Chinese submarines thread

[AmiGanguli]

Re: Chinese sub thread

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.

Having a deterrent is useless unless your potential enemy knows about it. If a conflict arises over Taiwan, China might be able to sink the U.S. carriers that intervene, but a far better solution for China is that the U.S. stays out altogether.

The only way to achieve this is to have a credible deterrent and make sure the U.S. understands that you have a credible deterrent. Sneaking in and sneaking back out would be a way to practice your ability (and for all we know they might have been doing this for a while), but it doesn't pay off in the long term.

 

[Schumacher]

Re: Chinese sub thread

What Ami said is quite true. Many have used the fact that the sub surfaced to suggest that it was in fact tracked. But there have been instances in the past of PLAN subs making themselves visible to send political messages, like using the old noisy Han to go to Guam, knowing full well it would be tracked, & I think another sub surfacing after getting near Japan.
As for the intentions of USN leaking these reports, we have seen in the past of USN not shying away from claiming successful tracking of PLAN subs like the Han's excursion to Guam & the one many yrs back when the Han had to call for help from PLAAF after being trapped by ASW assets fro Kitty Hawk.
So when they say the sub was not detected, more likely than not, that's what happened.
I think political considerations will more likely affect things like the timing of the leak or omission of some details like whether the full ASW assets were activated at the time rather than the facts of the report. ie I don't think they'll say it was tracked when it wasn't or that it didn't surface when it did.

 

[Deleted member 675]

Re: Chinese sub thread

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.

Yup, I haven't seen anyone quoted as saying "we didn't see it coming".

By the way has this even been confirmed as a new event? I've seen UPI and the Daily Mail report it plus a couple of small-time websites parroting the news. Maybe people are jumping the gun....

 

[Schumacher]

Re: Chinese sub thread

Yup, I haven't seen anyone quoted as saying "we didn't see it coming".

..........

lol, if you've spent anytime looking at these matters, you'll know no military personnel will go on record to be 'quoted' saying something as definite as 'we didn't/did see it coming'.
Observers will just have to connect the dots based on available info, but not on wishful thinking however.

 

[crobato]

Re: Chinese sub thread

CSR report on PLAN 2007 indicates that on the Nov 2006 incident that after the Song surfaced it dived again. It was then surface vessels tried to track it. But the sub simply disappeared.

 

[Deleted member 675]

Re: Chinese sub thread

lol, if you've spent anytime looking at these matters, you'll know no military personnel will go on record to be 'quoted' saying something as definite as 'we didn't/did see it coming'.

Lol yourself. If no one is going to give a quote how can anyone be sure no one knew what was going on - assuming this isn't a case of double reporting. If someone is going to say privately "we didn't see it coming" what's to stop the newspaper reprinting that?

Observers will just have to connect the dots based on available info, but not on wishful thinking however.

Your thinking isn't so much connecting the dots as filling in all the gaps in a way that suits your view.

CSR report on PLAN 2007 indicates that on the Nov 2006 incident that after the Song surfaced it dived again. It was then surface vessels tried to track it. But the sub simply disappeared.

So what are you trying to say, crobato? Chinese submarines are untrackable by surface ships or it managed to slip away against the odds?

 

[Schumacher]

Re: Chinese sub thread

Lol yourself. If no one is going to give a quote how can anyone be sure no one knew what was going on - assuming this isn't a case of double reporting. If someone is going to say privately "we didn't see it coming" what's to stop the newspaper reprinting that?

Your thinking isn't so much connecting the dots as filling in all the gaps in a way that suits your view.
..............

Seriously, you shouldn't waste time following military matters, especially PLA, if you're actually expecting an official press release from USN or PLAN regarding this.
As for filling gaps to suits my view ? Far from it, read my posts if you can. I merely address points raised by others without making hard conclusions.
You dismiss the reports in your first post without demonstrating any knowledge about the issue or offer any sources to the contrary.
As I've always said of your posts, share your knowledge or sources if any. This forum has little interests in what you like or don't like to see.

 

[Deleted member 675]

Re: Chinese sub thread

Seriously, you shouldn't waste time following military matters, especially PLA, if you're actually expecting an official press release from USN or PLAN regarding this.

And you shouldn't be using the internet if you're going to twist what people say to suit yourself. I never demanded a statement, I said quite clearly that if someone in authority is going to tell a reporter that X=Y, why wouldn't the article then say "a USN official said 'X=Y'"? It happens all the time in the media.

As for filling gaps to suits my view ? Far from it, read my posts... I merely address points raised by others without making hard conclusions.

So basically you speculate in a way that you would like reality to pan out in. That's what I was saying.

As I've always said of your posts, share your knowledge or sources if any.

If you're going to raise the matter of sources, you might want to be careful before believing a report that originated in the Daily Mail, which has next-to-no credibility about military affairs. That's why I would like some credible verification that the incident at least took place.

This forum has little interests in what you like or don't like to see.

Then why are you here?

 

[Schumacher]

Re: Chinese sub thread

........
If you're going to raise the matter of sources, you might want to be careful before believing a report that originated in the Daily Mail, which has next-to-no credibility about military affairs. That's why I would like some credible verification that the incident at least took place.

Just to show you how to make a properly supported post,
it'd be a good idea to show something to support why you doubt the credibility of the source because you haven't established a good credibility on this forum like other senior posters for others just to take your words.

Then why are you here?

So you think you represent the whole forum & others come here just to see your posts ? Please don't waste time with 'smart' one line answer like this just to get back. You must think this is some kids forum.

 

[Deleted member 675]

Re: Chinese sub thread

Just to show you how to make a properly supported post, it'd be a good idea to show something to support why you doubt the credibility of the source because you haven't established a good credibility on this forum like other senior posters for others just to take your words.

So you're telling me you think the Daily Mail is a credible source or you simply don't know? If the former, God help you. If the latter, don't comment without doing some research first.

So you think you represent the whole forum & others come here just to see your posts ?

No, I don't and never implied such a thing. No need to start lying because you're getting upset.