Chinese sub plays peekaboo with U.S. carrier
posted at 10:35 am on November 13, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
1. A nose-tweak aimed at showing us — and India — that China’s capabilities are further along than we thought.
2. Another fictitious threat concocted by Bush to distract the sheeple from the things that are “really important,” like a modest minimum-wage hike.
3. A whole lot of nuthin’.
Where are our Navy readers? You’ve debunked this sort of alarmism for me before; you can do it again. Don’t let me down.
Update: More worrisome than the sub encounter:
The incident is a setback for the aggressive U.S.-China military exchange program being promoted by Adm. Fallon, who has made several visits to China in recent months in an attempt to develop closer ties.
However, critics of the program in the Pentagon say China has not reciprocated and continues to deny U.S. military visitors access to key facilities, including a Beijing command center. In contrast, Chinese military visitors have been invited to military exercises and sensitive U.S. facilities.
Update: People are commenting that we used to stalk Soviet subs, and vice versa, all the time. Right, but the point of the article, as I understood it, wasn’t that China’s playing the same game now but rather that they’re playing it well enough to get within firing range of our carrier without being detected. Is that cause for concern? If not, why not?
Update: One of the boss’s readers e-mailed her this. Did Gertz’s sources feed him disinformation?
[T]he Navy will not generally comment on whether they detected the Chinese submarine or not. Any decision to do so would have to take place at the level of the Pentagon or higher. The reasoning is simple: you don’t want the enemy to know your vulnerabilities OR your capabilities. The only way to know whether this diesel sub was being tracked or not is to wait until we are at war with China. Even then you might never know since the poor, noisy thing would probably be at the bottom of the sea before it ever got within a dozen miles of a US aircraft carrier group.
If you’re a betting person, put chips on the fact the Chinese sub’s whereabouts were known the second it left Chinese ports. The fact it was able to surface within visual distance of a USS aircraft carrier is due to the simple fact that we are not at war with China — yet. I pity the Chinese sub’s crew if they try that during wartime.
Update: Reader Jason comments below:
I’m a nuclear submarine officer with extensive experience in this area.
This is less than a half-story, it’s a 1/10th story. We know almost nothing of the facts, and they won’t be released for at least 25 years.
Unfortunately, any submariner with any knowledge of why this is a non-issue will not be able comment in order to debunk it. Let the media have their headline.
Update: Bob Owens thinks this was an ambush, not a stalking, and that the intended target wasn’t the Kitty Hawk but Admiral Bill Fallon.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
The ChiComs are building their 600-ship navy while we dismantle ours. I’m disgusted.
Kid from Brooklyn on November 13, 2006 at 10:38 AM
That would be my guess. That is unless they’ve really improved their overall naval capabilities since 1992.
But that’s doubtful.
…From this former Navy CPO…
Corky on November 13, 2006 at 10:39 AM
This seems like pretty “standard” operating for the big navies. We did it it the Russians, we do it to the Chinese and vice versa they’ve been doing it to us.
We usually keep a couple of attack subs with our carrier groups and a boomer shadowing nearby, so I’d expect that they were keeping an eye on the Chinese the whole while.
Seem like a whole lot of nothing to me, but then again it’s important to remind people from time to time that we’ve got another big military power out there to contend with and we can’t orient or forces solely toward terrorists.
I think that while China might be able to nab a few of our surface ships in a surprise attack, our own attack boats (subs and others) would probably make short work of them thereafter if it came down to war.
–Jason
Jason Coleman on November 13, 2006 at 10:42 AM
Aren’t our subs secretly stalking ships from around the globe? Didn’t one of our spy planes crash in China a few years ago? Isn’t this the kind of espionage every country performs and that every other country knows every country performs?
JaHerer22 on November 13, 2006 at 10:42 AM
They are just sitting back waiting to see how this Islamic thing goes for the West.
Anything to weaken us is in their long term strategy,
bbz123 on November 13, 2006 at 10:43 AM
I think it’s a whole lot of nuthin’. We used to play these sorts of games with the Soviet military as well.
Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 10:44 AM
JaHerer – that was after a People’s Liberation Army Air Force (that would be the ChiCom air force) fighter rammed it in international airspace.
steveegg on November 13, 2006 at 10:47 AM
I for one am not overly concerned about the Chinese sub incident. The Chinese are very big on saving face and looking good. This is probably just a gesture.
What I AM concerned about is the second part that Allah wrote about, calling it “More worrisome than the sub encounter”
americanpundit on November 13, 2006 at 10:47 AM
Allah,
Just heard that it was the Clinton administration that allowed the sale, I think a machine called 5-axis was sold to China that allowed them to design and make propellers that are able to slice through water with little cavitation and noise thus allowing the sub to sneak up on USS Kitty Hawk.
Do some checking guys. I did some cursory checking. Looks to be true that this happened a la North Korea all over again with Clinton.
What is it with this guy? Selling off our military hardware by piecemeal?
Kokonut on November 13, 2006 at 10:50 AM
Number of factors here..
First it was a diesel boat. IF it had sat in wait, across the known path of the Carrier??? Easliy done… Some of the waters of the Pacific are pretty restricted, especialy going from one location to another.
Also, what was the Carrier doing??? if its not doing ASW or other operations, and its pretty much stood down??? Especially since we can’t use our Sonar in active cause of the enviro whackos….
Trust me… during heightened alert, or War conditions, this never would have happened.
USN Ret.
Romeo13 on November 13, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Most-likely, that Song-class sub was sent to the exercise area ahead of time, then ran under an ultra-quiet routine, making bare steerage, while waiting for the USS Kitty Hawk and company to show up and hoping that the battle group wouldn’t use active sonar to santize the exercise area.
This isn’t the first time that American aircraft carriers have made it into torpedo range of diesel-electrics; the Canadians and Australians have some impressive periscope shots of those carriers taken during war exercises where they were acting as the OpFor.
Wish I could say it is a whole lot of nuthin’, but the fact that the PLAN thought to station a spy sub so close to the exercise, and that it did get so close, troubling.
steveegg on November 13, 2006 at 11:00 AM
Whole lotta nuttin! In a war with the United States there are two kinds of foreign warriors who know their life span is about 3 minutes….Pilots and Submariners.
Press making hay on this as a back up to the Iranian drone story. Active sonar would have found that sub and all the active radars in a carrier battle group would have cooked that drone.
Limerick on November 13, 2006 at 11:00 AM
Personally, it scares the hell out of me to think that a Chicom sub managed to get this close to one of our CVN’s without being detected. If, in fact, it really wasn’t detected.
Dave R. on November 13, 2006 at 11:02 AM
As others have noted, it was a diesel boat, and those boats tend to be extremely quiet when running only on their batteries. However, their range is somewhat limited, and they have to come up to the surface or at least periscope depth in order to run their diesel engines to recharge the batteries – and that is a dead giveaway of their position.
It’s worth noting and developing tactics to counter the deisel sub threat, but it’s not as worrisome as it would be if it was nuke sub and it occurred near one of our coasts.
And to close, if I was a betting man, I’d bet that we have subs over in the Western Pacific keeping an eye on Chinese naval movements.
… from a former USN submarine sonar tech.
thirteen28 on November 13, 2006 at 11:05 AM
So does that mean Prince Namor would get his ass kicked, too?
Gottafang on November 13, 2006 at 11:05 AM
Oooppsssss! Did I just drop a depth charge? Sorry, my bad!
China needs to understand that we should be allies in the fight against islamic extremists because it’s only a matter of time before they start hitting atheist targets in Hong Kong in the name of allah.
Tony737 on November 13, 2006 at 11:06 AM
A whole lot of nothing.
My opinion is that it was a good natured “hand tip.” After bluffing your oponant several times in poker, you strategicaly tip your hand when you’ve got a dandy. It continues the illusion that you don’t bluff.
China does not want a war with America. Nothing to gain and much to risk and/or lose.
It’s a locker room towel snap.
natesnake on November 13, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Gottafang…..yep Prince Namor may have been THE Sub-Mariner but I hold little stock that he could get in close enough!
BTW…the best Chinese rocket torp (Russian Skhval) has a range of 7500 yards. The Chinese sub was 8800 yards out. Close but no cigar.
Limerick on November 13, 2006 at 11:11 AM
We don’t have depth charges anymore, though I think we could borrow a few from the Royal Navy. We’d be dropping Mk 46 and Mk 50 homing torpedoes, and a couple of those could ruin a submariner’s whole week.
steveegg on November 13, 2006 at 11:11 AM
It’s definitely not a whole lot of nothing. Diesel-electric submarines are the greatest threat to America’s ability to project its power globally, and being both cheap and not necessarily sophisticated (though they certainly can be), they are proliferating rapidly amongst the Navies of America’s potential future adversaries. Nuclear submarines are actually much noisier and easier to track, and what the USN was focused on during the “blue water” days of the Cold War. In the waters of the Persian Gulf or on the approaches to Taiwan, though, the diesel-electric might be, frankly, a weapon against which we have little effective defense.
All one has to do is imagine the effect of the sinking of a single US carrier by a power like Iran, both within the US and globally, to realize just how serious this is.
Blacklake on November 13, 2006 at 11:13 AM
From what I gather this sort of stuff goes on all the time. Unless a torpedo was fired then it’s a non-story IMO.
Benaiah on November 13, 2006 at 11:14 AM
The Chinese Navy has been improving and building up their submarine fleet for years.
This is a gravely serious problem to our Navy and our country.
flagwaver on November 13, 2006 at 11:14 AM
Clinton selling off more than ex-military hardware or software to china is the problem.
Hitachi (the jap TV) sold the secrets to making those diesel props silent to the russians.
tormod on November 13, 2006 at 11:15 AM
I’m a nuclear submarine officer with extensive experience in this area.
This is less than a half-story, it’s a 1/10th story. We know almost nothing of the facts, and they won’t be released for at least 25 years.
Unfortunately, any submariner with any knowledge of why this is a non-issue will not be able comment in order to debunk it. Let the media have their headline.
Jason on November 13, 2006 at 11:16 AM
Won’t go into details as to why, but I am fairly certain our Navy guys knew full well where that sub was at and were watching it better than it was watching us. Besides, one of the best ways to collect on your enemy is to let him get real close and have him thinking he is being sneaky while you watch him and note his activity. But, that’s just a hypothetical thought.
Centurion68 on November 13, 2006 at 11:17 AM
Hats off to you Jason! Thanks for being there.
Limerick on November 13, 2006 at 11:18 AM
I’m just an old Army guy but I didn’t know they still made diesel subs. Wouldn’t they, the Chinese, be more worried about rust then an American aircraft carrier and her escorts?
Think Red October.
LakeRuins on November 13, 2006 at 11:19 AM
More important question: who leaked this to Bill Gertz and why? My bet is on a senior DON guy who is getting ready for the big budget battles between the Army, Navy, and everyone else. Someone sees an opportunitity to consolidate some budget territory under Mr. Gates and roll back some of the transformation cuts.
Like the population rate in europe, the Navy is below replacement growth rate on all it’s ship types. Amphibious ships (many of which are 40 years old) as well as subs and surface combatants are shrinking in numbers.
A good scare from the chicoms may be just the thing needed to pump up ship construction and weapons system budget lines.
Styopka on November 13, 2006 at 11:19 AM
That is the most logical scenario. My primary question is why someone in DOD would leak this story.
Pablo on November 13, 2006 at 11:25 AM
Blacklake:
What you’re missing is the fact that diesel submarines have limited range and operational capacity. They are a threat, yes, but manageable. Chinese technology is progressing, but ours is progressing faster. Again, no one with knowledge can comment on specifics, but it’s my opinion that China’s Navy should be far down your list of international military concerns.
Jason on November 13, 2006 at 11:25 AM
And the libs want to reduce spending of the military.
FormerLiberal on November 13, 2006 at 11:26 AM
Diesel-electric boats are great for coastal defense, but are nearly worthless in forward operations. They get 2-3 days tops submerged on the battery, moving at very low speeds, but once that time is up, they are on/near the surface, and once they start the diesel engines, they can be heard by any other sonar in the water from very long distances.
I second that.
thirteen28 on November 13, 2006 at 11:31 AM
With this scary ‘camp fire’ story from the MSM…where the hell is their story that the U.S. Navy just found the USS Wahoo that was sunk off of Japan in WW2? Brave men. A REAL story there. This one is Inside Edition hype.
Limerick on November 13, 2006 at 11:32 AM
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Since when this a whole lot of nuthin’???
This sub come within torpedo range and surfaced before our NAVY know it’s there?
Look for some serious disciplinary action over this one folks.
We’re not talkin’ about a Tin Can here folks. This is a billion dollar carrier and, apparently, one that can’t find one stinking sub within torpedo range?
NOT GOOD PEOPLE
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on November 13, 2006 at 11:33 AM
One question: What was the Navy supposed to do to the sub in a time of peace???
This is a whole lot of absolute nothing.
As an experiment to show this, let’s change the scenario a little bit. Hostitilities have just broken out between the US and China. Now, place the Chinese diesel submarine in the same spot as before. Don’t see it? That’s because it ain’t there. Once it came within a certain range of the carrier, it’s reason for existing vanished and it and its crew now lie at the bottom of the ocean.
Scoff if you wish but that’s exactly what would’ve happened and will happen. The US Navy is second to none when it comes to tracking ships and submarines. You’ll never know the full capabilities, though. Any guesses why?
prairiemain on November 13, 2006 at 11:34 AM
Why do I get the feeling that this particular Song was at the end of its battery life?
steveegg on November 13, 2006 at 11:34 AM
Here’s an odd question…
Why did the ChiCom sub surface?
Even during the wargames, I think all the Aussie opfor subs did was take pics through the periscope.
But a full surface? ??? That doesn’t make any sense. You want to be able to get in and get out undetected.
If this did happen the way it’s stated, there’s something else kinda fishy going on. Or it’s that Political jab at the visiting US Admiralty.
Kai on November 13, 2006 at 11:42 AM
I was in the Navy. There is NO WAY that this clunky thing got that close without being seen or detected by sonar, period.
zerodamage on November 13, 2006 at 11:45 AM
For anyone who is interested here is a link to a data base of all U.S. Naval vessels lost in the 20th century.
Hats off to the Navy and all the men and women who sail the seas. The Navy has paid a heavy price to help guarentee our freedom.
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/usnhdb/losses_war.asp
Limerick on November 13, 2006 at 11:51 AM
Thanks, Limerick.
Thank you Navy!
steveegg on November 13, 2006 at 11:53 AM
And to go with that here are all the Navy’s accidental losses in the 20th Century.
So you ex-Army(like me), ex-Zoomies, don’t ever think the Navy ‘has it made’.
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/usnhdb/losses_accidental.asp
Limerick on November 13, 2006 at 12:00 PM
“The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving relations between the two nations’ militaries.
According to the defense officials, the Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the carrier Oct. 26.
The surfaced submarine was spotted by a routine surveillance flight by one of the carrier group’s planes
The Kitty Hawk battle group includes an attack submarine and anti-submarine helicopters that are charged with protecting the warships from submarine attack.
According to the officials, the submarine is equipped with Russian-made wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles. (Although I was a dog-faced ground-pounder, I would guess that one of these could put a hurtin’ on a carrier!)
For Christ’s sake, a multi-billion dollar Battle Group and a pilot on a routine flight spots a sub. What is this the WWII NAVY?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on November 13, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Dread Pirate: How do you know the Navy didn’t know it was there? Where is your crystal ball that has the You-Tube video of the ‘truth’?
Limerick on November 13, 2006 at 12:10 PM
Our CBG knew it was there, count on it.
A special thanks to all of our Navy guys who posted here today and shared some of their knowledge with us.
Tony737 on November 13, 2006 at 12:42 PM
Just want to point out that this isn’t anything new. We’ve been playing with the Chinese since the early 1990’s. I, for one, think it’s a good thing they come out to play because it gives us a chance to learn their tactics and develop intelligence. What some would consider a aggressive move the the Chinese the US Navy views as a training opportunity.
Here a summary from a 1994 incident:
For a full account on the incident read the Jim Mann article on the incident in December 14, 1994 edition of the LA Times.
NPP on November 13, 2006 at 12:53 PM
Look at it from the other side, DPR. I can’t think of a single good reason (from the Chinese perspective) for the sub to surface.
I seriously doubt that they were undetected.
Phil Smith on November 13, 2006 at 12:53 PM
Fleet Admiral Drudge is making a mountain out of an ant hill. It’s peace time and ships are free to move about pretty much at will in open waters. If we had any hint of an idea that we needed to be looking for enemy subs in a combat situation then nearly every helo and shipboard sonar would’ve been hunting in one way or another and this tiny little boat would’ve been meat on the table.
Also, even IF this sub was sneaky and got within the range described as some sort of “Gotcha” move, then it’s nothing new really as it’s a game sub drivers of every nation play. They play these games of cat and mouse all the time and sub skippers have but one word for all other types of ships, “target”.
Yakko77 on November 13, 2006 at 12:54 PM
I’m an honorary San Diego area submarine club member. The stories from the Cold War are incredibly interestig and compelling but too much time and bandwidth w/b needed to relate.
Striking in this and the drone stories is how the media mostly tends to believe Ahmi and the Chinese, or some disgruntled dude or dudette from DoD or any department.
Over time, on most media stories about aviation, ships and submarines, the media is incredibly uninformed and gullible.
Entelechy on November 13, 2006 at 12:58 PM
From my very limited knowledge of our own capabilities and those of still rather crude Chinese submarines, I’m inclined to agree with those learned Navy men who tell us that the ChiComs were not quite that stealthy.
The likely purpose of the exercise was for the Chinese to try to bait U.S. naval forces to see just how far out their submarines might be picked up. I read the surfacing of their diesel/electric as a sign of exasperation more than anything else. They tried to bait us, and we apparently decided to let them get in far closer than they know we would if we considered them a threat.
Look at it from that perspective, and you’ll realize this was far better than a non-story, it was a psychological defeat for an “enemy” that knew he was being tracked, but couldn’t figure out how, or from where, and who finally just gave up.
Bob Owens on November 13, 2006 at 1:11 PM
Dread Pirate Roberts VI,
That would be the purpose of such surveillance flights, no?
There’s really no story here. There’s no way of knowing what we knew, and there’s not going to be for a long time, if ever.
Pablo on November 13, 2006 at 1:17 PM
“In the next war, there will be two classes of ships: submarines, and targets.”
(- Spoken by a former co-worker and ex-submariner I knew)
I wasn’t in the Navy, but am a big fan of it and have studied it for decades – so since the guys who are really in-the-know don’t seem to want to talk, here’s a semi-informed analysis based on those studies:
On the “whole lotta nuthin’” side, it’s true that subs play a lot of hide-and-seek games with surface ships and other submarines. That’s what they’re built for. So if a Chinese sub surfaces five miles away, in international waters when we’re not at war with China, so what? What are we supposed to do? Fire at it? Complain to the UN? Kind of silly, really – even more so when one realizes that our own subs are probably prowling around doing the same thing whenever the Chinese surface fleet ventures into blue water (except that we don’t surface).
It’s similar to that Iranian UAV flying over that carrier in the Persian Gulf recently. Snooping on somebody else under or over international waters isn’t an act of war; but shooting at the snoop sure would be. Given that, the best thing you can do is what I’m sure our Navy is already doing: take the experience for the training value it represents, and plan ahead for what you’ll do when you’re on the brink of open hostilities and have the go-ahead to take pre-emptive defensive measures (“Call it self-defense and just start shooting”).
As others on this thread have noted, the problematic thing about diesel-electric boats is that when they’re running underwater on batteries, they’re very quiet; in exercises with other countries that still use modern diesel-electrics (and have well-trained, professional crews running them), they frequently give our Navy fits. It’s not uncommon for them to remain undetected even when we know they’re in the area and are actively searching for them.
This is especially true if the diesel-electric boat is used in an interdiction role – i.e., it gets positioned ahead of where the CV battle group is traveling and lies in wait, like a (barely) mobile undersea mine. In addition to keeping its noise down, it can reduce its fuel consumption – thereby maximizing it’s effective range from its home port as well as its time spent on station (which are the two Achilles’ heels for non-nuclear boats).
Ideally (from the sub’s point of view) in such a scenario, the battle group sails right on by without knowing you’re there – and then you send a swarm of those wake-homing torpedoes after it while slinking away to make your escape.
Hunting for subs is a headache. Always has been.
It’s even more of a headache these days, because without all those Soviet subs to “practice” on, our much-reduced anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities probably aren’t as on top of their game as they were during the Cold War. Throw on top of that the Navy’s submission to assorted eco-wacko groups who use the courts to deny it permission to train with active sonar as much as it should (can’t have sleep-deprived, psychotic whales, you know), and the threat from modern diesel-electrics becomes even more worrisome.
Upshot: In a hostile situation the best thing you can do to protect the carriers is to blast the enemy’s naval facilities right from the beginning – try to nail as many subs as you can before they get to sea. A perfect job for a B-2 stealth bomber…
As for those enemy boats that are already deployed (and large-scale sub departures from port would be a pretty good tip-off that hostilities are about to begin), you can plot indirect routes to your destination that aren’t obvious to the enemy, and to do your best to “sanitize” the area ahead of the battle group with your ASW assets – find ‘em and sink ‘em while they’re still out of effective weapons range.
And keep your fingers crossed, for even then the enemy might still get lucky. That’s just the way war is.
Spurius Ligustinus on November 13, 2006 at 1:26 PM
“Hitachi (the jap TV) sold the secrets to making those diesel props silent to the russians.”
Actually, it was Toshiba, not Hitachi, involved in this case.
Point 2: This incident may “cap” Adm Fallon’s career as well as the CBG commander. Why? “Politics” in Congress and DoN over the issue of the military exchange and possibly “scapegoating”. I don’t justify it, but the admirals involved may not be able to defend themselves without divulging what may be top secret information.
I don’t buy the argument that it was leaked as a gambit to get a bigger piece of the DoD’s budget.
I’m prepared to accept the theory that the Chinese sub was actually not “undetected,” for the reasons offered by the ex-Navy personnel posting here.
However, the thrust of Gertz’s article is with the internal POLITICAL ramifications with Fallon’s apparent restrictions on gathering intelligence on China’s capabilities. I emphasize the word “apparent” because this has the appearance of the equivalent of a “food fight” going on in PACOM, according to Gertz. That could reflect badly upon Adm Fallon.
In other words, I smell “office” politics here, not an actual deficit in USN’s anti-sub capabilities.
georgej on November 13, 2006 at 1:52 PM
Snooping on somebody else under or over international waters isn’t an act of war; but shooting at the snoop sure would be.
Yeah, except when everyone else does it to us, and we don’t get to declare war…
Just want to point out that this isn’t anything new. We’ve been playing with the Chinese since the early 1990’s.
The “new” aspect, apparently, is that they always used to lose these games, but not anymore.
Lehuster on November 13, 2006 at 2:40 PM
I am a retired Fast Attack submarine sailor (Senior Chief Sonar Technician). I would have to agree with Jason. We (that’s you and me) don’t and won’t have all the facts, so don’t get overly excited about this “news” story. Our navy is more than capable of handling the Chinese submarine threat.
The timing of this story and the story about the Iranian drone flyover of a U.S. carrier are somewhat suspicious. It would seem that under the Republican administration, the navy is really slipping. Look for more “news” stories about how badly our military has been performing in the next few weeks as we prepare to transition our House and Senate to the dhimmocrats. You can count on our media to present these “news” stories in a fair and balanced way.
Aren’t you glad the dhimmocrats are offering to straighten our military out?
/sarcasm off
MarkM on November 13, 2006 at 3:05 PM
Hey MarkM, just out of curiousity, when were you in and what boats did you serve on?
thirteen28 on November 13, 2006 at 3:31 PM
Look, if a battleship can track a damn whale, they can track a noisy Chinese submarine. Trust me, they knew it was there. This is not war time, there is no reason to be paranoid. This is absolutely ridiculous.
zerodamage on November 13, 2006 at 3:33 PM
Just to respond briefly to some of things that’ve been said in reponse to my first post:
I certainly agree that this individual incident as reported isn’t representative of any sort of failure. As has been pointed out, for all we know this particular sub had an SSN glued to it for days, and we (not to mention its Chinese crew) will never hear about it. Even so, this boat’s mere existence, not to mention the will of the Chinese to put it within range of a carrier, is a reminder of the continuing threat posed by diesel-electrics and their proliferation in the post-Cold War world.
And of course the diesel-electric isn’t a likely candidate to sink a US carrier off, say, the coast of California. But then, neither is a CV likely to be conducting combat flight operations from there. The subs are obviously not a power-projection tool, but a credible threat to US power projection assets deployed in theater–particularly in shallow waters like those of the Persian Gulf.
I agree that a Chinese sub isn’t itself a particular threat, considering the current unlikelihood of a military confrontation between our two powers in the first place (knock on wood). Diesel-electrics in Iranian waters are certainly more troubling–and of course, if Chinese submarine tech continues to improve, there’s no telling what unsavory sorts might someday become operators of exported Chinese boats far more capable than the current crop.
In the end, I’ve confidence that the USN is working on ways (and for all I know may already have comprehensive ones) to deal with the limited but growing threat posed by these submarines. Regarding the day’s topic, however, the mere fact that this incident occurred at all (whatever the specifics) reminds us that such threats do exist, and that alone renders it not a “whole lot of nuthin’”, but at least a pointed reminder of something rather important.
Since the loss of a single US carrier to any military force, let alone a third-rate one like Iran’s, would be devastating to the United States, and that the diesel-electric sub is, at present, the most credible threat to such (deployed) US naval assets, it needs to be taken very seriously.
Blacklake on November 13, 2006 at 3:35 PM
Hey thirteen28,
I was in from 75 to 96, mostly San Diego & Pearl Harbor. I qualified on an SSBN (USS Casimir Pulaski). Two “detergent” patrols was enough. I decided that as a sonarman I did not really like the “Hide with Pride” concept and moved on to where the action is – fast attacks (USS Seadragon, USS Los Angeles, USS Queenfish and USS Puffer). I managed to ride almost all the pacific boats at one time or another (temporary duty). Had some very interesting spec ops. How about you? My email is mmeddleton@mac.com.
MarkM on November 13, 2006 at 4:07 PM
Here are some thing’s to think about when deciding which Branch of Service has it the easiest:
And finally:
MOMinuteman on November 13, 2006 at 5:56 PM
You’ve got mail!
thirteen28 on November 13, 2006 at 7:39 PM
I used to fly LAMPS helos off of smallboys (cruisers, destroyers, frigates)- most recently in 2001 and I maintain close ties with those that still do. If anyone had the Chinese on their scopes, it would have been our subs, certainly not any air assets. Of the air assets:
LAMPS (SH-60B/R) is too focused on surface warfare these days (lasers, FLIR, Hellfire, etc…) and realistic ASW training is an afterthought-spit your own mobile target, track it for 10 minutes, then drop your exercise torpedo next to the range recovery boat. I’ve been in that battlegroup and we did just that. BG commanders tend to use LAMPS as daylight ass n trash haulers and midnight radar surveillance, when they have them fly at all. I’m sure Hound Dog McClain is no different. (I worked under him when he was CAG 5 and he pretty much despised helos). Almost guaranteed that LAMPS didn’t know about it.
Carrier based helos (SH-60F) use dipping sonar, but would have needed cuing data to go look, which apprently they didn’t, or they would have been out there well before the “routine” airplane flight found it surfaced.
P3’s don’t fly around spitting hundreds of buoys in front of carrier strike groups anymore, and there are no S3’s available for outer or mid-zone searches. Much like the repeated unintercepted Russian overflights of KHK within the past few years, I think our guys got their asses handed to them once again. We’re going to be seeing a lot more of this over the next few years and one day, the first indication of a close-in sub will be the sound of high speed screws coming towards the carrier (if anyone’s bothering to listen- which I doubt).
rotorhead on November 14, 2006 at 7:08 AM
I question the timing – of the story, not the event – cat n mouse in international waters shouldn’t even be a media footnote note to anyone besides the battle group’s brass.
Alden Pyle on November 14, 2006 at 9:44 AM
Unfortunately, the Navy is now admitting that the sub had in fact not been tracked. So unless they’re for some reason lying, I’d say this officially ranks as a big deal.
Blacklake on November 14, 2006 at 1:14 PM
Comment pages: