NEITHER cunnilingist NOR Jeff ever mentioned the old ONI graphic in their posts. Nobody in their right mind would take the position of the 093 in that chart as gospel. This was something totally and hopelessly irrelevant to the thread that azesus tried to insert into the discussion, and as such it constitutes an absurd straw man argument. What I am referring to and probably what Jeff is referring to, is the years of open seas operations that the 093 and 093G must have conducted since their introduction, which would almost certainly have resulted in their acoustic signatures being recorded and catalogued by the USN at some point, just as they did with all the Russian subs back during the Cold War. Is this somehow an unbelievable assertion for you? Are PLAN subs somehow more immune to detection and cataloguing by the USN than the Russian subs? Did either you or azesus even consider this possibility before the both of you went off on the ONI chart? It sounds like the answer is no....
09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter SinoSoldier
- Start date
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Those sonar reading is not actually a science it is more like an art I don't believe the west is so omnipotent that they can colleague or know everything there is too know about chinese submarine noise. It is more of a hubris and you believe it lock stock and barrel
We can see it from their change of strategy. At one time they believe in the superiority of sossus. But the soviet improve their sub noise level and what do you know those sossus is as good as useless
So now what they did is station sub at the mouth of soviet naval base and watch for coming and going of the soviet sub
But the soviet counter that strategy by hiding their sub noise by following the freighter as they come in and out of the harbor therefore masking their noise
\With noisy south china sea, I am not sure if they can pinpoint accurately the movement of Chinese sub. So take their claim with a lot of salt
We know that because the US is working on the improve sonar for their submarine to work in clutter and noisy coastal zone
The ONI chart is old but exist other sources completely possible have a an idea or approximative for radiated noise also using comparison etc... it is not a taboo very difficult but possible.
And as you say US submarines especialy the more silencious are perfectly able operated near Hainan by example and eventualy have accoustic signature for 093/093G again more 094 more noisy protected by them.
Article in 4 parts for it
Last edited:
Note that you were originally raging off on the ONI chart that nobody except azesus brought up, and that was in order to beat on a straw man. This is now a different response from you regarding 093 levels. Let us recognize the ONI chart for the straw man that it is and stop using it for this purpose.
I don't believe there is a 100% chance that the USN has catalogued every last one of the PLAN's SSNs, but I think there is a high likelihood of this being the case. First, your claim that SOSUS became "useless" after the Soviets improved their sub noise levels is just your own personal opinion until you provide evidence to support it. SOSUS is still in operation in various parts of the world. It is simply no longer available worldwide after the end of the Cold War being very expensive to maintain and very difficult to upgrade, and the USN has instead come to rely on cheaper and more easily upgradeable mobile sensors like SURTASS. And actually now that the Russians are deploying subs more often in the Atlantic theater, the GIUK gap is being upgraded with improved SOSUS coverage. Second, while the tactic of going out on patrol with noisy freighters sounds like a good option in the face of a complete lack of other options, you have absolutely no idea whether this worked to hide the subs' acoustic signature or not. And are you going to just follow the freighter for your entire deployment? SOSUS is almost certainly in operation from Japan all the way to the Philippines as well as the chokepoints between Japan and Korea. SURTASS routinely plies the waters of the SCS. Even if they slipped out with the freighters from the sub pen entrance (I guess freighters pass right by the sub pens quite often LOL), they are vulnerable to detection once in the open ocean to a multitude of sensors. Does this make for a 100% foolproof detection method? No, but it's pretty good, and better than anything anyone else has. I find it telling that the USN is able to boldly and publicly state how many patrols the 094 subs have gone on per year and come to the conclusion that they have started increasing recently. I suppose fanbois would privately and ecstatically rejoice in the increase in patrols while publicly and vehemently denying that the USN could possibly have this kind of information.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
WE agree to disagree You don't have proof to invaalidate my contention nor do I have proof to invalidate yours No need to continue this endless BS and hubris of the all mightyness of US navy
BTW Surtass is not a panacea
BTW Surtass is not a panacea
Last edited:
The only hubris here is the belief that PLAN subs are magically more invulnerable to detection and cataloguing by USN sensors than Russian subs are.
Why is the burden of proof on me? I didn't see you bring any facts yourself. Cold War Submarines by Norman Polmar stated Victor III already really difficult to detect by SOSUS and Akula practically nil percentage chance. So offense/defense detection practically comes down to probability of chance, but I am more inclined to believe given the scale is vastly leaning toward China's side given the difficulty of littoral background noise and hiding behind freighters and flanked by diesel subs that can detect and scout ahead added with the close shore combined Air/Sea fighter planes chase off P-3 and surface ship chase away other ships, Guam only based 4 retirement age flight 1 LA-class boats that probably in all likely hood spend more time at pier for maintenance and given the short manned and ill trained culture of the 7th Fleet(the Burke collide because many of their seaman certificate are expired) you think they some how are still highly likely to penetrate China close shore fortress zone territory to collect good intel without getting false positive feint and decoyed buddy I got a beach front property in Austria I want to sale it to you. Given 7th Fleet corrupt fat Leonard culture it's more likely the so called "intel" its just bureaucratic runaround "pretend" they are doing their job, I randomly mention ONI because it's called Office of Naval Intelligence so thats supposed their job and if that doesn't do then you are just not making sense, what else would I mention? Office of Army Intelligence? Absurd I don't see you bring any facts? And then there is a certain someone likes to randomly bring source from any web sites on the internet hearsay he say she say go as far as wikipedia, haha, I have a Austria beach front property I want to sale it to that individual
If enemy subs were so hard to detect after the Akula, the entire SOSUS network would have been dismantled. It was not the advent of the Akula but rather the end of the Cold War that saw the shrinkage (but NOT elimination) of the worldwide SOSUS network. And it's also not like the sensors themselves are static in their technology. They have been upgraded irregularly over the years, and are now going to be upgraded to the newer DRAPES technology:
China is building something similar, and Virginias, Seawolfs, and LA subs are all quieter than Akulas. So why would China build these arrays if these types of subs are allegedly invulnerable to detection?
That, BTW, was the only semi-reasonable argument you made in that post. The rest of your claims are "it's far more likely" this and "it's far more likely" that. Fat Leonard this, claims about LA class maintenance times that, and other smoke and mirrors that are just ridiculously irrelevant. So Fat Leonard made money off dozens of corrupt naval officers. THAT somehow means that SOSUS or SURTASS can't detect enemy subs??? Seriously? I mean how much more ridiculous can this get? LOL
We are agree and in the reality BTW US SSNs in 1980's had gotten close of Soviet SSBNs bastions ( Barents Sea - Greenland and Okhotsk Sea ) or bases much more heavily defended than actual Chinese
azesus Dear do not get upset bad for blood pressure
Last edited: