USN fearful of PLAN subs

[bd popeye]

My Finnish friend suggested I post this in the new forum..so I will..

Well according to this article they are..My son,the USN sonar tech, says the greatest concern is over PLAN subs is the Song class deisel boats. Deisel boats running on batteries are very,very hard (if not impossible) to track.

I'm sure not all the information in the article is correct. Infact there are some discrepancies and some things I do not agree with..I can't stand "military experts"..Interesting topic nevertheless!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050812/news_1n12china.html

Chinese subs called growing threat to U.S.

By Michael Kilian
CHICAGO TRIBUNE

August 12, 2005

Chinese officials partially owned deadly mine

WASHINGTON – Little noticed by the public, a recently released Pentagon report to Congress carries a strong warning that China's rapidly expanding and improving submarine fleet poses a mounting military threat to the United States.

The end of the Cold War left the United States as the world's supreme naval power, and the Pentagon, occupied with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has shifted its priorities away from seaborne threats.

The Pentagon has even diverted components of its anti-submarine warfare program to other purposes.

China, though well behind the U.S. submarine fleet, has turned to an undersea vessel that American planners had considered largely obsolete – the diesel-electric attack submarine – to boost its arsenal. It also is equipping its submarines with new technology from Germany and elsewhere to make the craft harder to detect and more lethal.

Experts predict that China's submarine fleet will substantially outnumber that of the United States within 15 years.

The Pentagon report, delivered to Congress last month, says that China's navy is designed mostly to prevent or dissuade the United States from intervening in any future conflict between China and Taiwan. But it also is giving China the capability of menacing Japan and striking U.S. cities with submarine-launched nuclear missiles.

"China is in the midst of perhaps the largest military buildup the world has witnessed since the end of the Cold War," said Richard Fisher, vice president of Washington's International Assessment and Strategy Center, at a recent hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

John Tkacik Jr., a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, raised a similar alarm.

"China's ambitious weapons modernization and reforms in military doctrine are aimed at promoting vast increases in its comprehensive national power," Tkacik told the House committee. He said the Pentagon report is "a wake-up call to the administration, to Congress, to the Taiwan government and to our friends and allies in the Asia-Pacific region that . . . China stands poised to assert itself as the pre-eminent power in the Asia-Pacific region."

China appears to be strengthening all branches of its military – improving training and weaponry for its huge army, increasing its short-and long-range ballistic missiles, adding new aircraft and precision munitions to its air force and developing unmanned aircraft, the report said.

Submarines have become a high priority. China has about 64 surface warships in its navy and 55 or more attack submarines, designed for use against enemy surface ships and submarines as well as ground targets.

They not only include its current Song-class sub, armed with anti-ship cruise missiles that can be launched underwater, but a new Yuan diesel-electric attack sub. China also is expected to introduce a nuclear attack submarine this year and has bought four highly capable Russian Kilo-class attack submarines, with eight more of the diesel-powered craft on order from the Russian military.

In contrast, Taiwan has just 27 surface warships and four submarines.

The United States has a fleet of 59 attack submarines of all classes, but has commitments for them across the globe.

At current attrition and replacement rates, experts estimate that the U.S. attack fleet will be down to 40 submarines or fewer within the next 15 years, while China expands its fleet by perhaps as many as 35 modern subs.

Another major advance in Chinese attack-submarine capability has been the introduction of AIP, or "air-independent propulsion," technology to its attack force.

Lt. Cmdr. Bill Murray, a veteran submarine officer now serving as an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College, said AIP technology has transformed the diesel-electric sub into an ultra-stealthy ship-killing weapon.

Nuclear submarines are quieter than diesels, but attack subs running on batteries are quieter still.

"When they're on battery (power), they're incredibly difficult to find," Murray said. "So, unless you know where they are, they could be anywhere, which complicates the United States' or any opposing navy's ability to operate on the surface."

Lyle Goldstein, another Naval War College expert, said diesel-electric subs have been able to operate for only two or three days on batteries, having to resurface to recharge them. With AIP, the submarine carries its own air supply, as it might extra fuel, and can recharge its batteries while deep underwater and stay submerged for two or more weeks.

"I don't think anybody really knows how far the Chinese are along with it, but we've found some very disturbing signs," Goldstein said.

Goldstein and Murray said China acquired much of its AIP technology from Germany. They emphasized that their assessments are their own and not official views of the Naval War College or the Navy.

All U.S. submarines are nuclear; the Navy has no diesel-electric attack craft. Last fall, the Swedish government leased the Navy one of its AIP-equipped diesel-electric vessels and crew so U.S. anti-submarine warfare forces could train against the wider-ranging submarine tactics AIP makes possible.

As the Pentagon report on China observed, the United States has emphasized capability over quantity in maintaining its submarine fleet. But numbers give the Chinese certain advantages.

"Numbers matter," Murray said. "The Chinese obviously believe that numbers matter because they're turning out submarines like sausages. The Chinese are definitely on the winning end of an arms race."

Though the collapse of the Soviet Union decreased the need for the nuclear submarine as a globally deployed, second-strike nuclear deterrent, the U.S. underwater fleet is spread worldwide as part of a strategy of projecting force across all oceans and major seas. That mission includes protection of the United States' wide-ranging carrier battle groups.

Alarm over the Chinese buildup is spreading on Capitol Hill. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, argued that this is no time to cut back the size of the U.S. attack-sub fleet or close the Navy submarine base at Groton, Conn., as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has recommended.

"The best anti-submarine weapon is another submarine," Hunter said.

The Pentagon report on Chinese military power assessed its submarine buildup as part of a coercive effort to convince Taiwan that "the price of declaring independence is too high" and that naval action against Taiwan might include a blockade or an attack.

"They want to deter us from interfering if they feel they have to use force to deter Taiwan (from independence), raising the potential cost (in casualties and ships sunk) of U.S. intervention to such a high degree that they think we will calculate we can't defend Taiwan without paying an exorbitant cost," Murray said

[IDonT]

The Chinese "submarine threat" is overstated. I guess someone wants more funding for the submarine arm of the USN.

This sub: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gotland/
is one of the most advance AIP SSKs in the world.

The US has lease it from Sweden, including its crew, for one year so it can practice and develop tactics against ultra quite long endurance SSK's.

"In November 2004, the Swedish Government approved a proposal for the US Navy to lease HMS Gotland and crew for one year to participate in naval exercises. Gotland arrived at the Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego in June 2005. The submarine will operate in the opposing force (OPFOR) role."

[tphuang]

they should be more fearful on the new Yuan class Sub. It's supposedly better.

[BKulan]

I can't stand "military experts"

well i have to agree with you on that one. most of the "experts" and "analysts" claim being one themselves but most of the time it seems as if they are just trying to BS you with help of status symbols and fancy words.

anyway the Gotland class is a good sub. Small and is known to be extremely hard to detect; no engine sounds since it runs on battery. it was a really good move to ask my government to lease that sub. But i don't know about range, when talking about the Gotland class it was meant to patrol the baltic and it can't run on batteries forever. If someone just have decent patrolling around the area where those kinds of subs are likely to try and surface (not necessarily with ships) then the sub may have a problem, but in general it is a very good sub for the cost.

[IDonT]

well i have to agree with you on that one. most of the "experts" and "analysts" claim being one themselves but most of the time it seems as if they are just trying to BS you with help of status symbols and fancy words.

anyway the Gotland class is a good sub. Small and is known to be extremely hard to detect; no engine sounds since it runs on battery. it was a really good move to ask my government to lease that sub. But i don't know about range, when talking about the Gotland class it was meant to patrol the baltic and it can't run on batteries forever. If someone just have decent patrolling around the area where those kinds of subs are likely to try and surface (not necessarily with ships) then the sub may have a problem, but in general it is a very good sub for the cost.


SSK's main vulnerability is the lack of endurance. All the SSN has to do is wait until the battery runs out and have to snorkel to recharge their batteries (noisy). For a Kilo sub, running at 5 knots, this is roughly 2-3 days (estimate).

AIP subs like the Gotland do not need to surface for 2 weeks at a time. They carry their own air with them. This is a lethal combination.

The submarine is equipped with two MTU diesel engines and two Kockums V4-275R Stirling Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) units. The Stirling engines are mounted in elastic, soundproof modules and each provide up to 75kW. The submarine has the capacity for two weeks of air independent propulsion at a speed of 5 knots without snorting. The AIP uses liquid oxygen and diesel fuel in a controlled inert (helium) environment. The AIP liquid oxygen tanks are located on the deck below the engines. The propulsion system provides a speed of 11 knots surfaced and 20 knots dived.

[MIGleader]

it certainly seems china. like germany in wwII, has a weaker surface fleet than it's opponent. so it uses subs. Great tactic. a don't forget, china's comming out with it's own nuke subs too. US better watch out.

[BrotherofSnake]

I am pretty sure that when war starts with China, the US will have 30 Virginia class subs.

[tphuang]

it certainly seems china. like germany in wwII, has a weaker surface fleet than it's opponent. so it uses subs. Great tactic. a don't forget, china's comming out with it's own nuke subs too. US better watch out.
Well yeah, a sub fleet is a lot cheaper to build than a carrier group.

[AssassinsMace]

I am pretty sure that when war starts with China, the US will have 30 Virginia class subs.

And by then China will possess something else that will scare the US if they ever make that many which is highly doubtful.

[President]

how the submarine fight with aircraft carrier? any tactics?

[Totoro]

how the submarine fight with aircraft carrier? any tactics?

Unless the carrier group is located and that location is somehow conveyed to the subs without being intercepted and without subs location itself being compromised, then the subs have a chance. Of course, the datalink to the subs must be kept, since the carrier group is not likely to be staying at one place for hours at a time, just waiting for (relatively) slow subs to reach them.

IF all that location and targeting stuff can be done without revealing subs location, a battery run attack force of some dozen or more subs can, in my opinion, seriously endanger a lone carrier group. More likely than not no sub would survive such an attack and get to go home but at the same time, such a 'brave' suicide attack could result in some hits, perhaps even a sinking of some elements of the carrier group. (anyone know how many torpedo hits would be needed to sink a nimitz class carrier?)

[IDonT]

how the submarine fight with aircraft carrier? any tactics?


CVBG, especially the USN's move very fast (around 500 miles a day). To keep up at this high tempo you need a SSN.

SSK's are very quite but they are also very slow. The best way to used them is to station them on probable paths of a carrier and ambush it when it happens to be in range.

SSN's can keep up with a carrier, but you need to have a very high "quite" speed in order to remain undetected. The best way is to predict the path of based on its last heading and bearing and get there first. Then you can either fire anti-ship missiles or use torpedos.

The Russians have dedicated anti-carrier SSGN in its fleet. The latest are the Oscar II class (same class as the Kurst). These subs carry 24 SS-19 Shipwreck missiles with a range of about 500km. Over the horizon targeting is either done by one of the Bear maritime survellance craft or satellites.

[IDonT]

(anyone know how many torpedo hits would be needed to sink a nimitz class carrier?)

That is hard to say. I know the US just sunk the USS America to see how well it can take damage.(largest warship sto be sunk since the YAMATO).

Punching hole through the under water hull of a carrier will not do much. The carrier is made up of many water tight bulk heads. If enough torpedoes hit one side of the ship, it may cause the carrier to list and mission kill it. However, counterflooding can always fix the list but the carrier will be out of commision for several months.

The ideal way is to detonate a torpedo under the keel (harder said than done). Doing this will break the back bone of the ship and its own weight will split it in two. Test have been done on this against a Spruance class destroyer and the broke in tow and sank within minutes.

[Dongfeng]

like germany in wwII, has a weaker surface fleet than it's opponent. so it uses subs

This is a traditional tactic for countries with mass land forces and relatively little experience in the sea. The Germans tried it, and then Soviet Union did the exactly same thing in the cold war. Such a strategy seems to be attractive in short term (less expensive, relatively simple technology compared to air carrier battle group, and yet lethal), but its effectiveness in long term is doubtful.

In the early 1990s I read an interview with then the chief of the PLA Navy. He admitted a navy that heavily relies on a single type of platform, such as submarine, would not work. He regarded that China should develop a more "balanced" navy with sub, surface combatants, air carriers, land-based aviation, etc. He believed that only a balanced, true blue-water navy could support China's maritime strategy.

I don't know if the current planners for the PLAN still stick to this development strategy.

[Totoro]

SSK's are very quite but they are also very slow. The best way to used them is to station them on probable paths of a carrier and ambush it when it happens to be in range.


Hm, i used the very same idea for my hollywood style over the top scenario of china vs taiwan and us...but thought it'd be kinda too unrealistic to pull off in real world. But you're saying that's a valid tactic? That subs can locate a moving carrier group early enough to group and prepare an attack? From how far could a decent passive sonar detect a carrier group? Still, one would imagine a rather huge network of dormant subs would be needed for that, keeping in mind a strike force needs to stick together to have any chance against the carrier group when attacking. While China has enough subs to do such an attack i don't think it has enough of them for locating. I would assume that US carriers wouldn't use the fastest, most straighforward route to the combat theater, for the very same reason.

Also, how hard/easy it is for a sub to just float still in the middle of the ocean? Doesnt that require some constant bouyancy corrections, however small they are, since fins wouldn't be useful at zero speed? And flushing air/water tanks is one of noiser things a sub can do, isn't it?

[IDonT]

Hm, i used the very same idea for my hollywood style over the top scenario of china vs taiwan and us...but thought it'd be kinda too unrealistic to pull off in real world. But you're saying that's a valid tactic? That subs can locate a moving carrier group early enough to group and prepare an attack? From how far could a decent passive sonar detect a carrier group? Still, one would imagine a rather huge network of dormant subs would be needed for that, keeping in mind a strike force needs to stick together to have any chance against the carrier group when attacking. While China has enough subs to do such an attack i don't think it has enough of them for locating. I would assume that US carriers wouldn't use the fastest, most straighforward route to the combat theater, for the very same reason.

Also, how hard/easy it is for a sub to just float still in the middle of the ocean? Doesnt that require some constant bouyancy corrections, however small they are, since fins wouldn't be useful at zero speed? And flushing air/water tanks is one of noiser things a sub can do, isn't it?

A carrier group is relatively noisy. The main problem is getting your submarine assets to where they are without comprimising them. As I said, one of the main flaws of SSK is its lack of endurance, a problem compounded at higher speeds.


Don't forget, USN carriers always have an attendant SSN escort or two.

[BKulan]

i wonder if it's possible for the PLAN to setup a huge hydrophonic/sonar system in the pacific? would've definitely made it easier for them to track movements of fleets without risking ships.

maybe they could build small, lightly armed radar ships or smaller subs?

[MIGleader]

having subs ambush US carrier is a bad idea. have a sub creen set up along a few surface ships to block off the the US ships. As long as they don't fire the first shot, the US ships are forbidden to shoot you. if they enter chinese waters, you are allowed to shoot them.

[IDonT]

i wonder if it's possible for the PLAN to setup a huge hydrophonic/sonar system in the pacific? would've definitely made it easier for them to track movements of fleets without risking ships.

maybe they could build small, lightly armed radar ships or smaller subs?


They certainly can. The US has them already. The most famous one was the SOSUS (I think thats the name), a series of sonar embedded on the ocean floor between the waters of Greenland, Iceland, and UK. They were used to listen for Soviet subs so the US always knows who is on the Atlantic ocean.

[BKulan]

wouldn't that be extremely expensive considering that there is a whole lot of sea to watch?

maybe that earthquake warning system in indian ocean isn't only seismic activity detection equipment but also a sonar system (would be a good cover)? anyone know which country gave most money to that project.

[MIGleader]

china should build a ring of those sonobuoys around taiwan. thus if a US fleet enters, they will know. station subs and warships and planes on alert so they can go intercept the fleet.

[tphuang]

wouldn't that be extremely expensive considering that there is a whole lot of sea to watch?

maybe that earthquake warning system in indian ocean isn't only seismic activity detection equipment but also a sonar system (would be a good cover)? anyone know which country gave most money to that project.
Not if China is only putting it around Taiwan.

[Totoro]

Problem with such a network is that i don't see how it can be mounted/deployed in secrecy. I would think the US intelligence could pretty much know every location of such an embedded at the bottom of the sea sonar and deal with them accordingly if a war breaks out. Plus, the sonars would have to send the data somehow, that'd make them even more detectable. Or are we talking about a whole network of underwater laid cables?

[MIGleader]

china putting sonobuoys around taiwan is not illegal, although it would get alot of foreign attention. remember, china legally owns taiwans waters.

[Neko]

Well according to this article they are..My son,the USN sonar tech, says the greatest concern is over PLAN subs is the Song class deisel boats. Deisel boats running on batteries are very,very hard (if not impossible) to track.


Well, first off, your son shouldn't be telling you what we, the USN, are afraid of. If, by some strange chance, he were found out, he'd be incarcerated.

However, it must be said that although the Songs are good boats, they pale incomparison to a Kilo 636.

[MIGleader]

the kilo's are powerful, but dont have AIP.

[Neko]

the kilo's are powerful, but dont have AIP.


Neither do Songs, unless I am completely mistaken.

[tphuang]

Neither do Songs, unless I am completely mistaken.
They are getting fitted with them, but Yuan class does.

[Neko]

They are getting fitted with them, but Yuan class does.

It is surmised that it is possible, but where in open source, barring that picture posted on the prior forum, have you seen anything suggesting that the Yuan is even large enough to house AIP?

[MIGleader]

according to sinodefence.com, an aip was tested on a song sucssesfully, leading to the spec;s that it will be put on more songs. yes, a yuan is large enough to house an aip, and sinodefence says they may be fitted them aswell.

[Neko]

Yes, but what sources do they cite? A sole source doesn't help, really, especially when it is a third party source.

[Neko]

"Unconfirmed reports claimed that the PLA Navy has already experimentally fitted the air independent propulsion (AIP) system on some hull of its Type 039 (Song class) and Type 035 (Ming class) submarines, the new Yuan class could well be the first Chinese submarine to be fitted with an operational AIP system." (http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/yuan.asp)

Unconfirmed reports... and the sources of these reports are not cited. This is not quite credible.

[MIGleader]

multiple members have heard from various sources about the fitting of an AIP on china's subs. you may doubt it, but most of us here believer it. most uncomfirmed sources info turn out to be true.

[tphuang]

Yes, but what sources do they cite? A sole source doesn't help, really, especially when it is a third party source.
can you read Chinese? If you can, I can point to plenty of web pages.

[BrotherofSnake]

And by then China will possess something else that will scare the US if they ever make that many which is highly doubtful.

The USN will have 30 Virginia class subs by 2020.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/nssn.htm

[Azn boy]

Yes, Chinese Kilos got aip I read it in a book called Modern Navel Submarines. It was plublished in 2005.

[Neko]

can you read Chinese? If you can, I can point to plenty of web pages.

I can and do, regularly. I am a linguist by profession, and a Sailor by trade.

[tphuang]

I can and do, regularly. I am a linguist by profession, and a Sailor by trade.
cool, I'd check http://military.china.com/zh_cn/critical3/27/20041215/12015512.html

It's an article that speculates which types of AIP the Yuan class uses.

Basically, this site has a lot of China's sub news:
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/wqzl/sub/index.html

[AssassinsMace]

The USN will have 30 Virginia class subs by 2020.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/nssn.htm

Irrelevant!

Look at how many F-22s and F-35s have been cut from original estimates.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Irrelevant!

Look at how many F-22s and F-35s have been cut from original estimates.

The F-22 was cut because it was no longer needed. No country possessed large numbers of advanced fighters to create a need for the F-22. The F-22 would only be necessary if another nation's fighter force could pose a serious threat to the USAF. If Chinese submarines can pose a serious threat to the USN, then the Virginia subs will be needed, and therefore will not be cut.

[Totoro]

That kinda means if chinese continue their air force buildup it's possible additional raptors can be purchased. :D

[IDonT]

There is no concrete proof that the Yuan will have AIP capability.

[tphuang]

There is no concrete proof that the Yuan will have AIP capability.
there is no concret proof that WZ-10 project exists other than the speculation, but I'm sure with all the Chinese sources that says so, it does exist.

Same with Yuan, most Chinese sources say that it does have AIP.

[MIGleader]

i would trust the chinese sources. it's not their nature to lie about these things.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Amen brother

Was that concerning my spiel about the US cutting weapon systems only when they're not needed?

i would trust the chinese sources. it's not their nature to lie about these things.

Do not say such a thing, comrade. That is almost as conceited as the Americans (including American-Born-Chinese) saying American stuff are superior and more high-tech because it is in their nature to make better things than the rest of the world.

[MIGleader]

all their saying is that some songs have been experimentally fitted with aip. since everyone already knows china has aip. not much to brag about.

wz-10, its not much to say you have a few helicopter prototypes either.

most abc's i know love china more than US.

[tphuang]

you can choose to believe what you want to believe, but if there are enough analysis saying the same, I would tend to believe that it's most likely that way. Where do you think all the publications like JDW and Kanwa get their sources from? China, there we go.

[MIGleader]

traitor!!! i'd yell at you, but thats off topic.

so, subs do seem like the perfect solution for china. they are cheaper than most surface combatants. soon they will have so many of them. plus they are really hard to detect, and pack a punch.

soon china will have 12 song, 12 kilo, 4 yuan, 5 han, one xia, 2 type 93, and one type 94. add in all the mings and romeos that can act as sound decoys of distraction.

on the surface, use dozens of the new FAC combined with a few larger warships like the 52's and sovs.

in the sky, send in j-5 drones as decoys, as the main force use alot mkks and backfire bombers

this will assymetrical fleet will destroy any US cvbg.

[tphuang]

no, there is a big speculation on whether or not China should get backfires. Personally, I'd try to see if China can get the su-34/32FN, but I'm not sure the Russians are willing to sell that. So, the question will be how many/if any backfires/bears we should get?

[tphuang]

they are for different roles I think:
the bear can carry more weapons and bombs
the backfire is faster

[sino52C]

actually, the bear (depending on the version) is more of a ASW aircraft or Maritime Patrol (IMO, of course it can carry bombs/missiles) , the backfire is a strike plane against CVBGS.

[AssassinsMace]

The F-22 was cut because it was no longer needed. No country possessed large numbers of advanced fighters to create a need for the F-22. The F-22 would only be necessary if another nation's fighter force could pose a serious threat to the USAF. If Chinese submarines can pose a serious threat to the USN, then the Virginia subs will be needed, and therefore will not be cut.

Yawn!

The Pentagon uses China to try to scare Congress into spending more on the F-22 and F-35. Look at the result... CUTS! So what makes you think that Chinese subs are so special that the US would have to build Virginia class subs to counter? Are you actually saying that Chinese subs are so advanced that the current US fleet can't counter them? LOL!

Sounds like the same scare tactic as usual.

[IDonT]

traitor!!! i'd yell at you, but thats off topic.

so, subs do seem like the perfect solution for china. they are cheaper than most surface combatants. soon they will have so many of them. plus they are really hard to detect, and pack a punch.

soon china will have 12 song, 12 kilo, 4 yuan, 5 han, one xia, 2 type 93, and one type 94. add in all the mings and romeos that can act as sound decoys of distraction.

on the surface, use dozens of the new FAC combined with a few larger warships like the 52's and sovs.

in the sky, send in j-5 drones as decoys, as the main force use alot mkks and backfire bombers

this will assymetrical fleet will destroy any US cvbg.

The USN has fought war games and mock battles that are many times harder than what you proposed.

[MIGleader]

this is real, idont. not a wargame. you cant lose any ships in a wargame.

the chinse would not sent them all out. they would devise a tactic for them to manuver around the cvbg.

[Totoro]

Rush attacking an US CBG with subs that china has is close to impossible. They're just way too noisy when going full speed and that speed is still 10 knots slower than CBG speed. Subs would be useful for ambushing a CBG, as it was said before. even then, you'd basically get one chance for a coordinated attack and torpedo salvo as anything significiantly faster than 5 knots at battery power would help USN greatly at detecting the subs.

Like with an air attack, key is the numbers. overwhelm the defences.

There is no way to maneuver around the cbg to get into good attacking position. Protection is the same all around. If you want to attack it, you will have to fight through the defences and you will have to prepared for vast losses/casulties. If it's possible to use enough of airplane drones to make the US forces waste their resources on them (and here i'm talking about hundreds of drones) then the chances are getting pretty darn good. Still, you need to launch antiship missiles out of range of aegis reach and you need to launch them in sufficient numbers to break through the aegis. With all the ships in the CBG with all the SM2s, sea sparrows, RAMs and phalanx my rough estimate is close to 200 supersonic missiles if you wanna put the carrier out of comission. With all planes carrying those missiles, all the fighter cover, the drones, that pretty much means you must be able to launch and coordinate an air attack numbering close to 500 aircraft. That's a huge undertaking, something that needs lots of practice and time, and is something that'd be detected fairy early, giving the CBG the option to rethink it's course and perhaps even sail back, trying to get out of range.

[IDonT]

Rush attacking an US CBG with subs that china has is close to impossible. They're just way too noisy when going full speed and that speed is still 10 knots slower than CBG speed. Subs would be useful for ambushing a CBG, as it was said before. even then, you'd basically get one chance for a coordinated attack and torpedo salvo as anything significiantly faster than 5 knots at battery power would help USN greatly at detecting the subs.

Like with an air attack, key is the numbers. overwhelm the defences.

There is no way to maneuver around the cbg to get into good attacking position. Protection is the same all around. If you want to attack it, you will have to fight through the defences and you will have to prepared for vast losses/casulties. If it's possible to use enough of airplane drones to make the US forces waste their resources on them (and here i'm talking about hundreds of drones) then the chances are getting pretty darn good. Still, you need to launch antiship missiles out of range of aegis reach and you need to launch them in sufficient numbers to break through the aegis. With all the ships in the CBG with all the SM2s, sea sparrows, RAMs and phalanx my rough estimate is close to 200 supersonic missiles if you wanna put the carrier out of comission. With all planes carrying those missiles, all the fighter cover, the drones, that pretty much means you must be able to launch and coordinate an air attack numbering close to 500 aircraft. That's a huge undertaking, something that needs lots of practice and time, and is something that'd be detected fairy early, giving the CBG the option to rethink it's course and perhaps even sail back, trying to get out of range.

The attack force will have to get through:
The carrier's airwing with AEW support.
Standard 2 ER
Standard 2
ESSM
RAM or Phalanx

[Totoro]

The whole idea is to launch the antiship missiles while out of reach of aegis. That way only missiles need to get through the shield, aircraft themselves stay out of range.

Of course, before that happens, one would need to fight through the forward positioned patrolling hornets and their AEW support, fight through any possible forward positioned aegis ships (which im not as sure would be the case, i'm still saying it'd be wiser for USN to stick all their aegis ships together), fight through the incoming second wave of hornets which would be sent as soon as the forward E2 detects the incoming force and then you'd be safe to launch the missiles. Sure, it'd mean basically sacrificing lots of planes/drones to fight through but ultimately it's possible.

Of course, that's all providing A) you locate the CBG B) you can prepare and launch such a huge attack without enemy interference and C) that the mentioned CBG is alone, too far from any possible other CBGs or airbases from where additional help could arrive.

[MIGleader]

seeing how the ambush force is going opposite of the cvbg, they dont have move much. wait for the cvbg to come to you. the plan certainly has hundreds onf ming, romeos, and j-5 fighter drones to distract to cvbg. remember, many of the weapons china has were designed to defeat aegis, so i see at least a few losses on the US side, but not the entire cvbg. but the loss of a burke and a carrier and a few dozen aircraft will be enough to make the fleet turn back.

[tphuang]

Yawn!

The Pentagon uses China to try to scare Congress into spending more on the F-22 and F-35. Look at the result... CUTS! So what makes you think that Chinese subs are so special that the US would have to build Virginia class subs to counter? Are you actually saying that Chinese subs are so advanced that the current US fleet can't counter them? LOL!

Sounds like the same scare tactic as usual.
can you provide the current stats of the US fleet? It's kind of hard to compare nuclear subs to the diesel subs.

Also, the diesel subs don't have to move. All we need is to park a lot of subs around Taiwan strait and wait for the American navy. Use some kind of Early warning system to detect if the Americans are within 250 KM of the subs and then fire the antiship missiles from the subs. Remember, all of the subs in China's arsenals are equiped with missiles of 200km+ range.

[tphuang]

Rush attacking an US CBG with subs that china has is close to impossible. They're just way too noisy when going full speed and that speed is still 10 knots slower than CBG speed. Subs would be useful for ambushing a CBG, as it was said before. even then, you'd basically get one chance for a coordinated attack and torpedo salvo as anything significiantly faster than 5 knots at battery power would help USN greatly at detecting the subs.


Just for reference, song sub can move at 22 knots dived, so that's only about 8 knots behind CBG. Yuan sub's stats are not given, but you can assume it to be the same or faster, since it's the higher class. Kilo subs can move at 20 knots dived.

[slackpiv]

seeing how the ambush force is going opposite of the cvbg, they dont have move much. wait for the cvbg to come to you. the plan certainly has hundreds onf ming, romeos, and j-5 fighter drones to distract to cvbg. remember, many of the weapons china has were designed to defeat aegis, so i see at least a few losses on the US side, but not the entire cvbg. but the loss of a burke and a carrier and a few dozen aircraft will be enough to make the fleet turn back.

So what your saying is that the US has no reconassaince sources at the moment and they run straight into the trap? You froget that most of the weapons china will use to defeat the CVBG will be ex soviet weapons. The Aegis was designed to defend a saturated supersonic soviet missle strike. China is no where near that level yet. And the Yuan is not the worlds most advanced ssk as some of you imply. Based on many sources it is a cross between the kilo and the song. The kilo was great in its day but now it is outclassed by the european ssks and the colins class of australia. Second of all no naval or airial strike will come within range to even launch their missiles. They would have to face the airwing of the carrier and the USAF from nearby US bases. During a wartime situation there is no lone CVBG operating. There would be at least four cvbgs operating in unison as with the case in the Iraqi war. That would simply overwhelm china.

[Totoro]

Well, if by some miracle the carrier group would just sail into the PLAN sub force waiting in ambush, then yeah, they could be extremely silent and could have pretty good chances at engaing the carrier itself. But you'd need to know where the CBG wants to go and the americans would need to go from their harbor to that desired target area in a straight line. Even without that, there would be planes and helicopters going in front periodically listening whats in front the group, not to mention the two SSNs checking what's in front. Such a chinese ambush could not be total, americans would know there's danger in front before the torpedoes can be launched. only question here is how much in front the CBG would the waiting subs be discovered. Ships would need to turn or slow down, which takes more time than for the subs to go to their max speed (Around 20 knots). of course, when subs go that speed, it's basically a turkey shoot for the americans and the only question is how many miles do subs have to cross till they get in good firing range and how many subs there are, because they will be dying by the minute.

good thing for chinese is that in order to make the whole fleet keep out of range in the future all they need to do is prevent the carrier from operating the aircraft. hitting one side and listing it, making unable to operate the aircraft would be enough. If we're talking bout an air attack on the carrier you'd most probably have to burn through some 45 or so hornets to get to the carrier anyway, so with such losses the whole CBG would keep at a distance.

[tphuang]

So what your saying is that the US has no reconassaince sources at the moment and they run straight into the trap? You froget that most of the weapons china will use to defeat the CVBG will be ex soviet weapons. The Aegis was designed to defend a saturated supersonic soviet missle strike. China is no where near that level yet. And the Yuan is not the worlds most advanced ssk as some of you imply. Based on many sources it is a cross between the kilo and the song. The kilo was great in its day but now it is outclassed by the european ssks and the colins class of australia. Second of all no naval or airial strike will come within range to even launch their missiles. They would have to face the airwing of the carrier and the USAF from nearby US bases. During a wartime situation there is no lone CVBG operating. There would be at least four cvbgs operating in unison as with the case in the Iraqi war. That would simply overwhelm china.
according to most Chinese sources, Yuan is better than kilo, but not as good as Amur.

[MIGleader]

you are such an american stackpiV!!! do you watch the history channel too much?

the ex-soviet arsenal is quite capable, and china has it's own abilities. stop thinking america has such an amazing military with aegis and so, and stop thinking russian equipment is all china uses.

you've been propagandad!

[tphuang]

you are such an american stackpiV!!! do you watch the history channel too much?

the ex-soviet arsenal is quite capable, and china has it's own abilities. stop thinking america has such an amazing military with aegis and so, and stop thinking russian equipment is all china uses.

you've been propagandad!
there are technology that China has, but Russia doesn't have yet.

[MIGleader]

agreed. all the pla has to do is sink a burke, one or two supply ships, and damage the carrier and the US public will turn against the operation and want the cvbg to come home.

[Totoro]

Also, the diesel subs don't have to move. All we need is to park a lot of subs around Taiwan strait and wait for the American navy. Use some kind of Early warning system to detect if the Americans are within 250 KM of the subs and then fire the antiship missiles from the subs. Remember, all of the subs in China's arsenals are equiped with missiles of 200km+ range.

Several problems with that. USN wouldn't go anywhere near the strait. Carrier air wing alone has range of 1000 km, tomahawks even more so. So you'd have to park the subs in a huge, huge ring. Even putting ALL the subs to such a task, including old romeos and such, that'd be rather pushing. Trying to guess to which area the CBG might come seems a better alternative, but like i said, even that's a long stretch.

All the subs in china's aresenal are not equipped with klub or/and related missiles. But even assuming most modern dozen or so are equipped, you need additional targeting source to guide the missiles. some passive sonars on the surface of the sea will give you only a broad position, youd be firing all those missiles half blind. but i guess, yeah, enough number to cover a large enough area, sure, it's possible. only thing is there's not enough launching platform to mount the attack of necessary size. attack of some 60 or so missiles won't get through the CBG defences.


Just for reference, song sub can move at 22 knots dived, so that's only about 8 knots behind CBG. Yuan sub's stats are not given, but you can assume it to be the same or faster, since it's the higher class. Kilo subs can move at 20 knots dived.

Yeah, and you can find data for various CBG ships, including the carrier itself to range from 30 to 32 knots. All i'm saying is if the subs are going at thier top speed, be that 20 or 22 knots they better be mighty close to torpedo firing range as they'll lighting like xmas trees on USN detection screens and it'd be only a matter of how fast the americans can destroy enough subs. Not to mention that at such speed the batteries last very very short, so it'd basically be a one way suicide mission. But then again, that's what i've been saying all along. :D If you're to target a CBG with a massive sub attack, sure, you might succeed. but rest assured it'd be a one way trip.

Oh, and to the person laughing at diesel electrical subs versus nuclear, the laugh is on you. USN admitted that improved Kilo class and related subs are very hard to find when running on batteries, quieter than nuclear. (they didnt specify if they meant they were quieter than their own, USN nuclear subs :D)

[adeptitus]

agreed. all the pla has to do is sink a burke, one or two supply ships, and damage the carrier and the US public will turn against the operation and want the cvbg to come home.

That's not necessarily true. Americans are perfectly willing to supprt their government in a limited duration war. The US army is an all-volunteer force, you know what you're getting into when you signed up.

To describe a situation where the public opinion would turn against the government, say if the situation in Iraq drags on for 10 years with nothing to gain & body bags flying home every week, army recruitment falls and the government impose the DRAFT, then you'd find the US public turning against government policy and start burning their draft cards on street corners.

As for impact of sinking a few ships, the USN is not the Royal Navy. If the UK had refused to return HK and sent the royal navy to intervene, then yes, sinking a few major surface combatants and damaging a carrier will put an end to the Royal Navy task force.

But the USN is not that small. Losing a few surface ships and even a carrier will only a minor dent in its total strength. The PLAN cannot compete against the USN by quality or quantity.

[tphuang]

loosing one burke, that's 300 crew dying.

[bd popeye]

agreed. all the pla has to do is sink a burke, one or two supply ships, and damage the carrier and the US public will turn against the operation and want the cvbg to come home.

I've been reading this thread and some how now the PRC and the USA are at war. :eek: ..I pray it never happens.

The PLAN as it is right now could not sink a Burke. Oh a missile may get through. But I don't think so. The USN's defenses are just too capable. Someone mentioned positioning PLAN subs by the Straights of Tiawain to lay in wait for the US fleet. Ludricrous :cool: . Did you know that USN P-3's patrol the Pacific with vitual impunity? You know about of course the US sattilite intelligence? Not to mention all the US ESSM,ECM ETC.... Did you know that an EA-6B ECM can disrupt all sorts of electronic signals for hundreds of miles? That means the PRC missiles would go haywire..Oh I forgot the USN ablity to despense countless rounds of CHAFF..Oh yea the USAF would also help out. You know tankers,bombers F-15's ETC....

Would the US populace turn against the War if casulities were inccured? Not at first. a few years later..yes. At first the Americans hearts would harden. The Americans would be crying for blood..

As things stand right now,2 September 2005, the forces of the PLAN/PLAAF could not defeat the USN/USAF. Period.

[tphuang]

how did the ming class sub get pass the p-3 patrol boat of the Japanese then? Again, nobody say PLAN/PLAAF can beat USN/USAF. But rather that, for a war in Taiwan which most Americans probably don't care much about. Loosing one burke and a few frigates might seem to be too much loss to go into a war. Let's not forget the ballistic missiles china has right across from Taiwan. It also depends on how many carrier group(s) USN send over. The more carrier groups/more burke, the harder it will be for any missile to penetrate.

And I think you guys are overrating the missile defense of the American systems. This is the same system that couldn't shoot down a single scud in gulf war 1 and shot down a British plane in operation iraqi freedom.

[IDonT]

how did the ming class sub get pass the p-3 patrol boat of the Japanese then? Again, nobody say PLAN/PLAAF can beat USN/USAF. But rather that, for a war in Taiwan which most Americans probably don't care much about. Loosing one burke and a few frigates might seem to be too much loss to go into a war. Let's not forget the ballistic missiles china has right across from Taiwan. It also depends on how many carrier group(s) USN send over. The more carrier groups/more burke, the harder it will be for any missile to penetrate.

And I think you guys are overrating the missile defense of the American systems. This is the same system that couldn't shoot down a single scud in gulf war 1 and shot down a British plane in operation iraqi freedom.


The Ming got pass the P-3 because it was in international waters and the US and China are not at war. The Ming was track the whole time thats how we know about it. If the P-3 wanted to, it could have dropped a torpedo and destroy the Ming.

[IDonT]

Finding a CVBG is very difficult.
Read this to see why...
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

How to hide a task force.


An earlier discussion raised the question of how a carrier task force could hide in the open ocean and questioned whether such an operation could be successful near land.

The following discussion will be split into several parts and will remain at a somewhat top level. The reasons should be obvious. Specific references will be made to a particular operation, NORPAC 82, but details on tactics and modern systems will not be disclosed. These tactics are essentially the same as during WWII. The historical accounts of the German surface raiders, USN submarine actions, IJN surface and CV operations, and of course the USN surface and CV operations during that conflict include many examples of the following basic tactics.


The main question is: How do you hide a task force at sea? The answer in very general terms is; by not telling the other guy where you are.

This is not as dumb as it sounds.

To illustrate take the following generic situation and think of the naval environment. One actually could extend this to other environments as well.

Put two football teams in a stadium at night each on their defended goal line. Each team will provide the backfield players with rifles and the linemen all have a pistol. Each weapon is equipped with a flashlight fastened to the barrel. The quarterback is equipped with a flashing signal light.

Now turn out all the lights so it is absolutely dark.

Who wants to turn on their light first?

Now to more accurately replicate the naval environment we put half the fans in the stands more or less evenly distributed on the field. We also put two blimps overhead, one for each team, equipped with flashing light and binoculars.

Obviously the light will replicate both communications and radar systems. Everybody's eyes replicate ESM, ELINT, COMINT, and radar receivers.

Obviously if you want to hide the best way is run silent and blend into the general traffic.

There are several conditions of hiding a task force. First is undetected. In this condition the presence of the force is not known. For this to really work it should be coupled with a deception plan so that the opposition not only does not know the force is present, but does not know they don't know and for some reason believes the force to be elsewhere. I will say no more about deception. The second condition is that you have been detected, but not located. This can include the presence of the force is known, but no system has detected the force, or the force has been detected but not identified. And finally, the force has been detected and located which implies identification of the targets.

One's tactics will change based on the above.

If the force has not been detected one can run in to a launch point and hit the target with the first wave while operating completely silent until initial weapon impact. Once the survivors pick themselves out of the rubble they will deduce the presence of the carrier force from the initial wave.

With a force underway the opposition for some reason believes it knows that the ships are elsewhere and has no information to the contrary. Such operations are most effective when coupled with a deception plan that keys the opposition to know for a certainty that you are somewhere else and is therefore not looking. This goes far beyond local efforts of the group.

Every man in the entire task force is kept informed of the tactical situation and what is going on. Full awareness, training, and discipline by all hands is essential.

The force transits to its objective area in complete electronic silence. Deceptive formations are used dispersed over a broad area to ensure any detection system does not see the classic "bullseye" formation made famous in countless Public Affairs shots and never used in operations. Broad surveillance systems are known so any detection method is countered either by denying sensor information, misleading, or providing expected results consistent with something else. For example, ESM systems rely on active emissions from radars or communication systems. So nothing is radiated. Overhead systems are in known orbits, are predictable, and their sensing capabilities known. So the track is varied, weather is sought out to hide in when vulnerable, blending into sea lanes (while staying out of visual detection range of ships) and such techniques. Deceptive lighting is used at night so that the obvious "blacked out warship" is instead thought to be a merchant or cruise liner. Surface search radar identical to commercial ones are used. Turn count masking is used by the ships. Aircraft maintenance on the CV and other helo equipped ships is limited to prevent transmissions.

In NORPAC 82 using these and other tactics the CV force operated close enough to support each other, but far enough and randomly dispersed to avoid identification by anyone. One night in bad weather a man went overboard when the ship was within 200nm of a Soviet airfield in the Kuril Island chain. Despite launch of helicopters and active search methods by several ships in the successful SAR, including clear voice UHF transmissions, the force is not detected because no Soviet asset was above the radar horizon. No overhead system was cued. The force continued on.

At the initial objective point the ships have managed to penetrate without the opposition having any clue that the force was within 2,000 miles. Limited air operations have been conducted to this point with no aircraft transmitting radio, radar, or any other detectable phenom. The aircraft launch "ziplip" and fly a mission without any transmission. Aircraft stay below the radar horizon of defense sites which are less than 200nm away. The E2 flies a passive mission in readiness, but silent unless called to go active.

At the objective "mirror image strikes" are flown. These are full strike missions by the airwing flown on a bearing 180 degrees out from the actual objective. Again, no active transmissions. The entire launch, strike, and recovery are flown without a key being touched. In NORPAC 82 these mirror image strikes within range of Petroplavask and the SSBN bastion in the Sea of O are conducted for 4 days without being detected by the opposition. All day, every day, the E2 orbits on a passive profile. All of the ships operate in passive mode simply listening. In a real war our presence would have been deduced on the first strike as the survivors picked themselves out the rubble of their airfields. But for this operation we continued to train in silence.

One should not miss the implications of this feat. A strategic strike capable force operated with complete impunity for 4 days within range of strategic assets without being detected.

Today, the capability to operate in a passive mode while receiving the complete tactical picture from off-ship has been expanded and refined to an extraordinary degree. All of the vulnerabilities to detection of the force are also its strengths in tracking everyone else. The complete range of overhead and other sensors are downlinked to every ship and many aircraft. If one system in the USN or Space detects a contact, everyone receives it. One could, with training and discipline, sail a complete 6 month deployment and merely listen to all of the other sensors, and strike without warning if need be.

But enough is enough. After dodging Soviet Naval Aviation strike regiments going out to "raid" the Enterprise group the time came to tip our hand and enter the next phase. So out of the blue a Badger group going out against Enterprise and expecting F14s was intercepted some 500nm from Enterprise by F4s with "Midway" painted on the side. And all hell then broke lose!!

Every Soviet asset that could fly, sail, submerge, or orbit was focused on the area in an attempt to locate the group.

The force has now successfully transited to the operation area and conducted the first flight operations which reveal its presence. In wartime this would result in the survivors picking themselves out of the (possibly radioactive) rubble of their airfields and other key military facilities.

So the game is up. But is it? The key as before is to deny targeting information to the opposition, leave them confused about your precise location, and continue to operate.

The task force has as its advantage the element of long-range striking power which allows it to operate at considerable range, thus giving the opposition a very large area to visually search. Check a chart and draw a 600nm circle, cut it in half to represent the sea/land interface, and see how many square miles have to be searched. If operating F18s cut the range in half (Side note. A recent USN article on F18E testing quoted a strike range of only 600nm which equates to a strike radius of 300nm. This loss in capability will cost future striking Admirals key sea space which will bear on this problem).

As before, much of the process of targeting is determining which of the many contacts detected is the one you are looking for. Most techniques rely on exploiting the Achilles Heal of Radar and Communication. To work, you have to transmit, and by transmitting you tell the opposition who and where you are. Don't transmit, and he has to find you the hard way, by visual identification searching the vast ocean area 10sqnm at a time.

Recall the original parallel. The Football field with both teams equipped with flashlights and handguns, with half the fans also on the field and the lights turned out. Who wants to turn their flashlight on first?

The USN has the additional advantage of a networked surveillance system where if anyone in the USN (including shore based facilities such as Naval Space Command) has the contact, everyone has it. So one can stay silent, and receive all the data from the other participants. This allows tactical deception, missile traps, decoys, etc.

Also, if the opposition is going to search with active sensors such as Radar, he is also telling you where he is and who he is. So our fighters can run out the ESM line of bearing and bag the recon Bear or strike pathfinder.

A word about the opposition. The SNA strike regiments were (are) structured and armed very well to go kill naval formations. The AS4/6 on a Badger or Backfire in regimental strength backed with Bears in the recon role were and are formidable. They roughly had a Regiment per carrier. In a straight-forward engagement, the issue would have been "in doubt" at best. If a strike regiment caught a CV by surprise it would have been curtains. An alerted CV would have a better than even chance of surviving, but probable losses would have been severe. But the Regiment running through fighter opposition to their launch points and then getting back out would have taken crippling losses. They would have not been able to mount a second strike and would have been effectively destroyed if not annihilated. If a missile trap is set so that the regiment is climbing to launch altitude over a missile ship it doesn't know about until the radar comes up and missiles start impacting, the fight will be over before it barely starts. So it was critical for the target to be identified and located prior to the regiment being committed. This takes time and allows the CV time to maneuver, set decoy groups, missile traps, fighter ambushes, etc.

With two hours warning for example, a CV could dispatch a surface CG missile trap 60nm down the threat axis, station the CAP Outer Air Battle Grid, put a CG decoy group stationary, and run another 60nm down range and off axis in a silent mode. Then the regiment locates a likely target at the expected point, runs into a missile trap, fighter grid, and a target that can defend itself without ever threatening the CV.

So the trick is to prevent identification and localization of the force. Decoys run out and radiate. Aircraft launch on missions running silent, fly out to a deception point at low altitude, then climb and radiate as normal. The searchers locate the pop-up point but don't find the CV. This is particularly effective if the first launch of the day locates a large, neutral merchant or cruise liner and everybody uses that as the reference deception point. Then the searchers actually see a target at the point that the flight patterns indicate. In wartime they commit, they lose their regiment, and the CV then has a free ride.

We would also deliberately provide a false contact reference. If a searching aircraft is intercepted they can draw an operational radius of previously observed intercepts and conclude the CV is in that area. That allows a concentrated search. Now if we had deliberately intercepted him at an extended range and then moved the carrier at high speed in the other direction the search effort is concentrated at the wrong point. I did that one day by tanking an A7, running him out a long range and bringing him into an intercept of two Bears that were visually searching and identifying fishing boats and merchants trying to find us. I brought him in off-axis and took him back out off-axis (in other words not directly to or from the CV). We then cranked up the 32.5 knots the Midway could then do and went in the other direction. A few hours later we observed a "large number" of search aircraft vainly saturating that area of the ocean and giving all the fishing boats a great air show.

They could identify the E2's radar. They could then draw the normal circle around the E2's location and search that area. Trouble with that was that I was particularly adept at running out long range while silent, and then running a distant patrol point and acting as if the CV was close by. I used to routinely obtain contact at extended ranges. So by drawing their datum points based on my patrols they also looked in the wrong places, and at the same time I data-linked the complete tactical picture to all the silent participants.

We would also recover the returning aircraft by marshalling as normal but in the wrong place. Then, under E2 control, the returning aircraft would fly a recovery pattern to a deception point, and then run in at low altitude and silent to the CV.

A sub vectored out to find us has to have some idea of where to look. If the CV has freedom to operate it can avoid contact by "random and dynamic" movement. Only if the CV locks itself to a set operational area and pattern (as in most structured exercises which lends itself to the prevailing myth of submarine superiority) does it become predictable and hence, vulnerable. If the CV moves it forces the sub to move to catch it, thereby making the sub more detectable. Of course, one could run over the sub by accident in which case it falls to CV group number two to take up the fight! Such is war.

We continued to operate in that manner during NORPAC much as a boxer might in the ring, dodging and weaving for four days with everything in Siberia that could fly, sail or submerge looking for us. Our success can be measured by the fact that not once did any unit ever come close enough to identify us, and at no time was any strike group committed against us in a mock attack. During this time several regimental mock raids per day were flown against the Enterprise which operated openly. And we continued to fly mirror-image strikes within strike range of key Soviet facilities several times per day with complete impunity.

At the conclusion of four such very interesting days it was determined that not only had we obtained all the needed training and experience we were looking for, but that we had also probably trained the Soviets more than we probably wanted to. So we then rendezvoused with the Enterprise group during the night. The next morning, as scattered light filtered into the Northern Pacific, the initial Soviet strikes and shadows saw two carriers where there had been but one the day before. And then all Hell really broke lose!! But that is another story and a very conventional one.


Editor's note: Abbreviation Glossary.

A7 – Daylight Light Attack aircraft.
AS4/6 - Soviet Air-Launched Anti-Ship Missiles.
CAP – Combat Air Patrol
COMINT- Communications Intelligence
CV – USA designation for an Aircraft Carrier.
E2 – Electronic Surveillance and Radar aircraft, also used for Command and Control functions. An apt description that I wish I could claim credit for is that it looks like "an aircraft being terrorized by a flying saucer."
ELINT – Electronic Intelligence
ESM – Electronic Support Measures
F18E – A Fighter/Attack aircraft intended to replace the A-6 attack bomber. As noted in this essay, it is debatable if this aircraft can truly replace one of the most successful Naval Attack Aircraft ever built.
IJN – Imperial Japanese Navy
nm – Nautical Mile (1.151 statute miles or 1.852 km)
NORPAC 82 – North Pacific 1982 Exercise.
SAR – Search And Rescue
SNA – Soviet Naval Aviation. Includes all of the commands, regiments and squadrons.
sqnm – Square Nautical Mile
USN – United States Navy

[MIGleader]

very nice senario and info, idont. but the Us is fighting china ,not the soviets, so the chinese will use different tactics and equipment. im sure the plan knows the capabilities of cvbg and is finding unorthodox methods to destry it.

[tphuang]

yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. Whenever PLAN is going again USN, it's not only going against better equipment, but better training, better crew, more established strategies and better commanders. That's why even if other navies in the world somehow manages to catch up to USN in technology, it'd still taking beatings in any confrontation.

[MIGleader]

thats why you use tactics you #$%% moron. china knows it has inferior tech, so it will devise something to even the playing field. tech is not everything. and it's not like the chinese dont train either.

[tphuang]

thats why you use tactics you #$%% moron. china knows it has inferior tech, so it will devise something to even the playing field. tech is not everything. and it's not like the chinese dont train either.
sure, but the problem is that China just doesn't have enough experience in sea battles.

[sino52C]

At a certain point, lack of tech may still get you killed no matter how good your tactics are. Example, it's still suicide to use swords against rifles no matter how effectively you use them (exaggerated comparison).

A bunch of Mings and Romeos are easy to find and sink no matter how effectively you use them.

[chinawhite]

i dont get it.

when the ming class is using its electric motors during underwater crusing. is it detectedable?. there aren't a lot of moving parts when your using electric power. how hard would it be to detect?

or is the problem of enough electricity. or maybe need a need propeller

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The Ming does not have any sound-reduction features on the propellar. A major source of sound is from a submarine's propellar. Conventional propellars tend to create air bubbles, which implode in the water and make a large amount of sound. This is known as cavitation. Modern submarines have special propellar designs to avoid this.

[IDonT]

i dont get it.

when the ming class is using its electric motors during underwater crusing. is it detectedable?. there aren't a lot of moving parts when your using electric power. how hard would it be to detect?

or is the problem of enough electricity. or maybe need a need propeller


You also have to take account teh censor suite of PLAN's deisels. Can they detect the US subs?

[Totoro]

You also have to take account teh censor suite of PLAN's deisels. Can they detect the US subs?

Sure they can. :) Depending on where the US subs are and what they're doing/ how fast they're going.

About locating the carrier... it's much harder to do it in the open sea, where we have two fleets and they're both maneouvering around each other etc. If US and china would do battle chinese wouldn't go out to find and get the carrier. The burden would be on the americans to get close enough to china/taiwan to be able to attack chinese ground forces/navy or offer air protection. Being close enough to do that, the CBG gives the chinese a comparatively much smaller area to search. Not only that but operating from the mainland, chinese can use their overwhelming numbers to pinpoint the location of the carrier, of course losing not a small number of units while doing that.

After that it's anyone's game. One or two CBGs could not stand against fully determined to win at all cost combined chinese navy and air force attacks. But lets say that does happen, PLAN and PLAAF would be left rather weak after those 'successes'. So, ultimatively, if the US is fully comitted to the war, USN and USAAF would fully defeat their chinese counterparts in the long term.

[tphuang]

I guess send out the J-5 UAVs to gather info? If they get shot down, no big deal.

[MIGleader]

sure, but the problem is that China just doesn't have enough experience in sea battles.

china has done multiple engagements with the vietnamese in the 80's. the last time the Us fought a real sea battle was WW2. the Us just exagerates it's silors real experience and training.

[MIGleader]

At a certain point, lack of tech may still get you killed no matter how good your tactics are. Example, it's still suicide to use swords against rifles no matter how effectively you use them (exaggerated comparison).

A bunch of Mings and Romeos are easy to find and sink no matter how effectively you use them.

the whole point of sending in mings is for them to get detected, so your songs and kilo's dont.

[IDonT]

china has done multiple engagements with the vietnamese in the 80's. the last time the Us fought a real sea battle was WW2. the Us just exagerates it's silors real experience and training.


Try Operation Praying Mantis 1987.

Sank half the Iranian navy in one afternoon.

[IDonT]

the whole point of sending in mings is for them to get detected, so your songs and kilo's dont.


Sending Migs will not make songs and kilo's undetectable. Each battle group has its own AAW, ASW, and ASuW warfare coordinator.

The Aegis system can track thousands of contacts simultaneusly.

[IDonT]

I guess send out the J-5 UAVs to gather info? If they get shot down, no big deal.


Once they get info, how will they be able to communicate it to HQ. EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft will jam its communications.

[MIGleader]

i said real engagement. i know all about all the engagements with the iraqi shipborn silkworms too. but that was not a real opponent. plus,theres no reason to assume Us sailors train harder than chinese sailors.

now that iran is getting kilo's , they'll be alot harder to pick on.

[IDonT]

i said real engagement. i know all about all the engagements with the iraqi shipborn silkworms too. but that was not a real opponent. plus,theres no reason to assume Us sailors train harder than chinese sailors.

now that iran is getting kilo's , they'll be alot harder to pick on.

Preying mantis was a real engagement. US destroyed Iranian oil platforms in retaliation to mining the Persian Gulf. The IRanian navy sortied and were sunk with no US losses.

It's more than just training but also tactics and strategy. The USN has been handling and manueviring its carriers since 1930. It knows how to use them. PLAN's naval tradition is not that great.

In other words, the US wrote the book on modern naval warfare.

[MIGleader]

just because Us used carriers back to the thirties dosn't mean the sailors now inheret their skill. and tactics change alot in 70 years.

china has excellent reputation with facs and small gunboats and subs becaus thats what the had used for decades for a possible soviet naval invasion.

[tphuang]

Once they get info, how will they be able to communicate it to HQ. EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft will jam its communications.
they will fly back, those that can fly back, great. Those that can't, no big deal, they just wasted a few more missiles. Of course, the assumption is that the J-5 moves a lot faster than carrier groups.

[bd popeye]

Oh boy there's a lot in this thread I could respond to..but for now I will concentrate my comments on one MIGleader ..Great name by the way.

china has done multiple engagements with the vietnamese in the 80's. the last time the Us fought a real sea battle was WW2. the Us just exagerates it's silors real experience and training.

USN tactics are constanly updated at the USN War College.

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/AboutNWC/

Exagerates it's sailors experience?? What are you talking about? In what way? Did you ever spend a single day in the USN? The USN has been deploying it's ships all over the world for many,many years.Over 100 in fact..The experience is real. I know I lived it. I spent 20 years in the USN. As for training..That's all a sailor does is practice(drill) or preform his or her job. Did you know that every single sailor,enlisted and officer, on board a USN ship is trained in firefighting and damage control? I myself went to Fire fighting school 9 times in 20 years. Did you know that even when inport in the US the USN ships carries out drills to improve it's warfighting capablity? Like I said ..the training and experience are real.

As an example my son,age 25, has been in the USN for 7 years. He is an sonar tech(surface). His previous commands were an Tico class and a Spruance class. The CIC(Combat Information Center) on those ships never shutdown inport. (except in re-fit)Those sailors are constanly tracking and looking at scopes, computers etc..reading the information the AGEIS system puts out. Presently my son is a instructor at advanved sonar tech(surface) school in San Diego.

If you have any doubt about the authenticity of my statements reguarding USN training check the US Navy web site in particulary The Navy News Stand. You will find all sorts of interesting information.

http://www.navy.mil/

[MIGleader]

i did not mean to say the Us navy was not well trained. they are superb sailors and excellent tacticians. however on the history channel and the news, they always say the navy has such advanced tech and can take on any other navy in the world with minimal losses. they also brag how elit the force is. they say how their navy has such a great past. this is bullshit! many other navies in the world, including the chinese, train very hard and have engaged in combat before. i doubt ther Us could get away from a fight with the chinese without taking quite a few losses.

[bd popeye]

they always say the navy has such advanced tech and can take on any other navy in the world with minimal losses. they also brag how elit the force is. they say how their navy has such a great past. this is bullshit!

As a former USN Sailor thank you for your kind words.

Bulls**t!? :eek: Oh my goodness! Such lanuage!

I don't think anyone is bragging..It's just facts that are being reported. The USN is by no means perfect. In a conflict with the PLAN the USN may suffer some losses. But be defeated? No way.

[bd popeye]

Were you an officer Popeye?

No I was not.I was enlisted. Being a Avation Ordanceman and then an aircrew equipmentman privied me to some interesting information. And friendships I would have not develpoed in another position. In addition I did have a very high intelligence clearance.

One of the squadrons I was assigned my clearance allowed me to scan intelligence photos.

[MIGleader]

i did not say the plan had to destroy the cvbg. that would be impossible without huge chinese losses. all the chinese have to do is sink a few ships and maybe damage the carrier so the operation needs to be halted, while america may deem it too risky to keep fighting and pull out. the public would be outraged if a hundred US sailors died .

[PLABUDDY]

i did not say the plan had to destroy the cvbg. that would be impossible without huge chinese losses. all the chinese have to do is sink a few ships and maybe damage the carrier so the operation needs to be halted, while america may deem it too risky to keep fighting and pull out. the public would be outraged if a hundred US sailors died .

I agree...we should not over-estimate the US navy and under-estimate the PLAN..I doubt the US will send more than 1 CBG in a conflict of mainland and taiwan.

[Totoro]

I agree...we should not over-estimate the US navy and under-estimate the PLAN..I doubt the US will send more than 1 CBG in a conflict of mainland and taiwan.

Even though it's really impossible to guess what would US govt do in such a hypothetical situation years from now i'd say it's safe to assume there would not be any half hearted attempts. US would A) stay out of it completely military aid wise, B) strike chinese assets with cruise missiles and similar stand off weapons or C) mount a major attack on chinese assets, with intent to pretty much decimate PLAAF and PLAN, as well as chinas military industry.

Sending just one cbg and launching attacks from it at chinese forces would be rather risky. I seriously doubt US would do that. IF US does send its forces to defend taiwan it would be a much larger and potent force. I'm talking hundreds of USAAF planes being redirected to airports in range of the combat theatre, i'm talking at least 3 and probably more cbgs. Of course, the whole point would be to coordinate a major blow to china, so such an US force would need weeks to assemble, come in position and strike. Weeks from first missile/air strikes on taiwan, of course. China too couldn't really mount a successful ground forces invasion in a matter of days without alarming the neighbours.

[MIGleader]

most likely a large size cvbg with two carriers. thers no way they'd send in seven carriers to the area like last summer.

china can disguise it's intentions by preparing for an excercise.

[Totoro]

I don't understand, why is there no way for USN to send more than two CBGs? US has carriers permanently stationed in japan. It has near future plans to homeport a carrier in guam. And it could/would send more. Sure it'd take lots of time to do it, but better to be safe than sorry. Each time china does a major exercise near taiwan they send at least two carriers. In a case of a war they would opt for a lethal strike, using as much force at once as possible. That also explains why you can't really just mask the attack as an exercise...

Also, while a missile attack can be launched with virtually no warning, and while an air attack could be mounted with enough surprise that it catches taiwanese somewhat off guard, assembling the navy and ground forces for an actual invasion would take a long time and give taiwan/us a good warning.
I wonder if it'd take days before even an airdropped invasion force is tried, after first missile strikes.

[MIGleader]

not if you invite the russians to help you attach taiwan. the plan is already building up near taiwan. just keep it up for a few more years , and you can attack. this is getting gay. were supposed to be talking about chinese subs and the US's fear of them. china wouldn't attack taiwan till it declars independence, and Us wouldn't help taiwan if it did.

[Totoro]

I agree there, the best way to 'mask' such an invasion is to have the resources for it ready 24/7/365, for years. Sure, it's mighty costy to upkeep but IF your plan IS to invade in some sensible time period, it'd be worth it. That pretty much means having some 10 000 troops ready at all time (for the first wave), which is doable for a country like china. China doesn't have enough dedicated landing craft for more than that anyway, at the present. Trouble there might be with political implications, but i'm guessing west has too much invested in china's economy to try to set terms where china can and where it cant have the forces anchored and waiting.

Lots has been said already bout USN fear of chinese subs... i guess there's nothing to add for now. When someone does add something, maybe i'll reply. :)

[tphuang]

Even though it's really impossible to guess what would US govt do in such a hypothetical situation years from now i'd say it's safe to assume there would not be any half hearted attempts. US would A) stay out of it completely military aid wise, B) strike chinese assets with cruise missiles and similar stand off weapons or C) mount a major attack on chinese assets, with intent to pretty much decimate PLAAF and PLAN, as well as chinas military industry.

Sending just one cbg and launching attacks from it at chinese forces would be rather risky. I seriously doubt US would do that. IF US does send its forces to defend taiwan it would be a much larger and potent force. I'm talking hundreds of USAAF planes being redirected to airports in range of the combat theatre, i'm talking at least 3 and probably more cbgs. Of course, the whole point would be to coordinate a major blow to china, so such an US force would need weeks to assemble, come in position and strike. Weeks from first missile/air strikes on taiwan, of course. China too couldn't really mount a successful ground forces invasion in a matter of days without alarming the neighbours.

I'm pretty sure America would not attack targets deep inside China. If they do, i'm pretty sure there will be nuclear retaliation. I doubt America would risk that. attack the cost military stations with ballistic missiles and ship yards, most likely, but I think it will stop there.

As for Taiwan, it will most likely last a week in any invasion from China. This is not according to me. This is according to Taiwanese newspapers. They said they will last a maximum of 7 days by themselves.

[MIGleader]

Us cant just send ballistic missles to the taiwan area. plus the wouldn't do that. they are supposed to be on defence only. doing such a thing would temp the chinese to nuke the 7th fleet.

[BKulan]

as for naval detection, should China spend money on a sonar system like the US did against USSR?

If so then how. should they make a huge cable network or stick with a cheaper system that is more prone to signal jamming.

if cable alternative then US will know about it's existence but can't do much about it in a short time but if second alternative then they might not know about it at first but is instead vulnerable.

building such a system would make it a lot easier for PLAN to fight any navy in it's waters but it costs a lot of money and isn't 100% reliable

[Totoro]

I just don't see any nukes being used. Any. Ever. It is WAY too risky, to escalate into a nuclear exchange. I mean, the invasion itself is risky, and this is all speculation if it'd happen and how... but if you use just one nuke, even a tactical one, that opens the door to retaliaton with other nukes and step by step... well, you get the idea. :D

I'm not saying US would necessarily be striking deep into china but pretty much whatever is in range of their cruise missiles would be fair game for them. Radar stations, communication nodes, headquarters, airfields and harbours, you can bet they'd be attacked. If china has success with fighting the US and causes them to suffer heavy losses, that'd only anger US and make them comitt stronger forces. Factories and other china's economy targets would likely be attacked then. Again, i don't believe anyone would risk using a nuke, in any situation.

[bd popeye]

This has become an interesting thread to read. Well done by all!!

First off if there was any real confrontation in the Taiwain straights the US would send at least three CSG(Carrier strike group) along with additional surface combantants. The USS Kitty Hawk from Japan would be the first on the seen. The other two would storie from the west coast of the US or the western Pacific.

MIGleader seems to think that in a confrontation if the US suffered major losses the US would retreat because of public outcry. I would just like to know what you base this idea on? Thank you.

[tphuang]

This has become an interesting thread to read. Well done by all!!

First off if there was any real confrontation in the Taiwain straights the US would send at least three CSG(Carrier strike group) along with additional surface combantants. The USS Kitty Hawk from Japan would be the first on the seen. The other two would storie from the west coast of the US or the western Pacific.

MIGleader seems to think that in a confrontation if the US suffered major losses the US would retreat because of public outcry. I would just like to know what you base this idea on? Thank you.
I don't even understand why US would be willing to suffer any kind of major loss for Taiwan. It's not like Taiwan is important to US.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

In Vietnam war, over 70,000 Americans died and US still didn't pull out. It wasn't until the US saw how corrupt and evil the South Vietnamese regime was before the US finally decided to pull out. In Korean war, over 50,000 Americans died and the US didn't give up. The US will not retreat just because they have suffered losses.

[BrotherofSnake]

58,000 died in Vietnam and 36,000 died in Korea.

[swimmerXC]

In Vietnam war, over 70,000 Americans died and US still didn't pull out. It wasn't until the US saw how corrupt and evil the South Vietnamese regime was before the US finally decided to pull out. In Korean war, over 50,000 Americans died and the US didn't give up. The US will not retreat just because they have suffered losses.

the public however will be pissed...
no offensive to all my chinese comrade for saying this but, most americans would be like, "why the fu*k are we defending a bunch of chinks?" :o :(

[bd popeye]

no offensive to all my chinese comrade for saying this but, most americans would be like, "why the fu*k are we defending a bunch of chinks?"

Ya know what? That is what would happen if there was nota quick resolution to the situation.

If the US and PRC ever got into any sort of war..many Americans would be crying for Chinese blood. Like I said before..American hearts would harden.

[MIGleader]

well maybe americans will hear how currupt the roc regime is then they will pull out. things change. not even 2000 troops have died in iraq yet, but there is already a huge cry to pull out.

if china can put small sanctions on Us if they defend taiwan, it may tempt them them to pull out. the truth is, Us dosn't give a shit about taiwan. its just an excuse to send some cvbgs to china.the biggest thing the chinese can reap from taiwan is the U.s equipment taiwan has. i wonder if the U.s would object if taiwan decided to peacefuly rejoin with china.

[tphuang]

How is Taiwan corrupted?
where to start?
- President faking an assasination attempt before the election to get sympathy votes
- turn a blind eye to underaged kids voting in the election as long as they vote for the president
- have 15% of your votes declared invalid.

And this is just from their election alone. What kind of government allows fighting between parliament members?

[ChinaWall65]

Off Topic

[MIGleader]

kmt candidate soong accussed of tax evasion, ebezzelment of funds, money laundering.

dpp has aflictions with a criminal who is warranted for arrest.

taiwan has a long history of curruption...

[Chairman Hu]

- President faking an assasination attempt before the election to get sympathy votes

Myaybe this IS off-topic, but in order to run a war in the future, you must have the people's support and trust, and able to manage yourself, if Taiwan can't, USN will step in and China will have the USN right where she wants it to be, sailing through an ocean of submarines that can be design as mobile mines, plus I heard that Diesel Subs are undetectable when traveling at a certain low speed, I saw that at the discovery channel, the old sub can tigger something and the new sub can nail the attacker, simple enough if you can get it right.

[bd popeye]

USN will step in and China will have the USN right where she wants it to be, sailing through an ocean of submarines that can be design as mobile mines,

Do you think the war planners of the USN are that dumb? The USN would be stationed at least 200 miles east of Tiawan. Never heard the theroy of using subs as mines. Very interesting. Would the crew know it's a sucide mission? Or will they use robotic subs?

I heard that Diesel Subs are undetectable when traveling at a certain low speed,

True!! My son ,a USN sonar tech,says so. But the USN has contracted a Swedish Gotland class desiel sub to learn how to better detect desiel subs...Nuke boats are much easier to track... so says my son.

You have to remember that the modern deisel boats are designed to remain in littorial waters and lay in wait for an on comming fleet.

[Neko]

agreed. all the pla has to do is sink a burke, one or two supply ships, and damage the carrier and the US public will turn against the operation and want the cvbg to come home.


Incorrect, friend.

The way the US society works is most easily demonstrated under very specific events:

The burning of Washington by the British during the French-Indian war.
The attack on the WTC, the first time.
The attack on the USS Cole.
The EP-3 downed at Hainan.
The 9-11 attacks.

You bust up one of our ship, and the entire nation, from liberals to conservatives will rally around the battle flag and demand retribution, until vengeance is given. You can believe that although we promote peace throughout the world, we certainly won't hesitate to lay the beat down all over you, and remove any possibility of you ever scratching us again.

"We'll put a boot in yer ass, it's the American way."

[Neko]

What kind of government allows fighting between parliament members?



Eh... Brittain?

[IDonT]

Incorrect, friend.

The way the US society works is most easily demonstrated under very specific events:

The burning of Washington by the British during the French-Indian war.
The attack on the WTC, the first time.
The attack on the USS Cole.
The EP-3 downed at Hainan.
The 9-11 attacks.

You bust up one of our ship, and the entire nation, from liberals to conservatives will rally around the battle flag and demand retribution, until vengeance is given. You can believe that although we promote peace throughout the world, we certainly won't hesitate to lay the beat down all over you, and remove any possibility of you ever scratching us again.

"We'll put a boot in yer ass, it's the American way."

Note: See Japan.

[Neko]

Note: See Japan.

I neglected to mention a lot of the glaring obvious. Pearl Harbor should be so damned apparent that mentioning it is a bit of overkill. :P

[MIGleader]

china would probably send it's subs to the area where the cvbg is headed and wait there. that way, the cvbg will have to stay too far away to attack.

[sumdud]

having subs ambush US carrier is a bad idea. have a sub creen set up along a few surface ships to block off the the US ships. As long as they don't fire the first shot, the US ships are forbidden to shoot you. if they enter chinese waters, you are allowed to shoot them. Would America really do that? Follow that rule? It's gonna go around the rules.
most abc's i know love china more than US. LOL, good one. The fact is, most don't know anything, some hates it because they prefer the US environment. Some are loyal to where they are born.(And I want no any arguement over this, and nothing direct between the two of you.) they are for different roles I think:
the bear can carry more weapons and bombs
the backfire is faster I thought the Backfire carried more. The Bear was never too good for the bomber role, though.
Also, the diesel subs don't have to move. All we need is to park a lot of subs around Taiwan strait and wait for the American navy. Use some kind of Early warning system to detect if the Americans are within 250 KM of the subs and then fire the antiship missiles from the subs. Remember, all of the subs in China's arsenals are equiped with missiles of 200km+ range. When'd China get a sub-launched ASM to fly 200km? Only the C-801Q is here and it goes to 42km.......

PS:
Taiwan's government had long been corrupted. Did you know about Lee? He ruined the government, caused fights, and now Chen is better, but still corrupted.

BrotherofSnake, can you stop posting one-liners.

[BrotherofSnake]

BrotherofSnake, can you stop posting one-liners.

Ok I will try.

[Totoro]

The eight new Project 636 submarines currently under construction in Russia to be delivered to china by the end of 2007 are reported to be fitted with the Novator 3M-54E1 submarine-launched anti-ship missile as part of the Klub-S missile system. The missile has a maximum range of 220km and a 450kg high-explosive warhead.

Of course, A) you have to have enough missiles in stock even to defeat a lone aegis ship and B) you need to have a network which would locate targets and navigate the sub launched missiles. In my opinion, they're gonna more useful against taiwanese navy.

[Neko]

The eight new Project 636 submarines currently under construction in Russia to be delivered to china by the end of 2007 are reported to be fitted with the Novator 3M-54E1 submarine-launched anti-ship missile as part of the Klub-S missile system. The missile has a maximum range of 220km and a 450kg high-explosive warhead.

Of course, A) you have to have enough missiles in stock even to defeat a lone aegis ship and B) you need to have a network which would locate targets and navigate the sub launched missiles. In my opinion, they're gonna more useful against taiwanese navy.


The primary focus of any Navy designed to defeat a US incursion is the destruction of our carriers. The sheer amount of damage that it takes to destroy a carrier is so massive that it could take all the ordinance of two 636 (Yes, even the ones carrying SS-N-27) to take down a single carrier.

Putting it out of the fight takes considerably less, but to remove it completely? They are so completely compartmented and defended that getting to it to hit is is tough to begin with. Once you get a hit, you had better blow several gaping holes in the hull *and* split the keel if you want any hope of a chance to actually sink the sucker.

And if you decide to go after a CVBG... get the Kitty Hawk first. We're about to decommission her any way.

[bd popeye]

Putting it out of the fight takes considerably less, but to remove it completely? They are so completely compartmented and defended that getting to it to hit is is tough to begin with. Once you get a hit, you had better blow several gaping holes in the hull *and* split the keel if you want any hope of a chance to actually sink the sucker.

Neko is so right. It's easy to say.."Oh we will just launch a few missles and sink a carrier".. yea right. Those of you that have never been on a USN CV have no friggin' idea how compartmentlized it is. None. It would be near impossible to sink a carrier with conventional weapons.

Another thing some of you do not take into account is the training in damage control and firefighting of a USN sailor. That training starts in boot camp and never really ends.

[Gollevainen]

Neko is so right. It's easy to say.."Oh we will just launch a few missles and sink a carrier".. yea right. Those of you that have never been on a USN CV have no friggin' idea how compartmentlized it is. None. It would be near impossible to sink a carrier with conventional weapons.

well thats why almoust all soviet anti-ship missiles where big...so that nuclear warhead could be installed...

[MIGleader]

Would America really do that? Follow that rule? It's gonna go around the rules.
LOL, good one. The fact is, most don't know anything, some hates it because they prefer the US environment. Some are loyal to where they are born.(And I want no any arguement over this, and nothing direct between the two of you.) I thought the Backfire carried more. The Bear was never too good for the bomber role, though.
When'd China get a sub-launched ASM to fly 200km? Only the C-801Q is here and it goes to 42km.......

PS:
Taiwan's government had long been corrupted. Did you know about Lee? He ruined the government, caused fights, and now Chen is better, but still corrupted.

BrotherofSnake, can you stop posting one-liners.


china makes the rules when you fight near taiwan. it can move its forces more quickly than the Us since they are already there. the can see where a cvbg will go by satelite.

42 km for c-801 is longer than the range of any anti sub weapon.

[Neko]

well thats why almoust all soviet anti-ship missiles where big...so that nuclear warhead could be installed...


I'd like to think that the PRC loves her people enough to know that using nukes against the US is a very, very.... very poor idea.

And sure, the PRC is closer to Taiwan... but come on, man. That's the Million Man Swim waiting to happen. The PLA can't make landfall with enough troops to make an impressive difference before the US could get there.

I would honestly be interested in watching the PRC attempt to invade Taiwan. This is me speaking, not the sailor me. Going to war sucks and all, but watching the tactics of an organization is something that interests me.

Besides launching a lot of missiles... the PRC cannot defeat Taiwan, and cannot make the landing before US involvement completely negates the opportunity.

[IDonT]

china makes the rules when you fight near taiwan. it can move its forces more quickly than the Us since they are already there. the can see where a cvbg will go by satelite.

42 km for c-801 is longer than the range of any anti sub weapon.

How do you propose China retains the initiative against a highly mobile enemy, when its route of attack (invasion of Taiwan) is known?

LAMPS III helo has longer range the C-801 for ASW prosecution and weapons delivery.

[adeptitus]

The primary focus of any Navy designed to defeat a US incursion is the destruction of our carriers. The sheer amount of damage that it takes to destroy a carrier is so massive that it could take all the ordinance of two 636 (Yes, even the ones carrying SS-N-27) to take down a single carrier.

Putting it out of the fight takes considerably less, but to remove it completely? They are so completely compartmented and defended that getting to it to hit is is tough to begin with. Once you get a hit, you had better blow several gaping holes in the hull *and* split the keel if you want any hope of a chance to actually sink the sucker.

And if you decide to go after a CVBG... get the Kitty Hawk first. We're about to decommission her any way.


It's not necessary to sink a carrier to mission-kill it. You only need to damage it enough for the ship to be withdrawn from the conflict for repairs.

However, in the event if a PRC-US conflict over Taiwan, the US can park as many aircraft as it needs at air bases all over East Asia. There is no need to send the aircraft carriers too closet to the conflict area.

At present the PRC simply does not have enough influence over neighboring countries like S. Korea, Japan, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, AUS, etc. to prevent them from siding with the US in a PRC-US conflict.

[tphuang]

I'd like to think that the PRC loves her people enough to know that using nukes against the US is a very, very.... very poor idea.

And sure, the PRC is closer to Taiwan... but come on, man. That's the Million Man Swim waiting to happen. The PLA can't make landfall with enough troops to make an impressive difference before the US could get there.

I would honestly be interested in watching the PRC attempt to invade Taiwan. This is me speaking, not the sailor me. Going to war sucks and all, but watching the tactics of an organization is something that interests me.

Besides launching a lot of missiles... the PRC cannot defeat Taiwan, and cannot make the landing before US involvement completely negates the opportunity.
I guess according to you, pla will not use the 40 IL-76MD that they will have and all the transports they will have. Seriously, Taiwanese media believe that Taiwan can last a maximum of 7 days. I think they will thank you for your faith in their army.

[MIGleader]

the million man swim is Us and taiwan bullshit propaganda. the plan is building large amounts of the yukan transports. they are also probably going to buy the russian zubr class tansports.

china does not plan to buy those 1l-76's to drop in turkistan. they will be used on taiwan.

china only only needs 10,000 marines to keep it's beachhead(which it can already manage). another few divisions will be needed to take taiwan. im sure the plan can obtain that capability in the near future.

[sumdud]

Well, is the Klub the Chinese getting the ballistic ones, the cruising ones, or both?

Too bad the ballistic ones can only carry a torpedo.......
Then again, these missiles aren't as good as a true ballistic missile........

Yes, I am proposing to launch a BM or something that can bomb the deck instead of the carrier itself. If you can bomb a hole in the deck, you are already disabling the carrier, and if not, you have killed all the planes on top, so half od the planes are gone.

I don't know about the SM-2s going against them though...... :\

PS:
Please, don't make me fall off the chair with the million men swim across the Strait Theory, my bottom is hurting already. :rollin