Chinese Submarines - are they noisy?

[HumanRights]

Are they still extremely noisy?

 

[Johnlaw]

Japanese say PLA submarines are noisy and can defeat them in 30mins. I wonder how true that is.

 

[VelocuR]

Are they still extremely noisy?

Japanese say PLA submarines are noisy and can defeat them in 30mins. I wonder how true that is.

Yes, currently Chinese Submarines are noisy and still working on AIP to reduce noises. I don't know the true about 30 minutes but Chinese know the plans.

 

[gambit]

indeed! americans had made a lot more noise than our diesel sub after this incident - 7 years ago!

China sub stalked U.S. fleet - Washington Times

Actually...The ones made the most noise are the Chinese, as in those who have no military experience to have even a basic understanding of secrets, tactics, and strategic advantages.

This tale have been debunked many times over and no one in the submariner community take it seriously. This is not to say this event never happened, as in how the word 'tale' is generally construed. Rather, the word 'tale' is meant to denote a semi-fantasy narrative of some alleged capability of Chinese subs to oh-so-easily 'stalk' US carriers.

First...A sub's maximum depth is secret, even published figures are taken to be estimated, not true. But while this figure may not be true, at least it give those outside the community a reasonable gauge to compare to other vessels from other navies, as such comparisons are inevitable. So if a sub's true depth, one of many capabilities, is secret, why should its ability to trail a target while producing as little noise as possible, whether the target is surface or sub-surface, be any less secret? It is NOT any less secret.

Second...If a sub's noise level is measurable and tactically useful in anyway is equally a secret as its true maximum depth, why should anyone reveal it with such a stupid stunt? A war is when all capabilities of a military is either revealed and/or new capabilities that were secret finally exposed and exposed by wartime necessities. So why would anyone revealed to a potential adversary what his underwater warfighting capabilities will be in the event of a real war? If the order to reveal came from above, whoever gave that order should be removed from office and executed for foolishness. If the act was locally motivated, then the sub's captain and all his officers should be executed for stupidity, then the enlisted crew members demoted one rank down, at least two years added to their enlistment contract, and dispersed throughout the fleet.

The reality behind this event is too boring.

The Song-class subs top submerged speed is estimated 22 kts but under wartime conditions this speed is most likely will never be used to 'stalk' any surface enemy combatants for the simple fact that the sub would give itself away via a variety of noises, notably from engine and hull (skin) friction. The higher the speed, the higher the noise. Any Song-class sub foolish enough to do this will be torp-ed by the carrier's sub escort. Further, if these surface combatants are under full steam, as in under wartime conditions, the fleet will actually outrun this Song-class sub.

Diesel/battery subs do not stalk. Such a sub will lie in wait or drift with the current if the current will take him to where he wants to be, or he may be under minimal propulsion to get where he wants to be. Where this event took place, an area between Japan and Taiwan, the average depth is 350 meters. Factor in safety margin, this would be at the Song-class sub's maximum estimated depth. Contrary to comic books portrayal, subs do not rest -- LITERALLY -- on the bottom. The noise generated by sand, rocks, and who knows what against the hull will be greater than flow friction noise. When a sub is 'at bottom' it mean the sub is at neutral buoyancy 'hovering' above the sea bottom, providing this depth is within the sub's maximum depth safety margin.

It takes a lot of 3D underwater real estate to maneuver a sub. A sub cannot 'turn on a dime', as how Americans say about things agile and nimble. Even so, the word 'hover' is used casually. Diving officers do not like to 'hover' their boats. While submerged, a sub is pretty much constantly moving through the water. It changes depth the same way an aircraft changes altitude -- through planes that operate like an aircraft's ailerons. If the sub stop its propulsion, it does not mean the sub is not moving. Underwater currents will keep it moving and the planes can still be used to change depth. So when a diving officer say his boat is 'hovering' he means the boat is not changing depth, not that the boat is literally stationary.

Oddities of Physics | Modern Mechanix

Can a submarine remain stationary at any desired level?

The answer is that it cannot, unless a slight headway is maintained or water is admitted to and discharged from the trimming tanks. A submarine cannot find a state of hydrostatic equilibrium or a point at which all pressures are equal.

Keywords are 'a slight headway' and 'or water is admitted', meaning either from propulsion or from moving with currents, and from pumping/purging water in/out of the ballast tanks, which would give the sub away immediately to any adversary listening. Flooding a ballast tank is noisy enough, but blowing air into a ballast tank to displace water is a thousand times noisier.

The Song-class sub is about 75 meters in length.

The Right Submarine for Lurking in the Littorals | U.S. Naval Institute

High maneuverability is also critical in shallow and confined waters. All submarines sailing at less than 165 feet need to have excellent depth control. 11 There a submarine can maneuver in a water column of only two to three ship lengths. 12 At periscope depth, it has to operate around a keel depth of 50 to 65 feet, depending on the sea state and periscope and mast extension.

The highlighted is important.

If this Chinese Song-class sub, with its estimated maximum depth rating of 300 meters, was lying in wait for the Kitty Hawk and her escorts, most likely the sub was 'hovering' at (best) 200 meters depth with 100 meters as safety margin.

Remember: A water column of only two to three ship length.

So for a vessel length of 75 meters, 100 meters as a safety or maneuvering margin is being extremely tight and for this discussion, extremely generous to the crew's ability at depth control. But if assume the norm, that mean the Chinese sub was 'hovering' at around 150 meters depth.

And if the sub was lying in wait, it mean she was not under propulsion but is adrift with the current and this is where it gets dangerous for the sub when there is an American carrier battle group running at flank speed that is greater than the sub is capable of doing. She probably guessed correctly that there would be at least one American sub lurking around. Since this is peace time, she is not allowed to do anything but if she does nothing, the odds of collision or being tossed about even more by currents induced from the surface increases as the fleet nears. So for the safety of the crew, the Chinese sub captain have only one option: Make himself known.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Yes, currently Chinese Submarines are noisy and still working on AIP to reduce noises. I don't know the true about 30 minutes but Chinese know the plans.

Sure, the modern PLAN nuclear sub is inferior to the 1970s Soviet boomers, just like the J-20 is inferior to the Mig-21.

 

[Genesis]

@gambit

for all your talk of secrecy and how the event is nothing. That may be correct.

In fact I would go one further and say it's probably a mistake or something of that nature.

But I am wondering, do Chinese military publish articles each time it sends a sub or two here and there? So how do we know, this isn't one in a hundred times of cat and mouse that we got discovered?

Alternatively, it's also possible that we were caught and the US didn't say anything to try and confuse us. But this isn't as likely, because I'm assuming, stealth is one of the things that is easily tested even without doing something like this.

But who knows for sure?

now, on to the topic of noise. What do you think of that? Are you saying new Chinese subs can't match Subs from the 80s? The fact that India leased subs from Russia means it was at least open for discussion for China to have the same option.

Why would we refuse? Obviously buying from Russia is not a problem for us as we still buy from them, so there is no stigma around it. Also the PAK FA project, we could have been involved, but we refused? Why, it's certainly not pride, as I have said we still buy certain things and openly admit our deficiencies at times.

So we must not be that bad at it, as some people make it out to be, or am I mistaken.

 

[Juice]

Pretty sure all Chinese ships are re-classified as "submarines" after 5 years or so.



(Ps....a joke.....don't go all haywire....)

 

[Akasa]

Pretty sure all Chinese ships are re-classified as "submarines" after 5 years or so.



(Ps....a joke.....don't go all haywire....)

Well since people accuse China of imitating military technology, then that means the US ships would be submarines before that.

(PS....also a joke....)

 

[shuttler]

Actually...The ones made the most noise are the Chinese, as in those who have no military experience to have even a basic understanding of secrets, tactics, and strategic advantages.

This tale have been debunked many times over and no one in the submariner community take it seriously. This is not to say this event never happened, as in how the word 'tale' is generally construed. Rather, the word 'tale' is meant to denote a semi-fantasy narrative of some alleged capability of Chinese subs to oh-so-easily 'stalk' US carriers.

First...A sub's maximum depth is secret, even published figures are taken to be estimated, not true. But while this figure may not be true, at least it give those outside the community a reasonable gauge to compare to other vessels from other navies, as such comparisons are inevitable. So if a sub's true depth, one of many capabilities, is secret, why should its ability to trail a target while producing as little noise as possible, whether the target is surface or sub-surface, be any less secret? It is NOT any less secret.

Second...If a sub's noise level is measurable and tactically useful in anyway is equally a secret as its true maximum depth, why should anyone reveal it with such a stupid stunt? A war is when all capabilities of a military is either revealed and/or new capabilities that were secret finally exposed and exposed by wartime necessities. So why would anyone revealed to a potential adversary what his underwater warfighting capabilities will be in the event of a real war? If the order to reveal came from above, whoever gave that order should be removed from office and executed for foolishness. If the act was locally motivated, then the sub's captain and all his officers should be executed for stupidity, then the enlisted crew members demoted one rank down, at least two years added to their enlistment contract, and dispersed throughout the fleet.

The reality behind this event is too boring.

The Song-class subs top submerged speed is estimated 22 kts but under wartime conditions this speed is most likely will never be used to 'stalk' any surface enemy combatants for the simple fact that the sub would give itself away via a variety of noises, notably from engine and hull (skin) friction. The higher the speed, the higher the noise. Any Song-class sub foolish enough to do this will be torp-ed by the carrier's sub escort. Further, if these surface combatants are under full steam, as in under wartime conditions, the fleet will actually outrun this Song-class sub.

Diesel/battery subs do not stalk. Such a sub will lie in wait or drift with the current if the current will take him to where he wants to be, or he may be under minimal propulsion to get where he wants to be. Where this event took place, an area between Japan and Taiwan, the average depth is 350 meters. Factor in safety margin, this would be at the Song-class sub's maximum estimated depth. Contrary to comic books portrayal, subs do not rest -- LITERALLY -- on the bottom. The noise generated by sand, rocks, and who knows what against the hull will be greater than flow friction noise. When a sub is 'at bottom' it mean the sub is at neutral buoyancy 'hovering' above the sea bottom, providing this depth is within the sub's maximum depth safety margin.

It takes a lot of 3D underwater real estate to maneuver a sub. A sub cannot 'turn on a dime', as how Americans say about things agile and nimble. Even so, the word 'hover' is used casually. Diving officers do not like to 'hover' their boats. While submerged, a sub is pretty much constantly moving through the water. It changes depth the same way an aircraft changes altitude -- through planes that operate like an aircraft's ailerons. If the sub stop its propulsion, it does not mean the sub is not moving. Underwater currents will keep it moving and the planes can still be used to change depth. So when a diving officer say his boat is 'hovering' he means the boat is not changing depth, not that the boat is literally stationary.

Oddities of Physics | Modern Mechanix

Keywords are 'a slight headway' and 'or water is admitted', meaning either from propulsion or from moving with currents, and from pumping/purging water in/out of the ballast tanks, which would give the sub away immediately to any adversary listening. Flooding a ballast tank is noisy enough, but blowing air into a ballast tank to displace water is a thousand times noisier.

The Song-class sub is about 75 meters in length.

The Right Submarine for Lurking in the Littorals | U.S. Naval Institute

The highlighted is important.

If this Chinese Song-class sub, with its estimated maximum depth rating of 300 meters, was lying in wait for the Kitty Hawk and her escorts, most likely the sub was 'hovering' at (best) 200 meters depth with 100 meters as safety margin.

Remember: A water column of only two to three ship length.

So for a vessel length of 75 meters, 100 meters as a safety or maneuvering margin is being extremely tight and for this discussion, extremely generous to the crew's ability at depth control. But if assume the norm, that mean the Chinese sub was 'hovering' at around 150 meters depth.

And if the sub was lying in wait, it mean she was not under propulsion but is adrift with the current and this is where it gets dangerous for the sub when there is an American carrier battle group running at flank speed that is greater than the sub is capable of doing. She probably guessed correctly that there would be at least one American sub lurking around. Since this is peace time, she is not allowed to do anything but if she does nothing, the odds of collision or being tossed about even more by currents induced from the surface increases as the fleet nears. So for the safety of the crew, the Chinese sub captain have only one option: Make himself known.

your existence is to kill your own time boring everyone in the neighbourhood

show me the news that the report on my link is wrong, marginal!

Pretty sure all Chinese ships are re-classified as "submarines" after 5 years or so.

(Ps....a joke.....don't go all haywire....)

you have accumulated more than enough indian navy's experience and try to apply your home country's failure to us! It wont work. indians are in a class of their own!

 

[gambit]

Our subs made a mockery of the Yankee 'detection' capabilities. Just like Serbia humiliated the Yankee F-117 'stealth' plane.
Not to mention how we humiliated the 'unbeatable' Yankee military in the Korean War. Just goes to show the Yankee military is more about hype than actual capabilities.

It is hilarious that you would accuse US of 'hyping' our military when you do not even realize it has been the Chinese doing the hyping. The Korean War? Try Desert Storm when your PLA genitals made fools out of themselves with their predictions about US. Look at your PLA today under reform. It has American signatures all over. If the Chinese military is so awesome, should it not be the other way around, conscript reject? You send up a nimble fighter to intercept a lumbering four engine prop jobber. And what did your PLAAF pilot do? He collided with the lumbering four engine prop jobber and made the PLAAF the laughing stock of the world's air forces.

your existence is to kill your own time boring everyone in the neighbourhood

I propose a deal. You stop boring the forum with that Chinese sub story, and I will stop boring you with things you know nothing about.

show me the news that the report on my link is wrong, marginal!

Nothing wrong with the link. It is the interpretation of the event that is borked up. You have a reading comprehension problem, conscript reject.

 

[gambit]

@gambit

for all your talk of secrecy and how the event is nothing. That may be correct.

In fact I would go one further and say it's probably a mistake or something of that nature.

But I am wondering, do Chinese military publish articles each time it sends a sub or two here and there? So how do we know, this isn't one in a hundred times of cat and mouse that we got discovered?

We do not and I do not care how the press got wind of this event. The reality for submariners is that they play this game against each other on a regular basis and the public most often is ignorant of the dangers these people face every time they sail.

Alternatively, it's also possible that we were caught and the US didn't say anything to try and confuse us. But this isn't as likely, because I'm assuming, stealth is one of the things that is easily tested even without doing something like this.

But who knows for sure?

The US Navy does not publish every encounter of every sub, friend or foe, from patrols. Exercises are of a different beast and even then, we try to control the amount of data and opinion that may come from US.

now, on to the topic of noise. What do you think of that? Are you saying new Chinese subs can't match Subs from the 80s? The fact that India leased subs from Russia means it was at least open for discussion for China to have the same option.

Just like everyone else, I go by public information and opinions.

Why would we refuse? Obviously buying from Russia is not a problem for us as we still buy from them, so there is no stigma around it. Also the PAK FA project, we could have been involved, but we refused? Why, it's certainly not pride, as I have said we still buy certain things and openly admit our deficiencies at times.

So we must not be that bad at it, as some people make it out to be, or am I mistaken.

But the PLAN ain't as good as the US Navy. Sorry, but there is no magical formula here. Only hard work and as real to life as possible.

Looky here...You guys be proud of the PLA of all of its branches. There is nothing wrong with that. But stop making claims you guys cannot support, from both personal experience and whatever public information you can find.

 

[Genesis]

We do not and I do not care how the press got wind of this event. The reality for submariners is that they play this game against each other on a regular basis and the public most often is ignorant of the dangers these people face every time they sail.


The US Navy does not publish every encounter of every sub, friend or foe, from patrols. Exercises are of a different beast and even then, we try to control the amount of data and opinion that may come from US.


Just like everyone else, I go by public information and opinions.


But the PLAN ain't as good as the US Navy. Sorry, but there is no magical formula here. Only hard work and as real to life as possible.

Looky here...You guys be proud of the PLA of all of its branches. There is nothing wrong with that. But stop making claims you guys cannot support, from both personal experience and whatever public information you can find.

Well, when people sign up to join the army, especially to work on a sub, they know the risks. I mean when I signed up for my job as an analyst, they didn't say I could die on the job. I think the public gets it.

Of course maybe not the full extent of it, but then again, who keeps thinking about it when it's not their day job.



The Chinese also don't publish it, however, the fact that the US said something is proof that they are not entirely opposed to exposing China. Especially since the Chinese threat theory still needs convincing.



We all go by public stuff, so fair enough. Though I got to say on the topic of stealth, you either can or you can't do it. It's easy enough to know whether it could be detected and how easily it will be detected without going under a US fleet.

China has released several different subs to date, there must be significant enough advance for it to be designed and produced and then put into active duty.



Very true, no magic formula, and hard work required. So how's this, the J-15 lead, died of heart attack when the J-15 was, forgot if it was induction or landing on carrier. We have poured our heart and soul into every creation.

Some might say copy, and certainly to an extent it did happen. But in terms of programming, you can't simply copy, you need to know the thinking behind the program and why certain things are done a certain way.

Just having the same code means nothing. In order to use it, update it, and fit it to specific purpose, you must know exactly what you are doing and be the one in control, rather than simply copy. A large program's documentation could fit a library, if the programmer wanted it.

I don't think the US or Russia was training Chinese engineers on how to copy the tech.



Perhaps some blew it out of proportion and I am also guilty of it. But to claim, China is nothing to worry about is just simply wrong and arrogant.

For example the Type 52 series of DDGs are obviously carefully designed and planned.

We carefully planned and designed the first A, to 51B, 52B, to C, and D. We made changes and improvements by the iteration and by the time we reached D, our carrier was finished and in the midst of training and when it does go into service, a carrier group would be ready and able.

While rumors of a larger and more advanced destroyer in the works has also been "confirmed."

Our navy modernization should say plenty about our ability to keep a secret, who even knows what type of boomers we even have much less their specifications, our ability to plan ahead and be able to finish on time.

So after all that, why shouldn't we be proud of our military and why would anyone bet against our modernization program.

 

[shuttler]

It is hilarious that you would accuse US of 'hyping' our military when you do not even realize it has been the Chinese doing the hyping. The Korean War? Try Desert Storm when your PLA genitals made fools out of themselves with their predictions about US. Look at your PLA today under reform. It has American signatures all over. If the Chinese military is so awesome, should it not be the other way around, conscript reject? You send up a nimble fighter to intercept a lumbering four engine prop jobber. And what did your PLAAF pilot do? He collided with the lumbering four engine prop jobber and made the PLAAF the laughing stock of the world's air forces. :lol

these are not relevant to the discussion, marginal

I propose a deal. You stop boring the forum with that Chinese sub story, and I will stop boring you with things you know nothing about.

you can pull out the whole library only to confirm your status of a super-bored to a mega-bored! No-one is playing bingo with you today?

Nothing wrong with the link. It is the interpretation of the event that is borked up. You have a reading comprehension problem, conscript reject.

what interpretation are you cow-shiiiting. It was a report by washington times. When was it acquired by PLA?

 

[gambit]

Well, when people sign up to join the army, especially to work on a sub, they know the risks. I mean when I signed up for my job as an analyst, they didn't say I could die on the job. I think the public gets it.

Of course maybe not the full extent of it, but then again, who keeps thinking about it when it's not their day job.



The Chinese also don't publish it, however, the fact that the US said something is proof that they are not entirely opposed to exposing China. Especially since the Chinese threat theory still needs convincing.



We all go by public stuff, so fair enough. Though I got to say on the topic of stealth, you either can or you can't do it. It's easy enough to know whether it could be detected and how easily it will be detected without going under a US fleet.

China has released several different subs to date, there must be significant enough advance for it to be designed and produced and then put into active duty.

The public may have the high level perception of the dangers of these sub encounters, but they do not know the details of these hardware and what happens when men and hardware meet under adverse conditions and environment. And probably outer space is more adverse than several hundred meters underwater.

Take a look at this Chinese sub that allegedly 'stalked' the USS Kitty Hawk group for example that the Chinese public everywhere on the Internet went ga-ga over. All it takes is one news article to use the word 'stalk' and a whole new perception is created and that perception have little relation to what actually happened, which most likely we will never know, or have little relation to reasonable logic.

The reasoning here is that why would China reveal that Chinese subs can 'stalk' the world's mightiest surface fleet by surfacing one such sub so close to said fleet? That is like Raygun telling Gorby: 'I know what goes on inside the Kremlin because I have a mole in your secretary staff and you will never find him. Nyah...Nyah..Nyah.' Such a stunt would be absurdly childish and strategically devastating for China. Did the US told the world of the F-117 and its related program? No, we were practically dragged kicking and screaming into admission.

A war exposes all. Strengths and weaknesses. And said war is most likely the only chance you have of defeating an adversary and keep him defeated militarily for as long as you materially can. So when you have a capability that everyone know would be devastating in a war and that everyone have so much difficulty in gaining that advantage, so extreme is that difficulty that even failures in trying are state secrets, it boggles the reasonable and logical mind that someone would be so foolish as to squander that advantage away in peacetime by pulling a cheap stunt like how the ignorant press portrayed it. Notice I said '...materially can...' What this mean is that IF Chinese subs can 'stalk' a US carrier group undetected and kept that secret until a shooting war starts, by the time the dust cleared, and hopefully they would not be radioactive dust, the entire world will either stay out of China's ocean backyard or treads very carefully while under permissive transit. That level of material/physical denial and/or control cannot be bought or impressed unto others by peacetime theatrics.

Then when someone willing to exercise a bit of critical thinking into the news event and exposed the flaws in the interpretation of the event, the Chinese members here went hilariously apoplectic. You guys need to stop and do what Mao said: self criticism. This is no longer your petty egos but your country's. Your navy basically said to US: 'Here is what we can do...Nyah...Nyah...Nyah.' And you guys genuinely believes it is sane for a navy with a secret capability to do?

Very true, no magic formula, and hard work required.

Some might say copy, and certainly to an extent it did happen. But in terms of programming, you can't simply copy, you need to know the thinking behind the program and why certain things are done a certain way.

That applies to strategic thinking as well.

When an aircraft is airborne, it can be approached in all directions. But on sea surface, a ship can only be approached from the sides and from above. For centuries, an approach can only be from the sides. With aviation, a new approach avenue is available and ships must make compensation for it. But when it comes to the submarine, the non-war utility of it is so scant that when we think of a submarine, the practical only use for it is: destruction of a surface ship.

Transport of people and 'stuff' probably were the first intended uses of a ship whenever this floating contraption was invented in history. Non-military and military development and uses of the ship went hand in hand. But we cannot say the same thing for the submarine today and probably so until our great-multi-great grandchildren's life time. The ship have been mass produced for centuries for both non-military and military uses. For the submarine, whatever that have been mass produced, 99.999% of it are/were for military and the .001% are/were for esoteric scientific research.

So to keep your programming theme in mind, the more narrow the purpose of a program, the less flexibility you have in altering its mission scope and in the mechanisms (code practices) that made up the program. For the submarine, 99.999% of its mission scope is military in nature by simple virtue of mass production.

China is a child compare to US when it comes to naval issues in general and submarine warfare in particular. Put aside the often abused 'civilizational state' phrasing when it comes to China. As far as the Chinese military is concerned, its history began after the Korean War, and Chinese INDEPENDENT submarine warfare knowledge and experience began at the collapse of the Soviet Union.

When you copy, you will copy not only the object's strengths but also its weaknesses. Experienced people copies as much if not more than amateurs, and experienced people will be able to alter the object's constitution, be it a bunch of texts or heavy steel structures or chemical molecules, to suit their individual needs. The more experienced the person, the greater the scope and depth of institutional memory to serve as the philosophical foundation to guide the current mission, the more adept the person will be at modifying what he copied from others.

The PLAN do not have as wide in scope or as much depth as the US Navy does when it comes to submarine operations and warfare. No one does. So if the PLAN wants to rapidly build up its own institutional memory, it will have to copy from US and be extremely selective on what to modify in terms of daily operations for its sub fleet. Take the USNI source I gave earlier for example. The US Navy stated that for littoral waters, a sub should have two to three vessel lengths from bottom as safety/maneuvering margin. What reasons are there, from institutional memory, for the PLAN to deviate from this unofficial official standard?

Let us be generous and extend the depth where this event took place -- 500 meters.

This means for the Chinese sub of 75 meter length, its safety/maneuvering margin range is 150-250 meters from bottom. No one can force the Chinese captain from deviation. No one but an idea can and the idea came from someone else's knowledge and experience. So more likely the captain got his boat at 250-300 meters depth? No, because the Song-class is rated at 300 meters maximum depth. That two to three vessel lengths estimate is good for only when bottom is well within a sub's capable depth. Otherwise, extending the bottom's depth for the sake of this discussion is worthless.

So if the average depth of that area is around 350 meters, which is at the margin of the Song-class capable depth, and if the Chinese captain maintains a safety/maneuvering margin of 175 meters from bottom, for example, that mean his boat is at very risky depth for a high traffic area.

Recreational diving - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Generally, recreational diving depths are limited to a maximum of between 30 and 40 meters (100 and 130 feet)...

Subtract 50 meters from surface for the Chinese captain. Subtract 175 meters from bottom safety/maneuvering margin. The Chinese sub is practically trapped and in the path of a US carrier fleet running on surface. The Chinese captain can start his screws and/or take on water into the ballast tanks to dive and decrease his safety/maneuvering margin but that would give his presence away pretty much immediately. So now he is known to the Americans and increased the risk to his safety to boot. Why would he want to do that?

I may mock you guys often enough for your lack of military experience, but the reality is that very often, an objective look at anything and any event will be enough for the inexperience layman to see why a military does things a certain way. A lot of times, we do things that are apparently 'stupid' and/or 'silly'. Apparently. But the reason why we paid 100$ for a screwdriver is because there is little or no civilian need for a non-magnetic and non-sparking tool that needs to be used in an environment that may contain flammable vapor. So the press have a field day and sells a lot of copies with this info. Completely omitted the 'non-magnetic' and 'non-sparking' requirements. I do not expect non-military experience people like you to know this, but I have the right to expect you to be of reasonably sane mind to consider my arguments when I presented to you on why I paid 100$ for a screwdriver.

Most of the time, the Chinese members here are more concerned about their egos than on reasonable debates. Their egos says: 'Rah...Rah...Rah...The PLA can do this and that and here is how.' The military experienced guys says: 'Hold on...Here is why you guys are wrong...We do it this way because of A, B, C and not that way because of X, Y, and Z.' Your egos are now wounded and you guys gets personal.

Perhaps some blew it out of proportion and I am also guilty of it. But to claim, China is nothing to worry about is just simply wrong and arrogant.

Of course not. We have people who does exactly that -- worry. They have a lot of stars and bars on their uniforms and other people paid respect to them in many ways.

So after all that, why shouldn't we be proud of our military and why would anyone bet against our modernization program.

You should be proud of your military. But do it sanely.

 

[feilong]

What happened to China's no first use policy. Unless China can't beat Japan conventionally.

That NFU policy should reserve for the US. The US can't beat Japan conventionally, need to setup Pearl Harbor and use Atomic bomb remember now?