Chinese Sub Pops Up Amid US Navy Exercise
kdawson posted about 7 years ago | from the did-somebody-order-takeout dept.
916
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.
SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Troll)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21330643)
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
goatse pops up amid internets [goatse.ch]
Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Flamebait)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21330703)
Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Troll)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21331061)
ps chinks need to be nuked
Simple solution: (5, Funny)
calebt3 (1098475) | about 7 years ago | (#21330647)
Re:Simple solution: (5, Interesting)
Wonko the Sane (25252) | about 7 years ago | (#21330685)
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: (1)
calebt3 (1098475) | about 7 years ago | (#21330739)
Re:Simple solution: (0, Flamebait)
andy314159pi (787550) | about 7 years ago | (#21330747)
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.
Drafting isn't egalitarian. (4, Insightful)
khasim (1285) | about 7 years ago | (#21330785)
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. (0)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21330833)
Re:Drafting isn't egalitarian. (1, Informative)
Sponge Bath (413667) | about 7 years ago | (#21330997)
The all volunteer force is supposed to give us professional, dedicated warriors.
Blackwater and other private armies are staffed with very dedicated warriors.
Re:Simple solution: (5, Interesting)
Wonko the Sane (25252) | about 7 years ago | (#21330811)
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: (2, Insightful)
rainmayun (842754) | about 7 years ago | (#21330815)
And here's a quote as true today as it was then. (5, Insightful)
DaedalusHKX (660194) | about 7 years ago | (#21330943)
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:Simple solution: (0)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21330827)
Re:Simple solution: (2, Insightful)
skoaldipper (752281) | about 7 years ago | (#21330935)
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: (2, Interesting)
Neuticle (255200) | about 7 years ago | (#21330967)
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.
Re:Simple solution: (5, Insightful)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21331021)
Re:Simple solution: (3, Insightful)
Vellmont (569020) | about 7 years ago | (#21330767)
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: (2, Insightful)
Wonko the Sane (25252) | about 7 years ago | (#21330849)
Re:Simple solution: (1)
jollyreaper (513215) | about 7 years ago | (#21330843)
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: (1)
Wonko the Sane (25252) | about 7 years ago | (#21330909)
Supply and demand is working against the submarine community (same in most of the military). As the recruiting pool shrinks people who would never have made it before must be retained. As the quality of new sailors showing up on the boat decreases this causes increased frustration for the more experienced sailors. Less of these people stay in, and the people who remain tend to be unemployable in the civilian world.
Can you say positive feedback?
emblazoned on the conning tower (1, Funny)
Swampash (1131503) | about 7 years ago | (#21330649)
and flashing on the USN radar screens (2, Funny)
commodoresloat (172735) | about 7 years ago | (#21330699)
Re:emblazoned on the conning tower (1)
calebt3 (1098475) | about 7 years ago | (#21330923)
PR ploy (3, Interesting)
Gothmolly (148874) | about 7 years ago | (#21330661)
PR inside the USA is more important (3, Insightful)
EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | about 7 years ago | (#21330861)
Why? (3, Interesting)
CheddarHead (811916) | about 7 years ago | (#21330667)
Re:Why? (1)
Kadin2048 (468275) | about 7 years ago | (#21330709)
Because... (2, Insightful)
Svartalf (2997) | about 7 years ago | (#21330715)
Re:Why? (2, Insightful)
Neon Aardvark (967388) | about 7 years ago | (#21330759)
Re:Why? (1)
soundhack (179543) | about 7 years ago | (#21330765)
On the flip side, trying that during real operations would probably be more dire.
Re:Why? (2, Interesting)
cmowire (254489) | about 7 years ago | (#21330793)
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? (1)
epee1221 (873140) | about 7 years ago | (#21330795)
Re:Why? Why? Well, the wanted to ... (5, Interesting)
davidsyes (765062) | about 7 years ago | (#21330863)
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...
Why not? (2, Interesting)
HangingChad (677530) | about 7 years ago | (#21330919)
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.
Re:Why? (2, Funny)
Himring (646324) | about 7 years ago | (#21330987)
To make another killer sub movie starring [a chinese] Sean Connery! Duh!
Re:Why? (2, Insightful)
PPH (736903) | about 7 years ago | (#21331027)
To get us to spend money. (1)
WindBourne (631190) | about 7 years ago | (#21331041)
Erm... (1)
AlphaDrake (1104357) | about 7 years ago | (#21330669)
Are they sure it's not the wreckage from one of the broken Canadian subs sold to us by England? (Yes I'm Canadian so it's ok
Finally: Did they manage to get an intact Enigma machine, and sail the crippled vessel back home?
Re:Erm... (1)
russ1337 (938915) | about 7 years ago | (#21330837)
It will all come out in the inquiry. When I say come out.. in the sense that it will be put in Dick Cheney's man size safe and we'll see it in about 90 years.
No doubt the sub commander will be either commended with the nations highest honor.... or shot.
Re:Erm... (0)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21331013)
Are they sure it's not the wreckage from one of the broken Canadian subs sold to us by England?
Nope, the Canadian ones are coloured rust and primer-grey. Also, they are generally followed around by a small fleet of tugboats. If you're still in doubt then just watch for Sea King helicopter parts falling from the sky.
Sub Captain had an Advantage (3, Insightful)
hax0r_this (1073148) | about 7 years ago | (#21330673)
I won't be able to remark any more on the issue though (at least not on
Re:Sub Captain had an Advantage (1)
calebt3 (1098475) | about 7 years ago | (#21330721)
Re:Sub Captain had an Advantage (1)
Elsapotk421 (1097205) | about 7 years ago | (#21331011)
Re:Sub Captain had an Advantage (1)
morari (1080535) | about 7 years ago | (#21330725)
Re:Sub Captain had an Advantage (2, Interesting)
LWATCDR (28044) | about 7 years ago | (#21330727)
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 (2, Insightful)
feepness (543479) | about 7 years ago | (#21330755)
But still, nice PR move.
Already Heard About It (2)
Looshi (1038712) | about 7 years ago | (#21330689)
Re:Already Heard About It (5, Informative)
Skater (41976) | about 7 years ago | (#21330719)
Re:Already Heard About It (4, Informative)
RudeDude (672) | about 7 years ago | (#21331053)
http://www.sinodaily.com/reports/Chinese_Sub_Approached_US_Aircraft_Carrier_Undetected_999.html [sinodaily.com]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/14/world/main2179694.shtml [cbsnews.com]
http://madhousethought.blogspot.com/2006/11/chinese-submarine-stalked-uss-kitty.html [blogspot.com]
Yeah Coincidence (2, Funny)
explosivejared (1186049) | about 7 years ago | (#21330695)
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.
Re:Yeah Coincidence (1)
Cassius Corodes (1084513) | about 7 years ago | (#21330873)
30 years (1)
Neon Aardvark (967388) | about 7 years ago | (#21330697)
Re:30 years (1)
pilsner.urquell (734632) | about 7 years ago | (#21331057)
What, No Active Sonar? (1)
Zymergy (803632) | about 7 years ago | (#21330701)
(Unless that would give away friendly sub positions...)
Re:What, No Active Sonar? (1)
Wonko the Sane (25252) | about 7 years ago | (#21330761)
Re:What, No Active Sonar? (1)
IonOtter (629215) | about 7 years ago | (#21330917)
Actively pinging someone is akin to pointing a gun at their head, and the target can be expected to respond in kind.
Re:What, No Active Sonar? (1)
ziani (255157) | about 7 years ago | (#21331029)
What better way than this... (2, Interesting)
Vulcann (752521) | about 7 years ago | (#21330707)
Re:What better way than this... (1)
Wonko the Sane (25252) | about 7 years ago | (#21330733)
Re:What better way than this... (3, Funny)
nick79au (791048) | about 7 years ago | (#21330939)
Re:What better way than this... (1)
DeusExCalamus (1146781) | about 7 years ago | (#21330957)
Re:What better way than this... (1)
Wonko the Sane (25252) | about 7 years ago | (#21331055)
Re:What better way than this... (0)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21330847)
Re:What better way than this... (5, Informative)
peragrin (659227) | about 7 years ago | (#21330889)
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... (2, Informative)
gujo-odori (473191) | about 7 years ago | (#21331003)
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 (4, Funny)
edwardpickman (965122) | about 7 years ago | (#21330711)
Re:Quite an achievement (4, Funny)
RuBLed (995686) | about 7 years ago | (#21330955)
Doesn't have to be that advanced (0)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21330723)
The danger of diesels (5, Informative)
Chairboy (88841) | about 7 years ago | (#21330741)
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 (0, Troll)
MrSteveSD (801820) | about 7 years ago | (#21331001)
Re:The danger of diesels (0)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21331063)
Signs point to surface ship obsolesence (5, Interesting)
tjstork (137384) | about 7 years ago | (#21330743)
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.
This is in fact how WWIII will start (1)
michaelmalak (91262) | about 7 years ago | (#21330823)
The threat's been building for over a decade, but now it's built up to a head where there is now a moratorium [bloomberg.com] on construction of aircraft carriers.
So here's the scenario: the U.S. and/or Israel is belligerent with Iran and/or outright attacks it. Iran fires a Sizzler missile at an aircraft carrier -- perhaps an old one like Enterprise that the U.S. sticks out in the Gulf and wants to get rid of anyway. The U.S. retaliates by nuking Iran. World War III begins.
Re:This is in fact how WWIII will start (0)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21330915)
And of course, nobody in Iran foresees this outcome, because they're all a bunch of congenital dumbasses.
<rolleyes>
Re:This is in fact how WWIII will start (2, Interesting)
tjstork (137384) | about 7 years ago | (#21330977)
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.
Re:This is in fact how WWIII will start (0)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21330993)
You have it right. There was no exit strategy for Iraq and it was no mistake. As a result, there is no way to avoid WWIII as far as I can see.
This could well result in certain countries pushing their end-game buttons, resulting in massive losses in Europe and Asia and the eventual dissolution of the United States as economic and political structures around the world topple.
Re:Signs point to surface ship obsolesence (1)
neurojab (15737) | about 7 years ago | (#21330971)
I agree. The US Navy points to its fleet of aircraft carriers as the sign of its naval superiority, but the age of the aircraft carrier is over. In WWII an aircraft carrier could project power around the world, so owning a few of them meant you were a superpower. Now, however, the carrier is costly and vulnerable when compared to submarines, missiles, and long-range bombers. Sure, they're good in a low-level conventional skirmish against a low-tech opponent; but an aircraft carrier would be useless against a country with the resources to invade our territory. They'd sink the carriers, then move on. Why then do we need so many of them? Are we anticipating that many simultaneous low-level conflicts? I guess so.
Inevitable... (2)
Prius (1170883) | about 7 years ago | (#21330779)
Re:Inevitable... (1)
ScrewMaster (602015) | about 7 years ago | (#21330885)
Uh, what?
Re:Inevitable... (1)
calebt3 (1098475) | about 7 years ago | (#21330991)
Even MORE dangerous (1, Troll)
Mr. Flibble (12943) | about 7 years ago | (#21330783)
Carriers, so big, so beautiful, so dead (5, Insightful)
jollyreaper (513215) | about 7 years ago | (#21330789)
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 (1)
badboy_tw2002 (524611) | about 7 years ago | (#21330855)
Re:Carriers, so big, so beautiful, so dead (1)
jollyreaper (513215) | about 7 years ago | (#21330877)
Re:Carriers, so big, so beautiful, so dead (3, Funny)
badboy_tw2002 (524611) | about 7 years ago | (#21330937)
Come On.... This story is over 12 months old! (0)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21330791)
The Clinton Legacy (0, Flamebait)
tsunamiiii (975673) | about 7 years ago | (#21330799)
Re:The Clinton Legacy (0, Troll)
ScrewMaster (602015) | about 7 years ago | (#21330959)
Re:The Clinton Legacy (1)
mOdQuArK! (87332) | about 7 years ago | (#21330985)
I haven't seen one of those in a while - how cute!
Let's see, it's been how many years since Clinton?
And most of those years with a cooperative Congress?
The first time is easy... (5, Insightful)
pedantic bore (740196) | about 7 years ago | (#21330809)
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... (5, Interesting)
thesandtiger (819476) | about 7 years ago | (#21330839)
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.
There are two kinds of ships.... (5, Interesting)
Lost Penguin (636359) | about 7 years ago | (#21330845)
Typo... (1, Offtopic)
calebt3 (1098475) | about 7 years ago | (#21331019)
No Surprise. (2, Funny)
bmo (77928) | about 7 years ago | (#21330857)
There are two kinds of seagoing vessels: submarines and targets.
--
BMO
pwned (0)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21330881)
An optimistic alternative (5, Interesting)
michaelmalak (91262) | about 7 years ago | (#21330893)
Why leak that? (0)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21330907)
SEEMS THERE ARE A FEW CHINKS IN NATIONAL SECURITY (2, Funny)
Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21330981)
Year old story (1)
RudeDude (672) | about 7 years ago | (#21331009)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/14/world/main2179694.shtml [cbsnews.com]