It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Subs vs Carriers, a warning.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
China's shallow threat
Sunday, May 22, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Writing in the June issue of The Atlantic Monthly, Robert Kaplan anticipates a new war -- hot or cold -- with the People's Republic of China. The article, "How We Would Fight China," has become a burning topic for discussion from the work water cooler to Washington's dinner tables.

It immediately becomes apparent that President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have been given intelligence information that is so wrong as to be critically dangerous to our future security.

Three years ago, the president said China was on a rising path. "America welcomes the emergence of a strong and peaceful and prosperous China," he said.

The words "strong and peaceful" are key. During the past three years, China has provided, almost daily, evidence that it is strong but also aggressive.

Our defense strategists' warnings about the growth of China's fleet of 62 diesel- or electric-powered submarines have been received with an alarming lack of concern. So much so that our Navy's submarine base at Groton, Conn., once known as "the submarine capital of the world," is high on the list of bases to be closed. This also will put the Electric Boat Co. in jeopardy. It once manufactured some of America's best and most innovative undersea craft.

Enter Russia

While the U.S. military is focused on Central Asia and the Middle East, China has developed its secret weapons -- purchasing eight new Kilo-class diesel submarines for $1.6 billion from Russia. China also has upgraded its home-manufactured sub fleet and has made the strategies of undersea warfare the backbone of its offensive battle plans.

America's needs were shaped by the Cold War and the potential enemy was Russia. We developed nuclear-powered submarines that were able to roam the deep oceans -- submerged and nearly undetectable. Other navies -- the Chinese, Iranian, North Korean and more -- have all developed small, silent, diesel-powered submarines able to operate and strike in shallow coastal waters.

The United States has none.

Recognizing its weakness -- and in an attempt to counteract lack of foresight -- the U.S. Navy has rented a Swedish navy diesel submarine for $17.5 million. It comes with crew and officers for 160 days to help train our anti-submarine warfare (ASW) ships and crews.

But it's not because of the China threat. Since the mid-1990s, the U.S. Navy has held exercises with friendly nations that use diesel submarines. Our Navy says that these experiences have "often proved humbling."

German- and Australian-built subs managed to penetrate U.S. battle group defenses and simulate attacks on surface ships (including sinking aircraft carriers) without being detected.

In 2002, in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise -- our Navy with those of South Korea, Canada, Japan, Chile, Peru and Australia -- one of the Australian diesel-electric subs was able to score multiple "kills" against two Los Angeles-class, nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Said Rear Admiral Malcolm Fages, one of our submariners: The marriage of air independent, nonnuclear submarines with over-the-horizon fire, Harpoon-style anti-ship missiles and high-endurance homing torpedoes means that traditional ASW approaches, employing radar flooding and speed, are not likely to be successful against this threat."

'Bait' subs

The Chinese have a number of strategies. One, openly discussed, is to use one or more of their older submarines as bait. A U.S. submarine then could be lured to reveal its position and be hit by a lurking Kilo armed with the Russian Skaval torpedo.

According to a Chinese magazine article, Skavals travel in excess of 200 knots. Skavals already are installed on China's submarines, in addition to supersonic land- and ship-attack missiles that can be fired while the ship is submerged.

In discussing tactics for the potential invasion of Taiwan, China's navy planners have adopted the Russian tradition --- a carrier group can be destroyed with multiwave saturation attacks using up to 100 anti-ship cruise missiles launched in a single attack. The Chinese recall that in World War II, 17 aircraft carriers were destroyed by submarines; they know these remain the economical answer to the threat of the U.S. Navy.

China is not the first country to challenge our sea supremacy with submarines. The Soviet Union and Germany tried and failed. But while many of our ships are active in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, we have to be very sensitive to sea control. If and when there is a problem with China and its submarine fleet moves from a concern to a threat, the U.S. Navy will have to do the heavy lifting.

And, as of now, they have to rely on the Chileans, Australians and Swedes to show them how.


pittsburghlive.com...




posted on May, 24 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Trust me on this, we know how to deal with Kilo's and the like, more quiet than nuke boats but not silent. The only reason we are asking other countries for help is we have retired our last diesel boats a while back.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Sure Edsinger

The US know how to deal with those kilo subs, but trust me on this, I am pretty dammed sure that the chinese know how to deal with a Los Angeles Class Sub.

If you aren't afraid of the Diesel Class or AIP type subs why train against them?

- Phil

PS. From the looks of it, the US Navy have had problems with nations diesel subs seems interesting.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 05:53 AM
link   
anybody know if there maybe a secret black project base that make and test naval units? i am sure they have one like area 51 but instead area 51 with aircrafts, but another base with naval ships. you have to wonder where all those black buget money goes to....



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
The cover of this illustrious magazine :



Look at such blatant propaganda. They photoshop the sailor to look like the devil when he's probably just some poor conscript in the navy.

I'll put my money on the boys in the US Navy, they'll have the edge on training, though they're gonna have a hard time fighting China.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   
intresting premise on psteels post.

Something further for many of you to consider beyond the mere weaponry.
China has been granted huge loans to industrialize..by western nations. With these loans comes huge transfers of certain technologies. The Chinese are hungry for more..of all kinds and will and have used thier financial connections to secure more technologies of all types...restricted and non restricted. What do you folks think is implied in most favored nation trading status. Like the Soviets ...what they cannot get they will steal and copy...if possible. My point is that these loan connections secure certain political positions for the Chinese. Positions not made clear to the public of all nations by public education or the media who is "looking out for you!
It is the economic influence of Western nations which has put China in this position.

Agree with edsingers post on why we train on diesel boats. The last American diesel boat was retired over 15 years ago. So too have retired the experienced sailors who have the practical on the job knowlege of diesel boats. Classroom training is there..but real on the job experience is not. Those of us who have operated in any field of endevour know the difference between classroom senerios and actual on the job problems.
No experienced sailor takes for granted the ability of any opponent...to do so is suicide.
One more thing about the US Navy. The turnover rate of personel retiring , getting transfered, or just plain getting out after their first tours is huge. This represents a huge loss of experienced personel. I did not know it was that huge until I worked on Aircraft Carriers and got a sense of how many new people had to be qualified from scratch.
With this in mind..it is not difficult to see how people with diesel experience ..hands on ..is a rare commodity in the US Navy. This is why they train...constantly.
Remember..we are not just talking about a diesel boat per se...we are talking about a total weapons platform. Diesel boats with modern weaponry , sonar, and advanced maneuvering/training is not a thing for any experienced sailor to turn their nose up at. Sonar , training , and weapons have made quantum leaps in the last 40 years. The Flying Tigers in China with a overall inferior airplane is a textbook example.

Also Intresting question posted by ulshadow...very intresting.I believe you have answered your own question olde man...well done. The rest I will leave to your imagination.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Edsinger,

What do the Bush Administration have on you that means you are the poster child for the knee-jerk defence of everything they do or say?

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
Sure Edsinger

The US know how to deal with those kilo subs, but trust me on this, I am pretty dammed sure that the chinese know how to deal with a Los Angeles Class Sub.

If you aren't afraid of the Diesel Class or AIP type subs why train against them?

- Phil

PS. From the looks of it, the US Navy have had problems with nations diesel subs seems interesting.




Would that be a Los Angeles or a San Juan or a Seawolf or Virgina?

The Chinese at present can not deal with the LA class , especially the San Juan.

The Problem is the diesel subs are not as easily found as the very noisy nuke boats.

We train against them because we decommed our old diesel boats and we need the practice.



as for the Bush statement, if you only knew how much I dislike this administration, I just hate tulipwalkers more..Less of 2 evils.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I have 1 word for you intersepter torpedo's be easy enough to make we have the tech look at sea ram just adapt it to a torpedo. Make a small light and fast torpedo with minimal warhead. example - contact on sonar 1400m we got a fish running hot and inbound. Ploting fireing salution........ Under Sea Ram ready sir. Fire tubes 1 and 6.... THuwoshhh... Torpedo has been intersepted sir. Plot firing salution on the attacking boat. open outer doors... place safty's at 800m... Fire tube 2... 2 min later BANG... enemy sub down...

Just make sure the intersepters have normal counter masures built into them to try to get the torpedo to track on the intersepter. Even a small explosion in close prosimity to a torpedo would damage/disable it cripling the guide's our control systems. Torpedo's are fast and noisie.

What they need is duel speed torpedo's you fire it and it runs slow and quit then when it lock's on the target and closes the gap then it flips up to full power. Closing the last few 100m.

Another intresting idea would be under sea fighter type craft. That could go down atleast 800m Have then run off fuel cells and have a range of atleast 250miles and carry 2-4 torpedo's and 2-6 interspetor torpedo's. With sprint speeds similar to torpedo's and cruse speeds like normal sub's

retro fit a boomer sub to act as a carrier. So mother ship comes in and drops off its 4-6 figher subs. The fighters stalk in on the target fleet. They plot there targets then all at once fire all there torpedo's and run like hell. If they make it back to the mother ship reload and refuel them rinse repeat tell the target fleet is gone. The pricie old boomer sub stays out of harms way and the cheep fighters go in and do the dirty work. And if the fleet did not have the interseptor torpedo's or very good counter masures then. At least 8-24 ships would go down with each wave of attacks.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
as for the Bush statement, if you only knew how much I dislike this administration, I just hate tulipwalkers more..Less of 2 evils.


So why defend them at every turn. Why not simply stay quiet?

As the old saying goes "Better to stay quiet and be thought an idiot than to open ones mouth and prove it"

Now I am not saying you are an idiot as I most surely do not think that but I am sure you get my meaning.

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
The US Navy has had some problems with diesel powered subs in the past. That is why the US Navy is actually leasing subs and crews from other countries. They will use the subs for practice.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
The US Navy does not have "problems" with DE boats.

Fore decades, the US Sub fleet was calibrated to fight fast Soviet nuke boats that were easy to track.

The US Sub fleet now is in the process of "recalibrating" for warfare against quieter (and slower, less well armed, and shorter-legged) DE boats to be used in littoral situations.

That does not imply that the US Sub fleet (or Brit Fleet for that matter) has litter or no capability to deal with Kilos and the like. And again, ASW does not solely comprise sub-on-sub scenarios. Ther are other factors involved, including airpower (huge factor) and surface power (a factor) and even the availability and use of "national assets" (huge capability that people outside the community are clueless about). If you think the US Navy would just send 2-3 SSNs into the Taiwan Straight without any support with orders to sink all CHICOM subs, you are fooling yourself.

We lease and practice against DE boats from other nations because practice makes perfect. Pro golfers spend hours at the range, and so to US Navy sub drivers. The US Navy does not use DE boats for various reasons, one of which is that they are more dangerous to operate than nuke. I know this to be true, because I was a first-hand witness when the last US Navy DE boat caught fire and almost sank in the mid-Atlantic when seawater got into the battery compartment.

And BHR, instead of changing the subject to a political bashing session more appropriate to another forum, why don't you stick to the subject of naval submarine warfare?

Gooseuk, I can guarentee there are no US sub drivers who are "afraid" of CHICOM DE boats, that is for sure. If memory serves me right, the CHICOMs recently lost one other their DE boats, and they didn't even know it was dead until some peasant fisherman ran across it's periscope sticking out of the water, as it floated DIW just under the surface. The entire crew was killed due to faulty equipment. Yeah, we are really afraid...........

We are glad the Russians, for the most part, are out of the business. And we don't have to worry about our NATO friends. That leaves China, Iran, NK and the likes. While it is wise to continue to "sharpen our swords", we certainly don't fear engaements with those nations with their current capabilities.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
US submarines wont have to fight alone against chinese ones. Remember about ASW aircraft and helis. Attacking carrier groups with lot of rockets will stop to be a good idea in 10-20 years cause of new anti missile systems like metalstorm or lasers. Also count in a huge advantage of US ECM technology over chinese electronics. No one knows if these missiles wont even need to be shoot if they will be changed into unguided rockets 100 miles away from target
. DE submarines always have advantage over SSN's in shallow waters, but what if they need to fight on deep water, where SSN's are better? The only advantege of DE boats is being something quieter at medium speeds than nuclears. But if SSN slows to 6 knots there is really no difference. And who have better passive sonars? Wonder what a seawolf class could do against DE boats.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Yes .. in the end it all comes down to who has superiority on the surface..we obv. cannot assume this to be a pure sub vs. sub conflict.. esp. since the chinese
DE subs are not meant for deep sea stuff..
The problem only arises if the US is trying to whack china in its own backyard, i.e. in shallow chinese waters.. where superiority on the surface and in the air is not guaranteed..
500-1000km of the coast, the USN still reigns supreme..



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Pyros

I would have to say that you are a fool and so are the captains you speak of, that float around the oceans, the British Navy understand the threat from those boats and just how dangerous those craft can be when they are operated with even the most limited of skills.

Any military person that say they are not afraid of a possible enemy that in some cases can attack from no where are lairs, the US navy are investing in these loaned craft because they know just how much of a threat these craft are to their surface combatants, I can not be sure of the subs but diesel subs can be just as effective with subs as are with surface combatants.

I honestly can't believe the ignorance or the arrogance of some people or their idea of what their Military can do.

- Phil



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
The US Navy does not have "problems" with DE boats.

Fore decades, the US Sub fleet was calibrated to fight fast Soviet nuke boats that were easy to track.

The US Sub fleet now is in the process of "recalibrating" for warfare against quieter (and slower, less well armed, and shorter-legged) DE boats to be used in littoral situations.


ehh I think if you go back and check your history books you'll see the bulk of the soviet subs over the decades have been deisel electric subs...infact the backbone of the chinese subs fleet are soviet subs...so the recalibration argument falls on deaf ears.

In general everything thats been said here was argued back in the 1970s and 1980s....same arrogance and ignorance.These same chinese subs are being armed with the new generation of russian AshM like Sunburn etc...the article even mentions missile strikes of upto 100.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by psteel]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules

So why defend them at every turn. Why not simply stay quiet?

As the old saying goes "Better to stay quiet and be thought an idiot than to open ones mouth and prove it"

Now I am not saying you are an idiot as I most surely do not think that but I am sure you get my meaning.

Cheers

BHR




OH I am not offended at all.... and lets get one thing clear, I do not defend this administration at every turn. It turns out that it is much better than a Tulipwalking Kerry one would have been.

Actually to be honest, I campaigned against Bush, but I like him more now than I did then if that is any help.

If a man can get under the Tulipwalkers skin that well, then I like him, even if he has faults.


As for the Chinese subs, they might be diesel Kilos with modern weapons, but they are not near the threat some would have you believe. Like someone so eloquently pointed out above, practice makes perfect and we don't have them anymore.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
There seems to be little effort by many of the world's navies to develop some kind of anti-torpedo technology. The only ones I'm aware of are the torpedo nets from the British and the anti-torpedo rockets from the Russians. For most ships it seems there's not much they can do when a torpedo heads for them. Maybe turn around and scoot, but ships are slow.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Anti-torpedo nets... hmmm .. never heard of that.. sounds very interesting..



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Taishyou,

You forgot about the US Nixie system.







 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join