Chinese submarines thread
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
- Status
sinowarrior
Junior Member
Re: Chinese sub thread
are they recycling the old news, or did Song some how managed to slip pass the Kitty Hawk's defense again?
are they recycling the old news, or did Song some how managed to slip pass the Kitty Hawk's defense again?
Re: Chinese sub thread
Nope, it's history repeated. As this is the second incident of its kind in a year, taken with the successes of allied subs in penetrating CSG ASW defences on exercises in recent years, clearly the Navy's Carrier Strike Groups are not as well-protected as they need to be.
Well, there are two things the U.S. Navy needs to do:
1. Aggressively pursue a replacement for the S-3, even if it means simply reviving the CSA programme.
2. I think the Navy may have been attempting to do this over the last few years anyway, but I'm not sure, is to regain lost skills in ASW. This will take years, as the training and practiced required for real proficiency in ASW is long, hard, and difficult. ASW is more of an arcane science (or rare art form) than a naval operation.
Both require many years, and the "Peace Dividend" cutbacks after the Cold War resulted in serious damage to then-existing ASW capabilities. It is hard to get them back, let alone perfect new ones.
PLAN submarines coming so close to US carriers cannot have a good result: the U.S. does not take these as warnings, it takes them as threats.
Nope, it's history repeated. As this is the second incident of its kind in a year, taken with the successes of allied subs in penetrating CSG ASW defences on exercises in recent years, clearly the Navy's Carrier Strike Groups are not as well-protected as they need to be.
Well, there are two things the U.S. Navy needs to do:
1. Aggressively pursue a replacement for the S-3, even if it means simply reviving the CSA programme.
2. I think the Navy may have been attempting to do this over the last few years anyway, but I'm not sure, is to regain lost skills in ASW. This will take years, as the training and practiced required for real proficiency in ASW is long, hard, and difficult. ASW is more of an arcane science (or rare art form) than a naval operation.
Both require many years, and the "Peace Dividend" cutbacks after the Cold War resulted in serious damage to then-existing ASW capabilities. It is hard to get them back, let alone perfect new ones.
PLAN submarines coming so close to US carriers cannot have a good result: the U.S. does not take these as warnings, it takes them as threats.
Last edited:
sinowarrior
Junior Member
Re: Chinese sub thread
again? well if it happend once there is always the excuse, but again? i think china is practising a strategy similar to the one practised by USSR with its long range bombers.
again? well if it happend once there is always the excuse, but again? i think china is practising a strategy similar to the one practised by USSR with its long range bombers.
Re: Chinese sub thread
How can we be sure that this sub was not detected? I find it hard to believe that a Song could penetrate a CBG. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not discounting the possiblity because I'm biased towards the USN or anything. I'm saying that the USN might have implied in the story that the sub went undetected in order to get a rise out of Congress for a bigger budget. The fact that the sub surfaced is what makes me skeptical; it seems like that would only happen if it was forced up.
How can we be sure that this sub was not detected? I find it hard to believe that a Song could penetrate a CBG. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not discounting the possiblity because I'm biased towards the USN or anything. I'm saying that the USN might have implied in the story that the sub went undetected in order to get a rise out of Congress for a bigger budget. The fact that the sub surfaced is what makes me skeptical; it seems like that would only happen if it was forced up.
Infra_Man99
Banned Idiot
Re: Chinese sub thread
I think this Song/CBG incident is filled with too many questions to be taken seriously. My questions:
1. The US could be allowing the Song to sneak in to hype up the China threat. I doubt ONE/1/UNO/SINGLE/INDIVIDUAL submarine could sneak through a US carrier battle group.
Rambo looks good in the movies, but in real life, Rambo dies quickly; this may be a corny line, but military history is completely against Rambo characters. Also, the US navy has been conducting exercises against Western Europe's most advanced diesel subs (I know that the US Pacific fleet has been doing this). I could be wrong, but I think the US is trying to play up the China threat.
2. If China did sneak in the submarine, wouldn't China sneak the sub back out? Why would China raise their submarines? Is China giving the US a warning to not be too cocky about US war games directed at attacking China? Is China getting too cocky and showing too much of its capabilities.
3. This could all be a coincidence: China sends a Song on a standard mission to an area, the US sends its CBG to the same area coincidentally, and the Song's captain raises his sub to tell the US, "Let me get out before you conduct your missions (to practice how to attack China)." The US figures this is a great way to play up the China threat.
4. Was the US CBG conducting anti-sub missions? If not, maybe this is how China's Song slipped in. The US's anti-sub systems are very powerful, so powerful that scientists have said the US navy's anti-sub systems kill and seriously injure ocean life. This US CBG probably used minimal anti-sub systems to protect ocean life, and it only switches to full anti-sub systems during war, which is why China's single Song sub was able to sneak in.
5. How many times does the US navy catch China's subs? How many times does China's subs catch the US navy? This information is CLASSIFIED, but each military has leaked information to misinform the public for military and political purposes.
If the US navy bests China's subs 5 to 1, then China's single success does not mean that much. However, the China's subs bests the US navy 2 to 0, then this says that China's subs are not as backward as the US news/military/think tanks/experts think and say they are.
This incident has too many questions to be taken seriously. It's interesting, but until I get more information, I am not going to take it seriously.
I think this Song/CBG incident is filled with too many questions to be taken seriously. My questions:
1. The US could be allowing the Song to sneak in to hype up the China threat. I doubt ONE/1/UNO/SINGLE/INDIVIDUAL submarine could sneak through a US carrier battle group.
Rambo looks good in the movies, but in real life, Rambo dies quickly; this may be a corny line, but military history is completely against Rambo characters. Also, the US navy has been conducting exercises against Western Europe's most advanced diesel subs (I know that the US Pacific fleet has been doing this). I could be wrong, but I think the US is trying to play up the China threat.
2. If China did sneak in the submarine, wouldn't China sneak the sub back out? Why would China raise their submarines? Is China giving the US a warning to not be too cocky about US war games directed at attacking China? Is China getting too cocky and showing too much of its capabilities.
3. This could all be a coincidence: China sends a Song on a standard mission to an area, the US sends its CBG to the same area coincidentally, and the Song's captain raises his sub to tell the US, "Let me get out before you conduct your missions (to practice how to attack China)." The US figures this is a great way to play up the China threat.
4. Was the US CBG conducting anti-sub missions? If not, maybe this is how China's Song slipped in. The US's anti-sub systems are very powerful, so powerful that scientists have said the US navy's anti-sub systems kill and seriously injure ocean life. This US CBG probably used minimal anti-sub systems to protect ocean life, and it only switches to full anti-sub systems during war, which is why China's single Song sub was able to sneak in.
5. How many times does the US navy catch China's subs? How many times does China's subs catch the US navy? This information is CLASSIFIED, but each military has leaked information to misinform the public for military and political purposes.
If the US navy bests China's subs 5 to 1, then China's single success does not mean that much. However, the China's subs bests the US navy 2 to 0, then this says that China's subs are not as backward as the US news/military/think tanks/experts think and say they are.
This incident has too many questions to be taken seriously. It's interesting, but until I get more information, I am not going to take it seriously.
sinowarrior
Junior Member
Re: Chinese sub thread
once may be coincidence, but it is second time now for a Song this year, and few years ago it was a Ming that bump into the USN exercise area, well once may be a coincidence, but on multiple occasions? hardly
whether US detected the Sub is a question of debate, it is quite funny for USSR/Russia to continuously claim its bombers ability on penetrating US defense, whereas China is always silent on its activities with subs
once may be coincidence, but it is second time now for a Song this year, and few years ago it was a Ming that bump into the USN exercise area, well once may be a coincidence, but on multiple occasions? hardly
whether US detected the Sub is a question of debate, it is quite funny for USSR/Russia to continuously claim its bombers ability on penetrating US defense, whereas China is always silent on its activities with subs
- Status