DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Eye on China » A Little Chinese Sub Buffet?

A Little Chinese Sub Buffet?

song-sub.jpg

Is this for real?

From the UK Daily Mail

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.

At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world’s only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.

That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk — a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China’s fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was “as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik” — a reference to the Soviet Union’s first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.

And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.

According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.

It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was “shadowing” the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.

Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its “backyard.“

This sounds like a a similar incident that occured last year, where another Chinese popped up a little too close for comfort next to the Kitty Hawk.

What gives? I mean, Pentagon chief Gates was just over in China making nicey nice with is Sino counterparts. Why the shadow puppetry which is certainly going to give the US Navy a serious case of the jitters? I can’t find much more on this story, and the Daily Mail is surely not the most credible source…What do you dear readers make of this?
(Gouge: CM)

– Christian

Share |

November 12th, 2007 | Eye on China | 265590 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/11/12/a-little-chinese-sub-buffet/A+Little+Chinese+Sub+Buffet%3F2007-11-12+12%3A20%3A43Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « The Freaky F-35 Lid | Power to the People on Grounded Eagles » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Byron Skinner says:
    November 14, 2007 at 5:43 pm

    Good Afternoon Folks,
    All the comments here seem good and I can add only a single point. The two Admirals in the Pacific at the time Fallon (PACOM) and McConell(INTPAC) and CNO Mullen (CNO) seem not to have skated any damage to their careers, since all have been promoted after this event. Don’t we long for the days when a CNO would comitt sucide over the question of an attachment to a decroation?
    Any accountability among Naval Officers seems to be a lost tradidion or unless of course it’s an 06 or below, the it’s a different story.
    One would think that haveing a Carrier at sea, even just for training, that there would have been at least one SSN down stairs and at least one DD would have it’s ears on not to mention the carriers own airborne ASW platform(s) This clearly wasn’t the case and by the time a ASW presence was made the intruder have left the area.
    In short the Chinese arn’t that good but it seems that we are that bad.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  2. EM2(SS) says:
    November 14, 2007 at 5:53 pm

    LOL, Surf1. My hat’s off to DC2 and Crusty Old Chief for their original responses –they are what inspired me to hop into this little can of worms.…
    So today I ran into an interesting article at the Navy Times and it fits into this discussion:
    http://​www​.navytimes​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​0​7​/​1​1​/​a​p​_​s​u​b​m​a​r​i​n​e​s​_​0​7​1​1​13/
    They are approving money for new Virginia class subs to be built. Now I am totally for new nuke boats, but at a whopping $2.5 Billion for each boat, well, that’s a lot of cash for one little boat.
    Having spent time at both No Ka Oi (Pearl Harbor) and Portsmouth shipyards, I can totally understand the need to keep this infrastructure in place, and keep it maintained. EB and NN shipyards are incredibly important to our ability to produce quality boats in the future.
    The skills that the shipyard workers (the good ones, not the slackers) have is incredible. A national asset, and should definitely be kept running. That is “tribal knowledge” that we can NOT afford to lose. To allow those places to flounder is just asinine at best.
    But what bugs me (even as a nuke) is that they are struggling to keep the shipyards open with 1–2 new nuke boats a year. Yes, we need to keep the production lines open and keep on producing new nuke boats. But what about Air Independent Propulsion diesel boats? (SSIs) Or even just normal diesel-electric boats? (SSKs) For each SINGLE Virginia class boat, they could produce 5–7 SSK or SSIs (estimating $300M and $500M each –my numbers could be off, please forgive me if they are).
    Let’s look at some of the advanatages:
    – More American jobs, if these are produced in-country.
    – Keeping and expanding critical infrastructure.
    – The O-gangers should love it, because more hulls = more department head, XO and CO billets. ==> More chances for them to actually command a boat of their own.
    – It would give us more coverage in the littoral areas where nuke boats aren’t totally needed or the best for the conditions: near Taiwan, the Persian Gulf and (God forbid) even doing homeland/coastal security work. Maybe even drug interdiction.…
    –By having SSKs and SSIs in our inventory, we could prep our ASW and SSN forces to better thwart the threat.
    The only downside about a SSK/SSI from my POV is that the battery is probably a cast iron beyatch to maintain. It might mean a lot more EM billets… and possibly promotion potential.… maybe not so bad… were I still active or drilling.…
    But if the rest of the world is making a whole LOT of SSks and SSIs, it would make a lot of sense to prepare to counter that particular threat. But that’s just me. I’m sure that the Powers That Be are a whole lot smarter than I am.… [face_rolling_eyes]

    Reply
  3. DC2 Jennings says:
    November 14, 2007 at 10:25 pm

    Surf1,
    I would like to thank the United States Navy for helping me grow a pair and be able to receive this Testicular Award. Like any good red blooded American, I will proudly display this award from the trailer hitch on my truck.
    Byron, I served under the man you mentioned committed suiced (Adm. Jeremy Boorda) and he was truly an honorable man. I personally believe that the Navy has a higher standard of accountability than for their officers than any other service. The CO of the USS Cole, even though he was not officially reprimanded, was toast after that incident.
    The fact of the matter is every branch of the service has had to make do with less and these wars are taking an even greater toll. It was bad enough when Clinton was president and he decided to overextend the military, what Bush is doing now is just as bad. The Air Force is flying planes too old, the Navy has had to decom good ships and virtually do away with the majority of their ASW capability, the Marines have always been redheaded stepchildren, and the Army is having it’s own issues to deal with.
    The F-15, LUH, and this blog are prime examples of where our military finds itself today.
    I agree with EM2, KISS.

    Reply
  4. Roy Smith says:
    November 14, 2007 at 10:50 pm

    Not to make a big deal over nothing,but two examples of “swallowing a camel & straining on a gnat” is the former CNO in the middle of the 80’s(who was also caught at Tailhook in 91 or 92 I think) who was more concerned about sailors being clean shaven instead of being allowed to have beards & good ole’ Jim Webb when he became Secretary of the Navy & he felt that the first most important decision he had to make was that Napoleon McCallum couldn’t play for the Raiders while he was in the navy.I’m sure people have opinions about both subjects,but this former soldier wonders if there were not any more pressing matters than if a sailor plays pro ball on his off duty time & whether a sailor looks better with or without a beard.I know there are people here who feel like the F/A-18 Super Hornet is the best jet right now for the navy,but I was upset that the F-14 was the only jet that could fire the AIM-54 air-to-air missile & both were retired,but there was the AIM-155 Advanced Air-to-Air Missile that was lighter than the Phoenix & could be fired by the Super Hornet & other fighters,but it was canceled.
    Its like some devious mind is out to neuter our navy’s ability to defend itself.Now I read that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the navy has to make its sonar safer for whales & dolphins.I think that our country has gone nuts.

    Reply
  5. Crusty Old Chief says:
    November 15, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    Some last thoughts before this article rolls off:
    – Beards were sixed on Adm Watkins’ watch not on Adm Boorda’s. But you’re only off by a decade; not bad for the sister service that never learned to use a simple blousing cord. :) Moreover, even the most hoary traditions must bow to operational necessity. Beards, goatees, and Elvisite sideburns interfere with gas masks and OBAs/SCBAs. Some of us stood in the head with the CMAA until midnight of the last day we were permitted beards, refusing to shave until the last moment.
    – Nuclear power has the great potential to solve ALL of our power requirements essentially forever. Our TLD-wearing geekazoids in the reactor compartments of ships and subs have a half-century long record to prove its safety, reliability, and sustainability.
    Nuclear power also has the great potential to spawn some rather nasty stuff like plutonium that can essentially solve all the apocalyptic requirements of terrorists, al-Mahdi jerkwads, and schizoid geeks who made it just far enough through nuclear power school to be dangerous to everyone.
    Nuclear power is the ultimate hobgoblin of Luddites, wheat-germers, and all the rest who read Mother Earth News or who believe in the divinity of Al Gore. Personally, I blame Uncle Sugar for 60 years of permitting the Left to control what passes for information about anything nuclear.
    Nuclear power, to my mind, falls under the broad category of Things Forbidden to Stupid People. Is there any wonder why the Soviets lost so many subs to reactor incidents or that Chernobly went boom? Bad designs built by incompetents and run by politicians and farmers. Its the same reason why the Lada, Trabant, and Zil never captured a sizeable share of the export market.
    Lastly, because a nuclear reactor or even a radioisotope generator (RTG) falls near the top of the Things Forbidden to Stupid People, we need to make a pretty solid swipe at keeping them out of the hands of children and terrorists. Now I’m a pretty ignorant fellow who grew up thinking that red lead primer, asbestos, and MEK were all pretty much benign but I still stand pretty firm on the idea that fissionable, radioactive, or otherwise Fairly Damned Dangerous materials should not be put into anything unmanned. (Unless, of course, the unmanned device is a space probe or a warshot.)
    Just my opinion. If you think I’m wrong please let me know. Because if I am, then I’m going to start collecting smoke alarms to build my own RTG. I’m thinking that it might make a good preheater for my hot water heater or at least a way to keep the birdbath from freezing this winter.
    Cheers,
    Chief B.
    BTW, anyone have a spare dosimeter and radiac?

    Reply
  6. Roy Smith says:
    November 15, 2007 at 11:02 pm

    I had to look his name up to be sure,but I thought that it was Frank B. Kelso II who ordered the beards banned.Anyway,I thought that it was strange that the navy retired(& as I’ve other say,turned into razor blades) all of the nuclear-powered cruisers that they had,especially with the oil crisis(as far as prices go) having an impact on the navy being able to deploy & exercise.The retiring of the battleships was also a big disappointment.Being a soldier,& I’m sure I can also speak for the marines,those big guns were a great comfort to us on land.I don’t think that amphibious assaults are completely dead & those guns would have helped a lot in any amphibious landing operation or just the fact that they are there would divert the enemy’s troops to cover the beaches like the Iraqis had to do during Desert Storm​.It seems like we have done everything we could to cripple our abilities to defend our ships against submarines & aircraft carrying anti-ship missiles,& we crippled our ability to protect the marines landing on beaches.

    Reply
  7. Jonathan says:
    November 16, 2007 at 2:26 am

    So, looks like the Chinese are still our enemy.
    Wait till after the olympics. The Olympics are a
    huge source of pride for the Chinese, but once they come and go, China isnt going to probably wait too much longer on Taiwan. China, while a huge trading partner, is also taking advantage of that position to build up its military and get in a position to take over taiwan without any interferance from us.
    China is militarily our enemy, and needs to be treated as such. Robert Gates is ignorant if he really thinks they arent.

    Reply
  8. Requiem gold says:
    August 5, 2008 at 8:01 pm

    My friends in order to help me, send me much Requiem gold, I was very thank him.

    Reply
  9. buy cronous gold says:
    August 5, 2008 at 8:05 pm

    Actually I practice the level by myself to be much quicker than together, and I need not buy cronous gold for , but it was very amusing that two people played in together.

    Reply
  10. Habbo gold says:
    August 14, 2008 at 2:15 am

    I know that you are not a sloppy person, you have your aspiration, have your ideal. You will not care the game Habbo gold. Therefore you are doomed to leave Habbo, leave friends who these share some hardships, and leave me who am lonely apprentice.

    Reply
  11. LOTRO Gold says:
    August 14, 2008 at 2:18 am

    Finally, I gained have sufficed the LOTRO Gold, had the family. We were in together finally.

    Reply
  12. buy last chaos gold says:
    August 14, 2008 at 2:19 am

    If we do not have the good fortune this life, we will see with each other and that time I will buy last chaos gold enough for you in next life.

    Reply
  13. Metin2 yang says:
    August 19, 2008 at 2:39 am

    Of course the Metin2 yang can bring funs. I believed that you will love this Metin2 gold new game.

    Reply
  14. Cheap metin2 gold says:
    August 19, 2008 at 2:45 am

    If you want to Buy metin2 gold you can go to the company. I hope that we will become good friends in the Cheap metin2 gold game.

    Reply
  15. R D HAMILTON says:
    April 21, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    The Navy is concerned at the cost of building more than one Atomic Sub a year. Since the Japanese Sub building is now out of business why not have them build the hull similar to what the air lines are now doing.If the work designed with the future of the Sub to take on the completion by the U S Engineers, this could be a grate saving.

    Reply
  16. Betty says:
    August 19, 2009 at 3:14 am

    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
    Betty
    http://​electricguitarhowtoplay​.net

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    Recent Comments
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      A lot of these comments are missing the mark –...
      Why
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      And the attitude that gets the USAF continually...
      Why
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      You're still confused. You're arguing...
      Why
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      First, what’s wrong with have a variety of...
      Mrcjis
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      I agree. More organic precision fire, like the...
      SMSgt Mac
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      This has been thoroughly covered in DefenseTech:...
      SMSgt Mac
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      It looks like a Russian firm may offer an Il-96 tanker plane:...
      Brian H
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      1. DoD contracts of this sort are 'cost...
      SMSgy Mac
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      LIke I've said before it's the insistence of a...
      Dean
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      How are you going to land an F-22 on a Marine...
      Lee Gibson
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage