New Chinese Attack Submarine

[FatFish]

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3445


Chinese produce new type of sub


By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


China's naval buildup has produced a new type of attack submarine that U.S. intelligence did not know was under construction, according to U.S. defense and intelligence officials.
The submarine was spotted several weeks ago for the first time and has been designated by the Pentagon as the first Yuan-class of submarine.

A photograph of the completed submarine in the water at China's Wuhan shipyard was posted on a Chinese Internet site this week and confirmed by a defense official as the new submarine. Wuhan is located inland, some 420 miles west of Shanghai.
One official said the new submarine was a "technical surprise" to U.S. intelligence, which was unaware that Beijing was building a new non-nuclear powered attack submarine. U.S. intelligence agencies have few details about the new submarine but believe it is diesel-powered rather than nuclear-powered, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The new boat, which appears to be a combination of indigenous Chinese hardware and Russian weapons, suggests that China is building up its submarine forces in preparation for a conflict over Taiwan, defense analysts say.
"China has decided submarines are its first-line warships now, their best shot at beating carriers," said Sid Trevethan, an Alaska-based specialist on the Chinese military. "And China is right."
"One has to marvel at the enormity of the investment by the People's Liberation Army in submarines," said Richard Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military.
China also is building two nuclear-powered submarines ó one Type 093, believed to be based on the Russian Victor-III class and armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles, and a Type 094 attack submarine, which the Pentagon believes has a finished hull and will be ready for deployment next year.
According to Mr. Trevethan, China currently has a force of 57 deployed submarines, including one Xia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine, five Han submarines, four Kilos, seven Songs, 18 Mings and 22 Soviet-designed Romeos. Beijing also has eight more Kilos on order with Russia.
Disclosure of the new submarine comes as the United States is trying to sell eight diesel submarines to Taiwan, which Beijing views as a breakaway province. Taiwan currently has just two World War II-era Guppy-class submarines and two 1980s Dutch submarines.
Mr. Fisher, an analyst with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said that despite the imbalance of power on the Taiwan Strait in favor of Beijing, the Bush administration has been slow to sell the submarines it offered Taiwan in April 2001.
"It is simply appalling that the United States cannot get its act together to organize the production of eight new submarines for Taiwan," Mr. Fisher said.
U.S. defense officials have said delays with the Taiwan submarine deal are the result of the Taipei government's budget problems.
Chinese leaders told National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice last week that China would "not sit idly by" as Taiwan moved toward formal independence, and President Hu Jintao denounced U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan.
But Miss Rice said the United States will go ahead with its Taiwan arms sales plan because of China's missile buildup opposite the island.
A Pentagon report made public in May stated that China is changing its warship forces from a coastal defense force to one employing "active offshore defense."
"This change in operations requires newer, more modern warships and submarines capable of operating at greater distances from China's coast for longer periods," the report said, noting that submarine construction is a top priority.
Mr. Fisher said the Chinese submarine buildup should prompt the Pentagon to step up U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities, which he said are "at an historic low" because of cutbacks in specialized ships and aircraft.
The Navy should consider building its own diesel attack submarine to be able to "effectively duke it out with the new tidal wave of Chinese subs, that if left unchecked, may soon dominate the Asian littoral regions," Mr. Fisher said.
The Pentagon is also building up U.S. naval forces in the Pacific, with the addition of up to six attack submarines in Guam and the possible deployment of an aircraft carrier battle group to Hawaii in the coming months.

[FatFish]

Here's a military guru's overview of what will happen in a conflict between the PRC and the USN.


I'll give you a general overview of what is possible - and I won't refer to the sunburns as they aren't an effective contributor to a war response.

The PLAN has declared in their own sessions that they cannot meet or contain 2 x CSG's in a competent fashion. You appear to have minimal knowledge of how a CSG is deployed, its war footing posture and what the vessels in that CSG are tasked to do in a hostile situation. In fact, if you look at any Carrier Battle Group formation created since the early 80's you would start to comprehend the difficulty of a supersonic (let alone a subsonic) cruise missile compromising the fleet. Since the 1960's various vessels in the CSG act as sacrificial lambs, they stay close, emulate the carriers signals, and get ready to "take a shot for the prez". In addition, the USN uses other systems which are also designed to ghost a ships signature. The only way to get past that is to have visual on terminal engagement. If you think thatís easy, then add up the intercept arcs of a peacetime CSG - let alone one (or 7) on a wartime stance. Good luck.

7 (let alone 11-19) C/ESG's on a response footing and if actively deployed on a war footing would strangle China's navy rather rapidly. The projection capability is enormous, way outside of the capability of anything China will have - even if all their current builds are completed within 5 years.

A few numbers for you to inject some reality:
The USN has sufficient SSN's to double tag every Chinese sub available (we'll ignore their SSN as it is not launch capable and sounds like a train driving underwater with all it's doors open). The US can lock up the straits with 4 SSN's and still double tag Chinas principle combatants.

The USN has 12 CSG's available. Each CSG is designed to be in close sailing distance of another. There is substantial overlap. ATM, 11 of those CSG's are active, 1 is on a lie over.

The USN has 10 ESC's available. Each ESG is usually stronger than any other navies CSG, the most capable and competent being the RN or Frances CdG group.

So, at any point they have 21 flat tops capable of deploying aircraft. The ESG's can be used for an OPFOR landing containment or for ASW assistance

Each SG has a minimum of 1 x Tico and 2 x AB's for fleet protection (that is a peacetime footing). Do the math. Add up all the remaining AB's and Tico's and think about what they can do with the surplus.

The US has over 2200 nukes active. There are over 20000 nukes that are uncapped and stored. (Unlike the Russians, the US only has to re-cap to activate the warhead). That means that current caps are capable of overstriking every PLAAF, Army and PLAN base multiple times in addition to major investment points such as Shanghai. If planes are up, then they sure won't be landing again. Every airfield within a ferry point will be destroyed so that aircraft are left with minimal options

China has one coast, that means that only 9 satellites are needed to maintain a "permanent" race track brief on its coast. The US has a split coast. The USAF has more satellites than the rest of the worlds mil and non mil sats added together. That sat count excludes USN/NSA/DIA sats. China could only watch main sally points - so to all intents and purposes it's blind.

The US is the only airforce with a substantial intercontinental bomber fleet. It has the capability (along with the SSGN's) of completely obliterating all of Chinas east coast deployment points with minimal risk of response.

If you want to wargame this further I'm more than happy to.

China could lob a few DF's on the US, but China would also end up being the largest piece of glass on the planet.


btw, I don't get into pi$$ing contests - and that further demonstrates that you haven't read other topics I've posted to.


Now the whole purpose of the above is to show that if war is to be prosecuted in an absolute fashion, then the odds are fairly weighted. The war footing real estate footprint of a USN CSG is enormous, well outside the vulnerability arc of a Yakhont/club/sunburn.

7 layered CSG's with in excess of 25 Aegis equipped skimmers is a comprehensive and lethal shield. China OTOH has yet to launch one vessel that is PA equipped - let alone measurable against an Aegis platform.


Fucking depressing.

[VeryAngry]

Exactly the reason the hawks in the US are pushing for war now. Just like during the Cold War when they knew they had nuclear superiority, they were willing to kill others and risk the deaths of their own countrymen just to be a unipower.

[Dialectic]

Shit, it's funny how the US doesn't want Asians to dominate "Asian littoral regions."

I'm lovin' the Chinese names: Yuan-class, Han-Class, Xia-Class, Song, Ming. Fuckin' beautiful.

Screw "Yorktowns" and "Intrepids"! You got fuckin' Hans comin' at you now.

[FatFish]

Exactly the reason the hawks in the US are pushing for war now. Just like during the Cold War when they knew they had nuclear superiority, they were willing to kill others and risk the deaths of their own countrymen just to be a unipower.

Exactly. If there is no war in the next three decades, China will be shoulder to shoulder with the EU, USA in terms of economic power and world influence. Hell, China may even be not too far off militarily.

But, to maintain its position as the sole superpower of the world, the USA will undoubtedly spoil for a war, at all costs, to send China's progress back a few decades.

[FatFish]

I'm lovin' the Chinese names: Yuan-class, Han-Class, Xia-Class, Song, Ming. Fuckin' beautiful.

Screw "Yorktowns" and "Intrepids"! You got fuckin' Hans comin' at you now.

Yup. The submarine names are fucking magnificient.

[Yellow_Peril]

But, to maintain its position as the sole superpower of the world, the USA will undoubtedly spoil for a war, at all costs, to send China's progress back a few decades.

man.. I don't want to be in NA when that day happens.

if a hypothetical war with US/China existed, it would be an onslaught... it'll never happen, the US would never attack a country that could possibly whipe them off the map.

why did they attack Iraq, afganistan.. when they could have preyed on NK? (which was pretty threatening at the time)


the problem with China's hawks is they're full of hot air... (making them unpredictable, and likely unstable due to ego)

the problem with US's hawks is they over estimate themselves...

[FatFish]

YP, China is in no positioin to threaten the well being of the USA if you read my second post - War Games - on this thread.

[Yellow_Peril]

YP, China is in no positioin to threaten the well being of the USA if you read my second post - War Games - on this thread.

i know, but china isn't one to sit back when the US spouts out insults either.. it's all ego


it's like two bullies fighting for the territory rights on the schoolyard playground.


I wish the UN had "real" power.. they're such pussies.

[the Infamous Grouse]

Let me begin with a caveat: I'm white. Now that that's out of the way let me begin the diatribe.

A potential US/PRC war is not inevitable. We need each other. We need them as a market, and the same is true for them. The fact that the PLAN has to this date pursued non-nuclear propulsion further illustrates this fact. The PLAN, as far as force-projection goes, during the near and foreseeable future is truly a regional issue. Meaning that China, IMO, only seeks to project force in the region, and not necessarily engage Taiwan and the US just yet.

Dialectic's post about the US trying to block Chinese domination of Asian littoral areas is correct. Most trade is carried out on the world's sea ways, the US and China are two countries whose very economic survival is dependant upon trade. Both countries are very scared of a possible scenario where the seaways are blocked and so both are acutely interested in ways of exercising power and showing force in the busiest seaways in the world: East Asian seaways. It truly is like two animals pacing around, circling each other. Personally I hope and pray that neither will get too edgy and decide to be done with the whole game. I don't think that an end game scenario is really possible either simply because both China and the US want to make money.

The navies are truly used to project power, if China wanted to cripple the US economy, it could just blockade several East Asian commercial ports and that's that. Conversely the US could do the same to China. However neither wants to do it to the other. I don't even think the craziest chicken-hawk republicans in the US want to cripple the US economy by going to war with China. What some of these analysts and experts miss is that China is by and large a very stable state. There is even some degree of civil society, even more than there is in the FSU. The experts and analysts that miss this, or ignore it, do so for a good reason. It is really in fashion right now to point to China and say that it's out to replace the US a sole super-power (see Hegemon: China's Plan to Dominate Asia and the World and The Coming Conflict With China ) or that China is completely unstable and is doomed to impending collapse (see: The Coming Collapse of China ). Some of these books aren't even by real analysts for instance Chang's The Coming Collapse of China is by somebody who does not work in intelligence or academia, he's an attorney. Remember, newspapers and news shows are out to sell advertising and gain circulation. You can't do that with responsible reporting, you can only do that by being reactionary. So these people play on fears and the whole nasty cycle perpetuates itself. Sure the US is concerned about the PLAN's naval acquisitions, doesn't mean it's going to go to war over them.

The really smart folks in Washington, the ones that actually got to their positions by merit, know the pros and cons of going toe to toe with China, and know that it is a no-win situation. The same is true of the really smart folks in Beijing. Any analyst or academic worth his/her salt knows that China has never and does not act impulsively or venture into things lightly. It is for this reason that most people are pretty sure that China will not undergo a violent political upheaval, or decide to go to war with the United States in the near future, at least as long as we are useful to each other.

P.S. Shameless TV plug: tonight starting at about 9:00 PM EDT, on certain PBS stations the special 1421 The Year China Discovered America? is on. The book is absolutely fascinating and the show should prove to be the same.

[Dialectic]

Beautiful post; I've read a bunch of shit saying similar stuff. War between the US and China loses money. A ton of big US corporations have invested heavily in China's development, so they don't want trouble, and money is a very big determinant in political/ economic decision-making.

China doesn't want war with anyone 'cause they're just concerned with internal development and getting their economy and standard of living up to snuff. I mean, they don't send their military to other places in the world to nearly the extent the US does, and they almost always abstain at the UN.

There's not gonna be a war. There's gonna be some testosterone flinging like with the spy plane, and the accidental embassy bombing, and now with ship movements, but it's all sabre-rattling to achieve political/ economic goals for behind-the-scenes shit which we may or may not be able to see.

[Kuroyama]

Im not sure I understand why Asians would focus on a war with the US from a military (head on) standpoint.

China would lose such a war.

Having said that: In my taijiquan class I am one of my teachers favorite "subjects" for demonstration. To wit: in a head on confrontation trading puch for punch, I could easily defeat my instructor. He is about 20 years my senior (Im in my 30s) and I outweigh him by about 100 pounds.

Knowing this, it makes NO SENSE for him to fight me head on. Using his EXTENSIVE knowledge of taiji however, he can throw me around the park like so much old kleenex. ....and then he does it. It makes believers out of some... but because the moves are so subtle (joint locks and leveraging. no roundhouse kicks, or movie style punches) ...its hard to believe. But since I was the one being thrown... I believe.

These lessons of "fighting smart" vs. "fighting hard" arent something he devised on his own. This is stuff rooted in Taoist philosophy dating back CENTURIES in Chinese history. One of the lessons my teacher strives to teach the class is that what we are learning has greater implications than just hand to hand fighting.

I CANT believe that HE is the only Chinese person with this understanding. I know he isnt because I met HIS instructor who is overseeing the development of wushu and taiji routines for the coming olympics.... So I understand that martial artists have the ear of the government.

I can only think that their tacticians have much smarter ideas about conflict than fighting directly (head to head).

After all, why risk physical harm (nuclear weapons), and negative world opinion... when there are smarter ways to defeat an "enemy"? Has anyone checked the US/Sino trade defecit lately...? Whos to say they arent ALREADY winning?

[Kuroyama]

Sir

Your idea of a human-supercomputer sounds interesting... but then all those people would have to have access to much more information than the government will allow them. They didnt even televise Yang Liwei's flight live...

You guys know I dig aspects of Asian culture... but Im not down with the repression of people like that. Then again, we CLAIM to be the home of freedom and equality and look at us... Kinda hard to preach "human rights" when we dont even take care of each other here... Homeless peeps livin' shoulder to shoulder with multimillionaires and no sense of balance to be found...

I dont have the answer to that one.

[Kuroyama]

Sir...

Thats my point brah. U.S. aint no bed of roses either. For every "Pat Tillman" that dies in the desert and gets 4 weeks of press coverage... How many brave Asian, Black, or Latino soldiers do you figure will get as many honors for dying for their country?

Before we get too far off onto the f-ed up desert thing... I agree with you that the western media is skewed. It is skewed in favor of those in power.

Quick tangent:

I kills me that the first private spacecraft is carried by a lauch vehicle called the "white knight"... Im not always in favor of being PC... but when you are making history like that... thats unnecessary. Why not just paint a rebel flag on it? But, I understand WHY those f-heads got away with it in the "land of the free..."

Back on track:

I understand WHY the Chinese govt didnt show the launch live... I just think it couldve been a spectacular moment. When Guios Bluford went into space I was able to watch. I would want the same thing for little Chinese boys (and girls)

This whole response from me was sparked when I was at the bookstore the other day. Some 4 year old had a magazine with jets in it. His parents wanted to give him one with cars, trains, trucks, anything BUT planes. The kid just lost his mind when they tried to take that magazine from him.

Normally Im all for lowering the boom on disobedient children, but this kid wasnt being an ass, he just wanted his planes. It made me laugh to think that he might grow up to be a pilot AGAINST his parents apparent wishes...and it mightve all started in that bookstore.

[the Infamous Grouse]

Im not sure I understand why Asians would focus on a war with the US from a military (head on) standpoint.

China would lose such a war...

I can only think that their tacticians have much smarter ideas about conflict than fighting directly (head to head).

After all, why risk physical harm (nuclear weapons), and negative world opinion... when there are smarter ways to defeat an "enemy"? Has anyone checked the US/Sino trade defecit lately...? Whos to say they arent ALREADY winning?

According to certain authors, the PRC would focus on war with the US from a military standpoint because simply the US is the benchmark by which any other ambitious state with a growing military can measure itself against. This is not unlike the Japanese taking Prussia to be it's benchmark, or China adopting Russian style Marxism.

The PRC is not, IMO, seeking war with the US, but just seeking a level it can measure itself against. You are right in that the Chinese tacticians have smart ideas on how to resolve a battle rather than direct conflict, or how to overcome the US's visible strengths. There have been noticeable changes in China's defense doctrine. The first defense doctrine under Communist leadership was the so-called "People's War." This was to be a war fought on Chinese soil against an invading aggressor force, presumably the USSR. This was going to be an all out war, a guerilla war fought by China's citizens. This shifted to a policy of deterrence against the USSR and after the Persian Gulf War of 1991, following some serious analysis, Chinese tacticians are now following a doctrine of "local, limited war under high-tech conditions."

This "local, limited war under high-tech conditions" are what US tacticians call "low intensity conflicts." Short term operations with political objectives outside of China's borders and immediate vicinity. Chinese tacticians also realize that there is a technological gap they must overcome before being able to engage in such a war against a state whose military utilizes more technology. For example, China realizes that the US's battlefield communication systems are more advanced, however this obstacle is overcome by taking out those systems with sir_humpslot's "1.3 billion chinese computer hackers" launching what amounts to a denial of service attack. Similarly, the Chinese are using "dual use technology" such as outfitting missiles with GPS devices, making them in effect guided missiles and using cellular phone technology and incorporating that as their battlefield communication systems. Now that China has launched a space shuttle, the PRC has unveiled a new option: detonating a nuclear device in orbit, taking several satellites out of commission. How devastating would that be to a country whose defense apparatus is dependent upon spy satellites?

As to the Sino-US trade deficit, yeah there's an abundant supply of inexpensive labor in China, but ask any American if they're willing to pay $20 extra for a plastic action figure for their kid so some trade unionist US worker can be employed and you'll probably get a firm "hell no." The US economy is becoming increasingly a service industry driven economy and the gap between the haves and have-nots is increasing daily. I don't think the trade deficit can be narrowed unless there is a dramatic shift in the way the public thinks about the products it buys. But that's for another thread.