What's wrong with PLAN ASW?

[bd popeye]

Over and over agin in this forum I have read by pro-PRC types that the ASW capablities of the PLAN are pathetic.

So..My questions abound.

1. If the ASW of the PLAN is indeed poor how well would the PLAN ever track an LA class or any other sub?

2. What are the capalities of airborne i.e. helo, patrol aircraft of the PLAN?

3. What sort of sonar does the PLAN have?

4. A poster posted that the PLAN torpedos were terrible. What sort of future torpedos can we expect to see? Will an new indignous torpedo be built or will the PLAN buy one "off the shelf?" And what about any PLAN ASROC???

Any well thought out answers would be appericated.

Please do not turn this thread into PLAN vs. USN/Japan/ROC./India. Answer with best knowledge you can. No warmonging and country bashing please.

Thank you!

[Gollevainen]

I'll try first...


1. If the ASW of the PLAN is indeed poor how well would the PLAN ever track an LA class or any other sub?

Well it have not been able to do so. ASW has been as big weakness to PLAN just as the Airdefence. The sole adequate sonar system was the french DUBV-23 hull mounted and DUBV-43 VDS onboard 112 and 113 DDGs. the antisubmarine weaponry was limited to small whitehead-copy torbedoes and old soviet RBU-1200 ASW rocket launcher-clones. But whit tracking US subs, we have to remember that untill the late 90s PLAN has been pretty much coastal force and submarine detection in shallow waters is bit different than in the far ocean. I quess those Los Angeles class SSNs have hard time to navigate in Chinese archiphegalon....

2. What are the capalities of airborne i.e. helo, patrol aircraft of the PLAN?

Almoust as weak as the ASW capapility. There is no longrange patrol aircraft in service (althoug some converted Y-8s have been tested) exept the SH-5 flying boat wich is inadequate to operate in modern climate.

3. What sort of sonar does the PLAN have?

Well i mentioned those french sonars onboard the Luhu class. The two Sovremennyys have the Platina suite (Bull Horn and Whale Tongue), but it is more just a selfdefence suite, not intended for hunting activly down enemy subs...Whit these new DDGs i don't know. At least 052B Should have far more capaple sonar system than the previous ones. The use of Ka-28 indicates that ASW is also this ships function.

A poster posted that the PLAN torpedos were terrible. What sort of future torpedos can we expect to see? Will an new indignous torpedo be built or will the PLAN buy one "off the shelf?" And what about any PLAN ASROC???

China have actually developted an ASW missile system called CY-1, but it was cancelled
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/cy-1.jpg

There's some rumours that China have bought the Klub-S system to it's newest Kilos, if so then we may assume that China might purchase the surfaceship version Klu-N also. That would give china it's first ASW operational ASW missile system and creatly increases PLANs capapilityes.

[bd popeye]

Thanks Gollevainen. Good info.

But whit tracking US subs, we have to remember that untill the late 90s PLAN has been pretty much coastal force and submarine detection in shallow waters is bit different than in the far ocean. I quess those Los Angeles class SSNs have hard time to navigate in Chinese archiphegalon

Very true. The USN has no subs designed for littorial waters.:( I think the USN is reyling on the long range ablities of the P-3 aircraft for littoral ASW until it's FSF(Fast Sea Frame) or LCS(Littoral Combat Ship) become operational in a few years.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=1200&ct=4

[MIGleader]

well, popeye, i dont think the pla is too concerned about us subs right now. they might be building against tiawan and its nonexistant sub force, which may explain the lack of asw.

[IDonT]

well, popeye, i dont think the pla is too concerned about us subs right now. they might be building against tiawan and its nonexistant sub force, which may explain the lack of asw.


That is a fatal flaw. Remember in World War II, US sub force accounted for 4 percent of the USN but sunk 50 percent of Japanese ships lost in the war.

As for littoral ASW, the main tool is the active sonar. The amount of noise the littoral environment emits makes it harder to detect a sub in it. Active sonar from helo dipping sonars and active sonobouys, can make a life of an SSK skipper very trying.

[MIGleader]

the taianese sub force is more pathetic thean u think. four subs, with two from ww2. anthing can take it.

[tphuang]

hmm, I think the main issue is detection. Klub-N should be fairly good as a torpedoe. The main torpedoe China still uses is MK-46 (Yu-7). Does anyone know what the Ka-28 is carrying?

[MIGleader]

do some reaserch here:
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/helicopter/ka28.asp

[adeptitus]

That is a fatal flaw. Remember in World War II, US sub force accounted for 4 percent of the USN but sunk 50 percent of Japanese ships lost in the war.


That's because the Japanese only had a couple of sub chasers in South Asia. Japan is an island nation that was dependent on shipping for most of their supplies.

[bd popeye]

Ok guys..Another question before you get way off topic..

What sort of ASW does the PLAN need? Just some partial capablity or full ASW?

well, popeye, i dont think the pla is too concerned about us subs right now. they might be building against tiawan and its nonexistant sub force, which may explain the lack of asw.
9 Hours Ago 12:02 PM


They should be. Because if there ever is any confrontation between the US and PRC subs would play a big role. Building up against the ROC Navy? That would make sense since their sub force is basically non-existant as you say.

[Lavi]

Well, one sub might be enough if it gets through and sinks the right ship. The Zwaardvis/Hai Lung-class can be deadly against surface ships. Remember the Falklands War, one Argentinean SSK managed to move around unhindered by the navy who had spent large part of their Cold War investing an effective ASW system. Also, the Taiwanese SSK's are now getting Harpoons.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2005/09/26/2003273254

Well, I think that China needs a full ASW capability, snice sooner or later they will face a treath-scenario when they need them. If we count their possible enemies we find that:
1)USN has LOTS of subs
2)JNSDF has several very good SSK's
3)ROCN have two SSK's, planning to expand the force to 10 in the coming years.
4)IN have sveral good SSK's, and more are ordered with frequent intervals.

[bd popeye]

Remember the Falklands War, one Argentinean SSK managed to move around unhindered by the navy who had spent large part of their Cold War investing an effective ASW system.

Not really sure what you are posting about.:confused: I was unaware of any Argintine SSK roaming around. I thought I knew the Falklands War very well. if this is true why did not the Argintine Navy launch torpedos against the RN? The AN did have 4 older subs.

The RN sub HMS Conqueror did sink the AN cruiser General Belgrano with torpedos. The next link will give a list of RN losses and damage during the Falklands War.

http://www.naval-history.net/F62brshipslost.htm

http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1982FALKLANDS.htm

Not used during "Operation Rosario", the "General Belgrano" puts to sea from Ushuaia on Monday 26th April escorted by two Exocet-armed destroyers, and three days later is ordered to patrol south of the shallow Burdwood Bank. (9) On Friday, nuclear submarine "Conqueror" makes first contact at long range, and on Saturday closes in to shadow. Although just outside the TEZ, "GENERAL BELGRANO", as the southern arm of TF.79 is a potential threat to the carriers and her destruction is ordered. (10) Attacked and hit at 4.00 pm on Sunday 2nd May by two conventional Mark 8 torpedoes she is soon abandoned, and goes down with her helicopter [a10] and heavy casualties. A third torpedo hits "Hipolito Bouchard" without exploding but possibly causing some damage, and "Conqueror" is therefore presumably counter-attacked by "Piedra Bueno", which later returns with other Argentine ships to search for the cruiser's survivors. Shortly after the sinking, the main units of the Argentine Navy return to port or stay in coastal waters for the rest of the war.

[Gollevainen]

Not really sure what you are posting about. I was unaware of any Argintine SSK roaming around. I thought I knew the Falklands War very well. if this is true why did not the Argintine Navy launch torpedos against the RN? The AN did have 4 older subs.

I read about that also, That single little fish coused hundreds of missed depth charges and other asw measures to be fired against it whitout any succes. If argentinian navy would have been commanded by far bolder and ambitious admiral, the war migth have had totally differnt ending. Argentinian navy wasent as strong as the RN but it had some good elements on it and the British victory was result of very small factors and far too dependaple on surving of the two V/STOL carriers. One of them sunked and...

[bd popeye]

I read about that also, That single little fish coused hundreds of missed depth charges and other asw measures to be fired against it whitout any succes. If argentinian navy would have been commanded by far bolder and ambitious admiral, the war migth have had totally differnt ending. Argentinian navy wasent as strong as the RN but it had some good elements on it and the British victory was result of very small factors and far too dependaple on surving of the two V/STOL carriers. One of them sunked and...

The Admiral commanding the ARA(Argentine Navy) had ventured futher out than 12 miles away from shore I think the ARA would have been lost. Along with even more British ships.

I cannot find any proof that this ever happened. Sorry:confused: I never read or heard about it until today. I recieved a lot of training about the Falklands War back in the '80's while on duty with the USN. Some classified. If some one could post a crediable link about this little sub running amok among the RN I would love to read it.

Like I posted. If this is indeed true why didn't the Argentine sub fire a few torpedos at the RN to inflict some real damage? HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes would have been the targets of choice. That's a very fair question.

[bd popeye]

I found it!! This article does discribe the Brits using a lot of ordance and sounobouys looking for Argentine subs in littoral waters that were really in port well except for one.The Brits must have thoght the old US made sub was a threat....Poor ASW use by the Brits.:rolleyes:

Warning ..the link is a PDF file! And is a general overall view of subs in the Falklands War.

http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~lswartz/falklands.pdf#search='Argentine%20submarines%20%20 in%20the%20Falklands'

However, accounts of the war tend to center on the sinking of two ships in particular: the
Argentine cruiser General Belgrano and the British destroyer HMS Sheffield. Sunk by a nuclear
submarine and a “smart” missile respectively, these two ships’ demise reflect important lessons
to be learned about naval warfare, but must be viewed in a larger context. Submarines and
“smart” weapons played a far larger role in the conflict than simply sinking two ships; only by
understanding the larger picture can one learn the lessons of the Falklands Conflict.
Submarines in the Falklands Conflict
The first operation involving a submarine in the Falklands involved the Argentine
submarine Santa Fe, the former USS Catfish (SS 339), a Perch class diesel sub commissioned in
1945. The Santa Fe was en route to the Falklands to covertly ship supplies to the troops
garrisoned there, surfaced and approaching the port of Grytviken, when it was spotted by a
British helicopter on April 25.2 The helicopter was one of a group of five consisting of one
Wessex, two Wasp, and two Sea Lynx, which subsequently fired on the helpless submarine with
depth charges and other ordnance.3 Surfaced, the submarine had little defense except for the
rifles found on board. The Santa Fe’s crew beached the badly damaged submarine just outside
of Grytviken. Although this was a chance encounter, it highlights the vulnerability of a
submarine when on the surface. As the submarine is a weapon of stealth, once that stealth is
removed, it becomes a sitting duck to attacks from both the air and sea.
The Santa Fe was not the first submarine on the scene, however; as the political conflict
escalated in March, the British nuclear submarines Spartan, Splendid, and Conqueror were
2 William J. Ruhe, “Submarine Lessons,” Military Lessons of the Falkland Islands War: Views from the United
States. 8.
4
ordered to sail for the Falklands, to “covertly prepare a task force for South Atlantic
operations.”4 This action showed two advantages of the modern nuclear submarine: speed and
stealth. Thanks to their nuclear propulsion plants, the submarines were able to arrive far before
the rest of the British task force. Furthermore, this action took place without at all affecting the
political situation. Because the ships could remain undetected nearly indefinitely, the
Argentineans had no idea that submarines were off their coast unless the British told them, thus
not exacerbating an already tense situation. Indeed, had the politicians been able to resolve the
conflict at that time, there would have been no trace of the British submarines ever being in the
area.
The British did eventually inform the Argentineans of their submarines’ presence,
however, finally establishing a 200-mile “maritime exclusion zone” around the Falklands on
April 12. This effectively stopped any Argentine naval operations in the area: no ship would
dare to risk entering waters patrolled by the superbly handled British submarines. Indeed, in an
interesting illumination on the stealth of nuclear submarines, the British could have been bluffing
without the Argentineans ever knowing—as one British submariner quipped, “the only way to
know for sure that there is a submarine is when one starts losing ships—and that’s a very
expensive way to find out.”5
That maritime exclusion zone resulted in the most famous submarine encounter of the
war, the sinking of the Argentinean cruiser General Belgrano by the HMS Conqueror. On May
2nd, the Belgrano and two destroyer escorts went on patrol just outside of the exclusion zone.
The British saw the Belgrano group as a threat to its task force, and ordered the Conqueror to
3 USS Catfish SS339 Home Page http://wavecom.net/~rontini/catfish.html
4 Ruhe 7.
5 Tom Clancy, Submarine.
5
engage. The Conqueror used two Mk VIII torpedoes, sinking the Belgrano in forty minutes.6
This was the first time that a nuclear submarine had attacked a surface ship in actual combat.
The Argentineans learned their lesson well: the Argentine navy was essentially holed up in port
most of the war, especially their carrier Veinticinco de Mayo. As a result, Argentine planes had
to fly 425 miles from the Argentine mainland to their targets, which taxed their fuel capacity to
the breaking point.7
Perhaps the most disturbing lesson of the war is in the realm of Anti-Submarine Warfare
(ASW). Argentina had only four World War II-era diesel submarines, two of which were tied up
in port: the Salta’s battery was depleted (although the Argentines moved it around to confuse the
British) and the Santiago del Estro had been cannibalized for spare parts.8 As mentioned above,
the Santa Fe was damaged early in the war and thus remained inoperative throughout the
conflict. However, the British spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to track these few
submarines. An enormous amount of ordnance was dropped on false contacts, while Sea King
antisubmarine helicopters constantly patrolled the area.9 Their efforts were confounded by the
difficulty to conduct sonar operations in shallow water.10 That the British spent so much time
and firepower ineffectively chasing one outmoded diesel submarine shows both the difficulty of
ASW and the deadliness of even older submarines to a large surface fleet.
Indeed, the San Luis fired several torpedoes on British ships, yet each torpedo missed its
target. It is suspected that “synchro misalignment had caused incorrect bearing information to be
transmitted from the periscope to the fire-control console,” and that furthermore an “overzealous
leading petty officer…had incorrectly reconnected lead used to power-up torpedoes in
6 Ruhe 8.
7 James L. George, “Large Versus Small Carriers,” Military Lessons of the Falkland Islands War: Views from the
United States. 16.
8 “The Lesson of the San Luis,” International Defense Review, Vol. 30 No. 8. 36.
6
their tubes before launch.”11 This shows that one must not only have the technology—one must
also be well-trained in using it effectively.
.

[Jeff Head]

I found it!! This article does discribe the Brits using a lot of ordance and sounobouys looking for Argentine subs in littoral waters.

Great and interesting article PopEye...thanks for finding and posting it. May I suggest, if you haven't ;already read it, "Battle for the Falklands", by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins. Great book.

[MIGleader]

back to china's asw...
the reason chinese vessels have basic asw abilities is becaue thay have nothing ti fear from taiwans "submarine force". a u.s sub is likely no going to be in the equation. if it is, the pla will use aricraft.

[bd popeye]

May I suggest, if you haven't ;already read it, "Battle for the Falklands", by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins. Great book.

When I was assigned to HC-11 at NAS North Island we had a British exchange officer. This was in '83 & '84. Who served in the Falklands. During training he presented a British slant to the history of the Falklands. He omitted the little sub chase. Gee I wonder why?:confused:

back to china's asw...
the reason chinese vessels have basic asw abilities is becaue thay have nothing ti fear from taiwans "submarine force". a u.s sub is likely no going to be in the equation. if it is, the pla will use aricraft.

Ok. Lets say somehow the US is in the equation. Without a viable ASW aircraft how would hunt a sub?

[MIGleader]

perhaps china intends to use maritime patrol craft like the y-8, detect a sub, and sent in its own sub to hunt it.

[DPRKUnderground]

What China lacks is helicopters, they need to get a lot more to use in ASW, especially if they want that carrier done!

[tphuang]

What China lacks is helicopters, they need to get a lot more to use in ASW, especially if they want that carrier done!
so true, China needs something indigenous developed that's much better than Z-9C. Ka-28/31 is good, so let's get more of them.

[Jeff Head]

He omitted the little sub chase. Gee I wonder why?

He may not have known himself. I am sure they have attempted to address the issue by now. That is a good book on the war though.

[bd popeye]

He may not have known himself. I am sure they have attempted to address the issue by now. That is a good book on the war though.

He knew Jeff. He was a SH-3 pilot in the RN. The info was no doubt classified.So he did not spill the beans.

He was an interesting fellow. He was the person that told us that the US help refuel RAF bombers and other aircraft. I'm pretty sure that info was classified.

[Sea Skimmer]

He knew Jeff. He was a SH-3 pilot in the RN. The info was no doubt classified.So he did not spill the beans.

He was an interesting fellow. He was the person that told us that the US help refuel RAF bombers and other aircraft. I'm pretty sure that info was classified.

If he was a navy helicopter pilot then there is no reason why he should know anything about any possible secret classified US involvement with the RAF. I call bullshit because of that, and in any case, the RAF would have had no need for USAF tanker assistance. It had scores of its own tankers available and most of them where not even used in the conflict. The US also had no air bases closer to the Falklands then bases already in use by the British. Odds are he just heard some stories, and repeated them. All wars spawn stories like that.

[bd popeye]

What China lacks is helicopters, they need to get a lot more to use in ASW, especially if they want that carrier done!

True. ASW helos are awesome. Their slower speed makes them very through in a sub hunt.

perhaps china intends to use maritime patrol craft like the y-8, detect a sub, and sent in its own sub to hunt it.

That's a posibility. The PLAN needs better maritime patrol. It's time for the PRC to take action. y-8 may suit their needs. I would start with an ASW helo. A lot easier platform to work with. Helo's are more versital.

[Wingman]

Does the US have any subs that can launch SAMs? I remember there's a Russian one that only launches short range Grails. Forgot which one.

If subs were equipped with med range SAMs that would be a hell of a threat to ASW helis. It's just hard to put a good radar on a sub. Maybe good heat seeker missiles would do.

[Jeff Head]

He knew Jeff. He was a SH-3 pilot in the RN. The info was no doubt classified.So he did not spill the beans.

If he was an RAF ASW Helo pilot, particularly in involved in the Falklands operations, then I agree that he undoubtedly knew exactly what went on for sure.

[Lavi]

The thing with SAM:s on subs is that when a missile comes out of the water anyine knows that the launch platform is close to the site. Good radars, surface search, are mounted on subs, so thats not a problem. The problem is that if you use it, people with ESM will get your bearing, and for a sub, stealth is its best bet.

[MIGleader]

The thing with SAM:s on subs is that when a missile comes out of the water anyine knows that the launch platform is close to the site. Good radars, surface search, are mounted on subs, so thats not a problem. The problem is that if you use it, people with ESM will get your bearing, and for a sub, stealth is its best bet.

well, if u need to use your sam on something, that must mean you were detected already

[sumdud]

On PLAN ASW:
They have no long range ASW weapons, only some rockets and the Yu-7, a copy of the early Mk-46 torpedo.(Isn't said that the early Mk-46, which the Yu-7 came from, has a depth problem?)

The Cy-1, a missile-torpedo designed to be able to be fired from the C-801/2 canister, failed, and there are rumors that the CY-2 is being developed.

The sub chasers are fast enough in most cases to chase modern subs, but are in most areas obselete.

The only fixed wing that China has that can be used against subs is the SH-5, and those are being phased out without a successor.( :mad: )
Naval helos consist of the Good old Ka-28, the indigenious(quesionable) Z-9C(too light and incapable) and the Z-8 (Too few, not compatible w/ destroyers due to size, being produced?)

The Kilos has been fitted w/ MANPADS, SA-N-8 I think, but they are absent on those of PLAN.

[Jeff Head]

The thing with SAM:s on subs is that when a missile comes out of the water anyine knows that the launch platform is close to the site. Good radars, surface search, are mounted on subs, so thats not a problem. The problem is that if you use it, people with ESM will get your bearing, and for a sub, stealth is its best bet.

Yes, but better to use it as a chance to defeat that immediate threat, that has probably arleady aquired you, and then take your chances that you can evade the threats coming in from a distance, than to let that immediate threat prosecute right on top of you and call in the other wolves anyway.