What's wrong with PLAN ASW?

Lavi

Junior Member
Well, one sub might be enough if it gets through and sinks the right ship. The Zwaardvis/Hai Lung-class can be deadly against surface ships. Remember the Falklands War, one Argentinean SSK managed to move around unhindered by the navy who had spent large part of their Cold War investing an effective ASW system. Also, the Taiwanese SSK's are now getting Harpoons.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Well, I think that China needs a full ASW capability, snice sooner or later they will face a treath-scenario when they need them. If we count their possible enemies we find that:
1)USN has LOTS of subs
2)JNSDF has several very good SSK's
3)ROCN have two SSK's, planning to expand the force to 10 in the coming years.
4)IN have sveral good SSK's, and more are ordered with frequent intervals.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Remember the Falklands War, one Argentinean SSK managed to move around unhindered by the navy who had spent large part of their Cold War investing an effective ASW system.

Not really sure what you are posting about.:confused: I was unaware of any Argintine SSK roaming around. I thought I knew the Falklands War very well. if this is true why did not the Argintine Navy launch torpedos against the RN? The AN did have 4 older subs.

The RN sub HMS Conqueror did sink the AN cruiser General Belgrano with torpedos. The next link will give a list of RN losses and damage during the Falklands War.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Not used during "Operation Rosario", the "General Belgrano" puts to sea from Ushuaia on Monday 26th April escorted by two Exocet-armed destroyers, and three days later is ordered to patrol south of the shallow Burdwood Bank. (9) On Friday, nuclear submarine "Conqueror" makes first contact at long range, and on Saturday closes in to shadow. Although just outside the TEZ, "GENERAL BELGRANO", as the southern arm of TF.79 is a potential threat to the carriers and her destruction is ordered. (10) Attacked and hit at 4.00 pm on Sunday 2nd May by two conventional Mark 8 torpedoes she is soon abandoned, and goes down with her helicopter [a10] and heavy casualties. A third torpedo hits "Hipolito Bouchard" without exploding but possibly causing some damage, and "Conqueror" is therefore presumably counter-attacked by "Piedra Bueno", which later returns with other Argentine ships to search for the cruiser's survivors. Shortly after the sinking, the main units of the Argentine Navy return to port or stay in coastal waters for the rest of the war.
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Not really sure what you are posting about. I was unaware of any Argintine SSK roaming around. I thought I knew the Falklands War very well. if this is true why did not the Argintine Navy launch torpedos against the RN? The AN did have 4 older subs.

I read about that also, That single little fish coused hundreds of missed depth charges and other asw measures to be fired against it whitout any succes. If argentinian navy would have been commanded by far bolder and ambitious admiral, the war migth have had totally differnt ending. Argentinian navy wasent as strong as the RN but it had some good elements on it and the British victory was result of very small factors and far too dependaple on surving of the two V/STOL carriers. One of them sunked and...
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
I read about that also, That single little fish coused hundreds of missed depth charges and other asw measures to be fired against it whitout any succes. If argentinian navy would have been commanded by far bolder and ambitious admiral, the war migth have had totally differnt ending. Argentinian navy wasent as strong as the RN but it had some good elements on it and the British victory was result of very small factors and far too dependaple on surving of the two V/STOL carriers. One of them sunked and...

The Admiral commanding the ARA(Argentine Navy) had ventured futher out than 12 miles away from shore I think the ARA would have been lost. Along with even more British ships.

I cannot find any proof that this ever happened. Sorry:confused: I never read or heard about it until today. I recieved a lot of training about the Falklands War back in the '80's while on duty with the USN. Some classified. If some one could post a crediable link about this little sub running amok among the RN I would love to read it.

Like I posted. If this is indeed true why didn't the Argentine sub fire a few torpedos at the RN to inflict some real damage? HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes would have been the targets of choice. That's a very fair question.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
I found it!! This article does discribe the Brits using a lot of ordance and sounobouys looking for Argentine subs in littoral waters that were really in port well except for one.The Brits must have thoght the old US made sub was a threat....Poor ASW use by the Brits.:rolleyes:

Warning ..the link is a PDF file! And is a general overall view of subs in the Falklands War.

http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~lswartz/falklands.pdf#search='Argentine%20submarines%20%20in%20the%20Falklands'

However, accounts of the war tend to center on the sinking of two ships in particular: the
Argentine cruiser General Belgrano and the British destroyer HMS Sheffield. Sunk by a nuclear
submarine and a “smart” missile respectively, these two ships’ demise reflect important lessons
to be learned about naval warfare, but must be viewed in a larger context. Submarines and
“smart” weapons played a far larger role in the conflict than simply sinking two ships; only by
understanding the larger picture can one learn the lessons of the Falklands Conflict.
Submarines in the Falklands Conflict
The first operation involving a submarine in the Falklands involved the Argentine
submarine Santa Fe, the former USS Catfish (SS 339), a Perch class diesel sub commissioned in
1945. The Santa Fe was en route to the Falklands to covertly ship supplies to the troops
garrisoned there, surfaced and approaching the port of Grytviken, when it was spotted by a
British helicopter on April 25.2 The helicopter was one of a group of five consisting of one
Wessex, two Wasp, and two Sea Lynx, which subsequently fired on the helpless submarine with
depth charges and other ordnance.3 Surfaced, the submarine had little defense except for the
rifles found on board. The Santa Fe’s crew beached the badly damaged submarine just outside
of Grytviken. Although this was a chance encounter, it highlights the vulnerability of a
submarine when on the surface. As the submarine is a weapon of stealth, once that stealth is
removed, it becomes a sitting duck to attacks from both the air and sea.
The Santa Fe was not the first submarine on the scene, however; as the political conflict
escalated in March, the British nuclear submarines Spartan, Splendid, and Conqueror were
2 William J. Ruhe, “Submarine Lessons,” Military Lessons of the Falkland Islands War: Views from the United
States. 8.
4
ordered to sail for the Falklands, to “covertly prepare a task force for South Atlantic
operations.”4 This action showed two advantages of the modern nuclear submarine: speed and
stealth. Thanks to their nuclear propulsion plants, the submarines were able to arrive far before
the rest of the British task force. Furthermore, this action took place without at all affecting the
political situation. Because the ships could remain undetected nearly indefinitely, the
Argentineans had no idea that submarines were off their coast unless the British told them, thus
not exacerbating an already tense situation. Indeed, had the politicians been able to resolve the
conflict at that time, there would have been no trace of the British submarines ever being in the
area.
The British did eventually inform the Argentineans of their submarines’ presence,
however, finally establishing a 200-mile “maritime exclusion zone” around the Falklands on
April 12. This effectively stopped any Argentine naval operations in the area: no ship would
dare to risk entering waters patrolled by the superbly handled British submarines. Indeed, in an
interesting illumination on the stealth of nuclear submarines, the British could have been bluffing
without the Argentineans ever knowing—as one British submariner quipped, “the only way to
know for sure that there is a submarine is when one starts losing ships—and that’s a very
expensive way to find out.”5
That maritime exclusion zone resulted in the most famous submarine encounter of the
war, the sinking of the Argentinean cruiser General Belgrano by the HMS Conqueror. On May
2nd, the Belgrano and two destroyer escorts went on patrol just outside of the exclusion zone.
The British saw the Belgrano group as a threat to its task force, and ordered the Conqueror to
3 USS Catfish SS339 Home Page
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

4 Ruhe 7.
5 Tom Clancy, Submarine.
5
engage. The Conqueror used two Mk VIII torpedoes, sinking the Belgrano in forty minutes.6
This was the first time that a nuclear submarine had attacked a surface ship in actual combat.
The Argentineans learned their lesson well: the Argentine navy was essentially holed up in port
most of the war, especially their carrier Veinticinco de Mayo. As a result, Argentine planes had
to fly 425 miles from the Argentine mainland to their targets, which taxed their fuel capacity to
the breaking point.7
Perhaps the most disturbing lesson of the war is in the realm of Anti-Submarine Warfare
(ASW). Argentina had only four World War II-era diesel submarines, two of which were tied up
in port: the Salta’s battery was depleted (although the Argentines moved it around to confuse the
British) and the Santiago del Estro had been cannibalized for spare parts.8 As mentioned above,
the Santa Fe was damaged early in the war and thus remained inoperative throughout the
conflict. However, the British spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to track these few
submarines. An enormous amount of ordnance was dropped on false contacts, while Sea King
antisubmarine helicopters constantly patrolled the area.9 Their efforts were confounded by the
difficulty to conduct sonar operations in shallow water.10 That the British spent so much time
and firepower ineffectively chasing one outmoded diesel submarine shows both the difficulty of
ASW and the deadliness of even older submarines to a large surface fleet.
Indeed, the San Luis fired several torpedoes on British ships, yet each torpedo missed its
target. It is suspected that “synchro misalignment had caused incorrect bearing information to be
transmitted from the periscope to the fire-control console,” and that furthermore an “overzealous
leading petty officer…had incorrectly reconnected lead used to power-up torpedoes in
6 Ruhe 8.
7 James L. George, “Large Versus Small Carriers,” Military Lessons of the Falkland Islands War: Views from the
United States. 16.
8 “The Lesson of the San Luis,” International Defense Review, Vol. 30 No. 8. 36.
6
their tubes before launch.”11 This shows that one must not only have the technology—one must
also be well-trained in using it effectively.
.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
bd popeye said:
I found it!! This article does discribe the Brits using a lot of ordance and sounobouys looking for Argentine subs in littoral waters.

Great and interesting article PopEye...thanks for finding and posting it. May I suggest, if you haven't ;already read it, "Battle for the Falklands", by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins. Great book.
 

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
back to china's asw...
the reason chinese vessels have basic asw abilities is becaue thay have nothing ti fear from taiwans "submarine force". a u.s sub is likely no going to be in the equation. if it is, the pla will use aricraft.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
May I suggest, if you haven't ;already read it, "Battle for the Falklands", by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins. Great book.

When I was assigned to HC-11 at NAS North Island we had a British exchange officer. This was in '83 & '84. Who served in the Falklands. During training he presented a British slant to the history of the Falklands. He omitted the little sub chase. Gee I wonder why?:confused:

back to china's asw...
the reason chinese vessels have basic asw abilities is becaue thay have nothing ti fear from taiwans "submarine force". a u.s sub is likely no going to be in the equation. if it is, the pla will use aricraft.

Ok. Lets say somehow the US is in the equation. Without a viable ASW aircraft how would hunt a sub?
 

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
perhaps china intends to use maritime patrol craft like the y-8, detect a sub, and sent in its own sub to hunt it.
 
Top