by Bill Gertz, who is a known idiot (read, misinformation). The real incident probably happened because the sub surfaced to avoid a real confrontation; USN ASW tactics are very aggressive.

Note, the Kittyhawk group was not doing ASW at the time, but SAR
 
Last edited:

hongkongpride

New Member
Re: Chinese sub thread

Thanks for pointing that out,

I'll do more in depth research on Naval Warfare topics because I'm no expert on it.

Seems wikipedia just doesn't cut it these days,

Might even subscribe to Jane's
 

eecsmaster

Junior Member
Re: Chinese sub thread

Jane's? Don't bother if your interest is in PLAN systems. Jane's isn't what it used to be. And if you really want Jane's, well, GlobalSecurity takes it almost word for word, and is free.
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Re: Chinese sub thread

buy some books. 100 times more usefull than internet...
To understand PLAN, a good start would be to understand Soviet navy first as there isent that much writen about PLAN, but plenty about VMF...
 

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
Re: Chinese sub thread

The PLAN isn't a carbon copy of the VMF, and never will be, although earlier it started as a coastal navy. The geography, history, mentality and requirements are all different and unique. It will be a waste of time to predict the future of China's navy by using the Soviet navy history as clishe!
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Re: Chinese sub thread

Yeas...but despite of those differencies, PLAN arruptly adopted the Soviet doctrines and have sticked to them untill last few years when it has begun to show some sings of life....
PLAN has been most of its history led by those who have no understandment of naval-warfare at all. Its has been subsidor to the land forces and this is clearly evident in the past doctrines and even shipclasses produced.

In Soviet Union, despite the proud imperial naval traditions, the navy faced same fait and begun its new migth by applying coastal defence doctrines to the wider scale...And when the navy had build its muscles and was ready to challenge rest, Soviets simply expanded the old coastal defence thinking into wider ocean scale (mostly due the strong political power of the coastal defence branches) and that has been the main motor for the oddities of VMF.

And essentially the idea of navy as a coastal defence element comes when generals draws the martime strategy, not admirals. PRC inherited this as a basis of its fleet and as the navys status has always been neglected in China, it abled China to do the same mistakes as Soviets, even without their advisors.

The bad thing with china was that its mistake was much worser than the soviet one as PLANs goal was not to build muscles to go on for Open seas or Blue water, but remain as brown-water coastal defence branch. The superficially 'fleet-size' units of Luda and Jiangju class ships were only nessesities of chinese long coast line, not attempts to gain basics for bluewater units, despite they actually have been attempts to exploid the desings so when the PLAN begun to show sings of doctrine change.

The good thing of this is that now, when there clearly is a plan to make PLAN a blue water navy, It has begun from the nothing, and started to adopt more rational western ideas of 'Fleet' and avoid the Soviet mistakes made in their road to the bluer waters.
 

zraver

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Re: Chinese sub thread

In Soviet Union, despite the proud imperial naval traditions, the navy faced same fait and begun its new migth by applying coastal defence doctrines to the wider scale...And when the navy had build its muscles and was ready to challenge rest, Soviets simply expanded the old coastal defence thinking into wider ocean scale (mostly due the strong political power of the coastal defence branches) and that has been the main motor for the oddities of VMF.

Not sure that is a fair analogy. The Soviet Navy had some very well though out plans to achieve its goals. It shied away from battle fleets for some very sound reasons. With limited acess to blue water, and facing the RN and USN she had no real hope of winning control of the seas.

Instead she built a force to support her goals in Western Europe (aimed at denying the critical convoys of material from the US.) and to show the flag in pursuit of the USSR's political goals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top