Chinese Sub Pops Up Amid US Navy Exercise

One NATO figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik." 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 USS Kitty Hawk. By the time it surfaced, the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine had sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier. The incident caused consternation in the US Navy, which had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication.

Comments

Simple solution:

[calebt3]

Time to spend a few billion $ on R&D for new submarines!

Re:Simple solution:

[Wonko the Sane]

Not really. Our submarines are far superior to the Chinese even now, but the problem is the crews.

One of the reasons I got out of the submarine business is how far the standards have fallen even in the 6 short years I was on a submarine.

Modern submariners are a joke compared to their cold war predecessors.

Re:Simple solution:

[Vellmont]

Modern submariners are a joke compared to their cold war predecessors.

Do we need to up to cold war standards? I'm sure that the current army soldiers are a joke compared to WWII era hardened veterans.

Submarine warfare is limited to those nations that have the ability to have submarine fleets. Those countries aren't terribly hostile towards the United States. It's extremely doubtful we're going to fight a big naval battle anytime soon.

Re:Simple solution:

[Wonko the Sane]

Part of the problem is something very simple (in a Freakonomics sort of way):

Laser eye surgery is destroying the Navy

Every single officer* who joins the Navy wants to be a pilot. In the past, many smart people with less-than-perfect vision joined the Navy and many were sent to submarines. Now, all the smart ones get surgery and become pilots. It almost makes me cry to remember the type of people who now make "nuclear officers".

* (not much of an exaggeration)

Re:Simple solution:

[rainmayun]

There are good reasons to have a draft, but having more troops for the sake of having more troops isn't one of them. Modern wars aren't decided by the size of the armies involved. Mutually assured destruction means the odds of direct conflict between China and the USA are very low, but the odds of a proxy or asymmetric war are somewhat higher.

Re:Simple solution:

[Wonko the Sane]

Do we need to up to cold war standards?

The ability of a submarine to remain undetected and at the same time to detect enemy submarines is as fundamental to the concept of a submarine as the ability to fly is to an airplane.

Re:Simple solution:

[skoaldipper]

I hope no one mods me down for saying this, but I really feel like we should consider starting the draft again.

Helots or Spartans? Clear difference.

As a Veteran, I was proud to have served in an all volunteer Army, and in hindsight, more apt to give my own life in return.

Re:Simple solution:

[Neuticle]

I'd mod you up if I still had points.

To keep this on-topic somewhat: Teh Chinese R in r base, steelinz r sub planz! LOLZ!!!1!eleventy!!

But seriously, they did publish photos of classified sub propellers on Google Earth.

While I understand the value behind an all volunteer force, I've always thought there was something of value in systems of compulsory service like Israel and Switzerland, i.e. if you don't want to be a combatant, you can opt for non-combat duty. Everyone still gives a contribution of some sort, be it cook, driver, nurse, janitor/maintenance etc thus the combatants (who chose combat) can operate at best efficiency without worrying about non-combat details.

It seems to me that this is a good compromise between drafting people and coercing them to fight like the US did in Vietnam, and relying solely on volunteers for the whole operation of the military.

Plus it would eliminates much (but probably not all) the cultural and economic disparity in the ranks. If Johnny Megabucks had to serve next to William Poorhouse, as equals, it just might make the USA a better country.

/considering a military career for grad school, but not only for financial motives. There are other ways to pay.

Re:Simple solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a commander-in-chief that doesn't abuse his position. Many are probably afraid to sign up, not wanting to be stuck on a ten-year tour-of-duty. We should have been in and out of Afghanistan in a few months, and we shouldn't have entered Iraq at all. We didn't have a single good reason to invade. Why would anyone want to sign up for an pointless war? Our soldiers should have the right to protect our country with honor.

Re:Simple solution:

[h4rm0ny]

And that's assuming that it ever came to war. I don't want to be blasé about the risk of conflict, but keep in mind that US debt isn't quite critical but has become very, very large. A good portion of that debt is to China (another big chunk is borrowed against the public via social security, et al). The US government has essentially mortgaged the country. There doesn't have to be a war before a US citizen finds she's working for a Chinese company and renting from a Chinese landlord.

Now the US has an enormous military (there had to be something to show for all that borrowing and it certainly wasn't in education and health care, yes?). You could say that the US could tell the rest of the World to go and fuck itself and renege on the debt. But that's extremely unlikely because (a) the richest people of the US who have the greatest influence to bring about such a thing are those who would lose the most in any sort of international isolation or chaos, (b) the whole economic structure of the US would go into freefall and (c) it would be hard to fund the US military in an economic crisis anyway, at least for any sustained period.

Besides, it's not in the USA's creditor's interests for the US to default on debt or go bankrupt or turn into a military dictatorship. The percentage is in keeping it just sufficiently under the economic thumb that it can be milked in perpetuity and nudged into selling off its institutions and resources group by group. That's one of the nice things about a heavily privatised society. It makes it convenient for the country to be sold without non-radical means of preventing it.

Re:Simple solution:

[Martin Foster]

Iran comes to mind as a nation with a small fleet of submarines that may not have any particular love for the US. Submarine capable nations are pretty much everywhere around the globe and while they do not necessarily have high technology nuclear subs and instead make use of ageing Russian hand-me-down subs, they certainly can still prevent carrier fleets from entering certain waters.

Subs in the Falklands war could have been deadly if their maintenance routines did not lead to interface cards being damaged. Chile is hardly an international powerhouse, still they managed.

Re:Simple solution:

[davidsyes]

Mwuh? Blue-green laser? For communications, but for detection?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.global-defence.com%2F2000%2Fpages%2Fantisub.html&ei=dQQ5R9ONCZqmpwSDpri5DA&usg=AFQjCNFurOKcHV-O93WzeGxSR3G52nZNHA&sig2=nQgPQgY1Z_CHW9fPYsT5_A

I'm not up to current events with subs, but check these out:

http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2007/05/co-of-uss-helena-relieved-for-cause.html

http://makeyourdepth.blogspot.com/

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_33/virginia_2.html

As long as a sub can hide and wait for a CVBG to cross within, say, 5 NM to any side, a hidden sub can vertical launch or float into a vertical launch one or more missiles, mines, decoys or other devices as a ruse or means to disperse the fleet and weaken the shield/umbrella.

Sure, they'll face retaliation, but for any rogue/stateless assailants wanting to damage or merely startle a CVBG (which may or may not end up in the press), this might be something we see more of -- by state-funded, stateless actors.

Re:Simple solution:

[1u3hr]

Submarine warfare is limited to those nations that have the ability to have submarine fleets. Those countries aren't terribly hostile towards the United States. It's extremely doubtful we're going to fight a big naval battle anytime soon.

This is China. They're telling the US that if China decides to invade Taiwan, not to mess with them. The US fleet often travels in the Taiwan Strait just to show China that they control the sealanes and can protect Taiwan. China is saying, "No, you don't".

Re:Simple solution:

[Highroller]

It makes sense in another way--you can have a career as an airline pilot after you leave the service.

Re:Simple solution:

[smittyoneeach]

Laser eye surgery is destroying the Navy

As a Naval Reserve squid, I'd like to gently refute this.
The decline of the US Navy is related to the lack of any nation that can go toe-to-toe with the US in a blue-water fight. Which is a Good Thing: engagements like Leyte Gulf ain't cheap. If the US has deterred opposing Navies from even showing up, then the job has been done.
The Soviet Navy has, happily, rusted away at the pier for the most part.
The Chinese Navy, while up-and-coming, hasn't really got the blue-water muscle.

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.
[snip]
Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.
Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.

For comparison, the US SSN-688 (Los Angeles class) is over twice as long and has ~three times the displacement.
Electric motors are indeed quiet. No mention on Wikipedia of any bottoming capability, an even more scary possiblity.
Interestingly, the Wikipedia page notes that this incident occured in October 2006 "in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan", at a range of 5 nautical miles (less than half the distance to the horizon) off Okinawa. One wonders if the Kittyhawk was conducting flight ops (the tone of the article would seem to indicate no).
If you've been on one of her escorts and had to be plane guard for an aircraft carrier, you know her for a fickle wench out chasing a breeze. If the submarine commander wasn't really comfortable with his knowledge of the sea bottom, that surfacing could have had everything to do with fearing for his life. Trading paint with 84,000 tons of US diplomacy underway going full-tilt-boogy is not going to be a career enhancer.
Not that this wipes the egg off the face of whoever was in charge of the escort screen, if the Chinese presence was indeed the surprise that the article touts it as.

Re:Simple solution:

[m4cph1sto]

Regarding your claim that laser eye surgery is destroying the navy...

At the US Naval Academy summer seminar a few years ago, I was informed by some officers that having laser eye surgery would immediately disqualify me from being a pilot. This is due to the uncertain effect of altitude/pressure/high g-forces on the vision of someone who's had laser surgery. I was disappointed by this policy because my vision is not perfect, and I was told that the best I could aim for was being a "back-steater", like Goose in Top Gun. I decided not to apply to the Academy. But if what you say is true and the surgery is now allowed, I might reconsider my decision and go for some Lasik... wait, did I just prove your point?

Re:Simple solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Submarine technology is actually way less relevant to the threats of the modern world than even freaking tanks.

This is one of the stupidest statements I have ever read on Slashdot.

Two points (and there are many more that I won't discuss):

1. Just because there isn't fighting on the seas today doesn't mean that there couldn't be. It would be wise to look at how submarines were used in WWII (axis and allied submarines). The use of submarines in the Pacific Theatre was particularly devastating. I'll give you a hint on how they might be used today if a major war broke out: submarines might be used to attack the transportation routes of a certain precious substance that starts with an 'O' and ends with an 'L'. It also might have the middle letter 'I.' This same tactic was used in the past to bring the Japanese empire to its knees in WWII long before US bombers were in range.

2. You were talking about "the threats of the modern world" and nuclear SLBMs didn't cross your mind? Really? Then you are dumber than a doorknob.

Re:Simple solution:

[Usquebaugh]

Bollocks.

All China has to do is release it's US funds to the open market. Pop goes the US financial system, no money no Navy, Army, Air Force or USMC. China grabs Taiwan before the US recovers.

The only thing that the US can hope for is that the US economy is worth more to China than Taiwan.

Re:Simple solution:

[davidsyes]

In the 70s and 80's, part of the problem with retention was directly due to CIA manipulation of (or, tacit compliance by) the USN SSN fleet. They had the boats laying/attaching cable sniffing devices, nearly costing several divers their lives as they were nearly crushed by the boats (USN SSNs) to which they were tethered. I understand that depth charges may have been used on some of these boats which penetrated Russian waters. The Russians/Soviets would have been WELL within their rights to depth-bomb the boats without warning, apology, or restitution.

So, in the early part of the 80's (June-ish 83) when I volunteered for SSN Advanced Electronics, my recruiter started the paperwork, and I was to report to Great Mistakes (Great Lakes) circa June 84. But, then, by June 84, when I swore in for the second time, at MEPS Oakland (1313? Clay St.) I was told I was not needed for SSN training. The navy no longer was having its retention problems.

Only years later, after reading Blind Man's Bluff, did I start to put two and two together. Hell, even my prospective recruiter in 1979-1982 ...

(I haunted the USN recruiters, and in Galveston AND in San Jose, ALL 5 branches wanted me; the Army and Marine recruiters were begging the Navy to trade me to them for 3 to 4 of their top candidates; I was interested in SHIPS and SUBS, not bivouacs and showerless days, infantry maneuvers, or being in the Chair Force... Granted I WAS a member of the Army JROTC of Ball High, and concurrently a Young Marine in the Henry W. Nichols Detachment of the Young Marines in the 10th grade, and upon moving to San Jose, was in the Army Military Science Explorers, training out the the USNGR center near downtown, and concurrently in the Milpitas High Navy JROTC, and was drawing/designing SSNs, SSBNs, and surface war ships (Free World Frigate variants, DDH/DDG/LHA/LHD forays)... ... was a bubblehead and he didn't seem to be in ANY hurry to relinquish is recruiting role. Not that he was a bum, he probably dared not discourage me from volunteering for sub duty. I'd read Missile Base Beneath the Sea, numerous other contemporary and WWII sub and ship war books, and freaked him out when I drew a 7-bladed prop.. IN 1980/80!. See:

http://www.otanashide.com/17.html

Look at pic # 41, the last one.

I'd been inspired by Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (which I'd increasingly come to despise for its fakery) and other shows. I bought cutaway model of the U-47, and one of the Geo Washington (that one, by Revell, ROYALLy pissed of one Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, for it gave a nice view of the reactor, recirc pump, steam vessel, prop shaft, generator sets, the SINS (Ship's Inertial Navigation System) and huge-ass gyro amidships...) and began to cut beer cans and shape props. I tested my Huey UH-1D model but could not blow hard enough to spin the two blades. The 3-bladed props on my LSD model wouldn't spin. I then used the aluminum and cut 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 blades of various pitch, rake, skew, and other things, by hand of course, and blew as HARD as I could down onto the blades. The 7-bladed one lifted off smoothly, rapidly, and in near balance, and nearly cut the shit out of my cheek in the process. Excitedly, I said, "THAT'S MY PROPELLER", and drew it on my notional SSBN. I'll always remember that thrum and VVVVOOOMPH sound that aluminum made as it lifted in near controlled-violence. In some ways, that sight and sound were (now) better than most occasions of adult contact (TMI, but you have to put this in the context of a 14-17 y.o. having self-discovered something no one would publish back then) I had. Imagine being on your ship when ILO (Initial Light-Off) of the plant or weapons or radar systems happens. You get that energizing, LIFE, feeling.

I took it to my recruiter, and he went ape-shit. Said "HOW'D YOU GET THAT???!!! THAT'S a national/USN secret!" Secret my ass, cuz one, he shouldn't have reacted that way, and two, by 1983 or so (a y

Re:Simple solution:

[h4rm0ny]

The US and the rest of the world are fighting enemies that don't have submarines, or any navy at all. Al-Queda doesn't have a navy. These are small, dedicated groups of people who remain hidden. You can't fight people like that with a tank, much less a submarine.

Al Quaeda are not a threat to the the United States. Not in the way that an actual army is. Al Quaeda are just the logical response to a long history of US support for the nasty regime of Saudi Arabia. Unchecked, they will cause deaths, but the only real threat they pose to the US itself, is one of respect which harms the government and its foreign bad-ass image. But not a threat to the American way of life or culture (those have come solely in the government's response). The two reasons that Al Quaeda are played up by the US government and media are (a) as a part of a campaign of confusing issues to justify an occupation of Iraq and (b) to excuse the diversion of vast funds into the military sector. A dubious reason to increase government surveillance and power is also a pleasant (for the authorities) bonus.

Of course this isn't to disagree with your main arguments. Trying to restart the Cold War is massively misguided and the US can't afford to do it anyway. I'm just observing that Al Queada is a reactionary force to US policy, not an independent force. They fight primarily off US territority and could not pursue a war on US territority. All the US needs to do to stop the resistance is to stop pushing. But the powers that be in the US can't countenance such an idea because they have so much riding on being the big tough guy, both before the US people's (Slashdotter's excepted) drilled in faith in their country's superiority and on the international stage where they have pushed other countries around for a long time (mostly with a complete lack of awareness of the situation on the part of the population who I've usually found to be very friendly).

The swollen armed forces of the US have been unnecessary for quite some time. I'm surprised people haven't cottoned on a long time before now.

Re:Simple solution:

[Wonko the Sane]

USS Hartford grounding (I was onboard for that one)

It's hard to describe, but the attitudes changed as the old-timers who were on the ship when I was the new guy left. People lost pride in their jobs. Basic DC (damage control) skills evaporated. For all those reading this where were/are on a submarine: can you find all the EAB manifolds between shaft alley and the watertight door blindfolded? Did you every try?

It is a requirement that a submariner earn his warfare pin within one year. If he couldn't do it, then he was sent to the surface fleet. Now people routinely go past the 1 year mark and it is almost unheard of for a person to not qualify, no matter now little they know. If another major submarine fire happens underway, I really expect the ship to be lost because no one took that training seriously.

The worst part is that for all the bad things that happened on our ship, many of the other ships were even worse.

Re:Simple solution:

[1u3hr]

All China has to do is release it's US funds to the open market. Pop goes the US financial system,

Right. An then pop goes the Chinese financial system. And if China did something like that, the US would be far more likely to aggressively respond to any Chinese military moves.

no money no Navy, Army, Air Force or USMC

The military is the last thing to get cut. Even if their budget were reduced, it would have the capacity to crush China for years, if not decades.

Much better for China if they can suggest, by demonstrations like this, that confronting them militarily would be an expensive exercise, and that the US and China should just do business as usual if China decides to invade Taiwan (after some token protests).

Re:Simple solution:

[Maxmin]

any rogue/stateless assailants wanting to damage or merely startle a CVBG (which may or may not end up in the press), this might be something we see more of -- by state-funded, stateless actors.

state-funded, stateless actors

Let's say Osama bin Laden buys a Chinese sub. He drives it into the middle of a battle group, "pops up," says hi to the closest ships with a full complement of surface-to-surface missiles, and scores some decent hit points.

Meanwhile, US reconnaisance, within the group, in the sky and in orbit, are busy snapping hires photos of a Chinese sub. Doesn't matter who was driving it, it all points back to Beijing.

In a matter of minutes, the US is in total retaliation mode - against China.

Submarines aren't in any way comparable RPGs or dusty Soviet-era rockets sold through arms merchants. To keep an expensive, complex piece of hardware like an attack sub running, you *must* have parts, a fully-trained crew, ad naseum. That means a steady supply large coin going to the seller, with supply lines, technical support, and giving the crew access to military nav sat so they can actually navigate. That makes China a de-facto partner in the operation.

What are you smoking? You sound much like a wild-eyed neocon who fully expects the brown-skinned, foreign-sounding guy at the checkout counter to pull an AK-47 and smoke some Americans.

I'm not up to current events with subs

'Nuff said.

Re:Simple solution:

[number11]

What the hell does all this mean? Could someone translate in proper English for us non-native-English-speaking /.ers?

1) Aircraft carriers may change directions (getting lined up with the wind) in ways that are not predictable to the captain of a Chinese submarine.

2) It would be really bad to be hit by a carrier, they are very large.

3) But the vessels that are supposed to be guarding the carrier should have detected the "enemy" sub.

Re:Simple solution:

[SirTreveyan]

It seems to be in simple English to me...but let me try to explain.

"If you've been on one of her escorts and had to be plane guard for an aircraft carrier, you know her for a fickle wench out chasing a breeze." Sea breezes constantly change direction. A carrier will try to steam into the wind whenever launching or landing aircraft. As a result the carrier changes directions quite frequently. This forces the surrounding escorts to change direction. I may be wrong but it is my understanding is that passive detection methods are hindered during these changes of direction.

"Trading paint with 84,000 tons of US diplomacy underway going full-tilt-boogy is not going to be a career enhancer." Being in command of a submarine when it gets run over by a U.S carrier running at top speed will not make you a top candidate for the next Admiral slot that opens up.

"Not that this wipes the egg off the face of whoever was in charge of the escort screen [...]" The escorts screwed up bu not properly anticipating the carrier's movements. The escorts should have changed their direction in a way that would have minimized any reduction in the effectiveness of the task forces passive sonars.

Re:Simple solution:

[thestreetmeat]

You're absolutely right: flying a plane is easy. But military pilots don't get paid to fly planes. We get paid to know tactics, deploy weapons, and complete a mission.

Re:Simple solution:

[Courageous]

A navy pilot once described to me the kinetics of landing on an aircraft carrier. I still shiver.

It takes testicles in addition to skill to be a carrier pilot.

Wind. Check. Carrier moving. Check. Unforgiving short runway. Check.

Stuff nightmares are made of.

C//

Re:Simple solution:

[Walt Dismal]

It's certainly known that the Chinese have rubber-coated anti-sonar subs, see:

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/type039song.asp

If we are ignoring that, someone in the Pentagon needs be retired. Our failure to detect them could have been due to inadequate equipment, or else incompetent personnel or practices, or worse, arrogance. I'm not too thrilled with any of these cases.

Re:Simple solution:

[einhverfr]

I actually think we ought to have mandatory military service for everyone along with the option of other forms of community service for conscientious objectors (maybe infrastructure development).

The major reason is that foriegn policy regarding war is rarely made with a real understanding of personal cost in lives, lost loved ones, etc. War has become something that other people fight for us so we can be cavalier about it.

I think it would change the dynamics fundamentally if every community had people serving in the armed forces at all times. We pay the price at any rate, but at least this way, we as a society know the price when we pay it-- it isn't something that just happens to someone else.

BTW, I have lost a friend to the Iraq war. It wasn't an IED, an insurgent bullet, or anything like that which ended her life. It was the PTSD (she committed suicide about a year after getting back). How many others have lost friends?

Just to let you know where I stand on Iraq. This is a war we never should have fought. We shouldn't have gotten involved, and I said that at the beginning. However, we are there now, and for better or worse, we are now responsible for Iraq's well-being. Therefore IMO, the only acceptable discussion now is how we help the Iraqis to emerge from their civil war. While we as a country made a mistake, it would be an even bigger one to leave simply because the cost of staying in American lives is too high.

I actually think we need to be prepared to leave, and we need to use that as a threat we can use to get the current Iraqi government to stop using militias in official or unofficial capacities (we should probably scale down our use of private paramilitary groups such as Blackwater as well).

However, back to the China question: we will be involved in military confrontations with them at some point there is no doubt. However, as a democracy, we owe it to the people to spread the burden of the decision making, the politics, and the price fairly. Volunteers are great. But mandatory military service would put this country back into the hands of the people rather than the global planners.

Re:Simple solution:

[ShieldW0lf]

Dear Mr Bush,

This is just a cordial visit to remind you that you owe us $200,000,000,000. Nothing to be alarmed about. Have a nice day.

China

Re:Simple solution:

[WhiteWolf666]

Enjoy.

It's a myth that our debt is large or crippling. Doubly so when you look at historical levels of the national debt.

Triply so when you consider that as the dollar looses value, so does our debt, while our cheaper currency drives exports and growth.

It's true that the U.S. economic situation is not perfect. We don't print money on trees, and our growth rate isn't good, there are class issues, and inefficiency is growing. However, our environmental situation is _pretty good_ these days, and for the most part (at least in terms of environmental contaminants, and deforestation) there is a good deal of substance (read "balls") to the U.S. economy. Watch the yuan continue to grow in value, and renewables continue to be ever more viable in the face of escalating oil prices, and you'll see that the U.S. shall continue as a strong economy for the forseeable future.

We're hardly pawning off our assets to pay our debts. The only thing that's happening now is that foreign countries no longer value our debt as AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, driving the value of the dollar down; which makes sense, as it was overvalued. Our purchasing power shall decline, however, our incentive to work hard, produce, and sell to the rest of the world grows. All we have to do is a)ride out the occasional correction, as we are doing now, and b)find politicians willing to exercise fiscal restraint and work towards budget surpluses, as well as a sustainable, cheap source of energy.

Hopefully, the market will take care of the second part, and the 2008 election will take resolve the first.

Re:Simple solution:

[Like2Byte]

Hi there. Ex-Submariner myself. And, no, I didn't miss your point, either.

However, those Trident Missile class submarines are pretty much nothing more than 16/24 huge political statements. Add a few MIRVs for good measure.

As for electric boats? they're quite. Scary quite. They run on batteries while submerged which is far quieter than nuclear reactors. Granted their range is rather limited; but, that's beside the point. When you're running within the 12 NM national coastline, who do you think has the advantage?

I'd put money on a diesel sub any day.

On your other points, I think you are correct. The US needs an electric boat division - one devoid of nuclear reactors for inner coastline defense. These aren't the platforms that are going to do intel gathering but hunter-killer packs like the German U-Boat tactics of WWII. American technology in this field is unsurpassed; though I'd lay bets the chicoms are right behind us.

Why? Their recent statements suggest they've been attacking our networks for years. I'm not going to dig up the link but it's out there if you search the net. One of their leaders recently stated that the next war with China's involvement will be a technological war which, according to them, no country can protect against.

Besides, a statement like a sub popping up in the middle of an exercise say a few things:
1) We're good enough to sneak up on you both.
2) We're good enough to sneak *our* missile subs close to your shores, too. (Remember them Trident class subs from above?)
3) Sleight of hand, if you will, maneuvering. The chicoms *want* you to see them and focus your energies elsewhere while they, perhaps, focus on placing a new satellite/orbiter in orbit for the start of our new space race with Asia.
4) or, the boat was simply having an emergency and had to surface. (*very* un-likely - I just threw this in for the pacifists.)

Choose your conspiracy. However, keep this in mind - no power shows a card as powerful as detailing how vulnerable you are to their attack without drawing you toward a conclusion they'd *like* you to draw or spend your energies trying to figure out. Meanwhile, they're out getting or doing what they think needs getting done.

Re:Simple solution:

[davidsyes]

Don't forget about the shareholders. In today's climate, restraint is generally expected more than ever. If some loose-cannon NCA or local Fleet Admiral/Commodore pops off some rounds based on non-agreeing ROE, a LOT of financial devastation will occur.

Don't forget:

Nortel
AMD
IBM
microsoft
HP
Sony
Fujitsu

And on and on and on have sites in China. So, where would the US retaliate first? Responding too soon would seem rash, as if lashing out. Waiting too long will just give rise to threat of sanctions, and maybe a "Failsafe"-like request for China to blow up one or two or six of their own ships as in-kind repayment.

Any US-initiated retaliation will so royally screw up the global economy the US will only expect to be the scourge of the planet. Shareholders want profit, sustained quarterly, and they DON'T want their fabs or R&D facilities blown up capriciously. A fab can cost BILLIONS to design, build and staff before even the first wafers are cut and shipped. Much like the new CVN/CVX for 2012 will cost some US $5.6 BILLION before first STEEL is even cut.

No, I suspect that local self-defense is allowed, but launching Tomahawks or Harpoons into the Yellow Sea/Taiwan Strait (take your pick) is verboten in the standing Rules of Engagement UNLESS clear, unequivocal PROOF of China's involvement can be found. Even so, MOST of the rest of the world despises the US, tho until the recent economic wreck of the dollar to Euro thingy, some countries now LOVE the US's weakened state as goods will cost less to buy in/from and maybe import TO the US.

Until/unless those high-tech companies start basing out of say, Dublin, Ireland, or Poland, or Portugal or someplace inexpensive but outSIDE of China, you can BET that they are constantly needling their congresspersons to keep the US military around Asia in check. Don't hit our factories. One stray Tomahawk, despite the celebrated precision electronics and striking during acceptance trials, and our market sector gains will be eroded beyond recovery.

There will probably be some InSea (Incidents at Sea) like with the US/Soviet ships playing chicken, scratching each other's paint jobs, hurling bag of dung, mooning each other, and flipping the bird, but those will be the unprofessional of the bunch topside. Fender-benders and "tag" will be occasional events in testing each other's fleet or unit professionalism for after-the-event, a measure of restraint. It will also allow each side to test each other and gives each side press to make the other side look bad.

China won't launch. An individual UNIT might, but even so, who wants to wreck a new, $2B boat early in the career, risk a bullet to the head, and face 88 or 120 angry souls upon reincarnation? That said, I WOULD expect a Chinese boat to fire if she detects cavitation datum bearing down on her. She won't know which threat axis is to be fired upon, so she will either go down gentlemanly-like, or fire what she can to be sure the world knows she didn't go down without a fight and probably didn't start the shit, either. But, only those analyzing the SOSUS data will know the truth of such an occurrence -- IF the sensors aren't snowed out or picking up too much ambiguous data.

Re:Simple solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah! I'm tired of all the naysayers! We had plenty of good--dare I say great--reasons to invade Iraq. The problem with our strategy was that no good reason was also true.

Re:Simple solution:

[davidsyes]

In all that RAMBLING, what I forgot to mention re: the first para was that USN bubbleheads were like, "We're being depth-charged and mines are being place around us for the fucking CIA???!!?"

So, not necessarily in DROVES, but certainly in high enough numbers, SSn sailors started using various illicit narcotics in an attempt to become discharged or transferred to shore, brig or not, but ANYWHERE except fighting the CIAs for them. They'd joined to fight sub-to-sub, militarily, as sailors, not errand boys for an organization that had a budget without a limit but didn't want to buy their OWN conveyance. Some sailors claimed homosexuality, and more.

Once the morale issues were addressed (more and better/interesting assignment rotations ashore; increased hazard/at-sea/sub duty pay, etc...), retention was dramatically improved. This coincided with my not receiving orders to Great Mistakes. It wasn't personal, or that my math grades were crappy (the navy has ways of educating people, even marginally-graduating individuals), it just was that retention must have also coincided with a sudden drop-off of the spy missions that were risking these $250M to $700M boats and their fancy gear.

Why a drop-off? It was conceded that for the amount of risk taken on by the Navy, all the CIA was getting was information about gambling, illegal/excurricular weapons deals, sexual exploits and other dubious acts of ranking Soviet officers. It just wasn't WORTH it anymore to imperil these boats when they were constantly ever complex, expensive, and politically monitored. You can't explain to the American public that they died doing their duty when cracked, emotionally distraught sailors return home, unable to tell their wives or parents WHY they are cracking up, going nuts, and so on. Presumably, the CIA resorted to humint, techint, sigint, and other -ints to get what they needed.

And STILL, those Masters of the Universe didn't see the Berlin Wall coming down!

Oy vey...

Re:Simple solution:

[Maxmin]

launching Tomahawks or Harpoons into the Yellow Sea/Taiwan Strait (take your pick) is verboten in the standing Rules of Engagement UNLESS clear, unequivocal PROOF of China's involvement can be found.

Okay, let's play through this leg of the game:

• OPERATOR: Sir? I have President Clinton on line one.
• PREMIER WEN: Wha? Hrm, uh, okay. You, off my lap. Leave. Now.
• PRESIDENT CLINTON: Premier Wen? It's Hillary.
• WEN: Oh, hi. Did you get the acupuncture balls I sent?
• HILLARY: Oh yes, thank you very much. By the by, we have footage of one of your attack subs firing missiles at several of my Navy ships...
• WEN: Oh, yeah? I had nothing to do with that.
• HILLARY: (rustles some papers, opens a folder marked "From: CINCPACFLT") Says here, "Type 039A Wuhan, hull number 294." Got some neat pictures of it. Did about $250 million in damage. Killed thirty-seven of my sailors.
• WEN: (sweating now) Oh, well, we sold one of our submarines to somebody awhile back. It was probably them.
• HILLARY: "Them?" Who's "them?" Surely you don't Thailand?
• WEN: Nope. Don't know, wouldn't tell us his name. Paid well, in advance. Middle-eastern accent.
• HILLARY: You're telling me you sold a military submarine to someone, and you don't know who signed the check?
• WEN: Listen, I have to go now.
• HILLARY: Wen, to return the favor, and just so you know it was me, I'm sending you a thank-you present for the acupuncture balls. No return address.

There is no plausible deniability when it comes to something like this. Meesh.

Re:Simple solution:

[soundhack]

I agree with everything you said, and am also amazed that the media, and educated people do not get this at all.

To add one more point: perhaps this incident was China's way to do unto us what we did unto the Soviet Union? If we restart a cold war mentality with corresponding increases in spending, then we will bankrupt ourselves (more so than we are already doing now anyway) just like the Soviet Union did. So long as we give China a butt load of our own money in bonds and in interest payments, there is no way for us to win.

Re:Simple solution:

[SageMusings]

I actually think we ought to have mandatory military service for everyone

Interesting. I assume by everyone we all really mean those without the connections and money to avoid it. I somehow cannot imagine having a politician's son with me in boot camp or combat. We cannot risk high-quality people.

Re:Simple solution:

[mosb1000]

You do know that's a reason for them not to attack us, right? I mean, it's not like we'd honor their treasury bonds if they declared war on us.

Re:Simple solution:

[Nefarious Wheel]

They don't have to fight, but if they can fix a hum-ve, cook, or for the slashdot crowd... keep windows running

Just...just kill me now...

Re:Simple solution:

[Dun Malg]

I hope no one mods me down for saying this, but I really feel like we should consider starting the draft again. We need to bolster our troop levels and try to do it in as egalitarian a way as possible. Our current system is not set up for conscripts, nor is our current method of warfighting. We don't fight linear battles like the "good ol' days" of WW2 and Korea. We don't have need of tens of thousands of units of cannon fodder to form battle lines. Conscription brings in a small percentage of useful folks, but mostly it brings in cannon fodder. There is no real place for cannon fodder in the modern military. For what little "block the bullets with our bodies" work that gets done, the Marines are apparently more than capable of handling it (going into Fallujah in unarmored vehicles = suicide; don't even get me started on the absurdity of letting the navy run its own little army). Really, the problem with conscripts is that most of them don't want to be there and have to be pushed around essentially at gunpoint. Currently, with the "War on Terror" having been going on for more than 5 years, there isn't hardly a soul in the military who didn't enlist or re-enlist knowing full well that combat deployment was a definite possibility. For all the dire stories about recruitment shortfalls, they haven't been missing the targets by much. In fact, they've been meeting the goals lately because they've decided that their standards of "squeaky clean boy scouts only, no arrests, no convictions" were a bit silly. Traditionally, the military was a place where social misfits could go to learn discipline and self-respect. Beginning in the mid 80's, however, it started to turn into a bit of a prissy boys club. Cold warriors practicing for a future war that was never going to happen, so they had lots of time to play dressup and have parades and then four years later they'd go home and spend their college fund and GI Bill money getting their English degrees and MBA's. I remember back in '89, during my first enlistment, when the Panama invasion rolled around, how a lot of my fellow soldiers in the 7th Light Infantry Division were a little thrown off by the idea of actual combat. Then in '90, when I was with the 101st Airborne and Desert Shield came up, there it was again, the sporadic whining and grumbling... "I joined for the college money".... "war? I never thought there'd be real war"... etc. Granted, it was from a very tiny minority, but it was emblematic of the "new Army": nothing but clean-cut high school grads. It almost seemed like the military wanted to "reinvent" itself as some sort of high-tech ivy-league organization. Now, with the business of a real honest-to-goodness ground war in Asia on their plate, they're being forced to abandon their snooty attitude and accept honest people committed to the job, rather than polished snobs looking for a good resume filler. Smoked pot once or were put on probation for breaking you girlfriend's car window as a teenager because she broke up with you? Used to be, you were considered untouchable. Not anymore. The preppy twits aren't signing up like they used to, so now they have to be realistic and accept regular folks. They don't need the draft. They need to realize they're not running a country club and set realistic enlistment standards.

Frankly, I think one of the (few) good things to come from the current state of war (at least for the Army and USMC) is that it is quickly flushing the dilettantes out of the enlisted ranks and (more slowly) the ranks of the commissioned officers. The military isn't a game. Too many people seemed to think it was like the Boy Scouts, only with mortars and rifles.

Re:Simple solution:

[florescent_beige]

Every now and then...just sometimes...Slashdot comes roaring right on through. Boy there are some good people that post here.

Re:Simple solution:

[Hal_Porter]

Well only 25% of US debt is foreign owned and 47% of that is owned by Japan or China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Consequences_of_foreign_ownership_of_U.S._debt

Looking at this

http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

About 40% of that is owned by China. So China owns 25% * 47% * 40%, or about 5% of US debt. Even if by some magical process it evaporated overnight the US would survive. If they sold, the dollar would fall which would improve the trade balance from a US perspective, the US economy would be dinged but China would be desperately short of money. And once they started to sell the price of the remaining bonds would fall - they'd actually cause a crash in the price of the ones they still held.

None of that is the Chinese interest. Plus the actual money is in the US. So the US government actually owns a chunk of money which China needs.

Now I hate the Chinese government, but them lending money to the US government doesn't seem like a problem to me. In fact as people have pointed out if China attacked Taiwan I'd expect the US Treasury to seize the money in some way so it acts as a stabilising factor on them.

Re:Simple solution:

[peacefinder]

"Submarine technology is actually way less relevant to the threats of the modern world than even freaking tanks. When was the last time we used a submarine to do any kind of warfare or political maneuvering? I'd say that ended in the cold war."

Oh good lord. No. Just no.

There's two very good reasons to care about subs. One is nuclear deterrence, the other is fleet defense.

Did all the nuclear warheads and ICBMs in the world just magically disappear overnight when the cold war ended? Nuclear deterrence is... well, if not good, at least currently necessary. The US SSBNs provide us a sufficent detterent, all by themselves, to make any contemplated invasion of Iran over nuclear weapons utter madness. By having those subs, we have more options than trying to prevent at any cost hostile powers from getting nukes of their own. Oh, and we aren't the only nation still running boomers, so our attack subs kinda matter for keeping track of them.

We have to care about other folks' subs because submarines are about the only weapon platform of any kind that can still hide. That means they can - as this Chinese sub did - potentially sneak up on our carriers. Coupled with the right weapons system, a sub can kill a carrier. If the US carriers go down, or even can be credibly threatened, that reduces the US position as a superpower considerably. So everyone else's subs matter to us... especially the Chinese, given that Taiwain is a cmpletely plausible flashpoint for naval conflict between the powers.

You may or may not like all the political implications of the above, but it is complete madness to suggest that subs no longer matter.

Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention Al Qeida. They're one threat among many, and a rather small one at that.

Re:Simple solution:

[BlendieOfIndie]

Question: how many people are waiting in line to get a job on a submarine? What I'm getting at: is the military having a hard time filling these positions?

Re:Simple solution:

[happyslayer]

As a former ASW (anti-submarine warfare) pilot, I would like to point out that, in 1998-2000, the Navy decided that "we don't need ASW to be a primary mission for the carrier." So, they assigned the carrier helos additional duty as an ASW platform ("They can handle anything inside 50 miles"), P-3s to take care of the long range stuff ("They're available"), and F/A-18s to do surface search ("They're always around, anyway").

Now, don't get me wrong, a helo can be an excellent ASW platform...if its crew is given time to train, if the carrier has enough of a "heads-up", and if they aren't doing plane-guard 90% of the time (hovering near the carrier to pick up an wrecked pilots.)

F/A-18s can't spend the time down low (they use too much gas and would rather drop bombs or shoot aircraft, not to mention that's a lot of work for one guy in a cockpit), P-3s are great, but there are only so many and they have a huge area to cover, and they have a big crew with lots of run-up for a mission...plus, they are usually based far away from where the carriers actually are. ("We just spotted a sub! Get your boys out there!" "Roger that, we'll be on station in 4 hours...")

Not being a bubblehead (submarine guy), I can't speak to any limitations on subs, but there are only so many, and a kamikaze diesel sub can and will cause a lot of tight sphincters on any ships in his area.

As the parent pointed out, no one has really tried to challenge the US for a long time, and we've gotten soft in this area (think ASW during WWII, mine warfare, brown water ops in Vietnam, etc, ad nauseum.) It usually takes either a big scare or a smoking hole in the water before anyone dusts off the old books and starts to really think about how the job needs to be done.

ASW is a highly-developed skill, and when you start to dismantle that skill, you suffer for a long time. If we haven't reversed those decisions to downgrade the ASW mission, maybe this will be an early enough wakeup call to undo the damage before someone decides that we're weak enough to slap us where it hurts.

It only takes one carrier with a hole it the side to win the public affairs war.

Background/Disclaimer: My experience was as an S-3 pilot, a carrier-based ASW aircraft. I've been out of the Navy for 3 years now, so all my points may be hopelessly out of date. On the other hand, I doubt the war on "terrah" has had any admirals sweating enemy subs, and people (as a group) don't really change, do they?

Re:Simple solution:

[couchslug]

"There are good reasons to have a draft"

Such as?

I'm too lazy to parapharase this post I made elsewhere, so I'll just edit to reflect retiring recently:

Rant mode on:
My opinion as a 26-year Air Force NCO is that a return to conscription will cost lives for nothing, would be a financial disaster, weaken the armed forces, not build any sort of (positive) shared national identity among the victims, and otherwise is a terrible idea.
Conscription instantly builds justifiable, bitter resentment among the tiny minority of victims. By the time you filter the physically and mentally fit out of the pool, you have an even smaller slice of the youth population. Not being totally stupid, some of these folks wake up to the fact that THEIR sacrifice is to appease some other fellows desire for SHARED sacrifice, whatever THAT is. These bitter humans form a pool of first-termers who will not re-enlist. Guess where the investment in training them went? Out the gate along with their ability to train brand new people, who must suffer learning by (KABOOM!) experience instead of mentoring.
Training the rotating victim pool falls to the career enlisted, who are exhausted thereby, and saddened at the deterioration of the military they had worked so hard to build. More career people quit...depleting the mid-career ranks, later depleting the senior ranks...
The blast radius of this stupidity isn't limited to Army units. Conscription was famous for scaring those unwilling to be bullet catchers into the Air Force and Navy. I came in a few years after the draft ended, but the horror stories were still fresh and I believe them. Drug use (not healthy for quality aircraft maintenance or fighting aircraft carrier fires...Forrestal, cough, cough..), discipline problems (hard to threaten someone who WANTS to be discharged!), morale in the shitter, you name it.
Effectiveness goes down, costs go up, waste goes up, experience goes away, and the downward spiral goes on unless a Ronald Regan shows up to un-fuck it.
Rich folk still dodge service as they always have and always will, because there is no SOCIAL censure for doing so. Poor folks who don't want to be there, led by inexperienced supervisors, die and are wounded in greater quantities than in the highly effective Volunteer Force. Surviving conscripts, shanghaied by a government that took them, fucked them, and chucked them end up homeless and ruined, just like the last time.
World War II is over, and that massive level of shared service is not economically supportable or necessary or intelligent due to technology. Army service is not a viable substitute for parenting either, because the kind of harsh discipline that is necessary to control the actively unwilling no longer exists and the public will not tolerate it. Society has changed, and I respectfully submit that proponents of conscription either have no clue or deliberately want it as a spoiler to damage the military.
Consider the Volunteer Force. It rebuilt itself during the 1980s into an effective war machine, won the (conventional) Gulf War battles with minimum loss and impressive speed, withstood the first drawdown, and is doing surprisingly well at simultaneously managing drawdown/transformation/the mess in Iraq.
Do we REALLY want to toss conscripts into the mix? Why would putting less-committed, less-professional, less-trained people into incredibly stressful situations be better for anyone?
Anyone out there with substantial recent US military experience favor a draft? Very few I've heard from.
The lessons of conscription have been learned.
Read and heed:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/heinl.html

Re:Simple solution:

[Shakrai]

And funding both defense systems is exactly what the federal government should be doing. Since it's constitutional mandate is to protect the nation. Not literacy and environmental programs.

Hmm, shortsighted AC. Funding education (i.e: literacy) is protecting the nation. Disagree? Consider: It worked during the Cold War by giving us a critical edge in technology.

Dumping money into defense systems while allowing your foe to leap beyond you in sciences and technology won't win you that game of Civ2 either....

Re:Simple solution:

[feepness]

For all those reading this where were/are on a submarine: can you find all the EAB manifolds between shaft alley and the watertight door blindfolded? Did you every try? Nah, but I can find all the EPS conduits in the jeffries tubes between engineering and the holodeck.

Re:Simple solution:

[doktorjayd]

We don't print money on trees

actually, the US pretty much does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency

one of the underlying theories on why gwb/chaney & co were so eager to go to war was to stop saddam from trading his oil in euros rather than $USD. see, being able to print out as much as they need to spend is only going to work if everyone else plays along by agreeing on a 'value' for resources, the biggest and most valuable of these of course being oil.

now, imagine what might have happened if a quater of the worlds oil were no longer traded in $USD, then you see the real domino effect take place: iran stops trading in $USD, saudis & so on.

so as far as economic reasons for not to go do something rash goes: i dont think the world needs much more of a tipping point reason to shun the US for its actions, and indeed, if they went out and started picking someting with china, how long will their currency be worth anything in the global market?

Re:Simple solution:

[jibjibjib]

The goggles do nothing!

Re:Simple solution:

[joib]

The swollen armed forces of the US have been unnecessary for quite some time. I'm surprised people haven't cottoned on a long time before now.


Depending on who you ask, the US is responsible for about half of the worlds military spending (or if you add up US close allies as well, then it's about 2/3 of world spending). It has actually increased quite a lot this decade, largely as a result of gulf wars episode II and afghanistan. I think it's rather abundantly clear that the cold war never ended for the military-industrial complex. There's nothing out there that could even begin to challenge the US military for at least several decades, yet the billions keep rolling in for procuring large numbers of high end systems that will be obsolete within a few decades anyway.

Re:Simple solution:

[Opportunist]

But hey, it's cheaper! And makes your buddies happy that funded your election.

Also, you can't force education on people. You can offer it and you can encourage it. You can force people into the army, though. Even when it's no longer popular to outright force them, just "encourage" them by offering them no other viable option to sustain themselves, then they pretty much have to if they don't want to live under a bridge.

Also, half educated people are simply and plainly cheaper than people with a well rounded education. They won't even consider their work valuable and feel underpaid if they only get 4 bucks an hour. After all, what can they offer? Just enough to bag stuff or sweep the floor.

After all, if you're rich, you want your kids to stay rich. To do that, you have to make sure that, no matter how dimwitted they are, there won't be much competition for the top management positions in some corporations. Imagine you allow some smart guy without money to actually get an MBA or some other degree, and your vegetable son suddenly finds himself asking "paper or plastic".

Re:Simple solution:

[trellick]

Do you work for Fox news!?

Talk about alarmist!!

As has been pointed out its takes a LOT of resources to keep any type of sub 'afloat' (excuse the pun).

The US has the equipment, its just a question of training training and more training. Like in the Cold War days. I suspect that the US crews (submariners especially) had grown complacent.

In many ways the US Navy should thank the PRC - talk about a wake-up call !

Might even scaremonger a few hundred million dollars out of Congress.

Of course, the conspiracy theorists could hint 'hey, they let the Chinese sub get close, just to scare some funds out of government.' But I suspect not, as this will look very very very bad on all the commanding officers involved.

Re:Simple solution:

[Opportunist]

The problem isn't so much that the debt is large or that the Dollar is losing value. The problem is that in the Euro there is now a viable and quite attractive alternative to it.

What makes the Euro so attractive is, funny enough, the "weakness" of the kinda-sorta government behind it. The EU is a conglomerate of countries with very different agendas. There is no chance in hell that they will ever agree on a radical point of view and change economic policies or foreign relationships radically over night. That means stability. Together with a very strong economic power backing the currency, it becomes incredibly attractive as a currency to use for international trade.

And that is a big problem for the US. What if China suddenly demands Euros for its goods instead of Dollars?

Re:Simple solution:

[roguetrick]

People respect the MBA as opposed to Engineers and Scientists? Dear god I'm behind the times.

Re:Simple solution:

[aproposofwhat]

the logical response to a long history of US support for the nasty regime of Israel

There, fixed that for ya.

The support of the Saud dynasty is a by-product of a pro-Israeli policy, much as the support of variously nasty Egyptian governments has been, with the concomitant strengthening of the Muslim Brotherhood and the coming together of Al Quaeda.

It's time the US faced facts, and realised that supporting the aggressive land thieves who currently occupy Palestine is the cause of most of the ill-will towards America in the Islamic world - other parts of the world dislike US foreign policies of the past for their own reasons (Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba, more recently Venezuela), which may be harder to fix, as the US at least had justification for feeling the need to interfere in local affairs.

Re:Simple solution:

[Archtech]

Or she could just lie back and enjoy it, the way the Johnson administration did when USS Liberty was attacked by Israel. It's always tough resenting military (or naval) insults from people whom you owe big-time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Re:Simple solution:

[h4rm0ny]

the logical response to a long history of US support for the nasty regime of Israel

There, fixed that for ya.

Without entirely disagreeing with your post, if I had meant to type Israel, I would have. I was responding specifically to a comment about Al Quaeda which was predominantly a response to the US presence Saudi Arabia and support of the deeply unpleasant regime that controls it. It's an actual monarchy! Not in the stupid soak up your taxes and do nothing but inbreed English way, but an actual monarchy! Have no doubt that it is right to want a representative government there. And whilst Israel colours everything in the Middle East, and is an ever-present factor in creating the tolerance or sympathy that lets Al Quaeda hide and recruit, the actual original demand of Osama bin Laden was for the US to get out of Saudi Arabia and let them sort out issues with their government their own way. If we're going to look at the initial drive behind Al Quaeda, then we first have to look at Saudi Arabia. That is not to say that the effect of Israel on muslim and non-muslim relations outweighs Saudi in general terms. This is a country that demands a particular religion for immigration. Not even Iran asks that!

Re:Simple solution:

[Firethorn]

They're a little short on shipping to do that though...

That's part of the reason for the USA to have a strong navy, to prevent any nation from being able to just ship a military over to attack.

The USAF would just be a bonus - taking out cargo ships laden with troops tends to be fairly easy.

Re:Simple solution:

[gadders]

I saw a posting just as good on Digg once:

LOL!11! Subz are cule. Don't liek peopel much.

Re:Simple solution:

[vertinox]

You do know that's a reason for them not to attack us, right? I mean, it's not like we'd honor their treasury bonds if they declared war on us.

So? China has plenty of Euro reserves and the Chinese banks have been quietly shifting everything over to non-US dollars (at the same time very discreetly because of their US investments) and if push came to shove, China would have a large in place R&D and manufacturing base, plenty of Euros and of course plenty of worthless US dollars.

While we would have nothing but worthless US dollars, 9 trillion dollars of US debt, no comparable industrial infrastructure, and a nation full of marketers, lawyers, and middle management.

You expect all those office workers to start working in the factories tomorrow? Canceling the US debt would hurt us much far more than it would hurt the Chinese.

Re:Simple solution:

[JavaLord]

The weird thing is that you mention how beholden the US is to China, as if it's a good thing

We're both beholden to each other, China needs the US market to continue their economic growth, and American needs China to keep buying dollars (which they've stopped).

Re:Simple solution:

[jollyreaper]

And STILL, those Masters of the Universe didn't see the Berlin Wall coming down! I hear you on that. It's like with WMD's in Iraq, it's not like our analysts didn't know it was a bogus story, it's just that this information couldn't make it up the chain of command due to politics and stupidity. If you read what the people looking directly at the facts were saying, they knew that a Soviet collapse had to be coming just by looking at the sat pictures of their farmland. The best advice in the world, if unheeded, is worthless.

Cool post, by the way. Lots of rambling but hell, the details are the good stuff. :) Don't know why the douches downmodded ya.

Re:Simple solution:

[Gorshkov]

Face it, Taiwan will, at some point, much like Hong Kong, be re-absorbed by China, and the USA has ZERO chance of stopping it happening.

Taiwan hasn't been part of China since WW II. Culturally, politically, socially - even linguistically - they have become two very different countries. If you think that Taiwan could be painlessly absorbed by China - even *without* US intervention - you don't know the Taiwanese.

Saying that Taiwan today is part of China is like saying the USA is still part of the British Empire.

Re:Simple solution:

[mosb1000]

"China has plenty of Euro reserves"

That's doesn't mean that our treasury bills are worthless!

"While we would have nothing but worthless US dollars, 9 trillion dollars of US debt, no comparable industrial infrastructure, and a nation full of marketers, lawyers, and middle management."

This is not at all true. Most of the goods used by US citizens are made here (cars, houses, food!!!). Low cost goods are made in china, but they would be made here as well if the Chinese government didn't fix their currency to the value of the dollar. You seem to have forgotten that the US is the most industrialized nation on earth, much more so than china which is mostly agrarian. US dollars will always have value as long as the biggest spender on earth (The US) uses them. Moreover, if dollars were worthless, the 9 trillion dollars of debt would be as well, so putting those two claims in the same sentence is comical.

"You expect all those office workers to start working in the factories tomorrow"

Well, if they lose their office jobs, I imagine they would.

"Canceling the US debt would hurt us much far more than it would hurt the Chinese."

That's hard to say. It depends on how such an action is viewed by foreign creditors. It's pretty common for warring nations to seize the assets of their enemy (the debt is an asset to them, and our government has control over it). It would be unreasonable to expect us to honor the debt in such a circumstance (we'd pay them money, they'd use it to buy weapons and bomb us).

PR ploy

[Gothmolly]

Of course, if they're trying to throw the Chinese off, they'll say that.

Why?

[CheddarHead]

While it was no doubt lots of fun to put some egg on the face of the US Navy, I have to wonder why the Chinese did this. Why tip your hand? Now that the Navy knows how sophisticated they Chinese subs are they'll be much more careful in the event of an actual conflict. No doubt there's people thinking of new counter measures even as I type this.

Re:Why?

[Neon Aardvark]

Because as of yet there is no real chance of any conflict breaking out any time soon, yet there is plenty of geopolitical point scoring going on, and this will help the Chinese in that area.

Re:Why?

[cmowire]

They can win a battle without firing a shot this way.

The Navy's going to be less likely to discount the Chinese navy from now on, which means that they can make a more credible threat out of invading Taiwan.

Also, it can result in the US increasing navy funding, which means that there is less money to be had for military intervention in other parts of the world, giving China a freer hand.

Finally, the Chinese government exists at the whim of their huge population. Anything to keep those folks happy.

Re:Why?

[Himring]

I have to wonder why the Chinese did this. Why tip your hand?

To make another killer sub movie starring [a chinese] Sean Connery! Duh!

Re:Why?

[PPH]

Because the Chinese stand to learn more about US capabilities and tactics than the US will learn about China. The US probably knows quite a bit about diesel-electric sub technology. So there's nothing to hide here. 'Popping up' in the middle of a battle group probably isn't actual Chinese battle procedures, so there isn't much for the US to learn. OTOH, how the US ships respond to a threat is of great interest to the Chinese.

Sub Captain had an Advantage

[hax0r_this]

The exercise was presumably planned, so all he had to do was sit by the bottom and wait for the fleet to go overhead.

I won't be able to remark any more on the issue though (at least not on /.) as I'm about to read the article.

Re:Sub Captain had an Advantage

[LWATCDR]

Well if they water was shallow enough to sit on the bottom.
Truth is they could just run at creep speed on electric and wait for them to come to them as you said.
What bothers me is the Navy is going to retire the S-3 in about 6 months and the P-3 replacement is still no where to be seen.

Re:Sub Captain had an Advantage

[feepness]

The exercise was presumably planned, so all he had to do was sit by the bottom and wait for the fleet to go overhead. I won't be able to remark any more on the issue though (at least not on /.) as I'm about to read the article. My thought as well. They have 14 of them so they wouldn't have to know the exact route. It's not like it's that big an area and they probably have used similar routes in the past.

But still, nice PR move.

Already Heard About It

[Looshi]

This is a few days old isn't it? Slashdot - you heard it here last.

Re:Already Heard About It

[Skater]

More like a YEAR!

Re:Already Heard About It

[RudeDude]

Also seen in 2006 posts:
http://www.sinodaily.com/reports/Chinese_Sub_Approached_US_Aircraft_Carrier_Undetected_999.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/14/world/main2179694.shtml
http://madhousethought.blogspot.com/2006/11/chinese-submarine-stalked-uss-kitty.html

Yeah Coincidence

[explosivejared]

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.

Can you say industrial esponiage?

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.

Yeah that's totally plausible! I mean it's not like the Pacific is this massive body of water that covers a third of the Earth.

and flashing on the USN radar screens

[commodoresloat]

"Hacked by Chinese"

What better way than this...

[Vulcann]

...to lobby for further hikes in defense spending. It almost sounds deliberate. Diesel-Electric subs are noisy little buggers so either the American navy is seriously incompetent or too clever by half.

Re:What better way than this...

[peragrin]

diesel-Electric subs noisy? what are you smoking? and do you share it with US submariner's.

The Standard Diesel-electric is quieter than Nuclear Subs. Do you know why? because Electric motors are very quiet. While both types of subs use electric drive motors the nuclear reactors also turn steam turbines which make noise all the time. While quieter than a diesel engine by several orders of magnitude it is louder than a pure electric motor running on batteries.

Nuclear Power has several other advantages, including no need for consumable fuel, or exhausting harmful gases. A nuclear sub can also stay down on the bottom for the entire duration of it's mission, while diesel subs have to come up high enough to run the diesel motors to recharge the battery packs.

Re:What better way than this...

[nick79au]

and if the Chinese invade London they won't have to pay the congestion charge since they're running a hybrid...

Re:What better way than this...

[gujo-odori]

Diesel-electric boats are noisy only when running on diesel. On battery, they can be far quieter than a nuke boat. It's a pretty good bet he didn't *snorkel* into the formation, so his boat would have been pretty quiet. This is proof the Chinese have some pretty good diesel-electric technology.

I also think there's more to this than meets the eye, but not the same thing you do. Giving away the fact that he was in range for a firing solution on a carrier could be regarded as a serious tactical error by the Chinese captain. It would be far better to let the carrier group pass by, then slip off in silence and keep that knowledge secret. Letting the US Navy know they can do that will only make the US Navy work very hard to find a solution to that problem and negate that advantage.

However, maybe it wasn't so voluntary. Possible reasons for it include running out of battery, losing control of his submarine, an equipment failure on board, or being actively pinged and forced to acknowledge his presence. Granted, the first three of those still mean he got in undetected and the last means he may have done so before being hit with active sonar, but all of them put it in a different light than deliberately making his presence in the middle of the battle group known.

Quite an achievement

[edwardpickman]

Given the amount of lead they use I'm amazed it could float.

Re:Quite an achievement

[RuBLed]

Good thing it did not dissolve into a date-rape drug...

Because...

[Svartalf]

...it may be that hostilities are about to increase. They've been at showing a bit of their capabilities, physical and electronic warfare-wise for about the last 2-3 years now.

The danger of diesels

[Chairboy]

Though an older technology, diesel-electric submarines can actually be quieter than nuclear submarines. A nuclear reactor has constant motion. There are usually pumps, valves, turbines, all sorts of things that are moving. The US submarine fleet was designed from the beginning to be as quiet as possible, but there's still some noise. It's not practical to shut down and turn on the reactor, so there's always SOME noise being produced.

A diesel electric submarine, on the other hand, only makes noise when the diesel is on. Running on batteries, in absolute quiet mode, a modern diesel-electric can be a hole in the water.

Combine this technology with good intel, and you could conceivably station a submarine dragnet in the path of a carrier group a day in advance and sit on the bottom absolutely quiet. When your target approaches, pump some ballast out (at the risk of making noise) and begin an ascent. The dive planes can convert some of that bouyancy into forward motion, and you could fine tune your course and potentially be within torpedo range before being detected.

The defense against this is to use active sonar. This is anathema to modern sub doctrine, so surface ships might do it, but it's akin to shining a flashlight in a dark room, it will let everyone else know where you are too.

There are russian diesel-electric subs being tested with part-time reactors for extending the underwater life for minimal noise footprint. It will be interesting to see how these develop.

The future of submarine warfare might end up being loud and fast. Google 'supercavitating torpedo' or 'schkval torpedo' to see more. Teaser: Underwater missiles that travel hundreds of miles per hour. Kablooey!

Re:The danger of diesels

[MichaelSmith]

Google 'supercavitating torpedo'

For a moment there I thought you wrote Google's supercavitating torpedo. Gave me a terrible fright.

Re:The danger of diesels

[WindBourne]

Funny thing about the schkval is that in the 50s/60's, we were designing and about to build a Mach3 bomber ( B-70 valkrye). About the time of go-no go, the Powers was shot down, and USSR had their ICBM. Kennedy wisely decided that it would be a waste of money to pursue these, though he kept the research going for faster planes (which Nixon killed) and better rockets (NASA). Now, we see a torpedo that is KNOWN to be fast. Of course, it is not accurate, but who cares. If you can get it close with a small nuke (which russia owns), you own the ship. The real problem is that supposedly Russia has turned over that info to China. So now what do we do?

Back in the 70's, Carter predicted that the day and age of large ships needed to end due to the ease that USSR (and other nations) could get to them. His goal was to push for small ships that worked together, basically a parallel system. Sadly, reagan killed that and pushed us back to the day of the battleships. Now, we have the ddx, but we are still pushing major ships. It strikes me that we will need to have automated or remotely controlled ships that can do the search and destroy missions. But just as the Air force fought that, the Navy is fighting that as well.

Re:The danger of diesels

[ross.w]

This is why the Australian Collins Class Subs, and diesel subs used by the Canadians and the Dutch regularly kick US carrier group butt in exercises.

The Chinese are not the first to do this at all. Difference is of course that it wasn't an exercise this time.

Re:The danger of diesels

[inKubus]

Actually, they are using fuel cells to power the subs now, which means 6000nm range, across 45 days. They also have sterling engines available to generate power/thrust as needed. See the wiki on Air-Independent Propulsion.

It's not that surprising that the Chinese sub was allowed to surface inside the task force. I'm guessing they will use this story to increase military spending somehow. The US, in addition to the typical ship-based sonar, will also have many sub escorts traveling with it. Also, they have seafloor based sonar emplacements. Although SOSUS is old and not very up to date, you can bet there's some other seafloor emplacements we haven't heard of.

Also, during a training excercise, they are going to be making a lot of noise and doing stuff they wouldn't otherwise do. All those things together would make it likely that a modern sub could infiltrate fairly close without being noticed. I doubt the Chinese would "pearl harbor" us, nor that a submarine torpedo would do much damage to a carrier, but it is interesting. Especially interesting is they could bring their nukes within range of the west or east coast of the U.S., assuming this is factual. Which makes this more scary. China does have nukes and probably has some cruise missles which can carry them.

Re:The danger of diesels

[quanticle]

Technically, the recent generations of nukes have low power settings where the reactor systems (esp. the cooling pumps) function via convection w/out actually using the massive pumps that generate most of the low-end mechanical noise.

Yes, however those require the sub to be moving at a certain rate in order to force a little bit of circulation. Diesel-electrics, on the other hand, can lay absolutely still in preparation for an ambush while making no noise. In fact, its better for them to lay still, because they're not draining their batteries then.

Re:The danger of diesels

[catmistake]

I think they (the Chinese) only need stealth to satisfy their customers, such as the US Navy, so they don't give away positions when US submariners have General Tso's delivered.

Re:The danger of diesels

[while(true)]

The Swedish Navy has trained with the US Navy for several years now using a diesel sub trying to avoid detection. From what I've heard the swedish crew have been very succesful. http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=3574&date=20060418

Signs point to surface ship obsolesence

[tjstork]

It seems like submarines are outpacing the ability of anti-submarine warfare to keep up with them. While it is somewhat surprising that the Chinese have evolved a quiet submarine, the threat of modern hybrid electric submarines is not new.

Indeed, there are numerous and famous stories of Dutch and German sailors sending back pictures of various US Aircraft carriers through their periscopes. This indicates that they successfully penetrated the US Navy ASW screen, made it to periscope depth, snapped a picture, and then got back out, all undetected. In response to this, the US Navy has actually asked NATO allies equipped with such submarines to drill with the American teams, in order to bolster the US ASW capability. This incident, then, suggests that the US Navy has a lot more to do.

In general, rumours abound that submarines are now operating at close to the ambient noise level of the ocean. If genuinely operated so quietly, and given the difficult acoustic environment of the underwater world, it remains difficult to understand just how one might actually detect a submarine. Certainly, passive detection is difficult, and active detection only gives your own position away.

What's really troubling about all of this is that, doctrinally, the US Navy does not have much in passive armor against weapons at all. Aircraft carriers, destroyers, and more are generally not armoured as doctrinally, the idea is to keep the enemy from engaging your assets to begin with by forming a screen around the capital ships. Thus, we are operating a Navy that has a reduced ability to absorb damage from an enemy increasingly able to inflict it.

If the US does not adjust, then, it is very likely setting itself up for an enormous defeat in a naval engagement against a determined opponent.

Re:Signs point to surface ship obsolesence

[WhiteWolf666]

I think you underestimate the firepower an aircraft carrier has. Modern conflicts have not really demonstrated it.

A current U.S. aircraft carrier carries approximately 65 aircraft, thousands of crew, and a huge pile of missiles.

In a combat situation, long-range bombers take too long to get into position, particularly over an extended period of time, and with varying intensities of combat. An aircraft carrier can supplement these bombers with craft that are a good deal cheaper, and a good deal quicker to respond.

In terms of surface superiority, an aircraft carrier outranges any other form of surface ship. It's an effective response to any sort of surface fleet. It is not, nor ever was, a response to missiles, bombs, mine fields, or aircraft. There are other naval craft for that (hence the battlegroup). In that sense, however, an aircraft carrier is no different than other form of military base. Missiles, and long-range bombers can attach anywhere on the globe, and penetration of enemy facilities on land by special operative is practically an art form, and much harder to defend against than submarines.

That being said, the art of weaponry is a continued point/counterpoint. We don't have all the data avaliable to us regarding anti-ship weapons, however, there's a good deal of evidence suggesting that our anti-missile programs are quite successful against the latest and greatest anti-ship missiles. In a hostile situation, surrounding a carrier group, our subs would play the same roll, and given proper ASW-air support, our subs would simply win. On the other hand, if we screwed up tactically (as in the way the article describes), or if technology is vastly inferior (which it isn't, yet), we would loose.

In my mind, the aircraft carrier is still king in the world of national warfare. However, as time goes on, it is growing clearer that we are in the age of economic and subversive warfare (meaning, terrorist). Currently, the bulk of this sort of economic/terrorist activity is occurring in the Middle East, however, there's nothing to suggest that it will not spread if conflicts spread.

I'd also like to ad that we (the U.S.) are no stranger to this sort of warfare. Neither is Russia, China, or Europe. Of course, these days MNCs (Blackwater) and political groups (Al-Qaeda, Islamic Front of Chechnya, hell, even Scientologists). Is this a worse form of warfare? I think so. Certainly, there's a great deal of collateral damage. But I believe that this sort of low level violence, present in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Gaza, Chechnya, Tibet, Sudan, Eritria, even Colombia, will dominate this century, leaving the days of open warfare in the past, and with them, expensive weaponry. There are very few places in the world where you can draw a clean line like the DMZ (N/S Korea). There is plenty of openwarfare, but it is all a mess.

Re:Signs point to surface ship obsolesence

[codepunk]

Had it dawned on you that perhaps they where not running a ASW screen? I spent 10 years in the navy as a Operations Specialist, most of it aboard Burke class destroyers. During peace time battle group steaming the formation is generally not running a ASW screen unless they are actually
practicing ASW detection.

You are highly underestimating the capabilities of modern warships.

Another thing, quiet don't mean shit when you get a P-3 Orion mark on top with a MAD(Magnetic Anomaly Detector).

Re:Signs point to surface ship obsolesence

[Shihar]

One thing to keep in mind is that during training the anti-submarine aspect has its hands tied. Certain types of active sonar are forbidden due to the belief that they can maim/kill sea animals (namely whales).

The other issue to keep in mind is that it is one thing to break in on a scheduled training mission. It is another thing to catch an aircraft carrier cruising around at 40+ knots. Diesel/electric boats have almost no capacity to hunt on the modern stage. They really need to move into position, wait, and hope that a target comes by. The sea is big, and airplanes with refueller aircraft have very long ranges.

In a sea engagement the Chinese navy really is not much of a threat. The real threat comes from the Chinese missile and rock batteries, and to some extent, their air force. In a battle over Taiwan, China has a base to fly from that can be heavily guarded so as to make anything that isn't a stealth fighter weary about entering their airspace. That isn't to say that the Chinese airforce wouldn't take horrific losses, just that they could do some damage before bleeding their airforce away on the combined US/Taiwan air defense.

The real place where China is still screwed is in the actual crossing. A Chinese boat could get lucky and whack a carrier if they positioned themselves just right, but US hunter killer subs could do horrific damage against any sort of invasion force. What the subs don't eat, the aircraft would once they leave the AAA cover of the main land. An army a few million strong doesn't do any good if it can't get to land.

Re:Signs point to surface ship obsolesence

[CodeBuster]

Armor is not the really the solution either. Invariably it is impossible to armor every area of the ship or even critical areas equally or enough to counter the more accurate targeting of modern missiles and torpedoes which can be set to detonate directly under the keel or hit the weak points in the superstructure (or anywhere else they might be). If the ship has even one weak area (which it invariably will) then it can always be sunk eventually by hitting the weak point or the chink in the armor so to speak. Armor also makes the ship slower, reduces the amount of payload that the ship can carry, and makes the ship less maneuverable (i.e. increases momentum and the amount of energy required to change directions).

Inevitable...

[Prius]

You know, this shows how badly we're going to do in the upcoming Second Cold War. China beats us to the moon, they have awesome subs, and they're slowly poisoning our children with lead and drugs. That's why we should all move to Canada.

Drafting isn't egalitarian.

[khasim]

Those with the connections will always be excused. You'll be left with only those who cannot find any way to avoid it.

The all volunteer force is supposed to give us professional, dedicated warriors. But it doesn't seem to work out that way.

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

[NeverVotedBush]

"for fear that some Luke Skywalker wannabe would fly my transport into a mountain."

Sadly this actually did happen. Pilot and copilot were on the voice recorder giggling about how someone actually paid them to have so much fun as they were flying low and pretending to be ace pilots. Too bad they didn't fly their flight plan. After hitting a mountain and killing almost everyone on board (an Air Force crew), the fact that they were nowhere where they said they would be doomed the survivors as no rescuers came before they died of exposure and their injuries.

Blackwater sucks. Hard. They kill our own military with their recklessness. Morons.

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

[Maxmin]

Ah yes, the infamous Blackwater Flight 61. Pilot got caught in a box canyon at 4600m in the Hindu Kush Mountains of Afghanistan. He only realized that screwing around on a flight, in high mountain valleys, could get someone hurt when there was no longer room left to climb.

The following is from a TV and radio interview with the attorneys for the families of the three Army soldiers killed on that flight:

"Look, there is an expression in aviation, that you plan your flight, and you fly your plan. That didn't happen here. Instead of flying a recognized route to the west, the crew went sightseeing in the mountains to the north of Bagram. They got into a box canyon. The plane they were flying could not climb above the 16,000-foot peak. They were in a canyon where they could not turn around, and tragically all six souls on board died." (Robert Spohrer)

One of the soldiers actually survived the flight, and lived long enough to smoke some cigs, before he died of exposure.

It's not only Blackwater who allows goofballs to pilot their planes. February 3, 1998, Mt. Cermis, Italy: A low-flying U.S. Marine surveillance jet on a training flight, whose joy-riding pilot must've been high or something, was deliberately flying *below* the mountain's ski lift cables. He "accidentally" clipped one of the cable-car lines, which freed the gondola to the effects of gravity, and caused all 20 people aboard to fall some 260 ft to their deaths.

A jet ain't a hot-rod. Drive with care.

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

[fractoid]

Well darn, you're right.

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

[couchslug]

"The all volunteer force is supposed to give us professional, dedicated warriors. But it doesn't seem to work out that way."

It give you mostly professional, dedicated warriors, but they are still ordinary humans. The lessons of conscription have been learned. Enjoy:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/heinl.html

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

[Camel Pilot]

Blackwater: "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am."

Blackwater 61

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

[Anonymous Coward]

'Fortunately' for the idiot flying into the ski lift cables, he was cleared of charges by the US military court. Guess not only Blackwater protects their own incompetents.

The EU was pretty pissed off about this:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:51999IP0272:EN:HTML

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

[Opportunist]

No really? Why could that be? Let me tell you a story.

A friend of mine is currently serving in Iraq. Is he convinced the military is the place to be? Hell no. But he's poor. And he wants to escape the "paper or plastic" world. He wants to get out of the gutter or die trying. Quite literally.

And he ain't the only one if the stories I get to hear are true.

And that's the "smart" guys. Of course you'll also get a lot of people who simply can't get another decent job due to ... let's say inadequate supplies in the cranial department.

A draft won't change that one bit, though. How willing is someone who is forced to do something? How reliable will he be? And how likely to just duck and cover when the bullets start flying? It's not really a comfortable feeling when bullets dig up roughcast around you. Die for my country? I woudln't even die for myself.

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

[Opportunist]

That's what's actually wrong with the army today. It's sold as a cool job where you can toy around with cool hardware.

I remember my training. And while I was no pilot (I hate my eyes), our instructors made one thing certain: This ain't a game. If you think it is, you're wrong here, there's the mop, there's the bucket, they're now your toys, return that gun and get the fu.. out of here! He was actually pretty laid back (well, as laid back as a drill sergeant gets, at least after the initial months), cracked a joke from time to time and could even take a joke. But as soon as a weapon was the topic (and that included the knife), he was business. No joke. No smile. No nonsense. He made a point that now we're serious. That thing can kill, that's what it's here for, and you better sober up now too, sonny.

You could literally feel that this was different than our "normal" training. Wisecracking was usually grounds for a humiliating joke at your expense and some pushups. In the presence of a weapon, it was a fair lot different, including a tinnitus. You don't joke with weapons.

It worked, to say the least. Even our stupidest people got their act together when handling potentially dangerous items. And, personally, I'd say that's lacking here. People don't realize that what they do is far beyond stupid. Nobody ever told them.

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

[Anonymous Coward]

He purposefully flew the plane low. Ignorance is no excuse.

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

[yfarren]

Having been in an army that functions based on a draft, and having been none to eager to be in said army, Let me tell you, you get really good, competent, useful, smart, reliable soldiers, from a draft. (You also get lots of cannon fodder. But you get lots of EVERYTHING with a daft.)

The fact that they don't want to be there doesn't really come into play. The myth that it does, is just a lie that we rich kids tell to keep us out of the army. Soldiers in WWII were wholly competent. Vietnam gave us a draft of people (not rich enough)/(without the connections) to get out, and too stupid to keep a minimum GPA in university.

Look, the vast majority of smart, capable people will almost always look at an army and say "oh, wait, Getting Killed? For a little Bronze DooDad? No. I don't think so." And they will find something better to do (unless they have an inordinate amount of patriotism, or REALLY believe STRONGLY in the cause of the war. And even then, not so much). The only way you are going to get them into the army is to draft them. And really, for that to work, you have to have a strong draft, that doesn't leave people many outs (either because socially it is unacceptable (how many people went to the army and made out with another guy VS. Going to Canada?), or because it is virtually impossible to get out of.

Once you have that, you get all kinds of people, and you have to categorize them. Most armies already do this (you don't have many stupid/unmotivated people in any elite force. Cannon fodder exists, are poorly trained, and serve a roll). How willing a person is to die doesn't really factor in, here, either. Given a challenge, and given training, smart/motivated people WILL meet that challenge. They wont admit it to themselves, people are great at rationalizing stuff away. But once in the situation, being given the training, those same smart motivated people who would never willingly join the army will learn the skills of soldiering as well as the smart motivated people who are all Gung Ho. And they will learn them far far better than the Gung Ho unmotivated stupid people.

Surround a smart/capable person with other smart/capable people, even if they don't approve of the organization they are in, they will develop a bond with each other.

And, once you give someone a skill, however vile a skill it is. Well. We like to use our skills. We really do. And when we can frame that skill in terms of it being a good thing to do (save our buddies, bring democracy to the people, help the majority of the people in this town have running water, blah blah blah) well, that makes using my horrible skills all the more appealing. The end Vs. the Means. Cutting out a cancer from the society. Pick your metaphor. People are great at rationalizing.

This isn't to mention that the vast majority of skills the army imparts have nothing to do with combat. Tooth to Tail in the US (someone who knows more about the US army needs to correct me here) is something like 7:1. So most people in the army aren't involved in the combat side of things at all. Food prep, ordering supplies, cleaning camp, filling trucks with gas, etc. etc. etc.. (Cannon fodder aren't all in combat, ya know). Some of those things need smart, motivated people too (translation, reading local newspapers, listening to the radio, gathering Intel. Making sure you have the resources to feed 3000 people today etc.).

And another thing. The vast majority of people make really crappy combat soldiers. Take a well trained (but not battle exposed) soldier, and shoot at him, and most of them will cower. It takes someone INCREDIBLY disciplined/motivated/(the right kind of cerebral) to grab cover, stick their head up and start shooting back. Funny thing is that that combination of discipline/motivation/(right kind of cerebral) ALSO has almost nothing to do with how much you wanted to be in that situation, in the first place. Because ONCE YOU ARE THERE, if you want to live, the correct response is to shoot back. And

Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian.

[Opportunist]

Well, there are a few differences between 1944 and today.

First and foremost, the people generally felt that the war was just and correct, that this had to be done. It was the general sentiment that this is a "good" war that has to be fought and that dying in it is worth it. Also, don't forget that that were different times. Pride in your country was vastly different from today. And your options weren't so stunning. You were, compared with today, poor as dirt. You also had a lot different people back then at your disposal. One of the often cited reasons for losing the Vietnam war was the average age of a front line soldier (26 in WW2 compared to 19 in Vietnam).

Also, the time and the way battles are waged changed dramatically. There is no Normandy today. There is no central structure in America's enemies. That would be trivial to solve in today's world of global warfare, send an ICBM into the center of the enemy territory and boom goes the Führer.

Today, you don't need bodies. You need motivated, skilled and well trained soldiers. And you have none of those 3 qualities in a conscript.

Carriers, so big, so beautiful, so dead

[jollyreaper]

Our fleet hasn't seen real naval combat since WWII. Anti-ship missiles are incredibly lethal and it costs far more to defend against them than it does to fire them. It will only take a few hits to ruin the day for any American task force. Sure, start a war with Iran. After the first carrier takes a hit that knocks it out of action for a two year repair, our fleets will be kept so far out at sea that their tactical usefulness will be zero. Score one for the Iranians.

The whole concept of the super-carrier is very vulnerable at this point given the kinds of weapons available to potnetial hostiles. The only reason why they persist with such glowing reputations is that they have not been put to the test in battle, their vulnerabilities not made clear. In this case they are like the battleships of WWII, or possibly more apt, the battle-cruisers. The battle-cruisers were up-gunned so they could fight with the big boys but they lacked the armor to stay in the fight. Very expensive viking funerals, they were.

The only development that will save the carrier is if active defenses can be improved to the point that nothing but nothing will get through the wall of fire. As it stands, our current ships are simply not survivable. Frigates and destroyers will get goatse'd if hit by a serious cruise missile. The torps out there these days can break a ship in two. The Russians, of course, designed torps that were supposed to be able to bust a carrier's keel in one hit.

Our whole military aparatus is still stuck in the 20th century and is still trying to bring forward concepts that saw their genesis back in the Cold War. It's going to take a serious kicking of our collective asses to force the Pentagon to reevaluate our military and put together something that's realistic and sane. But I'm not sure how big of an ass-kicking it'll take. We're getting a good one in Iraq and the lessons don't seem to be sinking in.

Re:Carriers, so big, so beautiful, so dead

[badboy_tw2002]

Well, we have the airport, but the security lines are a bitch :)

Re:Carriers, so big, so beautiful, so dead

[rahvin112]

Carrier's don't float alone. Don't underestimate the knowledge and abilities of the USN. The US played cat and mouse with the soviets for 30 years. It just means the USN is going to start playing cat and mouse with the Chinese now that their sub-tactics are improving. Chances are they were trying to surface to see if they could surface for a strike and re-submerge without being detected. In fact it would surprise me if there was a Los Angelos class sitting behind the Chinese when they did it. If not the Los Angeles class sub's will be getting their cat-n-mouse time with the Chinese in the near future.

The USN is well aware of supersonic attack missiles and torpedoes, it's the entire reason that AEGIS exists and has the ability to track and fire on 100's of incoming targets simultaneously from every vessel in the fleet. The first principle of carrier doctrine is that carriers are huge slow moving targets, but they are also huge slow moving targets with 20 support ships and hundreds of aircraft aboard. For example, in a conflict with Iran the carriers aren't going to start the conflict while in the gulf, it will start with them outside the limits of the Iranians weapons while they bomb the living hell out of every defensive emplacement within 100 miles of coast. Then you move the carrier groupings in further so the aircraft can strike further. The carrier isn't there to sail up to the coast so the sailors can fire their machine gun at the ground or so the destroyers can fire their 12" guns, the carrier exists to support the aircraft which are the extension of the carrier's power (and that range is in the 100's of miles). I don't think you would dare argue that the Iranian's air defenses could withstand full assault by modern warplanes. Iraq had the best air defenses outside Russia in '91 (with the best systems the Russians sold) and it was picked clean in less than 100 days.

The same is true of submarines, even diesels, given modern anti-sub warfare the Chinese wouldn't approach a carrier let alone fire on one, active sensors would be well outside the limits of the grouping actively pinging such that a yellowfin couldn't sneak up on the grouping. And no submarine can actively defend against helicopter based torpedoes and active floating sensors (except for sitting on the bottom next to something that conceals their shape), and fortunately the USN is smart enough to keep a couple anti-sub ships with two helicopters each and a hold full of sensors in every grouping. In the event of a conflict there would be a sensor net all the way from the Philippines to Alaska that would track every submarine in the water.

Re:Carriers, so big, so beautiful, so dead

[c6gunner]

It's going to take a serious kicking of our collective asses to force the Pentagon to reevaluate our military and put together something that's realistic and sane. But I'm not sure how big of an ass-kicking it'll take. We're getting a good one in Iraq and the lessons don't seem to be sinking in.

That's a joke, right? The entire death toll in Iraq is less than the number of allied lives lost on any one day of major offencive ops in WW2. You lost 3 times as many soldier in one year of operations in Vietnam as you did in 4 years of ops in Iraq. Even Korea cost you 30,000+. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Iraq has given you "a good ass kicking", but you couldn't be more silly if you tried.

Re:Carriers, so big, so beautiful, so dead

[jollyreaper]

That's a joke, right? The entire death toll in Iraq is less than the number of allied lives lost on any one day of major offencive ops in WW2. You lost 3 times as many soldier in one year of operations in Vietnam as you did in 4 years of ops in Iraq. Even Korea cost you 30,000+. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Iraq has given you "a good ass kicking", but you couldn't be more silly if you tried. Since when is the number of lives lost the sole measure of a military defeat? If you intended to defend a town and the enemy gets there a few days before you, you lost the battle without losing a single man.

But with specific regards to Iraq, this is going to be one of the most expensive wars we ever fought in, certainly in treasure if not in lives. It has ruined our international standing, alienated allies, inflamed arab anger against us, and even more importantly, it's made our military look incompetent. That's deadly because it makes them into less of a deterrent. The IDF was one of the most feared fighting forces on the planet and yet they got their asses handed to them by Hezbollah. That's greatly increased Hezbollah's standing which should make fund-raising and recruitment easier, and it has also banished the myth that the Israelis are undefeatable on the battlefield. It shows that with good command and control, even they can be defeated.

But back to the particulars about Iraq, we're losing a lot of junior officers, disillusioned with the military and the war. It took a solid decade after Vietnam to put the Army back together. How long will it take to recover after this war? How long will it take to relearn the institutional knowledge that gets lost when the smart and capable retire without passing it on?

We don't have to lose an entire army in Stalingrad for this war to be seen as a horrific defeat for the American military.

The first time is easy...

[pedantic bore]

It's not clear whether the sub actually navigated its way into the heart of the carrier group, or whether it was just sitting there waiting for the other ships to sail by. It's a cheap and easy tactic, and they could have had subs stationed along the common navigation channels or the exercise area (which is no secret) long before the exercise, just in case they got lucky and the carrier group sailed over their heads. Worked for the U-boats, still works today.

But it's not quite so easy the second time. Were the US ships using any active sonar? It doesn't say, but my guess is they weren't, because this is a fairly provocative thing to do -- especially if you're in waters that another country is claiming are its territory. But now that the Chinese have made a provocative move of their own, they'll have the picket ships and helos pinging away and dropping sonobuoys. And it wouldn't surprise me if the Chinese subs all find themselves with a silent new shadow the next time they leave port...

Ah, the bad old days are back again.

Another possibility...

[thesandtiger]

It's entirely possible that the Chinese subs are good enough to escape detection by our fleet, or that we didn't detect it due to user error.

Or, perhaps, it was seen and detected all along but we're just saying it wasn't so that we don't give out an idea of what our tech is or isn't capable of.

Re:Another possibility...

[LarryWest42]

What!? Pretending the other side has much more effective hardware, ala the Soviet Union's illusory missile gap(s)?

Don't you see that that would mean that Navy/DoD staff would have to go to Congress and ask for $billions more to upgrade the Navy hardware, and they would hardly have a chance to see that project underway before they'd be retiring to positions at defense contractor. Who would go for that?

Get real.

There are two kinds of ships....

[Lost Penguin]

Submarines and targets.....

Re:There are two kinds of ships....

[Anonymous Coward]

Submarines are boats, not ships. Like all ships, they can submerge, but only subs can surface. :D

No Surprise.

[bmo]

There are two kinds of seagoing vessels: submarines and targets.

--
BMO

PR inside the USA is more important

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The minitary need to keep their internal PR machine going. The military soak up a huge amount of the US budget, yet are slipping up. They need to keep selling to the US public to keep getting funding and keeping the generals and admirals from getting fired.

Re:Why? Why? Well, the wanted to ...

[davidsyes]

"Sinnnng, Sing a song...."

On VETERAN'S day, no less (unless it happened on the other side of the IDL...).

"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."

----

*I* will venture to say that "consternation" is a POLITE, GENEROUS description. The USN/DOD probably are having a major cataleptic fit. They're probably throwing chairs higher, harder and faster than Steve Ballmer, and HE already throws them faster than the speed of light...

Of course, the USN WILL, as obliged, say some shit like, "Well, if this had been the Enterprise, or the new George H.W. Bush, with their CVN ASW/CVIS suite, this would NEVER, NEVER happen. Why, our technological sophistication by FAR outstrips anything the Reds... Umm, are we on tape? Strike that... Correction all after Reds... Chinese Navy has in its inventory. Why, Our USS Virginia and Jimmy Carter boats are quieter at FLANK, above 500 below sea level than a ANY LA SSN or follow-on boat is just sitting at the pier with recirc pumps on minimal output..."

That may be, but you STILL got your ass embarrassed.

But, I don't for one SECOND believe China WOULD attack. They are just saying, TAG. Here's realism for your fake-ass scenarios and drills.

Why am I talking this way? Cuz I'm an ex Sailor, from 1984-1988, and after playing the "Terrorists" in security alerts aboard my second ship (an FFG), I grew to despise TYCOM Longbeach for the shitty scenarios we had. Sure, the "Nav" upgraded since 87, but I was still bored with and tired of officers who cheated their way into regaining control of the ship when I denied them with REALISTIC scenarios.

Also, I don't CARE that drones COST money. You have CIWS to do a TASK, not SIMULATE. That's why the Stark was popped, cuz her CIWS was BROKE DICK, NOT performing to manufacturer's claims. My ship deployed from Long Beach, as part of the NRF in Nov 87, to the Gulf, to in-chop by some date in Jan 88, and we had SIMA, Fleet this and Fleet that and I think Norden or NavElex and a other "experts" aboard, and that fucking GE gun failed to cooperate UNTIL we we're almost done transiting the Strait of Hormuz (Silworm Alley). It woke up to our surprise. Nobody in Long Beach, Pearl, Subic, or on-board could get that goddam gun to do jack shit in defensive mode.

I FIRMLY believe the Stark was a victim of lies all over the place. The ship's captain was a scapegoat. I believe MY ship's captain felt the same, because MANY of us in the crew donated funds to the victims and their families. Few other ships did that. I think our CO was making or allowing us to make a statement.

I also at the time, well, around June 87 as an E-4 Radioman, but not Gunner's Mate or weapons person, told several of the GM's (who were loading the DU (depleted Uranium) rounds into the gun (they were wearing asbestos gloves, but no respirators...tsk tsk...), "This gun isn't worth shit. All the Soviets need to do is pickle our asses from high altitude with a self-guided or corrected set of bombs. They don't even need a direct hit. Just defoliate our masts and antennas. Hell, they could come from zenith and attack the CVNs, BBs and anything else IF they can break through CAP (Combat Air Patrol) for CVNs or sqwack (fake being CommAir (commercial aircraft) and close in on us."

The Gunner's Mate, Guns (as opposed to Missiles)

But, China's stated policy (like the US') is not to fire first. However, China recently stated to the Naval Community worldwide this:

"China will not fire the first shot. But if a shot is fired AT us, the shooter will not fire a SECOND shot."

THAT will keep the smugness, arrogance and cheekiness out of the rest of the navies for the foreseeable future...

An optimistic alternative

[michaelmalak]

While waiting for informed responses to trickle in here, I found this on Google Groups (UseNet):

When the incident first happened I commented that we would never know if the Chinese boat was detected and being tracked, which would provide far more intel than flushing it when first detected.

Considering they were in international waters and responses were limited. My comment was that the telling factor would be determined by how many, if any heads rolled. The USN does not forgive such lapses without someone being sacrificed. As far as I can tell, no one has been punished. That would indicate to me that they had a solution on the Chinese boat and were gaining intel.

We do not know why the Chinese Sub surfaced when they did. What happens below the water is rarely shared with the general public. It's entirely possible that once the Chinese got within a certain distance the American boat 'encouraged' them to surface. Just as when a fighter plane can signal it's non-hostile intents by lowering its gear, a Sub surfaces.

If the Chinese were truly undetected they could have gained far more by staying undetected than the minor political points garnered by surfacing.

Re:An optimistic alternative

[TempeTerra]

The quoted text is almost insightful, but it still devolves into "if he knows that I know that he knows..."

Perhaps the US was tracking the Chinese sub all along, but is now going to destroy a couple of careers just to make it look like the sub was not detected due to human error. What are a couple of careers measured against misinforming the enemy?

Or, perhaps the Chinese sub should have been detected if it was actually following but was instead using a cheap trick like sitting on the bottom until the carrier group came past, then surfacing to give the false impression that it was super stealthy and had been following all along.

Those are just a couple of possibilities off the top of my head, and (hard as it is to believe) I'm sure there are even smarter people than me working for US and Chinese military intelligence.

Why not?

[HangingChad]

There is little that's secret about modern diesel/electric submarines. Submerged they've always been hard to detect. With advances in battery technology and quieter props it's not that big of a shock they could get close enough to launch.

It's not like they were pulling all their clubs out of the bag, it was a demonstration what they could do with fairly basic technology. The real interesting speculation would be what they might have in the inventory that's even more capable. Long range missiles or UAV's that could attack a carrier from hundreds or thousands of miles away, perhaps aided by satellite, robotic mines, or something equally surprising.

When your foreign policy is built around being able to project air power it's a rude surprise to find out in the modern era a floating airport is a big, fat target.

If you really want ulcers start looking up how many countries have similar subs. You might be surprised at some of the names.

And here's a quote as true today as it was then.

[DaedalusHKX]

"The war wasn't meant to be won or lost, it was simply meant to be fought. The war was never meant to end, merely to go on."

Do you folks actually think that both sides of this conflict hate each other as much as the peons do? Sheesh. When the rich meet at the country club, the boys from Company A, and the boys from Company B, regardless of nationality, are friends.

The same is true of "presidents", "bankers" and anything else. Gentleman's rules, to all games. Gentlemen don't KILL each other. They get proxies, peons, idiots and fools to slaughter each other in their names. After all, only fools would hate someone they've never had a chance to get to know, or witness first hand their deeds (and their motivation, of course). Short of aggression carried out against the individual in question, "fighting a war" generally involved mass psychosis, usually cultivated by carefully trained and prepared "superiors" and "intelligence personnel."

This stuff's as old as the world. The wars will go on, the arms races will go on, and humanity will go on. All the fears and the doomsayers are merely meant to up the ante, and keep the peons scurrying about, frittering their lives away doing nothing at all interesting or worthwhile, other than what they have been TOLD to do by someone else, for someone else's benefit and minor, if any, benefit to themselves.

Welcome to the future :)

The only reason I keep watching this mess is because it is, frankly speaking, fun to watch. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:This is in fact how WWIII will start

[tjstork]

Russian supersonic sea-skimming missiles can take one out, and they've been selling them to China, Iran, etc.

I'm not worried as much about the Sizzlers, as, theoretically, all the missile defense research we're doing suggests that we'll be able to intercept those too. air is fairly permeable to electromagnetic radiation and so we can "see" the target at least. In the ocean, its a lot worse... sound bounces all over the place, there's ghost images, light doesn't get through it. So, there's a lot more theoretical limits on detecting things under the ocean.

Really, submarines basically mean that no single side will be able to have control of the ocean surface.. and they are the threat. The only thing I can think of is a continuously operating flight of actively pinging ASW helicopters, and, that will give away our own ships in the battle group as much as find theirs. The other thing is to have a heck of a magnetometer, but, what if the enemy sub's hull isn't made out of a magnetic material? I've heard of satellites attempting to measure the bulge in the ocean surface to find a sub... but that seems aweful dodgy if the sub is really deep.

SEEMS THERE ARE A FEW CHINKS IN NATIONAL SECURITY

[Anonymous Coward]

One might expect that discovering a few chinks in the national security armour would be expected during an exercise.

Re:The Clinton Legacy

[PPH]

What do you mean by 'the Clinton Legacy'? Getting caught with one's pants down?

Carriers aren't dead, just need re-design.

[PortHaven]

Carriers are projection weapons.

The mistake is that they float.

Long ago we should have began working on carriers designs that were submersibles and only surface in order to let their air craft take off.

Just for laughs

[lelitsch]

Not directly related, but here is a nice picture a German submarine took of the USS Enterprise during a NATO exercise. http://rula.de/marktplatz/files/zielfoto_u24_enterprise.jpg

And IIRC, that was during an antisubmarine drill.

don't worry though

[commodoresloat]

There's a trojan pre-installed on the submarine's main data drive.

Re:To get us to spend money.

[1u3hr]

I am guessing that China is a lot closer to a war with the west then is assumed in the west.

I think the message is more "Don't fuck with us if we invade Taiwan". China doesn't want war with the West. They're getting rich selling stuff to the West now. But at the same time, the Chinese military is chafing to take back the "rogue province" of Taiwan.

Point Defense Systems

[unity100]

Pal, what you are describing as missing is being developed since hms Sheffield was sunk with a single exocet missile in falklands in 1982. "screening" a naval vessel from any incoming missiles with a hail of bullets is now a long widespread tech. there are many prominent systems on the use. and easily, carriers are the biggest platforms that carry most of these, and screen themselves quite well. im not even talking about fast, anti missile missile systems.

what you said held true at 1980, and had there been a world war, carriers would go bust. but, by then eastern bloc didnt have that capability, west did, and by the time eastern bloc developed it, west developed point defenses.

How News Is Made

[draevil]

I would caution everyone to note first of all that the FA is from the Daily Mail and so most of the facts contained therein are subject to question.

As some have noted this incident took place approximately a year ago and in fact it's not even the first time that the Chinese have stalked the Kitty Hawk - albeit from a greater distance that time.

Essentially what the Mail have done here is to raise an issue that ticks all their usual buttons.

• It takes a dig at the Americans - note the use of "dumbstruck", "embarrassment" and "red-faced".
• It is a cheap article to do - dig up old news, stick some cheap stock pics in and you're done.
• It's about the Chinese - who are scary and foreign.

Consequently, on behalf of all Brits, I apologise for the existence of the Daily Mail - plainly we should do more to end it. On the other hand, however you have given the world Fox News and Ann Coulter - although they do hold a certain amusement value.

As an exercise use google news to see how many other 'articles' have now sprung up which in places basically copy the DM article word for word.. :)

Rather straightforward solution...

[starseeker]

Reading the comments, it seems like the consensus is that given sufficient time, motivation, and technology it's hard to passively detect a well designed and built submarine in the open ocean, if it's built for quiet (i.e. non-nuclear) and active detection is the electronic version of wearing a "KICK ME" sign.

Well, the solution to that is obvious - do just what satellites have done for surface bases; map the oceans with automated sonar/other detection grids until we know what's going on everywhere, and the dark (unobserved) areas are points of interest simply by appearing - if someone removes our ability to see it's an automatic point of interest.

The environmental impact of doing something like that would not be trivial of course, but probably given sufficient time, money and resources it could be done. It would mean WE couldn't move quietly either, most likely (we wouldn't be the only ones doing it, once it started) but it would make a "sneak attack" rather more unlikely.

Why do the Chinese give away this capability?

[Latent Heat]

I find your theory interesting on why the Chinese submarine even surfaced.

Correct me on this, but I have long imagined there to be a Mad Magazine "Spy vs Spy" quality to the Cold War confrontations. One one hand, you might want to put the fear into the other side that you have a certain capability (i.e. ultra quiet sub). On the other hand, you may not want to tip your hand that you can do a certain thing.

There is this account of a Russian attack sub tailing a U.S. super carrier, and the captain of the carrier ordering increasing amounts of speed to see if the sub could keep up. There was a certain sobering factor that the sub was able to match whatever speed the carrier could reach. Above a certain speed, the sub was going so fast and making so much noise that there was no longer any sub stealth involved, but there was a command decision about whether to go even faster to see if the sub could keep up. On one hand, the sub is giving up intel about how fast it can go, but the carrier is giving up intel on its speed, and the account was that the captain of the carrier gave up on attempting to outrun the sub to not reveal what the carrier could do.

There must be also a factor that any of this sea-going machinery must have a "short time rating" and that one can push the capabilities of the power plant in exchange for shortening its life or needing repairs. I heard an account that when the SS United States (one of the last of the great passenger liners) made a record Atlantic crossing on its maiden voyage, the machinery was never quite the same after that.

So why would the Chinese sub surface. One explanation is that is close to home waters and it was to "teach the Americans a lesson" about messing around in Chinese near-territorial waters. Another explanation, as you have offered, is that the Chinese sub captain panicked, and in so doing gave up some information of about Chinese capabilites that they might want to keep secret.

Re:Why do the Chinese give away this capability?

[smittyoneeach]

"Spy vs Spy" is certainly an interesting way to put it, but it is indeed a poker match. Multiple audiences exist:

• The opposing navy
• The opposing government
• The friendly navy
• The friendly government

You'd need to do a full http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory treatment of each combination to wring out a full analysis of whether the Chinese 'won' or 'lost' in the encounter.
Looking historically, most assessments of opposing capabilities end up inflated. Consider the US assessments of Iraq, or of Soviet Capabilities. That's all well and good: you've got the hindsight working for you. Alas, we live in the present tense. Do you really want to low-ball your investments in, say, sonar development, just because you "guess" that the Chinese "really" wouldn't pickle off a round at one of your aircraft carriers?
Subsurface warfare preparation is really like studying for final exams in an unloved course. It really gets in the way of partying, which is why an event like this surfacing tends to be accompanied by a chorus of sphincters slamming shut like water-tight doors as the ships in the battlegroup go to general quarters.
Thus, my cynical guess is that the real audiences for this sort of article are the governments. In the US case, the subsurface Navy is more wallpaper than usual, based upon the previously mentioned lack of blue-water opponents, the (appropriate) mind-share commanded by Iraq, and the overall "un-shiny-ness" of subsurface warfare.
My knowledge of the Chinese is essentially 0. Can't hazard a guess as to how the event plays in Beijing.

There is this account of a Russian attack sub tailing a U.S. super carrier, and the captain of the carrier ordering increasing amounts of speed to see if the sub could keep up. There was a certain sobering factor that the sub was able to match whatever speed the carrier could reach. Above a certain speed, the sub was going so fast and making so much noise that there was no longer any sub stealth involved, but there was a command decision about whether to go even faster to see if the sub could keep up. On one hand, the sub is giving up intel about how fast it can go, but the carrier is giving up intel on its speed, and the account was that the captain of the carrier gave up on attempting to outrun the sub to not reveal what the carrier could do.

Yes, it's a poker match, played with information as chips, as the two sides see who will be the first to say 'uncle' (probably due to equipment problems). I'll venture that the concern from the US side was not so much the carrier as her escorts. Even with an airwing embarked, the Kittyhawk (the remaining non-nuclear powered US carrier) is simply an impressive piece of engineering.
For all I punted on a full active career in the US Navy (personal reasons), I still have a "moment" when I come out of the Norfolk VA tunnel, look South to the carrier piers, and see two or three of those ladies moored. Mahan would nod in approval. Conversely, the decline of the United States in world historical importance will likely be proportional to the state of her Navy, if you'll permit a blatantly partisan observation.

Re:Why do the Chinese give away this capability?

[StikyPad]

I find that carrier story to be less than credible. Surprisingly, carriers are generally understood to be the fastest ship in the fleet, because they need to be; both to facilitate takeoffs and to be able to run away from just such a threat. Their top speed is classified, but it is probably safe to assume they can outrun their battlegroup if necessary. And that's just the surface.

Subs can indeed travel faster underwater than on the surface, however their props are designed for stealth first and speed second. That priority almost guarantees that the prop would cause cavitation at high speeds, which would basically destroy a very expensive item, so even if a captain *could* push his boat that fast, he would likely cripple it. Aside from that, traveling underwater inherently requires more energy due to vastly increased friction, and it's extremely unlikely that the sub would be have the power to keep up in the first place. Subs are designed to pop up to 40-60 feet, launch some fish or some birds, and get back down, not chase down a panicked warship.

Re:Why do the Chinese give away this capability?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is this account of a Russian attack sub tailing a U.S. super carrier, and the captain of the carrier ordering increasing amounts of speed to see if the sub could keep up. There was a certain sobering factor that the sub was able to match whatever speed the carrier could reach. Above a certain speed, the sub was going so fast and making so much noise that there was no longer any sub stealth involved, but there was a command decision about whether to go even faster to see if the sub could keep up. On one hand, the sub is giving up intel about how fast it can go, but the carrier is giving up intel on its speed, and the account was that the captain of the carrier gave up on attempting to outrun the sub to not reveal what the carrier could do.

An alternative theory on commander's decision to give it up:

Non-encrypted depeche received aboard carrier on SLF channel:
PLEASE STOP YOUR ENGINES STOP WE ARE HOOKED ON YOUR ANCHOR STOP THANKS MATE STOP YOURS TRULY YURI END

Re:Why do the Chinese give away this capability?

[Tsunayoshi]

Their top speed is classified, but it is probably safe to assume they can outrun their battlegroup if necessary. And that's just the surface.

A former coworker of mine was on a carrier that at one point indeed did outrun its escort ships. According to him, the rooster tail of the wake was almost at the level of the flight deck (taking into account that the back end was lower in the water at that speed).

Re:Why do the Chinese give away this capability?

[Doctor Faustus]

Subs can indeed travel faster underwater than on the surface, however their props are designed for stealth first and speed second. That priority almost guarantees that the prop would cause cavitation at high speeds, which would basically destroy a very expensive item, so even if a captain *could* push his boat that fast, he would likely cripple it.

There's one notable exception, which was probably involved in that story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_class_submarine

Happens quite a bit

[waimate]

I don't have the reference to hand so feel free to claim it never happened, but this occurred a few years ago with an Australian Collins-class diesel electric. It also happened a few decades ago with an Australian Oberon-class sub, and ISTR some European sub managed a similar trick.

The problem seems to be that US sub crews simply aren't accustomed to going up against diesel-electric subs, which *are* much quieter than the US nukes. There may also be a hubris effect going on, in that the crews *assume* they and their technology will easily detect interlopers, and therefore aren't as much on guard as they should be.

The worrying bit is that (for want of a better term) "rogue states" are much more likely to be using a diesel-electric sub than anything else.

Re:Metal Detector much?

[jeko]

OK, I'll bite. Totally passive detection system for big hunk of metal in the water:

Listen for it. See current topic of discussion.

See it. Detect the EM radiation, probably heat, coming off the metal. Metal must be hotter than surrounding ocean due to heat of crew and machinery. Metal immersed in unbelieveably frigid water sucking away heat by convection. Best of luck.

Touch it. Intall massive feelers in front of sub. Hello, SS Waterbug.

Smell/Taste it. Try to detect minute amount of fuel/lubricant/rust/etc in the water. Heat signature beginning to look childishly easy.

Feel it. Detect gravitational signature of the big hunk of metal. Detect magnetic properties of big hunk of metal interacting with Earth's magnetic field. Both theoretically possible. Better get T'Pol to help you upgrade your sensors. Ask Douglas Adams' to borrow his chunk of cake from the Total Perspective Vortex.

I got news for ya, Zatoichi. If you can't actively look for something, and that something doesn't hand out clues for free, then you ain't gonna find it.

Oh hell no

[schwaang]

I'm beyond draft age, but there's no way I'd subject my younger relatives to being drafted for another BS war-of-choice like Iraq or Vietnam.

I would trust them to be patriotic enough to join up if they were needed to fight a *real* threat like WWII.

Re:Oh hell no

[einhverfr]

Compulsatory military service would help prevent that. At least in theory, the impact of the war would be spread more broadly, thus making people think beforehand a bit more carefully.

In Vietnam, we had been there for a long time before the draft came up. If the draft had to happen in advance, do you think we would have been there at all?

Re:Oh hell no

[schwaang]

My main point is that making sure that the military service is really spread around would help to personalize the costs. It is easy to support a war when it is strangers fighting in your name. Would people support the same war if it meant that they would personally know people who were fighting in the conflict?

And there are a number of anti-war folks around who make the same point, that the draft would ensure the political involvement of people because the their necks would be at stake, and this would prevent unnecessary wars.

And I disagree with them too, strongly. History has shown the larger American public to be easily manipulated. If only draftees could vote on a given war resolution that might be one thing, but just imagine that even today 25% of people polled say they approve of the job W. is doing. We are dealing with morons here, and I don't want those people to decide my (or my potential children's) fate.

Bottom line: except for *real* emergencies, let each of us choose our own actions, rather than having them decided by others.

And one final thought, consider this. You say that if we all had something (or someone) at stake we'd be more likely to resist a stupid war. But consider that if you are otherwise not politically active at all, you will be at a huge disadvantage when the time to resist a stupid policy comes along.

The draft as an anti-(stupid)-war instrument is utter fool's gold. Don't buy it.

Collision avoidance

[flyingfsck]

My guess is that the submarine sensed the flotilla sailing on a collision course and surfaced to identify and save itself. That still doesn't excuse the US Sonar Operators for not sensing it.

It's About Time!

[IonOtter]

Back in 2004, just before I left the Navy, I had a conversation with a contractor who was doing work on the RIM-161 Standard SM-3 defense system out at sea. I asked him what he thought about the Chinese strategy, and explained what I'd been reading about.

The Chinese are following a doctrine of asymmetric warfare, in that they know they can't stand against us toe-to-toe. We've got bigger, faster, stronger ships, planes and weapons. Our defenses are very powerful, and we can sink 20 of their ships in minutes.

So they've been building twenty-one ships for everyone one of our attack ships. Not only that, our defenses are built around sub-sonic missiles and munitions? So the Chinese have developed hyper-sonic weapons, such as the SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missile, against which we have no effective defense.

And lastly, I explained how the Chinese didn't spend billions of dollars on growing their own, proprietary C4I network. Instead, they approached the most advanced, NON-MILITARY businesses in the world-including the US-and said, "We'll give you exclusive rights to business in China if you build us the best C4I network you can design. We'll pay all your expenses and supply free labor."

The result is that they have a C4I network that, while it doesn't match ours, come exceptionally close. On top of that, their C4I uses satellites as an augmentation, not the foundation of their strategy. If we shoot down their satellites, they won't be as blind as we would be if they shot down ours.

Next to last, their coastal and landward borders are protected by a layered defense grid that doesn't rely upon the network as it's sole source of input. Rather, they use a combination of communications strategies to keep each unit in touch with the others, as well as the central command network. Sure, we have the same thing, but they've developed and deployed it along their entire border. NIMBY doesn't seem to be a problem in Communist China like it is elsewhere in the world.

And now we have this.

Up until now, the Pentagon has been aware of Chinese defensive capability and it's ability to severely restrict our ability to launch an effective attack against mainland China. Heck, the Chinese sent us copies of their war doctrine back in 2003, just to brag about it! The gentleman contractor I was speaking with dismissed each of my concerns, saying, in effect, "We know what they can do and have them in the bag. Don't worry, they can't touch us."

I wonder what he's thinking now?

This isn't a warning? This isn't even a threat. This is the Chinese pulling a Nelson and going "HA-HA!" in front of the whole world-and that gentleman contractor-and there's not a whole lot we can do about it.

the Kitty Hawk

[NullProg]

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.

The Kitty Hawk is not a super-carrier. Its the last conventional carrier left in the US Navy. Japan won't allow a Nuke powered aircraft carrier to be home ported in Japan.

Considering the Kitty Hawk has no S3 Viking (Anti-Submarine) Wing, this is a non-story except for people who want to bash the USA. http://www.kittyhawk.navy.mil/Air%20Wing/cvw5.htm

The Daily Mail in the UK can't report this?

Cheers to the Chinese Navy though. Job well done.

Enjoy,

Re:the Kitty Hawk

[dffuller]

Japan won't allow a Nuke powered aircraft carrier to be home ported in Japan. I think it's important to remember that we aren't in Japan by invitation.

Re:Metal Detector much?

[steveroehrs]

Feel it - Detect magnetic properties of big hunk of metal interacting with Earth's magnetic field.

Using one of these perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_anomaly_detector

Please enlighten me...

[DaedalusHKX]

How to "psychotic leaders" or "insane leaders" carry out the murders of millions? Stalin only personally killed some 1000 people or so. His multi million death quota was reached by willing underlings.

Perhaps the blame lies with the sheeple, not with the evil rulers. I've said this over and over again, its "fellow men" who are to blame, not "evil men or evil corporations, but the sheeplike nature of the majority of mankind... the mass man so to speak, for he does not lead, and does not think, he merely follows."

What are the Chinese trying to say?

[rpbird]

They demonstrate an anti-satellite weapon. They show off a quiet sub. The second isn't as impressive as it sounds. As any hardcore Discovery Channel watcher will tell you, several of our European allies already have super-quiet subs. But the Chinese show off these new technologies in public. What are they trying to do?

When they look as us, what do they see? Remember, these guys aren't stupid, they listen when Bush speaks, they watch when he acts. They see a president completely disdainful of alliances and diplomacy, dependent upon military force and dedicated to unilateral, unprovoked military actions. They see an American administration encouraging rash behavior in its allies. Remember the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon? The Bush administration, according to some news reports, encouraged the Israeli government in its invasion plans. What might Bush do next? The Chinese wish to show our president that not every problem has an "easy" military solution. Bush doesn't listen to words, maybe he'll pay attention to deeds.

As Cap'n Jack Sparrow would say: "They put a shot across our bow, matey!"

Re:What are the Chinese trying to say?

[freedom_india]

Am sure if Bush was the captain of the Carrier, he would popped up a couple of Torps onto the Chinese sub and claimed he thought they were terr orists since only terrorists only come so close stealthy.
You are dead right and on point.
The chinese think about long-term effects of any thing.
That is why i recall the chinese leader Deng Xiaoping asking the American ambassador how the "experiment" was going along (US Democracy experiment).
They prefer to talk things over, and solve it smoothly,instead of grabbing a gun and shooting everyone involved.
Carter and Clinton (the first) had that approach. Reagan and Bush Jr do not have it.

Its like cutting off your head because you have a headache, earache and running nose.
Yes, its a sure-fire way to solve your problem, only thing that you are not left alive.

As one slashdotter had said, we need a do-nothing president (like Calvin Coolidge) for the next 4 years to undo all the damages Bush had done in 8 years.
No proactive Hot chases, no obeying corporate dictates, just nothing and sleeping off, welcoming foreign dignitaries, propping up US dollar so that Walmart is cheap again, and making sure the FEAR of force is enough to keep our enemies off our shores.

strategy

[id3as]

You cannot be infinitely cunning in developing new type of counter-weapons. It is better to find more common goals. Best strategy to win is to make everyone want cooperate with you, because you have a desireable vision for the future of everyone.

The worrying factor here is China's demographics.

[Anonymous Coward]

China, which, like a lot of Asian cultures strongly favors male babies, has been practicing infanticide (whether by abortion or outright murder) upon it's female population for quite a few years now. End result is that there are, today, more male Chinese babies born every year than female Chinese babies. And the difference between the two is increasing every year.

It's a result of their "one child" policy.

As I recall, this trend, if it continues, is expected to lead to a Chinese M-F birth ratio of something like 130(M)-100(F) by 2050.

Consider: This will result in a LARGE population of Chinese males in 2050 who cannot find Chinese females...because there are none (at least none living within the borders of China).

For the sake of pinning down some actual numbers, let's assume Chinese population growth suddenly stopped today: Based upon today's population levels (1.3 billion Chinese), this sort of imbalance would result in a population balanced with something like 170 million more males than females. A population with 170 million frustrated, angry, men who can't find any women....

Ghengis Khan would have loved it--an army numbering a potential 170 million men. Men who each have some some real, personal motivation for conquest.

-------

The only possible equalizer the west would have against such massive numbers would be nuclear weapons--otherwise, even the largest conventional armies the west could muster wouldn't make a perceptible dent in such a massive horde.

Therefore, the west would HAVE to use N-weapons to have any hope. Hope even of managing a draw.

Which would compel the Chinese to retaliate in kind....

Re:so would be the Bush

[Shakrai]

What Stalin did was to hold Russia together. If he was soft Russia would have been wiped by the Nazi Germany

Oh, give me a fucking break! Do you have ANY knowledge whatsoever about that of which you speak?

Stalin bears zero credit for "holding Russia together" during the Great Patriotic War (WW2). Stalin's paranoid purges of the Red Army prior to the war weakened his forces to the point that Finland was able to hold them off. Stalin's attempts at military "leadership" (pushing offenses against the advice of Zhukov) all ended in disaster. Stalin's sole saving grace over Hitler is that he eventually realized this and allowed his military men to conduct the war.

Why don't you go to Russia today and try to sell people on the idea that Stalin was the savior of Russia. Let me know how that works out for you.

If he was so psychotic, why was he helped by the USA then?

Because he was slightly better then Hitler and the USA couldn't allow the Soviet Union to be conquered by Germany?

Russian VA-111 torpedo

[G3ckoG33k]

Some years ago the Russian torpedo VA-111 using supercavitating technology managed to reach speeds of more than 200 knots (370 km/h), multiple times the speed of any NATO torpedo. That, too, was a yellow shower.

Re:The worrying factor here is China's demographic

[KDR_11k]

Do you know what it would cost to employ, train and equip 170 million soldiers? 1000$ is probably a fairly lowball figure if you were to outfit them all as infantry and you'd already spend 170 billion dollars just on equipment. Be generous and assume an average salary of 50$ a month. 8.5 billion dollars per month. And that's if you use them as cannon fodder. If you want proper promotions the salarieas increase, if you want tanks, planes and transports you're looking at another few hundred billion.

Unless the entire Chinese economy would be geared and taxed for war that 170M army would turn out to be little more than cannonfodder for any serious army and almost immobile as the supply lines and transports are insufficient to keep such an army moving. Would be impossible to acquire enough food and supplies just from the conquests, if your supply lines get interrupted your 170M men are going to starve. You're better off using fewer people and more advanced equipment.

What's that aphorism?

[Nursie]

If you owe the bank 1000 dollars and can't pay, you're in trouble.
If you owe the bank a billion dollars and can't pay, they're in trouble.

Re:What's that aphorism?

[Instine]

If you owe the bank a billion dollars and can't pay, you're both in trouble.

The principle applies to civvies, too

[BenEnglishAtHome]

When it comes to being disciplined around weapons, the principles apply broadly. Many decades ago, Jeff Cooper sponsored/ran a shooting instruction class for juvenile delinquents (as they were called in those days). The principle was simple. He felt that kids going bad needed to have at least one part of their lives where they are trained and responsible, where they can enjoy the rewards of their labor yet be instantly responsible for their screwups. He felt they needed one circumstance where they would succeed at having good self-discipline. He felt that a lack of self-discipline was a root cause of juvenile delinquency. The idea was that success in being self-disciplined under one limited set of circumstances could lead to them employing more self-discipline in other parts of their lives and, thus, screwing up less.

The drill was simple. On the firing range, the kids were told that they could have some good fun and learn something if they did what they were told and consistently maintained the self-discipline necessary to obey range rules. If they wanted to goof around, though, they were welcome to shoot themslves in the foot. (Not really, of course. The actual punishment was temporary or permanent banishment from the program and loss of an opportunity to play with the guns. To those kids, that was a serious consequence.)

There were some amazing success stories from that program. Oddly, nowadays the idea of reforming a kid gone bad by giving him a rifle or pistol and teaching him to use it seems unthinkable. Sad, really. There are some fine life lessons that can best be learned with a rifle in hand. Nowadays, people don't seem to remember that. Really, really sad.

Short Range Missles Launchers - Easier to Destroy

[dakirw]

I'm not sure Iran really needs submarines to do this, I'm sure they have sufficient relatively short range missiles to thoroughly destroy anything moving through the straits from dry land.

It's true that land-based short range missiles would be sufficient to destroy any shipping going through the straits. However, the launchers for these missles would be vulnerable to long-range bombers, cruise missiles, and possibly even special forces attacks. On the other hand, if diesel electric submarines are properly used, crewed, and deployed, they are almost undetectable until after they attack (assuming that they're running on electric motors). Iran could make the missile sites hard to kill (SAMs and anti-aircraft guns) but these sites would be easier to wipe out than the subs.