China launches new type of sub, American intelligence "suprised"

Well, OK. I just can't keep my big mouth shut anymore!

It is meaningless to limit the discussion to one cvbg. You will never face one cvbg. To make this discussion in any way realistic, we have to talk about a minimum of two cvbgs with a third and fourth within ten days distance.

The SOSUS network can detect snorkeling diesel submarines from thousands of miles away, it doesn't have to be in the straits. However, because of where the SOSUS recievers are located (to the best of my knowledge, and this could very well be out of date) their reception and detection of noise sources in the straits would be marginal.

However, since no cvbg commander is EVER going to enter the straits in a wartime situation, it doesn't matter.

The two cvbgs will most probably be centered on the far side of Tiawan off the north east and southwest corners at a distance of aprox 150 to 200 miles. Not directly behind the island, as this would limit radar detection and tracking.

This would place the cvbgs well into blue water and negate the primary advantage of a diesel/electric submarine. It is too deep to bottom and wait, and the amount of ambient noise in the water is greatly reduced.
This ambient noise is what enables a D/E sub to sneak up on it's target, as even D/E subs emit noise constantly. Nothing is completely silent.

To make up for the lack of detection by SOSUS, the cvbg will lay and continnualy refresh a layered zone of SONObouys. These act as a mini-SOSUS, can be placed anywhere at any time and are monitored by all ASW assets in the entire cvbg. Air and surface both. They are designed for the specific purpose of detecting submarine threats while they are still distant enough from the cvbg to enable localising and interception of that threat before it reaches a position to attack the cvbg.

This defence is supplimented by sonar dipping helicopters (even destroyers and frigates carry two of these, not to mention those stationed on the cv itself), P3 fixed wing asw aircraft which have a range of thousands of miles and use both sonobouys and MAD, and rorsat satellites which can detect a snorkeling submarine from space.

It ain't easy to sneak up on a cvbg!

As for saturating the defences of cvbg with massive missle attacks, this has a much greater chance of working. With ONE cvbg anyway. Since there will never be ONE cvbg in the area, and they can combine their assets, the likelihood of this suceeding is also fairly low. Remember, the ships and aircraft of one cvbg can provide targeting and direction for the missles of the other, so instead of facing the defences of one cvbg, you would be facing the defences of ALL ships in the area.

CVBGs were designed to survive. They are exceedingly good at it. If you want to attack one, better bring a lunch.

those CVBG are pretty spaced out.
the one at the top is open to attack from the whole of the west/ south western china. while the bottom one is open to attack from only the south.
now the top one would be open to attack mainly from Zhagnzhou ,eastern china, the biggest one in the area although its rather far to go.
the bottom one would be underfire from Lingshui, Foluo, Haikou, Lingshui, Sanya, Guiping, Jialaishi and Lingling which is on an island just off china.
also both would be under fire from the ,13 bases within a 250-mile radius of Taiwan,Eight coastal airfields that lie within 400 km of taiwanese airspace , 250 to 500 miles of Taiwan,in 1995 there were said to be more than 20 bases at a radius of 250 to 500 miles of Taiwan,Thirteen more airfields lie at somewhat greater distance but within a 600 km radius of Taiwan's airspace,Over two dozen other airfields are located between 600 km and 800 km from Taiwan's airspace, including the extensive facilities surrounding Shanghai and Guangzhou.

[edit on 19/07/04 by devilwasp]

Yes, there are alot of bases there to attack from. China only has so many aircraft to use. And only those that are capable of AS attacks really matter to this discussion. Since most of the cvbg is now operating with VLS systems, direction of attack no longer is a factor when they are controlled by an AEGIS platform.

I did say that in my scenario a massive missile strike had the best chance of succeeding, and was directing my main points to the submarine threat. Again, the number of bases in range is less important due to the fact that ASW is three dimensional problem.

It is good to have a good debate here, also welcome Gooseuk to join the topic and appreciate his great knowledge. I have several question here.

First is how effective of using supersonic missile. I read some article said before westerns looked down on supersonic missile because they think it is hard to control accuracy and even mock on Soviet and said they only know to make the missile faster and faster. But now seems China accepted this idea and believe fast speed is good weapon to break the interception. After Soviet corrupted, Russia is so poor that they even sold their supersonic missiles to US and US used it to test their defense system, and we still got no information to tell how defense system is effective when it face the missile that 2-3 times of sound speed.

The other is attack range. Soviet has antiship missile can attack from more than 600(800?) kilometers away so they can launch attack while stay outside the cvbg's defence line, they even developed a whole system like satallites for guiding the long range attack. China now also accepted this idea and developing the long range missiles. China's new destroyer 170 is equiped with missile which is said has 500 kilometer attack range, and China is also trying to develop the related systems. WestPoint23 is laughing that China has only 3 GPS satellites, but he don't know China's strategy is not global strategy, 3 GPS satellites is enough for us to cover China's surrounding areas.

The other is saturation attack. Soviet doctrin is one attack should at least launch 90 missiles. China also accepted this idea but I am not sure how many resources China has to launch such vast scale attack.

Again of sub. Sub may be now the only one who is possible to sneak into cvbg's defence line, but I don't think sub will launch attack alone. I think firstly will use those long range, supersonic saturation attack to try the cvbg, or at least to tear a gap in the defence line and create attack chances for sub.

Don't know how Gooseuk comment on these Soviet doctrins.

There would be a total of 14 CVBG and 14 cruisers i think a missile strike would be detected before they are in range to threaten the ships and the missiles would most likely be shot down I still think the most dangerous attack could come from Chinas subs but if its subs fire on the ships then the Chinese subs are gone but they may take some ships with them that is the only way china can launch a surprise attack cuz aircraft would be picked up on radar and be intercepted by our jets land based missiles will also be picked up especial if they launch a lot of them so the sub is the only solution IMO.


[edit on 26-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

About SOSUS network Montana is talking, the sensor network is laid out by US with the help of Japan and Taiwan, and the purpoes is to monitor China's sub activities. The system is distributed everywhere around China.

I read a lot posts talking about this system, and in China's sub's normal training, one item is to capture some sensors and bring them back for study. I think China must have found someway to avoid being detected or at least cheating these sensors, otherwise the sub crew members will not talk it so openly. One China's old style 035 sub surfaced near Japanese costal already showed China has ability to sneak through this sensor network. I think at least Japan's confidence on this network will be greatly compromised.

Detecting sub, using either passive detection or active detection. Now passive detection becomes more and more difficult because the sub becomes quieter and quieter, so US begin to rely more and more on active detection. But active detection has its own problem, the sytem emit low frequency sound can make sea animals become mad and commit suicide. The other is if sub has eqiupments to generate sound which has the same frequency but reversed phase will offset the sounds. This anti-active-detection system is equiped in Sea Wolf, makes Sea Wolf almost impossible to be detected by both passive and active sound detection.

China has studied anti-active-detection system for a long time and now it is said the system is begin maturing. Also some posts said this system will be installed in Chinese new nuc-subs, but not diesel subs because its size problem. Also the skin China developed to cover the sub hull can somehow weak the active sound reflection and reduce the discovery range.

Well, actually, the SOSUS network was laid down in the 60's and 70's and upgraded in the 80's for the purpose of tracking and identifying the movement of Soviet submarines. China, at the time, only had a very few submarines. It wasn't even a concern when SOSUS was laid down. Because of this, the sensors were not placed in optimum locations to monitor Chinese sub activities. That is why I said detection in the strait is marginal, at best.

It has always been possible for a submarine to evade the SOSUS network. For the most part only for nukes though. To the SOSUS a D/E sub snorkeling to recharge it's batteries sounds like an elephant with a terrible gas problem.

As for subs getting quieter, this is true to a point. New models are quieter, but there are few of these as yet. China's inventory includes mostly Soviet designed Romeo (1960's tech) and Kilo (1970's tech) subs. The new class just launched, if I am reading things correctly, is an updated Kilo class. It will likely be quieter than an older Kilo. But whenever it snorkels, it will be found.

Originally posted by Montana
It has always been possible for a submarine to evade the SOSUS network. For the most part only for nukes though. To the SOSUS a D/E sub snorkeling to recharge it's batteries sounds like an elephant with a terrible gas problem.

If I understand AIP tech correctly, AIP is using chemical reaction to generate power, it is actually very quiet and can maintain sub underwater for weeks. I think sub still need to surface and recharge battery, but with AIP system, it only need to surface when it think it is absolutely safe.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
There would be a total of 14 CVBG and 14 cruisers i think a missile strike would be detected before they are in range to threaten the ships and the missiles would most likely be shot down I still think the most dangerous attack could come from Chinas subs but if its subs fire on the ships then the Chinese subs are gone but they may take some ships with them that is the only way china can launch a surprise attack cuz aircraft would be picked up on radar and be intercepted by our jets land based missiles will also be picked up especial if they launch a lot of them so the sub is the only solution IMO.
[edit on 26-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

umm your going to send every single aircraft carrier in the fleet to taiwan?
also even with 14 carriers your still out gunned by 2270 aircraft. now those numbers are from FAS if u dont believe me check. also what are the 1330 fighters gona be able to do agaisnt 3600 aircraft?

Greetings,

If a war were to begin in the South China Sea, the US Naval Forces would not comitt more than 4 Carrier Groups [3 is more likely] to any armed conflict, as they have other comittments in the Indian Ocean, on going counter terror opeartions and then "Flying the Flag". This 7 CVG Task Force that West Point is merely a show of force, nothing more, as I feel this is an attempt to "warn" off the Chinese for any possible Conflicts.

SOSUS Network
Folks, you need to think of this Operationally, if you where the Chinese high command, you wouldn't want this network operational, but you can't hit the lines that are seeded on the ocean floor, so you do the next best thing, you attack the offices and the places where the SOSUS reach shore. There, no more SOSUS network to speak of, plus the Straits are quiet shallow in areas, which degrades the use of passive sonar, and the use of SURTASS with would have to be on either side of the Straits, a target.

Romeo & Kilo Class
Alright, lets take about these class of vessel, both I agree are old, but a careful note should be made that the chinese kilo class vessels wheren't the standard model that the Russian navy use, it was the export model, which has been part of a "quiet scheme" [I believe this could be their idea of finally making their subs quiet, introducing better acoustic padding within the sub and maybe acoustic tile on the hull?] these subs also have western technology fitted, rather than the standard soviet kit. Plus, the chinese have been buying Sonar Technology from a number of western powers, France and Israeli, so it should not be over looked that this new variant of the Kilo Class [Yuan Class] may have a Towed Sonar Array, similar to the Aluka Class Subs the Russian Navy are building.

US Carrier Group [4 of them] In a Conflict.
Alright, for this, they have to stage them in the oceans around Taiwan. OK where would I place them? Well, I would station one group behind Taiwan, as stated earlier, this is unlikely, but I believe they would have one there in ready reserve [It can use Taiwan for Raid Warning and offer CAP protection to, I feel they would use it for direct support for Taiwan] Plus there is deep water [Over 18,000ft deep], below the Sakishima-gunto islands. One CV will in my opinion be based north of the Sakishima-gunto islands in the area known as the Ryukyu-retto [An area of relatively deep water][Around 6000ft deep], its an area which I feel they will try and base themselves, so that the East area of the Formosa Strait can be covered. Another CV will in my view be based some where off the North West of the Philippines, where another area of deep water would be used to their advantage [12,000ft deep], this group will be used to cover the western approaches to the strait. All of these groups as far, would be within 250 miles of the Strait, and therefore nearly all of their attack aircraft could be fully loaded.

Now there is a problem,
But this is where I see a problem, if I was the chinese, the American Naval post in Japan would in my view be a target if America choose to attack in any Offensive manner on Chinese Soil. So the last area that in my view would be unprotected would be the area in the East China Sea, which would be one major problem for the Last american Carrier Group, in my view I feel the americans would like to limit the Conflict to the area around Taiwan, as a CVG in the East China sea would have a number of problems, not to mention depth [under 600ft] and the number of Chinese Naval bases in that region. P3 Orions in my view would "secure" this area rather than using a CV, that is why I feel a 3 CVG would be more realistic. But if as mentioned this new class of Kilo Class [Yuan class] does have an anti-aircraft capability, those orions would have to be careful, as I would be guning for them if I was the chinese.

To make up for the lack of detection by SOSUS, the cvbg will lay and continnualy refresh a layered zone of SONObouys. These act as a mini-SOSUS, can be placed anywhere at any time and are monitored by all ASW assets in the entire cvbg.

I am sorry, but this in its self would be of limited use, the aircraft would have to be doing this 24/7 and that would make it a target, its possible but I don't think they would use it, so close to china. Sonar Bouys, are used as a short term [20/30 minute Sonar detection capability, plus the mother aircraft will have to stay in the area to transmit the data. I believe they would use their subs as the outer sonar picket, and the aircraft on the inside, sorta like a big donut.

This defence is supplimented by sonar dipping helicopters (even destroyers and frigates carry two of these, not to mention those stationed on the cv itself), P3 fixed wing asw aircraft which have a range of thousands of miles and use both sonobouys and MAD, and rorsat satellites which can detect a snorkeling submarine from space.

Ok, in all fairness, the USN are good at the ASW game but, if there was a conflict, the only place the chinese navy have to be, is in the Formosa Strait. Thats it, they don't have be any where else, they can mine both sides of the straits and place some pickets within it and "hey! we're safe!" The chinese may not have the greatest aircraft, yet, but they do have numbers, all they have to do is secure the area over the strait and Taiwan [That would not be a easy thing to do, but the US have never went up against a trained airforce, since Vietnam] The chinese only have to keep pounding Taiwan and any aircraft they encounter, and in the short term their numbers will win out.

Conculsion
China, in my view would & could close the straits and provide CAP over that strait, without much of a problem. It will take any CVG at least 3-4 days to get on site and start offensive operations. In that time, the small Taiwan airforce would either be completely destroyed or at least have part of its combat effectivetness would be limited. As stated, all china have to do is close the stait and they reduce what the CVGs can do.

- Phil

Basic Map



[edit on 26-7-2004 by gooseuk]

umm your going to send every single aircraft carrier in the fleet to taiwan? also even with 14 carriers your still out gunned by 2270 aircraft. now those numbers are from FAS if u dont believe me check. also what are the 1330 fighters gona be able to do agaisnt 3600 aircraft?

No not all of the carriers just the 7 also if the Chinese send that many in they will leave their mainland open for strikes from the USAF china would not risk all of its crappy jets in one strike. The US has technology and better pilots to even out the balance even if they are outnumbered.

Greetings,

Westpoint, I don't really want to make a point out of you but you should stop offering those types of comments.

"The US is the Greatest, no nation can compare, we can kick all your asses etc etc"

It comes off as a broken record, now if you look at it from a number of different perpectives, the US was beaten during the Vietnam War [Conflict] by poorly trained troops and Farmers. It was then made a fool of while in somilia when the rebels shot down, not one, but 3 blackhawks and kill countless numbers of US Troops, please offer some thing more constructive than "Nah, the US will kickass" its pointless in the long run and merely makes a point that your knowledge is either lacking or you are extremely young.

- Phil

[edit on 26-7-2004 by gooseuk]

[edit on 26-7-2004 by gooseuk]

[edit on 26-7-2004 by gooseuk]

www.navyleague.org...

China's Navy Today
Storm Clouds on the Horizon...or Paper Tiger?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By BRAD KAPLAN
Capt. Brad Kaplan, USN, is the U.S. Naval Attach� to China.

A good read. Not as in-depth as other Naval report cards, but good none the less.

Total: 64 (six nuclear-powered)
1 Xia-class sub (nuclear-powered)
1 Golf-class sub (diesel-powered)
5 Han-class subs (nuclear-powered)
2 Song-class subs (diesel-powered)
4 Kilo-class subs (diesel-powered)
18 Ming-class subs (diesel-powered)
1 Modified Romeo-class sub (diesel-powered)
32 Romeo-class subs (diesel-powered)

Originally posted by gooseuk
It comes off as a broken record, now if you look at it from a number of different perpectives, the US was beaten during the Vietnam War [Conflict] by poorly trained troops and Farmers. It was then made a fool of while in somilia when the rebels shot down,
- Phil

Looking back at both Vietnam and Somalia, it seems to me that those were political failures more that military ones by and large. Somalia you could make a much beter case for military failures, but again Christopher refused to send the Tanks and other items the military wanted. Peacekepping operations and major military combat operations are two seperate animals. In GWII we did not have a huge number of problems (blue on blue incidents, and failure to protect the supply lines were the most noteable) during the actual invasion. During the peacekeeping portion of it though we have had quite a few.

Somalia was a political and strategic failure, not a tactical one. We came away with 19 deaths and 5,000 plus kills.

The same thing with Vietnam, except it was an operational failure. We won pretty much every battle, but lost the war.

I would say these conflicts show US military might and firepower, while revealing severe flaws in it's command chain.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

No not all of the carriers just the 7 also if the Chinese send that many in they will leave their mainland open for strikes from the USAF china would not risk all of its crappy jets in one strike. The US has technology and better pilots to even out the balance even if they are outnumbered.

west point thats only the fighters in range of taiwan not thier entire airforce,secondly they could just use the rest of thier fighters and sams to keep the USAF at bay or destroy it./

Hey who says the US is willing to commit carrier battle groups to defend a hopeless situation. I think the farthest we will go is selling weapons and supporting guerilla operations.

west point thats only the fighters in range of taiwan not thier entire airforce,secondly they could just use the rest of thier fighters and sams to keep the USAF at bay or destroy it./

Yeah id like to see the Chinese shoot down B-2 and raptors with ant aircraft guns If Chinese pilots went up against a squadron of raptors or F-15 can you tell me the outcome devil Plus like some one said in Somalia we lost 19 soldiers and killed thousands of rebels yeah what a loss for our troops.

Originally posted by WestPoint23


Yeah id like to see the Chinese shoot down B-2 and raptors with ant aircraft guns

If Chinese pilots went up against a squadron of raptors or F-15 can you tell me the outcome devil

Plus like some one said in Somalia we lost 19 soldiers and killed thousands of rebels yeah what a loss for our troops.

quantity has its own quality.
by the way it wouldnt be 1 squadron versus another it be 2 or 3 versus 1.
also you only have like a squadron or 2 of raptors built and thier prototypes.
as for the f-15 its faster and is battle tested but the J-10 is still a nice plane. dont doubt it.
yeah what a loss i say 19 men dead is quite a bad loss.
and frankly the SAM's would catch your precios f-15's they cant dodge every missile, and for your B-2s how do u know they would be picked up? you dont know i dont know theres frankly no evidence to prove ethier way.
also it aint just anti air guns they have the most sams in thw world right now.

quantity has its own quality.
by the way it wouldnt be 1 squadron versus another it be 2 or 3 versus 1.
also you only have like a squadron or 2 of raptors built and thier prototypes.
as for the f-15 its faster and is battle tested but the J-10 is still a nice plane. dont doubt it.
yeah what a loss i say 19 men dead is quite a bad loss.
and frankly the SAM's would catch your precios f-15's they cant dodge every missile, and for your B-2s how do u know they would be picked up? you dont know i dont know theres frankly no evidence to prove ethier way.
also it aint just anti air guns they have the most sams in thw world right now.

Quantity is good but not when you have aircraft hat we had in the 70's going up against 5th generation fighters. Also devil common you know better than this a prototype is what an airplane is called when its in testing mode and next year we will have a squadron of fully operational raptors. Also the J-10 may be good but you cant compare it to the F-15 maybe an F-16 but not an eagle. How do i know that they wont detect B-2 cuz it costs 2 billion dollars.