"Chinese Submarine Stalked U.S. Aircraft Carrier" Topic

Found this one on AOL news today.

Chinese Submarine Stalked U.S. Aircraft Carrier
AP and Reuters, AOL Wire Services

WASHINGTON (Nov. 13) – A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and was undetected until it surfaced within firing range, The Washington Times reported on Monday.

Report say a Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine was seen within five miles of the carrier Kitty Hawk, above, and its accompanying warships on October 26.

The Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine was seen within five miles of the carrier Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships on October 26, the newspaper said, citing defense officials.

The surfaced submarine was spotted by a routine surveillance flight by one of the U.S. carrier group's planes, the report said.

A Navy spokeswoman in Washington had no comment on the report.

Disclosure of the surprise encounter comes as the commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, Adm. Gary Roughead, was making his first visit to China which began over the weekend, The Washington Times said.

The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military leaders during the weeklong visit, the paper said.

"When asked if the PLA navy is a threat, I've been on the record as saying no," Roughead told reporters. "But I really would like to know what the intent is in some of the developments that I see in the PLA navy."

Washington, which has long complained of a lack of transparency in China's military modernization, has been pressing Beijing to reciprocate by giving U.S. forces more access to Chinese military exercises and sites.

11-13-06 18:03 EST

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

Why on earth did it surface?

"Tag. You're it."

It did not say.

May be to show how close they can get?

Maybe to recharge there battery's?

Your thoughts?

Was it painted Pink?

Perhaps the captain had read this?

link

To show the carrier group that they are vulnerable? I have to believe that 5 miles is well within the limits of a destoyer screen.

Or maybe its the Chinese way of saying hello.

It would be stupid to surface just to show off. Perhaps they had no choice but to surface due to pressure by US subs attached to the Carrier Group or pressure from the Group it was shadowing.

Well at least we did not collide with this one!

Last time we had to set down on a Communist Chinese Airfield and negotiate with them to get the aircraft back.

How do you negotiate to get a Carrier Group returned?

US Casrier task forces are vulnerable to diesel subs. Australian diesel subs regularly pull the same trick on them. And I would not be suprised if Chinese subs have done this a few times.

Not really a surprise there.

During the cold war the West German Diesel subs were the most feared in the North Sea. Their big disadvantage was the limited dive time and depth due to the diesel / battery. On the other hand they were much more silent then and nuclear vessel, plus smaller. And in the confines of the North Sea their disanvantages were not as bad.

So I think that the Chinese just made good use of their advantages!

Cheers,

Burkhard

I agree, I think it was deliberately design to "embarass" the US Navy. With this meeting coming up, the Chinese may have figured it would make an amusing talking point…

Damon.

First off, if Reuters and the AP said the sky was blue, I'd want spectroscopy reports in hand first.

An unsourced 'report'? Please. The only people who know whether or not it was detected are on the Kitty Hawk, and whatever SSNs were on this exercise – Asheville and Seawolf, I've heard. The only people who are going to claim it was undetected are the Chinese.

Of course the USN isn't going to say anything about whether it was detected or not. Hello, sources and methods? Not giving away intelligence about sensors and detection methods?

Sheesh.

Anyone want to try this on (under???) the tabletop?

Just found this one on Military.com

Iran Spies on Aircraft Carrier

Deutsche Presse-Agentur | November 13, 2006
Tehran – Iran's state television reported Sunday that a drone belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) had managed to spy on a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf waters.

"The drone could successfully carry out its mission and the US fighter pilots failed to reach it," said the news network Khabar, which showed a minute of aerial footage of an aircraft carrier sailing in the waters.

The report neither gave no details of the vessel or when the footage was taken.

The IRGC started 10-day maneuvers code-named "Grand Prophet 2" on November 2 throughout the country and offshore in the Gulf and Sea of Oman with the testing of various missiles, including the Shahab-2 which can carry cluster warheads, as well as the more powerful Shahab-3 missile.

Washington termed the exercises as proof that Iran continues to be "a source of potential instability."

"This sort of seeming sabre rattling on the part of Iran I think just underscores the fact that Iran is at this point in time, with this regime, not a source of stability in the region," the U.S. State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said last week.

Copyright 2006 Deutsche Presse-Agentur. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

1. The Sub: Who claims it was a "surprise"?
2. The Carrier: What the picture does NOT show is the F-18 following the drone! 8>)

I agree with nvdoyle in that proper OBSEC is to never comment on capabilities/intel on current issues.

As an "individual", both are interesting occurances which (here's "my" take) were "allowed" to happen.

To spin it, the press could have just as easily said "Evidence of US and Chineese joint maneuvers Surfaces" with the sub.

If you look closely at the Acft carrier footage, can you see the number on the flight deck? Which carrier is it? With so much footage available on the net and from commercial satellite sources, what "proof" is offered that the carrier is anywhere CLOSE to Iran? If Iran feels froggy about it, why not try to address this or even take a "shot" at the carrier? Hummm…..There must be an answer there, somewhere?

Best,
Tom Dye
GFI

"Washington, which has long complained of a lack of transparency in China's military modernization"

Because the US is so open with their own secrets?

I have read that a sub surfacing in a cat and mouse like this is either because it was forced to the surface or its saying "look, I could have taken a shot at you, hah! Game over, I'm leaving."

"Its good practice and to surface shows you have done it – good on the Chinese navy."

Yes now! We want the most competent Chinese navy possible in case they have to go sink any nasty arrogant US Carriers. Thanks, VVV, that's what pals are for! Perhaps I could wish, say, for the Argentine navy to improve its skills at stalking British ships…

I dont think Justen meant it as a slight on the US- the Chinese sub managed it and the US carrier didnt spot them- thats training for both the Chinese AND US forces- at least if they are both willing to learn from the lesson. I'd much rather find out how close a Chinese sub can get now than in a shooting war.

sorry for the misspell- Justin.

Interesting story, and as people have mentioned/implied, the Chinese can be pretty crafty.

Diesel-electrics are very quiet, but are also very limited in endurance, range, and speed.

No doubt the USN can be crafty too, and may be lulling the Chinese into falsely believing that their naval crews and subs are really good, right up until the shooting starts…..

Two can play at chess, blind man's bluff, or anti-sub warfare. Given the PLAN's experience vs. that of the USN, my money is on the Americans.

Anyone want to take that bet, at 3:1 odds?

The Chinese might be able to get a shot or two off, especially with their new-fangled Russian rocket-propelled torpedoes, from a diesel-electric sub sitting in place, or cruising slowly on a defensive patrol, assuming they don't blow up the PLAN sub first. Seems the new undersea rockets can be a bit touchy to handle. If the stories are to be believed, at least one Chinese observer found out first-hand during the Kursk weapons trials – apparently, he was unable to file the report personally, since he was on the sub.

It would make for an interesting naval wargaming scenario, or three though.

Apparently, the USN has contracted with the Swedes to test their new diesel electrics against our ASW forces, in order to see just how effective and quiet they really are, and to develop countermeasures against them.

Supposedly, we are leasing the vessel and crew for the operational testing in the coastal waters off the USA.

The thing is, these reports tell us nothing.

The sub approached undetected – the sub wouldn't know if they did, nor would the Chinese government. What's the Kitty Hawk BG going to do, put a torp into it in peacetime? Ping it with active sonar, so the sub crew knows more about US systems, tell them that they've been detected? The USN is going to sit there, very quietly, and listen, and not say a damn thing about the reality of the situation. Heck, they were probably waiting to see if rescue operations were needed; the safety record of Chinese ocean-going subs isn't exactly good.

The drone approached unmolested – this from a government that put forth a tape of a Chinese missile launch from a few years ago as being one of their own recent tests. It's unclear even what CVN that is – or what year/location that image/footage was from. No bow extensions either port or starboard? What planes are on deck, F-14s, F-18s…F-4s?

These are both infowar operations, not a reflection of any particular military capabilities. Anybody remember maskirovka?

All that said, and back to a less CA-potential topic, the new non-nuclear boats are neat and scary. The AIP ones coming out of Germany and Sweden are superb – the Aussies have apparently (again, really, same caveats as with less friendly nations above, we don't know, and the Silent Service isn't going to kiss and tell) been able to tag a few of our nuke boats in littoral ops with their 'diesel' boats.

Were I an island nation, with a lot of archipelagos to be concerned about/wanting to surveill/interdict, some of the German or Swedish AIP boats would be the way to go. Though I'd be really concerned if someone with the training, tech and firepower of the USN came gunning for me. I could probably put up a good fight for a little while, but not forever. With the new UUVs coming online in the next few years, I'd be even more worried.

[Last time we had to set down on a Communist Chinese Airfield and negotiate with them to get the aircraft back.]

We didn't have to. In fact, their job was the ditch the plane into the Pacific. You don't land a top-of-the-line spy plane on enemy soil. Ever.

Big Miller: "Because the US is so open with their own secrets?"

There are huge quantities of freely-available information on the US military, from locations of stateside troop bases to doctrine and organization to procurement and R&D. Digging up a comparable amount of info on the PLA is difficult, and most of it seems to be guesswork.

Honestly, I wish the Pentagon would tighten the noose on how much info it releases. We don't need to broadcast to the whole world that we are switching from 3-brigade divisions to 4-brigade ones, that an F-22 can take down 4 F-15s in simulations, etc. I think it stems from the largely unchallenged nature of our military. Were Pentagon lips this loose during the Cold War?

Yes, even more so in many cases.

Granted, some would be mis-information, and/or manufacturer bravado and marketing spin to justify their wares, but there is an awful lot available to even the casual interested party.

From what I seem to recall, it's standard practice for foreign subs to try and shadow other people's ships for the purposes of training. Once 'pinged' you back off.

If not, you reveal yourself by surfacing to prove your prowess, and to point out to those you're shadowing that they've work to do.

I've been told the Royal Navy has sent some periscope shots of various US carriers taken from our HKs to the relevant mess-rooms, but have no idea it it's true. Perhaps even the reverse is also true!

"I've been told the Royal Navy has sent some periscope shots of various US carriers taken from our HKs to the relevant mess-rooms, but have no idea it it's true."

My father (as a mine warfare specialist) was at HMS Warrior during the Falklands War and told me that the high-ranking officers had a game there where you had to guess the name/class of a US ship via periscope photos – apparantly, the officers who were sub-trained scored higher than their surface-dwelling comrades.

This is not the first time the Kitty Hawk has SUPPOSEDLY been caught with her pants down

From link

On 2000-10-17, Two Russian aircraft, a Su-24 Fencer and a Su-27 Flanker overflew Kitty Hawk at about 200 feet of altitude. At the time, Kitty Hawk was in the midst of an underway replenishment in the northern Sea of Japan, between the island of Hokkaido and the Russian mainland. Following the overflight, the Russian pilots e-mailed pictures of their overflight to Kitty Hawk's web site. Russian aircraft also overflew Kitty Hawk on October 12 and November 9.

A transcipt covering the incident is here cryptome.org/kitty-hawk-mail.htm

Although the USN does claim it had the Russian ac on radar it only sent a EA-6 prowler up to escort them? Not the most speedy ac in the inventory. Surely if you had 45 minutes of radar coverage, which at the Su-24s cruising speed of around 800kts is 600 NM a physical impossibility even with a HAWKEYE aloft due to the curveture of the earth, that is plenty of time to get the FA-18 crews out of bed and onto the catapults to be the first ac aloft after the repenisment at sea has stopped.

Rich

I'd say the Chinese were probably playing a few mind games.
If you've got a carrier group trolling around in your back yard, then it would seem logical to me to just pop up and say 'Hi.'

This was obviously blatant, if they'd wished to remain undetected then they wouldn't have surfaced.

For those who want to google about the Swedish sub training with US Navy, the vessel is called HMS Gotland and is based in San Diego for at least a year of operations.

link

The initial agreement was for 1 year, but they are still there and will remain for some time yet.

This reminds me of The U.S. missile that struck the chines embassy a few years ago in eastern europe. The missile was supposedly programmed with outdated maps. Yet the missile struck the floor and office of the chines intel unit at the embassy. Plus this was a few weeks after the U.S. filed a complaint on the chines constantly trying to spy on U.S. forces in the area under the U.N.

>The surfaced submarine was spotted by a routine >surveillance flight by one of the U.S. carrier group's >planes, the report said.

To me this does not sound like it was sneaking up on the carrier?? How long was it on the surface before being seen? Why did it surface? you would think that if it had sneaked up on the ships. It would do something productive other than give itself away. I remember in the middle 1980's when a russian sub sneaked right under a carrier. When the ship changed course it struck the sub. Thats when we realized the russian subs could do that. Which begs the question how many times had they done it prior to that? So I'd say if the china sub did sneak in and gave itself away just to toot their own horn. They waisted a very good oppertunity.

Diesel electric boats are also quite small, which also makes detection more difficult amidst the layers of water, whales etc. It would have surfaced as a matter of routine to recharge its batteries, but in this case to say "ha, ha".

This shows up various failings in the US military: 1) that they think they cannot be outdone, 2) that consequently hey do not need to take countermeasures (passive sonar is the usually means, but that means you must listen for what you are expecting), 3) big is beautiful (key problem with the F-14).

To tell the sub they knew it was there, the USN only had to ping it or drop a buoy close by – but they didn't.

"WASHINGTON (Nov. 13) – A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and was undetected until it surfaced within firing range, The Washington Times reported on Monday."

Oh, bloody WOW!

"Submarine commander does what he gets paid to do, and U.S gets all stampity snitty" would be a better headline.

Well, the US are paying the flights and accommodations for 30 Swedish Submariners plus subfuel and supplies so that we can annoy them by not being seen, and have just extended the deal for another year. I'd say that someone knows the limitiations of the Navy systems and is very interested in fixing them.

What I find amazing about this discussion is that so many people jump to the conclusion that this must be some PR hoax from the Chinese (and the Iranians in the other story) or that they must have known about the sub / drone and just let them be.

It is not the first time that things like these have happened. During Desert Storm the French were able to see the F-117 Nighthwaks and B2 Spirits on their Radars (and can still do so today), the SAS were constantly able to sneak into US bases and field camps during Reforger exercises and write "SAS" on their vehicles and adecade ago no one would have deemed it possible that someone with a Zodiak could dispatch a US Cruiser in an African port.

Bottom line is… if you believe your technologiy and numbers to make you invincible you will underestimate your oponent and the effects low tech can have when used cs. high tech and then you are bound to loose!

Cheers,

Burkhard

What I find amazing from this discussion is that so many people jump to the conclusion that the Chinese (and the Iranians in the other story) are telling the truth.

The only people who know the truth are the ones in the CICs of the carriers. And they're not talking.

To tell the sub they knew it was there, the USN only had to ping it or drop a buoy close by – but they didn't.

Oh, for the love of…please read the above commentary about security and deception. To summarize: an active ping or a sonobouy means 'we can hear you' – which tells the Chinese submarine crew things they don't need to know.

What I find amazing from this discussion is that so many people jump to the conclusion that the Chinese (and the Iranians in the other story) are telling the truth.

Sorry, but I for one do not suspect that what they say must the truth, but that does not mean that everything they say is a lie.
It is not like they said that the Martians had landed on the Kitty Hawk. What they say is possible and saying that it can not be and must be a lie is like saying the house around me is not burning as long as I say it is not!

In the 60's, a Soviet nuclear sub trailed the Saratoga for a considerable amount of time, got quite close, and took some interesting pictures through the periscope. The USN never knew they were there, or they would have done something; SOP is to declare a defensive zone around the carrier, and anything caught entering that zone is subject to "defensive measures." (Rising Tide, Weir & Boyne).

There is more to this than meets the eye that is for sure. i would suspect that the group was simply not conducting any type of serious ASW measures. Although it is known that diesals are quite back during the cold war the soviets thought they had a distinct advantage in this area. As time goes on and more books from former cold war submariners hit the shelves we learn that our subs routinely followed theirs out of port and all the way to their patrol stations off the US coast. That said ASW is the navy equivalent of Sniper training. During times of peace it slips well down the list of importance since running the crews through evolutions can get expensive. No doubt if the group was caught napping there will be some heads turned at the Pentagon.
The picture the Iranians released from their "drone" seems looks to me to be from many months if not years ago. I believe those are F-14's on the deck and possible some Crusaders as well. Could be from Gulf war 1!

The U.S. Navy has long been a blue water navy. Its anti-sub work is aimed primarily at nuke boats, both boomers and attack subs. Since Russia went to primarily nuke boats the navy has ignored the diesel threat.

The future of the navy is, if the Pentagon follows through, as a littoral navy, and it is in littoral waters that diesel boats excel. New methods of passive detection are on the drawing board and are aimed primarily at shallow water detection. In littoral waters detection depends primarily on hearing the guy as sonar bounces off the bottom, much like radar has problems detecting a/c "in the grass".

That said, there was no reason for the TF to be conducting ASW while in transit unless they were training. And while the Chinese can speculate that they weren't detected, they will never know and neither will we.

I'm betting that someone just had the beans for lunch, and they needed to vent the foul air.

athey could ahve surfaced because they were actively pinged by a US sub shadowing them. It is common practice for subs "caught" to surface, so as not to be fired upon, then leave the area on the surface. I'm sure that the only people surprised that the Chinese sub surfaced were the people that were not told that it was there. There is NO way that it could ahve surfaced 5 miles away, and not been detected by radar. I've been told that US carrier radars can pick up small groups of gulls and albatross resting on the ocean surface. I'd think that was a little far fetched, but then again, I've seen a carrier go much MUCH faster than I ever thought one could….

The best a diesal sub can do submerged is probably about 10 kts. A carrier group can do twice that in it's sleep and tops out above 30 kts.

So, if the sub had been detected, I'd be curious how it was able and allowed to come so close to a multi-billion dollar ship that's capable of three times speed.

I think it more likely that the Carrier Group stumbled onto it -- someone was asleep at the switch.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether or not the sub was detected. Since there is no intuitive reason why this should have happened, it looks bad. My guess is that some heads will roll for this.

I would be willing to bet that the sub was detected before it would have been a threat. Besides we are not at war with China. What do we have in our arsenal that we can use during peacetime? Harsh Language.

Cold War practice was, when you caught an enemy sub in a place where he did not belong, you dropped hand grenades instead of depth charges. It was the equivalent of firing a shot across the sub's bow; it meant, "We know where you are, we don't want you there, and we'd really, really like you to surface, now!"

…….ping….ping….CLOSE enough. Surface and say hello.
Surface and have a tomorrow……Have a nice day.

It's worth knowing the Chinese have this capability – if indeed they have. After all, once before we thought the Japanese couldn't possibly have decent planes because they weren't Europeans.

Hence the Zero came as an unpleasent shock.

Certainly the USN needs to do something about its ASW capability if it's going to start swanning around in a hostile Middle east. I'd imagine the Straits of Hormuz are ideal diesel boat territory and it's not like the Iranians don't buy stuff off the Chinese.