What is China up to?

[Andrew2382]

China has one aircraft carrier...

 

[Munin]

Munin, the Chinese Navy is far from being able to outmatch the US Navy.

You got that right, but the growth of the Chinese military is outmatching the growth of the US military by far. But the incident exposed that the US Navy is not "almighty" anymore.

 

[Mr. President]

We are talking about a Navy that has no need to expand the US Navy is at its current size the most powerful Navy in the world. The Navy was not on alert or looking for any other ships. So I take the incident with a grain of salt. A fact worth noting yes, a reason to worry, no.

 

[Andrew2382]

I wouldn't be surprised if they let the ship get that close...there was no immenent threat an dprobably wanted to observe it and see the tactics the chinese sub used....of course this theory could/prob is wrong but if it is right wewould neve rknow cause it would be classified

 

[Munin]

We are talking about a Navy that has no need to expand the US Navy is at its current size the most powerful Navy in the world. The Navy was not on alert or looking for any other ships. So I take the incident with a grain of salt. A fact worth noting yes, a reason to worry, no.

Did you know that at the time of WWII the British Navy was the most powerful Navy in the world but the German submarines yet still managed to get the British on the brink of surrendering. (the British were/are highly dependent for food, recourses, ... on their colonies and trading partners like the US: therefor cutting their supply lanes is like cutting the main artery of that Nation)

A battlegroup is supposed to have a safety zone between the ships in the center of that Battlegroup, mostly the carrier and most important ships are in that center it is surrounded by escort ships (usually destroyers that re supposed to be excellent submarine-killers and detectors and that is one of their primary missions to detect submarines and more importantly detect them before they re able to endanger themselves or the flagship/any other ship of the battlegroup) that protect the carrier. Having an undetected submarine surfacing in the middle of that "safety zone" and being within firing range is a serious security breach. It is a zone that is guarded with sonar, ... and other Naval equipment because it is essential for the safety of the most vulnerable ship in the battlegroup: the aircraft carrier.

And that the most important thing in the Pacific for the Americans is their trade lanes and supply convoys? With a huge modern submarine force you can manage to crush another Nation just by cutting supply lanes.

I believe the article of the OP wasn't specific enough, but this one is: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

"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 lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines."

"And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it."

I don't think this is something that should not worry you, what worries me even more is that the military commanders themselves were shocked because they didn't know China was capable of it. It tells a story of how underestimating an opponent can cost you dearly, certainly if this happend during Wartime and since it was during an exercise it makes matters even worse (because normally the ships re at their best then or at least should be performing at their best then).

 

[Munin]

I wouldn't be surprised if they let the ship get that close...there was no immenent threat an dprobably wanted to observe it and see the tactics the chinese sub used....of course this theory could/prob is wrong but if it is right wewould neve rknow cause it would be classified

The article was about the fact that the US Navy was totally surprised by the submarine surfacing in the middle of their battlegroup (it was undetected), if it was an observation it wouldn't be worth writing an article about.

 

[Mr. President]

We are talking about a lone ship who had it shot at any ship would have been instantly destroyed and i doubt it's sinking capabilities concerning any of the ships in the fleet with one shot.

 

[Munin]

We are talking about a lone ship who had it shot at any ship would have been instantly destroyed and i doubt it's sinking capabilities concerning any of the ships in the fleet with one shot.

It s not about the fact that it would have been destroyed if it fired, it s about the fact that the sub is capable of doing this: an aircraft carrier is normally the best protected ship in the US navy, if a non-friendly submarine is able to get within firing range undetected (it had to surface to make its presence known) it poses a serious national security threat. It s about the capability of Chinese submarines and how advanced they seem to be and also how Ignorant our military commanders were about this.

It s like having a Chinese soldier walking into Forth Knox without being detected and then waving its Chinese flag around to make it s presence known. It is not a physical risk, it exposes how much risk you re exposed to and kind of makes you look stupid along the way (but that s nothing new for America after 8 years of Bush, we were getting used to it).

And if it were war the sub would not have surfaced but would have fired a/multiple torpedo(s) that would have sunk the aircraft carrier, the sub "might" have been destroyed after it fired but even that is doubtful because it would then still be submerged and the other ships had not detected it yet. And a loss of an Aircraft Carrier is not something you could consider "a small loss": 4,500 personnel on board and not to forget how much the ship itself and all the materials and planes on board are worth.

 

[Mr. President]

Correct but if you understand the technicality of ships and their firing capabilities you realize that a submarine with the power of that kind of destruction would most likely be diesel and unable to hold enough fire power to complete the task at hand without being sunk before completing the mission.

 

[Munin]

Correct but if you understand the technicality of ships and their firing capabilities you realize that a submarine with the power of that kind of destruction would most likely be diesel and unable to hold enough fire power to complete the task at hand without being sunk before completing the mission.

You can fire at least 2 torpedos simultaneously and even more if you want, so if they shoot a lot of them simultaneously the carrier is probably going down (especially if it comes from an undetected sub). Also torpedos re very advanced these days so they take more damage too if you fire one of those (this makes that you need less torpedos to actually sink a ship). And a ship like a carrier is not a stable one because of the flight deck that makes that the gravity point of the ship is rather high making it one of the most vulnerable ships in the US Navy. That is why the US Navy takes the defense of aircraft carriers so seriously. Also as you pointed out, this diesel sub is not even one of the most advanced subs out of the range of subs China has: so we can assume that the more advanced subs of the Chinese Navy will most likely be able to perform even better.

 

[Mr. President]

Yes but the firepower on diesel submarines are more limited while the stealth ability is greater it can not hold the same munitions that advanced submarines hold. Thus it is one of the two main drawbacks the other being distance it is able to travel under water.

 

[carpe deus]

Are you saying that "If the Chinese draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on America's territory", the Americans wouldn't respond with nuclear weapons??



Sorry that I keep flipping the question, but it's interesting to see Americans basically say "The Chinese are doing what we do! ... FUCK!"

Which small island has America bound to itself in a slave-like manner?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Which small island has America bound to itself in a slave-like manner?

What???

I'm confused.

 

[mightypeon]

Considering stealing technologies:
It may be significantly cheaper than inventing them by themselfs, the main reason that the US does not steal a lot of military technologies is that the only ones with slight superiorities in some aspects are its allies, and you dont steal from an ally for a minor partial efficiency increase.
Russian military technology is quite nice in many cases, but as far as I know mixing Russian and US technologies is not trivial in most cases.


If lets say Switzerland suddenly develops a working Anti-Matter bomb, everyone including the US will immidiatly try to steal it.

 

[Munin]

Yes but the firepower on diesel submarines are more limited while the stealth ability is greater it can not hold the same munitions that advanced submarines hold. Thus it is one of the two main drawbacks the other being distance it is able to travel under water.

Why shouldn't they be able to give those diesel subs the capability to fire the same torpedos as the most modern submarines (upgrading the whole torpedo launch system)? Considering that this diesel submarine is an old version, you can assume that newer versions have even better armament capabilities.

As I understand this Sub (Type 039 submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) has these weapons at its disposal that re useful when it is in this situation (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.):

1) "Yu-4 torpedo"

"Diameter: 533 mm
Length: 7.75 m
Weight: 1,775 kg (1,628 kg for the training version)
Warhead: 309 kg
Guidance: acoustic homing: Yu-4A: passive, Yu-4B: active/passive
Propulsion: electrical, silver-zinc battery
Range: 6 km (original), 15 km (upgraded)
Speed: 30 kt (56 km/h)
Depth: NA, ASuW torpedo"

"the Yu-4 torpedo is considered at least equal or better than Russian SAET-50M torpedo, the successor of SAET-50 torpedo, and even comparable to Russian SAET-60 torpedo in some aspects"

Yu-4 torpedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2) YJ-8 anti ship missile

"The missile uses a 165 kg semi-armor-piercing anti-personnel blast warhead which relies on the missile's kinetic energy to pierce the deck of a ship, penetrate into and explode in the ship's interior. In addition, the YJ-82 might have a higher single hit probability than the YJ-8/YJ-81."

C-802 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3) CY-1 Rocket propelled (ASW) torpedo

CY-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4) Naval mines:

"For mining operations, in place of torpedoes, the submarine can carry 24 to 36 naval mines, deliverable through the torpedo tubes."


It has 6 torpedo tubes, so it could be able to fire 6 torpedos simultaneously and fire also anti ship rockets. 6 torpedos with a 309 kg warhead seems more then enough to sink an aircraft carrier.

The submarine itself:

Displacement: 2,250 tons submerged
Length: 74.9 m
Beam: 8.4 m
Draft: 5.3 m
Speed: 22 knots (41 km/h)
Test depth: 300 m
Complement: 60
Armament: 6 torpedo tubes
18 torpedoes and anti-ship missiles
or:
36 naval mines

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Look, China could easily pull something out of its hat but it's not going to. People look at the increased military funding in china and they see China preparing for some kind of attack but this is not what is going on. China is just trying to keep up with the rest of the world. It's a perfectly rational thing to do.

 

[Munin]

Look, China could easily pull something out of its hat but it's not going to. People look at the increased military funding in china and they see China preparing for some kind of attack but this is not what is going on. China is just trying to keep up with the rest of the world. It's a perfectly rational thing to do.

Well if The Russian Federation (or Russia) would do the same and could do it (constantly increase its military budget with double digits along with the massive spying operations), I believe even you would say something completely different.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Well if The Russian Federation (or Russia) would do the same and could do it (constantly increase its military budget with double digits along with the massive spying operations), I believe even you would say something completely different.

Well... isn't that, in fact, what they do?

 

[Munin]

Well... isn't that, in fact, what they do?

They re playing with their new toy, it s called Gazprom. They had a good laugh with it the last time they used it, it seems they re enjoying it now too: EU calls crisis talks as Russian gas flow dwindles - International Herald Tribune

To me it doesn't seem like Russia is a threat, they are on the defensive for a long while. Lately they re having a stroke of nostalgia, trying to defend what used to be the Soviet Union (Ukraine, Georgia). After Georgia, it is time for Ukraine again I guess: Ukraine is kicking out the Soviet Fleet ... uh, I mean Russian Federation fleet when the rent contract from the Russians expires. The Russians are not really pleased with it because they see Sevastopol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol) as a part of Russia although they themselves gave it away to Ukraine (but that was before when Ukraine was still a puppet of Russia, thanks to the guy that got poisoned by the Russians that kind of Changed), it was historically one of the most important naval bases of Russia: it is a bit like Gibraltar is for the British. I don't think the Russians will let it go without a fight, unless the EU interferes (and I don't think they will, because they re too chicken for that) the Russian will probably claim what they will say "as rightfully theirs". But thats enough about Russia, it isn't a real threat anymore otherwise they would take care of their own nuclear garbage instead of letting the West clean it up for them.

 

[Munin]

Here is one of the answers of "why China could be a danger?"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nly67CQW-3A&feature=rec-HM-r2]YouTube - China at war over Taiwan[/ame]

Anyone who would support democracy in Taiwan? hmmm, who would that be?
Yes, the US would be my best guess too: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5YLHoGKaDY]YouTube - FPTV: Would the U.S. protect Taiwan From China?[/ame]

And then people tend to think Washington always supported China and the other way around like close friends, but this is actually not true: Washington supported the Government of China during WWII, but what people tend to forget is that this government fled to Taiwan from the Communist Government. While Washington still stood by the Government that fled to Taiwan. The US has been at war with China (Communist China) in Vietnam and In Korea, that is what some people tend to forget: if the Chinese wouldn't have helped the North Koreans, then Korea would be one Nation and an ally of the US. Taiwan is like a scar that remains of this conflict between the US and China, for China it is a matter of Nationalism to crush the last freedom-loving Chinese within its reach and for Washington it is a case where they tend to stand by their old allies (of WWII). Flying Tigers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia : the flag mentioned on this site (On your right=> Country: Republic of China) might make some things more clear, because it is the same flag of Taiwan.