Chinese Sub Penetrates Kitty Hawk BG

[Jim Martin]

The Uninvited Guest

 

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

 

 

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

 

 

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

 

 

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

 

 

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

 

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

 

 

Maybe it's time to bring back the S-3s and start getting serious about ASW again?

[Mote]

I wonder if this is just the news repeating the incident from this summer or last year. I'm interested in how the paper is supposed to know that it was completely undetected.

[DesertFox]

I could have sworn hearing this years ago as well

[Praet]

I could have sworn hearing this years ago as well

Yup.

Hickley is stretching recent pretty much to its limits - it was confirmed by the USN a year ago on Nov 13 2006.

http://wpherald.com/articles/2134/1/US-sub...hinese-sub.html

Edited November 10, 2007 by Praet

[Brasidas]

Oh man, I sure do hope some heads get knocked together at Navair and Navsea. This isn't something some P-8s can fix.

 

Still, the article is pretty alarmist.

[Exel]

Well if the Swedes can do it...

[Gunguy]

The problem is that subs rule the seas, period, end of story. There is nothing the US Navy can do about it. They are trying to beef up anti-sub warfare with the new P-8atbut in the long run, until something changes with satellites, the subs rule.

[Praet]

Well if the Swedes can do it...

Not only the Swedes, US CVN have been getting repeatedly wasted by conventional subs during fleet exercises for some decades now - even by 70s designs such as the 206A.

[Xavier]

Not only the Swedes, US CVN have been getting repeatedly wasted by conventional subs during fleet exercises for some decades now - even by 70s designs such as the 206A.

wasn't the excuse that those subs were let through the escort to see what happens if a sub gets within close range of a major unit (as in, how do we stop those things at the very last minut)

[Praet]

Honestly, that's a lame excuse.

[TSJ]

How do we know the carrier task force group was on war footing examing every circumstance as it proceeded? How do we know the American diplomats were shaken as they protested to the Chinese? Are we sure this incident has as much import as Sputnik? Just wondering.

Edited November 11, 2007 by TSJ

[jakec]

If this is not another incident, and it is not being reported anywhere else, this is disgraceful journalism.

[Sikkiyn]

How do we know the carrier task force group was on war footing examing every circumstance as it proceeded? How do we know the American diplomats were shaken as they protested to the Chinese? Are we sure this incident has as much import as Sputnik? Just wondering.

 

Overblown as usual by the "we are doomed" suspects.

 

If this is not another incident, and it is not being reported anywhere else, this is disgraceful journalism.

 

 

Are you in someway shocked or taken by surprise?

Edited November 11, 2007 by Sikkiyn

[Bearded-Dragon]

Not only the Swedes, US CVN have been getting repeatedly wasted by conventional subs during fleet exercises for some decades now - even by 70s designs such as the 206A.

 

I seem to remember from the 1970s, HMAS Ovens, an Oberon Class sub sank the USS Enterprise during an exercise. From Wikipedia:

 

In fact, the ability of the O-boats to run in total silence enabled Australian submarines to successfully attack USS Enterprise in a training exercise, despite a huge number of supporting ships 'protecting' it

[Exel]

This raises the question how usable would carrier battle groups be in a real major shooting war where the opposing side had a potent submarine force?

[JWB]

CVNs are not meant to fight moderm major naval warfare. They exist so the USA can invade third world countries. An actual Chinese attack against a CVN would result in the depopulation of China less than an hour later.

[Guest Charles]

This raises the question how usable would carrier battle groups be in a real major shooting war where the opposing side had a potent submarine force?

 

That is a real Pandora's Box of a question .

Would that be a CVN vs a another nations Navy NOW?. During the early Cold War or during the Late Cold War?.

 

I ask for clarification, because during the Cold War, both NATO and WARSAW Pact Navies trained hard, especially in ASW.

A CVN TODAY, may not have the resources in ASW as it had approx 15 years ago (granted, our tech level today is a lot better).

Even today, I believe that every Carrier Battle group has some Los Angeles class SSN's with it. Now, how hard do the Sub escorts train with the CVN to detect/deter a another nations potent sub force is open to debate.

 

The current SOTA stealth weapon today, is the same as it has been for over 100 years; the submarine. We forget this st our peril.

 

Charles

[DesertFox]

One item that is not said is that the US carrier group might drive off 19 out of 20 subs "attacking" the carrier but guess which one will get reported? The one which gets through!

[Jussi Saari]

CVNs are not meant to fight moderm major naval warfare. They exist so the USA can invade third world countries. An actual Chinese attack against a CVN would result in the depopulation of China less than an hour later.

 

Unlikely to say the least, it would be hard for any US administration that took that kind of action to justify either for it's voters or for it's foreign allies exactly why genocide was an appropriate reaction to an attack against a military target.

[Brasidas]

CVNs are not meant to fight moderm major naval warfare. They exist so the USA can invade third world countries. An actual Chinese attack against a CVN would result in the depopulation of China less than an hour later.

 

CVNs are not meant to fight a littoral conflict. They are meant to fight a modern naval warfare. It was just assumed with the end of the Cold War the USN would have defacto sea control.

[Sikkiyn]

One item that is not said is that the US carrier group might drive off 19 out of 20 subs "attacking" the carrier but guess which one will get reported? The one which gets through!

 

There is also the major difference of posture.

[DesertFox]

There is also the major difference of posture.

 

True, I assume during the height of the Cold War, the escorts would have pounded the submarines with active sonar to tell it leave and leave quickly.

[seahawk]

In peacteime you can easily find out where andwhen a carrier froup is underway. The Chinese can easily fly patrol aircraft along and fix the carrier group and place a sub in the way of the group.

 

In wartime things would be much less predictable.

[Scott Cunningham]

I remember this incident, as well as a similar one where a Russian plane was buzzing the Kitty Hawk or JFK for 15 minutes before the carrier could do jack sh&t about it (I think they managed to launch an EA-6B!!) .

[Ariete!]

Whatever the truth or exaggerations (I agree the journo sounds a bit hysterical), at the very least it underscores that if you want to project naval force globally you need to watch your ASW!

 

Question: in such an exercise, would the CVN’s escorts not be running their sonars?

 

Re. the comment about finding a carrier group in wartime. Presumably anyone with decent geostationary satellites can spot something as heat-contrasting, big and unwieldy as a carrier group?