PDA

View Full Version : OT: USNAVY caught with their trousers down



nsteense
11-13-2007, 02:58 AM
Take a look at this link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/wor...2804&in_page_id=1811 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=492804&in_page_id=1811)

csThor
11-13-2007, 03:02 AM
Nothing new ... incident-wise. There has been an incident years ago with an ancient Class-206 sub of the Bundesmarine "sinking" a US Carrier and a destroyer and escaping undamaged. Obviously submarines of our days are extremely silent and hard to detect. If you don't catch them far out with ASW aircraft and helos they can and will be a dangerous opponent.

LW_lcarp
11-13-2007, 03:54 AM
Looks like a case of the chinese doing there job and the USN not doing theirs

Billy_BigBoy
11-13-2007, 04:15 AM
Sadly we will never know for sure if the USN was on guard, active searching for threats, or they were sitting back and relaxing, enjoying the own show of power.

Wepps
11-13-2007, 04:40 AM
On the one hand, it's foolish to play your hand before the outset of a war, showing your capability. It allows for time to counter a possible threat.

On the other, the demasculation of a military force through embarrassment might be an attempt to avoid a war, through threatening unforeseen power.

It's a surprise to me that a diesel-electric could penetrate that close to a US Navy task force. Such a thing is not thought possible. But the fact it did tells me:

The US Navy is facing technology that masks the noise of such a submarine...

The US Navy and NATO administrators don't know the full story.

It's possible the Navy commander allowed the sub that leeway. We aren't, after all, at war. Do they sink it?

And following the incident, do we immediately phone London?

Bewolf
11-13-2007, 04:45 AM
It happend before. Both a norwegian sub and a german one already managed to break a carriers pretection screen and shot fotos with their periscopes. Diesel electric subs are much much harder to detect then other ones. And the new AIP subs will add to these capabiltis even more so.

Also, since the breakdown of the SU the US Navy seriously neglected its ASW capabilties.

flakwagen
11-13-2007, 04:52 AM
Some people think they knew the sub was there and baited it into surfacing. The fact that heads haven't rolled by now supports this assertion. The Chinese gain face, the U.S. loses face (at least in public), and the USN learns a lot about Chinese subs without having to sneak around or fire a shot. It sounds like a good deal for everybody.

Flak

erco415
11-13-2007, 05:08 AM
And for all we know, a Los Angeles was in his baffles...

stalkervision
11-13-2007, 05:29 AM
New diesel-electric attack submarine are very very quite and pose a great risk to any surface fleet..

Bewolf
11-13-2007, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by flakwagen:
Some people think they knew the sub was there and baited it into surfacing. The fact that heads haven't rolled by now supports this assertion. The Chinese gain face, the U.S. loses face (at least in public), and the USN learns a lot about Chinese subs without having to sneak around or fire a shot. It sounds like a good deal for everybody.

Flak

sources?

this sounds kinda made up.

whiteladder
11-13-2007, 05:59 AM
I can`t talk about USN but this certainly is the case for the RN.

The main tool for long range detection of Subs is the towed array. Since the end of the cold war ASW has taken a lower priority in the RN to the extent that on the Type23 frigates (designed for ASW)they do not have the Towed array fitted on every ship, it is fitted when needed. So for example a frigate assigned as the caribbean guardship will not have a towed array.

Also towed array are expensive and have an effect on the performance of the ship, depending on the circumstance of the exercise, they may not have even had any deployed.

Wepps
11-13-2007, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flakwagen:
Some people think they knew the sub was there and baited it into surfacing. The fact that heads haven't rolled by now supports this assertion. The Chinese gain face, the U.S. loses face (at least in public), and the USN learns a lot about Chinese subs without having to sneak around or fire a shot. It sounds like a good deal for everybody.

Flak

sources?

this sounds kinda made up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I for one am a source. It's only speculation, but it makes sense.

Your asking for sources on which people think something?

Lubcke
11-13-2007, 06:07 AM
promotions and advertisments usually inflate features of the promoted object, and it is not good when people start genuinely believe that they are super and are better then others, in millitary matters it means that you would tend to underastimate your opponent and that, most likely will lead to various lapses, in the war it would lead you to defeat...

Bewolf
11-13-2007, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by Wepps:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flakwagen:
Some people think they knew the sub was there and baited it into surfacing. The fact that heads haven't rolled by now supports this assertion. The Chinese gain face, the U.S. loses face (at least in public), and the USN learns a lot about Chinese subs without having to sneak around or fire a shot. It sounds like a good deal for everybody.

Flak

sources?

this sounds kinda made up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I for one am a source. It's only speculation, but it makes sense.

Your asking for sources on which people think something? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh you are a source? Fascinating.

Ratsack
11-13-2007, 06:18 AM
Perhaps he meant 'sauce'?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack

Blutarski2004
11-13-2007, 06:20 AM
A single properly directed active sonar ping would have made it discreetly evident to the Chinese captain that the USN knew where he was. OTOH, I doubt that the commander of that US battle-group or task force would willingly permit a penetration such as described - simply as a matter of professional pride.

A great deal of ink has been spilled in professional journals [US Naval Institute Proceedings, for example] over the [IMO] very real threat to surface battle-groups posed by extremely quiet modern diesel-electric and air-independent propulsion subs. Many officers are arguing that such sub technology should be adopted by the USN to operate in conjunction with nuclear-powered subs. However, considerable offical resistance exists to this proposal. Whether the resistance is bureaucatic bias in favor of hukes or budgetary in nature remains unclear.

To the best of my knpwledge, the only official reaction so far on the part of the USN has been to "rent" a Swedish non-nuke sub and crew for ASW exercises.

whiteladder
11-13-2007, 06:29 AM
. The Chinese gain face, the U.S. loses face (at least in public), and the USN learns a lot about Chinese subs without having to sneak around or fire a shot. It sounds like a good deal for everybody.


Got to disagree on this completely.

Firstly how you would bait a Sub (without actually attacking and damaging it) to the surface is beyond me. The only sensible reason for the Chinese to do this is as a political gesture.

Even if by some means you could do this the amount of extra intelligence you would gain is minimal, especially given the potential risk of allowing the opposition to gain intelligence on you.

Finally the last thing you want is a potentialy hostile nations undetected submarine tooling about in the middle of an exercise, the RN subs did this constantly during Soviet exercises, taking underwater pictures of warship screws, noting how many revolutions correspond to a certain speed, recording the sound they make etc.

Be in no doubt the Chinese had more to gain by being in the middle of that exercise.

SeaFireLIV
11-13-2007, 06:32 AM
Guess it`s war then, since apparently the chinese are a greater threat than previously thought.

Bewolf
11-13-2007, 06:40 AM
Not really. As mentioned before, Diesel electric boats in good shape have this capability for a long time, the chinese just finally managed to bring their boats up to date and their captains became a bit more daring.

This incident is a much more political then military related. IMHO the chinese want to show the US who's boss in their own waters. Kind alike the US would go nuts if the chinese conducted maneuvers near the US coat, the chinese want to make clear these waters are theirs. That is to be seen in the same way as their anti sattelite missle program, giving the message "Don't dare to come to close".

The chinese get more self confident from year to year. Better expect this to happen more often in the future.

That aside, the US urgently needs to get better at ASW and also develop into the conventional sub business again. AIP subs have long range endurance now and are for more effective both as a weapon and in costs then an atomic sub.

alert_1
11-13-2007, 06:46 AM
Conventional subs are very slow, hard to detect, but if they are detected, then they are doomed..

Bewolf
11-13-2007, 06:50 AM
The german type 212 reaches 20 knots.

The seawolf class reaches 25 knots.

A difference, but nothing I'd call "very slow".

Besides, in submarine warfare, stealth is much more important then speed. No sub runs away from a chopper with a torp.

whiteladder
11-13-2007, 08:15 AM
The german type 212 reaches 20 knots.

The seawolf class reaches 25 knots.

Although sub speeds are generally classified I thought the Seawolf had a top speed of 35 knots, 25 knots is usually quoted as its tactical speed.

Bewolf
11-13-2007, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by whiteladder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The german type 212 reaches 20 knots.

The seawolf class reaches 25 knots.

Although sub speeds are generally classified I thought the Seawolf had a top speed of 35 knots, 25 knots is usually quoted as its tactical speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Going by wikipedia here, which certainly is not the best source. But even if it made 40 knots I'd still go for stealth. If you got detected by a capable opposition its mostly too late anyways.

whiteladder
11-13-2007, 08:33 AM
Going by wikipedia here, which certainly is not the best source. But even if it made 40 knots I'd still go for stealth. If you got detected by a capable opposition its mostly too late anyways.


I use the federation of American scientist, which generally has fairly accurate figures(or quanitfies the lever of error. What ever the actually speed is officially it has been stated it is the fastest attack sub in US History, which would put it in the 30+ knots range.

I agree stealth is the primary defence and true it will not outrun a helicopter, but when a weapon has been released and is tracking a high speed is desirable, many air launch torpedos will run at say 45 knots but with greatly reduced range, a sub will want to reduce to overtaking speed to a minimum. Also the torpedos speed is reduced at depth Its not inconcievable for a nuclear sub to outrun a air launched torpedo.

Wepps
11-13-2007, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wepps:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flakwagen:
Some people think they knew the sub was there and baited it into surfacing. The fact that heads haven't rolled by now supports this assertion. The Chinese gain face, the U.S. loses face (at least in public), and the USN learns a lot about Chinese subs without having to sneak around or fire a shot. It sounds like a good deal for everybody.

Flak

sources?

this sounds kinda made up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I for one am a source. It's only speculation, but it makes sense.

Your asking for sources on which people think something? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh you are a source? Fascinating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure aren't you?

I believe the quote is, "Some people think they knew the sub was there and baited it into surfacing," of which I am one. Here's your source, Methuselah.

He didn't say 'experts' or anybody in-the-know.

But again, it makes perfect sense. No American Naval commander would ever survive the next 48 hours in command by making such an error.

It's much more likely that either the 'facts' in the online press are distorted, falsified, or simply all the facts aren't present. This is a common issue even among the large news networks, and surely happens much more often than Chinese submarines surfacing in the middle of American task forces.

BSS_Goat
11-13-2007, 09:16 AM
I read that the Chinese sub was covered and rendered invisible by a thick coat of lead paint.

Wepps
11-13-2007, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
I read that the Chinese sub was covered and rendered invisible by a thick coat of lead paint.

There is no lead left in China, it's all been bought up by American consumers.

Bewolf
11-13-2007, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Wepps:
Sure aren't you?

I believe the quote is, "Some people think they knew the sub was there and baited it into surfacing," of which I am one. Here's your source, Methuselah.

He didn't say 'experts' or anybody in-the-know.

But again, it makes perfect sense. No American Naval commander would ever survive the next 48 hours in command by making such an error.

It's much more likely that either the 'facts' in the online press are distorted, falsified, or simply all the facts aren't present. This is a common issue even among the large news networks, and surely happens much more often than Chinese submarines surfacing in the middle of American task forces.

I won't even start going into a "source" debate here. Let's talk about that again after a few years when you grew accustomed to the usage of this term and its meaning on forums and message boards.

And I think you clearly underestimate the capabilities of other countries. The US, especially the Navy, made that mistake before. The biggest one is called "Pearl Harbor".

If then a US naval commander really loses his position for daring and successful feats of other nations commanders, I think the Navy will lose commanders really fast.

Wepps
11-13-2007, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wepps:
Sure aren't you?

I believe the quote is, "Some people think they knew the sub was there and baited it into surfacing," of which I am one. Here's your source, Methuselah.

He didn't say 'experts' or anybody in-the-know.

But again, it makes perfect sense. No American Naval commander would ever survive the next 48 hours in command by making such an error.

It's much more likely that either the 'facts' in the online press are distorted, falsified, or simply all the facts aren't present. This is a common issue even among the large news networks, and surely happens much more often than Chinese submarines surfacing in the middle of American task forces.

I won't even start going into a "source" debate here. Let's talk about that again after a few years when you grew accustomed to the usage of this term and its meaning on forums and message boards.

And I think you clearly underestimate the capabilities of other countries. The US, especially the Navy, made that mistake before. The biggest one is called "Pearl Harbor".

If then a US naval commander really loses his position for daring and successful feats of other nations commanders, I think the Navy will lose commanders really fast. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So...General Short and Admiral Kimmel weren't immediately relieved of their commands after Pearl Harbor?

Face it, you are fighting the wrong battle here. Not only don't you seem to have any clue what you're talking about, you completely misinterpreted what the quoted poster was saying and decided to turn into a grouch on me.

You have been throughly teabagged. Back off.

Divine-Wind
11-13-2007, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Wepps:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
I read that the Chinese sub was covered and rendered invisible by a thick coat of lead paint.

There is no lead left in China, it's all been bought up by American consumers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bewolf
11-13-2007, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Wepps:

You have been throughly teabagged. Back off.

LoL. Oh I will. Out of different reasons, though, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

scaredycat1
11-13-2007, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by nsteense:
Take a look at this link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/wor...2804&in_page_id=1811 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=492804&in_page_id=1811)



...cool!, now we can send a B-2 over one of their naval bases... lol

TC_Stele
11-13-2007, 10:08 AM
I think the journalist left too many facts out of his story. For one thing, what did the US have to say about this? We're only getting quotes from NATO and "what this means for the US?"

How do we know this sub was not detected before it surfaced? The Chinese sub may have taken the opportunity to come as close as possible to the carrier, fully aware that it would not be attacked unless the US and NATO wanted a military conflict. If the Chinese sub wanted to get as close as it did it would obviously have to speed up, past its silent run, and create a lot of noise in the water. This was probably the case and was already being detected; but what were the US ships to do? It surely couldn't shoot it out of the water. All they could probably do was just follow it and wait it out.

The sub surfacing for a "photo op" in the world media was probably its main goal anyways. Knowing the world media, it would be a hyped up story of "The US isn't so smart, afterall."

I don't buy the article's attempt to show that the US did not know a Chinese sub was in their parameters. Would the US Navy admit this if asked anyways? I don't know.

Let's say this story is true, then the US couldn't have wished for more data on that submarine and its sub class. If it was spotted then it was surely tailed, providing valuable information on its signature. All I would say is thank you China, the US would be ready for you next time.

Exercises in the past with Australia have shown that their subs are capable of coming upon our ships and sinking them. That may be for an Australian sub, but does that mean the same for a Chinese sub? Maybe, but I still think we need to be cautious when falling for stories of the X-Wing fighter managing to destroy the Death Star fairy tails.

Wepps
11-13-2007, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by TC_Stele:
I think the journalist left too many facts out of his story. For one thing, what did the US have to say about this? We're only getting quotes from NATO and "what this means for the US?"

And furthermore, I suspect that the 'surprise' that the NATO people were describing was a 'news to us' sort of thing. What I said previously in that, it's doubtful that the US Navy immediately got on the phone to inform Europe of any such activity, stands.

This isn't something that will stay out of the media. it will surface with the big boys when they get all those facts and certain questions are answered.

Until then, the assumptions in this report are as questionable as the facts presented, and the sources given.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2007, 10:23 AM
There's a country on Earth that has a military that has a branch that makes no mistakes, errors, or missteps?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif at that.

MEGILE
11-13-2007, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
There's a country on Earth that has a military that has a branch that makes no mistakes, errors, or missteps?



Switzerland

bhunter2112
11-13-2007, 11:19 AM
My take on this is that the US definetly knew the sub was in the area. China is at a rough guess 25 years behind the US in tech.

Obviously tech is not the be and end all in a conflict...but it helps.
The US had stelth tech over 25 years ago - counties today are no where near copying or defeating these weapons. What does the US have now that is still "in the black" I am assuming a full array of underwater UAV's that you have and never will see.

Wepps
11-13-2007, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by bhunter2112:
My take on this is that the US definetly knew the sub was in the area. China is at a rough guess 25 years behind the US in tech.

Obviously tech is not the be and end all in a conflict...but it helps.
The US had stelth tech over 25 years ago - counties today are no where near copying or defeating these weapons. What does the US have now that is still "in the black" I am assuming a full array of underwater UAV's that you have and never will see.

Though I agree in general, I wouldn't make that assumption based upon the failure of German intelligence in WWII to accurately describe the technical achievements of the Soviet Union, nor their available equipment, nor their ability to manufacture more of it.

Because of these failures they were surprised early on by a technically inferior tank in the form of the T-34, which in its practical application was vastly superior on the field of battle to anything the Germans had available at the time.

Their aircraft were often similarly poorly represented by German intelligence as technically inferior, which was true, but in their practical application in the skies they tended to offer a superior enemy to face.

Germany also was considered to have been 20 years (or more) ahead of Russia in almost every technical field, and yet the Soviets overcame those advantages through practical applications. Not only was the T-34 so superior it was practically an untouchable on the field, it was nevertheless so simple in its design it could be cranked out of the manufacturing facilities by the 10s of thousands.

Lastly, like the Soviet Union, China's potential military - industrial complex is vast, even in comparison to the current abilities of the United States.

So I see it as this: making the same mistake Germany did with Barbarossa would be a critical error in judgment for any US leadership pondering war with China, who seem to have many of the advantages the Soviets did over Germany in recent memory.

The leadership's arrogance of assuming superiority because of technical advances will lead to the same destruction of those that made the same error in the past.

...in our case, with vastly increased casualties and suffering because of that error.

Monterey13
11-13-2007, 12:54 PM
This is a hype. There is no way it went undetected. I have spent many an hour in the ASW room of an Aegis Cruiser, and you wouldn't believe the things they can hear.

No way in h3ll.

waffen-79
11-13-2007, 01:37 PM
Is this fake?

smokincrater
11-13-2007, 02:04 PM
What is confirmed and a fact is that HMAS Waller broke though the surrounding escort of USS Constellion and killed her in Rimpac `03(simulated of coruse). Not a bad thing by a lowley diesel electric sub which the US navy described as being louder than rock concert! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2007, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
There's a country on Earth that has a military that has a branch that makes no mistakes, errors, or missteps?



Switzerland </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You think so? How about their internment of Allied aircrew while returning Luftwaffe personnel to their units?

Bremspropeller
11-13-2007, 02:40 PM
It's called "politics".

Germany sold a/c to Switzerland. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2007, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
It's called "politics".

Germany sold a/c to Switzerland. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No, that would be called "business".

In any case, all you're saying is that this is a good enough excuse for the Swiss military to turn a blind eye to bad moral decisions.

"Yeah, Hitler sold me a used car cheap once, so I let him sterilize all the mental patients at the hospital today. That car is badazz " http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bremspropeller
11-13-2007, 02:52 PM
No, it's pilotics, since those darned Yanks didn't give a sh1t about swiss airspace-violations and used the swiss airspace as "short cut" - just like they did during Allied Force over Austria.

The Germans supplied the Swiss with a/c to force down those intruders.


Switzerland was and is a neutral and free country, they couldn't care less about your moral beliefs.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2007, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

Switzerland was and is a neutral and free country, they couldn't care less about your moral beliefs.

By your own logic, they DID care about Germany's moral beliefs.

They freed the Germans. The Germans violated their "neutral and free" airspace.

There was a war. Either you're a combatant, or not. If Switzerland is off limits to Allied aircrew, and it's not off limits to the Luftwaffe, then what kind of bull is that? Switzerland plays both sides then. Nice

they interned the Allies, but the Swiss released the Germans. So I guess you are 100% correct here:

You say Switzerland didn't care for the Allies morals. OK, I say that since that is true, becasue after all you said it, they preferred that of the Germans, becasue you say that the Swiss were Free, right? They could make decisions on their own. So they play "Neutral", but favor the Germans. A nice set of morals to attach yourself to

So they don;t care about MY morals, eh? What about yours? Do YOU feel that it was correct to intern the Allies and free the Germans?

Also, I never said anything about Americans. I said "Allies". You don't like the USA? Tough noogies, much I care. Take your prejudice about the USA to a political forum.

Bremspropeller
11-13-2007, 03:22 PM
It's a "POWs for plane"-policy - quite hard to understand, huh?



Life is unfair, get over it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2007, 03:23 PM
Well, then, when I say "Allies", don't say "Americans". Simple

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-13-2007, 03:29 PM
You two got sources handy? Genuinely interested.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2007, 03:33 PM
1) Internet
2) voices in my head

Wepps
11-13-2007, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
No, it's pilotics, since those darned Yanks didn't give a sh1t about swiss airspace-violations and used the swiss airspace as "short cut" - just like they did during Allied Force over Austria.

The Germans supplied the Swiss with a/c to force down those intruders.


Switzerland was and is a neutral and free country, they couldn't care less about your moral beliefs.

That's about right. True neutrality isn't name-only, it's indifference to either side. I wouldn't begrudge them their actions.

You, on the other hand, seem pretty upset about those terrible Americans.

Korolov1986
11-13-2007, 04:38 PM
I'm trying to figure out why this is new, as I thought the exact same thing was reported last year?

EDIT: Also, the USS Kitty Hawk is slated for retirement soon, as it's getting to be an old ship - it's also a conventionally powered carrier. It's not nearly as advanced as the Nimitz class boats.

EDIT #2: Confirmed: this story is ancient. Somebody figured it'd be a good reprint? Hard to find reliable sources but this incident happened a year ago.

Bremspropeller
11-13-2007, 05:18 PM
That's about right. True neutrality isn't name-only, it's indifference to either side. I wouldn't begrudge them their actions.

You, on the other hand, seem pretty upset about those terrible Americans.


Honestly?

I don't give a $hit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


They propably had their reasons.
Was it right? Not really.

But they did it anyway. Bingo.

erco415
11-13-2007, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:That aside, the US urgently needs to get better at ASW and also develop into the conventional sub business again. AIP subs have long range endurance now and are for more effective both as a weapon and in costs then an atomic sub.

I agree with you about the US getting back into the conventional sub business, but you are WAY overstating the case for diesel and AIP boats. Sure the diesel boats are quiet, and AIP has reduced/eliminated the need to snorkel, but it remains that conventional boats are for the most part mobile minefields - that is, the target must come to them, as they are unable to run one down submerged, as even the AIP boats must use their batteries for high speeds and speed and battery life are inversely proportional. The vastly superior underwater mobility that nuclear power affords is the reason that everyone who can afford them has nuke boats. Also, consider that Seawolf can motor along at 20kts or so while remaining very quiet and able to detect/maintain track on targets - indefinitely. Your 212 is only doing her 20kts (and being noisy while doing it) at the expense of her battery charge, and once that's gone...
A mix of boats is the best policy, as there are many places that diesel subs can minimize their weaknesses and exploit their strengths. But the day of the nuke boat is far from over.

The-Pizza-Man
11-13-2007, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by erco415:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:That aside, the US urgently needs to get better at ASW and also develop into the conventional sub business again. AIP subs have long range endurance now and are for more effective both as a weapon and in costs then an atomic sub.

I agree with you about the US getting back into the conventional sub business, but you are WAY overstating the case for diesel and AIP boats. Sure the diesel boats are quiet, and AIP has reduced/eliminated the need to snorkel, but it remains that conventional boats are for the most part mobile minefields - that is, the target must come to them, as they are unable to run one down submerged, as even the AIP boats must use their batteries for high speeds and speed and battery life are inversely proportional. The vastly superior underwater mobility that nuclear power affords is the reason that everyone who can afford them has nuke boats. Also, consider that Seawolf can motor along at 20kts or so while remaining very quiet and able to detect/maintain track on targets - indefinitely. Your 212 is only doing her 20kts (and being noisy while doing it) at the expense of her battery charge, and once that's gone...
A mix of boats is the best policy, as there are many places that diesel subs can minimize their weaknesses and exploit their strengths. But the day of the nuke boat is far from over. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your throwing all conventionals into the coastal category. The Collins and Japanese O-boats are fleet subs. They are designed to operate in blue water with surface groups. While they aren't as fast as nukes they are far more than just "mobile minefields".

horseback
11-13-2007, 10:36 PM
I spent a little time in the surface ASW navy back when it mattered, and here's my take on the issue:

erco's got a valid point. Outside of coastal waters, the diesel boat became a target as soon as radar was put on warships. They must surface or snorkel to recharge their batteries, which permits them stunts in peacetime that would be at best highly improbable in wartime, when they would be hounded mercilessly every time they came within ten meters of the surface, day or night.

On the other hand, ASW is an art, not a science, and it must be practiced rigorously and regularly. The USN (or at least those who fund it) has gotten very lax in that art, thinking that there are going to be no future submarine threats, when the Chinese have clearly been breeding for the perfect submarine crewman for five thousand years...

cheers

horseback

smokincrater
11-14-2007, 01:05 AM
The thing that has made submarines so deadly has been their shealth. Their ability to hide. A diesel/electric can glide away into the depths atfer striking its blow with nothing but the gentle whir of it`s screws. A nuke HAS to run its pumps to stop its core from meltdown ALL THE TIME. Of coruse the flip side is a nuke can stay down for years at a time, were diesels need to shrot, every couple of hours or for extreme endurance every coulpe of days. Speed is only of value in short bursts for tactical reasons. Speed creates noise which gives the submariner away.
Any submarine moving any faster than 15-20 knots might as well switch off the sonar and save the current because there is way to much water running over the Hydrophones.

ploughman
11-14-2007, 06:27 AM
The reactor pump thing may've been the case once, but, as I understand it, modern designs rely on convecting coolant to chill the reactor at low power settings, such as creeping around. The convecting coolant can still radiate some noise though.

Monterey13
11-14-2007, 07:01 AM
The only thing I can think of is, in the case that it wasn't really detected,(which I doubt), is if the sub laid in waiting at the bottom until the BG passed overhead, then surfaced quickly to make a statement. BG's usually operate in passive sonar mode, listening for screws, pumps, etc... If he was just sitting there, they most likely wouldn't have noticed him, as there was no reason to ping for him. As he went active to surface, the tremendous noise from all of the ships in the BG would have helped to mask his own noise.

Kind of stupid to surface your boat in the middle of a BG though. It gives the enemy the chance to gather LOTS of intelligence data about your vessel.

Kurfurst__
11-14-2007, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Monterey13:
This is a hype. There is no way it went undetected. I have spent many an hour in the ASW room of an Aegis Cruiser, and you wouldn't believe the things they can hear.

No way in h3ll.

It`s a hype, sort-of. From what I`ve read on another board on the subject, the US carrier was sailing out en route to an excercise with the <STRIKE>IJN</STRIKE> Jap. Self-defense navy or what it`s called today.

The Chinese sub knew the route, and was laying on the bottom, seemingly life- and noiseless. It then surfaced when the carrier`s group got near. Made a great press story.

That being said, there are some morals of the story; diesel-electric subs present a major threat, and they`re well suited for the purposes they were designed to, and are tactically not inferior to nuke subs at all. The Chinese submarines are not to be underestimated, laying on the bottom or not, they DID ambush a US carrier, as did aforementioned, similiar success of conventional Swedish and German subs on excercise. Subs present a real threat, and China is ABSOLUTELY positively not the same backwards China we knew in the `60s. It has modern tech now, and capable commanders. Maybe not top notch tech, but good enough.

The Chinese certainly succeeded demonstrating that.

As for nuke/conventional subs, I guess the main point is lost. Nuke subs were are primarly employed in the cold war to launch nukes from a secret position to ensure M.A.D. and deterrence; nuke hunter subs were the anti-dote for these boomers. Both roles called for absolutely self-authority on operations and capability for long-term submerged state. They are hugely expensive - the Virginia class attack subs are $2.3 billion a piece), and thus limited in numbers, tactically, they`re more noisy than conventional subs.

Conventional subs are built for defensive missions - nuke subs don`t make much sense for such roles. Many radiating hulks along your own coastline is the last thing you may want, and these boats have plenty
of endurance - the Type 212 is said to be capable of remaining submerged for 3 weeks without snorkeling. That`s good for their tasks. The Dolphins (export hybrid 209/212s) the Isralies bought cost some $320 million each. Do the math and compare that the nuclear sub coasts, and it can do exactly the same, but in a more limited operational enviroment - something that is not a required by their operators...

erco415
11-14-2007, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monterey13:
This is a hype. There is no way it went undetected. I have spent many an hour in the ASW room of an Aegis Cruiser, and you wouldn't believe the things they can hear.

No way in h3ll.

It`s a hype, sort-of. From what I`ve read on another board on the subject, the US carrier was sailing out en route to an excercise with the <STRIKE>IJN</STRIKE> Jap. Self-defense navy or what it`s called today.

The Chinese sub knew the route, and was laying on the bottom, seemingly life- and noiseless. It then surfaced when the carrier`s group got near. Made a great press story.

That being said, there are some morals of the story; diesel-electric subs present a major threat, and they`re well suited for the purposes they were designed to, and are tactically not inferior to nuke subs at all. The Chinese submarines are not to be underestimated, laying on the bottom or not, they DID ambush a US carrier, as did aforementioned, similiar success of conventional Swedish and German subs on excercise. Subs present a real threat, and China is ABSOLUTELY positively not the same backwards China we knew in the `60s. It has modern tech now, and capable commanders. Maybe not top notch tech, but good enough.

The Chinese certainly succeeded demonstrating that.

As for nuke/conventional subs, I guess the main point is lost. Nuke subs were are primarly employed in the cold war to launch nukes from a secret position to ensure M.A.D. and deterrence; nuke hunter subs were the anti-dote for these boomers. Both roles called for absolutely self-authority on operations and capability for long-term submerged state. They are hugely expensive - the Virginia class attack subs are $2.3 billion a piece), and thus limited in numbers, tactically, they`re more noisy than conventional subs.

Conventional subs are built for defensive missions - nuke subs don`t make much sense for such roles. Many radiating hulks along your own coastline is the last thing you may want, and these boats have plenty
of endurance - the Type 212 is said to be capable of remaining submerged for 3 weeks without snorkeling. That`s good for their tasks. The Dolphins (export hybrid 209/212s) the Isralies bought cost some $320 million each. Do the math and compare that the nuclear sub coasts, and it can do exactly the same, but in a more limited operational enviroment - something that is not a required by their operators... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A mobile minefield. I don't think anyone who's knowledgeable about submarine warfare thinks that diesel boats are without merit. The use of the Chinese boat in this case is a perfect example of what conventional boats are best at. And many of the hot spots in the world today are places that a diesel boat would be at home in. That said, the things that a nuke boat can do much better than a diesel are often worth the price. I don't think that a conventional sub is tactically equivalent to a nuclear boat. In the back of every diesel Skipper's mind is that dang battery charge gauge (and the things that go with it - snorkeling etc), and is a part of every decision he makes. I see you point though, if you are operating in closed waters/fixed point defense.

BaldieJr
11-14-2007, 09:46 AM
yay its election time. bring out the baddies and lets rattle some sabers.

pay attention kids.

TC_Stele
11-14-2007, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
yay its election time. bring out the baddies and lets rattle some sabers.

pay attention kids.

Said the Ron Paul supporter.

Bewolf
11-14-2007, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by erco415:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monterey13:
This is a hype. There is no way it went undetected. I have spent many an hour in the ASW room of an Aegis Cruiser, and you wouldn't believe the things they can hear.

No way in h3ll.

It`s a hype, sort-of. From what I`ve read on another board on the subject, the US carrier was sailing out en route to an excercise with the <STRIKE>IJN</STRIKE> Jap. Self-defense navy or what it`s called today.

The Chinese sub knew the route, and was laying on the bottom, seemingly life- and noiseless. It then surfaced when the carrier`s group got near. Made a great press story.

That being said, there are some morals of the story; diesel-electric subs present a major threat, and they`re well suited for the purposes they were designed to, and are tactically not inferior to nuke subs at all. The Chinese submarines are not to be underestimated, laying on the bottom or not, they DID ambush a US carrier, as did aforementioned, similiar success of conventional Swedish and German subs on excercise. Subs present a real threat, and China is ABSOLUTELY positively not the same backwards China we knew in the `60s. It has modern tech now, and capable commanders. Maybe not top notch tech, but good enough.

The Chinese certainly succeeded demonstrating that.

As for nuke/conventional subs, I guess the main point is lost. Nuke subs were are primarly employed in the cold war to launch nukes from a secret position to ensure M.A.D. and deterrence; nuke hunter subs were the anti-dote for these boomers. Both roles called for absolutely self-authority on operations and capability for long-term submerged state. They are hugely expensive - the Virginia class attack subs are $2.3 billion a piece), and thus limited in numbers, tactically, they`re more noisy than conventional subs.

Conventional subs are built for defensive missions - nuke subs don`t make much sense for such roles. Many radiating hulks along your own coastline is the last thing you may want, and these boats have plenty
of endurance - the Type 212 is said to be capable of remaining submerged for 3 weeks without snorkeling. That`s good for their tasks. The Dolphins (export hybrid 209/212s) the Isralies bought cost some $320 million each. Do the math and compare that the nuclear sub coasts, and it can do exactly the same, but in a more limited operational enviroment - something that is not a required by their operators... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A mobile minefield. I don't think anyone who's knowledgeable about submarine warfare thinks that diesel boats are without merit. The use of the Chinese boat in this case is a perfect example of what conventional boats are best at. And many of the hot spots in the world today are places that a diesel boat would be at home in. That said, the things that a nuke boat can do much better than a diesel are often worth the price. I don't think that a conventional sub is tactically equivalent to a nuclear boat. In the back of every diesel Skipper's mind is that dang battery charge gauge (and the things that go with it - snorkeling etc), and is a part of every decision he makes. I see you point though, if you are operating in closed waters/fixed point defense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You completly ignore the development of modern AIP subs here. "Much" longer enndurance then electric diesel boats submerged. Actually the 3 weeks number is just the official announcment for the type 212, as an example. Estimates are "6" weeks and longer. That is more then enough for blue water operations. And that is only the first generation.

erco415
11-14-2007, 07:05 PM
No, Bewolf, I'm not ignoring the advances in AIP, just recognizing it's limitations. No AIP sub that I'm aware of has a speed of greater than 6 kts on AIP. Anything greater than this and you are burning your battery charge. What AIP does is reduce the need to snorkel, thus making you harder to detect. Transiting to/from a blue water patrol area in an AIP sub would be no better, and possibly worse, time wise, than in a conventional sub. You just wouldn't need to snort as often. Time submerged is not the issue, what is is how often you need to fire up the diesels and let everyone know you're there.

Consider that the fastest of the non-nuclear boats are good for no more than 25kts or so - at a horrific cost to the battery charge, where even a slow nuke boat is doing 28+ and can do that the whole stinking patrol if they want. That makes for more ocean to potentially be in, making you harder to find. Again, if you know where and when you need to be, you can plan ahead and have your conventional sub in position. If you don't, you need to be lucky. I believe that US naval exercises are still published in the Notice to Mariners, which would be a pretty good way to decide where to stash your sub waiting for the right moment...

fordfan25
11-14-2007, 09:03 PM
maby the sub ment to defect . give me one ping. And one ping only please.

Wepps
11-14-2007, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
maby the sub ment to defect . give me one ping. And one ping only please.

We need some place deep.

fordfan25
11-14-2007, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by Wepps:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
maby the sub ment to defect . give me one ping. And one ping only please.

We need some place deep. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>remember, things in here do not react well to bullets


or


We will need to call my x girlfriend http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif