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).

The Washington Times reports:A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned. The surprise…

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

You’ve got mail!

Which Branch of the Service Do Your Prefer?

An Army grunt stands in the rain with a 35 pound pack on his back, 15 pound. weapon in hand, after having marched 12 miles, and says, “This is shit!”

An Army Airborne Ranger stands in the rain with a 45 pound pack on his back, 15 pound weapon in hand, after having jumped from an airplane and marched 18 miles, and says with a smile, “This is good shit!”

A Navy SEAL lies in the mud, 55 pound pack on his back, 15 pound weapon in hand, after having had a 10 mile swim to shore, a five crawl through swamps, and a 25 mile march in jungle, at night, through enemy positions, says with a grin, “This really is great shit.”

A Marine, up to his nose in the stinking, bug-infested mud of a swamp with a 65 pound pack on his back and a 15 pound weapon in each hand, after jumping from an aircraft at high altitude, into the ocean, swimming 12 miles to the shore, killing several alligators to enter the swamp, then crawling 30 miles through the brush to assault an enemy camp, says, “I love this shit.”

An Air Force NCO sits in an easy chair in an air conditioned, carpeted office and says, “My e-mail’s out? What kind of shit is this?”

US Marine Corps Rules:

1. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
2. Decide to be aggressive enough, quickly enough.
3. Have a plan.
4. Have a back-up plan, because the first one probably won’t work.
5. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
6. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun whose caliber does not start
with a “4.” (That just shows good sense.)
7. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life
is expensive.
8. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (lateral &
diagonal preferred.)
9. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
10. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or
tactics. They will only remember who lived.
13. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating your intention
to shoot.

Navy SEALS Rules:

1. Look very cool in sunglasses.
2. Kill every living thing within view.
3. Adjust Speedo.
4. Check hair in mirror.

US Army Rangers Rules:

1. Walk in 50 miles wearing 75 pound rucksack while starving.
2. Locate individuals requiring killing.
3. Request permission via radio from “Higher” to perform killing.
4. Curse bitterly when mission is aborted.
5. Walk out 50 miles wearing a 75 pound rucksack while starving.

US Army Rules:

1. Select a new beret to wear.
2. Sew patches on right shoulder.
3. Change the color of beret you decide to wear.

US Air Force Rules:

1. Have a cocktail.
2. Adjust temperature on air-conditioner.
3. See what’s on HBO.
4. Ask “what is a gunfight?”
5. Request more funding from Congress with a “killer” PowerPoint
presentation.
6. Wine & dine ‘key’ Congressmen, invite DOD & defense industry executives.
7. Receive funding, set up new command and assemble assets.
8. Declare the assets “strategic” and never deploy them operationally.
9. Hurry to make 1345 tee-time.

US Navy Rules:

1. Go to Sea.
2. Drink Coffee.
3. Deploy the Marines

Sniper Rule:

1. One shot, one kill.

And finally:

Which Military Service Has Big Brass Ones?

A marine general, an army general and an navy admiral were discussing who has the toughest men one day.

The army general goes, “Alright, I’ll prove the army’s got the toughest men in the country. Private, get over here!”

The private reports as ordered -”Yes sir?”

The general goes, “see that man over there? Kill him!”

Without hesitating, the private kills the man.

The general goes “See? That man has balls!”

The marine general goes, “That’s nothing! Private get over here!”

The marine private reports, “Yes sir?”

The general goes, “See that man over there? Kill him and then yourself!”

Without blinking the marine private pulls out his M-16 and blows away the guy, then turns the rifle on himself and unloads several rounds.

The marine general goes, “See? Now that man has balls!”

The admiral says, “That’s nothing.” He calls to a seaman high up on a tower, “Hey seaman! Jump off that tower!”

The seaman goes, “Excuse me sir?”

The admiral repeats, “JUMP OFF THAT TOWER!”

The seaman replies, “F#$% you sir!”

The admiral goes, “See? That man has balls and he’s got brains too!”

Note: The Airforce is not mentioned in the above. We leave it as an exercise to the reader to speculate why.

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.

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.

Matt Drudge has a typically bombastic headline running, CHINA SUB STALKS USS KITTY HAWK, which links to a Bill Gertz article in today’s Washington Times that is only slightly less dramatic: A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier……

Cold War games from China, apparently:

A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned….

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

The Washington Times carries a rather breathless article today about an incident in which a Chinese submarine stalked a US Navy carrier battle group and surfaced within firing range, all without being detected until it surfaced: According to the defens…

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.

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.

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.

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?

That would be the purpose of such surveillance flights, no?

The surfaced submarine was spotted by a routine surveillance flight by one of the carrier group’s planes

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.

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.

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.

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”.

I seriously doubt that they were undetected.

Here a summary from a 1994 incident:

Beginning on October 27, 1994, the aircraft carrier U.S.S Kitty Hawk was involved in a rare three-day encounter with a Chinese Han class nuclear attack submarine in the Yellow Sea, some 100 nautical miles west of Kyushu, Japan and–according to the U.S.–in international waters. U.S. anti-submarine aircraft spotted the Chinese sub about 450 nautical miles northwest of the Kitty Hawk, and continued to track it. The Chinese dispatched jet fighters which intercepted the U.S. planes. No shots were fired–but there was no communication between the two forces. The cat-and-mouse game continued as the sub came to within 21 miles of the carrier, then ended when the Chinese submarine returned to base.

For a full account on the incident read the Jim Mann article on the incident in December 14, 1994 edition of the LA Times.

A special thanks to all of our Navy guys who posted here today and shared some of their knowledge with us.