Chinese sub "pops up" in middle of US Navy exercise

[bigred]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

[erlando]

Pwned.. Kinda funny in that scary way..

I bet there are some crews being drilled hard right now.

[shuize]

It seems that China just scored a large propaganda victory. But if I were them, I would have kept this ability secret.

The U.S. Navy may be red-faced now, but the Chinese probably just gave them the justification to ask for a the largest ASW budget increase in years. If it ever comes to a shooting war, they may seriously regret tipping their hand.

[Cainkane1]

Pearl Harbor all over again.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Pearl Harbor all over again.

<thick Slavic accent>
Ah, this must be what you Americans call "joke."
</thick Slavic accent>

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by shuize

It seems that China just scored a large propaganda victory. But if I were them, I would have kept this ability secret.

The U.S. Navy may be red-faced now, but the Chinese probably just gave them the justification to ask for a the largest ASW budget increase in years. If it ever comes to a shooting war, they may seriously regret tipping their hand.

Lets see. There is a large wargame going on and I detect a Chinese sub in the vicinity moving towards the carrier group. Now it could be that they have genuinely hostile intent and are intending on firing the first shots of world war III, but this seems unlikely. So it appears they are testing out my countermeasures to find out if I can detect them or not.

Which is my better option:

Let them now that I can detect them, thereby giving them information on how good my countermeasures are; OR

Pretend I cannot detect them, take a few headlines about how embarassing this is, and keep secret the fact that I was able to detect them all the way in?

Not saying this is what happened, but nor am I saying that the assumption that they were not detected is warranted.

[This Guy]

Is a bit scary.

Diesle electrics are very hard to detect when running on batteries (which they have to use anytime they go deeper than periscope depth). Quieter than even the nuc powered boats when running on the reactors.

I've never served on a fast attack sub, which would be the ones assigned to carrier escort, and I've never been on any ship that would even be considered to join a carrier task force. My time was mostly on FBM subs, and a couple years on a Sub tender.But I suspect I know how this happened.

This is all just SWAG (Scientific Wild A.. Guess).

Active SONAR travels something like 100% over it's detection range (or more). This means that if you run your active Sonar, your ship can be detected from a potential threat that is about twice as far away from you, as you can detect them. Not good. Generally active sonar is only used when you have a firm target, and want to fine tune your range and/or bearing to target. Unless playing war games, I suspect few task forces run their active sonar much. They might do periodic sweeps, but it's not likely they do more than that unless they feel the risk of giving away their position is less than the risk of not detecting a potential threat.

If China's Intel had a good fix on the task force, and had a good idea where they were heading, it would be very easy to plant a sub in the path, and have it surface when the group got to it's nearest point.

We know China has satellites up there. I don't know if we know how well they are at detecting surface ships in the open ocean. I also have no idea what other methods of ship detection China might have at is disposal in waters around it's coastal area, or areas of it's interests (i.e. the area around Taiwan). We have the SOSUS arrays, and other "things" scattered about areas of the oceans that we are concerned about. I think it's reasonable to assume they would want something like that also.

This without doubt sent a wake up call to the U.S.Navy. It's not likely they will be caught with their pants down again.

I said, years ago, that China was who we needed to be watching. I'm sure I'm not the only one to think that, and I think our Navy will be watching much more closely now.

Some interesting related information:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Asi...fic/wm1001.cfm

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/default.asp

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/china/submar.htm

Some stuff on our Subs -

http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/subclass.htm

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navy/l/blsubfaq.htm

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Which is my better option:

Let them now that I can detect them, thereby giving them information on how good my countermeasures are; OR

Pretend I cannot detect them, take a few headlines about how embarassing this is, and keep secret the fact that I was able to detect them all the way in?

Not saying this is what happened, but nor am I saying that the assumption that they were not detected is warranted.

Seems entirely possible. There's also the possibility that they actually did detect it, but thought it was part of the wargame. That wouldn't say much for the organisation, since you'd have hoped that sort of thing would be fairly clear, but it could mean that as long as China don't attack in the middle of an exercise, they would be detected just fine.

[e-sabbath]

This isn't the first time I've heard of a Chinese sub doing this. Last was... six months back. Is this the same incident, or a second one?

[This Guy]

Originally Posted by e-sabbath

This isn't the first time I've heard of a Chinese sub doing this. Last was... six months back. Is this the same incident, or a second one?

Hmmm.. May be the same incident.

http://zerosix.wordpress.com/2007/06...on-kitty-hawk/

[Checkmite]

I don't understand why this has to be embarassing at all. The exercise was being conducted in international waters. So, during the exercise, they detect the Chinese sub. What are they going to do? Stop it somehow? It's international water - the Chinese sub can go wherever it wants, and the US Navy knows that much.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I don't understand why this has to be embarassing at all. The exercise was being conducted in international waters. So, during the exercise, they detect the Chinese sub. What are they going to do? Stop it somehow? It's international water - the Chinese sub can go wherever it wants, and the US Navy knows that much.

It's embarrassing because they didn't detect it; it just surfaced in the middle of a carrier group. "Hello, look at me, getting past all your s00per-31337 security!" The Navy got caught with its pants down, basically.

Had we been in a shooting war with the PRC (heaven forbid), the Kitty Hawk would've been toast.

[This Guy]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I don't understand why this has to be embarassing at all. The exercise was being conducted in international waters. So, during the exercise, they detect the Chinese sub. What are they going to do? Stop it somehow? It's international water - the Chinese sub can go wherever it wants, and the US Navy knows that much.

There are numerous things they can do to encourage the sub to leave the area. Some of which would not hazard the crew, though they could make them very uncomfortable.

[elgarak]

Please ignore

[e-sabbath]

Hm. Fascinating, it does seem to be the same incident. Wonder why it's getting play now.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Lets see. There is a large wargame going on and I detect a Chinese sub in the vicinity moving towards the carrier group. Now it could be that they have genuinely hostile intent and are intending on firing the first shots of world war III, but this seems unlikely. So it appears they are testing out my countermeasures to find out if I can detect them or not.

Which is my better option:

Let them now that I can detect them, thereby giving them information on how good my countermeasures are; OR

Pretend I cannot detect them, take a few headlines about how embarassing this is, and keep secret the fact that I was able to detect them all the way in?

Not saying this is what happened, but nor am I saying that the assumption that they were not detected is warranted.

Act II - Chinese naval exercise - US Sub pops in the middle of them all, just to say hi and compare paint jobs - It is the other three US vessels the Chinese never saw that have the navy in such a great mood for Superbowl weekend

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by erlando

Pwned.. Kinda funny in that scary way..

I bet there are some crews being drilled hard right now.

I think the policy is still "don't ask don't tell" but then, most warships are now manned (??) by mixed gender crews.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Cleon

It's embarrassing because they didn't detect it; it just surfaced in the middle of a carrier group. "Hello, look at me, getting past all your s00per-31337 security!" The Navy got caught with its pants down, basically.

Two ways to look at this. One is, a good sub skipper snuck into a CVBG's battle space. The Soviets did this on some occasions, and US sub skippers have done it with predictable frequency in fleet exercises.

Again and again.

But take a look at Checkmite's post, again. In peace time, how do you stop someone else's ship from doing its thing without shooting at it, in international waters? Ask the CO of the USS Voge, 1976.

Quote:

Voge remained at her home port until mid-February 1976, when she put to sea to participate in exercises conducted in the Caribbean with units of the Netherlands and British navies. Upon her return to port, the frigate began preparations for her third deployment to the Mediterranean. After a brief visit to Charleston, South Carolina, she departed that port on 14 April, and headed for Rota where she arrived on the 26th. During much of that deployment, port visits all along the Mediterranean punctuated a series of training exercises conducted with units of the 6th Fleet and from foreign navies. Late in the deployment, she also resumed surveillance duties on Soviet naval forces operating in the Mediterranean. On 28 August, while operating in the Ionian Sea near Greece, she collided with a Soviet E-2 class submarine, and sustained serious structural damage that necessitated drydocking at Toulon, France

The story behind that collision is sorta funny.

Quote:

Had we been in a shooting war with the PRC (heaven forbid), the Kitty Hawk would've been toast.

Only if, being in a shooting war, we had waited for days and days to actively go after any and all functioning Chinese subs. In a shooting war, the time and place of contact changes dramatically. So too does the point at which one targets opposing subs, and how many assets are assigned to keep up with their location.

Now, if the first salvo of a shooting war was that sub shooting a torp, then what might be the problem is flaming datum: the sub doesn't surface, you just know it is there by the sound of torpedoes in the water, or cruise missiles emerging from the sea.

There are counters to those as well, though the anti torp countermeasures rarely gave me any comfort.

FWIW, warfare specialty, helicopters, ASW.

DR

[Kopji]

Maybe it was flying under the Walmart flag.

[sackett]

If I was a U.S. or other NATO sub skipper, I might be a little shy around a commie carrier group, or any of their warships. Governments that don't have to answer their people's questions are a little tad too ready to shoot, shovel, and shut up.

[This Guy]

Originally Posted by elgarak

On another forum, I read some quite interesting speculations:

The US Navy HAD, in fact, detected the Chinese sub, but chose not to acknowledge this fact. Because the US side wouldn't gain anything by doing so, but acknowledging it might give the Chinese intelligence about US Navy sensor capabilities.

Since diesel/electric subs are very quiet, the technology used to track and detect them might still be classified, so the US Navy chose to accept the public bad press for the time being.

That basic thought was mentioned above also.

Could be true.

I'd certainly like to think it is true

The reason I have doubts though, is that there is an advantage to being a sub sitting around waiting for someone.

Simply dropping below a good thermo layer can make you virtually undetectable. Even sitting above one, if you have your trim set well, so you can hover without adjusting water levels in your tanks, you would be virtually invisible. Active sonar has problems detecting through therms, and if the target is still, in the right environment, it could be missed, or over looked as biologics, or even a sea mound. Though with the depths out in the Pacific, I don't think it's likely they would pass for a sea mound, unless they were fairly close to land.

I'm sure ASW has advanced a lot since I went to sea, but I do have a story

We were ordered to play target for an ASW group operating out of Okinawa I believe. I'll just say it was back in the 70's and leave it at that.

At the start of the exercise, we were to make visual contact with a P-3 (I believe it was). We were broached (about as surfaced as we could get without actually surfacing) had about every mast and antenna we owned stuck up, and I was on the ESM (Electronics Surveillance System) tracking the aircraft's radar. I was calling the plane's bearings out to the CO. He in turn was guiding the plane in to us over a radio. Wasn't a rough day, probably state 1-2 seas, and I didn't think the sucker was ever going to find us. After about 30 minutes, he was finally able to see us (duh! We should have looked like giant floating porcupine ).

Anyway, I wasn't impressed.

I forget if it was before or after that, but within about a year of that time we tracked a Russian sub for two days, as we slowly opened range and slipped away. It was one of their old fast attack boats, and was noisy as all get out. The whole time we had war shots in the tubes, and had his range and bearing updated in the Torpedo Fire Control Computer. The first 12 hours or so we manned Battle Stations Torpedo. Then, as the range opened up, and we were sure he had no clue where we were we stood down, but kept a tracking party going until we lost contact. We went to Ultra Quite. That's fun. You have to stay in bed if you don't have a good reason to be up Cut's down on the bangs and stuff that go on while folks are walking about and moving things.

OK, that was two stories. Guess I lied. Also all sea stories are subject to memory adjustments/enhancements.

I'll shut up now

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by This Guy

I'm sure ASW has advanced a lot since I went to sea, but I do have a story

I am a few years out of date, but I regret to report that when I left the ASW force, mid 90's, the level of budget and effort of tech improvement was scandalously low. One wonders if that is ever to be remedied. There was a wilfull, as I saw it, decision to ignore China's patient build up of capability while we sold out elsewhere. Most second and third tier navies with sub forces weren't that hard to keep track of. China was always improving.

Quote:

We were ordered to play target for an ASW group operating out of Okinawa I believe. I'll just say it was back in the 70's and leave it at that.

Hiding with pride, the FBM creed.

Quote:

At the start of the exercise, we were to make visual contact with a P-3 (I believe it was). We were broached (about as surfaced as we could get without actually surfacing) had about every mast and antenna we owned stuck up, and I was on the ESM (Electronics Surveillance System) tracking the aircraft's radar. I was calling the plane's bearings out to the CO. He in turn was guiding the plane in to us over a radio. Wasn't a rough day, probably state 1-2 seas, and I didn't think the sucker was ever going to find us. After about 30 minutes, he was finally able to see us (duh! We should have looked like giant floating porcupine ).

I am familiar with that sight. Depending on altitude, it's not all that easy to see. For a helo bubba, not too hard to find in low sea states as a visual target. Now that SAR and ISAR radars are about, and some far better optics, that Orion would have had you all visual much sooner.

Quote:

Anyway, I wasn't impressed.

Of course not, they were P-3 pogues.

Loved the second vignette. You sub guys had a lot of fun the rest of us didn't, to go with your extra pay, and to counter, as I see it, some of the down side of being a Bubble Head.

Quote:

I'll shut up now

Just go to Quiet Ship. I recall we did that on a Spru Can a few times in an exercise, and of course in the post-exercise debrief, the sub's debrief of tracking us didn't notice us being any quieter. They had the grams to prove it.

DR

[rwguinn]

Interestingly enough, Every article on the first 2 pages when I google it all trace back to the "Daily Mail" article. Even the Cleveland article.
Mmmmm--wonder why there are no articles from any other source?

Don't know for sure, but considering the other articles I see in the Daily Mail,It is definitely a reputable, well sourced, and highly investigative entity: Yes, they're "Cherry picked" to an extent...
BBC apology for adding crying to baby footage
Marvellous' woman throws herself at Sir Jimmy Savile to steal his pink sunglasses

Where did it all go wrong for the beer they call 'wife beater'?

JK Rowling: I'm putting on weight thanks to my 'eat more' diet

[This Guy]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Interestingly enough, Every article on the first 2 pages when I google it all trace back to the "Daily Mail" article. Even the Cleveland article.
Mmmmm--wonder why there are no articles from any other source?

Don't know for sure, but considering the other articles I see in the Daily Mail,It is definitely a reputable, well sourced, and highly investigative entity: Yes, they're "Cherry picked" to an extent...
BBC apology for adding crying to baby footage
Marvellous' woman throws herself at Sir Jimmy Savile to steal his pink sunglasses

Where did it all go wrong for the beer they call 'wife beater'?

JK Rowling: I'm putting on weight thanks to my 'eat more' diet

http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2408791&C=navwar

That's dated 12/11/06

[This Guy]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I am a few years out of date, but I regret to report that when I left the ASW force, mid 90's, the level of budget and effort of tech improvement was scandalously low. One wonders if that is ever to be remedied. There was a wilfull, as I saw it, decision to ignore China's patient build up of capability while we sold out elsewhere. Most second and third tier navies with sub forces weren't that hard to keep track of. China was always improving.

Hiding with pride, the FBM creed.

Well, our creed, back when there were 41 FBMs roaming the waters, was "40 for freedom, and one for training!". Of course, the one was whichever you happened to be serving on

Quote:

I am familiar with that sight. Depending on altitude, it's not all that easy to see. For a helo bubba, not too hard to find in low sea states as a visual target. Now that SAR and ISAR radars are about, and some far better optics, that Orion would have had you all visual much sooner.

Of course not, they were P-3 pogues.

Loved the second vignette. You sub guys had a lot of fun the rest of us didn't, to go with your extra pay, and to counter, as I see it, some of the down side of being a Bubble Head.

Just go to Quiet Ship. I recall we did that on a Spru Can a few times in an exercise, and of course in the post-exercise debrief, the sub's debrief of tracking us didn't notice us being any quieter. They had the grams to prove it.

DR

It is about bed time for me, so I think the quite ship idea will work. I'll start testing my eye lids for light leaks very soon

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by This Guy

http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2408791&C=navwar

That's dated 12/11/06

Norman Polmar seems to indicate that we spent a decade doing jack spit for ASW. That's sorta how I saw it in '95. :P

Quote:

“So the question that might arise is, how far back have we recovered our capability?” O’Rourke said. “I don’t have an answer to that.”
Norman Polmar, an independent Virginia-based naval analyst who worked on a 2005 Navy ASW study with Truver, thinks he does.

“We’ve lost ASW,” he said. “We can barely do it. Blue water, against nuclear subs, we’re probably good,” Polmar said. “Probably. But in blue water against non-nukes, we’re not good.”

The way to improve the problem is threefold, said retired admiral and submariner Al Konetzni. The Navy needs more submarines — about 55, not the 40ish number that will prevail over the next 15 to 25 years. Next, those crews need to be well-trained, which means they must “operate where your potential enemy operates,” he said. Thirdly, he says, “Make sure all your efforts are coordinated. And that is all the different services.”

DR

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Cleon

It's embarrassing because they didn't detect it; it just surfaced in the middle of a carrier group. "Hello, look at me, getting past all your s00per-31337 security!" The Navy got caught with its pants down, basically.

Had we been in a shooting war with the PRC (heaven forbid), the Kitty Hawk would've been toast.

And you know this how?

If they did detect it, but did not want the Chinese to know they had this capability, would the story be any different?

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

And you know this how?

Well, the story said that it was undetected before it surfaced. I suppose the story could by lying, though.

Quote:

If they did detect it, but did not want the Chinese to know they had this capability, would the story be any different?

Is there any evidence that this is the case?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Well, the story said that it was undetected before it surfaced. I suppose the story could by lying, though.

Or the story could be wrong. Believe it or not it has been known in the past for the military to keep secrets from journalists.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Or the story could be wrong. Believe it or not it has been known in the past for the military to keep secrets from journalists.

I'll ask again: Is there any evidence that this is the case?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Cleon

I'll ask again: Is there any evidence that this is the case?

As much as there is that it was not detected. Next question? Or are we claiming that a newspaper report is "evidence"?

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

As much as there is that it was not detected. Next question? Or are we claiming that a newspaper report is "evidence"?

*sigh* Look, if you want to assume facts not in evidence, fine, that's your prerogative. I based my reply to Checkmite on the available information, nothing more.

If you have a problem with that...Well, I can't really say I care.

[geni]

I fail to see the problem. We know that most surface ships would cease to exist shortly after the start of a shooting war against anyone halfway competant.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Cleon

*sigh* Look, if you want to assume facts not in evidence, fine, that's your prerogative.

Well lets see who might have done that:

From my first post, after providing an alternative explanation:

"Not saying this is what happened, but nor am I saying that the assumption that they were not detected is warranted."

From your first substantial post:

"they didn't detect it" - looks like assuming facts not in evidence to me.
"The Navy got caught with its pants down, basically" - hmm, more of the same
"Had we been in a shooting war with the PRC (heaven forbid), the Kitty Hawk would've been toast" - and yet again.

And all of this based on one news report that claims (but provides no evidence in support of that claim) that it was undetected.

To summarise:

You accept, in the absence of any evidence, it was detected.
I neither accept nor deny it.

Someone is assuming facts not in evidence, but it isn't me.

Quote:

I based my reply to Checkmite on the available information, nothing more.

Sure, you choose to believe exactly what is printed in the Daily Mail and not to consider other explanations that explain the known facts equally well. Great example of critical thought, the papers love people like you.

Quote:

If you have a problem with that...Well, I can't really say I care.

Oh no, I'm so hurt!

[Cleon]

Wrong.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Wrong.

Not so much.

The criticism is roughly that you only know what you read in the papers, and that you made some assumptions and projections based on that, even though the papers have been known to be in error, or at least incomplete in providing information.

Not an unfair critique.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by geni

I fail to see the problem. We know that most surface ships would cease to exist shortly after the start of a shooting war against anyone halfway competant.

How do "we" know this? That's a rather broad statement that assumes away a great deal to do with maritime operations.

DR

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Not so much.

So much.

Quote:

The criticism is roughly

Wrong.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Wrong.

The one word answer, the internets version of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LA. I'M NOT LISTENING".

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

The one word answer, the internets version of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LA. I'M NOT LISTENING".

More like "Fine, if you want to believe the story was concocted as a psy-ops propaganda bit to deceive the Chinese, feel free, but I have better things to worry about."