2 U.S. carriers deployed

[JSCh]

A deterrent to what end? What was it trying to deter? We have reiterated our commitments to our treaties, and our carriers still plow the 7 seas, Asia especially. If its intent was to deter in some way years ago it looks to have failed by all means.

It is well known PLA has an anti-access or A2/AD strategy.

It is PLA duty to defend her national border come success or failure.

 

[surya kiran]

I read all of them a long time ago. But you are still dodging the questions:

- If you -- the captain of the sub -- found out you could sneaked up on the world's most powerful navy without detection, why would you give that knowledge away by doing such a foolish thing?

- If you -- the leader of the country -- know that your subs could sneak up on the world's most powerful navy without detection, why would you give that knowledge away by ordering the captain to do such a foolish thing?

- Now that powerful navy is aware of a vulnerability and will take corrective measures, technical and else, to prevent such a repeat. Is the short term gloat worth the long term tactical disadvantage?

It does not matter if the surface combatants were conducting ASW exercises or not, as a sub, silence is always golden, and nothing is more loud as to your capability than surfacing where a potential adversary can see you and found out he had been had -- IN PEACE TIME.

From this perspective, one cannot help but wonder if the authors of those articles bothered to talk to anyone in the submariner community.

It is ridiculous to try and explain stuff. That submarine surfacing was the dumbest thing that could ever be done by a sub captain. You practically invited the most powerful known navy in human history to take a good look at your supposedly great ship and then getting tracked and measured from every possible direction and depth. The amount of data the USN would have gathered would make that boat a dead duck if it came within a 500 km radius of a cbg in the future.

And yeah right...I believe the US chap who said ooo we did not know they are there. In all probability they knew they were there and were tracing him right back and collecting information and doing what a professional trained navy does. Shut up, collect info, analyse it and mark him for the future.

But then, you need experience for all of the above.

 

[JSCh]

What deterrence?

If the USN know Chinese subs can sneak up on its ships, sooner or later but more like sooner, the USN will figure out how. And do you think the USN is going to tell the Chinese how?

Well, that is just an assumption.
Judging by the numerous exercises that USN had with various allied countries' diesel sub, if USN has an effective counter, it is not showing it to the world. But at least we know that many countries know how.

 

[Viet]

In south east Asia, Vietnam is only country that culturally is close related to China, we will welcome you back as people of NanYue and of course you'are eligible to be the head of state if you know how to take care and manage the entire Middle kingdom

We know how to run an Empire!
Vietnam saw itself as Southern Chinese Empire with own vassals!

Vietnam

Sinocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vietnam (Annam) had an intimate but not always peaceful relationship with China. Vietnam was part of various Chinese dynasties and kingdoms for approximately 900 years before gaining independence in the 10th century. In subsequent centuries the Vietnamese drove out Chinese invaders on a number of occasions, to the extent that conflict with China may be seen as one of the main themes of Vietnamese history.

General Lý Thường Kiệt (李常&#20625 (1019–1105)

However, Vietnam was also heavily Sinicized, using Classical Chinese as its official literary language and adopting most aspects of Chinese culture, including the administrative system, architecture, philosophy, religion, literature of China, and even a general cultural outlook.

Vietnam persistently identified itself in relation to China, regarding itself as the kingdom of the south as against China in the north, as seen in this line from a poem (in Classical Chinese) by General Lý Thường Kiệt (李常&#20625 (1019–1105): "Over mountains and rivers of the South reigns the Emperor of the South. (南國山河南帝&#23621".

Emperor Gia Long 阮福映 (1802–1820)

In adopting Chinese customs, the Vietnamese court also adopted the Chinese world view. In 1805, the Emperor Gia Long referred to Vietnam as trung quốc, the "Middle Kingdom".[7] In 1811, Gia Long proposed a law "Hán di hữu hạn", which means "making clear the border between the Vietnamese and barbarians", referring to the Vietnamese as Han people.[8] Cambodia was regularly called Cao Man, the country of "upper barbarians".

In 1815, Gia Long claimed 13 countries as Vietnamese vassals, including Luang Prabang, Vientane, Burma, Tran Ninh Plateau in eastern Laos, and two countries called "Water Haven" and "Fire Haven", which were actually Malayo-Polynesian Jarai tribes living between Vietnam and Thailand. Mirroring the Chinese model, the Vietnamese court attempted to regulate the presentation of tribute to the Vietnamese court, participation in New Year and emperor's birthday ceremonies, as well as the travel routes and size of tributary missions.[9]

Chinese influence waned as French influence rose in the 19th century, and Vietnam eventually abolished the Imperial examinations and stopped using Chinese characters and the related Chữ Nôm script in the 20th century.

 

[anon45]

It is well known PLA has an anti-access or A2/AD strategy.

It is PLA duty to defend her national border come success or failure.

How would this contribute to that defence, especially when considering that if this sub actually did sneak up on a carrier, it allowed the carrier group to be aware of the fact so the powers that be can figure out what went wrong, and (by looking at whats happened past that incident) has not sufficiently impressed our command into giving Asia's waters wide berth.

Basically if it did actually sneak up on a carrier it threw away the tactical advantage while serving no deterrant effect, basically helping the US navy refine its tactics. The one in charge of that sub should be fired in this case!

 

[JSCh]

How would this contribute to that defence, especially when considering that if this sub actually did sneak up on a carrier, it allowed the carrier group to be aware of the fact so the powers that be can figure out what went wrong, and (by looking at whats happened past that incident) has not sufficiently impressed our command into giving Asia's waters wide berth.

Basically if it did actually sneak up on a carrier it threw away the tactical advantage while serving no deterrant effect, basically helping the US navy refine its tactics. The one in charge of that sub should be fired in this case!

It is well known that diesel sub can be absolutely quiet when laying in wait and difficult to detect.
This sub would be like sentry to an area, hence area defence. It is like a warning to the CVBG that they have trespass into an restricted area. It is saying, if you cross this line, expect the possibility to be ambush.
If a situation develop for example in the taiwan strait, the CVBG would think twice to cross into that area in a hurry.
It would have cause USN to expend resource and time to counter the threat. Once the USN do that, the objective is accomplish.
In peace time, the USN can go anywhere like everybody else in international water.
Therefore this warning needed to be issue only once, because the commander of the seven fleet would know better that anyone else what it means.

 

[gambit]

It is well known that diesel sub can be absolutely quiet when laying in wait and difficult to detect.

It is also well known that diesel subs running on battery have a limited submerged duration.

This sub would be like sentry to an area, hence area defence. It is like a warning to the CVBG that they have trespass into an restricted area. It is saying, if you cross this line, expect the possibility to be ambush.
If a situation develop for example in the taiwan strait, the CVBG would think twice to cross into that area in a hurry.
It would have cause USN to expend resource and time to counter the threat. Once the USN do that, the objective is accomplish.
In peace time, the USN can go anywhere like everybody else in international water.
Therefore this warning needed to be issue only once, because the commander of the seven fleet would know better that anyone else what it means.

This is a seriously flawed argument.

Why would you want to give warning in the first place? Does not matter if it is war or peace. Why?

If you can -- in war -- deprive him of a precious weapon system, why would you want to give him a warning in peace time that you can do so? Deterrence? What guarantee do you have that he cannot nullify what you believed to be a deterrence factor and not tell you about it? Your argument is worthwhile if the US does not have any submarine force, in other words, if you possess a weapon system that a potential adversary does not have and is unlikely to have for a long time, then the deterrence factor matter because a potential adversary would be unlikely to commit to a war he know, or at least believes, he cannot win. But we know the US does have a submarine force and superior to China at that. A diesel sub eventually will have to surface and if the USN is the aggressor underwater, a nuclear attack sub will have the advantage. Once the Chinese subs are sunk...

 

[WS-10 Engine]

It is also well known that diesel subs running on battery have a limited submerged duration.


This is a seriously flawed argument.

Why would you want to give warning in the first place? Does not matter if it is war or peace. Why?

If you can -- in war -- deprive him of a precious weapon system, why would you want to give him a warning in peace time that you can do so? Deterrence? What guarantee do you have that he cannot nullify what you believed to be a deterrence factor and not tell you about it? Your argument is worthwhile if the US does not have any submarine force, in other words, if you possess a weapon system that a potential adversary does not have and is unlikely to have for a long time, then the deterrence factor matter because a potential adversary would be unlikely to commit to a war he know, or at least believes, he cannot win. But we know the US does have a submarine force and superior to China at that. A diesel sub eventually will have to surface and if the USN is the aggressor underwater, a nuclear attack sub will have the advantage. Once the Chinese subs are sunk...

No.

Chinese subs are superior.
It's a proven fact.
That's why our subs stalked your subs without getting detected and humiliated your subs.

Try again, much harder next time.

NEXT!

 

[JSCh]

It is also well known that diesel subs running on battery have a limited submerged duration.

Just like any sentry/patrol duty, they can work out a schedule, I thought that is obvious.

This is a seriously flawed argument.

Why would you want to give warning in the first place? Does not matter if it is war or peace. Why?
If you can -- in war -- deprive him of a precious weapon system, why would you want to give him a warning in peace time that you can do so? Deterrence? What guarantee do you have that he cannot nullify what you believed to be a deterrence factor and not tell you about it?

Your argument is worthwhile if the US does not have any submarine force, in other words, if you possess a weapon system that a potential adversary does not have and is unlikely to have for a long time, then the deterrence factor matter because a potential adversary would be unlikely to commit to a war he know, or at least believes, he cannot win. But we know the US does have a submarine force and superior to China at that. A diesel sub eventually will have to surface and if the USN is the aggressor underwater, a nuclear attack sub will have the advantage. Once the Chinese subs are sunk...

The warning is of course for deterrence as stated before.
Why give warning in peace time? Most likely for political reason. An action is sometime far more effective than diplomatic protest. A protest tell you our will, and an action tell you our ability to carry out the will. Countless countries do this all the time.
And about prematurely showing of hand, as stated in last post, the tactic is not a big secret, many countries knows how, that of course include the US.
From a military point of view, China do not expect this tactic to be a complete deterrence, such as DF-21D/DF-31A.
But it is a limited deterrence, as I mentioned in last post, USN needs resource and time to counter the threat. If China can limit US access to an area for a limited time, it would still be considered as a tactical advantage.
Also if USN start going around hunting for sub, that would signify her intention and might give clue in locating the position of your CVBG, which would be a very valuable information.
Given the above advantages, why not?
Judging from the amount of time, effort and money that USN has spend on developing counter diesel sub tactical exercise that one can read from the media, one would definitely say USN looks worry.
Of course it is possible that this is USN tactic to placate her allies that could not have nuclear sub.

 

[Mav3rick]

That story has been questioned, if not outright debunked, a long time ago.

Where???

Think about it for a moment...

If you -- the captain of the sub -- found out you could sneaked up on the world's most powerful navy without detection, why would you give that knowledge away by doing such a foolish thing?

If you -- the leader of the country -- know that your subs could sneak up on the world's most powerful navy without detection, why would you give that knowledge away by ordering the captain to do such a foolish thing?

Now that powerful navy is aware of a vulnerability and will take corrective measures, technical and else, to prevent such a repeat. Is the short term gloat worth the long term tactical disadvantage?

I know several (retired) submariners and they all laughed at that story, especially the bit about how we were 'embarrassed'. Most likely, assuming that a Chinese sub did surfaced within weapons range, the Chinese sub was 'pinged' to the surface by at least one US sub ahead of the main fleet. Or that the Chinese sub was on the move towards the surface and he was unaware until almost too late that a US carrier fleet was barreling down on his position.

On the contrary, wouldn't the rising super power love to teach a trick or 2 to 'the' super power? If I was the rising power, wouldn't it be ideal to prove to the super power that the I have the technology and the capability to strike back? Would such theatricals act as a deterrence to any misadventure?

Now you think about that....and while you are thinking about it all, ask the several (retired) marines you may know how some rag tags have been kicking your military's *** like the Vietcong did, or perhaps even worse. I must warn you, they may not laugh. You may think your military is invincible, but they have only been tested against 3rd world countries and that too with the rest of the first world behind them!

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

No.

Chinese subs are superior.
It's a proven fact.
That's why our subs stalked your subs without getting detected and humiliated your subs.

Try again, much harder next time.

NEXT!

Novice at least get your facts right before jumping into a fight.

 

[gambit]

Novice at least get your facts right before jumping into a fight.

They are 'Chinese facts'. Kinda like 'Chinese physics'. Infinitely flexible.

 

[gambit]

Where???

Logical thought processes. Ever heard of them?

On the contrary, wouldn't the rising super power love to teach a trick or 2 to 'the' super power? If I was the rising power, wouldn't it be ideal to prove to the super power that the I have the technology and the capability to strike back? Would such theatricals act as a deterrence to any misadventure?

Gloating is the most foolish thing to do when your national security is at stake. Like I said, you can do so only if a potential adversary does not have parity capability. The most feared aircraft during the Cold War was not the B-52 or the B-1 or even the ICBM. It was a series of unarmed reconnaissance aircrafts, first the U-2 and later the SR-71. No one had anything comparable and just awareness of the fact that the US can violate territorial airspace at will forced the USSR to strategic courses other than what the Kremlin wanted.

Now show everyone how are the Chinese subs are superior.

Now you think about that....and while you are thinking about it all, ask the several (retired) marines you may know how some rag tags have been kicking your military's *** like the Vietcong did, or perhaps even worse. I must warn you, they may not laugh. You may think your military is invincible, but they have only been tested against 3rd world countries and that too with the rest of the first world behind them!

Please...This is nothing but meaningless rhetoric and poor understanding of history. Did you know that the NVA admitted that they never won a battle? See if you can find out where is that admittance.

Just like any sentry/patrol duty, they can work out a schedule, I thought that is obvious.

Ah...Predictability. Good thing to let a potential adversary know. Unpredictability is what made the nuclear sub a feared weapon.

 

[anon45]

It is well known that diesel sub can be absolutely quiet when laying in wait and difficult to detect. This sub would be like sentry to an area, hence area defence. It is like a warning to the CVBG that they have trespass into an restricted area. It is saying, if you cross this line, expect the possibility to be ambush. If a situation develop for example in the taiwan strait, the CVBG would think twice to cross into that area in a hurry. It would have cause USN to expend resource and time to counter the threat. Once the USN do that, the objective is accomplish.

So this is to deter deterrance? Because if the US and China wen't to war in a Taiwan conflict, the carriers wouldn't be operating in the Taiwan straits, even during the time when the US actually sent a carrier through the straits. Also much better to spend money and time than to expend blood and hulls. Make no mistake the USN wouldn't charge into an area if it knew subs were operating there (or even if it just didn't know), but it would still enter the area if it had to to accomplish the mission, it would just be more alert.

In peace time, the USN can go anywhere like everybody else in international water.
Therefore this warning needed to be issue only once, because the commander of the seven fleet would know better that anyone else what it means.

And yet what has been deterred? How would you even be in a position to know if they 'got the message'? According to all metrics the message was recieved but disregarded. Instead they opted to continue what they've been doing.

 

[anon45]

No.

Chinese subs are superior.
It's a proven fact.
That's why our subs stalked your subs without getting detected and humiliated your subs.

Try again, much harder next time.

NEXT!

You know nothing about warfare in general, or you are trolling.