PLA Navy news, pics and videos

D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
Janiz said:
Forbin meant that a nuclear powered submarine shouldn't surface unless it's entering or getting off a port and on a selected few other occasions as it's designed to be stay underwater. Surfacing after two straight days of being tracked down closely, being all that time underwater and showing flag on this very occasion isn't something that deserves 'a pat on the shoulder'.

And if you're operating one of the newest PLAN submarine you should release the photos of it from the port on some Internet forum rather than JMSDF taking a photo of it and post it on their website if you want to show it the world.
Click to expand...
Just because it is designed to stay underwater means that it should in these circumstances. To say that the skipper should have continued on and risk retaliation just to score media points is extremely reckless to say the least. There are things that warrants the reliving of officers but this instance is most assuredly not one of them.
Nor is this the first instance of the PLAN surfacing a submarine in such a manner, remember the Song surfacing within range of the Kitty Hawk ?
And I would hardly call the Type 93A the newest submarine in the PLAN inventory, seeing that it is still a design that harks back to the 1990s.
The problem is we know so little of what had actually happen it gives ample opportunity for people to twist the narrative into whatever suits them the most.
If we want to talk about something truly embarrassing, then the capture of the US UUV by Yemen rebels is a case in point. Those people barely have a navy beyond people in scuba gears yet they somehow managed to located and retrieved a UUV from one of the world's most advanced navy.
 
A

A.Man

Major
Janiz said:
Forbin meant that a nuclear powered submarine shouldn't surface unless it's entering or getting off a port and on a selected few other occasions as it's designed to be stay underwater. Surfacing after two straight days of being tracked down closely, being all that time underwater and showing flag on this very occasion isn't something that deserves 'a pat on the shoulder'.

And if you're operating one of the newest PLAN submarine you should release the photos of it from the port on some Internet forum rather than JMSDF taking a photo of it and post it on their website if you want to show it the world.
Click to expand...

You missed a point-PLAN submarine surfacing is to show you: we were there; what you can do about it?
 
J

Janiz

Senior Member
Viktor Jav said:
To say that the skipper should have continued on and risk retaliation just to score media points is extremely reckless to say the least.
Click to expand...
Well, the skipper continued and risked retaliation (well, if it's peacetime the will be none in 99% of cases as sinking a submarine would start a war for sure) probably for media points.
Viktor Jav said:
The problem is we know so little of what had actually happen it gives ample opportunity for people to twist the narrative into whatever suits them the most.
Click to expand...
Facts that we know: Japanese MoD made two press releases - the first one on the 11th January about unidetified submarine entering the contiguous zone around Miyako Island and later on Taisho Island and a Type 054 frigate entering the same zone around Taisho Island. The submarine was detected and tracked by a P3C aircraft and JS Onami. The frigate met JS Onami and JS Oyodo near Taisho Island. Informations released by the Japanese MoD were enough to draw a map from it (I posted it on the January 11th):

0mhehXg.jpg

​
On this map you have a course of this unidetified sub (Mainichi Shimbun, as this map comes from them, assumed it was Chinese sub BTW) entering the contiguous zone near Miyako Island in the evening of January 10th and leaving it on the morning of January 11th. Later on it was tracked by JMSDF and entered the contiguous zone near Taisho Island on the morning of January 11th and leaving in the evening of the same day. Frigate entered and left the said zone at around the same time.

The second release from Japanese MoD was about the submarine surfacing around noon on the January 12th on the East China Sea and posted a photo of it. I can assume it was taken from the bridge of JS Onami that tracked it all the time.

What motivated the action of Chinese CO and surfacing after all this time? We don't know of course. And it's hard to say that we will be ever able to say.

Those are facts. I don't know if there's any space to 'twist the narrative' from those facts.
A.Man said:
You missed a point-PLAN submarine surfacing is to show you: we were there; what you can do about it?
Click to expand...
You missed a point - in case of conflict it wouldn't surface here or there. It would stay on the bottom and you would never see it surfaced again in such situation.
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
Janiz said:
Well, the skipper continued and risked retaliation (well, if it's peacetime the will be none in 99% of cases as sinking a submarine would start a war for sure) probably for media points.Facts that we know: Japanese MoD made two press releases - the first one on the 11th January about unidetified submarine entering the contiguous zone around Miyako Island and later on Taisho Island and a Type 054 frigate entering the same zone around Taisho Island. The submarine was detected and tracked by a P3C aircraft and JS Onami. The frigate met JS Onami and JS Oyodo near Taisho Island. Informations released by the Japanese MoD were enough to draw a map from it (I posted it on the January 11th):

0mhehXg.jpg

​
On this map you have a course of this unidetified sub (Mainichi Shimbun, as this map comes from them, assumed it was Chinese sub BTW) entering the contiguous zone near Miyako Island in the evening of January 10th and leaving it on the morning of January 11th. Later on it was tracked by JMSDF and entered the contiguous zone near Taisho Island on the morning of January 11th and leaving in the evening of the same day. Frigate entered and left the said zone at around the same time.

The second release from Japanese MoD was about the submarine surfacing around noon on the January 12th on the East China Sea and posted a photo of it. I can assume it was taken from the bridge of JS Onami that tracked it all the time.

What motivated the action of Chinese CO and surfacing after all this time? We don't know of course. And it's hard to say that we will be ever able to say.

Those are facts. I don't know if there's any space to 'twist the narrative' from those facts..
Click to expand...

Trying to contact a submerged submarine is vastly different from contacting a surface ship due to the extreme differences in their systems. A submarine is hardly expect to have a open channel whereby a foreign navy ship can contact it even in peace time when it is submerged.

Even in peace time , a country has the right to persecute a submarine that does not respond accordingly. Seeing as they have no idea as to it's intent. Would it lead to war ? Maybe, but it would be hard for China or any nation for that matter to justify it if it is clear that their respective submarine had failed to respond.

It is quite clear what angle you are trying to push here with this :
1) That the PLAN submarine force is not up to scratch, which is highly doubtful in this singular case which involved a dated submarine design.
2) That the photograph taken was a smear to the PLAN, which is highly doubtful again because in it clear with the flag that the submarine actively wants to be seen.

There are possibly many reasons that the submarine choose this particular place and time to surface. But lets just stop short of pulling out the smear campaign. If the PLAN was so keen of preserving its image it could have given orders to the submarine not to surface until it reaches Chinese waters where it can slip away unnoticed. The nationality of the sub would then be shrouded in doubt as Russia is too known to operate within Japanese waters.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
jobjed said:
I don't even think the 093 was "operating" so much as the PLAN high command told them a 054A was going anyway so they might as well tag along as training.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion. The whole thing smells to me like an ELINT bait to bait Japanese ASW forces to use their radars and sonars, with one ship bait (the sub), and the other the listener (the 054A). The purpose is to gather their frequencies, and how long one can remain undetected before seen. This comes after the exercises done by J-11s and H-6Ks in the same area that was followed by Y-8 ECM, ELINT and AEW aircraft just last December.
 
Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Tam said:
Just my opinion. The whole thing smells to me like an ELINT bait to bait Japanese ASW forces to use their radars and sonars, with one ship bait (the sub), and the other the listener (the 054A). The purpose is to gather their frequencies, and how long one can remain undetected before seen. This comes after the exercises done by J-11s and H-6Ks in the same area that was followed by Y-8 ECM, ELINT and AEW aircraft just last December.
Click to expand...

Yeah we don't know what the circumstances it It might be that they want JMSD to track the submarine as if they are saying Look Ma here I am what are you going to do about that They purposely skirting the Daoyutai island knowing well they will be tracked .
And look I carry missile on my sub So all those gloating about JMSD can track type 93B is hubris and premature We are not talking about shooting war here
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Hendrik_2000 said:
Yeah we don't know what the circumstances it It might be that they want JMSD to track the submarine as if they are saying Look Ma here I am what are you going to do about that They purposely skirting the Daoyutai island knowing well they will be tracked .
And look I carry missile on my sub So all those gloating about JMSD can track type 93B is hubris and premature We are not talking about shooting war here
Click to expand...


Sending a message is also another thing here.

Japan wants to put AEGIS Ashore batteries somewhere along these islands, particularly along the Miyako Straits. Diaoyu/Senkakus are close by.

Last December's operations involved planes that could carry cruise missiles, in particular the H-6Ks and Sino-Flankers (said to be J-11s could also be J-16s and Su-30MKKs.) This time, you got a sub --- not a Kilo or Yuan --- but a 93B that could potentially carry cruise missiles --- doing an operation along the same region.

The fact that you put in a frigate --- which is obviously going to be sighted anyway.

Just sounds to me they want this to be seen, while measuring the frequencies and counting the response time.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
after Yesterday at 8:31 AM
Jura said:
this is the most recent development (the article is dated
January 13, 2018 at 16:00 JST
which is like a half of an hour ago):
Japan protests to China over submarine off Senkaku Islands
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
and Yesterday at 11:19 AM
Jura said:
now was briefly looking for official Chinese on this, found just (dated 2018-01-11)
Defense ministry slams Japan for sensationalizing legitimate Chinese naval action
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
noticed kinda summary:
Japan confirms sub spotted near Senkakus was Chinese
January 13, 2018
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The government said Friday it has confirmed that a submarine spotted near Japanese territorial waters around the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea the day before was a Chinese naval vessel.

Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera said the submarine surfaced in international waters flying a Chinese flag on its mast, observed by a Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force vessel.

The sovereignty of the Japan-controlled, China-claimed islets is a perennial flash point in relations between Asia's two largest economies, which otherwise have recently been showing signs of a thaw.

"This is an act that unilaterally heightens tensions," Onodera told reporters.

Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Shinsuke Sugiyama protested to Chinese Ambassador to Japan Cheng Yonghua over the submarine's entry into the contiguous zone, an area just outside Japanese waters.

He told Cheng over the telephone that the action "is a new form of alteration of the status quo" and "a serious escalation of the situation," according to the Foreign Ministry.

A ministry official said Sugiyama expressed bewilderment to Cheng as to why China would take such an action amid the broader improvement in bilateral ties.

Top political leaders on both sides have agreed to intensify efforts to improve relations, with Japan hoping to realize reciprocal visits by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping this year.

Cheng explained China's position in response, the Japanese official said without providing details.

According to the Defense Ministry, this is the first time a Chinese submarine has been observed in the contiguous zone around the uninhabited islets.

A Chinese frigate was also observed Thursday entering the zone, prompting Japan to protest that action.

China claimed the approach was justified by its "full historical and legal basis for its sovereignty" over the islands, which it calls Diaoyu.

China Coast Guard vessels have frequently entered Japanese waters around the Senkakus as part of China's territorial claim, tension over which stepped up after Japan bought most of the islets from a private Japanese owner in 2012, putting them under state control.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said its navy was only in the contiguous zone to pursue two Japanese MSDF ships that it needed to monitor.

But the Japanese official rebutted that explanation on Friday, saying China caused the situation because the submerged submarine entered the zone first and the MSDF ships followed it.

The contiguous zone is a band of water beyond the 12 nautical mile territorial waters surrounding any national territory, and to a distance of 24 miles.

Under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, a country may exert control within the contiguous zone to the extent necessary to enforce laws within its territorial waters.

Asked about China's intentions in sending its ships into the zone, the Japanese official refrained from making a judgment but said Tokyo will seek a further explanation of what happened.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top