Navy confirms Chinese sub spotted near carrier

[peter_the_great]

Navy confirms Chinese sub spotted near carrier

Navy Times, 13 Nov 2006

"The Navy did spot a Chinese submarine near the Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group last month in the East China Sea, the Navy said Monday afternoon, verifying parts of a Monday morning article in The Washington Times that said a Chinese submarine had come within "firing range" of the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk on Oct. 26.

"While conducting operations, a Chinese navy Song-class submarine was sighted near the strike group by a U.S. Navy aircraft," said Navy spokesman Lt. Sarah Self-Kyler, who would say only that the incident occurred in "late October" near Okinawa, Japan.

Both ships were operating in international waters at the time, Self-Kyler said, and "there was no communication" between the submarine and any U.S. Navy vessels after the sub was spotted. The Kitty Hawk group was conducting routine carrier training at the time of the incident, Self-Kyler said, adding that the strike group was not conducting anti-submarine warfare operations during the exercise."

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2353581.php

[truthisfreedom]

1. just how much carbon dioxide is emitted while we "practice" for war? if

visitors from another planet looked at what we're doing to our planet and to each other, what would they think? would they see us as knuckle-draggers, or would they laugh and say "we went through the same thing"?

[Kagemusha]

2. Not at all concerned about the incident itself?

To me, this is not cool at all. I mean has the Chinese Navy done anything right that's ever been admitted before this? Ever?

[hack89]

7. The carrier often goes out with just a single escort ..

to conduct air wing qualifications. This means steaming at high speeds for aircraft launch and recovery - you can't detect submarines if you are moving at high speed. If it was a war time setting, all the other escort ships would be there doing antisubmarine screening. I don't see this as proof the Chinese can sneak up on the US Navy at will.

The significance of this is that I think the Navy leaked this to use as ammo to emphasize the Chines navy as a means to protect their budget from cuts needed to fund the war in Iraq.

[Kagemusha]

8. US Navy never heard of active sonar or ASW helicopters?

Well isn't that interesting.

But yes, clearly the Navy leaked this for the reason you suggest.

[hack89]

9. Of course they do ..

but with the escort as a plane guard fight behind the carrier it can't see anything with its sonar.

ASW helos are poor search assets - they are usually cued by a ship sonar or MPA. They also have very short range dipping sonars - they are normally used to search the inner area around the carrier between the inner layer of escort.

It is peace time - there is no threat from China attacking one of our carriers. Carriers steam all the time with no ASW escorts.

[Kagemusha]

10. Carriers with no ASW escorts all the time? ...since... when...?

Last I knew, which I admit, was a while ago, the US Navy was damned paranoid with its carriers and regarded any threat to them as very serious.

I can absolutely understand the rest of what you said because of old knowledge of how ASW works but... the going around with no escorts is just utterly shocking to me. Since when?

[hack89]

12. Since the end of the cold war ...

when the budgets were slashed. It is a matter of money. They will steam for local training ops with a single escort. Don't forget that Kitty Hawk is stationed in Japan. Now, when they deploy out of home waters, they still deploy with their full complement of escorts.

The sub was not a threat - unless you really believe that China is preparing for war in the near future. If intelligence indicated that China was preparing for war, then the carrier would have either been in port or with more escorts.

[Kagemusha]

13. Any sub that close is a threat.

Edited upon closer look: Ok, so this was near Okinawa.

...

How the hell did a Chinese diesel-electric sub get right off the coast of Okinawa completely undetected so that it shadowed a carrier with a single escort just outside the 12 mile territorial limit in international waters? And only then spotted on the surface by land based aircraft?

This is even more concerning. Doesn't the Navy listen with fixed location sonars near its own major bases? I know money's tighter, but my god, they must have listening devices connected to the main naval base.

Edit #2: And if there's only one escort, why the hell isn't it covering the carrier's baffles?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. What slashed budgets?

:freak:

[Captain Hilts]

3. Only one sub in our battle group. Bush Admin. cuts to the navy are really hurting.

Bush wants to cut down to 35 attack boats. Fifteen east coast, 20 for the WHOLE Pacific.

Stoooopid.

This is BAD news!

[Sherman A1]

4. Might as well get used to it.

The Chinese Navy will be tracking our Carrier movements, just as the Soviets did (and Russian probably still do). It's part of being prepared, they have to be and so do we. Just the way things are and will be.

[JuniperLea]

5. I'm sure that China will be keeping close tabs on their investment

We owe them so much money! Thanks to GWFuckTard Bush and his band of criminals.

[Canuckistanian]

6. Imagine, a Chinese sub in the South China sea

The nerve of those Chinese. We all know US subs NEVER approach vessels of other countries.

[sweetheart]

11. imagine! nt

[Canuckistanian]

15. Ciamar a tha thu?

A bheil a' Ghàidhlig agad?

[sweetheart]

16. my gallic sucks

Give me a coupla years. My new croft is
on the western isles near'ish a gallic school,
then i'll be better equipped to chat.

Slainte mohr :toast:

[Canuckistanian]

18. Just learning it

My grandparents (from Stirling and Edinburgh) spoke a little.

Suas Alba!
:toast:

[daleo]

14. What are Chinese submarines doing in the South China Sea?

Don't they realize that's an American lake?

[TheLastMohican]

17. In the modern sea warfare

aircraft carrier's life will be measured in minutes. No need to get panties in a bunch. There are so many carrier-killing assets in the possesion of most modern militaries (including Chinese) that this alarm is designed for only one reaction: GIVE US MORE MONEY FOR THE NAVY.

[Porcupine]

23. "There are submarines and there are targets"

My brother trained as a submariner before he washed out. I've never seen anything to contradict this opinion.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

19. Key Phrase

Self-Kyler said, adding that the strike group was not conducting anti-submarine warfare operations during the exercise."

They were not looking for subs during the training exercise. The entire strike force is designed to protect the Carrier from missile and torpedo attack. When they are looking for subs, they WILL find them, especially diesel boats. The US Navy has become exceedingly good at ASW since the beginning of the cold war.

Will a Carrier be sunk, most likely yes. But mainly because the brunt of an attack will be directed at the Carrier and is sure to overwhelm the defenses and screens. These are the pride of the US fleet, and any sinking would be a major propaganda boost and morale blow, short only of sinking a US Missile sub. Most resources will go towards sinking this one ship, as I doubt any other blue-water navy would be of the delusion that they could take on and defeat an entire modern US task force.

I doubt one lone sub would get close enough, unless someone isn't doing their job correctly. But then again, they have someone on another ship doing the same job on the same patch of water, so there is redundancy built in.

[BushOut06]

20. Big fucking deal - we've been doing this for decades

We've been doing this to Russia and China for decades. So why is it a big deal when they do it to us? It's not like they're trying to spark WWIII.

[peter_the_great]

22. It’s a big deal because

It’s a big deal because any time you have military assets of opposing powers in close proximity to each other bad things can happen.

During the Cuban missile crisis US forces were trying to chase out of the area or force to suffice Russian attack subs. It could have lead to world war III!

The U.S. effort to surface the Soviet submarines involved considerable risk; exhausted by weeks undersea in difficult circumstances and worried that the U.S. Navy's practice depth charges were dangerous explosives, senior officers on several of the submarines, notably B-59 and B-130, were rattled enough to talk about firing nuclear torpedoes, whose 15 kiloton explosive yields approximated the bomb that devastated Hiroshima in August 1945. Huchthausen includes a disquieting account of an incident aboard submarine B-130, when U.S. destroyers were pitching PDCs at it. In a move to impress the Communist Party political officer, Captain Nikolai Shumkov ordered the preparations of torpedoes, including the tube holding the nuclear torpedo; the special weapon security officer then warned Shumkov that the torpedo could not be armed without permission from headquarters. After hearing that the security officer had fainted, Shumkov told his subordinates that he had no intention to use the torpedo "because we would go up with it if we did."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB75

As to whether a Song class sub could take out an aircraft carier at 5 miles I supose it would depend on the ability of the carier group to kill or get out of the way of 6 Yu-4 (SAET-60) torpedoes. The range of the terpedies is 15 mk or about 8.9 miles.

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/039.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_class_submarine

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/song.htm