I just heard on CNN that a Chinese submarine followed one of our main carrier battlegroups just off of Japan's coast undetected...only to surface just 5 miles from the carrier and spotted by one of our fighters.
All this while the commander of the Pacific Fleet is in Beijing.
So I'm geussing the 20,000 nuclear arms the USA posseses isnt threatening either, or the fact that they spy on China with UAV's and Spy planes violated China's borders on a regular basis isnt threatening or the other fact that US subs follow other nations fleets with or without permission on a regular basis either?
Riiiight.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Congratulations, Blayne! You've refuted an argument nobody made!
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I'm not sure that I'd characterize it as threatening. I would call it alarming, and would hope that it is taken as an indicator that our preconceived notions of what China's submarine capabilities are need to be seriously reassessed.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Dagonee, put on your reading glasses and read again Telp asserted that China having ONE SINGLE diesel submarine following a US task force in International Waters which the US do all the time as being a threatening move by the Chinese.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Blayne, Your assertion that we threaten China in no way diminishes their actions. All you've done is post unsubstantiated facts and add a condescending 'riiiiight' at the end.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
How is common knowledge unsubstaniated?
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: I'm not sure that I'd characterize it as threatening. I would call it alarming, and would hope that it is taken as an indicator that our preconceived notions of what China's submarine capabilities are need to be seriously reassessed.
The main thing that is surprising is the fact that they deployed the sub so far from their home waters. Had we been more active in sub-hunting (I'm sure we will be in Chinese waters from now on!), that sub would've been detected sooner. Diesel/Electrics can only go so far on the super-quiet battery power before they have to come up to periscope depth to 'snorkel' air in for the very noisy diesel engines.
The Navy geek/brat in me wonders at the composition of the fleet protecting the Kitty Hawk. At least one of our own subs should be there to cut down on this sort of thing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You do see whats wrong with the above statement? A USN fleet entering Chinese waters without the expressed permission of the government is tantamount as an act of war, would the USN toleate a Russian fleet suddenly entering US waters? No.
Also, remember its International waters any nation has every right to send random ships there to protect their shipping, hunt pirates, etc etc.
If you are a nation modernizing your navy the best way to test if say a shiny new sub works is follow sneakily the bigger/better ships in a safe way to see if it works well, China has every right to do this name one international law that says "hey ya your not allowed to send ships here...."
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:How is common knowledge unsubstaniated?
Well...it was pretty common knowledge that Mikey died after eating pop-rocks and drinking a Coke...
Let me just say, I'm not disagreeing that we probably do many of the things that you mentioned (and probably more that you haven't). My only point of contention is that if you're going to use it as a counter-point on why we shouldn't feel threatened then back it up with real information.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Dagonee, put on your reading glasses and read again Telp asserted that China having ONE SINGLE diesel submarine following a US task force in International Waters which the US do all the time as being a threatening move by the Chinese.
So you can show me where Telp said that we never threaten the Chinese?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Well Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Noam Chansky, Defence Talk Daily, Janes, SinoDefence, various magazines, newspapers, military people online, pentagon reports, what else do you need?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I didnt ay the US neer threaten the Chinese I am saying that the US DO make slightly threatening to threatening moves and that the US shouldnt complain if the Chinese do the minimum required to defend their borders.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:Well Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Noam Chansky, Defence Talk Daily, Janes, SinoDefence, various magazines, newspapers, military people online, pentagon reports, what else do you need?
I need more than generalizations. You'd be suprised how often they turn out to be misleading or just plain wrong.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm in college programming as soon as I'm done, this will take a while.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I didnt ay the US neer threaten the Chinese I am saying that the US DO make slightly threatening to threatening moves and that the US shouldnt complain if the Chinese do the minimum required to defend their borders.
Yes, I know you didn't say that the U.S. never threatens the Chinese. I asked you to point out where Telp said that.
Read what I said again. In a thread in which you commanded me to put on my reading glasses, you'd think you'd make an extra special attempt to read what people actually said.
Once more:
Your initial response to Telp was a snotty, sneering jibe at the idea that the U.S. never threatens the Chinese. Since Telp never said that the U.S. doesn't threaten the Chinese, I stated that you responded to an argument nobody made.
Rather than pointing out where Telp did make that argument, or admitting you were wrong to implicitly accuse him of doing so, you chose to make a smart-ass remark about my needing reading glasses and something utterly irrelevant to what I said.
So I'm asking, one more time, for you to point out where Telp stated that we never threaten the Chinese.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:The officials said it was unusual for the submarine to be operating in deep ocean waters, but the incident was not like the April 2001 collision of a U.S. EP-3 surveillance aircraft and Chinese F-8 jet that ruptured military ties.
"We were operating in international waters, and they were operating in international waters," the official said. "From that standpoint, nobody was endangering anybody. Nobody felt threatened."
My emphasis. Blayne, all Telp said (after adjusting MY reading glasses) was "Seems rather threatning to me." Where does he mention anything about the US threatening anyone? Are there special glasses they issue to Sinophiles to read between the lines of statements by evil Americans?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ok let me rephrease then: Telp believes that a particlular action by the Chinese is somehow threatening, I am saying that the US gov't does all sorts of threatening things all the time and that Telp shouldn't complain, and I noted that it is only a SINGLE diesel submarine in inter'nl waters.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This is the kind of reporting that is so interesting, because there's really no way of gauging whether or not it's true. I mean, I don't trust the USN to report on how effective its anti-submarine methods are. I do have to wonder, though: could this be disinformation? Wouldn't be the first time, I suspect.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Like my entire point is that saying a single sub trailing behind a carrier is a mole hill okay, saying its threatening or part of some grand sino conspiracy vs he US is making a g-mn mountain out of a mole hill. Its no big deal, few people in the navy have any concern let it go.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Like if I claim that the germans murdered 6,000,000 jews which is common knowledge are you gonna insist I get sources for it?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:Like if I claim that the germans murdered 6,000,000 jews which is common knowledge are you gonna insist I get sources for it?
If you're going to use it effectively in an argument, then yes, you should always have sources handy.
However, the difference between the two statements is so drastically different that they can't really be used as a comparison. Children the world over are educated about the horrors of the holocaust, so the event enters into the realm of what everyone should know. Claims of U.S. incursions into Chinese territory are largely anecdotal and aren't drilled into general consciousness as irrefutable fact.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: few people in the navy have any concern let it go.
While I'd say you're right about this for this specific instance (since it wasn't really that big of a surprise), the general modernization and signficant expansion of the Chinese Navy is something that very much concerns the USN.
quote:Originally posted by TheTick: The Navy geek/brat in me wonders at the composition of the fleet protecting the Kitty Hawk. At least one of our own subs should be there to cut down on this sort of thing.
According to published reports the Kitty Hawk group wasn't doing any anti-sub activities at the time, which is why the sub was able to track them. Had they been actively looking for subs, I doubt the Chinese sub could have gotten nearly as close. Also, to the best of my knowledge a carrier group does not necessarily have to have a sub in its composition; I don't know if the KH currently does or not.
I agree with THT; it's not a threatening event taken in isolation but it's certainly part of an alarming trend.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
A Song-class submarine is no more capable of sneaking into the defense perimeter of a US carrier fleet operating outside of Chinese territorial waters than an oil tanker is capable of sneaking into a KansasCity swimming pool. By the time that the "submarine was spotted by carrier-based aircraft conducting routine surveillance", a report had been sent back to the Pentagon, and the political decision had been made to "give that sub a ping to tell the Chinese government that we know that they are there." In other words, that "routine" surveillance flight wasn't routine except in the sense that not-sending a flight out eventually would have been highly unusual in and of itself. As is, the US let the sub so far into its carrier defense perimeter -- which is vastly smaller than the USNavy's detection&surveillance perimeter -- that the Chinese still have no idea when or how their sub was originally detected, or even the extent of a carrier fleet's true defense perimeter.
Not saying that Chinese subs won't improve in the future: between Wal*Mart shoppers financial support and China's brain power, Chinese ownership of submarines as stealthy as the US's is inevitable. Even non-nuclear/conventional submarines.
[ November 14, 2006, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
moonies?
Frankly I'm rather certain that Navies play this sort of game all the time, kinda like hide and seek excfept with multi million dollars vessels.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
In the case of the USNavy versus foreign submarines: more like peek-a-boo, where ya pretend ya don't know where a toddler is until ya pull your hands off your eyes. I'd be surprised if the USNavy command were not aware of the Chinese submarine well before a detection report was sent back by its carrier fleet; though I can think of a how it could occur. But then something I can think of would be HIGHLY likely to be obvious to USNavy planners. And countermeasures would probably already be instituted against the tactic at the carrier defense level, at least. Besides, such a penetration method would be useless as an offensive tactic.
[ November 14, 2006, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I wouldnt be surprised if it went something like this:
"okay, we need ot get within 5 km of a carrier without being detected, if we can do it Gen. Tao chicken on me"
And so if the US knew they were there probly let them near or decided not to do anti sub stuff so that the poor chinese crew can get some food. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Noam Chomsky?!
What the heck does Noam Chomsky have to do with this?!
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Noam Chomsky?!
What the heck does Noam Chomsky have to do with this?!
Same here, man. But I decided Blayne doesn't make sense, so I figure I shouldn't care.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And I figure you should get out my of face, if your gonna bad mouth me jump off a cliff.
[ November 14, 2006, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Bill Gertz "The China Threat" title chapter 1 or 2 quotes that the US on a reglar basis sends spy planes to spy on the cell phone conversations of chinese officials.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And I figure you should GTF out my of face, if your gonna bad mouth me jump off a cliff.
Back off, Blayne. Initals or not, that violated the TOC.
Rather than swear, why not explain yourself? To be honest, at times I have a hard time understanding where you are coming from, and what you are trying to say.
What doesNoam have to do with it?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Noam Chomsky?!
What the heck does Noam Chomsky have to do with this?!
He has moved from being a linguist to being an anti american nut job. If you read some of his rants, you will not be surprised that Blayne would use him as a source.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
sorry for swearing, anyways from what I have read Noam Chansky he cites various incidences where the US infringe on the national soverignty of other nations including China. "Emperors and Pirates" I hink is the book.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Ahhh...the infamous "edit to remove text" move. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why we were talking about Noam Chomsky...
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
In Blayne's defense, the post has not been edited (that I can tell).
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Icarus, My mistake. I missed Noam in the first list set, and only noticed the edited post about half-way down. My assumption ran away with me Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The problem with common knowledge is it's often outdated or just wrong.The US doesn't have 20,000 nuclear weapons and hasn't since 1991, they have about 5,700 active or 10,000 inactive warheads according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
quote: United States. The Pentagon has custody of approximately 10,000 stockpiled warheads, of which about 5,735 are considered active or operational. The remaining are categorized as reserve or inactive.
Morbo, You just demonstrated why I insisted on documentation.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Didja know that the USAirForce and USNavy probably* lost as many as 500 aircrew members during the ColdWar in such "cat&mouse games" to test&define WarsawPact/etc air defenses. Though I don't recall such a report specificly from Chomsky, it is of the "information unknown to most people" type that he writes about.
* Most of it is still classified, so the number is a reflection of the reported US military aircraft "accidents" near the Soviet/China/etc borders. The idea is for US reconnaisance aircraft to fly along the border to attract a ping/radar-lock from Soviet/etc defenses to obtain data such as: radar frequencies and signal shapes to give US scientists&engineers the information needed to develope and/or refine ElectronicCounterMeasures and ElectronicCounterCounterMeasures; signal strength to give US military planners an idea of how far the Soviets/etc could see an aircraft; where anti-aircraft missile batteries are located; response times of missile batteries and interceptor aircraft; etc...
If the reconnaisance aircraft doesn't receive a ping, it flies across the border until it does; as shallowly or deeply as the commanders think they can penetrate safely. Or at least penetrate and still have enough time&distance to run away far enough between the time of the aircraft/missile launch and the missile intercept to bail out and have their aircraft crash into friendly territories or international waters. Sometimes the commander keeps penetrating until his aircraft provokes an interceptor aircraft or missile launch to find out if there is anything new in the speed, range, sensor&guidance technology, etc in the other side's aerospace technology. Sometimes the commander penetrates to test whether his own new ECM, ECCM, and/or anti-missile defense system work as well as advertised.
The Soviets/etc, being equally curious about US capabilities, cooperate by occasionally launching an aircraft and/or missile when the reconnaissance penetration is deep enough to make the Soviet's/etc wonder "What new trick does the US have that makes the commander think that he can get away safely?" Ideally for the Soviets/etc, the aircraft will crash and the crew will bail out into Soviet/etc territory. A dead crew is useless as far as interrogations, and even pieces of aircraft might be useful in back-engineering US technology. The Soviets/etc then put out a press release complaining about "international law being broken by unprovoked US intrusion into our sovereign airspace". And the US counters with "malicious firing upon a US aircraft which accidentally wandered into Soviet/etc airspace"; or it claims that the aircraft was flying "over international waters" or "over disputed territory" between the Soviets/etc and a friendly nation.
Since such mutually beneficial experiments by both sides aren't worth fanning into war between nuclear powers: If the crash occurs in Sovet/etc territory or in disputed territory, bodies are returned and/or captured aircrew members are exchanged in "spy swaps". If the aircraft manages to cross the border before the missile hits and then crashes, the Soviets pretend that the incident has nothing to do with them. And the US issues a report claiming "an aircraft accident of unknown cause in Turkey/etc", or sometimes adding instead "due to pilot error."
"Closer military cooperation" between less-than-allies mostly means that both sides will do their best to avoid creating such "accidents", and won't go out of their way trying to score propaganda points when they do occur.
[ November 14, 2006, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"The remaining are categorized as reserve or inactive"... ...means that those warheads are disassembled, but can be reassembled quickly.
For the US inregard to its own stockpile, 'deactivated'* nuclear warheads often means that their nuclear cores are stored in a facility more distant from the rest of the bomb assembly than reserve or inactive warheads are; and not that the nuclear cores have been sundered in such a way as to require a great deal of work before they can be used.
[ November 14, 2006, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne: The carriers were off the coast of Japan, in international waters, if not Japanese waters. Thats clearly NOT Chinese waters, so what business do they have prowling around our carriers with their submarines?
If the Chinese Navy were conducting war games or even just floating around and an American submarine pulled the same stunt, the Chinese would freak out, possibly over react (not in a violent manner mind you) you can BET the sub's captain would be reprimanded for inciting an international incident.
This is what does not sit well with me,
quote: The Japan-based Kitty Hawk and associated warships are the only Asia-based battle group and would be the first to respond to a crisis concerning Taiwan, which China has threatened with force in the past. The encounter also was unusual because Chinese submarines normally do not operate in deep waters, both officials said.
China possibly probing for weaknesses amongst our Taiwan response units does NOT send a good message. Couple that with the huge efforts at spying for US military technology on the part of the Chinese and it just does not send the best message.
I would like to hear China's comment on the incident however.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
As RonaldReagan put it to MikhailGorbachev: Trust but verify. Seeking information about a competitor's activities and/or capabilities is not a hostile act. It is merely an act of prudence to attempt to know what rivals are up to. It is the lack of such knowlege which leads to "accidents" that can push rivalry past the tipping point into hostility.
[ November 14, 2006, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Blayne (and anyone else confused by this) please note that no one here has said that the Chinese did not have a right to be where there were, nor did anyone say that China has no reason to make potentially threatening moves towards the US.
What was expressed was a simple fact: The Chinese sub was unusually close to the US carrier group, which could be cause for some alarm/threat.
If some guy starts stalking me, following me very closely down the street while looking menacing, but making no outwardly threatening actions I will feel threatened. This doesn't mean that I'm saying he's doing something illegal, and it doesn't mean that I'm denying whatever actions I may have done to provoke this response from him. It does mean that he is engaging in an activity that I consider potentially threatening.
Furthermore it is almost certain (as others have already pointed out) that the Chinese sub in question was there specifically in order to evoke some sort of response. You don't get within 5 miles of a US carrier group and not get some kind of response.
Does anyone here necessarily blame the Chinese for doing this? I doubt it. Is it still a cause for concern? Yes.
I'd be marginally concerned if one of our allies did the same kind of thing. Understanding the prudence preached in aspectre's quote above it's still somewhat worrisome when a nation with whom we are not currently engaged in hostilities is gaguing our force/capability/reaction...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
ok grimace i can accept that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ok grimace i can accept that.
(heads off to the window to see if any pigs are flying) Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If they want to prove that they can't secretly observe us, that's fine with me. It's incidents like this during the Cold War that let us learn ways to improve our abilities. However, since at the end of the Cold War we were still a generation or two ahead of the Russians, I'm still not worried about the Chinese.
Still, if they are getting bolder, it's our duty to respond in kind. We'd better review their practices and our own.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
It was in international waters. Both parties involved had a right to be there if they wanted to be. An' it really isn't that disturbing.
For those who think that this is a made up story: I can only be real brief on this. It's true, it happened.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For whoever said it up there, I'm pretty sure that all carrier groups have subs attached to them. At least one sub is supposed to be a part of the task force, but many have more.
I could be wrong, but that's the impression I was under.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Yep, there is supposed to be. Now it might have been a different type of Battle Group (in that the mission they were doing didn't require). I can't remember if it was a full Battle Group or not.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
From the wiki page on Carrier Battle Groups:
quote:CVBGs have no definitive specification and are formed and dissolved on an ad-hoc basis, and one may be different from another.
I agree they usually include subs (maybe even almost always), but it's not a requirement. I saw a page recently (which I'm having trouble locating right now) listing carrier deployments over the last five years, and IIRC there were some deployments without subs attached.
<edit>Ah, here it is. Caveat, these are CSG deployments, not CVGBs.</edit>
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It probably depends on the other attached ships. Destroyers are designed with ASW as an essential component. If there were a few advanced Destroyers, enough to cover the required area, they might have figured they didn't need one.
Or there were subs in the area (not a surprise) and they didn't see an urgent need.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
So...Navy types...a question:
How surprising would it be to have a real "enemy" sub get within 5 miles of any US Navy battle group? Is someone likely to get "in trouble" for failing to detect this sub (assuming that's what happened)?
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Well, a diesel/electric sub is VERY hard to detect on battery power, moreso than some of the better nuclear powered variety (fewer moving parts). It sounds like this model sub has some features to make it even quieter (like rubber tiles on the hull to deaden the sounds further). Since the Navy officials stated they were not 'actively' sub-hunting, there were probably no helicopters up, which can listen with sonar that get dipped in the water or lay out a net of buoys that can do the same. There are also planes that fly off the carrier that can search for large masses of metal below the ocean surface. For early warning, typically two ships are stationed ou in the direction where a threat is most likely to come from, using overwatch techniques to ensure one of them is always creeping along to listen for subs/watch for planes and cruise missiles.
Now, some or all of this may not have been happening if they were not 'actively' searching. If they were moving at a decent clip that makes it even harder to listen. AND if they happened to sail fairly close to the sub so it could sneak up on battery, you can see where this is possible. I don't think they'll be too happy about this as 5 miles is within torpedo range for that class of submarine (unless aspectre is right and they let them get that close on purpose).
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I just checked out the Kitty Hawk's home page. The top entry:
quote:USS KITTY HAWK, At sea – During the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) and U.S. Navy exercise ANNUALEX 18G, ships and aircraft will be focusing on anti-submarine warfare training.
To me, this makes China's action more provocative (and potentially more troubling). I guess the training exercise hadn't started yet, but the existence of the exercise makes it appear more likely to me that China chose its timing deliberately in order to test the USN defensive abilities.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What makes them think the US would let on, even if they had or hadn't detected it?
US subs used to routinely followed Soviet subs around the Pacific, either to keep tabs on them, or to constantly train.
They rarely did anything provocative to let them know anyone was following them, or to let on to their capabilities. One notable example to the contrary was when (and I haven't the faintest idea when they did it), all the US subs in the Pac following a Soviet sub pinged them all at the same time, which I imagine scared the crap out of the Russians for a little while. Now THAT's provoking a reaction, especially during the Cold War.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Training exercises are far from unheard of. That isn't anything new that they are going to do one.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
What I meant was choosing to use a sub to sneak up during (or just prior to) an anti-sub training exercise is pretty audacious, relatively speaking.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can't imagine the USN ever letting a carrier out to sea without a submarine nearby.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)