Usn Asw

Why does the u.s.a fear chinese kilos"? because the u.s.a is afraid it will not longer be able to send fleets coasting around asia at will. Not a very reasonable accusation, you see.

Click to expand...

Rumsfeild as the Sec of Defense is just beating his wardrum so those defense dollars keep rolling in. That's all. It's his job to run his mouth..I have no love for him..

As for the the USA being afraid to send it's fleet anywhere Surely you jest. The USN has in the last 100 years has sent it ships all over the world on a continous basis. Fact. And will continue to do so far into the forseable future. Fact.

And when you have 12 of these & 278 other ships + 110 auxillaries..what more can you say?? Love ya Miggy!

Totoro said:

Nuke subs are expensive to develop, produce, maintain. One virginia class sub costs over 2 billion (ive seen figures ranging from 1,7 to 2,6 billion, so 2.1 seems fair) and that's the sub USN chose over seawolf cause they're cheaper

Who's willing to bet that one virginia sub, running into a loose formation of 10 kilos would come out a victor, with all 10 kilos dead? I'm definitely not. As long as diesels can have at least some kind of air cover, so USN can't just freely use its aircraft to detect/attack subs at will and aid its nuke subs - those diesels would be a force to fear.

Click to expand...

In regards to the price, that's not why the USN went for Virginia over Seawolf primarily. The Virginia can do much more in terms of littoral water operations, including "special" missions. It also was designed with the Strike role with the addition of VLS launchers. Seawolf is designed to be a lethal sub-hunter/killer submarine. It's optimized to fight enemy nuclear submarines in their element. Virginia retains this ability but gives it much more. It's true the Seawolf has a slightly higher tactical speed and a higher loadout, but Virginia gives you more in other areas. Virginia will cost less only because they are given longer term priority for shipbuilding and fabrication has improved from when Seawolf was first designed. Seawolf and Virginia together is a devastating combo.

On the second point, 10 Kilos grouped together in one area? Talk about misallocation of assets. I have a hard time thinking a Virginia will ever run into more than two at a time. How good are Kilo sonar sets? Viginia's are world class. I think they are using the upgraded BQQ-10.

Like I said, diesels will be most effective against SAG's, logistics vessels, and merchant ships. They don't have the speed, endurance, firepower, or noise levels at higher running speeds to be of any utility against carriers or nuclear hunter/killer boats. And now the USN is getting alot better at tracking them. Looks like the diesel threat will be reduced the more tactics and technologies are developed to deal with them. Now that it's a priority in the USN, this is exactly what you will see.

bd popeye said:

Rumsfeild as the Sec of Defense is just beating his wardrum so those defense dollars keep rolling in. That's all. It's his job to run his mouth..I have no love for him..

As for the the USA being afraid to send it's fleet anywhere Surely you jest. The USN has in the last 100 years has sent it ships all over the world on a continous basis. Fact. And will continue to do so far into the forseable future. Fact.

And when you have 12 of these & 278 other ships + 110 auxillaries..what more can you say?? Love ya Miggy!

Click to expand...

And that is the problem as i see it. USA had been used to be able to cruise around the ocean in a way that the English and French navies once did when they still were empires.

When countries like China starts to modernize their navy it will of course be a threat to any nation driving their ships where they have no business being. I am quite sure that US navy is protecting their territorial waters, so others have the full right to protect theirs. Those who venture within them got themself to blame if they get attacked i say..

Mazepa said:

When countries like China starts to modernize their navy it will of course be a threat to any nation driving their ships where they have no business being. I am quite sure that US navy is protecting their territorial waters, so others have the full right to protect theirs. Those who venture within them got themself to blame if they get attacked i say..

Click to expand...

I don't remember seeing any evidence out there that show the USN blatantly violating any nations 12 mile territorial water limits. Can you provide any examples of the USN violating any nations territorial waters? If not, what you're saying here holds no water. At any rate, if anyone blatantly attacks an American naval ship with no justification, the USN/USAF counter-attack capabilities are overwhelming and devastating. Those that would attack another countries naval vessel would have themselves to blame once this type of overwhelming force comes their way I say.....

At any rate, if anyone blatantly attacks an American naval ship with no justification, the USN/USAF counter-attack capabilities are overwhelming and devastating. Those that would attack another countries naval vessel would have themselves to blame once this type of overwhelming force comes their way I say.....

Click to expand...

Amen...Well on the 19th of August 1981 while operating in the Gulf of Sidra about 200 miles north of Lybia two F-14's from the "Black Aces" of VF-41 encountered two Lybian Migs....This is what happened....



""On August 18 and 19, 1981 during its fourth deployment, Nimitz and USS Forrestal conducted an open ocean missile exercise in the Gulf of Sidra near what Libyan leader Khadafi called the "Line of Death." On the morning of August 19, two Nimitz aircraft from VF-41 were fired upon by Libyan pilots. The Nimitz pilots returned fire and shot both Libyan aircraft from the sky. Newspapers across the country rallied around the incident against terrorist-backing Libya with front-page headlines reading "U.S. 2 - Libya 0." ""

Amen..Not enough for you?

Operation Praying Mantis


No need to post that. You fellows get the point.

The USN is getting great ASW training from the HMS Gotland on how to find and kill SSK's. A CSG(Carrier Strike Group) because of it's ablitiy to operate over such a wide range of ocean in conjunction with P-3 and USAF assets has no real need to venture into littoral waters.

I really dont mind the u.s sending their navy around the seas....as long as thye stay out of "Weapons range" of other countries(unless the u.s has permission). Weapons range is about 100-150km. After all, there is not need to start unnesacery agression by going to close to any nation. If you get within 15 miles, it may be legal, but the othwr nations begin to question the logic behind the csg sailing so close

littoral deterece ensures the safety of a nation against amphibious attack. Taiwan really should work on that.

Sea Dog said:

On the second point, 10 Kilos grouped together in one area? Talk about misallocation of assets. I have a hard time thinking a Virginia will ever run into more than two at a time. How good are Kilo sonar sets? Viginia's are world class. I think they are using the upgraded BQQ-10.

Click to expand...

If you have hundreds (thousands?) of miles of coast to cover and have like 20 kilos altogether, yeah, grouping 10 of em would kinda be silly. But i wasn't talking bout any concrete situation anyway. I was pointing out that for the price of one nuke you get ten kilos. And while those 10 kilos would mean crap if you needed to attack someone, they would come very handy defending from/ blocking the enemy. If enemy has like 30 nukes and you have like 300 kilos - why not have groups of 10? or 5 or 15, which ever figure proves to be best for getting a kill against incoming nuke sub / enemy fleet.

When those diesels are used as a mobile mine field, and enemy sub does encouter them - it may get one, or two or even five kilos destroyed - but it is my opinion it too would get beaten before destroying all ten. As a US nuke sub, you may have better sonar, but when you're that close to the pack of kilos and making noise launching the torpedoes - kilos's sonars would be good enough to target you.

Sea Dog said:

They don't have the speed, endurance, firepower, or noise levels at higher running speeds to be of any utility against carriers or nuclear hunter/killer boats. And now the USN is getting alot better at tracking them. Looks like the diesel threat will be reduced the more tactics and technologies are developed to deal with them.

Click to expand...

True, they don't have the speed nor endurance needed to match even the LA class. But that's in one on one battle. On the other hand, as long as it can use the batteries to provide power, SSKs will always be quieter than nukes at the same speed. Its a different matter of course that while a battery run sub will perhaps make 15 knots for very short period of time while the nuke will go over 30 knots for as long as it needs.

I would say a pack of diesels does have utility against carrier groups, providing the said group stumbles upon the subs. Noise that a fast moving carrier group makes is impossible to miss, and detectable from a long distance. Of course one can not purposefully chase the carrier group with a diesel sub, the speed or endurance just isnt there. But since the carrier is attacking and needs to get in a certain position needed to launch its planes - diesels can try their luck and preposition themselves. With enough of them, and enough tries - they just may catch a CBG in the spot where they want it.

MIGleader said:

I really dont mind the u.s sending their navy around the seas....as long as thye stay out of "Weapons range" of other countries(unless the u.s has permission). Weapons range is about 100-150km. After all, there is not need to start unnesacery agression by going to close to any nation.

Click to expand...

I can recall Chinese ships entering Japanese waters(economic exclusion zone) a few months back. By your own logic, American and Japanese military forces should of blown them out of the water. They could have easily done just that. Would that have been justifiable? Couldn't they have just called it "unnecessary aggression" by going too close to another nation?

Totoro said:

I would say a pack of diesels does have utility against carrier groups, providing the said group stumbles upon the subs. Noise that a fast moving carrier group makes is impossible to miss, and detectable from a long distance. Of course one can not purposefully chase the carrier group with a diesel sub, the speed or endurance just isnt there. But since the carrier is attacking and needs to get in a certain position needed to launch its planes - diesels can try their luck and preposition themselves.

Click to expand...

It would all depend, like you say. I agree. But Carriers can launch their aircraft from almost anywhere. You would need a lot of luck to be at a pre-positioned point. Even if a Carrier were to be entering the South China Sea using the Luzon Strait, it's wide enough that you would need considerable luck to be positioned just correctly enough. Remember, China using 53-65KE torpedoes have a limited range of around 22 Km and run around 40 knots. Carriers run around 35-40 knots at top speed. It ain't as easy as you think. Plus trust me, the USN has had a running database of Kilo signatures for over 20 years now. Kilo is only silent in her element. Not during all phases of jher operations. Any modern equipped destroyer will know if they sniff one out who it is. Above 5 knots, Kilo makes enough noise to easily localize with passive towed sonar, or low-frequency ranging sonobouys.

Plus the fact that now the USN is actively tracking these diesel subs using new techniques/tactics and getting better, it's going to be a lot harder on subs like the Kilo. Like I said, Kilos are dangerous submarines, but will not be of much use against a carrier or nuclear submarines in their elements. It will be good for a naval blockade of Taiwan, or engaging resupply/logistics vessels going to known locations, but it does not have the qualities one needs for fighting against a well-equipped naval task force with modern weapons, sensors, and tactics. Unless, like you say...they get lucky enough to have a carrier come their way right over them. But running down a nuke sub or a carrier just ain't gonna happen.

Hey, dont bring in the japanese. This was in response to a territorial issue, so its no ones water. The japananese could have tried to blow the ships out of the water, BUT THEY CHOSE NOT TOO.

MIGleader said:

Hey, dont bring in the japanese. This was in response to a territorial issue, so its no ones water. The japananese could have tried to blow the ships out of the water, BUT THEY CHOSE NOT TOO.

Click to expand...

Nope, the Chinese ships were in internationally recognized Japanese sovereign waters. The Japanese economic exclusion zone, not in international waters at all. The Japanese could have easily blown these ships out of the water. I still can't find any incidents of U.S. ships doing this. By your logic, the USA/Japan should have obliterated these PLAN ships. Oh, yeah, and the South China Sea or the East China Sea is not China's property.

MIGleader said:

I really dont mind the u.s sending their navy around the seas....as long as thye stay out of "Weapons range" of other countries(unless the u.s has permission). Weapons range is about 100-150km. After all, there is not need to start unnesacery agression by going to close to any nation. If you get within 15 miles, it may be legal, but the othwr nations begin to question the logic behind the csg sailing so close

Click to expand...

Your logic, not mine. The Chinese ships were well within "Weapons Range"......